← Deadline: White House![“Trump ‘[doesn’t] think about Americans’ financial situation’” — Deadline: White House cover](https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/b45b3f3f-9bc0-4cdf-8375-d946055e4c11/6e8119a0-ea30-4656-a703-65770f6c79ca/3000x3000/ms-20now-20rebrand-dwh-3000x3000.jpg?aid=rss_feed)
Deadline: White House
“Trump ‘[doesn’t] think about Americans’ financial situation’”
00:47:49
Ayman Mohyeldin is in for Nicolle Wallace. Ayman covers Donald Trump’s honest answer when asked about how much he takes into consideration Americans’ financial situation when making decisions about the war he started in Iran.
Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:00]
Ayman Mohidin
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start.
- [00:04]
Justin J. Pearson
Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one.
- [00:15]
Ashley Parker
You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.
- [00:19]
Podcast Announcer
Download today, Sunday, June 14, from Washington, DC, a special live taping of MSNow's hit podcast the Blueprint with Jen Psaki. Join her as she talks with actor and author Billy Eichner. They'll explore the power of humor in the face of adversity and Eichner's new audio memoir, Billy on Billy the Blueprint with Jen Psaki live with Billy Eichner. Get your tickets today at 6th and I.org.
- [00:54]
Justin J. Pearson
He doesn't care about our situation.
- [00:56]
Ayman Mohidin
He doesn't. He's just here for pride and ego. He's not lying and he proves it. Not only that, but we also like food stamps and other stuff. He does not care about our financial situation. He cares about giving his self a name and he just proved it. What'd you make of that? Yeah, you know, that's bull crap. I don't understand how, you know, how the war in Iran is impacting us on fuel prices. I mean, me personally, but I'm no politician. You know,
- [01:27]
Justin J. Pearson
what can you do? The fact that he said that he
- [01:31]
Ayman Mohidin
doesn't care about America's financial situation, that's ridiculous. He's a pompous idiot. Hi everyone. It is five o'clock in New York. I'm Ayman Muhidin for Nicole Wallace. On the bright side, for Donald Trump, voters finally think he's being honest about something. It just happens to be about how little he cares about them and their financial hardships that they are facing when it comes to the decisions that he makes about the war he started with Iran. That was Ms. Nas. Alex Tabit asking voters about these comments by Donald Trump earlier this week.
- [02:05]
Lisa Rubin
Take a watch when you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?
- [02:14]
Ayman Mohidin
Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about America's financial situation and I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. That's the only thing that that is a far cry from Trump's campaign promise that we will end inflation and make America affordable again to bring down the prices of all goods. And it's contributing to rapidly plummeting poll numbers for him as voters sour on his handling of what was once his most highly rated issue. Now, according to a new CNN poll, just 30% of Americans approve of of Trump's performance on the economy, as 77% of Americans say Donald Trump has increased the cost of living in this country. That includes the majority of Republicans. Trump's let them eat regime change approach to the economy driving away even his own base is where we begin this hour. Staff writer for the Atlantic, political analyst Ashley Parker is here. Also with us, Fernanda Mandy. He is a political analyst and Democratic pollster based in Florida. And with me at the table for the rest of the hour, NYU law professor legal analyst Melissa Murray. It's great to have all three of you with us. Ashley, I'll start with you. This anger feels a little bit different. This is something that Americans are not only able to understand, they can actually feel, and as a result of it, the connection between what Donald Trump does and what he says has meaning to them.
- [03:45]
Melissa Murray
That's right.
- [03:45]
Fernanda Mandy
And this was also the promise of Donald Trump. I mean, first of all, a number of Americans first knew him as the a businessman who came into their houses every week as the star of the Apprentice, hiring and firing people and making good deals. To be fair, this was reality TV and gross fiction. But this is why they originally always trusted him on the economy as a businessman, as someone who understood wealth and how to make it and how to help others make it. And then more specifically, this was what he promised when he campaigned against Joe Biden. This is what voters felt and were unhappy with under the Biden years, and this is why they elected Donald Trump this time. So in certain ways, it feels, you know, when the economy is not going well, the person in power always gets the blame. Voters always feel it, they're always upset. But in this instance, it feels almost like a double betrayal because the entire point of Donald Trump this term for many voters was that the interest rates would go down, inflation would go down, they would have more money in their pockets, gas prices would go down and stay down. And that is not what has happened.
- [05:01]
Ayman Mohidin
So, Melissa, let me play for you a little bit more of some reactions from our correspondent Alex Tabit, speaking to voters in this country. Take a listen.
- [05:11]
Justin J. Pearson
Do you feel richer or poorer in
- [05:14]
Ayman Mohidin
the second Trump administration?
- [05:16]
Anna Gomez
Oh, poorer. Everybody is, you know, the cost of food Gas.
- [05:20]
Melissa Murray
Yeah.
- [05:21]
Ayman Mohidin
So I'm sure I speak for everybody here.
- [05:25]
Melissa Murray
Right. And I think only the rich are surviving right now, and the rest of us are getting more and more in debt.
- [05:35]
Anna Gomez
So that's the debt I think about.
- [05:40]
Ayman Mohidin
It's a far cry from Donald Trump. We are about to enter the golden age of America where affordability is going to be king and we are all going to be rolling in the dough.
