Trump lashes out at Fox poll with low approval ratings

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump Lashes Out at Fox Poll with Low Approval Ratings"
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Release Date: June 20, 2025

---

1. Declining Approval Ratings for Donald Trump

The episode opens with a detailed analysis of recent Fox News polls indicating a significant drop in President Donald Trump's approval ratings. Contrary to his campaign focus on the economy, Trump faces substantial disapproval:

• Inflation: "64% of registered voters disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation" [02:15].
• Overall Economy: "58% disapprove of how he's handling the economy overall" [02:20].
• Foreign Policy: "57% disapprove of his foreign policy" [02:30].

The overall job approval stands at 46%, revealing a 54% disapproval among surveyed voters [02:45].

2. Trump's Reaction to Polls and Fox News

In response to the unfavorable polls, President Trump took to social media to criticize Fox News, accusing the network of bias:

• "Fox has been biased against me for years. They are always wrong and negative. It's why MAGA hates Fox News." [03:10].

Lawrence O’Donnell comments on the predictability of Trump's outbursts and his tendency to dismiss media criticism.

3. Congressional Investigations into Trump's Pardons

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin sheds light on the repercussions of Trump's extensive pardon spree:

• "Not only has President Trump issued an unprecedented number of pardons in his second term, he has used his clemency powers to take an estimated $1.3 billion away from victims and survivors of crime." [04:30].

These actions have allowed criminals to evade restitution, undermining the rule of law and impacting both victims and taxpayers.

4. FBI's Role in Senator Alex Padilla's Detention

The episode delves into the controversial detention of Senator Alex Padilla, with Congressman Raskin demanding accountability from the FBI:

• "This assault on Senator Padilla... is another vivid episode of authoritarian tactics..." [07:00].

Senator Padilla recounts his harrowing experience of being forcibly detained without explanation [04:30].

5. Trump's Immigration Policies and National Impact

The discussion transitions to Trump's stringent immigration measures, highlighting their broader effects on America:

• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Statement: "We're going to continue doing worksite enforcement operations even on farms and hotels..." [16:02].

Catherine analyzes how these policies not only target immigrants but also harm various industries:

• "These decisions hurt not only immigrants... but also harm America's global influence, national security, and the broader economy." [16:55].

Former Ambassador Patrick Gaspard emphasizes the negative economic and diplomatic consequences of Trump's immigration stance [21:12].

6. Economic Policies: Tariffs and Federal Reserve Independence

President Trump's imposition of new tariffs on steel and aluminum has sparked concerns about economic stability:

• Impact on Industries: "Cans are likely to be more expensive after President Trump's move to double tariffs on imported steel." [28:00].

Ron Insana discusses the potential degradation of the Federal Reserve's independence due to Trump's attacks on Chair Jerome Powell:

• "It's degrading the independence of the Fed in such a way that... investors will demand higher interest rates." [29:27].

7. US Steel Deal and Golden Share Arrangement

A groundbreaking deal involving U.S. Steel grants the White House a "golden share," granting unprecedented control:

• Lauren Hirsch Reports: "The structure would give President Trump and his successors a permanent stake in U.S. Steel." [34:17].

Ron Insana warns of the implications for future foreign investments and the blurring lines between government and private enterprises [35:52].

8. Foreign Policy: Russia-Ukraine War and Trump's Influence

The episode concludes with an examination of Trump's limited leverage in ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict:

• Missile Strike in Kyiv: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called it deliberate terror." [39:34].

Bridget Brink, Democratic candidate for Michigan's 7th district, criticizes Trump's absence from the G7 meeting and underscores the need for robust U.S. support for Ukraine [40:35].

---

Conclusion

The episode paints a comprehensive picture of President Trump's waning popularity, controversial policies, and their far-reaching impacts domestically and internationally. Through expert interviews and insightful commentary, Lawrence O’Donnell underscores the challenges facing the current administration and the broader implications for American democracy and global standing.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

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

[Kathryn Rampell]

Now it's time for the Last Word with Kathryn Rampel, who's in for Lawrence o' Donnell tonight. Hey, Kathryn, how you doing?

[Catherine]

I'm doing great. How are you?

[Kathryn Rampell]

Well, the world is a little bit of, you know, I won't say it on tv, but yes, we're trying to hang in there and tell all the stories.

