← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Trump Threatens U.S. War Powers Against Denmark
00:51:30
In a newly released text message, President Trump cited being snubbed for the Nobel Peace Prize as part of the reason behind his unprecedented push to take Greenland. MS NOW's Ari Melber reports.
Loading summary
Transcript130 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national Red Tag sales event going on right now through January 25th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Tap your screen now or visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder the new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals with LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com Specialoffer terms apply.
- [01:03]
Ari Melber
Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melbourne. I wish you a good start to the week and a happy Martin Luther King Day. In this hour, we have a special look at Donald Trump's ongoing attacks on free speech. I'll be joined by Washington Post editor Marty Barron. We begin, though, with something that you don't usually think you'd be hearing about in this country or saying on the news. The president of the United States is threatening war or war actions against Europe. Specifically, Trump wants to take Greenland, something he's mused about before. Now he's dialing up the pressure. He says this is national security. But there's new text messages where Trump cites getting snubbed losing the Nobel Priest Prize, something that he thought he was in contention for. And his anger over that loss leads him to write to Norway's prime minister. Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace. This may be the first time in world history any leader has admitted that because they didn't get a peace prize, they're now threatening war, he's basically admitting a kind of personal invective for an international crisis. Although even if Trump's critics would look at this as a chance to beat up on him or say that he has no logic here, we also have to balance out the fact that in public and private correspondence, Donald Trump is often saying things that are untrue, sometimes knowingly false lies, other times just things that aren't true for a variety of reasons. So whether this is a kind of a taunt or a troll or something he threw out. There is up for diplomatic interpretation. But Trump is, as a factual matter, threatening Europe. He wants to potentially use war powers. He's already using tariffs. Lawmakers are pushing back.
- [02:53]
Marty Baron
There certainly is no authority that the president has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country.
- [03:03]
Ari Melber
America still is for democracy.
- [03:05]
Marty Baron
America still is for self determination of people, for sovereignty of other nations.
- [03:12]
Ari Melber
The only security threat to Greenland right now is the United States. The Danish people, frankly, are flipping out that their longest ally, America, is now threatening to invade part of their territory. This is a remarkable development. And while there are people who sometimes say that to understand Trump or to dismiss him and his antics, if you're a political ally, you have to allow a certain amount of chatter. We are well past the tweet and chatter zone. Trump says it's a national emergency. He recently invaded a sovereign country and extracted their president. Not with any great foundation, public support, authorization from Congress, or even a plan of what we were going to do down in Venezuela, but just because he chose to. And of course, any president of a major power, especially the United States, the number one power in the world, a nuclear power, could at any time do things like that against smaller countries. The fact that most presidents in both parties rarely or never do it in the modern era is telling. I say rarely because you can point to examples under Obama or Bush where they went in and did national security operations in sovereign territory. But very few people who have studied the history of the diplomacy see what Trump is doing in Greenland as having any precedent whatsoever. His own Treasury Secretary struggling to explain the tariffs. The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency that it it is a strategic decision by the President. This is a geopolitical decision.
- [04:48]
Jason Johnson
And he is able to use the.
- [04:50]
Ari Melber
Economic might of the US to avoid a hot war.
- [04:54]
Jason Johnson
So why wouldn't we do that?
- [04:59]
Ari Melber
Answering the question with a question. Right, that's one version of defending Trump. Sort of the idea that after Venezuela we need to go into Greenland is one of those things that is sort of beyond polling or discussion because it wasn't even on the table. Americans, who of course were promised the end to new wars and forever wars by Donald Trump, have not been thinking about starting any war with Europe. Even if we start with a smaller country like Denmark or Greenland that we think we can easily take. It's just not on the table. An NBA game that was played in London. Here's some reaction. Now, as with many issues Donald Trump related, you have this question of well, is this just wacko and bananas for some other purpose? Is there a world where this has some support? And because things are unfortunately so politicized, which we've talked about and addressed on this program, we've had people on from all sides of the debate. We try to go at the facts and the evidence. But listen to everyone. This is one where if you go and check what other independent conservative sources are saying, take Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, the Sister, out to Fox News, you will find a similar bafflement. There's just a question of how tough people sound with the sitting president or what they think might alienate him. But the bottom line idea of going into Greenland is nonsensical. Would be laughable if it weren't now part of U.S. policy. The Journal writes, For more than 75 years, the fondest dream of Russian strategy has been to divide Western Europe from the US and break the NATO alliance. That's now a possibility as Trump presses his campaign to capture Greenland no matter what the locals or its Denmark owner thinks. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board landing with much of the rest of the country saying this doesn't make sense. I am joined by Jason Johnson tonight, Morgan State University politics professor and msnow analyst, and Ruth Ben Ghiat, NYU history professor and the author of Of Strongmen Mussolini to the Present. Ruth, what do you see as the validity of this move on a scale of, you know, zero to 10? We're seeing a lot of folks say zero. It's not a risk reward. It has no particular validity. What do you rate it? And then what do you think's really going on with Trump and this plan?
