Lawsuit Alleges Trump’s WH Ban Violates Due Process Protections

0:03Tonight, CNN and two other organizations sue President Trump over his White House ban. A hearing is set for Wednesday. So why is the president already vowing to appeal? Plus, Trump gives his Trump, Trump Fiumful Arch, a rebrand set to house drones, snipers, and ammo. A veteran fighting to stop it is my guest. And breaking tonight, the long-awaited investigation to Nolan Wells' death finishes. with no charges. But the grand jury concluded tonight on Laura Coates Live.

0:41All right, we've got to talk about this lawsuit. 27 pages, three news organizations now taking the president of the United States to court over access for the White House. CNN, MSNOW, and Politico say their ban violates the Constitution. And there are two points from this lawsuit that I really want to highlight. The first, a First Amendment issue. Viewpoint discrimination. We talked about it on Friday, didn't we? And the idea is pretty simple. Once the White House opens up press access, it cannot arbitrarily kick out journalists because they do not like what those journalists are saying. Trump has made it clear that this ban is based on coverage that he thinks is too negative toward him.

1:26Even though Vice President J.D. Vance is now trying to argue this isn't actually a ban per se. He's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying, we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda. Not a ban? Well, the president himself called it a ban when he first posted a ban on Friday. And then he repeatedly called it a ban in the Oval Office a short time later. Very simple ban. I don't want him in my office. I don't want him here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can. The ban is because they are fake news. So we are banning them.

2:05Yes, we are. Now, let's put aside whatever reason Trump is giving for just a moment, because that gets us to the second point, the question of how the president carried out this ban. And that's where due process comes in. Basically, the White House can't just yank a reporter's credentials and call it a day. No questions asked. Federal courts have said that there is a process that has to be followed. The reporter has to be told the basis for the decision, given notice, given a chance to respond, notice an opportunity to be heard as in due process. And the lawsuit lays out how that did not happen here.

2:46CNN, MS Now and Politico say they got no warning, no clear standard that they were accused of violating and no opportunity to be heard or make their case before the access was taken away. And that all may sound very familiar because we have actually been here before. Back in 2018, when the White House revoked the hard pass of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, CNN went to court and a federal judge ordered the White House to temporarily reinstate Acosta's pass on due process grounds. And the White House ultimately backed down and he got his pass back. And the judge who made that decision? Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee.

3:27And that is the same judge assigned to this case, a case the president is already talking about appealing. But here's the strange thing. There's nothing to appeal yet. The government's response? That's due tomorrow. The hearing? Not till Wednesday. So why do you think the president is already talking about an appeal before the judge has even heard the arguments? With me now to break down the legal and constitutional stakes of this historic lawsuit are trial attorney Ken Turkel and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Greg Lukianoff. His nonprofit organization has spent years fighting speech crackdowns from both the political left and the right.

4:12Ken, I'll begin with you here because we know the media's argument is rooted in the First Amendment, rooted in due process, but the other side. How do you expect the lawyers that are going to defend Trump's actions to defend this? Lord, it's good to see you again. I think that to look at the why behind the what is the first thing I wrote in my notes. What is the why? Because you have to look at the pattern of conduct that President Trump has engaged in with the media from day one, multiple defamation cases, some of which have settled. I've covered a lot of those with you. I've been on your show to talk about them.

4:51And I've always said the same thing. When you're dealing with him, I think looking at it from the standpoint of what is this, a brash, no notice, a ban on reporters being at the White House, that's simple. Anybody can see the what here, right? But what is the why? What is he trying to accomplish. He has good lawyers. They know ultimately what they're going to deal with from a First Amendment perspective. But I think what he has done because of the attacks on him, even going back to his first term, and I don't want to really get into debate of whether he's been attacked more than any president, but I think it's fair that they've come after him pretty zealously from day one.

5:25He's constantly trying to draw a line. Do you mean attacked or reported on him? Because that's the issue here, right? I know he has said attacked, but he's talking about press not being able to be there because he believes that they are giving negative stories about him. So if they're going to respond in kind in a lawsuit and react to that, what will be their core arguments?

