Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Unpopularity Sparks More Candidates To Break With Him; Trump Lays Out "Bid Decision" On Iran; New Polls Fuel Democrats' Hopes Of Flipping Texas Blue; AOC To Weigh 2028 White House Run; DOJ Responds To Lawsuit Over White House Press Ban. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 22, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Before we go, you can stream the show live or watch on demand any time with an All Access subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, my opening statement tonight, the president thinks that he can control who gets into the White House. I'll tell you about what the DOJ is going to say if they actually respond by the end of the evening as is due. We've got a lot to talk about tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, the president, he thinks he can control who gets into the White House, and the DOJ, any moment, will file a defense of his ban. We'll bring that to you live when we have it.

But Trump is dealing with a different problem tonight, who is breaking ranks outside the White House, because more and more Republicans on the ballot are signaling his policies are getting too hard to defend. I'm talking even in deep red parts of the country.

The pressure, it has been simmering for weeks. But over the past 48 hours, well, it looks like the floodgates, they're opening, especially over the war with Iran. You've got Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE ROGERS, MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Michigan families are struggling with the price of everyday life. Groceries cost too much. We have to bring prices down. The war with Iran needs to end, and end quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, Rogers is not the only Republican candidate in Michigan saying it. The Detroit News is reporting that John James, the nominee for governor, told reporters, "I've always said that we need to use every resource at our disposal to bring this war to an end quickly." Over in Wisconsin, there's Tom Tiffany who is running for governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM TIFFANY (R-WI), WISCONSIN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I just believe that we should be exiting Iran, that it's time to move on, time to come home, take care of business here in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, then, in Iowa, Senate candidate Ashley Hinson. She says Iowans are being squeezed and that the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end. And then in Ohio, Senator Jon Husted is telling Politico the war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible. We got a theme going on here, right?

Now, if you want a sense of why this is happening now, there's a new CNN poll out today that gives you a pretty good clue. A huge majority of Americans are not happy about the Iran war. You know, 73 percent disapprove of how the president is handling the conflict.

But this is what I found even more telling. A full three-quarters of Americans, they don't think he has a clear plan. Now, numbers like that are sure to make GOP candidates sweat.

But the GOP break with Trump we've been seeing the past couple weeks isn't just over Iran, it's over tariffs, immigration, even those $5,000 Trump dividend checks. Take Byron Donalds, the GOP nominee for Florida governor. Now, the Miami Herald is reporting that he has scrubbed several Trump references from his campaign website. You can see some of them here. And this is a loyal Trump ally, as you know, running in a state the president carried by 13 points. Oh, and about those checks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BYRON DONALDS (R), FLORIDA: I think when it comes to additional checks going out the door, I do have concerns. I'm not sure how you're going to be able to pay for that over the long term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that's just GOP candidates on the ballot in November. Republicans who are not facing voters are crying foul over other issues. Take Utah Senator John Curtis. He wants the Senate to investigate the hundreds of thousands of dollars a Russian oligarch spent on Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding party. Here's how he put it. "A toaster is a wedding gift. A private island party paid for by a Putin- connected oligarch is something else."

[23:04:55]

I want to start with someone who knows Trump world very well, former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, who is also the author of "All the Wrong Moves: How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump," and is now a bestseller. Glad to have you on, Anthony. I am really curious. Before we get into the book, which I really want to talk about, do you expect even more Republicans to create distance between themselves and Trump in order to win come November?

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, AUTHOR, FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER FOR SKYBRIDGE CAPITAL, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I do. I mean, his poll numbers are terrible. So, you saw the recent numbers on the Iran War. He's got a 26 percent approval rating. His overall approval rating is 32 percent. It's not sustainable. If you're trying to win your race, you can't be attached to that. You have to try to create some differentiation.

And the MAGA base is cracking. You know, I live out here on Long Island. This area went for Trump. That would be Massapequa, Nassau County, et cetera. A lot of those people have soured on him. He reneged on his promises.

And the president, if you talk to these guys, because I'm still, you know, in the Republican Party, if you talk to these guys, they feel like he's living in a bubble where he's actually believing the stuff that he's saying about how great he is and how successful his presidency is when it's actually not the case.