- [07:45]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
Well, it has zero validity from a point of view of anybody other than an autocrat, a megalomaniac autocrat. But what's going on is Trump talked about trying to buy Greenland in 2019, and the then Secretary of State Pompeo went along with it, saying that global warming will liberate all these precious minerals and oil, undiscovered oil. So there's that. The other thing is that I believe that Trump is in office in part to solve Vladimir Putin's problems and creating a crisis for NATO and dividing NATO and having the US Go rogue in ways that are quite authoritarian. Who does it benefit? It benefits Putin. And the other thing is that unfortunately, autocrats can get into a state, I call this autocratic backf when they believe their own hype and they become convinced that nothing can restrain them. And Donald Trump recently gave an interview to the New York Times saying that he was restrained only by his own mind, which is not reassuring, and his own morality. And so he, yeah, he feels that he has a right to this.
- [09:04]
Ari Melber
Believing the hype, as you know, also violates one of Biggie's 10 crack commandments from Scarface. Never get high on your own supply. And when you cut off all facts and you live off propaganda, that, as you say, is at risk. Tell us a little bit more about the NATO or European vendetta. And then I want to bring Jason in, especially on the domestic politics of this, because you're reminding everyone that if Trump is doing something that makes no sense and also benefits Putin, maybe that's the only sense it needs to make. And for anyone who would rather believe that their president is only looking out for the US Low bar, but hoping for that, it almost can offend your sense of patriotism if you forget who's president, you just said to the average American, well, this only makes sense if you understand they're doing it for a foreign power's benefit, not yours. That would be pretty upsetting, right? You take out the red and the blue and you say, well, so walk us more through the details of that Russian part. And then, Jason, tell us what you're thinking tonight.
- [10:05]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
So one of the biggest deterrents to Putin and all bad actors has been NATO and the very powerful US Military, which has been stationed all over Europe, including in Greenland, and represents a huge power, a huge deterrent, and so you have to get rid of that. But really, psychologically, it can sound absurd, but Trump is very. He had almost a narcissistic ego injury when he did not get the Peace Prize. And he talked about it in many, many posts. And Machado of Venezuela gave him, but that didn't satisfy him. And so he actually wrote to the Norwegian prime minister saying that because he didn't get, as you said in the introduction, because he didn't get the Peace Prize, he feels no obligation to care about peace. And so when autocrats are denied something, they go into a kind of rage and they take it out both on their own people and in this case, on the continent of Europe by threatening economic warfare with the tariffs.
- [11:13]
Ari Melber
Hmm. Jason?
- [11:15]
Jason Johnson
Yeah, this is the thing, Ari. It only makes sense if you look at this internationally, but also it doesn't really make sense long term for the United States. I have spent a tremendous amount of today answering text messages and phone calls from friends and colleagues abroad, and I feel like I literally have to explain basic American policies. And I had a friend from England text me and say, don't you all still have checks and balances? How was he able to do this? And I had to say, the checks and balances on this kind of presidential communication and behavior have disappeared.
- [11:44]
Ari Melber
Right.
- [11:45]
Jason Johnson
In any sort of functional administration, even a previous Trump administration, someone would have said, hey, you can't send that message to the Prime Minister of Denmark. Somebody would have said, hey, you can't just buy another country. Russia actually has a greater claim on Ukraine than the United States has on Greenland. At least Russia can say, hey, there are some Russians there in Ukraine and they want to join us. Nobody in Denmark wants this. Nobody in Greenland wants this. It doesn't help us economically. And if these tariffs come through, the damaging impact on the United States heading into a midterm year, heading into the summer, will be absolutely catastrophic. There is no logic to this other than Donald Trump making Putin happy or everybody else just trying to appease.
- [12:26]
Ari Melber
Yeah. Jason Bessant basically says, you know, give it time, it's going to come our way on Europe. Take a look.
- [12:35]
Jason Johnson
The European leaders will come around and they will understand that they need to be under the US Security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the US Pulled its support out?
- [12:47]
Marty Baron
The whole thing would collapse.
- [12:50]
Ari Melber
Jason.
- [12:52]
Jason Johnson
Yeah, he's clueless. Okay. What has happened over the last several years is, you know, think of it as like the rich kid whose parents have been taking care of them for years and years. And the parent says, we're going to cut you off. And sudden, kid develops an app and becomes a millionaire. That's Europe right now. Europe has recognized, hey, you know what, we actually have a lot more weaponry than we thought. Actually, we can support Ukraine a lot better than we thought we could. So the idea that Europe would collapse without the United States support is just not realistic anymore. But more importantly, they see the acquisition of Denmark as an immediate threat to their own safety and security. The United States can't go head to head with Europe economically. They would damage us. All of our military bases would be taken over. National. I don't care if it's this base, German base, ace of base, doesn't matter. We can't support what we want to do abroad. If the Europeans were to shut down bases. So it is a foolish idea to think that they're going to come around. We are at least equal in this situation or they might actually have the upper hand.
- [13:50]
Ari Melber
Yeah. And Ruth, Rand Paul is also pushing back on Besson and he's of course in the same Republican Party as Trump. We're going to fit in a short break. And when we come back, I'm actually going to play this new Rand Paul sound, which cuts against the idea that nobody's ever pushing back. It's I guess take something this out there, but we're seeing that. So Jason and Ruth, stay with us. We'll be back in 90 seconds, including the Rand Paul pushback after this.
- [14:21]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
Please worry about that.
- [14:22]
Ari Melber
Trump is looking for this kind of.
- [14:24]
Graff
Pandemonium to go on like you just.
