>> as the two of them share that stage, the reverence that he has for chapman was unmistakable . the same really goes for the whole room, who gave them both a standing ovation. i'm pretty sure everyone who is watching at home did as well. it was a welcome return to the stage for chapman, was largely stayed away from the public eye. it was 35 years ago actually at the 1989 grammys she performed that song and took home an award. i should note luke combs was born just a year after that. her version of the song though has now rocketed back up to the top of the itunes chart tonight. so it's a great moment, everyone should go watch it if you have not seen the whole thing. i want to thank you so much for joining us on this bundy night. we have a busy night ahead, but

cnn news night with abby phillip starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ the border deal is breaking and donald trump is holding the hammer. that's tonight, a news night. ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm abby philip in new york. tonight, that sounds that you here is a deal meant across the crisis at the border dying on the vine. republican leadership tells cnn that they don't expect a vote on wednesday on that long negotiated national security package. it's a package that republicans said they wanted, so much so that they held up aid for other national security priorities, like ukraine, israel. but they did not want it, or at least they didn't until donald trump said he didn't. >> this is a democrat trap. it's a trap for republicans

that would be so stupid, so foolish to sign a bill like this. this bill can't be signed. and it's not only, that it's massive amounts of money going out of town, as we say, going out of town, billions and billions of dollars. one of the dumbest bill i've ever seen. >> now, the math, right, is now obvious, and so are the politics. the lead republican negotiator on this one is james lankford of oklahoma. he is a no doubt ruby red conservative. but daring to do something that the former president just doesn't like it is a surefire way to wind up on the business end of a trump insult. >> this bill is impossible to believe that someone actually negotiated it. and he's a very nice guy, james is a very nice guy. but this is not a good thing for him. >> let's start with cnn's daniel dale, who has a fact check, much needed, for us about what's in this bill. let's start, daniel, with the claims that this is a amnesty

bill. what's the truth here? >> reporter: yeah, you're seeing this all over social media from a variety of right- wing lawmakers and from right- wing commentators, like donald trump jr.. it just is not true, abby. this is maybe less a fact check lena plea forwards to have meaning. there is no amnesty in this bill. it does not provide legal status to any people, any undocumented people or people living illegally in this country. you don't have to take it from me, you can take it from policy experts like aaron right clint malik, who tweeted there is not one single line of amnesty in here. you can even take it from a fox news reporter here, cove immigration, very critical of president biden, says there's no amnesty in the. bill i'm sure will be pushed back to some on the right, it seems, any immigration bill that provides any permission for anyone to do anything is an amnesty bill, that i think words should have meeting, this is not amnesty legislation. >> yeah, words absolutely should have meeting. and for some, it doesn't. look, some republicans have also argued that there doesn't even

need to be a border bill, because the president already has all the power that he needs to close the border entirely. what are the facts on that one? >> reporter: on this one, abby, i don't think we should issue a firm true or false verdict. because the supreme court that can be unpredictable, that would render the judgment on whether a hypothetical border closure was unlawful or not. there is some degree for skepticism, and his contacts that former president trump's speaker johnson are mentioning when they claim that president biden already has the power to close the border. and it's this, president trump himself essentially tried it under current law in 2018. in 2018, president trump tried to execute an asylum ban, essentially ban asylum for anyone entering the country over the mexican border between ports of entry. and here's the key thing, it was quickly blocked by federal court. the ninth circuit quickly blocked it, and the supreme court declined to reverse the ninth circuit.

the supreme court voted five for not to lift the block. of course, we do have a different court today, it's a 6 to 3 court, rather than a 5 to 4 court. anything could happen in a hypothetical closure got their. but again, the claim that president biden can just do this now is a very best unproven. >> yeah. donald trump is also attacking the key republican negotiator, senator james lankford. we played a little bit of that earlier. he's making a claim about an endorsement specifically. what is happening here? >> yeah, so this was an interview former president trump did today with right-wing commentator dan bongino. listen to their exchange. >> president trump endorsed senator lankford. you know what? i can ask for endorsements all the time, and people like you down. >> just to correct the record, i did not endorsed senator lankford, i did not do it. he ran, and i did not endorse him. >> reporter: so this is a classic genre, abby, of donald trump lie. you know, somebody he's affiliated with, associated with, has hung out with, gets in some sort of trouble or is