5:50On the first, immigrants are going to say they're not censoring anything. They're not telling him not to say anything. They're denying them physical presence. Yes, I understand the skeptical look, but that's where I think they have to go. I don't love the property writer. I'd love to hear what Greg says about it, because I don't know why they led with due process with the property right, citing to a footnote in Sherrill. I like the better due process argument of depriving him, you know, freedom of the press and no due process there. I don't know why they led with that. Sometimes that's strategic, but there's not a lot of places to go vis-a-vis that the law is fairly well settled on those things.

6:27But that's why I'm trying, I'm not trying to redirect it as much as try and give some insight as to why you would do it strategically. When you say it's hacked, Laura, don't get caught up in that word. It's really just, they've come after this president a lot. I think we safe to say he has withstood a lot of media scrutiny more than many presidents. He says things that provoke it. I'm not trying to say it's not justified, but look at what the guy NPR. Oh, my God, I can't believe I'm forgetting his name, but he'd been there for like 20 years. And he looked at the court, the reporters here and said, this is all we're doing.

7:03Right. He left Berliner. Greg, you remember his name. Why are you trying to remember that? I want to I want to get your take on this, Greg, on the separate issue. Yeah. OK. Name aside for a second. Let's talk about the Constitution. And obviously, I am curious, Greg, do you believe that the approach when you talk about the First Amendment and obviously about due process, it seems to me a legal belt and suspenders approach? Because both can be true and you need not identify a singular reason why you'd be justified in redressing a grievance of the government also under the First Amendment. I actually think the due process argument is pretty strong.

7:47And that's one of the ones that they've had success with in the past. But yeah, you try both arguments. And essentially, I think Cheryl is so on point here. I think what they're going to try to argue is the AP case where they said that you can, that the president has some more discretion to limit people from more intimate settings like Air Force One or the Oval Office. But that's not going to work because the case itself said, but you can't punish people from, say, the Brady room, like the main room, on the basis of viewpoint. So I don't think they have a lot of ways to go legally. And I don't even know if there is a deeper game here anymore.

8:26From the very beginning, we've been we've represented the pollster and seltzer out in Iowa who got a poll wrong about Trump back in 2024. And he's still, you know, going after her. So sometimes I think it's just we've got to smack him on the nose. It's this it's this kind of attitude that essentially you just have to figure out some logic to punish the press. I do wonder why, particularly this week. But I think he already knows he's going to lose in court. Well, I'll be curious to hear both of your takes as they actually respond as well. Ken, Greg, thank you both so much. You know, major TV networks are standing with CNN, refusing to fill in after Trump blocked CNN from taking its turn in the White House pool.

9:11So what can actually happen when there is no TV pool coverage of the president? Well, watch this.

9:20Okay, so there is no microphone because there's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there. So maybe, Tim, this is one example of it backfiring just a little bit. Obviously, the ramifications are right here. Can't hear what the president's saying. With me now, CNN political commentators for Michael Singleton, Democratic strategist Alencia Johnson, and former president of the White House Correspondents Association and senior contributor for Axios, Margaret Talib. I'm glad to have all of you guys here. Okay, first of all, I really don't understand the conversation about whether the president feels that his feelings are hurt or he's being attacked negatively or being at coverage.

9:59The First Amendment's pretty clear. And I've never known a constitutional basis or a winning court argument that says you hurt my feelings when it comes to excluding the press. What is the game plan here? Because obviously he knows the First Amendment. He's well aware. He knows what happened in the past. And for 50 years, there's been precedent, at the very least, on exclusion. Well, look, I think the president has already acknowledged that there isn't any legal standing. Hence, we're going to appeal before there is even a due process in the case at all, before it goes before a judge. That said, strategically, I think the president is at his best when he's going back and forth with members of the press, whether you like the engagements or not, particularly for his base.

10:40we're in the midst of a midterm where right now the focus should be trying to blunt potential losses for House Republicans, which we know history is against us. The president's approval numbers aren't doing that great. There's a string of victories for Democrats in a special election since last year. We know what the reality is likely to be after November. And so to me, as a strategist, I'm thinking every interaction you can have with members of the press, talk about immigration, the positive components of it, talk about these Trump accounts and how that will do great things for Americans who want to send their kids off to college or buy their first home in 18 years, from birth that is.

