← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Trump Admin to Abandon “Slush Fund” Amid Backlash
00:41:32
MS NOW reports that the Trump administration is planning to abandon its highly controversial $1.8 billion “slush fund.” MS NOW’s Melissa Murray reports and is joined by former SDNY civil prosecutor Maya Wiley and The New York Times’ Molly Jong-Fast.
Loading summary
Transcript110 lines
- [00:00]
Thumbtack Announcer
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. 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. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today.
- [00:20]
Chris Hayes
Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast and it's raising new questions just about every day about what it is, what it isn't. 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.
- [00:36]
Melissa Murray
We're right now in a situation where it's very difficult to understand what is real and what's not real.
- [00:42]
Chris Hayes
Why is this happening? The AI Endgame, a special miniseries from Ms. Now. Start listening today wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:51]
Melissa Murray
Welcome to the Beat. I'm Melissa Murray in for Ari Melber and we start tonight with a major loss for Donald Trump. MSNBCow can report tonight that the Trump administration plans to abandon its highly controversial $1.8 billion slush fund. This news comes from a senior White House official. Axios was the first to report the story, citing two senior administration officials. One of them told Axios, quote, it's dead for now. In a tweet, the Trump DOJ attributed the about face to a recent court ruling temporarily blocking the fund. The tweet explains that although the department, quote, disagrees strongly with the court decision that under no circumstances may the DOJ proceed with the fund. The department will abide by the court's ruling. We should emphasize that the tweet was a bit misleading. The court ruling, which was issued last Friday, temporarily blocked the fund while a case challenging it played out in the court. It was not a decision on the fund's merits. Msnow can also report tonight that Speaker Mike Johnson's meeting with Trump today played a key role in the decision to abandon the fund. A source told msNow that Johnson helped convince Trump to drop the fund in order to create a path forward for ICE and Border Patrol funding legislation in the Senate. Earlier today, Politico reported that this abrupt shift was in the offing. Its reporting noted that the Republicans agenda was in limbo as their immigration enforcement bill remained stalled because of concerns with the fund. Politico reported, quote, senate Republicans delayed passage of the immigration package last month as a Critical mass of their members were prepared to support Senate Democrats amendments to narrow or nix the Justice Department's fund. Well, that pressure on Trump seemingly worked. The slush fund criticism was a rare instance of bipartisan backlash. Even Trump's former vice president called the fund offensive. Take a look.
- [03:08]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
Let's get rid of this fund. I mean, I mean, it's. It's deeply offensive to me that, that you could have a fund that could even possibly compensate people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the Capitol on January 6th. And I think that's broadly held by most Republicans and, and most Americans.
- [03:29]
Melissa Murray
Most Americans is right. Democrats were preparing to fight back. Senate Democrats had three bills in the works which would divert the money to other programs, as well as a standalone bill to block the fund and prevent payouts. One senator even raised the prospect of impeachment. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer today said he will still force a vote to block the fund. If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law. This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump's word is nowhere near enough. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Maya Wiley, former SDNY civil prosecutor and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights as well. With us is Molly John Fast, contributing writer with the New York Times, Mississippi, now political analyst and host of the Fast Politics podcast. Maya, let's start with you. What is your reaction to the news that the administration, which was so hot to trot over this fund, is now abandoning it?
- [04:40]
Maya Wiley
Well, my reaction is there's nothing normal about anything that just happened here. And we really need to understand what a federal judge said about this settlement. That was one that potentially was hidden from the court, because, remember, it's the slush fund. It's the fact that it was $1.8 trillion for potentially convicted felons that Donald Trump pardoned with taxpayer dollars. But it's also our Department of Justice. And the reason I'm pointing to that Florida court, that judge saying, I'm going to reopen this under Rule 11. And as you and I know, Rule 11 is y' all did some things I think you were not allowed to do.
- [05:26]
Melissa Murray
Yeah.
- [05:27]
Maya Wiley
And I can look at this because I have 35 former judges that told me I should, because it looks like they, y' all may have colluded to do something that essentially is going to protect Donald Trump, as if he can be above the law. So when you push all this together, it's bad for everyone, but it's so not normal and we should be upset about it.
