← Trumpland with Alex Wagner
Trumpland with Alex Wagner
Trump team's bad faith changes political calculus
00:41:44
Rachel Maddow remarks on the qualitative difference in the type of people Donald Trump is staffing his new administration with compared to his first administration and the fact that their deliberate antagonism and abuse of power means many political norms are not applicable.
Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:01]
Alex Wagner
From the first full day of Donald Trump's first term in office, it was clear that Donald Trump was willing to lie about, well, just about anything. This was the largest audience to ever.
- [00:13]
Donald Trump
Witness an inauguration period. I said, wait a minute, I made a speech, I looked out. The field was. It looked like a million, million and a half people. They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there.
- [00:29]
Alex Wagner
Nobody. Despite very clear photographic evidence, Donald Trump and his administration insisted that his inauguration had the biggest crowd size ever. Okay, well, on the left here is the crowd from President Obama's 2009 inauguration. It's filled with people. There are a lot of people in that picture. On the right is Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration with a lot fewer people. A lot fewer people. But Donald Trump was adamant that the public should not believe its lying eyes. The one thing we now know for sure about Trump's second inauguration that's happening on Monday is that we won't have to deal with another debate about crowd sizes. Because today we got the news that because of the expected frigid weather in Washington D.C. trump's inauguration is going to be moved inside. Trump will now be sworn into Office as the 47th President in the Capitol Rotunda. That's the same place where President Ronald Reagan was sworn in when his inauguration fell on a particularly cold winter day back in 1985. The rotunda itself can only hold a few hundred people, so the event will also be played live on the Jubotrons at the Capitol One arena, where Trump has promised to join the crowd after the swearing in ceremony. Now, just to preempt any crowd sized conversations, the Capitol One arena can hold a little more than 20,000 people, and the Rotunda can hold another couple hundred. So that means it would be physically impossible for Trump to have anywhere near President Obama's 2009 crowd of an estimated 1.8 million people. The math just does not. Math. That is the one thing we can probably bet on come Monday. We are not going to have to rehash crowd sizes, probably. I mean, you also really never know. Beyond that, though, it is very difficult to know what to expect. Donald Trump is a known liar. He is a convicted felon. He has been found liable of defamation and sexual abuse and fraud. Given all of that, it's hard to trust a lot of what Donald Trump says, maybe most of it, whether he's talking about crowd sizes or policy. But at the same time, we can't just ignore what Donald Trump says either. He will be the 47th president of the United States and he Has a lot of plans. So as we look towards inauguration day, as we think about all of the things Trump promised he would do on day one, what exactly should we prepare for?
- [02:57]
Donald Trump
You know how beautiful the inauguration is and you're walking up these beautiful stairs to Capitol. Everything's so beautiful. As I'm walking up, I'll be signing about four or five different documents. I'm not going to wait to get to the. I will sign that on day one. I'm going to sign a lot of things. My hand will be very, very sore from signing. On day one, we're going to throw out Bidenomics. They're going to replace it with maganomics. Like your hats, magonomics. On day one, I will tell Pennsylvania energy workers to frack, frack, frack and drill. Drill, drill, drill, baby, drill. We're going to frack, frack, frack. I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day one. I'm going to give you a report on drones about one day into the administration. I will keep men out of women's sports 100 immediately. First day on day one, I will revoke Joe Biden's cruel policies on so called gender affirming care. On day one of the Trump presidency, I will restore the travel ban, suspend refugee admissions. On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history.
- [04:09]
Alex Wagner
But the question here is, would you give Ukraine weapons and funding?
- [04:12]
Donald Trump
If you are, I would sit down, let me just put it a nicer way. If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.
- [04:21]
Reporter
You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one. Is that still your plan?
- [04:26]
Donald Trump
Yeah, absolutely.
- [04:27]
Reporter
You promised to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Are you still vowing to follow through with that promise?
- [04:34]
Donald Trump
We're looking at it right now, Most likely, yeah.
- [04:37]
Reporter
Within your first 100 days.
- [04:39]
Donald Trump
First day, first day. You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. Except for day one. Except he's going crazy. Except for day one. Meaning I want to close the border and I want to drill. That's not a, that's, that's not, that's not retribution. I got, I'm going to be, I'm going to be. You know, he keeps. We love this guy. He says, you're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. Other than day one.
- [05:09]
Alex Wagner
Joining me now is the person who will be shepherding us as a network. And in this 9pm hours through the first 100 days of the Trump administration, my friend and colleague the great Rachel Maddow. Rachel, thank you for earlying up on your new duties this Friday night. It's great to see you.
