← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Extended legal losing streak hits Trump where it hurts
00:42:05
Jen Psaki reviews the fresh string of legal failures Donald Trump has suffered, including a federal judge dropping the hammer on Trump's sketchy IRS "settlement" trick to give himself a $1.8 billion slush fund.
Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're great at protecting your data, but
- [00:02]
B
lots of places could still expose you to identity theft.
- [00:05]
C
I thought it was safe.
- [00:06]
B
If that happens, LifeLock gives you a US based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims. Your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side?
- [00:25]
A
Save up to 30% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply. With Vrbal's last minute deals. You can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach,
- [00:39]
C
or sightseeing in a new city, there's
- [00:41]
A
still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72 select homes only. Okay, A big part of the story of the last year, and we've talked about this a lot, and a lot of my colleagues have as well, and, and I would say of the the first year and a half of the President's presidency actually, is all of the efforts at pushback. All of the people out there who are pushing back against the Trump administration. People in the streets, people in courts, people filing lawsuits. So many people participating in the pushback. And because Trump seems to throw something new at the wall every day, sometimes crazier than others, it can feel at times like those efforts aren't working, like they aren't keeping up with the pace of Trump's destruction. But the truth is, Trump is actually on a pretty big losing streak right now, and a particularly big one on this Friday. I mean, take for instance, Donald Trump's decision to slap his name on DC's iconic Kennedy center for the Performing Arts late last year. I'm sure you remember, Trump just decided to rename the building himself, slapping gold gaudy letters on the building above John F. Kennedy's name before eventually ordering the iconic cultural institution to close for two years so he could make his own renovations to the building. Well, today a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to remove his name from the building within two weeks, and he also blocked the administration taking any steps to close the institution. And that lawsuit against Trump's Kennedy center takeover had been in the works. It wasn't last week. It's been in works for five months. But it took until now to see some tangible results. And Trump, for his part, took that news about as well as you would expect today. In a lengthy screed essay like on Truth Social, he lashed out at the judge who made the ruling and said he would now try to transfer control of the Kennedy center to Congress, basically suggesting he has given up on his battle to take it over, which there are a lot of things to be concerned about right now. That's, frankly a bit of a relief. That is far from the only battle the Trump administration is losing right now. Ever since Trump's ICE takeover of Minneapolis, local prosecutors have been on a mission to hold ICE agents accountable for their actions in that city, as they should, as the people of Minnesota and across the country are demanding. Well, today we saw the first arrest of an ICE officer for his role in one of the shootings that took place in Minneapolis earlier this year. Christian Castro was the ICE agent who allegedly chased a man into a residential home, fired a gun through a closed door, hitting a man in the leg, and narrowly missing a child's crib. Now, at the time of the incident, the Trump administration claimed the agency had fired in. The agent had fired in self defense. But that story, of course, quickly completely fell apart. And now that ICE agent has been arrested on charges of second degree assault and falsely reporting a crime. And that news came just hours before we learned that federal agents have agreed to withdraw from the parking lot of the Delaney Hall Detention center in Newark, New Jersey, where for a week now, federal agents have clashed with protesters and Democratic elected officials. The protesters have been trying to draw attention to what the ACLU says is a hunger strike by hundreds of detainees at the facility who are themselves protesting inhumane conditions and treatment inside the facility. Now, DHS continues to deny that hunger strike, but today, after federal officers charged into a crowd of protesters, pushing them to the ground and spraying them with a chemical irritant after an officer beat a protester with a baton across the torso, thighs, knee and calves as the protester just tried to flee, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, Mikey Sherrill, established a protective zone around the facility, run by state police rather than federal law enforcement. The governor also called for the facility to be closed. So the administration is being held to account for some of their most reckless and unpopular actions. And yes, sometimes it takes a while for the legal system to catch up to these reckless actions. But in some cases, the pushback is happening much more quickly. Remember, it was only 10 days ago when the Trump administration announced its settlement, essentially with itself, establishing a $1.8 billion slush fund to benefit Trump's political allies. They tried to make it seem at the time like this slush fund was accountable to nobody, that it could not be stopped, not by the courts or Congress or any third parties. They were very, very braggy about it. In fact, I mean, they claimed that because Trump and his DOJ had settled out of court that the agreement was basically untouchable. They tried to make it seem like, January six rioters and Trump allies. We're going to get your tax dollars. And there was really just nothing anyone could do about it out there. The settlement even included a clause that said, quote, there shall be no appeal, arbitration, or judicial review when it comes to what they can and can't do with all that money, just because they said so. Unfortunately for Trump and his allies and January six rioters, that is not actually how the law works in this country. I mean, today, a federal judge in Virginia blocked the DOJ from creating Trump's slush fund and barred them, at least for now, from giving anyone any money. And while that ruling, it's only temporary, it is also coming out of just one of the many legal challenges the fund is already facing. January 6th, prosecutor is suing to try and stop the fund. Members of the Capitol Police are suing to try and stop the fund. The nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, they're suing to try and stop the