Trump agenda stymied by principled federal workers as protest resignations mount

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Rachel Maddow Show Episode: Trump Agenda Stymied by Principled Federal Workers as Protest Resignations Mount
Release Date: February 19, 2025

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, host Rachel Maddow and co-host Chris Hayes delve deep into the tumultuous actions and repercussions of the Trump administration. The episode highlights a series of high-profile resignations by federal workers who are standing up against what they perceive as unethical and unprincipled directives from the administration. Through detailed analysis and firsthand accounts, the show sheds light on the broader implications for the American government and political landscape.

---

Trump Administration's Mass Firings and Resignations

Chris Hayes opens the discussion by detailing the Trump administration's recent actions in firing federal employees across various agencies. Notably, the administration inadvertently dismissed experts working on bird flu at the USDA and a significant portion of the workforce at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Hayes sarcastically notes, “What does this button do? Does anybody know what this button does? [00:30]” highlighting the chaotic nature of these decisions.

USDA Bird Flu Experts and Nuclear Security Administration

The inadvertent firings have left agencies scrambling to rehire essential personnel. The USDA is now in the process of rehiring bird flu experts to mitigate the impact of these unexpected losses. Similarly, the National Nuclear Security Administration faces challenges in maintaining its critical operations following the mass layoffs.

GSA Resignation over Notify.gov

A particularly alarming incident involves the resignation of Steven Riley, the lead engineer at the General Services Administration (GSA). Riley protested against Elon Musk’s appointee, Thomas Shedd, who demanded unrestricted access to the notify.gov system—a secure platform for direct communication between the government and citizens. Riley stated, “[...] we have not received a justification for this request, which makes it difficult to suggest alternative approaches that would accomplish Shed's goals while still being protective of personally identifying information for members of the public” (GSA Resignation).

---

Justice Department Resignations

The episode sheds light on a wave of resignations within the Department of Justice (DOJ), driven by disagreements over prosecutorial practices under the Trump administration.

Resignations over Prosecutions of Biden Figures

Chris Hayes discusses the resignation of several career federal prosecutors who opposed the Trump administration's push to initiate prosecutions against figures from the Biden administration without substantial legal grounds. This trend underscores a growing rift within the DOJ, highlighting concerns over the politicization of justice.

Denise Chung's Resignation over Bank Freeze Orders

A standout resignation is that of Denise Chung, the head of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. Chung resigned in protest after being ordered to initiate a criminal investigation into alleged unlawful contracting practices during the Biden administration—a move she deemed unfounded. Hayes summarizes Chung’s stance: “[...] she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to freeze bank assets in this matter and that she lacked the legal authority to do so” (Denise Chung's Resignation).

---

Impact on Virginia's Governor Glenn Youngkin

The episode explores the precarious position of Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican navigating the fallout from Trump's administration's policies, which heavily impact his state. Virginia, being a top recipient of federal contracts, faces significant economic strain due to recent federal workforce reductions.

Hayes critiques Youngkin’s stance, noting his unwavering support for Trump despite the detrimental effects on Virginia: “Governor Glenn Youngkin had to publicly support Trump [...] ‘I support Donald Trump 1000%, and [...] I am working to figure out how to clean up the giant, deliberate mess he is making’” (Governor Youngkin's Support). This political tightrope walk is especially critical as Virginia prepares for its upcoming elections, presenting a battleground for evaluating the administration's impact.

---

Trump's Communications with Vladimir Putin

A significant portion of the episode is devoted to President Trump's elusive communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Through a series of exchanges on Inauguration Day and subsequent weeks, Trump consistently evades direct answers about his interactions with Putin, raising questions about transparency and foreign policy motivations.

Notable Exchange:

At [22:13], during an interview, Trump is repeatedly asked about his conversations with Putin:

Chris Hayes: “Have you spoken to Vladimir Putin since your election?”

Donald Trump: “I don't want to say.”

This recurring refrain highlights the administration's opacity regarding its stance and engagements with Russia, suggesting potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy that could undermine long-standing alliances.

---

Implications for American Government and Party Constraints

Chris Hayes emphasizes the significance of these resignations as potential constraints on the Trump administration. He asserts that “one of the only constraints that matter on an ascending authoritarian is the constraints put on him by his own party” (Political Constraints). The internal resistance within federal agencies and the GOP highlights a potential weakening of Trump's control and the administration’s ability to implement further controversial policies without facing substantive opposition.

---

Social Security Administration Resignation and Data Access Issues

The episode also covers recent turmoil within the Social Security Administration (SSA). Martin O'Malley, former SSA Commissioner, discusses the sudden resignation of the acting head of the SSA amidst conflicts over data access with groups led by Elon Musk's associates.

O'Malley explains, “[...] this is totally untrue. They spew stuff and they throw things because of the nitwit 19 year olds that don't understand the program or its database” (SSA Resignation), vehemently denying allegations of widespread fraudulent recipients of Social Security benefits. He underscores the agency's commitment to protecting personal information, a stance that directly conflicts with demands for data access from political appointees.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Rachel Maddow Show provides a thorough examination of the cascading effects of the Trump administration's policies on federal agencies and their employees. Through detailed reporting and incisive commentary, Maddow and her team highlight the growing resistance within the federal workforce and the Republican Party, signaling potential shifts in the political dynamics of Washington. The episode underscores the resilience and principled stand of federal workers amidst administrative chaos, painting a complex picture of governance under Trump’s leadership.

