Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Finishes Tough Week; Trump Targets "Improper Ideology" at the Smithsonian; VP Vance Makes New Pitch for U.S. to Take Greenland; "Laura Coates Live" Presents Friday Night News Quiz. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 28, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(BOOING)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And there you have it. While in Greenland, Vice President Vance also dismissed the idea. He said that if anyone thought President Trump would fire someone over the scandal, they've got -- quote -- "another thing coming." We will leave it for there.

Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." We'll see you tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with our conversation that got a bit wild at "Table for Five." In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, welcome to "Laura Coates Live" on this Friday night. It is the 10th Friday of Trump's second term, 68 days in total. And this week, it may have been his toughest yet. From Signal-gate to market sell offs and bad economic reports, it has been one gut punch after another.

But the biggest blow may not have even landed yet, because Republicans, they are starting to panic about what's coming up this coming Tuesday. It'll be the first major election night since Trump reclaimed the White House.

And Trump is suddenly nervous about two House races in Florida where Democrats are eyeing upsets in very pro-Trump districts. Losses there could hurt his already slim margins on the Hill, which is why he pulled Congresswoman Elise Stefanik's nomination for U.N. ambassador.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: As you know, we have a few elections going on. I said, Elise, would you do me a favor? We can -- we cannot take a chance. We have a slim margin. We don't want to take any chances. We don't want to experiment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you know what the president is experimenting with? The economy. And new tariffs he's coming up -- he has coming next week, they could lead to more of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN (voice-over): Hard truths from hard data today as a hotter inflation prank coupled with weak consumer sentiment sent markets tumbling.

LARRY KUDLOW, FOX BUSINESS FINANCIAL NEWS COMMENTATOR, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: So, markets crashed over 700 points today after a bad inflation report, more tariff confusion. Oh, and by the way, Republicans really going to raise taxes? That could've done it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The S&P 500 falling nearly 2% today. It's on track for its worst quarter since September 2022. The markets have been doubling since Trump's inauguration and 401Ks along with them. And now, a new survey shows Americans are not feeling good about the economy. Sentiment among consumers tanked 12% this month alone.

The president may be charging ahead with his economic plan, though, despite the warning signs. But he is trying to put to bed the biggest scandal of his second term, Signal-gate.

Now, there's new scrutiny on two of the texts from the Signal group chat. Current and former officials tell CNN that messages from Mike Waltz and John Ratcliffe may have done long-term damage to America's ability to gather intel on the Iran-backed Houthis. And another person in the chat, Vice President J.D. Vance, he was forced to address the controversy today while he was in Greenland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We take it very seriously. We all accept that a journalist should not have been excite -- invited into the chat, and members of the administration, including my dear friend, Mike, have taken responsibility for it.

You think you're going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody? You've got another thing coming. President Trump has said it. On Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I'm the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: In other words, what a year this week has been. Joining me now to unpack it all, White House correspondent for Semafor, Shelby Talcott, CNN contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and CNN political commentator -- senior political commentator -- sorry -- Scott Jennings.

Glad to have you all here. I messed up your title. I'll go -- have you go first, Scott. Let's go here. First of all, Republicans, Scott, seem to be sweating their thin margins ahead of next week's special elections. Are you? SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, one thing that has become obvious in the last couple of years, last few years really, is that the Republican Party does well in broad elections such as the November presidential elections.

But in special elections, off year elections, you know, elections that are happening at an unusual time, the Republicans don't do as well because our voters right now tend to be less frequent voters. A lot of the most frequent voters have migrated to the Democratic Party.

And so that's -- that is a condition that has been, you know, sort of spooling up over the last few months, few years. I'm not sure that it has really changed. And so, yeah, I think it's true the Republicans are somewhat worried about the elections on Tuesday because of this -- because of this issue. And I know there's a lot of people out there doing a lot of work, trying to get Republicans excited to vote --

COATES: Hmmm.

JENNINGS: -- in a, you know, in a special election setting. But that -- that is going on. It is on the minds of Republican strategists right now. I want to see how it turns out on Tuesday.

COATES: One person trying to get people to turn out happens to be Elon Musk. He's reprising, Lulu, his 2024 million-dollar giveaways to try to swing the closely watched Supreme Court election -- decision in Wisconsin.

[23:05:03]

The A.G. there is already sounding the alarm, filing a lawsuit against Elon Musk. So, we follow this thread for us. Where does this end?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: I mean, the first thing I'll say is that Democrats are mad. It's not just that they have the advantage in a special election, which is true because indeed they do have more reliable voters, but it is that there is a lot of energy in the democratic base right now because they see what the president is doing, they're upset about it, they don't like it and so, therefore, they're invested in it.

And I think in Wisconsin, in particular, they have a very powerful narrative, which is to say, we don't want Elon Musk buying our election. That has been their rallying cry and that has been something that people have pointed to and said this may even be illegal. We saw Elon Musk actually removing his tweets about giving million dollars to people in Wisconsin over the special election. And so, it does sort of create this narrative that the Republicans are trying to buy the election while Democrats are actually really rallying their base to try and oppose what Elon Musk is doing.

COATES: It hasn't changed, Shelby, at all. The perception, of course, is that if you are afraid of something or fearful that there's a different result, you're going to put some pretty serious weight behind it even in the form of what you're doing right now.

But there was a string of gloomy headlines, Shelby, for the economy today. And in spite of that, President Trump says the economy is going to boom, his quote. Is the White House really unfazed by all of these warning signs?

SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Well, listen, I think that they're play -- paying close attention. Nobody is pretending like the president, who historically pays attention to things like the stock market, is suddenly, you know, doesn't care at all about it.

But at the same time, the people that I talk to inside the White House really maintain even privately that they are willing, at least in this very moment, to do the short-term pain for long-term gain. They genuinely believe that things, long term, are going to be better if Donald Trump goes through with some of these decisions.

And that's how they are operating. They're not operating on a two, three, four months basis, but they're operating on the fact that Donald Trump wants to leave a legacy.

COATES: We're not even a hundred days in, so perhaps we're betting on a bit of political amnesia for voters by the time they have to vote again. But, Scott, we end where the week started. The now infamous Signal-gate, it has prompted, frankly, a raucous moment at the Republican Congresswoman Victoria Spartz's town hall tonight. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I just wanted to see what your plan is to address the issue with the administration talking about classified military operations personnel.

(APPLAUSE)

And -- and will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth?

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Scott, the White House, as you know, has been downplaying, even saying that the media, President Trump, that was up playing all of this and saying, look, this is not the big deal that they believe the media is making it out to be. But I wonder when you hear that, are they reading the room incorrectly?

JENNINGS: Are they reading a room full of unhinged Democrats incorrectly? No, of course not. I mean, that's obviously who showed up at this crazy town hall meeting. It's who shows up at all crazy town hall meetings --

COATES: Spartz is a Republican.

JENNINGS: I don't think the White House --

COATES: You think that she only had people --

JENNINGS: -- should give --

COATES: -- Democrats? Let alone unhinged, as you described them.

JENNINGS: Yes, I believe that -- I believe the people who are showing up at these town hall meetings, as just as Lulu said, are the angriest Democrats you can possibly imagine, and they would like to show up and yell at any Republican they can get their hands on. It won't be Trump and it won't be Elon. So, Victoria Spartz will be the closest thing, in this case, that they can get to it.

I do believe the White House had, and I think the president, has some right to be unhappy about what happened because he made a righteous decision and the military carried out his orders ruthlessly, efficiently. We did what we're supposed to do here. You know, it was a good operation and it's totally been overshadowed by this communications snafu.

But I don't believe they should give a scalp here. I really don't. I don't think they should give in to the mob because you know what? If I've learned one thing about the mob, it's never enough. If they fired Hegseth, they'd ask for Waltz. If they fired Waltz, they'd ask for Hegseth. It will not be enough. And I -- I think they will weather this storm and move on. It is a teachable moment.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: If this happened in a democratic administration, this would have been absolutely -- you would have been the first person calling for -- quote, unquote -- "scalps." This was an enormous breach. And this was --

JENNINGS: I'll -- I'll -- I'll answer your question if you like because -- because in a democratic administration, the secretary of the defense --

COATES: Hold on, Scott. Hold on, Scott. Hold on. Wait. Hold on a second.

JENNINGS: -- and killed 13 American soldiers. And not a single person called for him to go --

COATES: Scott, excuse me. Scott, if you'd like to make -- hold on a second. Everyone, stop talking. This is -- I think everyone has -- has misconstrued the title of this show. I'd like to hear what you both have to say, but our audience wants to hear from both of you separately, not on top of it.

[23:10:00]

Scott, you had a point to make. You made it. Lulu, I invite you to respond to what you wanted to say.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Thank you. All I would like to say is that, you know, if this was a Democrat or a democratic administration who had foolishly, unconscionably created a group chat to have discussion about a military operation that was top secret, I think, Scott, you would have been the first person to call for those people's resignation.

Accountability is not something that is either Democrat or Republican. Accountability is actually something that normally happens in a well- functioning administration. This isn't, you know, cowboys and Indians and calling for scalps. This is actually what most people would think was, if someone has behaved in a way that puts American lives at risk, they should be held accountable for it.

COATES: Scott, what's your response?

JENNINGS: Laura, may I -- since she -- since she addressed me, I'll answer it.

COATES: Please.

JENNINGS: In a democratic -- you don't have to make up hypotheticals, Lulu, about if this happened in a democratic administration. Let me take you back in time. In a democratic administration, the secretary of defense oversaw a disastrous military operation in which 13 servicemen died in Afghanistan. Then to try to make up for it, they vaporized like seven children in a drone strike. Then later, the secretary of defense went AWOL and didn't even tell the commander-in- chief.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is a completely different thing --

JENNINGS: You don't have to come up with a hypothetical, Lulu, because --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: These are two different things that you're discussing.

JENNINGS: -- the bar clearly is very high, very high for dismissing the secretary of defense.

COATES: I don't want your words to fall on ears that cannot hear you. Lulu, what is your reaction?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: My reaction is it's -- it's not the same thing. I can take you back in time and talk about the Iraq war.

JENNINGS: You're right. People died. People died in the last days and not --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: People make mistakes. This was using an unsecure method of discussion by the top members of this administration to discuss top secret, a top secret and very --

JENNINGS: Who died? Which case did people die?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- important on military operation --

COATES: I would like to hear -- finish her point, Scott. Lulu, I heard the end of your point. I want to bring back in Shelby, who has been patiently waiting, watching this volley. And I'm intrigued about what your reaction is, particularly, given the national security advisor, Mike Waltz. He is in the eye of this storm.

And Trump does seem presently unwilling to hold anyone accountable, according to however we're defining it, whether it's a criminal investigation, whether it's removing them from their position or anything else.

Why do you think the president and, frankly, A.G. Bondi and others do not see it the same way as, say, Lulu?

TALCOTT: It's a -- there's a pretty simple reason. It is because there is a no scalps policy in this administration, according to numerous people I've spoken to. They don't want it to be seen as giving a win to Democrats. And the louder that Democrats call for somebody to be fired over this, the more resistant the Trump administration is going to be.

And to Scott's point, part of this is because they feel emboldened based on what the former president did over the past few years. They don't feel like they need to fire anyone over this. They have a team around them that largely, in part, learned from their mistakes of the first administration. They feel that they fired too many people too quickly in the first administration, and it gave power to their opponents.

COATES: You know, I want to read to you one thing that former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton who, frankly, I'm surprised that her name didn't come up during the course of this -- of this conversation until this point in time, but I want to read to you. She wrote in "The New York Times," in op-ed, saying, it's not the hypocrisy that bothers me; it's the stupidity.

But Lulu, I go back to what is that often repeated, refrained, but are emails. Is there a more nuanced distinction here or are people right to conflate the two?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't think that people are right to conflate the two. I think what was discovered in Hillary Clinton's emails on that private server were not state secrets and were not discussing, again, an active military event that was unfolding.

You know, I just come back to this, which is, what does this administration want to do for the American people? Are they going to -- they put people in place who didn't have the experience, who didn't have the knowledge like Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, who didn't really understand how to maneuver in these kinds of spaces. And when that has been laid bare, they're choosing to, you know, stand behind them. That's all fine and well.

But I do think that the American people deserve answers. And I think that journalists and others asking for those answers -- it's not a question of partisanship. It is a question that a mistake has been made, something serious has happened. And answers need to be given, whether that is congressionally or that is an actual investigation by the -- by the Justice Department.

COATES: Well, I'm eager to hear what the answers will be, and I think so many Americans are, even if the question being answered is simply, what's next?

[23:15:02]

Thank you, everyone.

Still ahead on this Friday night, a major blow to Trump's war against law firms. This as the court strike back and offer new resistance to Trump's policies. The whirlwind day, well, week, in the legal system is up next.

Plus, as Trump and his team attack judges, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is breaking her silence tonight. And later, Trump sets his eyes on the Smithsonian with a controversial executive order that raises the question, who will decide what history is?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

COATES: President Trump's agenda suffering some setbacks in court today. A slew of cases on the docket. And the scorecard, Trump gaining one victory.

A judge allowing DOGE to keep making cuts to USAID. But they temporarily blocked him from dismantling Voice of America, dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and deporting migrants to countries other than their home countries. A judge also blocking an executive order targeting two law firms tied to Robert Mueller investigation.

Meanwhile, Trump appealing to the Supreme Court to keep using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. A judge temporarily blocking him from using it to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.

It's now setting up quite a showdown with justices growing critical of Trump's rhetoric. Chief justice John Roberts rebuked Trump for calling to impeach judges based on their rulings. Tonight, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, well, she is warning that judges must protect norms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: That is really at the end what judges should do, but it's in the end of whatever citizen should do, which is ensure that the courts are fearlessly independent. Once norms are broken, then you're shaking some of the foundation of the rule of law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Rebecca LeGrand, founder of LeGrand Law, and Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. Glad to have you both here on this Friday evening, which the days are starting to meld together because there are so many things happening during this administration part two.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, Josh, to know that the justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was talking about present times likely and what's happening. How will Trump's appeal, you think, land on the Supreme Court?

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I mean, one of the questions about a lot of the actions the Trump administration has taken over the last several weeks has been, you know, what's the dynamic going to be when it finally reaches the Supreme Court? And I think he has taken a number of steps that are probably going to antagonize many of the justices.

The fact that Sonia Sotomayor would be -- have negative sentiments about some of Trump's policies or approaches, I think, is hardly shocking. But even people like Chief Justice John Roberts, things like going after the law firms, things like the way the Eric Adams's investigation was handled up in New York City, causing a former law clerk of Chief Justice Roberts to basically feel that he had to quit his job as the lead prosecutor in that case and quit the U.S. attorney's office altogether. Going after law firms were, you know, not specific firms, but John Roberts was a partner at a major law firm in D.C.

And it has been a general sentiment among conservative lawyers and Federalist Society types. There has been too much policing of law firms and by law firms of their clients to suddenly be going after specific law firms over the people they choose to represent is really going against the grain, I would say, of a lot of the Federalist Society-type events I've covered over the last couple years.

COATES: What do you make of it, Rebecca? Because, obviously, the idea of going after law firms themselves and law firms responding by making certain agreements with the administration. Trump, in one part, called -- I think a settlement was the word he used, which I'm sure bristled a lot of people in those firms. What's your opinion of this attack?

REBECCA LEGRAND, WHITE COLLAR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'm -- I'm really frightened. I'm frightened for our country. I'm frightened for my profession. And I -- I hope and I think the Supreme Court is going to be troubled as well.

We have an adversarial system of justice. It relies on people like me, I'm a defense attorney, going into court and arguing with the government. That's -- that's my job. And if I can't do that, we don't have a system of justice. I'm not fighting with the government because I want to hurt this country. It's my job. It's what the founders intended.

And it is under threat. It is under threat when there are executive orders coming out saying, we're going to keep you from going into government buildings, including courthouses, because we don't like who you represented, and we're going to demand you, do the kind of pro bono work we want for our causes. It's -- it's really -- I did not expect to see this in my lifetime. COATES: Well, here it is, of course. And there are others like the

attorney general frankly who -- you know, Justice Roberts, as you mentioned, may have taken issue with the idea of identifying judges and criticizing them based on their rulings, not because people don't criticize judges and people aren't satisfied with their rulings, but because there are calls to impeach them based on it being what you don't want to have happened.

And the A.G., Pam Bondi, didn't seem to get the same memo that Roberts was writing. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Many judges need to be removed. Judge Howell included. Judge Reyes. Judge Boasberg. These judges, obviously, cannot be impartial. They cannot be objective. They are district judges trying to control our entire country, our entire country, and they're trying to obstruct Donald Trump's agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:25:03]

COATES: I think they would think they were just ruling on the question presented.

GERSTEIN: Yeah. And it's actually fairly normal for district court judges to issue pretty sweeping rulings. If you don't like the rulings, you take them to an appeals court where there are three judges that hear the matter most of the time. So, the fact that there's one judge is hardly shocking.

Now, there has been criticism in various quarters of legal community going back 15 years about, you know, should individual judges have the power to block a policy across the country?

We saw plenty, by the way, of Trump appointees and Republican- appointed judges block, you know, administration policies from the Obama and Biden administrations, and even other things that aren't really policies of either administration. For example, trying to cancel the registration of the abortion drug across the entire country. That was an individual federal judge. You did not hear as much at that time --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GERSTEIN: -- of Republican voices, Trump associated voices, you know, screaming out and saying, how could an individual judge do this?

COATES: Right.

GERSTEIN: So, it's a criticism that may be valid, but it seems very opportunistic in this particular circumstance.

COATES: Certainly, selectively outraged. Gorsuch and Thomas, though, have talked about wanting -- essentially, I'm paraphrasing them -- to have the question of nationwide injunctions before them to address it more broadly.

But the law firms, even if it's an appellate issue we're talking about, having law firms be the target of the ire of the administration and then reacting to that could have an impact on the appellate process eventually as well.

I mean, there's amicus briefs that are filed. There are people who want to represent it in class action suits and beyond, who want to go against the government for the principle stated. That all could be impacted in the entire process of even appeals.

LEGRAND: Absolutely. And I think the capitulation that we've seen from two law firms already is, frankly, what frightens me the most, because I don't see how these executive orders were even intended to be lawful. They're not. They're bullying. But it's working. I mean, that's terrifying.

You've got two law firms already who have essentially paid protection money to make sure that they're no longer spoken of this way, that those kinds of penalties, legal or not, are not put on them. And it is frightening because --

COATES: Do you think there is going to be a chilling effect for the duration of the administration?

LEGRAND: I don't know. I mean, it's not -- I'm sure there are many of us who are not going to be shelled, but, you know. And there's only so much that LeGrand Law and my two staff can do, you know. But we're litigators. We'll keep fighting. But it is scary to see big firms capitulate.

COATES: We'll see what happens. Rebecca LeGrand, thank you for joining. And Josh Gerstein, I appreciate as well. Still ahead, President Trump says there is improper ideology that he wants rooted out at the Smithsonian. What exactly is he talking about? Well, Michael Eric Dyson, he has some thoughts on that and is standing by to respond.

And later, the vice president goes to Greenland and claims the people there want to be part of the United States. We're going to put that claim to the test.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Divisive narratives, improper ideology, negative light. Those the phrases President Trump is using to describe the Smithsonian Institute, the world's largest museum and, frankly, a crown jewel of culture and discovery.

The president targeting the institution with an executive order now titled restoring truth and sanity to American history. Now in it, it claims the Smithsonian has -- quote -- "come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology." Trump wants -- quote -- "improper ideology removed from the institute," including, by the way, at the National Zoo." Yes, even the home of the giant pandas may not be safe. I wonder if they'll have to start packing for some unknown reason.

But it does appear that Trump's real target includes the National Museum of African American History. The museum says that its mission is to share the unvarnished truth of African American history and the -- quote -- "contributions, struggles, and triumphs that have shaped our nation."

Now, Trump is appointing Vice President J.D. Vance to make sure federal funds don't go to Smithsonian programs that they claim are racially divisive or inconsistent with his orders targeting transgender people. So far, no comment from the Smithsonian.

The order, by the way, does not define what is improper ideology, but it does claim the Smithsonian is part of a larger effort to deepen divides and foster shame. However, as the saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Joining me now, Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished university professor of African American & Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University. He's also the author of -- co-author of "Unequal: A Story of America."

Michael, good to see you. I have been curious about what your take on this would be because his order specifically called out the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Women's History Museum that's under construction or their planned exhibits. What do you think this is really about?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDEBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, thanks for having me, Laura. I think this is the president's version of DEI. Deny, erase, and intimidate.

[23:34:52]

This is the attempt to deny the historic legacy of white supremacy of social injustice, of slavery in America, of the fundamental shaping of this culture by racial issues that for too long have been denied in the broader set of American ideas, institutions, and colleges and universities. So, we've tried to grapple with that.

Now, he wants to erase the legacy of colleges and universities grappling with it and other institutions like the Smithsonian by intimidating them, by suggesting that there is improper ideology, by suggesting that there has been a revisionist historiography.

So now he wants to restore, perhaps, some of the monuments like the Confederate ones, which have been disappeared after the George Floyd revolution and upswelling of tremendous energy. He wants now to return this country to a pro-white, pro-Christian, in some senses, pro- America that really eviscerates African American people, Latino people, immigrants who are not white. And the attempt to make the Smithsonian in the image of Trump, especially making the National Museum of African American history and Culture, denied the very thing for which it exists, to bring to the fore those hidden realities, those denied truths, and those fictions which have too long prevailed over the national narrative.

This is a remarkable remonstration against history, and it's dispiriting. And what the president is doing and having the vice president do, I think, is counterproductive to our efforts to educate the nation.

COATES: And, you know, one of the things that Trump and his supporters have been arguing is that diversity efforts, DEI, as they're calling it, not the way you describe it, but that it went far beyond --

DYSON: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- simply education, that they were signaling out federal training about dismantling western foundations. They believe that they are rightsizing or right writing it. What's your reaction?

DYSON: Uh-hmm. Well, look, again, as Gore Vidal said, we live in the United States of Amnesia. And these people, unfortunately and tragically, but now with power, have been seized by this amnesia and this attempt to redo history.

And so, when we talk about the landscape of American culture and we speak about the horizon of knowledge and learning and the facts that should prevail and the truth that we should engage, there is no attempt on DEI to somehow undermine the integrity of America. As James Baldwin said, I love this country more than any country on earth. Therefore, I reserve the right to perpetually criticize her.

This is the demand for a culture that lacks criticism, that lacks self- critique, that lacks self-awareness. And this is, again, the attempt in a white supremacist mode to deny the legitimacy of those who have been marginalized by the sway of American history and to bring in gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual folk, women, Latinos, marginal people of every stripe and possibility to make America what it is, and this is the denial of the true greatness of America, which is its profound diversity and its heterogeneity and its complexity.

Perhaps the most underestimated type of power is power over defining culture and history, and he who holds it can do a lot of damage, perhaps some good. We'll see which one ultimately ends up happening. I think I have my bets on one. Michael Eric Dyson, thank you so much, sir.

DYSON: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Still ahead, do the people of Greenland actually want the United States to take them over as, well, Vice President Vance claimed today? A correspondent who has spent his days asking people that very question is standing by to join us from Greenland next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: It's cold as shit here. Nobody told me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The high was minus two there today. But, look, he may be joking. He's actually dead serious about the U.S. getting Greenland. Vice President Vance was there today at a military base making that perfectly clear. His argument is basically the U.S. needs Greenland to protect against China and also Russia, and that Denmark is doing a bad job running Greenland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. We can't just ignore this place. We can't just ignore the president's desires. This has to happen. And the reason it has to happen, I hate to say it, is because our friends in Denmark have not done their job in keeping this area safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And much like Trump, Vance also claims that the people of Greenland will happily want the United States to take over. Well, let's ask someone who knows. European correspondent for TV 2 Denmark, Jesper Steinmetz. He joins me now from Greenland's capital.

Jesper, thank you for joining us today in this -- in your time zone as well. You heard Vance today suggest that the people of Greenland will ultimately want to partner with the United States.

[23:45:04]

Is that what the people there actually think?

JESPER STEINMETZ, EUROPEAN CORRESPONDENT, TV 2 DENMARK: Well, maybe a handful. I've only met one or two who really want to be closer to the U.S., but even those two don't want to be Americans. So, no, the answer is no, they don't want to be Americans.

COATES: I wonder, when you hear some in the administration who refuse to rule out even military intervention, do the people of Greenland take that seriously?

STEINMETZ: Well, first, they took it as a joke. But since the president has reiterated it several times, they -- they now know that he's serious, they feel threatened, and they feel frightened.

I've talked to parents who tell me that their kids ask them, mom, should I be afraid that the U.S. will invade us? So, it's very scary for this large country with very few people.

COATES: You know, Jesper, you have been reporting that the administration had a hard time finding anyone who would host the second lady, Usha Vance, ahead of her trip. Can you tell us about that reporting?

STEINMETZ: Yeah. I mean, my sources told me that the Trump administration, the White House, and the vice president's office reached out first to the political level in Greenland and asked if they were ready for meetings with both the second lady and the national security adviser, and the answer was no, because at that time, right on up until yesterday, they were negotiating a new coalition government. So, they didn't find it appropriate to meet anyone or to receive any official meetings or guests from other countries.

And I also know from my sources that the Vance team tried to reach out both to, like, art centers, to museums to ask if they could host the second lady, and the answer was no, we don't. Either because we don't think it's appropriate or because we don't want to be or get sucked into the ongoing debate.

COATES: You know, a senior White House official told "The Hill," that you're reporting -- here's what he said. Quote -- "This is categorically false. The second lady is proud to visit the space base with her husband to learn more about arctic security and the great work of the space base." So, they're offering a different reason for why her trip was not more expansive. What's your response?

STEINMETZ: All I can say is I stand by my reporting. I trust my sources, and I have several sources on this story.

COATES: You know, Vance went on to accuse Denmark -- I'm talking about the vice president here. Denmark, of course, being a U.S. ally -- of treating Greenlanders like second-class citizens. How is this overall anti-Europe criticism from Trump, from his administration, how is it playing where you are?

STEINMETZ: Well, see, he definitely has a point in saying that because there have been frictions in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland. Remember, Greenland used to be a colony of Denmark and there are definitely old wounds that come up to the surface once in a while. And Greenlanders still criticize Denmark and Danes for how they were treated, like, several decades ago. And that still is a problem.

And that is exactly what the vice president and the Trump administration is playing at because they know that that's a fact. And here, they see it as an attempt to basically try to divide the kingdom of Denmark and try to turn the Greenlanders even more against the Danes.

COATES: Hmmm. Let's see if it will be an effective pressure point or not. Jesper Steinmetz, thank you so much for your reporting and joining me.

STEINMETZ: My pleasure. COATES: Well, up next, it's our Friday night news quiz. So, get ready to play at home and see who wins between Shelby and Josh bragging rights on the line for Semafor and Politico. So, get ready. Plus, a new look at the Lance Armstrong scandal. We have a sneak peek from Jake Tapper's latest series.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, it's Friday night, time for some trivia. I've got Shelby Talcott and Josh Gerstein back with me. It's team Semafor versus Politico. Oh, they're upset now. All right, it's team Josh and Shelby. How about that? The question is, who will win our political whiz quiz and bring the bragging rights back home to their bureaus? Let's get started. I'm told I can't play because I could cheat. Fine.

Let's start with Signal-gate. Which of the following is the correct order of emojis that Mike Waltz used in his Signal-gate message? Was it an A, flag, fist, fire? B, fist, flag, fire? Or C, fire, fist, flag? Hold your paddles up. Is it A, B or C?

[23:55:00]

Oh, they are both B. Good. It is B, guys. Good for you.

TALCOTT: I would have been roasted if I got that one wrong.

(LAUGHTER)

GERSTEIN: I think I used that in a Slack message.

COATES: Did you? Really? Oh, gosh. Okay, so, fist, flag, fire. All right. That order. All right. Number two. How about this one? Trump's portrait in the Colorado State Capitol Building was taken down this week after he called it what? Did he say it was, A, truly the worst, B, atrocious, or C, third-rate? And give me credit, I did not even try to attempt his voice in any of those. Is it A, B, or C, guys? Oh, they may have dumped -- they're both saying A. Good for you, guys.

(LAUGHTER)

GERSTEIN: That was a wild guess.

TALCOTT: It's not been any of them. I actually guessed also.

COATES: There you go. Well, you know what? You guessed correctly.

TALCOTT: I think he probably said all three of those at some point this week.

COATES: He did. And, by the way, this -- and he actually said, this artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst. By the way, this is for the reference point with the Obama portrait referred to, it looked like, on that point.

All right, number three, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the notorious secret prison in El Salvador this week. And a lot of people could not help but be distracted by this shiny bling on her wrist. It even became a point of political contention and elitism and what did it really mean. How much is the watch worth? This is a "Price is Right" moment, everyone. Is it A, 10,000 bucks, B, 30,000, or C, 50,000? And no, you can't say $1.

GERSTEIN: Hmmm.

COATES: Oh, it's too good for not that one. Oh, we have a discrepancy. Is it B or C?

TALCOTT: Huh.

COATES: It's C.

GERSTEIN: Ah.

COATES: It is C, everyone. There you go. Okay. And yes, "The Washington Post" writing this week -- quote -- "Experts have identified it as an 18-karat gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona that sells for about $50,000. Now, if I have to lose my breath reading the name of the watch, it's too expensive.

All right, number four, J.D. and Usha Vance visited Greenland today. The second lady was originally supposed to attend the big event there. But the plans fell through. What was this big event she was going to attend? Was it, A, a figure skating competition, wat it B, a dog sledding race, or C, a stag hunting tournament? Now, you're trying to know what that is. What is a stag hunting tournament? Well, let's see what it is.

TALCOTT: Not going to answer. Beyonce is from Wisconsin.

COATES: There you go.

TALCOTT: Probably not.

GERSTEIN: This one, too.

COATES: It's B. Good job. Okay. There you go. You guys know a lot. That's wonderful. All right, how about this one? El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, is set to visit the White House next month. And today, he tweeted he'll bring President Trump a special gift. What was the gift? A, Diet Coke, B, the key to the prison, or C, a new meme coin. What do you think?

COATES: What would he like?

TALCOTT: I actually --

COATES: A, B, or C? Go, go, go!

TALCOTT: I don't know. COATES: It's A. It's a Diet Coke.

(LAUGHTER)

There you go.

TALCOTT: I thought for sure, it was wrong.

COATES: He replied to a post today that he'll bring -- quote -- "several cans of Diet Coke." Okay. Final one, everyone. Trump is very proud of having renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. He even likes to keep a big map with the name of Gulf of America behind him. And now, one Republican congresswoman said that he could rename D.C. the -- quote -- "District of America." Which one was it who said it? Was it, A, Nancy Mace, B, Marjorie Taylor Greene, or C, Lauren Boebert? What say you, A, B, or C?

TALCOTT: Truly be any of them.

GERSTEIN: That would B.

TALCOTT: That's what my guess, too.

COATES: It was C.

TALCOTT: Oh.

COATES: It was C. Well, thank you for playing. Good job, everyone, Shelby Talcott, Josh Gerstein. Shelby, you won it. There you go.

TALCOTT: Now I can represent Semafor. If I lost it --

GERSTEIN: (INAUDIBLE).

COATES: Thank you, guys, for playing. It's Friday. I appreciate it. Hey, before we go, I don't want you to miss the new episode of "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper." It focuses on that shocking story of cyclist Lance Armstrong whose legacy was threatened after accusations of doping came to light.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: It took about 15 years for the truth to come out, about Lance and doping in the sport in general. Why? Why did it take so long? And would it have come out if were it not for you?

UNKNOWN: It may have never come out. I don't know. I can't believe that I was the reason for it. I can't believe it had to -- had to be that because it had gone on so long.

So long, indeed. Lance finally confessed to doping in 2013. And the story of what was going on in all those years between becoming a phenom and his shameful admission is fascinating and upsetting.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Be sure to tune in. "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper" airs Sunday at 9 p.m., only on CNN.

[23:59:58]

Hey, thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.