[Catherine]

We are all trying to hang in there. Thanks, Jen, for leading us up for this.

[Kathryn Rampell]

Have a great show.

[Catherine]

Thanks. Donald Trump, the wannabe emperor has no clothes and the country knows it. And the polls now reflect it. As Trump's failures continue to pile up. The latest Fox polls show growing public frustration. And his worst numbers, believe it or not, are on an issue that Donald Trump ran on the economy. Donald Trump is now down 30 points on inflation. 64% of registered voters disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation and only 34% approve. 58% disapprove of how he's handling the economy overall. And 55% feel pessimistic about the economy. Then there is Donald Trump's foreign policy ratings. 57% disapprove of his foreign policy. The overall job approval rating from the Fox News poll is just 46%, which means that 54% of those that Fox News surveyed disapprove of Trump's overall job performance. And look, Donald Trump has seen these numbers and he is not happy. This morning, Trump took to his social media to lash out at the network, claiming that Fox has been, quote, biased against me for years. They are always wrong and negative. It's why MAGA hates Fox News, unquote. That is, you know, news to some of us. But that is the kind of response we have now come to expect from the president of the United States. We've also come to expect the disregard for the rule of law that comes with a Trump presidency. But as we learned last week, that comes with a cost as well. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee revealed that Trump's pardons cheated victims and taxpayers out of more than a billion dollars. Quote, not only has President Trump issued an unprecedented number of pardons in his second term, he has used his clemency powers to take an estimated $1.3 billion away from victims and survivors of crime, allowing perpetrators to keep profiting from their crimes, a sharp break with established practice. At the time President Trump pardoned the January 6 insurrectionists, only 15% of the $3 million in restitution ordered to victims had been paid, with the remaining 2.6 million due suddenly liquidated by presidents by the president's pardons. With a far greater financial effect, President Trump's pardon spree has also swept in big time corporate fraudsters, millionaire tax evaders, and other white collar criminals. Thanks to President Trump's pardons, these convicted criminals now get to keep $1.3 billion in ill gotten gains they stole from their victims and American taxpayers. Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, will join us in a moment to talk about all of that. Congressman Raskin is now demanding also a full investigation into the FBI's role in the detention of Senator Alex Padilla. In a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, he writes, quote, this assault on Senator Padilla, captured on video and broadcast worldwide, is another vivid episode of authoritarian tactics and brute force being used to crush oversight and critical questioning, including from sitting members of Congress exercising their constitutional duty. I write to demand that you immediately provide answers and conduct an investigation and into the FBI's role in this disgraceful and indefensible assault of a member of Congress. Here for our listening pleasure is Senator Padilla, on the Senate floor himself this week, describing that exact moment.

[Donald Trump]

You've seen the video. I was pushed and pulled, struggled to maintain my balance. I was forced to the ground, first on my knees and then flat on my chest. And as I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, repeatedly asking, why am I being detained? Not once did they tell me why.

[Catherine]

Then yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested court orders might just be optional.

[Kathryn Rampell]

If the court says this deployment of troops into our cities is not legal, would you follow that court's order?

[Donald Trump]

It's pending in the courts, Senator.

[Kathryn Rampell]

Well, when the court decides, would you follow the court's order decision?

[Ron Insana]

I don't believe district court should be.

[Donald Trump]

Determining national security policy.

[Kathryn Rampell]

So you will not be following that.

[Ron Insana]

When it goes to the Supreme Court.

[Catherine]

We'll see court.

[Kathryn Rampell]

And unless the president decides to appeal, there you have it. So I take it that you don't consider district court decisions to be legitimate.

[Catherine]

President Barack Obama, former President Barack Obama, said this about the threat to the rule of law under Trump.

[Barack Obama]

If you follow regularly what is said by those who are in charge of the federal government right now, there is a weak commitment to what we understood as, and not just my generation, at least Since World War II, our understanding of how a liberal democracy is supposed to work. What we're seeing right now is when you do not have those constraints and guardrails, right? When you don't have people inside of government who say, no, this is how the law works and we should follow it. If you are a university, what is your core mission? And if, as I think your core mission should be, it's to teach, to transmit knowledge and broaden horizons for young minds and transmit information that allows them not just to get a job, but also to live meaningful lives and be good citizens. If that's your mission, then it really doesn't matter what the threats are coming up from the outside. You push back against somebody who says you can't carry out that mission.

