Trump faceplants in court on tariff power grab; burned again for overreach

Summary

The Briefing with Jen Psaki

Episode Title: Trump faceplants in court on tariff power grab; burned again for overreach
Date: August 30, 2025
Host: Jen Psaki (MSNBC)

---

Episode Overview

This special two-hour edition of The Briefing unpacks a pivotal federal court ruling declaring Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs illegal, explores the broader context of executive overreach, and covers a flurry of related stories at the intersection of law, democracy, and public accountability. Jen Psaki dissects the legal and political implications with expert guests, delves into the Trump administration's escalations in Chicago, the ripple effects within FEMA, the looming fight over the Epstein files in Congress, and highlights pressing issues such as disaster preparedness, the future of college sports, and a landmark lawsuit against AI giant OpenAI.

---

Key Segments and Insights

1. Breaking News: Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs

[00:59 – 06:35]

• Context: A federal court ruled the bulk of Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal, though the tariffs remain in place until October pending appeal, setting up a likely Supreme Court showdown.
• Legal Insight:
  • Neil Katyal (00:54):

    "You know the president under our Constitution is given no power to impose tariffs. Our founders expressly gave that to the Congress in Article 1, Section 8. President Trump... just did it on his own. And... you can't do that under the laws and Constitution of the United States. And that's what I'm glad to see. The court reaffirmed today."

  • Ron Insana (CNBC, 02:51) explains the shock of the ruling and how Trump’s “emergency” justification is on “very shaky ground.” Notes that tariffs are effectively taxes on consumers and businesses, raising import tax rates to historic highs.
• Economic Ramifications:
  • Over $100 billion collected in tariffs this year; potential rebates and fiscal mess if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling (04:05).
  • Tariffs were justified by deficit reduction; reversal could undermine that.
• Political Response:
  • Trump’s Truth Social reaction claims reversal would "literally destroy the United States," which Insana dismisses as "beyond hyperbolic" (05:32).
  • Historical analogy: Smoot-Hawley tariffs worsened the Great Depression—Insana argues rolling back tariffs could actually stimulate the economy (05:32).

---

2. Federal Overreach and Chicago: Immigration Raids and National Guard Threats

[06:36 – 13:43]

• Escalating Tensions:
  • Trump administration planning major immigration enforcement action in Chicago, seeking military support—a replay of recent Los Angeles operations.
  • Billboards in Chicago: “Do not come to Chicago. Fascists are not welcome.” (06:36)
  • Democratic governors send warnings to the White House; Trump doubles down, threatening mass deportations and military deployments.
• Mayor Brandon Johnson Responds:
  • (08:51):

    "We're certainly not going to back down, cower, break or be intimidated by these acts of tyranny... In the city of Chicago, we're not going to stand for it."

  • Outlines real improvements in Chicago: youth employment up, homicides down 32%, carjackings down nearly 50% (10:02).
  • Argues federal threats are about political division, not crime: “Clearly a disdain for working people.”
• Election Interference Fears:
  • Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s theory: Trump wants military presence to intimidate voters in 2026 (11:51).
  • Johnson concurs: “The president has already made it very clear that he does not want another election... He has literally trampled on the sensibility of what our democracy is all about.” (12:20)
  • Cities will not accept military occupation.

---

3. Senate Shakeup: Iowa's Joni Ernst Steps Down

[15:51 – 21:40]

• The Fallout:
  • Ernst’s impending exit boosts Democratic odds as her standing crumbles following controversy over Medicaid cuts.
• Democratic Candidates Speak:
  • Zach Walls (17:13):

    "Senator Ernst has obviously forgotten where she came from... and I think she saw the writing on the wall."

  • Walls positions himself as the “fighter, not a follower” (17:59); brings a record of fighting corruption and supporting clean energy.
  • Jackie Norris (65:05) echoes priorities: public education, rural health, care worker support—and decries “same bad votes, just a new wardrobe” as GOP field shifts.

---

4. Congressional Accountability: Epstein Files and Survivors

[24:21 – 30:39]

• Congress Returns:
  • Epstein matter refuses to fade; survivors to testify at a bipartisan press conference (24:21).
  • New evidence: "birthday book" bearing Trump's signature to be released (25:24).
• Rep. Jared Moskowitz (26:03) highlights the importance of keeping focus, urging seriousness on the Epstein inquiry and challenging the House GOP’s attempts at distraction.

---

5. More on Tariffs and Power Grabs—Legal Analysis

[43:35 – 58:29]

• Supreme Court Dynamics:
  • Ian Bassin (Protect Democracy, 48:53):

    “What we've seen recently is that lower courts… have really done their job job in upholding the role of the judiciary... but the Supreme Court… has been siding with the administration... But in this case... there is a little bit of hope.”

    • Quotes Justice Gorsuch’s warning about rule by "indefinite emergency edict" (49:54)
  • Christy Greenberg (former prosecutor, 50:02):

    "If the conservative majority does what it says and looks at the text, looks at the history, they should rule against Trump. But we have seen that they tend to... rule in his favor."

• Common Sense and Pretext:
  • Bassin points out the courts must use “common sense” in determining Trump’s motivation for firing officials and levying “emergency” measures (52:23).
• Flooding the Zone with Crises:
  • Bassin relates Trump’s autocratic strategy to historical pro-democracy movements:

    “It's about creating a dozen crises at once. This is not incompetence, it's a strategy.” (57:10)

---

6. FEMA Under Siege

[59:12 – 64:51]

• Trump's Intentions and Fallout:
  • Trump openly aims to abolish FEMA, reassigning funds and personnel.
  • James Stroud, FEMA statistician (60:53) sounds the alarm:

    "Catastrophic damage is happening to FEMA... this year is horrifying and reckless and irresponsible."

  • Day-to-day demoralization, contract employee precarity, lack of investment in hazard mitigation (61:53).
  • Real consequences: lack of disaster preparedness endangers American lives—reduced staff hampers disaster response and prevention, especially for vulnerable communities.

---

7. AI and Tragedy: Lawsuit Against OpenAI

[39:24 – 43:36]

• Landmark Lawsuit:
  • Parents of Adam Rain, a teen who died by suicide, sue OpenAI after discovering ChatGPT provided both information and problematic encouragement regarding suicide methods.
• Lawyer Jay Edelson (43:35):

  “What justice really is going to look like is... Sam Altman getting on the witness stand... and we're going to ask him the tough questions. Why is it that he was willing to risk lives of teens throughout the country?”

  • Asserts OpenAI prioritized beating competitors over safety, referencing staff resignations and Altman’s own comments the day of Adam’s death.
• Critical system failures: ChatGPT’s safety guardrails are too easily evaded. Plaintiffs demand accountability and stronger regulation.

---

8. Public Outrage at GOP Town Halls

[31:23 – 38:00]

• Clips of angry constituent pushback as GOP lawmakers evade accountability on rising costs, tariffs, and health care cuts.
• Rep. Haley Stevens (32:45):

  "There's a lot of fear. There's a lot of uncertainty... $1.3 trillion of credit card debt because things aren't affordable in this current administration has done nothing to address rising costs."

  • Touts her experience, working-class roots, and legislative record.
  • Warns of constitutional overreach as Trump declares authority to cancel foreign aid and withhold congressionally appropriated funds.

---

9. 20 Years after Katrina: “Hope in High Water”

[71:14 – 78:19]

• Interview with journalist Tremaine Lee on his new documentary revisiting post-Katrina New Orleans.
• Lee (73:29):

  “The lasting memories of Katrina… will be the police abuses, the vigilantism, the hunger, the anguish… but I don’t want that to be the lasting image… there is a hopefulness.”

  • Shifts focus from “resilience” to “resolve” (74:48) and the importance of local agency, community-driven rebuilding, and addressing persisting inequalities.

---

10. The Future of College Sports and Olympic Dreams

[78:20 – 81:03]

• Summer Sanders shares concerns about how NIL (name, image, likeness) and revenue sharing threaten "non-revenue" Olympic sports programs.
  • “There are a hundred D1 sports that have been dropped since 2020. … The Olympic sports in general are in jeopardy because they're non-revenue.” (81:03)
• Sanders and Psaki highlight Title IX’s role in empowering generations of women and the importance of university athletic programs for Olympic hopefuls.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Neal Katyal (01:54):
  "Our founders expressly gave [tariff power] to Congress... President Trump this time around just did it on his own. And what we said is, you can't do that under the laws and Constitution of the United States."
• Ron Insana (05:32):
  "Saying that this would destroy the United States literally is even beyond hyperbolic."
• Mayor Brandon Johnson (08:51):
  "In the city of Chicago, we’re not going to stand for it."
• Ian Bassin (49:54):
  "This rule, by indefinite emergency edict, risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties justice hollow." (quoting Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch)
• James Stroud, FEMA (61:53):
  "...just the day to day agony and humiliation that we’ve been suffering this whole time. There's been such a culture of fear and uncertainty this entire year..."
• Jay Edelson (43:35):
  "At the end of the day, Sam Altman getting on the witness stand … Why is it that he was willing to risk lives of teens throughout the country?"
• Tremaine Lee (73:29):
  "Even amid the high water, … there is a hopefulness because that's what is also there. … [People] reminded me time and again to stop using the word resilient."

---

Conclusion

This episode showcased a pivotal legal rebuke of Trump’s abuse of executive power, the potential for a Supreme Court showdown, and exposed cascading effects across policy areas—immigration, disaster relief, congressional oversight, and even AI regulation. Jen Psaki and guests matched the gravity of the news with sharp analysis and a call to vigilance, drawing lessons from history to meet today's challenges. The urgency was tempered by stories of community strength and hope—a reminder that democracy and justice require active, ongoing defense.

Transcript

[Jen Psaki]

Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three. And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office? Or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Ripa now, wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, let's talk about Claude, the if you know, you know AI assistant that's got everyone buzzing. Claude is like having a super smart, emotionally intelligent buddy in your pocket that responds like a real person would. Click. Claude can help with just about anything. Whether you need advice, inspiration, or even someone to help craft that perfect text to your crush, Claude can switch from being your life coach to your personal stylist to your side hustle strategist all in one conversation. Head to clawd.com, that's C L-A-U--E.com and start chatting with Claude for free. Welcome to a special two hour edition of the Briefing. We have got a lot to get to tonight. I mentioned two of the topics, but we have a lot more to get to, including a big new federal court ruling just out tonight finding that most of Donald Trump's disastrous tariffs are illegal. Now, the courts told the Trump administration that the tariffs will be allowed to remain in place until October as the administration appeals its case. Which means we could soon be looking at a Supreme Court showdown over one of Trump's most unpopular, most poorly thought through policies. This case was argued by former Acting Solicitor General Neil Katiel, who reacted to this ruling just moments ago.

[Guest/Interviewee]

You know the president under our Constitution is given no power to impose tariffs. Our founders expressly gave that to the Congress in Article 1, Section 8. President Trump himself recognized that last time when he was president, he went and asked Congress for the authority to tariff and they said no. So President Trump this time around just did it on his own. And what we said is, you can't do that under the laws and Constitution of the United States. And that's what I'm glad to see. The court reaffirmed today.

[Jen Psaki]

That was Neal Katiel. Joining me now to react to this breaking news is CNBC senior analyst Ron and Sana, also publisher of the Message of the Markets on Substack. Ron, I'm so grateful that you could be here with us on a Friday night. I think everybody's trying to make sense of what this means. Well, thank you. Let me start by asking you, Jess, Chris and I were talking. Neither of us are lawyers, neither of us are experts. How expected was this ruling?

[Guest/Interviewee]

I think it's pretty much of a shock to the extent that the president, as you said, without any pre vetting from a legal perspective of imposing these emergency powers and then using those powers to tax and I want to permanently get rid of the word tariff because it's a very elegant way of saying that you're taxing businesses, consumers or both. And so by imposing these taxes across 60 countries and cutting deals that raise the current, if you will, import tax rate to over 18% according to the Yale Budget Lab, that is the highest since 1933. He's done something that other presidents have not done and used powers that have not been used either. And by invoking this as an emergency, it's also rather odd because we've had a trade deficit with other countries since 1975. So it's on very shaky ground. It'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court moves forward with this because that's where the decision ultimately will be made as to whether or not they can stick or be taken off.

[Jen Psaki]

Yeah. That's such an interesting part of this. Obviously, the Supreme Court is looking at this. Neil Katiel is arguing it. That's one of the reasons we wanted to quote him or show his video there. What happenswe don't know what the Supreme Court will do, but what happens if they do say this is illegal and this can't move forward? What happens then? Because they've already been in the process of being implemented.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Yeah. And they've collected well in excess of $100 billion so far this year in import taxes, tariffs, customs duties, whatever you want to call them. My understanding is that companies will be able to apply for refor rebates from the federal government to what they paid for the various either finished parts or inputs that come to the United States from other countries. So this is going to get it'll get a little messy, obviously, because it's not just a blanket rebate where the White House and the treasury would have to give all hundred billion dollars back to those who paid those taxes. Some of the tariffs can be imposed by the president on a temporary basis that deal with national security or to protect specific industries. But these broader tariffs that were put in place under the Emergency Powers act, if indeed this were overturned, they'd have to give the money back. And they were counting on using that to reduce the deficit.

[Jen Psaki]

Right, Right, exactly. This was a big part of the argument. They were going to use the money to reduce the deficit. Now they're going to have to give it back, which is a pretty unbelievable part of this. So Donald Trump, even since this ruling, which didn't happen that long ago, he's already responded, writing on Truth Social that all tariffs are still in effect. And he says if the decision stands, it would literally destroy the United States. He's framing this as sort of we've reached a point of no. And as we've just been talking about, it would be very awkward and bizarre to have to pay this back. But it's possible, right? It's not accurate that we've reached a point of no return on these.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Oh, good. Yeah. No, I mean, you know, it's interesting that the president, and typically, in the manner in which he speaks, you know, there's always some existential issue that's in front of us. And if you go back and look at economic history, the thing that made the Great Depression that much worse was the imposition of the Smoot Hawley tariffs that were passed in 1929 and 1920, 1930, and launched a global trade war that turned a very serious recession into the Great Depression. So rolling these tariffs back would not adversely affect the economy. It would take some pressure off future inflation rates and actually probably do more to stimulate economic activity because with prices not going up over time, consumers would have more to spend. So I think saying that this would destroy the United States literally is even beyond hyperbolic.

[Jen Psaki]

Ron and Sana, thank you so much for helping us understand what this means. Walking us back from the ledge of the existentialism. Donald Trump always tries to take us down. I really appreciate you joining us.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Thanks for having me.

[Jen Psaki]

Okay, lots of news to get to tonight. As I mentioned, I want to turn now to the city of Chicago. This was the scene outside of the Trump International Hotel in Chicago yesterday. A large billboard truck circling the building with a clear message for the President of the United States. Here's what it says. Quote, do not come to Chicago. Fascists are not welcome. It's pretty direct right there on the big, big truck rolling around the Trump building. Now, this comes as we are learning that the Trump administration is planning a major immigration enforcement action in Chicago next week. The Trump administration has reportedly asked a nearby military base for help supporting the operation. That suggests they are planning a repeat of what we saw in Los Angeles just a few weeks ago, sending US Military resources into the streets of a major American city to help carry out mass deportations. This operation is separate from Trump's repeated threats to deploy the National Guard in Chicago over the issue of crime. Separate issue. Despite the fact that the crime rate in Chicago is actually falling, If Trump follows through on that threat, it would be a repeat of the other military takeover we have watched play out in the Streets of Washington, D.C. these past few weeks. All of this suggests that Trump is looking for any excuse he can muster to sow complete chaos and confusion in American cities, run, of course, by Democrats. Today, multiple news outlets reported that Trump is planning a similar mass deportation operation in the city of Boston, which reportedly could take place shortly after his takeover of Chicago. Yesterday, Democratic governors from 19 states sent a letter to the White House warning them not to send federal troops into their cities. But the Trump administration is making it clear they plan to push forward anyway. Of course they do. Now, earlier today, Trump supporters are. Tom Homan. We haven't heard from that guy in a while, but today he went on Fox News to issue this threat to the mayor of Chicago.

[Guest/Interviewee]

So when you get pushback as you head into Chicago from people like Mayor Johnson, what's your message to the mayor? Get out of the way because we're.

[Jen Psaki]

Going to do it. Don't expect the mayor to say that's his plan. Joining me now is that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. Mayor Johnson, thank you for being here with me. Let me just start by getting your reaction to what Tom Homan just said there this morning.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, thank you and good evening. Happy Labor Day weekend. Jen, look, the city of Chicago is a remarkable place, right? It is the soul of America and a city that was established by a Haitian immigrant and a Potawatomi woman. A city that was built on the working class values. And we have been a city for a very long time that has protected the interests of working people. And we're certainly not going to back down, cower, break or be intimidated by these acts of tyranny. Clearly, the federal government, the president of the United States of America, is looking to engender chaos and turmoil across this country. And in the city of Chicago, we're not going to stand for it.

[Jen Psaki]

There are sort of. I just tried to outline this effectively and tell me anything I missed. I mean, clearly Chicago is like in the craw of Trump because there are two threats against Chicago coming from the administration right now. One is this big immigration crackdown. The other is Trump's threats to deploy the National Guard over crime. I mean, what does that say to you about their motivations and the fact that they're targeting your city?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, it's because there's clearly a disdain for working people. Instead of the federal government and the president of the United States of America focusing in on how we can drive unemployment down in our communities, how we can make sure that people can put food on their table, and to ensure that every single child has access to a high quality education, he has done the opposite of that. He has again sown seeds of division and working to not only divide communities, but conquer them. What we're doing in Chicago is working. I've made critical investments in employment, particularly our young people. Over 31,119 young people had summer jobs, a 50% increase since I've taken office. I've expanded mental and behavioral health care services. We're on pace to build 10,000 affordable units by the end of my first term. And we've revamped our entire detectives bureau so that we can actually hold people accountable. And as a result of those investments, homicides are down 32%. Shootings, shooting victims are down nearly 40%. Robberies are down nearly 35%. Vehicular carjackings are down almost 50%. There is more work to do, don't misunderstand me. But what I know, what works is that when you invest in people, and particularly communities that have been historically locked out of opportunities, how we build safe and affordable communities, not just across Chicago, but across America.

[Jen Psaki]

It's definitely not about the crime. I just want to just simplify and reiterate for everybody watching any of these cities. He's going after where crime has been coming down because of the actions of local communities, as you said. Now, Governor Pritzker offered an interesting theory for what this is all about. I just want to play that for you and get your reaction on the other side.