---

Notable Quotes

• Steven Riley, GSA Engineer (GSA Resignation):
  “We have not received a justification for this request, which makes it difficult to suggest alternative approaches that would accomplish Shed's goals while still being protective of personally identifying information for members of the public.” ([00:30])

• Governor Glenn Youngkin, Virginia (Governor Youngkin's Support):
  “I support Donald Trump 1000%, and also that I am working to figure out how to clean up the giant, deliberate mess he is making of people's lives and our economy in this state, for which I have a lot of empathy.” ([15:34])

• Denise Chung, Resigning DOJ Prosecutor (Denise Chung's Resignation):
  “I did not believe there was sufficient evidence to freeze bank assets in this matter and that I lacked the legal authority to do so.” ([36:42])

• Martin O'Malley, Former SSA Commissioner (SSA Resignation):
  “There are not like cadavers wandering all around the continental United States with Social Security benefit checks flowing out of their pocket. This is totally untrue.” ([48:50])

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the episode, providing listeners with a comprehensive overview of the challenges facing the Trump administration and the principled stand of federal workers resisting controversial policies.

Transcript

[Rachel Maddow]

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows Now, ad free + ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News and all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why is this Happening? Felshey Band Book Club and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Chris Hayes]

Really happy to have you here. It has been another one of those days. NBC News reporting tonight that the Trump administration accidentally, oops, totally didn't mean to fire the people working on bird flu. No idea how that happened. Now the the bird flu experts at usda, they are trying to hire them back. They did this with the National Nuclear Security Administration as well, which we talked about on last night's show. Now it's with the bird flu workers. Oops. What does this button do? Does anybody know what this button does? I thought I should ask because I just a minute ago I just pushed it. Does anybody know what it does? Got any other buttons I can push? The Washington Post reports tonight that the Trump administration is considering a plan to incinerate $500 million worth of COVID tests that you've already paid for. It's not because there's anything wrong with these Covid tests. It's just because, I guess, you know, Covid tests, icky $500 million worth of perfectly good Covid tests that we, the taxpayers, already purchased. They are in storage. They are stockpiled right now, set to be distributed for free to the American people in the event of another big uptick in Covid. But instead, the Trump administration apparently wants to destroy them because, you know, government efficiency. The Trump administration just today fired more than 10% of the staff at the National Science Foundation. National Science foundation was founded in 1950 to promote science and engineering and work on U.S. defense and public health. National Science foundation provides a quarter of the federal support that goes for basic research at America's colleges and universities. It's how we fund astronomy observatories. It is how we fund our research stations in Antarctica. Trump just today fired a huge proportion of their workforce. A senior engineer at the gsa. The General Services Administration has also just resigned today, reportedly after trying to block people working for President Trump's top campaign donor, Elon Musk, trying to block one of Musk's guys from from A system called notify.gov notify.gov is a system whereby the government can contact you directly. Individual citizens can be contacted directly from federal agencies. It is A secure system. It's obviously very sensitive because it's your personal cell phone number that is linked to information about you and your status and involvement with any number of government agencies. Obviously, that's a very sensitive thing. But this man named Thomas Shedd, who until recently worked for TES but was just installed inside the GSA by the president's top donor, elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla. Mr. Shedd apparently demanded full read write access to that notify.gov system. In response, the lead engineer in charge of that system, a GSA employee named Steven Riley, apparently, quote, objected to Shed's ability to view phone numbers and variable data for members of the public, information that Shed, quote, would be able to downlo and store without anyone knowing. Riley wrote to his colleagues that once he had obtained this information, Shed could also grant the same access to others. He said, quote, we have not received a justification for this request, which makes it difficult to suggest alternative approaches that would accomplish Shed's goals while still being protective of personally identifying information for members of the public. Riley said, quote, I don't believe I can operate a program and system without the ability to manage access to personally identifying information about American citizens. He said, quote, as a result, I have submitted my resignation to gsa. Today will be my last day. So the lead engineer at the Journal Services Administration trying to protect your personally identifying information linked to your cell phone number and resigning in protest when he couldn't do it. In resigning on these terms, he has let we, the public, know that President Donald Trump apparently wants to give your cell phone number and personally identifying information about you, including any of your interactions with any federal government agency, to a random guy from Elon Musk's car company and wants to give him this information in a way that would allow him to walk out the door with it and give it to anyone else he wanted. So by resigning, trying to stop it, being unable to stop it, resigning in protest, and then explaining exactly why he resigned and what the problem was, he has let the public know that this has just happened to us, which itself is a mitzvah. But that wasn't even the highest profile or most shocking protest resignation today. That one would be another one from the Justice Department. And we're going to talk about that in just a moment with reporter Ryan Reilly. He's been all over this story, and I'll let Ryan explain it in detail. But in short, it appears that they are now ordering