fund. A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges are suing to try and stop the fund. Heck, even the host of the popular podcast Mueller, She Wrote is suing to try and stop the fund. All of those lawsuits are attacking the fund also from different angles, with different arguments for why the fund should be stopped. And tonight, we got word that yet another of those lawsuits scored yet another major victory against Trump. Tonight, the judge who initially oversaw Trump's lawsuit against the IRS reopened the case. And this is a very significant development, because, remember, as part of his settlement, I'm just going to keep putting quotes. Last week, Trump voluntarily dismissed his case. He dismissed it just days before his personal lawyers and the Justice Department were going to be forced to explain to the judge how the heck they were actually oppositional parties, how Trump and the department and the IRS that worked for his Treasury Department were on different sides. Right. Since ultimately they're working for the same man. And if the judge didn't buy their story, it could have been grounds for the judge to toss Trump's case altogether. So instead of actually working through the court system, Trump settled out of court again with his own Justice Department. And he clearly wanted everyone to just assume that was the end of the story. But it's not, hardly. It's definitely not the end of the story, because that bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges I mentioned earlier. Well, they took action just two days ago. They asked the judge to reopen the case on the grounds that the settlement and the slush fund it created were a product of collusion that was itself a fraud of the court on the court. And they asked her to open an investigation to whether Trump and his sons, Don Jr. And Eric, or the Justice Department or both, defrauded the court to obtain their so called settlement. And tonight, Judge Kathleen Williams did just that. And in her order reopening the case, Judge Williams gave President Trump two weeks to explain his position on the following issues. One, the allegation from the group of former judges that Trump and the Justice Department colluded and the allegation that Trump and the Justice Department are not truly adverse parties. Good question. Two, the allegation that Trump's voluntary dismissal of the case was premised on deception. And three, whether the case should be reopened or not because Trump and the Justice Department may have committed fraud against the court. Now, all of those very serious sounding things Trump put in his settlement with himself about how the settlement was unappealable and couldn't face judicial review, well, it turns out that was all bluster. And now Trump will actually have to make his case in court, not just for why he should be able to settle a lawsuit with himself and get a $1.8 billion slush fund all set up, but for his immunity from IRS audits and, and those of, for his family, too, and everything else he effectively gave himself in the settlement he struck with his own Department of Justice. Now, to give you a sense of just how vulnerable Trump's supposedly ironclad and unreviewable settlement actually is, tonight, people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that Trump's top aides have discussed whether he should just kill the slush fund altogether. First of all, why did it take you so long? That would be my question. Using it as a sacrificial lamb, a bartering chip to get ICE funding passed next week. And they think they can do this, I gather, because more than a dozen Republican senators have reportedly urged top Trump aides to drop the fund. That's just in the past 10 days. It's more than one senator a day now. The slush fund is on very, very thin ice. That is clear a bad day, as I said to Chris, for a slush fund, for Trump slush fund. And if people keep pushing back, which given all those lawsuits I expect they will, that ICE could very well break. But I have lots of questions about this. And I have the perfect person to talk to about it. Joining me now is Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Preet, thank you for being here with me on a Friday night.
- [10:17]
D
First of all, good to be here on a Friday night. No news really, right.
- [10:20]
A
Of the legal night. I texted you today and I said, oh my God, there's so much legal news. We'd already pre booked you, but. Okay, let me start by asking you this. Obviously, these are two big rulings. They're related on Trump's slush fund. But let's just start with Judge Williams ruling tonight, which effectively reopens the IRS case that Trump supposedly settled. Kind of pulled it out of court, I guess. Give us your thoughts on how that order came to be and what it means.
- [10:45]
D
Well, what's so interesting about tonight is we talked about the three branches of government. Do they work? Do they provide a balance and a check to each other? Well, tonight we're seeing the third branch of government as listed in the Constitution really asserting itself. Right. You have the judge you just mentioned reopening the case that you've been talking about. You have another judge who's frozen the quote, unquote slush fund. And the first judge undertook the thing that happened at the behest of and at the urging of 35 retired judges. So they're no longer on the bench. And they made some arguments I think you also mentioned in the opening. And so judges, whether they're in office or out of office. And so thinking about the rule of law have made a very important statement here. And so I think that the original judge doesn't want to be a part of a gambit, something that's a little too cute for school and wants to undertake under inherent authority that every court has to take a look at this. And I think it might be quite bad for the administration when discovery takes place, when the court examines things. And by the way, all the events of tonight are kind of interesting because they crystallize which earth everyone lives on. Right. So there's earth one that I like to think that I live on, that you live on. Then there's the person who I saw on Twitter tonight complaining about the judge listening to or taking the urging of these retired judges on the very mundane technical point of whether or not these judges had standing, and then recites in the social media post, wow, we are in uncharted territory. That's the uncharted territory we're in, not all the other stuff that you mentioned at the outset, and then, as you also mentioned, notwithstanding these rulings that are very devastating to Donald Trump, what is the thing that Donald Trump fulminated about at great length today? Not having his name on the Kennedy Center? So a lot of people revealing themselves tonight.
