“Incoherence on steroids”

Summary

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House – “Incoherence on Steroids”

Release Date: June 18, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC
Episode Title: “Incoherence on Steroids”

---

Introduction

In the June 18, 2025 episode of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace delves into the escalating incoherence within former President Donald Trump's administration and the fracturing of his MAGA coalition. Drawing insights from seasoned political analysts and reporters, Wallace dissects the chaotic policy decisions and internal conflicts that are reshaping the current political landscape.

---

Trump’s Erratic Stance on Iran and Israel

Steve Schmidt opens the discussion by highlighting Donald Trump's erratic rhetoric concerning Iran. Trump’s indecisiveness is encapsulated in his statements:

• Donald Trump [00:36]: "You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."

This uncertainty has led to a murky U.S. position amidst rising tensions between Israel and Iran. Smith observes that Trump's lack of a clear strategy is causing significant rifts within his political base.

Key Points:

• Trump's incoherent statements on military action against Iran.
• Iran's strong rebuttals to Trump's provocations.
• The historical context of Netanyahu's push for U.S. involvement in strikes against Iran.

---

Fracturing of Trump’s Coalition

The episode underscores the deep divisions within Trump's supporters. On one side are the Fox establishment Republicans advocating for aggressive policies, while on the other are prominent MAGA figures like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene who oppose unilateral military actions.

Notable Quotes:

• Donald Trump [03:09]: "I want to see the Middle East get back to peace and real peace, but a peace that's going to be a lasting peace."

• Steve Schmidt [05:43]: "Donald Trump's incoherence on striking Iran and the crackup of his MAGA coalition is where we start today."

Guest Insights:

• Mark Mazzetti explains Netanyahu's strategic maneuvering to pressure Trump into military action.
• John Brennan criticizes Trump for sidelining intelligence assessments, leading to poorly informed decisions.

---

Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy

The lack of a coherent foreign policy has international repercussions, undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening adversarial states.

Discussion Highlights:

• Netanyahu's anticipation of American support and subsequent manipulation.
• Contradictions between Trump's statements and intelligence community assessments.

Key Exchanges:

• Steve Schmidt [09:02]: "Did Netanyahu basically punk Trump?"
• John Brennan [10:15]: "Netanyahu started this conflict... Trump has been duped by Netanyahu."

---

Domestic Turmoil and Immigration Crackdown

Transitioning to domestic issues, the episode examines Trump's aggressive immigration policies, which are leading to public backlash and political violence.

Key Events:

• Arrests of Democratic officials like Mayor Brad Lander and Senator Alex Padilla.
• Public clashes at immigration courts, symbolizing the administration's heavy-handed approach.

Notable Segment:

• Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin [48:59]: She confronts Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about orders to use lethal force against protesters, highlighting the administration's authoritarian tendencies.

Quote Highlight:

• Steve Schmidt [35:21]: "The aggressive targeting of Democratic elected officials by the Trump administration will invariably result in law-abiding public servants being marked for death by violent extremists."

---

Military Deployment and Constitutional Concerns

Senator Alyssa Slotkin raises alarm about the deployment of military forces in civilian settings, emphasizing the lack of proper training and the threat to constitutional rights.

Key Points from Slotkin:

• Training Deficiencies: National Guard members lack law enforcement training, posing risks in urban environments.
• Apolitical Military: The military's role should remain apolitical, ensuring they do not become tools for political agendas.

Quotation:

• Alyssa Slotkin [52:21]: "We want to look at our uniformed men and women and say, that's someone who's here to make me safe. That's not someone I fear."

---

Supreme Court and Democratic Erosion

The episode also touches on the Supreme Court's decision upholding a Tennessee law banning gender transition care for minors, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressing strong dissent.

Key Insights:

• The decision reflects an ideological divide within the judiciary.
• Sotomayor's Dissent: "The court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims."

---

Former President Obama’s Warning

Former President Barack Obama issues a stark warning about the U.S. drifting towards autocracy, drawing parallels with Hungary under Viktor Orban.

Obama's Statement:
"We are dangerously close to our government operating like an autocracy... We are not there yet completely, but we think that we are dangerously close to normalizing behavior like that."

Guest Perspectives:

• Mark Elias emphasizes the necessity for broad coalitions to resist authoritarian shifts.
• Alex Wagner and Tim Miller discuss the implications of reduced institutional resistance and the role of the legal and business communities in upholding democracy.

---

Economic Policy and Deficit Concerns

The conversation shifts to Trump’s economic policies, particularly his tariff strategies and the resultant federal deficit.

Key Points:

• Tax and Tariff Policies: Trump's administration implements policies that exacerbate the federal deficit, leading to higher interest rates.
• Council of Economic Advisers [84:50]: Assertion that the bill will save $1.6 trillion, which analysts refute as misleading.

Guest Analysis:

• Justin Wolfers [77:39]: Criticizes the administration’s handling of tariffs and deficit, highlighting the disproportionate benefits to the wealthy and the economic strain on the middle class.

Notable Quote:

• Steve Schmidt [86:32]: "Inflation affects everybody. And, and it's going to continue to, and, and, and he's not going to be able to fix it."

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The episode concludes with a call to action for various societal sectors to resist the authoritarian shift, emphasizing the importance of upholding democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Final Thoughts:

• Alex Wagner: Urges for widespread advocacy against the administration’s authoritarian practices.
• Alyssa Slotkin: Emphasizes the need for a clear, apolitical military stance and the protection of constitutional rights.

Closing Quote:

• Donald Trump [87:18]: "How many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population at all."

---

Key Takeaways

1. Trump’s Incoherence: Donald Trump's unpredictable statements and lack of a clear foreign policy strategy are causing significant instability both domestically and internationally.
2. Coalition Fractures: The MAGA movement is experiencing internal conflicts, weakening Trump's political base and making coherent policy-making difficult.
3. Authoritarian Tendencies: Aggressive immigration policies and military deployments in civilian areas signal a drift towards authoritarianism, threatening constitutional norms.
4. Economic Mismanagement: Trump's economic policies, particularly tariffs and tax cuts, are exacerbating the federal deficit and disproportionately affecting the middle class.
5. Democratic Erosion: Former President Obama and other Democratic leaders warn of the U.S. slipping towards autocracy, urging broader societal resistance to uphold democratic values.

---

This episode of Deadline: White House provides a comprehensive analysis of the current political turmoil under Donald Trump's influence, highlighting the critical challenges facing U.S. democracy and the pressing need for unified resistance against authoritarian shifts.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Foreign.

[Steve Schmidt]

It's 4 o' clock in the East. Incoherence on steroids from Donald Trump today, with the whole world watching and the stakes about as high as they can get. After the Iranian regime responded to Trump's frankly insane social media posts, one said that Iran's supreme leader was an easy target. Another called for, quote, unconditional surrender. All capsules. Iran responded with a resounding no. Here's what Trump said this morning about striking Iran.

[Donald Trump]

You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Have the Iranians reached out to you?

[Donald Trump]

Yes. And what did he say? I said it's very late, you know. I said it's very late to be talking.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Have you given the Iranians an ultimatum?

[Donald Trump]

You could say, so they know what's happening. Maybe you could call it the ultimate, the ultimate ultimatum.

[Steve Schmidt]

Right, I may do it. I may not do it. He also says he offered Iran the, quote, ultimate ultimatum, whatever that means. Moments ago, Trump said he had, quote, ideas as to what to do. Kind of reminds us of the concepts of a plan he once talked about. In short, the United States position on the growing conflict between Israel and Iran remains as murky and incomprehensible as ever. It's not even clear if Trump has formulated a position in his mind and isn't telling us, or if we're at some early stage of that process. And in that vacuum, Donald Trump's political coalition is literally shredding itself apart before our eyes. Allies of Donald Trump are going online and on television and on podcasts and other places to lobby him. A deeply serious national security conversation is not taking place in the normal venues like the Sit Room or across diplomatic channels, but instead on Fox News in primetime and on right wing cable channels and podcasts and on X in one corner, a good chunk of the on air personalities at Fox News Watch.

[Donald Trump]

The third best option involves the United States of America, our military, which is equipped with these 30,000 pound bunker buster.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Bombs capable of penetrating that mountain.

[Donald Trump]

He's going to do what every President before him, since Carter didn't have the guts to do. He's going to put an end to this damn thing. Let me be clear. This is good versus evil. You're either a patriotic American who's going to get behind the President, United States, the Commander in Chief, or you're not. Do you think the President has decided.

[Steve Schmidt]

Already to strike Iran?

[Donald Trump]

I hope so. I hope he does. I think it will secure his place.

[Alex Wagner]

In history as a peacemaker, because after the nuclear program is dismantled, and he has said for 10 years, they may.

[Donald Trump]

Not have a nuke.