[Catherine]

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. In your letter, you asked FBI Director Kash Patel for a, quote, detailed accounting of the FBI's operational involvement against Senator Padilla in Senator Padilla's case, because we know that FBI agents were involved. There can be accountability, at least in theory. But we have also seen lots of incidents around the country of supposed federal agents hiding their badges, hiding their faces, not offering warrants. How is any of that legal?

[Donald Trump]

And from the standpoint of the lawmaking branch, we are experiencing so many of these apparently staged provocations against members of the House, members of the Senate, our staff members, that we don't think that this is just some accidental sequence of events. It feels like an orchestrated assault and provocation against the legislative branch of government. There is democratic legislation to try to prevent this sudden and scandalous practice of sending out federal agents on a masked basis in unmarked cars to execute arrests without warrants. I mean, all of that has the feel of a gangster state of authoritarianism. There's no reason that federal agents can't be wearing badges, can't have the identification of ICE or whatever federal agency they're with. So we want some accountability from the administration. And they've repeatedly said that they are creating accountability. Well, let's put that into action.

[Catherine]

Yeah. I mean, the state is supposed to have a monopoly on violence. Right. But if you don't know if these masked men are who are coming to swoop someone off of the street, are actually members of law enforcement or vigilante gang members, you Know, how can Americans or non Americans who are being targeted be sure that the people who are coming to arrest gardeners off the sidewalk, among others, are actually sanctioned to do so?

[Donald Trump]

Well, and if you look at what happened in Minnesota with the political assassinations of Democratic state legislators, these practices create an environment where people can go out and impersonate persons in authority, impersonate federal officers or police officers by blurring all of these lines and together, and that's very dangerous. So in a free society, we have police who operate on behalf of the public, on behalf of the people, to stop actual criminals, not citizens, exercising their First Amendment rights. And our police officers are very clearly distinguishable from others precisely so that we don't get police impersonators who can impose all kinds of fear and terror and violence on the population.

[Catherine]

So, Congressman, just to switch gears for a second here, can you expand on your committee's findings on the cost of Donald Trump's pardons thus far?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah, Catherine. I mean, it's an extraordinary thing. I think most people have a sense that with his tax policy, Donald Trump wants an upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. But what we found is that they are literally transferring wealth from the victims of crime to the criminals to the perpetrators of crime. And they've done that through the pardon process, among others. So we looked at everybody who Donald Trump has pardoned since he got into office, and we're finding lots of white collar criminals. For the example, there's a guy in Florida who was running a company for retirement homes and assisted living facilities, and he was stealing millions and millions of dollars from his own employees, taking money out of their paychecks, claiming that it was going to Social Security and Medicare and workers comp. But it wasn't. It went to buy him a $2 million yacht and other kinds of amenities that he was interested in. Well, he got caught, he got prosecuted. He got sentenced to 18 months in jail. And to repay his workers $4.4 million in restitutionary payments for the money he had stolen, he applied for a pardon. Donald Trump. Two days after Trump got in, he sent his mother to a political fundraiser for Donald Trump. $1 million a plate. They put the million dollars in there, and what do you know? A few weeks later, he gets a complete and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump. So he doesn't have to do the 18 months anymore. But unlike prior presidents who followed standard Department of Justice practice, which held that you don't get the benefit of your pardon until you've fully paid your victims back. Donald Trump did the reverse. He said, I'm going to nullify. I'm going to cancel out the money you owe to your victims. So not only did he not have to serve a day in prison, and he was jubilant about that, he also did not have to pay his victims back. So Donald Trump essentially took $4.4 million that would have had to go to the victims of this crime and gave it back to the perpetrator, to the criminal. Well, we found lots of examples like that, and all of it is completely documented and uncontradicted in our report. And there's no way they can refute it because they did it. Donald Trump nullified $1.3 billion in money owed by criminals to their victims or to the US Government in fines, and he just canceled it out. And that's a massive transfer of wealth from the people who've been victimized by these white collar fraudsters and GOP criminal criminals and a return of that money to the people who executed the crimes in the first place.