- [05:51]
Melissa Murray
I think that's a great point. None of this was above board in a lot of ways, like the initial lawsuit where the president was on both sides of the V. The motion to dismiss it with prejudice, and then not telling the court that there was a settlement in the offing. And then once it was dismissed with prejudice, the settlement comes to light and it is this $1.8 billion slush fund. But, Molly, what do you make of the politics around this? So, you know, the judge has done a legal thing, reopened this under Rule 60 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court is entitled to do. But a lot of this seemed to be about political pressure as well. So can you say more about that? What's going on here?
- [06:29]
Molly John Fast
Well, so when I was reading the reporting about it this weekend and I saw Boris Epstein was mentioned as the architect of this whole thing, I thought, oh, it's dead. I thought the fact that they're putting it to one person shows already that people are trying to distance themselves from it. And, you know, it's so important. We've been doing covering Trump world for such a long time. You can almost read who is leaking to who and what they're trying to get away from. And you could just they were trying to distance themselves from this almost immediately. And there's a reason for that, which was last week we saw this YOLO caucus, the you only live once caucus. And these are. The Wall Street Journal had an article about this and.
- [07:10]
Melissa Murray
No, I saw it.
- [07:11]
Molly John Fast
Yeah, the YOLO caucus. And in it are the two senators who lost their seats, lost their primaries
- [07:17]
Melissa Murray
because of Cornyn and Cassidy.
- [07:19]
Molly John Fast
And then in that also is Tillis and Collins and Bergaski. And so the idea is these people all got sent home last week because
- [07:26]
Melissa Murray
they've got nothing less to lose. Right.
- [07:28]
Molly John Fast
And Thune could saw that he had lost the caucus, and that was like this Mike Johnson move. So here's what I would say. I think that it's really clearly very unpopular. And again, I think it would be a mistake to think that these people are doing this because they've been like, this is too much morally. This is wrong. I think they've seen the polling on this, and they see that it's not popular and it's not a hill they want to die on. What I do think is really smart of Democrats is to try to ban it, because the idea of taking this administration at their word is almost always a mistake.
- [07:59]
Melissa Murray
So I Want to talk with you about that, Maya. The DOJ says that they were going to abide by this ruling, was a temporary ruling, ostensibly because the fund has been abandoned. That would suggest that the legal matter is now moot. Or does it? Right. Is this something that can be resurrected like some kind of zombie fund that keeps coming back?
- [08:20]
Maya Wiley
Sure, of course. That's the point. Why it is so important to understand how not normal this is and why it's important that to Molly's point, Democrats are continuing to push the issue and trying to force Republicans to take a position, including whether or not they'll actually agree that this should never be done by any president anywhere, anytime. I think the other thing that's important to note is the other side of this is the that Donald Trump has negotiated with himself to essentially never have to face any investigation or potential penalty from the Internal Revenue Service or his family. That is my point about how big this problem is. And then we could also add in what they're trying to do with ICE funding here, which is we're going to tell you we won't solve this problem, which is Donald Trump's double dealing and his attempts to buy a private army. And at the same time, we aren't going to protect you from people who are going to violate your rights.
- [09:24]
Melissa Murray
So, Molly, this is all like what Maya has said is, I think, really important. And the Democrats have a really great opportunity here on messaging. If you are advising them, what is the message about this fund going into the midterms? Do you let this drop or do you keep flogging it until November?
- [09:40]
Molly John Fast
Waste, fraud and abuse. Right? Wasting taxpayer dollars, committing fraud any which way and abusing the system. Donald Trump and his kids are going to not be audited.
- [09:53]
Melissa Murray
The private army. I mean, like I've been saying this forever. Like, this is how you fund a private army for your next insurrection, for sure.
- [10:00]
Molly John Fast
And it's also just, it's not. The American people don't like it.
- [10:04]
Melissa Murray
Right.
- [10:05]
Molly John Fast
And I think you don't have a precedent for somebody who runs for office, right? Says I'm gonna make things cheaper and keep America out of foreign wars immediately gets America in numerous foreign wars and makes, and by virtue of that, makes gas more and more expensive. And look, he today he had a, you know, the Iranian negotiation maybe out for now. Like, he can't be out because, you know, we are going to see gas is just going to get more and more expensive. And this is a real problem for him. So if I were Democrats, I would be waste, fraud and abuse for sure, because that's what we're seeing. And then also he said he was going to make things cheaper.
