← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
'Big, brutal setback': How GOP infighting sent Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' off the rails
00:32:39
The budget bill Donald Trump was hoping to come home to following his trip to the Middle East has not come to fruition and the longer it takes to work out, the more skittish Republicans will be about attaching their name to a bill that is so full of unpopular policies with an election on the horizon.
Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:01]
Rachel Maddow
Today, Donald Trump was on his way back from his big trip to the Middle East. And after several days where he was definitely showered with lavish gifts and a whole lot of praise from foreign leaders, he's coming back to quite a mess here at home. I mean, he got a big smackdown from the supreme court today. Former U.S. attorney for the Southern District Preet Bharara is going to join me here in a minute to talk all about that. Trump's big beautiful bill, as he called it, also had a major setback today in Congress. The ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, who was in the room for all that drama, will also join me here a little bit later. But before all that happened, before he had kind of a downer, a pretty big downer, I should say, of a Friday. Donald Trump started the day in his comfort zone, watching Fox News on his plane. At least that's what we think happened, because early this morning, the president's social media feed started lighting up with live and almost constant commentary about some of the pressing issues Fox News was covering this morning. I mean, earlier this morning, Fox ran this segment about human remains found near Taylor Swift's New England estate. Around that same time, Trump posted to his social media feed this has anyone noticed that since I said I hate Taylor Swift, she's no longer hot question mark, which is a key, pivotal part of this. Why is there a question mark now? Taylor is obviously still hot by basically any metric. I think anyone would agree to that. And more importantly, that's an insane thing for the President of the United States to ask the American public. See the key question mark there Also, what is he even trying to say there? I mean, it's a Friday, so I mean, if you read it literally, does he think his words somehow put a curse on Taylor Swift that changed her level of hotness? Maybe he does. Who knows? But apparently that wasn't even the only Fox News segment Trump was watching this morning, because later in the morning there was one about Bruce Springsteen criticizing Trump during his UK tour, which appeared to prompt yet another missive from America's pageant judge in chief, who posted a long unhinged screed, you can see it on the screen there about Springsteen. Trump called him a dried out prune of a rocker and said his skin is all atrophied. Now, I'm not sure, just as a side note, that word means what he thinks it means, but there it is. And not for nothing, but have you seen the guy over my shoulder lately? I mean, honestly, Trump did manage to focus on work just long Enough to send another post imploring Republicans in Congress to unite behind his one big, beautiful bill, which is shorter, I believe, in words than the one about Bruce Springsteen. But that aside. Now here's the thing, though. If he was still watching Fox News a couple of hours later, and we don't know because he didn't tweet about it, then he would have seen this.
- [02:49]
Preet Bharara
So we have some breaking news. The Budget Committee on the Hill in the House failed to report the big, beautiful bill out favorably. The vote was 16 to 21.
- [03:01]
Rachel Maddow
Chef's Kiss, by the way, on Kelly being the one to deliver that piece of news. But she's right, because Trump's big, beautiful bill filled a key committee vote after four Republicans voted against it, with a fifth Republican switching his vote to no at the last minute as this procedural maneuver so that Republicans can bring it up again. So it turns out it takes, though, more than just an errant tweet during celebrity gossip hour to keep your caucus in line. That's one thing maybe Trump learned today. I mean, remember, he can only afford to lose three Republican votes in the entire House if he wants to pass this bill, just three. And today he lost four votes in just one committee. And there are even more House Republicans saying they cannot get behind this bill. As it stands now, a number of the things Trump wants to do in that big, beautiful bill are super unpopular. That's probably one of the big factors here. Most Americans don't want to extend tax cuts for rich people. In fact, a Pew poll from earlier this year found that Americans actually support raising taxes on the rich by an 18 point margin. And Republicans plan to pay for those tax cuts, remember, with cuts to Medicaid. And that poll's even worse. A recent Kaiser Family foundation poll found Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid by a 52 point margin. All of that makes this a really tough pill to swallow for any Republican who's remotely in a swing district. And on the other side of it is hardline Republicans, like the ones who voted no today because they want Trump's bill to go even further. Some of them are even trying to do damage control on that first front by spinning their Medicaid cuts as reforms, as they're calling it. But their message discipline has been, well, not exactly disciplined.