- [05:52]
Melissa Murray
I think it may have been a misstatement on his part. I think he might have met the Gilded Age, the second Gilded Age. And it's not just the price of gas. I mean, it's the fact that Americans can see what's going on. The array of oligarchs around him at his inauguration, the fact that these big companies continue to press their advantage and consumers continue to feel it. This is the new Gilded Age. And, you know, we have to think about it in those terms. You know, one of the things that's actually interesting about the first Gilded Age was that it was so rampant, the inequality, that people really just got tired of it. One of the things that the federal government did during the Gilded Age was use tariffs as its principal source of, of revenue generation. And the people hated it because it was regressive and the poor bore it disproportionately. They wanted an income tax so that the rich could pay their fair share, but they couldn't because the Constitution prevented it. They amended the Constitution to allow that to happen. That's how we got the progressive income tax. People getting sick of it and deciding that they didn't want to take it anymore.
- [06:49]
Ayman Mohidin
So, Fernando, when you look at the economy, it has always been one of the stronger things for Republicans. Right. And to Ashley's point, many voters in this country kind of bought into the idea that Donald Trump was the successful billionaire businessman. He had made it. He knew how to run an economy. But now it that doesn't hold with voters. Voters can clearly see through that. So talk to us about what these poll, these collapsing poll numbers mean for him and also for Republicans going into the midterms.
- [07:18]
Ashley Parker
I mean, simply put, it means that they are in a world of trouble, at least according, again, what I think all of us are seeing, I've done since the beginning of the year around the country, about three dozen focus groups. Doesn't matter the subject matter. The focus groups, what every single voter wants to talk about is not just the bad economy. It's how they are financially struggling, if not financially drowning. And for the president who said, hey, what have you got to lose by Voting for him a second time. The answer that Americans are saying over and over again, we've got a lot to lose. These are numbers that test one of the most steadfast rules or laws in politics. It's the economy, stupid. When you are at 28% approval rating on your handling of the economy and the economy is with a bullet, the number one issue by far, nothing else comes close to it, it means you're in a world of political trouble. It's why you're seeing this tremendous over performance of Democrats in virtually every major election that's taken place since the president retook office. And I think it's why Republicans, even here in Florida, a state that they thought they had on lockdown, are very concerned, if not outright paranoid. And it's simply because this issue of the economy. You can't drive to a gas station anywhere in Florida where the tank is not reading almost $5 a gallon for gas. This is shock of the most visceral and direct way. And voters aren't having it anymore.
- [08:41]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah, to that point, I mean, more than half of Americans say that the economy and affordability is the most important issue. As you just said, it's the most important issue for voters. That is up 13 points just from January alone. Where do you see these numbers going as this trend continues?
- [08:58]
Ashley Parker
Well, again, short of a massive economic miracle, there's not enough magic MAGA fairy dust in the White House to make people's reality economically go away from what they're experiencing. Every single one of these economic conditions, when you have gas go up and almost double in three months for people that are struggling and basically balancing their checkbooks, that is a major strain. You couple that with the rising costs of food, the rising cost of insurance. Again, we're not talking luxuries. These are basic necessities. You see people feeling it, they're saying it. And it's not limited to partisan tribalism. Even Republicans, even MAGA Republicans are saying, this is not what we signed up for. And that's why I think you see a White House in fumbling crisis. And you saw that clip that you played at the beginning of the package. I mean, I remember a time when that would have ended a candidacy. It remains to be seen if it does. But you know, that's going to be the clip that you're going to see over and over and over again, particularly if costs don't come down precipitously over the next four months.
- [10:02]
Ayman Mohidin
So, Ashley, I mean, you wrote about Trump's focus on becoming a great man of History as opposed to actually governing. And it seems he's trying to leave his imprint on this country one way or the other with arches and, you know, all kinds of buildings and ballrooms and gold coins. It feels like voters are picking up on that distraction and they're also picking up on just how much waste is being spent on things that don't actually impact their day to day lives.
- [10:28]
Fernanda Mandy
Well, that's right. What's interesting is that. Let's just take the ballroom, because this is an example that when I have had the privilege of watching focus groups, it comes up quite a bit, which is something that when he is talking about the ballroom, which he does with frequency, and it's a gilded ballroom, it's going to be very Trumpy. And it really bothers voters. And the reason is because it is symbolic and it means something beyond just this physical structure. And what it means to them is that he is not focused on them. He is not focused on the issues that are important to them and that they care about. And so something like the ballroom, for someone like Trump in particular, who so often defies the rules of political gravity, voters might give him a pass on that. If the economy was going well, if gas prices were lower, if they had extra money in their checking accounts at the end of the month, if they weren't walking to multiple grocery stores to use their coupons and get the best deals, you know, on each thing at each possible store, the ballroom for Trump will be less of a big deal. But all of this, these are sort of the physical, tangible, golden reminders of what voters feel right now, which is the sense that the President does not care about them. And that quote he said, my first thought, too, was that will be played in every single attack ad by Democrats because it just reinforces what voters, including some in Trump's pretty diffuse coalition, believe right now.
- [12:01]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah, and there's this element that he's not just focused on his Golden Ballroom, Fernand, he's actually taking things away from people who need them the most. NBC News was reporting that these cuts, I think $187 billion from SNAP, the program that's known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that is real life consequences for people. The consequences of those cuts are showing up on Americans kitchen tables.
- [12:32]
Lisa Rubin
It is.
- [12:32]
Ashley Parker
And it's not just the elimination of SNAP benefits was, as you say, that's a hunger issue. That's where, you know, you cannot eat culture war, you cannot eat cultural grievances. That doesn't take away your hunger. But when you couple that with the Subsidies having been cut, the voting of the cutting of the subsidies on the Affordable Care Act, a lot of people that are losing insurance or even seeing their premiums rise this past May 1 is when insurance premium rates started rising in all over the country. You take into consideration the sticker shock of that. Amen. Some of the staff benefits we talked about, the gas price increases, people are financially drowning. And that usually leads to a political reckoning. It was said earlier. I agree with it completely. I again see it in the polling and the focus groups. The economy is the issue that people judge things on because it's a survival issue. And right now, it is clear Donald Trump does not seem in any way connected. He seems totally disassociated, completely out of touch. And the voters are getting that message loud and clear. That's why he is deeply underwater on the major indices. His job approval as president, his own popularity rating personally, and most importantly, his handling of the economy. These are red flashing warning signs inside the White House. And I just don't think Trump is paying attention to them. And if he is, he clearly doesn't seem to care.
- [13:48]
Ayman Mohidin
So to pick up on that point, Ashley, Trump may not be picking up attention. He may not be picking up on this, and he may be disconnected. But do you get a sense at all, for any of your reporting and others, that people in his orbit, in Trump's inner orbit, are alarmed at all by what his priorities are? Are they still buying their own hype, so to speak?
- [14:10]
Fernanda Mandy
Absolutely. People in his orbit are alarmed and are aware that these approval and disapproval numbers on the economy are bad for him and worse than bad for him. They're bad for his party, for Republicans in the upcoming midterms. I mean, right when the war with Iran began, some of the first reporting got was that in addition to all of the actual considerations, that his political team thought that this was going to be politically problematic for him, in part because of prices in the economy. And that was before Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and before, I think we got bogged down to a point that in that moment, he and his advisors did not expect. And so this is something that people who work for Republicans, people who work for the president, people who are tasked with holding the House and the Senate in the midterms are deeply aware of. You know, you've had his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, say publicly that he's going to be out in the country, traveling at least once a week, talking about the midterms and these sorts of issues. Of course, he hasn't but that is what his team wants him to be doing. They understand that politically that is what this president needs to be doing in the run up to the midterms.
- [15:24]
Ayman Mohidin
Melissa, do you think this is something that is going to dog Republicans when Trump is long gone and no longer in the picture?
- [15:33]
Melissa Murray
Well, I mean, that's a million dollar question. Is this a cult of personality or is this who the Republicans are going forward? I mean, I can still remember when the Republicans were kind of patrician party and Democrats were the party of the working class. There's obviously been a flip. But what we are seeing over the last two years is I guess maybe a retrenchment to the earlier model. And it's not even just a patrician model of the gop. This is an oligarch model. Like this is the very, very wealthy, whereas the working class are sort of left behind. I don't know if they're going to be able to overcome that when they no longer have a leader who manages to sway the masses with his own charisma.
- [16:08]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah, it's a very important point, I'm sure as well, as long as they're hurting, they're probably not going to turn to the Republican Party as the rescue for for that. Ashley Parker and Fernand Amanda, thank you so much and for starting us off this hour. Melissa, please stick around. When we return. As if redrawing congressional maps to eliminate majority minority representation wasn't harsh enough, Republicans in Tennessee are going even further, stripping Democrats of their committee seats in the state legislature. Tennessee State Representative Justin Pierson will join us on the gross overreach by Republicans in his state next. Also had the Trump Justice Department barreling through legal norms once again. There's new reporting about a pledge signed by the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to recuse himself in cases involving Donald Trump. But in a DOJ that is all about Trump, what does that even mean? And the lone Democrat on the FCC sounding the alarm, warning that media companies about the dangers of capitulating to Donald Trump and telling Disney that the FCC is on a campaign to censor as she will be our guest later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Please stay with us.
- [17:17]
Podcast Announcer
Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.
- [17:26]
Melissa Murray
Every small d Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.
- [17:31]
Podcast Announcer
Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donne, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the Go wherever you get your podcasts for ad Free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [17:49]
Justin J. Pearson
What you are doing today is eviscerating the only black majority congressional district in our state because we are majority black. We are here because this Republican Party has to seek to steal elections and seats because the President and the party have refused to address the pain, the suffering and the struggling of everyday Tennesseans. This is about attacking, targeting and cracking District 9 into pieces for more political and racial dominance and white supremacy in the state of Tennessee.
- [18:31]
Ayman Mohidin
That was Tennessee State Representative Justin J. Pierson speaking truth to power as Republicans in the state legislature voted to carve up Tennessee's only black congressional district into three majority white Republican parts after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act, declaring open season on majority black districts nationwide. That apparently wasn't enough for the GOP supermajority in the state legislature. Representative Pierson posting on social media that speaker of the Tennessee House Cameron Sexton just removed me and every Democrat and therefore every black elected official in the state legislator from any committee we served on. This move strips nearly 2 million Tennesseans from the representation they deserve in the Tennessee State Legislature. I want to bring into the conversation Democratic Tennessee State Representative Justin J. Pearson. He represents Memphis in a district impacted by the GOP's new map. Representative Pearson, it's great to have you on the show. What was your reaction when you heard the news and you saw what they did to the Democrats on their committee assignments?
- [19:33]
Justin J. Pearson
I mean, it is expected from Cameron Sexton, who is oftentimes operating more under the guise of white supremacy and the collection of power in order to abuse it rather than listening to the voices of the people. Is the same person who led my expulsion just a few years ago, depriving my district of the right to have our voices heard just because we were standing up against gun violence. And now he is continuing on that path. Stripping us of the only black majority district wasn't enough. He had to try and strip us of our voice in the committee process where we know legislation has moved forward that's going to impact all of our constituencies. But this should show everyone the authoritarianism democratic rule of this body and what we're experiencing in the south that is deleterious to this experiment that we call democracy.
- [20:14]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah. So tell me a little bit about that real world impact that you were talking about. What does that actually mean? That now you and other Democrats, which also include all of the actual black representatives that represent constituents in the state legislature, will not be part of part of these committees.
- [20:33]
Justin J. Pearson
This is an attempt to silence the voices of Democrats, but particularly of black members. This is Cameron Sexton continuing in the experiment that the neo Confederacy is currently on, which is how do we dilute the voices of black people, reduce black political power? And even for those who are still able to serve, how do we try and limit their engagement with the bills, the rules, the legislation that may come forward while we're out of session? This is another attempt to take away black political power because they are afraid that our voices, our ideas, our identity, our culture, our values being represented is a threat to white supremacy. And that is what they are upholding. That is the pillar that they are seeking to maintain. And it's our responsibility, whether we're on committees or not, to continue to use our voice, our positions, our platforms, to raise the issue that what is happening in the south is degrading our democracy to a point of no return. That this Jim Crow 2.0 that they are really seeking to make into a reality and already had started with their experiment of Tennessee is going to be detrimental across the country, and that if the 50% of black people in the south lose any opportunity of majority black districts and representation, that that overwhelmingly and negatively hurts our entire country. The litmus test for this nation's progress is going to be how far the south lets it go. And the south, right now, a lot of us are standing up and fighting, but we need organizations, mobilization, and support for elected officials all across the south right now.
- [21:57]
Ayman Mohidin
There's something that feels very sinister and evil about stripping Democrats from these committee assignments, because it's not. It doesn't seem political. It seems actually like punishing Democrats and specifically black Democrats for speaking up and using their voice. It's almost kind of like a political know your place. And it's not him.
- [22:15]
Melissa Murray
It's entirely punitive. It's meant to take them down a peg or two and to totally strip them of any authority that they have so they're rendered powerless within the body itself. Representative Pierson just mentioned his expulsion from the state legislature. That happened a couple of years ago. I want to emphasize that was the first harbinger we had of the real consequences of gerrymandering. That state legislature was so gerrymandered to consolidate Republican power that they literally could expel, simply for talking about gun safety, three individuals who represented three of the most populous cities in the state. Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville. Like, that would never happen if there weren't gerrymandering. Like, they just don't have the votes. They don't have the population be able to do that. And now we're seeing the further consequences of it. They are redrawing the map, taking Memphis, which has long been a majority black opportunity district, and carving it up so that black individuals don't have representation. We are talking about this in terms of the disenfranchisement of black voters, but it trickles down. Tennessee is not a completely Republican state. There are white Democrats here, too. They are also being disenfranchised. Black people may be the canary in the coal mine here, but they're not the only victims.
- [23:25]
Ayman Mohidin
Representative Pierson, have you heard from any of your Republican colleagues? Has anyone reached out to you and expressed any kind of solidarity with you right now?
- [23:33]
Justin J. Pearson
No, none have reached out and I'm not expecting it. The reality is they took the votes, they did what they did, and now we see where they stand. But to the point that was just made. For a long time, Republicans have been trying to take over Memphis. Our school board has just been taken over. Laws that we passed in the wake of Mr. Tyre Nichols murder by police that were to hold them more accountable and stop pretextual traffic stops were taken over and preempted by the state legislature. Obviously our expulsion included in that. But this is. It's a part of the national conversation. Supreme Court taking away voting rights since it Got It Section 5 several years ago in Shelby County v. Holder and now Section two. We are on a dangerous path in this democracy of authoritarianism and of white supremacy being the guiding lights of this country instead of the pursuit of justice, equality, self determination and self actualization. And that is what has to be reclaimed in this moment in time.
- [24:24]
Ayman Mohidin
You talked about the national discussion. I wanted to get your thoughts on what some Democrats are pushing to which is to fight fire with fire. You've probably seen Virginia Democrats floating the idea of a way to replace the state Supreme Court justices who ruled against their maps in that state that would have favored Democrats. What would you like to see from Democrats on a national level in this moment?
- [24:46]
Justin J. Pearson
Democrats have to organize everywhere, but particularly in the South. I'm still running for the United states Congress, District 9. And we've already got some elected members of Congress who are going to be coming down here. We are going to Selma in Montgomery on Saturday. We have to invest in the south and invest in candidates who can still win. They have tried to rig the maps and try and dilute our voice and dilute our power, but this is an opportunity for us to actually show up, organize, mobilize and make them regret it. And this is the moment not to give in and not to give up, but to actually be in the fight because there's no way that we get a majority in the House, there's no way we win a majority in the Senate if we abandon the South. And so Democrats need to come on to Memphis, come on to Fayette county, come on to Williamson county and help us to organize, rally the resources, donate to these campaigns, because the fight is in the South. The fight for the future of this country is in the South.
- [25:34]
Ayman Mohidin
All right. We'll check in with you on Saturday then. Tennessee State Representative Justin J. Pierce. Great to have you. Always a pleasure. When we return, brand new reporting about a pledge signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche promising to recuse himself in cases involving Donald Trump. Just as the DOJ ramps up efforts to prosecute anyone who tried to hold Trump accountable.
- [25:59]
Justin J. Pearson
Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast and it's raising new questions just about every day about what it is, what it is. When all is said and done, what is the end game? I'm Chris Hayes, and as part of my podcast, why Is this Happening? I'm speaking with leading experts each week to help ground that conversation.
- [26:14]
Anna Gomez
We're right now in a situation where
- [26:16]
Melissa Murray
it's very difficult to understand what is
- [26:18]
Lisa Rubin
real and what's not real.
- [26:19]
Justin J. Pearson
But why is this happening? The AI Endgame, a special miniseries from Ms. Now. Start listening today wherever you get your podcasts.
- [26:32]
Ayman Mohidin
There's new reporting today about a perplexing ethics pledge made by Donald Trump's personal lawyer turned acting Attorney general Todd Blanche, even as today he sits at the forefront of the Justice Department's retribution campaign against Trump's perceived enemies. CNN reports that in March of 2025, when Blanche had just become the deputy attorney general, he was advised by the DOJ's top ethics lawyer to recuse himself from legal cases involving Trump in his, quote, personal capacity. Now from that reporting, quote, the official conducting the brief, Joseph Terrell handed Blanche and his then top deputy, Emil Beauvais, who was also in the conference room, a printed PowerPoint presentation on ethics. According to a former senior justice ethics official who described the meeting to cnn, Blanche signed the department's ethics pledge laid out to him by Terrell, according to the former ethics official who spoke to cnn. And a document submitted to the Office of Government Ethics. More from that reporting, quote, the department's regulation also prohibits his participation in any criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with anyone who has involved in or has an interest in that investigation or prosecution According to cnn, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that Blanche is complying with ethical obligations. This afternoon, Blanche responded to the reporting saying, quote, doj ethics rules around recusal are black and white. And rest assured, I am fully compliant. When reckless reporting relies on the faulty word of disgruntled former employees, it is a disservice to the public. Joining us at the table, senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin. And Melissa Murray is still with us. So, Lisa, your reaction to this? And it's not exactly what Todd Blanche is recusing himself from while he's also auditioning to be the attorney general and has all the history of representing Donald Trump in previous cases.
- [28:22]
Lisa Rubin
Well, I think my first reaction is that there's not as much detail in the reporting as we would like, and it's not the reporter's fault. The statement by the Department of Justice spokesperson in this article says that Mr. Blanche, and I'm quoting here, is recused from many cases before doj, and any cases that are still ongoing where he previously represented someone, he is recused. And so I have a couple of questions. One is, are the recusals that Mr. Blanche has followed, are they limited to only cases in which he previously represented an individual? That's one. Two, are they limited to cases? Because you and I both know that there is a difference between something that matures to a prosecution or a case and something that is merely an investigation. If we're just talking about a universe, and we which Todd Blanche is recused from cases involved, actual cases involving his former clients, those are few and far between, particularly if they are ongoing, because that would only implicate the president of the United States. And then Todd Blanche is known to have a couple of other clients who have been involved in what I would call political cases. They include Paul Manafort and Boris Epstein, who, as you know, has been reported to have been involved in negotiating many of the deals with law firms that resulted in their not having executive orders against them. So I have a lot of questions about this, and I have asked the Department of Justice tonight, can you dimension for us which cases these are and does it extend also to something beyond cases, to investigations?
- [29:54]
Ayman Mohidin
So you bring up a lot of really good questions, and I'm not sure you will be able to answer this one. But what does actual recusal look like from a DOJ where Donald, where it's all about Donald Trump, where it seems like most of these issues right now come in front of the DOJ involve Donald Trump in some capacity? I think of, for example, the case of like suing for compensation from the IRS or other different issues that him and people like Michael Flynn have pursued, in which it comes back to Donald Trump's orbit and his conduct and his associations and his affiliations.
- [30:25]
Lisa Rubin
Well, again, let's talk about what the department's representative said, taking her at her word. She says in any cases that are ongoing where he previously represented someone, he is recused. That would suggest that Mr. Blanche cannot have any involvement in Mr. Trump's case against the IRS, where Trump is suing in his personal capacity. But the judge in that case has said that that case may not be a case at all. Why? Because under Article 3 of the Constitution, which Melissa knows a lot better than I do, a case or controversy has to involve adverse parties, meaning they can't be the same people. And given that Donald Trump now controls the Department of Justice as well as the irs, the judge in that case says, I'm not even sure we should be here before me. So, again, there are some other questions about whether or not Todd Blanche is recused from something that may not be a case. But this would suggest that, as the New York Times is reporting, that the IRS is negotiating a settlement with Mr. Trump and his family, because that case involves plaintiffs other than Donald Trump himself, for example, Eric Trump and members of the family, other corporations in which they have a controlling interest. That would suggest Todd Blanche is not a part of those discussions.
- [31:34]
Ayman Mohidin
Right. Melissa, give me your thoughts on all this. I mean, does this mean Todd Blynch recuses himself from investigations into administration officials, grand conspiracy investigations into former President Obama and Biden administration officials? How do you interpret all of this?
- [31:49]
Melissa Murray
Well, so I think Lisa's exactly right. This whole question of the necessary requirement of adversity for a case means that Todd Blanche is in kind of a weird quagmire. So is the president, for that matter. And you mentioned the IRS case. The president is bringing that case in his personal capacity, but it is against an agency that he, as president, controls. And so he's basically suing himself. What do the settlement talks look like in that situation? Is it in the mirror? Like, what do you do? And so, yeah, so it's very likely. I will also note we are getting a ruling from the Supreme Court right now on the mifepristone case that abortion, medication, abortion. And this actually looks like a big ruling. Can I have a minute to.
- [32:28]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah, absolutely, yeah. Have a look at that. And I'll continue this with Lisa then. Whenever you have some information, you can definitely jump in and share it with us. So you know, give me the. Lisa, your assessment of, like, the ethics here, and just from an ethical point of view, not necessarily just a legal, complicated point of view, but from an ethical point of view, does this make sense?
- [32:48]
Lisa Rubin
I will say that if Todd Blanche is complying with the regulations and not specifically the ethics pledge that Department of Justice officials are asked to sign, then he should broadly recuse himself from matters in which. Which Trump has an interest. And those aren't just matters in which Trump has a financial interest. The regulations are not framed in terms of financial interests, but broadly in interest. What would that mean? That would mean recusing himself, for example, from that grand conspiracy investigation in the Southern District of Florida that is supposedly meant to prosecute people who have subverted the president's civil rights in some way. If that is what the government of that investigation is all about, then you would argue, and I would, too, I think, that President Trump has an interest in the outcome of that investigation, given what a priority that is supposedly for the department right now resulted recently in the reassignment of a senior prosecutor down in Florida, as Carol Lennigan Kandelanian reported, because she told her superiors, there's no there there. Right. That woman, Maria Morditus, long has been reassigned from the case. She's doing other things in the Southern District of Florida. Joe de Genova is down there in Florida overseeing that investigation. You would think you have to ask yourself, like, what else is Todd Blanche really doing if he has to be removed for ethical reasons from the biggest business of the department, insofar as this president has made it clear that he wants his political enemies investigated and then prosecuted.
- [34:18]
Ayman Mohidin
And one of the things I was gonna say is that we have seen how Donald Trump has reacted to people in the past who have recused himself. I'm old enough to remember Jeff Sessions in the first administration and what that opened up for the president that ultimately led to the Mueller report kind of coming into fruition as a result of that. But we know that Donald Trump has used very strong language in a almost kind of punitive way against officials who have tried to distance themselves from these cases or tried to demonstrate some kind of neutrality.
- [34:46]
Lisa Rubin
I think that's absolutely true. And Todd Blanche is in an unenviable position right now because he is trying to satisfy what many people understand is a constituency of one.
- [34:55]
Ayman Mohidin
All right, Melissa, what do you have on this ruling?
- [34:58]
Melissa Murray
So I think this is actually quite big. So the court has preserved access to mifepristone through telehealth and through the mails while this Litigation is pending. This is definitely going up to the Supreme Court, though. And I will note this order has two notable dissents. Justice Thomas has dissented. He argues that the manufacturers here may not satisfy the requirements for standing. They may not be sufficiently injured. He also says that he writes separately to note, quote, that as Louisiana has argued Willow, it is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortion. The Comstock act bans the males to ship any drug for producing abortion. The Comstock act is that law from the Victorian age. That is literally a zombie law lying dormant. That could effectively be a nationwide ban on abortion if the Justice Department decided to enforce it. It has been lying there. Justice Thomas is attempting to resurrect that. That argument is going to be stewarding through the lower federal courts and will eventually make its way up. It is an off the wall argument that is going to be on the wall very soon. Justice Alito also dissents. He says this is an unreasoned order that is remarkable. And what is at stake here is what he calls the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization. Dobbs is obviously the decision that overruled Roe vs Wade. Justice Alito wrote that decision. When he wrote that decision, he insisted that we were doing nothing more than returning the fraught question of abortion back to the states to make decisions in their own state legislatures about access to abortion. Here, though, it seems that the availability of mifepristone undermines to a degree that Justice Alito finds concerning Louisiana's opportunity to make abortion and medication abortion inaccessible to Louisianans.
- [36:38]
Ayman Mohidin
Take me a step back if you can, and how we got to this specific moment, because this happens, happened very quickly over the last couple of weeks between the attempt to ban it nationwide and the Supreme Court stepping in saying no. But then now having even more of an update with this ruling today and ultimately when it will likely play out definitively.
- [36:55]
Melissa Murray
Right. So what we had a few weeks ago is the 5th Circuit. There was a filing in Louisiana. A judge in Louisiana issued a ruling. It was appealed to the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit issued an injunction that effectively banned and mifepristone being distributed through the telehealth and via the mails for the entire nation. So again, and if you're wondering why there's a nationwide injunction when it seemed like in the birthright citizenship case, we couldn't have nationwide injunctions, this is one of those exceptions that the court allowed for in the Trump vs. CASA case for agency Review decisions, review of agency decisions. So that's why you can have a nationwide injunction in this particular situation. The manufacturers of mifepristone, Danko and genbiopro, appealed that that nationwide ban to the Supreme Court. Justice alito was the 5th Circuit Circuit justice who received that petition. He issued a one week stay. That stay elapsed on Monday. The stay was extended until today. Now we have the court effectively staying the Fifth Circuit's ruling. That means now they've lifted the injunction and mifepristone will be available through telehealth and through the mail for the foreseeable future until there is a ruling ultimately, I think by the United States Supreme Court on this ultimate question of whether the FDA's approval of mifepristone was faulty. That case had been brought to the court about two years ago in a case called FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The court there said that the approach life doctors and dentists who brought that case lacked standing and they kicked it out. But they didn't address the underlying substantive question of whether the FDA had properly approved Mifeprista. That's still lying out here. That is the question the Fifth Circuit attempted to answer. That's the question that continues to live. And that's the question the court is ultimately going to have to answer.
- [38:42]
Ayman Mohidin
Do you have a sense of when that will take place?
- [38:45]
Melissa Murray
The court could fast track this in this term. I think that's unlikely. We're already moving into June. This is usually when the court winds down. I haven't read the end to see if there is more in terms of scheduling, but I think it's more likely that this is something that gets docketed for, for next term. It has to go like, again, there's more litigation and there may be more litigation that goes through the Fifth Circuit, but this is coming back to the court. We just don't know when.
- [39:08]
Ayman Mohidin
Let me just ask you one more quick one, and that is, from what you just read really quickly, do you get a sense of what the justices thinking are going ahead into the final decision?
- [39:19]
Melissa Murray
So that's the great thing about the shadow docket. No, it's, you know, they issued this very terse order restoring access to mifepristone. The only reason I know anything about Justice Thomas deciding to make this whole statement about the Comstock act, nobody was talking about the Comstock Act. So this is, you know, sus fonte. He's brought this up and that I know Justice Alito thinks all of this undermines Dobbs is because they chose to dissent. If they didn't choose to wait, we would not know anything. But now I think we understand there are at least two votes to kill access to mifepristone on this call nationwide.
- [39:52]
Ayman Mohidin
So, Lisa, give me your initial report reaction to this breaking news.
- [39:55]
Lisa Rubin
So I've been looking at Justice Alito's dissent as Melissa has been talking and recapping quite capably how we got to this point. But one of the things that Justice Alito says that I find particularly disingenuous is that this is an undermining of the Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision says eight ways from Sunday that states and specifically the people should be allowed to decide the issue of abortion. And yet it seems like Justice Alito would rather have a nationwide stay on the FDA's policy allowing the prescription of mifepristone through telehealth through the mails than allow states to make those decisions for themselves. And I want to read from the first paragraph of his dissent as I can. He says what is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which restored the right of each state to decide how to regulate abortion within its borders. Some states responded to Dobbs by making it even easier to obtain an abortion than it was before. And that is their prerogative. If that's their prerogative, how an order that effectively means that women living in those states, including New York, for example, if an order that would prohibit them from accessing mifepristone through telehealth appointments, an order that would prohibit them from accessing mifepristone through the main mail, I'm not sure how that honors the will of the people or the prerogatives of the states that Justice Alito says is somehow dishonored by the Court's one paragraph ruling today.
- [41:23]
Ayman Mohidin
So, Melissa, the other part of this, as you mentioned, was potentially what Clarence Thomas referenced is do they even have standing to address this issue? And that is in reference to the manufacturers or.
- [41:32]
Melissa Murray
Exactly right. So Justice Thomas says that their injuries, which are basically the reduction in profits that they derive from selling mifer prisoners, I would deny their applications because they have not satisfied their burden for securing interim. Really basically saying there isn't irreparable harm here that might relate to the question of standing. Hard to say. I think it's likely that that won't be an issue going forward. I think this is really about the standard for preliminary interim relief. In terms of the question you asked about when is this coming back to the court? So in my zeal to get to all of this, I overlooked this statement from the court. So the injunction has stayed pending disposition of the appeal and disposition of a writ for certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. So this is now up to the state to seek a writ of certiorari before the court. The court could decide to grant that if the writ of certiorari is denied, this stay shall terminate automatically in the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon sending down the judgment of this court. So that is where we are. I think this is likely coming back to the court.
- [42:35]
Lisa Rubin
And I think a lot of people thought that that would happen.
- [42:38]
Melissa Murray
Well, I mean, it was predicted. I mean, like the court talked about how they were settling this fraught question of abortion by returning it to the states, but everyone talked about the availability of medication abortion, which made the whole idea of state laws against abortion just really not relevant because you could get it via the mails or telehealth. This raises, I think, real questions about the Comstock Act. You don't need a court order to end availability of mifepristone. All you need is a Justice Department, maybe with an eager acting. Yes, Attorney general who is now willing to enforce the Comstock Act. The one thing that may be a hedge here is that this administration does not want to talk about abortion at all. They know it's a losing issue, especially heading into the midterms. I will say, although they don't want to talk about abortion, they have launched new reviews of the FDA's decision making. And those reviews were exactly what the 5th Circuit cited in ultimately ending mifepristone access in that decision.
- [43:33]
Ayman Mohidin
Yeah, I was going to say it may not be political, but certainly ideological for this administration. So we'll see. If you're just tuning in, we had some breaking news a few minutes ago. The Supreme Court ruling to preserve abortion pill access, at least for now. And we'll see when it works its way to the Supreme Court. Lisa Rubin, thank you so much, Melissa. Please stay with us. When we return, the lone Democratic commissioner on the FCC is warning that the FCC is targeting Disney for censorship as it ramps up up its crackdown on free speech against all media. That Donald Trump does not like that story. And more after a short break, A commissioner for the FCC has issued a grave warning about the agency's censorship efforts against the media. In a letter to the CEO of ABC's parent company Disney, Anna Gomez, the commission's Only Democrat wrote this. Quote. What Disney and ABC are facing is not a series of coincidental regulatory actions, but a sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control carried out through the weaponization of the FCC's authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission. Gomez warns the FCC's campaign against Disney began after ABC agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle what she calls a baseless defamation lawsuit from Donald Trump. It has since turned into a multi investigation with threats against late night host Jimmy Kimmel, the local stations it operates, and even the view I want to bring into the conversation now, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. Commissioner Gomez, it's great to have you on the show. In your opinion, is this unprecedented weaponization by the fcc? Have you ever seen anything like this?
- [45:12]
Anna Gomez
No, not at all. This really is unprecedented. As you went through and as my letter points out, they've taken action after action after action and it's harassment in order to try to bring Disney to heel. And it's culminated with this request that Disney renew its local broadcast licenses early. It's the first time the FCC has ever asked a network to renew all of the licenses for its local broadcast stations because we don't regulate the network, we only regulate the local broadcast stations because we license the airwaves over which the broadcast stations show their programming.
- [45:55]
Ayman Mohidin
So tell me, who do you think is behind this? Is this a political censorship campaign? And if so, how high does it go up in the administration? Who's directing it?
- [46:06]
Anna Gomez
Absolutely. This administration has been on a campaign of censorship and control throughout the entire administration. I mean, this is not just over broadcast television, but it is clear that what the FCC is doing is it is targeting content that this administration does not like. So if it's Jimmy Kimmel upsetting the administration, if it's the voice upsetting the administration because they don't like the content of what those broadcasts have. The thing is, we cannot take action to censor broadcasters. That is unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment, but it also violates the Communications Act. So these actions, not only are they unprecedented, but they're unlawful. Which is why I encourage Disney to continue its efforts to push back because it has the First Amendments on its side. And if it ends up having to go to court because of what the FCC is doing, it will win.
- [46:57]
Ayman Mohidin
So tell me, Commissioner, why take this moment to warn companies against the, you know, capitulating to, or warn against capitulating to this administration? We're seeing some media cases capitulate, others are being taken over by administration friendly business businessmen or oligarchs?
- [47:16]
Anna Gomez
Well, what we have seen is that this administration will continue coming after companies, entities, law firms, universities, broadcasters. So capitulation does not get you protection. Capitulation just borrows you a little more time. And so I encourage Disney to fight back and I encourage others to as well, because we're at a very important inflection right now in which broadcasters and other companies need to decide whether they are going to stand up for the First Amendment or they're gonna surrender it.
- [47:48]
Ayman Mohidin
Where do you think this goes next, Commissioner? If, in fact Disney does not heed your warning or others don't heed your warning, what could we end up looking like as a country if Donald Trump and Brendan Carr get their way?
- [48:00]
Anna Gomez
Well, let me start by saying that they will not, because as I said, all of these actions are unlawful and contrary to the First Amendment. And I am confident that that in fact, there will be a rebuke coming from the courts of the actions that this administration is taking. But the danger, of course, is we do not want a fraying of our constitutional rights and of our democracy, which is why I am so heartened by the fact that there are those that push back. There's the Harvard's, there's the Georgetowns, there's the law firms that didn't cave, because the ones that showed courage are the ones that are going to protect the rights of their future.
- [48:34]
Ayman Mohidin
Let me ask you about you personally for a moment. I mean, and the risks associated with you speaking out. Is this normal for an FCC commissioner like yourself to be able to speak out like this? Are you worried at any, you know, any cost to you personally from this administration or your colleagues, your Republican colleagues on the fcc?
- [48:50]
Anna Gomez
You know, the FCC is usually kind of a sleepy agency, a bit of a technocratic agency. So, no, this was not something I was expecting to have to do. But I feel very strongly that it is important that I stand up for our rights and for the First Amendment rights of people, of the press and of broadcasters. Yes, there is some possibility that I will suffer some consequence of it, but I think it's more important to stand up for our Constitution than to protect my own position.
- [49:23]
Ayman Mohidin
Ana Gomez, we certainly thank you for joining us today and sharing your insights with us. Really appreciate. And Melissa Murray, thank you for spending the hour with me today. Really appreciate that as well. We're gonna have a quick break and we'll be right back. Thank you for spending part of this Thursday with us. Nicole will be Back tomorrow, Sunday, June
- [49:41]
Podcast Announcer
14, from Washington D.C. a special live taping of MSNOW's hit podcast the Blueprint with Jen Psaki. Join her as she talks with actor and author Billy Eichner. They'll explore the power of humor in the face of adversity and Eichner's new audio memoir, Billy on Billy the Blueprint with Jen Psaki Live with Billy Eichner. Get your tickets today at 6th and I dot org.