FBI Warning About Cyberattacks on U.S. Infrastructure; Does Todd Blanche Have a Path to Confirmation? - Here's the Scoop

Loading summary

Transcript77 lines

[00:00]
A
But the suspicion is, and really the reason why a lot of people are saying absolutely not is they feel this is a way for Infantino to enrich himself potentially along the way.
[00:11]
B
Yeah, the World cup may be over, but the drama is not. Hi, everybody, and welcome to Here is the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yazan Vesugan. So you just heard the name Infantino. That's Gianni Infantino. He's the head of FIFA and he's trying to get investors in FIFA to grow the league. It seems that's what they're saying. But you got a lot of leagues from Europe to North America to Asia who are balking at it. They're actually protesting this move by Infantino. That conversation is coming up. Plus, the president is wanting to get his acting attorney general, Todd Blanche confirmed to be the actual attorney general. But there are two big holdouts and they're both Republicans. We're going to talk about that coming up as well. Up first, though. So is water the next target in the war with Iran? I'm not talking about the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not talking about the Caspian Sea or the Red Sea. Caspian Sea, by the way we talked about yesterday, I am talking about water plants here in the United States. So why do I say that? Well, the FBI sent out a warning on Thursday that hackers are targeting critical infrastructure like water and wastewater facilities. At least seven states have reported cyber attacks on municipal water systems this week alone. And then in Minnesota, hackers infiltrated more than 30 water facilities. Some law enforcement officials tell NBC News that those attacks had hallmarks of Iranian hackers. So the question is why? For that, I want to bring in NBC News national security and global affairs reporter Dan Delouse. Hi, Dan.
[01:48]
C
Hello there.
[01:50]
B
So we had been hearing about these attacks in Minnesota, which now seem to be more widespread. Explain what happened here and the impact.
[02:02]
C
So what you have are these automated systems online, kind of industrial systems that allow you to control different manufacturing, assembly lines, utility networks. And in this case, those automated systems that are connected to the Internet were hacked or they were at least the target of cyber attacks and intrusions in Minnesota. And then they believe there are these threats also elsewhere in other states.
[02:34]
B
So what was the fallout, though, the impact? Like, did people not have water? What did local officials do? Like, could I have known if I'm living in Minnesota that there was a cyber attack on the water facilities there? Aside from reading the news, by and large, no.
[02:48]
C
By and large, there has not been a major physical effect. There was some disruption in service I believe no contaminated water, nothing like that, no catastrophic results. But it's obviously very worrying, and it's more the potential of what might happen or what could happen.
[03:07]
B
The FBI is now saying similar things have happened in seven states as well. Seven other states, I should say, as well. It seems like they are linked to. And that. That they have, quote, I should say, hallmarks of Iranian hackers, as you mentioned. What are these quote, unquote, hallmarks? And how. How do they go about determining this?
[03:30]
C
You know, there are ways to attribute cyber attacks. It's very technical and beyond me, but. And they also keep it kind of secret. But what is true is in that warning that was issued a week ago and in previous warnings, the government was saying. Government agencies were saying Iran may try to target these automated systems. They have a technical name, PLCs, programmable logical controllers, which they did not teach me about when I was in school.
[03:59]
B
Yeah, me either.
[04:01]
C
Right. But they are pretty sensitive devices and systems where you control a manufacturing process, an industrial process, automatically, an automated system. You don't have to pull a bunch of levers and hit a bunch of buttons. But if they're connected to the Internet, which they can be, they become vulnerable to hacking. And keep in mind that, you know, these water utility companies, utility organizations, these are not JP Morgan, Microsoft, big, big corporations with very deep pockets that can spend a lot of money on cybersecurity. So if you went to a cybersecurity conference over the past five years, you would hear an expert or a former government official saying, we worry about infrastructure, but mainly these kinds of smaller towns or a city where the water system doesn't have, you know, the highest end cybersecurity. So the hallmark of Iran is them attacking some of these automated systems. They've done it in the past, the US Believes. And so there's a warning. And lo and behold, it happened a week later. We're still waiting to hear the definitive attribution, but there, Iran is definitely the prime suspect. And of course, as we all know, the US Is at war with Iran at the moment.
[05:19]
B
So the President actually dismissed this Iran link during his Cabinet meeting today.
[05:26]
D
We heard in Minnesota there was a cyber attack. And they blame it on Iran? I don't think so. I think I blame it on Minnesota because they're grossly incompetent. There was a cyber attack of 30 water plants, and I would blame it on Minnesota. And the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota, they like to say, oh, is Iran. Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.
[05:51]
B
So in spite of what we're hearing from the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency that you just talked about in the lead up to these attacks, the President saying that it's not Iran, it's Minnesota. And we know the president obviously does not have a good relationship with Minnesota's governor, Governor Walz, who is a Democrat. Why would, though, Iran target Minnesota's water infrastructure? What is the objective in doing that?
[06:15]
C
I think, first of all, regardless of which state or where it's happening, you know, somehow in some way jeopardizing water or electricity supply is a way for your adversary to retaliate against you and to send you a message that if you continue to escalate against us, we, we have ways to hurt you. Now, why Minnesota? First of all, there are at least seven other states are affected according to the US Government. So it's not just Minnesota, but it may be just a function of what's vulnerable. Right. So if certain water utility companies are not taking care of their cybersecurity as much as they should or can, maybe there was. We're just targets of opportunity in Minnesota.
[07:01]
B
I want to talk a little bit about the vulnerabilities here too, because you mentioned, like, maybe they go after these certain water infrastructure plants because they are more vulnerable. They don't have as much cybersecurity. Two years ago, the EPA actually warned that these kinds of attacks were increasing for a while and they issued an alert that 70% of water utilities were not up to standards. How are things looking now? Has it gotten better? Is it worse? Has it kind of stayed status quo? Do we know?
[07:27]
C
I would be very skeptical that things have dramatically changed since that warning. Again, if you speak to cybersecurity experts and former government officials, they will tell you the harsh reality is that US Computer networks, US Infrastructure, government networks, private sector networks are under constant attack. Basically, there is cyber espionage going on and then there are actual cyber attacks going on. And in some cases these are state actors, in some cases these are criminal networks seeking ransom payments. But I mean, I think the biggest problem and challenge here is that we have a very decentralized capitalist system and it is not so simple to institute cybersecurity requirements across the country. The federal government does not have a lot of tools when it goes to a medium sized city in the Midwest and says, you really should do something about your power grid. It's really vulnerable to cyber attack. And we don't have legislation that really imposes penalties on companies or entities that don't meet a certain minimum standards hold up, though.
[08:42]
B
Isn't, isn't it the job of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to identify and help protect these kinds of systems against these sort of cyber attacks? But you couple that with what the Trump administration has done to that agency in which they have cut personnel, I believe, by one third, down over a thousand people or so. What are you hearing about any ball that was dropped on the agency's end and the potential for more vulnerability because of the cuts?
[09:12]
C
There is a lot of concern in the industry, I would say, and among experts who follow this, that a lot of expertise has walked out the door. There were people who were fired. There were people who took early retirement under kind of pressure. CISA has been, according to a lot of accounts, on hollowed out a lot of people left in a short amount of time. You also have had a massive reorganization and shakeup at the FBI. There are cybersecurity experts in the FBI and elsewhere in the government. Some of those people have left. Some of them were fired or retired early. And then the threat is not going away.
[09:48]
B
Dandaloose. Thank you.
[09:50]
C
Thank you.
[09:53]
B