- [05:27]
Rachel Maddow
I'm excited about this gig. I am excited about your Trump Land gig. I'm not. I don't know how to plan for whether or not the dictatorship extends past day one. Yeah, it's hard to kind of get your knees loose enough to be ready for that. You know what I mean?
- [05:44]
Alex Wagner
I think no amount of training can get your knees loose. Like, knee replacement surgery couldn't get your knees loose enough for it. But, like, let's just start at. Let's start at the beginning a little bit, or at least the beginning of today and the moving of the inaugural ceremonies inside the Capitol Rotunda. Trump is a huge fan of stagecraft. It's like a huge part of his message. It's maybe one of the more substantive parts of what he does. What do you think about the change in venue?
- [06:13]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. The move from the Capitol to the Capitol One arena is like a real. It's a real downgrade. No casting aspersions on the Capital One Arena. But I don't know. I mean, it's not good news for anybody who is a fan of Trump or who wanted to support the new administration, who was coming to Washington. You know, people are already there.
- [06:34]
Alex Wagner
And.
- [06:34]
Rachel Maddow
Have traveled from all over the place and can read the weather forecast and knew it was going to be cold. I do think it kind of puts a damper on the whole manly man administration thing, which they've been really trying to telegraph. I mean, I don't know that we've ever had confirmation hearings before an inauguration where a potential Cabinet nominee was bragging about the number of push ups he did that morning. And he was bragging about it because he was asked by a senator how many push ups he can do. I mean, they really have been leaning into this idea of Mark Zuckerberg's, to use Mark Zuckerberg's phrase, masculine energy. And this being the manliest, physically toughest administration ever. And we're getting back to sort of caveman style America, American machismo. And then simultaneously for them to say, and we don't want Trump to be cold, so we have to do it inside. It just. I think it undercuts their. I think it undercuts their message a little bit. I'm surprised they didn't try to come up with some other pretext, but they're just doing it because of the cold.
- [07:30]
Alex Wagner
Yeah. They have been saying today that Donald Trump cares about the health of the horses that law enforcement often sits atop during inaugural ceremonies, which is, I think, the first time Donald Trump has expressed any equine preferences. But we'll move on from that. Rachel, I have to ask you about the kind of big question around the resistance as it was expressed most publicly the day after Trump's inauguration. There was that huge women's march. There's no such thing planned for January 21, 2025. And I sort of wonder, as you think about that movement and where we are now, how you're reading it, how you're reading the landscape.
- [08:07]
Rachel Maddow
Well, I mean, there is going to be the People's March is going to be tomorrow in Washington, and there's going to be dozens of those all over, if not hundreds of those all around the country. So there's going to be smaller scale. Stu I think some of what's going on is what everybody in the kind of punditocracy is talking about, which is that people are scared and exhausted. But I also think that people are being strategic, knowing that the Trump administration is going to be here for four years and then we'll see. Knowing that those early demonstrations were important, I think in terms of establishing a sense for Trump that there was going to be something he was going to have to push against, establishing among those, the majority of the country who didn't vote for Trump, that they were not alone and that the country still stood for things other than Trumpism. I think that was all important, but I think those sort of, those stakes were sort of planted then. And I'm not sure that everybody feels like the thing that's needed right now is mass demonstration in the street in protest of his inauguration. Now, if there are mass deportation efforts and mass anti immigrant raids and they are carried out in the spirit that Stephen Miller and Tom Homan and Donald Trump and J.D. vance have been talking about for the last few months. And those start, as is being reported today in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, those start within hours of the inaugural. I think that we are gonna see resistance to those things. I think we are going to see communities react to households and businesses being raided and families being torn apart and them trying to build camps to put people in and all of that stuff they say they're gonna do that's gonna start, according to recent reporting, within 24 hours of the SW that sort of reactive demonstration we should probably count on. And I think the cities where they are threatening these deportation actions in the first 24 hours, whether it's Chicago or New York or LA or Miami or Denver or wherever else they're going to try. I think there is going to be a local reaction. I don't know how well organized or visceral it's going to be, but that could potentially be a big deal. And I think that we should be ready again, sort of ready for anything in terms of what that turns into.