11:16Talk about no tax on tips. There are a handful of things that the president should constantly be reminding the American people about, things that he's accomplished. And then you go on and you say, we have more work to do here. It's not going to happen overnight. And then you try to contrast with your opponents by focusing explicitly on the DSA candidates and trying to paint a broad swat of all Democrats. But he's not doing that. Everything you said is helpful to have a microphone, a camera, a press who's covering it, a press that is giving that opportunity for the American people to receive those messages as well.

11:50And as you know, Margaret, I mean, five major TV networks declined White House pool duties in a show of solidarity with the organizations that have been banned from the White House, really in favor of the First Amendment they're holding solidarity with as well. But break down the significance of this. You were the president of the White House Correspondents Association. The idea that the press pool, the White House press pool, will be compromised in somewhere, that you have him even at a ribbon-cutting ceremony and there's no sound. Walk us through why this is so significant. The reason there is a press pool, this rotation that the networks share, and there's a separate print rotation, or digital rotation now, is because for two reasons.

12:30Number one, there simply isn't enough space in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, at the U.N. General Assembly, etc., for 500 reporters, 900 reporters to crash in there. And so they create a rotation of news organizations that have enough staffing and funding to be able to make the financial commitment to be in those places, to pay their own freight to be there, and to provide coverage that is shared by everybody else. And that benefits the American public. It benefits the news organizations that use the coverage. It also benefits every sitting president, whether they're a Republican or a Democrat, in good times and in bad times, because it gives them a distribution system for them to get their own messaging out.

13:10This is where things get a little bit nuanced. Tomorrow, we're going to see the president at the U.N. General Assembly. The U.N. General Assembly coverage of his speech will be carried on U.N. cameras. That is not a White House press pull situation. So I expect we will see that coverage tomorrow. it will be televised. This is not news organizations trying to black out coverage of the president. News organizations are trying to balance now their primary role, which is to inform the public against this decision not to just gratuitously roll tape and distribute on every single thing because it becomes a very slippery slope at that point.

13:50So again, I think tomorrow you will see the president's messaging from the UN General Assembly because that is not a pooled situation but all of the normal other stuff on the sidelines of the UN bilateral meetings with so-and-so he's been walking down a hallway him deciding he wants to gather everybody and say something that is the function of the pool and you won't see that and there won't be sound on that Alencia I mean talk to me from the standpoint of a strategist I mean you heard sure Michael describe what he wants Republicans to be focused on there will be some silence in what we cannot hear, aside from tomorrow, from the administration.

14:25But then there is an actual war happening. And now you have a media war the president has started. That is a self-inflicted wound if you're talking about the priorities that Republicans want them to be talking about. From a Democratic perspective, what are the consequences and the catalysts for Democrats to use this in a meaningful way? Yeah, you know, I think a lot of folks are thinking that this is sucking up a lot of oxygen. This is another one of Trump's tactics to have the media talking about something else. But where the base is now versus 2018, his first term, that midterms, they're actually tuning out because they are frustrated with the chaos when they can't afford gas or groceries or they can't find a job.

15:07And whether that's someone coming out of college or someone who has been in their career for decades. And so the issues that you're talking about, sure, Michael, the everyday voter and not just the Democratic base independents and even Republicans who are tired are thinking about this and this is actually giving Democrats more fuel to say look the Republicans actually can't lead on the issues that matter they're waging war on a press and actually trying to maybe hide some information from you or not actually answer the questions of why we're still in this war why things are so expensive why next year things will be even more expensive for college students folks who are trying to access health care.

15:47So as long as Democrats continue to keep this message around affordability and that these guys aren't working for you, this is actually really helpful for our case going into November, which is only a few weeks away, which is, I would ask the Republicans, what is actually the strategy for this at this moment? Well, two days from now, we'll hear what the strategy is in court about this, but we will continue to cover all the important stories that is not having the media at the center of the story. Stand by, everyone.

16:18We have breaking news tonight. There are no charges in the death of Nolan Wells. The district attorney just released the grand jury's conclusion. We've got the documents in hand, and we'll walk through all the new details next.