career nonpartisan federal prosecutors to bring at least one federal criminal prosecution of a Biden administration figure, a prosecution that that career federal prosecutor thought was unwarranted by the law and thus effectuated a new high profile, principled resignation in Washington today. So we're going to get to that in a moment. Demanding unfounded prosecutions. That's a thing. There's also another really unsettling element of that DOJ story and that resignation that has to do with money and them going after bank accounts that they're not supposed to be able to go after. We'll get to that story in just a moment. One of the other things we're watching, though, as things get wilder and more off the chain with each passing day, is whether there is any sign of any limiting instinct that is coming from the Republican Party of which President Trump is ostensibly the leader. Take, for example, Glenn Youngkin. He was once thought of as a Republican with a bright future in this country's politics. He's the Republican governor of a purple state. He's the governor of Virginia. When the Republican Party briefly considered the possibility of running someone other than Donald Trump for president this last election cycle, Glenn Youngkin was seen as probably the most electable, non Trump choice that the Republicans could make. They didn't go down that road, though. They picked Trump. And so Glenn Youngkin has melted back into the scenery. He's been plodding along as governor of Virginia in his final term in office. But in Virginia, you do have to consider politics along a slightly different timeline than everywhere else. And that's because Virginia has off year elections. What that means is that Virginia this year will elect a whole new legislature and a new governor this year in 2025, just a few months from now. Which means that Virginia election this year will be the first big partisan test of how Americans are feeling about the country and about politics and about the two political parties now that we've got Trump back in office. So imagine being a Republican governor of a purple state with that kind of pressure on you, right? And in Glenn Youngkin's case, his state also has over 145,000 civil federal government, excuse me, civilian federal government employees, 145,000 Virginians who are civilian government employees of the federal government. Even more people who work as federal government contractors. In fact, in his state, they get more federal contract money from the federal government than any other state in the country. Why is Virginia so well off? Well, it doesn't hurt that they get over 100 billion doll dollars a year in federal contracts paid to various Virginia businesses and other entities. And, you know, that's fine for Virginia. It's fine for the Virginia economy as long as the federal government isn't now being run like a ketamine fueled drive by shooting and arson spree led by a 19 year old who goes by the name Big Balls. If that is in fact how the federal government is being run, and it is, then being the governor of a state like Virginia, which is so radically dependent on the federal government and federal contracting federal funding, that's a problem. That's like going to bed and thinking you're a human and waking up in a burlap sack full of rabid minks. That's like, oh, I guess our state isn't going to work anymore. You might remember that the first full day Trump was in office, he ordered an immediate and indiscriminate freeze of all federal funding. The day after that, Glenn Youngkin, governor of Virginia, poor thing. He wanted to do an event to announce a new round of Virginia school test results. And I'm sure that's what he wanted to talk about. What do you think people wanted to ask him about instead? Headline Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin says Voters asked for Trump Disruption as fallout continues. Dateline Richmond, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin had a message early Wednesday for everyone claiming President Donald Trump's on again, off again, on again freeze on trillions of dollars in federal spending would create chaos. Youngkin told reporters at an event rolling out Virginia school test scores, quote, the steps that President Trump taking are steps that he told everyone he was going to do. A few hours after he spoke, the White House rescinded the memo ordering the freeze. A little after that, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said actually the freeze is still coming. Youngkin's office did not respond to a request for comment about the changing status. So here's a Republican governor in a state where Republicans are going to have to try to get elected again this fall in a few months in a very purple state. And as Virginia residents are being mass fired and having their livelihoods completely thrown into the air in a maelstrom of inexplicable chaos, he's like, I'm a Republican, so I support this. I support this. Yes, he actually said at that event, quote, there may be some disruption to Virginians along the way. And I'm very empathetic to those concerns. We can get through this. But he also said he supports President Trump all the way. So yeah, way to stand up for your people, Gov. We'll get through this. I have so much empathy. We'll get through this. And then later that day, they announced they were rescinding the funding freeze anyway. So he had to, that morning, get out in front of the cameras and just eat it. Politically, he has to say he accepts what Trump is doing to cause all of this harm to his state. And the residents of this state, they send him out there to the cameras to have to say that, to put that on the record, and then they change their mind and reverse the decision anyway. Oops, did I just push that button? Can I unpush it? Anybody know what this button does after that first couple of days of the new Trump administration? Understandably, Glenn Youngkin has not been poking his head above the parapet much since he did try again today. However, he tried to do a press conference this morning about a looming winter storm barreling its way toward Virginia in the ensuing four weeks since the last time he tried to talk about what Trump was doing to Virginia. You know, in the past four weeks, things have only gotten worse. Things at the proverbial crack house in Washington have only gotten more dangerous and more insane. But still, Glenn Youngkin, as a Republican, doesn't feel brave enough to say that he disagrees with anything that Trump is doing.

[Ryan Reilly]

Right.

[Chris Hayes]