- [10:21]
Alex Wagner
Yeah. Just to put a finer point on that. So the Wall Street Journal is reporting tonight that the administration, the incoming Trump administration, is planning to start large scale deportations on Tuesday, deploying as many as 200 ICE officers to Chicago. I just want to say, just for people who don't, aren't familiar with the number of officers it takes to take to engage in large scale raids, 200 officers seems like a lot, but I mean, Marco Rubio is saying they want to deport 10, 20, 30 million undocumented people from this country. That will require a redeployment of federal officers, the scale of which we have not seen in my lifetime. You know, so I think there's also the truism of the Trump years, which is there is a lot of talk that is very pitched and it is intended to invoke fear. And oftentimes it's quite successful. And it's not to minimize those affected by a 200 person ICE raid in the city of Chicago. But Donald Trump's ability to, ability to actually execute on the mass deportations he's promised is an open question. And I think within that there is a lot of opportunity for resistance, the kind of which you just outlined, Rachel?
- [11:29]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah, and I think he's also picking a fight. I mean, I think that there's a reason that he's picking all of the cities that they're sort of either floating or that are being reported or possibilities for these early deportation actions tend to be blue cities in blue states or blue cities in red states. And I think they're looking for a reaction. They're picking a fight. They want to go into places that have pro inflammation immigrant sentiment and then have lots of immigrants. And I think they want to do things in a performatively brutal way because they are hoping to shock and cow people in this country and to pick fights. And I think they're looking forward to the fights that they provoke. And you know, that's playing with fire in terms of our civic fabric. It's also playing with fire in terms of people potentially getting hurt. But I think that's what they've wanted for a very long time. I think that's Stephen Miller's vision of the sort of accelerationist race conflict that he has been looking for since he was a teenager. And they're going to try to start it. And Americans are going to have to decide both what our values are in this context, but also what is constructive and protective and nonviolent and helpful against. I think an administration that right from the outset is going to be pushing to see what it can get away with and what fights it can start, that it can turn to its own purposes.
- [12:49]
Alex Wagner
The immigration piece is obviously incredibly grave. Very serious, very real, very much on the horizon. There are other parts, though, of Trump's agenda that he's announced, whether it's like ending bidenomics and starting magonomics or annexing Greenland or buying Greenland. And I wonder kind of whether your thinking has changed at all about the sort of seriousness with which we should cover and discuss this sort of pie in the sky ideas like making Canada the 51st state or taking control of the Panama Canal or Greenland, which, by the way, the Danish government is not dismissing as a joke. Right?
- [13:22]
Donald Trump
Sure.
- [13:22]
Alex Wagner
He said he seems more emboldened. He has national security staff that worked on the Greenland thing in his first term. He has a different crew coming in that seems much more willing to bend the knee and genuflect and do whatever he wants. Do you have a different sort of thesis for how to talk about and analyze the more bonkers ideas that Trump floats?
- [13:47]
Rachel Maddow
Yeah. I mean, as you know, I have said over and over and over again, watch what they do, not what they say. But you're right, it raises the question of whether or not what they're saying crosses over into territory that needs to be covered, not just for its shock value, but because it's potentially going to be something they're going to do. We need to start preparing for it. And, I mean, I think it's a difficult call all the time. Just because he's saying something and it's shocking and transgressive and stupid on its face, doesn't mean it's not something he's going do. And in this case with the Greenland stuff, it's a sustained discussion. And you see, like, you know, people writing opinion columns at the New York Times about, like, what's the rationale behind this? I mean, people going along as if this is a good idea or as if this is anything other than a medieval, medieval idea of a little boy's idea about what kings get to do, take more territory, make country bigger is disturbing. Right. You would think that we as a country have a more adult idea about what we do with our power and our territorial boundaries. But once Trump has articulated it, everybody fills in the rationale behind him. So, yeah, I mean, every authoritarian leader the world over has always at some point, turned expansionist. Right? They like wars because it makes them feel good, it makes them feel big, it gets them the kind of adulation and, in some cases, emergency powers that they like. I don't know why we should expect Trump to be Trump to be different. Him picking a war with a NATO ally is also a great way to instantly dissolve the NATO alliance, which I know is something I think, we all think is something that he'd like to do by hook or by crook.
- [15:34]
Alex Wagner
Maybe he'll just dress up in the suit of armor and not actually try and annex other. Other places. Who can know? I do wonder.
- [15:39]
Rachel Maddow
We could do White House Renaissance Fair instead of Easter Egg Roll if that would scratch that itch.
- [15:44]
Alex Wagner
Yeah. Giant turkey legs for all. Why not Gilmore wear a maiden crown? Maybe not. Here's my question. Given how much of a live wire Trump is, how much he's vowed to persecute his enemies, there is news tonight that President Biden is reportedly considering preemptive pardons of Trump's political enemies, maybe on January 19th or 20th. What's your feeling about that?