16:37Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. My guest is Lil Jon. He's a rapper, DJ, and producer known for hits like Get Low and Turn Down for What. In February 2026, his 27-year-old son Nathan went missing near Nathan's home in Georgia. Three days later, his body was found in a pond nearby. eye. Lil Jon has a memoir that just came out called I Only Shout So You Can Hear Me. It takes time to heal and I kept myself busy that I didn't let myself mourn. I needed to laugh again. I needed to be silly and interact with people and feel other people's energy and make people happy too.

17:22We have to share so other people can see that they can get through it too. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. You may have noticed gambling doesn't require a casino anymore. You can just open up your phone. It's designed to keep us coming back or maybe never even leaving in the first place. We're going to talk to Dr. Timothy Fong, co-director of UCLA's gambling studies program. You're going to learn what your brain is really chasing when you place a bet, and also importantly, how to keep the game from playing you.

18:03Gambling addiction, gambling disorder, is the hidden addiction. You can't smell it, you can't taste it, you can't see it, you can't have a urine drug test. Who are we talking about here, Professor? Who's the most likely demographic to be affected by this? Literally any single human on Earth. Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts. Breaking news and the death of Nolan Wells. A grand jury report just ruled there was no evidence of foul play and there will be no criminal charges filed. Wells died after going on a boating trip with his friends on the 4th of July in Mississippi.

18:38His death sparked all sorts of questions, some of which the grand jury's report tries to address. The report finds, quote, the position of the condition of time and of discovery and location of Mr. Wells's body is consistent with drowning. And in a video statement, the district attorney went even further and excoriated the family's attorney, Ben Crump, and others for spreading what she says were lies about the case. The family, the Crump team, and anyone close to Nolan knew that his disappearance and death were not the result of racial hate or violence. Yet the flames of that narrative set against the backdrop of Mississippi's terrible history were fanned by both people who knew the truth.

19:32Moments ago, Benjamin Crump released a statement saying, quote, quote, we don't know how Nolan died and neither does the state of Mississippi. Mississippi must keep investigating. And if it will not pursue this to the end, the Department of Justice should. I want to bring in former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg. And let me just first start by saying I've been reading through this grand jury report and seeing what was available to the grand jurors and what was not, including phone records provided by the family, the independent autopsy from their forensic pathologist and others, and just the number of jurors who were involved here.

20:16But I don't want to lose sight of what it must feel like for the family of Nolan Wells this evening as they are learning this information. There's also the grand jury reports that says that the GPS data confirmed the account of Nolan's friends. He didn't get in a fighter argument and he didn't have cocaine. And it's just something that had been said about this in the past. Will this, I doubt, but will this end the controversy surrounding this case, given that we still don't know how this appears to be a ruling out? Laura, good to be with you. I mean, this is an unspeakable tragedy, but tragedy is not necessarily a crime.

20:56I'm a former state attorney, and I see a DA here who actually did her job in the face of a lot of outside speculation and internet conspiracy theories. She conducted a lengthy investigation. She gave the families, lawyers, and their independent pathologists an opportunity to participate, and then she presented 43 witnesses to a diverse grand jury, and that grand jury unanimously found no basis for criminal charges. So we should always remain open to new evidence, but we can't accuse people of murder based on unanswered questions, speculations, or viral videos. So this, for now, means that the state's investigation is done unless there's new information that Ben Crump and others can provide.

21:36I don't think that DOJ is going to pick this up. And if DOJ did, what makes you think they're going to do a more thorough and fairer job than the local prosecutors here? You know, I think that's interesting you've said that in that way, because in many ways the Civil Rights Division was premised on the notion that they must be a backstop for cases when you have little confidence in the local authorities to govern or police what's happened there. We do know this perhaps stands distinct from that. But Crump did add in his statement that the grand jury report did not determine how Wells suffered a head injury.