[Steve Schmidt]

So that's one side of his coalition. We'll call them the more Fox establishment E types. But in the other corner are some of Trump's most intense and prominent MAGA personalities from the more populous wing of his coalition, folks like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Watch this.

[Donald Trump]

I'm a big supporter of Israel.

[Steve Schmidt]

Yes.

[Donald Trump]

And I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war, which inexorably looks like it's going to happen on the combat side, it's going to not just blow up the coalition, it's also.

[Alex Wagner]

Going to thwart what we're doing with.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

The most important thing, which is the.

[Donald Trump]

Deportation of the illegal alien invaders that are here. If we don't do that, we don't have a country going to war with Iran. And I was at party, was like, oh, we're not really going to do that after we have this election, whose core point was, hey, can we just pay attention to this amazing nation that.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

We have that's suffering and people are.

[Donald Trump]

Taking loans out to buy groceries and, like, we need attention and money.

[Steve Schmidt]

The American people have been brainwashed into believing that America has to engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive, and it's absolutely not true. As we have said on multiple occasions and multiple other flashpoints in the Trump era, watching Trump's closest allies and supporters take to the air and fight with one another is akin to watching tarantulas fighting in a glass bowl. But it is important, and as we said, the stakes couldn't be any higher. And it is a significant political detriment to Trump and his coalition to have them fracture like this. There's never been more daylight between the two most powerful factions of his political movement than there is right now, this hour. It's a tension that has its roots in Trump's original purpose for running for president. Trump branded himself in the 2024 election and before that, as a peacemaker. Watch.

[Donald Trump]

I want to see the Middle east get back to peace and real peace, but a peace that's going to be a lasting peace. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That's what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier.

[Steve Schmidt]

Donald Trump's incoherence on striking Iran and the crackup of his MAGA coalition is where we start today with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. MSNBC senior political analyst, friend and colleague Alex Wagner is here. Also joining us, former CIA director, MSNBC national security analyst John Brennan's back. Also joining us, New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti is here. Mark, you have a bylane on today's reporting, but more importantly, perhaps you have deep knowledge of all the players, just set the stage for us as to what is happening right now between these two powerful, powerful countries seemingly hell bent on doing as much damage as they can while the MAGA movement figures its itself out.

[Donald Trump]

Well, on the US Israel, Iran side. I mean, as you know, the timeline on this story goes back really several decades, right? Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been with us for about that long, has pushed American presidents since the George W. Bush administration to join Israel in striking Iran for a nuclear program that he has always said is weeks away from getting a bomb. The US Presidents, Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump won, basically rebuffed this, basically thinking that Netanyahu was not going to do it alone because he knew the consequences if the US didn't join the strike. And that sort of existed up until recent months when a number of things happened last fall where Netanyahu saw the calculation change. And he saw that for one, Iran couldn't retaliate like it once could with Hezbollah missiles, with the Syrian regime, with its own missiles. And so Netanyahu saw a path to possibly start a war and have the US Come in to finish it. And so last late last month, American intelligence agencies picked this up, this intelligence that basically said that, that said Netanyahu is going to go to war with or without the US and that then posed this dilemma for Trump, who, as you said, had campaigned for a while on ending these wars and was in the middle of this extensive negotiation with Iran to try to get them to give up their nuclear weapons. And so here we are, where Netanyahu in some ways put the president in a bind by starting this war. And now Trump faces this question about whether to continue. And it goes back to this issue of what capabilities does the United States have that Israel doesn't? It's the bunker buster bombs. It's other things. And so to the question of his coalition, I mean, I won't profess to have deep knowledge about what might break the MAGA coalition, but I do think that there is this question that they're all wrestling right now is what does this US Response look like? Is it possibly a couple quick strikes or which is always the case in war? Right. Are there counterstrikes? Does this go on for a long time? And that's really what could drag the United States in and cause potentially real political damage for the president?

[Steve Schmidt]

I mean, let me ask this bluntly. Did Netanyahu basically punk Trump? I mean, did he start something knowing very well that all of hisi mean Hannity and I think that second figure is named Mark Levin? They've been allies of Netanyahu's for as long as he's been on the scene. I mean, did he basically understand that key figures in Trump's coalition would lobby for what Israel wants and needs?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I mean, Benjamin Netanyahu knows American politics better than many American politicians. Right? He knows the landscape of American politics. I'm not saying that he did that knowing specifically that these figures would drag Trump in, but he certainly knew that a Israel was more capable of doing real damage to Iran than it had been over the past years because it would be lower risk operation for Israel. But he also certainly knew that this would put pressure on President Trump, who he's had this long and yet often antagonistic relationship with, that this would put him to some degree in a bind. And that's certainly what we're seeing right now.

[Steve Schmidt]

Director Brennan, let me read you from Mark's reporting this year. Trump told a political ally that Netanyahu was trying to drag him into another Mideast war, the type of war he promised during his presidential campaign last year he would keep America out of. But he also came to believe the Iranians were playing him in the diplomatic negotiations, much as President Putin of Russia did. As Trump sought a ceasefire and peace deal in Ukraine. And when Israel chose war, Trump cycled from skepticism about attaching himself too closely to Netanyahu to inching toward joining him in dramatically escalating the conflict, even bucking the view that there is no immediate nuclear threat from Iran. Trump is right now, as we come the air, on the air, at odds with his top intelligence official. What are the facts in this area and where is Trump? Where can you deduce? Where do you think Trump is getting his information if he's now saying he doesn't agree with Tulsi Gabbard?

[John Brennan]

Well, I think, first of all, Mark did a very good job of laying out the entire context of the relationship between Israel, Iran and the United States. And I do believe that foreign leaders take turns playing Trump. As you pointed out, I think Netanyahu had A really good appreciation of just how much damage the Israeli Defense Forces could do to Iran, Iran's nuclear program, as well as its military forces. But it knew it was not going to be able to go to Fordo in terms of being able to penetrate underground, that facility there. And so I do think that Netanyahu started this conflict with the anticipation that he was going to be able to use some of his allies and his friends in the United States to convince Trump to get on board this train. And I think as Trump has watched the very, very effective and successful Israeli strikes, I think he wants to be part of this winning effort, which is why I think he is seriously considering jumping in. But again, I think this is something that Netanyahu was anticipating, that there was going to be pressure put on Trump from those who are very supportive of destroying Iran's nuclear program once and for all. But Tulsi Gabbard's testimony in March, the language that she used, that the intelligence community assesses that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program program that was suspended in 2003, that's exactly the same language that has been used for the past 20 plus years. And at least according to everything that I have seen, there's been no indication that Iran actually was moving toward a warhead. So, again, I think we're at a position now, a place now that Israel has gotten us to. Trump, I don't think has a strategic framework that he's looking at the issue with and so that he's ad hoching it.

[Donald Trump]

I don't think he knows what he.

[John Brennan]

Wants to do at this point. If he maybe he has given the direction to start to plan for these strikes. But I think, again, he has been duped by Netanyahu, who really wanted to see a military solution to what is a very, very complex problem.

[Steve Schmidt]

Let me play that sound bite for you, Director Brennan. This is Tulsi Gabbard with her assessment of where Iran is vis a vis a nuclear weapon. This is from her Last congressional testimony, March 25.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. And Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.

[Steve Schmidt]

And then here's Trump not in line with Tulsi Gabbard.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

They've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon, but how close do you personally think that they were to getting one? Because Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the.

[Tim Miller]

Intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.

[Donald Trump]

I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to heaven.

[Steve Schmidt]

NBC is reporting that according to multiple senior administration officials, Tulsi Gabbard has been sidelined in all of the internal administration policy discussions about Israel and Iran. What does that look like when you've sidelined your top intelligence official and you're making a decision about war?

[John Brennan]

Well, I think it demonstrates that Donald Trump doesn't want to know what the intelligence community assesses about this. And as the testimony said, the intelligence community assessment was that that weapons program was not restarted. And, yes, the Iranians have enriched uranium to a higher level than they should in terms of up to 60%. But doing that and having an act nuclear warhead and a deliverable weapon are too many very different things. And so therefore, I think the fact that he is pushing aside Tulsi Gabbard, who said publicly what the intelligence community believes he wants to do, what he wants to do, and he doesn't want to have intelligence interfere with what his gut instinct will tell him to do. And he's looking at this through a very personal Donald Trump prism in terms of what's benefiting him politically and what he believes is the winning strategy for his political interests.

[Steve Schmidt]

Alex, it's not accurate to say that the Trump story was audacious and outrageous in the first term until something terrible happened, because Covid did happen, and it was outrageous. And then there were lives on the line and there were lives impacted and families lost, loved ones. And Trump, at best, seemed disinterested, really focusing day in and day out on managing the pandemic or modeling protective behavior. You know, we've seen his incoherence impact people's lives. But I think it's also fair to say that we haven't seen it quite like this, where his own coalition literally ruptures in spectacular fashion in full view. How are you looking at this moment?

[Tim Miller]

I'm waiting for him to pull out the Magic 8 ball and reveal that that's actually the thing that's determining the foreign policy here. I mean, it's such a joke, Nicole. The incoherence, the impotence, the impotence on everything from, you know, a tariff policy to immigration policy now to foreign policy. There's no one at the captain's wheel. And, you know, you have two guests who are wildly well informed on all of this, talking about the factors that would lead any other American president to make what is, you know, admittedly a difficult decision for anyone to make. But I don't think he's taking any of that truly into consideration. It is, you know, what Zach Beauchamp and at Vox said it is an internationalized version of Trump's attitude towards New York City real estate in the 80s and 90s. It's art of the deal. Who's got my ear? Who can offer a sweetener? And I do think, you know, the way, Steve, whether or not he's spoken to Steve Bannon in the last hour or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity is going to make a meaningful difference in terms of of what America does on the global stage. And that should be terrifying to anyone. The other piece of it, Nicole, is we have not seen a true ideological test of his coalition ever. And this finally is one. And I think Trump finally at last calculates that. And that is not going to help him make a decision. I think that's actually going to hamstring him.

[Steve Schmidt]

Yeah, I'm just taking a break, but I want to show all you what this looks like. I want to show you the I been using tarantulas in a bowl too often. I'm have to come up with something else. But the clash between Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz on the other side. Also ahead for us, Trump's unpopular crackdown on a big chunk of America's workforce is becoming more incoherent and chaotic by the day as well. From policy confusion and mixed messaging to very public physical clashes with Democratic officials, the resistance is pushing back against Donald Trump's increasingly unpopular deportation agenda also had what could easily win the award for Soundbite of the Week. We'll show you how one Democratic lawmaker pushed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on whether or not he would follow Donald Trump's orders to use the military to harm Americans. You don't want to miss that. And the lawmaker who challenged him will be our guest later in the broadcast. Also ahead, a warning on all of this from former President Barack Obama. We have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

[Donald Trump]

As President Trump.

[John Brennan]

Continues implementing his ambitious agenda.

[Donald Trump]

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.

[Steve Schmidt]

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

[Donald Trump]

Sign up for the Project 47 [e-mail] Project 47. Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening?

[Nicole Wallace]

Progressive grassroots group Indivisible's co founder and.

[Donald Trump]

Co executive director, Leah Greenberg.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

If there's anything we know about successful movements to defeat autocracies around the world, successful movements to take down dictatorships is that they build broad coalitions and the coalition may not be united by anything other than their opposition to what is currently happening.

[Donald Trump]

And that is okay. That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

[John Brennan]

Stay up to date on the biggest.

[Donald Trump]

Issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

[Donald Trump]

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for msnbc [e-mail] how many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Country you seek to topple?

[Donald Trump]

How many people living around 92 million.

[Steve Schmidt]

Okay.

[Donald Trump]

Yeah. How could you not know that? I, I don't sit around memorizing population tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. You're a senator who's calling. You're the one who knows anything about the country. No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

You know, you're the one saying that.

[Donald Trump]

Who can't figure out if it was a good idea to kill General Soleimani. And you said it was bad. They're trying to murder Trump. Yes, I do.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation.

[Donald Trump]

If they really believe that carrying out military strikes today. You said Israel was. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States government is Iran right now. People are listening.

[Steve Schmidt]

We're back with Alex Wagner, John Brennan and Mark Mazzetti. I mean, it's relevant, Alex Wagner, because of the point you just made that for Donald Trump. Often US Foreign policy is set based on who was last in his ear. And it is just as likely to be one of those two as anyone in the circles in which John Brennan used to run. Right an expert. What do you make of this crack? First of all, Tucker Carlson basically calls Ted Cruz an idiot, which is amazing. With friends like that, I'm not sure why they mess with all of us.

[Donald Trump]

But.

[Steve Schmidt]

But the idea that Tucker Carlson is. Is calling BS on, on Ted Cruz is a more significant thing inside this movement. Who has. The MAGA movement exists around Trump's impulses, and chief among them is, even if it's delusional and wacky, no wars.

[Tim Miller]

Right. I mean, that is, there are very few things you can say Donald Trump is about. But that is the thing, Nicole, which is why it's as if he doesn't realize what he's teeing him up, himself up for in all of this, which is a massive schism with the coalition he has worked years to build. I mean, there are people that will leave. There are some reporting that people are thinking about leaving the Trump coalition if he does, in fact, do this. You know, there are people that are very powerful people inside conservative circles saying he could. I mean, Tucker Carlson, one of them. He could end American dominance and he could end his own presidency if he does this. Those are sharp words, you know, and he's not making these decisions in any sort of deliberative way. I think we should remember this is an hour by hour seat of your pants, white, knuckling it through the day, foreign policymaking. This is not how it's done. It's already difficult enough. You have someone who's utterly uninformed, who's completely selfish, largely uninformed. You know, he is a chaos agent writ large. But on this particularly, what he's doing is not only damaging his own presidency, his own coalition, but we've said this many times before. I think the fact that Bibi Netanyahu, you use the word punked, but feels like he has the running room to go and force the hand of the American president not one year into his second term, is a testament to how unseriously the rest of the world, including one of America's most, you know, one of the allies that very much depends on American goodwill. They were a joke. And the behavior of the last 48 hours is going to do nothing to alleviate the, I think, pervasive sense that we are an unserious country led by an utterly unserious man who might as well open up a fortune cookie to decide whether he wants to push this country into war.

[Justin Wolfers]

War.

[Steve Schmidt]

I mean, Mark, it does open up a whole new series of questions, not just for Trump's critics, but Trump's allies, about his weakness on the people he thought were his closest friends, people like Vladimir Putin, who's done nothing Trump has asked him to do or tweeted at him to do, including, you know, in all caps, telling him to stop what he's doing in Ukraine. He's now got Netanyahu clearly in control of both events and US Response. What is the conversation behind the scenes about his lack of any sort of power or control over perceived close friends on the world stage?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I mean, obviously you have to go back to the pledge, right, he made during the campaign, which was the wars will be over on day one, and we're talking about the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza, and quite the contrary, several months later, both wars continue and the war in the Middle east is expanding. Right. And so events are sort of coming spiraling out of certainly the President's control and, you know, faces the perception that he is an observer rather than the person controlling the events. Right. That these other individuals, whether it's Putin or Netanyahu or the Supreme Leader of Iran, are actually in control. Right. And that's something that he desperately doesn't want to have that image of. Right. And on the question of his, you know, his base, the people who support him, I mean, clearly the Tucker Carlson interview sort of shows that there is this strain, right. Inamong the President's supporters, it's this deep suspicion that when we're talking about a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, this is merely a kind of Trojan horse to have a full scale regime change, right. And try to overthrow the Iranian regime, just like we did in Iraq more than 20 years ago that created so much distrust towards the American government and created this whole movement that Donald Trump has benefited from. Right, the right and the left. So that's really what people are concerned about, that this is not just a one strike or two strike affair. This is getting the United States deeper into remaking the Middle east on our terms. And that is what I think potentially he's weighing because he recognizes the implications.

[Steve Schmidt]

Of, you know, Director Brennan, I'm thinking of the Jack Smith indictment that had the scene of Trump waving around military plans for Iran. And all of that was covered in the context of a criminal investigation. But at its core, Trump has sort of been fascinated and resented people who have proposed aggressive approaches to dealing with Iran. I mean, what do you think? Do you think there is a policy process in front of him? And if there is, what does it look like?

[John Brennan]

I don't think there's a coherent policy process in front of him. Because, again, I don't think he respects the input of others other than those that he wants to align himself with. You know, Alex used the term unserious. That is the, I think the attitude that so many foreign leaders view Donald Trump with, whether it's the G7 partners just met together in Canada or Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or maybe Netanyahu or even Supreme Leader Khamenei, they don't see him as a serious person, but at the same time, he is at the top of the US Government, which makes them very worried, but also gives them a chance to actually manipulate him. And he is seen as malleable because he doesn't have a North Star, a policy North Star. He has certainly a Donald Trump prism in terms of how he looks at the world. But I think the fact that he is unserious, that the fact that he doesn't have a strategic perspective and framework, that he does these things on such an ad hoc basis, really makes it very worrisome for both, for our partners abroad, for his domestic constituents. But also I think our foreign adversaries are the ones that can best take advantage of this, as well as people like Bibi Netanyahu, who, again, sees military solutions and wants to drag the United States into a preemptive war that, quite frankly, never should have happened.

[Steve Schmidt]

Mark, let me just quickly ask you what you're watching for. I mean, what are you reporting out in terms of a next step? What do people think might happen next? And where are we watching for news of which direction Trump will go? Is it really coming from the public airwaves the way his supporters seem to think it will?

[Donald Trump]

I mean, that's sort of this remarkable situation we're all in right now, Right. Which is that clearly there are a lot of things in place that would allow the president to make a decision to take the next step in Iran, to launch a military strike, a military campaign, because the military is giving him options, right? They're moving refueling jets, they're tankers. There are repositioning naval forces. If he makes the decision, then, you know, we can follow those movements and sort of say, okay, so it's ready. He will coordinate with the Israeli military if he makes a decision. Right. The Pentagon's doing that. But then it's just, when will he make the decision? And also, I have to say, what else is going on behind the scenes? What other outreaches are happening on the diplomatic front? Right. Does, and I would not at all rule that out, that there would be something else in the works that would pull back from the brink, at least for now, where Trump would try to continue to pursue a diplomatic path. It's a real wild card. But that's another thing I'm looking for.

[Steve Schmidt]

We'll keep an eye on your signal chats. Maybe someone will add you and you'll find out and you come tell us all about it. Mark Mazzetti, thank you for your reporting on this. John Brennan, thank you for starting us off. Alex sticks around for the hour. Up next for us, from a US Senator to a mayor, even a mayoral candidate, the crackdown on the Trump side is extending to many members of Donald Trump's political opposition. We'll have much more on that story ahead. Don't go anywhere.

[Alex Wagner]

Yeah.

[Donald Trump]

Look, Trump is trying to ratchet up conflict. He wants it to happen. We have to show up and do things like I did today, and we have to find ways to do it that are de escalating because we can't allow, allow them to use conflict and violence to turn it into a police state.

[Steve Schmidt]

Donald Trump wants the conflict. That much is clear because the images of handcuffed Democrats opposing his aggressive immigration crackdown are piling up quickly. A United States senator, a mayor, a political candidate in New York City, Brad Lander, who we just heard from there, as the New York Times reported, reports today, it shows this, quote, the government crackdown is extending to the political opposition. The scenes of chaos reflect the tinderbox nature of this political moment and the expanding national battles over due process, the rule of law and the system of checks and balances. Following the scene of chaos in New York City yesterday, Congressman Dan Goldman and Congressman Jerry Nadler showed up at the same immigration courthouse where Lander was arrested in an attempt to exercise oversight, which they're allowed to do, but they were turned away. Here is what Congressman Dan Goldman had to say after they were denied entry.

[Donald Trump]

The question is, why can't we go in? What are they hiding? If they're going to treat Comptroller Lander, if they're going to treat Senator Padilla, if they're going to treat Congresswoman McIver the way that these agents have been treating them, as if they if it's a police state out in the open in the public, how are they treating immigrants behind closed doors who have to sleep on floors for multiple nights?

[Steve Schmidt]

Let's bring in Washington Post national investigative reporter, our friend MSNBC contributor Carol Lennig. Alex is still with us. Carol, what is your sense of what the answer to that question is? Because this is such a Difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 One of the frames that I constantly turn to. I mean, we knew about child separation because Katie Miller invited reporters inside the detention centers to showcase the Trump administration's harsh immigration policies. Why are they keeping lawmakers out this time?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

You know, one of the reasons that sources say that these people are being knocked down to the floor in the case of Senator Padilla or in the case of the Democratic mayoral candidate, you know, actually handcuffed and arrested and taken away. The reason that they say they're doing this is they don't want people coming up and disrupting what they believe is the legal right they have to enforce the immigration laws of the country. Of course, as you know, that, Nicole, it doesn't really cover the waterfront because this administration is breaking the law in trying to do these immigration raids. And we know that based on numerous federal courts and appeals courts who have found that these efforts have glossed over due process rights that are enshrined in the Constitution. They have denied the ability of people to say, wait a minute, I'm not what you say I am. Let me tell you before, before you send me to a prison in El Salvador. And so a lot of it is, is an effort to try to say might makes right on the part of the Trump administration, like, we will stop you from trying to get in our way. But Donald Trump himself has always preferred to show that hand, to say, I'm in charge and I've got, basically I've got the power and I've got the guns and, and I've got now all of the tools at my disposal to do what I want.

[Steve Schmidt]

Carol, let me show you the sort of dark trajectory that leader Hakeem Jeffries thinks this puts us on. He said this on the targeting of Democratic officials. Quote, the aggressive targeting of Democratic elected officials by the Trump administration will invariably result in law abiding public servants being marked for death by violent extremists. The Trump administration and their squad of masks agents must change course before it is too late. This is not a musing, I think, in the wake of the political assassinations over the weekend or the targeting of multiple Democratic politicians. What is the response, if any, inside the Trump administration?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

I think there was a lot of concern inside the Trump White House about the shootings in Minnesota because of the possibility of the investigation by the FBI ultimately concluding that the shooter, what his motives were. I think there was a lot of, of tension about what that investigation will ultimately reveal. I don't know that we're all going to get you and me, Nicole, all The answers to what that investigation concludes, but the details of what the shooter was involved in, the details of why he was plotting, what he was plotting, what he was listening to before he decided to make a list of various members of our political class, but only of one party. What, what was he listening to? What messages was he getting before he made this, this scheme and began implementing a series of murders? One thing that is a problem for the Trump administration is Donald Trump's rhetoric does have a ramification and a ricochet around the country. And you remember, and you've highlighted it so well on your program, the judges around the country, including the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, reminding people, without using Donald Trump's name, that when you start accusing various people of being political hacks and trying to stop the Trump administration from implementing its agenda, when you start personal and accusing judges of getting in your way and being against America, there are people listening. They may not always be the most mentally sound people, but there are people listening who are your supporters. And they make, they may take, you know, basically the law into their own hands. They may decide to try to avenge what Donald Trump has been complaining about on television and on true social media.

[Steve Schmidt]

Alex, it's a moment we both, I mean, all three of us have covered this moment as it has come into such close and clear reality that we had all these off ramps and Trump and his supporters never seem interested in taking them. I read leader Jeffrey's statement because I've never heard him say anything like that before. This feels, feels like an inside thought being expressed outside now.

[Tim Miller]

Well, and we have reporting that Democratic lawmakers across the country are worried. They know, they fear for their own safety. You can't isolate what's happening at immigration court in New York from what happened in Minnesota. You see images of Democratic lawmakers being arrested, charged with federal crimes, pushed around, made to look like they are there to destabilize American society. What you get if you, if you heat up the rhetoric enough is an expression of violence. I mean, I will say, Nicole, the reason this is happening is because the Trump administration lied to the American public. Trump rode into office by convincing a fair share of the electorate that there were millions and millions of violent offenders and criminals without papers living in the United States. And once he got into office, and once Stephen Miller set a quota of 3,000 deportations a day, they realized that they weren't going to be taking a bunch of criminals and gang members out of this country. They were going to be taking out fathers and sisters and brothers and sons and children and People who make up the fabric of our society and are the backbone of the American economy. And to do that requires plunging into the deep end of moral hazard, legal limbo, and political peril. And they do not want anyone to shine a light on that. Which is why Brad Landler and Lamonica, McIver and Ras Baraka and the people that are doing the hard work of oversight and shedding light on the mendacity and the violence and the utter cruelty of this administration are being punished by this administration. And we should never lose sight of why Brad Landler was there yesterday, which is to protect the people who are trying to follow the legal guidelines set out by the federal government and report to court so that they can stay in this country legally and make a legal case for themselves. That is what these representatives are trying to do, protect the integrity of that process. And they are being punished by an administration that would really like to work and move extrajudicially on a front, which is to say the deportation of 3,000 people a day, which is both, you know, again, morally questionable and could very much reshape not just our economy, but our democracy.

[Steve Schmidt]

Well, and it's where the most brutal language toward federal judges has come in, when they have stood in the way of this, of what you so perfectly described. I have to sneak in a break. Please, Carol and Alex, stick around with me. Much more on the other side.

[Donald Trump]

We gotta get the bad people out of here first. And we're doing that. We're taking them out by the thousands. Look, we have to take care of our farmers. We have to take care of people that run leisure hotels. I mean, we have to take care of them. But most importantly, we have to get the criminals out of our country.

[Steve Schmidt]

We're back with Carol and Alex. Carol, you've been reporting on this story. The. I mean, Alex points out the inconvenient truth for the Trump administration. Their targets exceed the number of, quote, unquote, bad people adjudicated criminal. Where does that leave the goal of hitting those Stephen Miller manufactured deportation targets?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

You know, I've talked for the last several weeks on and off with Department of Homeland Security sources and people who have been sort of brought into dragooned into ICE enforcement raids where they're checking on unaccompanied minors who came in here legally sponsored by a US Citizen. They're going to parking lots and gathering up people who are brown and questioning them. They are ending up in workforce areas, work site areas, where they expect there to be illegal immigrants, not criminals, but maybe even people in courthouses, they're heading there to people who are legally complying with their asylum paperwork and their court appearances and arresting those individuals on site. And those people say to me there is no way in the world that they will ever meet 3,000 deportations a day, which is the magic figure that Stephen Miller and Donald Trump have come to, to reach 1 million deportations in a year. That's the goal. But, but Alex is exactly right. When she was listening, I was, I was kind of fluttering my eyelids because I was thinking, this is what my sources say all the time. There aren't 1 million illegal criminals in our country to take out of the country this year. There aren't. And while there have been a lot, there's a lot of rhetoric suggesting that that's the case. FBI, HSI and a host of other federal agents are finding. That's just not what's really happening on the ground. And they're not going to find that number.

[Steve Schmidt]

So, Alex, where does that leave us?

[Tim Miller]

Leaves us with the reality that 1 million of the nation's 2 million farm workers don't have documents. You take all those million people out to meet your quota and you devastate the U.S. farm economy, you devastate the agricultural sector. So now you have, you know, lobbying groups from, you know, important lobbying groups that have the ear of the president saying, can you, can you maybe just leave, leave the farm workers or can you leave the hotel workers? And you have an utterly incoherent day to day, I guess, policy that is outlined in gray by the administration saying some people are off limits and some people are fair game. And what that all amounts to is a climate of fear and intimidation that keeps all undocumented workers at home. And if, if the Trump strategy is to suggest that some people are off limits until and unless those undocumented people feel they're not going to get nabbed on their way to church or to court or the grocery store, they're not going to come out of the shadows. The implications for the American economy are dire, and you can bet the president is hearing about that.

[Steve Schmidt]

Alex Wagner and Carol Lanig, I could talk to both of you for the whole two hours. Thank you so much for joining us today and for your reporting on this. Up next for us, powerful words today from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking to the nation about abandoning children over politics. We'll show you some of what she had to say today. Next, the U.S. supreme Court today delivered a major blow to transgender rights, upholding a Tennessee law banning gender transition care for minors. It's likely to have sweeping impacts across the country, as 24 other states have already enacted laws similar to the one in Tennessee, barring gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for children. The court was divided along ideological lines, with the six conservatives in the majority and the three liberals in dissent. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor took a rare step to stress her opposition, reading a summary of her decision from the bench. Her dissent concludes, like this quote, by retreating from meaningful judicial review, exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent. Still ahead for us President Barack Obama has weighed in in the spotlight again, jumping back into this political moment with a warning about the direction Donald Trump is taking our country. We'll show that to you when the next hour of Deadline White House starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Donald Trump]

It's conversation, it's perspective. It's the weekend on MSNBC with three new dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniel and Jackie Alemani. And in the evening, it's the Weekend Prime Time with Eamon Mohadin, Katherine Rampel, Elise Jordan and Antonia Hilton join them as they offer analysis on the week's most important events and set the agenda for the week ahead. The weekend at 7am eastern and the weekend prime time at 6pm eastern Saturdays.

[John Brennan]

And Sundays on MSNBC.

[Donald Trump]

Now, throughout this country's history, we've had conflict, we've had tumult, but we've never.

[Nicole Wallace]

Had a tyrant as a commander in chief.

[Donald Trump]

And that is not by coincidence. It's because the American people have always been willing to speak up and exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, especially.

[Nicole Wallace]

When our fundamental rights have been threatened.

[Steve Schmidt]

Hi again, everyone. It's now five o' clock in the East. It is the basis for our existence as the country that we are. It's the basis for the country's founding, that there would be no king, no queen, no monarch, no dictator or autocrat ruling our country. It would be a nation of the people, by the people, for the people, people who have rights outlined in the US Constitution and the the Bill of Rights. Which is why when Donald Trump in 2020 reportedly wanted the US military to shoot unarmed protesters in the legs, it was so stunning and scandalous and jaw dropping even for the Trump White House. These were Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, and the president at the time wanted his military to violently attack them by shooting them. That account of the president thinking came from someone very close to him. His own defense secretary at the time, Mark Esper watch.

[Donald Trump]

I thought that we're at a different spot now. He's going to finally give a direct order to deploy paratroopers into the streets of Washington D.C. and I'm thinking with weapons and bayonets and this would be horrible.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

What specifically was he suggesting that the US Military should do to these protesters?

[Donald Trump]

He says, can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something? And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

The Commander in chief was suggesting that the US Military shoot protesters.

[Donald Trump]

Yes. In the straits of our nation's capital. That's right. Shocking.

[Steve Schmidt]

So that really happened. But importantly, it's happening again. Donald Trump is in office again without Mark Esper or anyone like him who would constrain him from that. With armed military troops now deployed to the streets of Los Angeles, we cannot forget Mark Esper's words there. Take a look at this stunning moment on Capitol Hill earlier when Congresswoman Alissa Slotkin questioned the man who now holds Esper's post. Senator Alissa Slotkin questioned the man who now holds Esper's job, Pete Hegseth.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Have you given the order for to be able to shoot at unarmed protesters in any way? I'm just asking the question. Don't laugh. Like the whole country. And by the way, my colleagues across the. What is that?

[Donald Trump]

Based on what evidence would you have that an order like that?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Giving that order to your predecessor, to a Republican Secretary of defense who I give a lot of credit to, because he didn't accept the order. He had more guts and balls than you because he said, I'm not going to send in the uniform military to do something that I know in my gut isn't right. He was asked to shoot at their legs. He wrote that in his book. That's not hearsay. So you're poo poohing of this. It just shows you don't understand who we are as a country, who we are. And all of my colleagues across the aisle, especially the ones that served, should want an apolitical military and not wanting citizens to be scared of their own military. I love the military I served alongside my whole life. So I'm worried about you tainting it. Have you given the order? Have you given the order that they can use lethal force against honor? I want the answer to be no. Please tell me it's no. Have you given the order, Senator?

[Donald Trump]

I'd be careful what you read in books and believing it.

[Nicole Wallace]

Except for the Bible.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Oh, my God. So your former predecessor, I guess that's not enough for you.

[Steve Schmidt]

That moment is where we start the hour with Senator from Michigan, Senator Alyssa Slotkin. Thank you so much for being here. I am a student of that paragraph, of that book, of that chapter in American political history of all the people who are in the room. And if you could just help me relive that moment. I mean, it is written about by Mark Esperance. It's a standoff in the Oval Office with Stephen Miller. Mark Milley was in the Oval Office as well. And it is about invoking the Insurrection Act. It's about using the military in historic ways. Tell me what you think when you can't get the current Secretary of Defense to tell all of us and you that that'll never happen?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Yeah, I think the thing that I, you know, you want him to give a simple. And in other questions he gave a simple answer, but there just seems to be this impossibility for him of just saying, look, I'm going to protect and defend the Constitution. I'm never going to execute an illegal order. I love the military. And so I'm never going to let that happen. Because he's so devoted to Donald Trump, he doesn't want to do anything that gets him in more trouble. And it just, you know, you think about Secretary Esper when he was, you know, in those important conversations with the President, your character really matters. These things really matter. And what if he hadn't had that character? What if that Secretary of Defense had gone out and said, you know what, all these peaceful protesters just shoot at him, shoot at him to get him to move. You know, they're making the President look weak. We'd be in a very different moment right now. So I think it's deeply frustrating, especially for me as someone who served as to the Pentagon, worked alongside the military. I don't want Americans to live in fear of their own military.

[Steve Schmidt]

Well, and the military doesn't want that either. I mean, just explain the dynamic for the National Guard in any state. But right now we have them in L. A. They are largely from the community they're now patrolling. What is that like for them?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Yeah, I mean, I think, right. The National Guardsmen are dented dentists and doctors and construction workers and people who either served before or want to serve in a part time capacity when they're, you know, in addition to having a full time job. So they very much are of the community. And I got a lot of staff and former staff that are Guardsmen and they have almost no Training on how to do things in a law enforcement context. That's the thing that we're sort of missing here. It's not just about uniform folks showing up in a, a city. It's about what are they trained to do. Especially a Marine. Right, an active duty Marine. They are trained to go after the enemy in a ruthless way and we like that. That's a positive thing where we're dealing with adversaries abroad. But it's a very different thing to bring that same Marine into an urban setting. They've had, as we heard the head of the Marine Corps say, two hours of training on law enforcement techniques. It's just a very different approach to the world and you don't want mistakes. You don't want them getting jittery and shooting at someone by mistake and causing a bigger problem. So it's not just about the letter of the law. It's about the training that the military has or doesn't have in the kinds of things we're asking them to do.

[Steve Schmidt]

A former senior military official told me that it's that piece, but it's also the self selection. The people who go into the military, military go into the military for a reason, that if they wanted to patrol and protect, they would pursue law enforcement. And sometimes at the beginning of their careers, they're at a fork in the road. But just talk about what we're putting the men and women of the military through right now to even be debating their deployment on the streets of American cities.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Yeah, I mean, I think, look, like you said, people sign up for the military for a bunch of, of reasons, but usually because they want to serve their country, they want to protect us from harm, they don't want attacks in the homeland, they want to protect us. And so that is a very different job description than policing streets, than detaining and arresting people, than trying to control unarmed protesters when you haven't had that non lethal force training. So I just, I don't think that the average person I know, they, they don't sign up to do that. I think that officer you spoke to was right that you could go into law enforcement if that's what you want to do and get the right training. But I think the thing that again I tried to highlight in the testimony is, you know, we want to look at our uniformed men and women and say, that's someone who's here to make me safe. That's not someone I fear. And by putting the military in these positions, in these adversarial roles, they are risking politicizing them and making them seem like just a political wing of this president, when in fact they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any one man. So it concerns me. I'm from Michigan, right. And the National Guard was called in in 1967 in Detroit during our riots. The riots were bad. No one disputes that. But the National Guard coming in made it worse because they didn't have the training. It went on for days. And people still talk about it and remember that. So I don't want that for the whole rest of the country.

[Steve Schmidt]

So as a woman who's covered the Trump era for nine years, I cannot let another moment go by without asking you about saying something out loud that people say off TV all the time that none of them has the balls to do the right thing. What is your assessment of why Hegseth is so afraid of Trump?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

You know, I think, I think everybody, a lot of these political appointees have been very concerned about doing anything that would anger them because they know they'd lose their job, right? They know they wouldn't. They'd have their nomination pulled. And there's varying degrees of it. And for Secretary Hegseth, he has always been the most nervous, most concerned, most hedging, most agitated. When you ask him a straight up question about the Constitution, it's noticeable. And then he's had a rough first few months, right? He's in the spotlight. We're talking more about his conduct and his behavior and use of signals for war plans than we are about the leadership. And I think that makes him even more concerned. But again, it shouldn't. These shouldn't be hard questions. And frankly, the four star general sitting next to him, when we went through General Kaine, when we went through his confirmation hearing, he could answer those questions, no, I won't accept an illegal order. I swear an oath to the Constitution. He answered it straight. That's all we're asking for from the man who controls the entire US Military.

[Steve Schmidt]

So where does it leave us as a country if the sitting Secretary of defense will not say under oath to a sitting United States senator that he will not refuse an illegal order?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Well, I think, look, I mean, we're right on the edge here. I don't think anyone's missing that, you know, that we are seeing things that don't look like America. And, you know, I started to go through kind of a question, I thought to myself, you know, what if during the military parade, a protester had jumped out in front of a tank? You know, what would the guy have been to do with that unarmed protester. He's blocking traffic. And it made me think of another country. It made me think of China. It made me think of Tiananmen Square. And I can't fathom that as someone who served in the CIA proudly and who did three tours in Iraq and who believes in this country. And I think the thing that is making people speak up and speak out is that just. It just doesn't look like the country they were raised on and they believe in, and they just. They don't want to let that happen.

[Steve Schmidt]

What does it say to you and what does it say to the men and women in the intelligence, various agencies that Trump today came out and said, well, I don't believe Tulsi Gabbard when it comes to Iran's nuclear capabilities?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Yeah. I mean, I think there are not that many people who believed that Trump was going to kind of listen to the intelligence community and do exactly sort of what they say or base his. His determinations on what they produce. I thought it was a little pointed. And we'll see how long Tulsi is. Is, you know, still being led into the Oval Office to give briefs and those kinds of things. But I think it's clear that Trump is not taking his cues from the intelligence community. And again, and that's not hidden. He's changing his approach, particularly on things in the Middle east, every couple of hours. And I think it's indicative of this administration. They're just not doing it in a way that's based in fact and intelligence and reality.

[Steve Schmidt]

What would your counsel be if he were to call you and ask you what to do.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

On LA or on the Middle East?

[Steve Schmidt]

Let's start with the Middle East.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Yeah. So, look, I mean, again, my. My view of what's going on in the Middle east right now is completely colored by doing three tours in Iraq alongside the military. Right. During those three tours, I was constantly being hit by Iranian rockets and mortars and improvised explosive devices that the Iranians used to kill Americans. Target and kill Americans. They used terrorist. They use ballistic missiles, and they've been very clear for years that they have nuclear ambitions. So I have a real problem with Iran, that's clear. But I also served in Iraq. When I watched this war go on and on and on and become a forever war. Right. I saw what it looks like to go in thinking you have everything you need to do that first strike, and you think it'll be quick and easy, and then you get stuck and bogged down and you're there for while. A another 20 years. So that's why I asked Secretary Hegseth today, like, what kind of day after planning are you doing? No one doubts that the US Military could conduct a serious operation, sophisticated operation. I don't doubt that. But what happens the next day? What happens if a pilot goes down? Are you going to use ground troops? What's the plan when they start attacking the 40,000 US servicemen and women who are in the Middle East? So I think, you know, the administration is having an internal fight, a cat fight about who they want to be and whether they want to do this or not do this. But my view on this is deeply connected to my real problem with Iran and also my real problem with getting into wars accidentally.

[Steve Schmidt]

Do you have any faith that there's anyone that has access to Trump who's the ultimate, I guess, policymaker or decision maker here? Who, who has that understanding that you just articulated?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

I literally do believe that there is a tug of war going on within the administration. I can hear it. I mean, it's not hidden, right? When you have people like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon coming out against the president, those are kind of his guys, or traditionally were. So I think there's an isolationist group who doesn't want anything to do with it, who sees that we could be on the edge of getting embroiled in something, and then there's a more hawkish group that want him to go. And I think the president is, I mean, he's been open that he has to make a decision. I just want it to be on our terms as the United States of America do it for our reasons, on our timing, on our, you know, schedule. So, because if we're going to risk American men and women, it should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed, not just what it takes to operate and drop something, but what it means the day after.

[Steve Schmidt]

And Senator, because you asked, let me ask your thoughts about what the best path forward is for the military now that they've been deployed in Los Angeles. What is the best decision making from this point forward?

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Well, I don't. The use of the uniform military in the United States of America should be a last resort. If law enforcement completely cannot control a situation, a governor says please help me, then fine. Right. That's what we've had that happen before. But that's not what's going on right now, and we all know it. I don't know why we're pretending that this isn't for political reasons. The largest, some of the largest numbers of undocumented immigrants in the country are in Texas and Florida. And you don't see one question about putting in a uniform in those places. Right. So we know what this is. And to me, we should make our military an apolitical body. We should not use them as the arm of any one political goal, our political party, because it's bigger than that. And we don't want to set that precedent. Right. I mean, the Republican governors would lose their ever loving mind if a Democratic president sent in the National Guard and Marines to their state without their permission. Kristi Noem was a governor. Ask her. I did. I asked her in her confirmation hearing. They would lose their ever loving minds. So you don't want to set this precedent for our country. So that's what they should do. Get out of the cities and stop using it as a political tool.

[Steve Schmidt]

Senator, what did hecseth come back to you? Did he have any response? Because it's not often that members of Trump's cabinet get confronted with the truth that they don't, they don't have the balls to stand up for the Constitution if it means potentially displeasing the dear Leader.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

No, I mean, you know, I think it seemed to make him uncomfortable. It was the end of a long hearing.

[Steve Schmidt]

Yes.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

And again, you know, I don't know what goes on in the privacy of his own office or, you know, about decision making on these things, but I know that if I'm him, I want to stand up in front of all those uniformed military that I represent there and say we're not going to use them in ways that violate the Constitution. That should not be a controversial statement.

[Steve Schmidt]

It should not be a hard question to answer. Senator Elisa Slotkin, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. We really appreciate it. Ahead for us, we'll bring in our panel to discuss what we, what we just heard from the senator as well as what what we heard from former President Barack Obama who weighed in last night about our country's autocratic slide, what he's telling the pro democracy coalition. We'll share that with you next later in the hour. What life looks like when an authoritarian, curious president doesn't get his way. Donald Trump today picking a fight with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell again while his big beautiful bill is poised to blow an even bigger hole in the federal deficit. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Former President Barack Obama issued a stark warning last night about how weak our democracy has become. The former president saying we are dangerously close to our government operating like an autocracy and he warned that democracy requires government workers, judges and lawyers at the Justice Department to uphold the Constitution and follow the law, saying this, quote, it requires them to take that oath seriously. And when that isn't happening, we start drifting into something that is not consistent with American democracy. It is consistent with autocracies. It is consistent with Hungary under Orban. He went on, we're not there yet completely, but I think that we are dangerously close to normalizing behavior like that. And we need people both outside government and inside government saying, quote, let's not go over that cliff because it's hard to recover. Joining our conversation, voting rights attorney, founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias is here. Also joining us, host of the Bulwark Podcast, MSNBC political analyst Tim Miller's here. Mark Elias, I start with you.

[Alex Wagner]

Yeah, look, I think President Obama is entirely correct. And he, in that same Q and A, he was asked about the private sector and law firms, and he again reiterated something you and I have talked about, something I know Tim has covered on his podcast. The role of the legal establishment in standing up. I mean, Donald Trump targeted law firms for a reason, because he wants to neutralize them in being able to fight back. And we saw some of the law firms stand up, some lawyers stand up, and. But we saw some of them back down and, And Barack Obama's words were chilling in this regard. He said, presumably you went into law because you believe in the law. If you're getting pressure from government, say, ignore, fudge, or compromise that commitment, you have to push back. And that is what we need everyone to do, whether they are lawyers, whether they are business leaders, whether they are media executives. We need everyone to push back. And unfortunately, we're seeing far too little of that. And it is easy to focus on the. The Republican Party. Believe me, there is no one who focuses on the shortcomings of the Republican Party more than I do. But they're never going to push back. So the question we all need to ask ourselves is not what will they do? Because the answer is nothing. The question is, what will we do?

[Steve Schmidt]

Yeah, look, I like this part of what he said, too. You know, I agree with everything you said, Mark, but Tim, he also said this, quote, you could be as progressive and socially conscious as you wanted, and you didn't have to pay a price before. He said you could still make a lot of money. You could still hang out in Aspen and Milan and travel and have a house in the Hamptons and still think of yourself as a progressive. We now have a situation in which all of us are going to be tested in some way, and we're going to have to decide what our commitments will be. Now things are a little different. You might lose some of your donors if you're a university. And if you're a law firm, your billings might drop a little bit, which means you can't remodel that kitchen in your house in the Hamptons this summer. I mean, it's Obama cool, but it is dripping with disdain for people choosing comfort and their corporate clients over standing up for democracy. And I wonder what you thought of that, Tim.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, a couple of different thoughts. One I share is disdain. Sometimes it's hard to keep down for people that are not standing up in this moment because we're kind of still at the easy part of standing up. If we can just be honest. We have, we certainly have creeping authoritarianism. But if you're on the Harvard board or you're one of these law firms, and we've seen some folks do the right thing in law firms, and we should acknowledge that, but the ones that haven't, boy, folding right now is not a great sign when things get hotter in the kitchen. The other thing that I would say about what he said, it reminded me I was talking to Ben Rhodes, his former national security advisor, this morning for the podcast, and Ben pointed out some, something just about where we are in this process towards authoritarianism I hadn't thought about, which is that like he's like, we always say, well, we might get to Hungary. And in a lot of ways, Orban has grabbed, you know, power in a more authoritarian manner than Trump has. But there are some things that Trump is doing right now that hasn't happened, that isn't really happening in Hungary. There aren't military on the streets of cities. Opposition leaders aren't getting, like, manhandled like, like Brad Lander and Alex Padilla. So in some ways, we're past that. I think that's good perspective. My last thing about Obama, you mentioned the Obama cool. Far be it for me to give him advice, but I'd like to hear President Obama making those points with Joe Rogan and Theo Vaughn and bro Pods, not with academics on panels. I just think that he has a higher and better purpose in this moment. So that's just my, my friendly request.

[Steve Schmidt]

Yeah. Or with you or me or. Yeah. I mean, former presidents are very reluctant to weigh in or to squander their platform. But I think all of his warnings from ahead of the election have absolutely come to pass in alarmingly quick order. And I wonder, Mark Elias, what You think the opportunity is to sort of rally around these autocracy warnings with his very clear eyes on, on these markers where we've slid in. Tim and Ben Rhodes telling beyond Hungary.

[Alex Wagner]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, just to keep total track here. I mean, Donald Trump came to office and said he was going to go have vengeance against his enemies. And we have seen that in words and we have seen that in deeds. I mean, it is not just the most recent people who have ended up in handcuffs. We saw a judge in Wisconsin who was arrested and then indicted, a progressive judge in Wisconsin. We saw a Democratic staffer in their congressional office in Manhattan handcuffed by ICE and by federal agents. We saw a labor leader in California who was handcuffed. We've seen a Democratic congressman, congresswoman in New Jersey who's been indicted, arrested and now indicted. Saw the mayor of Newark who was arrested. We obviously saw the situation with the US Senator in California, the comptroller in New York, both Democrats. But let's not forget, Donald Trump also egged on the head of his head of ICE to arrest the governor of California, which thankfully they didn't. Gavin Newsom. So we are seeing this across the board, and it is high time that everyone speaks up. I am thrilled that, that former President Obama is speaking up. I admire the fact that, Tim, you know, a former Republican Party spokesperson is speaking up. But we need everyone to speak up, and there is no excuse or permission structure not to. If you are a corporate leader, you need to speak up. If you are a law firm leader, you need to speak up. If you are a university president who is not Harvard, you need to speak up. We just need it. More voices in more places.

[Steve Schmidt]

Tim, the president getting at this liberal elite piece is so interesting because the Republican smear against the Obamas is that they, you know, they just run in all these elite circles. And as most former presidents are technically elites. Right. They've served their country and they're in an elite group of former presidents. But he is uniquely situated to call out people who haven't necessarily served their country but are super comfortable. He talks about going to Aspen and Milan. I don't know what happens in Milan. I'll have to Google that. But this idea that there, that there are still people on the sidelines is interesting coming from him.

[Nicole Wallace]

It is, and I appreciate that. I appreciate what Mark just said. And I guess that kind of goes to what I was saying at the end there about what I wish he was doing. Because President Obama, I think, has a unique ability to influence certain demographics, right it's like Fox News viewers aren't going to listen to President Obama. So it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for him to use his time doing that or to pop off the daily news cycle. As you said, this is one area where he can, he can name and shame the kind of maybe not even liberal, but like the centrist elite class. Right. And try to pressure them to do the right thing. I think that's very useful and I'm happy that he's doing it and because we have seen folding in various places and maybe he can help stiffen the spine of folks who admire him or who he might run in those circles. And then again, just back to kind of this bro talk. I do think there's an opportunity there for Democrats and that Democrats need to really work on it. And probably as good as a $20 million plan or whatever it is for some from some consultants would just be Barack Obama just going out there and leveling with people. And so anyway, I think those are both two audiences that's very useful from talking to. And I do think it's noteworthy who he's trying to speak to.

[Steve Schmidt]

Well, I guess I would put Senator Alyssa Slotkin in the mix too. I mean, calling them out, telling Pete Hegsely he doesn't have the balls to do what his predecessor did before him. I think that's some straight talk that is welcome. You know, I don't know if they melt in the manosphere when they get delivered inconvenient truths like that, but it was certainly refreshing to hear her speak so bluntly. And it's an apples to apples comparison. Mark. It's mark Esper Trump's term one SecDef. And Pete Hegseth his term two SecDef.

[Alex Wagner]

Yeah. And by the way, it wasn't just his book. I mean, you showed video of him selling it. And so the idea that but you know, Hegseth is like, well, don't really don't, don't rely on what you read in the books. I mean, you heard it from the guy's mouth and he is again an example of a Republican who has shown remarkable courage. You know, I've said this before and I'll say it again. You know, people like Tim, people like Esper, they deserve all the credit in the world. It's easy for Democrats like me or for that matter like Barack Obama to say this part, but when you have Republicans saying is much harder for the Pete Hegseth to say, oh, that's just a bunch of Democrats. So that's just a bunch of elites. And the fact is that the Pete Hegsets of the world don't have an answer, which is why they don't offer an answer. It's why they just retreat and look as stupid and as foolish and as gutless as an as cowardly as they do. But we can't just, we can't just give up. We need everyone to keep making these points.

[Steve Schmidt]

Marco lies. Thank you for spending some time with us today. Tim sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, Donald Trump is putting the pressure on the one area of the federal government that still remains independent. Trump's attack on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell again. While his agenda threatens to do grave damage to the economy. That conversation next.

[Donald Trump]

That come too late. Powell because he's always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did this, I was right 100%. He was wrong. Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to point myself? He's not a smart person. I think he hates me. But that's okay. You know, he should, he should. I call him every name in the book trying to get him to do something. I'm nasty, I'm nice. Nothing works. He's like just a stupid person.

[Steve Schmidt]

Way too deep inside the mind of Donald Trump, that might be what it looks like. When Trump doesn't get what he wants out of someone, he reveals his strategy of smearing him on a daily basis. That was Trump today blasting Fed chair Jerome Powell for refusing to cave to his bullying, his demands that he cut interest rates. This afternoon, the Fed did not cave. It declined to lower rates again. Why, you might ask? Well, it could have something to do with Donald Trump's tariff policy, which remains in constant flux, completely incoherent. According to cnbc, Powell and his colleagues have expressed hesitation about adjusting rates. With so many open questions regarding the Trump economy. For one, the long term impact of Trump's tariffs is a known unknown. Joining our conversation, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers. Tim Miller is here as well. Justin, it seems perfectly logical, even without a background in economics that you can't change rates one way or the other when you have no idea what's happening with Donald Trump's global trade war.

[Justin Wolfers]

Yeah, and that's basically what Fed Chair Powell said today. He said, I don't know whether I'm going to be making policy for a high tariff world or a low tariff world. I could start to shift the lever right now in order to figure that out. But why don't I just sit tight for a while and wait and see how things pan out. And, and honestly, that seems like a pretty useful way forward.

[Steve Schmidt]

Well, what is ahead for us? I mean, there are not 90 deals in 90 days. There's one, it seems that the 0.5 of a deal with the UK, the framework became a deal. But where are the other 89?

[Justin Wolfers]

Well, we heard actually earlier this week from the President that he said at some point in the next week or so he's going to send a letter to everyone letting them know how the negotiations turned out. So, Nicole, I don't know if I'm allowed to say this on television, but if you send a letter, sending a letter is to, is to making a trade deal as masturbation is to sex. You're not really involving the other party at all and you're not really figuring out the ways to exploit the gains from trade. And, you know, we didn't need this whole mess. He didn't need to impose high interest import taxes on Americans. If all he wanted to do was impose tariffs. If all he wanted to do was send people letters, we could have done this 90 days ago.

[Steve Schmidt]

Well, you've left me a little speechless, but I would say that the whole Trump brand is about the negotiation and the deal making. And to your astute point, that is what is lacking from the trade policy.

[Justin Wolfers]

I just, I don't like to do trumpology because I don't know what's going on inside the White House. But what I do know is that if you always made the bet that moving forward on any particular economic agenda would require a little bit of hard work, they repeatedly fail to do it. How did we end up here? We ended up here because the Liberation Day tariffs were based on a last minute decision and one of the most absurd formulas any economist has ever seen that caused Wall street to just blow up. He backed off and said he'd make deals, more or less saying he'll push the deadline out another 90 days. Now that 90 days is coming, getting a little closer, and all of a sudden he's realized that he hasn't made 90 deals. And the problem, of course, is the real world problem is there are people out here trying to do business and they don't know what tomorrow holds. They certainly don't know what next year holds.

[Steve Schmidt]

Tim Miller, you know my obsession with the best people brand, I've stolen it, I've reappropriated it for my own podcast. But it seems that every problem he's having right now has its roots in what he thought was going to make his second presidency a roaring success, he thought by picking the worst people at their particular areas of expertise, but who may have been the most loyal to him instead, that he would have smooth sailing. It is the opposite. It is why he is so bogged down on his trade war. It is why he has his key members of his coalition warring wherever they show up to war on Iran. I mean, it is why everything is a mess and his approval ratings are plunging by the day.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, that's absolutely right. And I'm into your new podcast. I saw that Doc Rivers was on there, which I was pretty jealous of. So just a little competitive jealousy there. But as far as his best people. Best people. Here's the thing about this time versus the last time. I think we focused a lot, rightly on how he will have all these enablers around him this time and how that makes things more dangerous on the authoritarian spectrum we talked about in the last segment. But it's also true that he has worse people around him when it comes to the implementation of policy. And on economic policy in particular, what you have is this kind of Frankenstein monster of the worst elements of, of Republican right wing policy of the past. He has this huge debt busting tax bill that is going through the Hill. None of the debt hawks or deficit hawks from past Republican worlds are out there except for Tom Massie shouting alone into the ether. So we're going to have a huge increase in the deficit which is going to increase everybody's interest rates. And then on the tariffs, you have Howard Letnick, you barely have anybody trying to stop him from doing the tariffs this time. He's tacoed a few times, but we still have tariffs going in at a much higher rate than we did last time. And then on immigration, you're seeing the, the old Chamber of Commerce Republicans trying to be like, whoa, can you chill out on some of the deportation of the workers? And he thought about doing that for a day, but it seems like they're not doing that. So you combine all that and you have higher prices for everything because of the tariffs. Higher prices because you're going to have a worker shortage. Higher prices is because of the tariffs on the actual equipment that they're supposed to be building in construction sites and higher interest rates on everybody because the deficit is skyrocketing. It's just like it's bad policy. It's significantly worse economic policy than the first time. And I think that sometimes that gets lost because it's a little wonkier than the other topics. But it's pretty clear at this point, six months in.

[Steve Schmidt]

Yeah, it also turns out to be the biggest political betrayal in modern presidential politics. Trump ran until election day on making quote, the grocery cheaper. He says they talk about the grocery and the grocery and then literally in the transition says, oh no, it's going to be really hard to make things go down. They might actually go up. I want to press both of you on that. We have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be right back.

[Alyssa Slotkin]

Is the president okay with this bill.

[Donald Trump]

Adding to the deficit?

[Steve Schmidt]

This bill does not add to the deficit. In fact, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, this bill will save $1.6 trillion. There's $1.6 trillion worth of savings in this bill. That's the largest savings for any, any legislation that has ever passed Capitol Hill in our nation's history. Tim, Even on Earth 4, I don't even think you can say that on Earth two or three. What is she talking about?

[Nicole Wallace]

I think she's just going to the Sean Spicer school of press secretary in there. It's just a lie. It's just like a blatant, just like a blatant lie. I don't believe your lying eyes type lie. Here's the thing though, on economic unlike some of this other stuff, it's hard to get your lies to sink in with people because people feel it and they'll know it. We had a new report out today that they revised down what we think the GDP is going to be. They revised up what they think inflation is going to be. So they can go, they can shout from the podium about how everything's great, but people know how much things cost in their lives. And it becomes a much more challenging thing to spin than some of the other BS that Trump spins.

[Steve Schmidt]

Justin, what are the consequences for the economy here on Earth one where we all reside to the big not so beautiful bill.

[Justin Wolfers]

So the first thing is huge effect on the deficit. The thing I want you to understand is the deficit right now is the largest it's been in the pre Covid economy. Of course, things went haywire with COVID They're taking that deficit and they're adding to it. So the non partisan Congressional Budget Office says somewhere between two and a half and $3 trillion. And pretty soon now we're going to be talking about real money. The implication of that is interest rates are going to go up. But the real kitchen table part of this is a deficit is not just how much we the budget's not just how Much we spend versus how much we take in. It's who we give what to. And it turns out that the top 10% gain from this. In every other decile losers, particularly working and middle class Americans, they stand to lose on the order of one to $2,000 per family each year as a result in order to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Steve Schmidt]

Tim, the political betrayal is a real hallmark of this administration in that in 1.0 he tried to cleave off his own supporters from the damage that he did to the country to the, the rule of law, to other things. There's no way to protect what he sees as his people from his economic damage.

[Nicole Wallace]

No, there really isn't. And there is betrayal. I mean, you could try, there's certain things you could do. And the first term, like a classic example of this with the tariffs is this massive bailout for the farmers. The farmer bailout for the first term I think costs more than the entire State Department. And so maybe they do other stuff, put little goodies in this bill, but yeah, inflation affects everybody. And, and it's going to continue to, and, and, and he's not going to be able to fix it.

[Steve Schmidt]

Justin and Tim, thank you so much for being part of our coverage. When we come back, how we got here, what Doc Rivers said to me on the Best People podcast about the origins of maga. We'll be right back. It's a question we ask on this show nearly every day. How the heck did we get here? How did our country become this divided? How did MAGA burst onto the scene and take hold? Well, NBA coaching legend Doc Rivers shared his theory on how and when it happened during our conversation for this week's the Best People podcast. Take a listen. I know that progress is uneven, but this is, this is a real reverting.

[Alex Wagner]

It's a rumble, you know, and it started the day Obama.

[Donald Trump]

Was it like that? I really believe that, you know, and.

[Alex Wagner]

I think there's a lot of people in certain areas, like we're not letting this happen again or now we're not being hurt, you know, and I think that's where the MAGA started. They connected with the people that didn't think they were being hurt. Now, I don't know how they got there. I think they fell into it, but they saw it, they recognized it and they ran with it.

[Steve Schmidt]

Doc is so insightful and wise on that, on this moment and just about everything. You can listen to the whole conversation by scanning the QR code on your screen. If you'd rather watch it than listen. You can go to YouTube, head to msnbc.com thebestpeople or scan that QR code. Send me a note on Blue sky or Instagram, let me know what you think of the comments. Conversation. One more break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are grateful.