[Catherine]

Sounds like looking out for the common man to me. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you so much for your time. Coming up, Trump values are not quite American values. That's next.

[Nicole Wallace]

MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with NBA coach Doc Rivers.

[Barack Obama]

The resiliency that you have to have in life and in sports is what.

[Catherine]

Eventually will get you to the top.

[Nicole Wallace]

The Best people with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access, ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. The each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

[Catherine]

I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

[Nicole Wallace]

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC [e-mail].

[Catherine]

Today in LA, Donald Trump's reversal of his reversal on immigration was on display as ICE continued its raids at places like Home Depot, targeting people looking for work. And Trump's own border czar, Tom Homan, made clear that ICE raids, hurting farms, restaurants, hotels, construction sites, you name it, will continue.

[Barack Obama]

The message is clear enough that we're going to continue doing worksite enforcement operations even on farms and hotels, but based on a prioritized basis, criminals come first.

[Catherine]

So he claims. But as I wrote in the Washington Post this week, Donald Trump's immigration agenda was never about law and order or hunting down criminal gang bangers or making sure people came in the right way through the big, beautiful door in Trump's wall. It is, and, and always was about humiliating and discarding immigrants, regardless of their legal status or contributions to their communities, and especially if they are black or brown. Donald Trump's values are not American values, at least not in the way his presidential predecessors have viewed them, even from opposite sides of the political spectrum. On Tuesday, former President Barack Obama argued that our nation's diversity is part of what makes America strong.

[Barack Obama]

What really makes America exceptional is that it's the only big country on earth and maybe the only real superpower in history that is made up of people from every corner of the globe. And they show up, they come here.

[Ron Insana]

And.

[Barack Obama]

And the glue that holds us together is this crazy experiment called democracy. And this idea that we can somehow, despite all our differences, we don't look alike. We don't worship God in the same way. We don't like the same foods. And yet, when this experiment works, it gives the world a little bit of hope because it says it is possible for human beings who are not bound by tribe or race or blood, but are instead bound by an idea that they can somehow work together and arrive at a common good.

[Catherine]

This is not a partisan message. It's actually a very similar message that former Republican President Ronald Reagan made in his final speech as president when he stressed the importance of immigration. Take a listen.

[Ronald Reagan]

Those who become American citizens love this country even more. And that's why the Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp to welcome them to the Golden Door. It is bold men and women yearning for freedom and opportunity who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream, and over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others. They give more than they receive. They labor and succeed. And often they are entrepreneurs. But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world.

[Catherine]

Donald Trump, of course, doesn't see immigration the same way, and he is moving America in the exact opposite direction of this vision, that a diverse America prospers in part because of immigration. Donald Trump is finally building his wall, and Americans will pay for it. As I also wrote in the Washington Post, these decisions hurt not only immigrants or would be immigrants themselves. They also harm America's global influence, national security, and the broader economy, perhaps irreparably. Mass deportations and the chilling effect they have on immigrants willingness to show up to work already appear to be reflected in official economic data. More people might leave the United States than arrive this year for the first time in half a century. And huge numbers of workers working here legally might soon be forced onto the sidelines. American consumers and businesses will notice as produce goes unpicked, homes go unbuilt, elderly patients go uncared for, and medical trials remain uncompleted. That's the thing about walls. They keep the supposed barbarians out, but they also keep the real barbarism in. Joining us now is Patrick Gaspard, former U.S. ambassador to South Africa and the Obama administration. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the center for American Progress Fund. Patrick, thanks so much for joining me. So what do you think Trump's immigration agenda means for the America that Presidents Obama and Reagan have have advocated for? And in particular, as a former ambassador, what effect might it have on the United States global influence at this point?

