← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Federal appeals court: Most Trump tariffs are illegal
00:41:38
Tonight on The Last Word: A federal appeals court deals a huge blow to Donald Trump on tariffs. Also, Trump is blasted for his “illegal” tactic to cut foreign aid. Plus, Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff refuses to blame Russia as the aggressor against Ukraine. And Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst won’t seek reelection in 2026. Laurence Tribe, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Norm Ornstein, David Rothkopf, Iowa State Rep. Josh Turek, and Ben Wikler join Ali Velshi.
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:00]
Ali Velshi
Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here, if you haven't heard. I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please, and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:35]
Allie Velchi
Are you ready to get spicy?
- [00:37]
Ali Velshi
These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.
- [00:40]
Allie Velchi
Maybe it's time to turn up the heat or turn it down.
- [00:44]
Ali Velshi
It's time for something that's not too spicy. Try Doritos Golden Sriracha.
- [00:48]
Allie Velchi
Spicy but not too spicy. The Last word starts right now with Allie Velchi and Florence.
- [00:54]
Ali Velshi
So I'm super excited about this and people must have been asking about this, but I'll tell you the absolute most frequent question I get about it. Look, it's Friday night. We're all tired. It is what it is. We're just gonna say it out here.
- [01:06]
Allie Velchi
I said it was Sunday earlier in the show.
- [01:08]
Ali Velshi
I heard you. Yes, it feels like that. The question I get mostly is, is it still gonna be called MSNBC Live 25?
- [01:14]
Allie Velchi
Oh, well, yes, it is. Yes, it is.
- [01:17]
Ali Velshi
Okay, all right, fair enough.
- [01:19]
Allie Velchi
That's my understanding. And look, we'll all be there.
- [01:21]
Ali Velshi
Yeah, it doesn't matter. You can call whatever you want. Doesn't matter.
- [01:24]
Allie Velchi
Rachel will be there. Lawrence will be there.
- [01:25]
Ali Velshi
Correct.
- [01:26]
Allie Velchi
You'll be there. I don't know if you're dancing. Maybe you compete. 10pm we shall try.
- [01:31]
Ali Velshi
Yeah. People ask me about the name change of the network. I said, I still come to work the same. Like you call it whatever you want to call it. It's the same thing.
- [01:38]
Allie Velchi
I'm not particularly worried about it. We're going to still do our shows. We're going to still talk about people. We're going to still hold people to account. No change in that regard.
- [01:45]
Ali Velshi
Exactly right. Which you've done a great job of this week. I've really appreciated your shows. Thank you so much. It's always fun to get to spend the week with you, but have yourself a great weekend.
- [01:54]
Allie Velchi
Thank you so much. Have a great show.
- [01:55]
Ali Velshi
Okay. Well, today, about two hours after the markets closed for the Labor Day weekend, a federal appeals court ruled that most of Don Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal. It was a huge and decisive blow against Trump's most significant and far reaching and likely most damaging economic policy and his effort to steal the power and authority that constitutionally belongs to Congress. This is the issue posed by the Trump tariffs as described by the court in its decision. Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies. In response to these declared emergencies, the president has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade. The court ruled both the Trump trafficking tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs are unbounded in scope, amount and duration. These tariffs apply to nearly all articles imported into the United States and in the case of the reciprocal tariffs, apply to almost all countries impose high rates which are ever changing and excessive that are not limited in duration. The trafficking and reciprocal tariffs assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations of the authority delegated to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Now, the court ruled that Trump's tariffs can remain in place for now until about the middle of October to allow the Trump administration time to do what we expect it to do, appeal to the Supreme Court. Neil Katyal, who argued the case against the administration, spoke to my friend Chris Hayes moments after the decision.
- [03:38]
Neil Katyal
The Trump administration is saying they want to bring this case to the supreme court. And this U.S. supreme Court for many years has been saying, in particular with respect to a lot of different presidential, President of President Biden's initiatives, these questions are too major for the president alone to decide. They have to be done by the Congress. And here you got something as major as it gets. The Nonpartisan Tax foundation says that these tariffs are the largest tax increase on Americans since Bill Clinton in 1993, and yet Congress had nothing to do with them. It's just President Trump and the stroke of his pen, and that just can't be the right way to run a constitutional system.
- [04:18]
Ali Velshi
The Supreme Court's almost certainly going to take this up.
- [04:20]
Chris Hayes
How confident are you there?
- [04:23]
Neil Katyal
So I'm very confident in the merits of our argument, Chris. I think it is rock solid, extremely strong. The court has shown time and again that it can reach conclusions that are at odds with conservative ideology when the law says so. And when I get more versus Harper, and we talked about that a couple years ago, is a good example. So I think let's let the process play out. Our hope is that the administration doesn't appeal this, that they go to Congress and ask for the authority, that the court says that's what the Constitution says they should be doing. But if they do decide to appeal it, we will be ready at the U.S. supreme Court for them.
- [05:00]
Ali Velshi
Tonight, Attorney General Pam Bondi tweeted that the DOJ will appeal the ruling. Trump's tariffs are being felt by everybody in this country. Consumers, businesses, families. And even more so as we head into the holiday season. Just today the headline in the Wall Street Journal conservative newspaper warned quote, higher prices are coming for households. Household staples companies from Hormel to Ace Hardware forecast prices rising as the cost of Trump's tariffs are passed on to consumers. Leading off our discussion tonight, Professor Lawrence Tribe, who's taught Constitutional law at Harvard Law School for five decades. Professor, it is excellent to see you. Thank you for being with us. I want to pick up on something. Neil Katyala argued this case. He says his hope is that the administration does not take this to the Supreme Court, but in fact takes it in the direction that the Court suggests. Which is Congress to discuss this? I have no such hope. On one hand, Congress seems to do Donald Trump's bidding. On the other side. These people have been facing these town halls at all times and understand that America do not see the benefit of sweeping, unrestricted, unbounded tariffs.
- [06:05]
Lawrence Tribe
I think it's obvious that going to Congress is not on the agenda of the Department of Justice. As you said, they've already said that they're going to appeal. What is peculiar about the case is not the merits. On the merits, I think Neil Katyala is right and the 7 to 4 decision of this court was clearly right. The International Economic Emergency Powers act delegates all kinds of authorities to the President, more perhaps than the framers would ever have imagined. But it does not delegate to the President the power to basically replace Congress's carefully designed tariff scheme with tariffs of his own across the board. On virtually every country, on almost every product, there are targeted tariffs that the Court did not strike down. They didn't strike down the tariffs on various implements that might be relevant to a war, national security, steel, that kind of thing. But the across the board tariffs and the tariffs that the President is using, for example, to punish Brazil because its Chief justice wants to hold its prior dictator Bolsonaro accountable to the law and Bolsonaro is a friend of Trump's, that kind of thing is not within the international Act. But that's just the merits. The posture of the case is a slow walking posture. Not only did the Court say that it would suspend its rulings effectiveness until mid October, but it also sent the case back to the Court of International Trade to reconsider the propriety of, of a universal injunction in light of the criteria that the Supreme Court invented to limit those injunctions in the case of Trump against Casa. So the case is going back to the trial court. The trial court confronts a very complicated issue about whether this is one of those cases where universal injunctions are appropriate. While the trial court is considering that issue, the administration is appealing to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has all kinds of procedural things it could do to slow walk things it can say, well, until the trial court has decided whether to uphold the universal injunction that it initially entered, we don't have to do anything. Remember how it slow walked all the President's criminal appeals so we could see this going, you know, into and past the midterms, for heaven's sake. And in the meantime, these obvious exercises of power that really belongs to Congress will stay in place. One of the interesting things about the opinion is how it reached into the debates for ratifying the Constitution. It recalled that Tom Paine asked the key question in the convention debate, how can we tell that this president will not become a king? And the answer that James Madison gave him was, well, he can't become a king because we haven't given him the power of the purse. It's only the people's representatives who can reach into their pockets.
- [10:06]
Ali Velshi
Right?
- [10:06]
Lawrence Tribe
And what this president is doing is reaching into everybody's pocket by imposing a tax. Taxation without representation. I think I heard that slogan somewhere.
- [10:17]
Ali Velshi
But he claims they're all paying it. That's the. I mean, at some point, I don't know how many times we can claim to people, you pay it. You or your. Whoever sells you the goods, pay it. That's. But it's at that level. It's not. China's not paying. One of the things the President said and one of the arguments that he's used with respect to why this should be in his purview is that these are international emergencies. And sometimes he uses, he talks about fentanyl or whatever the case is. He has said he posted on social media in response to this decision. Tonight, he said he rebuked the Federal Appeal Court decision, warning that a court order blocking his tariffs, quote, would literally destroy the United States of America. Literally destroy the. That's actually just not true.
- [11:02]
Lawrence Tribe
Well, apart from that, if there's anyone destroying the United States of America, I think I know who it is. And he lives at 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's what's destroying the country. If anything, he's ripping apart the Constitution, paying no attention to its limits, basically saying if he wants to do it, he can do it. And we are confronting a situation in which it's very, very hard to stop him in time. And this decision, this decision is a, is a good harbinger. And by the way, of the 11 judges, not one questioned that this was a tax. Of course it's a tax. The question really is, is it a tax that Congress has authorized?
- [11:47]
Ali Velshi
Right.
- [11:47]
Lawrence Tribe
And the court has said that, as Mr. Katyala pointed out, if something is a major question that affects the whole economy, then we don't assume that Congress has given the president the power to do it just because there are some words that might include it. And here the only words they could find are the words regulate gives the power in response to emergencies to regulate. And interestingly, the Chief justice of the United States, in the decision he wrote upholding the Affordable Care act, said that there is a profound difference between the power to regulate and the power to tax. The power to tax, John Marshall said very early in our history, is the power to destroy. And this court, carefully, this 11 judge court didn't try to second guess the president on these so called emergencies. It could have done that.
- [12:53]
Ali Velshi
Yeah.
- [12:53]
Lawrence Tribe
But that would have been vulnerable on appeal because there's a lot of deference to what the president regards as an emergency. It said, emergency or not, Congress has not given the president the power to do this in response to these emergencies, even if they are emergencies. So on the merits, the president does a very weak case, but in terms of dragging it out, doing what's illegal until it's too late to undo the catastrophic damage he's doing to the economy, there, he's still ahead.
- [13:29]
Ali Velshi
And therein lies the rub. Professor, I always feel, not that I'd have lasted more than about an hour in any of your classes, but I always feel like I'm getting a bit of an education from you. I appreciate that that. Professor Lawrence Tribe. Thank you. Harvard Constitutional Professor Emeritus. All right, coming up, Donald Trump has often been accused of doing things that are, as Lawrence Tribe said, at the very least, legally dubious. But this time, he's trying to cut billions from foreign aid and foreign peacekeeping programs using a tactic that sidesteps Congress. Democrats call it illegal, and this one is already headed to court. More on that next. Donald Trump made another power grab today, which a Republican committee chair is calling illegal. NBC News reports the White House informed Congress of its plans to cut $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding through a seldom used budgetary tactic dubbed pocket rescissions. Two congressional sources tell NBC News. So what is a pocket rescission? That's Trump taking money that Congress lawfully appropriated for something and putting that money toward whatever Trump wants. Congress voted to fund foreign aid and Trump wants to take that $5 billion and put it toward, we don't know. The chair of the Appropriations Committee, Republican Senator Susan Collins, facing a tough reelection campaign in 2026, immediately responded, quote, any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law, end quote. Senator Patty Murray, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, called them ridiculous and illegal. The New York Times reports the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight body that reports to Capitol Hill, ruled during the first Trump administration that pocket rescissions are illegal. But Russell Vogt, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has made the case that the executive branch has broad discretion to use them. Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member on the House Appropriations committee, slammed Project 2025 mastermind vote in her statement saying, quote, I refuse to label votes gambit a pocket rescission because it gives his unlawful attempt to steal the promise Congress enacted an air of legitimacy it does not deserve. There's no inherent presidential power to impound. For almost 250 years of American history, only a couple of notably lawless executives have tested this theory and they've been rejected in their attempts by the courts, the Congress and the people, end quote. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas. He's a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Budget Committee. And congressional historian Norm Ornstein. He's an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Good evening to both of you gentlemen. Thank you for being with us. Congressman Doggett, let me start with you because I always come to you and turn to you when it comes to the process of things. This is not that complicated. Congress appropriates. The President is not in a position to decide that that appropriation is not meant for where he wants it to go and to redirect it somewhere else. That's not a thing he's allowed to do.
- [16:29]
Lloyd Doggett
Exactly right, Lawrence. You can go back to ancient English history and know that it was always said that the Parliament had the power of the purse to restrain the king. Well, we have a self described king now and this Congress has been steadily seeing its power eroded. Whether it's the way it's given away authority on tariffs and allowed him to raise tariff taxes to the highest level since 1934, or in this case the power of the purse directly in appropriation. I'm concerned not only about the so called pocket rescission, but what it says about the willingness of Congress to give away its most important power already having voted once this summer to rescind the money that funds npr, PBS, and vital foreign assistance. Foreign assistance cuts that. One estimate is that as many as 22,000 people every year will lose their lives because of this sudden cutback in vital health assistance and other forms of foreign assistance. I think the president's picked on foreign assistance because he thinks that's the most vulnerable and the most misunderstood by the public. But next it may be education, which he promised in July he would do, or some other vital service to show that he alone is the one unrestrained master of government and there are no real checks and balances, Norm.
- [17:51]
Ali Velshi
I think the congressman makes a good point. Foreign assistance, including things like usaid, it's hard to find an audience of people. And there were some, there were some protesters. But generally speaking, people don't know what that is because it's sort of government at work, right? It's a relatively small amount of our federal budget that went toward doing things that, A, kept people alive, B, identified America with keeping them healthy and alive, C, kept pandemic and diseases in check. It was a pretty good return on investment, but it just was a thing that worked in the background that most people didn't know about. So I think the congressman's right. Go after things that people don't feel necessarily affect them on a daily basis. And it's the soft underbelly of taking Congress's authority.