- [10:43]
Melissa Murray
Look at the gas. So on the in advance of the midterm, at least some Democrats are saying the I word out loud. So let's take a listen to Ed Markey, who had this to say about the future prospects for this president.
- [10:58]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
It's an impeachable offense, but Richard Nixon was impeached for that. He did in private. Donald Trump is now doing in public on steroids. This is a complete impeachable offense. That was the very thing that our founding fathers were concerned about. It is corruption. It is the high crime and misdemeanor that in fact the Constitution anticipated. And we are not going to allow them to escape.
- [11:29]
Melissa Murray
What do you think, Maya? Is this an impeachable offense, especially if the fund is abandoned?
- [11:33]
Maya Wiley
Well, you know, again, I think it goes back to everything that's happening by this president that simply flaunts the law, ignores Congress, ignores separation of powers. But the real point here goes back to what are voters going to do and what do they have the opportunity to decide because cost of living overall is going up, their health care and subsidies have been cut. It's harder to see a doctor when they're sick. None of their problems are getting solved, but a lot of problems are being created for them. And we're watching literally a trillion dollars going to ICE to violate people's rights, 1.8 billion. They were trying to get into the hands of Trump loyalists. But what are the American people getting? And that's their question. And they've got an opportunity to answer it.
- [12:21]
Melissa Murray
All right, Maya Wiley, Molly Junk Bass, thank you for getting us started. When we get back on the other side of this break, we will talk to the lead counsel in the slush fund case. That's right after we take this 90 second break. Joining me now is Sky Perryman, president of Democracy Forward and lead counsel who brought the case against the Trump slush fund. Sky, what is your reaction to today's news that the Trump administration is planning to abandon this anti weapon weaponization fund?
- [12:58]
Sky Perryman
Well, first of all, let me just say this is one of the reasons that we go to court is because the administration needs to have to answer for what it is doing. And you have a federal judge in the case that we are litigating, say on Friday, you can't do anything with this fund until the courts have their say. We have another federal judge potentially reopening the initial matter to say, you know, was Trump trying to commit Fraud on the court and all of that combined with the public pushback, I think is why you're seeing these reports. Now, as a lawyer who has a responsibility to all the clients that have brought this case who are being harmed by the fund, we have a lot of questions for the government, and we've reached out to the Department of Justice to ask them if the reporting is accurate, to ask them. You know, we will not abandon our case, of course, until we know that the fund will not exist, will not recur, and that our clients harms can be remedied. So we will continue to pursue that. But this would be, you know, this is a routine thing for this administration. When they receive pushback, when they get jammed up in the courts, they will often walk away and abandon some of their agenda. And I think that's what we potentially will see here.
- [14:08]
Melissa Murray
Well, so can we talk about that? Whether this is for now or for good? As, you know, as a lawyer, to get into federal court, you have to have a live case or controversy. The fact that this has been abandoned raises the question of whether the lawsuit is moot going forward. What would you need to see from the Department of Justice to be assured that this suit is no longer alive, case or controversy, that this fund is dead in the water and this administration is not planning to bring it back or any of the ancillary agreements in the settlement going forward. What would you have to say?
- [14:41]
Sky Perryman
Right. Certainly. Certainly more than a tweet and some comments to the news media or some leaked comments to the news media. I mean, it is going to be important to see that this fund. They made an official announcement. The Department of Justice made an official announcement announcing the fund, announcing how it was going to operate, outlining all the many myriad ways that we believe. Of course, the fund is unlawful. But all of that was an official government communication. We have. We have seen nothing like that here yet, although these. These reports are certainly encouraging. So nothing has changed with us yet in the status quo. We have written the Department of Justice and asked them to come forward with what their plans are.
- [15:19]
Melissa Murray
So I take from that you are still prepared to continue litigating this case, that this slush fund is unlawful, impermissible, and should be shut down by the courts.
- [15:31]
Sky Perryman
Absolutely. And to be candid, I mean, the reason the administration isn't paying things out of the slush fund right now is because of the court order that we secured on Friday. So we are going to have to see much more definitive proof of what this administration is doing. Again, we've asked the doj. Hopefully they'll be forthcoming with what their plans are. But we are absolutely prepared to continue to bring our case, to continue to litigate our case. We are looking forward to seeing the government's response in our case, which is due later this week. So there's a lot more coming forward. Unless, of course, they truly, truly abandon the fund and we can have assurance that it won't recur.
- [16:08]
Melissa Murray
All right, Sky Perryman, we will watch this space. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Later in the show, the FCC's only Democratic member is condemning Trump's attempts at, quote, censorship. She will be with us live. Also ahead, see the red X's there. Those are featured performers who have bailed on Trump's partisan 250 anniversary concerts as his job approval plummets.
- [16:43]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
That was bust, a move by Young mc, one of the many artists you will not be hearing at the 250F anniversary celebration.
- [16:53]
Melissa Murray
Yikes. Plus, new corruption allegations engulf Trump's plan for a UFC event on the White House lawn. That's up next.
- [17:04]
Chris Hayes
Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast, and it's raising new questions just about every day about what it is, what it isn't. 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.
- [17:20]
Melissa Murray
We're right now in a situation where it's very difficult to understand what is real and what's not real.
- [17:25]
Chris Hayes
Why is this happening? The AI Endgame, a special miniseries from Ms. Now. Start listening today, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [17:40]
Melissa Murray
We're back with mounting questions about Donald Trump's Wall street trades, publicly boosting companies after their stocks were privately added to his stock portfolio. The latest revelation centers on UFC and a controversial UFC freedom fight that the president is apparently planning to host on the White House lawn. According to financial disclosures that are publicly available from the Office of Government Ethics and that were released in May, shares in TKO holdings, the UFC's parent company, were added to Trump's portfolio back in March. Just a few weeks later, the president began promoting the UFC White House event and praising the ufc.
- [18:25]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
It's the hardest ticket I have never been asked. People everybody wants, I'm going to make more enemies. And it's about 4,000 seats. It's all free. It's all free. It's really a contribution from UFC to 250 was a great thing for UFC. Everything's beautiful. Everything's like money, money Money and they're building a great arena.
- [18:47]
Melissa Murray
It has also been reported that between 1 million and $5 million worth of Dell stock was added to Trump's stock portfolio in February. Trump publicly praised the company shortly after encouraging his supporters to purchase Dell computers. Last week, after an announcement that the company, Dell had secured a $9.7 billion Pentagon contract with Dell's stock surged. The president had this to say, I
- [19:17]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
also want to thank Michael and Susan Dell. Dell go out and buy a Dell computer. They make a great product. They're not looking for any publicity. I give them publicity. They say, well, thank you very much.
- [19:28]
Melissa Murray
And Dell we want to get to. Shares are higher after the Pentagon announced a $9.7 billion deal with the company to supply software to the military. According to reports In March, between 2 million and $7 million in Apple stock were purchased for Trump's portfolio. On the same day that one of those purchases occurred, Trump praised Apple. Take a listen.
- [19:55]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
Apple, a great company. 2.5 billion to manufacture 100% of the glass for iPhones and Apple watches right here in Kentucky. New plants all over the United States. Think of that. Who the hell else could have done this? Nobody else. I say it kiddingly, but I'm actually not kidding. Nobody else could he. He's done a good job. Tim Cook
- [20:22]
Melissa Murray
Trump's portfolio also invested in a small medical supply company called Thermo Fisher purchased $50,000 worth of stock on the same day that the president toured the company's facility.
- [20:36]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
It's a great honor being here. It's a great company. I've done it for a long time. Daniel, you have done a fantastic job and the ways things drive.
- [20:45]
David K. Johnston
Thank you.
- [20:45]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
It's just an incredible company. Congratulations. Great company.
- [20:51]
Melissa Murray
Seems like a pattern emerging private stock purchases followed by very public statements boosting those same companies. The Trump Organization says in a statement, quote, neither President Trump, his family, nor the Trump Organization has any role in selecting, directing, approving, influencing or soliciting specific investments. They receive no advance notice of trades. Joining me now to discuss is David K. Johnston, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Trump biographer. He's now a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. David, what's your take on these stock trades?
- [21:30]
David K. Johnston
Well, they're completely atrocious, but unfortunately, the founders and the framers of our Constitution didn't think that we would have a president like Donald Trump. So the emoluments clauses as written only apply to foreign governments and state and local governments, certainly not to stock trading. And the assertion by both the Trump family and the White House that there's nothing going on here is nonsense. All you have to do is have advanced knowledge of where Donald's going to speak and whether it's going to be positive or negative, and trades can be made that will turn out to be very profitable.
- [22:12]
Melissa Murray
So the Trump Organization is saying that the president has nothing to do with these trades. But we know that for years the president, his family have not operated with a blind trust. That is what some presidents have done in the past with their holdings. What's your response to the organizations disclaiming that there's anything to see here?
- [22:33]
David K. Johnston
Well, Donald believes that there's nothing wrong with this. I mean, the almost 40 years I've known and covered him, it's always been clear that he does not believe rules apply to him because he's special. And so he said before his first term that he could run his companies and run the White House and there'd be no conflicts of interest. Clearly, there are massive conflicts of interest, particularly where the Pentagon, under some pressure apparently from the White House based on reporting, gave loan guarantees and loans to companies that Don Jr. Invested in. But to Donald, there's just nothing wrong with this. And unfortunately, we're not seeing any oversight by Congress because the leaders of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill simply will not hold Trump to account.
- [23:25]
Melissa Murray
Well, you've anticipated my next question. This is not just a problem for Donald Trump. There has also been reporting about members of Congress who have made some questionable trades in advance of shifting world events. If the Democrats are able to take back power, at least in some portions of the Congress, could they begin investigating this, or is there even a pathway forward to truly transformative legislation that would put an end to this?
- [23:51]
David K. Johnston
Well, there will certainly be investigations if the Democrats get control of either the House or the Senate. There is such a rich environment to investigate that they're going to have to make choices about what they can pursue and what they won't pursue. When and if we get past Trump's dictatorship, we need to do some serious work about the presidency because we can no longer assume that honorable men or women will hold that office. And yet that was the core of the framework framers belief. They did provide for impeachment because there's always personal venality. But what's going on with Trump goes way beyond this. And we need to take a deep look at fundamentally reforming certain parts of the Constitution, including the emoluments clauses and providing a cause of action. You'll recall when there were lawsuits brought by individuals and state attorneys general, the federal courts on the emoluments issue basically washed their hands of it. We could have a statute that says if, for example, 10 state attorneys general join in a case, they automatically have standing against an action of a president.
- [25:02]
Melissa Murray
So before we end this segment, I want to just talk about one more thing. The ProPublica is reporting that the White House intervened to get a company that was affiliated with Donald Trump Jr. You just talked about this. A $600 million. Oh, I'm sorry. I wanted to talk about that $620 million government contract that was secured for a company in which Donald Trump Jr. Had associations. The Trumps deny any wrongdoing with that. What do you make of that story? And while we're talking about congressional reform, how far should it reach? Is it just elected officials or should we also be thinking about how to limit those who are close to the president but not necessarily public servants?
- [25:40]
David K. Johnston
Well, I think we need to have a very robust debate about investments by elected members of Congress, key staff members, justices of the United States Supreme Court and other officials. I think we should look to the model of Jimmy Carter who took his little two bit peanut warehouse business of no consequence to anything and put it in a trust and then it was sold so that there'd be no question that he was taking any actions. And I'm reminded here of a neighbor of mine, Melissa, who I asked about why he didn't use his position as head of a nonprofit insurance company to convert it and make himself, I estimated 40 or 50 million dollars, a scam I had exposed back at the Los Angeles times in the 1980s. And he looked at me and said, because it would be wrong. That's something that never will occur to Donald Trump and the people around him that it would be wrong.
- [26:36]
Melissa Murray
All right. David K. Johnston, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Still ahead, still ahead, the FCC's lone Democratic commissioner confronts what she calls Trump's campaign to pressure and control the media. But first, Iran talks are falling apart and Donald Trump now says he doesn't care. More on that after the break. Donald Trump says he doesn't care. He said it about the midterms. He said it about Americans financial situations. And today he said it again in a CNBC interview. This time it followed reports that negotiations with Iran have broken down. Take a listen. The president said, I don't care if they're over. Honestly, I really don't care. I couldn't care less if they're over. They're over if they're not. You know, I think they took too much time, frankly.
- [27:34]
FCC Chair Brendan Carr
I think they started to get a little boring.
- [27:37]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I don't care about the midterms.
- [27:46]
Melissa Murray
The president is literally saying he doesn't care about the biggest issues facing the country and the constituents that he leads. At the same time, the president is pushing a slew of vanity projects. The arch, the ballroom, the new coin, among other things. And he is publicly complaining about the musicians who have bailed on his America 250 concerts. Many of the artists say they signed up without ever realizing that the Trump administration was organizing the events. A senior administration official tells the Times that the rollout of the concerts has been a, quote, mess and that someone would most likely be fired. In the meantime, the president is getting roasted.
- [28:38]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
That was bust, a move by Young mc, one of the many artists you will not be hearing at the 250th anniversary celebration.
- [28:47]
FCC Chair Brendan Carr
Also going to feature musicians like Vanilla Ice, Flo Riddle, and Brett Michael.
- [28:52]
Various Political Figures (e.g., Ed Markey, Young MC)
Honestly, that sounds less like America's 250th birthday and more like the playlist at Rhonda's 50th.
- [28:59]
Maya Wiley
No one was impressed. It. It may sound mean, but it's true. No one was impressed. Everyone thought this was kind of a joke. This has been a disaster from start to finish.
- [29:11]
Melissa Murray
Polls show Trump is facing record low approval ratings and today oil and gas prices spiked again. Here's a top MAGA media figure warning that Trump's own supporters are, quote, hurting. The cost of food and gas is just so high. People are finding it impossible to pay for their kids after school sports once they fill up the car with gas. Mr. President, your supporters are hurting people who voted for you three times, who would walk over Legos covered in hot coals to vote for you are broke. Joining me now is David Litt, former Obama speechwriter and author of the Word Salad Substack. He is also the author of It's Only Drowning, a true story of learning to surf on the search for common ground. David, the president says he doesn't care about Iran. He doesn't care about the midterms. He doesn't care about Americans Pocketbooks. This was a president that was really good at reading the room. What's going on here?
- [30:13]
David Litt
Well, I think he is sort of having his YOLO moment, right? And interestingly, I remember we had a similar experience around the end of the Obama era. And I'll explain why it's similar because that might seem a little strange. There was this moment of realizing there's no more election to run for. Let's do what we want. But the difference was that what President Obama and his team wanted was to. Let's take big swings on the issue.
- [30:37]
Melissa Murray
Daca. Dapa.
- [30:38]
David Litt
Exactly. Let's try to do things that are legacy items that matter to the American people. And Trump is also trying to do legacy items, and they matter to the American person that he cares about, and that person is Donald Trump.
- [30:48]
Melissa Murray
This is the edifice complex.
- [30:49]
David Litt
Yeah, I think, you know, there's that. You know that Ozymandias, the poem. Right. Look on my works, ye mighty in despair. So it does seem like there is just a genetic thing where men of a certain age who have a certain amount of power, they're like, let's build a big statue of me and hope somehow that's the same as being immortal.
- [31:10]
Melissa Murray
So how do you think this is going to cash out in the midterms? And where. How does it play with the people who still have elections, who are among his caucus and do not get to go off into the sunset having made a legacy statute or some other building in their name?
- [31:26]
David Litt
I think what we're seeing now is a lot of Republican lawmakers saying, well, we're along for the ride. Some of them are protected by gerrymandering or by being in a state which is so favorable to President Trump that nothing is gonna sway that. But the ones who aren't are kind of saying, well, we're stuck on this ship. And, you know, I'm maybe speaking a little bit, hopefully here as a Democrat, but I think they're realizing, hey, we've done the sowing and we may end up doing the reaping.
- [31:52]
Melissa Murray
I wanna play some sound from a CNBC interview this morning with President Trump today where he was asked about if he was worried about rising gas prices. Take a listen. Oh, actually, I'm going to read this one. Trump says he's not worried about gas prices. Eamon Jabbers asked him about this. The president was emphatic. No, he is not. This is the most important issue for most Americans right now. We're facing summer vacation. Lots of Americans go on road trips. Many Americans are curtailing those road trips because they can't afford the price of gas. What does it mean for the president to say he doesn't care about this? Like, how is this going to translate? And should he be worried about this kind of take?
- [32:31]
David Litt
Well, as he's pointed out, he doesn't need to be worried because he's not running for reelection, but his allies absolutely need to be worried. I think the thing about politics, we spend a lot of time making it complicated, and it is complicated, but it's also pretty simple. Do voters think that you care about them and the issues they care about? And Trump isn't just acting in a way that suggests that people are saying, hey, do you care about voters? And he says, no, but these were
- [32:55]
Melissa Murray
the voters who would, as Batya said, walk over hot Legos covered in, like, a hot fire. What was that like? Like, it sounded terrible.
- [33:03]
David Litt
Covered in hot coals. At which point I was watching that, thinking, the Legos are gonna melt.
- [33:07]
Melissa Murray
The Legos. Well, the Lego. Well, I was also. You had me at Legos. Like, stepping out of Lego is, like, the worst thing ever.
- [33:12]
David Litt
Yes, I. I think that is the real issue here is the inability to choose between Legos or hot coals as the right metaphor. That's. That's. I think. I think we cracked it.
- [33:21]
Melissa Murray
Yeah, but this is. This is going nowhere. Like. Yeah, yeah.
- [33:25]
David Litt
No, the problem is, it's also. What I thought was really striking about that clip is the appeal to President Trump of saying, hey, your supporters are hurting.
- [33:32]
Melissa Murray
Yeah.
- [33:33]
David Litt
He's not just the president of his supporters. And so even in this moment, his own allies think the only way to appeal to this man is to act as though it's transactional. Right. As opposed to saying, you're the president of all of America. To say, nope, you're the president of your own little country. Just the people who supported you three times, which is a very small minority of Americans at that point.
- [33:52]
Melissa Murray
Yeah.
- [33:52]
David Litt
And so that's a symptom of the broader problem that the president is facing politically and we are all facing as Americans right now.
- [33:59]
Melissa Murray
All right, David Litt, thank you so much for joining us. Up next, backlash to Trump's attempt to censor the media. This time, it's coming from within the fcc. That's up next.
- [34:12]
David K. Johnston
Simone Sanders Townsend and I have known each other for more, more than a decade, tussling over politics and policy when she worked in the White House, and
- [34:19]
Molly John Fast
I reported on it, and now we're friends and colleagues, and on our podcast, Clock it, we are positioning ourselves at
- [34:26]
Melissa Murray
the intersection of culture and politics.
- [34:28]
David K. Johnston
Clock it is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news. So you can start to clock it, too.
- [34:35]
Thumbtack Announcer
Clock it with Simone and Eugene.
- [34:37]
Jimmy Kimmel
All episodes available now.
- [34:48]
Melissa Murray
As Donald Trump continues his attempts to silence his critics. One of his loudest critics, Jimmy Kimmel, received a prestigious Peabody Award last night. And while there were jokes, Kimmel used the bulk of his acceptance speech to defend the first Amendment. Take a listen.
- [35:07]
Jimmy Kimmel
We have the right guaranteed by the Constitution to criticize and satirize our leaders. This is a right that many of us take for granted. It's one that I took for granted for the first 57 years of my life, until September of last year when the FCC delivered a very unpleasant surprise. But then I experienced something that surprised me even more. I watched as millions of people, even some from across the aisle, objected. They refuse to allow our freedoms to be bulldozed. Like the East Wing of the White House, we will not stand by when comedy and journalism and dissent are censored and regulated and criminalized.
- [35:50]
Melissa Murray
Kimmel accepted that award amidst the ongoing clash between his network's parent company, Disney, and Trump's fcc. The feud began last September when Kimmel's show was briefly pulled from ABC's airwaves because Kimmel made a joke at the President's expense. ABC reinstated Kimmel after widespread public outcry over his ouster. But the President has continued to target the comedian and ABC and Disney ever since. The most recent battle is over the FCC's early review of Disney owned local broadcast licenses. Disney fired back in a filing to the agency accusing the FCC of, quote, an extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion presenting a threat to the First Amendment. FCC chair Brendan Carr maintains that the scrutiny on Disney is not about Kimmel, but rather is due to an unrelated investigation into the company's so called DEI policies.
- [36:54]
FCC Chair Brendan Carr
Disney has been embroiled in controversies for years now related to their DEI policies. There's reporting that suggests that Disney's leadership went all in on what could end up being invidious forms of DEI discrimination. There's no First Amendment right to hold a broadcast license.
- [37:14]
Melissa Murray
That kind of language was so alarming to the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, Anna Gomez, that she wrote a letter to Disney warning in part, 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. Joining me now is Commissioner Ana Gomez. Commissioner Gomez, what prompted you to speak out on this issue so publicly?
- [37:55]
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez
Well, I have been alarmed by this administration's attempts to control the media, to, to retaliate against anyone that criticizes the administration and to make sure that the press covers this administration in the way that it wants to. And it culminated in this action by the fcc, which is the most egregious assault on the First Amendment that it has taken, and believe me, it has taken many measures that are violative of First Amendment. So this pulling up of the broadcast licenses for renewal ahead of schedule for all of Disney's owned broadcast stations was clearly yet another step in this campaign to bring Disney to heel. And, you know, no one believes that this is about diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. And in fact, there is no rule that this FCC can point to that is that Disney is even possibly violating. That would mean that its broadcast licenses should be maybe not renewed. So it's clearly an attempt to harass Disney until it caves and it buckles and gives in to this administration and changes its own content to make this administration happy.
- [39:12]
Melissa Murray
No, it's a terrific point. There is actually no legal ruling saying that DEI efforts on behalf of private companies are unlawful. But my question for you is, what is the mood inside the fcc? Are you all alone in this fight, or do you have allies on the commission who are also committed to fighting censorship? Well, I.
- [39:31]
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez
There's only three commissioners right now. I'm the lone Democrat. And so right now, I am the lone voice that is speaking out. But that is the power of being a commissioner, is that I can, in fact, speak out. And I will continue to do so because I am alarmed about our First Amendment and this administration's attempts to change and to stop speech that it doesn't like.
- [39:55]
Melissa Murray
Chairman Carr was asked about your letter, and he had this to say, take a listen.
- [40:01]
FCC Chair Brendan Carr
We have a great relationship. Look, I've been a commissioner in the minority at the FCC during the Biden years. Obviously, I was not at all shy of expressing my views on what I thought the majority was doing there. I mean, that's sort of her job. It was my job. But I think at a personal level, we get along. We vote together, obviously, on almost every single item. We don't see eye to eye on this one, apparently, and that's perfectly fine. We should have, you know, robust debate in this country about these issues.
- [40:27]
Melissa Murray
Is this just about debate, though? I mean, this seems to be a debate between you and the chairman about the authority of the FCC to bring private companies to heel. But is that the crux of the First Amendment? I mean, we were supposed to have robust dissent, but the dissent is usually from the ground up, directed at the government when the people feel that the government has gone too far.
- [40:46]
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez
Yeah, I mean, protecting the freedom of the press is so important because the press are the ones that hold us in government accountable and make it very transparent to the public what actions the administration is taking. And what the government is doing. So it's very important that we respect the First Amendment. And this administration is not respecting the First Amendment. In fact, it is doing everything in its power to make sure that all broadcasters understand that if they do not make this administration happy, if they have any kind of coverage that's unfavorable to this administration, they will put them through the same paces that they are putting Disney. Luckily, we have Disney pushing back. Disney is, in fact pushing back very strongly. Its filings before the FCC has made have made it very clear that it is not going to back down. In fact, it is filing beautiful legal briefs in support of its First Amendment rights because it's clear that they will take this all the way to the end. If this commission attempts to take action against them because of the content of their programs, it will take them to court and it will win. And I'm very happy for that because we need for this example to be given not just because we need Disney to win, because it is a victim here, but because every broadcaster needs to understand that the First Amendment is worth protecting.
- [42:09]
Melissa Murray
Do you think that Disney stance will compel other companies who find themselves in the administration's crosshairs to stand up as well?
- [42:16]
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez
I believe that courage begets courage. Capitulation begets capitulation. But what we have seen is this administration, even if you capitulate to it, this administration doesn't stop. It keeps coming back and making more and more demands. And if we want to protect our democracy and if broadcasters want to protect their First Amendment rights, they need to push back. So, yes, I think it's a very important message. And what Disney is doing will ricochet, I think, across the industry because it is doing the right thing and it has the law and the First Amendment on its side.
- [42:45]
Melissa Murray
All right, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We will be right back on the other side of this break. We close tonight with a quick programming note. Tomorrow, voters head to the polls in six pivotal states including California. Rachel Maddow will lead special coverage with Allie Belshee at the big board breaking down those real time results. All of that special election coverage starts tomorrow at 10pm Eastern Time on MSNow. That does it for me. Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now.