22:11And, quote, to this date, not one person has explained how they got there. He says it does warrant further investigation. But let's talk about the grand jury process and what's presented to them. Does it strike you as particularly persuasive that there was an opportunity for the family's data, whether it relates to his phone or the independent pathologist and their forensic person being able to speak, even though they did confirm that there were some parts of his internal neck structure that was retained, they say, appropriately by the medical examiner. In layman's terms, break this down for our audience as to why statements like this would not raise suspicion.

22:59Well, first, the grand jury is not to find the answers in the case necessarily. It's just to find whether there was probable cause that a crime occurred. and they could not find a probable cause. And then you have Dr. Mitchell, who was the pathologist, the independent medical examiner, who was hired by the family and Ben Crump. And he also did not find that Nolan was murdered. He found no fractures. He found no deep tissue injuries. He did find some discoloration behind the head that he considered inconclusive and worthy of further investigation. And then, as you correctly said, there were some parts that were missing, organs and neck structures.

23:39But that's not unusual. And so the independent medical examiner cannot fully evaluate the lungs, airway, stomach or possible neck injuries. So there are some questions, but the grand jury had had had access to everything. And they still said we can't indict anyone. There's no evidence that there was a crime here. And also all the Internet theories about the friends of Nolan's, by all accounts, Nolan's friends loved him. There was no obvious racial animus out there. And so sadly, this really does look like an accidental drowning. Just so I can be clear from what you've said for our audience, it's not normal that somebody would have organs or parts of their body missing.

24:18In the autopsy procedure, transferring from one to another medical examination, there are often retained body parts in one and then normally handed over. But I have to tell you, one thing that's going to rub me the wrong way, and I've been thinking about it ever since I heard that tape of the DA. And to suggest that Nolan Wells' family, who is obviously grieving, obviously grieving, to suggest that they somehow knew the truth and chose to say something different, it's going to stick in my craw. I hope there is an added sensitivity to this family who is going through absolute hell, that their beloved son has died.

24:57And I think time and time again, I've interviewed them, I've spoken to others about this case. I think any villainization of anyone who loved Nolan in this context is wrong. I wish I knew what happened to the young man. I know his family does as well. Dave Ehrenberg, thank you so much. Thank you, Laura. Up next, Trump's proposed controversial arch, now supposedly set to house drones and even snipers. Will framing it as a military complex give him the right to build it? I'll ask one of the Vietnam veterans who has been fighting to stop it next.

25:39Forget just honoring the military. President Trump's proposed triumphal arch may play a critical role for the military. Now, the president says the arch will serve as a, quote, a top-grade military complex, and it will store drones, snipers, and ammo. This is a vastly different plan than the one Trump first announced. The White House has not provided more details, and apparently this was news to many within the administration, because sources tell CNN that they were surprised by Trump's weekend missive. If you're thinking to yourself, I've heard this national security explanation before, that's because you have.

26:19It's also how Trump is justifying building the White House ballroom. This will be the greatest military complex slash ballroom anywhere in the world. There won't be anything like it. Even the military, they can use it like that. And we have the ballroom is so much a military component with the drones and the bomb shelters and everything else that we have in there. I want to bring in two people who are fighting the arch. Vietnam veteran Sean Burns. He's one of four veterans suing Trump over it. And California Congressman Jared Huffman. He is the top Democrat on the National Natural Resources Committee, which is oversight over projects on federal land like the Arch.

26:59I'll begin with you, Congressman, if I may. Do you think there is a need for this or is this just Trump's way of building what he wants under the guise of national security? Well, thank you for having us, Laura. And I have no doubt that at the Pentagon right now, military officials are scrambling to try to find some rationale to make Trump look like there's validity to this claim. But you and I have seen this playbook enough to know he's just lying. He's lying the same way he lied about vandals at the reflecting pool, about the bunker at the White House ballroom and so many other things. So, no, there is no need, certainly no military need for this giant arch with which a few months ago he acknowledged in a candid moment was a tribute to himself.

27:52I want to ask you, Sean, because you are a Vietnam veteran and I want to thank you for your service. But I also want to note that you suffered burns over half of your body during a firefight. So, you know full well what sacrifice looks like and service. Does the idea that the arch could become a military complex, does that change your perception of it? Thank you for having me, Laura, and thanks for this opportunity. To briefly answer your question, an emphatic no. So I think to really cut to the chase, this is just another example of Trump's trying to build something massive to honor himself. It has nothing to do with national security or anything else.

28:46And bottom line, Laura, I think it's absurd and it's going to be a waste of taxpayers' money. You know, you brought for me today and just showed me, I'm just looking at some of the photographs of you in service and really remarkable to be holding in my hands just the evidence, if you lack a better word, of what it was like for you to serve at that time. And I can only imagine what it was like for you and your fellow soldiers. But can you just tell me when you think back to these moments of service and now put yourself in 2026, what do you think about this? That the president would be using it in this way or saying he's honoring the military, but using it in this way?

29:36Let me begin by saying I was very fortunate. I was flying. I was not an infantryman having to fight my way in the jungles or in trenches or in rice paddies. We were shot at, yes, we were rocketed regularly at the airbase in Da Nang. And some of those rockets came in pretty close to the bunkers. But my service was nothing like the service of Marines and Army paratroopers, the 82nd Airborne. and those guys out in the field were doing. So I think that needs to be said right up front. I'm a very lucky guy. And I appreciate you saying that and talking about what the experience was like for so many.

30:27Does that impact how you see the president's actions, knowing what it was like for so many people? Well,

30:39this gets into emotion and morality.

30:46I'm appalled at what he's doing, and particularly trying to erect a massive arch in the center of Washington to himself. You may recall, but I certainly do, that maybe a month ago he was asked by a newsman, what is this massive arch for? And his response was, for me. I quote, for me.

31:19Here was a man who dodged the draft, who's now trying to put up a monument to himself. He's forgotten the humility that American presidents have always had. Just a simple reminder, neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson nor Abraham Lincoln, who have iconic, beautiful memorials here, asked for those or directed that they be built. Trump has no humility. and no, I would say, no manners and no sense of history. Well, Congressman, I want to bring you in here because you are the top Democrat on the National Resources Committee, which has oversight on federal lands, and you have been vowing to use that power to investigate projects like the Arch if Democrats win back control of the House.

32:23What can your committee do to stop the arch that the courts cannot? Well, Sean, in a very powerful way, explained why this arch is an insult to veterans and their families. It's also an insult to Congress and the rule of law, because the Commemorative Works Act could not be more clear that in this parkland of the U.S. Capitol, a president can't just build something like this. You've got to go to Congress. You have to go through a very specific process laid out in a law passed with a bipartisan supermajority in the 1980s. Everybody's used that process and that law quite well since then. Dozens of projects, including new monuments like the World War II memorial, went through that process, were approved by Congress, and they're now built.

33:17Donald Trump doesn't want to play by those rules. He thinks he apparently is above the law. So we are in court with veterans like Sean. Senator Angus King and myself and some of our colleagues have been filing briefs in that court case. We're also using the limited oversight tools that we have in the minority. If we win a majority in Congress, though, it's a whole different ballgame. We have many more tools for holding Donald Trump accountable and making sure he complies with the law and doesn't just rush to build this thing, even though it's blatantly illegal. Thank you so much for your service and for both of your words this evening.

33:54Sean Burns, Congressman Huffman, thank you. Up next, the Trump-Mamdani meeting, part two. The president meets New York City's mayor on his home turf. And Trump's praise for Mamdani is just as surprising, perhaps, as the first time.

34:15And on 9-11, could anyone have imagined that Comrade Mondami would be the mayor of New York? In November, we have a clear choice. You can choose the 12 by 12 dilapidated government-owned housing and the crumbs of food that Mondami the commie is offering. When Mondani calls for open borders, he conveniently leaves out the fact that millions of people flooding into our country will result in lower wages. All right. OK, I know what you're thinking. Laura Coates, why are you running the Republican attacks on Mayor Zora Mondani from Trumpalooza earlier this month? Well, let me tell you why. because today the mayor, they spent a lot of time criticizing, and I do mean nonstop, met with President Trump in New York City.

35:09And you know what happened? We didn't hear any of that. In fact, Trump yet again seemed to have nothing but positive things to say. Trump told Mom Donnie, quote, so hopefully you're going to be a great one. I'll be able to say you're going to be a great one and you're off to a start. And later on, he said, quote, I want him to be a great marry. He's certainly got potential. Got great potential. So just how does Mom Donnie do it? How does he charm his fellow New Yorker to this degree? Well, lucky for us, our own Christiana Manpour got to ask him that very question. So I just want to know whether you have a trick, whether you have a sort of a way of dealing with him.

35:51What do you talk about of substance behind closed doors? Well, I think of the many differences of opinion the president and I have, we have one thing that brings us together, which is the love of New York City. And we are both New Yorkers. And what I focus on in those conversations with the president is how we can make life better for the people who call the city their home. All right, my panel is back with me. I mean, Schmeichel, is he the boogeyman or is he going to be the great mayor? Because there's a conflict of messaging now when it comes to the number one Republican and what they said about him at his Trumpalooza.

36:27Well, look, I wish we would continue to focus on the negatives that you've heard in that speech from all of those different speakers. That aside, though, we were talking about this during the break. I think the president looks at Mamdani as a disruptor. I remember the coverage at the time when people were saying there's no way this guy could win and become mayor of New York City. He was running against the former governor. Are you going to say he sees himself I think he sees a lot of similarities in Mom Donnie. Believe it or not, I mean, Mom Donnie and his political beliefs and philosophies are transforming the Democratic Party in real time.

37:01Donald Trump changed the Republican Party in real time. People said Trump couldn't win. They said Mom Donnie couldn't win. There are a lot of similarities and through lines to both of these gentlemen, and I think Trump sees them and says, yeah, I like this guy. And he's a winner. I think you like this answer, because if you're a Democrat, you're saying yourself, you know what, everyone, yes, I want you to think of Trump as Mom Donnie. Is that work? You know, it's so hard. I feel like you put me on the show all the time to agree with Sheryl Michael on national television and he's talking about what we talk about in the break room.

37:26But the reality is, I mean, he, he, if he wasn't so, not only, it's not necessarily just likable, he is bringing something aspirational for something else that we were talking about with like Gen Z and younger voters who don't like either party, but they're seeing what's happening in New York where this is a mayor who's saying, I'm going to work for you and actually do those things. And then the package that you show, the fact that in Dallas, as Republicans, we're supposed to be talking about these different elections they're supposed to be winning. They're worried about the mayor of New York.

38:01And so there is something that Mamdani is doing that is beyond just New York City. And I wish I was still living in New York City right now. He is influencing the national conversation, not just a national conversation about a politician and a government that can work for you, but he's actually showing how you can get it done. And, you know, I think the more that Trump cozies up with him, the better Democrats have for their messaging. They do both have something that they want to get out of the other one. And actually, in today's case, the one thing that Momdani had that Trump didn't have was a robust press pool with microphones as well as cameras rolling.

38:41And the president made sure to insert himself into that venue and stay there to get the coverage that he hadn't been able to get the rest of the day because of the standoff with the media over White House pool coverage. But on that point, I want to have you respond to that more. But on that point, I mean, he was also having to, in some ways, defend meeting with Trump. Mamdani was. And Amanpour asked about that very idea. Listen. Well, I think we've both said that we would be willing to have a conversation if it could benefit the people of the city. And to me, you can hold very disparate opinions and also be able to sit down because that is what this work demands of us.

39:19If I was only willing to speak with people who agreed with me all the time, I would be sitting at home looking in a mirror. That's the point. He is the mayor of New York City. He needs federal money and permission to accomplish spending that he's promised New Yorkers. And he also wants Trump to back off on ICE and some of the aggressive immigration tactics that are impacting New Yorkers. It would be malpractice for a mayor of a major city not to meet with the sitting president of the United States. The irony is the president and the party, you saw that in Dallas, messaging very aggressively about the idea that there are communists and socialists in Democratic Party positions.

40:00and the president is cutting off media access, which is not what Democratic leaders do. But I think this is a masterclass in how two people who don't like the other's policy beliefs and may not like the other one personally see power and access to audiences they want to reach in one another. And so it is mutually advantageous to have these sessions like what you saw. And not nasty, by the way. That's part of it. Go ahead. I mean, Laura, you have to govern. I don't agree with Mom Donnie, no surprise here on probably 99 % of the issues. But I have to recognize that this is a guy who is trying to deliver on the campaign promises to the constituents who voted for him and maybe even those who didn't support him.