I mean, if you're looking for that, you're looking for the vertebrates exhibit around the corner. This is something else. This is not that. And so here's the local press coverage on what Governor Glenn Youngkin had to do today. DATELINE Richmond Governor Glenn Youngkin said today that the state is preparing an aid package for Virginians losing their jobs in the Trump administration's gutting of the federal workforce. But he said the cuts are necessary. In his first extended public remarks on the cuts, Youngkin told reporters that he feels deep concern for those who are anxious about their employment future as the White House purges people at almost every agency. Hundreds of workers at the FAA lost their jobs over the weekend, for example. And a sweeping elimination of workers ahead of a Tuesday deadline affected mapmakers and cancer researchers and FEMA staffers, among thousands more cut over the past few weeks. But Youngkin defended the Trump administration's actions, which disproportionately affect Virginia as one of the top states in the country for federal employment and spending. With more than 140,000 federal workers. Even one of Youngkin's signature achievements, a computer science laboratory high school in Richmond, has been touched by the cuts, with cancellation of a federal grant for a teacher residency program. The governor said he wanted it known that, quote, we understand and we're here to help. He said the state, quote, will have the ability to support federal workers through any job dislocation. But the governor declined to provide details about what kind of help the state is prepared to offer. He said that when the plan is ready, quote, I want to communicate it in a package. We'll have a good one for you. Well, get back to me. We'll. It'll be. I don't know what it's going to, but it's going to be good. I don't know. It'll be great. We're going to come up with something. In the meantime, please report that I said that I support Donald Trump 1000%, and also that I am working to figure out how to clean up the giant, deliberate mess he is making of people's lives and our economy in this state, for which I have a lot of empathy. Say that, too, even though I definitely 1000% support this infliction of pain on people who live in my state and even on myself, even though we've done nothing wrong. Can you get all that in the lead? Thank you, sir. May I have another? Can you put that as the caption? Did I mention that Virginia has elections this year? Just a few months. You feel like your Republican politicians in Virginia are looking out for you.

[Martin O'Malley]

So.

[Chris Hayes]

We'Re going to keep watching this dynamic Republicans who can't actually bear what Trump is doing to their own states and to their own constituents, but they're too scared to say they're against it. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska asking for exemptions to Trump's cuts and actions specifically for Indian tribes in Alaska. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa asking for an exemption for Iowa farmers to the tariffs on Canada. Republican Florida Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar asking for an exemption to the indiscriminate deportation policies. Republican Senator Katie Britt asking for an exemption on the massive cuts to scientific and medical research, saying, you couldn't possibly mean Alabama for those cuts, could you? Not Alabama, you want these cuts elsewhere, right? Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine saying the same thing, saying, surely those cuts don't apply to the universities and labs in Maine. She said, if it applies to the ones in Maine, that would be, quote, devastating. So certainly they don't mean Maine. Right? They couldn't. Republicans just eating it in their home districts and their home states as their party's leader does things that are devastating to those states and to those constituents. And just seeing that in states all over the country is a lot of things. It gives me many, many feelings of many different kinds. But as a matter of political science, it's also important to watch in terms of what kinds of constraints this president, this administration, might ever feel. Political scientists will tell you that one of the only constraints that matter on an ascending authoritarian is the constraints put on him by his own party. The distance between what people think they voted for and what people realize they got ultimately does matter. Sometimes it's the only thing that matters. The Wall Street Journal yesterday spoke with Trump voters who just one month in say they are now horrified by what they helped cause when they voted for Trump. Quote. Stacey White says she voted for President Trump because she wanted lower prices and to stop fentanyl from coming into the US now with widespread federal layoffs and expected cuts, she worries her family will lose their house if her partner is laid off from his government adjacent job at the dialysis unit where she works. Staff has started doing drills for what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement comes to deport their patients. Stacey said, quote, when we said safer borders, I thought he was thinking, let's stop the drugs from coming into the country. I didn't know he was going to start raiding places. She said she didn't believe he would actually follow through on some of the more hardline policies he touted. During the campaign, the 49 year old Omaha, Nebraska resident said, quote, now I'm like, dang, why didn't I just pick Kamala? Emily Anderson from Duluth, Minnesota, categorizes her vote for Trump this year as the, quote, biggest mistake of my life. She is horrified by Trump's focus on deportations and use of Guantanamo Bay to hold migrants. She says that Trump has been too focused on, quote, ridiculous, flashy moves such as banning paper straws and renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Anderson's daughter is an occupational therapist. Anderson's daughter's occupational therapist has stopped taking new patients over fears that the practice will have its federal funding dry up. Anderson said, quote, I feel so stupid, guilty, regretful, embarrassed is a huge one. I am absolutely embarrassed that I voted for Trump. So as long as we still have a political process, voters feeling that way, Trump voters feeling that way, Republican elected officials desperately seeking exemptions for their state from what Trump is doing to try to save their constituents from what Trump is doing. Saying Trump's policies are bad if they apply in their state. Republicans finding Trump's actions and chaos and dysfunction not only damaging, but indefensible. And they're being caught out at home unable to defend the indefensible. If we still have a political process, that will matter in terms of what Trump can do and for how long. But there's one last thing I want to introduce into the mix here, one real wildcard to watch for along these same lines. And it is something that isn't a bread and butter home district economic issue like these ones I've been talking about. It's actually a big picture issue. But I think its political impact is something that's going to be important to watch because I think there's a chance it might be bigger than what they are expecting, at least what the pundit class is expecting. And part of the reason I think it's safe to say this is at least a wild card is because of how Trump has been talking about it. It's because it's been something that Trump has himself been so cagey and so palpably scared about talking about for so long that I think he knows the public really doesn't want to see this. And I'll show you what I mean. I'll show you what I mean here. It started with a simple yes or no question. Question. Have you spoken to Vladimir Putin since your election? Yes or no answer. I can't tell you. I can't tell you. It's just inappropriate. Trump interview after the election with Time magazine. It's inappropriate. It's not appropriate for us to ask you if you've spoken to Putin or it's not appropriate for you to say that was December, about a month after the election. By that point, it was widely reported that Trump had taken calls from world leaders across the whole planet, like France and Israel and India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.K. ukraine, South Korea. Trump himself made a big deal of announcing, announcing before he was sworn in that he had spoken to President Xi Jinping of China. He said, quote, the call was a very good one. So he's bragging about and letting it be known about and sort of effusing about all of his calls with all of these foreign leaders all over the world, including very controversial ones like the president of Communist China. But when you ask him if he talked to Putin, he says that's inappropriate, he doesn't want to talk about it. But you know, I said that was December. Maybe that was just something weird about being in the transition. Maybe once he took office, once he was officially president, he would find it more appropriate to issue some clarity on this issue. Ask him, when are you going to be talking to Vladimir Putin?