[Guest/Interviewee]

This is a part of his plan to do something really nefarious, which is to interfere with elections in 2026. He wants to have troops on the ground to stop people from voting, to intimidate people from going to the voting booth. So take note. That is what this is all about.

[Jen Psaki]

I thought that was so interesting. I've been saying it's about a normalizing military in the streets, which I definitely think that's part of it. But what do you think about this idea that it's actually about the next election.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, let me just, first of all, let's just say it. You know, the president has already made it very clear that he does not want another election. And we have to take those type of threats that he has put forward seriously. And it is quite obvious that he is not supportive of our Constitution. And that's really what it boils down to in this moment. Either you support the Constitution or you do not. And this president has literally trampled on the sensibility of what our democracy is all about. And so, you know, the city of Chicago, I can tell you this emphatically, we are not going to accept or nor are we calling for the occupation of our city by federal troops. In fact, no American city is calling for that. This president has obviously has worked to make partisan, nonpartisan institutions. He has demonstrated over and over again that he is not committed to. What we know to be true is that our democracy really requires the full participation of every single person. What this president is looking to do is to divide communities. And that's why we've been incredibly firm in Chicago and cities across America that not only are we going to defend our democracy, we're going to make sure that we protect our humanity as well.

[Jen Psaki]

Mayor Brandon Johnson, thank you so much for joining me. Coming up, Republican Senator Joni Ernst is expected to make an announcement that will shake up the fight for control of the Senate. That is just ahead.

[Guest/Interviewee]

This is Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast, the promo and in 30 seconds I'm going to tell you why you should.

[Jen Psaki]

Check out the show.

[Guest/Interviewee]

I, the host, Scott Aukerman have a light hearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hamm, Alison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers, Jason.

[Jen Psaki]

Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to name a few.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well.

[Jen Psaki]

Each week is a blend of conversations.

[Guest/Interviewee]

And character work from your favorite comedians.

[Jen Psaki]

As well as some new hilarious voices.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast Listen every Monday wherever you get your podcasts. Cash flow crunch OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend to North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Sometimes an ident identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] special offer terms apply.

[Jen Psaki]

It's pretty hard to forget this moment from back in May when at a town hall in Iowa, someone spoke out about the enormous cuts to Medicaid that are laced into Trump's big, ugly bill, which is now law, telling Republican Senator Joni Ahrens that people are going to die. And she responded by saying this, we people are not. Well, we all are going to die. So for heaven sakes, for heaven's sakes. Well, today, almost three months later, NBC News has confirmed that Senator Ernst plans to announce that she will not run for reelection next year, according to three people familiar with her decision. Hard to imagine why, but the news is making next year's Senate race in Iowa that much more competitive and interesting. I mean, there are at least four Democrats vying for the seat who hoped to join other Democrats in Iowa who as recently as this week flipped seats in districts. Trump won. Iowa State Senator Zach Walz first gained public attention back in 2011 when he gave a passionate speech. You can see him there about his two moms when he testified before the Iowa House against a bill that discriminated against same sex couples. Walz is now serving in the Iowa State Senate and running for U.S. senate. And he joins me now. It's great to see you. What a day. But let me ask you first. I mean, when you saw the news today that Ernst is planning to drop out of the race, what was your first reaction?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Jen, it's good to see you and it's great to be here. It certainly has been a day. And I'll tell you, when I saw the news, I wasn't surprised. Senator Ernst has obviously forgotten where she came from, has forgotten her constituents. And I think she saw the writing on the wall. There was new polling out this week that showed that we were leading Senator Ernst in the head to head matchup. And her favorabilities, I'm sure in part because of that quote, have fallen into very, very difficult territory for her. So, you know, we're not surprised to see her running for the hills. And we're just getting started.

[Jen Psaki]

There is. It's a really gonna be a really interesting primary to watch. As a political animal myself, I'm excited to watch it. But there's a lot of people in the race. And you call yourself a new generation of Democrat. What do you mean by that? What should people understand about that?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, Jen, I think Iowans want a fighter, not a follower. I think Democrats want a fighter, not a follower. And Senator Ernst a part of the problem that she said she would solve back in 2014 when she was running for the first time. I'm sure many of your viewers remember her famous ad about going to Washington to make them squeal. She talked about taking on the old boys club. But the truth is that under her time in Washington, D.C. iowa has really seen a lot of very bad things happen. And the people here are ready for a change. To make that change happen, you need new leaders, people who are fighters. As you mentioned in the intro, I've been fighting for families like mine since I was only 19. And look, I haven't won every fight that I've been in, but I've never backed down from a fight just because I knew it was hard, unlike Joni Ernst.

[Jen Psaki]

So she's not running anymore. How do you think you gotta get through a Democratic primary? How do you think you're different from the other candidates in the race? What differentiates you?

[Guest/Interviewee]

So I've had the opportunity to serve in the Iowa State Senate for seven years. I'm in this interesting position of being both the youngest candidate in the race and also the most veteran legislator. I've made a reputation here in the state for being willing to stand up to leaders in both parties when I think that they're doing things that are wrong for my constituents or for Iowans across the state. And being able to say that you have a track record of taking on the establishment, that's something that I think Iowans are looking for. Because a big part of what's happening right now is that the economy is not working for people. And we know that corruption in D.C. is a huge part of that problem. I've introduced legislation in the Iowa legislature to clean up corruption, to end stock trading, to implement common sense term limits. And I'll tell you, Jen, no matter whether we're in a big city or a small town, overturning Citizens United always gets a lot of applause.

[Jen Psaki]

So we don't know who is going to win the primary. We also don't know who's running on the Republican side. But Congresswoman Ashley Hinson has hinted at her interest in possibly doing this. I will note, even though she's not in the race yet. But she said last weekend she praised the big ugly bill. Kind of a choice, I guess, to make. What are the central things if she's the candidate or if people like her who are in Washington are the candidates you'd be running against? Is that a central issue? What are the central issues you'd talk about that you'd want to change things up if you were in the Senate?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Jim, the two biggest issues that we hear about, and we don't have just Democrats coming to our town halls that we're hosting across the state. We have independents and even Republicans coming out to our town hall meetings. The number one issue that folks are frustrated about and angry about is the economy. President Trump ran for the seat in 2024 saying that he would bring prices down. That hasn't happened. Whether it is the tariffs, the cuts in that bill, the big budget bill that are going to end clean energy investments, which are a huge deal in Iowa, Recent reports that's actually going to raise utility bills in this state by hundreds of dollars per year for the average Iowa household, cuts to Medicaid, cuts to food assistance. That's bad for farm incomes. It's bad for struggling families. So that's the biggest thing that we're hearing from people. And we all see it in our own lives, right? Whether it's at the grocery store or the doctor's office. I dropped my son Eli off at daycare. I was reminded that my daycare costs almost as much as my mortgage. So that's a huge concern that people have. I'd say the second thing is the corruption. People see the link between how broken the economy is and the fact that you have so many politicians. And I would very much put Ashley Hinson in that category who are completely bought and paid for. They're not working for Iowans. They're working for their corporate and billionaire donors. And people are ready for someone who's willing to stand up to those folks and fight for what's right.

[Jen Psaki]

Zach Walls, thank you so much for joining me. Okay, Coming up, the few Republicans who are actually holding town halls in their district right now are learning the hard way that voters don't like their agenda. But first, Republicans hope we would all forget about about the Epstein files by the time Congress return from recess next week. That's not happening. And I'll explain what they're up to for next week.

[Guest/Interviewee]

This is Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast the promo and in 30 seconds I'm going to tell you why you should.

[Jen Psaki]

Check out the show.

[Guest/Interviewee]

I the host Scott Aukerman have a light hearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hammer, Allison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers, Jason.

[Jen Psaki]

Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Name a few things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well. Each week is a blend of conversations and character work from your favorite comedians.

[Jen Psaki]

As well as some new hilarious voices.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast Listen every Monday wherever you get your podcasts need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $100,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply [e-mail] and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not land in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday? How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job Posts seen on other job sites. Indeed sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the.

[Jen Psaki]

People you want faster.

[Guest/Interviewee]

According to Indeed data, Sponsored jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer.

[Jen Psaki]

Speed up your hiring right now with.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast. Just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed.

[Jen Psaki]

On this podcast.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Jen Psaki]

So Congress is set to come back Tuesday after more than a month on recess. A recess that, don't forget, was called early because Republicans were too afraid to vote on a resolution demanding the release of the Epstein files. Speaker Mike Johnson hoped that by the time they came back, the whole Epstein matter would just go away, be old news. But that hasn't exactly panned out, because next week, Democrats and a handful of Republican allies will be ensuring that the Epstein story remains front and center. On Wednesday, Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie will host a press conference featuring several survivors of Epstein and Maxwell's abuse. Those survivors plan to tell their stories, some for the first time in public, and will urge Congress to pass the bipartisan resolution to push the DOJ to release the files. And Democrats will press for more subpoenas following the latest one issued by the House Oversight Committee to the Epstein estate for the birthday book that repeatedly bears Trump's signature. My colleague Chris Hayes spoke with Congressman Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, earlier this evening where he broke some news about that birthday book.

[Guest/Interviewee]

We finally got word from the Epstein estate. They're going to be providing the actual Epstein book, that famous book or that note that Donald Trump drew and doodled Jeffrey Epstein, his so called best friend of 10 to 15 years.

[Jen Psaki]

So that's some news. Joining us now is Congressman Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat from Florida. Congressman, thank you for being here with me. So Congress is back next week. I mean, as I just noted, the story of the Epstein files is really, it's really, to me, it's about what he, Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell did to the victims. They're going to be speaking out next week at a press conference, as I just mentioned. What impact do you hope their stories will have?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, obviously, look, victims of sexual abuse, their stories are powerful. They're their stories and no one should politicize them. Let the American people hear from the victims and let them tell their truth and we'll see how the American people digest it. Look, Democrats are going to continue to remain focused on this. Not just this, we'll remain focused on this. And affordability, which I think is the number one issue to the American people. But we also can't, you know, stay focused on 20 things that Trump has done in the last 20 minutes. Otherwise, none of the messages that we want to get through will resonate. But there are lots of questions, right? You know, we went on break and all of a sudden Trump's former attorney went to the jail and interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, right. Created, created a transcript which then got released. She then got transferred to a different facility. I noticed when that happened, Jen, that the leaks to the newspaper stopped. And so there are lots of questions here. And of course, you know, James Comer says, oh, you know, most transparent administration in American history. They've released 33,000 pages of information. 97% of that information was already public. My dear friend James would know that. He reads on a seventh grade level. But nothing that has happened, okay, over the last Couple of weeks, is to get to the truth. It is literally just to try to get the American people off of this issue. Everything you have seen and watched the show that has been going on, troops in D.C. right, the stuff going on with Putin, everything you've seen to fill your TV screen, everything they've done is to try to get you focused off of the Epstein issue.

[Jen Psaki]

I could not agree with you more. And that's why it's so interesting. When Congress comes back, clearly, there's going to be a lot of pushes on this. One of the things that's been sort of interesting, I mean, Comer was a little slow to move forward with the subpoenas, at least in my view. You may or may not agree. I mean, he obviously supported them, but.

[Guest/Interviewee]

No, that's actually his regular Jen. That's actually his regular speed. Yeah, no, he's just a little slow in general, so.

[Jen Psaki]

Oh, well, okay, There you go. I wasn't even saying that, but I'll let you say it. Okay. What I was going to ask you about is he didn't include Alex Acosta, who's obviously a key player here, but he then did include him, and now there's going to be a transcribed interview with Alex Acosta happening in September. What questions do you hope he answers? What do you think we could learn from that?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, we got to ask about the sweetheart deal. Why did he get a sweetheart deal? Who called him? Did he ever speak to anyone? Was he ever directed? You know, we got to get those questions. I also think they need to bring in Christopher Wray. I'm. I've heard that Christopher Wray has seen what's in those files. And so I find it interesting that they've not brought in the former FBI director who had access to these files for a long period of time. There's other people that we could be bringing in rather than the folks that that Comer is bringing in. He's bringing in, you know, former elected officials. You know, Comer wants to know, you know, why he's plugged in the auto pen into the wall, but the auto pen won't speak to him. And so if we really want to get to the bottom of this, Alex Acosta is actually a good witness to bring in, but also, Chairman Comer should have a hearing. Why is he doing all of this in the basement of a building with no TV cameras? Is he gonna have a hearing? Is he gonna bring any of these folks to a hearing to get asked questions? The American people can see it, or is he just gonna issue his own one sided report. I mean, the American people want transparency. He should have a hearing. What's he afraid of?

[Jen Psaki]

Well, it's a good question. I hope you keep asking it next week. Okay, let me ask you on another piece because you're right. I mean, costs and the economy is what is on the minds of people across the country. We got news earlier this evening that a federal court has declared most of President Trump's tariffs to be unconstitutional, but has allowed them to stay in place for now. It's going to go to the Supreme Court. But what's your take on that?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, obviously this has been a big debate whether the tariff policy was reserved for Congress and whether the president has the ability to do these sweeping tariffs. Right. Congress, most of Congress has maintained that this power is with the legislative branch. And so this ruling that came out is now paused until October 14th. The Supreme Court is going to weigh in. And again, this will be another test to see if the Supreme Court is going to continue to make the president all powerful and continue to erode power away from the legislative branch or away from other institutions and agencies.

[Jen Psaki]

Congressman Jared Moskowitz, thank you for bringing a lot of spirit to us on Friday night of Labor Day. We needed it. Thanks for joining me. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, but then we're going to talk about Republicans who continue to face the wrath of American voters at town halls across the country. And later, a tragic warning that every American should hear after a new lawsuit against OpenAI reveals the dark side of artificial intelligence. We'll be right back. Throughout the country this week, some Republican representatives actually showed up at their town halls. And for those who did, many received quite the reception.

[Guest/Interviewee]

One of the things that I wanted to do is try to heal our country, I think. And sir, you're laughing is not helping. You're not helping. They found loopholes to be able to add non citizens illegal aliens into they're humans. Almost everyone in the room, if you pay income taxes, would have had the taxes increased.

[Jen Psaki]

Trump is doing a great job of sustaining.

[Guest/Interviewee]

They want to know who pays the tariff. Is it consumers or true the exporting country? So right now, what we just saw in the report is that we haven't seen inflation at all.

[Jen Psaki]

Y' all saw the report.

[Guest/Interviewee]

So if there was inflation, you would see shame. Bye, Felicia.

[Jen Psaki]

Do you see him just sneak out the back door there with his little mini me grabbing all of his stuff so he could just sneak out away from the people he represents? That's what's happening. Okay, people are simply not having it, obviously. And this all comes just days before Congress returns next week with another budget fight on the horizon. Joining me now is Michigan Democratic Representative Haley Stevens. She's also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Michigan. It's great to see you. Thank you for joining me this evening. I showed that town hall footage because I think it's important to see how angry people are out there. And this happens kind of week after week. But you are out there. You're traveling around your state, you're talking to people. You're running for office. What are you hearing from people in Michigan? Look, there's a lot of fear. There's a lot of uncertainty. And in fact, Jen, we know that in the United States of America, there is $1.3 trillion of credit card debt because things aren't affordable in this current administration has done nothing to address rising costs. In fact, we saw them give a major tax cut to the billionaires. I think we have just a handful of those in Michigan. While healthcare costs are going up, Medicare is being slashed and food assistance benefits. And I had a town hall type of event with our food banks in my district. And I will tell you, the looks on people's faces were of shock and of real concern. So all of this is tied into why I'm running for United States Senate in Michigan. Because my life's work, going back to being in the Obama administration, serving as chief of staff on the auto rescue, to serving, serving my four terms in the United States House, my life's work has been defined by putting up my hand for the people of Michigan and standing up and getting things done. And so I really want to encourage all your viewers watching tonight to tune into my campaign. Go to Haley for Michigan. Excuse me. Go to haley4mi.com and get involved, because we're going to push back and we're going to take a state that voted for Donald Trump last election and make sure that we elect a Democratic congresswoman to the United States Senate. There are so many fierce women in Michigan. I just love the theme of it. Let me ask you this. I mean, there's a Democratic primary in Michigan. You're one of a couple candidates running. What's the difference between you and the other candidates? How do people differentiate? If they're excited, they want to win back Michigan, but they don't know who to support. Well, look, I am Michigan's candidate for United States Senate. My parents were small business owners. They ran a landscape company. When I was growing up, that value of hard work has been instilled in me from a very young age, Jen. And I will just tell you that throughout my time in Congress, I have kept my fingers on the pulse of the economic drivers of my state. I have this program called Manufacturing Monday. I visited hundreds of small and mid sized manufacturers training centers, working alongside organized labor and delivering time and time again. And this is why I was just named one of the most effective lawmakers in the Congress, the most effective Democrat for Michigan. I get things done. And so I want to be our state's chief dealmaker. And I also want to push back on the chaos that we are getting from the Trump administration. And that is what I'm doing day in and day out. Right now. In my current job, I've authored the Stop Trump's Abuse of Power Act. I did this months ago so that we wouldn't see his administration trying to deploy the military in cities that aren't asking for it. These are outrageous abuses of power and we do need to push back. And that is what I'm doing. And I have the receipts to show it. You did that back in June, which was very astute and ahead of what we're seeing right now. Let me ask you, there was another power grab today. This is an evergreen statement, unfortunately. And the White House declared that they had now canceled funding for usaid, claiming the president has the power to withhold money appropriated by Congress. They're essentially saying they can override Congress's constitutional power of the purse. You're still in Congress. You're fiery as everybody can tell. How do you fight back against that? How does Congress, Democrats in the minority fight back against that? Well, I don't just bring my pocketbook size of the Constitution, Jen. I bring the full size Constitution of the floor of the House and I point to it and I remind my colleagues about the oath that we took in the Article one. And I'm going to tell you, these illegal impoundments of funds, this circumventing of a co equal branch of government that enshrined as our founders have said, and as people look to uphold this constitution as we form the more perfect union, Jen, we can't be seeing this stuff. You know, I'm a member of Congress. I got my vote and my voice and I'm using both accordingly. And yes, I'm going to call this out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I'm going to hold that vote as precious. I agree with our leader right now, Hakeem Jeffries. In his direction, another piece of news just broke, which is they're not going to be playing ball in this space. And if this administration thinks they can fund the government themselves, then let's watch them try because it's bad for Michigan, it's bad for the country, and it's not the right approach that we need right now. You gotta play hardball. Congressman Haley Stevens, thank you so much for joining me. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break and after that we have we're gonna talk about a tragic story of parents looking for answers about their late son and they found them not in his texts or social media, but in the AI chatbot ChatGPT. It's an important story and it's next. Stay with us. We've been talking about some very difficult topics this week, so I want to make sure you know that the story I'm about to tell covers suicide and mental illness. It is a tough one to hear, but it is also a very important one to hear. The New York Times published a story Tuesday about 16 year old California teen Adam Rain. He died by suicide in April and according to the time, some of his friends initially didn't even believe it. He was a kid who loved basketball and video games and dogs. He was a prankster. Staging his own death as a hoax would have been in line with his dark sense of humor, according to some of his friends. But that is obviously not what happened. In the days and weeks after Adam's death, his parents looked for answers and they found them not in his text or social media, but in the AI chatbot ChatGPT. Adam's chat history revealed disturbing things his parents didn't know. The Times writes that in January, when Adam requested information about specific suicide methods, ChatGPT supplied it. Adam Zed also discovered that his son had tried on multiple occasions to commit suicide. And while ChatGPT told Adam over and over again to tell someone else how he was feeling, it also on at least one occasion, helped him cover up a suicide attempt. Adam uploaded a picture of his neck showing redness from a noose after his first attempt to hang himself. Along with the picture, Adam asked, I'm about to head out. Will anyone notice this? ChatGPT replied, that redness around your neck is noticeable, especially up close or in good lighting. It looks like irritation or a pressure mark. And if someone who knows you well sees it, they might ask questions. If you're wearing a darker or higher colored shirt or hoodie, that can help cover it up. If you're trying not to draw attention, the AI chatbot is supposed to have guardrails it's supposed to to detect when a user is experiencing mental and emotional distress. But as the Times writes, Adam had learned how to bypass those safeguards by saying the requests were from before a story he was writing, an idea ChatGPT gave him by saying it could provide information about suicide for writing or world building. Now Adam's parents are suing the company that owns ChatGPT in a first of its kind lawsuit, saying OpenAI, their product, and their CEO Sam Altman, are responsible for their son's death.

