McConnell: Hegseth’s desire to be a ‘change agent’ not enough to lead Pentagon

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Episode: McConnell: Hegseth’s desire to be a ‘change agent’ not enough to lead Pentagon Release Date: January 25, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O’Donnell delves into the contentious confirmation of Pete Hegseth as the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Drawing from a detailed Senate debate and featuring expert analysis, the episode explores the implications of Hegseth’s appointment for national security and the broader political landscape.

---

Confirmation of Pete Hegseth

The episode opens with a recap of the Senate’s narrow confirmation vote for Pete Hegseth, culminating in his appointment as the Defense Secretary by a tie-breaking vote. This decision sparked significant controversy within the Republican Party and raised alarms among Democrats and independent observers.

Rachel Maddow highlights the unprecedented nature of the Senate's opposition:

"[...] no American defense secretary has ever received this level of Senate opposition to their confirmation." ([03:32])

Pete Hegseth's Qualifications and Controversies

Hegseth's background as a former Fox News host and executive producer, coupled with allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking, has fueled skepticism about his suitability for leading the Pentagon. A notable moment in the discussion includes Mitch McConnell’s staunch criticism of Hegseth’s qualifications:

"Mere desire to be a change agent is not enough to fill these shoes." ([01:58])

McConnell emphasized concerns about Hegseth's inability to distinguish himself from his predecessors and the potential consequences of his leadership, especially in a "dangerous world" ([01:58]).

---

Senate Opposition and Republican Divisions

The episode examines the fracture within the Republican Senate, highlighting how Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell opposed Hegseth despite party expectations. Susan Collins articulated her reservations by stating:

"They had to do with his lack of experience in managing an organization as large and as complex as the Pentagon." ([04:08])

Collins further criticized Hegseth's management record and his eagerness to overhaul the Pentagon’s leadership at a critical time of global threats ([04:08]).

Mitch McConnell's Critique

McConnell's opposition is portrayed as a significant departure from party loyalty, underscoring the gravity of Hegseth’s potential impact on national security:

"The consequences of failure are as high as they have ever been." ([01:58])

---

Implications for National Security

Experts Tom Nichols and Jennifer Rubin join the discussion to analyze the potential fallout from Hegseth’s appointment. Tom Nichols expresses deep concern over Hegseth’s lack of experience and questions the decision-making capability in times of crisis:

"He lacks the character to lead the U.S. armed forces, he has no experience and will be almost certainly over his head during a crisis." ([09:36])

Jennifer Rubin echoes these sentiments, emphasizing the risks of appointing individuals with questionable backgrounds to high-level defense positions and the potential erosion of military professionalism ([05:52]).

---

Broader Political Ramifications

The episode explores how Hegseth’s confirmation could influence Republican politics and Trump's administration. Susan Collins criticizes Mitch McConnell for losing his influence and warns of the long-term damage to the Republican Party:

"McConnell no longer has any sway. He has lost his perch." ([16:13])

Collins suggests that the Senate's decision could embolden Trump's aggressive nomination strategies, potentially leading to further internal party conflicts and weakening legislative cohesion ([16:13]).

---

Conclusion

Lawrence O’Donnell wraps up the episode by emphasizing the unprecedented nature of the Senate's opposition to Pete Hegseth’s nomination and the significant implications for U.S. defense leadership and Republican unity. The discussion underscores the critical balance between political loyalty and national security imperatives, leaving listeners to ponder the future trajectory of the Pentagon under Hegseth’s leadership.

---

Key Quotes

• Mitch McConnell ([01:58]): "Mere desire to be a change agent is not enough to fill these shoes."
• Susan Collins ([04:08]): "They had to do with his lack of experience in managing an organization as large and as complex as the Pentagon."
• Tom Nichols ([09:36]): "He lacks the character to lead the U.S. armed forces, he has no experience and will be almost certainly over his head during a crisis."
• Susan Collins ([16:13]): "McConnell no longer has any sway. He has lost his perch."

---

Implications and Insights

• Leadership Qualifications: The episode underscores the importance of experience and proven management skills for high-level defense positions, highlighting the risks associated with appointing individuals lacking these qualifications.

• Party Unity: The Republican Party faces internal divisions that could affect its legislative agenda and overall cohesion, especially in relation to Trump’s influence.

• National Security: Concerns about leadership competence at the Department of Defense raise questions about the future handling of global threats and defense strategies.

• Political Strategy: The episode suggests that Trump's aggressive nomination tactics may further polarize the party and erode traditional support structures within the Senate.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell provides a comprehensive analysis of Pete Hegseth’s controversial confirmation as Defense Secretary, exploring the political and security ramifications of this decision. Through expert commentary and detailed discussion, the episode offers listeners a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding high-stakes government appointments.