40:42That is the goal of this very raw, aggressive thing that's difficult and confusing at times called politics. You have a campaign portion, and that's great. But once you're elected, you have to deliver on the results. And I think that's what the mayor is doing. And look, I'll just say this quickly. Even when Democrats were criticizing Nakeem Jeffries for his off-the-record, behind-the-scenes meeting with Kushner, I even defended him because I said, look, yeah, he has to hold people accountable. I get it. That's what Democrats want. But he also has to deliver once he becomes Speaker of the House.

41:13Yeah, and that's politics, right? Like, you have to actually work with elected officials at all levels of government. And also what is unspoken but also part of politics is that I can also still criticize you and hold you accountable. and yet I still have to work together and have this federal government and local city government partnership to get to some of these campaign commitments. Well then, I respond to this, Alencia. I don't want to cut you off. I want you to respond. I want your mind on this because the former DNC chair, Jamie Harrison, points out the unevenness and the responses and the hypocrisy.

41:45And he says, I'm just going to sit here and clock all the outrage. Sanders can appear at an event with Bannon. Momdani invites Trump to Gracie Manchin. But Jeffries meets with Kushner and folks lose their mind, guess he forgot to ask permission. A fair point in terms of how people view the optics for some and not others? Listen, I think it is a fair point. And what is unspoken about that is Leader Jeffries is a black leader, right? And if we want to think about the criticism that happens when it comes to some of our black elected officials, there's a microscope, right? And I think some of this too, unfortunately, with Leader Jeffries is that there are some disappointments with him and some of his leadership.

42:24I may not agree with all of them, but I understand that some people have certain disappointments with Leader Jeffries. That aside, he actually did have the conversation about how we have to work together. I have to talk to people who are in power. At least we know about Leader Jeffries meeting because there are a lot of people who had those meetings and we don't talk about them. And so I do think the criticism isn't actually even. If you're going to hold one accountable, you have to hold the other accountable as well. And we have to think about the conversations we're having when it comes to these leaders.

42:55We look at race and identity because that tends to sometimes be where people are, not speaking out loud, but where the criticism is coming from. Let me give you the final word on this, looking ahead, because you know, tomorrow we're going to see former Vice President Kamala Harris, who will be on the campaign show with Abdul al-Sayed, somebody who has often been a Republican boogeyman throughout the duration of this election for his Senate run. Do you think that given the state of affairs where you are in 40 something days from now, we haven't seen that much of Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.

43:29What is that telling you about how Democrats see their positioning? I think Syed wants to appeal to as many Democrats as possible and say, hey, ultimately, I may try to improve the institution, but I am not the figure that President Trump is painting to me. Ultimately, former Vice President Harris wants to remain relevant in the Democratic Party, and ultimately, overwhelmingly, voters are going to turn out on issues around affordability. We'll see what happens. Thank you so much, everyone. Great to have all of you here. Thank you all for watching. Alex Michelson, and the story is, is next.

44:13I'm Adi Cornish. I'm Ari Shapiro and it's Engagement Party. And we get to talk about what we're obsessed with, what we're engaged with, what we need to process with a friend. Her name is Amy O'Dell. She is a fashion writer blogger. But the thing is, she's a journalist who's written about the sacred cows of fashion. And yes, I mean, Gwyneth Paltrow and Anna Wintour. She has done biographies of both. And she is also the sort of rare fashion writer who, at this point, kind of outside the system. And so the question that we're going to try to tackle is... Is fashion terrible now? Well, no, I mean, I would phrase it as how do you develop a personal style in the age of AI slop?

44:51You know, on social media, like, creators have to try a whole bunch of different things and see what catches, and then they make it over and over and over again. The same thing happens with clothing. So they're sort of seeding the market, seeding the internet with all of these different ideas. And then they can see what sells and then they can just make them really fast. Follow Engagement Party. Wherever you get your podcasts.