- [12:53]
A
No qu. I mean, that is quite an essay missive, and I referenced it. Anybody can check it out if they want. On Truth Social. Let me ask you. I mean, I think the courts, I think, were working in a way. As you said, it's showing the third branch of government is working. There are questions I had about some of the things in here. I mean, in the written order, the judge also warned that she had the power to sanction the parties if this lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose. So that stuck out to us. But you can tell us how much it sticks out to you. I mean, first of all, how does she establish the purpose when both parties in the suit clearly seem to have been on the same side? Or is that part of what she's looking at?
- [13:30]
D
So that's the easiest thing to establish. And then whether or not it's an improper purpose or what the motivations were or what the. You know, there's that word again, we haven't heard in a few years, Jen, collusion in a different context, which is. Collusion is the word that's used in the order. I don't know if that was deliberate or not, or a callback to history or not, but that remains to be seen. Right. The judge has inherent authority to do all sorts of things, including calling in witnesses, having hearings, having people testify under oath under penalty of perjury to find out what kinds of communications took place, can ask for documents to be produced, can ask for emails to be produced, can ask for texts to be produced. And I imagine all that is going to happen. So, you know, presumably the judge has not prejudged this, and I hope that she has not. But this will be a process during which she has a lot of authority to ask for a lot of things and ask a lot of questions. And so we'll see in a few weeks or a few months time.
- [14:26]
A
Yeah, I mean, in the other case, again, they're all related, which is why it's so interesting to talk about all of them. A different federal judge, of course, temporarily barred the government from establishing the. The slush fund. Right. So there's the IRS case and then there's the slush fund, which emerged out of Trump's settlement with himself, as I like to call it. Break that one down for me and, and where that goes from here, because he essentially banned him, or tell me if this is correct, from even establishing the fund, so even transferring money into the fund and certainly not giving out money. How will we know and what happens kind of next there?
- [15:01]
D
Yeah. So just to be clear, that judge has not made any ruling on the substance. That judge has not made any ruling on the merits. That judge has taken the position that not knowing what the ultimate merits ruling will be, we need to freeze the situation with the status quo as it is, because it will be hard to undo things, it'll be hard to unscramble the egg or unring the bell and other metaphors that courts use in this context. There were three lawsuits that were brought. One of the lawsuits in particular is the one on which the judge acted. And there are a lot of different arguments, including a separation of powers argument that's related to the argument that this is a method of funding something that can only be funded by Congress. Some of the other suits have not been resolved yet with respect to freezing or not freezing the slush fund. But the way it'll unfold is what the judge said in the order will take, papers will take arguments. I imagine that even more people, even more institutions will weigh in on this. But I will also say, and I was struck by the end of your introduction here, notwithstanding the power and authority of life tenured judges, it may be that the most important judges in this case, in an informal sense, are the members of Trump's own orbit and his own staff and his own cabinet who are wishing and praying today he never engaged in this gambit.
- [16:26]
A
Right. To your point. I mean, Republicans don't want this to be something they have to talk about. We see in polling it's very unpopular.
- [16:34]
D
They don't like it at all. I mean, right? I mean, the idea that your tax money and my tax money and everyone else who's listening, their tax money is potentially going to go to people who were convicted at trial or pled guilty before a federal judge after they beat and harmed law enforcement officers. Sticks very badly in the craw for a lot of people, including, for a change, in the craws of a lot of Republicans, including senators.
- [17:01]
A
There's a lot of ways this slush fund may not survive. It doesn't seem like good prospects for the slush fund. Prepara. Thank you so much for joining me tonight. I really appreciate it. So helpful. Coming up, Pam Bondi. There's a lot of things happening today. Pam Bondi testified today about Jeffrey Epstein and blames all of the problems in the Epstein investigation on her replacement, her former deputy Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. That's according to those in the room with her. Congressman Suha Subramaniam was there. He joins us next.
- [17:37]
C
Want a thousand dollar weight loss medication for $50? It all starts with Ro's free GLP1 insurance check. Just upload your insurance card to see if you have coverage. Then relax. Over 200,000 people have qualified for a $50 copay through Roe. Go to RO Health. Half of covered patients have a $50 per month copay or less for medication plus $1.45 monthly Roe membership fee. Deductible costs may apply and final cost varies by insurance plan. For safety information about GLP1 medications including Boxed Warning, go to Roe Co SafetyRxOnly.