- [04:39]
Jordan Klepper
And then you can look at Medicaid cuts.
- [04:41]
Rachel Maddow
Medicaid reforms, I should say. Did I say cuts? I meant reforms. That's what we'll call them. We're going to reform down a whole forest of Medicaid. Just you wait. It's going to be great. Even if Trump somehow manages to force this bill through the House, he's facing the exact same problems in the Senate, where Republicans are already declaring this bill dead on arrival for the same diametrically opposed reasons. Right. Moderates and ones on the right who want more. Take, for instance, Republican Senator Ron Johnson. You can see him right there. Who says the cuts in this bill don't go far enough.
- [05:18]
Preet Bharara
I refuse to vote for something that's going to actually increase the deficits. Decisions were made to do one big, beautiful bill.
- [05:25]
Rachel Maddow
It's not beautiful. I'm sorry, it's not a big, beautiful bill. Just to go back to the earlier posts from Trump, for those of you at Homekeeping score. I mean, Taylor Swift still beautiful. Trump's big bill, not so much, according to Ron Johnson. But while senators like Ron Johnson want deeper cuts, other Republicans are already tugging at their colors over how these already deep cuts will affect their constituents. Of course they are like Senator Josh Hawley, who represents a state, by the way, where more than one in six people is currently on Medicaid or its equivalent program for kids.
- [05:57]
Preet Bharara
Well, I'm not going to support this bill from the House in this forum. I think that's clear. It's got to change before it can pass the Senate. And I continue to stand by my line in the sand, which is no Medicaid benefit cuts.
- [06:09]
Rachel Maddow
It really doesn't seem like it's going to be easy to resolve all of this in the House or Senate to state perhaps the complete obvious. And keep in mind this, Trump is kind of running out of time because it's almost June and at some point, vulnerable Republicans will start gearing up for next year's campaigns. I'm not talking about tomorrow. The but he doesn't have years here. And when they start gearing up for the campaigns, it becomes harder for them to stick their necks out for something this unpopular and harder for anyone to get them to. I mean, for what it's worth, this is why presidents always push big legislation in the very first month or two. By this point in the Biden administration, he had already. We were already two months past the signing of President Biden's first major legislative accomplishment, the American Rescue plan. And by the end of that first year, President Biden had already signed two major pieces of legislation, with a third very close and on its way. Now, by this point in the Obama administration, we were nearly three months past the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Trump is, to put it mildly, running a little bit behind and while his narrow majorities in the House and Senate appear to be letting him down, maybe the bill's letting him down or them down. His supermajority on the Supreme Court does not appear poised to throw him a lifeline either. I mean, today the Supreme Court struck a big blow to Trump's radical deportation agenda, ruling against the Trump administration seven to two. In those seven were three of Trump's hand picked nominees that he nominated and got confirmed. They all ruled against him. Now, to understand what happened at the court today, we also have to go back to just last month when the Trump administration suddenly told more than 50 Venezuelan immigrants that they would be deported within 24 hours, presumably to that notorious prison in El Salvador. At least one of those men says he was told to sign removal papers written in English, which he could not understand since he only speaks Spanish. Now, you may remember this dramatic footage from an NBC News crew literally following a bus full of detained men headed toward the airport before turning around at the last second. That was because the ACLU rushed to court to stop those deportations. And they managed to get the Supreme Court to issue an emergency order in the dead of night halting those deportations until they could weigh in on the case. Justice Samuel Alito dissented that opinion, blasting his colleagues for issuing the ruling, quote, literally in the middle of the night. I mean, I guess he was cranky. Someone disturbed his beauty sleep to keep more than 50 men from being sent to a foreign gulag for life. There is that. Since then, the justices have apparently gotten some rest, and today they have decided that the Trump administration cannot simply deport these men without giving them adequate time to go before a court and plead their case. You know, that little thing called due process? The justices wrote in their majority opinion today, quote, under these circumstances, notice, roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rates, surely does not pass muster now. For months now, the Trump administration has been losing court case after court case after court case over their attempts to carry out some version of Stephen Miller's fever dream of