Transcript

[Discount Tire Ad]

Want the same expert advice you get from the pros in the store while shopping [e-mail] Meet Treadwell, your personal online tire guide that matches you with the perfect tire for your vehicle. Get your best match in one minute or less with Treadwell by Discount Tire. Let's get you taken care of.

[Ali Velshi]

There's a moment you realize you're ready for what's next in your career. Maybe it's when you're trying a new scone recipe and think, I could open a cafe. Or maybe you're helping a co worker and say, I could teach a course on this. Whatever your moment is, it's never too early to plan for a career that lives longer. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP. For skills training, resume tips and job listings, visit aarp.org work right now it's time for the Last Word. We're Allie Velshi is in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Ali. It's a big night.

[Rachel Maddow]

Hi, my friend. It is. And thanks for that amazing coverage of it. You know, I think a lot of people assumed it would be at least 51, 49. And then Mitch McConnell, of course, voting against Pete Hegseth. I know you've been very busy covering all night, so I don't know if you've seen the one pager that Mitch McConnell put out, but if I can just read a couple of things to you. He makes a reference in a paragraph to George Marshall and to Caspar Weinberger and to Bob Gates and the kinds of shoes that Pete Hegseth is going to fill. He then says, quote, mere desire to be a change agent is not enough to fill these shoes. And Dust on Boots fails even to distinguish this nominee from multiple predecessors of the last decade, nor is it a precondition for success. Secretaries with distinguished combat experience and time in the trenches have failed at the job. Mr. Hegseth has failed as yet to demonstrate that he will pass this test. But as he assumes office, the consequences of failure are as high as they have ever been. And fundamentally, that's the issue that you can like Pete Hegseth, you can think he has retrograde views on, on women and women in combat. And all of that would normally be disqualifying. You could have an issue with his drinking, but we're in a dangerous world right now, Rachel. And Pete Hegseth is going to lead the Defense Department.

[Ali Velshi]

Yeah, Pete Hegseth is going to lead the Defense Department as this new president is not ruling out the use of military force to expand the borders of the United States to take, in his words, to take the Panama Canal. He is threatening military force against one of our NATO allies. We all know what happens when a non NATO country threatens a country in NATO. All the NATO countries are treaty bound to respond to them and help defense. When one NATO country threatens military force against another, as Donald Trump is now doing to Denmark of all places, nobody exactly knows what that means. We also have a new president who is refusing to say, refusing to publicly discuss whether or not he is in direct contact with the President of Russia, while today he has just cut off all foreign aid to Ukraine.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah.

[Ali Velshi]

So in a normal like a week ago, this was a very dangerous world.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yes, correct.

[Ali Velshi]

But what has just happened in the past week makes the world feel like it is spinning on a different axis than it used to be. And to have Pete Hegseth be the guy in charge of our nuclear deterrent and the 3 million men and women of the Defense Department just it, it gives you pause. Something gives me pause.

[Rachel Maddow]

Thank you. You have a great evening and a great weekend, my friend.

[Ali Velshi]

Thanks, Ali.

[Rachel Maddow]

Just moments ago, as we've been discussing, the Senate voted to confirm Donald Trump's pick to lead the world's most powerful military Pete Hegseth as defense secretary by one tie breaking vote. It's almost unprecedented. J.D. vance rushed to the Senate floor to get Hegseth over the finish line after three Republican senators defied Trump and voted against Hegseth. Two we expected Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski because they voted against him in. But the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell voted against him too. Now ahead of her no vote on Pete Hegseth's confirmation. Senator Susan Collins said this.

[Susan Collins]

I ended up having a number of concerns. They had to do with his lack of experience in managing an organization as large and as complex as the Pentagon. Given that he had a decidedly mixed record in managing two very small nonprofit veterans organizations where there were allegations of wasted money and mismanagement. In addition, we're facing a world right now where the threats have arguably not been this high since World War II. And I felt that we needed an individual who not only had the experience and qualifications, but also the perspective to run that giant department in the face of these global threats. He seemed very eager to do a wholesale firing of generals and admirals and other high ranking officers at a time when we need their expertise and dedication. So in the end, to me, it was the right decision, much as my inclination is to try to give deference to the President.

[Rachel Maddow]

Are you concerned that there might be some blowback from Trump allies, Trump himself.

[Susan Collins]

Oh, there already is. There already is, and I'm sure there will be more.