- [18:08]
E
Sometimes life will get you stressed out. Lucky you can always count on text now free Talk. Free text free 5G and they'll never sh. Like I said, it's free.
- [18:18]
A
TextNow's got your back.
- [18:20]
E
Nationwide, no long term contracts but all they nervous about losing service.
- [18:25]
A
TextNow's got your back. That's their sense of purpose. No matter what comes next, you've got
- [18:29]
E
free talk and text with the TextNow app.
- [18:34]
A
Wireless plans require the purchase of a sim card. Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions. Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop. This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts. SimpliSafe plans starting around a dollar a day. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires a SimpliSafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection Plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com licenses for alarm license information.
- [19:06]
F
Tennessee2012 Foreign.
- [19:18]
A
Dodging and trying to get out of it Former Attorney General Pam Bondi testified behind closed doors about the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein investigation. And according to Democrats who were in the room, there was one consistent theme in her testimony.
- [19:33]
B
She said, and I quote, acting AG Blanche was managing the entire investigation, end quote. All of the mistakes that we saw, the redactions not protecting survivors. She continues to push that back onto the acting AG Todd Blanche. We asked questions about Ghislaine Maxwell and the transfer and again she referred those questions to Todd Blanche and the Bureau of Prison.
- [19:57]
D
So let's be clear.
- [19:58]
B
We have many questions for Mr. Blanche.
- [20:02]
A
It was all Todd Blanchard's fault, apparently blame him. Now, maybe Pam Bondi was just trying to pass the buck, clearly deflect some blame. But given that Todd Blanche is the guy who is now in charge of the entire Justice Department, Trump probably wasn't thrilled with that answer. Which may be why Pam Bondi came out of that hearing trying to deny she ever said it. Because this afternoon, the former Attorney General made time to play keyboard warrior, posting on X, quote the not true in all caps, literally responding to people's posts. But a leaked copy of her opening statement obtained by Amos now reads, quote, I delegated oversight of this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. So it seems like Bondi definitely had a lot to say about Todd Blanche's involvement in this whole fiasco. But when it came to her boss, Donald Trump, she apparently had a lot less.
- [20:53]
B
I also personally asked the former AG five times and five different questions about her conversations with President Trump, whether he directed her any at any given time on the Epstein files, what he knew, what he asked her to redact or not. And she refused to answer any questions about President Trump.
- [21:17]
F
She was asked specifically about Donald Trump, President Trump's awareness of Epstein's crimes before they became public knowledge. She had the opportunity to say, Donald Trump certainly wasn't aware of those crimes. She had the opportunity to say, I know Donald Trump and if he was aware of those crimes, he would have done something. Instead, she said, I don't know.
- [21:44]
A
Joining me now is one of the Democratic members who was in the room with Pam Bondi today, Virginia Congressman Suha Subramaniam. Okay, so as I just tried to lay out there, former Attorney General Pam Bondi, I mean, she basically threw Blanche under the bus. Then she denied she did that. You were there, did she?
- [22:02]
E
She was. The whole time she was spending just talking about how this is Todd Blanche's thing. Todd Blanche was in charge. Ask Todd Blanche. Ask Todd. Ask Todd. Ask Todd. Kash Patel is the other one too. Keep referring to the two of them, but, you know, clearly she delegated this thing. And Todd Blanche was in charge of a lot of. And she took very little responsibility for her actions in this. If you look at it, all the bad stuff that's happened in the up scene saga, Todd Blanche has been the center of it, right? You talk about moving Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum security prison. You talk about the not release of two and a half million files. Todd Blanche is in the center of all of this. So it makes sense that she referred to Todd Blanche so much.
- [22:38]
A
Yeah, I mean, the buck ultimately stops of the person running the department. But I mean, to your point, Todd Blanche was. Was involved in all of these major things. It sounds like your senses, but you tell me that, yes, she was trying to pass the buck. But there. There may have been some truth to it there in terms of who was responsible for what and overseeing what.
- [22:55]
E
Yeah, well, of course, President Trump wants his former personal attorney in charge of the Epstein saga because the president is in the files. Right. And so that's why he was so intimately involved. Apparently, he was involved personally in some of the redaction process. That's something we learned. And even people in his office were involved in that process. And so I asked her the simple question, was at any point the department looking for Donald Trump's name before releasing files to see if he was in them? And she said she didn't recall. All of a sudden, he had memory fog. Right.