taking political heat. all of a sudden, i don't know when, never met, barely spoke to him, barely had any contact, in this case, did not endorse him. as you can see right there on the screen, donald trump endorsed senator james lankford. this was september 2022, during the general election in the midterms. he issued what he calls a complete and total endorsement. and here's the key, he not only endorsed him, but said he is strong on the border in that very endorsement statement. >> wow. facts don't lie. daniel dale, thank you, appreciate it. >> reporter: thank you. and joining me now is center alex padilla of california. he is one of the sole two democrats in the senate who oppose this bill, at least publicly right now. he's criticized for failing to address lankford dreamer and calls it a failed trump-era immigration policy. senator, thank you for joining us right now on this very busy night, i'm sure, for you. i want to know as things are ongoing right now on capitol hill, what are you hearing about the prospects of this bill getting to a floor vote in the

next couple of days? >> thanks for having me, abby. and what i'm hearing on the capitol is a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, frankly, on both sides of the aisle about this package that after months and months of hearing might be on the table, hearing rumors about what was under consideration, we finally have language to review. and as you, said i do have my concerns, and as written, it's that i can support both for reasons of what's in the package, like trump europe policies of regular border closures, lack of due process, those sort of things. which we know just didn't work. the numbers don't lie. but also for what's not in the bill. you, know historic that we found some border enforcement proposals with legal pathways, for example, not a single dreamer her benefit will receive relief through this measure, not a single farmer or other essential worker will have relief in this measure.

so there is -- not like what's in it, and lots to be concerned about, what's lacking. >> and just the last few hours, you are meeting with members of the congressional hispanic caucus to hear from one of the chief negotiators to this proposal, senator chris murphy, your colleagues. what was the take away from that meeting? was he pitching this to you with any particular selling point in mind? >> keep in mind, the conversation started with a recognition of it was a nearly impossible assignment. so while there was some credit given to senator murphy for taking on the challenge of trying to broker a bipartisan deal, i think the political circumstances, really the political dynamics on the republican side of the country right now are not amenable to the package that is truly a solution to the challenge, one that would provide not just a more secure border, a more --

and a more humane border. so he was giving the overview of the deal that was released, and answering a lot of questions. i had to leave before it was over. but i think congressional hispanic caucus members have a lot of the same concerns that i've expressed, not just elements of what's in the bill, but what's lacking, and questions about process, not a single member of the hispanic caucus at the table during these negotiations, and beyond that, not a single border statement from democrats. so the whole negotiation was lacking the voice of the very representatives who's constituents, whose districts are most impacted by this. >> you as a senator and a border state senator at that, you have deep experience in this area. but the timing of this, the political timing of this suggests that this might be the only shot that there is at some kind of bill addressing the immigration problems that i think almost everyone acknowledges are reaching a

boiling point right now, not just at the border, but in american cities. are you concerned that at the end of all of this, nothing will get done this year on this issue? >> look, i am concerned. i've been concerned for the more than three years i've been a member of the united states. and i've made it clear since i first arrived that this was a top priority of mine, modernizing our immigration laws, our immigration system, because it is significantly -- >> but senator, if this is the only bill that is going anywhere, even potentially, it's not a choice between your ideal proposal, which i'm sure are more comprehensive, and this, it's a choice between this potentially and nothing. would you choose nothing over this? >> look, i think the choice is not just this versus nothing, the choices is something that's gonna help the situation or is this going to make the problem worse? if the trump administration experience of title 42 is any

indicated, this could create more chaos on the border, make the problem worse, not better. so the other question that you asked about timing, it's on republicans to decide when to get serious about this, that they can't have it both ways, abby. they can't say, for example, this is urgent, we need to act, and then say we need more, time let's wait to november, that's what donald trump wants them to do. they can't on the one hand say we need dhs secretary marcus in the room to craft a meaningful deal, on the other hand they say let's impeach secretary mayorkas. so the public and have to feature out if they're truly -- take advantage of this narrow window of time to do something soon. >> as you pointed, out donald trump as opposed to this. the house speaker mike johnson says it's dead on arrival. another high-ranking republican, senator john thune, they are suggesting that they may not support it. this could end right here, because republicans want it to. would democrats be giving them what they want by not moving

the ball forward in even a small measure on some kind of immigration bill? >> look, republicans are the reason we are here to begin with . the only reason we are where we are is because republicans insisted on saying aid to ukraine to changing what's happening at the border. we should never have been here to begin with. we should have advanced aid to ukraine a long time ago. but they wanted to engage in a border negotiation, if you will. and after months of participating in it, if they are walking away from it, again, the question is on them. when are they want to get serious? we know what solutions will wait, let's now go back to a trump playbook that was shown to fail. >> yeah, it is a question for the folks on the republican side who oppose it, would they that would actually fix what's going on at the border? senator alex padilla, i know that there's still much more to come on this issue. thank you for joining us with the latest

updates. >> thank you, abby. and next, donald trump makes his final pitch to the supreme court on why he should be kept on the ballot, someone who just changed his mind on this very issue joins me live. plus, a very public breakup is unfolding now in realtime as the head of the rnc gets a big push in the back. and a vague mysterious cancer diagnosis for king charles. what this means for his health, and also for the future of the royals.

tonight, a teaser about what donald trump plans to tell the supreme court. and at stake is his name staying on the ballot in november. the former president's lawyers appeared before the supreme's this week, and say they give us a sneak peek of sorts about how they plan to persuade the justices. now, it's a pretty on original argument that his lawyers have made over and over again. the people, not the people interested to uphold the law, should ultimately decide this. joining me tonight to talk through some of the supreme court's eventual decision- making and what it means for voters everywhere is washington post columnist ej dion and veteran journalist and longtime

fox news correspondent geraldo rivera. e.j., we wanted to have you on because you have interestingly here change your mind about this very question about whether donald trump should be taken off the ballot if he is the nominee. why did that happen? but >> when the colorado court ruled him off the ballot in last december, i was very skeptical. and my thinking man was the practical thing and probably the better thing for the long run i thought then was let the people decide this if they vote donald trump again, we will settle a very big issue in public life, and that's the sort of the road to stability. then they started looking at the plain language of the 14th amendment. the 14th amendment says that anyone who took an oath to uphold the constitution and supports, engages in insurrection or defending against it, or gives aid and comfort to those who do are ineligible to be president.

and then to hold any office in the government. and then i read the story and listen to lawyers and it's very clear that the section three is designed precisely to disqualify from the presidency someone who engaged in exactly the behavior donald trump did that trump effectively disqualified himself by what he did in run up to january 6th and on january 6th itself. and this is not a partisan view. in fact, i think the partisan view for democrats would be keep trump on the ballot. he is the weakest candidate. for me, this is sort of being true to the people who passed that amendment back in 1866 intended when they passed it. so i think he is plainly ineligible under section three. and that's what the court should say. >> so geraldo, that sounds like originalism to me. if the plain text of the 14th

amendment says what it says, shouldn't conservatives be the one saying, well, we've got to follow it? >> i totally disagree, with all due respect, e.j. was right when he first had the opinion that the courts should not have this ability to do the removal, the profoundly damaging to the 1.4 million people who voted for trump from colorado in 2020, denying them. you're killing democracy to save it. by what court has donald trump been found guilty of inciting a riot? by what court has he been guilty of inciting an insurrection. there is been no finding. he was tried in the house of representatives. they sent it to the senate, the senate tried him. he was acquitted of exactly what this insurrection incitement is. he was acquitted. there's been no finding. this is substituting -- this is

lawfare. this is substituting legal process for political gains, keeping him off the ballot because you are afraid, you can't beat him in a general election. i do not support donald trump. i think what donald trump did in the days leading up to january 6th and the riots of january 6th was appalling. that's why i turned my back on him. that does not mean the section three of the 14th amendment, which was designed for president jefferson davis of the confederacy and the other people who were truly in insurrection against the government of the united states should be banned from running for office. this does not mean a political candidate in this day and age. i think this is really absurd by a narrow sliver, 4 to 3 in the colorado supreme court. this is going to go to the supreme court of the united states, and i guarantee you, you can re-run this clip when it happens, the supreme court of the united states will find colorado did not have the right to take him off the ballot, for

goodness sake, the leading candidate, e.j. , is the leading candidate, by far he's the only candidate, essentially in the long run here . >> well, we'll play that clip. >> i don't understand why they're so afraid of donald. trump >> will play the clip back, geraldo. [laughter] if we have the opportunity. but e.j., you respond to that. >> i want to make a prediction. i think the supreme court is going to punt two. we'll see what they do. but it's good that geraldo mentioned jefferson davis, because jefferson davis was never convicted of anything. it was assumed that this was self in forcing. and all of the confederates who were barred from office actually applied for amnesty. so they accepted that this section applied to them. and i think it's very important also to note that some to rule him

out does not require any action by congress or another court. and by the way, i am not saying that colorado should be able to do this and alabama should be able to do something else. i think the court should take this very seriously and tell us very clearly it's view, does this amendment, does this part of the amendment for somebody who did what donald trump did from office? either it does, in which case he should not be on any ballot, or does not, in which case he should be eligible for every ballot. but this is about protecting the constitution and democracy. that's the paradox here. i get the argument, because i thought this was true myself that democracy as put trump on the ballot. if you've got someone who tried to overthrew the constitutional system, people who wrote the 14th amendment said you don't let somebody else do that the next time. and the last point

is -- >> e.j. -- >> eligibility. i can't quote a brilliant 34 year old for president, because the constitution wouldn't let me. >> go ahead, geraldo. >> do you -- as one of the leading columnist for the washington post, compare the actions of president jefferson davis of the confederacy to donald trump, the presidential candidate and former president? i cannot believe that. 600,000 people died. it wasn't an insurrection by every measure. it was one of the bloodiest conflicts ever. it tore this country in shreds. donald trump is a lot of bad things, and i said in the beginning of this, i do not support him because of the bad things. but he has not been found guilty of insurrection in any court. and what you are trying to do is prevent the voters from choosing who they want to be president. it is the ponderance is the --

absolutely under mine the democratic process and say -- try to save it -- fruitless effort. >> e.j., we got to go. but it is going to respond to that question that was posed to you by geraldo there. >> no, i think that -- i'm not trying to deprive him of the right to run for president. he did this to himself by -- >> what are you comparing him to jefferson davis? >> -- started the civil war because they didn't accept the result of a free election in 1860. and the insurrection is to where they -- they wanted to keep slavery, for goodness sake. listen to yourself. they started the civil war because they wanted to keep slaves. that's what -- the whole thing was -- >> the result of lincoln 's election because they knew that slavery was -- >> this is a bunch of liberal intellectuals trying to say they're smarter than everyone

else. >> no! >> and trying to deny the american people what the republican voters of colorado the opportunity to vote for a guy i don't support, but they support, 1.4 million of them. and then if the columnist in the washington post of the new york times or laurence tribe or any other liberal, progressive, left pundit, come on, guys. beat him fair and square. >> we will have to be back when this will get resolved by the courts, and we will have you both back. and i will play your clip, geraldo, and i'll play your clip, e.j., whichever one is the cracked one on this one. >> please. >> we appreciate the discussion and the debate on the air tonight. thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> you're welcome, thank you. and ahead, buckingham palace is announcing that king charles has been diagnosed with a form of cancer. i will speak with a boil water and a doctor about what we know and a lot that we don't know

about his illness. plus what does loyalty mean to someone like donald trump? i will take a look what it means for the head of the rnc, that is next

donald trump's loyalty is a lonely one way street to a dead and called the sack. he demands it and he gets it from most republicans. >> i think the president has the most support among the voters other publican party than any president in history. >> reporter: four years ago, president trump started a movement like any other. >> the actions of this president show that he is a moral leader. >> a man who has residence for the office of the presidency, a man with an incredible respect for law enforcement and our military. >> but rarely is it returned in kind. tonight, we have learned that trump did meet with longtime rnc chair ronna mcdaniel at mar-a- lago as he publicly flights knowing her under the bus. >> i think she did okay initially in the rnc.

i would say right now that would probably be some changes made. >> well, mcdaniel has been the target of maga after a series of election year losses and the worst fundraising year in a decade. a reminder, mcdaniel was differential to trump for years now. she reportedly stop using the romney in her name because trump didn't like that her uncle wasn't a fan. and speaking of, one senator mitt romney wrote an op-ed slamming trump's leadership, not only did mcdaniel choose sides, but she cited her uncle as a, quote, incoming republican freshman who did a -- disappointing thing. there's also the alabama senate race featuring roy moore, who -- multiple allegations from women of sexual misconduct, some of who were teenagers. >> the allegations were very concerning, and concerning to the degree that we pulled our

resources. the alabama voters hard on how to be the judge and jury on this . >> but just a week later, at the behest of trump, mcdaniel and the rnc totally reversed course, pouring resources back into that race. when it comes to debates, since trump famously plays chicken with them, trump quit the commission on bipartisan debates, which have been hosting general election matchup for more than three decades.

the election and that's fair, but i don't think you want fairly. >> it's not just the tv hits, but daniel joined trump on a call urging them not to certify the results in wayne county, but actions like that -- when it comes to january 6th, the rnc is censure, the two republicans working on the congressional committee investigating it. adam kinzinger and liz cheney. the language also refers to the insurrectionists, quote, ordinary engaged in legitimate political discourse. more recently, even though trump had only won two contests, the first and only two, by the way, the rnc drafted a resolution that would declare him the presumptive nominee in the first months of voting. publicly, at least, trump asked them to strap it. joining me now is a former

chief strategist for the obama campaign, david axelrod. david, what do you make of all of that? do you think that mcdaniel is out of a job effectively at the rnc? is it a tell that she had to go down to mar-a-lago in the first place? >> yeah, absolutely. i don't think the president said what he said idly on tv. listen, there are certain grounds on which you would, say it, maybe they do need a new chair. they did have a miserable midterm election. but the reason they had a miserable midterm election is because donald trump saddle them with a bunch of candidates who couldn't win a general election. so, he at least has to share some of the responsibility for that. but, clearly, you know, she has been the target of some of trump's outside cheerleaders. the bands of the world for sometime, and i think that she is, and he is clearly irritated that this primary season has gone on longer than he hoped. so i think that is something

that he is holding against her, as well. >> the thing, is it's hard to argue that mcdaniel, we played all the clips, it's hard to argue that she hasn't been oil. so what exactly is he so upset about? it's not the idea that suddenly the republicans have been losing because they did what he wanted them to do? >> no. listen, as i said, she is, she was loyal to a fault. more oil then don't trump then she goes to the republican party and the republican party has suffered under trump's leadership. the midterm elections being an example of that. but, listen, abby, the landscape is littered with former allies of trump who are cast aside. he is not a guy who places loyalty high on his list of concerns. so, if she is outlived her usefulness, as he thinks she apparently has, she is in jeopardy. it is not saying, just months

before the election, that they would make such a change. but nothing it's particularly odd in trump world, you know? >> you can't really rule anything out because of any quirks in the calendar, frankly, when it comes to trump. so, standby for us, i want to ask you whether you think it is smart for president biden to skip that super bowl interview. plus, why is a fired fox news host, tucker carlson, suddenly in russia? when we get back.

we are back now with david axelrod. david, i want you to listen to what donald trump told newsmax earlier tonight about joe biden. >> he gives up a free opportunity to speak to every american at the super bowl. every person watches. how do you give that up? >> i don't know, but i accepted it.

i said i'll take your place. >> we should note here that trump, in, selfless kept his traditional super bowl interview in 2018 because he didn't like the network it was on. but, putting that aside, what do you think about the decision on the biden camp, now, to give up the super bowl interview on this election year? was it the right one? >> i was bewildered by it, honestly. you know, there are 20 million people who watched that super bowl pregame show. i mean, the state of the union last year only drew 7 million. yes, you are going to get challenging questions about polls and age and so on, but you're going to get those questions along the way. this is an opportunity, you know you're going to get them, to handle them and turn them. this week, in particular, it would've been good to be on that show because this was the week that donald trump pulled the republicans in congress away from a bipartisan agreement on immigration that

was the toughest immigration reform we have seen in decades, including, by the way, the four years of donald trump. so, biden had something to talk about their. i really don't know why they didn't accept it, but it plays into trump's hands because his case is that, somehow, biden is overmatched, that he is not in command. and this just lends to t narrative. i am surprised that he's passing on the opportunity. >> before you go, david, i've got an easy assignment for you. please unpack the russian nesting doll that is tucker carlson possibly interviewing vladimir putin? >> yeah, well, when i first heard that he was there i assumed he was there to get an award because they're probably isn't an american who's done more for vladimir putin in the last couple of years and tucker carlson. he has sided with russia on the invasion, he was consistently

berating vladimir zelenskyy and lifting up putin. so, that is how he got the interview and putin is expecting a friendly interview. putin actually, order of the kremlin, did state tv to cover talker and to carry some of tucker's comments because they viewed them as so help hold putin in this war effort. so i am sure that they will have a warm session, whether it is an award or a, i guess the interview would be his award. >> the meeting of the mutual admiration society. david axelrod, thank you so much, as always. >> you bet. next for us, king charles diagnosed with cancer. our experts will explain what is next for the royal family.

alarming news. today, out of britain, king charles a diagnosed with cancer. buckingham palace is issuing the statement saying, quote, during the king's recent hospital procedure for a benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted. subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer. the palace, going on to say, that the 75-year-old king will step back from public facing duties while he undergoes treatment. for more on this i want to bring in vanity fair staff writer aaron -- along with

aaron komoroski, the regional director of the northwell health center and institute at west chester. doctor komoroski, this fact that we have learned, not a lot in that statement, but some clues there. he went in for an actual procedure and in the course of that they discovered something else. what kinds of diagnostic tests or procedures could they have been doing that might have caused that them to find another form of cancer? >> so the usual pre surgical testing in this kind of diagnostic of benign prostate -- so an overgrown prostate gland includes blood work, i just x-ray, and imaging of the pelvic area with an mri that will define the size of the prostate gland. >> in the course of those things they might visually seem something in the blood work, or seen it in the tests? >> they might find something the blood work. he may have been endemic, or they might find something on the chest x-ray like a lung

nodule, or something on the imaging of the pelvis. enlarging of the lymph nodes or something in the bone, like bone must acids, or something in the blood. in addition, when he had the test done, remember, when he underwent the procedure, part of his prostate gland was basically removed and analyzed under the microscope. this may yield an additional diagnosis. >> that's very interesting. aaron, they're saying that king charles is stepping back from his duties. how significant is that for the royal family? >> so he's stepping back from his public duties but one of the main duties of being a king is that he actually has his delivery of government papers in a red box every day. so he's going to continue to get his red box of government papers, with a lot of the things that he has to do involves signing bills and various ordinances, he is going to keep on meeting with rishi sunak every single week and continue chairing members of

the privy, or meetings of the privy council. but, in terms of the kind of things like going out and shaking hands, opening things, the more that with queen elizabeth used to say, you have to be seen to be believed, you are gonna be seeing a lot less of him even if he is still doing the main parts of the job. >> doctor, or left looking for crimes here. the statement was intentionally vague. i wonder, as you hear what aaron is saying, are there any things that strike you about what we might be learning about how severe this condition is or anything like that, based on the fact that they believe that he can't conduct his public facing duties during this time? >> we don't really want to speculate because there is such a broad diagnosis, a possibility of diagnosis with all of the work that he had done. and, you know, i think, given the fact that he is a 75-year- old gentlemen and will be undergoing some kind of therapy, either surgery or chemotherapy or radiation therapy, this is probably a time for him to have more time

to rest and not be exposed to a potential risk of infection. >> that's an important point, as well. so, erin, the royal family is in the middle of this very public, familial dispute. at the center of it is prince harry. we're also learning that he plans to travel to the uk with this diagnosis. how surprising is that, and are you hearing anything about what that signals for harry? >> so harry is one of five people that the king told. his siblings and then prince william. you know, like we saw last year, when he was back in the uk for the coronation, he didn't stay for long. he didn't hang out. he didn't have fun. but, you know, they have been, harry has not been in a lot of contact with his family since the release of the memoir, but for birthdays and that type of thing they have been in contact and so i think, harry is kind of a telegraphing that he still wants to be a part of the

family, even if he is no longer a working royal in that sense. >> this is not the only health concern facing the royal family. the duchess of cambridge, kate middleton, was hospitalized very recently for a pretty lengthy period of time. any more insights across the pond for how she is doing and what's next for her in this condition? >> you know, one of the things that has been reported in british papers is that she is working from her computer and that william was going to wait until she was settled before he would go back to his duties, and he's actually starting his first engagement, it's going to be invested her on wednesday. i think it's significant that they announced william is going back because there are certain things that only prince william and only princess anne can do in king charles's stead. so, by william coming out and saying i'm willing to go back, we are hearing that that is that the most we are going to get about kate's health for a while. she's not expected to come back

until easter. but, at least we are down to so few working royals, prince william is the only one under 50 who has a full-time working royal since kate is out. you can tell that there has been some progress made because he's willing to do that. he said he wanted to be 100% of his family just couple a weeks ago, so clearly this is his way of doing that. >> that is such an interesting point. all of these health problems really just emphasizing that the royal families down to just a few people who are working royals and a few who are younger in age here. well, we hope for the best for king charles and for all of the rest of them. erin vanderhoof and dr. anna komorowski, thank you both very much for joining us tonight. and thank you for watching news night. laura coates starts next.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice

and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message.

the dirty little secret about immigration, well it's not so secret anymore. tonight on laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ so, if there is any doubt in anybody's mind, republicans on the hill have made it crystal clear tonight. they really, really don't, apparently, want to solve immigration. not now, not today, anyway. by cnn's count, a majority of republicans in the senate are leading against the border bill, or actively planning to vote a big old know in the very first vote on the deal, which is scheduled to happen this