[Rachel Maddow]

There already is blowback, and I'm sure there'll be more. That's what Senators Collins, Senators Susan Collins, Senators McConnell and Senator Murkowski are facing tonight. Because that's what happens when Republicans break ranks and oppose Donald Trump. And the former Fox Weekend host with allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking, all of which he denies, will now lead 1.3 million active duty troops and 1.4 million in the National Guard, reserves and civilian employees based around the world, including the thousands of Muslims who serve in the military, according to a complaint filed by an employee of Concerned Veterans for America, where Hegseth served as president of that nonprofit advocacy group, Pete Hegseth drunkenly chanted kill all Muslims. Kill all Muslims while at a bar on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The majority of Senate Republicans voted tonight to keep Donald Trump from having to choose a new nominee. I think at this point, what's interesting is the consequences of the soon to be Defense Secretary Hegseth on the rest of us. No American defense secretary has ever received this level of Senate opposition to their confirmation. Why did Trump do this? This could have been a layup. Marco Rubio sailed through his confirmation in the United States Senate unanimously, despite the fact that half of that House doesn't share Marco Rubio's views on a lot of things. You think Senators Collins and Murkowski and all Democrats would have opposed the defense secretary nominee Joni Ernst or the defense secretary nominee Tom Cotton? So why, Pete Hegseth? Was it just to show that Donald Trump can force Republican Senates to bend to his will even on the worst nominees? This could be a win the battle but lose the war situation literally. Trump doesn't have that kind of political capital to spare the president who claims he got a landslide one with 49% of the vote. 50% of American voters voted for someone else. He starts his presidency with 47% approval. According to a new Reuters poll. Only 19% of adults approve of Pete Hegseth. But forget the domestic political audience paying attention to this. What's more important is that our adversaries are watching. Do American adversaries look at Donald Trump's determination to force through a nominee with a record of reported public drunkenness and difficulty with impulse control and see strength? Do American adversaries see a commander in chief who demanded that General Mark Milley's portrait at the Pentagon be removed? I'm not sure a Whole lot of us knew that there was a portrait of Milley at the Pentagon, but Now it's gone 10 days after it was unveiled. Is that pettiness or is that misplaced power? Lot of questions here. Joining us is Tom Nichols, professor emeritus at the United States Naval War College and staff writer at the Atlantic. And Jennifer Rubin, co founder and editor in chief of the Contrarian. She's also an MSNBC political analyst. Good evening to both of you. Thank you for being with us. Tom, let me just start with you because there are a few buckets of concerns about Pete Hegseth. One is his views and his behavior, which you almost think is sort of tertiary to the fact that he also has not run a large organization. He's run a couple of small organizations and he has apparently done that very badly. And three is we are a world in danger at levels that have not seen until since Pre World War I and pre World War II. We're really a tinderbox right now and we need all the care that we can give this world. I sense your biggest concern lies in bucket three.

[Tom Nichols]

Well, it's the game of horrible alternatives to have to choose which thing you're worried about most, that he lacks the character to lead the U.S. armed forces, that he has no experience and will be almost, you know, certainly being over his head during a crisis trying to advise the president. But yeah, I mean, the first thing I thought when Vance broke the tie was that I could just, you know, having been to Moscow many times and seen walked past their defense ministry, you know, I could just see them sitting inside the Ministry of Defense and looking at each other and saying, this can't be, you know, this can't be real. We couldn't have lucked out this way to have someone this inexperienced and flawed and also someone who, you know, the Senate sent a mess message, someone who doesn't really have the overwhelming confidence of the American people's elected representatives. If you have to become Secretary of Defense by one tie breaking vote, that's a nomination that should have been pulled because you know, you can do that with if you want to, with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, a lot of other things. You can't do that with the Secretary of Defense. And yet, you know, here we are.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, it's an intriguing point, Jennifer, because the vice president in a close Senate, including Vice President Kamala Harris, broke ties all the time. Not ties like this, not on things that are this important. And as I listed in the intro, there were lots of Republicans who would have gotten overwhelming Support even from Democrats, because people do accept what Susan Collins says. Generally speaking, the president gets their nominee. Unless there's a problem. There's a problem here.

[Susan Collins]

Yeah, there sure is. And you asked why Trump would do it. It's several reasons. First of all, he does want to embarrass the Senate and bend them to his will. Secondly, his entire mission is to decapitate and disable functional government. So by putting in entirely incompetent toadies, he goes a long way towards doing that. Once the government is rid of professionals of skilled expertise, then Donald Trump can careen from one side of street to the other, taking the American people and our national security with us. And I must say, it is remarkable during a week in which these people made such an issue of dei, meaning in their aim, hiring people who are not qualified, that they would have had this pathetic specimen as Secretary of Defense. This is the worst kind of DEI for white incompetent drunks. And this should not be tolerated. It shouldn't be tolerated for someone who is, as you point out, the secretary, Secretary of Agriculture, and it shouldn't be tolerated for someone who is going to run an organization in which any of this behavior would have been disqualifying. You cannot be in the military and be a drunk. You cannot be in the military, be an officer and be guilty of, for example, disloyalty to one's spouse. You cannot be in the military and miscarry and misappropriate funds. All of this is disqualifying. So what does this send as a message down the troops? Anything goes, so long as you're a loyalist to Trump, will accept any kind of behavior. And so what will happen is the good people will leave at the end of their service. The bad people will be. Will rise up. And you know what happened in Russia when they operated on a patronage system, a cronyism system, a corruption system. They got a military that is getting their ass kicked in Ukraine. And that's what happens when a military becomes corrupted. They become weak, they become ineffective, and the national security of their country suffers.