- [16:12]
Rachel Maddow
I gotta say, I feel like I'm out of step with most of the commentary on this, because from the very beginning, from the first time that was first reported, I just felt like, oh, yeah, definitely, you should do that. And I know it's not that simple, and I know that I understand the arguments against it, which is, as Biden himself has articulated, like, these people have done nothing wrong. Why do they need a pardon? I also understand, like, oh, if you give these pardons, then that will give you less of a moral leg to stand on for criticizing Trump's abuse of the pardon power. Trump is already very happy abusing the pardon power. Trump gave up pardon to Jared Kushner's dad and now is making him ambassador to France. Like, the idea that Trump is looking for other recent presidents to decide what's morally and politically acceptable when it comes to pardons is ridiculous. He pardoned Paul Manafort. He interfered in Roger Stone's sentencing and got Michael Flynn's plea over. I mean, the guy. Anyway, the idea that there's any sort of, like, moral calculus that involves a comparison of Donald Trump to anybody on these things, I just think is not living in reality. And I think that Biden realistically can count on the fact that Trump is not going to act in good faith that if he's going to put in an attorney general who at the Republican National Convention said, yeah, lock her up. I love that. If he's going to put somebody like Kash Qanon Patel and the head of the FBI who says he's going to abolish the FBI and turn it into a museum of the deep state, I mean, yeah, you're not talking about a good faith cast of characters who's planning on using the criminal justice system in a way that meets our historical standards for what counts as a serious and well predicated action. And so, yeah, he should protect people who don't deserve to be abused with that system. And Trump has been, and Patel has been open enough about. They've been open enough about who exactly they're planning on going after, they should just take the Entire list of 60 people in Patel's book and on the basis of the fact that they're in Patel's book, give them all pardons. All the people who Trump has threatened on the campaign trial, give them pardons. You're not dealing with somebody who's looking to you to make fine, morally grained distinctions here about how he's going to use the pardon power based on what you do with it. Just protect people who don't deserve to be destroyed by these people who are promising to do it. I just don't think it's that hard. What do you think about it?
- [18:50]
Alex Wagner
I agree with you. And I also think the fact that the White House is floating the notion of potential preemptive pardons right now, when it's the closing hours of the Biden administration is a pretty good indicator that it's gonna happen or that they're quite close to convincing the president because otherwise, why confirm it? We'll see, though.
- [19:07]
Rachel Maddow
I just. Yeah, I mean, I just think like with the January 6th Committee, for example, like, I'm sure there's distinctions between some of those people wanting the pardon and some of them not. Ignore that. Just give them all the same pardon. Give the same pardon to literally everybody who's in Kash Patel's book, to everybody who Trump has singled out on the campaign trail or that members of his campaign have singled out, members of the transition have singled out just do it. And yeah, people grind their teeth about it, but it will also prevent those people from being destroyed by a bad faith, incoming administration that's promising to destroy them for political reasons and as an abuse of our criminal justice system. You can protect it with the stroke of a pen. You can protect those people with the stroke of a pen. And I just, I just really think that President Biden should do it. And I hope he does.
- [19:53]
Alex Wagner
I do, too. We are in a completely different landscape, Rachel. As you know, I'm going to be out on the road for 100 days and I ask you, can I bring you anything back?
- [20:05]
Rachel Maddow
Yes. You can bring me a lot of field reporting that we're going to be using at 9pm every single time you bring something back. I mean, honestly, the world is your oyster. Terms of the airtime that you want and when you want it and whose show you want to be on. 9 o'clock is available to you for all of it that you want. I can't wait to see what you're going to do. Do you know where you're going first?
- [20:27]
Alex Wagner
We're going to be in Washington. We're going to be doing our inaugural coverage with you. Chris Hayes and I are going to be anchoring the afternoon. And then I'm down to Washington, D.C. which is where a lot of things are apparently happening, including the end of Bidenomics and the beginning of Macanomics and a whole host of other things. But as you say, I will be bringing it all back to you as long, as well as some commemorative keychains and maybe some snow globes. Sky's the limit.
- [20:49]
Rachel Maddow
Rachel Maddow, I will keep your seat warm for 100 days and then very happily vacate it once you are done with this project.
- [20:56]
Alex Wagner
If you need takeout options for lunch, I got plenty. My friend. Thank you for spending some more of your Friday night that we are grabbing back from you. Thank you for doing it early. You are a goddess. Thank you for helping us understand what is in front of us and what is soon to be our reality for the next 100 days.
- [21:14]
Rachel Maddow
Great.
- [21:14]
Alex Wagner
Rachel Maddox, thank you.