- [23:24]
A
Well. Well, I mean, the thing about that, and we. We noted that today as well, is that she. Because she said, as you said, she couldn't recall talking to him about his name being in the files, but reporting the Wall Street Journal from last year says he explicitly told him his name appeared multiple times in the files and that her deputy, otherwise known as Todd Blanche, who we've been talking about, was with her when it happened. What. What do you. I mean, yeah, so there you go. I mean, the reporting's out there. What do you make of how she handled the questions about the president?
- [23:52]
E
I mean, Harmey Dillon, the assassin ag, was there to just dive across the table to stop us from asking those questions. I mean, the DOJ was very present in that room. It was pretty amazing because we weren't sure if they're acting as their personal attorney or acting in their official capacities or both. I think it was maybe both. And they kept telling her, assert your privilege or privileged. And then she would say, well, okay, but I also can refuse to answer the question because this is all me coming in voluntarily, even though she's under subpoena. So the whole thing was just a charade. And again, this is all about protecting the President and his own interests.
- [24:26]
A
You mentioned earlier that she also passes the buck to Cash Patel. Of course. What questions would you like to him to answer for?
- [24:34]
E
Oh, well, you know, he's. She was saying over and over again that he would not release files to the doj. So the DOJ didn't have files to release because Cash Patel was sitting on them the whole time. So I'D want to know what Cash Patel was doing this whole time. He was on his podcast last couple of years talking about the Epstein files over and over again and how this is deep state conspiracy to not release them. He had the files himself and wasn't releasing them. So what's the deal, man? What's going on?
- [24:58]
A
Yeah, I mean, yeah, exactly. There's lots of questions we have for him about all sorts of things. Including his bourbon. That, too.
- [25:05]
E
That's.
- [25:05]
A
Where does the, where does the investigation go from here? What's next?
- [25:09]
E
I want to hear from Todd Blanch. I want to hear from Cash Patel, the former AG herself said we need to talk to them. I also hear from the, of the Bureau of Prisons. She said that that's who was in charge of moving Ghislaine Maxwell to lesser security prison, which should never have happened. And I want to make sure all of three of them come and testify under oath on video because the Republicans are still trying to cover up for this and oversight Republicans are afraid of the president. And so they're trying to get these voluntary interviews in place to protect, to protect them from the American people.
- [25:39]
A
Sounds like you got a lot of work ahead. And it's so interesting to hear from you about all of this. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you. So we're on him. All right. Coming up, we've known for a while that Donald Trump is trying to turn the nation's birthday into a celebration about himself. Nobody's surprised there, but now we're learning just how incompetent his efforts are. New details about just what is going on are coming up next.
- [26:06]
C
The GOP one pill you've been waiting for is now on row. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient now in a pill. And now on Roe. It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for weight loss at the lowest price available. That's one daily GLP1 pill for big results now on RO. Go to RO CO. Listen to see if you qualify. RX only go to ROE CO Safety for serious side effects and boxed warning
- [26:35]
A
associated with GLP1.s traditional home security only alerts you after a break in. And that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that. Stop.
- [26:44]
F
This is Simplisafe.
- [26:45]
A
Police are on the way. We don't just alert. We stop crime before it starts. Simplisafe plans starting around a dollar a day. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplisafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee2012 A Beautyrest mattress gives you unparalleled motion separation, isolating movement with pocketed coil technology while providing individualized support. Save during our Memorial Day sale at a retailer near you. Something we have all come to know about Donald Trump is that he has always focused on appearances. Which helps explain why for all the things that he could be dedicating his precious time to as President of the United States right now, he's fixated on a variety of pet construction projects he has ordered across Washington D.C. ahead of the nation's 250th celebration in the coming weeks.
- [27:50]
E
D.C. is looking beautiful.
- [27:51]
D
The fountains are almost all open.
- [27:53]
E
We had 28 of them.
- [27:55]
D
And we have one in particular, a very long lake. We call it a reflecting lake. The whole place was a mess. And when it opens in a couple of weeks, long before July 4th, we
- [28:09]
E
want to have it for July 4th
- [28:10]
A
weekend, but it'll be long before that.
- [28:11]
E
It's very exciting actually to me. I love construction.
- [28:14]
D
It's very exciting and we do many things.
- [28:16]
A
This place is looking beautiful. Don't worry everyone. Everything is under budget and under time. The nation's capital is looking beautiful. Let me take you on a little tour though of Washington D.C. and what it looks like right now. We're going to start with the People's House, the White House. Now as you look at this photo, please don't mind the East Wing shaped gigantic hole in the ground you see there. The area is of course currently under just a little construction for one of Donald Trump's top priorities as president, a big ballroom that nobody asked for. Oh, and disregard all the work being done right next door. That's just the octagon shaped arena that's being set up on the South Lawn for the outdoor Ultimate Fighting Championship bouts planned for June 14 with Jess Happens to be Donald Trump's birthday, but that's also close enough to America's birthday, kind of sorta July 4th. So I guess why not just go ahead and promote it as part of a the semi quincentennial celebrations. I guess that's his argument. I admit it's all a work in progress. Just a few more, just a few more bells and whistles to put up. But just look at those arches from this angle. Look at them. They really pop against the iconic neoclassical White House. Beautiful as he would say, I'm gonna have a little more to say on that White House UFC event in just a bit. But now I just, I want to take you across Pennsylvania Avenue to Lafayette park, which is right across the street from the White House. Another one of Trump's America 250th anniversary projects. You know, just over a month ago, this park was missing some of its grass while it underwent landscaping and fountain maintenance. But today, grass with some maintenance still pending. Now, an interesting financial budgetary fact about this project is that in 2022, the Biden administration estimated that it would take about $3.3 million to fix the park's two ornamental fountains. Okay. According to the New York Times, the Trump administration then gave the company, Clark Construction, a no bid contract to do the job. And they agreed because they are such good negotiators, obviously, to pay $11.9 million. And that total later jumped to $17.4 million after other tasks were added. But look at that grass. Look at that grass. Now, speaking of no bid contracts, a theme, I should say, in the Trump administration. The Trump administration also ordered a no bid contract for the repairs currently underway at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. It looks like one of Trump's favorite projects is just coming along there, doesn't it? Look at that. Despite it reportedly being shoddy work and behind schedule, Owen was apparently paid for at an inflated price. Now, the White House says it needed these no bid, overpaid contracts because they simply had to get it done for the 250th anniversary. But you might be noticing a theme to Trump's America's 250 projects. What he claims is beautiful or will one day soon be beautiful, at least now seems at best rushed, overpriced, and even careless. Another example, I have one. The New York Times is reporting that gallons of diesel fuel had spilled on the National Mall during event setup for America's 250th. Two separate incidents in the last two weeks. And Trump's Interior Department said both incidents were cases of vandalism. That's their explanation. In a statement to the New York Times, a department spokeswoman said, quote, just last night, an individual cut a fuel line to a light tower in an attempt to stop the great work being done to celebrate our nation's 250th. This is unhinged behavior that will not be tolerated. To be crystal clear, we will not be stopped. This administration continues to revitalize the city at record speed. It's not what it seems like, does it? But here's the thing. A government document about the first spill reviewed by the time said a supply line had failed and that the spill originated from event related equipment that lacked required secondary and tertiary containment measures made no mention of vandalism. Now, with just a few weeks until America's 250th birthday festivities begin, things are looking messy. And it's not just Trump's construction projects. Musical acts have literally been dropping out like flies. I mean, I think Vanilla Ice might be one of the few left, so I guess there's that. And what makes it all the more senseless is that we've always known when America was turning 250 years old. It's never been a secret. But for Trump, this appears to be about throwing out a slap dash coat of paint and hosting a UFC fight to make himself look good. Speaking of that USC fight, which I told you I'd come back to on the South Lawn again today, we learned Just draw dropping new details about who gets to attend because the Washington Post reports that the Pentagon is recruiting hundreds of US Troops to appear as spectators for the White House cage fights. And those who attend will not only have to pay their own way, but one memo circulated within the Air Force reportedly stipulates that to be eligible, personnel, quote, must meet current waist height ratio and current physical fitness standards. Would Trump meet those? I think we know the answer to that. Troops will also be required to wear their short sleeve dress uniforms, according to the memo. So Trump, basically, just to sum this up, Anna's birthday will hold cage match fights in front of the White House surrounded by physically vetted soldiers who will pay their own way to be there. All in the name of celebrating America. Someone who can put into context just how weird all of this is is former Pentagon press secretary, retired Rear Ad Admiral Joanne Kirby. He joins me next, along with former deputy National Security Advisor, who I'm sure also thinks this is very weird. Ben Rhodes, stay with us. This morning, Donald Trump posted online that he was headed to the Situation Room to make a final determination on the amorphous deal that may or may not officially end his war with Iran. Now, if you are sitting there thinking, Jen, hasn't Trump been teasing a deal with Iran for months now? That I would say yes. Yes, he has. By Amos Now's own account, Trump has teased at least six times that a deal was imminent. Six times. So right now, no one really knows if one is imminent or not. Possibly not even Trump himself, because after spending two hours meeting with his advisors in the Situation Room today, Trump emerged without announcing a decision. And while the US did reportedly reach a tentative agreement with Iran yesterday, as of tonight, no deal has been signed or approved by Trump or by Iran. Which leads me to something that really struck me about the tentative agreement reportedly on the table. Because according to Iran's state media, one of the sticking points is that the regime is refusing any further negotiations unless $12 billion of Iran's frozen assets are immediately released by the United States. And if Trump does that, well, he might as well write the word hypocrite right across his forehead. Because many of you may remember, I certainly do. That Trump spent years attacking President Obama for releasing part of a $1.7 billion settlement to Iran back in 2016, around the same time Iran released four American detainees. It was one of the rights favorite attack lines against the former president.
- [35:27]
D
Iran, the world's top state sponsor of terrorism, has been put on the path to nuclear weapons, was given $400 million in ransom payment cash. Is that going to terror or is
- [35:42]
A
that going to people's bank accounts?
- [35:45]
E
I actually think it's going to both.
- [35:47]
B
Iran will immediately use the money that it's receiving in sanctions relief to begin to build up its conventional capabilities.
- [35:54]
E
What is wrong with this president?
- [35:56]
A
How dumb is he? There's nothing Obama won't do to appease the Iranians. It's a tape for everything, isn't there? And Trump, the thing is, he hasn't let up on repeating this line of attack against the Obama administration. He even posted this image online this past Monday, boasting that his Iran policy is war, not handing over pallets of cash like Obama. Except in fact, it certainly looks like it will soon be the latter. And a pallet of cash at least seven times larger than any amount Obama signed off on. So there's that. He's not a policy wonk, Trump, as we know. Joining me now is Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor under President Obama. I'm sure he remembers that quite well. He's author also of the new book All We Say, along with former Pentagon Press Secretary, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby. Okay, as I mentioned, we don't really. There's been a lot of reported details about this. We haven't seen any paper, we haven't seen any confirmation. There have been no briefings. But we're going to talk about some of the pieces that we've seen reported. I want to start with you, Ben. I want to start with this purported $300 billion investment fund for Iran, because the New York Times is reporting that Iranian officials said they had proposed to American negotiators that U.S. companies, including major oil and energy corporations, could enter Iran for investments and joint venture deals. Ben, what is, what is going through your head on, on that particular part of the report?
- [37:20]
B
Well, I mean, that's an astonishing amount of money that far exceeds anything that was even the maximum value that they would have gotten out of the Iran nuclear deal over the duration of that entire deal. And look, this is the hypocrisy of Donald Trump on full display. He doesn't care. He'll lie or spin his way through it. The reality is he cannot end this war. He cannot open the Strait of Hormuz. It was open before this war that has paralyzed the global economy without Iran getting significant amounts of revenue. And pretty clearly what Iran wants is something on the order of, say, $12 billion on the front end so that they have a down payment before they begin to open the strait. And then if there are any nuclear concessions that come out of this 60 day period, they're going to want a windfall payment, something on the order of that $300 billion fund or some capacity to toll the Strait of Hormuz. And I think the reason that this thing just keeps getting held up is that the Iranians aren't going to move until Trump pays first and that the Iranians want to make sure that any nuclear concession comes with an even bigger payday. And Trump is trying to determine how to save face. And so then he takes to truth social and he says something about the deal that probably is not true about the sequencing. And then the Iranians go to the US Negotiators and say, well, this isn't what we're talking about. And then things get stuck. That's my guess. I don't know. But knowing negotiations with the Iranians and knowing what we're seeing out of the Trump administration, it feels like what he cannot avoid, Jen, is that there's no way out of this that doesn't look somewhat like the Iran nuclear deal that Obama struck. And by the way, that carried a cost of at least $50 billion for the United States taxpayer, 13 service members, thousands of Iranians, and a paralyzing effect on the global economy and higher prices at the pump. So we've already paid a much higher cost than we ever did under the Iran nuclear deal.
- [39:15]
A
I have on many occasions looked at my breaking news alerts on my phone. It says, on the brink of a deal. And I'm like, tell me when something like really is happening here. We'll see. We'll see. Admiral Kirby, let me ask you about the Strait of Hormuz because that is so key to Americans to oil price coming down to the global oil markets. The Trump administration is basically saying the strait would reopen immediately but the US blockade would remain and be reduced in stages while Iran said the deal would save, would see the US naval blockade lifted within 30 days and the Strait of Hormuz open for the duration of the talks. You know, better than most it feels a little conflicting or contradictory in that where we're talking about military ships and, and, and people taking action or not. What are the risks here with all of that?
- [40:07]
F
Well, the biggest risk is miscalculation that if you have military force in and around that strait that, you know, not everybody understands exactly what it means to have the blockade sort of effect, but not totally. And the Iranians have this 30 day deal that they're supposed to, you know, get all the mines out. The risk for miscalculations from a military perspective are high when you still have that much tension and that much military force in and around the strait. But the other big risk is that nobody's going to. The shipping companies are not going to, are not just, just going to somehow lift their constraints and their worries over transiting the strait just because the Iranians say it's open and the blockade is still in effect. I mean, we have to remember, Jen, that in the first three days of this war, the strait was effectively closed and the Iranians hadn't even fired a shot. It was fear alone by these shipping companies that kept them from transiting through the strait. And that fear is not gonna subside just because there's a deal in place that is so vague and so hard to understand that anybody can any measure of comfort in it.
- [41:11]
A
Let me. It is, I mean, it seems again contradictory. It seems very tough for them to actually implement this. I mean, Ben, you referenced potentially going back to the jcpoa. That seems like the ideal. I mean, if that's even humanly possible. The Iranians are very persistent, of course, about having the right to impose some, I mean, to be able to enrich. Right. They're insistent about still being able to enrich, still having that ability and capacity. I remember I was talking about this a little bit the other day with Rob Malley. The jpoa, which was the precursor to the jcpo, even had some restrictions on it. So just level set for people where we are right now, even if what's been reported is part of the deal, how far we are from getting to the point of agreement on where Things should stand on enrichment.
- [41:58]
B
Well, yeah, first of all, that's not part of probably the first phase of the deal. The first phase of the deal, like it's about the straight and the blockade. And I just want to add, Jen, I think one reason why the Iranians want to see that blockade lifted in sequence with what they do in the Strait is they've been bombed twice during negotiations. So they don't want to make a concession before the United States takes some action to build confidence in return. Now, if you get into those nuclear talks, there are a couple of important points here. Trump said before the war, their terms, as laid out by Jared Kushner and Steve Woodkoff that they were briefing out, were no nuclear enrichment whatsoever. Strict limitations on the Iranian ballistic missile program. We don't really hear about that anymore. And no support for proxy groups across the region. We don't really hear about that anymore either. So we're just talking about the nuclear program. And I think what the Iranians have made clear is the same thing that we experienced. They're not going to give up their right to enrich uranium ever again. They're going to have a nuclear program. And so the question is, can you get that stockpile of highly enriched uranium shipped out of the country? Can you get constraints on the Iranian nuclear program for some duration? And importantly, can you get inspections into those nuclear facilities? Otherwise, the promises Iranians make on paper are worth nothing. And what's missing, Jen, is that in the Iran nuclear deal that we all worked on, you had the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council, you had a United Nations Security Council resolution that gave the deal the force of international law. You had the International Atomic Energy Agency doing those inspections. This is more like a pickup game in Islamabad with a handful of countries. And so it's just not clear to me yet that even if they get into this 60 day negotiation around the nuclear deal, that they're going to be able to get to something that is as painstakingly constructed as the years that it took to get to the jcpoa. That's really the best case outcome if they can get something like that. But it's no guarantee and frankly, it might take more than 60 days to negotiate.
- [43:53]
A
Before I let you guys go, I have to ask you, Admiral Kirby, about those Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon is recruiting hundreds of troops to appear as spectators for Trump's UFC fight. And according to the Post, one memo circulated in the Air Force stipulates that to be eligible, personnel must meet current waist height ratio and current physical fitness standards. We don't have much time left. But what do you, what do you make of that?
- [44:17]
F
I mean, I think we should not be celebrating violence on the South Lawn of the White House when we're trying to celebrate the founding of this country. That's not what it was all about. Yeah, there's a military component, but the great thing about our founding was the ideas that it stood for and is enshrined over time. And so celebrating it with violence, I think is just antithetical to what the founding fathers really wanted to do and what we ought to be celebrating. And then as for the troops, I mean, it's fine to honor the troops and to have them participate in something on the South Lawn that's nothing new. But to make them pay, I mean, that's quite a way of honoring them. And then this bit about their physical fitness. Look, the troops know what their physical fitness standards are. They don't need need Mr. Hagseth or Mr. Trump to tell him how to wear the uniform and how to subscribe to the requirements of wearing it in defense of the country.
- [45:06]
A
No. And I don't think Trump would meet these physical fitness. Maybe he can't attend either. John Kirby and Ben Rhodes, thank you. I would note Ben Rhodes new book, all we say, the Battle for American a history and 15 speeches is out now. Next time he comes back, we're actually going to talk about the book. There's always too much to ask him about. And coming up next here, the Last Word takes a look at the issue that many Texas conservatives say could get them to vote for Democrat James Talario. Be right back. Before we go, just a very quick reminder, you can come see me and Rachel Maddow and Allie Velshi in Philadelphia on June 25th at MSNow Live's event We the People. America 250 country at a Crossroads. Tickets are available now at Ms. Now America 250 that does it for me. In the US there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near Simplisafe home security steps up. Stop. This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way. Using AI alerts, US based live agents help deter break ins SimpliSafe no long term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires a SimpliSafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection Plan starting at 49.99amonth. Visit SimpliSafe.com licenses for alarm license information Tennessee 2012.