← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
Trump's power grab scheme exposed; Supreme Court birthright citizenship case focuses on court powers
00:41:39
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
Jen Psaki
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.
- [00:03]
Thumbtack
Not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have.
- [00:06]
Jen Psaki
To don't know the difference between matte.
- [00:08]
Thumbtack
Paint, finish and satin or what that.
- [00:10]
Jen Psaki
Clunking sound from your dryer is.
- [00:12]
Thumbtack
With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see.
- [00:17]
Jen Psaki
Price estimates and read reviews all on the app Download Today at Designer Shoe Warehouse. We believe that shoes are an important part of, well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time perks best from building pillow forts to building a mud. For all the big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at bragworthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com it's pretty clear there are two very different worlds right now. I mean, one world for Donald Trump and his family and his billionaire buddies and his cabinet secretaries too. And, and the other for just about everybody else. I mean, just take a look at some of these headlines. Here's one. It reads Trump wants a new plane Now. So does Homeland Security Secretary Noem. I mean, who doesn't? That's right. It's not just Trump and his $400 million jet from Qatar, not just that one. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem already has access to a Gulfstream jet paid for by the government, by the way. She wants a new one. Who? Why wouldn't she? A plane that a top Democratic lawmaker says would actually cost the US taxpayers roughly $50 million. So that's how Trump and Kristi Noem think they deserve to travel and navigate the skies. Now here's the headline from today that applies to, I guess the rest of us. Denver air traffic control went dark for 90 seconds. And here's another one. Newark airport passengers warned of possible measles exposure by New Jersey health officials. So Trump and Kristi Noem are basically demanding new planes. And I guess, I mean, the rest of us are just hoping we land safely and also avoid infectious diseases in the process. That's, I guess, what's happening right now. And then there are Trump's tariffs. ProPublica just broke the news that on the day Trump announced his sweeping tariffs, Attorney General Pam Bondi sold between 1 and 5 million dollars of Trump Media stocks. 1 in 5 million dollars. Lots a lot of money wherever it falls in there. You probably don't need me to remind you of how the stock market plummeted right after Trump announced those tariffs. So the stock bondi sold fell 13% in the days after she sold it, which, considering she sold somewhere again in the ballpark of one to five million dollars, which is quite a range, but it's a lot of money, regardless of what it is. It means Attorney General Bondi avoided quite the haircut by doing that. So that was the headline for Pam Bondi, the Attorney General. Here was the headline today for basically everybody else, about tariffs. Walmart warns it will raise prices within weeks because of tariffs. That's right. The largest retailer in the United States, the biggest grocery store in the country, is warning customers that prices are going up because of Trump's tariffs. I mean, when was the last time you remember a company warning customers about a price hike? That tells you how bad this could be. But unfortunately, that's the world basically everybody else has to live in. And, hey, maybe Pam bunny shops at Walmart, too. I can't really say. But the point is, this is all a pattern. They get luxury jets, we get delays, fear, maybe the measles. They avoid the pain of tariffs while everyone else pays more for groceries. And there's a similar dynamic playing out right now in our legal system. The Trump administration wants one set of rules for themselves, which is pretty much an evergreen statement about them, and an entirely different set of rules for basically everybody else. Remember the first day of Trump's second term, which I know I am also trying to black out, but one of the first things Trump did was sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship. It was blatantly illegal. It was blatantly unconstitutional. Trump, of course, did it anyway. I guess he figured, why not unilaterally strip the right of citizenship from people who are born in this country? Guess what he figured. Now, within days, a federal judge blocked Trump's order, then a second federal judge blocked the order, then a third, then a fourth federal judge. So four federal judges all across the country all agreed that Trump's executive order was illegal and unconstitutional. And what those judges did is put in place a nationwide injunction. And that means that even though these judges made their rulings from courts in Washington State and Maryland and New Hampshire and Massachusetts, their rulings didn't just apply to those states. They blocked Trump's order nationwide. Now, Trump can appeal those decisions. He is appealing those decisions, but he doesn't want to wait for those appeals to be heard on their merits. Because this isn't just about birthright citizenship at all. I mean, Trump wants the whole concept of nationwide injunctions, which is any ability of lower courts to put a stop to his illegal actions, gone altogether, completely gone. So today, Trump's Solicitor general was at the Supreme Court this morning arguing that no matter how unconstitutional, no matter how illegal an order of the president's is, judges shouldn't be able to stop them nationwide. Basically, there should not be that check on his power at all. That's their argument. Instead, the way the Trump administration is proposing the law should work is that every individual who could be impacted by any government policy, no matter how illegal, no matter how unconstitutional, every single person should have to go to court to defend themselves one by one. If they can't find a lawyer, too bad, and that's quite likely. If they can't afford a lawyer, too bad. Also very likely, too bad. That's their argument. And here's how some of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court summed up Trump's position today. Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view, at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime. From the standpoint of the executive where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for. For the government to stop violating people's rights, it seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, et cetera. So when a new president orders that.
- [06:28]
Matthew Plotkin
Because there's so much gun violence going.
- [06:30]
Jen Psaki
On in the country, and he comes.
- [06:32]
Matthew Plotkin
In and he says, I have the right to.
- [06:35]
Jen Psaki
To take away the guns from everyone, then people, and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns, we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every name plaintiff gets or.
- [06:54]
Matthew Plotkin
Every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court.
- [06:59]
Jen Psaki
Now, I don't speak legalese exactly, so I'm hoping if I'm wrong here, any of our guests can correct me. But Trump's Solicitor general essentially responded to that gun hypothetical by saying, no, no, no. When it's guns, that's a totally different deal. Again. I mean, it's one set of rules for them, and it's an entirely different set of rules for everybody else. The thing is, we really don't even have to make up hypotheticals. Nationwide injunctions have been around for a very long time, and both parties love to use them. When Joe Biden was in office, conservatives did what is referred to as judge shopping. And that basically means filing cases in areas of the country think the judges will agree with them. You probably remember when a federal Judge in Texas suspended the FDA approval of the abortion pill Mifepristone. Or when a federal judge in Texas blocked workplace anti discrimination rights for transgender Americans. Or when a federal judge in Texas blocked the Biden administration from ending Trump's remain in Mexico policy. All of those rulings were nationwide injunctions. And all of them came from one single, incredibly conservative judge, Judge Shopman. Republicans didn't seem to have any issues with nationwide injunctions back then. They shopped for the person who would do them. But now that Trump is in power, it's an entirely different story. And look, Democrats use nationwide injunctions too. You might remember that a nationwide injunction is what blocked Trump's travel ban at the very beginning of his first term. Nationwide injunctions are kind of a double edged sword. I mean, figuring out how to prevent individual radical judges at lower level courts from unilaterally shaping U.S. policy and U.S. law nationwide is a bipartisan concern. People from both parties want reform there. But there is a big, huge, enormous freaking Trump factor to consider here. When George Bush, just to put this in perspective, and these numbers I read this morning and I thought they made the point very clearly. When George W. Bush was in office, federal judges issued just six nationwide injunctions against his policies total over two terms. Federal judges issued 12 against Obama during his two terms and 14 against Biden in Trump's first term. Federal judges issued 64 injunctions in the 116 days Trump has been in office this term. He's already at 39. That's quite a pace. And right now, nationwide injunctions are also the only thing blocking the Trump administration's attempt to do everything from end the temporary protected status for Venezuelan migrants, withholding federal money from schools that have diversity, equity and inclusion programs, freezing all federal grants distributed by the entire federal government altogether. Trump orders his administration to do illegal and unconstitutional things at a pace and scale we have literally never seen before from a president. So if the Supreme Court does what Trump wants and gets rid of nationwide injunctions that check on his power, a very important check on his power would be gone. Now, like I said, the Biden administration faced its own share of nationwide injunctions. President Biden disagreed with a lot of them. He said so. But he did abide by them. He appealed the decisions and let the process play out in the courts. But in an absolutely jaw dropping moment, I have no other way to describe it, at the Supreme Court today, Trump's Solicitor General said that they might not always, that might not always be how the Trump administration does it. They might follow court orders. They might not. Depends if they agree. You resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey within the Second Circuit a precedent distinguishing between opinions and judgments Here, did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a 2nd Circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion? Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice and that is not this administration's practice or the long standing practice of the federal government. And I'm not talking about in the Fourth Circuit. Are you going to respect a Second Circuit? I'm talking about within the Second Circuit. And can you say, is that this administration's practice or a long standing one, as I understand it, longstanding policy of the Department of Justice? Yes, that we generally, as it was phrased to me, generally respect circuit president, but not necessarily in every case. Not necessarily in every case. So that was conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the more interesting people on the Supreme Court, who seemingly responded in complete disbelief at what the president's lawyer was saying. They'll follow the law generally. The old saying goes for my friends, everything for my enemies, the law you've got a lot to chew over, clearly. And New Jersey Attorney General Matt Pladkin, who was central to this case before the Supreme Court today, joins me in just 90 seconds. Some say Odoo business management software is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. Some say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk, scaling with you while being magically affordable. And some say Odoo's programs for manufacturing.
