Trump team frantically moves goalposts, throws tantrums to preserve Trump Iran bombing story

Summary

Summary of "Trump Team Frantically Moves Goalposts, Throws Tantrums to Preserve Trump Iran Bombing Story"

The Briefing with Jen Psaki – MSNBC | Release Date: June 27, 2025

In this episode of The Briefing with Jen Psaki, host Jen Psaki delves into the tumultuous aftermath of the U.S. military strikes on Iran, examining the Trump administration's efforts to maintain its narrative despite conflicting intelligence reports. The episode features in-depth analysis, expert opinions, and interviews with key political figures to unravel the complexities surrounding this international incident.

---

1. The Pentagon Scandal and Secretary Pete Hegseth's Meltdown [00:53 - 05:28]

Overview: The episode opens with Jen Psaki highlighting a recurring scandal at the Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's leadership. Since his appointment on January 25th, Hegseth, a former Fox News anchor, has been embroiled in daily controversies, culminating in a particularly alarming press conference following the U.S. strikes on Iran.

Key Points:

• Daily Scandals: Hegseth's tenure has been marred by continuous scandals, with varying degrees of severity each day.
• Iran Strikes Press Conference: Instead of providing clarity on the outcomes of the strikes, Hegseth delivered a disjointed and evasive briefing that left many questions unanswered.

Notable Quotes:

• "Every day since January 25th, Pete Hegseth has been the secretary of defense. And some days that scandal is more jarring than others." [00:53]
• "Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?" – Jennifer Griffin, Fox News Reporter [03:20]

Analysis: Political analysts criticize Hegseth for his lack of transparency and his attempts to deflect accountability. The press conference revealed significant gaps in the administration's narrative, especially regarding the effectiveness of the Iran strikes.

---

2. Intelligence Contradictions and Shifting Narratives [04:13 - 12:16]

Overview: Jen Psaki delves into the conflicting intelligence reports surrounding the Iran strikes. While the administration claims success in obliterating Iran's nuclear capabilities, Pentagon intelligence contradicts these assertions.

Key Points:

• Intelligence Discrepancies: Defense Intelligence Agency reports indicate that the strikes did not eliminate Iran's enriched uranium stockpile as claimed.
• Satellite Evidence: Satellite images from days before the strike show numerous cargo trucks at the targeted site, suggesting possible movement of nuclear materials.
• Tulsi Gabbard's Role: Initially skeptical of Trump's stance, Gabbard later presents new intelligence supporting the administration's claims, raising questions about her credibility.

Notable Quotes:

• "If you want to know what's going on at Ford O, you better go there and get a big shovel." – Political Analyst [02:07]
• "Their behavior can be so bizarre at times, it is almost funny." – News Anchor [09:08]

Analysis: The episode scrutinizes the Trump administration's handling of intelligence, highlighting a pattern of misinformation and the manipulation of facts to sustain political narratives. The credibility of key figures like Tulsi Gabbard is also questioned in light of their shifting positions.

---

3. Expert Insights and Political Ramifications [12:16 - 26:46]

Overview: To provide a comprehensive understanding, Jen Psaki interviews Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey and John Feiner, former Deputy National Security Adviser. They discuss the implications of the Iran strikes and the broader political fallout.

Key Points:

• Operational Complexity: President Trump orchestrated one of the most complex and secretive military operations, described as more intricate than historical events like D-Day.
• Visibility into Iran's Program: The strikes have reduced the ability to monitor Iran's nuclear activities, increasing uncertainty about their future intentions.
• Political Fallout: The administration's handling of the situation has led to internal concerns about leadership stability and the potential for increased political polarization.

Notable Quotes:

• "This was the greatest loss of health care in American history in order to partially subsidize tax cuts that mostly go to the top 1%." – Senator Jeff Merkley [37:06]
• "It's confusing so many of us that are just trying to get answers about something so serious right now." – Former Intelligence Official [15:58]

Analysis: Experts emphasize the strategic missteps in the administration’s approach, particularly the lack of a comprehensive plan to address Iran's nuclear capabilities. The political consequences are significant, with bipartisan concerns about the administration's integrity and decision-making processes.

---

4. The Big, Ugly Budget Bill and Medicaid Cuts [26:46 - 37:28]

Overview: The discussion shifts to the contentious budget reconciliation bill, highlighting the proposed Medicaid cuts and the resulting public backlash. Jen Psaki outlines the legislative hurdles and the implications for millions of Americans.

Key Points:

• Medicaid Cuts: The bill proposes eliminating Medicaid support for Planned Parenthood and introducing significant reductions in coverage, potentially affecting 16 million people.
• Parliamentarian Rulings: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough has struck down key provisions, complicating the bill's passage through Congress.
• Public and Political Resistance: Protests have erupted, leading to over 30 arrests, and there is growing opposition within the Republican Party itself.

Notable Quotes:

• "This is the key... How would they go about doing that?" – Political Analyst [20:04]
• "Families lose and billionaires win." – Government Official [36:11]

Analysis: The budget bill epitomizes the deep ideological divide in American politics, with substantial consequences for healthcare accessibility and economic inequality. The inability to secure bipartisan support underscores the legislative gridlock and the potential for significant policy reversals.

---

5. Supreme Court Decision on Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Rights [37:28 - 44:17]

Overview: Jen Psaki addresses the Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood, sparking nationwide debates on reproductive rights and healthcare access.

Key Points:

• Supreme Court Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood based on its provision of abortion services.
• Impact on Healthcare: Abortion services constitute only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s offerings, with the remaining 97% dedicated to essential health services like cancer screenings and STD treatments.
• Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's Response: She underscores the detrimental effects on women's access to primary healthcare and the escalating crisis in rural hospitals.

Notable Quotes:

• "It's discrimination against women. It's saying that women have no right to make any of their own healthcare decisions." – Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham [40:22]
• "You reduce health insurance for 16 million, four tax breaks for billionaires." – Former Intelligence Official [36:11]

Analysis: The ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive rights and exacerbates existing healthcare disparities. Governor Grisham highlights the broader implications for public health, particularly in marginalized communities, and calls for urgent policy reforms to mitigate the impact.

---

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Implications [44:17 - 45:51]

Overview: The episode wraps up with a reflection on the broader socio-political climate, drawing parallels to historical moments of progressive change and emphasizing the ongoing struggles for equity and justice.

Key Points:

• 10th Anniversary of Same-Sex Marriage Legalization: Jen Psaki reminisces about the landmark decision and its significance in advancing LGBTQ+ rights.
• Call to Action: The episode encourages continued advocacy for marginalized communities and highlights the importance of grassroots movements in shaping policy.

Notable Quote:

• "That one idea made that day." – Jen Psaki, reflecting on the same-sex marriage legalization [44:14]

Analysis: By juxtaposing recent contentious developments with past victories for social justice, the episode underscores the persistent challenges and the need for collective action to uphold democratic values and human rights.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Briefing with Jen Psaki offers a comprehensive examination of the Trump administration's handling of the Iran military strikes, the ensuing political turmoil, and the broader implications for national security and healthcare policy. Through expert insights and critical analysis, Psaki provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the current geopolitical landscape and the domestic policies shaping America's future.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• "Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?" – Jennifer Griffin (03:20)
• "This was the greatest loss of health care in American history..." – Senator Jeff Merkley (37:06)
• "It's discrimination against women. It's saying that women have no right to make any of their own healthcare decisions." – Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (40:22)

---

Key Takeaways:

• The Trump administration faces significant challenges in maintaining its narrative regarding the effectiveness of the Iran strikes amid conflicting intelligence reports.
• Political fallout includes internal disputes, public protests, and legislative gridlock over healthcare and budget reforms.
• Supreme Court decisions continue to shape the landscape of reproductive rights, with substantial impacts on healthcare access for millions.
• Historical perspectives highlight the ongoing struggle for social justice and the importance of proactive policy advocacy.

---

This summary captures the essence of the episode, providing an informative overview for those who have not listened, while retaining the critical insights and discussions presented by Jen Psaki and her guests.

Transcript

[Advertiser]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app Download Today.

[Romantic Customer]

I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your dsw store or dsw.com.

[News Anchor]

So there has been a scandal at the Pentagon every single day since January 25th. I mean, every single day. Because every day since January 25th, Pete Hegseth has been the secretary of defense. And some days that scandal is more jarring than others. Like today, when the country and the entire world really turned to the Pentagon tuned in this morning for an update on the outcome of the US Strikes on Iran. And instead they got this meltdown.

[Political Analyst]

In hunting for scandals all the time, in trying to find wedges and spin stories, this press corps and the press corps miss historic moments because you cheer against Trump so hard. It's like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it. Classified information is leaked or peddled for political purposes to try to make the president look bad. But just a little portion, just the little portion that makes it seem like maybe the strike wasn't effective. If you want to know what's going on at Ford O, you better go there and get a big shovel.

[News Anchor]

That was Trump Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who I would note was until recently a Fox News anchor. I don't know what was in his coffee this morning because that took place at 8am now, if he had behaved like that on Fox News, even many of their viewers, many of their loyal viewers might have been alarmed. But he's not a Fox News weekend anchor anymore. He is the secretary of defense and he was speaking from the Pentagon. He was answering questions about a series of recent reports based on intelligence from inside Hegseth's own agency that say Trump's strikes on Iran did not obliterate Iran's nuclear sites like Trump has claimed. Intelligence analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency, again, the Pentagon's own intelligence arm said that Saturday's U.S. strike did not destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. And the best question of the day on that reporting came from a former colleague of Secretary Hegseth, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the 4 do mountain or some of it? Because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved? That is kind of the question right now. It is the question. And the satellite imagery she's referencing from days before the US strike shows a line of 16 cargo trucks. You can see it right there on the screen, lines up at the entrance to the underground nuclear site the US Bombed. But it's not even just the photos which everybody can see. Earlier this week, two Israeli officials with knowledge of the matter told the New York Times that they had intelligence that Iran had moved nearly 900 pounds of enriched uranium from the site in the days before the attack. So are you certain none of the highly rich uranium was moved is the question of the moment, because it tells us whether or not Iran has materials to continue pursuing a nuclear program. It was a good question. It was the right question. And this is how Pete Hegseth answered that question. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?

[Government Official]

Of course.

[Political Analyst]

We're watching every single aspect. But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally.

[News Anchor]

I should say. Jennifer Griffin is a tough reporter. I've been on the other end of that. And she's one person who relentlessly presses every administration because that's her job, whether they're Republicans in power or Democrats in power. It's of course, actually Secretary Hegseth who has been misrepresenting things intentionally for months now. And this is all seems to be a part of a desperate attempt to avoid actually answering questions about the military strikes last week. That kind of evasiveness is a hallmark of his time at the Pentagon. It's not a one off this morning. I mean, just a week after being sworn in, Hegseth kicked the New York Times, NBC News, NPR and Politico out of their Pentagon offices because he did not want these reputable, hard hitting news organizations to have as much easy access to the building. And back in April, a former advisor of Hegseth's went on Megyn Kelly's show and talked about his genuine concern about Pete Hegseth, given how obsessed he'd become with leaks. Do you think he's okay? You know, do you think Pete is okay? Yeah.

[Political Analyst]

Honestly, I don't know.

[News Anchor]

I'm not sure.

[Political Analyst]

He was very focused on the leaks. And honestly, I think it's kind of, like, consumed the team a little bit. Like, if you look at a pie chart of the secretary's day, and at this point, 50% of it's probably leak investigation, press. Like, it's that. Like, that can't be. That is a bad thing.

[News Anchor]

I mean, 50% of his time on leaks, he is the Secretary of Defense. And one of his closest staffers said, I'm not sure if he's okay. And that interview, by the way, was before we bombed Iran, long before. Think it's safe to say he's only become more obsessed with leaks and pushing the media out and less okay since then. But what's clear is that Pete Hegseth will say and basically do anything to keep the boss happy. I mean, even this morning, it seemed like Hegseth was speaking less to the American public or the reporters in the room or his counterparts around the world, and more like he was kind of speaking to an audience of one. And this morning, Pete Hegseth knew exactly what the assignment was. I mean, maybe Trump even told him directly. And Trump has spent the past few days calling for journalists who reported on U.S. intelligence to be fired, some of them by name, because that intelligence says his strike was not as successful as he claims. And he probably knew that he could get at least a few of his lackeys to go out there and do his bidding. Last night, and this morning, Trump even promoted Hegseth's press conference, posted about it, which is not something he normally does, saying that the fake news had been lying and Hegseth would tell the truth. And then at today's press conference, Hegseth didn't provide evidence that the strike had successfully destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities, because perhaps it doesn't exist, but he did aggressively attempt to shift the definition of success. That seemed to be part of his goal as well. Maybe a directed goal, who knows? As the New York Times put it, the briefing gave no new assessments of the strait of Iran's nuclear program or the damage to the sites. Instead, the briefing focused on the planning and execution of those strikes. That is a classic case of moving the goalposts. Doesn't matter anymore if we destroyed anything. According to Pete Hegseth, what matters was how well Planned it all was to give you a little reminder, though, of where the goalposts used to be. Just a few days ago, on Sunday, after the Strikes, Vice President J.D. vance declared that we were not at war with Iran, but that we were at war with Iran's nuclear program. Literally. That was his quote. Got it. So the idea was not to start a war with Iran, but to destroy Iran's enriched uranium and prevent the country from being able to build a nuclear weapon. That was the stated goal by the Vice President of the United States on Sunday, four days ago. Here's what Republican senators said today. It's not part of the mission to.

[Political Analyst]

Destroy all their enriched uranium or to.

[News Anchor]

Seize it or anything else. I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists, but it.

[Senator]

Wasn'T part of the target set.

[News Anchor]

I have no idea what you're talking about. None of them do. It seems at this point. See, the Republican Party line here is that whatever Trump did was the right decision, even if it was different from what he was saying yesterday. Whatever intelligence there is about what actually happened or whatever our previously stated goals used to be, that doesn't matter. They'd rather keep moving the goalposts and kind of gaslight all of us rather than respond to the facts. And they've been following the direction of their leader since this whole thing started. What intelligence do you have that Iran.

[Political Analyst]

Is building a nuclear weapon?

[Former Intelligence Official]

Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.

[Government Official]

Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?

[Former Intelligence Official]

Your Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

[Government Official]

She's wrong.

[News Anchor]

Back in March, Trump, Director of National Intelligence, what they're referring to, which you probably all remember, but she told the Senate Intelligence Committee that US Intelligence, that US Intelligence community did not believe that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. Then a few weeks, few weeks ago, Tulsi Gavr posted this kind of weird, strange, bizarre, straight to camera video on her personal Twitter account. In it, she tells the public that we are, quote, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before because of political elite and warmongers carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers. Again posted on her personal account. I don't know what Tulsi Gabbard knew when she posted that cryptic video or entirely what her goal was. But three days later, Israel struck Iran's nuclear sites, starting the back and forth that led to the US Strikes. Clearly, Trump was not a fan of whatever intelligence or analysis Tulsi Gabbard had been providing him with. He said so much publicly. But now Gabbard appears to be falling back in line. I mean, yesterday, Gabbard announced that she magically had new intelligence that shows that the US Strikes really did destroy Iran's nuclear sites. That new intelligence very conveniently contradicts the assessment Trump has been so mad about all week. Now, new data means analysis can change, and the intelligence on this matter is evolving. But the thing is, Tulsi Gabbard has a huge credibility problem here for a range of reasons, including the fact that back in March, Trump claimed that a Venezuelan gang was perpetrating an invasion of the United States at the direction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. That claim that a foreign government was invading the United States was the legal basis Trump needed to invoke the Alien Enemies act and deport people without due process. That's what they were leaning into. But there was a huge problem. That claim wasn't true. In May, a declassified intelligence report contradicted Trump's claim, saying that the US Spy agencies did not think Venezuela's president controlled this gang at all. A few weeks later, we learned that Gabbard fired the leaders of the intelligence group who wrote that report. Days after that, the New York Times reported that Tulsi Gabbard's top aide had ordered intelligence analysts to rewrite the report to make it look better for Trump. All that was reported just last month. And now, a couple weeks later, we are supposed to believe that Tulsi Gabbard, the same person I just described, suddenly has magical new intelligence that says exactly what Trump wants it to say and contradicts the previous US Intelligence assessment from a few days ago. Look, Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard are uniquely unqualified for the incredibly serious and important roles they have. Their behavior can be so bizarre at times, it is almost funny. But the stakes here couldn't be higher. So the facts matter and the people in charge matter. And whatever we saw this morning was a lot of things from Pete Hegseth, but it definitely wasn't what the American people deserve when we just use military strikes in a foreign country. And it certainly wasn't the truth, either.

[Political Analyst]

President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history.

[News Anchor]

Move over, D Day. Pete Hegseth would like a word. Maybe he's not exactly a historian either. Senator Andy Kim spent years working in the world of national security before he ran for office and became a senator. John Feiner is the former deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. They joined me here to make sense of all of this at the table and just 90 seconds.

[Advertiser]

This is your moment, your time to shine your comeback. You're ready for the next step in your career and you want an education employers respect. So you're not just going back to school. You're coming back with Purdue Global. Backed by Purdue University, one of the nation's most respected public universities. Purdue Global is built for people who bring their life experience into the online classroom. Purdue Global, Purdue's online university for working adults. Start your comeback today at purdueglobal.

[News Anchor]

Edu.

[Romantic Customer]

I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or.

[Advertiser]

Dsw.Com MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, hosts of the Midas Touch podcast, the Myelis Brothers. I think just speaking truthfully on on these issues and leading with humanity over gamified politics, both sides to me, that's the Midas way. The best people with Nicole Wallace. Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC premium on Apple Podcasts.

[News Anchor]

Joining me now is Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey. Before getting to Congress, he spent years working in the State Department and on the National Security Council. And John Viner was deputy National Security adviser during the Biden administration. He was also the chief of staff to former Secretary John Kerry when he negotiated the Iran nuclear deal. So you guys have lots of expertise. I was very excited to talk to both of you because I have a million questions. So I'm very grateful you're both here. Let me start with you, Senator Kim Hegsethke. What was I can only describe. I just described it as a bit of a bizarre press conference this morning. What did you make of it and why do you think that was? The approach from the Pentagon?

[Former Intelligence Official]

Yeah, I mean I worked there at the Pentagon before. I've never seen anything quite like that. I mean, it was like a one man show at Broadway. I mean, honestly, it just came across as a lot of insecurity, you know, a lot of sense of just trying to prove the machoness and, you know, and I think that that's what I find, you know, turns off. So Many people is like, right now they're worri, you know, they're worried about what happens next, the anxiety about our country striking another country and worried about whether that's going to pull us into greater conflict. And all he can talk about is just trying to brag about, you know, just, you know, defending the president and whatnot. So it just, it was really bizarre. And it was something that just, I think is just confusing so many of us that are just trying to get answers about something so serious right now.

[News Anchor]

Yeah, I mean, just to restate, I mean, the White House briefing, I can say, can go like a little off the rails and crazy sometimes, but the briefings at the Pentagon and the briefings at the State Department are generally serious and substantive. And the reporters act serious and smart questions. The people who are the cabinet members answer them with seriousness. It was very strange and different from something I've ever seen. You have answered. You've done these type of briefings. You've also, back in your many years ago, former life, were a reporter in a war zone. I mean, what did you make of what. It was very bizarre. How out of the normal did you think it was?

[Political Analyst]

So we've thought and talked a lot for over a number of years now about the real problem when you cannot trust some of the basic information that's coming out of your government. And, you know, day to day, it's an issue. You know, people in the press have to contend with this, what they can believe, what they can't believe. But when it's the biggest problem is when you run into a national security crisis and the government has to make the case to the American people about one, why they did what they did, what the urgency of taking action that's so serious like military action is, and then what the impact of, of that is. Because basically where we are now is with a lot of uncertainty, a lot of uncertainty about the state of Iran's nuclear program. By the way, we had a lot more certainty before this military action because, as you know, we had a lot of inspectors and monitors and people all over Iran's nuclear program sort of staring at it all day, every day. We've now taken military action. It probably has set Iran's program back. I think they're probably right about that. And even if you take at face value that it set it back for a significant period of time, what we lack right now is visibility into what Iran is going to do with what remains of its program. And that's what concerns me the most.

[News Anchor]

It is such the pivotal Question. I want to come back to some of the pivotal questions, but I just want to ask you, Senator Kim, because this question of how long it's been delayed, to John Finer's point, I was going to call you Feiner because that's what I always call you, but it is. People out there are wondering, I'm sure your constituents are wondering, people who are trying to consume and understand what is happening. And there was sort of. You were in the briefing today. There was conflicting information. I mean, Senator Chris Murphy and other Democrats came out and said, we've set the nuclear program back months. A number of Republican senators said back years. How do you explain that discrepancy? Because it's kind of a big discrepancy.

[Former Intelligence Official]

And it is the fundamental question, right? I mean, President Trump used this issue about how long and how imminent Iran's approach to a nuclear weapon is. So that is the crux of it. And I think what's the problem here is that clearly it wasn't completely obliterated. Yes, there was severe damage. And first of all, I just want to say the American people should provide kudos to the service members who did incredible work on this. As General Kaine said, this was 15 years in the planning over multiple presidencies that led to that execution. But what we know is that there's no military only solution to this. And when we see an effort that was geared towards trying to stop the enrichment process of Iran, what it ignored and what it didn't do is tackle the existing stockpiles as well as the weaponization process. So Iran still has resources and capabilities. They still have a clear path if they want to. And that's why, you know, this approach that Trump has taken was not comprehensive, it was not strategic. It is something that still leaves this threat very much on the table. I don't know exactly how long it will take, but what we do know is they have the ingredients they need if they want to be able to proceed. And that is something that just kicks the can down the road without actually solving it.

[News Anchor]

This is the key. And this is what I want to come back to, because you referenced, I mean, we used to have visibility before Trump ripped up the deal that was negotiated while you were the State Department chief of staff. Now, we don't. There has been a range of reporting, including satellite images, including reporting from Israeli sources about the movement of enriched uranium. And one of the questions that the question Jennifer Griffin asked, and I just played it, but just to remind people is, are you certain that none of the highly enriched Uranium was moved, which seems like it's a pretty pivotal question, but help everybody understand why is that such an important question?

[Political Analyst]

So the reason we care about the current state of Iran's nuclear program is if you're the Iranians, I think a big open question. And by the way, the intelligence community said up until the time that military action was taken that Iran was not seeking a nuclear weapon. But if you're Iran and you just got attacked, you look around the world and you look at countries that have this capability, that have nuclear weapons, they don't tend to be vulnerable to the sorts of attacks that Israel and the United States just inflicted upon Iran. So there are going to be people inside the Iranian system who say, well, maybe now we actually need a weapon because we won't get attacked this way if we have one. And so the question is, how would they go about doing that? And what the starting point for pursuing a weapon would be is the enriched material that they have in their stockpile. They have material that's enriched up to 20%, material that's enriched up to 60%. And it's a very short step to go from there to 90%, which is weapons grade uranium. They could do that in a matter of weeks if they are able to reconstitute centrifuges which spin that uranium to a higher level enrichment that you can put in a weapon. And so, you know, we need to know if we're the international community, we want to know what's happening with Iran's nuclear program. If we're the United States and we say this is a very big threat and the only way we will have sure visibility into that program is back to where we were about a month ago in pursuit of a negotiated agreement that puts inspectors back in place.

[News Anchor]

Senator Kim, John Feiner, I could talk to you for an hour, but Caroline Levitt did a briefing today also. The big ugly bill is blowing up, so I gotta get to those things too. Thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate it. Okay, coming up, there's a lot happening as I just referenced. You can probably imagine how crazy Caroline Levitt's press briefing today was. I think the Pete Hegseth one gave you a little hint of that. I'm going to step up and answer some questions for her after a very quick break.

[Advertiser]

This is your moment, your time to shine your comeback. You're ready for the next step in your career and you want an education, employers respect. So you're not just going back to school, you're coming back with Purdue Global Backed by Purdue University, one of the nation's most respected public universities, Purdue Global is built for people who bring their life experience into the online classroom. Purdue Global Purdue's online university for working adults Start your comeback [e-mail].

[Romantic Customer]

I'Ve never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or dsw.com.

[Advertiser]

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[News Anchor]

So it was another chaotic day in Donald Trump's America. Another chaotic one in which they decided to hold a White House press briefing. And since Caroline seems to be following the same attack the press strategy as Pete Hegseth, I figured I would take some questions. Rachel Scott, ABC News Kick it off Just to follow back up on the meeting that the president mentioned about wanting to have this meeting with the Iranians next week. Clearly there's a willingness here from the administration to want to meet with Iranian officials. What is the holdup here in trying to schedule it? Are you experiencing any resistance from the Iranians? I mean, first of all, Rachel, let's all hope there is even a tiny, tiny iota of truth behind Trump's claim that there are discussions underway about meeting with the Iranians next week. We did just strike them four days ago. We have no idea if that is actually true, but if it is, that would be good news. Because even if the military strikes last week had destroyed the program, which it seems pretty clear they did not, you can't bomb away knowledge or intention. That's all you were just talking about. And the Iranians still have keen know how to make a nuclear weapon. And after the last few weeks, I mean they may also have increased intention. Who knows. Quick follow up, just one more just on the goal of the meeting. The president mentioned yesterday that it may not be necessary to have an agreement with the Iranians. What is the purpose? What would be the goal of this meeting? Look, if there is an iota of a possibility for talks that could lead to negotiations, of course the goal is a deal. You need a deal to return inspectors who can have visibility into what the capacity is at the existing facilities and how much enriched uranium they have. We don't know that right now. We won't know it for a while or ever. Maybe that was one of the benefits of the nuclear deal that Trump ripped up. This isn't about trusting the Iranians. It's about having the ability to verify what they're actually doing. You need a deal to do that. Okay, Carolina Lumeta, go ahead.

[Romantic Customer]

In January, President Trump revoked security details for several former administrations, including Mike Pompeo, Mark Milley, and Joel Bolton. Given the heightened tensions with Iran right now, is he considering restoring those security details?

[News Anchor]

That's an easy one, Carolina. Nope, not at all. Okay. Ayesha Hasni, FOX News. Go ahead. How confident are you that you'll find this leaker? I mean, first of all, Ayesha, the story about the leaker and finding the leaker is exactly what Trump and Hegseth want you to be asking about in the White House briefing, which is maybe why you were asking about it. That aside, I don't think either of them have shown any care whatsoever to date about the proper handling of classified information, do you? Trump was hit with 40 felony counts for his mishandling of classified documents. Pete Hegseth was texting war plans on signal a few months ago. I don't think their search comes from a genuine concern about respecting classified information. That answers your question. All right, let's do one more. Brian Schwartz from the Wall Street Journal.

[Political Analyst]

One big, beautiful bill. There's conversations on the Hill right now about the Medicaid cuts. I'm curious if the final bill that the president's been talking about comes to him and it has Medicaid cuts in it, will he sign it? Or would he rather just Congress do away with those cuts?

[News Anchor]

Of course he will sign it, Brian. He just won't call it cuts. No Republican will. They will say they are necessary reforms, but no amount of spin changes the fact that the current bill would knock 16 million people off of health care, including 8.6 million on Medicaid because of cuts. That's what they are and no requirements. The only tiny sliver of good news here is that the Senate parliamentarian just blocked a number of the provisions in the bill for now, including some of the health care cuts that Republicans desperately want. And on that note, as the big, ugly bill runs into some big new roadblocks, I have the perfect people standing by. Senator Jeff Merkley is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. Congressman Brandon Boyle is the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. No two people know more about the budget process. They join me here at the table together when we come back. So a lot has happened over the last few days on Trump's big, ugly bill. Let's start with the part where they handcuffed a bunch of people in wheelchairs. More than 30 people were arrested at the U.S. capitol Wednesday for protesting against the proposed cuts to Medicaid. Protesters were seen being led out of that Senate office building there in handcuffs. Advocates and people who depend on Medicaid for their health care coverage, including several people in wheelchairs, traveled from as far away as Florida to attend the demonstration. A total of 34 arrests were made. Members of the disability community, as you just heard in that report, including seniors, were zip tied taken out of the Capitol simply for peacefully protesting Republican cuts to Medicaid, which would deeply impact their community. By the way, it is to say, not a great look for the Republican Party. But these protesters efforts to kill the bill may have gotten some help from an unlikely ally. If you are a real Congress nerd, and you may be, if you're watching right now, you may know the name Elizabeth McDonough. She is the Senate parliamentarian, basically a nonpartisan referee of Senate rolls. She is the one who gets to decide which parts of Trump's big, ugly bill Republicans can pass with just 50 votes, which is what you can do with a budget reconciliation bill instead of 60, which is what is normally required. That's important because Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats are not likely to help them pass this bill, including all of these parts that are knocked out or potentially knocked out. And last night, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bunch of Medicaid cuts Republicans call for in the bill must either be removed or drastically changed in order for them to remain in the bill. And we're going to talk about this in a moment. This comes after a ruling the parliamentarian made earlier this week, stripping out a bunch of other controversial provisions. All of this has, in the words of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, thrown a big old grenade into the process of passing this bill. No kidding. Ron Johnson, I agree with you on that one. Multiple House members are now threatening to vote no on the Senate's version of the bill for a range of reasons. We're going to discuss in a moment. And some members are even calling for the parliamentarian to be fired or overruled. Though to be clear, even Republican Senate leader John Thune isn't on board with that at this point. So that's an important detail. Meanwhile, negotiations with blue state Republicans over a key tax provision have broken down. Republicans are fighting each other over a controversial AI provision. And Trump himself is telling crowds of people at the White House that the bill will cut taxes on Social Security, which is not and never has been part of the bill. Who knew the guy was not a policy wonk? I think we all did. It's all a huge mess coming just one week before Republicans self imposed July 4th deadline to get this all done. All the while, the big ugly bill is getting more unpopular by the day. A new Quinnipiac poll finds just 29% of Americans support this bill. 29%. Question now is, will any of this be enough to stop Republicans from getting enough votes in Congress? Joining me now is Senator Jeff Merkley and Congressman Brendan Boyle. They're ranking Democrats on the Senate and House Budget committees. Few people know more. You may know the most. I'm so grateful for you both being here. Let me start with you, Senator Merkley, because the actions of the parliamentarian, I think people are trying to understand what that means. There's a key part of it which is the state provider tax, and that is related to Medicaid cuts. It could impact people across the country. She pulled that out of the bill for now. But could Republicans rewrite that and could it get back into the bill?

[Government Official]

Well, quite possibly. But let me explain it a little bit. And it's this, that states have to provide a match for Medicaid and that means they have to raise the money to do so. And one of the ways they have traditionally raised that money is put a tax on health care providers. Why on health care providers? Because they're the ones who benefit from people having insurance and therefore can pay their bill. So if somebody can pay $100 that they wouldn't have had otherwise and 10% leaves in a tax, they're still 90 cents a head. So it's really a good strategy, widely used across the country. And the Republicans want to rein it in because they're trying to really dismantle the ability of states to support Medicaid. And she said this is major. Well, she didn't give an exact reason, but the question normally is if something is major, new policy, it doesn't belong in a reconciliation bill. It's not the purpose of the bill to do major new policy.

[News Anchor]

So it's kind of up to them at this point to try to rewrite it to see if she approves it. Getting back in the bill, do you believe? And then I want to move on to the House. Do you buy Leader Thune that he is not going to allow there to be a vote on overruling the parliamentarian? Are you betting on that?

[Government Official]

Well, I don't think he'll allow that because if he does go that direction, then he's opening the door for the same thing to happen in the future when the Democrats are in charge. And so the parliamentarian's work, it's so nonpartisan, it's so carefully argued. Both sides prevent their case. It's like a little trial done in front of the parliamentarian. And the reasoning is always as consistent as you could possibly get in a situation where each new question raised is unique.

[News Anchor]

So there's always this process that you've been through many times where especially with the reconciliation bill with the parliamentarian goes through the bird bath, they have bird droppings, there's all sorts of crazy terms. The House is basically waiting, but meanwhile, they're seeing what's in the Senate bill and there's sort of an outcry. Right. By at least House Republicans from reporting what is exactly going on in the House right now?

[Senator]

Well, first let me just say I'm having awful deja vu because I remember going through this four years ago on what we sent over as the Build Back Better act and eventually a year and a half later morphed into the Inflation Reduction act and the same Senate parliamentarian stripped out a number of provisions that were in our House bill. So she has actually ruled against both sides.

[News Anchor]

That's true.

[Senator]

Look, if we take a step back for a second, I don't think the headlines of this bill will change. This will still be the greatest loss of health care in American history in order to partially subsidize tax cuts that mostly go to the top 1%. Maybe the way they do that will change. But if you're not going to go after a couple big ticket items like Social Security, defense, Social Security, you can actually touch in a reconciliation bill, one of those many quirky rules.

[News Anchor]

Even though Trump said that today, you.

[Senator]

Know, believe it or not, he might not be the, he might not have the highest fidelity to the truth or to policy. But if you're going to wall off a couple big ticket items, well, then you either have to go after Medicaid or you have to go after Medicare. And the House passed version actually goes after both. It goes after Medicaid, which would prompt about 8 million people to lose their health care. It actually also goes after the Affordable Care act or Obamacare. When you combine those two cuts, 16 million Americans will lose their health care. And the rest of us who may not have Medicaid or be on the aca, we would be impacted because we would see providers shut down, which is.

[News Anchor]

A key part of it. And also so many of these states that are going to be impacted, like Mike Johnson's district. Let me, let me ask you one more House question, because there is a little bit of a battle sort of. I mean, there is the salt deduction, which is very important to coastal states. I can say California, New York, others. They've reduced the that in the Senate bill. That's something that's very important to a number of Republicans in those blue states. And then there are the Freedom Caucus members who don't want to raise the deficit further. A little ironic given the cost of this bill. Can they both get what they want here? Is it even possible?

[Senator]

No. And there's a real kind of asymmetry right now, totally on the Republican side in that there's a significant number of House Republicans who are in New York, New Jersey, suburban Philadelphia, California, for whom the salt deduction issue is a major issue. Ironically, though, for the Senate Republicans, they only have one blue state, Republican Susan Collins. And for her and folks in Maine, salt isn't an issue.

[News Anchor]

Yeah.

[Senator]

So this creates a real challenge. If the Senate Republicans go so far in reducing that salt deduction, they will lose votes, critical votes needed of House Republicans who frankly, for them, are the majority makers. And I believe those seats for Democrats will be the majority makers when we win them next November.

[News Anchor]

So, Senator Merkley, there's so many important details in here which we're trying to explain every night. How do we understand what's next here? What happens now?

[Government Official]

Absolutely? Well, there's two possibilities. One is that the Senate passes a bill and leaves and basically says the House, you're stuck with it. Or the House may respond and say, no, we're not. We're not going to accept that we don't have the votes for it. And so they then negotiate with the Senate, all with the Republican leaders, all out of sight of the public, all behind closed doors, and they try to work out a compromise that when we return from July 4th, we'd be voting on once again. But I really want to emphasize the point here that this bill is entirely Families lose and billionaires win. You reduce health insurance for 16 million, four tax breaks for billionaires. You sell public lands for tax breaks for billionaires. You leave 4 million children hungry for tax breaks for billionaires. This is horrific. And Democrats are saying this doesn't have to be like this. Let's have a different plan in which families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share.

[Senator]

Joint Committee on Taxation came out with the distribution tables. They showed the bottom one third of Americans. That's households who make under 55,000 a year will be poor off if this Republican ugly bill becomes law.

[News Anchor]

Thank you both so much for joining me. That is what this bill is about, what people should understand. It's important for people to understand the process so they know what's happening, too. I really appreciate it.

[Government Official]

Thanks so much.

[News Anchor]

Coming up, we got a bombshell decision today from the Supreme Court. And a governor who's grappling with that decision right now in real time joins me next. Today, the conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court ruled that states can effectively defund Planned Parenthood, the country's largest provider of reproductive health care. In a 6, 3 ruling, the court changed federal law allowing states to unilaterally cut off all Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood simply on the basis that it provides abortion care. Now, to be clear, abortion makes up only 3%. Abortion care only makes up 3% of Planned Parenthood services. It is a crucial 3%, but it's 3%. The other 97% covers things like cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, gynecological care, all general health care. That makes today's ruling the latest blow not only to reproductive rights here in America, but also to health care for lower income families who largely rely on programs like Medicaid. Right now, the Senate is also debating enormous cuts to Medicaid, which could include kicking Planned Parenthood out of the program entirely. Joining me now is New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. Governor, it's great to see you. This is such a tough topic.

[Governor]

Thank you, Jen.

[News Anchor]

But I know you're grappling with this in your state. And I just wanted to read something from Justice Khaji Brown Jackson's dissent, which is she's one of my favorite dissent writers. I think everybody is. But she wrote this. Today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. More concretely, it will strip South Carolinians and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country of a deeply personal freedom, the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable, which is very powerful I talked a little bit about this, but help us understand what the broad impact of a ruling like this could be.

[Governor]

Right. Well, I want to do two components of that if I can, Jen. One is it continues to eliminate or limit dramatically access to basic primary care for women. And this is the part that we keep missing. And that means women have to travel further. They have to work harder to figure out basic reproductive care, cervical cancer screenings, contraceptive access, and as you said, sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment. It's outrageous. But in addition, and maybe more stunning about this decision is that we can use ideology to defund health care providers across America. I think all of us ought to be standing up and taking notice about what's really going on. It's discrimination against women. It's saying that women have no right to make any of their own healthcare decisions. And it continues to divide women and families in America.

[News Anchor]

It's particularly crushing for a range of reasons, including the ones you outlined. But also, I mean, this week was the third anniversary of the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and sent legislation of abortion back to the states. And since then, I mean, states like New Mexico have seen a huge increase, as you know, much better than me and all of us of out of state patients.

[Governor]

How have you seen tens of thousands.

[News Anchor]

Tens of thousands, yeah.

[Governor]

250% and beyond, from women who have to wait longer, have to take off work, have to find childcare for their kids if they already have children, and they have to find support to travel to New Mexico, garner access, there are any other complications, then they have to wait until they can go home. And it's tens of thousands of women from states who have near total bans or total bans on abortion. And it's also having a toll on our current providers. I have funded now two standup clinics for primary reproductive health care, including abortion care in New Mexico. But we need the actual people, the clinicians to provide the care and services. And here's the third problem with the Dobbs decision, third year anniversary, current Supreme Court decision, is that but for the Democratic states who were standing up care for women, we now don't have enough providers. We are eroding a clinical practice that's designed to provide safe care for women, maternal care, and it's going to go away. Would you be an obstetrician in Texas? We already have a stunning shortage of these practitioners, OB GYNs in particular, across America. This is going to make this far worse.

[News Anchor]

You're dealing with so many things, including this debate about this big ugly bill as I've been calling it. And one of the topics that I think has not received enough attention, but I know you're grappling with is the impact on rural hospital of these Medicaid cuts. And as I understand it, but you tell me there are up to eight rural hospitals in New Mexico who are at risk of closing within 18 months if Republicans pass these Medicaid cuts, or that's the reporting I've seen. What should people understand about what the impact would be if this bill passes? And if that comes to be, everyone.

[Governor]

Will pay more and everyone will have less access and Americans will die. You're talking about longer periods of time. If you have an emergency or a car wreck, you can't get anywhere. Hospitals are already in rural America, an hour or two hours away from many people who live in large rural counties like they do in New Mexico. And once one hospital closes, they do not recover, which means that we're just pushing people further and further to already really difficult to access urban centers of care. I mean, we talk about it like our healthcare system in America today is already easy to access. The federal government because we keep playing this game that we don't do productive health care reform, go after big insurance companies, deal with the middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers, create better reforms about how we do the regulatory work, focus on access, use Medicaid like we do in New Mexico to get you better quality outcomes. Use it as an incentive. But what we're doing instead is supporting the mega rich in this country. And we're going to close hospitals, we're going to close clinics. We're going to have more Americans get really sick and or die. And too many of those Americans are going to be women, children, people with disabilities, and our grandparents.

[News Anchor]

Governor MICHELLE Yeah, it's stunning what they're doing.

[Governor]

So we all need to stand up.

[News Anchor]

That's why I wanted to talk to you. I appreciate you being here, explaining it so clearly. Thank you again so much. Thank you. And coming up, something in the news today reminded me I'm gonna end on a bit of a happier note. It reminded me of one of my absolute favorite stories from my time in the White House. We'll be right back. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing same sex marriage. And I remember that day 10 years ago incredib. Well, partly because it was extremely hot and I was eight and a half months pregnant at the time, but mostly because I was the White House communications director for Barack Obama. And this was a huge celebratory moment in the weeks between oral arguments in the court's decision. This is what I was thinking about. A young staffer on the communications team named Jeff Tiller had come to me and Valerie Jarrett with an idea for how to respond if the court ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage. He wanted to light the White House and in rainbow colors. Fast forward to the night of June 26, 2015, when hundreds of people gathered outside of the White House gates to take pictures. Young couples, old couples, new couples, and just people who wanted to celebrate. So from my corner of that momentous time in history, one memory stands out for me. One young staffer raised his hand and put an idea forward. And that one idea made that day. 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.

[Advertiser]

Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up [e-mail].