[Patrick Gaspard]

Catherine, thank you so much for having me on. And thank you for your extraordinarily powerful essay that you wrote this week. You're right. Trump is finally building his wall, but it's not about what he's keeping out. He's locking in fear, he's locking in ignorance, and ultimately locking in a new kind of American weakness. The United States has been the envy of the world. This is not a new phenomenon. This is a decades old phenomena. Some would say it's a two centuries old phenomena. But essentially the reason why we've been the envy of the world and in the way that we hold our lamp up to the world is because of what Ronald Reagan said in that speech. He showed a short segment of it. But at some point in that speech, Catherine, Ronald Reagan said America's freedom does not belong to us at all, to us alone. President Reagan understood that, that freedom, that inclusive freedom, the diversity that comes from immigration is a powerful and resonant strength. We saw, if Americans want an example, Catherine, we saw recently as we emerged from the COVID 19 pandemic that the American recovery happened much faster than recoveries in other parts of developed economies. And that was essentially because of the workforce penetration that we have from migrant labor that's available to us in industries that candidly, Americans choose not to work in, like slaughterhouses, like, you know, picking all of the produce that we take for granted, taking care of elderly in Our country and children as well runs the gamut. We're now seeing a downward slide in economic outcomes. We're seeing cost of living going up for really basic goods and services. And we're seeing increasingly a distrust that exists amongst former allies, whether it's to the north in Canada, the south in Mexico, the European allies, and certainly at a time when African nations and African allies have a choice between America and Western style democracy or China and the benefits that they get from those investments that steer them towards autocracies, the choice becomes starker and clearer for them when this wall that Trump has put up is keeping us from opportunity in the world and inclusion.

[Catherine]

And to be fair, there is a long history of ugly nativism in this country. As much as we might like to celebrate these lofty words from I'm a.

[Patrick Gaspard]

Haitian American, so I can speak to that.

[Catherine]

Yes, I'm sure you know all about it. But what's interesting, I think today is that the American people are not actually in favor of Trump's immigration policies. In fact, 56% disapprove of his deportations, 54% disapprove of his handling of immigration. And just I think this week, six Republican lawmakers wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security basically complaining that immigration enforcement agents were spending too much time going after non criminals, many of their own constituents. So, you know, the politics kind of seem to be changing. I don't know, I'm curious if you believe that. I feel like in the past few years Democrats have been running away from this issue.

[Patrick Gaspard]

The politics are changing, Catherine, but I want to caution us a bit. Right. So you saw that data. There's definitely some virus remorse, certainly amongst independents who voted for Trump, who are concerned about immigration policy in this country, but did not have the expectation that they would see the kind of cruelty. Where children are being dragged out of our classrooms, where ICE agents are showing up at ball fields, are showing up at a parking lot of Walmart, folks who knew their neighbors and trusted their neighbors and worked beside them for a generation, or suddenly seeing those neighbors disappear, people didn't have that expectation of cruelty, even though we warned them. So you're seeing some buyers remorse on this issue. But let's be really clear, Catherine, both about nativism and about the reality of our immigration system. One of the nativism. That thread has always run through American domestic politics from time immemorial. And so it's going to be there to be stoked by some of the worst elements. We have to recognize that, especially since we all know that in 2040, 2043, America becomes, quote, a minority majority country. And that drives a kind of existential fear of a demographic determinist. That's one thing. But the second thing is that we already have seen broad overreach by Honan, by others in this administration that makes it possible to have a conversation about how diversity is our strength and what it means to make sure that we have reasonable measures at the border, but that we're not separating families. So we have to strike the balance in the right ways.

[Catherine]

Patrick Gaspard, thank you so much for your insights on this issue. I'm sure we'll have you back. But first, coming up, Donald Trump promised to bring down prices, but new Trump tariffs are promising to do the opposite. That's next.

[Nicole Wallace]

MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing.

[Kathryn Rampell]

We've never experienced a moment like this in our country, and at least it's all with a choice. Are we going to see speak out or are we going to be pressured into silence? I've worked for presidents. I've faced the tough questions from the press and even threats from the Kremlin. And if there's one thing I've learned is that you can't cower to bullies. You don't need to be hopeless. We have our voices and I will continue using mine.

[Nicole Wallace]

The Briefing with Jen Psaki Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.