- [12:14]
Thumbtack
Accounting and more are like building blocks.
- [12:16]
Jen Psaki
For creating a custom software suite. But I say Odoo is all of it. Fertilizer, magic Beanstalk building blocks for business. Yeah, Odoo, exactly what every business needs. Sign up@odoo.com that's o-o o.com.
- [12:34]
Thumbtack
Lowe's knows that no matter your paint or stain project, saving is at the top of your to do list. Save now with buy one, get one half off select paints, stains and primers from top brands like Valspar, hgtv, Home by Sherwin Williams and Cabot via Visa gift card rebate. Find more Memorial Day deals now at Lowe's we help you save. Selection varies by location while supplies last. Discount taken at time of purchase. See Sales Associate for details. Offer valid 515 through 528.
- [13:04]
Jen Psaki
Want to pull off the season's freshest trends? You just need the right Shoes. That's where designer shoe warehouse comes in. Loving wide leg jeans. Pair them with sleek low profile sneakers. Obsessed with the sheer trend. Try it with mesh flats, feeling boho, comfy sandals. Nail the whole free spirited thing. Find on trend shoes from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at dsw.
- [13:42]
Matthew Plotkin
It was astonishing to hear the United States government tell the nine justices of the Supreme Court that they weren't sure whether they would follow binding court precedent. They weren't sure if they could concede that that basic fact that is the underpinning of the rule of law in this nation. This case is about birthright citizenship, but it's about whether the rule of law and the constraints on the executive and as Justice Jackson said, whether the president can act like a king.
- [14:09]
Jen Psaki
So we've been talking about all show. I mean the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on a case concerning birthright citizenship. And New Jersey State Attorney General Matthew Plotkin, one of the plaintiffs in that case, was in the courtroom. He joins me now. It's great to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
- [14:23]
Matthew Plotkin
Thanks for having me.
- [14:24]
Jen Psaki
So I listened to the hearings this morning. I just gave a summary of it, but you were in the room. And I just wanted to ask you what struck you about the conversations and about some of the reactions from the justices.
- [14:35]
Matthew Plotkin
Yeah, I think the interaction you just played really jumped right out to me. As I said in the quote that you aired, it sucked the air right out of the room, frankly, to hear the United States government not be able to concede to the United States Supreme Court that it would follow what the court says. I think this is building on a really troubling trajectory that this administration has put us on. And I said there, and I believe this, this case was about birthright citizenship, which is incredibly important, whether the president can rewrite the Constitution, but it's about whether the president is going to adhere to, to the constitutional norms that this country has abided by for two and a half centuries.
- [15:12]
Jen Psaki
Yeah. And I talked about this a bit in that they want to get rid of nationwide injunctions because they don't want there to be the check on them and the check on the system. Explain to us, I tried to explain it there, but you're actually a legal expert, what the risk of that is and what the impact is on could be on the American people.
- [15:30]
Matthew Plotkin
Well, I would just note that as state attorney general, I've been consistent on this issue across administrations. I wouldn't necessarily say the people arguing in court today on the other side have been so consistent, as you noted. But look, nationwide injunctions should be limited. They're an extreme remedy. But there are extreme cases, and this is clearly one, when the president is going to disregard a 157-year-old provision that we put in the Constitution after the bloody Civil War because we wanted to say never again are we going to debate whether children born on US soil are in fact citizens. 127 years of Supreme Court precedent, over 100 years of. Of executive office practice. This is not a close call. And so, as Justice Jackson said, as Justice Sotomayor said, as many of, frankly, the conservative justices asked, what else are we expecting people to do? They have to find a lawyer. Every single child born here. And I want you to just think about the absurdity if their position prevails. I'm the attorney general for New Jersey. Nine and a half million people. We border Pennsylvania. Many mothers in South Jersey give birth at Philadelphia hospitals. Are we really gonna say because Pennsylvania is not in the suit, that those children are not citizens simply because their mother went to a hospital across the river? But that's what the United States government is arguing in court.
- [16:46]
Jen Psaki
It's creating two societies, essentially. I mean, it's abortion rights. It's the right. What rights you have if you're born here and what state you're born in. I mean, one of the things that's striking is that the Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the merits of birthright citizenship at all. So when people shorthand this as a birthright citizenship, it is about that. But is that pretty telling in terms of how the government is approaching it? Right.
- [17:07]
Matthew Plotkin
Yeah. If they thought they were right on the merits, they'd be asking the court to tell us that they're right on the merits. I think it's very notable that they're asking just for the court to say, only treat this injunction as binding on states that are in this suit, because as Justice Jackson pointed out she called it, this would create a sort of catch me if you can situation for the federal government, because basically, for several years, the government wants to continue to deny people the rights that are in the Constitution, that they are entitled to the rights and privileges. And it's not just citizenship, it's health care, it's education. And they want to say, okay, in states like New Jersey, we'll concede. We're not going to say you're not a citizen if you're born here. But for every other state, the 27 or so other states that didn't join the Suit all with Republican attorneys general. I would note those people in those states, those children in those states are out of luck. And what happens when those kids and those families move into states like New Jersey? We're supposed to sit there and parse whether you were a citizen based on the hospital or the state you're born in. I mean, that's crazy. But that is exactly, again, what the United States government was arguing to the nine justices of the Supreme Court today.
- [18:14]
Jen Psaki
You are the attorney general from New Jersey, a state where there's a lot going on. We had Senator Booker on last night. We're gonna have Senator Andy Kim on tonight. That tells you a lot. I wanted to ask you. I mean, I think we all watched in. In kind of horror as the mayor of Newark was arrested on Friday as three members of Congress were kind of caught in the scuffle. DHS is threatening to arrest some of these House Democrats. We'll see what happens there. This isn't under your purview, per se, exactly, but I just wanted to ask, I mean, you work with federal law enforcement a lot. You work with these law enforcement officials a lot. Has anything. How have your. Has your relationship changed? Has your relationship changed over the course of the last couple of days since this happened on Friday?
- [18:55]
Matthew Plotkin
Yeah. I mean, sadly, it predates what happened with Mayor Baraka. This is the first administration in decades, in decades in New Jersey. I'm the chief law enforcement officer. We have one U.S. attorney that our offices have not worked together, and that's not my choice. I have tried hard to maintain that relationship, but they've had no interest. And what does that mean? It means, as happened in New Jersey, when we have a domestic violence victim, the victim, someone who was stabbed in the neck, a horrific crime, when we're trying to prosecute the attempted murderer, the person who actually tried to kill her, and they pick up the victim and bring her into ICE custody, as happened in my state, we have nobody to call. And so we can't resolve that. And how is that making New Jerseyan safer? The answer is it's not. And so the lack of coordination, something that after 9 11, we have worked really hard because we saw what happens in 911 when law enforcement agencies aren't communicating, they have put a complete chill. And I say this as the chief law enforcement officer of my state, who cares principally about one thing, keeping the residents of my state safe. Their actions, which are clearly political, announcing investigations and prosecutions on cable news networks, something I would never even dream of doing, is making New Jerseyans and frankly, all Americans less safe.
- [20:08]
Jen Psaki
I really appreciate you joining me. I know you've had a very long day. Thank you so much for coming in and helping explain what happened this morning. I really appreciate it.
- [20:16]
Matthew Plotkin
Thanks for having me.
- [20:17]
Jen Psaki
When we come back, we're going to talk about how the cockamamie legal theory about ending birthright citizenship that we've just been talking about can be traced back to none other than John Eastman, the same disgraced lawyer who tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election. John Eastman was actually outside the Supreme Court today, believe it or not, and so was Congressman Jamie Raskin, clearly for a very different reason. But Congressman Jamie Raskin joins me next. Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day nutrition program rejuvenates you at the cellular level with boxes labeled by day so you know exactly what to eat. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe@prolonlife.com PandoraProMo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Products are not intended to diag treat or prevent disease. See site for details at Designer Shoe Warehouse we believe that shoes are an.
- [21:19]
Andy Kim
Important part of, well, everything.
- [21:22]
Jen Psaki
From first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal bests from building pillow forts to building a life. For all the big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com this is an ad by BetterHelp. Many people avoid seeking mental health support due to fear of being judged this Mental Health Awareness Month. Let's break the stigma surrounding seeking support at BetterHelp. We have over 10 years of experience matching you with the right therapist which can help you and everyone in your life. We're all better with help. Visit betterhelp.com today for 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp. H E L P.com Protesters turned out in absolute force today outside the Supreme Court as justices heard arguments in that case dealing with birth rate citizenship that we've been talking about through the course of the show. And their messages were powerful and they were straightforward, very direct. Here's one. American born children are American children. And here's another. Let's maybe not create an underclass of babies. Good point. Birthright citizenship isn't a Conditional privilege. So you can see that on that sign. Another one says, birthright citizenship and immigrants make America great. One protester kept it even simpler, sharpieing onto some cardboard. If you were born here, you are an American citizen. That's on the brown cardboard. You can maybe see a little bit right there. It's as simple as that. But there was also someone outside the Supreme Court today who was representing a very different point of view. None other than John Eastman, the attorney, of course, who devised the bogus legal framework that Trump used in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Now, Eastman has since been disbarred in California, and his law license is also temporarily suspended in D.C. and yet he is now sort of relevant again as one of the big brains behind the Trump administration effort to scrap birthright citizenship in court. Now, over two decades ago, Eastman filed a briefing in a 2004 case arguing that the Constitution did not actually guarantee birthright citizenship. Fast forward to last month, and Eastman filed a brief in support of the government's case, arguing this court should not only stay the universal injunctions issued by the lower courts, it should resolve the merits question and decide that there is no guarantee to birthright citizenship. Somehow, in Trump world, the same cast of characters keeps popping up over and over again. And if you got a fringe legal theory, you'll always have an audience in this White House, it seems. Joining me now is someone who knows a whole lot about that cast of characters, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. It's great to see you, Congressman. I'm just going to start the John Eastman of this all. I mean, he is almost the perfect symbol of this notion in Trump's mind that he can basically do whatever he wants. You've kind of followed the guy for a long time. What do you make of his involvement here?
- [24:41]
Thumbtack
Yeah, I mean, he's the Roger Stone kind of aide de camp. He's willing to say and do anything for Donald Trump. His theory of the 14th Amendment is utterly fraudulent. It's been debunked not just by the Supreme Court throughout history, but by four district courts, two judges appointed by Democrats Biden and Obama, two judges appointed by Republicans Bush and Reagan. And the Reagan judge said in his four decades on the bench, he never had an easier case than this because Donald Trump was attempting to, by executive order, repudiate the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. It's just an open and shut case. Which isn't to say that lawyers cannot, you know, convoke and conjure up, you know, all kinds of figments of their imagination. And undoubtedly, you know, Thomas and Alito will fall for that. But I hope the vast majority of the court will stand by precedent going back to 1868 when the amendment was passed. And the first challenge to that was 30 years later in 1898 in the won Kim Sum case. And the Supreme Court again emphatically said, everybody born here is a citizen of the United States. They were rejecting the Dred Scott definition of racial citizenship in the country, which was that it's hereditary by virtue of race as opposed to hereditary by virtue of being born in the country. But that was the new vision adopted by the Radical Republicans. Everybody fought on the Union side in the Civil War and by the Supreme Court ever since.
- [26:20]
Jen Psaki
I was talking with the Attorney General of New Jersey, and New Jersey is, of course, part of this case about the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't even asked to rule on the merits of that. What do you make of that?
- [26:35]
Thumbtack
Well, when the merits appear to be hopeless for Donald Trump, and remember, Jen, he's lost 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders since this whole nightmare began. The federal courts are acting with a lot of muscle determination to shut down this reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism. But what the conservatives are doing to try to avoid another loss on the merits, which is obvious here, is to find some procedural off ramp that they can take to avoid that outcome. And here they, I think, are hoping to deliver a mini victory to Donald Trump by saying they're going to wipe out nationwide injunctions by federal district courts, which would be a completely absurd and inefficient thing to do. It's like saying, you know, everybody who's suing about race segregation in the courts has got to go to court, him or herself. And you can't rely on, you know, Linda Brown or a hypothetical plaintiff today to do it for everybody. So that would mean in this birthright citizenship case, every family affected by it would have to go to court, bringing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of cases across the country. It just doesn't make any sense. And that's not how we've operated, certainly not how the Republicans thought things should be under Joe Biden when they brought lots of claims for nationwide relief in federal district courts across the land. Don't forget that Judge Kaczmarek in the Northern District of Texas, who's the Sole judge in the Northern District. So the right wingers were lining up around the block to get into his court because they knew he would rule for them. And then they asked for a nationwide injunction on things like mifepristone. So they've used it to their advantage in the past, and now they're trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat to save Donald Trump.
- [28:28]
Jen Psaki
No question about it. I was reading about today, there seems to be this bill sponsored by Darrell Issa in the House also. There's also a companion bill in the Senate that would restrict district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. It seems to have the same objective, to take away this check on power for Donald Trump. It passed the House, I believe. I mean, what do you think of that? Is that their goal? And is this. It seems to be just kind of a unified effort to any checks whatsoever from any branch of government and just give them over to the executive branch.
- [29:04]
Thumbtack
Sure. It's like they want to impeach all of the federal judges, Democrats and Republican appointee judges who have entered all of these injunctions against Donald Trump, like Chief Judge Boasberg of the District court in the District of Columbia. They really want to impeach him and get rid of him, because he was the one who said, turn the airplanes around and come back and give those people due process. And when they didn't, he's the one who's been saying, I find you in probable cause of contempt of this court and show cause why you shouldn't be sanctioned. And that has set now the standard for judges around the country dealing with the complete lawlessness and authoritarian attitudes coming out of the Trump administration. But you're right, if Congress gets in their way, they just bypass Congress, unfortunately, with the collusion and the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, when the courts get in the way, they defy the authority of the courts. They say they're going to impeach the judges, and now they want to try to remove a tool that judges have had for decades. By the way, nationwide injunctions are fairly rarely used. Judges use them when they think there's an order that is violating the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. And of course, it would be ridiculously inefficient to say everybody has to go out and sue to overturn an executive order that violates the rights of the people. It violates the basic concept of the rule of law where, you know, you work your way up to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court can decide. In fact, these cases debunk the idea that it takes too long. These cases are just sailing through the system, getting up to the Supreme Court.
- [30:41]
Jen Psaki
Nationwide injunctions not needed as often as they are with Trump, given all the things he does. Congressman Jamie Raskin, I always love talking to you. Thank you so much. And when we come back, we'll take a quick break. But my favorite headline of today was, was this in the HuffPost, most transparent white House in History Keeps Majority of Trump's Remarks Secret. There we go. Turns out the White House isn't posting a whole lot of transcripts of the president's public remarks. If you listen to some of his words, salad in the Middle east today, and we're certainly going to talk about it, it's really not hard to see why we're going to talk about it. After a quick break.
- [31:18]
Matthew Plotkin
President Trump is truly the most transparent.
- [31:21]
Thumbtack
And accessible president in American history.
- [31:23]
Jen Psaki
And President Trump is the most transparent president ever. This has been the most transparent administration in history, probably in world history. I mean, I don't know what the difference between history and world history, what even the context of world history is supposed to be there, but you get the idea. Trump officials love, they love, they love to talk about how Trump is the most transparent president in history. I don't have to tell you that claim is bizarre a little bit. It's also kind of hilarious given how wrong it is. Now here's the headline Today from the HuffPost, most transparent white House in History Keeps Majority of Trump's remarks secret. HuffPost reports that since Trump took office, the White House has published just 29 transcripts of the 146 public remarks Trump made in his first 100 days. Now, for all of you math nerds out there, that's less than 20% of the remarks he's made have been published. The White House hasn't actually published a Trump transcript in over two months. So why is the most transparent administration in history trying to hide what the most transparent president in history apparently or the world says from the public? Why are they trying to hide it? Well, maybe it's because he keeps saying things like this.
- [32:37]
Donald Trump
The drone is killing tremendous numbers of people. You hide behind a tree and the drone comes down and it circles you with fire. You don't have a chance. The tree comes down. Also, by the way, it's so intense. I mean, you see these trees being knocked down like, like they're being sawed down by a top of the line timberman, like, like, you know who. Sean Duffy. Do you know that? Sean Duffy, the head of the Transportation Department who's Working right now in the airports and getting a system because Biden didn't do a thing for four years and Pete Buttigieg was the head and he goes bicycle into work.
- [33:15]
Jen Psaki
To be in the mind of the two people sitting next to Trump during those remarks, what were they thinking? So that was Donald Trump today. He was of course representing the United States of America on an official state visit to Qatar. To be clear, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was not at this event, had absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a roundtable with military contractors. And since we don't have an official transcript of those remarks from the White House, let me just read you some, some of that back to you. Here it is. Quote, you hide behind a tree and the drone comes down and it circles you with fire. You don't have a chance. The tree comes down. Also, by the way, it's so intense. I mean, you see these trees being knocked down like they're being sawed down by a top of the line timberman like, you know who, John Duffy, the head of the Transportation Department who's working right now in the airports and getting a system because Biden didn't do a thing for four years and Pete Buttigieg was the head and he goes bicycle into work. Okay, if you think I'm cherry picking the weirdest thing Trump said today or I'm leaving out words, trust you, I'm not. We played it for you, I read it for you. He also repeated his weird line about how the word groceries is an old fashioned term nobody uses anymore. And he inexplicably claimed Hitler gave a speech at the Eiffel Tower, which of course never happened again. All of that was just today, which is to say nothing about all the strange things he said since taking office again.
- [34:41]
Donald Trump
And instead of using hydraulic like on tractors that can handle anything from hurricanes to lightning to anything, they used magnets. It's a new theory. Magnets are going to lift the planes up and it doesn't work. So we've opened up the shower heads, the faucets, the toilets. Seriously overweight and he takes the fat, the fat shot drug. This is a different panel than I've had. Everything's computer. I hear so much about the word groceries. I used to use groceries a lot on the trail. A word, it's like sort of an old fashioned word, groceries. But groceries is the word that's the most accurate word. Basically what we're doing is equalizing. There's a new word that I came up with, which I think is probably the best word it sort of represents something that's both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable. Weak.
- [35:37]
Jen Psaki
Okay. See, all that goes a long way toward explaining why the Trump White House might not want an official record of all the things he said posted on the White House website and blasted out to reporters every time he's speaking. But here's the thing. These transcripts are not just some perfunctory thing that White Houses put out when they feel like. I mean, for decades, presidents of both parties have had their public statements recorded and transcribed by nonpartisan civil servants who serve as stenographers. They literally travel with presidents everywhere they go. And the transcripts are then sent out to the full White House press list, typically within hours, and also posted on the White House website. It's an important part of what it means for end administration to be transparent, to make sure the press and the American public have an official record of remarks from the leader of the free world. Now, when HuffPost asked the White House a pretty simple question about why they were publishing these transcripts so infrequently, they got this response from the ever charming White House communications director Stephen Cheung. Here's what he said, quote, or here's part of what he said. You must be truly effing stupid if you think we're not transparent. Stop be clowning yourself. I think Stephen Chung may need some fresh air. Maybe he goes bicycle into work as his boss might suggest. Coming up. You know that $400 million jet that Qatar gifted to Donald Trump? Turns out they've been trying to offload it for years. Lucky for them, an easy mark finally came along to take it off their hands. Senator Andy Kim has worked in the national security space for years. I'm going to ask him about that brand new reporting when we come.
- [37:15]
Donald Trump
We have never had a relationship with Qatar as strong as it is now. You know that better than anybody. And they're very happy. And we're going to protect you. We're going to protect you. You have a great ally in us. And there's nobody even closer.
- [37:29]
Jen Psaki
That was Donald Trump earlier today gushing over his close relationship with Qatar. Never been stronger, he said. Now, considering how Trump treats other allies, it goes to show how far a 400 million dollar jumbo can go, I guess. But there's a bit of an awkward backstory to that gift that he may not have been tracking at the moment. Maybe is now because Forbes is now reporting the royal family of Qatar has been trying to dump the plane for a while. According to an archive listing, the plane was actually put on the market back in 2020, but didn't sell, suggesting that Qatar may have decided to unload it on Trump to save themselves the cost of maintenance and storage. That's consistent with the fact that Qatar has been moving away from these jumbo jets because they're bad on fuel efficiency, and there's security risks of planes that size and the fact that bigger planes also require longer runways. So why not offload the enormous and expensive? Hand me down to the easiest Merc you can find. That's, I guess, what they did. Joining me now is Democratic New Jersey Senator Andy Kim. Before getting to the Senate, he worked on the National Security Councils for Presidents Bush and Obama. It's great to see you. So much to talk to you about. I want to start with. There's a lot to be said about the plane, but I wanted to add you about something some of your Senate colleagues are pushing for because Senator Chris Murphy and a group of Senate Democrats moved today to block $3.5 billion worth of arms sales to Qatar and the UAE. And Senator Murphy said this about the plane. He said, this isn't a gift out of the goodness of their hearts. It's an illegal bribe. Unless Qatar rescinds their offer of a palace in the sky or Trump turns it down, I will move to block the arms sale. I mean, you worked in national security for a long time before you were a senator. Do you agree with that? And do you support this move to block $3.5 billion in arms sales?
- [39:07]
Andy Kim
We shouldn't be allowing this type of clear effort to influence the President of the United States. You know, every single leader around the world has Trump's number. They know that, you know, you just line things up with gold plated, this and that and the airplanes and what, you know, and it just, it's so blatant. Right. And I say this as someone who, like, by virtue of me being in the US Senate, was because of a bribery scandal, corruption scandal with gold bars. This is like that on steroids. I mean, when we see just how blatant it is. And just because it's in the, you know, just out there in the open, doesn't mean it's not wrong. And so that's, you know, very clear. And what we just need to constantly ask is, I'm interested. Like, was it the Trump administration that asked for it or asked for some of these different things that. And we need to have answers to that right away.
- [40:00]
Jen Psaki
And, I mean, that makes total sense. I think a lot of people agree with you on that. Even Republicans have said that we'll see how they act. That's the most important thing. But do you think this move to block the $3.5 billion in arms sales is the right move? Is that something you'd support?
- [40:12]
Andy Kim
If it was, I would consider, yeah. I think, you know, what we need to show is that it's not just on, you know, it's not just on the elected officials in the US about whether or not they accept these or not. There always should be the consideration of, like, why is this happening? Like, why do we continue to have other countries that are taking these illegal actions and getting away with it? And they need to know that there are repercussions for this and that we're seeing what it is. That is so obvious. I mean, again, you know, the fact that Trump is doing this, I mean, it just like any American, like my nine year old son today, was just like making fun of this $400 million plan because he knows it's, everyone knows it's wrong. Even Trump, I'm sure, knows it's wrong, but he just doesn't care. And the American people need to push back on that.
- [41:01]
Jen Psaki
No question about it. I wanted to ask you about, because there's so much to cover and sometimes it's important to lift out these stories that may seem obscure. There was this story in ProPublica today and it was about the State Department, Elon Musk. And according to the reporting, the US Ambassador to Gambia essentially subtly threatened to cut aid and projects the US Was sending to the country if they didn't facilitate approvals to Musk Musk's Starlink. Now, last week the Washington Post had a similar story about another country in Africa. And this is a pattern of Musk pushing his business interests through diplomatic channels. It's setting, in my view, a very dangerous precedent, I'm sure, in yours too. But you've worked in these spaces a lot. I mean, it's very abnormal, right? What can be done to stop that kind of effort to push the business interests of one of Trump's buddies through diplomatic channels.
- [41:50]
Andy Kim
And you see it right in front of you again, like in Saudi Arabia just the other day, Musk is there announcing that Saudi Arabia is now going to use Starlink for a good chunk of what they're doing. And so again, it's just out in the open. I mean, when I worked at State Department before, worked at embassies before, yes, we're advocating in general about American interests, American business interests and whatnot, but to go to the mat for an individual company in a way that's threatening in a way. I mean, the report was saying, oh, if you're not doing this, here are some other things that US Programs that we have in your countries that could be threatened, especially when Musk is acting as a government employee as well. I mean, that's the line that, again, so clearly is broken there. He's somebody that is simultaneously got companies with government contracts and government interests. He is simultaneously getting all this data and operating within the government. And then he's also running the largest super PAC in the history of America. That's what we need to be pushing back against and holding up things like the Hatch act, things that I was having to abide by. That's what we need to enforce. So using the judicial means, but also trying to have the legislature be able to do our job in terms of enforcing some of these actions that we've been pushing on. So, I mean, look, it's challenging watching this all, but we have to keep up, make sure we're documenting this, make sure we're keeping track of this and finding the ways to expose that corruption.
- [43:33]
Jen Psaki
Senator Andykam, we didn't even get to all of the things happening in New Jersey. I hope you'll come back, we'll talk about all of them. Everything going on in your state. I had to take advantage of your national security expertise with everything going on. So thank you so much for joining. I really appreciate it.
- [43:45]
Andy Kim
Of course.
- [43:46]
Jen Psaki
Coming up, Elon Musk and the Doge boys have been on the hunt for massive fraud of Social Security. We've been hearing about this a lot. Well, the results are in and you're never going to believe what they found. We'll be right back. All right, before we go, it's time for a quick progress report on one of Donald Trump and his best buddy Elon Musk's favorite pet project that is uncovering supposed fraud in Social Security, especially when it comes to their phone lines. I mean, remember, Musk claims 40% of all calls into Social Security are made by fraudsters. 40%. That's what he claims. And so last month, the Social Security Administration set out to catch all these fraudsters and installed anti fraud checks for all claims made over the phone. And guess what? The results are in. Since then, They've received over 110,000 calls and their fancy new fraud catching software found. Drumroll, please. Two. Two. That's right. According to an internal document obtained by NexGov, under the new policy, the agency found that only two benefit claims out of over 110,000 had a high probability of being fraudulent, and they aren't guaranteed to be. So if my math's correct, that totals to 0.0018%. Not exactly 40%, but who's counting? Well, we are. That's why we had to share this. And even better, they managed to slow down retirement claim processing by 25% along the way, leading to, quote, a degradation of public service. Great job, team, helpful and efficient as usual. 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 Bluesky, Instagram and TikTok for now. Goodbye from Washington and we'll see you next week. Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day nutrition program rejuvenates you at the cellular level with boxes labeled by day so you know exactly what to eat. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe@prolonlife.com PandoraProMo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Products are not intended to diagnose or prevent disease. See site for details.