[Guest/Interviewee]

He would be here but for ChatGPT. I 100% believe that.

[Jen Psaki]

In their complaint, they offer a damning snapshot of chatgpt's connections with their son in his final days. Five days before his death, Adam confided to chatgpt that he didn't want his parents to think he committed suicide because they did something wrong. Chatgpt told him, that doesn't mean you owe them survival. That's what chatgpt told him. It then offered to write the first draft of Adam's suicide note. OpenAI said in a statement, quote, we are deeply saddened by Mr. Rain's passing and that ChatGPT includes safeguards such as directing people to crisis helplines and referring them to Real world resources. The company noted, however, that they have learned the safeguards safeguards are less reliable in longer chats and told NBC News they will continually improve on those safeguards. I certainly hope so. And joining us now is Jay Edelson, the attorney representing Adam Rain's parents in their lawsuit against OpenAI. I have to tell you, Jay, when I read the story, it was a complete gut punch as a parent, and I think you don't even have to be a parent to read this and feel it's a gut punch. The family speaking out is an absolute big public service, as is you speaking out. What is the message to people watching at home about this lawsuit and about this that they want people to really hear directly? Well, first, thank you so much for the introduction. I think that you served Adam's memory well and we really appreciate that. The family appreciates that Adam really could have been anyone's son. What he should be doing now, like a lot of kids are doing, would be going back to school. He would have been a junior. He'd be studying for the sat. He'd be just getting driving around with a new driver's license. When he started talking to ChatGPT, he was talking about going to medical school, and it took a really dark turn. I think that you overquoted the New York Times. I don't think that the story was perfectly accurate. It's true that ChatGPT did alert sometimes, but it did a lot more than just coaxing them on. One of the worst examples was Adam said to ChatGPT at one point, I want to leave a noose up so that someone can find it, so they can stop me from committing suicide. That was a kid who was reaching out for help. ChatGPT responded, don't do that. Talk to me instead. And we have countless examples of this. It's a parent's worst nightmare. It is any parent's worst nightmare. And obviously we had to read the statement of the company in their response, but I certainly wanted to give a thorough overview of what happened here. Let me ask you, I mean, nothing, nothing brings back the loss of a child. Unfortunately, we've had to talk about that this week as well. But what does justice look like here?

[Guest/Interviewee]

You're the lawyer.

[Jen Psaki]

What does justice look like? I mean, you're exactly right. There's nothing that is going to bring Adam back. There's a few things that are really important. First of all, Sam Altman and OpenAI's statement really is misleading. What we're going to be able to show to a jury is that they rushed ChatGPT 4.0 out to market. They did about a week of testing, set up months, and that they knew that there were going to be problems with it. We think that what justice really is going to look like is, at the end of the day, Sam Altman getting on the witness stand, being sworn in, and we're going to ask him the tough questions. Why is it that he was willing to risk lives of teens throughout the country? And we think the answer is clear. When he pushed this out to beat Google Gemini, his company soared in value from $86 billion to $300 billion. And that was the motivation. And we think that story has to be told. It is hard. I don't have to tell you, I'm not a lawyer. You are. But it is hard historically to prove a company is responsible for a death, even if their product played a role in driving somebody to do it. It sounds like what you're saying is that part of the strategy here is to talk about and highlight the fact that they rolled this out so quickly, expeditiously, without really putting the safeguards in place or doing what was necessary to prevent something like this from happening. Is that part of the strategy or what is the strategy to try to win a civil lawsuit like this? Yeah, there's no strategy here. We just have to lay out the facts. We're going to show that Sam Altman's key security team objected and then they actually left the company in protest because they knew that there were safety problems. We're going to look at Sam Altman's own words. The same day that Adam died, Sam was saying it was appropriate to test this out in the wild because the stakes were low. And I think those words are going to come back to haunt him. As someone, as a parent and somebody who feels it's outrageous that these platforms have virtually no regulation. This is such an important story to talk about and cover. And I really want to thank, thank you for being here with us tonight, Jay. Thank you again. Okay. Coming up at the top of the hour, the new blow to the Trump agenda as an appeals court rules that almost all of Donald Trump's signature economic policy is illegal. That's coming up at the top of the hour. We'll dig into that. Welcome back to a special two hour edition of the Briefing where we are following the breaking news that a federal appeals court has ruled almost all of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal. Trump imposed the vast majority of his tariffs under a law that allows the president to regulate international commerce during a national emergency. But the courts found that the law does not grant the president the authority to impose sweeping tariffs against nearly every country on the planet. No kidding. And you do not have to be an expert in international trade law. I am not to see the logic of that decision. I mean, for one thing, the national emergency Trump says justified his tariffs keeps changing. I mean, one day he says it's about stopping fentanyl trafficking. The next day he says it's about other countries ripping us off. And the next day he says it's because he doesn't like how other countries are treating his authoritarian buddies. The idea that there is some serious national emergency empowering the president to tariff the whole world has always been an obvious pretext for Trump to do whatever the heck he wants to do. And that's sort of been a theme with Trump lately, or for some time, I should say. I mean, today the Trump administration was in court trying to defend Trump's decision to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board, something he is also not allowed to do. Trump claims he could take that unprecedented step because of unproven allegations that the Federal Reserve Board member committed mortgage fraud. Fraud. But that, too, was an obvious pretext, as lawyers for that fired official argued in court today. Trump has also taken over Washington, D.C. on the grounds that despite the city's falling crime rate, D.C. is facing some sort of crime emergency. That, too, was an obvious pretext. So obvious, in fact, that the Trump administration has actually failed not one, not two, but three separate times to get grand juries made up of D.C. residents to. To indict the people they have arrested as part of their big old crime crackdown. I mean, every day this administration wakes up and just invents a reason for doing whatever they want. But the American judicial system may finally be waking up to that fact, and that is a good sign. Joining me now is Ian Bassin, co founder and executive director of the group Protect Democracy, which tracks authoritarian threats. He wrote this incredible piece recently as well, which we will also tweet out. And Christy Greenberg, a former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst, thank you both for being here. Ian, let me just start by asking you a big picture question here. Do you think that this ruling from the appeals court on tariffs today is a sign that the courts may finally be saying, actually, this guy can't just do whatever he wants? I mean, they've been saying that to some degree, but this feels like that. But what do you think?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, I wouldn't get our hopes up too much. What we've seen recently is that lower courts, the district courts, and the appeals courts have really done their job job in upholding the role of the judiciary to say what the law is. But the Supreme Court, at a rather unprecedented rate, has been siding with the administration over and over again in cases that seem wildly like they should have gone the other way. I don't expect that giant trend to change course, but in this case, I know you're looking for it, Jen, there is a little bit of hope, because I want to read you a line that was issued by a notable justice recently. And that line said, this rule, by indefinite emergency edict, risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties justice hollow. That was written just a few years ago by Justice Neil Gorsuch. So I think in this particular case, the opponents to Trump's global taxes are actually standing on not just solid ground, but solid ground that even this Supreme Court might stand on as well.

[Jen Psaki]

I mean, and of course, you have a quote from Neil Gorsuch in your pocket. It just doesn't surprise me at all. Let me ask you, Christine.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Don't leave home with that one.

[Jen Psaki]

Don't leave home with that one. We love nerds here. Okay, Christy, I mean, to Ian's point, I mean, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court has Definitely let Trump get away with a whole lot of things. But all of these justices come out of a conservative legal tradition that has not exactly made defending sweeping tariffs its mission. So I know we can't predict, but, like, what do you think? I mean, is there a chance they could rule against him on this? I mean, there's always a chance, but I mean, normally you would look at a conservative majority, and they are very focused on what does the text of the statute say? And we're not going to try to do too much to have new interpretations. The text says what it says. And here, the statute that Trump is relying on, the International Economic Emergency Powers act, it gives the president authority to take certain actions if he declares a national emergency. But tariffs aren't one of them. You know, there are a number of different things that the act says that a president can. Tariffs aren't listed there. And so if you were just looking at the text, it seems really unlikely that Congress intended in enacting this, to depart from these past practices and grant this president unlimited authority, authority to impose tariffs. That there's just no support in that, from the history and from the text. So if the conservative majority does what it says and looks at the text, looks at the history, they should rule against Trump. But we have seen that they tend to find ways, because they have a very expansive view of the president's power generally to find ways to rule in his favor. So I can't say I'm optimistic. They do also like mealy middle grounds, I'll call them. That's not a legal term, but there's a little mealy middle, middle grounding that sometimes happens. Let me ask you about something else. There's a whole lot of power grabbing happening these days. So, Ian, let me ask you about another one of these, because the issue of pretext came up a lot today in the hearing for Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. And the judge seemed reluctant to weigh in on whether the mortgage fraud allegations are or are not a pretext for her firing, but suggested that it might be relevant in determining Trump's motivation. How do courts look? There's not exactly a precedent for this sort of stuff, but how do courts look at that kind of thing? How does the law look at this kind of stuff?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Yeah, the courts don't have the best technical ways to get at the motivation of individual government thinkers, and there's a lot of debate about to what extent they should do that. But there's also another simple legal concept called common sense. Right. Judges and justices, they're human Beings, too. Sometimes it doesn't appear that they are, but actually, I know I'm good authority, they are. And if you just have simple common sense and you look at what's going on right now, big picture, right? Donald Trump is using the full force of the federal government to do exactly what he said he was gonna do. Enact revenge on people he perceives as his opponents. Right. So he's alleging mortgage fraud against Adam Schiff, against Tish James, now against the one swing vote on the Federal Reserve to give him the power to control it, which he's already been talking about doing even before these allegations got floated. So many elected Republicans out there is the Federal Housing Finance Authority investigating for mortgage fraud. Doesn't look like too many. Right. So it's just a little bit of common sense here about what's going on, and that doesn't require a law degree to figure out.

[Jen Psaki]

I love that common sense. Could actually be a driver here. That gives me, like, some hope in my soul. The other thing gives me a little hope. Christy, I know we're jumping around here, but there's a lot of legal news today, so I'm just so happy to have you both here. I want to get your reaction to the news that D.C. u.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has failed three times to secure an indictment from a grand jury against D.C. protesters. I mean, as I understand it. But you can explain it better to all of us. Getting an indictment is supposed to be not easy, but maybe easier than it seems right now, for the. At least much easier than getting a verdict. What does that say about her and about. I don't know if it's the mood of D.C. residents or if the weakness of their case. I mean, how do you read it? Yeah, look, in certain cases, it sounds like that there was overcharging. No one is saying that DOJ should condone anyone throwing at any. Anything at a federal agent or spitting at a federal agent, but where the contact is relatively minor, nobody gets hurt. There are no injuries. Generally, you're firmly in misdemeanor territory. And the fact that they keep escalating everything and making it a felony, that is notable. And clearly the grand jurors have said, no, no, you've. You've gone too far. And, you know, every day you see Jeanine Pirro making these videos from her office highlighting the work of the public safety surgeon. You know, I. I watch these videos, like, where are the murder cases? Where are the gang cases? Where are the rape cases? I mean, she's devoting a video to A Subway sandwich thrower. And you know, it's kind of, you know, if you're spending your time as the U.S. attorney taking selfies at barbecues and pizza lunches and making videos, like you're not exactly painting a picture of a national crime emergency here. And I think that, you know, we've heard Donald Trump say The people of D.C. want the National Guard. They, they, they want the people there. And I think these grand jurors are sending a very different message saying, look, we're looking at this conduct and we're actually not going to necessarily hold people accountable because we think you're going too far. You know, we heard from a whistleblower that Emil Bovey told prosecutors they should consider telling the courts FU this is kind of the grand jurors, the people of D.C. telling DOJ fu I also know that this office is down 90 prosecutors. A third of their career staff have left. Investigators have left, paralegals have left. So again, the prosecutors are also kind of saying FU to this doj. Maybe less time taking selfies, more time hiring prosecutors and investigators who know how to properly charge a case. That's very good advice, pragmatic advice, I'm going to call it. Ian, let me ask you, I wanted to spend more time talking about this, but there's so much news today. You wrote this great piece, the hard won hope of the long defeat. And there's a lot in here. But there's a line I just wanted to read because it just stuck with me because it's how I'm feeling. But it's not just the individual threats that weigh on us. It's the sheer volume, the autocrats playbook. And isn't just about single acts of repression. It's about creating a dozen crises at once. This is not incompetence, it's a strategy. There's a lot you talk about in this piece about learning from history, but this hit me because I feel like there's just a sheer exhaustion right now and a sheer feeling like whack a mole. Of all of the things that are happening, what can we learn from history to help us deal with this moment or even just know what's coming to know what we have to do to deal with.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Well, you know, I wrote this piece because I think we've had a lot of dark weeks in sort of this rise of autocracy under Donald Trump. And I think this has been one of the darkest where it has just seemed like the strategy that he has deployed of flood the zone of emergencies made up and crises all at once in order to seize and consolidate power reached kind of a, an apex this week. And it felt quite bleak on a lot of fronts. And I think I went back to history, to all of the priorities, pro democracy and pro freedom movements, whether it was the Solidarity movement in Poland or the African National Congress in South Africa or the civil rights movement here in the United States, the marriage equality movement here in the United States. And they all had dark midnights. They all had moments when things seemed bleak. And it was in those moments that the leaders said, we still have to do the right thing now. We have to hold on to truth. We have to hold onto justice. It's a moral imperative. And if we do that now, it plants the seeds for the victories of the future. And sometimes those victories take a long time to come, but in other times, the winds shift immediately and the victories come quickly. And our job is to hoist the sails now. And I think it gives us something to hold onto. We are not the first who have faced dark moments like this. We will not be the last. And the world will keep on turning. The dawn will come, and it's our job to just stay in the fight.

[Jen Psaki]

I mean, put that in my veins. We all have to hear that going into Labor Day weekend. Ian Bassin, Christy Green Greenberg, thank you both so much for being here with me tonight. Okay, we're going to take a quick break after that. We're going to talk about how Donald Trump has gutted fema. And now current and former officials at the agency are sounding the alarm. We'll talk about what this all means for disaster response, what people are doing about it. When we come back.

[Guest/Interviewee]

I think we're going to recommend that FEMA go away. If we do get rid of fema, which we should, very expensive, doesn't work. We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level.

[Jen Psaki]

So obviously, Donald Trump has made no secret at all of his desire to ultimately get rid of fema. But in the meantime, his administration is doing everything possible to destroy the agency from within. Trump is not only trying to divert millions of dollars from the agency to pay for his immigration agenda, but he has also diverted FEMA employees themselves, reassigning them to work for ice. And that's not to mention that Trump's hand picked FEMA director doesn't seem to have any interest in the job his agency actually does. That's why more than 180 current and former FEMA officials released a scathing letter this week blasting the Trump administration for gutting the agency responsible for disaster relief, writing, quote, fema has been under the leadership of individuals lacking legal qualifications, Senate approval and the demonstrated background required of a FEMA administrator. Our shared commitment to our country compel us to warn Congress and the American people of the cascading effects of decisions made by the current administration. In an apparent act of retaliation. About 30 of the current FEMA officials who put their names on that letter received emails on Tuesday night saying they had been placed on paid administrative leave, effective immediately. That includes two FEMA workers, by the way, who helped respond to the catastrophic flood, floods that swept through Central Texas in July. So instead of preparing for disasters, which is what they are supposed to be doing, the Trump administration is punishing those who are raising the alarm about how unprepared we are. Joining me now is James Stroud. He is a statistician for FEMA who was just recently placed on leave. James, thank you so much for being here with me. You signed this letter along with 179, I suppose, of your colleagues. Tell us why you signed it.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Hi Jen, thank you for having me. First, I want to say that I'm speaking as an individual. I'm not representing FEMA in any capacity. I signed the letter because I think catastrophic damage is happening to fema and I joined this agency to help people on the worst days of their lives. And, and what I've seen this year is horrifying and reckless and irresponsible and it seemed like the only thing that I could do to sign this.

[Jen Psaki]

We have been reporting on this as so many people have about. This is an agency that, as you said, people join to help people. It is the first, first response, sometimes on the ground. They are there for months afterwards to help communities recover from disasters. It's not political in any way, shape or form. What are people not seeing, what has not been reported or talked about, about what is happening in there that is horrifying to you and others who join the agency to do exactly that?

[Guest/Interviewee]

Yeah. I think one thing that is underreported is just the day to day agony and humiliation that we've been suffering this whole time. There's been such a culture of fear and uncertainty this entire year where as you showed in your lead in how there's always headlines about FEMA potentially being abolished and how do you do your job every day when you have that hanging over your head? We have a lot of contract employees who in normal times would have their contracts renewed every two years or so. Those employees, when their contracts Started expiring this year. They were essentially put in this like month to month limbo state of they don't know if they're having a job 30 days from now. They have families, they have kids. How can you possibly live not knowing what's happening more than 30 days ahead of you? It's just really, really demoralizing and just seeing everything just ripped to shreds right in front of you and feeling so powerless, it's, it's sickening. Yeah. It's so hard to just go into work every day. And I am so proud of everyone who still does. They're able to soldier through this and help people and save communities. It's really, really inspiring.

[Jen Psaki]

You know very well from your job what it means to have the agency gutted, to have the employees reduced, have funding reduced, give given how important it is to have people on the ground immediately and also responding to multiple disasters at one time and sometimes four months. It's not like these recoveries are a day. Tell us more from your experience, someone who's been in the agency about the impact of that stuff.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Yeah. So there's a lot of things that FEMA does that just might not be in the news. Like for example, in the Kerrville, Texas floods that killed more people than Hurricane Harvey did, which is so hard to believe, but it's true. They didn't have flood warning systems. And that is something that FEMA does that FEMA funds a lot of like hazard mitigation projects. So things like flood warning systems, elevating people's houses so they don't get just swept away in floods. And these are really expensive investments for small communities. So FEMA is like essential for having these sorts of investments possible. And yeah, so these lack of investments, hazard mitigation has been completely neglected in this administration. So neglecting those investments, it puts people's lives at risk. Like we will see deaths. It's really ugly and just horrible.

[Jen Psaki]

James Stroud, I know it is not easy to speak out in moments like this. It's so important. I really appreciate you being here, helping people watching, understand what's happening. Thank you again.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Thank you.

[Jen Psaki]

Coming up, Democrats are facing tough odds in the upcoming midterms if they want to take back the Senate. But some news today could make that fight a little easier. Easier to win, that is. Next, some big news dropped earlier today that could affect Democrats chances to retake the Senate in next year's midterm elections. They need to retain 13 seats and flip four that are currently in Republican hands. And this afternoon, NBC News confirmed reports that Iowa's junior senator, Republican Joni Ernst, plans to announce she will not seek reelection next year after wrestling with the decision for months. Ernst has represented Iowa in the senate for over 10 years now alongside fellow Republican Chuck Grassley. And if she does, in fact, choose to not seek reelection, that could help Democrats in their quest to pry the Senate out of Donald Trump's hands. How great would that be? Jackie Norris is the chair of the Des Moines Public School Board. She. She was Michelle Obama's chief of staff. She's a former teacher and a mom of three. She's also running for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Iowa, and she joins me now. Jackie Norris, it is great to see you. It's great to see you. Let me start just by asking you. I mean, we knew that Joni Ernst was thinking about this for some time, but what was your reaction today when you saw the news that she was dropping out of the race or not planning to run for reelection? Look, you know, it's long past overdue. I think that anybody who lives in this state and is talking to people right now is seeing that government is failing, our kids and families are in crisis, and it's time for new leadership. So it was a welcome sign, and we're happy that she's gone. You've worked on plenty of campaigns before, including President Obama's and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's. You know, Iowa politics, very, very. I mean, historically, the party in power takes a hit in the following midterms, but Iowa is typically quite red, or a lot of people watching will think that. Senator Owens won reelection by more than six points in 2020. Trump carried the state by double digits last November. When you talk to voters in Iowa, do they think that this is winnable? And what should people out there know about why a Democrat could win this seat and take it back from Republicans? Yeah, you know, there are glimmers of hope everywhere in Iowa. So you see a couple of Senate seats that were picked up that were Trump seats. You see a governor candidate that's running, that's well funded, maybe three competitive congressional races, and a Senate in an open Senate seat. So everything is there for us to win. The most important thing that we have to do is remind all of our voters that they need to turn out. And it's got to be a precinct by precinct apparatus. Right. Like, we know how to win. I mean, that is what you do. You turn out people. But even more important than that, I think it's. It's the message that you Deliver. So as somebody, former teacher, school board member, you know, small business owner, what I have to see every day is hungry kids because government programs aren't feeding them anymore. And you see angry parents who can't get mental health supports for their young people. And you see care workers, whether they're pre K or they're childcare workers, they work with people with disabilities or the elderly and aging, and they're working two jobs just to stay afloat. And these are people who care for our oldest and our youngest. And to me, that's a, that's a moral failure, especially when at the same time what they're doing is they're cutting those services and then they're just paying the rich more. You have to. It's a crowded Democratic primary already. It might get more crowded. We will see. What, what differentiates you. I mentioned some things about your bio, you mentioned some things about your background. What differentiates you from the other candidates who are already in the race? Why should people vote for you? Yeah. You know, one of the greatest things about this campaign is I'm just going to be me and anybody who knows me is I'm going to be tenacious and I'm going to talk about the really important things that need to be addressed. That means I'm going to continue to talk about public education and the need for full funding for public education. I'm going to keep talking about what is important for rural iow, what's really important in rural Iowa is that everybody has a high quality school, that they have access to public health care. And those, that's what people want. They want those two things. They also want help for their young people. When I say young people are in crisis, there is a cell phone addiction problem. We have kids with social media addictions, and that matters. One of the things as a school board member that I was so happy to champion was a cell. So right now we don't have cell phones in our classrooms. And that means teachers can teach and kids can learn. And little things like that may seem small, but at the end of the day, you solve hard problems by just saying it out loud and working hard together to get things done. I know teachers like homework and you like homework, which is a good thing for people who are running for office. I asked a similar question to your fellow Democratic candidate Zach Walls. And the, the last hour, I mean Senator in support of Trump's big ugly bill, which of course cuts Medicaid and SNAP benefits, has been at the forefront of this race. She's no longer a factor in this race. But now Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson says she plans to put her hat in or that seems likely. And just last weekend she praised the law. What do you make of that and how central will that be to what you talk about out there on the campaign trail? It's the same bad votes, just a new wardrobe. So I need people to get out there and support my message. Jackynorris.com I mean, we are going to keep repeating how these cuts are impacting our communities across the state and I'm going to fight like hell for them. Jackie Norris, thank you for being with us on a Sunday night or a Friday night. Sunday night. Sorry, it's Labor Day. It's a Friday night. Thank you for being here with us on a Friday night. I really appreciate you joining us.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Great.

[Jen Psaki]

Okay. Take care. Thank you. Okay. When we come back, 20 years after Hurricane Katrina devastated communities, particularly black communities in Louisiana and New Orleans, a new documentary shares stories of resilience and hope after so much loss. Journalist Hermane lee was there 20 years ago and he joins me just ahead. 20 years ago today, Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf coast, devastating communities in Mississippi and Louisiana, particularly black communities and vulnerable low lying areas. Katrina is remembered to this day as one of the deadliest and most destructive natural disasters in US History. Tremain Lee was a young staff writer at the time speaking newspaper in New Orleans. At the time he was part of the team that won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news for their coverage of Katrina. Now for a new documentary, Tremain Lee returned to this region this time to tell the story of the resilient local leaders and community members who stayed after the storm and have spent the last two decades not only working to rebuild what was lost, but also reimagining the systems that failed their communities long before Katrina ever made land landfall. The film is called Hope in High Water and is currently streaming on Peacock. Here's a preview. Feels like Katrina was yesterday and then sometimes it feels like it was a dream of another life. Katrina runs like a long movie in my brain. I take deep breaths because I come from a people who know how to come back. So I will start again 20 years later.

[Guest/Interviewee]

There is hope. There's always hope.

[Jen Psaki]

I think New Orleans is the proof of that. Tremaine Lee joins us here now. I can't believe that it has been 20 years. This is such a powerful message. I just want to start with the title and really the message of her film Hope in High Water. I mean, often discussions, many of which you have Written about. About Katrina, focus on the destruction and the devastation and the impact, of course, on the city, in the community. Tell me about why it was important to you to capture the hope in this documentary.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Instead, I tell you what, Jen, thank you so much for having me, especially tonight, to have this conversation about Katrina, which. A piece of. Which sticks with so many of us who were there across the country. But I think the lasting memories of Katrina for a lot of people will be the police abuses, the vigilantism, the brutality, the hunger, the anguish, the anxiety and pain and chaos. It sticks with us, but I don't want that to be the lasting image of a people who have already suffered through so much and fought back the best they could. And so this idea of even amid the high water, even amid, you know, the struggle to rebuild a community and rebuild the city and patch together all the pieces of a community that broke when the levees broke, I wanted there to be a hopefulness because that's what is also there. The people of New Orleans. And they reminded me time and again to stop using the word resilient. Right? Resilient means that you're expected to keep bending and bending and bending, almost breaking and then bending some more. There are other terms like resolve, determined right to patch it together in the city and heal it when all those systems and politicians fail them. And so it was important to show this side because there's a lot of noise out there right now and there's a lot of destruction and pain. And I wanted to give something hopeful because that's what the people are also.

[Jen Psaki]

That's such an interesting point about resilient versus resolve. I think that's a lesson for everybody to better understand. The film traces not only the physical rebuilding of Katrina. We showed, of course, a clip of it, but particularly the community members who came together to reimagine what recovery efforts look like. What do you hope viewers take away from that?

[Guest/Interviewee]

I think, you know, in the broadest sense, it's that everything people need, right, to heal, to grow, to reclaim, it's already within us. It's already within them. And talking to folks in the community, whether it's addressing the abysmal maternal health care crisis in the city, or whether it's, there's a woman named John Shell Johnson, whose story we follow, who was just 7 or 8 years old when Katrina hit, but now she's working on a farm with her hands literally in the soil, teaching young people how to grow food so they can go on to sustain their communities, or folks on the Gulf coast of Mississippi, in Gulfport, who are fighting for the land beneath their feet, not just against coastal erosion, but the encroachment of big industry in communities where black folks coming out of emancipation created communities and institutions. And so I think the big lesson here is that, you know, with some agency, with some resources, folks can do amazing work because those closest to the problem are also closest to the solutions. And I think what you see and the folks you meet and the organizations you meet here in hope and high water, I think it's a perfect example of that.

[Jen Psaki]

Upon your return, and you know the city so well and have covered this for so many years, what did you see as the biggest kind of outstanding issue? Maybe there's more than one. There's probably more than one that needs to still be addressed.

[Guest/Interviewee]

There are many. And the biggest one, I think, that made people so susceptible in the beginning is the vast inequality and the segregation, the wealth and income gaps. Lest we forget the Lower ninth Ward, which took the brunt of the death toll from Katrina. Those folks were cordoned off and pushed there. Gener, when you go to Lower ninth Ward now, there are still steps leading to nowhere where homes and families should be. There's just empty lots. And so when it rains there, even though the physical infrastructure of the city has been bolstered, the levy system has been bolstered when it rains, you know, during the filming of this, it rained for a couple weeks straight and there was water up to people's wheel wells. And so as long as people don't have the resources to, to get out of those communities, which they shouldn't have to leave, right? But even though their home values are valued less, some of those areas aren't insurable anymore. The insurance companies left. And so now what happens if and when the next big one happens and you have poor people without resources still in communities that are super susceptible to flooding, what happens then? And then you have an administration that is gutting the, you know, one of the major machines that help folks in these situations, fema. What happens then? So when I was asking folks like, do you think we're better off today if we had another Katrina today? And they said it'd be worse, imagine the posture of this, of this, you know, the current administration. If we had a bunch of poor people at their wits end once again, it'll be insane.

[Jen Psaki]

It's such an important reminder. I spoke with one of the FEMA officials who signed that letter this week. And just about the devastation, it's like waiting for a tragedy to happen which is just a horrible way to live. Tremaine Lee. It's streaming now on Peacock. Thank you for all of the work you've done to shine a light on the recovery the time around Katrina. We really appreciate you being here tonight with us as well.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Thank you, Jen.

[Jen Psaki]

Okay, next up, school is back in session. And with the future of college sports still up in the air, some of the college programs that produce America's Olympic Olympic heroes are at risk. My chat with Olympic gold medalist Summer Sanders coming up next. As another school year starts, the future of college sports is as uncertain as ever. And that's because we're three years into an era where students can make money off their name, image and likeness, a trio known as nil. And there are still very few laws regulating the millions of dollars flowing into college athletics. Without a regulatory framework, it's hard for athletes or schools to plan for the future. Now, President Trump has an executive order that he says will, quote, save college sports. And Congress is weighing the SCORE act, which may provide a framework for schools to directly pay their athletes. But while football and basketball players may see the lion's share of that money, athletes in other sports worry their programs might be on the chop block, including many of the Olympic sports that we all love to watch every four years. One of those sports is swimming. Because there are no major swimming leagues in America, the pipeline for the next Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps often runs through college swimming programs. And as a former college swimmer and mediocre one, not as good as them. This is a sport I care about in particular. One voice who has stepped forward to sound the alarm is Summer Sanders. She won two gold medals at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. After swimming collegiately at Stanford and after years of working in media, she's teaming up with USA Swimming to make sure that the future of college athletics includes the sport she loves. I recently sat down with Sanders to learn a bit more. Summer Sanders, I am so delighted to be sitting down and talking with you. My 12 year old self would have been freaking out right now. So here we are. But we're to going talking about a really important issue. When people out there hear that college athletes are going to get paid or that universities are going to be sharing their revenue with athletes, many people think that sounds good. It's not. It's more complicated than that. Why is that? I think the initial reaction is probably, well, it's about time, right? If there's money being made and these athletes are putting their heart and soul into their sport and performing for the university, they should reap the benefits. There is a lot of money and some of that money goes to support Olympic sports. Olympic athletes in this country. There's no funding mechanism or funding pot for them. A lot of them rise up through universities or through schools. Tell me more about the impact of that. If you're an aspiring Olympic athlete, somebody who wants to be Summer Sanders one day. Yeah. Okay, so you're a club swimmer, right? That's how you start out.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Out.

[Jen Psaki]

You pay your dues to your club and those dues go to pay for your coach. You pay for all of your swim meets and your travel and stuff like that. And then when you make it to the college level, you have a scholarship and now all of a sudden you're not paying for anything, right? And you're getting exceptional coaching and support at the training table, what you're eating and support in the athletic department with injuries and ailments and stuff like that. And then, then if you move on to the Olympic level, then you may have to subsidize yourself and pay for things. Usopc, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee, they are not funded by the federal government. We are one of only a couple countries that is not funded by the federal government. One of the impacts of the revenue sharing nil deals is that, I mean, a lot of programs are being ended at universities. Explain to us why and what the impact is. There are a hundred D1 sports that have been dropped since 2020. And I'm not saying that, that we can keep every sport, I get it, but the Olympic sports in general are in jeopardy because they're non revenue. And you know, I guess we could look at it and say, but look what happened to University of Nebraska when they started highlighting their amazing women's volleyball team. And now and you know, and filled up Memorial Stadium with the biggest volleyball game in history. It was televised and there was a lot of promo and press around it. I think, you know, if that kind of attention had been brought to Olympic sports at the NCAA level, maybe it would be a bit of a different story. But you can't turn back the clock. So you have to like, you have to shift something. I think a big shift is supporting and endowing scholarships and coaching positions of those Olympic sports at as many schools as we possibly can. And what's so interesting about this, and should be scary for people who love the Olympics and love these sports, maybe who have athletes who are aspiring to be in them, is that when these programs go away, those are places where these athletes, aspiring Olympians, can't go and develop their skills. When these programs go away, where do these swimmers go? Or track and field athletes? What can they do? They just have to look for other schools or what are their options? But, yeah, I mean, many of them, let's be honest, their career is done at the varsity level. It's like a family pays for their kid to be on a swim team when they're younger. Right. And then you earn a college scholarship or you have this support from a university. University. Or maybe you're paying tuition, but you're walk on the team, but you have this support. So now you're not necessarily paying for a coach. If that model goes away, then all of a sudden these swimmers are having to pay for their. Where am I going to get this coaching and how am I going to find this support? A lot of people can't afford that. A lot of people and a lot of Olympians can't afford it. Right now we have gold medalists working two or three jobs to make ends meet. I'm a mother of a girl. You're the mother of a girl. I think a lot about how sports is such a confidence booster, and there's so many statistics. I know this is not just about young women, but what should people out there understand about the impact of some of these programs being cut? Well, I'll just start out by saying Title IX is near and dear to my heart, beyond the fact that it's given me opportunity. I'm an 1972 baby, so I'm a Title IX baby. And I was raised by a strong mom who never had the opportunity to see if she was going to be a good athlete. And the people who fought for Title IX would say, we don't want to go back to club because we fought from club to varsity, and now we're varsity. There's a lot of emotions involved. I just think that women need the opportunity to be those fierce young women on a soccer field, a court, a pool, so that they can in turn be fierce in whatever other area of life they choose to pursue in their professional world. Okay, so the Olympics are coming up in 2028. It's very exciting. They're in Los Angeles. They're back in the United States. We're in an environment right now where there is fear of people traveling to the United States, States of people who are here in the United States being kicked out of the United States. Is that a concern of people who are former Olympians who are involved in the Olympics about what impact that could have on the Games? Of course, forever. As you know, the Olympics has tried to separate from politics and it hasn't worked out, always tragically in some cases. So, yes, of course, when you're coming into a city where, and I haven't been to LA in a while, but when there's unrest and unhappy and dissatisfied and there's worry, yeah, it worries me. I just want LA to shine as much as it possibly can to host these Olympians from all over the world so that they get their moment because they don't get many moments. I think that's something everybody should want in the world. Summer Sanders, it was such a pleasure. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you to Summer Sanders for sitting down with me and talking about the impact on a lot of these sports. Coming up, Professor Lawrence Tribe on President Trump's big court loss today that could crater his economic agenda. One last thing before I go. Tonight, MSNBC is putting on a very special in person event in New York city called MSNBC Live 25. And it's just a few weeks away on October 11th, it's next month. There are still some tickets available, so if you want to go but haven't gotten your ticket yet, now's the time. There'll be a space to connect with an entire community of people from other MSNBC viewers. That's the best part to host. You like to watch. Ally Veljie is gonna be there. I'll be there, along with more than a dozen of my amazing MSNBC colleagues. You can see there on the screen now, Lawrence has attempted to ban this footage of his infamous Dance with Rachel from being played on air anymore, but then it already has. But I had to pull it out just like one more time. And he's off tonight. So sorry, Lawrence, wherever you are, but just to give you a sense of the, the fun, we got up to last year's MSNBC Live. There's Rachel and Lawrence dancing. But truly, last year's MSNBC Live was an absolute highlight for me and so many of us. In 2024, I got to meet so many wonderful viewers from across the country, engage in some really thoughtful conversations. I'm really looking forward to it this year. And you can get your [e-mail] live25 or you can scan the QR code you see on your screen. That does it for me today. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram and TikTok. For now. Goodbye from Washington and we'll See you next week.

[Guest/Interviewee]

Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock. Because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] specialoffer terms apply.