← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Day 25 of the war with Iran”
00:41:41
In the middle of the third week of the war, the Iranian regime remains a major threat, and at home, gas prices continue their upward climb.
Loading summary
Transcript95 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder, has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities in Ellensburg and throughout the Greater Seattle area. Dr. Horton has the right home for you. At Dr. Horton, we're still building with flexible living spaces, smart home technology and two and three car garages. More communities and more homes available every day. Find your new home in ellensburg now ready@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.
- [00:35]
Alicia Menendez
You do it all.
- [00:37]
Michael Crowley
So why not get all the electrolytes hydrate better than water with new Gatorade lower sugar now with no artificial flavors, sweeteners or colors and 75% less sugar than regular Gatorade. New to the fridge, all the Gatorade electrolytes you love, Gatorade lowers sugar.
- [00:56]
Senator Tim Kaine
Is it in you? Now available nationwide.
- [01:04]
Alicia Menendez
Hi, everyone. It is four o' clock here in Washington, D.C. i'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. Day 25 of the war with Iran. Here's where things stand. A barrage of strikes by Iran proving that despite Trump's claims of total obliteration, the Iranian regime remains a major threat here at home. Gas prices continue their upward climb. And two of the country's former top military leaders, well, they are warning of chaos. Donald Trump's own former defense secretary, Jim Mattis saying, quote, we're in a tough spot when it comes to forcing Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and ease the oil crisis.
- [01:41]
Sam Stein
Watch.
- [01:43]
John Brennan
I think that what we're seeing is
- [01:46]
General Stanley McChrystal
a situation where target tree never makes up for a lack of strategy. And by that, I mean 15,000 targets have been hit.
- [01:56]
John Brennan
There have been significant military successes, but
- [01:59]
General Stanley McChrystal
they are not matched by strategic outcomes. Now, some of the strategic outcomes early on, unconditional surrender, regime change, we're going
- [02:10]
John Brennan
to dictate who the next supreme leader is. Those were clearly nonsense. Those were delusional.
- [02:17]
Alicia Menendez
And echoing those concerns, former General Stanley McChrystal. He told David French in the New York Times that the Trump administration cannot fight its way into an end to this war.
- [02:28]
General Stanley McChrystal
This idea of decapitating the regime. And we've got this current leader where we killed his father, we killed his wife, we apparently banged him up pretty good. And then we say, well, that will make him more willing to negotiate. It wouldn't have that effect on me.
- [02:47]
Alicia Menendez
The Trump administration, however, appears to be hoping Iran is ready to negotiate. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump's sudden u turn on attacking Iran's power plants, quote, unquote, followed a series of closed door Discussions through Middle Eastern intermediaries, U.S. officials said, gave them hope an agreement to settle the conflict was possible. It also reflected a growing desire by Trump and some of his advisors to bring the war to a close. Arab mediators privately expressed skepticism that the US And Iran could quickly reach an agreement, noting that the two sides remained far apart even as Donald Trump reportedly wants to end the war. Political reports that Trump is still hoping to pick Iran's next leader in a scenario similar to what the administration did in Venezuela. From that reporting, quote, the Trump administration is quietly weighing Iran's parliament speaker as a potential partner and even a future leader as the president signals a shift from military pressure toward a negotiated endgame. The White House isn't ready to commit to any one person, hoping to stress test multiple candidates as they look for someone willing to make a deal. Military leaders warning about the pitfalls of a lack of strategy as the Trump administration grasps at straws for a way to end the war with Iran is where we start today. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Michael Crowley is here. Also with us columnist for the Atlantic, Anne Applebaum. And with me at the table, former CIA director and our senior national security and intelligence analyst, John Brennan. Director Brennan, I want to start with you. Do you agree with Mattis and with McChrystal's analysis there?
- [04:21]
John Brennan
Absolutely. Jim Mattis and Stanley Krystal, two of the eminent military strategists that have been in the US Military for quite some time. And both of them, I think, realize that the military, US Military can do phenomenal work. They can degrade, they can destroy a lot of the Iranian capabilities and facilities. But it's no closer to a settlement if we don't have any other movement on some of the more fundamental issues, such as the nuclear program, the Strait of Hormuz, the regime repression, the regime's policies, these are all things that really need to happen eventually. So I don't see any hope of a near term settlement. Maybe there's some hope that there will be a cessation of hostilities or we're going to have a pause in the fighting so that some of these things can be addressed. And I'm glad to see that we're working with intermediaries in the Middle east who have good offices or still are able to be in touch with the Iranian leadership. But at this point, I really think that we need to focus on trying to bring this, the military operations to a close, not just in terms of the United States and Iran, but also Israel. What Israel is doing now vis a vis Iran And Lebanon is just basically adding fuel to the fires of hostilities.
