C (2:48)

So not 10 cents, not a dollar just a billion dollars. A poll released last week shows that just 25% of all Americans support the White House ballroom at all. But when that poll asked who should pay for Donald Trump's Gold Ballroom, 9% of the respondents said that the money should be appropriated by Congress. Ask voters and they will tell you that in a time of great economic distress, a Gold Ballroom is the last thing that the President of the United States of America should be spending his time on. Here's what some Florida residents told our colleague Alex Tabitt last week.

B (3:30)

Meanwhile, we're hearing President Trump insist that he needs a ballroom connected to the White House.

E (3:38)

What do you make of that?

F (3:40)

Well, first of all, I think it's probably money that could be used elsewhere. You know what I'm saying? With the way the economy is and people are starving, you know, medication, there's

G (3:55)

a lot of things we need to

E (3:56)

work on before we're doing a ballroom reconstruction.

B (4:00)

So I think it's a little ridiculous to me.

C (4:03)

I think he's selfish. I think he wants something to be in his name. But I think, like she said, there's so much going on right now, I think that's the last thing that we should be worrying about.

H (4:14)

He shouldn't be doing it. He should be focusing on lowering these prices that he jacked up because it wasn't this high before he became president. Man, gas was three something barely three dollars. Now it's four. You know, it's. He don't need to be talking about bottom rooms, man. You need to be trying to fix the economy.

C (4:36)

So how disconnected are they? Well, as Republicans plot to stick taxpayers with a billion dollar bill for the Gold Ballroom, Americans are right now, week after week, feeling more and more squeezed at the gas pump because of Donald Trump's war with Iran. Prices at the pump continue to soar, inflicting pain on Americans in every corner of our country. The average price for a gallon of gas is now $4.48, according to AAA. That $4.48 is up 30 cents from last week. Donald Trump stiffing the American taxpayer amid widespread anger and fury over his failure to address their economic concerns is where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Managing editor of the Bulwark and contributor Sam Stein is here. Also joining us, former Battleground States director for the Harris Walls campaign and Democratic strategist Dan Kennan is back. And with me at the table, Democratic strategist and Columbia University profess analyst Basil Smichel is here. Sam, how did this billion dollars end up in the bill in the first place.

E (5:46)

Well, so there is a reconciliation bill that congressional Republicans are pushing now. And for people who don't want to get two in the weeds, reconciliation bill is a budgetary matter that can pass just with a party line vote. So you can stuff any budgetary matter into it and you can pass it with 50 Republicans in the Senate. So it becomes a grab bag. Last night, the Senate Judiciary Republicans put forth their portion of that bill and included tens of billions of dollars for ICE or Customs and Border Patrol. And then tucked in there was this $1 billion expenditure, was put in a bunch of legalese terms, but basically it's for security for the ballroom. And to your point, this was never as advertised. It wasn't that Donald Trump went up there and said, hey, we're going to have this ballroom. It's going to be paid for. And oh, by the way, the security components of the ballroom that you're going to have to cover from taxpayer. He never said that. He said it was going to be fully paid for by private donations or money from his own pocket. Started at 200 million, went to 300 million, went to 400 million. At one point, Lindsey Graham, you might recall, introduced legislation that would have had Congress appropriate funds for about 400 million. Now it's $1 billion on top of whatever it costs to construct the ballroom itself. That will be paid for by tax fair funds. I will just add one quick note. Part of the reconciliation process allows members of the opposing party to call votes to strip out various components of the bill. And so Democrats will have the opportunity to say, hey, we're going to have an up and down vote on this $1 billion specifically. And that will put every Republican on the record as voting for or against funding the ballroom at a price tag of $1 billion.

C (7:28)

Who is running the White House in terms of guarding against barreling 100 miles an hour toward that for which 9% of the public support?

E (7:40)

Sam, that's a great question. And I was talking about this with some colleagues. I think what's happening here, and I have no like insight reporting on it, but I think what's happening here is that Donald Trump, especially in the second term, is not getting any conflicting information into his ecosystem. He's surrounded by people in the Cabinet who are largely sycophantic. You see it all the time when they have these Cabinet meetings and they praise him as if he's the second coming. He probably watches only news media that affirms his priors. And when he does, he'll lash out on Truth social. So you see it every now and then when he posts something, going after a random cable commentator. But by and large, I think he just gets people who tell him how great he is, and then that kind of supplements into him pursuing policies that are really vanity projects. So the ballroom is the biggest personification this, right? $1 billion. He thinks, whatever. It's great. We'll have events here. We don't have to do the White House correspondence Dinner at the Washington Hilton, but it's also the Reflecting Pool and the golf courses at East Potomac in this arch. And it raises the question, why is he doing all of this? Right. Is it vanity? Probably a lot of it is. But what is the point of building all this type of stuff if you're just going to end up leaving Washington, D.C. is it a legacy matter, or is it something larger than that that we're not really accurately discarding?

C (9:00)

I mean, I guess what I would push back and say, Dan, is that every time the press tries to figure out what sophisticated, secret version of 3D chess Trump is playing, he's just doing some dumb shit on his phone. So I want to guard against, like, the opaque mystery. It is likely. I mean, we see from the way he tweets that, like, he reaches for his phone and posts all night. If any of our children did that, they'd lose their phone for a semester or two. I want to ask you, though, your theory about the people around Donald Trump. I mean, I went back and looked at the New York Times. He first talked about indicting Jim Comey in 2017, and based on New York Times reporting, Don McGahn stopped it. He wanted to indict Comey while Sessions was Attorney General, he still wanted to indict him. When Bill Barr took over, there was an intermediate guy. He wanted to indict him while he was there. He wanted to indict him while Pam Bondi was there. The variable in terms of the bad unpopular behavior that the American people don't support isn't actually Donald Trump. A lot of this is the same stuff he wanted to do the whole time. It's the weakness and the fecklessness of the people around him. And I wonder what you think that says about Susie Wiles and Todd Blanche.

B (10:17)

Well, I wish I could say it was a surprise, Nicole, but you may recall the campaign in 2024, we talked about this all the time. That in 2060-2020, there were some serious people around Donald Trump, General Kelly, and others who could curtail his worst impulses. And they were all excommunicated one by one, largely through the events of January 6th and beyond. And you're left with kind of the MyPillow Guy Caucus around him. And I think that Susie Wiles is someone who's just trying to keep the trains running on time in the building, as difficult as that looks like it is for her. I was told by some Republican sources from other appearances on networks where there are some former Trump folks that go on a lot that the deal with her was basically let Trump be Trump and not try to get in the way of his decision making. And on the messaging, I'll just say the 3D chess piece of this. Sometimes people want to say he's a great messenger or the worst messenger. I just think he's a prolific messenger. He says things that can cut through and sometimes to his benefit. Build the wall was the way to describe that he'd be tough on immigration, no tax on tips was a way to describe very easily that he could connect with working class Americans on costs. And unfortunately for him, I think Build the ballroom is the way to describe how selfish he is and how unfocused he is on your core economic needs at a time of incredible economic uncertainty. And the entire landscape of tariffs and the war and the gas prices and the ACA cost spikes are all his to own. And that will make the atmosphere. But this singular issue, which is so easy to understand, will be the thing that drives that straight to swing voters mindsets and hopefully to the polls in the fall.

C (11:56)

I mean, would you advise people to. I mean, I joke that I thought everybody should put that picture. Can we put that picture back up of Trump with this little crumpled dollhouse photo of the. There we go. I think everyone should make that their photo on whatever people are still on. I'm not on Twitter anymore, but I don't know, is there a photo on blue sky like that? Like this is who he is. Like doesn't give a hoot about your economic despair, couldn't care less and has no clue how much eggs cost or anything else. Is angry at you for caring about the price of gas. Is angry at you for caring about losing your health care. Is angry at Marjorie Taylor Greene for caring about the promise about no forever wars. Is angry at Tucker Carlson for calling BS on him betraying his voters on all those. All of the above. But what he cares about enough to carry it around in pocket. And we've really never seen him produce a picture of any of his children or wife for that matter. But he carries this around everywhere. He goes, is that something that you think Democrats should argue in the midterms?

B (12:58)

Yeah, look, I think it's his singular focus, and it's evident it's his singular focus. He could call a meeting any day of the week on health care. I mean, let's not forget there was a whole shutdown for weeks, months, talking about this hike for 20 million Americans of 1000 bucks or more a month. Now we're talking about gas prices that are $2 a gallon more than they were before. And, Nicole, it's a billion dollars for the ballroom. But think about this fiscal reality that before the Iran war, the price of gas to now the increase there accounts for a billion dollars a day from consumers. So every day consumers are paying for another one of these hypothetical ballrooms. But to your point, it's not about the dollars. It's about his focus, and it's not on you. In fact, to your point, he's angry that voters want to pull him away from this pet project and he has loathing for them. I think that comes through at this point.

C (13:50)

Let me show all of you what Sarah Longwell, the publisher of the Bulwark, Sam's colleague, my guest of this week's episode of the Best People, said about why this behavior. Because to the point about wanting to indict Comey as early as 2017, Trump has largely been the same figure with, to everyone's point, different guardrails around him over the last 10 years. Here's Sarah's articulation of why it's hurting him politically. Now,

I (14:20)

when you get a poll, it's like, okay, I see people care about the economy.

C (14:22)

That's the top.

I (14:23)

The focus groups allow you to hear people say, it makes me want to cry, like, it is causing me pain. I have to choose between whether I can get groceries or whether I pay for my kids to be able to participate the soccer team. Last year, you would, you would say this to me, right? We would be on the show and, you know, like, are people. Are people upset yet? Are people. And like, they were like, well, he's not fixing things, but Rome wasn't built in a day. We have patience. Give him some time. That is not how they sound now. Now they sound like, what is he doing with Iran? What is he doing with the ballroom? Why is he focused on all this other stuff? Nothing's getting better for me.

C (15:01)

I mean, tragically, things aren't going to get better anytime soon.

F (15:05)

Well, to Sarah's point, there's a sort of invisible infrastructure that really strengthens families and Family functions that aside from the headlines with gas prices and prices of eggs that families are really concerned about right now. For example, the cost of child care and the fact that the President, through his very specific policies, has decreased the amount of childcare affordable and available to families. We're looking also at the cost of engaging and dealing with children and adults who are disabled. He cut those programs. If you're a parent right now trying to send your kid off to college, all those changes in student loans and all of the opportunities that kids once had to get scholarships and fellowships, a lot of that's gone away. So this kind of shadow tax that families have to endure, right, that's not just gas prices, it's not just food prices, but it's all the things that help families function. All of that is being sacrificed to build this monument to excess and capriciousness that the President just wants everybody to love and like. But to Dan's earlier point, it really is just about his selfishness.

C (16:18)

I mean, Sam, what is the legal status? Do they have, you know, anyone that's renovated in their own home? Like, do they have all the deliveries from Home Depot or wherever the stuff's coming? Like, are they ready to build and just waiting for the taxpayers to foot the bill? Like, where. What is standing where the East. The regal East Wing once was?

E (16:40)

Well, first of all, I'll be remiss not to say that Sarah Longwell, wow, what insight. What brilliance. Incredible stuff. You should have her on all the time. An amazing colleague. Secondly, I will say, in terms of the legal status, there's been challenges to this because they did not follow proper procedure. You're supposed to get clearance for this Environmental reviews. Congress is supposed to have some appropriations of funds.

C (17:03)

And.

E (17:04)

And I'll get back to in a second. As things stand now, they've demolished the East Wing, and it's just sort of like a big gaping hole. And this has affected a lot of different projects around D.C. so I mentioned the East Potomac Golf renovation. There was a report over the weekend that they were just going to go ahead and renovate the courses. And the National Links, which is fighting them, which has controlled the courses, now went to court to get an injunction to say, you cannot do this. And the judge in that case specifically publicly referenced what is happening in the East Wing to basically say, you can't touch anything more than 10 trees. The judge said, you can't do what you did in the bottom, which is, you know, bulldoze everything and then decide, oh, we'll wait for the actual court hearing after the fact. So this has affected how judges are thinking about this stuff around the city. Now with respect to the, to the reconciliation bill, this is why this is somewhat important, which is because Congress, through this reconciliation bill, has decided that is going to appropriate $1 billion for some portion of the ballroom, whether it's security or otherwise. The White House is now pointing to that and saying, look, we're getting congressional authorization for the construction. Congress is going to sign off on this thing. So there is a legal component that matters to this reconciliation bill with respect to how they go forward with the bottom construction.

C (18:29)

It's amazing. At a time when 15% of Americans think the economy is getting better, the Republicans are marching in lockstep with something that has 9% support from the public. It's remarkable everyone sticks around. When we come back. If affordability is one massive pressure and pain point squeezing Republicans ahead of these midterms, the other one is the Jeffrey Epstein cover up how ties to the disgraced sex offender are leading the attacks in one closely watched Senate race in Ohio. Show it to you. Plus, while the Republicans flail and struggle to hang on politically ahead of November, they're getting no help from Donald Trump, who has decided to shift his energy even further to his renewed attacks on the Pope, the very popular Pope Leo. And later in the show, he's still at it. Trump can't let those 11,779 votes go demanding the personal information of every worker involved in the 2020 election in Georgia's Fulton County. We'll get to the White House's targeting and harassment of perhaps thousands of Americans when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

J (19:47)

Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite show, plus updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage. Sign up @MS. Now.

C (20:04)

A scathing attack from a well known and highly respected Democratic candidate for Senate shows how the Democratic Party is embracing the anger that all voters, including Republican voters, feel over the perceived and actual cover up of the Jeffrey Epstein files ahead of today's primary in Ohio and the election in November. Central to determining which party controls the Senate next year, the Democratic candidate, former Senator Sherrod Brown put out this attempting to tie incumbent Republican Senator John Husted to Jeffrey Epstein. Watch

K (20:39)

of all 535 members of Congress, who's taken the most money from associates of Jeffrey Epstein? John Hustedt, that's who. In fact, Husted state taken over $116,000 from one of Epstein's closest friends and co conspirators. And last year took a maximum donation from him just weeks before voting to block the release of the Epstein files. John Husted, who's he really working for? I'm Sherrod Brown and I approve this message.

C (21:10)

We're back with Sam, Dan and Basil Dan. This feeling that they are protecting a class of people of elite, of high profile Democrats. I think it was a former general counsel and former President Obama's general counsel's office who was fired from her big job at Goldman Sachs for her email correspondence with Epstein. Prominent Democratic fundraiser Brad Karp, who ran Paul Weiss for many years, lost his job at top bat law firm. I mean, it is not a partisan argument and Sherrod Brown feels like the perfect messenger for this political attack. What do you think?

B (21:47)

Oh, I really agree. And I think your point about it not being partisan is the best context to put this kind of conversation in. We like to sometimes have this right left question about the middle. And we think of swing voters and folks in the middle as the center of the electorate. And the question being, are we left, Are we right as we run campaigns, but increasingly so it really is top and bottom that's driving politics. I think Trump actually understood that pretty well in 2024. And I've often critiqued our own campaign. I think when we went to, you know, the Wall Street Journal to sell an economic plan rather than sort of pulling us to right of center for swing voters, that just pulled us up to be more elite. And Trump was going to McDonald's. But in this instance, it is that protecting that elite class, it's corruption, it's protecting their interests over yours. And then put that in the context of not just the US Economy, but the global economy where wealth consolidation at the top is happening year over year over year. And even when people are making more money than they ever have in their lives, sometimes they're further behind because costs are rising so much more quickly. And there's many folks who aren't making any money or out of jobs because we basically had zero employment growth since Trump has come back into office. So I think this top versus bottom frame, which is the corrupt elite being protected by Trump and folks like Hustead and others, is a really powerful frame to prosecute this election.

C (23:07)

Let me show you someone else who I think is doing it really effectively. This is Jon Ossoff.

L (23:13)

Now, you remember we were told that MAGA was for working class Americans. You remember that? But this is a government of, by and for the ultra rich, it is the one wealthiest cabinet ever. This is the Epstein class ruling our country. They are the elites they pretend to hate.

C (23:46)

This was an effective speech and that was one of the biggest applause lines. What are you counseling and what are you hearing on the ground from candidates and campaigns ahead of the midterms?

B (23:58)

Well, I just think that that kind of attack is really powerful right now. And I think in 2026, Nicole, there are many voters who will simply reject this version of the Republican Party and Trump. And I think Democrats have a very good chance of winning back the House, if not the Senate, because of that. But the question for me as a strategist is can you not just, you know, win over the places where Trump has lost support, Republicans have lost support, but can we win over those voters, Latino voters in particular? I look at Passaic County, New Jersey, where it swung 17 points from Biden to Trump in 24 and then 70 points back to Mikey Sherrill in 2025. That's a 43% working class Latino county that votes on costs and doesn't like the corruption, doesn't like any of this stuff. But they're not our voters. We have to earn them. And to me, the difference between a win and a wave will be can Democrats convince those voters we are really with you and not just lip service, really with you on lowering costs and making life more affordable and better.

C (24:55)

Right now there's some polling about young voters, which I know is always where your head and heart are. 81% are unhappy with the way things are going.

F (25:06)

They are. And, you know, to Dan's point, and this is why I think this is a great opportunity for Democrats, but it's not a slam dunk. And you want to make sure that, yes, I think banging away on Epstein is important, but you want to make sure that you frame it to Dan's point as sort of top versus bottom. And Sherrod Brown overperformed in 2024. So there is.

C (25:29)

He lost by three points, three points.

F (25:31)

So there is a really good shot for him. But this is where I think there is a lot of conversation among Democrats. Right. Do you run as the anti Trumper or do you actually start to offer something to the electorate? Because the one thing that I do hear a lot from voters is where is the democratic project 2026? Where is the alternative? And especially when you have real fear around voter suppression, the result of the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act. The question is, what are Democrats doing to protect us and to fight for us? Which is one thing that Republicans, even if you didn't even a Republican, you didn't feel that Donald Trump was a great policy person. You felt that he was fighting for you. And they're wrong, but he felt that he was fighting for you. And I think Democrats want to feel that someone's fighting for them. So there's an economic popularism that may work here, but you have to zoom out a bit and not just get bogged down on the sort of very specific Epstein issues. But again, I do think that with respect to young people in particular, they want to hear that. They want to hear that kind of what's the plan? And the economic populism works for them as well, even if it's not attached to the party brand, which is something the institution institutionalists probably don't want to hear right now.

C (26:45)

Yeah. Sam, what is your latest reporting on how the Senate is looking for Democrats?

E (26:52)

Oh, much better. My colleague Lauren Egan has been talking to strategists nonstop about this. I mean, six months ago, it was sort of a pipe dream that they could win the seats needed to get there. But increasingly, the operatives in the party are emboldened by what they see, not just in the polling data, but if you look at the fundraising data, the candidates who are on the ballot, Senate candidates, are raising insane amounts of money from a huge influx of small dollar donors, which is a real indication of enthusiasm, right?

C (27:22)

Yeah.

E (27:22)

And it's in states that, you know, maybe would have seemed unlikely not so long ago. Ohio is one of them, obviously. Texas, increasingly Alaska.

C (27:32)

Yeah.

E (27:32)

Iowa. And so look, they have to win four seats. It's challenging. It's not impossible. And even with four, you have to contend with the fact that John Fetterman is a live wire act continuously for the party. But it's not, it's not impossible at this point in time. And in fact, the betting markets seem to treat it as a likelihood at this juncture. Let me just add one thing about the Epstein class, because I do think this relates not just to this conversation about the Senate, but also to a prior conversation about the ballroom, which is that the contrast Democrats are really putting together, which I think is effective, is not just that it's up or down, it's that there's a corruption here happening, that the administration is covering things up, that they are enriching themselves. The Trump family is getting rich through all these ventures, these crypto schemes and these contracts. And the only one that's really benefiting from this presidency are the family members. And the family members, the cabinet members. And that's the Epstein class. And that's why this holistic charge works. As to Basil's point, yeah, I mean it would be beneficial probably for Democrats to put together some sort of policy platform that could take their congressional approval higher and make voters more excited about the prospects of them taking over. But it does come with a real risk and I think it's important to talk about that, which is you want this election to be about Donald Trump. You want this election to be about whether the Epstein class, quote unquote, is in charge. And if you put out a platform like that, you do change the conversation. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. But we all can remember when Rick Scott, for instance, did this in the last midterm cycle, it gave Democrats a lot of fodder to go on and say, hey, they're going to try to cut your Social Security. So there are real risks.

C (29:10)

It's so interesting that you mentioned corruption. I mean, I think one of the things that gets lost from the surprise, the turnout results of the Orban race, is that yes, he was talking about economic issues and yes, they participated at 71%. It was too big to deny, but they also ran against his corruption. And one of the first things that they announced after the election was actually an investigation into CPAC in this country. So how Hungarian taxpayers money ended up in the coffers of cpac. So it is interesting how all those things are starting to connect. Samstein, we should also point out that your glowing comments about Sarah Longwell, I agree with them. But she also happens to be your boss, so I'll make sure she saw those. Dan Kennan, it's great to have you back. It's always great to start off with you. Thank you all so much after the break for us, Donald Trump is still fighting with the Pope and that is not a headline in the Onion. He's accusing the Pope of, quote, endangering Catholics. Another bat bleep crazy story to tell you about. Don't go anywhere.

J (30:19)

Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter Analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows, plus updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage. Sign up at Ms. Now.

C (30:36)

In a sign that Pope Leo's popeyness, his clarity, his resolve, his goodness and decency and steadiness in the face of Donald Trump's relentless attacks are getting under Trump's skin. Not the Pope's. Trump decided to escalate his politically perilous feud with the incredibly popular and well regarded first American Pope with these comments that he made on the Hugh Hewitt show.

M (31:05)

The Pope would rather talk about the fact that it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I don't think that's very good. I think he's endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people. But I guess if it's up to the Pope, he thinks it's just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

C (31:22)

So quick fact check. The Pope is decidedly against nuclear weapons in every and any context. All Pope. And this Pope has never said that Iran should have a nuclear weapon. Those deranged comments from Trump came days ahead of when Marco Rubio is set to visit the Vatican on a trip to Rome to try to ease tensions caused by Donald Trump. I'm going to bring into our coverage Anthea Butler. She is the chair of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of the book White Evangelical Racism. And joining me at the table, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public affairs during the Obama administration. Political analyst Rick Stengel is here. Anthea, I'd say this is getting crazier, but it's always been nuts. So it's sort of staying the same. Crazy. But what Trump is revealing about the Pope continues to make the Pope look incredibly sort of consistent and strong and steady to more and more Americans. Right. I think Catholics already knew that here and around the world. But now Trump's entire coalition, which is being ripped apart by the week by members of his own coalition leaving, are being exposed to sort of a one sided feud with a very popular, very steady, very respected figure. This seems to only have one loser and his name is Donald.