All right. Coming up, President Trump is clashing with two Republican holdouts for the confirmation of the president's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanch. We're going to explain why none of them are budging after the break. And also while you're listening to the ads, do us a favor, share your favorite episode of here's the Scoop with a Friend. It is a great way for us to reach new listeners. We would really appreciate the support on this Friday. I'll see you on the other side.
[10:24]
C
Yeah.
[10:25]
D
Maxing is so maxing right now, bro.
[10:27]
C
Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because
[10:29]
D
Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a $5.99 maxed out double stack double
[10:33]
C
stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich.
[10:36]
D
Seriously, just $5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere.
[10:43]
C
The new spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available
[10:49]
D
for a limited time at participating restaurants, tactile included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.
[10:54]
C
I'm Josh Mankiewicz and I hope you'll join us for season five of Dateline Missing in America. In each episode of dateline's award winning series, we will focus on one missing persons case and hear from the families, the friends and the investigators all desperate to find them. Maybe you could help solve a mystery.
[11:15]
D
Search DATELINE Missing in America to listen on Apple podcasts completely free or subscribe to Dateline Premium to unlock new episodes early.
[11:27]
B
And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. So President Trump keeps making the pitch to get Todd Blanche, his acting attorney general, confirmed as attorney General, even during his Cabinet meeting today.
[11:39]
D
Todd Blanche is a very, very good man and he shouldn't be in the middle of this. He should get approved because you will never get anybody like him.
[11:48]
B
The Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote on advancing Blanche's nomination this week, which but that was put on hold because of two Republican senators, Thom Tillis from North Carolina and John Cornyn from Texas, who still have some concerns, especially about a controversial IRS settlement deal that Blanche signed off on. On Thursday, President Trump said in a true social post that he might temporarily withdraw Blanche's nomination and then nominate him again in January once Tillis and Cornyn are both out of office. Neither, by the way, is up for reelection. But today the president said in the post that Blanche, quote, should be immediately approved. So what is the issue and is there still a path forward for Blanche's confirmation? For this, I want to bring in NBC News Chief justice and national affairs correspondent Kelly o'. Donnell. Hi, Kelly.
[12:39]
E
So nice to be with you.
[12:41]
B
It is great to have you. There has been a lot of developments when it comes to Todd Blanche's confirmation potential confirmation over the last 24 to 48 hours or so. I just kind of walk timeline a little bit. But tell me about this about face now where the president is saying Blanche must be confirmed immediately. Do we know how he got there and why he got there today?
[13:04]
E
Well, the president has made this a curious path because he put forward his former personal lawyer to be a deputy attorney general. He Senate confirmed for that, made him acting attorney general and now presumably wants him to be the next fully Senate confirmed attorney general. But the president is sort of getting in the way in certain aspects of this. And by that I mean he offered this notion of pulling the nomination back waiting until January, which would mean a new Congress and a Senate that would have a different composition. And now he's saying, no, no, no, we gotta do it immediately. The question is how is that going to get done? And there is no easy answer to that right now. One way to do it is if these two senators were to vote yes, well, how would they get to yes? The thing that they are asking for all stems from litigation the president filed against the government he runs. So the president clearly is in charge. He filed lawsuits against different branches of the federal government. The doj, the IRS making claims against the federal government over the raid at Mar A Lago, over his tax returns, being exposed publicly, his tax return, one of many, many, many that were exposed by a contractor. That contractor went to prison. That's a violation of the law to settle those suits. The president came up with an idea. His lawyers did, private lawyers, to have something called an anti weaponization fund. Nearly $2 billion. They had sort of a clever number for it, 1776, that would pay out people who make claims against the government, who are perceived to have been politically prosecuted, that kind of thing. January 6th, people would be one category. And one of the big questions has been, how could that go forward?
[14:52]
B
Blanche has said that's kind of dead in the water at this point. But Tillis and Cornyn, they want confirmation in writing. They want to know in writing if he becomes ag, that they will not move forward. They will not kind of revive the anti weaponization fund, for instance.
[15:07]
E
Exactly. Because there is an existing agreement between the president's personal lawyers and the Department of Justice, a contract, if you will, will to settle that lawsuit. And it includes the weaponization fund as one tool that would come out of this. Another area in that is that it provides protections against the president, members of his family and family businesses against being audited by the irs. That is a very unusual circumstance. And these two senators also want clarity on what would that mean. So those are the two issues. Taxpayer money for people who say they've been wronged by the government, including January 6th. And this notion of would the Trump family and family businesses somehow be outside of the normal law when it comes to the irs. Those issues need to be resolved for these two senators, but certainly for others as well. Meaning other Republican senators on the broader committee have questions about this, but it is Cornyn and Tillis, in part because they're not running again, who have the political bandwidth.
[16:10]
B
They have nothing to lose. I'm wondering if the president's post from this morning, in which he kind of also stood by the fund, would make it more likely that Cornyn and Tillis are gonna stick by their no vote for now.
[16:25]
E
One way to look at it is to say it proves their point that putting it in writing has value. Because the president clearly displayed in his post that he believes in this concept. He talked about these being great American patriots who were wronged by the Biden administration, who were somehow punish and ruined. He does not in any way engage on the matter that many of them pleaded guilty. Many of them were sentenced for physical violence against law enforcement, damage to the Capitol, et cetera. There is a kind of an enduring belief by the President based on his posts and his own language, that he believes they should be compensated. And so that raises the questions, perhaps even triggering others in the Senate. Would they support Blanche with that situation? So there are many questions we don't have resolved yet. And at the moment we are at an impasse.
[17:21]
B
By the way, that's not the only thing that is holding up things here when it comes to his confirmation. Cuz you also have the victims of Jeffrey Epstein who were on the Hill for, you know, many days this week, telling Senators in fact, to vote no on Blanche's confirmation. They actually met with Todd Blanche earlier this month and, and they said to NBC News that the meeting was, quote, not productive or substantive. Could their opposition also lead to Blanche not getting confirmed?
[17:54]
E
Well, it is very much a part of the environment which makes this nomination so perilous right now. Because one of the things Thom Tillis had said is he wanted Blanche to meet with them personally. He wanted survivors and the Acting Attorney General to be in the same room to give them a chance to have their concerns aired, to, to talk about their desire to see some kind of investigation, the potential for some kind of prosecution. What is unclear to me at this point is if having the meeting, whether it was satisfactory or not to the survivors, is that enough to resolve that issue? He has not been talking about that in recent days.
[18:31]
B
Tillis essentially said, right, an advisor to the President is making this situation worse.
[18:38]
D
Somebody tells him to not do what Blanche said they were going to do. Whoever that person is, is giving the President bad advice. The only reason why we wouldn't move forward with this language is because that same advisor wants to bring it back to life at some point.
[18:54]
B
Do we know who this advisor is, Kelly o', Donnell, that Senator Tillis is actually referring to? And is there a potential they get to. Yes. And how is that?
[19:05]
E
It is hard to answer that because you could say the President has personal counsel that might be involved in this. You could say it's someone in the White House or it could be himself. Many people believe that when you just study how the President conducts a lot of these things, that he's often the decision maker. And so we don't know a specific identity of someone who has given him this advice. And the way the President uses his social media and the way he responds to these things suggests that it's very driven by his own internal dialogue about why these matters are important to him and his views. We don't know if there is another advisor to Senator Tillis is hanging it on that at the moment. So why is the president not agreeing to putting it in writing that the weaponization fund anti weaponization fund is dead? That's really the question.
[19:59]
B
Kelly o', Donnell, thank you.
[20:01]
E
Oh, so good to be with you, Yasmin. Thank you.
[20:05]
B
All right, coming up, you remember that big love finale at the World cup halftime show? Well, soccer's biggest teams are not feeling the love for FIFA anymore and in fact, they are threatening to pull out of the games. Coming up, we're going to explain why.
[20:25]
E
This week on Meet the Press 100 days to the midterms as the war with Iran escalates. I'll talk with UN Ambassador Mike Waltz and Senator Mark Kelly. Plus a Meet the Moment conversation with Chanel Jones this week on Meet THE Press. Listen to the full episode now wherever you get your podcasts.
[20:47]
D
Hey, guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with the hilarious Ken Jeong to talk through a career of unforgettable roles, from the Hangover movies to the cult favorite show Community and his latest in the Netflix cultural sensation K Pop Demon Hunters. You can find our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.
[21:14]
E
I really love the Start Today app.
[21:16]
D
They care about how I feel.
[21:18]
E
It's the staff on the app. It's the connections you make.
[21:22]
D
Without good mental and physical health, you have nothing.
[21:26]
E
It tells me how to cook to keep myself healthy.
[21:30]
D
I look at my app and I'm like, wow, I didn't know I did 7,000 steps today.
[21:34]
C
Start Today meets you where you are.
[21:36]
D
Download the Start Today wellness app now on your Apple or Android device terms. Apply C app for details.
[21:47]
B
And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. So the World cup semifinal was so incredible, right? You had Spain taking on France. You had Argentina facing off against England. But imagine, imagine this. No European teams entering the World cup for men or for women. So on Thursday, Europe's biggest soccer league, UEFA and teams said they're going to boycott the World cup and all other FIFA competitions. Why, you ask? So they are against FIFA President Gianni Infantino's plan to sell stakes in soccer's biggest tournament to private equity investors. And now you got North American leagues and Asian soccer organizations also joining in on this and rejecting FIFA's plan. So if FIFA follows through with this, what could actually be the fallout for this? I want to bring in NBC News digital sports reporter Andrew Greif. Hi, Andrew.
[22:43]
A
Hello how are you?
[22:45]
B
I'm good. This is a lot. And coming right after the World cup and all the buzz surrounding that, explain to us this plan and where it came from.
[22:56]
A
This came from Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president. And this is something that we know because since the plan has come out to enormous pushback, even high ranking officials within FIFA have said that this was Infantino's plan all by himself. They have distanced themselves from that with FIFA's chief operating officer coming out today, saying that organizations had been deceived by the lack of consultation by it. One of Infantino's top advisors resigned, a former Goldman Sachs banker. So there's a lot of pushback and everyone is pointing the kind of the arrow at Infantino and saying this was his desire to sort of take what was already the most commercially successful World cup and supercharge it by selling off 20% stake. And really, it's also not only the fact that the pushback has come against the notion of sort of selling away the game, which is really UEFA's main contention, but there's also a lot of pushback because the main investor in this would be sort of connected to the orbit of President Trump, Joshua Kushner. And so that has also received a lot of the of the pushback.
[23:59]
B
Why is he doing this?
[24:00]
A
This is something because he feels that FIFA is not taking advantage of its commercial potential. FIFA just got $15 billion in revenue from this World Cup. This was the largest World cup ever. It's a 48 team. And just today they've talked about, we're going to make a formal proposal to expand it to 64 teams. Can you imagine how much more money that would bring in? What FIFA and John Antino specifically say is the reason behind it is because this is their operation, their way to trigger the revenue that would flow down to all of its 211 countries that are a member of FIFA. The revenue gets split among its members and they're saying, look, this will help development, this will help, you know, fields be constructed in countries that maybe do not have the kind of infrastructure or the resources of a big country like a US or a Spain or a France. So this is what their selling point is. This will help everybody. But the suspicion is, and really the reason why a lot of people are saying absolutely not, is they feel this is a way for Infantino to enrich himself potentially as along the way.
[25:02]
B
So let's talk about the suspicions here, because you have a lot of organizations that are rejecting this plan. UEFA, for instance, said in a statement quote, it's not FIFA's to sell. Then the North American organization got on board and Asia's soccer organization has jumped in as well. Why are they so upset over this?
[25:19]
A
Well, UEFA put it, I think, best, which was that if you sell off part of, and I'm paraphrasing, but if you put a sell off a portion of the World cup, the world's biggest games, to investors, they're going to expect to see growth from that. Right. And so how do you grow that? You have to expand the tournament, which there are fears that it could dilute the quality of the tournament. So that is really the root of it. They feel like it will alter the fundamental core of football, of soccer. And Infantino has been thinking about this for a long time. You know, we had heard about the potential for this expanding to 64 teams a while ago. So the fact that they came out with this proposal this week to maybe expand it, that's not a surprise by itself. But the decision to sell off a portion of the World cup to investors was a huge surprise to basically everybody. FIFA has said, hey, we were going to make this a longer consultation process until media reports, until it leaked, essentially. But the members involved are not buying that. They're saying, no, no, no, we had no idea this was coming.
[26:17]
B
What is the official response we're getting from FIFA? And does Infantino risk losing his job over this?
[26:22]
A
You know, we sort of have a deadline to look at this because the next FIFA competition is September, the Women's Under 20 World cup, which is going to be held in Poland, that is going to be serving as sort of a deadline here to see if they can push this across. Right now, Infantino has no support from a huge number of its members. He is up for re election in March. And up until this point, everybody has expected him to run unopposed and to be reelected pretty easily, because, let's face it, a lot of these countries are very happy with how much more money they're receiving from the way that soccer has been commercialized and the revenue that FIFA has brought in. But now you're starting to hear cracks. You know, could someone run against him?
[27:04]
B
But also, the Women's World cup is next year. So how could all of these things be affected amidst this plan and this uprising from all of these different organizations, including UEFA?
[27:18]
A
Yeah, it's a Domino's situation. You know, you have all these things that are leading up to next summer, which is an enormous deal. It's going to be held in Brazil. The Women's World cup is, is defending champion of Spain. So again, another UEFA member. This is something that when you think about not only kind of the intermediary competitions leading up to it, World cup qualifying, you also have the FIFA election process in March. And so I think Infantino likely believed that he could usher in by next summer a huge amount of changes that would really radicalize and change the sport to a degree never before seen from the commercial success and just the structure of tournaments and expanding. But now there is quite a bit of opposition to this and I just wonder if, well, how will soccer look globally a year from now? It could look very different.
[28:05]
B
Andrew Greif, thank you.
[28:06]
A
Thank you.
[28:09]
B
All right, that is going to do it for us. It here's the Scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Desugin. We'll be back on Monday with whatever the weekend may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And you can also subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Inside Scoop. It is a deeper dive on the main stories of the day that comes out every weeknight straight to your inbox. You can sign up for the Inside Scoop as part of our paid subscription@NBC news.com we'll see you Monday.
[28:45]
D
Snoring, Gasping for air during sleep, Daytime sleepiness I'm Shaquille o' Neal and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. Ask your doctor about Zepbound Tirzepatide, the first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15 milligram injection. Zepbound contains Tirzepatide and should not be used with other Tirzepatide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pens or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, stop setbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing pregnant plant to be or taking birth control pills, taking zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor, call 1-800-545-5979 or visit zepbound.lilly.com.

Summary6 min read

Podcast Summary: "FBI Warning About Cyberattacks on U.S. Infrastructure; Does Todd Blanche Have a Path to Confirmation?"
Here's the Scoop (NBC News) — July 31, 2026
Host: Yasmin Vossoughian

Overview

This episode of Here’s the Scoop addresses three major stories:

The FBI's urgent warnings about escalating Iranian-linked cyberattacks on U.S. water infrastructure.
Political controversy over President Trump’s Attorney General nominee, Todd Blanche, focusing on Senate holdouts, IRS settlement concerns, and the so-called "anti-weaponization fund."
Widespread backlash against FIFA President Gianni Infantino's plan to sell World Cup stakes to private investors, with threats of global soccer boycotts.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. FBI Warning: Iranian Cyberattacks Target U.S. Water Infrastructure

Segment: 00:00–09:48

Background & Scope

U.S. authorities (FBI and CISA) warned that hackers are targeting water utilities using internet-connected automated systems (“PLCs”).
At least seven states—including a significant cluster in Minnesota—have endured recent cyberattacks, suspected to be carried out by groups linked to Iran.

Assessment & Details

Dan De Luce (NBC National Security Reporter) explains that most water utilities lack robust cybersecurity compared to large private corporations, making them easy targets (03:58).
"If you went to a cybersecurity conference... you would hear an expert or a former government official saying, we worry about infrastructure, but mainly these kinds of smaller towns." (Dan De Luce, 04:01)

Impact

No catastrophic damage or water contamination reported, but clear evidence of service disruptions and raised alarm over potential future attacks.
The underlying issue: many U.S. water systems have not improved security since a 2024 EPA report found 70% were below standards.

Government Attribution & Debate

While federal agencies blame Iranian actors, President Trump dismisses this and blames state officials:
- “There was a cyber attack of 30 water plants, and I would blame it on Minnesota. And the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota, they like to say, oh, is Iran. Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.” (President Trump, 05:25)
Dan De Luce clarifies attackers may simply seek “targets of opportunity” in more vulnerable regions, not necessarily for geographic or political symbolism (06:15).

Vulnerabilities & Policy Challenges

U.S. critical infrastructure is highly decentralized with little federal leverage to enforce cybersecurity standards on local utilities.
CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) reportedly weakened following Trump administration cuts—"massive reorganization and shakeup at the FBI...a lot of expertise has walked out the door...the threat is not going away." (Dan De Luce, 09:11)

2. Attorney General Nominee Todd Blanche: Controversy and Senate Stalemate

Segment: 11:27–20:00

The Nomination Battle

President Trump pushes for confirmation of his acting AG, Todd Blanche, but faces opposition from Republican Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn.
Main concerns: Blanche’s role in a controversial IRS settlement deal and the proposed $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund" that could pay out January 6th defendants and others claiming government prosecution (13:04–14:51).

Key Issues

Senate Judiciary Committee vote delayed due to outstanding questions:
- Will Blanche commit, in writing, not to revive the fund or grant broad IRS immunity for Trump and associates?
- The unusual aspect: "It provides protections against the president, members of his family and family businesses against being audited by the IRS. That is a very unusual circumstance." (Kelly O’Donnell, 15:06)

Political Maneuvering

President Trump floated and then rescinded a plan to withdraw Blanche’s nomination temporarily, hoping to re-nominate after the next Senate turnover.
Blanche’s meeting with Jeffrey Epstein victims—required by Senator Tillis—was unsatisfactory to the survivors and further complicates the vote (17:20).

Senate Dynamics & The Holdouts

Tillis and Cornyn, both not seeking reelection, are under less political pressure and insist on written guarantees before moving forward.
- “They have nothing to lose.” (Yasmin, 16:09)
President Trump’s continued public support for the "fund" likely entrenches their positions.
- "He talked about these being great American patriots who were wronged by the Biden administration, who were somehow punished and ruined. He does not in any way engage on the matter that many of them pleaded guilty." (Kelly O'Donnell, 16:25)
The identity of the advisor encouraging Trump is unclear; many believe Trump acts largely on his own instincts (19:05).

3. Soccer World Tensions: FIFA Privatization Bid Sparks Global Rebuke

Segment: 21:46–28:06

The Controversy

FIFA President Gianni Infantino launches a plan to sell 20% of the World Cup’s commercial rights to private equity—mainly to a group linked to Joshua Kushner (Trump orbit).
European governing body UEFA, North American, and Asian federations all strongly reject the plan and threaten to pull out of FIFA competitions.

Pushback & League Concerns

Criticism centers on fears of:
- Commercialization ruining the essence of the game.
- Dilution of tournament quality if expansion is required to generate more revenue.
- The deal was created without consultation—even FIFA executives are distancing themselves.
  - “Even high-ranking officials within FIFA have said that this was Infantino's plan all by himself. They have distanced themselves from that...” (Andrew Greif, 22:55)

Business & Power Struggle

Infantino argues for “revenue to flow down to all of its 211 countries,” justifying expansion and investment as beneficial for global soccer development (24:00).
"The suspicion is...this is a way for Infantino to enrich himself potentially as along the way." (Andrew Greif, 25:02)
FIFA faces deadlines: Women’s U20 World Cup (September) and a March re-election for Infantino, who is now politically vulnerable due to this backlash.

What’s Next?

Looming uncertainty over the 2027 Women's World Cup and whether a mass federation walkout or an Infantino challenger could emerge.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On U.S. cyber vulnerabilities:
“The federal government does not have a lot of tools when it goes to a medium sized city in the Midwest and says, you really should do something about your power grid. It's really vulnerable to cyber attack.”
— Dan De Luce (07:27)
On the anti-weaponization fund controversy:
"Taxpayer money for people who say they've been wronged by the government, including January 6th...And this notion of would the Trump family and family businesses somehow be outside of the normal law when it comes to the IRS."
— Kelly O’Donnell (15:06)
On FIFA’s commercial plan backlash:
"UEFA put it, I think, best, which was that if you sell off part of...the World Cup, the world's biggest games, to investors, they're going to expect to see growth from that...You have to expand the tournament, which there are fears that it could dilute the quality of the tournament."
— Andrew Greif (25:19)
President Trump dismisses Iran cyberattack link:
"Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota."
— President Trump (05:25)

Timestamps for Important Segments

Minnesota/Iranian Water Cyberattacks: Overview & Attribution — 00:00–07:00
Infrastructure Security & Federal Role — 07:01–09:48
Todd Blanche Confirmation—Obstacles and Political Strategy — 11:27–16:09
IRS Settlement & Anti-Weaponization Fund Details — 14:51–16:09
Survivors of Epstein and Their Concerns — 17:20–18:30
FIFA Sale Plan & Global Soccer Rebellion — 21:46–28:06

Conclusion

This episode delivers a thorough briefing on cyber threats to U.S. infrastructure, the high-wire act surrounding a controversial legal nomination embroiled in Trump-era politics, and a dramatic standoff over the commercialization of international soccer. With expert analysis, direct quotes, and a conversational tone, the episode breaks down complex stories with clarity, context, and insight into the personalities and stakes behind the headlines.

(Ad sections and non-content portions have been omitted.)

Loading summary

Transcript77 lines

[00:00]
A
But the suspicion is, and really the reason why a lot of people are saying absolutely not is they feel this is a way for Infantino to enrich himself potentially along the way.
[00:11]
B
Yeah, the World cup may be over, but the drama is not. Hi, everybody, and welcome to Here is the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yazan Vesugan. So you just heard the name Infantino. That's Gianni Infantino. He's the head of FIFA and he's trying to get investors in FIFA to grow the league. It seems that's what they're saying. But you got a lot of leagues from Europe to North America to Asia who are balking at it. They're actually protesting this move by Infantino. That conversation is coming up. Plus, the president is wanting to get his acting attorney general, Todd Blanche confirmed to be the actual attorney general. But there are two big holdouts and they're both Republicans. We're going to talk about that coming up as well. Up first, though. So is water the next target in the war with Iran? I'm not talking about the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not talking about the Caspian Sea or the Red Sea. Caspian Sea, by the way we talked about yesterday, I am talking about water plants here in the United States. So why do I say that? Well, the FBI sent out a warning on Thursday that hackers are targeting critical infrastructure like water and wastewater facilities. At least seven states have reported cyber attacks on municipal water systems this week alone. And then in Minnesota, hackers infiltrated more than 30 water facilities. Some law enforcement officials tell NBC News that those attacks had hallmarks of Iranian hackers. So the question is why? For that, I want to bring in NBC News national security and global affairs reporter Dan Delouse. Hi, Dan.
[01:48]
C
Hello there.
[01:50]
B
So we had been hearing about these attacks in Minnesota, which now seem to be more widespread. Explain what happened here and the impact.
[02:02]
C
So what you have are these automated systems online, kind of industrial systems that allow you to control different manufacturing, assembly lines, utility networks. And in this case, those automated systems that are connected to the Internet were hacked or they were at least the target of cyber attacks and intrusions in Minnesota. And then they believe there are these threats also elsewhere in other states.
[02:34]
B
So what was the fallout, though, the impact? Like, did people not have water? What did local officials do? Like, could I have known if I'm living in Minnesota that there was a cyber attack on the water facilities there? Aside from reading the news, by and large, no.
[02:48]
C
By and large, there has not been a major physical effect. There was some disruption in service I believe no contaminated water, nothing like that, no catastrophic results. But it's obviously very worrying, and it's more the potential of what might happen or what could happen.
[03:07]
B
The FBI is now saying similar things have happened in seven states as well. Seven other states, I should say, as well. It seems like they are linked to. And that. That they have, quote, I should say, hallmarks of Iranian hackers, as you mentioned. What are these quote, unquote, hallmarks? And how. How do they go about determining this?
[03:30]
C
You know, there are ways to attribute cyber attacks. It's very technical and beyond me, but. And they also keep it kind of secret. But what is true is in that warning that was issued a week ago and in previous warnings, the government was saying. Government agencies were saying Iran may try to target these automated systems. They have a technical name, PLCs, programmable logical controllers, which they did not teach me about when I was in school.
[03:59]
B
Yeah, me either.
[04:01]
C
Right. But they are pretty sensitive devices and systems where you control a manufacturing process, an industrial process, automatically, an automated system. You don't have to pull a bunch of levers and hit a bunch of buttons. But if they're connected to the Internet, which they can be, they become vulnerable to hacking. And keep in mind that, you know, these water utility companies, utility organizations, these are not JP Morgan, Microsoft, big, big corporations with very deep pockets that can spend a lot of money on cybersecurity. So if you went to a cybersecurity conference over the past five years, you would hear an expert or a former government official saying, we worry about infrastructure, but mainly these kinds of smaller towns or a city where the water system doesn't have, you know, the highest end cybersecurity. So the hallmark of Iran is them attacking some of these automated systems. They've done it in the past, the US Believes. And so there's a warning. And lo and behold, it happened a week later. We're still waiting to hear the definitive attribution, but there, Iran is definitely the prime suspect. And of course, as we all know, the US Is at war with Iran at the moment.
[05:19]
B
So the President actually dismissed this Iran link during his Cabinet meeting today.
[05:26]
D
We heard in Minnesota there was a cyber attack. And they blame it on Iran? I don't think so. I think I blame it on Minnesota because they're grossly incompetent. There was a cyber attack of 30 water plants, and I would blame it on Minnesota. And the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota, they like to say, oh, is Iran. Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.
[05:51]
B
So in spite of what we're hearing from the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency that you just talked about in the lead up to these attacks, the President saying that it's not Iran, it's Minnesota. And we know the president obviously does not have a good relationship with Minnesota's governor, Governor Walz, who is a Democrat. Why would, though, Iran target Minnesota's water infrastructure? What is the objective in doing that?
[06:15]
C
I think, first of all, regardless of which state or where it's happening, you know, somehow in some way jeopardizing water or electricity supply is a way for your adversary to retaliate against you and to send you a message that if you continue to escalate against us, we, we have ways to hurt you. Now, why Minnesota? First of all, there are at least seven other states are affected according to the US Government. So it's not just Minnesota, but it may be just a function of what's vulnerable. Right. So if certain water utility companies are not taking care of their cybersecurity as much as they should or can, maybe there was. We're just targets of opportunity in Minnesota.
[07:01]
B
I want to talk a little bit about the vulnerabilities here too, because you mentioned, like, maybe they go after these certain water infrastructure plants because they are more vulnerable. They don't have as much cybersecurity. Two years ago, the EPA actually warned that these kinds of attacks were increasing for a while and they issued an alert that 70% of water utilities were not up to standards. How are things looking now? Has it gotten better? Is it worse? Has it kind of stayed status quo? Do we know?
[07:27]
C
I would be very skeptical that things have dramatically changed since that warning. Again, if you speak to cybersecurity experts and former government officials, they will tell you the harsh reality is that US Computer networks, US Infrastructure, government networks, private sector networks are under constant attack. Basically, there is cyber espionage going on and then there are actual cyber attacks going on. And in some cases these are state actors, in some cases these are criminal networks seeking ransom payments. But I mean, I think the biggest problem and challenge here is that we have a very decentralized capitalist system and it is not so simple to institute cybersecurity requirements across the country. The federal government does not have a lot of tools when it goes to a medium sized city in the Midwest and says, you really should do something about your power grid. It's really vulnerable to cyber attack. And we don't have legislation that really imposes penalties on companies or entities that don't meet a certain minimum standards hold up, though.
[08:42]
B
Isn't, isn't it the job of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to identify and help protect these kinds of systems against these sort of cyber attacks? But you couple that with what the Trump administration has done to that agency in which they have cut personnel, I believe, by one third, down over a thousand people or so. What are you hearing about any ball that was dropped on the agency's end and the potential for more vulnerability because of the cuts?
[09:12]
C
There is a lot of concern in the industry, I would say, and among experts who follow this, that a lot of expertise has walked out the door. There were people who were fired. There were people who took early retirement under kind of pressure. CISA has been, according to a lot of accounts, on hollowed out a lot of people left in a short amount of time. You also have had a massive reorganization and shakeup at the FBI. There are cybersecurity experts in the FBI and elsewhere in the government. Some of those people have left. Some of them were fired or retired early. And then the threat is not going away.
[09:48]
B
Dandaloose. Thank you.
[09:50]
C
Thank you.
[09:53]
B
All right. Coming up, President Trump is clashing with two Republican holdouts for the confirmation of the president's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanch. We're going to explain why none of them are budging after the break. And also while you're listening to the ads, do us a favor, share your favorite episode of here's the Scoop with a Friend. It is a great way for us to reach new listeners. We would really appreciate the support on this Friday. I'll see you on the other side.
[10:24]
C
Yeah.
[10:25]
D
Maxing is so maxing right now, bro.
[10:27]
C
Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because
[10:29]
D
Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a $5.99 maxed out double stack double
[10:33]
C
stack double stack spicy chicken sandwich.
[10:36]
D
Seriously, just $5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere.
[10:43]
C
The new spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available
[10:49]
D
for a limited time at participating restaurants, tactile included. Not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.
[10:54]
C
I'm Josh Mankiewicz and I hope you'll join us for season five of Dateline Missing in America. In each episode of dateline's award winning series, we will focus on one missing persons case and hear from the families, the friends and the investigators all desperate to find them. Maybe you could help solve a mystery.
[11:15]
D
Search DATELINE Missing in America to listen on Apple podcasts completely free or subscribe to Dateline Premium to unlock new episodes early.
[11:27]
B
And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. So President Trump keeps making the pitch to get Todd Blanche, his acting attorney general, confirmed as attorney General, even during his Cabinet meeting today.
[11:39]
D
Todd Blanche is a very, very good man and he shouldn't be in the middle of this. He should get approved because you will never get anybody like him.
[11:48]
B
The Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote on advancing Blanche's nomination this week, which but that was put on hold because of two Republican senators, Thom Tillis from North Carolina and John Cornyn from Texas, who still have some concerns, especially about a controversial IRS settlement deal that Blanche signed off on. On Thursday, President Trump said in a true social post that he might temporarily withdraw Blanche's nomination and then nominate him again in January once Tillis and Cornyn are both out of office. Neither, by the way, is up for reelection. But today the president said in the post that Blanche, quote, should be immediately approved. So what is the issue and is there still a path forward for Blanche's confirmation? For this, I want to bring in NBC News Chief justice and national affairs correspondent Kelly o'. Donnell. Hi, Kelly.
[12:39]
E
So nice to be with you.
[12:41]
B
It is great to have you. There has been a lot of developments when it comes to Todd Blanche's confirmation potential confirmation over the last 24 to 48 hours or so. I just kind of walk timeline a little bit. But tell me about this about face now where the president is saying Blanche must be confirmed immediately. Do we know how he got there and why he got there today?
[13:04]
E
Well, the president has made this a curious path because he put forward his former personal lawyer to be a deputy attorney general. He Senate confirmed for that, made him acting attorney general and now presumably wants him to be the next fully Senate confirmed attorney general. But the president is sort of getting in the way in certain aspects of this. And by that I mean he offered this notion of pulling the nomination back waiting until January, which would mean a new Congress and a Senate that would have a different composition. And now he's saying, no, no, no, we gotta do it immediately. The question is how is that going to get done? And there is no easy answer to that right now. One way to do it is if these two senators were to vote yes, well, how would they get to yes? The thing that they are asking for all stems from litigation the president filed against the government he runs. So the president clearly is in charge. He filed lawsuits against different branches of the federal government. The doj, the IRS making claims against the federal government over the raid at Mar A Lago, over his tax returns, being exposed publicly, his tax return, one of many, many, many that were exposed by a contractor. That contractor went to prison. That's a violation of the law to settle those suits. The president came up with an idea. His lawyers did, private lawyers, to have something called an anti weaponization fund. Nearly $2 billion. They had sort of a clever number for it, 1776, that would pay out people who make claims against the government, who are perceived to have been politically prosecuted, that kind of thing. January 6th, people would be one category. And one of the big questions has been, how could that go forward?
[14:52]
B
Blanche has said that's kind of dead in the water at this point. But Tillis and Cornyn, they want confirmation in writing. They want to know in writing if he becomes ag, that they will not move forward. They will not kind of revive the anti weaponization fund, for instance.
[15:07]
E
Exactly. Because there is an existing agreement between the president's personal lawyers and the Department of Justice, a contract, if you will, will to settle that lawsuit. And it includes the weaponization fund as one tool that would come out of this. Another area in that is that it provides protections against the president, members of his family and family businesses against being audited by the irs. That is a very unusual circumstance. And these two senators also want clarity on what would that mean. So those are the two issues. Taxpayer money for people who say they've been wronged by the government, including January 6th. And this notion of would the Trump family and family businesses somehow be outside of the normal law when it comes to the irs. Those issues need to be resolved for these two senators, but certainly for others as well. Meaning other Republican senators on the broader committee have questions about this, but it is Cornyn and Tillis, in part because they're not running again, who have the political bandwidth.
[16:10]
B
They have nothing to lose. I'm wondering if the president's post from this morning, in which he kind of also stood by the fund, would make it more likely that Cornyn and Tillis are gonna stick by their no vote for now.
[16:25]
E
One way to look at it is to say it proves their point that putting it in writing has value. Because the president clearly displayed in his post that he believes in this concept. He talked about these being great American patriots who were wronged by the Biden administration, who were somehow punish and ruined. He does not in any way engage on the matter that many of them pleaded guilty. Many of them were sentenced for physical violence against law enforcement, damage to the Capitol, et cetera. There is a kind of an enduring belief by the President based on his posts and his own language, that he believes they should be compensated. And so that raises the questions, perhaps even triggering others in the Senate. Would they support Blanche with that situation? So there are many questions we don't have resolved yet. And at the moment we are at an impasse.
[17:21]
B
By the way, that's not the only thing that is holding up things here when it comes to his confirmation. Cuz you also have the victims of Jeffrey Epstein who were on the Hill for, you know, many days this week, telling Senators in fact, to vote no on Blanche's confirmation. They actually met with Todd Blanche earlier this month and, and they said to NBC News that the meeting was, quote, not productive or substantive. Could their opposition also lead to Blanche not getting confirmed?
[17:54]
E
Well, it is very much a part of the environment which makes this nomination so perilous right now. Because one of the things Thom Tillis had said is he wanted Blanche to meet with them personally. He wanted survivors and the Acting Attorney General to be in the same room to give them a chance to have their concerns aired, to, to talk about their desire to see some kind of investigation, the potential for some kind of prosecution. What is unclear to me at this point is if having the meeting, whether it was satisfactory or not to the survivors, is that enough to resolve that issue? He has not been talking about that in recent days.
[18:31]
B
Tillis essentially said, right, an advisor to the President is making this situation worse.
[18:38]
D
Somebody tells him to not do what Blanche said they were going to do. Whoever that person is, is giving the President bad advice. The only reason why we wouldn't move forward with this language is because that same advisor wants to bring it back to life at some point.
[18:54]
B
Do we know who this advisor is, Kelly o', Donnell, that Senator Tillis is actually referring to? And is there a potential they get to. Yes. And how is that?
[19:05]
E
It is hard to answer that because you could say the President has personal counsel that might be involved in this. You could say it's someone in the White House or it could be himself. Many people believe that when you just study how the President conducts a lot of these things, that he's often the decision maker. And so we don't know a specific identity of someone who has given him this advice. And the way the President uses his social media and the way he responds to these things suggests that it's very driven by his own internal dialogue about why these matters are important to him and his views. We don't know if there is another advisor to Senator Tillis is hanging it on that at the moment. So why is the president not agreeing to putting it in writing that the weaponization fund anti weaponization fund is dead? That's really the question.
[19:59]
B
Kelly o', Donnell, thank you.
[20:01]
E
Oh, so good to be with you, Yasmin. Thank you.
[20:05]
B
All right, coming up, you remember that big love finale at the World cup halftime show? Well, soccer's biggest teams are not feeling the love for FIFA anymore and in fact, they are threatening to pull out of the games. Coming up, we're going to explain why.
[20:25]
E
This week on Meet the Press 100 days to the midterms as the war with Iran escalates. I'll talk with UN Ambassador Mike Waltz and Senator Mark Kelly. Plus a Meet the Moment conversation with Chanel Jones this week on Meet THE Press. Listen to the full episode now wherever you get your podcasts.
[20:47]
D
Hey, guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with the hilarious Ken Jeong to talk through a career of unforgettable roles, from the Hangover movies to the cult favorite show Community and his latest in the Netflix cultural sensation K Pop Demon Hunters. You can find our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.
[21:14]
E
I really love the Start Today app.
[21:16]
D
They care about how I feel.
[21:18]
E
It's the staff on the app. It's the connections you make.
[21:22]
D
Without good mental and physical health, you have nothing.
[21:26]
E
It tells me how to cook to keep myself healthy.
[21:30]
D
I look at my app and I'm like, wow, I didn't know I did 7,000 steps today.
[21:34]
C
Start Today meets you where you are.
[21:36]
D
Download the Start Today wellness app now on your Apple or Android device terms. Apply C app for details.
[21:47]
B
And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. So the World cup semifinal was so incredible, right? You had Spain taking on France. You had Argentina facing off against England. But imagine, imagine this. No European teams entering the World cup for men or for women. So on Thursday, Europe's biggest soccer league, UEFA and teams said they're going to boycott the World cup and all other FIFA competitions. Why, you ask? So they are against FIFA President Gianni Infantino's plan to sell stakes in soccer's biggest tournament to private equity investors. And now you got North American leagues and Asian soccer organizations also joining in on this and rejecting FIFA's plan. So if FIFA follows through with this, what could actually be the fallout for this? I want to bring in NBC News digital sports reporter Andrew Greif. Hi, Andrew.
[22:43]
A
Hello how are you?
[22:45]
B
I'm good. This is a lot. And coming right after the World cup and all the buzz surrounding that, explain to us this plan and where it came from.
[22:56]
A
This came from Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president. And this is something that we know because since the plan has come out to enormous pushback, even high ranking officials within FIFA have said that this was Infantino's plan all by himself. They have distanced themselves from that with FIFA's chief operating officer coming out today, saying that organizations had been deceived by the lack of consultation by it. One of Infantino's top advisors resigned, a former Goldman Sachs banker. So there's a lot of pushback and everyone is pointing the kind of the arrow at Infantino and saying this was his desire to sort of take what was already the most commercially successful World cup and supercharge it by selling off 20% stake. And really, it's also not only the fact that the pushback has come against the notion of sort of selling away the game, which is really UEFA's main contention, but there's also a lot of pushback because the main investor in this would be sort of connected to the orbit of President Trump, Joshua Kushner. And so that has also received a lot of the of the pushback.
[23:59]
B
Why is he doing this?
[24:00]
A
This is something because he feels that FIFA is not taking advantage of its commercial potential. FIFA just got $15 billion in revenue from this World Cup. This was the largest World cup ever. It's a 48 team. And just today they've talked about, we're going to make a formal proposal to expand it to 64 teams. Can you imagine how much more money that would bring in? What FIFA and John Antino specifically say is the reason behind it is because this is their operation, their way to trigger the revenue that would flow down to all of its 211 countries that are a member of FIFA. The revenue gets split among its members and they're saying, look, this will help development, this will help, you know, fields be constructed in countries that maybe do not have the kind of infrastructure or the resources of a big country like a US or a Spain or a France. So this is what their selling point is. This will help everybody. But the suspicion is, and really the reason why a lot of people are saying absolutely not, is they feel this is a way for Infantino to enrich himself potentially as along the way.
[25:02]
B
So let's talk about the suspicions here, because you have a lot of organizations that are rejecting this plan. UEFA, for instance, said in a statement quote, it's not FIFA's to sell. Then the North American organization got on board and Asia's soccer organization has jumped in as well. Why are they so upset over this?
[25:19]
A
Well, UEFA put it, I think, best, which was that if you sell off part of, and I'm paraphrasing, but if you put a sell off a portion of the World cup, the world's biggest games, to investors, they're going to expect to see growth from that. Right. And so how do you grow that? You have to expand the tournament, which there are fears that it could dilute the quality of the tournament. So that is really the root of it. They feel like it will alter the fundamental core of football, of soccer. And Infantino has been thinking about this for a long time. You know, we had heard about the potential for this expanding to 64 teams a while ago. So the fact that they came out with this proposal this week to maybe expand it, that's not a surprise by itself. But the decision to sell off a portion of the World cup to investors was a huge surprise to basically everybody. FIFA has said, hey, we were going to make this a longer consultation process until media reports, until it leaked, essentially. But the members involved are not buying that. They're saying, no, no, no, we had no idea this was coming.
[26:17]
B
What is the official response we're getting from FIFA? And does Infantino risk losing his job over this?
[26:22]
A
You know, we sort of have a deadline to look at this because the next FIFA competition is September, the Women's Under 20 World cup, which is going to be held in Poland, that is going to be serving as sort of a deadline here to see if they can push this across. Right now, Infantino has no support from a huge number of its members. He is up for re election in March. And up until this point, everybody has expected him to run unopposed and to be reelected pretty easily, because, let's face it, a lot of these countries are very happy with how much more money they're receiving from the way that soccer has been commercialized and the revenue that FIFA has brought in. But now you're starting to hear cracks. You know, could someone run against him?
[27:04]
B
But also, the Women's World cup is next year. So how could all of these things be affected amidst this plan and this uprising from all of these different organizations, including UEFA?
[27:18]
A
Yeah, it's a Domino's situation. You know, you have all these things that are leading up to next summer, which is an enormous deal. It's going to be held in Brazil. The Women's World cup is, is defending champion of Spain. So again, another UEFA member. This is something that when you think about not only kind of the intermediary competitions leading up to it, World cup qualifying, you also have the FIFA election process in March. And so I think Infantino likely believed that he could usher in by next summer a huge amount of changes that would really radicalize and change the sport to a degree never before seen from the commercial success and just the structure of tournaments and expanding. But now there is quite a bit of opposition to this and I just wonder if, well, how will soccer look globally a year from now? It could look very different.
[28:05]
B
Andrew Greif, thank you.
[28:06]
A
Thank you.
[28:09]
B
All right, that is going to do it for us. It here's the Scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Desugin. We'll be back on Monday with whatever the weekend may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And you can also subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Inside Scoop. It is a deeper dive on the main stories of the day that comes out every weeknight straight to your inbox. You can sign up for the Inside Scoop as part of our paid subscription@NBC news.com we'll see you Monday.
[28:45]
D
Snoring, Gasping for air during sleep, Daytime sleepiness I'm Shaquille o' Neal and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. Ask your doctor about Zepbound Tirzepatide, the first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15 milligram injection. Zepbound contains Tirzepatide and should not be used with other Tirzepatide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pens or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, stop setbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing pregnant plant to be or taking birth control pills, taking zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor, call 1-800-545-5979 or visit zepbound.lilly.com.