deporting millions of people with no due process. Just today, another judge grew noticeably frustrated with the Trump administration as they continued to drag their feet on returning Kilmara Brego Garcia. While members of the public also are angry, they rallied outside the court to express their frustration as well. You can see it there. That comes after big protests in places like Boston yesterday over Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. And these protests in Milwaukee over Trump's criminal prosecution of a judge who was charged with helping a man evade ICE agents. Or these protests you can see right there on your screen outside an ICE office in San Jose. Judges and the American public are definitely keeping the pressure on the administration. And with the rest of his agenda now in a bit of peril, Trump's strongman tactics are starting to look weaker and weaker. They're definitely not working late. Today, in response to the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump once again took to social media to complain that, quote, the Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Poor you. That's all he could muster, a whiny complaint on social media. Beal's kind of, dare I say, low energy. Or to put this in terms Trump might understand. Has anyone noticed that since his second term began, things aren't looking so hot? Preet Bharara is the former U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. My guess is he has lots of thoughts about everything that happened today. And he joins me in just 90 seconds. Joining me now, as promised, to discuss the Trump administration's latest legal setback at the Supreme Court and all the other legal news percolating that we can get to is former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara. Preet, thank you so much for being here on a Friday night. I appreciate it.
- [11:15]
Preet Bharara
Thanks for having me. Thank you.
- [11:16]
Rachel Maddow
Let me start. Thank you. Let me start by just asking you. I mean, anytime. The super conservative court rules 7 to 2 against Trump. It's notable. But what stands out to you most about the ruling and kind of, where does it go from here?
- [11:33]
Preet Bharara
So I thought I had been booked tonight to spend the entire segment to defend the honor and integrity of Bruce Springsteen.
- [11:41]
Rachel Maddow
You can do that, too, I guess.
- [11:42]
Preet Bharara
That's not the case.
- [11:42]
Rachel Maddow
It's a Friday night. Ubu.
- [11:45]
Preet Bharara
We can do that another time. We can do that another time. He is, you know, like the Constitution, all enduring anyway. He can defend himself. Look, I think it's important what you said in the, in the opening segment about the makeup of the Supreme Court. And just to reiterate that and remind people for a moment, you'd be hard pressed to design a more conservative Supreme Court. You'd be hard pressed to put together a group of individuals who are more pliant to the conservative view. It'd be really difficult to put together a Supreme Court that is more warm and welcoming to the idea of expansive executive power. This is the Supreme Court. These nine personnel in a divided opinion are the ones who gave a massive amount of immunity to a President of the United States in a case involving this man, this President of the United States himself. So it's not a small thing when they decide to say, basically, literally, not so fast, right, they are open to and approving of executive power. But even this Supreme Court, lopsided as it is on the conservative side, said there are certain things like due process and constitutional principles that trump policy preferences. And what's interesting to me also is, you know, with respect to anything that the Trump administration does, you could maybe make some out, some defense out about it. But if you take the things together and you understand that what they're trying to accomplish is a program of intimidation of various branches of government, of other institutions of American, you know, public life, and that they all work together, you understand that they are not to be given the benefit of the doubt. And the Supreme Court is the same way. You mentioned the other case of Grego Garcia, the person who has basically disappeared to El Salvador. The court says in deciding that, look, due process is the most important thing, and 24 hours notice is not sufficient before you deport someone without having some kind of a hearing to a foreign country. One of the reasons they say that's true is basically we're onto your mo. Your mo, this administration's MO is in the Abrego Garcia case, to quickly and hastily send someone somewhere else. And then when someone tries to undo that because there was not due process, they say, oops, now you don't have jurisdiction. So it's literally the thing that they did in another case. The Supreme Court is saying, in this case, essentially, we don't give you the benefit of the doubt. So I think that's very significant. And I think the Trump administration has hurt themselves in their overall program by playing fast and loose, literally fast and loose in other cases as well.
