“A cascade of pardons”

Summary

Deadline: White House — "A Cascade of Pardons"

Host: Rachel Maddow (in for Nicolle Wallace)
Date: December 8, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the unprecedented surge in presidential pardons issued by Donald Trump in his second term, with particular focus on high-profile drug traffickers, the seeming contradiction of current drug policies, and the broader implications for executive power, rule of law, and government accountability. The discussion is anchored by Rachel Maddow alongside guests Claire McCaskill (former Senator), Andrew Weissmann (former DOJ official), Mike Schmidt (New York Times), and Margaret Donovan (former Army Captain and attorney). The episode also covers related concerns over Trump’s control of federal agencies, the erosion of expertise in government, and the controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Caribbean boat strikes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. The Avalanche of Pardons & Selective Clemency

• Trump's Second-Term Pardons

  • Trump has issued more than 1,500 pardons — an exponential increase over previous administrations (01:06–04:10).
  • The list includes notorious drug traffickers and even individuals indicted by his own Justice Department.
  • Example: Juan Orlando Hernandez, ex-president of Honduras, convicted for cartel drug trafficking, was pardoned against ongoing harsh enforcement against low-level traffickers.

• Policy Contradictions in Drug Enforcement

  • While Trump pardons major traffickers, his administration carries out violent crackdowns on low-level dealers and redistributes DEA resources to immigration, which undermines claims of seriousness on drug policy.
  • Quote:
    "This is...asked backwards in terms of how this is being approached. You have them freeing a major drug dealer...yet we are bombing and killing suspected, low-level drug dealers." — Pete Hegseth (04:53)

• Public and Political Reaction

  • Even some Republicans are questioning the pardons; those on Sunday shows awkwardly dodge or deflect questions.
  • Quote:
    "Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?" — Andrew Weissmann
    "I'm not familiar with the facts or circumstances..." — GOP guest (07:13–07:30)
  • The act of attacking questioners instead of answering is noted as a hallmark of losing an argument.

• Abuse of the Pardon Power

  • The panel discusses the constitutional pardon power: not illegal, but deeply bad policy (09:00–10:15).
  • Concerns that massive pardons erode the rule of law and foster impression of lawlessness.
  • Ro Khanna and others raise the possibility of abolishing or limiting the presidential pardon power (10:41–11:15).

II. The Process — or Lack Thereof

• Access, Influence, and Monetization

  • Pardons are being distributed not via a transparent, merit-based process, but rather through access to Trump and his inner circle, even creating a lobbying industry.
  • Quote:
    "It's about access...It's clear that it's all about access, and can you get to the President of the United States through the people around him who are monetizing the ability to deliver clemency?" — Andrew Weissmann (12:20–13:52)
  • Lobbyists have made over $2.1 million advocating for pardons in 2025, more than double the previous year (13:52).

• Performative Governance

  • Pardons are "invisible" and happen behind closed doors, whereas military strikes are public and serve as theater (14:28–16:31).
  • Quote:
    "Everyone sees the boats getting blown up and it makes Hexa feel like he's a real man. ...And then finally, the pardons, you can't see those. Those are invisible to anybody but the guy who's being flattered by everyone coming to him..." — Claire McCaskill (14:28)

• Lack of Meaningful Criteria or Review

  • Previous presidents required rigorous review; now the system is bypassed, exposing it to grift.

III. Executive Power, Rule of Law, and Institutional Degradation

• Pardons Undermining DOJ and Justice

  • Trump not only pardons those prosecuted by the DOJ, but occasionally those prosecuted by his own appointees.
  • Creates perception that executive power supersedes accountability and enshrines lawlessness.

• Historical Context and Founders’ Intent

  • The panel draws analogies to monarchy, with concerns Trump is wielding unchecked power the founders specifically fought to prevent (25:33–27:00).
  • Quote:
    "The founders didn’t want a king...what they’re doing is they’re making this guy a king. That’s not what the law says and certainly not what the Constitution says.” — Claire McCaskill (24:00–25:33)

• Supreme Court and Agency Control

  • Supreme Court poised to further expand presidential powers, possibly allowing Trump to replace agency experts with loyalists (22:20–23:48).
  • Erosion of civil service protections could devastate areas such as medical research (26:32–28:29).

IV. The Pete Hegseth/Boat Strike Scandal

• Conflicting Messages & Accountability

  • Pressure mounts on Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth over deadly Caribbean strikes and refusal to release footage.
  • Trump contradicted himself on tape about whether to release the second-strike video, first supporting transparency, then backtracking (33:05–34:27).

• Attacks on the Press

  • Trump resorts to personal insults against female journalists when pressed on uncomfortable facts (36:00–39:24).
  • Quote:
    "We're either going to normalize this and usher in an era of unprecedented misogyny, or that press corps is going to act as one and say no more.” — Rachel Maddow (39:24)

• Calls for Leadership and Honesty

  • Margaret Donovan stresses the gravity, noting the need for transparency and leadership for the sake of those in uniform (36:01–37:39; 42:30–43:46).

V. Political Fallout and the State of Republican Resistance

• GOP Handwringing, Inaction

  • Republican senators now equivocal on Hegseth confirmation but few voice calls for removal, driven by fear of Trump's base and gerrymandered districts (43:46–46:01).
  • McCaskill critiques the GOP for enabling extremism, with primary voters controlling outcomes due to redistricting.

• Broader Threats to Rule of Law and Stability

  • The episode closes with a warning about the compounded risks of poor leadership, unchecked power, and the politicization of nonpartisan institutions (46:01–47:01).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Pardon Madness:
  "Trump has issued a cascade of pardons since he’s been back in office...More than 1,500 pardons from Donald Trump since he was inaugurated a second time.” — Rachel Maddow (03:30)

• On Drug Policy Contradictions:
  "Don’t tell me you’re serious about counteracting the drug problem...when you’re freeing major drug dealers and going after small fry.” — Pete Hegseth (05:55)

• On Pardons as Grift:
  "The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage industry...individuals seeking pardons have paid up to a million dollars to hire people close to the president.” — Rachel Maddow (13:52)

• On Trump’s Quid Pro Quo:
  "Only a short time after signing the pardon, Congressman Henry Culler announced that he will be running for Congress again...Such a lack of all caps loyalty. Something that Texas voters and Henry’s daughters will not like. Oh well, next time, no more Mr. Nice Guy.” — Trump via Maddow (17:20)

• On attacks on female journalists:
  "He thinks he can get away with lying if he attacks the person who’s pointing out that he’s lying...That’s what they’re normalizing.” — Claire McCaskill (39:24)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:06–04:10: Maddow’s introduction—Trump's pardons, examples, and contrast with drug war policies.
• 04:53–06:46: Hegseth's critique of inconsistent drug policy and performative enforcement.
• 09:00–11:15: Panel discusses abuse of the pardon power and calls to abolish or constrain it.
• 12:18–14:28: How access and money determine pardons under Trump.
• 17:20–17:51: Trump’s quid pro quo and reactions to pardonees not showing "loyalty."
• 22:20–23:32: Discussion of Supreme Court’s move to strengthen presidential power over independent agencies.
• 33:05–34:27: Trump’s contradictory statements about releasing boat strike video.
• 36:01–37:39: Margaret Donovan on need for transparency, leadership, and honor in military affairs.
• 39:24: Maddow’s monologue on the normalization of misogynistic attacks on female journalists.
• 43:46–46:01: Discussion of why GOP senators fail to break with Trump/Hegseth despite cascading failures.

---

Flow & Tone

Rachel Maddow’s tone is sharp and incredulous, consistently highlighting contradictions between rhetoric and action, centering institutional guardrails, and urging accountability. The guests blend expertise and exasperation, offering historical context, policy analysis, and appeals for the restoration of balanced governance. The episode’s structure moves from specific instances of abuse (pardons, boat strike scandal) to a broader exploration of how unaccountable power undermines American government and the public’s trust.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

• Hear detailed analysis of Trump’s explosive use of pardons—who benefited, why it matters, and how it fits into a broader pattern of undermining accountability.
• Understand bipartisan and institutional concerns about the erosion of rule of law, transparency, and nonpartisan expertise across government.
• Reflect on real-time media–government interactions, especially the normalization of misogynistic attacks on journalists.
• Get informed perspectives on the dangers these trends pose to national security, democracy, and public trust—with direct, unvarnished commentary from a range of experienced voices.

Transcript

[Pete Hegseth]

Bob Evans. Creamy Mac and cheese and buttery mashed potatoes are made for the moments you can't plan, like last minute school costumes, glitter explosions, or when little Liam brings three friends for dinner. No plan, no problem. Say hello to plan B O B from Bob Evans, because when you bring out the Bob, you can take comfort in knowing you'll always have something delicious on the table, no matter what the day brings. When you need comfort, bring out the bob. Available now in your refrigerated section.

[Claire McCaskill]

More than 90 years after Harry and.

[Rachel Maddow]

David started selling pears from their Oregon orchard, we still hand pick and pack every one of our Royal Riviera pears.

[Margaret Donovan]

What makes these pears so special?

[Rachel Maddow]

Is it the single golden pear in every box that's a joy to unwrap?

[Claire McCaskill]

Or maybe it's that very first bite.

[Rachel Maddow]

As buttery, juicy, smooth and rich as you remember. Get a taste of the best handpicked holiday gifts and get 20% off site wide at haryanddavid.com, promo code PEAR20. That's harryanddavid.com, code PAIR20.

Hi there everybody. It's four o' clock in New York. It's pop quiz time. Don't worry, this one's easy. Try to think about what the following people have in common. First, Ross Ulbricht, sentenced to life in prison 10 years ago for building what was at the time the single largest digital black market for illegal drugs and other illicit items. Then there's Larry Hoover, Chicago gang boss convicted in 1997 of conspiracy, extortion and money laundering. Third name is Garnett Gilbert Smith. He's a Baltimore drug kingpin found guilty of charges related to distributing cocaine. And finally, this one's really easy. It's been in the news lately. Juan Orlando Hernandez, a former Honduran president. He was convicted just last year in a drug trafficking case that suggested he he had helped cartels move some 400 tons of cocaine through his so called narco state of a country. All of it bound for the United States and our citizens. Now, what these men have in common, if you didn't guess it already, other than very serious drug related charges, is that every one of them was pardoned by Donald Trump just since he's been president the second time. And if you're wondering, wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. The Trump administration is right now under unapologetic and its seemingly extrajudicial killings of suspected drug smugglers at sea, all of it ostensibly in the name of reducing the flow of illegal drugs to US Citizens in our cities and towns. Well, then you're onto them. None of it makes sense. None of it adds up. And laid out in vivid new detail by the Washington Post today in an extraordinary new piece of reporting. Of course, Trump's drug related pardons barely scratched the surface of the pardon story. He has issued a cascade of pardons since he's been back in office. Consider first the assembled resumes of presidential administrations since the turn of the century. The number of pardons, even during Donald Trump's first term all fluctuate around the 100 to 200 pardon range. Those figures pale in comparison to what Trump has done this time. More than 1,500 pardons from Donald Trump since he was inaugurated a second time. And not all of them are drug traffickers like the four we told you about. For instance, Donald Trump pardoned the former chief executive of an entertainment venue company. This person was indicted by Trump's own Department of justice this year on a federal conspiracy charge. He issued that pardon last week. And it goes without saying that the power of clemency and authority afforded to a president by our Constitution used to be a sacred and unique power in our country. But Trump's use of the pardon power begs the question, is this what it was intended to do? And does it still make sense? So we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. New York Times investigative reporter Mike Schmidt is here. Also joining us, political analyst former Senator Claire McCaskill's here. And former top official at the Department of Justice, our legal analyst Andrew Weissman is here. Andrew Weissman, let me just start with you and take the four drug pardons because they have Republicans who book themselves onto Sunday shows saying who what? I've never heard of that guy Trump pardoned. I think one of the world's most prolific sort of state drug traffickers. And one of the crowning achievements of the Department of Justice was bringing him to trial and proving the case to a jury and getting him out of the drug business. Trump pardoned him for literally in the same Newsweek that they were trying to defend their policy of a second strike against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

[Pete Hegseth]

So as somebody who used to be in law enforcement, this is. So the technical term would be asked backwards in terms of how this is being approached. So you have them freeing a major drug dealer, a major convicted drug dealer. We talked about how he was found by the judge to have run an organization that brought 400 tons, that's over £800,000 of cocaine. And at the level where it could be cut to over a billion, a billion with a B doses so that person is freed. Yet we are bombing and killing low, suspected, low level drug dealers. And so that's our drug policy. We're taking DEA agents off of their task of fighting drugs and putting them onto immigration. That's a fine policy choice. But don't tell me you're serious about counteracting the drug problem when you're freeing major drug dealers and going after small fry. Going after boats in the Caribbean is not how you stop drugs coming into this country. You think little boats in the Caribbean is how our drugs are getting in? I mean, there are cargo containers, there are all sorts of ways that massive amounts of drugs are brought into this country or manufactured here in the case of fentanyl. So the idea that this is a serious policy is just performative when you're seeing all signs that this is just not a serious way of counteracting what is a real problem in this country having to do with drugs coming into the country and being used by people.

[Rachel Maddow]

I think we're beyond anyone debating that the pursuit of illegal drugs is noble. I think everybody stipulates that. And I think we're at the point in this story where even Republicans are questioning are asking the same kinds of questions that you're asking, except for the ones for some reason that book themselves onto the Sunday shows. Let me show you this interview with George Stephanopoulos.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?

[Rachel Maddow]

I'm not familiar with the facts or.

[Pete Hegseth]

Circumstances, but I think what's telling here.

[Rachel Maddow]

Is to try to imply that somehow.

[Pete Hegseth]

President Trump is soft on drug smuggling is just ridiculous. It's totally ridiculous.

[Andrew Weissmann]

What do you mean you're not familiar with the facts and circumstances of the pardon? It's been well reported all across the country. As the former president of Honduras, he was convicted of conspiring to bring in 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Also guns and other materials. It's been front page news across the country. Aren't you curious about that?

[Rachel Maddow]

Well, I'm curious about your pushback on that particular point with your previous guest.

[Pete Hegseth]

You had zero pushback because he's giving the Democrat talking points like you spew.

[Rachel Maddow]

Every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad.

[Andrew Weissmann]

The pardon of the convicted drug smuggler.

[Pete Hegseth]

Or not, George, like I said, what.

[Rachel Maddow]

We'Re talking about here are the narco terrorists poisoning Americans.

[Pete Hegseth]

This, this attempt to try to focus on a pardon is classic because you've.

[Rachel Maddow]

Lost the debate now on the narco Terrorist question.

I'm not familiar with that individual, but this was indiscernible for me from like a South park or an SNL skit. The debate about narcotics, terrorism is raging in Congress right now. And there's a move to make public a video that shows a second strike. And I think these questions, I mean, the presidential pardon powers in the Constitution, no one's debating that, although Ro Khanna actually is suggesting we should have a national debate about that. But I wonder what you make of these pardons that reach into Trump's own super Trumpy Justice Department and undermine cases that they've prosecuted, like the one last week.

[Pete Hegseth]

Well, first, let me just say sort of a telling sign that somebody is losing a debate is when they just go ahead and attack the person who is asking the question. Attacking the media is a fail safe, but it doesn't actually answer anything. Both things could be true. The media could be doing a bad job on something and you still aren't answering the question. With respect to the pardon power, I think this is a really good example where people need to separate in their head something that is unlawful and something that is just really, really bad policy. So the President has this sort of incredible pardon power. It is. But we are able to judge as citizens how it is being used, even though it is not illegal, as we talked about, it is being used to free the big fish. And yet they're saying they're serious about drugs.

In terms of the Department of Justice. Just think about it this way. You have with the James Comey and Letitia James case, the President of the United States being able to decide who is getting prosecuted. With the Tom Homans case, you have the president being able to decide who is not being investigated.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah.

[Pete Hegseth]

And yet he also has one more power. He can actually, with respect to everyone else who has been charged and convicted federally, including even from, as you pointed out, Nicole, his own Department of Justice, he can also free them. So it is completely eradicating the rule of law. To quote one conservative jurist, it is the path to complete lawlessness.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah. I want to show you Mike Schmidt, Ro Khanna actually suggesting we should have a debate as a country about this presidential pardon power.

My own view, and I'm discussing this with other members of Congress, is that.

[Andrew Weissmann]

We need to abolish the pardon power for the president.

[Pete Hegseth]

It's archaic.

[Andrew Weissmann]

It's a vestige of the monarchy, and.

[Pete Hegseth]

It'S something that Trump is abusing to the maximum degree.

[Rachel Maddow]

It was an abuse with Representative Cuerr. And I say this as someone who's.

[Pete Hegseth]

Worked with Representative Cuerr.

[Andrew Weissmann]

The president shouldn't be pardoning in these cases.

[Rachel Maddow]

Now, I don't know if his colleagues on either side of the aisle agree with that, but if there is debate, you could put up, you know, six categories, really, of pardon abuses, and one of them is a story you've been reporting on since the first Trump presidency, and it's someone who represents the threat of physical violence to his own family. Jonathan Braun.

[Pete Hegseth]

Yeah.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Dating back to the end of the first administration, Trump had commuted the sentence of a man who had a violent history, who seemed to have no regard for the rule of law and was not a normal candidate for a partner, and after he got out, proceeded to get arrested more than five times on a range of different sexual and physical assault allegations. And it showed me a few different things. And one of them was that Trump's pardon power can't actually necessarily always protect those who he pardons, because Jonathan Braun is back in prison now, like others who have received pardons and commutations from Trump.

[Rachel Maddow]

How do you get on Trump's radar? Had someone like that.

[Andrew Weissmann]

He had a link to the Kushner family that his family was able to exploit, and Alan Dershowitz wrote him a letter, and that got before Trump. And that looks like sort of the playbook of what's going on here. It's just a little scattershot in terms of all the different types of folks that are receiving this. In the. The Braun reporting, I tried to go back and understand, like, why is it that we get, you know, that people become so outraged by the pardons and commutations? Pardons and commutations are supposed to be you in the eyes of, you know, 200 years of American legal history. For the downtrodden, for those people who really paid the price or have circumstances around what happened to them. That means that, like, you know, the average person would look at it and say, you know what? This person should be cut. Cut a break. When presidents go to use their clemency powers, they're supposed to do it thoughtfully, because what they're trying to do is ensure the notion that. That we're all treated equally under the law, that we're going to be treated the same no matter what. So, like, in the Obama administration, they did all these studies and they went back to figure out if all these folks that have been convicted on drug convictions should receive clemency. And it was a whole process to it for them to try and show, okay, we're trying to treat everyone the same. The Trump process is the complete opposite of it. It's clear that it's all about access and it's not even necessarily all about political affiliation. It's about the access. And can you get to the President of the United States through the people around him who are monetizing. Monetizing the ability to deliver clemency?

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, I mean, Claire, there's always a grift angle and the pardon story is no exception. Let me read you this. The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage industry. The Washington Post previously reported public disclosures show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this year on firms that advocate for Paris pardons, clemency and other forms of executive relief. More than double the total spent in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking pardons have paid up to a million dollars to hire people close to the President to plead their case.

[Claire McCaskill]

Yeah, I mean, first, Andrew's point is so well taken that this is such incompetent policy because he's trying to say that these low level mules are somehow going to, by killing them, it's going to stop the flow of drugs. And meanwhile he letting loose people who have literally killed multiples of people. With drugs being brought into this country, thousands and thousands of deaths are at the feet of the people he's pardoned. But the other point here is one that Mike made, which is very important. What they're doing here is the boat's getting blown up. People can see it. It's a video, it's performative. Everyone sees the boats getting blown up and it makes Hexa feel like he's a real man. And it makes Trump feel like, oh, everybody can see I'm really getting things done. And he's banking on the fact that people aren't gonna think it through. They aren't gonna really think through. Well, what does this really mean? Drug trafficking's not an act of war, it's a crime in the United States. It's not an act of war. And then finally the pardons, you can't see those. Those are invisible to anybody but the guy who's being flattered by everyone coming to him going, only you can do this, sir. You are the only one who has the power. Which talk about catnip to a guy like Donald Trump. And if the people could see what they're doing, what is going on with this? Buying access to Trump and getting pardons for 1500 people in less than a year. I mean, that is a real revolving door of people coming in. I mean, that Pardon attorney. That guy needs to be called in front of Congress. And let's hope that the Democrats take the House next year and they can put him under oath. Because I'd love to see, I think the American people would love to see a movie on what's going on behind closed doors with all these pardons because I guarantee you it is ugly.

[Rachel Maddow]

It's so interesting though, Claire, because in normal times it is a front page scandal because it is a volume business. To your point, 1500, you just, I checked that number four times. How could he part of 1500 people? How can that be Right? But they do come through at such a clip on the same days as other things are, you know, burning. Let me read you, you know, Donald Trump's quid pro quo is showing. Let me read you his response to Congressman Henry Culler announcing he's going to run for Congress as a Democrat. Trump. Trump just said this on social media, quote, only a short time after signing the pardon, Congressman Henry Culler announced that he will be running for Congress again in the great state of Texas, a state where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded as a Democrat continuing to work for the same radical left scum inexplicably capitalized just weeks before, wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in prison and probably still do, exclamation point. Such a lack of all caps loyalty. Something that Texas voters and Henry's daughters will not like. Oh, well, next time, no more Mr. Nice Guy. I don't even know what that means. But obviously Trump, in his own telling, didn't get the reaction from the pardon he granted in this instance. Claire?

[Claire McCaskill]

Yeah, it sounds like to me that maybe his daughters were working for this pardon and they were rushed to tell him how much they loved him and how he was wonderful and how he was great. And he must have taken from that that their father was going to turn on the Democratic Party and become a loyal Trump supporter. And when that didn't happen, then all of a sudden the quid pro quo wasn't so great. But it also shows you how loosey goosey this whole thing is. I mean, I remember I had a man who was a minister and who had been activ community who I thought deserved a look. And getting through the process of getting a pardon in previous presidents was a very steep mountain to climb. I mean, it was very, very difficult. And it was never about who you knew. Now it's all about who you know. It's all about who you know, not about what you did. Or any policy. I mean, he could care less about drugs coming to this country or he wouldn't be pardoning all these big drug kingpins that are really to get behind bars.

[Rachel Maddow]

The, the obliteration of the process. I remember being something that Jared Kushner took hold of, took the reins of in the first term, isn't that right?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Well, this is one of the reasons that actually back in the first term, Don McGahn figures out he has to leave. It wasn't all, it wasn't all the stuff about that that Mueller writes about that really scared McGahn. It was Kushner trying to take over the clemency process from the White House counsel and then one of the Kardashians coming into the Oval Office to try and secure clemency for someone who had been convicted of a drug crime and had gotten into the Oval Office in a way that basically had circumvented the system. It was those things that made Don McGahn feel the most uneasy. It wasn't the obstruction of justice allegations and stuff like that. It was the clemency that as a lawyer, there's.

[Rachel Maddow]

But do you think it was corrupted or pay for play or, I mean.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I don't want to put words and thoughts in Don McGahn's whatever, but this is the reason that Don McGahn basically was like, enough is enough. I have to get out of here. And this was a guy who was trying to stay in the administration as long as possible because he wanted to remake the federal judiciary into a bunch of, you know, Alitos or, you know, Gorsuches.

[Rachel Maddow]

All right, no one's going anywhere. We have much more to tell you about in this category of Donald Trump's abuse of his power. Still ahead for us as bipartisan calls continue for the release of the video of that second deadly strike in the Caribbean, it seems Donald Trump can't remember what he said about the release just last week. We'll show it to you later in the broadcast. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking out about what Republicans say about Donald Trump. Behind Donald Trump's back. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after quick break. Don't go anywhere.

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info and more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry. With lifelong LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com SpecialOffer Terms Apply Ms. Now.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Presents Season 2 of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading.

[Rachel Maddow]

Democrats about how they plan to win.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who.

[Rachel Maddow]

Chairs the Progressive Caucus Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki Season 2.

[Rachel Maddow]

All episodes available now.

And just because we're talking about absolute presidential powers, like the power to pardon, we wanted to tell you about this story too. Today, the United States Supreme Court appears poised to expand presidential elections powers by giving Donald Trump more control because he needs more control over independent agencies. Here's how one liberal justice describe what could be the fallout of that.

[Claire McCaskill]

Independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts. That Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have. So having a president come in and.

[Rachel Maddow]

Fire all the scientists and the doctors.

[Claire McCaskill]

And the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

[Rachel Maddow]

Claire, to me, the interesting thing about that legal analysis is that the political analysis syncs up exactly. And oftentimes the political fallout is a lagging indicator to the legal and constitutional fallout. But in this instance, Donald Trump is harmed amid his own voters by doing every wackadoo thing he wants to do with tariffs and whatnot and destabilizing the economy.

It is absolutely creating the greatest and gravest political deadweight on him. This war on expertise is what he wants to consolidate power, but it is not what he needs to rescue his plummeting political fate.

[Claire McCaskill]

Yeah, loyalists are not going to help his numbers with independent voters. And that's where he is sinking like a big giant block of cement in a shallow pond. Independent voters are, are really frankly losing their patience with Donald Trump and some of his shenanigans. And here's the thing about this Supreme Court argument, and Andrew may want to weigh in on this, but I remember when conservative folks would get nominated, my first two years I was in the Senate, President Bush was in office. And so I had the opportunity to, you know, learn about people who were nominated who were very conservative, had very conservative values. And typically that's about not making law. It's about interpreting the law Very carefully and being very rigid about staying true to the words as they are written and the legislative intent this court is, its legacy is going to be that Trump enabled. It enabled a president to take unprecedented power and engage in all kinds of reckless behavior without any chance of accountability. I mean, if Roberts thinks he has some legacy, that's going to be talked about in the future other than what they're doing for Donald Trump, this isn't some academic exercise in what the founders really meant. The founders didn't want a king. The founders fought hard, do not have a king. And what they're doing is they're making this guy a king. And that's not what the law says and certainly not what the Constitution says.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, I mean, Andrew, I know you have an aversion to political questions, but I'll take a stab at it. I mean, the court seems to agree that their standing in the public is at risk and they don't face voters, but they. They are telling us in every way public people can express themselves by complaining bitterly, by maligning the press, by refusing to be transparent, by refusing to have any ethics code that parallels anything any other federal judge has to abide by. They know that, at least according to Gallup, their sort of acceptance and approval rating among the public is as low as it's ever been since Gallup has been asking the questions. And yet they seem to want to do everything in the vein of immunity and helping Donald Trump with his political project, which is to consolidate power.

[Pete Hegseth]

So there's a legal aspect, and there's the real consequence that Claire talked about. Legally, this is what's so just unbelievable about what they're doing. Congress has created these agencies that the executive then oversees. And Congress, in creating them, has put in very few restrictions. They have reporting requirements. You can't fire people without a reason. That's not a big deal. You can still fire people. You have to actually have good cause. So Congress is spending and has the power to spend, and they can create these agencies, and they have conditions. And now you have the Supreme Court saying for the first time, no, we're actually going to say Congress actually can't have those conditions. And what that means is civil service rules will be gone. But let me give you sort of a classic example. Let's just take RFK Jr getting rid of scientists, real scientists. And then you read about what's happening there. It is the eradication of what my father used to call, who was a scientist. The 20th century was sort of the century of American modern medicine. It was it was the thing that the rest of the world looked up to and that is being thrown away because you have a court that is saying that RFK Jr. And Donald Trump can just get rid of people for no reason. And to be clear, against Congress saying there has to be a reason, there has to be good cause. So you have a legal component, but you have real harm, of which science is just one. It's sort of a long term thing, as Claire said. It's not something that you see. It's not an explosion of a boat in the Caribbean. But I have to tell you, that is going to lead to more deaths than anything that we have talked about, the eradication of science in this country.

[Rachel Maddow]

Mike, some of it seems to be a product of Trump never seeing himself as he is. He is now the head of state. He is now in charge of the government. It is now only his fault if the FBI can't catch the bad guys. It is now only his fault. Fault if the economy falters. It is now only his fault if a pandemic can't be contained because he got rid of everybody else and has only the people he picked. It seems like someone in there is failing to tell him that he benefits from some of these smart people being in the government he leads.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I mean, to me, it's the most fascinating political question, which is that that they came out of the gate hot. They had a running start and they did a lot of stuff, stuff that we've never seen before. And they, and he and his administration operated in ways that we'd never seen. What are the ramifications of that going to be? They basically hollowed out the government and they did it with intent, as hard as they could, you know, to the great lengths that they could. Are there going to be any ramifications for that? How is that going to, you know, is the story of the second year going to be okay? They did all this extraordinary stuff in the first year that's like highly unusual, like anything we've ever, ever seen. And does it come home to roost for them and are there consequences to them? Because I would think, just as watching it, that they are doing a lot of risky political things by doing this. Like, can you be in charge of the federal government at the same time that you're making it harder for the federal government to do its work, you're destroying it. It's just a basic sort of question of what's going on. And it's something we have to see to the point about the medicine and about the, the 20th century of American medicine. If you talk to the folks at Harvard, they would say that the cuts that they have had is all about that issue. It's all about whether the federal government's funding of research is going to be able to continue and are they going to be able to stop that. And Harvard hasn't been able to articulate that themselves, but that is what the issue.

[Rachel Maddow]

So then how are they still at the table trying to do a deal with someone that, as Andrew just said, is doing more damage to science?

[Andrew Weissmann]

And, well, one person I talked to in the, in the Harvard world said to me there's less of an argument to do a deal for Harvard today because in the future is the administration just going to cut research funding altogether to higher education?

[Rachel Maddow]

Right. Right. And they're weaker now than they were when the whole thing started. Mike? Andrew, thank you so much for being part of this. Claire, we need you to stick around a little bit longer after the break. He's seen enough. Another Republican saying he is done with Pete Hegseth. As the former FOX Weekend morning show anchor battles multiple controversies, there is no longer credibility atop the Defense Department, according to yet another Republican. We'll show that to you next.

[Pete Hegseth]

The US Military deployed on the streets of America, whole communities targeted for removal.

[Margaret Donovan]

There was tremendous, tremendous anxiety as they.

[Claire McCaskill]

Saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the.

[Pete Hegseth]

Burn order to cover it all up.

[Rachel Maddow]

I never believed that America would be.

[Claire McCaskill]

Doing this, a stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order.

[Pete Hegseth]

Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Rachel Maddow]

There are more bipartisan calls for the removal of Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense. Here is Republican Congressman Don B. Taken, saying he's seen all he needs to see after Signalgate.

[Pete Hegseth]

I think I've seen enough.

[Rachel Maddow]

What I really wanted to see was someone take responsibility, own up to a mistake. And then when he blamed the media or the journalist for the story, it just, it ruined his credibility. And he had some issues going into the hearings. But once he got confirmed, I said, well, let's give him a fair chance. But what I've seen is what I call.

Just poor decision making.

There are more calls for the Pentagon to release the full footage from the September 2nd boat strikes in the Caribbean, including the highly controversial second strike, which killed two shipwrecked sailors who survived the first strike. Just a handful of congressional lawmakers have seen the footage of that second boat strike. Pete Hegseth was asked about whether or not he's willing to make the video public over the weekend. Here was his response to the question.

[Pete Hegseth]

President Trump said he would have no.

[Claire McCaskill]

Problem if the full video of the strike is released.

[Rachel Maddow]

When can we see that video? When will you release it?

[Andrew Weissmann]

We're reviewing it right now to make sure. Sources, methods. I mean, it's an ongoing operation.

[Rachel Maddow]

Ttps.

[Andrew Weissmann]

We've got operators out there doing this right now. So whatever we were to decide to release, we'd have to be very responsible about.

[Rachel Maddow]

You heard the reporters say that Trump would have no problem releasing the video of the second strike. That's because that's what Trump said out loud. And just to remind all of you, here's Trump saying just that.

You released video of that first boat.

[Claire McCaskill]

Strike on September 2, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike.

[Rachel Maddow]

So that the American people can see for themselves? I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release no problem.

Just last week, whatever they have, we'd certainly release it no problem. That's a quote. Well, in the last hour, Donald Trump, the guy who just said that we played it for you, quote, that would be no problem. Releasing the video of the second strike, was confronted with what he said not one week ago. And here's how he reacted when pressed on his commitment to his own words to release the video. Mr. President, you said you would have.

[Claire McCaskill]

No problem with releasing the full video.

[Rachel Maddow]

Of that strike on September 2nd off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegstad.

You said that.

[Pete Hegseth]

I didn't say that.

[Rachel Maddow]

This is ABC fake news. You said that you would have no problem releasing the full bit. Okay, well, Secretary Hegseth. Whatever Hegseth wants to do is okay with.

[Claire McCaskill]

He now says it's under review. Are you ordering the secretary to release that full video?

[Pete Hegseth]

Whatever he decides is okay with me. So every boat we knock out of.

[Andrew Weissmann]

The water, every boat we save, 25,000American lives. That was a boat loaded up with drugs.

[Pete Hegseth]

I saw the video admitting to releasing the full video.

[Rachel Maddow]

Didn't I just tell you that? You said that it was up to Secretary Hex. Noxious reporter in the whole place.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious.

[Pete Hegseth]

A terrible. Actually, a terrible reporter.

[Rachel Maddow]

And it's always the same thing with you.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I told you, whatever Pete Hegseth wants.

[Rachel Maddow]

To do is okay with me.

So I want to bring into our coverage former Captain Margaret Donovan. She was a captain in the army, serving in the 101st Airborne Division and later in 5th Special Forces Group. She was also captain of the JAG Corps and is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. She's now a visiting lecturer at Yale Law. Claire is still with us. I don't want to zoom past what just happened because I don't ever want it to be normal. I have a daughter, I have a son. And it should never be normal that the leader of the free world, well, two things should never be normal. Let's hit pause. Pause. One, Donald Trump is the commander in chief and he doesn't remember what he said about releasing the video the Second Strike four days ago. So if I said something on TV today that was the opposite or didn't remember what I said on Thursday, I know the names of the right wing bloggers who would be asking the question, does she forget or did she misspeak? And it's a fair question. Did he forget or did he misspeak? What do you think?

[Margaret Donovan]

I could not pretend to know what is going on in the President's mind, but I will say this. We need transparency. When you have a Secretary of Defense who is backing into a corner and pointing at the other guy, when there is a scandal like this, when there is a very serious situation that requires stability and sobriety and calm headed thinking in an emergency like what the nation is going through right now with this boat strike, you cannot have a lack of leadership like Secretary Hexseth and his chain of command above him have displayed. So I think that the only way that the public is going to have answers and to be able to understand this is if we have a release of the strike. And it pains me to say that, and I know that you knew this, but I used to work airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Those are not enjoyable videos. But you cannot use these videos for content on your social media feed for months and now suddenly say that there are some guardrails that you have to adhere to before you can release it. I think you just have to bear responsibility for your decisions and we're not seeing that here. And to your point, you know the Secretary of Defense, this might be one of the most important cabinet decisions in my personal opinion. It is the most important cabinet position and we cannot have our sons and daughters serving in uniform right now. To somebody who does not take responsibility, who goes back on his word, who.

You know is unclear about directions, whether it's the president or the secretary and who isn't going to be transparent with something as serious as this.

[Rachel Maddow]

Clara, the second thing I wanted to hit pause on with both of you is in never normalize is the verbal violence the verbal assault on another female journalist. He called ABC's Rachel Scott today, quote, obnoxious and terrible. December 6th, he called Kaitlan Collins, quote, stupid and nasty. On November 27th, he said, are you stupid? To CBS journalist Nancy Cordes. On November 26, he called the New York Times Katie Rogers, quote, ugly. On November 18, he called ABC's Mary Bruce terrible and insubordinate. To whom, I'm not sure. November 14, he told a Bloomberg reporter, quote, quiet, piggy, this is sick. Shit. This is sick. And anyone in the room is in the room to do a job for their viewers or their readers, but they should go home tonight and think about whether their sisters or their daughters or their moms or their sons or their husbands or their fathers think that there's something else they should do the next time he calls a female journalist obnoxious, terrible, stupid, nasty, stupid, ugly, terrible, insubordinate, or piggy. Because maybe if Donald Trump can't live without being on TV and maybe if they said, you know what, we're going to have some solidarity, like they did with him wanting to change the names of oceans. I mean, either going to normalize this, and then you're going to hear all sorts of prominent people calling women all sorts of names. I'm sure by the time I get off tv, I'll have a few of those myself. But we're either going to normalize this and usher in an era of unprecedented misogyny, or that press corps is going to act as one and say no more.

[Claire McCaskill]

Yeah, and you know he does it when he gets caught in a lie. And I think the captain was being, as I would expect, measured and calm and strong in the way she answered your question. Did he just forget or did he misspeak? No, he lied. And he lies so often, that is what has become normal. He thinks he can get away with lying if he attacks the person who's pointing out that he's lying. And Eric Schmidt, the senator from Missouri, you showed in a clip earlier in the program where when he was confronted with a difficult question, he attacked George Stephanopoulos. You saw Marjorie Taylor Greene do the same thing on 60 Minutes when she was asked a tough question. They are teaching young people that if you get a question you don't like, that will hold you accountable. You either lie or you attack the person asking the question. That's what they're normalizing. And it's very, very sad for people who are supposed to be mentors and role models in terms of how you serve the public. And I gotta Tell you, the idea that they used all this footage as a social media video game for the guy who says we're trying to make him into a cartoon. Well, he is kind of a cartoon. He's an insecure man, and he thinks he needs social media to prop him up. He's using all that video for them to now say they can't show the second strike because of sources and methods. Are you kidding me? You showed all the video. You've shown it all. Anybody who's running a boat through their nose. So this notion that they're using this excuse on the second video. You know why they're not showing that second video?

[Rachel Maddow]

They're showing the second video because they.

[Claire McCaskill]

Don'T want you to see it because it is ugly.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah. They're not showing the second video because it shows what Congressman Jim Himes and others have been.

[Claire McCaskill]

Exactly.

[Rachel Maddow]

I want to come back to both of you on this line being drawn around Hegseth now as opposed to the line that could have or should have been drawn around him as a nominee to be the Secretary of Defense. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll have that conversation on the other side.

If you were to take the confirmation.

[Claire McCaskill]

Vote again today, would you vote to make Pete Hexseth Defense Secretary?

[Andrew Weissmann]

That's a question I can't answer without.

[Pete Hegseth]

As much thoughtful research as I did.

[Andrew Weissmann]

The first time I did that vote.

[Rachel Maddow]

I think you might now you have evidence, not research.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah, but, you know.

[Rachel Maddow]

This is a question I can't answer or I won't. That was Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah. Margaret, what does it mean to the men and women of the military to hear such equivocation? They don't have time to equivocate. When Pete Hagg said tells him what to do or issues in order. Look.

[Margaret Donovan]

This is what you get. And from that confirmation hearing all those months ago, you knew what you were getting. The Senate that voted for him. He is somebody who has supported people convicted of war crimes. He is somebody with too many character flaws and a lack of leadership to even. Not even worth listing on this broadcast. And this is what you get. And our military deserves better. Pete Hegseth is not a serious person. And when you look at what's going on right now, we have the very first strike of this legally questionable operation. And it is, as we would say in the military, a cluster. It is a total disaster, strategically and politically and legally. And this is what you get when you have somebody like Pete Hegseth in charge of the Defense Department. And Our military deserve better. I would just urge lawmakers who have an opportunity to protect the public and to represent the citizens of this country. There is time to change. You can course correct. But look at where we are now and we're not even at land operations. Ask yourself before you go to sleep at night, do you want this man leading our country in war? Because I don't think anybody in uniform does. And I think many people out of uniform do not as well.

[Rachel Maddow]

Claire, why isn't there the ability to break the fever with Trump as we talked about earlier, at 36% and falling Hegseth less popular than that he had bipartisan opposition and confirmation and sitting Republican United States senators can't or won't say that they would vote for him again. Why isn't this a break glass moment?

[Claire McCaskill]

It's really interesting because what's happening here is for those senators that are from states where independent voters matter, it is a question I have why they are not speaking out. Because if enough of them did, frankly, if only a handful of them did, I think he'd be gone. But for Republicans who worry about primaries Trump, his popularity is calcified and stubborn within the people who voted for him. It's almost like they don't want to admit that maybe they made a mistake. So they're going to defend him no matter what the base. I mean, his popularity has not gone down with the people who decide Republican primaries. And back to our previous segment. We have a Supreme Court that's now said it's okay to gerrymander for partisan reasons. So now we have a green flag. You can draw districts just to favor one political party. And when you do that, then primaries take on an outsized power in our system and no one is motivated to find compromise or middle ground. And frankly, it just promotes the kind of extremism you're seeing right now in the Republican Party. So I gotta tell you, in the House, I get it more because those districts are so gerrymandered for people that are in states like McCormick in Pennsylvania or the senators from a senator from North Carolina, Thom Tillis, he's leaving. What about Susan Collins? What about this Dan Sullivan in Alaska? He's on the Armed Services Committee. These folks are the ones. I don't understand why they're not spe. Because it is a break glass moment. We're in trouble with this guy. He is incompetent.

[Rachel Maddow]

Margaret, what is the best way to sort of honor the men and women of the military and how we talk about and cover the second strike?

[Margaret Donovan]

I think that we should give them the leadership that they deserve, first of all. And when we talk about the second strike, we should be asking ourselves, why are we putting our service members in these scenarios where they are in unprecedented operations not supported by the law? Let's not put them in these scenarios. Scenarios. Let's not put them in a position where every single strike is going to be criticized because nobody knows what we're doing out there in the first place. Let's put somebody with experience and with leadership, with character and honor. Those are qualities, by the way, that Secretary Hugseth never mentions in any of his speeches. Talks about lethality, talks about strength and force, does not mention honor, integrity or character. That is the leader that our service members deserve and we should be doing everything we can to give them that.

[Rachel Maddow]

Talks about haircuts and weight as well. Captain Margaret Donovan, thank you so much for joining us today. Claire McCaskill, thank you for spending the hour with us after the break. For us, the MAGA coalition now held together by fear. That's not us saying it. That's outgoing ex MAGA Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Talk about that interview and deadline. White House continues after a quick break.

[Margaret Donovan]

Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning.

[Claire McCaskill]

Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world.

[Rachel Maddow]

Learn more at Ms. Now.