← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Judge hands Hegseth huge defeat on media restrictions as Trump continues to wing it on Iran
00:42:35
Jen Psaki shares breaking news that a judge has ruled against Pete Hegseth's effort to restrict the press at the Pentagon from trying to obtain information that isn't explicitly authorized, even if it isn't classified, and talks about the importance of an free news media, particularly in a time of war and with a president who is "lying every time he speaks or is completely out of touch with reality."
Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:01]
Jen Psaki
Support is available 24. 7 with VRBoCare. We're here day or night, ready whenever you need help. Because a great trip starts with the right support. I'm done with subscriptions, streaming, fitness, razors, vitamins. I've got subscriptions for everything in my life. They lock you in and half the time I can't figure out how to unsubscribe. That's why I'm so excited about the new Blue Apron. Now you can get delicious meals delivered with no subscription needed, including new pre made options.
- [00:35]
Ana Gomez
Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20.
- [00:41]
Jen Psaki
Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more.
- [00:45]
Ben Rhodes
That's all in for the week. The Briefing Good evening, Jen.
- [00:48]
Jen Psaki
Chris. I was just saying to Rob Malley, who's sitting here at the table with me, there are some days where you just, you know, you read. We're trying to be responsible. We want to explain what is happening and what people from this administration are saying, what it means. And you're like, have I not had enough coffee? What the hell is happening? What are they talking about? Is one of those days?
- [01:06]
Ben Rhodes
I have no idea. I have no idea.
- [01:07]
Jen Psaki
I don't think they have any idea.
- [01:09]
Ben Rhodes
I think they want to kind of spin it as like it's intentionally chaotic to keep everyone guessing. But I think it's just chaotic.
- [01:17]
Jen Psaki
It may just be. It may not be flat three dimensional chess. I think we've known that for a while. Well, have a great weekend. We'll be talking more about this next week when I see.
- [01:25]
Ben Rhodes
You bet.
- [01:25]
Jen Psaki
All right. Okay. There's so much to talk about this evening. I wanted to start tonight with a hugely consequential defeat for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. We covered this a bunch on the show when it happened, but back in October, Pete Hegseth put some, what I would call Kremlin esque press policies in place at the Pentagon. I mean, he basically put a policy in place that said the Pentagon could revoke the credentials of any journalist who solicited information that the department did not explicitly authorize for release, even if that information was unclassified. And listen, I dealt with reporters for 20 years. That is not how it works. And you also don't need to have gone to journalism school to know that is literally the job of journalists. I mean, Hegsest policy was so insane that dozens of news organizations refused to sign a pledge agreeing to it. Even Newsmax, remember? They refused to sign it, too. The New York Times eventually sued the government over that policy. And late today, the New York Times won and Pete Hegseth's Pentagon lost. Late today, a judge ruled that Pete Hegseth's press restrictions are unconstitutional. And in his ruling, Judge Paul Friedman did not hold back. Here's what he wrote. The court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected. But especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing so that the public can support government policies if it wants to support them, protest if it wants to protest and decide based on full, complete and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election. And amen to every word of that. I mean, the American people deserve to know what their government is doing, no matter who's in power, especially during a time of war. And press freedom is especially important during this war, because during this war, we have a president of the United States who is either lying every time he speaks or is completely out of touch with the reality or a combination of the two. And so a free press that can question, that can push and hold this administration to account is the only way for us to figure out what the hell is going on. I mean, today we got some thoughts from the president on the thing that remains one of the most challenging aspects of this war at the moment, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Because to hear Trump tell it to, the closure of one of the world's most important oil choke points really isn't a big deal at all. You plan to escort those ships through
- [03:59]
Rob Malley
the Strait of Hormuz with or without allies.