- [14:32]
Rachel Maddow
The justices today, if I read this correctly, I'm not a lawyer, but they didn't rule on the broader question of whether migrants can be legally deported under the Alien Enemies act, and they kicked it down to a federal appeals court, which I'm sure you have thoughts on the reasoning of that, but it seems like we're also not going to get a resolution at the heart of this for some time, is that right?
- [14:53]
Preet Bharara
That's correct. And so what they've done is they've upheld a status quo in which there are going to be no deportations until the lower court decides and gives substance to the principle that they elucidated today and emphasized today, which is due process and sufficient notice is required to anyone who's being deported. They cite a line of cases going back 100 years and more that you can't just send someone back to another country unless there's some kind of hearing. It doesn't have to be a full blown trial, but some kind of hearing. But they left it to the lower court to decide what period of time is appropriate. But 24, they've said. 24 hours, they've said is not sufficient. So, you know, the whole program to mass deport people on this basis and under this statute at least is paused indefinitely.
- [15:49]
Rachel Maddow
While you're here, I got to ask you about a predecessor of yours at sdny. It's not Bruce Springsteen, as you know. It's James Comey, of course, who in the last 24 hours, it's been a bit of a whirlwind. I mean, he's currently being investigated by the Trump administration for posting on social media an image of seashells. Everybody's seen it. I'm sure we have it on the screen there with the numbers 8647. 86 is, of course, a slang term that means get rid of. But Trump and many of his supporters are calling it an assassination threat, as I'm sure you've seen. I'm sure everybody's seen. And just in the last half hour, Kristi Noem confirmed he was interviewed by the Secret Service. There's a whole lot to unpack here, but I guess what is your reaction to this entire episode?
- [16:35]
Preet Bharara
So let me begin by saying one needs to be very careful how one talks about the president of the United States, whether you like the president or you don't. I was a prosecutor for a long time and ran that prosecutor's office for a long time. And the Secret Service has very little tolerance for and a low threshold for investigating even seemingly ambiguous comments that might threaten the life of the president. And certainly people need to be very mindful of that and give a wide berth with respect to comments you might make, particularly in light of the fact that this president has been a victim of and a target of an assassination attempt. So, you know, people should know better and be exceedingly careful. I will also say that I know Jim Comey very well. People have a lot of different opinions about him, and he may be many things, but he's not an advocate of violence. He's never advocated for violence. I don't think anybody thinks he does. He's also not a stupid man. So he would not put on a social media platform for the world to see something that People have interpreted in the way that they've interpreted, but it's a serious thing. It was a mistake. It was stupid. I'm sure he's the first to admit that it was stupid. He essentially conceded that by taking down the post because of the way it was interpreted. On the other hand, I will say for the Trump administration and people who are high ranking members of the Trump administration to decide that this person using ambiguous language like 86, which has a different, you know, connotation and casual use, which, by the way, has been used and was used a number of times by supporters of Donald Trump, the term 86 with respect to Joe Biden, and to have the DNI, the director of National Intelligence, Tilsi Gabbard, I thought I saw her today, say, on the strength of this ambiguous social media post, this person who has never advocated for political violence in any way, shape or form is guilty as charged before any investigation has happened, any charge, any trial, and literally said on television today that he should go to prison. That's a bit rich. When at the same time, this administration led by a president who, among other things, has forgiven and pardoned people who engage in actual violence, actual rioting, actual harm, and physical attacks on police officers, you know, they should maybe take a seat with respect to this.