[Donald Trump]

Who?

[Chris Hayes]

That was Inauguration Day, January 20th. Are you going to be talking to Vladimir Putin? Who? Vladimir who? Talking to what? Me. When are you going to be talking to Vladimir Putin? Who do you plan to meet President Putin, sir.

[Donald Trump]

I'll be meeting with President Putin.

[Chris Hayes]

When?

[Donald Trump]

I don't know. I can't. It's being set up.

[Chris Hayes]

When do you plan to speak to President Putin?

[Donald Trump]

Could be very soon.

[Chris Hayes]

I don't know. I can't. I can't. It's being set up. Oh, that Vladimir Putin. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't. It's being set up. I'll be meeting with him. I can't say. It's being set up. Soon. Again, that was inauguration day. Again, not the most forthcoming answer, but a little closer to getting an answer, maybe.

[Martin O'Malley]

Have you spoken to him?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say.

[Chris Hayes]

That was only three days after the inauguration. Three days later. Have you spoken to him? I don't want to say. Somebody getting so shy. Have you spoken to Vladimir Putin? I don't want to say. Why don't you want to say? Okay, how about another chance to clear it up on your call with Vladimir Putin?

[Donald Trump]

Well, we'll be speaking. We are having discussions. Yes.

[Chris Hayes]

Ongoing. Already scheduled and ongoing.

[Donald Trump]

Already talking, yes.

[Chris Hayes]

So you've already spoken of Vladimir Putin?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say that.

[Chris Hayes]

We will be speaking. We are already having discussions. So you've already spoken to Putin? I don't want to say that. I don't want to say. There's nothing that this man doesn't want to say. This man wants to say everything that has ever crossed his mind. He's the freest man in the world. But that I don't want to say. I can't say. It's not appropriate. That last clip takes us to the end of January, by the first week of this month. February headline in the New York Post exclusive, Trump reveals he's spoken with Putin by phone. Ah, no more. Vladimir who? No more. I don't want to say. No more. How dare you ask me such an inappropriate question? Trump reveals he has spoken with Putin by phone. How many times have they spoken by phone? You might be asking, quote, when asked how many times the two leaders have spoken, Trump said, quote, I'd better not say. Sir, can you tell us about your conversation with Vladimir Putin?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to do that. He's been talking to Vladimir Putin. Are you trying to set up a meeting with him? Well, I can't tell you what I'm talking about.

[Chris Hayes]

You can't? Aren't you the boss? We do not play a lot of video on the show of President Trump talking. You might have noticed that we have this sort of mantra that we try to follow, which is watch what they do. Not what they say. So we don't play a lot of tape of him talking, but every once in a while I think it is worth the exception just to see that this is something that he talks about the way he talks about nothing else. This is something that he's palpably scared to say or he feels constrained, like he's not allowed to say. Why is he so scared of this one thing? Vladimir Putin? Who? Have you talked to President Putin?

[Donald Trump]

No, I have not.

[Chris Hayes]

You haven't talked to President Putin since you've been elected? No.

[Donald Trump]

Well, I don't want to say that, but I haven't spoken to him recently.

[Chris Hayes]

So you've spoken to President Putin since you.

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say that. I don't want to say anything about that.

[Martin O'Malley]

Have you spoken to him?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say.

[Chris Hayes]

So you've already spoken of Vladimir Putin's.

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to say that. Are you trying to sell a meeting with him? Well, I can't tell you what I'm talking about.

[Chris Hayes]

Can you tell us about your conversation with Vladimir Platoon?

[Donald Trump]

I don't want to do that.

[Chris Hayes]

See, he really doesn't want to say. He really, really, really doesn't want to say. He can't say who tells you what you can and can't say. Today, of course, we had the US Secretary of State, the national security adviser, and whatever that real estate guy's job is. We had this high level designate delegation from the meet in Saudi Arabia with the Russian government ahead of what is promised to be a Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin very soon. No Western leader has met with Vladimir Putin since he invaded Ukraine three years ago. But the United States is not only apparently taking Russia's side now changing sides in that war, now we're essentially changing sides in the world. The United States is now apparently against Europe and our allies of the last 80 years and for Russia. While the president repeatedly and eerily and in a very out of character way tells the American people he is not allowed to discuss that relationship or his communications with that leader. The political reality of this administration is going to be shaped by whether or not the people who oppose him oppose him strongly enough and effectively enough. The political reality of this administration and this presidency will be determined by also by whether the people who voted for him are horrified enough by what they have wrought that they regret it and are willing to act differently and to speak out about their regret. The reality of this presidency and this administration will be determined in some part by whether or not Republican officials realize that their own survival as politicians depends not on sucking up to Trump, but by helping their constituents survive him. Strong evidence supporting all of those strikes against Trump so far, frankly. But this is one other thing to watch. If we really are now abandoning the free world and lining up instead with the world's dictatorships and Trump is unwilling to even explain why, just watch. The American people are going to have some feelings about that too. Just watch.

[Rachel Maddow]

MSNBC Presents Main justice each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice.

[Chris Hayes]

The administration doesn't necessarily want to be questioned on any of its policy.

[Ryan Reilly]

I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action. This is it coming to fruition.

[Rachel Maddow]

Main justice subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for ad, free listening and bonus content. Get the All New CNBC Sport Newsletter Alex Sherman brings you exclusive interviews and the biggest news impacting the world of sports, business and media. All straight to your inbox. Sign up for free at cnbc.com sportnewsletter Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

[Chris Hayes]

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

[Rachel Maddow]

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 Daily at msnb.

[Chris Hayes]

The wave of high level resignations in response to the Trump administration continues to swell. This is not people being fired by the Trump administration or people taking them up on their threat to resign or else. This is people resigning on principle after they tried to stop the Trump administration from doing something they're not supposed to be able to do. Late last week you will remember that Department of Justice had seven high profile resignations, all of them over the decision by the Trump administration to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which the Trump administration was demanding explicitly in exchange for a promise from Mayor Adams that he would help with Trump's anti immigrant policies. To understand why this was such a Rubicon that principled, even conservative members of the Justice Department were not willing to cross Today, a former U.S. attorney named Carol Lamb drew an analogy in an op ed for the New York Times that I think is quite clarifying. She said, quote, imagine for example, a president agreeing to hold off on bringing corruption charges against a US Senator as long as that senator signs on to the president's agenda. In light of last week's events with the Adams case, this crass scenario has suddenly become plausible. I think Carole Lam is right there. In fact, you could imagine the Trump administration saying that for a whole swath of senators, you know, all the senators on this committee were going to bring sedition charges against all of you unless you do X, what's the difference? Right after those seven resignations over the Adams affair last week, the question of what's actually going to happen to Adams in that case is up in the air. New York's Governor, Kathy Hochul, has been considering whether to use her unusual powers as New York's state, New York State's chief executive to remove the mayor from office. Oddly, in New York State, the governor does have that power to remove the mayor of New York City. Today, she met with key city leaders for a discussion about that. Tomorrow, the federal judge that's been overseeing the Adams case has ordered both the mayor and federal prosecutors to appear before him in court and explain the rationale for asking that these charges be dismissed. That could end up being anything from a pro forma hearing to a real opportunity for that judge to grill the prosecutors about why they're taking this extraordinary action of dropping this case, particularly given that there's been all these high profile resignations from the Justice Department saying this is an unprincipled and potentially illegal thing to do. So we'll be watching that closely. But again, all of this comes amid these principled resignations from career prosecutors at the Justice Department. And today we got another one, and this one is unrelated to the Eric Adams case. Denise Chung is a veteran prosecutor. Until recently, she was head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. that's the same office President Trump has put under the auspices of a defense lawyer who was at January 6 himself and whose clients included January 6 defendants. Today, Denise Chung, a career prosecutor in that office, the head of its criminal division, resigned. NBC News reporting. Tonight, quote, veteran federal prosecutor resigns over bank freeze order from Trump appointment appointee. Bank freeze order. In her resignation letter, Chung wrote that she was asked to review documentation to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded during President Biden's administration. The Washington Post was first to publish the resignation letter. In the letter, Ms. Chung said that she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to freeze bank assets in this matter and that she lacked the legal authority to do so. She apparently was nevertheless, nevertheless ordered to do it. She says she was then asked for her resignation. When NBC News reporter Ryan Reilly asked DOJ for comment on that resignation, the Justice Department responded by saying this, quote, refusing a basic request to pause an investigation so officials can examine the potential waste of government funds is not an act of heroism, just a failure to follow the chain of command. It's unclear what they mean when they say a basic request to pause an investigation since Denise Chung says she was actually ordered to launch an unpredicated investigation, not pause 1. If the administration can order prosecutors to use the criminal justice system to shut down programs they don't like, to freeze the assets of people they perceive to be their enemies even before the courts get a chance to rule on the case, that would turn the Justice Department into a whole new tool set that a power hungry president could use against his political enemies. What should a prosecutor do in that case? If they believe that bringing such a case, bringing such a criminal matter would be unpredicated, what should they do? Today, Denise Chung decided the only thing to do was resign. Joining us now is NBC News justice reporter Ryan Reilly. Ryan, thanks for joining us tonight. Let me ask if your reporting has advanced beyond what I've just explained or if I got any of that wrong.

[Ryan Reilly]

Yeah, no, you got it right. But one thing that's been a little bit of a new development is the EPA investigation that they are launching here sort of been able to figure out what some of that related to. And it all actually comes back apparently this is according to the press release that was put out by the EPA administrator that linked to a video that was filmed by Project Veritas. So that's James O'Keefe's former outlet. That's the video appears to be at question at the center of this. That was passed along. But you know, what's interesting is that that Ms. Chung, Denise Chung, was so steeped, I think, in Justice Department traditions that when you read through that letter, there's no direct reference to who they were actually talking about here because that's very much in keeping with Justice Department protocol, keeping within the four corners of the document you're filing, you're not referencing someone who is not alleged to have committed any criminal activity in that paperwork. And she knew probably that that letter would get more widely distributed and so she even followed those protocols there. So, you know, that's something having been for 24 years at the Justice Department is obviously very important to her and sort of a core part of who she is as a person.