- [14:26]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
Described, so that he could declare martial law or something and also cancel the midterms.
- [14:34]
Ari Melber
Some of the concern that's out there. We're back with Jason and Ruth as promised. Ruth here was a Senator Rand Paul Republican pushing back. There's no emergency with Greenland. That's ridiculous. And the idea by the secretary that, oh, this is to prevent an emergency. Now we're declaring emergencies to prevent emergencies. That would be, that would lead to endless emergencies. And that's kind of where we are now, the tariff war. We've declared emergencies with 130 countries. Does anyone really believe that's a valid use of emergencies? Rand Paul knows the law and he's been at times a Trump defender to some degree, Ruth. But he's also at times been a libertarian who refers to how the system's supposed to be governed. And what Jason referenced earlier is this, this kind of decay of, of our checks and balances. I will say in fairness to Trump, whether we like it or not, there's been a series of presidents who have pushed boundaries on international power. And one of the problems with that is now any new president can take it even further. But in fairness to the Constitution, Ruth, Rand Paul's referring to a historical fact. No other president has, has abused the so called emergency power to say there's emergency in every country. I don't like that there's a tariff and there's an emergency here we're gonna do these other things and then there's an emergency. We're gonna put soldiers in the streets. You don't have to be alarmist to look at all this together and wonder whether it's a planned series of autocratic crises to then seize more power at home. How do you rate that concern? Ruth?
- [16:11]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
Yeah, I share that concern because declaring emergencies to prevent further emergencies is an autocratic specialty. And autocrats, whether it's in Turkey or historically in Chile, which had a State of Emergency 17 years, anytime there's protests or an election rival, they declare a state of emergency. And this is just one of the myriad ways that Trump is implementing the authoritarian playbook. But this is what is finally getting some GOP people to break the lockstep of loyalty. They stuck with him after he tried to overthrow the government, sending a mob after them on January 6. But this may be what causes them to wake up in the meantime. I'm also concerned because a Division 100 and, sorry, 1 1,500 troops have been activated, supposedly to go into perhaps Minnesota. But these are troops that are specialized in Arctic warfare. So I'm a little concerned about that.
- [17:21]
Ari Melber
Yeah. And we have that Post headline, Jason. And you know, I mentioned BIG earlier. This is big government, big government, which some conservatives and Republicans used to claim they were concerned about. Soldiers, massive government forces, permanent government in our city's streets and communities. You can go back all the way to the militia movements of the United States. I'm not at all making any excuses for their violence, but some of the nonviolent members of militias and other conservative groups said this is our big concern, that that the their doomsday, which was not occurring in the 90s, was that there could come a time where a president would be using militarized soldiers on a regular basis. Turns out they found the problem and it is them and it is the right wing conservative movement that Donald Trump now leads. Where does that fit into all this with abuse of power abroad and at home? Jason?
- [18:21]
Jason Johnson
Well, here's the thing, to paraphrase the great poet, you know, more government, more problems, right? You have expanded ice, you have expanded domestic military, you have found dozens of ways to implement law enforcement for the whims of the presidency as opposed to what people are concerned with. That's the real issue. But the thing is, everyone should have seen this, right? You have Don Bacon, I think, the Republican from Nebraska saying, well, if we invaded Greenland, that might make me lean towards impeachment. You didn't vote to impeach Donald Trump when he sent a mob to kill you in Congress. I don't really think that you're going to impeach him over what's going to happen in Greenland. So that's the larger issue we're seeing here, but also this. And I think this is a long term concern, like you said, for any future presidents. Now that we have Cash Patel, who thinks he rules everything around him and he can just send troops here and he can send troops to take his girlfriend home and his girlfriend friends home and everything else like that. Cash Patel running the FBI has got to be one of the most dangerous examples of this new authoritarianism because he's not qualified for the job, but he will implement the resources of the FBI to harass elected officials who are trying to follow the Constitution against Trump's whims.
- [19:26]
Ari Melber
Yeah, all fair points. And Ruth, careful listeners will notice Jason got in the biggie, quote, more money, more problems, a classic, but then came in and you really, you know, from downtown, a subtle Wu Tang Clan reference for those listening closely. So you know, Jason, next time I don't want to put Ruth on the spot. Next time you guys are on together, we can get her her bars, okay?
- [19:53]
Jason Johnson
Absolutely.
- [19:54]
Ari Melber
It's only fair. Jason and Ruth with a little bit of light, a little bit of fun, but obviously amid some very serious times. We really appreciate the reporting and analysis from both of you. So thank you. That was two segments there. I'm going to tell folks what's coming up. Marty Barron, who ran the Washington Post, really no more perfect guest to discuss the First Amendment right now. He's fair, he's nonpartisan, he's factual, he's here coming up. And the artists pushing back. Enter Springsteen by the end of the hour.
- [20:26]
Marty Baron
Foreign.
- [20:34]
Ari Melber
We are approaching the one year mark of Donald Trump's first term, I mean I should say first year of the second term tomorrow. And the First Amendment has been a big theme. His Justice Department just launched a criminal probe over free speech because of lawmakers. And the the mayor and the governor of Minnesota said things in public which they the DOJ says they can criminalize. And that includes just discussing current issues and the ICE policies with their constituents.
- [21:06]
Unnamed Guest (possibly a legal expert or commentator)
We have not received a subpoena. And at the same time, if the rumors are true, this is deeply concerning. There are other countries where you get put away for the things that you say. There are other countries where you get investigated for saying something that runs counter to what the federal government, states rights. But in this country, it's not that way. Here we have a freedom of speech and we do not negotiate those rights away.
- [21:33]
Ari Melber
No negotiating away free speech rights. We also just saw a judge who happens to have been appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan ruling against not only President Trump, but how other people in his cabinet engaged in a, quote, unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people and during deportations. In other words, targeting them for what they said or believed, not their actual legal status. And that infringes on the First Amendment rights in the United States. There are other ways that Trump is doing this beyond the classic idea of abusing government power to censor. That could be what we saw fail in the effort to get Jimmy Kimmel canceled or what I just told you about political operations that are being run through the doj to intimidate or even indict and imprison people for their free speech rights. But beyond that, we're seeing Trump also just dial up other activities that may not actually technically violate the First Amendment, because everyone does have a right to sue in this country. That's why we're seen as such a litigious society. But it is at least unusual, if not chilling to have a president so regularly suing so many different outlets and journalists, even when they are doing interviews with him and not breaking any civil, let alone criminal, law. This controversial interview over at CBS included a top Trump aide relaying quote that Trump said, don't cut the tape, meaning his view of how it should be edited. Make sure the interview is out in full. If it's not out, we will sue your blank off. That's from his press secretary relaying what, according to the Post and other observers, was Donald Trump's demands. Some later tried to minimize it as a joke, a defense we've heard before, but one that cuts less ice when Donald Trump has sued so many places, outlets, tech companies, journalists. And remember, in normal times, when outlets get a frivolous or totally baseless suit, they tend to fight it in court. Indeed, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are currently doing that against Trump cases. But we've seen other CEOs and I actually have more on this in a special show tomorrow night. But we've seen other CEOs and corporate leaders just fold immediately because they're not really looking at whether their company did anything legally wrong. They just want to get out from under the attacks and pay off Trump. Then you have more action from the doj, the FBI searching the home of Washington Post journalists, which again, can be legal, but is certainly unusual and aggressive. The agents took her phone, two laptops, a watch. One of the laptops noticeably was her personal computer, the other a work computer. And that's raised questions about whether going to use that rather extreme legal measure is the point itself, regardless of whether they actually needed the material or are using it to build a case. As mentioned, we have one of the really foremost guests in the nation you could have on these difficult topics. Veteran journalist Marty Barron was executive editor for the aforementioned Washington Post. Welcome back.
- [24:37]
Marty Baron
Thank you. Good to be here.
- [24:40]
Ari Melber
I mentioned several developments. So first, your reaction to those and the ongoing battles between how Donald Trump leads and what the free press and its audience should should be doing.
- [24:53]
Marty Baron
Well, I think as you articulated, we're seeing a broad attack on freedom of expression generally, not just freedom of the Press, although there's been a lot of attacks on that as well. But I think what you're see is attacks on comedians, attacks on politicians for speaking up, attacks on lawyers for representing their clients, you name it, across the board. And what you also have, as you alluded to, is that you have a lot of business executives who are simply afraid to speak up for fear of reprisals. Essentially, their free expression has been taken away as well because they know that if they do speak up and even advocate for the policies that they believe in, that they will suffer consequences for doing that if the proposals that they recommend run counter to the policies of the administration.
- [25:40]
Ari Melber
Have you ever seen it this bad on the government versus First Amendment in your career?
- [25:46]
Marty Baron
I never have. But going into the second term of Donald Trump, I expected the worst. But it turns out that the worst is worse than I expected.
- [25:59]
Ari Melber
When you look at the search of the home, reading from the New York Times, reporting about again the Post where you where you were exceedingly rare to search reporters home, they know there is a 1980 law that actually bars search warrants for reporters work materials unless the reporters themselves are suspected of committing a crime related to them. I'll mention Marty and you can opine on this. You know, some of our viewers know, many probably don't. I practiced First Amendment law before this job. When you represent journalists, you're representing their freedom to do their job. Obviously there are journalists somewhere who might have crashed a car, done drunk driving in their off time, just like a doctor could make a mistake and being investigated for that is fine. That law and other protections are designed not to give journalists some total immunity, but to make sure that the government isn't abusing investigative powers to retaliate against their journalism. How do you weigh that in the Post's case? Are you concerned about it and the Amazon elephant in the room? Do you think Jeff Bezos is in a position to stand up for these reporters the way other publishers have in the past? I'm not talking about ideology. I'm talking about this red line or not necessarily.
- [27:19]
Marty Baron
Well, I do think this is a very dangerous act on the part of the federal government. I think it signals that the Trump administration will put no limits whatsoever on its aggressions against the press. You know, Trump, way back in 2022, during a couple of rallies, he talked about wanting to put journalists in jail for publishing leaks of national security information. He said that then when they were incarcerated, they would meet their bride, as he put it, and that then they would be willing to divulge their secrets. So really suggesting that they should be subjected to sexual assault in prison as a forcing them to reveal their sources. This is an effort on the part of the administration to not only intimidate journalists, but to intimidate their sources. This administration is completely obsessed with leaks, particularly out of the Defense Department. The secretary of Defense, or as he likes to call himself, Secretary of War, is obsessed with leaks. And this action against the Washington Post reporter is in fact unprecedented. It's the first. Unprecedented. It's the first time that the government has raised a reporter's home as part of a national security investigation. And so I am very concerned about what they've done. You know, with respect to the owner, Jeff Bezos. Yes. I would like to see him speak up forcefully about this. He hasn't, I mean, the editor of the Washington Post, a successor of mine, put out a very good statement and I'm glad that he did. And I think that was reassuring. On the other hand, I think the statement that was put out by the publisher was tepid and timid. And I think the editorial page comments on this. Their editorial fell into that category as well. Very tepid, very timid, and by the way, very short. I actually searched the other day on ChatGPT for unusually short editorials in the Washington Post, and number one on the list was their own editorial about this subject. I think they should be much more forceful in confronting the administration about this. And I would love to see Jeff Bezos lead that, whether he can do that. He can do it, but I suspect that he's fearful of reprisals. Amazon has a lot of contracts with the federal government. Blue Origin, his space company, has contracts with the federal government and would like to have more. And so I think he would just like to stay out of the picture and avoid any direct confrontation with Donald Trump.
- [29:51]
Ari Melber
Yeah. And that raises the question whether people who have that view that the other interests or business comes first, whether their right to meet the moment in this time with these pressures on the First Amendment. I'm curious your answer to that, as well as the popularity of free speech, I've noticed in the last couple years very popular as a buzzword, not always getting the support from the public for the actual hard work of free speech. So I want to kind of give you a moment to reflect on both those questions. And we have more. Marty Barron, right after this break. Foreign. We are approaching the one year mark of Donald Trump's first term. I mean, I should say first year of the second term tomorrow. And the First Amendment has been a big theme. His Justice Department just launched a criminal probe over free speech because of lawmakers. And the the mayor and the governor of Minnesota said things in public which they the DOJ says they can criminalize. And that includes just discussing current issues and the ICE policies with their constituents.
- [31:04]
Unnamed Guest (possibly a legal expert or commentator)
We have not received a subpoena. And at the same time, if the rumors are true, this is deeply concerning. There are other countries where you get put away for the things that you say. There are other countries where you get investigated for saying something that runs counter to what the federal government, state states. But in this country, it's not that way. Here. We have a freedom of speech, and we do not negotiate those rights away.
- [31:31]
Ari Melber
No negotiating away free speech rights. We also just saw a judge who happens to have been appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan ruling against not only President Trump, but how other people in his cabinet engaged in a, quote, unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people during deportations. In other words, targeting them for what they said or believed, not their actual legal status. And that infringes on the First Amendment rights in the United States. There are other ways that Trump is doing this beyond the classic idea of abusing government power to censor. That could be what we saw fail in the effort to get Jimmy Kimmel canceled, or what I just told you about political operations that are being run through the DOJ to intimidate or even indict and imprison people for their free speech rights. But beyond that, we're seeing Trump also just dial up other activities that may not actually technically violate the First Amendment, because everyone does have a right to sue in this country. That's why we're seen as such a litigious society. But it is at least unusual, if not chilling, to have a president so regularly suing so many different outlets and journalists, even when they are doing interviews with him and not breaking any civil, let alone criminal, law. This controversial interview over at CBS included a top Trump aide relaying quote that Trump said, don't cut the tape, meaning his view of how it should be edited. Make sure the interview is out in full. If it's not out, we will sue your blank off. That's from his press secretary relaying what, according to the Post and other observers, was Donald Trump's demands. Some later tried to minimize it as a joke, a defense we've heard before, but one that cuts less ICE when Donald Trump has sued so many places, outlets, tech companies, journalists. And remember, in normal times, when outlets get a frivolous or totally baseless suit, they tend to fight it in court. Indeed, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are currently doing that against Trump cases. But we've seen other CEOs, and I actually have more on this in a special show tomorrow night. But we've seen other CEOs and corporate leaders just fold immediately because they're not really looking at whether their company did anything legally wrong. They just want to get out from under the attacks and pay off Trump. Then you have more action from the doj, the FBI searching the home of Washington Post journalists, which again, can be legal, but is certainly unusual and aggressive. The agents took her phone, two laptops, a watch. One of the laptops noticeably was her personal computer, the other a work computer. And that's raised questions about whether going to use that rather extreme legal measure is the point itself, regardless of whether they actually needed the material or are using it to build a case. As mentioned, we have one of the really foremost guests in the nation you could have on these difficult topics. Veteran journalist Marty Barron was executive editor for the aforementioned Washington Post. Welcome back.
- [34:35]
Marty Baron
Thank you. Good to be here.
- [34:38]
Ari Melber
I mentioned several developments. So first, your reaction to those and the ongoing battles between how Donald Trump leads and what the free press and its audience should, should be doing?
- [34:51]
Marty Baron
Well, I think as you articulated, we're seeing a broad attack on freedom of expression generally, not just freedom of the press, although there's been a lot of attacks on that as well. But I think what you're seeing is attacks on comedians, attacks on politicians for speaking up, attacks on lawyers for representing their clients, you name it, across the board. And what you also have, as you alluded to, is that you have a lot of business executives who are simply afraid to speak up for fear of reprisals. Essentially, their free expression has been taken away as well because they know that if they do speak up and even advocate for the policies that they believe in, that they will suffer consequences for doing that if the proposals that they recommend run counter to the policies of the administration.
- [35:38]
Ari Melber
Have you ever seen it this bad on the government versus First Amendment in your career?
- [35:44]
Marty Baron
I never have. But going into the second term of Donald Trump, I expected the worst. But it turns out that the worst is worse than I expected.
- [35:57]
Ari Melber
When you look at the search of the home, reading from the New York Times, reporting about again, the Post where you where you were exceedingly rare to search reporters home. They know there is a 1980 law that actually bars search warrants for reporters work materials unless the reporters themselves are suspected of committing a crime related to them. I'll mention Marty and You can opine on this. You know, some of our viewers know, many probably don't. I practiced First Amendment law before this job. When you represent journalists, you're representing their freedom to do their job. Obviously, there are journalists somewhere who might have crashed a car, done drunk driving in their off time, just like a doctor could make a mistake. And being investigated for that is fine. That law and other protections are designed not to give journalists some, you know, total immunity, but to make sure that the government isn't abusing investigative powers to retaliate against their journalism. How do you weigh that in the Post's case? Are you concerned about it and the Amazon elephant in the room? Do you think Jeff Bezos is in a position to stand up for these reporters the way other publishers have in the past? I'm not talking about ideology. I'm talking about this red line, or not necessarily.
- [37:17]
Marty Baron
Well, I do think this is a very dangerous act on the part of the federal government. I think it signals that the Trump administration will put no limits whatsoever on its aggressions against the press. You know, Trump, way back in 2022, during a couple of rallies, he talked about wanting to put journalists in jail for publishing leaks of national security information. He said that then when they were incarcerated, they would meet their bride, as he put it, and that then they would be willing to divulge their secrets. So really suggesting that they should be subjected to sexual assault in prison as a. Forcing them to reveal their sources. This is an effort on the part of the administration to not only intimidate journalists, but to intimidate their sources. This administration is completely obsessed with leaks, particularly out of the Defense Department. The Secretary of Defense, or as he likes to call himself, Secretary of War, is obsessed with leaks. And this action against the Washington Post reporter is, in fact, unprecedented. It's the first unprecedented. It's the first time that the government has raised. Raided a reporter's home as part of a national security investigation. And so I am very concerned about what they've done. You know, with respect to the owner, Jeff Bezos, yes, I would like to see him speak up forcefully about this. He hasn't. I mean, the editor of the Washington Post, a successor of mine, put out a very good statement, and I'm glad that he did. And I think that was reassuring. On the other hand, I think the statement that was put out by the publisher was tepid and. And timid. And I think the editorial page comments on this. Their editorial fell into that category as well. Very tepid, very timid, and, by the way, very short. I actually searched the other day on ChatGPT for unusually short editorials in the Washington Post, and number one on the list was their own editorial about this subject. I think they should be much more forceful in confronting the administration about this. And I would love to see Jeff Bezos lead that, whether he can do that, that he can do it. But I suspect that he's fearful of reprisals. Amazon has a lot of contracts with the federal government. Blue Origin, his space company, has contracts with the federal government and would like to have more. And so I think he would just like to stay out of the picture and avoid any direct confrontation with Donald Trump.
- [39:49]
Ari Melber
Yeah. And that raised the question whether people who have that view that the other interests or business comes first, whether their right to meet the moment in this time with these pressures on the First Amendment. I'm curious your answer to that, as well as the popularity of free speech. I've noticed in the last couple years very popular as a buzzword, not always getting the support from the public for the actual hard work of free speech. So I want to kind of give you a moment to reflect on both those questions. And we have more. Marty Barron right after this break.
- [40:22]
Marty Baron
Foreign.
- [40:29]
Ari Melber
We're back with veteran journalist Marty Barron, who ran the Washington Post as executive editor, including during Bezos's previous tenure in the the earlier first term period. Marty, we'd been discussing this, and I asked about the type of people who are owning these, these publishing houses and whether they're the right, right fit. We all get that some people just want to maximize, you know, quarterly returns and stock price. Then maybe they're not the ideal steward of a publication if we care about civics. And then I also asked you about the popularity of free speech. So I hand you the floor on, on one or both of those.
- [41:06]
Marty Baron
Well, I don't think at the Washington Post they're maximizing profits at the moment. To tell you the truth, quite the opposite. I think they're struggling a bit in that regard. Nonetheless. I mean, I do think.
- [41:16]
Ari Melber
Let me, I'll let you finish. I'll let you finish this. I may have been unclear. I just mean if an owner only cares about profits at other companies and satisfying the government for that reason. But go ahead.
- [41:26]
Marty Baron
Yeah, look, I mean, I think ownership is a point of vulnerability, particularly owners who have other interests and interests that depend on the federal governments, you know, giving them contracts. That is true of Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post. The networks, for example, are owned by companies that are dependent upon the federal government for Approval of mergers, the like. And the Trump administration and the president himself has used that power as leverage to achieve what he wanted. Settlement of lawsuits, things of that sort, changes in management, changes in news direction, all of that. He has used the power of the presidency to achieve the kinds of changes in media that he would like to see. On the other hand, there's still a lot of great journalism taking place. And at the Washington Post, the very fact that their reporter's house was raided is a sign of the kind of really good work that the news department at that news organization is doing. And I commend them for that. They are trying to hold this administration to account and working very vigorously to do so. With regard to the First Amendment. And yes, I think that there has been a, look, there's been a decline in support for democracy overall. I think what people don't recognize is that the First Amendment is not a protection just for the press, it's a protection for everybody. The right to speak with your neighbors without fear of surveillance and of reprisals. The right of business executives to speak up for the policies that they believe in. The right of a comedian to make jokes. The right of individuals to read the publications that they would like to read and to listen to the programs they would like to listen to. This cuts across all of a society and it's absolutely fundamental to a democracy and frankly to human dignity and human autonomy. And so, and we need that in order to have an exchange of ideas, a debate over policy. That's what you need in order to make human progress. And so when that is restricted, when you have a government that is trying to crush that, you not only crush the very pillars of democracy, but you eliminate the elements that are necessary for a well functioning society.
- [43:41]
Ari Melber
Yeah, yeah. All really important points, which is why we set aside time for this today. Marty Baron, thank you so much.
- [43:49]
Marty Baron
Thank you.
- [43:50]
Ari Melber
Appreciate it. Springsteen using his voice and platform, speaking of free speech, to speak out specifically against ice. You're going to see that coming up.
- [44:03]
Graff
Home to the Rachel Maddow Show. Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Sarah and more voices you know and trust, Ms. now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now.
- [44:24]
Ari Melber
Bruce Springsteen speaking out against ice as well as the unfolding crisis led by the federal government in Minnesota. Here's what he said.
- [44:34]
Jason Johnson
We stand against heavily armed mass federal troops invading an American.
- [44:44]
Marty Baron
Using a Stalin tactics against our fellow citizens.
- [44:49]
Ari Melber
If you believe you don't deserve to.
- [44:52]
Marty Baron
Be murdered for exercising your American right to protest.
- [45:00]
Ari Melber
I send a message to.
- [45:03]
Jason Johnson
This president and as the mayor of.
- [45:05]
Marty Baron
That city has said, ice, just get the out of Minneapolis.
- [45:15]
Ari Melber
For you. Springsteen speaking out about that American right to protest and what he calls Donald Trump's Gestapo tactics, quote, unquote by ice. There's a lot of different pushback out there if you listen. Now, I'm going to fit in a break. When we come back, we have Melissa Murray here for something special next.
- [45:40]
Jason Johnson
The.
- [45:40]
Ari Melber
US Military deployed on the streets of America.
- [45:43]
Commercial Announcer
Whole communities targeted for removal.
- [45:46]
Jason Johnson
And when accountability finally came knocking, the.
- [45:48]
Ari Melber
Burn order to cover it all up. Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. A lot going on, but there's still time to fall back. And tonight we have two very special guests. You know Professor Murray, NYU Law, also co host the Strict Scrutiny podcast and is the author of several books on abortion rights and Trump indictments. Also joining us making a return to the beat is Graff, longtime rapper out of Queensland. Watch a video of his new song with Joyner Lucas, Big League. He has a new album dropping soon featuring other artists we know like Busta Rhymes on Spotify. Over a quarter million monthly listeners and growing. Great to have you both. Good evening.
- [46:32]
Graff
How are you guys doing?
- [46:33]
Ari Melber
Good, good, good. Real New York fallback here. Yes, super, super. You're home court, so you can go first.
- [46:41]
Ruth Ben Ghiat
All right.
- [46:41]
Graff
So my fallback something that I want to see go away in 2026 is early decision in college admission, which is.
- [46:48]
Ari Melber
Something a lot of parents think about.
- [46:50]
Graff
I am parents. I have teenagers and they're getting ready to apply to college. And early decision is the absolute worst. So the idea behind early decision is that you pick a college and you basically commit to this college early in the process. So you never get to see which colleges you might get into. You basically pick one and if they say yes to you, that's where you're going. Like some of them are less restrictive than others, but some of them are really binding. And it's like a contract.
- [47:15]
Ari Melber
You're given a promise ring before you met everyone.
- [47:18]
Graff
Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
- [47:21]
Ari Melber
And why are the colleges into it since you're at one?
- [47:24]
Graff
Well, so if you're a college, this makes a lot of sense for you because you can basically manage your yield and that helps with your selectivity. So that's important. You can also basically lock in who your entering class is, is going to be or at least a big portion of that entering class. And here's the thing, and this is why I think it's especially problematic for a lot of kids. College is going to be a huge investment. Maybe the first big investment they make, they need to make a choice and know what all of the options are. If you do early decision, you're kind of locked in and you really can't get out of it. If it's a restrictive early situation, early decision situation, and they don't have to give you all of the financial aid that you need, they make a decision about what financial aid you require. And if they give it to you, even if it's not quite enough or it's not something that you think you're comfortable with, you're kind of still locked in.
- [48:06]
Ari Melber
What's on your fallback list graph?
- [48:08]
Melissa Murray
My fallback list is the misuse of AI. I think that AI is a great tool if it's used properly. Like some people be like, oh, I'm afraid of AI is taking jobs. No, you will never lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. That's number one. But two, I don't like the fact that it could affect our reality. Like some things I see online that look so real, I don't know what to believe or not believe. Like the other day I saw one, one, one officer, like, chastising an ICE agent. And I liked the way he was checking them. So I was gonna make a comment in a positive way. Somebody was like, oh, this is fake, this is AI. I was like, oh, damn. So I think the AI clips that look too real, I think by law they should be like, labeled. So we can't get fooled because it's mismanagement.
- [48:54]
Ari Melber
Yeah. And you mentioned by law. It's interesting, we had a Professor Yuval Harari in here who's an AI expert, and he had the same view as you that things that matter can't just be fraudulent and then have everyone go on and not be harmed. So we're a very capitalist society. You can't get away doing AI money, you see. Right. They come at you real quick for that. Right. But when it comes to our civic life or the things we're discussing, if it makes money for these corporations, then there doesn't seem to be any law or any protection for us. And we're actually the people being potentially taken advantage of.
- [49:27]
Melissa Murray
We're being damaged. We already have too much access to too much information as it is. So to sift through that and figure out what information is accurate. We had a hard enough time before AI.
- [49:37]
Ari Melber
Yeah.
- [49:37]
Melissa Murray
Now I can't even tell what's real or fake.
- [49:38]
Ari Melber
Yeah, I mean, it reminds me, professor of a bar. I'm sure you've thought of before, which is when Hov said about fake watches, he said, if I ever moved like you, it would be mockingly. Some of y' all spend real money on fake watches. Shockingly, it's true. All right, and speaking of music, let.
- [50:01]
Melissa Murray
Me add this real quick with AI and music, now that they're like. They're like, signing artists that, like, digital artists that don't.
- [50:08]
Ari Melber
Yeah, we've seen that space. And it's like, who are you? What are you signing?
- [50:11]
Melissa Murray
And why this is harmful because it's soulless. I think music is about, like, connection and. And creating real emotion. Like, we don't need music created by a machine or computer. Like, why?
- [50:25]
Ari Melber
Respect.
- [50:25]
Melissa Murray
There's a need to exist.
- [50:26]
Ari Melber
Respect. So I. I have some big local beat news, which is we have a bonus round in fallback. Ooh, and. And you're doing it.
- [50:35]
Melissa Murray
Cha Ching.
- [50:36]
Graff
All right, so another fallback in 2026. I think we need to fall back on manspreading on public transportation.
- [50:43]
Ari Melber
Explain it, and then explain what's wrong with it.
- [50:45]
Graff
I think you know what I'm talking about.
- [50:46]
Ari Melber
I do. But not everyone rides the subway.
- [50:48]
Marty Baron
We'.
- [50:49]
Ari Melber
Melissa. Not just New York.
- [50:50]
Graff
It doesn't have to happen on public transportation. Could honestly happen in any public space. But it is. An individual doesn't have to be a man. Although sometimes it is men who are just spread out and occupying a whole lot of space. And space is usually at a premium. So you could narrow the aperture a little bit and allow a couple of other people to sit on that bench with you. But that's something that I. It just drives me crazy. Especially on the subway right now in New York, when it's cold, everyone's all bundled up, There are all these coats. There's not enough space, and people are just sprawled.
- [51:20]
Ari Melber
I see it on the subway. I saw it on the C train recently. And it also goes to something that can go either way in a big city. You know, I love New York City. I moved here. You meet so many people from so many places, but when it's working, it's like we have what I consider civic respect for each other. There's a social contact, but when it breaks down, it's like everyone's just going for theirs.
- [51:41]
Graff
Yeah.
- [51:42]
Ari Melber
Yeah.
- [51:43]
Graff
And to be clear, sometimes manspreading can lead to good outcomes. Like, I met my husband when he was manspreading on a bench on the first day of law school, when I came up to him and I said, could you close your legs? So three or four of us could join you on this bench. And he was, like, immediately smitten. So sometimes it works, but most of the time it doesn't.
- [52:00]
Ari Melber
You being blunt or dread.
- [52:01]
Graff
Well, I mean, I don't think anyone had ever talked to him that way before, but now that I found my manspreader, I don't need another one.
- [52:07]
Marty Baron
You have one. And done.
- [52:09]
Graff
I'm one and done.
- [52:10]
Ari Melber
And as we close out in fashion, what do you think of the professor? She's bringing a much more streetwear energy tonight with the hoodie under the blazer. What do you think of it? Because you have style yourself, right?
- [52:21]
Melissa Murray
New York City. I'm into it.
- [52:23]
Graff
Well, I'm gonna. It's actually zip on and off.
- [52:26]
Ari Melber
Hey, wait, that's one item together.
- [52:29]
Graff
Item like this is.
- [52:30]
Ari Melber
It's.
- [52:31]
Graff
Yeah, it's like you can see.
- [52:32]
Ari Melber
And why is that? I guess, is it ready for all weathers? Well, you can. Why is that?
- [52:36]
Graff
It's made by this. These two women who wanted to make a blazer where you could layer things but not have it be bulky. And so you can zip these different. They're called dickies. And you can zip them in and out. Don't fall back on this.
- [52:49]
Ari Melber
Yeah, yeah. Looks good.
- [52:50]
Marty Baron
Neat.
- [52:51]
Ari Melber
We covered a lot of ground. This is a fallback for 2026. Our thanks to Melissa and Graff. A wonderful way to wrap it up. That does it for us. Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at Ms. Now.