So, listen, but you know this, Laura, and I know this, if 10 of them crack, it's over for Donald Trump. You know, the problem with these guys is they're all afraid of him. But if they move in solidarity, it's over for him. If the law firms at the beginning of this term moved in solidarity, they would have beat him back. You know, he picked off those law firms before they started consolidating.

All these Republicans have to do is push back on him, the way people like Mark Carney does, and they'll put him back in line and he'll get some more control over Washington.

COATES: Well, let's go outside of Washington for a second because although there is -- there is a senator I want to mention. That's Republican Senator John Curtis, who was urging the judiciary committee to investigate the Russian oligarch who paid for wedding parties for Donald Trump Jr. Again, out of the country. He says -- quote -- "These reports raise legitimate questions about foreign access to members of a sitting president's family and whether such relationships can create actual or perceived expectations of favorable treatment."

So, this is a big concern, the optics alone. But are Republicans really concerned or is this just about the optics for the midterms alone?

SCARAMUCCI: Well, I think they're really concerned, but they kept their mouths shut because they're afraid of Donald Trump. They were afraid of getting primaried by MAGA people and knocking them out the way Crenshaw and Cornyn got knocked out of their races as incumbents. So, they are concerned. They say privately how worried they are about all this stuff.

COATES: I want to talk about one thing he is doing, and that is this lawsuit from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico over the White House ban. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he's defending it. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The president feels very strongly that why should I -- why should I have people working in my building and in my office that I believe are not honestly covering my administration? That's how he feels. We're not closing CNN. There aren't a bunch of police officers or soldiers kicking down the doors of MSNBC or MS NOW, whatever it's called, and arresting people and unplugging it from the grid. They're just not allowed to work from the workspace at the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This is somebody who is called on a free press in Cuba and has been adamant in other areas as well. Are you surprised that Rubio is taking this position?

SCARAMUCCI: You know, he sorts of finished Marco Rubio. He's basically a washed-up politician at this point because when the weather vane is spinning that fast, it's like in a Trump hurricane, it like breaks off at the end. You know what I mean? So, saying something like that is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, it's not his house and it's not his workspace. It is the people's house and it is the people's workspace and it's the people's Constitution. And these people work for us. We do not work for them. And we have the right to observe them. The press has the right as the fourth estate.

And, by the way, I have standing on this because I've been lit up by the press. I've been lit up by the business press, the late-night comedians, cable pundits. And I don't care because I respect the First Amendment right. This sort of nonsense coming out of Marco Rubio's mouth, he ought to be completely ashamed of himself.

And it is not the president's house. He is a temporary resident of that house serving at the leisure of the American people for the four- year term that they gave him pursuant to the Constitution. But the press is going to win that case.

And, Laura, it's because of that nonsense from Marco Rubio, nobody is pushing back on the president. John Kelly would have never let him do that. Steven Mnuchin would have been like, what are you doing? You can't do that. Even Jared would have said something to him. But nobody says anything to him.

[23:10:00]

They eject the three organizations, they're now going to lose the court case, and the three organizations will be back in the maelstrom like just before. And, by the way, you know President Trump --

COATES: Anthony, before you get there -- hold on. Before you get there --

SCARAMUCCI: He doesn't like not having a microphone on him, Laura. COATES: I know. I want to get there. But one thing that's interesting to me, you mentioned three people who, at least the latter of them, Jared Kushner, still obviously in his life, in his orbit. It's his son-in-law. What argument, knowing President Trump's personality, the things that are incentives for him, what arguments would have worked, do you think, to have prevented this very behavior?

SCARAMUCCI: This is against your interests. The minute you do this, it will just be another firestorm. And you're going to lose the case. So, it's going to be another embarrassing thing that happens. Don't do this. It's a very bad thing for you to do. And it's not going to get you the outcome that you desire.

And, by the way, I learned, I worked on that campaign. People forget this. They remember me for being in the White House for 11 days, but I worked on the campaign. I used to have conversations with him like that, straight up saying, hey, that's not going to work or that's the wrong thing to do. He respects that way more than that circular flattering session that he goes through in those cabinet meetings.

COATES: Well, that is something to behold. I wonder if things have changed. He seems to have a different perspective at times. I want to talk about your book, though, because it's a fascinating one. It's called "All the Wrong Moves." And in your new book --

SCARAMUCCI: Thank you.

COATES: -- you attribute the chaos in the first administration to the factions led by Kushner, by Steve Bannon, by the former White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus. But today, the administration is now stacked with loyalists. So, what do you think is fueling the chaos this time?

SCARAMUCCI: OK, well, the president himself is a chaos agent, so he certainly fuels the chaos. But, look, when he was doing his best, he had somebody like General Kelly trying to create some guardrails. Even Mulvaney, you know, tried to create some guardrails for him. There were -- there were certain people inside the White House or somebody like Steven Mnuchin that said, OK, here are the guardrails, here are the parameters, and this is what we really think you should stick to. And he more or less adhered to that, you know, for those people.

COATES: You know, I want one more question for you because your new book also details three events that you say led to the rise of Trump. It was China joining the WTO, the U.S. launching wars in Iraq without raising taxes, and the bailouts that Wall Street received during the financial crisis. You write that you and many other powerful people supported these moves, but plenty of others protested them. Why do you think you and so many others ignored those warning signs?

SCARAMUCCI: Because we get the confirmed biases of the people that we hang out with. And so, if you're hanging out in the salons of the wealthy or you're hanging out in the Wall Street community or you're a Fortune 500 CEO, you're actually believing each other. It's like a match-selling race. We thought China was going to open its market. We thought the Bush- Cheney wars were going to end in a few months, not last two decades. We thought the bailout, that once the banks were healed, the society and the economy would grow. But what happened is those three things are important, and they thread together.

And then, last but not least, you're proving to them that there's a two-tiered system where the fat cats are getting the money. The trillion dollars went into the banks. Five thousand people got bonuses of $1 million or more while their fellow neighbors were suffering, and we've only made this thing worse over the last 10 years.

And so, I submit to you, if you want to bring those people back into the social contract and make blue-collar people in this country feel economically aspirational, like my parents did, they're currently feeling economically desperational, we have to understand what we did wrong, and then we have to take measures to fix the problem.

And that's the purpose of the book. And, by the way, it's not a partisan book. I'm analyzing both sides, and I'm simply saying very smart people that are well-intended people, Laura, can get bad decisions going and have unexpected bad outcomes.

COATES: What do they say about the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Anthony Scaramucci, thank you so much. The book again is called --

SCARAMUCCI: I've been on that road, Laura. I've been on that road.

COATES: Anthony Scaramucci, thank you so much. His book again is called "All the Wrong Moves: How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump."

Up next, Trump takes to the world stage and threatens to annihilate Iran while claiming he knows exactly when the war will end. We've got Jeff Mason and General Randy Manner with me on that, next.

[23:14:57]

And later, Beto O'Rourke joining me live on the state of the race in Texas as James Talarico faces some good news and some bad news in his bid to flip Texas blue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: An extraordinary threat delivered today by the president of the United States from the podium of the United Nations. Now, if those words sound familiar, it's because we've been here before. Time and again, the president has threatened the total destruction of Iran.

Joining me now, White House correspondent for Bloomberg, Jeff Mason, and retired major general, Randy Manner.

[23:20:03]

Glad to have both of you here. I'll begin with you, Jeff, on this because just given how many times President Trump has issued these threats without then carrying them out, does the rhetoric carry any weight on the global stage now, politically?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, I think we've learned about President Trump, covering his first and second administration now, that you have to take him seriously when he says things like this, but that you also have to read into the context.

And so, you're right to point out that he has used this kind of hyperbolic language before, and yet, if you look at the war and what the administration has done with the war, he has also followed through on a lot of those threats, he hasn't followed through with annihilation.

But that type of word choice and that type of broad threat is something that is just kind of part of his vocabulary and part of his rhetoric.

COATES: Is there --

MASON: I guess I would just say, I can't speak for the leaders who are in that room, but I don't think that they disregard it just because the language seems implausible.

COATES: Militarily, what is the impact of that rhetoric and language?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Well, of course, it basically continues this whole feeling of chaos around the world, uncertainty. The United States military does not have the capability to -- quote, unquote -- "annihilate a civilization." Not only not the capability but, hopefully, would never do that because that would be a war crime unto itself.

Here we have the president of the United States literally threatening a nation with a war crime. This is unprecedented. Can you imagine if any other American president had ever spoke before the U.N. with those kinds of words?

COATES: Unpack a little bit more of the capability aspect of it because the president of the United States is very clear on the scope and the prowess and the power of the American military. And I believe he thinks that by making these statements, the reason it would land appropriately is because of the capability. You're saying that they do not.

MANNER: So, the United States is the weakest we have been since at least 9-11. We have a tremendous diminishing of our offensive and defensive capabilities in terms of missiles. We are down anywhere between one-third to two-thirds the total with the ability to replenish those being measured in years, not weeks or months.

When you take a look at the bigger picture, we can defend the United States and we can also, perhaps, continue the war into the Middle East. We could probably not do a two-front scenario with Taiwan or with NATO. And that really is where it gets desperately close.

It is my opinion that the chairman has been pushing back on the president and saying we have to be more specific about the targets, and we've got to understand the desired end state because we just can't continue to use these munitions to the extent that we have.

COATES: The timing of the statements cannot be ignored. I mean, the president claims that Iran is waiting until after the midterms to then strike a deal, Jeff, and that negotiations will not be influenced by the election. You've covered this president. You've covered other presidents, I believe, obviously, but this president for many years. Do you believe that an election such as what's coming in about 40 or so days, where the domestic fallout of this war has really been so extensive, that that's not being factored in by this president and dictating at least part of his moves?

MASON: Well, I think the evidence shows in some ways that he's telling the truth on that because if he were aware and he surely is aware of the political ramifications of this war, the impact on fuel prices, the impact on his popularity, then he might be deciding to try to find a quicker way to end it.

That said, I mean, is he aware of the political ramification writ large? Absolutely. He is. But it's also -- you know, I'm not sure that it's a promise that he can keep. I don't know, but I'm not sure that it's a promise that he can keep to say that the war is going to end once the election is over because that, again, is determined by having a negotiation with both sides.

What is very interesting about what happened today, beyond the rhetoric that he used in that hall, is the fact that there was a meeting between some of his team and Iranian officials who were also in New York, and that's the first time there has been active negotiations between the two sides in a long time.

COATES: Any readout from that meeting?

MASON: The president indicated that it was a positive meeting. Before I got on the air, I haven't seen any reaction from the Iranians.

COATES: If only there was a microphone. Jeff, general, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it. Up next, Democrats feeling the momentum in Texas in both the Senate and governor's races. So, what is happening in the Lone Star State? We'll ask Beto O'Rourke that question and more, next.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, there are new signs that the stars are aligning for Democrats in Texas. Several polls continue to show James Talarico with a slight edge over Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, and even the governor's race appears close. Polling suggests Democrat Gina Hinojosa is neck-and-neck with Governor Greg Abbott.

[23:30:00]

Remember, it has been more than 30 years since Democrats won a statewide race in Texas. I want to bring in former Texas Democratic congressman and candidate for Senate, governor and president, Beto O'Rourke. Beto, thank you for being here. I'm looking forward to your insight. What do you think is driving this? I mean, is it an ideological shift or is it about the quality of the GOP candidates?

BETO O'ROURKE, FORMER TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER SENATORIAL, GUBERNATORIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it's probably all of the above. You have some extraordinary candidates in James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa. But as you go further down the ballot, look at Tarrant County, the third largest of our 254 counties. You have Alisa Simmons there running for county judge. As she goes out and meets voters in Fort Worth and Arlington, she's bringing them in not just to vote for her and her race, but for James and Gina and Vikki and all the other statewide Democrats.

And Laura, you saw the news recently that none other than Karl Rove is committed now not to vote for a statewide Republican candidate. When Karl Rove is not going to vote for the top Republican or railroad commissioner, then you know you are in trouble.

And I think that speaks to Bo French, who he is voting against, it speaks to Ken Paxton, the face of corruption in the state of Texas, and it also speaks to the failures of Greg Abbott, who has been in charge of our state for a very long time. He can pin our problems on no one but himself.

And we have some real ones with rising prices, diesel over $6, gas over $4. Grocery bills are much more expensive. And then you have these ICE raids that are breaking up families and ripping apart communities right now. People want change, and Democrats are offering that.

COATES: I mean, you mentioned Karl Rove, but there are more than just Karl Rove who are saying they'll even vote for Democrats this cycle. And there's a super PAC dedicated to building this permission structure to bring more GOP voters on board. Do you think that will be enough to win over disaffected Republicans or is the likelihood that they might sit the race out? What do you think?

O'ROURKE: I mean, I think the enthusiasm is definitely not there, so it's possible that some sit the race out. When I ran during Trump's first midterm in 2018, half a million Texans voted for Greg Abbott for governor, and then voted for me for U.S. Senate. So, they split their ticket, half a million Texans back then in 2018. You may see something similar right now, although I don't know if there'll be ticket splitters. I think they're going to select Gina for governor, they can select James for Senate, and then these extraordinary candidates up and down the ballot.

As you probably saw today, some of these Texas races are moving out of the likely Republican column into the toss-up column, Texas might decide the balance of power in the House of Representatives, and James Talarico could be the 51st vote in the U.S. Senate. All of this comes down to Texas.

And it's exciting, and it's due to these candidates and also a lot of work being done on the ground by volunteers who are registering voters, staying in touch with them, turning them out in a state that makes it harder than any other to register or to cast a ballot. So, there are a lot of people who have been working on this for a long time.

And I agree with you, the conditions look very good, but we still have 40 plus days to go. We need to work our tails off from now through November 3rd in order to bring this home.

COATES: And, of course, you have to factor in moderates and Talarico when -- you know, he has moderated some of his statements from the past. I want you to listen to what he said in 2021 about a bill to ban transgender athletes in Texas, and then what he told Fox News about it just this month. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS: It's still giving oxygen to this absurd and dangerous debate. It's still tarnishing our state's reputation with people and businesses around the country, around the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TALARICO: I oppose trans athletes playing in girls' sports if it endangers safety or fairness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, I recognize that the list of interests that are top of mind for voters that you've articulated, this might not be high. However, his opponents want this to be thought of for anyone voting for him. And that shift may win over moderates, but is he in danger of alienating his base with the different comments?

O'ROURKE: I don't think so. I spend almost every day on college campuses with Powered by People. We're an outfit that's registering and organizing and turning out young voters. And I listen to them about what's most on their mind. And I have heard, you know, complaints about James Talarico's position on this issue a total of zero times. You know, folks are concerned about being able to afford a home or about the war in Iran or about what ICE is doing in their communities. This comes up not at all.

So, I know that Republicans will try to play the same thing that they did in 2024, which was pretty effective back then, but that's like fighting the last war.

[23:34:59]

I don't think it's going to be effective or persuasive right now. People want change, and James Talarico offers that.

COATES: All right. Look at your crystal ball for a second. I want to look further into the future because Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, she's not ruling out running for president in 2028, but she told "The New York Times" that she expects her identity to be a factor, saying -- quote -- "that doesn't make it impossible, but to act as though it's not a factor in anything ever is really a form of, like, denialism." Do you think it will be? How does AOC overcome that perception, if so?

O'ROURKE: Yes. I mean, I guess I take her at her word, and only she knows what she is going through or likely to go through. But let me just say, I think she's one of the most exciting people in American politics, bar none.

Speaking about Texas, she and Bernie Sanders are among the few national politicians who have seen the value of this state and have refused to write it off. I saw her speak to students at Texas State in San Marcos, at UT Austin, in our state's capital. Absolutely electric.

And, you know, if there's been a missing part of the electorate over the last, you know, 10 or 20 years, it is young people. I think someone like Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez can bring out those young people who are desperate for change right now. Again, I think she represents that in our country.

COATES: Beto O'Rourke, thank you so much for joining.

O'ROURKE: Thank you.

COATES: I want you to meet my panel for tonight, everyone, Democratic strategist and content creator Sawyer Hackett, and executive editor of the Washington Examiner, Bob Cusack. Glad to have both of you guys here. I'm just listening. First of all, let me just go right there in terms of the electrifying description that he has given to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. Is she the future of the Democratic Party for a presidential run?

SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: She could be. I mean, ultimately, I think the candidate who wins the nomination and ultimately the candidate who goes on to win the presidency is the candidate who best meets the moment. That's what my old boss used to say, Julian Castro, who ran for president in 2020. And I think he's right about that. It's usually the candidate who has kind of the vision and the policies that resonate with the mood that voters are feeling.

And I think, why not AOC right now? Voters are feeling extremely disillusioned. Voters want change. They want a new generation of leadership. They want new ideas, new messages, new strategies. And she's offering that at a time when I think a lot of Democrats, you know, are looking for change. A lot of Democratic voters are looking for change, are looking for different strategies from their nominees. And I think, you know, heading into 2028, especially if we come off of a successful midterm cycle, they're probably going to want more of that from folks like AOC.

COATES: You can't write her off. She is a skilled politician, and I think even a lot of conservatives recognize that very point. But will they see her as a threat if she really does decide to run, a serious threat?

BOB CUSACK, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: She's either going to run for Senate or she's going to run for the White House. And I'm not sure which way she's going to go. I wrote a column on this, and I talked to a number of Democrats. And her greatest weakness in the general election is electability, and she knows that. That's why she said about woke one, you know, was crazy.

OK, so, now, the Democratic socialists want her to run. There's going to be so many candidates that she could get. She could win a lot of states with just 30 or 35 percent. At the same time, there's one thing she hasn't done that a lot of these other 2028ers have done. It's a precursor for running. She hasn't written a book. So maybe she's going to go for the Senate.

But I do know that a lot of Democrats, they say, feel burned by voting, you know, that Harris lost and Hillary Clinton lost, and they want a white male governor because they want to win. But those white male governors, they're not that dynamic. AOC is exciting, and I think that's what the base wants.

COATES: Maybe she hasn't written a book because they're scrutinized so much before you go on the campaign trail. Maybe she's, I don't know, smarter than that. Who knows?

I want to turn to the issue of immigration because there was a moment today that got a lot of attention, and that was that Renee Good's mother is revealing that she is a registered Republican who voted for Trump in 2024. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONNA GANGER, MOTHER OF RENEE GOOD: I'm a registered Republican. I voted for President Trump under the impression that these agents were here to protect the citizens of the United States, innocents like our family and the others here, against terrorists, certainly not to accuse those of us here of being terrorists and take precious lives. This is madness.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean, Sawyer, immigration used to be something that the president in his first run thought was a feather in his cap and that he'd be trusted to do. We do see now that that has deteriorated. Will it cost him or the Republicans in November because of that?

HACKETT: I think it will certainly be a contributing factor, especially in places like Texas, as you were just kind of alluding to with Congressman Beto O'Rourke. I mean, I think, you know, it's devastating to hear a mother kind of have to reconcile with the fact that, you know, she supported a man who ultimately is probably responsible for, you know, the death of her daughter.

[23:39:57]

And I think a lot of Americans are going through that experience right now in miniature, obviously, where, you know, they thought that Donald Trump was going to prioritize the worst of the worst because that's what he ran on, that's what he told voters. Yes, he ran on mass deportation, but that's what he said. And instead, he hired an army of unaccountable, masked, anonymous thugs who have terrorized our communities and abducted neighbors with impunity.

And I think, you know, that's an experience that a lot of families are having to reconcile across kitchen tables where there are political differences between, you know, mothers and daughters and fathers and sons. And I think that those conversations are being had ahead of these midterms because they know that this election will be a determinative factor of whether we can put a check on those actions from this administration.

COATES: Even the political family seems to have some distance, right, because we talked at the beginning of the show about Republican candidates who are breaking with the president. And voters are also speaking out.

I want to read for you from "The New York Times," some of the comments that were made. "We drank the Kool-Aid and we were wrong, said Ryan Wagner, 41, a conservative in northern Michigan who was once an enthusiastic supporter of the president."

"Mr. Wagner said, when he hears Mr. Trump talk about how much food prices have gone down, 'my freaking eye is twitching.' 'I can't even listen to him talk anymore,' he said. 'How many times has he said the war is over, the strait is open?' he asked, referring to the Strait of Hormuz. 'No, it's not, you big liar.'"

I mean, there's campaign promises, then there's candidates who are sort of pulling away. Now, you've got really voters who are seeing in real time the backlash at play. Does the White House appreciate what's going on or do they see this as, well, they can get past? What do you think?

CUSACK: I don't think the White House appreciates it, and I do think that those type of statements are starting to come from members of Congress now, Republican members of Congress. You mentioned that they're breaking with him. There's going to be more of them because they are seeing that in their red districts or in their red states, they are now worried about their races. I think the dam could break after election.

As far as ICE, Democrats -- you said -- you mentioned a check on ICE.

COATES: Yes.

CUSACK: That would be -- that would be a smart thing to do. Not defunding ICE, but putting, you know, A.I. guardrails. We're talking about guardrails. Most people would support putting some restrictions on ICE, and that's what they're going to have to do after the election because they're going to win the House. They may not win the Senate, but they're going to win the House.

COATES: Well, speaking of what might win, we've got -- after a quick break, I'm going to bring to you guys, finally in, the DOJ response to the lawsuit of the White House ban of several media organizations, including our own. I'll give you the very latest and what's in it after a quick break. Sawyer, Bob, thank you both so much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news, the DOJ has just, and I mean just, responded to that lawsuit that CNN, Politico, and MS Now filed against Trump's White House press ban. The network sued yesterday, calling the ban a blatant violation of the First Amendment and also raised due process concerns.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz has read through the filing and joins us now. Katelyn, this comes ahead of a key hearing tomorrow. I see them defending the ban on several accounts, including that they think that this is also a national security issue. Explain what the key takeaways are.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Laura, that jumped out to me as well. This filing coming in just a few minutes before the deadline to get it before Judge Tim Kelly and less than a day before Judge Kelly in D.C. is going to hold a pivotal emergency hearing on whether CNN, MS NOW, and Politico should have their White House press badges restored.

But in this filing, the Justice Department is arguing that at Donald Trump's will, he should be able to kick whomever he would like out of the White House. And they also are arguing that part of it is because there's national security information kept in the White House complex and the Justice Department and Donald Trump could deem these outlets, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, threats to national security given the reporting they have done.

Now, Laura, that's certainly not what the law is around the First Amendment and free speech and even what the law is around reporters holding press badges at the White House. There is a key law, a legal precedent, that the Justice Department is asking to have overturned in the court system. Judge Kelly is not going to be able to do that tomorrow. But it does spell out how they may want to challenge this to restrict the press even further.

I want to read a short piece of this filing tonight, the argument from the Justice Department explaining what they want. They say, at the very least, the government may control reporters' access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint discriminatory reasons, meaning if the president doesn't like what those outlets are writing, he can kick them out for that reason alone.

They also write in this filing the president has found that plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security. Such reporting directly raises national security concerns. We have not seen an attack on the press or the White House press corps at this level ever before, Laura.

COATES: You know, a number of those points struck out to me as well. One of the things they seem to suggest is that they would have done this even anyway for those national security reasons, and that you can prove that because the president did not exclude other entities that had been critical of him in the past, and also that it was a privilege, not a right, to enter into the White House grounds.

But I think, perhaps, most strikingly was this idea that they believed on the due process front which, of course, is the notice and opportunity to be heard that there was no real property right to be had by a pass holder and, therefore, a post-deprivation process would be sufficient here.

[23:50:00]

So, they seem to attack it on a number of grounds. But for the audience's perspective here to understand, they're saying there is no likelihood of prevailing at this stage for the news organizations. Therefore, they want to maintain this ban in place. So, tomorrow, the judge has a very good question to answer, which is whether he will lift the ban in this temporary state for the full case to be heard. They seem quite clear that they think they'll win.

POLANTZ: Well, that's typically how you would write a brief. I mean, that is how the Justice Department would want to put their arguments before the judge. We believe this. We're doing this. This is the law as we see it. That is just not what the law is, though, in D.C. We're going to have to wait and see what Judge Kelly does and what he says, especially on the bench.

But this judge, several years ago, when White House correspondent for CNN at the time, Jim Acosta, lost his press badge, Judge Kelly ruled in his favor, restored it on the temporary basis, as you're talking about what this type of hearing is tomorrow. And then the D.C. Circuit, the federal court above him that sets the law for Washington, D.C. on federal issues, they made that into law, and they said that there had to be due process for reporters.

There's other law that goes back 50 years, other case law in Washington, D.C., where the D.C. Circuit had written that you can't restrict access to a journalist just because you don't like what they're writing. So, there's a lot of pieces in place already working against the Justice Department. They are trying to expand, though, the protections around Trump and what they believe should be protections of the White House building because they say it's national security. We have not seen that argument before.

COATES: We have not, Katelyn. And, of course, the president leading, presumably, with the national security Trump card because there is an extraordinary amount of deference that is given to a president of the United States in the area of national security. I will be curious to see how a judge will reconcile a national security interest with the First Amendment when there has been 50 years of precedent to suggest that, and more, that viewpoint discrimination cannot be tolerated.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you for your review of this so quickly. We've got a lot more to unpack. We'll be right back, everyone. Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE LUCAS, FILMMAKER: Art is in the eye of the beholder. If it is emotional to you, then it's art. And, of course, I've been criticized up and down and sideways for that, but I believe it wholeheartedly, that you get to decide what art is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: George Lucas is seeing another vision come to life. The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is now welcoming visitors in Los Angeles. He and his wife, Mellody Hobson, spent $1 billion of their own money to build it. It took 16 years with plenty of setbacks along the way. But the doors, they are finally open. And you know who got to see it firsthand? Elex Michaelson, who joins me now. Elex, I mean, the outside, straight out of "Star Wars," and I love it. So, what is it like inside?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, you mentioned "Star Wars." Of course, that's a main reason a lot of people are going to go to this thing. And there is a "Star Wars" exhibit. They know that that's important to drawing people in.

But that's only about seven percent of the exhibit. Most of it is a tribute to illustrators. George Lucas has this feeling that a lot of these artists would never be put on a gallery wall, and so this is his way to celebrate a lot of the art that has inspired him. Over six decades, Laura, he has collected 50,000 pieces of art himself. So, this is a place to show a lot of that work off.

COATES: That's unbelievable. Think about that. You know, I love a great museum. I cannot wait to go see it and see what's included in there. And you had a lot of people champing at the bit, trying to get inside. You had the opening, bringing out some of the biggest names in Hollywood. What were they saying about finally seeing what took 16 years to come to life?

MICHAELSON: Yes. I mean, it was one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Hollywood this past weekend. Thirty-three directors showed up for this thing, all of the biggest names, all of the Oscar winners, and one person that I'd never talked to before, Oprah Winfrey, who I know I'm sure is a huge fan of you. But this was a big deal for me to be able to talk to her. She's very good friends with Mellody Hobson. Mellody Hobson started crying when Oprah showed up right in front of us. And Oprah talked about why this museum is so emotional for her. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OPRAH WINFREY, MEDIA MOGUL: It feels like going through George Lucas's personal art gallery diary and looking at the things that represent America and our world, and bring people together through stories and art in a way that we have not experienced before. And to see them accomplish this, really, is one of the most meaningful things I've seen.

MICHAELSON: It brings you to tears.

WINFREY: It brings me to tears to see what they have been able to do here. It's beyond words. It's just beyond words.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Wow!

MICHAELSON: Oprah was in tears, Mellody Hobson was in tears, a lot of the folks there in the front row were in tears. Now, this is open to the public.

COATES: But were you in tears, elex? I expect you to rise to the occasion.

MICHAELSON: I mean, being around her, I wanted a hug from Oprah.

(LAUGHTER)

I got this visceral feeling of, like, will you hug me?

COATES: I would die. And, of course, Mellody Hobson, a Princeton girl --

MICHAELSON: Yes.

COATES: -- a force in her own right.

MICHAELSON: Very impressive.

COATES: Thank you, Elex. I cannot wait to see it. Thank you so much. Hey, see you in just a moment. [23:59:58]

And remember, you can stream my show live or watch on demand any time with an All Access subscription. You got to scan the Q.R. code on your screen or just go to cnn.com/watch to learn more. Thank you so much for watching. Good night.