[Chris Hayes]

But just to bear down on this and get to the nub here, I think, particularly for people who aren't lawyers, who aren't necessarily steeped in what Justice Department protocol is. What she's saying is, I was ordered by political appointees to bring a criminal investigation that is not warranted by the facts. And as part of bringing that criminal investigation, they wanted me to seize assets in a bank account, even though there's no reason to bring a criminal investigation which would warrant such an extreme step. That's basically what she's laying out, even though she's doing it in very lawyerly terms, as the grounds for which her resignation, she thought was warranted.

[Ryan Reilly]

Yes, precisely. I mean, the shorter version of it was, at first she was asked to launch this investigation, and they were like, well, we don't actually care about all that much. The important part is freezing the assets. But the problem is, is that you need that first part in order to have that second part right. You don't talk about freezing someone's assets unless there's probable cause. And what you have here is the government. What she was requested to do was send a letter from the FBI or from the U.S. attorney's office in that case, that if the FBI refused to do so, saying, ordering, Ordering a bank. That's the key part, ordering a bank to freeze these assets when she knew, upon reviewing the evidence that there was not probable cause that a crime had been committed. This was always going to be a little bit of a stretch of an investig, and especially with Ed Martin at the helm, who's shown himself to be somewhat of a concierge, a prosecutorial concierge service for Elon Musk or whoever Donald Trump asked him to sort of go after. I think that that's what she was sort of concerned about ultimately here, that this was another one of these orders. Ed Martin just hasn't gained the respect of the office. There was even an email a few weeks ago in which he had left his gloves sitting around the office at some point. And there's one of these inner office email saying, who left their gloves here? And it turned out to be Ed Martin. But that's, you know, he's gone after time and time again and shown he's willing to go after sort of the president's enemies, including on late Friday when he posted on his official account, which he set up separately from his main X account, saying that he was that to save their papers, speaking about Jack Smith, as well as a private law firm that had offered him pro bono legal services during his tenure as special counsel so, so what you're talking about here is someone who's really targeting directly individuals who have sort of come onto Donald Trump's radar, Rachel.

[Chris Hayes]

Yeah. And it's one thing to threaten to be a concierge prosecution service for the president's enemies, as you put it. It's another thing to actually be the prosecutor who has to demand that a bank seize assets when there's no factual predicate for that investigation that would lead to such a step. I mean, that's something that, that a judge will eventually review. And that prosecutor would ethically and professionally be on the hook for that, regardless of whether or not the U.S. attorney told him to do it. I mean, what they're asking these folks to do, I imagine this is not gonna be the last resignation we hear about. NBC News justice reporter Ryan Reilly. Thanks for helping us understand this tonight. I really appreciate it.

[Ryan Reilly]

No problem. Thanks for having me.

[Chris Hayes]

And actually, I'm the one who left the gloves there, so I'll be back. I'm gonna go pick them up.

[Rachel Maddow]

As President Donald Trump returns to the White House, what will the first 100 days of the presidency bring? Follow along as his agenda takes shape with the new MSNBC Newsletter. Trump's first 100 days, weekly updates sent straight to your inbox, and expert insight on the key issues and figures defining this second term.

[Chris Hayes]

We're seeing a really radical effort to change the American system of government.

[Rachel Maddow]

Sign up For Trump's first 100 [e-mail] TRUMP 100 the first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed, and presidencies are defined. And for Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.

[Chris Hayes]

Now is the time, so we're gonna do it.

[Rachel Maddow]

Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time.

[Chris Hayes]

How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?

[Rachel Maddow]

The Rachel Maddow show weeknights at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. MSNBC presents a new original podcast hosted by Jen Psaki. Each week, she and her guests explore how the Democratic Party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next.

[Chris Hayes]

There's probably both messaging and policy issues, but as you look to kind of where the Democratic Party is, do you think it's more a messaging issue, more a policy issue?

[Rachel Maddow]

The Blueprint with Jen Psaki. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for ad, free listening and bonus content.

[Chris Hayes]

I'm Kristi Noem, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security. Thank you, President Donald J. Trump for security, securing our border, for deporting criminal illegal immigrants and for putting America first. Kristi Noem, the new secretary of Homeland Security, thanking her boss in a commercial. The Department of Homeland Security says this will be a nationwide multi million dollar ad campaign praising President Trump. And the multi millions in question here are not like Kristi Noem campaign funds or Donald Trump campaign funds, its official homeland security funds, taxpayer dollars to praise Donald Trump for his great leadership and to warn illegal immigrants to stay away because Donald Trump is so great. Your taxpayer dollars at work, Dear leader ads that we're paying for out of Homeland Security funds. Meanwhile, in the name of austerity and government efficiency, members of the CDC's public health team that has been responding to an ongoing tuberculosis outbreak in Kansas City, Kansas. They've go because, you know, gotta pinch our pennies, gotta be very efficient in the era of Doge, doggy, dodgy, whatever they want to call it. Today, the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston closed abruptly. A sign on the door cited an executive order and the library clarified in a statement that it had closed because of, quote, the sudden dismissal of federal employees at the JFK library. By tonight, the National Archives had announced that the JFK library will reopen tomorrow. But, but who knows? It was a surprise to them when they had to close today. As you're getting ready to file your taxes, looking forward hopefully to a tax refund, I hope. Senior officials at the IRS have reportedly identified 7,500 IRS employees for possible firing right now, less than eight weeks from when taxes are due. USA Today offering its readers today this advice, quote, IRS cuts may mean refund delays and long waits. File early before potential cuts, CPAs say. While all that has been playing out in the news today, there's also the matter of what exactly is happening at the Social Security Administration. At the Washington Post and NBC News, it was reported last night that the acting head of the Social Security Administration had suddenly resigned after some kind of clash with Elon Musk's team over access to sensitive data in the social system. Now, this story again first reported last night. It's still evolving tonight. The events so far are worrying to a lot of people who depend on their Social Security checks. We've got a former leader of the Social Security administration joining us to sort out what we know next. So many Americans depend on their Social Security as their primary income, as a big piece of their income. That monthly check and the expectation that it'll be there when you retire, it's a foundational thing for literally tens of millions of Americans. Joining us now is Martin O'Malley. He was Social Security Commissioner during the Biden administration. We called him today about these concerns that we learned about this weekend with the head of acting head of Social Security Administration resigning apparently in some sort of clash over access to data and systems at the Social Security Administration access that the people who were demanding it apparently weren't supposed to have. Mr. O'Malley, it's really nice to see you. Thanks for being with us tonight.

[Martin O'Malley]

Good to be with you again, Rachel. Wish it weren't under these circumstances. So how do you want to unpack this?

[Chris Hayes]

Do you know what the DOGE group was trying to access at Social Security that would have caused the administrator to resign?

[Martin O'Malley]

Yeah, I would imagine that they were trying to go after personal identifying information on all of us. I mean, this is an agency that collects a lot of data. Every job we've ever had since our very first job, they keep track of those earnings. And there are a lot of laws in place that protect the privacy of that information. In fact, the very first regulation Social Security ever issued back in 1934 when FDR signed it into being, was to promise the American people we would protect their personal identifying information. So one of the things I learned in leading the great, great men and women of Social Security, who, by the way, are serving more and more customers every day with staffing that House Republicans have reduced to a 50 year low. But one of the things I learned about the culture of the place was that the folks there really take very seriously their duty to protect our personal identifying information. So it does not surprise me at all that Michelle King, who I know very well and who I served with, a woman beyond reproach, a career civil servant who loves the agency and believes in the mission that she would not allow herself to be an accomplice to any violation of law or the sacred duty that she's been taught her whole life to abide by, which is to protect people's personal identifying information. I mean, that's a fireable offense at the agency. No doubt. Michelle, in her role as being the person that oversaw operations when I was Commissioner of Social Security for President Biden, she probably had to dismiss employees for browsing, looking at the personal data of other people. And that was also something that we would not infrequently refer to the Inspector General for possible criminal prosecution. But now we can't do that because the CO presidents whacked all of them in the first week.

[Chris Hayes]

Given the regulatory structure, then the statutory structure that you just described. Is this actually actionable if they've improperly accessed this information. Is that the basis for legal action against anybody who's done it?

[Martin O'Malley]

Oh, I think so. I mean, these laws came into place, let's keep in mind after 1974 and the abuse of power in Watergate, which in hindsight looks almost kind of quaint compared to the shredding of the Constitution that we see every day happening by the co Presidents Musk and Trump and their utter disregard for laws and norms. So I would think it would be actionable except for the fact that he controls the FBI and the prosecutorial powers that should bring it to action. But perhaps creative lawyers will find a way to call the question in front of a court. You know, the real threat to this agency and what's going to crater it though, Rachel, is actually reducing its staff to even lower than the 50 year low that it finds itself in right now. And I don't know if it's their plan to crater it or if they're just so ignorant of how stressed it is that they don't realize they could interrupt benefits. And let's keep in mind these are lifelines for 72 and a half million Americans and half of all seniors living alone depend entirely on Social Security. I do believe this will probably be the first beloved program by Americans that these doge boys break and they're on their way to doing it by driving people out of the agency.

[Chris Hayes]

I've only got about a minute left here, Mr. Malleys. I'm sorry for that, but I just wanted to get your reaction to the claims by the President's top campaign donor and now today by the President himself that Social Security has millions of fraudulent recipients. Millions and millions and millions of fraudulent dollars going out the door every day. Which your reaction?

[Martin O'Malley]

Total horse hockey. There are not like cadavers wandering all around the continental United States with Social Security benefit checks flowing out of their pocket. This is totally untrue. They spew stuff and they throw things because of the nitwit 19 year olds that don't understand the program or its database or its COBOL technology and they just spew this stuff. So I say put up or shut up. You know, if you actually have the names of the 1250 year old people who are receiving benefits, put them up. They don't have any privacy rights. So come on. It's total.

[Chris Hayes]

Martin O'Malley who is Social Security administrator under the Biden administration. Sir, thank you very, very much. That's going to it for me tonight. I will see you all again tomorrow night. And every night this week at 9pm Eastern. In the meantime, you can find me at blueskyatto.msnbc.com as President Donald Trump returns.

[Rachel Maddow]

To the White House, what will the first 100 days of the presidency bring? Follow along as his agenda takes shape with the new MSNBC newsletter, Trump's first 100 days, weekly updates sent straight to your inbox, and expert inspiration on the key issues and figures defining this second term.

[Chris Hayes]

We're seeing a really radical effort to change the American system of government.

[Rachel Maddow]

Sign up for Trump's first 100 [e-mail] TRUMP100.