[Rachel Maddow]

So, just for the record, Pete Hexum himself has denied drunkenness and misappropriation of funds. He has said, however, if he is made Defense Secretary, he's going to give up drinking. Worth keeping an eye on that space. Tom Nichols. Jen Rubin talks about the good people leaving and the bad people staying. The. The good news, or maybe the hope. And I think I tried this with you a week ago, and you didn't, you didn't, you didn't bite is that there are a lot of good senior people in the military who 20, 25, 30, 35 years ago made a commitment to risk their lives for the safety of this country who might not roll over for a Pete Hegseth or a Donald Trump. What's your sense of that?

[Tom Nichols]

Yeah, look, I think you're gonna have two things happening. I've said for years that Donald Trump is the patron saint of the third string. He is the person who takes people who normally wouldn't be qualified for anything. He elevates them to remarkable heights. That's going to happen within the it's happened at the very top of the DoD and it's going to happen in DoD staffing. And sure, I'm going to guess that there will be people in the DoD who are going to decide that this is a good time to leave federal service. I still believe, and again from years of teaching officers in the really magnificent professionalism of the US Officer corps that I think is going to keep a lot of people doing the best job they can do, regardless of who's at the top, either of the Pentagon or in the White House. That is their apolitical code of service, and thank God for it. But there are going to be people in the Pentagon, I'm sure, who are gonna have heartburn with saying Secretary Hegseth. And I think the other thing that's gonna happen, Ali, that will drive people out is that when you have a very weak secretary of defense like this who has no experience, he's not gonna be running the place. I mean, I've brought this up before. There are gonna be people and say, look, I don't really feel like taking orders from a deputy assistant secretary of Defense. I've just been here too long and you know, this isn't this make, this is chaos. Now, let me just add one proviso. I really hope we're all wrong. I mean, for the good of the country, I hope all three of us are wrong. But as a man who recreationally gambles, I would tell you that's not the bet I would make.

[Rachel Maddow]

Jennifer Rubin, It's a bit of a day late, dollar short situation, but McConnell had some strong words. I also remembered McConnell having some strong words after January 6th. Didn't amount to much, but he's got some strong words about the fact that the defense secretary is usually somebody who has the support of the American people, at least the elected officials. As, as Tom said, Pete Hegseth doesn't, doesn't rise above any bar here, and he's not Setting himself up for success. McConnell saying it. Relevant, not relevant.

[Susan Collins]

You know, maybe he should have thought about this before he endorsed Donald Trump. He knew very well these were the kind of people that Donald Trump would have chosen. So maybe he should have thought back to that impeachment trial. Maybe he should have thought back to the election. Maybe he should have spoken up once in his career for the good of the country. It is too late now and you'll notice that he is completely without influence with his colleagues Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. William occasionally, perhaps more occasionally than we otherwise have seen do the right thing because they have some sense. They have some sense of responsibility. The rest of them are lost. And McConnell no longer has any sway. He has lost his perch. And now he is crying in the wilderness, just like those Democrats used to do, who he used to mock, who he used to steamroll over. So frankly, I'm not all that impressed with what he's doing. It's sort of nice that he's come along, welcome to the resistance, but it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. And it would be very nice if he would go back and do some mea copas and talk to some of his colleagues about the danger they have now taken on themselves. Every screw up, every scandal, every casualty, every mismanagement in the Pentagon they own because they voted for this guy, knowing he was an incompetent fool. And OConnell might want to put them up to that, might remind them of this. But what I would say is this. The only good thing about this is maybe some of them will think twice and three times about confirming even more ridiculous nominees like Tulsi Gabbard or Cash Patel. You know, guys, you don't want to vote against all of them. Just vote. Pick one of them to knock out. Pick just one. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, Assad, Stooge.

[Rachel Maddow]

I haven't had a whole lot of surprises to the upside this week, Jennifer. But hey, you know what? I'll take them. Next week's a new week. We'll see what happens. Thanks to both of you. Great to see you both. Jennifer Rubin and Tom Nichols, thanks very much for being with us on this eventful night. All right, coming up, what Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship by decree is really all about, that's next. Today marks 26 days until the most blatantly unconstitutional order ever seen by one Reagan appointed federal judge takes effect. That order came from Donald Trump. Judge John Kunauer, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1981 signed a temporary restraining order yesterday blocking Trump's attempt to override the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship through executive fiat. The judge told Trump's doj, quote, there are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, where were the judges, where were the lawyers? End quote. In US History, we've seen those times in Supreme Court decisions that deprived classes of people of the rights of citizenship. Like the Dred Scott decision, which held that enslaved black people were not citizens and could not expect protection from the federal government. A shameful decision that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was intended to override. Or the Korematsu decision, which allowed the internment of Japanese Americans. We talk about Japanese. They weren't Japanese, they were Japanese Americans. Modern world history is filled with other shameful times when nations acted to strip dissidents, minorities or other marginalized groups of citizenship to render them essentially stateless. Less than two years ago, Vladimir Putin signed Russia's new citizenship law, adding new grounds for denaturalization, like, for example, spreading what the Kremlin calls fake news about its war in Ukraine. I think what Trump wants is to create a new class of others to aim animus at. Trump needs to keep coming up with new scapegoat, new people to be blamed and hated because he can't deliver his promised revanchist fantasia of America. In a normal America, Trump's attempt to overrule the Constitution's plain language by decree would be laughed out of the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has shown us with the Dobbs decision and with the Trump immunity decision that it will do anything. But for now, the norm holds. Joining us now is the Attorney General of the state that stopped Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in court yesterday. Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown. Attorney Brown, good to see you. Thank you for being with us. Where do we go from here? What happens next? This is a 14 day stay that went into effect yesterday. The judge was pretty clear about what he thought. But what, what effect does that have?

[Nick Brown]

Well, thank you, Alex. Good to be here. We're obviously very thrilled with the result that we got yesterday. It is only a temporary restraining order, so it'll be in effect for 14 days from yesterday. We now have a new briefing schedule on a motion for preliminary injunction, which would have a longer lasting effect if the judge granted that preliminary motion, which, based on the comments that he made yesterday, that would be the hope that we would have moving forward. We have a long way to go. We're obviously only at the district court level. And we need to move forward with briefing on this case. But to hear the judge say from the bench that this was blatantly unconstitutional, that he hadn't seen something in his four decades on the bench that was so plainly clear, that is a great start for this case. And we have other cases across the country brought by my colleagues as well. So this is a great way to proceed.

[Rachel Maddow]

That's what I wanted to ask you about. 18 other state, 18 states in total, maybe more will join, are involved in somehow pushing back on this. What does that look like to you? Is that going to end up as one big case or is it going to be 18 different officials of assaults on, on, on this essentially this assault on the Constitution?

[Nick Brown]

Well, right now there's two separate cases by brought by groups of attorney generals across the country. So we led a case here in Washington with three other states, Illinois, Arizona and Oregon. And then there's a case filed in the District of Massachusetts led by New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and some of my other colleagues. And those cases will continue to proceed together. There are also separate cases brought by the ACLU and some other private parties challenging the same unconstitutional and un American ban on birthright citizenship. But those cases are going to be held and heard independently. Obviously, as the cases move forward, decisions by one court will be considered by the other courts. But those are separate matters for now.

[Rachel Maddow]

What's your sense of this? Is this, is there a legal strategy behind what the Trump administration is doing? Or is this kind of a cultural, hey, let's invent a new group for people to target?

[Nick Brown]

Well, President Trump, all throughout his career as a politician, has certainly led with hate and fear mongering and trying to target people as others to drive up his own popularity. And that so many decisions that he made in his first term and has already made in these first few days are driven by that. There is a sort of fringe legal theory that the 14th Amendment does not in fact say what it says, that it does not in fact stand for what it has stood for for the last 150 years, for years that has been disregarded by legal scholars and judges and the Supreme Court itself. But this fringe legal theory is something the Trump administration is trying to hang their hat on. Based on what we heard yesterday in court and based on what the Supreme Court itself has said itself, we don't anticipate that that'll gain much support moving forward, but we have to take it one step at a time.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, there's 100 years of precedent in the Supreme Court about this particular matter. So we look forward to talking to you more. Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown, thank you for joining us tonight. Coming up, Donald Trump was so sure he could end Russia's war in Ukraine on day one in office. So now it's been five days and Donald Trump has failed to deliver on his promise to end the war on day one. That's next.

[Discount Tire Ad]

Want the same expert advice you get from the pros in the store while shopping [e-mail] Meet Treadwell, your personal online tire guide that matches you with the perfect tire for your vehicle. Get your best match in one minute or less with Treadwell by Discount Tire. Let's get you taken care of.

[Rachel Maddow]

Auto insurance can all seem the same until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage. Switch to USA Auto Insurance and you could start saving money in no time. Get a quote. Today, restrictions apply in the market for investment worthy bags, watches and fine jewelry. Rebag is the answer. Rebag is a luxury resale platform where each piece is carefully inspected by experts to ensure quality and authenticity. Use Rebag to buy and sell finds from the world's top brands, including Hermes, Chanel and Cartier. Head to Rebag.com to get 10% off your first purchase with code REBAG10. I'll end that war between those two countries in 24 hours. It won't even take that long. End the war in Ukraine in 24 hours? Yes, I do. How would you do that? I know Zelensky very well. I would fix that within 24 hours. And if I win before I get into the office, I will have that war settled 100% sure.

[Michael McFaul]

Okay.

[Rachel Maddow]

So that's even better than solving it in 24 hours. It was going to be settled before he took office. That's negative. Hours. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump repeatedly made that obviously ridiculous claim that he could end the war in Ukraine on or before his first day in office. Okay, now it's day five and Donald Trump has failed to end Russia's war on Ukraine. Today marks exactly two years and 11 months since Vladimir Putin invaded a sovereign country. And Donald Trump still doesn't know who is responsible for this war. He shouldn't have allowed this to happen either. You know, if he's no angel, he shouldn't have allowed this war to happen. He shouldn't allow the war to happen. He's no angel. He's talking about Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump thinks Zelensky is to blame for Putin's imperialism. For Putin moving troops into Ukraine, despite thinking Ukraine is to blame for its own invasion, Trump now claims that he will tariff Russia into a peace deal. Here's what he just said in an interview with Fox. I put out a truth today that's really strong and I mean it. And if they don't do that, I'm going to put massive. Explain. If they don't do what? If they don't settle this war soon, like, almost immediately, I'm going to put massive tariffs on Russia and massive taxes and also big sanctions. And I don't want to do that. You know, I love the Russian people. They're great people. I don't want to do that. But we got to get this war ended. And if they don't make a settlement, like, fast. What a great idea. Big sanctions on Russia. There are big sanctions on Russia. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Kremlin doesn't seem particularly bothered by Trump's threats. The spokesman there, Dimitri Peskov, saying, quote, we don't see anything new here, end quote. Because it isn't anything new. I alone can fix it. I can end the war in a day. It's easy to say from the cheap seats on the campaign trail. Now all Trump has to actually do is actually do it. Joining US Now, Michael McFaul, who served as the United States Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014. He's an MSNBC international affairs analyst. I apologize for insulting your intelligence by bringing you on to have this conversation, Ambassador, but I guess we gotta have it because neither you nor I know anybody who watches the show thought the war was ending in a day when Donald Trump took office. But what's the plan here?

[Discount Tire Ad]

I don't think he has a plan, to be honest. Obviously, he didn't end the war on day one. He hasn't ended on day five. He's barely proposed anything. Second, it's clear that he just as you said, but we need to keep underscoring it. He doesn't know the facts about the war. Obviously, President Zelensky did not cause this war. They tried to kill him when they invaded the country. I want to be clear about that. Several times they tried to kill President Zelensky. He did not ask for this war. And by the way, and when we're getting to the facts, if Trump really wanted to stop Putin from invading, he was the president of the United States of America for four years. He could have sent javelins, he could have sent Stingers, himars, atacms, Patriots, all these weapons systems Those were all in our arsenal that would have helped to prevent the war. He did nothing of that. So let's remember that second fact. Third, I'm glad and pleased that President Trump is finally starting to think about coercive steps towards Vladimir Putin. He said more negative things about Putin in the last couple of days that he said in 10 years. That's new. That's different. Right. He's destroying his country. But then we have to address the facts. As you hinted at. When's the last time you bought something from Russia? What tariffs, what tariffs are we going to put on? We don't buy goods from Russia, so we have nothing to tariff. Second, on sanctions, I applaud that he wants to do more sanctions, but as you said, we've put other sanctions in place already. And the revenues that are most central and the technology that is most central for supporting Putin come from China. So that means we have to put secondary sanctions on China to stop them from buying Russian oil and gas and to stop them from providing the Russian military complex with technology. I hope he can do that. I fear he cannot.

[Rachel Maddow]

I have to ask you this because you were on the diplomatic side of the world, the soft power side of, of America, but tonight we've been talking a lot about the hard power side of America with the, the nomination of Pete Hegseth and the approval of that nomination by the US Senate. What effect does that have on, on decision making in the, in the headquarters of our adversaries, but particularly in this case in Russia, as they look at tonight and they look at this Trump administration and they look at Pete Hexif, what are they thinking?

[Discount Tire Ad]

Well, I also served three years at the National Security Council at the White House, where we dealt with a lot of hard power issues. And I want to say two things about that. One, they like to see this. This is not a gentleman that has any competency and experience. I wish him well, by the way. Yes, he's got a very important job now that he's nominated. I hope he'll take that job seriously. But this is not General Mattis, let's just be clear. And our adversaries know that. They like that. Two, they see us divided. 50, 50, that's good for them. But three, and I think this is the part that is not getting enough attention. I mentioned that I worked at the National Security Council and I sat in meetings with President Obama and with his national security team. That's one of the key places where you need a strong secretary of defense. When he's sitting next to the president giving him advice about the most consequential decisions that a president can make. I'm not confident that Secretary Heckath has that ability to say those tough things to President Trump. I hope I'm wrong, but nothing I've seen in the behavior between them suggests that. When I worked there, Secretary Gates, a Republican, a man with decades of experience, I saw him give tough advice to President Obama every single day. I hope that will be the case. I fear it will not be.

[Rachel Maddow]

Let's talk very quickly about the space you said that seems to be developing between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Space we didn't see for the entire first Trump administration the entire time Donald Trump was not president. Why now? Why in the first five days, rather than ending the war, is he finally saying things that are critical about Vladimir Putin?

[Discount Tire Ad]

Your guess is as good in mind. I know more about Putin than I know about President Trump. But if I had to guess, I think he thinks that this is helping his mediation strategy. Right. This art of the deal. I'm going to put some pressure on him. I'm going to threaten him with these things and then he's going to come to the negotiating table. I just think he's wrong in his calculations. I don't think that's going to work with Putin. I think Putin thinks Trump's going to focus on this for a little while, not get any headway, and then he'll forget about it and that's when Putin will win. That's when he will succeed again. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way when I look at the way Putin is talking about it, he's going to wait this all out.

[Rachel Maddow]

Ambassador, good to see you tonight. Thank you for joining us as always, Ambassador Michael McFaul. All right, coming up, Robert Reich joins us on Elon Musk's design for the federal government. That's next.

[Discount Tire Ad]

Want the same expert advice you get from the pros in the store while shopping [e-mail] Meet Treadwell, your personal online tire guide that matches you with the perfect tire for your vehicle. Get your best match in one minute or less with Treadwell by discount tire. Let's get you taken care of.

[Ali Velshi]

There's a moment you realize you're ready for what's next in your career. Maybe it's when you're trying a new scone recipe and think, I could open a cafe. Or maybe you're helping a co worker and say, I could teach a course on this. Whatever your moment is, it's never too early to plan for a career that lives longer. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP for skills training, resume tips and job listings, visit aarp.org work.

[Rachel Maddow]

In the market for investment worthy bags, watches and fine jewelry. Rebag is the answer. Rebag is a luxury resale platform where each piece is carefully inspected by experts to ensure quality and authenticity. Use Rebag to buy and sell finds from the world's top brands, including Hermes, Chanel and Cartier. Head to Rebag.com to get 10% off your first purchase with code REBAG10.

[Tom Nichols]

A.

[Rachel Maddow]

Decade ago, Elon Musk was the tech world's golden child. He had cornered the market on electric cars. He was building the world's most advanced space vehicles. He was promising to take humanity to Mars. Fast forward to now. He's tarnished his reputation with a huge portion of the population by hitching his wagon to Donald Trump, throwing gobs of money into our politics to help Trump retake the presidency. On top of that, he bought Twitter. Twitter inexplicably abandoning the brand recognition that that platform had, only to rename it after his preferred letter of the Alphabet and turn the once influential social media site into a cesspool of lies, conspiracy theories and hate. A line from a Texas Monthly article published last month about Tesla's love it or hate it, cybertruck sums all of this up perfectly. A year after its debut, the cybertruck has come to embody Tesla's infamous CEO, with critics suggesting it's as defective and unreliable as Elon Musk himself. All of that, plus some stiff competition from other carmakers, led Tesla to falling below 50% of the market share of electric car sales in America last summer. Not to worry. Musk is slinking around Washington getting his hands into the federal government with Donald Trump's blessing. A new Wall Street Journal poll found only 39% approve of Donald Trump relying on Musk as an advisor, ostensibly to figure out how to streamline the federal government. Another poll today from the Associated Press found 60% of the country thinks it's a bad idea for Donald Trump to be relying on billionaires like Musk for policy advice at all. But there they were. Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Sundar Pichai of Google right there with Elon Musk on Inauguration Day, sitting in front of Donald Trump's cabinet nominees. Remember that oligarchy taking shape that President Biden warned us about on his way out of office? Well, back to Musk for a moment. Why is the world's richest man getting knee deep into the public sector. Well, some interesting new reporting from Wired is providing an exceedingly plausible answer to that question. Quote, as one of his first acts after being sworn in, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency by reorganizing and renaming an existing entity, the U.S. digital Services, as the U.S. dOGE service. DOGE is Department of Government Efficiency. And while some have noted that this version of DOGE moves away from the sweeping vision of deregulation outlined in a November Wall Street Journal op ed, it's a move that will give centibillionaire Elon Musk and his allies seemingly unprecedented insight across the government and access to troves of federal data. It's quite a clever way of integrating DOGE into the federal government that I think will work in the sense of giving it a platform for surveillance and recommendations, says Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University. Joining us now, Robert Reich, who served as the Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton. He's a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. He's the co founder of Inequality Media. And if you have any interest in this oligarchy nonsense, I think he's publishing every single day. Professor Reich, good to see you. Thanks for being with us. This is an interesting just a side note on why Elon Musk wants to be in the White House. Literally, he wants his office to be in the White House. Remember when Amazon was going around trying to sell every city in the country on establishing its centers and it gathered all this information on all those cities and somehow Amazon now knows everything about everything in the country? There's something to be said for being at the center of power when you are trying to control the levers of power.

[Michael McFaul]

Absolutely, Ali. In fact, power today is not just wealth. It's information, it's data. It's knowing what it is that everybody else is doing. And certainly if you have all of the data that government has and you have access to it and you can slice it and dice it any way you want, that can translate into great wealth and great power.

[Rachel Maddow]

So here's something interesting. Tesla dropped below 50% of all electric vehicle sales in the United States. That means other American companies, or other companies, cars are being sold. There are zero Chinese electric vehicles in America. For better, for worse, there are zero. So these are all other competitors. But guess what? He got it. He got an executive order this week eliminating incentives for other electric car producers. So kind of works, right? If you're Elon Musk, that was a pretty good investment in Donald Trump's. Campaign.

[Michael McFaul]

Absolutely. In fact, look under the hood, as it were, Ali. And what you always find is monopolization. In fact, every time you follow the money and you're dealing with one of these current robber barons, you know, in the second Gilded Age, that's what they are. They are the new generation of robber barons. You follow the money and you get to a monopoly, because that's where the big money is. Combine the monopoly with data. Combine power, that is market power, with power, that is information power, and you get Elon Musk.

[Rachel Maddow]

However, on Inauguration Day, you published something which actually gave me hope. I'd like to read from it. Trump hoodwinked the average working American into believing that he's on their side and convinced enough voters that Kamala Harris and Democrats were on the side of cultural elite. But Trump's hoax will not work for long, given the oligarchy's conspicuous takeover of America. Under Trump, too, Trump's regime is already exposing a reality that has been hidden from most Americans for decades, the oligarchy's obscene wealth and its use of that wealth to gain power over America. This is an interesting point, and Professor Tim Snyder has mentioned the fact that people over time turn against these oligarchies. It doesn't always mean a turn back to democracy, but once they realize that they're being exploited, they tend to not like it so much.

[Michael McFaul]

Americans, in particular have an aversion to aristocracy. I mean, after all, we were founded in revolt against monarchy and against an aristocracy in Britain. We really don't like elites who are enormously powerful. The thing is that the Republican Party has used cultural populism over the last 10, 20 years to paint the elites as basically a deep state, or, you know, people who are coming into this country illegally or people who are transgender. I mean, there is a different elite here that is really operating and pulling the levers of power, and that elite is an economic elite. The Democrats really have not talked enough, in my humble opinion, about the economic elite that is actually and has actually undermined American democracy over the last 30 or 40 years. Right.

[Rachel Maddow]

A lot of people, a lot of people have gone after the academic elite or whatever. They think the elite is the ivory towers. But in fact, in the midst of all this, for the last 50 years, what's been happening is we've just got this class of people who are now 0.01% of the population, controlling more wealth than the entire bottom half of the population.

[Michael McFaul]

Yes. And that's exactly the point, because they control the wealth. And what do they do with their wealth. They put a chunk of it into politics. There is the oligarchy. That's the oligarchy in action. That's what Elon Musk did. Putting a quarter of a billion dollars, not a quarter of a million, a quarter of a billion dollars to get Donald Trump elected is the quintessence of what we face in an oligarchy. That's what oligarchies do. That's how they wed monopoly power and the power of just politics. That's what Elon Musk represents. That's what that picture that you showed of the three richest people in the United States in front of all the Republicans, in front of all of the people who are being nominated to high positions of power. These are the most powerful people in the world and Musk is embracing them. He is not a tribune of the people. Musk is not somebody who's there for working classes class Americans. And it's going to be obvious, if it's not obvious already, it will be obvious. He's going to give them a huge tax cut. And what's most going to do, he's going to find ways of cutting programs that average people rely on.

[Rachel Maddow]

He warned everybody, you're in for a tough time. If the economy goes sour for a while. It's not talking about his friends. He's not in for a tough time. Robert Reich, good to see you as always. Thank you for this conversation. Robert Reich is a former United States so Secretary of Labor. We'll be right back. A programming note before we go. In the middle of California, There is a 450 mile stretch of agricultural land tended by Mexican and Mexican American laborers for generations. It is in those fruit and almond fields where Manuel Munoz's collection of short stories called the Consequences takes place and where a young Munoz, his siblings and his parents all worked. The Consequences depicts the realities of life for so many families, from the physical toll of the labor to the ruthless roundup by La Migra. The Consequences is an unflinching work that every American should read right now. So don't miss this painfully timely meeting of the Velchivan Book Club featuring the Consequences and the award winning author, Manuel munoz, tomorrow at 10am Eastern. I hope you'll join us. That's tonight's last word. Auto insurance can all seem the same until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage. Switch to USA Auto insurance and you could start saving money in no time. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.