[Catherine]

Today, Trump was back at it, attacking Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. After lobbying childish insults at Powell, the president advocated for a federal interest rate cut, claiming, quote, we have low inflation. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, however, disagrees, quote, the Federal Open Market Committee, that's the committee that sets interest rates, offered no policy surprises Wednesday, but it did offer a new note of caution in its economic forecasts. President Trump's tariffs are producing a mild, steady stagflation. Evidence accumulates that the economy is sheltering in place amid business and consumer uncertainty surrounding tariff policies. So stagflation is about stagnant growth coupled with high inflation. A bunch of bad things stuck together. Stagflation was also famously a pox on Jimmy Carter's presidency. And Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports could cause some serious business casualties here in the United States. The New York Times reports cans are likely to be more expensive after President Trump's move to double tariffs on imported steel, the main material used in cans for food and on aluminum, commonly used for beverages. Roughly 80% of the specialized tin plated steel. Steel with a thin layer of tin used for cans for food, comes from abroad. One producer of canned fruits and vegetables told the New York Times, we can't absorb those costs. Donald Trump is actually expanding those metal tariffs to many household appliances as well. Reorders reports the tariffs, which are currently at 50% for most countries, would take effect on a range of additional on an additional range of steel derivative products on June 23. This time, eight product lines were added combined refrigerator freezers, small and large dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, chest and upright freezers, cooking stoves, rack ranges and ovens, food waste disposals and welded wire racks. I hope nobody out there right now is trying to remodel their kitchen. Joining us now is CNBC and MSNBC contributor Ron Insana. So Ron, thanks for joining me. Certainly every time that Trump launches a new attack on Jerome Powell, I do wonder if that has a long term degrading effect on the credibility of the Federal Reserve, especially now that we're hearing these rumors about maybe Trump is, maybe he's not going to fire Powell, but because Powell's term is almost over anyway. But he might by statute.

[Ron Insana]

He can't.

[Catherine]

By statute, Supreme Court says he can't. That's true, but he might appoint a shadow Fed chair of some kind. So what do you make of all of that? Like what's the long term cost potentially for the economy?

[Ron Insana]

Well, I think it's degrading the independence of the Fed in such a way that you have to worry about foreign bondholders, of which there there are many. Japan owns $1.1 trillion worth of US bonds, China 760 billion and they have some shadow holdings in other countries. And then there are just domestic investors too, who may worry that if the Fed becomes politicized and makes decisions based on political expediency over economic reality, then the value of those bonds comes into question and investors will demand higher interest rates to hold them if they choose to hold them at all. And that means higher costs, borrowing costs for the US Government. By extension, potentially that's higher interest rates. It could weaken the U.S. economy. And I think one of the centerpieces of our economy, Catherine, relative to some of the other countries in the world, is the independence of the Fed has been the modern equivalent of a gold standard. You have the full faith and credit of the United States government backing our borrowings. If that were to disappear or be degraded in a meaningful way, then you say it will have long term economic consequences. And we've seen this twice in, in our history before. We've gotten rid of two central banks over the course of the history of the United States and the consequences were not healthy for the U.S. economy.

[Catherine]

Yeah. I mean, we've also seen ugly consequences for other countries, central banks where they've had hyperinflation after politicians took control of the money supply. You mentioned bondholders. So there's a whole other element in all of this, which is that Congress is considering this new budget bill, this enormous budget bill. We don't know what's going to be in it. You're on it today. Yes, very nice piece. Many people have written about it. It, but we, so we don't know what's going to be in it, but we do know it's going to add a lot to deficits at a time when bondholders already seem a little bit skittish about lending money to the United States. Is it, am I being like hyperbolic by being potentially worried about the effect of this bill passing on the perceived safety and security of U.S. treasuries? Are you concerned that we might have a failed bond auction or that we might have trouble continuing to get people to loan us money in the same way we have in the past?

[Ron Insana]

Yeah, and for more than one reason. So it's not just the anywhere from 3 to 5 trillion dollars increase in the national debt, which today crossed 37 trillion dollars, but also within the House bill, there is something called Section 899, which would put a tax on, on foreign investors buying U.S. assets. They did not necessarily, in the language, exclude U.S. treasury bonds. So depending on how we're treated overseas, they would be treated that way here. And if you started taxing foreign investors who generally get very favorable tax treatment to hold US Treasuries, if that happened, why wouldn't they dump them or sell them, at least in some meaningful way and again, drive up interest rates in the United States and potentially create a recession and cause economic harm here at home. That and other issues which we talked about off camera about creating some sort of shadow Federal Reserve chair who would opine on Jay Powell's work until he's replaced next May. That's again the type of thing that undermines confidence in an independent Fed who by law is, is, you know, mandated to maintain stable prices and full employment. Start worrying about that mandate, you start worrying about the US Economy.

[Catherine]

Yeah, I mean, I know it all sounds pretty technical, but there are a lot of reasons to worry about the future of the US Financial system and the economy. Ron and Sana, thank you so much for joining us. Please stay with us. Actually, Ron, because we are going to keep you around for a little bit when we come back, what Donald Trump's golden share in the US Steel deal could mean for the future. That's next. It is the end of an era. US steel, the embodiment of America's 20th century manufacturing might, is officially under foreign ownership. The New York Times reports, quote, to save its takeover of U.S. steel, Japan's Nippon Steel agreed to an unusual arrangement granting the White House a golden share that gives the government an extraordinary amount of influence over a US Company. New details of the agreement show that the structure would give President Trump and his successors a permanent stake in U.S. steel, significant sway over its board and veto power over a wide array of company actions, an arrangement that could change the very nature of foreign investment in the United States. Joining us now is New York Times reporter Lauren Hirsch, who was a co author on that story. Lauren, thanks for joining us. Can you explain exactly what this golden share entails?

[Lauren Hirsch]

It's a stake in a US Company, which is something that we only really ever see in the United States in times of emergency during the financial crisis with an institution that's particularly important to the US Economy. But as part of this deal, the companies who are combining have agreed to give the US A permanent stake in the company, which means even after President Trump leaves office, the United States will have a stake in United Steel. So it's really an exceptional situation that, frankly, as far as I can tell and as far as I've gleaned from any of the conversations I've had, we've never seen before in the United States.

[Catherine]

How have steelworkers here in the United States been reacting to this?

[Lauren Hirsch]

It's really been split. I'm sure you've been following the deal. There were many people who were concerned about the layout, the potential potential of layoffs that would come with the deal. There's many people who had wanted it. So I think that, you know, whether or not you wanted the deal will impact how you feel about the golden share. But I will tell you that the dealmakers that I am talking to are shocked, frankly, that we're in this situation and they're already thinking about what it means for future deal making and the future of the relationship between the government and private corporations in America.

[Catherine]

New York Times reporter Lauren Hirsch, thank you so much for joining me. CNBC's Ron Insana is back with us. So why don't we start with that? What lessons do you think other companies might be taking from this new development?

[Ron Insana]

Well, I think in the case of any situation in which they might be on the wrong side of The Trump administration, you could see this imposition take place in any number of merger deals that might be coming down the pike. It's quasi nationalization. I mean, it's partial government ownership of a private enterprise. We see this in China. We call them state owned enterprises. Right. I mean, at least there's a portion of this that mirrors that. And I think that might put a chill on dealmaking if indeed companies don't want the government to get a golden share and have a seat on the board and be able to make decisions on behalf of the company that might not be in their best interest. So mixing, as we know from, from past history, government ownership and private enterprise. And we look around the world and we see when that happens, it generally doesn't lead to positive outcomes. And so I think a lot of business people would be skeptical about doing deals that would include, you know, any type of ownership structure like this one.

[Catherine]

Well, they might not want to do it, but they may not have a choice, I think, is the real issue here. You know, we were talking during the break about how a Democratic president might be regarded.

[Ron Insana]

You mean these screams of socialism that would take place if that happened?

[Catherine]

Well, Donald Trump loved to talk about how Democrats were all socialists. And, you know, socialism is about controlling the means of production. How does all of this fit into the rest of Trump's agenda?

[Ron Insana]

Well, it's interesting to look at this and try to find a consistent, you know, intellectual framework for everything that's going on to tariffs, deportations, about which you spoke earlier in the show. Partial government ownership of certain companies, maybe they're deemed essential to national security. But I don't see a thread or a through line to any of the economic policies that are going through right now. As you wrote about the budget today in the Washington Post, I mean, you're enriching the top 1% at the expense of the bottom 10%. And then you're engaging in a wide variety of activities that don't add up to stronger economy. I mean, if you look back at the Clinton years, and I went back all the way to Reagan years a couple days ago to look at what growth rates, inflation rates, and employment rates. We were growing about 4% during the Clinton years. We were adding 244,000 jobs a month. Business didn't have full free reign. It was reasonably well regulated up to a point. And we had a very, very strong economy for eight years. And there were some underlying themes that played out. That was not the case here. And so it's hard to put, as I say, a framework around this that makes sense and that gives you an, a cohesive set of policies that you could define in some rational way.

[Catherine]

No, I think the cohesion here is who does Trump perceive as a friend or a foe? But anyway, Ron and Sana, thank you so much for joining us this evening. Coming up, it has now been 150 days of Donald Trump failing to end the Russia and Ukraine war, which he said he would end on day one. That that's next tonight. The death toll in Ukraine is rising after a Russian missile strike on the capital city, Kyiv killed 28 people and injured dozens more. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called it deliberate terror after visiting a destroyed nine story apartment complex. It's the deadliest attack on Kyiv in months. And it comes after Donald Trump left this week's G7 summit early, skipping the meeting with Zelensky, who had traveled there specifically to request more U.S. aid. And just yesterday, Trump said this about Putin, who supposedly offered to help Trump with Iran.

[Ron Insana]

I spoke to him yesterday and I said, you know, he actually offered to help mediate. I said, do me a favor, media, mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first, okay? I said, vladimir, let's mediate Russia first.

[Catherine]

The subtext is clear. Trump has zero leverage with Putin despite repeatedly claiming that he alone could end this war in 24 hours. On his first day in office, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink left her position in protest of the Trump administration's foreign policy, and she's now running for the US House in, in Michigan. Bridget Brink, Democratic candidate for Michigan's 7th district, joins us next. Ambassador Brink, thank you so much for joining us. Deliberate terror is what President Zelensky called this latest strike on Ukraine. In your view, is Russia escalating this war and what does it signal to the US and to allies, especially after Trump skipped the G7 meeting with Zelensky.

[Bridget Brink]

Well, thank you, Katherine. Thanks so much for having me on. Absolutely. Russia is escalating this war. We have seen this happen all along, actually, since the beginning of the war. And it's very important that we respond, I would say, in three ways. One, with robust engagement, including diplomatic engagement. Two, working with our partners and allies to stop Putin and end the war. And three, using all the tools available to us to do so. That means increasing sanctions to stop Russia from being able to fund its war machine. It means going after the $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets that's in Europe, which Ukraine could use to buy US Weapons. And it means using other tools that can, such as assistance that can help Ukraine defeat and defend itself against this terrible, brutal aggression.

[Catherine]

There are some evidence here that Americans are getting kind of weary of our support for Ukraine. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll released in April found that only 44% of Americans say the US has a responsibility to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia's invasion, while 53% say the nation does not have this responsibility. Fewer Americans now believe America has a responsibility to help Ukraine in its war against Russia. So how do you connect the dots for voters between the foreign policy decisions made in Washington, particularly regarding Ukraine, and, you know, the direct impact on voters, particularly if this is a signature issue that you are running on?

[Bridget Brink]

Yes. Thank you. Well, I wouldn't say that it's our responsibility so much as that it's in our national interest to support Ukraine's effort to defend itself against a regime that is blatantly trying to change the borders of Europe by force. Russia and Vladimir Putin has started the biggest land war in Europe since World War II. There are hundreds of thousands of troops that are pitted against each other basically in the center of Europe, conducted all kinds of war crimes and atrocities and as you have shown at the top, killing 28 people in the Capitol just yesterday. And this is on top of thousands of people being killed, civilians, men, women and children, 10 million people displaced. It's not our responsibility as it is in our interest to work with partners, European partners, to to stop Putin and because two reasons basically, he will not stop this aggression will continue if we don't make clear that it's unacceptable and is a danger to all of us. And it also, second reason, sends a terrible signal to other would be aggressors around the world. And that can affect our relationships and what we need to do in places as far off as Asia.

[Catherine]

For former ambassador Bridget Brink, Democratic candidate for Michigan's 7th congressional district, thank you so much for sharing your insights. That is tonight's last word.

[Ron Insana]

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why is this Happening? Progressive grassroots group Indivisible's co founder and co executive director, Leah Greenberg.

[Catherine]

If there's anything we know about successful movements to defeat autocracies around the world, successful movements to take down dictatorships is that they build broad coalitions and the coalition may not be united by anything other than their opposition to what is currently happening. And that is okay.

[Ron Insana]

That's this week on why is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow.