Maya Wiley (5:22)

Absolutely. When we saw it with Target, with protesters protesting Target for pulling back on its diversity, equity, inclusion policies and watched a CEO fall. And we're seeing it here. I think it matters. Your point about Sinclair nexstar matters.

Chuck Todd (5:38)

Right.

Maya Wiley (5:39)

That we have too much conglomeration in media and that means a lot of people live in media bubbles and don't get full access to a lot of choices and more free flowing information. We saw that with the attack on public television and public stations that are important in so many rural communities that don't have a lot of access to different forms of information. The fact though that it happened is important because we've seen much too much capitulation by corporations who know better as a matter of principle but are not being good corporate citizens. And so to know that people will boycott, to know that there is a line which shouldn't be crossed and to know that there will be consequences does. And like all of these things, it just continues to lay bare what people need to know and understand, which is it is a problem when the government starts to say, as Joe Rogan pointed out, we like who we like and if we don't like you and we don't like what you say, we will try to destroy you as a government that is supposed to be here supporting a free market system that's not so free.

Chuck Todd (6:51)

Yeah, I mean, Angela, I came in with Joe Rogan because I do think that one of the only friction points for the Trump White House is its own coalition. Megyn Kelly came out and attacked Donald Trump for his plans to roll into Chicago, said she would side with J.B. pritzker. And again, I don't know if that's causal, but he hasn't rolled the military into Chicago. There's aggressive ice activity there. I wonder what you make of two things. One, I know that a lot of what Brendan Carr is doing is stuff that you previewed for me and for our viewers because it's written down in the pages of Project 2025. But Ted Cruz and Joe Rogan seem truly shocked by this. Explain that dynamic.

Angelo Carusone (7:38)

Yeah, I mean, look, it's important to note a few things. One, as you noted, they seem surprised. Surprised enough that they were willing to say something and felt like they needed to say something. And that's because for Ro, for Cruz too, this is what they've been saying for a while, free speech. Right. And it's hard to, you know, it's worth keeping in mind that Ted Cruz is not only a political figure, he himself is also a podcaster and you know, has a show that He. He does. And a part of it is the. This is a theme and a narrative that goes through both of their programs. So what they were doing was planting a flag around free speech. What I think is really notable, though, about each of their appeals is that if you look at what they both said, yeah, they said, hey, this is not a good thing. But the focus of their argument was actually designed as best as possible to reduce as much blowback as they would get from their audiences or potential Trump supporters and try to persuade, and by that, I mean think what they were saying. They didn't say, this is wrong and we should never do this. They didn't try to appeal to some higher ideal about free speech principles. Yeah, they said it's bad, we shouldn't do it. But the thrust of their argument was it's going to come back and get you, and that's why you should oppose it. What they were trying to do wasn't just to plant the flag, but to move as much of Trump's people or the people that are supporting this as possible. And that's the real key here, because they're not just saying something to say, they're trying to operationalize that idea. The concern I have a little bit, although I wish they did more, was that, and this is where it gets into the larger car stuff, and the Project 2025 stuff, is that this fight isn't over. Nexstar today, as you noted, isn't going to broadcast these things. And that's really what the FCC had leverage over from the beginning, because they themselves are trying to do a merger that's going to require FCC approval. And so they're going to try to stay in car's good graces. And in a way, they are now going to become a tool and an instrument of the fcc, of the Trump administration. So that's the thing that I don't know, that Rogan and others are going to continue to push on. And that's where the narrative comes in. We really have to make sure that that doesn't get lost here, that those entities are still, in many respects, functioning as avatars for the administration's free speech crackdown.

Chuck Todd (9:49)

Sam I want to show you something Seth Meyers said about speech. Just keeping up with this fleeting moment, it feels, where there is some bipartisan consensus about the value to our society, specifically of the First Amendment and free speech.

Donald Trump (10:09)

Again, when somebody is given 97% of the stories are bad about a person, that's no longer free speech.