- [18:36]
Norm Ornstein
So a couple of points to make here, Ali. One is, for years, foreign aid was unpopular with Americans because they thought it was 25 to 50% of the federal budget. It's less than 1%. I often would joke in the past, let's compromise with them, then we'll just make it 5% of the budget. But we have another reality here, which is the Doge with Elon Musk and Marco Rubio eviscerated foreign aid at the beginning of this administration. And we know that at least 300,000 people died in Africa and other places in the world of starvation, AIDS and other horrible diseases. So taking another whack at this is unconscionable. But it is also, as Lloyd said, and unfortunately, both of us are old enough to remember when the Budget and Impoundment Control act was implemented after Richard Nixon tried to do this. It is black letter constitutional law that Congress has the power of the purse. And it's important to remember that we're going to have another fight over appropriations coming up before September ends. And this is a kind of bait and switch. We have Senate Republicans saying, let's work with the Democrats and then we get spending supposedly done and then it's switched because Trump says I'm not going to spend it and the Senate Republicans go along. So it's a real test for Senate Democrats going forward.
- [20:09]
Ali Velshi
And we can have this discussion another time. In fact, I think we might be having it tomorrow morning. That, that, that, that's, that's a discussion about what Democrats need to do. But Congressman Doggett, this decision that was made by the appeals court for the, for the D.C. circuit tonight about Donald Trump's tariffs being illegal is, is fundamentally based on the same thing. It's the idea that it's not an emergency act. It's, it's something that if you wish to happen, needs to be discussed and approved by Congress to have these tariffs because you're bas attacks on American people and you don't have the power of the purse. So it's all of us of a piece.
- [20:43]
Lloyd Doggett
It's all of a piece. It is about someone who wants to be unrestrained as the sole power authoritarian dictator for more than day one. It's at the precedent he's setting here. Pick on foreign aid, the specific aid he picked on in this current $5 billion cut, by the way. Some of it's for democracy promotion, some of it's for international peacekeeping. He doesn't believe in democracy in America and he is willing to find himself as an ally with every warmongering dictatorship around the world. So I guess it's not a surprise that he wants to go after this. But my basic concern is that this Congress, it's great that Senator Collins spoke out about this. The question is, when we get together next week, will Congress do anything about it or will it just roll over and play dead as it has on tariffs? And on one issue after another, will there be any check and balance left in our government? Are we turning over all authority to this king or dictator to do the job? I'm concerned that Republican colleagues will let him get away with this. There's no reason that we couldn't act in the next month to put a stop to this illegal and unconstitutional act. I'm not sure Republicans will permit us to do that.
- [21:58]
Ali Velshi
Yeah, essentially we've got till September 30th do. It's technically 45 days, but September 30th. 30th. Lawrence Tribe did bring up in our last conversation that Thomas Paine asked James Madison what's to prevent the president from becoming a king? And James Madison said, well, he doesn't have the power of the purse. That'll take care of it. James Madison is rolling over on his in his grave tonight. Thanks to both of you guys. Norm, I think I'm seeing you tomorrow. Norm Ornstein and Congressman Lloyd Doggett. Likelihood I'm seeing you this weekend, too, because we talk a lot on the weekend. So I appreciate, great to be with both of you. Before we go to break, an update on a story we've been following all week. Today, a federal judge made no ruling in a hearing over the lawsuit brought by Federal Reserve Governor Lee Lisa Cook, who Donald Trump is trying to fire. The next action in this case will be additional briefs on Tuesday. The Federal Reserve says it will abide by the court's decision. Remember, Lisa Cook has not resigned. Don't know if she's still reporting to work. But it's no mystery what Donald Trump is doing here. Yet again, Trump's thin skin renders him incapable of abiding dissent of any kind. There's usually some claim or allegation, a thin veneer of fake legitimacy to Trump's attacks. With Lisa Cook, it's an unsubstantiated fraud allegation that I won't dignify by repeating with specificity. This week we've seen on full display a presidency unmoored from the democratic ideals, one taken for granted once taken for granted in this country. In a marathon sycophantic, Dear Leader style cabinet meeting, Donald Trump said because he's president, he has, quote, the right to do anything I want to do. Twice this week he suggested Americans want a dictator. And on the topic of the Federal Reserve's independence, J.D. vance gave an interview yesterday where he said the quiet part out loud. Isn't it a little preposterous to say that the President of the United States, the elected president of the United States, working of course in concert with Congress, doesn't have the ability to make these determinations. No, it's not preposterous, precisely because we have a president in this country and not a dictator. Coming up, Donald Trump's been bragging about the fact that he's ended a bunch of wars. Some days it's six, some days it's seven. One day he said it was 10. If you count three pre wars that he's ended. Whatever a pre war is, the real number is zero, including Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine that Donald Trump said he could end on day one of his second term. That's next. Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please, and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [24:49]
Allie Velchi
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding, and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight Infinity@Greenlight.com podcast Mint.