- [04:01]
Jen Psaki
Very well there. We're doing very well overall. You know, we don't use the strait. We don't. The United States, we don't need it. We're doing really well there. Apparently, by his definition, I mean, what he either doesn't understand or is refusing to say is really basic economics. 101. Oil prices are fundamentally global. It's about supply and demand. And when the strait that literally accounts for 20% of the world's oil is blocked, that is going to be felt everywhere, including in the United States. And it is being felt across the United States. You probably are feeling it. And today, the head of the International Energy Agency issued a pretty dire warning saying that this war is the greatest threat to global energy in history. He added that it could take six months or longer to fully restore oil and gas flows from the Gulf. And people, as I just mentioned, you probably are feeling it every single day when they fill up their gas tank. I mean, gas is headed toward $4 a gallon, which is a spike of 30% since the war started just three weeks ago. I would say that's kind of a big deal. I'm sure you think it's a very big deal. And apparently, though, it's just small stuff for Donald Trump. And as for reopening the Strait of Hormuz as quickly as possible and minimizing this crisis, well, Trump says that's apparently an easy one, too. You said, I'm opening the Strait of Hormuz with a simple military maneuver. Very simple. Yeah, but what did you mean by that? It's a simple military maneuver. At a certain point, it'll open itself. It's a simple maneuver. Says no one. It's going to practically open itself up. Says no one either. Or. No, it won't. I mean, it's clearly not going to open itself up. Opening the Strait of Hormuz is anything but simple. Military and shipping experts tell Ms. Now that a US Military effort to reopen the strait by force would likely require U.S. ground troops in a dangerous, costly operation that could drag on for years. And as of now, ship captains say they still have not heard a clear plan for US Military officials. So just to recap, oil prices continue to rise. There's no plan to reopen the strait. The world is teetering on the verge of a global energy crisis, and Trump is saying it's all no big deal. In fact, he took to Truth Social tonight and declared that, quote, we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts. Now, I would note we still have no idea what those objectives are. And notably, he also suggested that he may just abandon his efforts, the efforts to reopen the strait, saying that he will leave the problem to quote other nations who use it. That is, unless he is asked. So that's where we are right now on this Friday. He doesn't think the Strait of Hormuz is that big of a deal. He seems to think that it's somehow going to just open itself up. And while it might be time to wind down anyway and let someone else solve this crisis, a crisis that he created. But despite what Trump is saying out loud, whether he is lying about all of this or just plain confused, who knows? All signs point to this ramping up, not winding down, including actions from this administration. I mean, as Ms. Now reports the US Military is currently sending thousands of additional troops to the Middle East. And multiple sources briefed on the discussions tell CBS that Pentagon officials have made detailed preparations for deploying US Ground forces into Iran. The. The Pentagon has also asked for $200 billion in additional funding to continue Trump's war in Iran. And just for some perspective on kind of how big that number is, that figure represents about a quarter of what the United States spent on the war in Iraq, which went on, of course, for more than 13 years. And while Trump is attempting to downplay the huge economic impact of this war that he started, his Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, seems to be pretty concerned. I mean, in an effort to bring oil prices back down, his department announced late tonight that they've temporary lifted sanctions on Iranian oil that's already at sea. Because nothing says we've got this under control like lifting sanctions on the country for bombing. Nothing says that. So, yeah, despite Trump's delusions, lies, spin, confusion, whatever you want to call it, there are clear signals that this war, as of now, is dragging on. And that is infuriating. It should be infuriating, especially given the fact that Trump is the only reason we're in this position to begin with. Remember, it was Donald Trump who ripped up the agreement that was designed to avert the kind of risky military entanglement he launched the US Into. And he had quite a. I don't want to know what else to call it, wackadoodle take on that. During a conversation with our colleague Stephanie Ruhl today, Trump said, quote, I ended very intelligently the Obama horrible Iran nuclear deal that gave them a nuclear weapon within a short period of time. If I didn't end that, you would have. The Middle east would have been blown up. Let's. I just. I can't. Let's just untangle that logic for a moment, or I'm going to attempt to. According to Trump, he very intelligently, as he described it, ripped up the Iran nuclear deal. And there is a direct line from that to where we are today, I would note. And he says that deal, which placed restrictions on Iran's enrichment of uranium and provided international transparency into their nuclear program, would somehow have given Iran a nuclear weapon in a short period of time. Somehow. I don't know how to explain that one. And that the Middle east would have blown up from what, exactly? Well, it's impossible to know. What we do know is that Iran accelerated its enrichment program precisely because Trump pulled out of that nuclear deal. See, Trump didn't just start winging it. Today or this week or this month. We all know that he's been winging it for years. He tore up a nuclear deal. He started a war. He has no plans for what happens next. He seems confused, conflicting his own statements on a daily basis, and now he wants someone else to clean up the mess that he created. So, yes, if you are confused, you are not alone, because clearly the president of the United States is very confused, too. And on a night like this, I just wanted to talk to two of the smartest people I worked with on these issues and a range of issues. They know a whole lot more than I do. During our time in government together, Rob Malley was the lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Ben Rhodes was deputy national security adviser to President Obama during the Iran nuclear negotiations. Thank you both for being here. As I just said, I think sometimes we're trying to make sense of what he's saying, and there's no sense to be made of it. But I think so many people out there are wondering what's happening, what they should be worried about, what they should be listening to. And, Rob, I mean, I'd love your thoughts on the whole thing, but let me just ask you about something that Trump posted tonight. He posted the Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed as necessary by other nations who use it. If asked, we will keep these countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn't be necessary once Iran's threat is eradicated. Importantly, it will be an easy military operation for them. There is so much pact in there. I think the question I have for you is like, can you untangle it? And what does protecting the strait look like? What does it handing it off look like? What are your thoughts?
- [11:10]
Rob Malley
So, Jen, first, I can't unpack it for you for all the reasons you gave. And I was thinking earlier that, you know, madman theory of the presidency sometimes has worked, but it only worked if the president, who's acting like a madman is only pretending he's a madman. And in this case, I think he has everyone confused, himself included, as you said. So we're at this very paradoxical moment where the main objective of this war seems to be to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which wouldn't have been closed if the war had not begun, if President Trump had not ordered this war. So I think he's trying to grasp its draws to find a solution. It's not easy to protect the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, it's a very narrow strait Iran has plenty of ability today to still attack it. It doesn't take much to scare ships away, I mean, insurance companies away. So it's not just escorting the ships. It's reassuring the ship owners and the insurance companies that this is going to be a safe transit. We're very far from that. And I just think this shows that there was no plan coming in and there's no plan to get out.
- [12:08]
Jen Psaki
And one of the things that we heard from the IEA today is that it would still take months for it to explain that to people. And what the impact of that would be.
- [12:17]
Rob Malley
Well, just, I mean, there's a lot of oil that is not being produced now, a lot of oil that's not on the market. It's going to, this is a long tail basically to how long it takes to restore the oil markets to where it was before. First of all, for them to be reassured that this calm is going to be long lasting and then to make up for all the oil that is, that has already been deprived, that the market has been deprived of. So this is going to have long term consequences even if it ended tomorrow. And while with this president, who knows, he may wake up tomorrow and actually say it's over, but he may also be at it for another few months. And so certainly the markets today and the oil markets in particular can't try to begin to guess where they'll be a week, two weeks, even a month from now.
- [12:57]
Jen Psaki
Ben, let me bring you into this conversation. I thought of you so much. I mean, we've talked, but I've thought of you so much over the last couple of weeks as we see some of the language that's hard to wrap your head around coming from this administration. I mean, one announcement we did see is the Pentagon is sending three more warships and roughly 2,500 additional Marines to the Middle east on top of the roughly 50,000 who are currently stationed in the region. I mean, you and I spent so many years communicating about the use of force, about our men and women in the military. It feels like a very, very slippery slope. But how do you see this playing out as you see these announcements from the Pentagon and the language that we're hearing from this administration?
- [13:39]
Ben Rhodes
Well, first of all, this is what happens when you launch a war without clear objectives. Right. Because they really don't know what their mission is. The language of the war, though, was regime change. And they can say it was degrade capabilities. But importantly, Jen, the Iranians think that the war is about regime change. Why wouldn't they? The supreme leader was killed in the first day of the war. Ali Larajani, who would be the kind of figure that could potentially negotiate an end to the war, has been killed by Israel. And so if the Iranians think it's regime change, they're going to respond in kind. And the Iranian play, which is not a surprise, right? Any of us who've been in a war game, certainly Rob, and anybody who's looked at this knows that their strategy would be to impose such a cost not just on the United States, but on US Allies in the region, on the global economy, that they can survive and not be attacked again. And so therefore, they hit the Gulf countries, they hit our military facilities, they shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Well, then suddenly the Pentagon has a bigger mission because it's, you know, well, we have to open up the Strait of Hormuz again because if Iran dominates the Strait, they win this war. And, oh, wait a second, what happens to the nuclear materials that is in the center of Iran in a place called Isfahan? Do we have to go get that? And so suddenly, there's a logic of escalation. And I find it ridiculous for Trump to say, you know, we're about to wind down the war as we're escalating the war, and everything is escalatory. What the Iranians do invokes a response, and then what we or the Israelis do evokes an Iranian respons. That's the logic of war. It's a logic of escalation. And this is something that Donald Trump fundamentally doesn't seem to understand. He is not in control. He could stop fighting tomorrow, and the Iranians could still block the Strait of Hormuz, and the Israelis could still be assassinating Iranian leaders. And so I think we have to get out of this notion that even there's a case where Trump can wake up tomorrow and just turn off all the chaos that he's unleashed on the world.
- [15:44]
Jen Psaki
When people I mentioned this, you know, somebody from a reporter from msnow talked to some military experts who said, of course, as we've seen a ton of reporting on that, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, as you just said, too, would require kind of a military engagement, the use of men and women serving our military for people out there who are just trying to wrap their heads around what exactly that means. You're not in the Situation Room for this, obviously, but you've been in at the Situation Room for a lot of these discussions. What does that look like? These are a lot of troops being sent there. What is the scale of what that could look like for people?
- [16:17]
Ben Rhodes
So, first of all, listen to. You can listen to what Trump says, but you can look at what the government is doing. To me, the $200 billion supplemental request for funding for this war suggests the military is planning for something much bigger than what Trump is telling us, because that is, like you said, that's the cost of the Iraq war for more than a year. You know, and the hardware they're moving and the units they're moving all suggest at least the potential for more operations. Now, if you talk about the Strait of Hormuz, to Rob's point, it's not just. It's whether or not a shipping company can be assured that a gas field can be operational, that the oil or gas can be loaded onto a tanker, and that the tanker can go through the strait without being hit by a mine or without. And then if you look at the terrain, this is, you know, difficult and sometimes mountainous terrain, that Iran can shoot drones, Iran can shoot missiles, Iran can do small boat attacks, and all they have to do is hit one ship out of, you know, 100 to make people think that, okay, this is not secure. And so if you're truly going to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in extremists, you would have to take the land on the other side. On the Iranian side, you'd have to essentially kind of take, occupy the Strait of Hormuz. Now, they'll try to do less than that, probably. They'll try to bomb lots of things and tell people this is secure. But Trump's. First of all, him asking and demanding that these allies do this is crazy. He didn't tell them he was going to launch this war. He didn't consult with them about launching this war. And he's. He's threatened to invade European territory in Greenland. He's put tariffs on them. The chickens are coming up to roost here. Why do these countries want to get in a war that they didn't start? And second of all, even if they send, you know, he talks about minesweepers. It's not the presence of minesweepers. It's whether Iran is gonna be shooting at those ships. It's whether there's an actual war going on. And this is the problem that Donald Trump unleashed, and the Iranians get a vote, you know, whether we like it or not, they're the ones that are closing the Strait right now.
- [18:18]
Jen Psaki
Rob, I've been trying. I just mentioned this, but the announcement by Secretary Bessant tonight to ease sanctions on Iranian oil that's in transit. We, they're trying to do it right. They're trying to put more oil into the markets. But there is, I think for average people out there, it's like, wait a second, they are shooting at our men and women, they're shooting at our bases, they're targeting us, we're bombing them. Why are we easing their sanctions? I mean, what do you make of this announcement?
- [18:48]
Rob Malley
Again, it's not even clear what they're talking about. And as Ben just said, it's not like Iran doesn't have a vote. So what Secretary Bessing said, and by the way, from the beginning, he's had one obsession, which is the price of oil. And so that's not surprising that he's trying everything in his power to reassure the markets. I'd be very surprised if this works because what is he telling the Iranians, yeah, we'll let you get offload the oil, but you're not going to touch a cent of it. We're going to make sure that you can't get any money out of it, which again, I don't even know what it means. Where's the oil going to go to? Where's the money going to come from? Where is it going to go to? It just seems to be improvisation. As Ben said, there was no plan coming in, and so now they're just trying to scramble to address what politically but also economically is one of the weakest points. And Iran has understood that this is asymmetric warfare. On the one hand, you have the most formidable military power on earth, which is the US And Israel. On the other hand, you have sort of guerrilla warfare on a global scale. So this is globalized Vietnam. It's Iran trying to do everything it can to hit the US where it hurts most, knowing that of course, it's the weaker party. But in this asymmetric warfare, as long as it could hit and hurt what President Trump cares about, it's in the driver's seat and so kill as many Iranians as the administration wants it. As long as Iran has that ability to make America's Americans suffer economically, they'll keep doing it. And that's why I think you're seeing the administration scrambling to find some answer to a problem of its own making.
- [20:18]
Jen Psaki
Rob Malley, I could talk to you for. I hope you come back and we can talk more about what a negotiation would look like. That's obviously the hope of so many people, whether that's even possible. So stick with, keep that in your mind. I'm so grateful. Thank you for being here tonight. Ben, you're gonna. I'm gonna ask you to stay put for one more block. Thanks for being here. I'm gonna ask you about what might be the dumbest thing Donald Trump has done over the course of this entire war, which is really saying something. Maybe one of the dumbest things I could put. There's a lot of competition and it's all because of his ridiculous beef with one world leader who is defending himself from another war. I'll talk about that when we come back.
- [20:57]
Ana Gomez
Here at Blue Apron, we've been thinking
- [20:59]
Jen Psaki
a lot about the whole cooking thing
- [21:02]
Ana Gomez
and we've decided you shouldn't have to cook.
- [21:06]
Jen Psaki
Introducing Dish by Blue Apron. Pre made meals that are ready in five minutes or less, at least 20 grams of protein, a good source of fiber, and no artificial flavors or colors. Shop Dish by Blue apron@blueapron.com, get 50% off your first two orders with code apron50. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more. A Better Help Ad International Women's Day is this March, time to celebrate all women, the leaders, the caregivers, the problem solvers, the hype friends, the how do you do it? All types therapy can be a space to reflect, reset and reconnect. And BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. No pressure, no guesswork. Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the Briefing with Jen Psaki, and more. Voices you know and trust. Ms. Now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now. One of the reasons Iran has been such a challenge for the Trump administration is Iran's huge stockpile of what are called Shahid drones. You see, over the past few years, the Iranian military have become experts in making these weapons. They're cheap to build, easy to launch, and incredibly deadly. And Iran has been firing them at targets all over the region. It was a Shahi drone that killed six U.S. service members at a command center in Kuwait. And now the US and its allies have responded by shooting the drones with anti aircraft missiles. But each of those missiles cost up to 20 times as much as the drones themselves, and they are much harder to resupply. Multiple reports have said that the US Was likely caught off guard by these cheap new Iranian drones and we may not have enough missile capacity to take them all down. In other words, the Trump administration appears to have been caught totally flat footed on this, but like so many things, it's a theme. During this war, it did not have to be that way. You see, before Trump's war of choice in Iran, Jahe drones were primarily being used by Russia who bought the drones from Iran to use in their war against Ukraine. And in response, Ukrainians developed cheap and effective ways to counter those drones. Last year Ukrainian President Zelensky reportedly offered to share their new anti drone know how with with the United States. But in an incredibly short sighted decision, again a theme. Axios reports that the Trump administration rejected Zelensky's offer. It wasn't until one week into the war that the US reversed its decision and finally asked Ukraine for help, which Ukraine was quick to provide. But as soon as Ukraine came to our aid, Trump started denying it. Are they helping us with drone defense too?
- [23:57]
Rob Malley
No, we don't need the help in drug defense.
- [23:59]
Jen Psaki
No, we do. We have, we know more about drones than anybody. We have the best drones in the world, actually. We don't need their help. We know more about drones than anybody. That was Trump last Friday, more than a week after his defense department had already gone back to the Ukrainians hat in hand and said, you know that drone help we turned down before? Yeah. Turns out we need it. Then earlier this week Zelensky gave an address to the UK Parliament where he made very clear that yes, the US had asked for his help and he gave it. Right now there are 201 Ukrainians in the Middle east and Gulf region and another 44 are ready to deploy. And I sent these military experts at the request of our partners, including the United States. In fact, this is a part of drone deal we proposed to the United States, which we worked on together and which is still on the table. Just to put a fine point on this, Zelensky is leading a country still at war, saying he sent more than 200 of his own drone experts to the Gulf region at the request of the US and saying the drone deal Trump rejected last year is still on the table. But Trump just cannot, cannot bring himself to accept that help from Zelensky. In an interview today with my colleague Stephanie Roll, Trump said of Zelensky, quote, we don't want the help, I don't need the help, we don't want their help. He's doing that for political reasons. Look, it is one thing for Trump to have so offended our allies that they will not support his war of choice. It is another thing for Trump to be actively rejecting the one ally that we probably need the most, the one partner we probably need the most, even when they are going out of their way to offer support. We're back with former deputy National Security Adviser to President Obama, Ben Rhodes. Okay, I mean, I tried to explain that. I should say our wonderful producer Andrew tried to explain that as best as we can. But I mean, basically, we are shooting down $20,000 drones with missiles that cost half a million dollars. Ukraine is the one country who knows how to handle this or one of the main countries. And Trump keeps publicly rejecting their help, though they are at war. Did I get that right? What did I miss there about this whole thing?
- [26:02]
Ben Rhodes
Yeah, there's so many things about this that are maddening. Let me just pick up on a couple. The first is that Ukrainians know more than us about how to fight he drones because they've been doing it for years in a war. And when you're in an active war zone, you get experience that you can't get otherwise. Right. So they've developed all these innovative technologies and tactics for defending themselves against what has been a bombardment from these Dr. So they do know more than us about this because they've been facing this problem for years. Then. The second thing I'd say is that the United States is burning through munitions at a alarming rate. And it's alarming for a couple reasons. One is that, as you pointed out, the cost of our interceptors is extraordinary. And so American taxpayers are going to pay billions of dollars to kind of restock this stuff. But second of all, it takes a long time to produce the new defenses. So we're going to be short of munitions for years because of this war already, if it ended tomorrow. And so to sum it up, Jen, if. And we should get in maybe to how this war has helped Putin too. But if the Ukrainians provided us help, it would fill a gap and make us better and protect our people. Donald Trump is potentially putting our service members lives at risk because he doesn't like Zelensky. For what reasons? Because Zelensky stands up for democracy and fights Putin. I mean, it's a dangerous and absurd case. This whole war is demonstrating that Trump's personalization and petty vendettas. When you apply that to something as big as this war, it gets truly, truly dangerous fast.
- [27:44]
Jen Psaki
There is so much national security news. I have to ask you about another topic before I finally let you go. Today, FBI Director Kash Patel announced on that the FBI has identified cyber actors associated with Russian intelligence services targeting users of signal. The campaign targets individuals of high intelligence value, including current and former U.S. government officials. That of course is alarming. It should be. It also feels like they may have been watching the administration's well documented sloppy use of signal. But what did you make of that right now and what does it all mean?
- [28:18]
Ben Rhodes
Well, I mean, Russia is clearly engaged in a complete effort to undermine the United States, that it has an incompetent government in the Trump administration that has dismantled some of the kind of cyber defenses that would normally be in place, has dismantled efforts to combat certain kind of foreign influence, including from Russia. And so right now, if you're looking at this, you know, Russia is getting higher energy prices because of the war. They're getting a sanctions waiver from Scott Besant because of the war. They've got the Ukrainians sending their anti aircraft capabilities down to the Gulf, which makes it easier for them obviously potentially to attract Ukraine. Like they're benefiting from this war in so many ways. But they're also maintaining a multifaceted attack on us. You know, they are probably providing targeting information to the Iranians. They're probably engaged in cyber and influence operations. The United States and Trump just doesn't get this like Putin has been fighting a war, an asymmetric kind of conflict in the United States and Trump has been disarming like for that. And so this should concern people. One other thing I point out, Jen, you know you had the resignation of the NCTC recently over the war. You have nobody running dhs. You've got Cash Patel, like having his own fantasy camp experience at the FBI at a time of increased cyber and homeland defense threats from the Iranians and other actors. So our guard is down. I wish I could say better news, but it's just staring you in the face.
- [29:45]
Jen Psaki
You're gonna have to come back and talk about all of that too, which freaks me out. And John Brennan freaked me out last week. Ben Rhodes, I always am so grateful when I get. Thank you so much.
- [29:55]
Ben Rhodes
Thanks, Jen.
- [29:56]
Jen Psaki
Okay, coming up, Donald Trump has a lot of lackeys, a lot a bevy of them. But today he decided to single one of them out for a little pat on the head. I'm going to tell you what exactly Trump meant by this. I'm going to show you this in a moment, but let's show you what he did. I also want to thank FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, perhaps the most powerful man in this room. You are doing some job. He's trying to keep the fake news. He's trying to make the fake news real and respect it again. I'm done with subscriptions, streaming, fitness, razors vitamins. I've got subscriptions for everything in my life. They lock you in and half the time I can't figure out how to unsubscribe. That's why I'm so excited about the new Blue Apron. Now you can get delicious meals delivered with no subscription needed, including new pre made options.
- [30:49]
Ana Gomez
Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20.
- [30:55]
Jen Psaki
Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more. A Better Help ad International Women's Day is this March. Time to celebrate all women, the leaders, the caregivers, the problem solvers, the hype friends, the how do you do it? All types therapy can be a space to reflect, reset and reconnect. And BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. No pressure, no guesswork. Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off.
- [31:27]
Rob Malley
Ms. Now presents the chart topping original
- [31:30]
Jen Psaki
podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. When people say, well, what can I do? I say, well, you gotta vote, you know, or volunteer for organizations that help battered women. The best people with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access and free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple Podcasts. You remember last year when Trump's FCC chairman, Brendan Carr was trying to use his position to force late night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air. You probably remember it. He wasn't exactly subtle about it.
- [32:12]
Ben Rhodes
Either we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel. Or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
- [32:28]
Jen Psaki
The threat was so on the nose that even Republican Senator Ted Cruz thought it was a bridge too far. He threatens it. He says, we can do this the easy way, but we can do this the hard way. Yeah, and I gotta say, that's right outta Goodfellas. That's right out of a Mafioso coming into a bar going, nice bar you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. Now I have no idea what that Italian accent was. He needs to work on that. But he is on the money when it comes to the subtext of what Trump's FCC chair was saying. Trump is trying to reshape American media to be more Trump friendly, and he's presenting the media world with two options, the easy way or the hard way. The carrot or the stick. And while Trump was ultimately only able to pull Kimmel from the air for a matter of days. It seems that now one of the companies that helped him do that is getting its carrot, because yesterday the Justice Department and the FCC gave the largest owner of local TV stations in the country, a company called nexstar, the green light, to merge with a company called Tegna, which is also one of the largest owners of local TV stations in the country. If the name nexstar is ringing a bell, it might be because nexstar was one of the local news networks that temporarily yanked Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves last year after Trump's FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, encouraged them to very aggressively. Now, at the time, nexstar said airing Kimmel was not in the public interest at the current time. But that move was seen as nexstar trying to butter up Trump and Brendan Carr precisely to get this merger approved. Because this is not just any old media merger at all. The FCC has historically not allowed any one company to own enough television stations that they reach more than 39% of American households. The merger means one single company will now own 265 stations across the country, reaching 80% of American households. Somehow, after Nexstar bent over backwards to take an action that pleased Trump, the FCC didn't care about that rule anymore. What a coincidence. And remember, this isn't the first time we've seen something like this. Do you remember when CBS announced it was canceling Stephen Colbert's show last year? I mean, at the time, CBS owner Paramount was trying to merge with a company called Skydance, and it needed Trump's FCC to approve the merger. Sound familiar? So last July, Paramount agreed to settle a lawsuit with Trump that most legal experts believed had little to no merit, paying trump a cool $16 million. Here's how Stephen Colbert described that settlement at the time.
- [35:03]
Ben Rhodes
Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's big fat bribe. Because this all comes as Paramount's owners
- [35:15]
Jen Psaki
are trying to get the Trump administration
- [35:16]
Ben Rhodes
to approve the sale of our network
- [35:18]
Rob Malley
to a new owner.
- [35:20]
Jen Psaki
Skydance.
- [35:23]
Ben Rhodes
This not the music I was expecting. Okay, that was. That was me dancing in the sky. And some of the TV typers out there are blogging that once Skydance gets cbs, the new owner's desire to please
- [35:37]
Jen Psaki
Trump could put pressure on late night
- [35:40]
Ben Rhodes
host and frequent Trump critic Stephen Colbert.
- [35:43]
Jen Psaki
Now, three days after Colbert said that CBS announced it was canceling his show, and one single week after that, Trump's FCC approved the merger. What a coincidence. Now, ever since Brendan Karr Said his now infamous we can do this the easy way or the hard way comment. There has been a lot of focus on what Trump could do to punish media companies he doesn't like. He could revoke their broadcast licenses and he could bury them in fines. But the other side of this, the easy way, the carrot, is how Trump can reshape the media through incentives. And that is just as dangerous. I mean, today CBS News announced that it was laying off 6% of its staff, as CNN's headline put it, that will kickstart the Bari Weiss led overhaul of the network, like the entertainment side of CBS that Colbert was on. Though Paramount Skydance merger also led to an overhaul of CBS News with the network's new billionaire owner David Ellison personally installing the anti woke crusader Bari Weiss as the network's new editor in chief. Yet again, that appears to be a media conglomerate trying to suck up to Trump in the hopes of earning yet another. You see the Ellisons, the billionaire family that owns Paramount Skydance are now trying to buy Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of Warner Brothers, HBO and maybe most significantly, cnn. The companies have already finalized the deal and that is left. And all that is left is for the Justice Department's antitrust division to give it the green light. And while the Justice Department swears that process won't be political, there are a whole lot of reasons not to trust them to state the obvious. Like, say, this comment from Trump's defense secretary Pete Hegseth, just last after he got mad about how CNN was reporting on the war with Iran.
- [37:22]
Ben Rhodes
The sooner David Ellison takes over that
- [37:24]
Jen Psaki
network, the better press conference about the war. Trump is trying to reshape American media by incentivizing media companies to comply in advance to make themselves as Trump friendly as possible in the hopes of being rewarded. And in a lot of places, that strategy appears to be working. But pushback is possible. Eight Democratic state attorneys general are suing to try to block the next Artegna merger. And as I mentioned at the top of the show today, a federal judge blocked the Pentagon's absurd new press policies. You know, the rules that Pete Hexseth put in place saying that reporters could only attend Pentagon press briefings if they agreed to only publish what the Pentagon approved. The New York Times sued over those new rules and today a judge blocked them. Meaning we may once again at some point have an actual real, honest to God Pentagon press corps. There's a lot of bad media news out there these days, but there's also some reason to hope. And the only Democratic commissioner Left at the FCC joins me next, As promised. Joining me now is Ana Gomez, the only Democrat currently on the Federal Communications Commission. I'm so grateful that you could be here with us because I think so many people out there are trying to make sense of what this means for them, what it means for media. So let me start. You put out a statement laying out your issues with the FCC's process in approving this Nexstar Tegna merger. And I'm just going to you wrote that the FCC under Brendan Carr, quote, has ignored the law, disregarded the public interest and bypassed the full commission on one of the most consequential broadcast transactions in recent memory. The emperor has no clothes and this order is cannot hide it. That is certainly not holding back in that statement. Let's just start by talking about the impact of this merger on news that people rely on.
- [39:19]
Ana Gomez
Yeah. The consequences of this deal is going to be fewer local reporters, fewer local news, and also it's going to mean higher prices for consumers. Why is this? What you are seeing is consolidation of the local stations. So you're going to have a very big corporation owning multiple local stations in local markets. And what that does is it takes away local voices and it means there will be less local news. You'll see fewer reporters. What happens after we see these kinds of transactions and we have a history of this, is when broadcasters purchase multiple companies and multiple broadcasters in one market, they lay off a news director in one station and they keep the same news director. You see the same local content. And so consumers will suffer because they will get less local news and they
- [40:20]
Jen Psaki
will pay higher prices, fewer people telling different versions of the story or reporting on what's happening on the ground which so many people rely on in local news is one of the most trusted sources or has been of information for people out there. There has been a lot of. You also had some concerns about the process here, and I wanted to raise that too, because I think that's important for people to understand because in Brendan Carr's telling of this, this is totally normal to give an exemption like this. It is not totally normal. What are your big beefs with the process here?
- [40:49]
Ana Gomez
Well, let's start with the fact that this is illegal. Congress set a statutory limit of 39%. What is that limit? It means no one broadcaster can actually reach more than 39% of the households in this country. And it did so because it was so worried about ensuring that we preserve localism in a diversity of viewpoints and that we don't have one corporation deciding what everybody sees and hears. That limit is in the statute. And Congress specifically said you can't modify it. What it said was you can't forbear from enforcing it. But the order, which was not voted on by the full commission, instead it was put out after hours yesterday at what's called the bureau level. So there's no accountability. It's an opaque process and no transparency for a transaction of this magnitude. It is so inappropriate not to have
- [41:55]
Jen Psaki
it voted on at the full commission level.
- [41:57]
Ana Gomez
And frankly, it was inappropriate to approve it altogether unless you require divestitures, meaning that nexstar would have to divest local stations in order to make sure that it did not violate the statutory 39% cap.
- [42:15]
Jen Psaki
There's such a sensitivity out there. I don't have to tell you, you live it to this media consolidation and this fear, especially given who is sitting in the White House and his open and vocal desire to control the media. And when people, I think, hear consolidation or they hear fewer voices, they think, oh no, my local news could be controlled by the man sitting in the White House. What do you tell people when they ask you that?
- [42:40]
Ana Gomez
Well, this administration is absolutely trying to affect what news organizations, what broadcasters, what radio stations, what the media that shows viewers and tells viewers, look at what happened with the Department of War and how it is controlling what it wants the media to show. We saw the administration basically say they want one billionaire buddy of the administration to own Warner Brothers so that it can control how CNN reports on the news. So there is definitely a strategy to control and to censor and to force broadcasters to provide coverage that is favorable to this administration and to stop anything
- [43:28]
Jen Psaki
that they don't like. There has been a lot of activity in the courts. There have been, for people watching out there, of course, eight attorneys general from states who sued to prevent this merger. It's still moved forward. They're now asking for a temporary restraining order. I know you said it's illegal. That's your. How hopeful are you that the courts could act in a way that could prevent this from moving forward?
- [43:50]
Ana Gomez
Well, I'll certainly watch how this case progresses. I think there's a strong case that it is, again, an illegal action by the commission and that it violates the statute. There are concerns. The concerns are very local. Why? Because we want to make sure that local communities are served by their broadcasters. And if you have this much consolidation, what you are doing is you're basically nationalizing content. So it is the viewers that will suffer here. And as I said, also prices will go up. Why will they go up? Nextstar, which is the broadcaster that has now purchased Tegna, has announced that it expects to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in new fees that they charge for retransmission of their content. So cable providers, streamers, satellite providers, they will have to pay more to rebroadcast their content. And all that means is higher bills for consumers.
- [44:55]
Jen Psaki
Ana Gomez, I think so many people were wondering what this means. Thank you so much for being here and helping make some sense of it or help people understand it, at least. Appreciate it.
- [45:04]
Ana Gomez
My pleasure.
- [45:07]
Jen Psaki
We've got to take a quick break, but the Last Word has Congressman Eugene Binman standing by. We'll be right back. Okay, that does it for me. Okay, that does it for me tonight. And I'm just gonna say something about Ali Velshi, who of course hosts the Last Word on Friday nights. He is one of the most brilliant, one of the most deeply substantive who has a crazy wealth of knowledge, people. And I get to talk to him when he's not on television. And the loveliest colleague. And I cannot wait to see what you do with the 11pm Moriali Velshi is good during the week.
- [45:41]
Ben Rhodes
I'm excited about it.
- [45:42]
Jen Psaki
Thank you, my friend.
- [45:43]
Ben Rhodes
And you're right, we have, I think
- [45:44]
Jen Psaki
we have some great conversations. I get so much from you when
- [45:46]
Ben Rhodes
you're on tv, but some of that
- [45:48]
Jen Psaki
deep knowledge that you have feeds the stuff that I do, too. So that will continue. We'll have a lot more of it and I'll get to see you five days a week. So looking forward to it. Thank you, my friend.
- [45:58]
Rob Malley
Have a great weekend.
- [45:59]
Jen Psaki
We'll see you on Monday. Thanks, Ali.
- [46:01]
Ben Rhodes
Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? The Future of the War in Iran. I still would say Trump should cut
- [46:08]
Jen Psaki
the deal, but the bottom line is we're getting in a hole. It's getting deeper. And digging it deeper is not going to make it easier to get out of that.
- [46:16]
Ben Rhodes
This week on why Is this Happening? Search for why Is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow.