Host 1 (2:22)

Well, Trump was right about that. That is indeed what is happening next. Musk, who's now a former special government employee with basically the same status as the rest of us, a private citizen who can post all of his big feelings on the Internet, is doing just that he is lashing out, reminding his 220 million followers on the platform he owns X of his potentially decisive $277 million political gift to Donald Trump. He writes this quote, without me, Trump would have lost the election, Democrats would control the House, and Republicans would be 51, 49 in the Senate. Musk went on to say, quote, all caps. Such ingratitude. It went on and on and on. Trump even threatened to cancel Musk's billions of dollars worth of contracts, to which Musk fired back, accusing Donald Trump of. Wait for it. Covering up his role in the Epstein files. Yes, Elon Musk went there. The Epstein files. Now, the Epstein files are government documents from the investigation into the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It animates. It takes up a lot of heat and energy on the right. But as sordid as this all is, and it gets worse. Let's stop here for a second. Why does any of this matter? Right? Two tarantulas in a bowl. Why does it matter? Well, here's why. When the most powerful person in our government fights with the richest person in the world, we as a public get to peer deep inside the most corrupt and superficial alliance in American political history. And as they claw and strike rhetorically at one another, they affirm our deepest concerns and suspicions. Trump confirms that Musk was always only in it to enrich his companies. And Musk confirms that Trump was always for sale. That's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. New York Times correspondent Teddy Schleifer is here. Also joining us, the president of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazone. And with me at the table for the hour, New York Times editorial board member, MSNBC political analyst Mara Gay. Teddy, I gotta start with Elon Musk, who seems to have won round one by invoking the Epstein files. What gives?

Teddy Schleifer (4:48)

Is that a KO Here? You say the word Jeffrey Epstein and.

Host 1 (4:50)

Suddenly, suddenly on the right, I think it is. I mean, and maybe give some of the backstory. The Times has had pretty detailed reporting on this. For the right, this is a conundrum for Bondi and Bongino and Patel, who now have access to the actual government files and are having time tamping down some of the conspiracies farther to the right than those three individuals.

Teddy Schleifer (5:16)

Sure. I mean, the fact that Elon went there, as you put it, the speed by which this has disintegrated to Jeffrey Epstein is a marvel, including to some of Elon's own friends who I've been in touch with throughout the day today who are shocked that people that I texted at 12 o' clock, by 2 o' clock, their phones are dropping and their mouths are agape. Clearly this is only going to get worse, at least for the rest of the day. This partnership people forget is not that old, which makes it kind of easy to tear asunder. It is not as if these are two old friends who go back decades and they're having a tough day. They really didn't know each other until about a year ago. They spent basically no time together until Elon moved to Mar a Lago during the presidential transition. So there's not this like bank of goodwill for either of them to kind of call upon when times get tough.

Host 1 (6:22)

Angelo, we should say as a news organization, we have no reporting to back up or explain what Elon Musk is tweeting about. But Elon Musk finds himself in a financial and reputational ditch today. Let me show you what Scott Galloway had to say about Elon Musk's legacy. Right now, I think his legacy is not going to be an EV or putting rockets into space. I think it's going to be unnecessary death, disease and disability of the world's most vulnerable. That is not what it means to be an innovator. It's not what it means to be an American, not what it means to be a man. So speaking of going there, Scott Galloway going straight to something. Elon seems to prize his manliness.

Angelo Carusone (7:12)

Yeah, I mean, and I think that sort of gets to part of what we're seeing here play out, right, which is that you have two of these right wing fever swamp creatures battling with each other. Like you said, tarantulas in a bowl. And it's worth the sort of like there's a history to sort of see where this goes and how this plays out. One of the things that that struck me at least immediately is that this is not the first time Trump has done this or that there's been this tension point. Let's not forget that one of the first things Trump did on his ascent to power the first time around was break Fox News was leapfrog the editorial control that the Murdochs had over that network and get directly to the audience. There was a point in time when he was boycotting Fox News, when he was propping up alternative programming. And because he understands that any, anything that has influence or control or disproportionate control over the zeitgeist will be a real meaningful check to his power, especially because it's populist driven. So it's important for him to be able to break it so that he can maintain the agenda setting power over the larger right wing media ecosystem. This must dispute, though, is different. And it gets to the point that you raised initially, which is that there's a lot of toxic masculinity here unfolding. A lot of masculinity. A lot of sort of high on their own supply. They've sort of built these character characters. It's like these. It's like as if WWE stars suddenly, you know, live that role so long that they no longer able to separate their real identity from the fictional character that they play. And as a result of that, they act in public life in ways that are aligned with what their character does. And what does that mean when you have a game of chicken like this? Well, right now it's just words. And I think sometimes Democrats in the beltway media can get a little too excited. Schadenfreude is not a strategy. We can enjoy it, but that does not mean that anything has fundamentally changed. They're saying nasty things to each other. Donald Trump threatened to nuke, you know, North Korea, and then they were writing beautiful letters to each other. So the words. I want to just say that nothing meaningful has happened yet. They haven't done anything. Elon Musk hasn't tipped his cans on that little algorithm scale and given a multiplier or, or started limiting or depressing the content of sort of Trump and Trump allies yet.

Host 1 (9:12)

Right.

Angelo Carusone (9:12)

He hasn't tried to tip the scales. He's identified some fractures and some soft spots and he said he's willing to hit them, but they haven't done anything yet. And vice versa. Trump has threatened. They haven't done anything yet. And I think that to me is the cor that you have two people that are deeply tied into the zeitgeist, that believe that feminism has somehow eroded the testosterone and masculinity of men. That is the audience they are speaking to and that is the audience that they're so deeply connected with. That I think ultimately what it means is that I don't know if they can stop this game of chicken. I don't know where the checks are or the mechanisms that slow this down, given that the audience here is not the traditional political calculus, but it is the fever swamp that these creatures come from. And there are no checks there. One of them is going to have to act first, and that's going to lead to a cycle.

Host 1 (10:05)

Well, Angela, let me just push back, respectfully. I mean, the insurrection no one does anything except use words. Words like, I didn't lose. The election was stolen from me. So there are acts. The most sprawling investigation in the history of the United States Department of Justice emanates from words. And these aren't just words. I mean, Elon Musk's last barb on the media platform he controls. And I'd be shocked if he wasn't manipulating an algorithm to make sure that everybody sees what he tweeted about Trump and the Epstein files.

Angelo Carusone (10:37)

Yeah, I don't wanna dismiss that.

Host 1 (10:39)

They're right.

Angelo Carusone (10:39)

The words are very significant cuz they lead to external actions. And I think that's the part that's so critical here, is that Musk, because he is so deeply tied into this zeitgeist, he knew exactly where to hit. And that Epstein files. You had to have Teddy explain that. Right. Because many in the audience here don't really even understand how significant that is to the very base that Trump and Musk are both speaking to and lobbying for support from, because they are going to take that support for their political power. That is part of how Trump came to power is that he organized power and used to be considered the fringes. So I don't want to diminish the power of words. I'm not trying to suggest that. What I'm trying to say is that this is only the beginning. And these words have so far laid out the soft spots and the fractures, but I don't know where the check is or the guardo to stop them from taking additional action, from stopping Trump from saying, you know what, we are going to review the, the security clearance of Musk given all the reporting. Right, which, which hasn't really happened yet. You know, with Musk starting to threaten government space launches with these contracts, or to start tweaking the algorithm or to start promoting antagonists of Donald Trump in meaningful ways. No, there's a. The government is so wor about TikTok, Right. Because they can influence the ecosystem and the political contours. Well, Twitter has the same potential if you start to tinker with it in similar ways. So that's what I was referring to, is that they've only just begun. And the very landscape that, that masculinity piece that you sort of started out at the beginning prevents them from backing away from the ledge right now. There's not a referee, there's not an arbiter. It's not clear how it stops.

Host 1 (12:14)

Yeah, I mean, Teddy, one referee is the consumer. And it's not just Americans who aren't buying Teslas anymore. There's reporting in your paper about how Germans are not buying them either. Times reports this Tesla sales in Germany dropped in May for the fifth month in a row as demand for the electric vehicle maker continued to slide across much of Europe. Despite Elon Musk's efforts to turn his focus away from his US Government activity and back to his companies, registrations of new Tesla cars in Germany, Europe's largest car market, dropped more than a third from the same month last year. Data released by that country's Federal Motor Transport Authority showed Wednesday. Tesla sales in other European countries have also remained depressed, falling more than 67% in France and 29% in Spain in May.

Teddy Schleifer (13:04)

Yeah, and right now, one of the most amazing charts you could show would be to look at Tesla's stock price today, which at about 12 o' clock when Elon Musk and Donald Trump began going back and forth with one another. Tesla stock is down now about 15%, which just sort of shows the Musk Trump alliance. And you know, this was a company that had a fantastic rise right after the election because people anticipated the Musk Trump relationship being huge for Tesla. And, you know, I think it is evolved in unforeseen ways where, you know, this liberal car has become a, you know, a touchstone for the right. And now you have conservatives who might be turning on Tesla.

Host 1 (13:51)

Right?

Teddy Schleifer (13:51)

I mean, I don't know, we don't know exactly who's selling the company stock today. But you know, I can tell you, you know, that the timing here of the, of the stock performance was its depreciation began in the noon hour when Trump began after them. So this is an unusual position for Elon Musk right now where the fear might be that he is a man without a country and the Tesla is a company without a country. If you now have liberals and conservatives.

Host 1 (14:19)

Who have bones to pick, Axios has some reporting on what Teddy's talking about. Tesla SpaceX reputations crater, a new Axios Harris poll quote. Tesla was in eighth place in the 2021 reputation ranking of America's 100 most visible companies, but last year tumbled to 63rd and now is near the bot bottom at 95th. It plays dead last in character while placing near the bottom in areas like ethics and citizenship.

Mara Gay (14:48)

Well, consumer sentiment is certainly one way that Americans who are frustrated and people around the world have to express themselves in this moment, but just want to get back a little bit just to peel beneath the surface. A different way to think about this is, you know, beside the schoolyard taunts we ultimately have one mega donor in the White House who has or who was in the White House who was given unfettered, unprecedented access to destroy wide swaths of the government or damage them. And now that's coming undone. So I think in some ways this is what we have, what we get when we really see the consolidation of power into the hands of just a few companies and individuals. And now the country and the world is at the behest of two deeply insecure men. Well, why is that? I mean, I think this is part of why voters are far less excited about Elon Musk, who, by the way, was a political liability for the president than they were, sadly about the immigration policies. Even though I have a lot of problems with that, I think we should have a lot more compassion. You know, voters didn't really vote for Elon Musk. So this is just what they're getting with the consolidation of capital in this country. And when you talk to voters, as I did on the trail last year, people in both parties are deeply upset because they feel that billionaire donors have taken control of their political system. And Donald Trump was supposed to be above that, and he's not. We've known that. But really, he's actually the one who let the fox in the henhouse, and now the rest of us are suffering. You see deep uncertainty in the markets, deep uncertainty in companies where people don't want to invest because they too are at the behest of the egos of half a dozen men. It's a real problem.

Host 1 (16:41)

Insecure Men is sort of the thread that runs through a lot of it, and that they're now taunting each other on social media in a manner that's conduct that gets most kids sidelined from school activities, sent to the principal's office. Cyberbullying is pretty frowned upon because of all the power. And you talk about hurting people here. I mean, a lot of the damage Elon Musk did by destroying USAID has led to deaths in countries where there were people benefiting from PEPFAR programs and other foreign aid.

Mara Gay (17:14)

Yeah, I think that is just tragic that we have allowed, again, what is essentially a single man special interest group, a mega donor, to single handedly almost reshape America's image in the world and more importantly, harm the lives and potentially, it appears, end the lives of some of the world's poorest people. You know, I believe they'll be teaching about that in classrooms to come. Allowing him to do that is really what we should be looking at. How did we get to a situation a scenario where we had this one man, we gave him the capacity to end decades of soft power that went to helping people around the world, improving people's lives. I mean, you were part of the Bush administration. You think about the impact of HIV drugs around the world. My colleague Nicholas Kristof has been writing about the deadly and just tragic impact of USAID having to recede from the world and for what and why. You know, I think we could delve into his psychology, into his insecurities, and that's fine. But really, we shouldn't have to rely on the goodness of any one individual. That's why we have a democracy and institutions and checks and balances. And they're failing.

Host 1 (18:47)

That's why we had them.

Mara Gay (18:48)

Yeah.

Host 1 (18:48)

That's why they were there. All right. No one's going anywhere. We have someone who's spoke to a lot of what you're talking about. Kara Swisher knows him. I mean, Teddy does in the same way. But I'll show you some of what she said to me about Elon Musk on the other side of a short break. It's a conversation we taped for our new podcast, which drops on Monday. But we have some of it for you today. And we'll show it to you on the other side of a break. We'll go back to this idea, too, that what they revealed in their fight is that Trump was for sale. Musk is there for the very simple reason. And Musk's telling that he gave Trump $277 million. And without that, he would have lost and Republicans would have lost the House. What that means, plus the Republican war on reality. Republican lawmakers have always been at war with the facts. Now they're at war with the fact finders, a natural extension of that battle. Later in the show, we'll tell you about a judge standing up to all of this, to the Trump administration's threats, and in a blistering opinion, trying to right the White House's wrong of sending dozens and dozens of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. We have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area.

Elon Musk (20:15)

With spacious floors, floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can.

Host 1 (20:20)

Enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.

Advertiser 1 (20:38)

The new Huggies snug and dry are luxuriously soft and ultra dry. How soft are we talking? Unbelievably soft? Irresistibly soft? Doesn't your baby deserve a diaper that's oh so gentle on their tushy? Huggies snug and dry helps keep them comfy, cozy and protected. Experience the unexpected softness and up to 100% leak protection. More parents choose the new Huggies Snug n dry softness versus the leading premium diaper Huggies. We got you baby.

Advertiser 2 (21:09)

This Father's Day at Lowe's. Score free gifts for the greatest dad. Right now get a free select Dew Craftsman or cobalt tool with purchase of a select battery kit. Plus get a free Werner 2 foot aluminum ladder when you buy an 8 foot fiberglass ladder. Shop these deals and more this Father's Day at Lowe's we help you save valid through 615 while supplies last selection mirrors by location.

Host 1 (21:40)

As we said at the top two things this is unfolding in real time. Here's what's happened since we've been on the air. Elon Musk just tweeted yes and amplified or retweeted a post that says president versus Elon who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him. He also retweets his original post saying Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day. Donald Trump again, as a news organization, we have no evidence of that. But Elon Musk, who just spent a lot of time with him, is making that claim against him. Mara Gay brought us to the point that we are as a country, as a public, as an electorate dealing with the insecurities and now malignant social media war between two men. Let me show you what Kara Swisher, who's covered Ellen must since the beginning, had to say by way of explanation. This is an interview for our new podcast, the Best People. It airs on Monday, but we had some of it ready for this conversation. What is Elon Musk's trauma story? You know one of the things I used to say to a lot of people I covered because you could see that the trauma, obviously lack of therapy. We would have done very well if he had gone to therapy at one point. But he didn't. Bad person. No, no, he, he wasn't. I will tell. He definitely had problems from the get with stuff around racism. You know, his, his family History is really quite fraught. And so I think he had a lot of trauma. He was, you know, he has autism issues. And he's a creative person who's very deeply enmeshed in science fiction, whether we're in a simulation or not. Very creative. Do you think he thinks that we're in a simulation? He told me that as he got more acclaim as people sucked up to them, as inevitably happens with rich people or famous people, most rich people now, he started to believe his own nonsense and became overly dramatic. At one point, we did an interview where he said, if Tesla doesn't survive, humanity is doomed. To me, I think that he started using drugs quite a bit. I think that's been well reported, especially ketamine. And if you've ever taken it, which I did, it's a very disassociative drug. So you understand the Trump. Oh, what's he doing with the government? I think he has a thing in his head that he has this narrative in his head that the government is terrible. So, Teddy, that was probably not as new to you as it was to me. I was in shock about who he was before Trump welcomed him in and, as Mara's alluding to, gave him the keys to the most impactful elements of our government. All of our personal data, the kinds of things that send a message around the world that America isn't all one thing. Our soft power levers, the federal workforce that's been traumatized by design. What is this blistering fight with Donald Trump? How is it likely to end?

Teddy Schleifer (24:47)

We're talking at 425. Let's see where things are at 435.

Host 1 (24:49)

I mean, exactly.

Teddy Schleifer (24:51)

Or 445. I mean, the reality is, in kind of conversations today with some people around him, they're not really sure what his plan is. I mean, I can tell you Elon Musk has been perturbed by, you know, this budget bill, sure. But he's been perturbed by other things that Trump has done that's not gone public in this kind of ballistic way. So what exactly Elon's plan is is something that Elon's own friends are asking one another right now. You know, there's like a nervousness and a sadness that it's come to this. You know, I think the reality is he is motivated by stimuli, and he is upset about things that he is seeing online, and he's upset about some of ways that Trump treated him on the way out. And he is reacting there. There is nothing more complicated or sophisticated beyond that. He is upset and has access to his Twitter account and is making that public. I know that sounds very simple, but that's kind of all it is.

Host 1 (25:54)

I think we learned for the first time today that or Trump at least said publicly for the first time today that he asked Musk to leave. Did we know that? That it was Trump that asked for his exit?

Teddy Schleifer (26:07)

I mean, it is true that Elon Musk was on a 130 day special government employee tenure which requires people to leave after 130 days or not become special government employees. It is also true that that is a distinction that federal bureaucrats have gotten around for a while and you can do some creative accounting to avoid that. I buy that, that, that Musk was kind of wearing his wel. And you know, clearly Musk also wanted to get back to his companies, as he said very, very publicly. And you know, that's why this kind of choreographed rollout was so intentional where, you know, Musk was doing interviews from SpaceX and he was doing meetings with Tesla investors in a very public way because he wanted shareholders to know that he cares about his company. So I believe all these things were true that, that it was good for Trump, it was good for Musk, but now they can both portray this uncoupling as them firing the other.

Host 1 (27:10)

Let me show you one more thing that Kara Swisher said about the future of Tesla. And Musk wants to go to Mars and he's getting that. That's what he wants. And he really does. And that is, to me, his ultimate goal was that and to get the regulators off his back with Tesla in any way. And that's going to help. Tesla's going down right now. Do you think so? Oh yeah. And it stops being viable. Well, I always say the planes are covered with the bodies of pioneers. I mean, they were a true pioneer in the space. I think the reason, even though he blames these protests and this and that and his stupid. I mean, he brought this on himself, FYI, these protests. So stop blaming the protesters, Teddy. Is that the sense? I mean, the market certainly seems to agree with Kara Swisher's analysis.

Teddy Schleifer (27:58)

Yeah, look, I mean this is, this is a company that is in a precarious situation to say the least. Right? I mean, what exactly the future of Tesla is, it is such a company that is so enraptured in kind of current policy fights. I mean, they obviously were apoplectic during the Biden administration that they weren't getting the love from a Democratic president that they expected to get from Ev's. And then they became linked with this president who doesn't really care for EVs, right. And Frank, in fact, was not including EV subsidies in the big beautiful bill. So, you know, this is a company that is so kind of dependent on federal government policy. It makes sense that Elon would want to influence it. But where exactly does this company go given that they've now alienated certainly Democratic voters and maybe Republican voters now?

Host 1 (28:53)

You know, Angela, I want to come back. You know, my favorite thing you've taught me is narrative dominance. It goes away when a Democrat and a Republican are saying the same thing about you. And so I think the power of, and I agree with you at this point, these are just words. But the power of the words that Trump is using against Elon, that he's mad because he didn't get his EV subsidy is not going to help his brand, not going to bring anyone back to Tesla because he destroyed usaid. He seized all of our government data for a tax break. Really? That's not brand enhancing. And on the other side, the narrative dominance relied on nobody piercing Trump's dominance in the bubble. The only person with more dominance in Trump's media ecosystem is actually Elon Musk, who's picking a side. He's picking J.D. vance, who's as prominent in the fever swamps of right wing disinformation and conspiracy theories as anyone. And he's not just saying, he's not just saying Trump should be impeached. He's saying and JD Van should be elevated. Yeah.

Angelo Carusone (29:55)

And I think, you know, I. Look, even Kara Schwartzer said it when she was trying to describe, at least in part to help explain and illustrate how Musk got to where he is, is that he, he, he had, he has a narrative inside of his head that he just can't get unstuck and he's living his life according to that narrative. Where'd he get that from? We got red pilled on social media for years. And though a lot of that is poisonous and that, that gets to the core part of what you're getting to, which is a, whatever the outcome is over the long term, one of the things, and I really do think the Epstein thing is the most significant thing that Musk has said so far because what it does is it puts poison into the system amongst Trump's base. That is a soft spot for Trump right now, at least amongst his own supporters. They are mad and feel like he's hiding something. And that goes all the way back to that interview a couple weeks ago that Bongino and Cash Patel did the FBI director and deputy FBI director when they said, look, Epstein did kill himself. There's no conspiracy here. People online were furious about that. Trump's supporters were mad about that. They want. They turned on Patel and Bongino. They want to have an answer. They have a narrative that something really dastardly was done and that there's some shadowy forces covering it up. And the idea that Musk is now linking Trump to those shadowy forces is a very powerful connector to the narrative that a significant portion of his audience has. And there's plenty of other little soft spots, too, and he knows where they are. And that's the key here, because if you think about how Trump came to power, that was a big part of how he came to power. He came up and validated a lot of the narrative that a very large part of people believed. And Trump said, yeah, sure, I gave to both sides, and I didn't pay taxes because I'm smart, and that's what rich people like me do. We screw you. So, of course you need to hire me. Fire with fire. I know what's really going on behind the curtain, and I'll expose you all to it. And that's basically what Musk is threatening to do here. Could he ever unseat Trump? No. But what he can do probably is put a lot of. A lot of poison in the system and take all those fractures and turn them into big fat cracks. And that shouldn't be discounted, and it does. It will shake Trump's support amongst his base. There's no way around that. And it will shape his support amongst the larger ecosystem. That is helping prop him up. One of the side effects of it being more fragmented and more atomized than it was during his first term, when it was just Fox News and a few major players like Rush Limbaugh, is that it's very easy for those cats to all go off in different directions, especially when you're giving them a bunch of little seeds and stories that they can capitalize on. And the flip side is true of Trump is that he can do a lot to neutralize Musk's political power. I mean, Musk is rich, and you can buy political power, as been demonstrated, but ultimately, his political power and his influence in politics was by proxy to Trump. Was by proxy, was imbued on him, and that's being neutralized. And that's part of the tantrum here. And I think that's the bow. And the one thing I don't want to lose sight of is that as big and powerful as Musk is, one of the scary parts about all of this is that we are still seeing authoritarianism entrench itself and calcify. And like you said at the beginning, we're getting a sense of how it plays out. When they're mad, they use their power to punish, even if it's not appropriate. Yeah, we'll threaten, we'll take it away, we'll do this. And yeah, I will now use my power as the government to potentially break this, this voice that is disagreeing with me. I'm not defending Musk necessarily in the grand scheme of things, but that's what Trump is saying he's going to do. He's going to use his political power not to punish Musk for some crime, but to say, you disagree with me and I don't like it and now we're going to punish you. And the conversation they're having right now in public, I bet they've had similar conversations about their, their, their shared political opponents when they were in the Oval Office or on Marine One or on Air Force One over the past five months, and that's the part we really shouldn't lose sight of here, is that there are real political dimensions being resorted. But there's also something, a very scary truth now that we're seeing stamped. We don't have to infer it anymore from the actions they're telling us.

Host 1 (33:51)

Teddy, I want to come back to you on the platform. One of the ways that Elon Musk reshaped the platform once known as Twitter, was to remove most fact checking and content moderation. And those were things that he and Trump agreed on. There is now again, from the platform owner, a tweet with, I'm sure by now millions of views that says, quote, real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. This is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, djt. Again, as a news organization, we have no evidence to support that claim from Elon Musk. But again, the platforms absent rigorous fact checking or content moderation in sort of the nihilist direction platform and tech bros have driven politics and policy. This is out there now.

Teddy Schleifer (34:49)

Yeah. Where's the community note on that, supplying that? I mean, Elon actually does get community noted, not irregularly so. I'm not totally joking on that. Yeah, look, I mean, clearly the information warfare that Musk is choosing is just utter chaos. Right? He doesn't need to provide evidence for it for it to take off. Right. I'm sure these things will get kind of picked up in the right wing media and suddenly, you know, every allegation is fair game. Similarly, on Truth Social, you know, where Trump is kind of laying his attacks, he's alleging his own allegations against Elon Musk and no one really knows what's true. And obviously this is an internecine fight amongst conservatives in the right wing and there's not going to be scrupulous fact checking of these claims in conservative media. And so, lo and behold, that's kind of how the conversation will go. And that's just the way that these types of fights work.

Host 1 (35:47)

Sadly, sadly, sadly. Teddy Schleifer, thank you for helping us make sense of it. Thank you for joining us with your great reporting on all of it. But Angela Amara, stick around a little bit longer. Up next for us, Trump allies in the Republican Party searching for someone to blame for their big bill, their everyone's going to die bill, as Chuck Schumer has rebranded it, struggling to get through Congress now turning their sights on the economic experts again questioning or rewriting that which is true. We'll bring you that story next.

Elon Musk (36:24)

I just don't know that we have.

Donald Trump (36:25)

Much faith in the cbo.

Elon Musk (36:27)

Again, they were wrong on Kennedy, tax cuts, Reagan, Trump's. When has the CBO been right? And it's not been very often.

Donald Trump (36:34)

We believe that if you don't, if.

Elon Musk (36:36)

You take the CBO assumptions, which were.

Donald Trump (36:39)

Dramatically off when it came to the 2017 tax bill. But if you, if you take pretty much everybody else's economic modeling and you.

Elon Musk (36:48)

Realize there's going to be growth as.

Donald Trump (36:49)

A result of passing this bill, that growth generates additional government revenue.

Elon Musk (36:53)

So you're saying everyone is wrong, but.

Host 1 (36:55)

You are the right one, that this.

Elon Musk (36:58)

Does not increase the debt.