Stephen Colbert (10:18)

No, that is free speech. That's like the Whole point of free speech that it's protected even when you don't like it. You think I liked it when I hosted the White House Correspondence dinner back in 2011, and one reviewer said in my performance, quote, he had marbles in his mouth. And that reviewer turned out to be Donald Trump. No, I didn't like it. Also, yes, comedy shows make jokes about the president. You know why? Because he's the president. He's the most powerful, most famous person on the planet. And in this particular case, he's a billionaire and his party controls everything. We make jokes about politicians and people in the news, including Joe Biden. It was just harder with Joe Biden because he didn't say much. You, on the other hand, talk all the time. You never stopped talking. You didn't stop talking when he was president. You've talked more than all the other presidents combined.

Angelo Carusone (11:02)

Ever.

Stephen Colbert (11:02)

People say Johnny Carson didn't make this many jokes about politics, but he would have if every time he spoke, Ronald Reagan did 15 minutes on how toilets don't flush well anymore.

Chuck Todd (11:15)

The late night hosts are having a real moment and they're always vital to any society, but especially to ours. I worked. I mean, George H.W. bush was very close to Dana Carvey. He had relationships with SNL because he, I think, was flattered by some of the depictions and appreciated the import of being able to laugh at himself and having people laugh at him. I don't know that if Will Ferrell and George W. Bush hung out, I wasn't aware of it. Will Ferrell played Bush, I think, in the very beginning. But this is something that. Oh, and then Sarah Palin went and did SNL with Tina Fey and stood next to her. I mean, this is something that people don't like being mocked, but they've accepted it. And I wonder if you can just speak to what it reveals about the deficiencies in Donald Trump's character, that he can't tolerate it.

Sam Stein (12:09)

Yeah, no, that's really smart point. Trump did go on SNL once, I believe, maybe twice during his political career. But it's very evident from all this that one of the driving motivating factors for Trump, the White House and Brendan Carr is that Trump doesn't like to be lampooned, that he doesn't like to be mocked by these late night hosts, and that he would very much be fine if they went off the air. And I think that's obviously what's gotten Seth Meyers, Rogan and anyone else who's in the business really shaken up is the idea that oh, you could just tell one joke that goes crossfire and Trump will, you know, bring the levers of government down and try to take you off the air. I will just say this. You know, I know it's. It's been heartening to see, you know, Seth Meyers, Rogan, Ted Cruz and, like, stick up and say, no, this is a bridge too far, whether or not they're doing it, because, oh, my God, it could come back and rebound on conservatives at a later date. It's good that they are speaking out. But I do wonder here, what would have happened if Brendan Carr hadn't posted celebratory gifts after Jimmy Kimmel has been taken off the air? What if Donald Trump hadn't boasted about how bad Jimmy Kimmel's ratings supposedly were? What if the federal government had just taken a shadowy presence in this campaign to get Kimmel off the air and not an overt presence to get Kim off the air? Would we be in this place? Would the. I, I actually don't know. I think that's a scary proposition that we should try to account for the idea that the real mess up here was simply that they were so overt and that they could potentially go about this again and do it in a less overt way.

Chuck Todd (13:43)

Well, I mean, I take your point. I think it's a smart point. It's a nuanced point, and they don't really do nuance. And so I guess I would say it's a hallmark of something much bigger that's happening. Right. If you just grab a bag of cash at Kava allegedly, is it really bribery at all? I mean, it doesn't take away our responsibility to point out, one, that which isn't normal, and two, that which is totally at odds with the First Amendment. And I guess what I would follow up with, Sam, is, do you think it's. Do you think because it was so overt, it's awoken a larger group of people among the public to their real game here, which is to shut down dissent?

Sam Stein (14:22)

First of all, you don't take 50k in Cava, just a little side of.

Chuck Todd (14:28)

Tahini and some $50,000 yet. I don't know. Yeah, I haven't yet. No.

Sam Stein (14:34)

I think to your substantive point, I very much clear that. And you can see it through the corporate consolidation, really, of media by MAGA aficionados, to say the least, that they want to stifle criticism, that they want to control the channels of communications, that they want to gear the national conversation in their direction. I get that, and I I suppose what's been heartening about the past six days is the degree to which it's facilitated or prompted this public up uproar over what's happening. And frankly, a lot of this has been organic.

Angelo Carusone (15:11)

Right.

Sam Stein (15:11)

It's that people have said, you know what, this is a bridge too far. I'm going to cancel my subscription or I'm going to, you know, wage a protest against Disney. I'm going to go without Bluey. Shockingly. And people have been willing to do that in a way that has obviously gotten on the radar of the leadership at Disney. Is that sustainable, I guess is the question when the, when the public fights, when the fights aren't so public, when the targets aren't. It's not as clear that the White House is going after specific targets. That's the big question for the future of media, frankly.

Chuck Todd (15:43)

Well, I don't think people are going to go back to sleep. And I guess what I would ask you, Angelo, I mean, media consolidation is sort of a sophisticated term. I mean big money, owning lots and lots of media stuff is sort of a way that people understand it and it feels yucky. And frankly, I feel like my audience consumes more independent media than other parallel linear media. And I think if you're really, if you're really in this and you're really watching where the public is going, there is something very sort of state sponsored, slash clunky and bureaucratic. And a study, I interviewed Joan Baez this week and the power of the movement in the 60s was that the resistance had the culture. And this feels like a moment where the culture is slipping away because you don't get it by dominating it. You don't get it through a siege, you don't get it through fiat. You get it by being cool. And I've said this before, they've taken all the masculinity out of toxic masculinity because domination is not masculine. And possession and ownership and money, those things are toxic, unappealing and uncool. And I wonder if you think they risk a moment of overreach.

Angelo Carusone (16:54)

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, certainly they did, they overreached. And I think that's an important part of all this. And a few things. One, I don't think we'll ever get people bought in or really to understand all the nuances and technicalities of media consolidation. I would love to, to get into the complexity of affiliate fees and how that actually makes Disney look 10 times worse in all of this because there was really no leverage over them. Like, I wish I could talk about that, but that's too convoluted and clunky. And I don't really. And it doesn't really matter to a degree, because what really matters here is the story. And that's the heart of it, the narrative. And this is where there's a tie in with a lot of the things that we've talked about a bunch of times. One is that, you know, in. In sort of a burgeoning authoritarianism, part of the mechanism by which you consolidate power, especially at this stage, it's theater, power perceived as power achieved. And so when they. That power, or they try to dominate culture by fiat and it just happens, then everybody else feels weak and powerless and they seem a lot stronger and real. And what we saw here was that illustration, that story that they're trying to tell about themselves get upended. And the other part, and this gets to the overreach, it has been exposed. And so a lot of other things, as long as we don't lose sight of it, there are going to be a lot of other instances. This is only the first step. There have been other instances of those, too. When they sort of tried to pressure CBS for their merger when. When. When Skydance was buying them. Like, there's a lot of these examples. This was the clearest one. And I think Sam's point about the gifts and everything really just brought it home. But they're not going to retreat entirely into the trenches because one, that's the vibes, too.

Maya Wiley (18:24)

That's their.

Angelo Carusone (18:25)

That's such a reflex. And three, it's essential to their consolidation. They have to project that power in order for them to actually consolidate. And everybody kind of has to buy in on it. So what that means in totality is this. The story now is cemented in people's hands, their minds. There's a sensitivity to it when the next action comes up, even if they're not as br. Reason about it, as long as we do our part, all of us collectively, effectively, we can tie it into this broader, illustrated story that they are trying to stifle dissent and censor free speech and force you to think and say things, and that's bad, and you can actually stop it like you did before. And we just have to keep it pretty simple and clear and not lose sight of that, because they certainly aren't going to.

Chuck Todd (19:05)

And I guess if I could just lay to political power words over it, that is weakness, and standing up to it is strength. You know, I think that what the consumers who canceled their Disney plus and Hulu accounts and the actors who said I will not work with Disney did is they projected strength and the consumers saw strength. And I think that what Disney did by suspending him was to project something that was perceived by consumers and citizens as weakness. I think that's why they undid it. I think it was one economic but to your point, the economics of affiliate programming is complicated. The other is the brand is unsustainable. To look that weak to such brazen and clunky bullying that comes to everybody like on a televised podcast is just the epitome of weakness. I want to bring Maya in on all this about some of the things that have come up. I also want to show you how Stephen Colbert responded, another Colbert performer performance for the ages. I have to sneak in a break first. Also ahead, the growing backlash to local stations that are as of right now refusing to air the program tonight. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General assembly today with a typical litany of embarrassingly false claims, grievances and political attacks. He described it as strength, but many world leaders have actually called him out publicly for the falsehoods that he is spreading. We'll tell you about it. And now, weeks after rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, Trump seems to have made a major shift in the way he's thinking and talking about the war in Ukraine. We'll get to all of that later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (20:48)

MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Each week, Nicole speaks with some of the people who inspire her the most. This week, she sits down with legendary singer songwriter Joan Baez.

Joan Baez (21:03)

In all my career, I've said that social change cannot happen until somebody's willing to take a risk.

Nicole Wallace (21:10)

The Best People with Nicole Wallace Listen now wherever you get your podcasts. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter each morning. Read sharp insights from the voices you trust, catch stand up moments from your favorite shows.

Chuck Todd (21:27)

The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.

Nicole Wallace (21:33)

Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why is this Happening? Main justice and more, plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows. Ad free and ad free. Listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Stephen Colbert (22:20)

This is wonderful news for my dear friend Jimmy and his amazing staff. Thank you.

Angelo Carusone (22:27)

You know, I'm so happy for them.

Stephen Colbert (22:29)

Plus, now that Jimmy's not being canceled, I get to enjoy this again. Yeah.

Angelo Carusone (22:40)

I was just. I was just.

Stephen Colbert (22:43)

Once more, I am the only martyr in late night. Wait, unless CBS you want to announce anything.

Chuck Todd (22:53)

Huh? Huh? Huh? What? Huh? Still no, right?

Stephen Colbert (23:02)

Because the money thing.

Angelo Carusone (23:02)

I forgot.

Stephen Colbert (23:03)

Yeah, the money thing.

Chuck Todd (23:05)

We're back with Angela, Sam and Maya. I mean Maya. The undoing is interesting to me. There is something good about a company or a leader or any institution reversing course and Colbert seems to underscore it there. But I tried to make this point last hour. There is something that we get wrong in describing the moment as static. Right. Or the Trump story doesn't have a lot of beginnings, middles and ends. It's just sort of this decline. This shows that for the country, for the public, it is very dynamic and they are still watching a story, reacting to a story, acting on what they have seen and doing enough of what they did to change what one of the sort of titans of the media industry did. Yeah.

Maya Wiley (23:52)

Well, you know, one thing I want to just say about what has happened in terms of the boycott is the organizing, right? I mean, the American Civil Liberties Union deserves a lot of credit for how it went out and organized. The fact that you had screenwriters and others who were organized into unions, the fact that you could get so many other celebrities behind this, and the fact that it was so public and as you all were saying earlier, but also of someone who is who people enjoy watching. I kept thinking of the Karen Attias, you know, Karen Attia from the Washington Post, who was silenced for saying things as an opinion writer on her social. That was factually accurate and totally appropriate in my view, as not just free speech, but free speech, which was trying to enlighten about what some of the issues we have to confront in society is around racism, around homophobia, around gun control. But that's not funny. It is not on television. And you know, while many of us have been trying to figure out how better to support the kind of attack that comes to a serious print journalist who has a. Who has commentary and some reach is the nature by which people are getting information and the importance of culture. So I don't want to say that's a Bad thing. But I also just want to remind us that these things don't happen in a vacuum. There are not for profit organizations and there are unions and there are people who are actively working to organize and engage the public and where and how they can take action and where you have someone who is garnering enough attention that you get a bigger audience. Now, I say that because part of the White House's playbook and part of Donald Trump's playbook is to use the power of government, just as we saw with the FCC and with its chair car that we're seeing with bringing to bear the Department of Justice to threaten people with criminal prosecution for doing their jobs. To literally, we have to worry about the even if the president puts somebody's name, like a judge's name in his mouth, the kinds of threats of violence that will come to judges for simply doing their job and coming after, not for profit organizations, some of whom which are in the coalition that I'm privileged to work, work with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights for standing up against hate and bias for everybody. And that has put them in the crosshairs of potentially being called a terrorist supporting organization. This is why they're coming after unions. This is why they're coming after civil rights organizations and leaders who do that kind of organizing, because they want to try to stop what we just saw play out with Jimmy Kimmel. And we have to remember that. And we have to remember that when we have the Karen Attias of the world from the Washington Post, too.

Chuck Todd (26:49)

I mean, the crackdown that Maya is talking about is at this point, Sam, so overt that we can see it. We know what they're doing because they're doing it in full view. And the Pentagon is the target of a crackdown on any information that isn't state sanctioned. This is a Washington Post reporting on that. The Pentagon told journalists it will require them to pledge they won't gather any information, even unclassified, that hasn't been expressly authorized for release and will revoke the press credentials of those who do not obey. I mean, that is what happens in North Korea. That is not what happens in any democracy. What is your sense of what that portends?

Sam Stein (27:32)

Well, the Pentagon story is just so ridiculous. I mean, it's just outrageous. Right? Any journalist who would sign some pledge like that, that really is just abdicating the responsibilities and probably should leave the profession because you can't just, you know, agree to publish only what your subject matter allows you to publish. That's stenography. So, you know, that's one thing, but, you know, it extends beyond that. Making kicking the Associated Press out of the White House pool, for instance, because they refused to call it the Gulf of America, was an early indication of this. And there's just, you know, case points all over about how this White House uses whatever leverage it has in order to shape the coverage of it. I mean, what we talked about are big but relatively minor, ish. Examples of that. I think, I think back to the media consolidation. I mean, we're talking about the Washington Post, we're talking about social media sites, we're talking about Sinclair and nexstar. These are entities with big business before the government. And the administration has used that business, or the threat really of losing that business in order to affect media coverage of it. I mean, Jeff Bezos has business before the government. Sinclair, Nextar have mergers that need to be considered by the fcc. We are soon to be at a place where Tick Tock is going to be sold to people with business before the government. I mean, we, we're operating in a system where these corporate entities, and frankly, the richest men on earth are all commingling government business with media empires. And that, I think, is what the White House is strategically using to their advantage.

Chuck Todd (29:11)

Angela, is there any antibody left in the system to protect against that?

Angelo Carusone (29:17)

I mean, we saw it and look at the courts are a buttress. I mean, they're trying to end on that. I mean, I can speak to this in many ways. I mean, we are currently being investigated by the Trump administration after other investigations were launched against us in which the courts have described as a campaign of government harassment. And not a moment goes by when I'm speaking. Do I not think about that investigation being inflamed or worsened because of something that I say that in any other course of business would be totally appropriate for our work. It's retaliation, plain and simple. And the antibody, at least the small glimmer is one. The courts, they've been helpful here, but obviously the administration has tried to end. Run it. But I think the real one is what we saw in response to all of this, that something really deep in all of us is a desire for, for free speech. It is the first one for a reason. I don't want to get philosophical, but I mean, the third one is about whether or not the government can force people to stay in your home. I mean, they picked speech above that when they were writing this thing for a reason because it's so deep, it's so big. And you saw the rally in this moment. And I think that is the one antibody. It's aside from breaking up the Trump coalition, that's one piece. But the other part is what can we build on? And this feels like something really significant that transcends all politics, all ideologies, demographics. It's the one thing that makes us deeply American. And that is the glimmer that we can grab onto. That's the beachhead that I think we can latch onto as we start to push back against a lot of the other authoritarian consolidation from the administration. So to me, that's it. That's the bright spot for me.

Chuck Todd (30:41)

Angelo, I so appreciate you platforming the worry you have every time you speak of being a target of this administration and always having that in the back of your mind. Thank you. Thank you for that and for being our optimist today. It only takes one. Thank you. Sam Stein and Maya Wiley, thank you as well for starting us off this hour. When we come back, what looks like a big shift from Donald Trump on the war in Ukraine. It comes after Trump lectured world leaders at the United nations and got called out by more than a few of them for spreading false claims. We'll have that story next.

Nicole Wallace (31:24)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

Chuck Todd (31:41)

The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

Nicole Wallace (31:45)

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter@msnbc.com Project 47.

Chuck Todd (31:54)

Did Donald Trump's position on Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, a conflict he once promised he'd end within 24 hours of taking office, again changed today nearly 6,000 hours later. Following a speech to the UN's General assembly this afternoon, Donald Trump was asked about one of his social media posts, one that suggested Ukraine might keep its pre war territory in the conflict. Here's what he said alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

Donald Trump (32:24)

So we'll see what happens. But the other side can fight, too. And they've proven that maybe it's a, it could be that Russia is a paper tiger. I don't know what they are. But three and a half years of fighting and killing Everybody, of killing 7,000 people a week for nothing. For nothing. So it's a very sad situation. But most of you have seen the recent statement I put out a little while ago and I'm glad you got it. But I feel that way. I really do feel that way. Let them get their land back. So we'll see how, how it all works out.

Chuck Todd (32:58)

As for the speech he delivered this morning before the UN General assembly, at least the other world leaders didn't laugh out loud this time. Although his appearance wasn't entirely without widespread international scrutiny. In an address meant to highlight what the administration called, quote, the renewal of American strength around the world, Donald Trump told the assembled leaders this, quote, I'm really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to to hell, end quote. That speech lasted about an hour. It was a parade of ironies, criticisms of allies, overtures to free speech, and a projection of strength in front of other world leaders, many of whom spent the last 24 hours discouraging their own citizens from listening to Donald Trump and RFK Jr. On their unsubstantiated announcement of a link between Tylenol and autism. The UK's health secretary, for instance, insisted that Brits should not, quote, pay attention whatsoever to what Donald Trump says about medicine, end quote. They encouraged people to speak to their doctors. So did Australia's top OBGYN experts in describing what the White House asserted yesterday as, quote, not a no harm scenario, end quote. Joining our coverage, MSNBC senior White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard. Also joining us, Ned Price. He served as the deputy to the US Representative to the UN under President Joe Biden. He's also a former senior official at both the CIA and the State Department. Ned, let me start with you. What did you hear and see today that you think we'll be dealing with in the days and weeks ahead?

Ned Price (34:36)

Well, Nicole, I think before we can talk about, you know, what to make of this speech, we first have to understand how to think about it. And I think it's important that we not make the mistake of thinking of the address we heard today as a foreign policy speech or even, to dignify it by, by calling it one. This was basically, as I see it, MAGA Mad Libs. This was President Trump speaking, not to the world leaders assembled before him, but speaking in turn to his domestic political base. And we heard him hit, basically each of the hits from the campaign trail. This could have been 2016 or more likely, 2020 or 2024 all over again. In Turtle Bay, in Manhattan, we heard attacks on Biden. We heard him gloat about grocery prices. We heard, you know, him gloat market prices, the southern border, even crime levels in D.C. and as I was listening to this, I just couldn't help but think to myself, you know, what, what is the delegate from Chad or Burkina Faso or East Timor thinking as they hear the President of the United States, the purported leader of the free world, talk about these subjects? You know, maybe it is the case that they were actually embarrassed for us. But the fact of the matter is that, you know, this was not a speech intended for them. Again, he was addressing them, but not speaking to them. And in a sense, you know, this was not unusual. Everything this president does is essentially domestic partisan combat, even in some, even if sometimes it is cloaked in the guise of something else. And today it just happened to be cloaked in the guise of foreign policy.

Chuck Todd (36:16)

Fawn it also comes about 36 hours after Donald Trump described every political opponent as someone he wishes ill upon. How do our allies and adversaries hear that or see him today?

Vaughn Hilliard (36:34)

I think the president said it himself over the nearly hour long remarks that he delivered to the entire UN General assembly and those world leaders, he said, quote, I only do business with people I like. I think that was a statement that could be heard by any domestic government official or politician, but also world leaders that have a deep understanding increasingly with every passing year of what it takes to do business with Donald Trump. And even I think that there is one important part that comes out of here today, and that was the recognition by the president, an acknowledgment, which we typically don't get from Donald Trump, that he thought the, the ability to end Russia's war against Ukraine would be easier. He acknowledged that in front of those gathered, saying because of his relationship, somebody who he had always said that he had liked. And yet there's a reckoning now, seven months later, that that relationship that he had with Vladimir Putin didn't stop Russia's war. And you have now the president, five hours after his remarks, after meetings with President Macron, after meetings with President Zelensky, now publicly come out and say that he believes that Ukraine could even be able to militarily take its land back that Russia has already seized. I think it is important we remember this moment here this afternoon because the President of the United States has acknowledged that Ukraine could take back its land, but he noted that that is if Europe and NATO provides the financial and military backing needed to do so. He did not leave here, Manhattan this afternoon with the commitment of additional US Sanctions against Russia or China for purchasing Russian oil and gas. And he did not promise us future military assets for an offensive campaign or for financial long term stability.

Chuck Todd (38:27)

Well, so what was the point of his remark then, Ron?

Vaughn Hilliard (38:33)

I think it's a good Question, and one in which President Zelensky, he kind of whipped his head over to the side when he heard President Trump suggest that he would be okay with NATO countries striking Russian aircraft to go in and go forward with incursions into NATO airspace. What is the purpose of this? I mean, perhaps this is an effort to try to get Russia to, you know, turn their head. But so far, none of them. The efforts of this administration have seemed to make Vladimir Putin blink. He was welcomed onto US Soil just a month ago, and already there's now been four different times in which the president has allowed deadlines that he imposed on Vladimir Putin to come and go with no additional consequences. All only consequences so far come is a 25% tariff on India as a secondary tariff. But I think that that is where one comment here in the afternoon is notable and worth keeping in the notes. But of course, for European allies, you saw President Macron sitting there. It's the long term commitment that is indeed question, especially for a president that just a month and a half ago had a completely 180 different message. And of course, five months ago was suggesting to Ukrainian President Zelensky that his cities were all but gone and that the war needed to come to an end and essentially he needed to stand down.

Chuck Todd (39:45)

I'm going to ask both of you to stick around. I want to ask you what it means that countries are speaking directly to their own populations about not taking Donald Trump's medical advice with a sneak and a break. We'll all be right back.

Donald Trump (39:59)

First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians at the use of acetaminophen. Well, let's see how we say that. Acetaminophen, acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically commonly known as Tylenol during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I'll say it. It's not good.

Chuck Todd (40:41)

Being pregnant. You know that it is often the only thing you're permitted to take if you have a fever or are sick. That is not the opinion of the vast majority of medical experts and scientists in this country. But that is what the president United States said yesterday. And Ned, I thought it was notable this morning that across sort of the globe there were health experts speaking out to their own public saying, don't listen to Donald Trump when it comes to his recommendations on Tylenol. Yeah.

Ned Price (41:10)

You know, Nicole, this is different from the standard policy announcement that we hear from Donald Trump that like it or not, foreign leaders have to, to some extent when he announces tariffs on their country, when he announces sanctions or secondary sanctions or if he were to recall our ambassador, that is something that would be done to them. But this isn't policy, it's science. It's public health. And of course, these issues, while nuanced, they can and they have been pursued scientifically. An arena in which objective fact acts win the day. And then second look, this is an issue of public health for their citizens. The 190 some odd leaders sitting before Donald Trump today in the United nations have to care first and foremost for the health, for the safety, for the well being of their citizens. And they have as responsible leaders an obligation to speak the truth to their citizens. When it comes to something as serious as this. This I think it is probably not overstatement to say that by going out and casting public doubt on what the president United States said yesterday, these leaders are showing far more responsibility and care for the health and for the well being of their citizens than President Trump and his administration showed for the American people in that press conference yesterday.

Chuck Todd (42:32)

And what do you make of what Bond is talking about, the reporting about Donald Trump, Donald Trump's statements about Ukraine?

Ned Price (42:38)

Well, Nicole, look at the way I see it. This is just another indication, as if we needed one, that President Trump has no firm principles, absolutely no firm core beliefs. Just as Vaughn was saying, he's taken just about every position available under the sun when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But I think this does spotlight one overriding concern that he has and that is figuring out who can do something for him. And in this case, I don't think President Trump has concluded that Ukraine can do something for him. That take US Back to 2019, when President Trump tried to extort President Zelensky in their first phone call for dirt on then candidate Biden. I think President Trump has probably rightly figured out, if belatedly, that President Putin can't do something for him. And I think of that hot mic moment when we heard President Trump whisper to President Macron when President Macron was at the White House a few weeks ago, that President Trump thought that President Putin wanted to do this for him, to end this war for him. That was always fanciful. It was always President Trump, Trump looking through the lens of his own ego, thinking that he could get to Putin whereas no one else had before. President Trump has finally, it seems, come to the realization that he is unable to end this war. But to Vaughn's question, what is he going to do about it? How is he going to support Ukraine. How is he going to hold Russia to account? I don't think he will.

Chuck Todd (43:59)

More questions than answers today. Thank you both for asking them. Von Hilliard and Ned Price, thanks so much. One more break from for us. We'll be right back. With world leaders gathered at the United nations today, forced to listen to Donald Trump's often rambling, somewhat self involved divorce from reality at times monologue today, a reminder that we are not the only people who have had to fight for our democracy. Just ask Joan Baez. She sang and marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. And John Lewis here at home. But she has also used her voice and her platform to bolster democracies around the world.

Joan Baez (44:39)

In Czechoslovakia, before the communists were overthrown and I met one of the dissidents then who ended up being president. And that moment, to me, where we were in a concert hall, national television was filming this whole thing. He was a dissident, wasn't supposed to be there. We'd gotten him up in the balcony so the police would have a hard time getting there. They turned the cameras off and they turned the sound off. So I was stuck there and I sang Swing Low, which is a, you know, acapella to him. And then within the next few months, the, you know, the, the communists had fallen in a nonviolent revolution. And I was credited with being the last drop, you know, in that chalice before, before the revolution.

Chuck Todd (45:30)

The incomparable iconic Jambias, arguably the tipping point toward non violent revolution and democracy of in Czechoslovakia. Her firsthand account of being on the front lines of a pro democracy movement are like a shot of adrenaline for all of us right now. Scan the QR code on your screen to listen to our conversation. One more break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.