- [25:21]
Ali Velshi
Is still $15 a month for premium.
- [25:23]
Ben Wickler
Wireless, and if you haven't made the.
- [25:24]
Ali Velshi
Switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month. 2. Seriously, it's $15 a month.
- [25:33]
Lawrence Tribe
3.
- [25:33]
Ali Velshi
No big contracts. 4.
- [25:35]
Allie Velchi
I use it.
- [25:36]
Ali Velshi
5. My mom uses it. Are you playing me off? That's. That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.
- [25:43]
Allie Velchi
Payment of $45 for three month plan $15 per month equivalent required New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra.
- [25:49]
Kelly Ripa
See mint mobile.com.
- [25:53]
Ali Velshi
Donald Trump promised he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. After 222 days and one faux summit spectacle, Trump has failed. Yesterday, Russia unleashed its largest strike on Kiev since Trump's photo op with Putin two weeks ago in Anchorage, Alaska. Nearly two dozen people were killed in the missile strikes, including four children. This was Vladimir Putin's answer to Trump rolling out the red carpet for him in Alaska. Trump inviting a grinning Putin into the US Presidential limo for a private ride. We often see how these Trump shows start, but we rarely see how they end. What Trump got in Alaska was this. He changed the subject. Now he's onto the National Guard in the streets of America. And what of the Putin summit after Trump's real estate friend turned special envoy, Steve Witkoff, failed to secure a ceasefire? Politico has a new story with these quotes about Witkoff's job performance. Quote his inexperience shines through he has the president's ear, which is evident. But there has been some confusion about what has been said and agreed, said a person familiar with the diplomatic effort. He's kind of a rogue actor, said a US Official familiar with Witkoff's diplomatic style. He talks to all these people, but no one knows what he says in any of these meetings. He will say things publicly, but then he changes his mind. It's hard to operationalize that, end quote. The thing is, Witkoff isn't consistently engaged. He'll pop in for a visit to Vladimir Putin, say a bunch of stuff, not tell anyone what really happened, and then just f off to his life again. Meanwhile, the Russians are talking to you about how Wyckoff says, and you don't know whether they're right or not. Here's Witkoff just a few days ago, not even able to say that Vladimir Putin is the aggressor in this war.
- [27:32]
Lloyd Doggett
Who's more responsible for keeping this war.
- [27:34]
Ali Velshi
Going, Russia or Ukraine? This is a different situation here. We've got two. These are two tough sides here. And you heard the President say that he's disappointed in Russia in some respects, and he's also disappointed in the Ukrainians in some respects. This is the guy running our foreign policy today. French President Emmanuel Macron said this about the Putin Zelenskyy meeting that Trump was supposedly working toward. Quote, if that doesn't happen by Monday, it means that once again, President Putin has played President Trump, end quote. Once again, President Putin has played President Trump. Joining us now, David Rothkop. He's a foreign affairs analyst and a columnist for the Daily Beast. He's the host of the Deep State Radio podcast. And I'm sure what Macron says doesn't come as too much of a surprise to you, David. You could probably see that playing out in the moment that Vladimir Putin got an invitation to Alaska, a war criminal got an invitation to America. I think we could all tell that Donald Trump is getting played once again by Vladimir Putin.
- [28:37]
Allie Velchi
Yeah.
- [28:37]
Chris Hayes
And, you know, look, the proof is in the pudding in these things, and we've made no progress towards peace. Witkoff did make quite a plea, made a reference to that Cabinet meeting yesterday. And Witkoff went on saying Trump was the most qualified person ever to be considered for a Nobel Prize. And of course, you know, you could hardly make a more ridiculous statement, but explains why Witkoff is where Witkoff is. He has no experience. He doesn't understand the history. All he is is a buddy of the president who's willing to polish the president, places The President wants to be polished.
- [29:13]
Ali Velshi
Yeah. And Witkoff, you know, Putin actually named him when they were in Alaska. He said, oh, Mr. Witkoff comes and sees us all the time and we're happy to host him. Of course you're happy to host Witkoff because you have a meeting with Wyckoff and you have to do nothing. So. So Vladimir Putin will never have to go any farther than the negotiating table as long as Wycoff keeps on showing up. He's done the same thing in Gaza. He just sort of shows up, nothing changes, nothing happens. And America looks like it's got a guy out there and everybody else thinks, oh, good, Witkoff's coming, we don't have to do anything.
- [29:43]
Chris Hayes
Yeah, but it matters that Witkoff doesn't know anything about foreign policy, has no staffers around him, doesn't work within the system, that we don't have a National Security Council that's functioning, that the President doesn't take any advice, that Marco Rubio is a sycophant and nothing else in this process. Pete Hegg says the same. It matters. And that's why we're not getting anywhere with this. Meanwhile, Putin is launching more strikes. You know, you mentioned one last night. There was another one tonight in Western Kyiv. More people are dying. Putin is the aggressor. And I think the place to start is until Donald Trump and Steve Witkoff can say Russia started the war, Vladimir Putin is at fault. There are not two sides to this thing. They can't play a constructive role because they're not in touch with reality.
- [30:36]
Ali Velshi
You were right at that sycophantic cabinet meeting where Wyckoff was talking about. He kept calling it a Nobel Prize and thinks that Trump should get it. Stephen Miller, reacting to what Macron said about Trump being duped, said, president Trump has achieved seven peace deals in seven months. No president in history has done more to advance the cause of peace. He's been nominated by multiple world leaders for the Nobel Peace Prize. Miller said in about 3 of the cases that Donald, he goes from 6 to 7 to 10. I'm not going to waste everybody's time with them tonight. Three of them are what he calls pre wars that he stopped. Several of them are. He didn't stop anything. He even claims that Iran is a peace deal. But in three of the cases that he has, he's sort of hard pressed to sort of explain what they are. In fact, at that press conference in Scotland, he was asked about them and he sort of talked about Cambodia and Thailand, but he didn't know what to say. Then he talked about India and Pakistan, wasn't sure what to say. Then he said Congo and Rwanda and talked about how 7 million people were killed with machetes in Rwanda. That was in 1994. It was 2 million and it was in 1994. It had nothing to do with Donald Trump. Like, this is. It's not just that Witkoff doesn't know what he's talking about. The guy who's instructing Witkoff also doesn't know what he's talking about. Right.
- [31:44]
Chris Hayes
And you know, the only record that Donald Trump is breaking on the peace front is lying about being involved in the most peace deals that, you know, president has ever taken, been involved in. He can't even pronounce Azerbaijan, a participant in one of the deals. He, you know, the Indians said he wasn't involved in moving this thing along. Most of these things have moved along for a while. He attacked Iran. He actually launched an attack against Iran. Cambodia thing is far from being resolved, clearly. Ukraine is far from being resolved. And he's actively supporting Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Actively supporting. You don't get the Nobel Prize for supporting Israeli war crimes in Gaza, threatening to take over Greenland and sending your own troops into your own cities.
- [32:35]
Ali Velshi
It's a wild story, not one that I thought you and I would be discussing, but in fact, we are. David, it's always good to see you. As always. David Rothkop is a foreign affairs analyst. He's a columnist for the Daily Beast, and he's the host of the Deep State Radio podcast. All right, coming up, Republican efforts to keep control of the United States Senate in next year's midterm elections just got a little more difficult today. That and much more election news next.
- [32:58]
Allie Velchi
How do you make an Airbnb a vrbo Picture a vacation rental with a host who's showing you every room like you've never seen a house before. Now get rid of them. There you go. No host ever. Now it's a VRBox. Make it a verbo.
- [33:13]
Kelly Ripa
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three. And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx, nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Rippa now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [33:56]
Allie Velchi
Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [34:25]
Ali Velshi
A minor political earthquake today as Republican senator from Iowa and a conservative state Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin announced they will not run for reelection in 2026. 2026. And that makes perfect sense for a president whose approval rating less than a year in is at 37%. Republicans are seeing voter anger and are running for the exits. Ben Wickler is going to join us in a moment on the Wisconsin news. But first, in Iowa, the Republican Senator Joni Ernst, who plans to announce next week that she will not seek reelection, according to three people familiar with her decision, potentially giving Democrats a chance to flip a key Senate seat. Now here's the thing, and it is a big thing. Democrats have not won a statewide Senate race in Iowa since 2008, but their hopes are buoyed by the victory this week by Iowa Democrat Caitlin Dray, with whom we spoke on this show on Wednesday, who won a state Senate seat by 11 points in a district that Donald Trump won by 10 points in November. And she broke the Republican supermajority. The New York Times reports that Joni Ernst's decision not to run, quote, had been rumored for months, as she has to fend off threats of a more conservative primary challenger and a falling approval rating that showed less than 40% of Iowans approved of her job performance. End quote. And this is after Ernst, a military veteran who served in Iraq, buckled to intense political pressure, including the explicit threat of being primaried to confirm Donald Trump's controversial pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, as well as facing angry voters at a town hall where she struggled to defend Medicaid cuts in Donald Trump's budget bill.
- [36:07]
Kelly Ripa
They are not eligible, so they will be coming off. So we people are not well.
- [36:16]
Ali Velshi
We all are going to die. So for heaven's sakes, for heaven's sakes, folks, we all are going to die, which is no good excuse to not exercise every morning, I suppose. Joining us now is the Iowa Democratic State Representative, Josh Turek, who is running for the US Center Senate. Nice to see you. Thank you for being with us on the show. The world's changed a lot in a week, right? I mean, having this conversation with you one week ago, I'm sure you'd say some interesting things and I'd say, yeah, but you know what? Democrats don't have such a good chance in Iowa. The world's changed a lot.
- [36:53]
Josh Turek
Yeah, I agree. One, thanks for having me. Good evening. You know, I have been saying for quite some time now that I was going to be the center of the political universe in 2026. As you mentioned, we just won the special election. That is not a one off. That is not a mistake. That is now four special elections that we have won out here in Iowa.
- [37:14]
Ali Velshi
I think that's an important point. I just want to stop on it's four. And the critics are saying, well, it's special elections. People don't turn out for them. This lower turnout, lots of money goes into them. Still four special elections.
- [37:25]
Josh Turek
That's right. And the other thing that I would push back on is in Trump's first midterm, we ended up winning three of the four congressional seats in 2022. We were only 1.5% away from having three of our six statewide officials. I fundamentally believe that Iowa, we are a common sense state. And with an open gubernatorial race and now an open U.S. senate race, Iowa, we're going to be the center of the political universe in 26.
- [37:48]
Ali Velshi
Yeah. And this can really change the math. It can change the math in the Senate. Caitlin Dre's victory changed the math in your legislature. I mean, it broke the, the Republican supermajority, which, which really changes things. It means Democrats can try to advance certain legislation that wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell a week ago.
- [38:10]
Josh Turek
Absolutely. And look, if you're talking about getting to 51 and you're talking about getting the majority in the US Senate again, it comes right through Iowa. And Iowa is a common sense state. And I am a common sense prey populace like my hero, Senator Tom Harkin. And we can, we can win here statewide. There is no doubt.
- [38:28]
Ali Velshi
What's the stuff that you need to talk about to win statewide in Iowa? I mean, there's the obvious things, right? There are the cuts to Medicaid, which everybody's upset by. There are the cuts to snap, which affect rural Iowa a great deal. There are the cuts to rural hospitals, which, whether or not you have anything to do with Medicaid, you could entirely lose hospitals and have to move because there's no hospital near you. Sure.
- [38:55]
Josh Turek
Honestly, it's, you've touched on a lot of them. It's the kitchen table issues. I represent actually a district that, a county that Trump won by 20 points. The two communities I represent, Trump won by double digits. I was able to win by nearly 6%. That was going out there through hard work. And what I hear over and over and over from Iowans is just the kitchen table issues. A lot of people here in Iowans are struggling just to keep a roof above their head, just to keep food on the table. They care about a livable wage. They care about healthcare, which I know firsthand. I had 21 surgeries before I was 12 years old. I'm a wheelchair user. I fundamentally understand these supports and social safety nets. They care about affordable pharmaceuticals. I say all the time, people should not be having to make a decision in the richest country on earth. Do I pay my bills, my pills? It's, we've got a water crisis epidemic here. They care about public schools. They care, they care about cancer rates here in Iowa. These are the things that people care about, not the culture war issues. They care about the kitchen table issues.
- [39:50]
Ali Velshi
Josh Turk, good to see you. Thank you for joining us. Iowa State Representative Josh Turek is a Democratic candidate running for Joni Ernst's seat in the Iowa Senate.
- [39:57]
Lawrence Tribe
Thanks for having me.
- [39:58]
Ali Velshi
And in other Republicans running for the exit news in Wisconsin, conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley announced that she will not seek reelection, setting up another major judicial election in the battleground state. As NBC News reports, Bradley's retirement could provide liberals with an opportunity to expand their 4:3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court after winning a pair of hard fought elections in recent years that have drawn national attention. Two years ago, victory by a liberal over a conservative former justice gave liberals control of the court for the first time in 15 years. And in April, Susan Crawford beat her conservative opponent, who Elon Musk spent millions propping up to cement that liberal majority on the court. Joining us now is Ben Wickler, former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair. Ben, good to see you. Similar types of stories, right, where the country's not fixated on what was going on in a special election in Iowa or what was going on in, I mean, you obviously knew that it was important, the judicial elections in Wisconsin, but they are a bit of an earthquake when they happen?
- [41:05]
Ben Wickler
Absolutely. Because in a state like Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of state laws, like state laws governing elections. Wisconsin, remember, was a state where Trump came within a single vote on the state Supreme Court of overturning the 2020 election result. But if he can't overturn the election result through the Supreme Court In Wisconsin in 2028, that is a huge safeguard for democracy. And what this decision means by Rebecca Bradley saying she won't run for reelection is that Chris Taylor, who's a progressive candidate running for Supreme Court in Wisconsin, could cement a pro democracy majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court all the way through the 2028 presidential race. So this race is coming up on April 5th of 2026. It is one to watch. And there's a huge opportunity to take Wisconsin off this constant seesaw on the edge of the cliff and finally ensure that we'll have a serious pro democracy, pro rule of law majority in our state Supreme Court for years to come.
- [42:04]
Ali Velshi
You heard Josh Turek talking about the fact that Iowa is going to be the center of the political world. I think you sound like you're making a similar argument that Wisconsin is going to be the center of the political world. Both of these things are kind of true, right? Because what they are is tests of what Democrats can do and how they can succeed before the next, next midterm election in some cases. And you and I have had a lot of discussions over the last year about what Democrats have done right, what they've done wrong, and there is some wrong. And these are opportunities to, to figure out where the voters are and be at least close to them, if not ahead of them.
- [42:39]
Ben Wickler
That's absolutely right. And one thing I will say that is that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, the grassroots Democrats on the ground in the Badger State, the closest state in the country, have been organizing non stop now since 2017. If you go to wstems.org, you can chip in, you can sign up to volunteer, and you can go knock on doors this coming weekend and every weekend pretty much until April 5th of next year and through the midterms, because we're organizing all over the state. The new chair, Devin Remaker, helped build this program. He's now carrying that work forward across Wisconsin, across the country. The grassroots are mobilizing. They're, they're getting out into the street. They're talking to friends and family, and that is allowing Democrats to win special elections, to win spring elections like Chris Taylor's Supreme Court race next spring in a way that could really save democracy in the moment of maximum peril.
- [43:29]
Ali Velshi
I'm, I'm a bit exhausted by the conversation of progressives versus centrists and leaning left and leaning right in the Democratic Party because what I'm actually seeing is what voters seem to want. The rallies they show up at in the town hall they show up at, and the court cases for undocumented immigrants they show up at are about fighters versus folders.
- [43:47]
Ben Wickler
Absolutely.
- [43:48]
Ali Velshi
The debate about how progressive or how centrist you are is a debate for later.
- [43:52]
Ben Wickler
No, this is a moment when people need to stand and be counted and then they need to recruit more people so that the numbers swell. Winning, saving democracy, making sure that there's a future for the United States of America is about addition, not subtraction or division. It is about bringing more people into the fold and it is about getting out there and making the case. And we can do that. We did it in Wisconsin this spring. We're going to do it in Wisconsin again next spring. And then from Iowa to Wisconsin to across the country. We need a blue wave like we've never seen before in the 2026 midterms.
- [44:25]
Ali Velshi
Everybody needs a drink of whatever it is you've had because. Because you are bringing a great deal of enthusiasm to a world that for some people can feel a lot, very depressing. Ben, it's always good to talk to you and I appreciate your enthusiasm about democracy. Ben was a former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair. He oversaw those two Supreme Court vacancies. All right, tonight's Last word is next. All right, tomorrow's Belshi Band Book club feature is an 87 year old bestseller that's never gone out of print. An Alfred Hitchcock movie adaptation that won best picture and one of the best examples of the gothic genre. I'm talking about Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. Rebecca has inspired many writers and readers, including one of the most influential contemporary authors of our time, Jennifer Egan. Egan, a Pulitzer Prize winning author of numerous novels, has called Rebecca the novel that made her realize what sort of work she wanted to create as a writer. Jennifer Egan will join me on the Velshi Band Book Club tomorrow to discuss Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. Do not miss this very special meeting with one of our most influential writers. That is tonight's last word. This is Comedy Bang Bang. The podcast, the promo and in 30 seconds I'm gonna tell you why. You should check out show I, the host, Scott Aukerman, have a light hearted conversation with famous celebrities like Jon Hamm, Alison Williams, Phoebe Bridgers Jason Alexander, Natasha Lyonne, Bob Odenkirk, just to name a few things go a little off the rails when different eccentric characters and oddballs drop by to be interviewed as well. Each week is a blend of conversations and character work from your favorite comedians, as well as some new hilarious voices. Comedy Bang Bang the Podcast Listen every Monday wherever you get your podcasts.