N (32:46)

Yeah, that's correct, Nicole. I think that he can't help but put his foot in his mouth every time he says the Pope's name. Right. This is just sort of ludicrous to me because the Pope has never, never said anything about wanting nuclear weapons. That's first of all, I think what Trump's problem is is that he's conflating not wanting to have war with wanting to have nuclear weapons. And so it's a basic misunderstanding of first what Catholic belief is. And secondarily trying to advance his case for this war on the back of Pope Leo. And that's just not going to work. That's first of all, I think secondarily this trip is very interesting to me personally because somebody inside White House knows that this is bad and they know that they are going to lose Catholic voters. This coming fall. And so Marco Rubio going as Secretary of State is, I think, sort of an olive branch. He's definitely not sending the vice President because, you know, theologically he just wouldn't pass muster. And I don't think that the Pope would want to talk to him anyway since he's been lecturing him. But I do think that this trip opens up a door for President Trump. Whether or not he takes it is another question altogether.

C (34:01)

Rick?

G (34:02)

Yeah, I mean, I was watching earlier about your doing the story about the ballroom. I mean, this is just as insane. Attacking an American Pope is like the moral equivalent of building a $400 million ballroom with taxpayer funds. I mean, the Pope has an 80% popularity rating among American Catholics. And what's also insane about the administration is, and I think we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, Bance attacking the Pope and saying he better be careful when he's talking about religion.

C (34:33)

Yeah.

G (34:33)

Have you heard of papal infallibility? You know, when the Pope ex cathedra from the chair is talking about Catholic doctrine, he is infallible. And so this American Catholic kind of criticizing him, it's another kind of insane shooting themselves in the foot. And Trump sort of not caring about anything in this second administration.

C (34:52)

I mean, I think, Anthea, what it reveals about how easily other religious leaders have been co opted and become drunk with power and proximity to power also comes into sharper focus. Right. The Pope is doing what the Pope would always do. And I'm sure the Pope doesn't find any of his statements out of the ordinary. I'm sure part of him is surprised or even newsworthy. But it does reveal how American conservative religious figures have capitulated and kowtowed to Trump over the last decade.

N (35:26)

Yeah, absolutely. I think it shows up, you know, really mainly for a few groups. Let's say, first off evangelicals. I think that this makes them look absolutely awful. I can't say it any stronger than that. It is basically an abdication from their moral core. If they said they wanted to have pro life and there's nothing else that matters and have embraced Trump the way that they have, then that puts a stain on top of their moral questions and also their witness that they would talk about. That's number one. I think for other religious leaders like prosperity gospel people, Pentecostals and others, their wholesale embrace of Trump shows how just emotionally and morally empty and bankrupt they are. Because this is not, this is very easy. The, the gospel is easy. The, the message of Jesus is easy. You want peace, you don't want the sword. You know, you don't want to hurt people. And so by embracing Trump, they have embraced, you know, I have to say it like this. They have embraced a moral filth, a morality that they don't seem to have anymore. And when you hear the real morality of what the Pope is saying, you know, basic everyday gospel stories, everyday things that Jesus said, I. I find it fascinating that everybody is melting down because he's just saying things that are normal Christian beliefs.

G (36:50)

When the Pope preaches the gospel, Trump thinks he's attacking him, Right. Because, of course, he violates the gospel in every way.

C (36:57)

But there was always going to become a point and a feud where his narcissism was just so undeniable that you had to start covering it. Right. And this feels like that standoff between Donald Trump.

G (37:09)

Well, and it's the old Roy Cohn thing. When someone attacks you, you punch him in the face, even if it's the Pope. I mean, if Jesus himself came down and said, I'm against the Iran war, the Pope, Trump would attack him.

C (37:19)

They call him soft on crime. All right, no one's going anywhere. Believe it or not. There's much more to tell you about on this front, on this story. Stay with us.

O (37:33)

Lord, enlighten the leaders of the nations so that they may have the courage to abandon projects of death, halt the arms race, and place the lives of the most vulnerable at the center. May the nuclear threat never again dictate the future of humanity.

C (37:55)

That is the very popular American Pope. Anthea. This is one more piece of reporting about this pope that I wanted to get your thoughts on from the Washington Post. Pope Leo on Friday announced the promotions of a bishop and a priest who have spoken out against Trump administration policies on immigration and racial equity. Showcasing the gap between the Vatican's agenda and the President's. The bishop, who was smuggled into the United States in a car trunk and has publicly called for Catholics to speak out against Donald Trump's treatment of immigrants, was elevated from auxiliary bishop of the Washington Archdiocese to bishop of West Virginia. Your thoughts about what message? Clear message the Pope is sending?

N (38:38)

I think the clear message is that we stand for people who are the downtrodden and those who are the immigrants, those who are the least of those. I think to pick this particular person as bishop over West Virginia is a fantastic move. First of all, West Virginia has a lot of poverty. He will understand that going into that particular state and that particular diocese. I think also what is happening is that this is a shift and, and this is A shift. If we go back to popes, right to Pope Benedict xvi, you had a lot of appointments that were very conservative. Now those bishops and cardinals are having to retire or have died off. And this was a shift that started with Francis about reconfiguring what that looked like. And then now this is a continuation of that. So in the light of the Vatican, this is just business as usual in one way. For Trump and Republicans especially, this should cause them alarm because it's not going to be business as usual in terms of how they can use the Catholic Church politically before they can use the Catholic Church simply for pro life. Well, Roe versus Wade is done. What are they going to do now? And if they keep haranguing, you know, Pope Leo or any of the other bishops or cardinals in America who are speaking out against immigration reform, all of these things that they are doing right now to take away people's rights, speaking out against the war, I think they are going to find themselves with a very serious situation with this Catholic base that they thought that they have crumbling right in front of their eyes.

C (40:14)

Well, I think the question also has to be presented to Catholic families about whether or not character matters in your political leaders. And every family have to make their own decision. But Trump certainly isn't offering that 100%.

G (40:29)

And this is a pope whose character shines through. I mean, we were chatting before about how it wasn't that long ago that Catholic voters in America were Democratic voters.

C (40:38)

Right.

G (40:38)

You know, a plurality of Catholic voters voted for Trump in 2024. But that has changed in a way. This could realign the realignment where Catholic voters think, like what? I don't want my son or daughter to grow up like this president of the United States. This guy Pope Leo from the south side of Chicago is a much better example for me and for my family. So, you know, that could have a very big effect. I mean, that, you know, Catholic voters in America have been historically swing voters. If they swing back to the Democrats, that would be a pretty big deal.

C (41:08)

It's amazing. It's amazing. And Thea, it's so lovely to see you today. Rick Sangle, always lovely to have you at the table. Thank you both so much for joining us. After a break, Donald Trump wants credit for knowing the difference between an alligator and a squirrel. So everything's going to be fine, you guys. We're good. No one's going to get hurt. We'll tell you about it next. There's some really weird new polling out this week to tell you about. It shows a growing number of Americans are worried and raising questions about Donald Trump's mental acuity. They wonder in increasing numbers whether he has the ability to do his current job. From the latest Washington Post ABC Ipsos poll, nearly 6 in 10Americans say Donald Trump does not have the mental sharpness. And a majority of Americans say he is not in good enough physical health to serve the American people effectively. Those numbers are up from 12 weeks ago. Maybe Trump saw that polling because right on cue, he's back to boasting publicly about his ability to pass the cognitive test used to screen for dementia. Here's Donald Trump. And here's Jimmy Kimmel's reaction to Donald Trump.

D (42:22)

The first question is, you have a lion, a bear, an alligator and a. What's another good? A squirrel. Which is the squirrel. One doctor said, it's the first time I've ever seen anyone get all questions right.

I (42:41)

That's a doctor who just.

F (42:44)

That's right. And you could tell he was a doctor because he was dressed like Jesus.

C (42:53)

So the doctor who created that test Trump keeps taking on tv, the Montreal cognitive test that he refers to as the MOCA test. That Dr. Who made that test says it is supposed to be easy intellectually and that it was never meant to be an IQ test. In other words, it is nothing to brag about. Ahead for us, Fulton County, Georgia officials slamming Donald Trump's Justice Department for demanding the personal information of at least hundreds of 2020 election workers. The latest salvo in Donald Trump's war on our elections and our democracy. When Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

P (43:34)

Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more. Voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now.