- [19:07]
Rachel Maddow
I think that's well stated. Preet Pereira, thank you so much. I always love talking to you. And coming up, Donald Trump's big, beautiful bill fails the easiest part of the test. I started the show talking about it, and we're going to talk to the top Democrat on the committee about what all went down today. He joins me next. So yesterday, Donald Trump gave a speech to active duty troops at a US Military base in Qatar. But before Trump himself took the stage, he had quite the opening act.
- [19:48]
Jordan Klepper
You guys know this guy from the Joe Rogan experience? He has his own podcast this past weekend. Ladies and gentlemen, make some noise for Theo Vaughn.
- [20:01]
Rachel Maddow
So this is Theo Vaughn. He's a comedian and a podcaster and part of what has become known as the manosphere, the world of male influencers, known kind of for its sort of crude, anything goes style of content.
- [20:16]
Jordan Klepper
Somebody put some cocaine on the baby's back, right? I didn't do it. Richard says I did it. And it wasn't a lot of cocaine. It was just a reg. It was like, you know, it didn't weigh the baby down.
- [20:28]
Preet Bharara
Okay.
- [20:28]
Jordan Klepper
And it was a mixed baby, so you could see the cocaine, right? Yeah. I'm not doing white dust off a white child's bag. All right, what else can we talk about, oh, where do you think the next 911 should happen? Right.
- [20:49]
Rachel Maddow
Okay. So minutes after that, Trump walked out. I mean, that was his opener. Trump even complimented Mr. Vaughn on his set. Let's just imagine for a moment that Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, anyone, any president did that. But I guess they really connected when Trump was a guest on Theo Vaughan's podcast last year, one of many manosphere podcasts Trump appeared on during the lead up to the election. Now, at the time, a lot of those appearances felt pretty strange for a politician.
- [21:21]
Theo Vaughn
There are unidentified aerial phenomena in the sky. We don't know what they are.
- [21:25]
Preet Bharara
Do you what is happening with the whales? I've read about this. Well, they say that the wind drives them crazy. You know, it's a vibration. Barron is 18. He's handsome, he's tall, he's rich, he's got the whole unleashed in New York City. Are you sure you want to reverse Roe v. Wade now?
- [21:45]
Rachel Maddow
I mean, the whales. So much to say, but could you imagine if that was Joe Biden or any other president? But as weird as it seemed to listen to Trump in the manosphere like that, something kind of worked. I mean, at least with voters and young men swung to the right in a huge way. Obviously appearing on a few podcasts wasn't the only factor there at all. But somehow Trump did win young man over, or Democrats turned them off or some combination of the two. And Democrats want to win that audience back. Of course they do. So they're trying a lot of different things. I mean, California Governor Gavin Newsom started his own podcast interviewing popular right wing figures like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. There's lots of thoughts on that. Pete Buttigieg entered the manosphere himself, of course, going on Andrew Schultz's podcast. Flagrant Democrats clearly want to win back young, right leaning men. The question is, are they persuadable? Can they win them back now? For years now, the Daily Show's Jordan Klepper has been immersing himself in the world of maga, trying to understand why Trump supporters like Trump. I'm sure you've seen these videos on many, many social media feeds. I certainly have. And this Monday, he's coming out with a new special focused specifically on young, primarily male MAGA Republicans, asking them why they are so drawn to the MAGA movement. Here's just a taste of the kind of responses Klepper got.
- [23:06]
Theo Vaughn
I think we've had a lot of beta males representing our country for a while. The Republican Party, led by Trump has Really, like said, enough's enough. They don't want no whiny baby Disney liberals. They put on their makeup and dance at the YMCA and bitch about not winning Emmys. Yeah, yeah. No, that's Trump. Trump does that. But I wasn't paying attention.
- [23:24]
Rachel Maddow
I mean, there's a whole lot to unpack there, a whole lot more in a special. And the Daily Show's Jordan Klepper joins me next.
- [23:41]
Theo Vaughn
What's the vibe like right now with young Republicans? Oh, we are feeling victorious. I think it's going to go down the history books. It's going to be up there with, like, the fall of Rome, maybe. You know us guys, we do like talking about the Roman Empire. Love talking about the Roman Empire. Like, doing the salute, too, apparently.
- [23:54]
Rachel Maddow
Oh.
- [23:54]
Theo Vaughn
Oh, Jesus.
- [23:57]
Rachel Maddow
Okay. No one speaks MAGA quite like Jordan Klepper. And recently he's become especially fluent in the language of young MAGA men in particular. And it's an important time to do that. I mean, in 2024, young men turned out in droves for Donald Trump. He gained a whopping 15% with males under 30, flipping the once blue demographic to red. And what changed is obviously a big question lots of people are talking about. Now. In his new special, let me take a breath here, the Daily show presents Jordan Klepper fingers the Pulse the Next Generation. Okay, I made it through. Klepper dives into the world of young MAGA men to try to find the answer to that question. And what he found might just surprise you. Joining me now is co host and contributor for the Daily Show, Jordan Klepper. Jordan, as you know, we've talked about this before. I'm always amazed people talk to you, but it is so fantastic. I love all, all of the stuff you do. It's so interesting. So let me start by asking you this. I mean, you've spent so much time over the last couple of years interviewing Trump supporters. What did you expect when you went out and interviewed Gen Z MAGA members?
- [25:02]
Theo Vaughn
Well, I'll tell you, my expectations were pretty low, if I'm being completely honest. I've talked with a lot of people at MAGA rallies, and they go from the right to the far right to the JFK junior is still alive and running the government. Right. And so I expected sort of a smaller version of that, maybe a little bit more swole. But when I got out there and I started talking to folks, I went to a UFC fight, I went to a college campus. I was surprised by how open and curious some of these conservatives were. And it Begs a larger question as to like, what is politics to them? What is the gop? What is maga? But for the most part, the people I talked to were surprisingly open and you even point out the fact. I'm surprised that they come and talk to me. They wanted to talk to me, they were open to talk to me. So we started at a good place with those conversations.
- [25:53]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah, it's really interesting. I mean, this is sort of the question so many people are asking. There's so many theories out there, including on cable news, as I'm sure you've seen. Now I'm old enough to remember when Democrats were the ones perceived as cool by young people, perhaps cuz I was one of them working on the Obama campaign. You know, back in the day that was cool, but now it feels like it's sort of flipped a little bit culturally. Why do you think that is? To the degree you have a theory on that?
- [26:22]
Theo Vaughn
I mean, it's strange out there. Free love used to be cool. Now apparently trad wives are in. I don't know, it makes me feel very old and yet young at the same time. I'm not sure. I went to a college campus and like what I did when I was on college campuses. I asked what was cool because I desperately wanted to know. And quite frankly, it's not as if Donald Trump is cool. To some people it was. These are people who are looking for identities now. I think attention is cool. Turning Point came to Texas A and M and Charlie Kirk is famous and he has attention and people saw attention and they equated that with cool. And so I think when you have this younger generation that is pulled to the MAGA movement, first and foremost, what they're pulled to is what is getting attention online. It's not necessarily kids who wanted to grow up to become lawyers and doctors. These are kids who want to grow up to become influencers. And attention is a, is the number one thing in the influencer economy. And they see that in the right and they see Donald Trump coming on podcasts they pay attention to, they see short clips of Charlie Kirk owning people online and they start to develop an identity around what seems to work in their minds.
- [27:34]
Rachel Maddow
It's, I mean, the attention piece is such an interesting part of it. It's one that obviously Democrats are trying to capture. They're trying to capture that online. Some of the things they're doing are admittedly a little cringy, but at least they're trying to. But one of the things that seems challenging to me at least is that the successful attention grabbers are often more aggressive. Sometimes they're very deeply negative. I mean, sometimes they're crude. How do you overcome that?
- [28:03]
Theo Vaughn
Well, I think go to where the kids are. I mentioned Turning Point, and Charlie Kirk arrives and he throws out hundreds of hats to kids. I remember in college, you show up and credit card companies would arrive on campus and they'd offer you a free T shirt, and for a free T shirt, you would sign up for a credit card and you'd get a lifetime of debt. Now Republicans are doing this on college campus, and it's working. Kids are buying into that thing. I think there's a much less cynical way of approaching kids. But looking at this moment where kids are, they're eager, they're eager to find an identity, they're eager to know, they're looking for answers. And I think if you authentically enter some of these spheres, you don't have to enter from a space of negativity, but you. You also don't have to enter from a space of judgment. Donald Trump sitting down with Theo Vaughn. I think a lot of people saw that as Donald Trump as an authentic person. Say what you will about that, I don't know if I agree with that assessment, but it's a connection to people. You don't have to connect with negative. It gets you there faster. But seeing Buttigieg, for example, hop on Andrew Schulz's podcast, I think it's a step towards actually trying to meet kids where they are.
- [29:07]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah, no question. I listened to the whole interview. He was great. Everybody can't pull that off, but it certainly is certainly a good example. One of the things some of the amazing producers I get to work with, who are in this younger generation raised this morning, which I think is an important point, is that Donald Trump has been a presence in the political world for most of their adult lives, if not longer. I mean, this is sort of what they know, this pursuit of celebrity and this being something that is important. How do you think that impacts at least the people you've been talking to and you talk to for, for this special?
- [29:43]
Theo Vaughn
Yeah, this is just something they know. He's been the number one story of their lives for most of their lives. You know, I went to a UFC fight and Donald Trump goes to these fights. We were in Miami. He showed up, he brought RFK Jr. To these fights. When you talk to the 20 year old kid who's going to that fight because he's culturally interested in the UFC world, he thinks, oh, yeah, Donald Trump, he's there. He's cool. There's a connection there. I can connect to him in some, in some way. I think his presence in these spaces like resonates with these kids just because it's what they see. I think more often than not, Democrats see this as like a political conversation and to a degree it is. But what Republicans have found is the cultural conversation that they're able to jump in on. And when I'm Talking to a 19 year old or a 23 year old, more often than not they're interested in the cultural thing. They're not tied to the politics. It's very tertiary in their life. They're focused on the culture. And right now the conservative culture is finding a way in that's affecting these kids.
- [30:43]
Rachel Maddow
Jordan Klepper, always enjoy talking to you. Thank you so much. And we'll be watching your new special, of course, on Monday night. Thanks so much for joining me. I've got one more thing to tell you about tonight. It's about standing up to bullies. I think you're gonna want to hear it. It's a feel gooder. We'll be right back. Before we go, it's a Friday night and we figured why not end with a hopeful story tonight and this one is out of Maine. Anneliese Feldman is a freshman track star at Yarmouth High School and she recently finished second in a 1600 meter race. Now, the winner of that race was Soren Stark Chessa, a junior from rival North Yarmouth Academy. Soren is also transgender. And this prompted a Republican state representative, Laurel Libby, to publicly attack Soren again, high school student, which I would note definitely helped her score and appearance on Fox News last week. That is the state representative, of course. Now here's the good part. While Representative Libby decided to bully a high schooler, Anneliese Feldman, the freshman who finished second, took a very different approach. Feldman wrote a letter to the Portland Press Herald which said this. I don't feel like first place was taken from me. Instead, I feel like a happy day was turned ugly by a bully who is using children to make political points. We are all just kids trying to make our way through high school. Participating in sports is the highlight of high school for some kids. No one was harmed by Soren's participation in the girls track meet, but we are all harmed by the hateful rhetoric of bullies like Rep. Libby who want to take sports away from some kids just because of who they are. Now, a reminder to everyone, I know I already said this, but Annaliese is a freshman in high school. Laurel Libby is an adult who is in the state legislature. If you're out there watching Soren, congratulations, first of all. And, Annalise, I hope you know that most adults wouldn't have the guts you do. As a freshman in high school, it's pretty amazing. That does it for me tonight.