Angelo Carusone (36:59)

I'm saying that all the watchdogs, including the Congressional Budget Office, use a skewed vision view of what the baseline is.

Host 1 (37:08)

Don't believe your eyes, don't believe your ears. Don't even believe the people on Wall street who say there's a 30 to 50% chance of recession. Don't believe any of them in or out of government. Republicans have clearly adopted the strategy of do not trust the experts when it comes to the actual cost of their massive tax and spending bill, which Chuck Schumer has renamed the Everyone's Going to Die bill. They're choosing to live in an alternate reality with a much rosier interpretation of the impact of their bill. After the Congressional Budget Office yesterday estimated it will add $2.4 trillion to the national debt in the next 10 years. It is not just the CBO predicting that the GOP bill will bring dismal economic growth and damage real people. According to the New York Times, quote, most economists from nonpartisan government watchdogs as well as outside tax analysts across the political spectrum have concluded that the bill passed by House Republicans, which is now being considered by the Senate, could exacerbate the nation's fiscal imbalance while contributing less in economic growth growth than Trump forecasts. One expert tells the New York Times this, quote, when all the models are in unison, yes, this will increase the deficit. No, it will not do much for growth. It really does not make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper. The legislation is the problem, end quote. On another economic front today, Donald Trump finally held his highly anticipated call with China's President Xi. After the call, Trump took to truth social, touting a trade deal he claims was agreed upon. But the White House has yet to provide any evidence that a trade deal was agreed upon. Joining our conversation is Axio senior economics reporter Courtney Brown, Angelo Amara are still with us. Courtney, where are we with the I guess On Earth 2, it's a big beautiful bill. On Earth 1, it's the everyone's going to die bill. Where does it stand?

Advertiser 1 (39:04)

There is, I have to say this just as an economics reporter who, you know, lives and breathes on nonpartisan agencies that provide us the economic data that crucial policymaking decisions rely on. There is no evidence that the Congressional Budget Office is partizan in any way. What they do do is make forecasts. And of course, economic forecasts can be wrong. All of the policymakers of the world's central banks, including those here in the US Are so freaked out by the uncertainty that President Trump has caused by his on again, off again, pause start trade war. It just makes economic forecasting nearly impossible. But those who are taking a stab at it largely agree, at least all the ones I've spoken to on Wall street largely agree that the big beautiful bill will be not so beautiful for the U.S. economy in terms of causing the deficit to explode. It comes on top of another economic policy, the trade war that has so far from what we're hearing from businesses and consumers, been pretty damaging to the U.S. economy.

Host 1 (40:34)

I mean, on that point, let me show you where this is happening on Capitol Hill. Mr. Lutnick, for some reason is still a public face of Trump's tariff policy. I'm not sure after Trump sees this if that will remain the case, but here he is facing some questions from Congresswoman Madeline Dean. What's the tariff on bananas? Americans, by the way, love bananas. We buy billions of them a year. I love bananas. What's the tariff on bananas? The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them. And what's that tariff generally? 10%. Correct? 10%. Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by 8%. Recognizable. But as countries do deals with us, that will go to zero. As countries do deals with us on the American consumer now and on the businesses with the confusion now, there is no uncertainty. If you build in America and you produce your product in America, there will be no tariff. We can't be building in America and paying no tariff is very, very clear. We cannot build bananas in America, I guess. Courtney, what is he talking about?

Advertiser 1 (41:47)

I should say that we do. Bananas are produced in places in the U.S. florida, Hawaii. But the problem is we don't have the capacity to produce more as many bananas as we need to keep up with consumer demand, that is, for a day at least. So I think that this is the fundamental misunderstanding with the crux of what the Trump administration wants to see out of its trade policy. If we had the capacity to grow bananas here, we would do that. We don't look abroad just because it's fun. There are underlying economics to the decisions that producers make. So I think this idea of bringing everything back to the US I don't think there's anyone who politically disagrees that making more in the US Would be great, but that's going to have a cost for the US Consumer ultimately. And so that's the trade off we make. And I think the administration is trying to have it both ways in the sense that they think that we can grow all the bananas that we want here, but there won't be a cost borne on the American consumer.

Host 1 (43:15)

Having it both ways, though, I guess is even predicated on it being possible, which, I mean, it's not possible to grow all the bananas we consume in this country.

Advertiser 1 (43:24)

Right, right. You know, I talked to so many small businesses and the key point they keep coming back to, to your point of it not being possible. You know, if you want to build more, you want to grow more produce in the US The Trump administration has taken a huge stick approach. So many small businesses I talked to who, you know, bring their materials in from China, they say, okay, you want us to make a few more things here, but can you not tax us more? Because we don't have the money to invest in everything that would need to be, you know, spent and built to bring manufacturing back to the US and you know, that's the textile industry. So we just don't have the natural resources for some things like, you know, growing more bananas to make everything domestically here.

Host 1 (44:29)

It's a great trade, can be confusing. I guess I will give Mr. Lutnick that. I dare say he should know a little more about it as the point person on it in the cabinet. But it is confusing, confusing. And the bananas are a fantastic way, I think, for all of us to understand the predicament. Courtney, thank you so much for your reporting and for spending time with us. We'll bring Angelo and Mara in on the other side. Bye. Bye. We'll be right back.

Teddy Schleifer (44:56)

People are screaming and saying, hey, it's kicking people off Medicaid. It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer provided health care. So, yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on.

Host 1 (45:06)

Medicaid, but they then are going to.

Teddy Schleifer (45:08)

Be on employer provided health care.

Host 1 (45:11)

So here's the CBO fact check on that statement. Quote, few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment based coverage and none, none would be eligible for the premium tax credit. And the CBO Yesterday forecast that 16 million Americans would lose health insurance under the bill.

Mara Gay (45:33)

You know, I think the challenge for the Democratic Party is to make sure that every American sees that exchange understands exactly what is happening in this big, beautiful bill and what it means for them. Because this is, I believe, a deeply unpopular policy. This is not what most Americans who voted for Donald Trump voted for. And you know, they should be on their heels trying to explain this. The idea that they can just lie to the American people. Well, this isn't going to hurt anybody. There is one kernel of hope there, which is they don't want to openly admit the cruelty that is unfolding right now from the Trump administration. And I also just think first there's the compassionate element here which is totally missing. There's also just a financial reality that when people can't get the basic needs that they have, housing, shelter, health care met, it ends up costing society more in the end in a whole variety of ways. But there are so many short term decisions being made in Washington right now. And you see this also from the Republicans who voted for the bill and now are having to explain and even some of them saying they didn't even know that what was in it. Well, your one job is to actually know what's in that bill first. Of all, but they're explaining it because every decision is a short term decision to make sure that they can win the next election. Impress Donald Trump one day on television or on a podcast. No one's thinking about long term for themselves, for the American people. That's not what's happening in the Republican Party right now. It's basically survival of the fittest in a boxing right now.

Host 1 (47:24)

Yeah, Angela, I mean, I think this.

Angelo Carusone (47:27)

Is where reality is kicking in for them, right? I mean, they should be listening to Steve Bannon. I mean, that's the truth. He's warning them that you can't, that this is contrary to Trump's populist support base. There's a very significant part of his base that doesn't want rich people to have more taxes that were really mad about the economic conditions and that bothers them. And they thought Trump was going to do something about it. And at minimum, they didn't think Trump was going to give them more money and take something so critical away from them. And this is an example where if they're not paying close attention and forget about the Elon Musk stuff, which is just like gasoline on the fire, this is an actual betrayal, not just of the American society, his own obligations as president. This is a betrayal to his own base. The one promise he made to them was that he was not going to take more of the same DC sort of swamp stuff and executed. And here they are spending more of their time talking about the cbo. They don't sound like Republicans. They sound like losing Democrats.

Host 1 (48:22)

Angelo and Mara, thank you so much for spending the hour with me today. Up next for us, a judge ordering Donald Trump's White House to come up with a plan to give 140 deported people their due process. The next hour of deadline White House starts after a quick break.

Advertiser 1 (48:42)

When a cold has you down, it's the little comforts that lift you up. A warm blanket, a cup of tea, and a tissue that actually feels good on your skin. Infused with aloe Kleenex Cooling plus Aloe provides a hint of cooling freshness to help your skin feel restored. So whether your skin is feeling dry, chafed or irritated, you're only one wipe away from helping it feel relieved. The next time you have a cold, get a hint of instant cooling relief with new Cleanx cooling plus aloe for whatever happens next, grab Kleenex at Designer Shoe Warehouse.

Host 1 (49:14)

We believe that shoes are an important.

Advertiser 1 (49:16)

Part of, well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to.

Host 1 (49:22)

All time personal bests, from building pillow forts to building a life for all.

Advertiser 1 (49:28)

The big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes.

Host 1 (49:35)

Find a shoe for every you from.

Advertiser 1 (49:37)

Brands you love at brag worthy prices.

Host 1 (49:40)

At your DSW store or dsw.com it's conversation, it's perspective. It's the weekend on MSNBC with three new dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniels and Jackie Alemany. 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 and Sundays on MSNBC.

Advertiser 1 (50:18)

Your Secretary of State says everyone who's here, citizens and non citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree Mr. President?

Host 1 (50:24)

I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Well, the fifth Amendment. I don't know.

Donald Trump (50:30)

It seems it might say that.

Advertiser 1 (50:33)

Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?

Host 1 (50:35)

I don't know. I have to respond by saying again.

Donald Trump (50:39)

I have brilliant lawyers that work for.

Host 1 (50:42)

Me and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. Aren't you in charge of the Constitution? Can I use the lifeline on that? I don't know. Tycoon everybody, it's five o' clock in New York. Since he, in his own words quote, doesn't know the answer, we will answer it for him. Yes, the fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it's up there on your screen, says everyone deserves due process. And in the case of the more than 100 Venezuelan men this administration deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador back in March, after invoking the Alien Enemies act by saying there was an invasion from Trent Aragua, that there wasn't, a judge just ruled that due process must be followed for those men. In a new 69 page ruling, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to give those men that it deported the chance to explain to a judge why they should not be detained. The judge writing this quote, defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their rights to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the US A right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition. Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, defendants are correct that plaintiffs are gang members. But and this is the critical point, there is simply no way to know for sure as the CCOP plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the government say so. Judge Boasberg goes on to say that the Trump administration instead, quote, spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in SICOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous accusations. The judge's ruling provides a glimmer of hope to the plaintiff, a lead lawyer for the aclu, Lee Gelernt, saying this, quote, the court correctly held that the government cannot send people to a brutal foreign prison without any due process and then decline all responsibility to remedy the blatant constitutional violation. New York Times writes this quote, in many ways, Judge Boasberg's ruling raised as many questions as it answered. While he told the administration that it must facilitate the ability of the men being detained in El Salvador, quote, to contest their removal under the Alien Enemies act, he put off for the moment the thorny issue of what such facilitation must entail. That is where we start the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. Immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Alan or is back with me at the table. MSNBC legal analyst, former SDNY Criminal Division Deputy chief Christy Greenberg's back, and former Republican Congressman David Jelly is here. Today he announced he's running for governor of Florida. We'll cover that story in a minute, but we start with this one. Eleanor, take me inside. Judge Boasberg's ruling, I think that it's.

Advertiser 2 (53:51)

A very forceful ruling, and it's not just Judge Boseberg, it's the Supreme Court and four other district courts have said that due process was entitled to all these individuals who were removed. Even Mr. Garcia's case, which was in another court, said that due process should be held. And so the answer is, what are they going to do about it? Because in Mr. Garcia's case, which he's been there since March, we've already understood that due process was entailed, that it was a mistake, and what they're going to do about it. And it is not until June 11th of this year that the court's going to actually start hearing Rule 11 judgments against the government with regards to the mishandling of this case. So the problem is, what will the executive branch do with this judge's order? Because so far, they've just been kicking the can down the road.

Host 1 (54:31)

Let me read you more, Christy, from Judge Boasberg's Ruling, quote, defendants must facilitate plaintiffs ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process. The court determines that such a remedy balances the defendant's distinct role in conducting foreign affairs with the grave need to right their legal wrongs. Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action. Aren't we there almost.

I (55:08)

I mean, the fact that the government's position in this case was, well, we no longer have custody of these people. They're gone. They didn't get any process. They don't deny that they didn't get any process and that they're fine with that. Yeah, it feels like we already there. I mean, you have a judge that is opening this 69 page opinion by referencing Kafka. You have the hearings prior to this where an appellate judge said Nazis got treated better. I mean, this isn't judges gone wild like you would maybe believe if you listen to other networks. I mean, these are judges who are very careful, very thoughtful, and they're not coming to these statements lightly. Due process matters. People have to have an opportunity to be able to come before a judge and say, I'm not a member of this vicious gang. You can't just send me off to a foreign gulag for the rest of my life and throw away the key. Like, that's not how it works here. And so look, this is a good opinion. But yes, the question is, what happens now? How is it that you get this class of individuals, real process in that foreign prison? How do they have access to lawyers? What does that look like? Do their lawyers get to meet with them in person? Do they have to have phone calls? Are they limited in those contexts? I mean, what this actually looks like, I think is very much up in the air. And the judge said, I'm waiting for the government's proposal. I mean, the government has taken the position like 12 hours of notice is just fine. You know, one call with your lawyer is just fine. I mean, even when they talk about due process, they don't talk about it in ways that are really meaningful. So we will see how this shakes out. But it is a good helpful sign from the judge.

Host 1 (56:44)

I used this term yesterday in the context of Lutnick. I'm going to use it two days in a row in the context of Kristi Noem. I am not ignorance shaming her, but she is responsible for the lives of these men and does not know what habeas corpus means. Let me show you where she reveals that to the judge, to the men involved, and to the country.

Angelo Carusone (57:11)

Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?

I (57:15)

Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, suspend their rights.

Host 1 (57:23)

Let me.

Donald Trump (57:23)

Let me stop, ma' am.

Host 1 (57:25)

Habeas corpus. Excuse me. That's. That's incorrect, President. Habeas corpus.

Angelo Carusone (57:29)

Excuse me. Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.

Host 1 (57:39)

If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundation that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. You've got that happening in public. Proud of not knowing the answer to that question. You've got Donald Trump again publicly telling my colleague Kristen Welker, I don't know if the Constitution is my thing.

Donald Trump (58:12)

Look, I think it's hard to have a national conversation around this, because the challenge is human behavior is such that if a crime doesn't occur in your neighborhood, maybe you don't feel threatened. If the suspension of habeas or due process doesn't happen to you and your community, maybe you don't care as much as you should. And I think we have to start conversations around this, recognizing that due process and habeas are there to protect the innocent. They're not just there to protect those who ultimately are adjudicated as guilty. They're there to protect the innocent. And when due process and habeas are suspended, you end up picking up people who are innocent. And so maybe half the country, the MAGA wing of the country, whatever that is, is fine with Kristi Noem's answer, but we need to insist that others are not. And I think it reflects a darker heart in some of the immigration policies of the Trump administration, I suppose. Secretary Noem, you know, I've been talking a lot about the fact that I think Republicans wrongly fight communities and not crime, and they've gotten away with conflating crime and immigration for too long. I think we have to make sure we have a public conversation that decouples immigration and crime and recognizes that what Donald Trump is doing is he's attacking communities, he's fighting communities, and he's going to look for crime. And what it's doing is it's sweeping up a lot of innocent people. And what we should be doing is the inverted go Find crime. And it doesn't matter if they were born here or if they were immigrated here or what their way of life is. If they commit a crime, then you go get them. That is not Trump's immigration policy. It's certainly not Secretary Noem's.

Host 1 (59:46)

Well, and that's where he's sort of perverting these venerable institutions. The reason the FBI is being dismantled and put into a different configuration is the FBI is built to find and investigate and prevent crimes. They're dismantling that and putting them on immigration cases.

Donald Trump (60:04)

Yeah. And we should all be horrified by the level of ignorance of Secretary Noem, of maybe Kash Patel, of others who are willing to administer Donald Trump's direction in this area. I mean, at least the traditions of executive authority and the department offices there was some check on these types of violations and abuse of power. But if you don't even understand the Constitution, how should we have confidence that Kristi Noems knows how to stop the president going in this direction? It appears in her sheer ignorance she's willing to execute on these violations of basic fundamental rules of due process and habeas.

Host 1 (60:36)

Where do you think she was going with when she starts to say Lincoln?

Donald Trump (60:42)

Look, there's a bell curve in politics. Not everybody's the smartest tool in the shed, I suppose. And I think we're seeing that in evidence in Trump's cabinet.

Host 1 (60:51)

I want to dig in a little bit to something that David's talking about. I think there's a bet that the fever that swept the Republican convention, where everyone waved mass deportation, now signs around, has broken. Not from the numbers. The polling has shown since the beginning that there's 9, 12, and I think 11% support from the American people for deporting people that have been here for decades, that have jobs or that have kids that are born here, respectively. I think better than the numbers, though, are the stories. And this is the story of Carol. It's going to take me a second, but I want to read this to our viewers from the New York Times. Quote, an immigrant waitress from Hong Kong whose looming deportation brought home the reality of President Trump's immigration crackdown to her conservative Missouri hometown, was freed on Wednesday after more than a month in jail. Carol Hui, who was born in Hong Kong, entered The United States 20 years ago on a short term tourist visa and stayed long past its expiration. In the process of building a life, having three children and becoming a beloved waitress, serving waffles and hugs to the breakfast crowd. The public outrage and backlash to her arrest was Remarkable in a town like Kennet, the seat of a rural county where 80% of the voters supported Trump last November and where many voters said they supported his promises of mass deportations. But many in Kennett said Ms. Hui should not have been apprehended. To them, she was not a gang member or criminal alien. She was a mother of three they talked with at soccer and Little League games, who served them waffles and egg skillets, who clean houses as a side job and went to Sunday mass at the local Catholic church. Alan?

Advertiser 2 (62:38)

Yeah, it's all a protection racket. And this is a shatter in the window so people can see what he's actually protecting you from. From Carol, the waitress, from the honor student, the high school student, from the individuals helping to build the projects in Tallahassee and Tennessee, from people who are going to work. These are not the criminals that he promised you that he was going to remove from the United States. And once America starts to wake up and see that this protection racket, this promise of saving you from something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, and the financial cost, I want people to weigh more into the numbers and the amount of money that's being used to detain Carol, with six officers showing up at a restaurant to detain her or the number of people who pulled over the car to arrest the student. All those things are cost on the taxpayer, as well as the detention of those students who have nothing to sort of fear are no threat to the United States at all in the many years they've been in the United States. The financial cost outweighs everything. And when we remember what American exceptionalism is, we talk about habeas a due process. Those are the things that made us the beacon on the Hill. That said, this is the country I want to come to because the rules are the same for everyone. And what we're seeing right now, not just the dismantling of these things, but the dismantling of the whole bright light that we used to have. The travel ban and everything else in immigration speaks to the nation that we said that we were not going to be.

Host 1 (63:52)

Yeah. And people have been, Christy, in my personal opinion, slow to wake up to that and a little timid politically to stand up to that. But it feels like something's turning with some of the stories coming out. I want to show you something Sheryl Crow posted on Instagram. It's a bring Carol home shirt and she writes, I don't have the answers. All I know is there are a lot of Carols in every Small town in America right now. Good people who are living in this country, who are paying their taxes and raising their kids and contributing to their communities and who are involved in their churches and whose kids are terrified that their mothers or their fathers are not coming home. Perhaps our public servants could address easier paths forward for those who have lived here for decades, paying taxes and contributing to their communities, as opposed to dehumanizing them and referring to them as rapists, drug dealers and criminals.

I (64:42)

Look, I think David said it best. Crime and immigration aren't necessarily the same conversation. And there is a way to deal with people who are in this country illegally who have committed real crimes. And the person who dealt with that was President Obama. He deported a number of criminals. And, you know, I know I was in the Department of Justice at that time. As a new prosecutor, my docket was largely those cases. I didn't necessarily love having those cases on my docket, but that was a priority of that administration. He did it the right way. There is a way to go about doing this. If somebody's committed a crime, you have a criminal case and you go forward. These aren't criminal cases. These are, you know, these are civil immigration violations. Carol has not committed a crime to anybody's knowledge. She has no criminal history, and there are so many like her that don't. And so when you have these conversations to just scare people that there are all these people swarming into the country who have committed crimes, it is the job of prosecutors in the Department of Justice to prove that they have committed a crime. And they can't, seemingly can't, because they don't want to go through the process. If they had all this evidence, presumably they would be showing us the evidence. That's what we do. That's what you would do as a prosecutor. But they don't. So they short circuit it. And they want to find all these shortcuts to just, you know, get people out of the country and say, oops, no longer in our custody. Nothing we can do. And that is not, again, how things should be done. And, you know, hopefully again, judges are able to continue to hold the line against that.

Host 1 (66:20)

Well, I mean, you talked about decoupling crime and immigration. I mean, the other thing is to decouple what the public supports and does not support.

Donald Trump (66:26)

Sure.

Host 1 (66:27)

89% of Americans in a New York Times Sienna poll support deporting adjudicated violent criminals adjudicated. They do not support. I mean, the numbers go down to 9, 9 to 15% of Americans who support deporting people like Carol, people who've been in this country for years, had their kids here, have jobs here, are part of their communities. You know, the other response to the judges and the legal is political.

Donald Trump (66:53)

It is political and it will be interesting what the nation chooses to do in this moment, because we're really holding a mirror up to ourselves and our national values. What are those national values? Carol should be welcome here, celebrated, she should be lifted up. She's exactly somebody that we want to come to the United States to contribute, to be a part of this country. And I'm guessing Carol loves this country very deeply. And so are we really a nation that wants to attack that? Because that's a question of who we are as a country and what are our values. You lived through the era where Republicans were even using language like a pathway to legal status, a pathway to citizenship.

Host 1 (67:30)

That, well, Reagan was for amnesty.

Donald Trump (67:32)

Was for amnesty.

Host 1 (67:33)

That was all to the right of where Reagan, the so called Republican icon, was when he was for amnesty.

Elon Musk (67:39)

Sure.

Donald Trump (67:40)

And that feels so quaint and remote now. But how are we now in a period where a pathway to legal status for someone like Carol or anyone else is being lost? And what I have found in my conversations, obviously with voters, it's interesting, you know, for a cycle or two, we really hit the threads of xenophobia. Is this xenophobic? Is it anti immigrant? Yeah, I think it is. But the conversations I think that are more effective in this moment when we're seeing the likes of Carol are in two spaces. It's the cruelty. It's the cruelty. People understand cruelty. People understand when you're picking up the daughter, you're picking up Carol, you're picking up the person going to take out their trash. Someone doesn't have the opportunity to have due process. They're just getting removed. That's cruel. And people understand that. Even people who voted, even immigrants who voted for Donald Trump understand cruelty is not what they signed up for. And the other effective language is around broken promises. It's broken promises. You know, when the Venezuelan American community has TPS revoked, all of a sudden it was, wait, I didn't think you were going to do that for us. I thought you were talking about somebody else. You're talking about me and my family. You're talking about our neighborhood. And so maybe Donald Trump gets away with this, maybe he does, maybe the Republican governors around the state get away with this. But ultimately we're holding a mirror up to ourselves. Are our politics going to be different this cycle or not? I don't know.

Host 1 (68:58)

I want to tell our viewers that Carol and her lawyer will be on our air in the next hour with Ari Melbourne, Alan Orr and Christy Greenberg, thank you both for starting us off this hour on this story. David sticks around. When we come back, a Trump 1.0 policy revived. The administration is out with an expanded travel ban even as its public rationales for the ban make no sense and don't add up. Plus, the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is a live wire. Since we've been on the air, it's getting hotter and hotter by the minute. We'll bring you up to speed from our coverage in the last hour. We'll talk about why it matters to any of us and what Democrats do about it as they take on Donald Trump and his agenda. Congressman Jim Himes will join that conversation. And later in the program, a stark warning from a Florida meteorologist that the Trump administration's gutting of the federal government. Those cuts make it very difficult to accurately predict hurricanes there deadly White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. It is somehow and all at once frightfully familiar, yet decidedly different. Donald Trump's brand new, very old fashioned travel ban. This latest iteration of a travel ban which bans people from a dozen countries from coming here, will go into effect one minute after midnight early Monday morning. In announcing the new travel ban, Trump cited the terror attack in Boulder, Colorado. And although the suspect is from Egypt, you'll notice Egypt does not appear on the list of banned countries, nor does it appear among the seven newly restricted countries either. It's here that we should note something shared by the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan and independent public policy research organization. Quote, the annual chance of being murdered by a terrorist from one of the banned countries from 1975 to the end of 2024 was about 1 in 13.9 billion per year. Well, I feel better. Put aside for a moment what all this means for Trump and think about what it means for us. Think back to the first Trump travel ban. Mass protests across our country, at airports, in downtown centers. The American people in the first month of Donald Trump's first presidency, still so fresh and full of fight. Remember one of the defining features of that effort developing now, anger over President.

Advertiser 2 (71:28)

Trump's executive order on travel is heating up in the city of Chicago.

Host 1 (71:31)

Thanks for joining us. I'm Lionel Moyes.

I (71:33)

I'm Erin Kennedy.

Host 1 (71:34)

And right now, attorneys are getting involved. An army of volunteer lawyers gathered to help families of those detained.

Donald Trump (71:39)

Lawyers in cities near Four big airports rushed to federal courts over the weekend, scoring early victories.

Host 1 (71:47)

Hmm. An army of volunteers, lawyers. Fast forward now eight years. Trump has put himself on better footing for sure with his war against law firms. Can the same be said for our legal institutions? Can the same be said about us? Joining our coverage, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut's here. Congressman, your reaction to the travel ban?

Elon Musk (72:13)

Hi, Nicole. It's as Yogi Berra said, you know, digital vu all over again. It's this sort of gesture which sort of points at caring about our national security. But you know, about three sentences later, it just shows that like so much of what comes out of the Trump White House, it's likely to do more harm than good. You know, as you pointed out, this perpetrator of this horrible attack in Boulder was Egyptian. Egyptian is not, you know, Egypt is not one of the countries. You know, when we were attacked on 9 11, most of the hijack backers were Saudi. Saudi's not on the. But look, bottom line, you don't have to be a security expert to know that there aren't a lot of terrorists in Chad or any of the other 19 countries saying, you know, our plan relies on getting that student visa and then, and only then will we perpetrate our act of terror. That's not a thing. And so again, like so much of the Trump administration, this is an empty gesture that is going to cause a lot of pain to people who have families in these countries, to students who are planning on studying in this country for no appreciable security benefit.

Host 1 (73:12)

I mean, the other thing I think that comes to mind is that we've watched what they've done on the national security front. They have gutted and summarily fired intelligence heads for communicating factual information to Tulsi Gabbard about the role Trende Aragua plays in our country and the ties to the Maduro government, which, which aren't a thing. They have purged leaders and experienced people from the FBI if they had anything to do with any of the January 6th cases. So, you know, the goal of protecting US national security is noble, but they've not taken any actions in pursuit of that goal. What do you do about that?

Elon Musk (73:55)

Yeah, I mean, you're right to point that out. Of course. You know, the Director of National Intelligence, if you look through her Twitter feed, you will see that she is 100% dedicated to keeping the American people safe from the Biden administration. And she's bringing up, you know, by the way, just Elon Musk today brings up the Epstein files. She's bringing up the Epstein files, the JFK assassination. You know, what you see there, what you saw on the signal Gate chat is the opposite of the way that national security professionals behave.

Host 1 (74:28)

You raise the Musk Trump feud. Since I've been on the air, it's been raging. Elon Musk dropping the Epstein bomb on Donald Trump's head. I struggled as I was coming on the air with why this matters. And to me it matters because it's a mask off moment. All of our concerns from the outside about why Musk was there are confirmed. Trump revealed that he was mad about the EV tax credits being cut from the big bill. And all of our years of concerns about Trump are affirmed in Mustang. Without my 277 million, he surely would have lost. Trump was always for sale. Other than that, what do you see as significant in their feud?

Elon Musk (75:12)

Well, I mean, it's sort of fascinating to think that Elon Musk literally, awareness week ago, was in the White House just overflowing with praise for Donald Trump and presumably knew something about this bill which made it through the House in a very, in a very partisan way. And then a week later, he's in a completely different spot, and the President's a completely spot different spot. Now, what I would suggest is maybe worthy of some reflection there is the degree of absence of principle, the inauthenticity. So. So, you know, when Elon Musk says Donald Trump is the greatest president in history and literally a week later is calling for his impeachment, think about how seriously the American people should take President Trump's promise not to cut Social Security, not to cut Medicare. There is no principle. There is no consistency. These things just sort of swing with the wind. And that's a pretty scary thing when you're talking about the most powerful office in the land.

Host 1 (76:05)

I mean, I think the other thing that I think of is about the world watching. And the world watched Donald Trump today talk about Elon Musk's black eye and wonder why he wouldn't cover it up with makeup. Talked about Elon Musk wearing the hat, the MAGA hat, that Trump was right about everything. I mean, they're outing themselves as so deeply shallow to a degree that I'm not even sure, I'm not even sure I appreciated until I heard it from the two of them in the context of their fight.

Elon Musk (76:38)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, you asked the question, what does the world see? I mean, thank God we are, you know, by orders of magnitude as powerful country as we are, you know, aircraft carrier after aircraft carrier, a fabulous nuclear deterrent, the capability to project force around the world. Thank God we are that country. Because if we were weak and vulnerable, which we are not, the bad guys of the, the world would be thinking, okay, now is the moment to perpetrate something against the United States because it is an absolute reality TV show in the Oval Office starring Elon Musk, his young son and, you know, whoever is in the President's ear today. So again, thank God we are as strong a country as we are because take it from me, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, there's some dangerous people out there in the world. And if I were them, this would be the moment where I would say, oh my God, the United States, the wheels are coming off and now is our moment to do something, something ugly.

Host 1 (77:31)

Well, you again, as a ranking member the Intel Committee must hear the same thing. I hear from former counterterror officials and intelligence officials that in the eyes of our adversaries, this very much is the moment that we are more vulnerable than we've been in decades. Do you trust that Hegseth atop the Pentagon and Tulsi Gabbard atop the intelligence community and Laura Loomer's pick of the week nestled inside our national security agencies have what it takes to protect us?

Elon Musk (78:00)

Yeah, I mean, let me answer that in the sort of the short term and the long term. In the short term, do I trust Pete Hegseth? No, of course I don't. You know Pete. Seth, we saw a glimpse into Pete Hegseth in the signal chat. He's a 12 year old boy who is, you know, playing big powerful guy and talking about F18s and launching off of carriers and everything. So of course, look, when something is going wrong abroad, is that the guy you want making the judgments? I don't think so. But let me also be balanced here and say that Donald Trump has, for whatever else I may think of him, he has a deep aversion to kinetic conflict on the planet. Right. And if you look back over these last 20 or 30 years of American mistakes, it has usually been us getting involved in places, Iraq, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, going all the way back to Vietnam that we subsequently come to regret. So you ask me if I'm nervous. Yes. In the sort of very near term, if North Korea is fueling a missile or if there's terrorist activity out there, I'm very nervous. But again, over 20 or 30 years, the mistakes the United States have made have been about over engaging in militarily unwise ways. And I have to say this president at least seems to have antibodies to that as a instinct.

Host 1 (79:09)

Are the antibodies working in terms of the way we're positioning ourselves in an adversarial position, at least publicly with Ukraine against Russia?

Elon Musk (79:20)

You know, unfortunately, I think they're contributing to his hesitancy to support Ukraine. Again, is this aversion to kinetic conflict. We're going to have a test case here, right? I, my own view is I'm watching this Iran deal situation very, very closely. My own view is having spent some time with the prime minister of Israel a couple of months ago that he is hell bent and determined on having a war with Iran. And I think he probably is going to do everything he can to get the United States involved in that war with Iran. And so there's going to be a real test for this president about whether he sort of falls back on what I think is probably a healthy instinct to be skeptical of yet another war in the Middle east or whether the prime minister of Israel can be persuasive to him to go against what I think think is that that instinct that lives inside the head of Donald Trump.

Host 1 (80:02)

What about Ukraine?

Elon Musk (80:05)

Well, you know, it's funny, we've been hosting a number of British parliamentarians here and it's they're very odd conversations, right, because the British have been 100% behind the effort in Ukraine. And they're coming to Washington saying, what the hell are you guys doing? You know, the Ukrainians are fighting in a way that the British fought in 1939 and 1940, 1941. And you know, they are coming to recognize that there is half of one political party in this country which is abandoning the traditional principles of standing up for democracy and freedom and liberty around the world. And that's, I think, a profoundly uncomfortable thing. Look, I had a British parliamentarian say, are you guys serious about NATO in Article 5, you know, if Lithuania is invaded, is the United States there? And I had to say I think so. But, you know, not a lot of certainty.

Host 1 (80:55)

TBD Congressman Jim Himes, thank you so much for fielding all of our questions. We appreciate you. Coming up next for us, our friend David Jolly has news. He made an announcement this morning. We'll talk about it next. A dear friend of this program, someone who has joined me on huge news stage hundreds of times, has some news of his own. He's stepping back into the political arena. David Jolley is running for governor of Florida. David served in Congress as a Republican. Since leaving office, Jolly has been an outspoken voice on this network as he watched our former party turn into the party of Donald Trump. Joining us now is David Jolly. Tell us about your. What are you doing?

Donald Trump (81:41)

So I got bad news and good news.

Host 1 (81:43)

Okay.

Donald Trump (81:43)

I'm no longer an MSNBC analyst, and it kills me. It kills me.

Host 1 (81:46)

But.

Donald Trump (81:46)

But the good news is because I'm running for governor of the state of Florida, and I'm running as a Democrat.

Host 1 (81:51)

What does that look like? What does that race look like?

Donald Trump (81:53)

So here's the most important takeaway. Democrats have a generational opportunity to actually win statewide in Florida in 26. I mean, that. That was part of. For my wife Laura and I deciding to get in, the first question was, can we actually win? We can win Florida in 2026 as a Democrat leading a Democratic coalition focused on Democratic values. And look for national viewers who aren't in Florida, look around the corner a little bit. If a Democrat wins In Florida in 26 1, we've beaten Maga in his home state, but we've changed national politics. We have unlocked the White House in 28 for Democrats. We've changed the entire national conversation. I have thought for a long time that one of the ways back for the Democratic Party nationally is through governorships. Florida, Michigan, California, other states, Texas, Russia. This is an opportunity to take Democratic values and meet voters exactly where they're at.

Host 1 (82:46)

I mean, Florida had a Democratic governor before I went to work for a Republican governor.

Donald Trump (82:51)

Sure.

Host 1 (82:52)

I mean, Floridians have elected Democrats to statewide office. How do you make sure they do it again?

Donald Trump (82:57)

So, look, it starts with the Democratic values. I mean, at a time when a lot of people are leaving the party, I'm rushing in. I've considered myself part of the Democratic coalition. Frankly, even when I was in Congress, I worked with more Democrats than I did Republicans. But I'm proud to be a Democrat because I see three values that are so important. We need an economy that works for all people. We need a government that actually serves people. It's seniors, its veterans, providing for public education. And we need a government. We need a community, a state of Florida that lifts everyone up. Right? Regardless of where you were born, the color of your skin, who you love, who you worship, you should be welcomed, you should be celebrated for your contributions to the state economy, to the culture. So we start with those values. Now, I think why seats become very competitive for Democrats next cycle. I think we're in the midst of a generational change election. Maybe it's the sixth year of a Donald Trump presidency. Maybe, as people are seeing, we're going in the wrong direction. But in Florida, we have an affordability crisis, right? People can't afford their homes. We have a property insurance crisis. We have a property tax crisis. We have the abandonment of public schools. We have, we have this immigration attack from Republicans. All of that is important. But notice I never mentioned Donald Trump. The reason governorship races are so important. Donald Trump and my state, Ron DeSantis, they're the scene setters for the chaos, for the wrong direction, for the change that people want. But as Democrats, if we focus on applying our values, an economy for all people, a government, a state that lifts people up to the problems of an affordability crisis, that is our issue in Florida, an affordability crisis, where we lift everybody up through the economy, we turn dignity and we stop the culture wars, we stop fighting communities and instead we fight crime. If we're using that language, we're going to win next November.

Host 1 (84:38)

Can't wait to cover it here. It's really exciting. We're going to miss you terribly. You've been here through some really tough news cycles and we miss having you. We'll miss having you. I'll miss having you as my wingman. But I'm excited to cover your race.

Donald Trump (84:51)

I'll be back as often as you have me.

Host 1 (84:52)

Thank you so much. Thanks for making that news here. And you're sticking around.

Donald Trump (84:57)

I'm sticking around. Talk weather. We got to talk weather.

Host 1 (85:01)

It's not every day that it's our local TV weather people telling us that they can no longer do their job, they can no longer accurately predict the weather. But that's what's happened in South Florida. And this person who's been on this program before with complete credibility, says Trump is to blame. We'll show you that moment next. As you've grown accustomed to my presentations over my 34 years in South Florida, newscasts confidently. I went on TV and I told you it's going to turn. You don't need to worry. It is going to turn. And I am here to tell you that I am not sure I can do that this year because of the cuts, the gutting, the sledgehammer attack on science in general. What we're starting to see is that the quality of the forecasts is becoming degraded. There's also a chance because of some of these cuts that NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft will not be able to fly this year. And with less reconnaissance missions, we may be flying blind. And we may not exactly know how strong a hurricane is before it reaches the coastline. It's hard to overstate how important he is to his community. That was a stark warning for Floridians from longtime NBC meteorologist John Morales at the start of what is a fraught time in South Florida. Hurricane season. All of Florida. John there telling his viewers he can no longer do his job. He can no longer accurately predict storms due to the Trump administration's cuts through Doge, five of the last six years have had an above average number of storms. This year, the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or noaa, is predicting another above average season between right now and November in the Atlantic, just as the Trump administration fires hundreds of its employees and proposes hundreds of millions of dollars in more funding cuts, gutting climate research and slashing funds for weather forecasting. Joining our conversation is Andy Hazelton. He's a former physical scientist for noaa. He was laid off back in February. David's here as well. Andy, tell us how you see this moment and what you think of John's communicating honestly with his viewers who rely on him. Yeah, thank you for having me. And John is obviously a legend down here and very well respected, so I.

Angelo Carusone (87:41)

Appreciate his honesty about what's going on. And, you know, as someone that's been.

Host 1 (87:46)

With noaa, our goal is to have the opposite of that happen.

Elon Musk (87:50)

We want to keep making forecasts better.

Host 1 (87:52)

Like we've seen over the last 30.

Angelo Carusone (87:54)

Years, keep getting that data and having.

Host 1 (87:57)

The funding to do the research that.

Angelo Carusone (87:58)

Goes into that and that makes these.

Host 1 (88:00)

Improvements year to year.

Angelo Carusone (88:02)

And for a long time, hurricane research.

Host 1 (88:04)

And whether climate research has been bipartisan.

Angelo Carusone (88:06)

Because it's that people see the value.

Host 1 (88:08)

That is for everybody, regardless of your political background, regardless of your political party, regardless of where you live.

Angelo Carusone (88:14)

And we just want to keep that.

Host 1 (88:15)

Going and have people know that. No, we work for everybody and we want to keep the public safe. I mean, I've been on the air and cover these emergencies, and there's certainly not a partisan bend to who ends up in a path in normal times. What will happen if, one, the science is underfunded and two, the information is politicized?

Angelo Carusone (88:38)

Yeah, we worry that people will not.

Host 1 (88:41)

Be able to trust the forecasts and not be able to count on them or take them as seriously.

Angelo Carusone (88:45)

And also over time, if this research.

Host 1 (88:48)

Isn'T funded, if this work isn't funded to collect the data, to improve the models and all that, then you'll see.

Angelo Carusone (88:53)

Forecasts not only stop getting better, but.

Host 1 (88:55)

Maybe even getting worse. And like John said, you know, we may not be able to tell if it's going to turn or not and go back to the days 30 years.

Advertiser 2 (89:01)

Ago when we had to evacuate huge.

Angelo Carusone (89:03)

Stretches of coastline needlessly and costing us.

Host 1 (89:06)

Billions of dollars in commerce. So this work we do, it saves lives, it saves property, and we just.

Angelo Carusone (89:10)

Want to be able to keep doing.

Host 1 (89:12)

That and keep getting the support we need. David, Florida has been traumatized by brutal and deadly storms, and this feels like a big blow.

Donald Trump (89:22)

It is. Look, in our home community, one of the big storms last year, we lost maybe 15 people through drownings. Donald Trump continues to make us less safe and less secure. It's true with his international policy and national security decisions to abandon our allies and empower our enemy. It's true when he ignores and suspends due process. That applies to the innocents. It's true when he changes public health and we abandon a true public health agenda. And it's true when he abandons data and science. And, you know, as I look at running for governor, one of the things I truly think is going to have to happen, if he continues down this path, states are going to have to step in and fill the gap. So whether it is in natural disaster response or preparedness, if he's going to slash fema, whether it's in services to our veterans community, because now there are fewer services from the federal government. What about navigators for seniors who need to access Social Security?

Host 1 (90:15)

Right.

Donald Trump (90:16)

Do you think Donald Trump, Donald Trump could actually go online and apply for Social Security? Of course not. He needs somebody to help him do it. But the Doge cuts are removing people from communities that are navigators and can assist Social Security applicants. But in this case, what he's doing is not something the state can replace. States can't replace the rich portfolio of science that is used to inform our forecasting models. He's making Florida, but he's making the country less safe.

Host 1 (90:41)

David Daly, Andy Hazelton, we'll continue to call on you, Andy, as the actual hurricane season gets underway. Thank you for joining us today on this. Another break. We'll be right back. We have an update of our own. The Best People podcast is now available on YouTube. So you can not just listen to our conversations with Jason Bateman and Rachel Maddow, but you can watch them. Here's some of it. I think that what makes the Trump story so amazing is nobody knows what's going to happen next. You know, I mean, I mean, the people in this cabinet don't seem to know what's happening next. You know, it's crazy, but there's a writer's room somewhere. Somewhere. Yeah. And in that writer's room, they are.

Elon Musk (91:25)

Figuring out these seasonal arcs that are just.

Host 1 (91:28)

They're just gobsmacking. And somehow they build to these great.

Elon Musk (91:33)

Cliffhangers, too, that are kind of like.

Host 1 (91:36)

Well, that's like jumping the shark. But, like, for instance, you know, remember for a moment there it was.

Elon Musk (91:42)

Was very plausible that he was going to win the election but start serving in prison. Like, that was. That wasn't.

Host 1 (91:50)

That would you. Would. You would write that maybe. Yeah, like that would be a shark jump the shark moment.

Elon Musk (91:55)

But no, actually everything was built towards that legitimately.

Host 1 (91:58)

Can't happen.

Elon Musk (91:58)

And people are trying to figure out the apparatus to get classified documents to him, et cetera, et cetera.

Host 1 (92:04)

And like, to me, that's just a.

Elon Musk (92:07)

Show I can't stop watching.

Host 1 (92:11)

Jason is so funny and also so smart. To watch the whole conversation with Jason Bateman and to see my conversation with Rachel. Scan the QR code on the bottom of your screen. It takes you to MSNBC's YouTube channel or go to msnbc.com thebestpeople be sure to like the videos and subscribe to MSNBC's YouTube channel so you'll never miss an episode. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes. We are grateful.

Advertiser 1 (92:43)

I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous? Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every year you from brands you love, like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your dsw store or dsw.com.