- [05:30]
Alicia Menendez
I was struck by something that Mattis said, and I'm paraphrasing here, but that target tree is not a match for strategy. Can you formulate a strategy? Can you reverse engineer a strategy if they did not go in with one?
- [05:43]
John Brennan
It's really, really difficult to do that. Now, this is one of the things that should have been, in fact, at the very beginning of this conflict, that they had some strategic objectives that were realistic and that were achievable in a certain period. And Jim Mattis has been a hardliner on Iran for many years. He is very much opposed to the Iranian regime, as all of us are at the same time. He recognizes that despite the formidable capabilities and the powerful military that we have, we're not going to be able to achieve our strategic objectives unless there is some type of engagement with the Iranian regime, whether or not it's going to be with Mojdab al Khamenei or with the speaker of the parliament or whomever. We need to have some active dialogue going on, even indirectly with them to see whether or not we can bring a.
- [06:28]
Alicia Menendez
You have been in the rooms where these discussions happen, where world leaders are briefed. Is there any way that the president was not warned at the outset that this would be the eventual outcome?
- [06:39]
John Brennan
The intelligence community that I know, the CIA that I know, would have been able to tell him that there were tremendous risks and great uncertainty if we were to go down this path of military conflict and war. The Straits of Hormuz, the nuclear material that they have, the capabilities that they have in terms of missiles and drones, drones and other types of things. I think there would have been a loud word of caution, not just by the intelligence community, but also I think, and it's been reported that General Kaine also expressed his concerns and skepticism that in fact, the military pummeling of Iran would bring about the type of regime change that Donald Trump wanted.
- [07:15]
Alicia Menendez
Michael Crowley, I was picking Director Brennan's brain about this just last night, and he said to me, I'm pretty sure it is the Turks and the Egyptians who are having these conversations behind closed doors. We are now seeing reporting that the Pakistanis are also at the table. Bring us up to speed. What does your reporting tell you where any of these conversations are at this moment?
- [07:35]
Michael Crowley
Well, Alicia, I wish I could give you perfect clarity, but there is a lot of confusion right now about exactly who's talking to who and what they are proposing. Not long ago this afternoon, President Trump said that Marco Rubio was talking to the Iranians, which is the first time we've heard that. And then he listed Witkoff and Kushner and I think a couple of other names. It's hard to know whether he was throwing names out, whether he's talking about serious conversations as opposed to maybe, you know, kind of superficial contacts that are exploring the possibility of more serious dialogue. But a couple of things are clear, I would say, and noteworthy, number one, is that, you know, President Trump, although the military campaign continues, I think, is very clearly looking for a way out of this. Right. He set a deadline going into the weekend. He extended it on Monday morning, and many people say he did that because he wanted to prevent the markets from crashing. But he's talking about talking, and he is not ruling that out. And you also see a lot of US Allies, the Egyptians, the Pakistanis, the Turks. There are reports of Gulf Arab states getting involved. You're seeing that a lot of countries are trying to find a resolution to this, right? Like, countries are stepping forward, wanting to be mediators, wanting to bring gatherings of diplomats together to find some way to end this crisis, which is jacking up oil prices, damaging specific economies in the Middle east and threatening the entire world economy. But who do we not see a lot of evidence of a desire to want to talk and make a deal from right now? And that's the Iranians. Now, I don't think we have total clarity on what is happening in Tehran. I think that's partly because there is confusion within the regime. There may be factionalism, disputes. Communication is obviously screwed up by this military campaign. But all the signals for reaching a resolution are coming from Washington and capitals around Iran. And I'm just not seeing right now that the Iranians are eager to wrap this up. And although they are getting absolutely pulverized in many ways, they do have incredible leverage over Trump and other countries right now with their ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz and the effect that that's having on oil prices and the global economy. So I think we're going to see the diplomatic gears continue to turn. I think a lot of people are looking for some way to at least get a ceasefire. But I'm just wondering whether the Iranians are as open to cutting a deal as a lot of the other players involved in this, including President Trump, appear to be right now.
- [10:34]
Alicia Menendez
Right. Anne Applebaum, the enemy gets a vote as well. I'm struck by the fact that as these conversations, negotiations are being characterized by intermediaries. One has to wonder if we are back to where we started with Kushner and Witkoff, or if the United States is actually in a more vulnerable bargaining position than they were prior to the president's, president's military action.
- [11:04]
Anne Applebaum
I think you should start by looking at what motivates Trump. As everybody else on this program has already said, he doesn't think strategically. He doesn't connect the actions that he makes one day to what happens on the next. He doesn't have a big plan. What he thinks about is what's good for him. You know, can he solve it in a way that resembles the Venezuela solution, which is what he liked because he thought that was good for him. You know, oil for him. Oil, you know, oil for him. He's not, he's not interested in solutions that are good for Iranians. He's, he still hasn't spoken to the Iranian opposition, any Iranian opposition leaders isn't including them. He hasn't spoken to, he hasn't, he isn't thinking about what's good for Americans. Obviously, it's not in America's interest to have high oil prices or to have this kind of disruption in the Middle East. So he's looking for a solution that makes him at the center and makes him a victor. And I think at this point he'll do almost anything. And that could be giving power to the Iranians to have some ongoing influence over the Strait. It could be involving other countries in the Middle east and helping, hoping that they resolve it in their interests. I think looking for him to resolve this in a way that's good for America and good for the world is a great mistake.
- [12:25]
Alicia Menendez
Do you agree with that analysis?
- [12:27]
John Brennan
Absolutely. Again, I don't think Donald Trump is playing any type of strategic game here. It's more akin to tiddlywinks in terms of individual moves without a sense of the second, third and fourth order effects, such as in the straight off homose. I mean, we were seeing already the impact on energy and fuel, gasoline supplies, oil supplies. But there's going to be second, third and fourth order knock on effects on the global supply chains because of all the things that are coming out of the Gulf that fuel plastics and computer chips and fertilizers and all the energy that keeps the manufacturing plants going. And so again, there's going to be such downstream effects of this crisis that Donald Trump hasn't even thought through. And he's having trouble, in fact, he's struggling with what to do right now.
- [13:10]
Alicia Menendez
And today, got to tell you, tiddlywinks does not invoke confidence. Director Brennan, if that is where they are. Nor does I like the way that Anne Applebaum characterized the way that the president sees Venezuela. Because they have framed Venezuela as a win, not for the Venezuelan people, not necessarily for the United States, but for Donald Trump. And if what they are saying is that what they want to find in Iran is the equivalent of a Del C. Rodriguez, effectively someone who is a puppet, as they see it, of the United States, that doesn't necessarily create the type of stability or security that they imagine.
- [13:47]
John Brennan
And also in Iran, there's no real separation of church and state. The concept of Eliyat al faqih, which is the Shia Islamic concept of that the spiritual leader is also supposed to be the leader of the people. And so, you know, handpicking somebody, even though the speaker of the Parliament, it really would be inconsistent with what, in fact the Iranians have done for the last 47 years. I'm not saying you can't eventually get to that, but as this crisis is still brewing and you know that the Iranian people are still trying to figure out themselves what's ahead of them, you know, Donald Trump has not really taken into account I the intelligence assessments and analysis that I'm sure is going into him and others in terms of just how complex and complicated this is, especially Anna Boom.
- [14:26]
Alicia Menendez
Given that we have American history to guide us, I want to play you some more of McChrystal's interview with the New York Times.
- [14:36]
General Stanley McChrystal
Yeah, it would be hard to keep it open. And so it is like what we found in Iraq. We could bomb Iraq pretty easily. We could even take Baghdad with relative ease. We could get rid of the existing government. But once we wanted to change the reality on the ground, who actually controlled things, how things worked, now you're not at 30,000ft, you're at 6ft, and you're the same height as your potential opponent. And I tell people about this war, if you like this war, enjoy this first part, because this is the best part, because everything after this will be harder because it will be more equal. Even though we will have bomb them, we'll have to get down to a level like in the Strait of Hormuz, where we've got ships potentially facing mines or even autonomous surface and under surface aircraft, all the different threats that they can bring out, just to make it lousy. And it's not. They're not all coming after U.S. warships. They don't have to. They only have to shoot a civilian tanker or cargo vessel once a week. And then people go, well, I don't know what day, they're going to strike somebody. So I'm not going to let my ships go now. And so they can have an effect with a fairly low level of effectiveness.
- [16:07]
Alicia Menendez
And that is a pretty sobering assessment of what happens when this pivots from 30,000ft to 6,000ft. That is undoubtedly some of what the president is hearing from his military experts. And yet this conversation about boots on the ground seems to be persisting.
- [16:25]
Anne Applebaum
So what you're hearing, General McChrystal say was that we're dealing once again with the problem of asymmetric warfare. In other words, with a very little, With a few drones, with a few missiles, the Iranians can create enough of a hazard and enough of a hassle for the shipping industry, for other states in the region and for the United States that they can create could continue the war even without the major arsenal that the United States has. You know, the other thing that strikes me about what he was saying is that he understands something that the Trump administration, or at least Trump himself doesn't understand, which is that the Iranians themselves have agency. You know, the government has agency. The people have agency. They can make decisions about what kind of country they want. You know, the world isn't, you know, a game of risk where, you know, it's just pieces on a chessboard and the United States gets to decide who the leaders are. That's really not how it works. And the Trump's failure to understand that, that there are real people on the other side in Tehran and they have their own politics and they have their own way of resolving things. This seems to me to be what he's missing. It's as if he gets to decide everything. I mean, I'm afraid, I think this is another aspect of his way of seeing the world. Everything has to be, you know, is resolved if he decides it, if he makes the final choice. But that isn't how other people see it.
- [17:54]
Alicia Menendez
No, it's not how other people see it. And see, including Michael, some members of his own political base. You have the New York Times reporting that, quote, officials said Mr. Trump was still weighing more aggressive operations, including one to seize Kharg Island, Iran's main oil export hub, and another to send ground forces into Iran to secure highly enriched uranium. I take Ann's point that whatever the off ramp here is going to have to be built in Donald Trump's own image. Talk to me about sort of the duality of these conversations happening in tandem with this reporting that this administration is still not taking escalation off the table.
- [18:34]
Michael Crowley
Yeah, it's an incredible moment, Alicia, because things do hang in that balance. And as I said before, I think that President Trump, there's a lot of evidence that he's looking for a way to de. Escalate this, to get this over with, to try to stabilize oil prices and prevent being accused of presiding over just the kind of inflation that he attacked the Biden and Harris administration for. At the same time, one of the key stated goals here by President Trump, Marco Rubio, and many others is essentially ending once and for all Iran's nuclear program and any vestige of a nuclear capability it might have. Well, Iran has hundreds of pounds of highly enriched uranium still buried under its earth at at least one nuclear site that the US and that the US Bombed last June. And, you know, if. If he ends this conflict and calls it off and brings home the military forces and that nuclear material is still there, you have a major lingering problem because the Iranians can dig it up and it would not take them long to process that uranium just a little bit further to the level where it can be used to make a bomb. Now, there are alternatives to going in and getting it with a massive ground operation right now, you could be incredibly vigilant and intrusive in trying to monitor Iran after this conflict, somewhat like the way we did after the first Gulf war when George H.W. bush kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. But that was very unpleasant and led basically to another war because we weren't sure that Saddam Hussein hadn't dismantled all his weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the intelligence was mistaken on that. Or he can go in and do this incredibly dangerous, costly, lengthy operation to try to dig the stuff out, but that is going to be weeks or months more with American boots on the ground. And I haven't even touched here on Carg Island. So how do you reconcile that with his desire to get out quickly? It's not clear to me. It just, I think, suggests you have a feeling that they did not know going into this how they were going to handle that issue, the uranium in particular, and they're kind of trying to figure it out on the fly. And that is a big problem.
- [21:08]
Alicia Menendez
Understanding that the Iranians have free will and agency here, but also understanding that the President of the United States seems to be desperately looking for an off ramp. If you were advising him, what then is the most obvious off ramp, given
- [21:22]
Michael Crowley
the current situation, to propose a.
- [21:26]
John Brennan
A pause in the fighting to prevent further deaths. He needs to recognize that he's not going to be able to find an off ramp that's going to validate his justification for the war, nor is he going to be able to save political face because this was a mistake. I think more and more people will realize that, including in the Gulf and in Iran. But let's see if we can stop and whether or not there's some way to go forward that's going to resolve these various issues through diplomatic channels, through negotiations, through patient strategic work that needs to be done.
- [21:55]
Alicia Menendez
Let's get back to where this started. Director Brennan, I am always so grateful to have you at the table. Michael Crowley, Anne Applebaum, thank you so much for your time and for getting us started. When we come back, one of the more outspoken voices in the Democratic Party against Trump's war in Iran is going to join us next. We'll talk with Tim Kaine about that and ask him if Trump did, in fact kill the plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security and get TSA workers paid by the end of this week. Plus, the latest absurd attack on windmills, windmills from Donald Trump. He has called them losers, ugly junk, and now he's actually paying companies with taxpayer money for them to go away. Later in the show, the authoritarian power grab, Trump's move to take full control over American elections, starting with all of that cheating that happens when people vote by mail. Wait till you hear who just voted by mail in Palm Beach County, Florida. All those stories and more when DEADLINE Woodhouse continues after this.
- [22:51]
Commercial Announcer
Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's Builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas. And more coming. Dr. Horton has the right home for you at Dr. Horton. We're still building with more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.
- [23:22]
Alicia Menendez
When you've done the work, you want your hydration to do the same. Introducing new Gatorade, lower sugar now with no artificial flavors, sweeteners or colors and 75% less sugar and all the electrolytes of regular Gatorade now available nationwide.
- [23:36]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
Hey guys, Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships America's most iconic foods straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin Barbecue from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has you covered. Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time, get 20% off your first order with promo code gift. That's promo code gift.
- [24:06]
Alicia Menendez
In case there was any confusion over who TSA agents can thank for working unpaid or who Americans stuck in lines for hours at airports nationwide can thank, this was Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy describing how negotiations to fund the Department of Homeland Security have gone with the White House. Senator Cruz and I came up with a plan. We said, look, it's a two step process.
- [24:31]
Senator Tim Kaine
The Democrats have offered to open up everything but ice. Ted and I said, okay, let's accept their offer.
- [24:37]
Alicia Menendez
And then at the same time, we
- [24:40]
Senator Tim Kaine
would offer a bill for reconciliation where
- [24:44]
Alicia Menendez
we don't need any Democratic votes to do whatever we wanted to do with ice.
- [24:49]
Senator Tim Kaine
And that way we're out of the
- [24:51]
Alicia Menendez
shutdown and DHS is back open. We submitted that.
- [24:55]
Senator Tim Kaine
Senator Thun submitted that to President Trump,
- [24:58]
Alicia Menendez
as is his right. He said no, no deals with the Democrats. Joining me now, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, you just heard that clip of Senator Kennedy saying Trump demanded no deal with Democrats. Why do you think the President is now changing his mind?
- [25:19]
Senator Tim Kaine
Alicia, you got me. Why the President changes his mind, who can say? But here's the reality. The long TSA lines, the fact that Coast Guardies, Coasties are on Navy ships with sailors who are being paid and the Coasties aren't being paid. It's all on the Republicans. We worked out a funding deal with the Republicans, Republicans weeks ago for all of these agencies. And what we've said to them for weeks now is can you guys take yes for an answer? Take yes for an answer. Let's fund all the agencies at the levels you agree with except ice, where we need serious reforms. Let's have the discussion about ICE reforms. There's no pressure there because the Republicans pre funded ICE with like 7 years of budget last summer. So, so ICE agents are being paid right now. The ones who aren't being paid should be paid. And we've been saying to Republicans, take yes for an answer. You negotiated the deal. We'll vote for the deal we negotiated together. Open up all these agencies and let us continue the reform discussion about ice. Finally, Senator Kennedy and Cruz, whose states have two of the airports in the country with the worst lines, New Orleans and Houston, and said let's take the Democrats proposal and take yes for an answer. I don't know why President Trump is now deciding that's a bad idea.
- [26:45]
Alicia Menendez
The latest I have read is that Leader Schumer said the latest offer from Republicans to fund most of DHS is not acceptable, said the Democrats are going to send a counteroffer. Can you talk us through what was unacceptable about Republicans offer and what it is you want to see in that counteroffer?
- [27:04]
Senator Tim Kaine
Yes. Here's what I think the Republicans offered. They didn't accept the Kennedy Cruz proposal. Instead, they said fund, you know, all of these agencies and fund a big chunk of ice. But let's keep talking about a smaller chunk. We don't want to do ICE funding without reforms, nor do Virginians, nor do the American public. They want to do reforms. And so why not fund all these agencies where the absence of funding is hurting everyday Americans from the Coast Guard not being able to, you know, interdict drugs coming into long TSA lines. Let's fund those and keep the ICE reform discussion going until we have an agreement knowing that ICE agents are being paid so they're not being jeopardized by the ongoing negotiation.
- [27:52]
Alicia Menendez
This fight over DHS funding is set against the backdrop of the president's war of choice with Iran. You have the Wall Street Journal reporting the Pentagon intends to call up 3,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. What do you interpret that escalation to mean regarding the administration's next steps here?
- [28:12]
Senator Tim Kaine
Well, everything about this shows how poorly the administration blundered into this war. There's reporting today that they're being urged by Saudi Arabia to continue the war. And there's been previous reporting that they were urged by Israel to join Israel in a war. Israel and Saudi Arabia have the right to make their own decisions for their own sovereign interests, but those are not the same as the US Interests. So the US Went into a war without a clear rationale. The US Went into a war without a clear plan. And no surprise if you don't have the right rationale, if you don't have a clear plan, it's suddenly going to work out very, very badly. We're seeing energy costs spike. We're seeing American troops killed and others injured. We're seeing civilian school children killed in Iran. And the widening consequences throughout the region threaten a massive challenge to the US Economy and the global economy for months and months and months to come. Even if President Trump were today, say, I'm stopping bombing, I bombed enough, the ripple effects that Virginians and Americans are seeing and that we're seeing worldwide will not stop for some time. We need to stop this war and then get to a negotiating table where we can, you know, figure out a way forward that doesn't involve deaths of US Troops, deaths of civilians, global economic devastation.
- [29:39]
Alicia Menendez
And if the Pentagon asks Congress for $200 billion to fund the war, do you think your Republican colleagues Balk?
- [29:45]
Senator Tim Kaine
Get this $200 billion, we asked the White House $35 billion a year will extend health care tax credits for all Americans. And they wouldn't do that. And now they want $200 billion for a war of choice on the say so of one person, just like the president devastated the economy by imposing tariffs on the vote of one person. Now he's taken us to war. And they need, they say they may need another $200 billion. It makes no sense. But at the minimum, what we would need, Give us the proposal and let us kick the tires on the proposal before the American public. They're still not doing that, Alicia, on the war. They won't do hearings in public. They only want to do hearings in classified because they, they don't want to subject the administration officials who made the decision to go to war or supported the decision. They don't want to subject them to being asked questions in front of the American public. That shows how insecure they are about the decisions that the leadership of this administration has made.
- [30:52]
Alicia Menendez
Kick the tires in public. Imagine them allowing Congress to do their job. Senator Tim Kaine, thank you so much for spending some time with us. US today.
- [30:59]
Senator Tim Kaine
Absolutely.
- [31:00]
John Brennan
Lisha.
- [31:01]
Alicia Menendez
After the break, a stunning handover of taxpayer money paid to a foreign company that ultimately could lead to higher energy bills for the American taxpayer. We're going to explain that coming up.
- [31:15]
Commercial Announcer
Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's Builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas. And more coming. Dr. Horton has the right home for you. Dr. Horton, we're still building with more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.
- [31:45]
Senator Tim Kaine
If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family
- [31:51]
Michael Crowley
as an effective and affordable online learning program.
- [31:54]
Senator Tim Kaine
IXL covers math, language arts, science and
- [31:57]
Michael Crowley
social studies using interactive practice problems for
- [32:00]
Senator Tim Kaine
kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com 20.
- [32:10]
Alicia Menendez
Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most
- [32:13]
Senator Tim Kaine
effective learning program out there at the best price.
- [32:16]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
You're listening with Athletic Brewing Company. This time of year, everyone talks about going dry. Cool. We're skipping that because we prefer going
- [32:23]
Commercial Announcer
athletic, which isn't dry at all.
- [32:25]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
From crisp goldens to hoppy IPAs and limited releases in between, you'll find something that fits your style. Every single non alcoholic brew is packed with flavor and the same craft experience you love. So yeah, you could call it dry, but there's really nothing dry about it. Find your new favorite near beer@athletic brewing.com Athletic Brewing Company fit for all times.
- [32:49]
John Brennan
You know the windmills. Boom, boom, boom.
- [32:52]
General Stanley McChrystal
We don't allow windmills.
- [32:53]
Senator Tim Kaine
We're not allow allowing any windmills to go up.
- [32:55]
General Stanley McChrystal
We're not going to do any hopefully for four years in this country. They're losers. The wind doesn't blow. Those big windmills are so pathetic and so bad.
- [33:05]
Alicia Menendez
Donald Trump really hates wind. So much so that this week, during a global energy crisis and his war in Iran, the Trump administration is paying a French energy company nearly $1 billion of US taxpayer money to cancel its plans to build two offshore wind farms and invest that money instead in oil drilling and natural gas projects. Those wind farms planned for the east coast would have produced clean, cheap, renewable wind power, the kind that can't get stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, for example, and enough electricity for Americans, according to the New York Times, to power more than 1 million homes and businesses in New York and New Jersey and in North Carolina, around 300,000 homes and businesses starting in the early 2000-30s. I want to bring a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers. And with me at the table, managing editor of the Bulwark, contributor Sam Stein is here. All right, Justin, so I just want to get this all straight. We're in a war that has created a global energy crisis, and now Americans won't benefit from renewable energy, which they're also paying to cancel. Did I get that?
- [34:13]
Justin Wolfers
All right, mate, you got it all right. I guess you're asking me because I'm a professor. A plus, top of the class. Look, it's easy to get stuck on the rich ironies of the moment and so on, but let's just actually take a step back to, I think, something far more fundamental here, which is there's no case for the US not to be. Sorry, double negative. The US should always be leaning into renewable energy, clean energy, and energy that takes us away from reliance on the Middle East. The president's case against wind are literally the rantings of an old man. I've seen Grandpa Simpson make more sense. So the fact that we get stuck on. The irony is one thing, but let's actually just come back to the reality, which is this is non scientific, doesn't make sense, non economic and doesn't serve the American people.
- [35:01]
Alicia Menendez
It doesn't serve the American people. Axios reminds us, Sam, today that both men behind the deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the CEO of Total Energies, have both recently expressed support for wind. Again, I guess that we shouldn't be surprised by the shift, but something we've seen seen before.
- [35:18]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
Well, this is like a 10 to 20 year obsession for Donald Trump. It goes back to his golf course in Scotland and wind farms there and how he had some litigation about it. He said that they kill birds. He said that they kill whales. He's talked about what happens when there's no wind, seemingly unaware of the existence of batteries. It doesn't quite make sense, but it's particularly problematic in this current environment for the reasons you talked about. I just want to stress this is one component of energy production. And then there's other elements that he has hurt. So my colleague Jonathan Cohn, for instance, in his latest newsletter talked about what's happening, for instance, with the EV industry. EV vehicles are the future. Getting them on the market is a imperative for U.S. auto manufacturers. But Donald Trump has taken away some of the tax incentives that would have helped the industry along. And now what you see are domestic audio manufacturers just pulling back from that market in a real way. Well, it would have been super nice to have a robust EV market right now when gasoline is hitting $4 a gallon in many, many states. But that's a long term investment that a country has to make over successive administrations. And the Trump administration because of Donald Trump's obsession with this idea that you can't have wind or solar and it has to be just resources extracted from the ground has really hampered our growth and basically conceded the field to China.
- [36:46]
Sam Stein
Right.
- [36:47]
Alicia Menendez
And just I take the point that Sam is making that this is not a president known for thinking about the long tail effects of the decisions that he makes today. I think what is startling is that he is making these decisions at a moment when Americans are really feeling the pinch. Reuters reporting, Trump's approval rating has hit a new low of 36. That is lower than at any time during the Biden administration. Gas prices are in part what is driving that approval rating. I mean, Justin, if he is not going to think about these things now, there is, there is an opportunity cost, I think, in all sectors of this government that we are going to have to contend with in the years to come. Right. The dismantling of institutions that will need to be rebuilt, the strategic investments that were not made, which are then going to delay us reaping the benefits of those strategic investments. It is hard to quantify the price Americans are paying, not just now, but in the future for the decisions that this president is making.
- [37:48]
Justin Wolfers
Alicia 11 out of 10 for that one. Like, I actually think that's the most important thing. It's very easiest for us to obsess about next quarter's numbers or the, you know, the thing that blows up and hits the front page of the day. But if you look seriously, what is it that makes some countries rich and other countries poor? WAR it's these long term investments. It's these institutions. It's the way we shape the rules of the game to make sure that people invest, that people get an education, that those who invest get a payoff, that the rule of law is going to be respected, that if you start trading with a country today, you'll be able to do it again in the future. That if you invest in future technologies that you'll be able to continue to do so. And that's at a fundamental level what's been undermined. There's a study recently that showed they looked at all the major autocrats over the last hundred years and it showed electing an autocrat or bringing to power an autocrat tends to undermine the level of GDP by about 10%. But that effect occurs a generation later. So the effects of all this really are yours. And my kids are gonna wake up in a world and there'll be a set of inventions that were never invented. There were innovations that were never innovated and opportunities that simply don't exist for them that could otherwise have existed.
- [39:07]
Alicia Menendez
That is the cost. And I just have to say I feel very. Read that in three minutes together, Justin Wolfer, you can tell that my need and my desire for the affirmation of a gold star was that apparent. Justin Wolfers, thank you so much for joining us. Sam, you're sticking with me when we come back, despite a judge ruling the way it treated the press was unconstitutional, Pete Hagseth and his Department of Defense, they have found another way to restrict the media. The New York Times says it is taking the Trump administration back to court for what it calls unconstitutional new restrictions on journalists covering the US Military. The Defense Department announced it will immediately close the media offices inside the Pentagon that reporters have used for decades and move them to a so called annex that will, quote, be available when ready. It's another refusal from this administration to accept defeat after a federal judge ruled in favor of seven New York Times reporters who lost their Pentagon credentials because they wouldn't agree to new rules so extreme that even reporters from conservative outlets walked too. Joining us at the table, President of Media Matters for America, Angela Corazon. Sam Stein is still with me. Are you surprised that they're so dug in on this?
- [40:23]
Sam Stein
Not that they're dug in at all. I mean, this is what they do. And I think, I think I would have been more surprised if after they lost, they didn't try to find some workaround, some sort of clever workaround. Because ultimately what we're really seeing here is a battle of attrition. They're trying to radically transform the, not just the news media, but the confines of the First Amendment. You have to fight for it if you're going to defend it. There's no way around that, and that's what this shows us. But that they are going to counter punch each time and you just have to be girded to sort of grind through this otherwise they will inevitably win through attrition.
- [40:54]
Alicia Menendez
We have. It's part of a broader pattern we've seen from this administration.
- [40:58]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
No, yes.
- [40:59]
Alicia Menendez
I mean, but in two ways here. One, the undermining of journalists and two, the complete ignorance of the rule of law.
- [41:11]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
Yeah, I mean, look, in like a normal administration, this never would have happened. But also had it happened, they would have just said, okay, fine, we'll just comply with the order. Who cares, right? Like ask us tough questions. And in fact, what they should recognize is that there's real virtue to having an adversarial press there. It holds you to account, puts you on your feet. The journalists are going to get the information regardless. Just having them there doesn't prevent them from getting that. But this is an administration that sort of lives in an adversarial posture. They define themselves by who they are knocking or who their enemies are. And so for them, there's no value in acquiescing to a court order. It's just finding another way to make life miserable for reporters. I will just say this, and I never want to tire saying this, but heading into this administration, there was this big conventional wisdom among a lot of the tech bros and people in certain parts of the commentary that this was an administration that really, truly appreciated the First Amendment, that they were gung ho about protecting the rights of reporters and journalists and free speakers and free thinkers. And it is obviously bs. It has been proven to be wrong And I think those people should live in shame for the idea, which was fallacy to begin with, that this would be some sort of beacon of First Amendment rights.
- [42:22]
Alicia Menendez
A beacon of First Amendment rights. Can you imagine?
- [42:25]
Sam Stein
Yeah, I mean, that's true. A large part of the people that sort of glommed onto maga. This was one of their core tenets. Not just no new wars and getting into foreign entanglements, but this idea that somehow Democrats and the rest of the culture had gotten so stifling for them that you didn't have free speech anymore and that the only way to get free speech back was to bring Trump into office. And obviously this had been proven to be entirely true. And I think the real problem there, the so what? Is exactly what Sam said. They don't live in shock. They don't feel ashamed. They should. They should be atoning for that on a regular basis and being an active part of the solution and the bulwark against this assault on the First Amendment.
- [42:59]
Alicia Menendez
That was an act like that one was for. But you've seen the reporting that I've seen that they actually, inside the Pentagon had a moment where they realized the errors of their ways, when all of a sudden they realized that no one who was seated in their press corps had access to broadcast capabilities. And all of a sudden they have to call a camera out so they can have a gaggle because they realize that if you message to the American people, you do, in fact, need some members of a fair and free press there in order to do it.
- [43:28]
John Brennan
Yeah.
- [43:28]
Guest Commentator (possibly Jonathan Cohn or similar)
And it's not just the institutional structures, like the hardware and stuff to broadcast, but frankly, if you want your message to be believed, if you want your message to be understood and respected, you do need to make sure that the channels through which it's disseminated are trusted by more than just your slice of the MAGA universe. And I don't think necessarily that Pete Hegseff cares, frankly. He doesn't care, obviously. But there is some value to having that, to having that type of relationship with people who aren't just your subscribers, the people who believe you already, you do need to reach different audiences. And if you look at any of these polling numbers, it's clear that they are not reaching different audiences.
- [44:07]
Alicia Menendez
Tim Stein, so fun to have you at the table. Thank you for being here. All right, Angela, you're going to stick with me in the next hour. After the break, a new lawsuit around the deaths of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. We're going to tell you about the. That next. The Trump administration is facing a new lawsuit from the state of Minnesota for access to evidence over the killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Goode, as well as a third non fatal shooting by federal agents. The suit, filed in federal court by the Minneapolis attorney general, alleges that state investigators were boxed out of federal officials and names Attorney General Pam Bondi and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as defendants. From the filing, quote, these shootings are just three examples of the violent actions committed by federal agents in Minnesota during the surge. Federal agents also carried out illegal stops, sweeps, arrests and dangerous raids in sensitive public spaces. The surge created widespread fear among Minnesota residents, both citizens and noncitizens. We're going to keep an eye on this. Coming up next, Trump's right wing MAGA whisperer Steve Bannon says ICE agents at airports are a, quote, test run for things to come. That ominous warning when Deadline one has continues after this.
- [45:26]
Commercial Announcer
Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's Builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas and more coming. Dr. Horton has the right home for you. Dr. Horton, we're still building with more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.