- [21:17]
Rachel Maddow
Thanks, Alex. I'll see you Monday.
- [21:18]
Alex Wagner
See ya. Still lots more head tonight, including some Democrats have decided if you can't beat him, join them. And they are heading down to Mar a Lago. But what does the rest of the Democratic Party do once Donald Trump is president once again? We're going to get to that. But first, a Supreme Court decision today clears the way for TikTok to go dark on Sunday Slates Mark Joseph Stern joins me next to discuss whose lap the tik tock hot potato is landing in next. Stay with us. We have major breaking news right now.
- [21:57]
Mark Joseph Stern
The United States Supreme Court has just.
- [21:59]
Alex Wagner
Upheld the Tik Tok ban. So that's it, y'all. Tik tok is gone to the US Government I'm never forgiving you for this.
- [22:07]
Rachel Maddow
This is the kind that fascist governments do.
- [22:12]
Alex Wagner
TikTok users did not hold back today, reacting with all the feels to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold a federal ban on the social media app that has more than 170 million American users. At this point, it is unclear what the Future holds for TikTok. It could go dark on Sunday unless the app's owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, sells TikTok to a non Chinese company before the clock strikes midnight. TikTok might also just disappear from the app stores so you can't download it anymore. It is all one giant TBD. Even now, TikTok CEO is still trying to save the app in the United States by currying favor with President Elect Trump, who was originally in favor of banning the app before he wasn't.
- [22:59]
TikTok CEO
On behalf of everyone at TikTok and all our users across the country, I want to thank President Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States. We are grateful and pleased to have the support of a president who truly understands our platform, one who has used TikTok to express his own thoughts and perspectives, connecting with the world and generating more than 60 billion views of his content in the process.
- [23:27]
Alex Wagner
Joining me now is Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer for Slate, who covers the courts. Mark? Okay, okay. TikTok released a statement tonight saying that TikTok will be forced to go dark unless President Biden provides clearer assurances about his plans not to enforce the TikTok ban. Now, Donald Trump has also signaled he would also not enforce the ban. Congress is also considering a delay, which begs the question, why did this matter even go to the Supreme Court at all? It sort of feels like the court was the sort of hot potato lap of last resort, like we don't want to deal with it. Can you just shut this all down? Supreme Court. But they didn't, did they, Mark?
- [24:00]
Mark Joseph Stern
Yeah. No. The Supreme Court refused to step in and bail out lawmakers who had passed this ban. I think it's worth noting that this was a bipartisan bill. It passed with large majorities in Congress. It was supported by President Biden. But in his first term, President Trump had also sought to ban TikTok. So as recently as a year ago, there was really broad bipartisan consensus that this app was a problem. Fast forward to today and suddenly you have Joe Biden saying that he won't enforce the ban. Trump indicating wants to somehow save the app. And, you know, I think the Supreme Court actually deserves some credit for staying in its own lane and refusing to bail out lawmakers who have cold feet. The court applied very straightforward analysis. It said that this was not targeting speech on the basis of its content, that it was related to national security, and then ducked out. Really just peaced out and said, you guys deal with this. It is not gonna be our problem anymore.
- [24:57]
Alex Wagner
Do you see it at all as a rebuke to Trump? Because it, you know, it continues an issue for him. He has had a difficult navigating this. I think he would have liked it very much to be taken off the table. Do you read anything into that?
- [25:09]
Mark Joseph Stern
So I wouldn't call it a rebuke to Trump, but I would note that Trump filed a brief at the Supreme Court in this case urging the justices to simply delay the ban until he became president and could allegedly save it, which, by the way, would not be legal, but it's what he argued anyway. And I think it was a little bit of a rebuke that the justices did not even acknowledge his brief in their decision. The unanimous opinion ignored the fact that the incoming president has promised to save TikTok, and it gave a lot of credence to Congress's prior determination that this is a national security threat, that the Chinese parent company of TikTok is collecting massive amounts of data on Americans, very sensitive data that it is legally required to share with the Chinese government upon request. So it read to me like, at a minimum, the court was reminding the nation and the incoming president that this poses serious national security concerns that can't just be wished away because the TikTok CEO said nice things to Donald Trump.
- [26:10]
Alex Wagner
I also just want to take a moment to, like, put a post it note on the day that Sonia Sotomayor writes the opinion and Neil Gorsuch writes a concurrence like that. It just. That does not happen any. Well, I don't. You tell me. But it just seems like an extraordinarily unified court on this opinion. And I wonder if you can talk about sort of the narrowness of their decision perhaps being the factor in terms of bringing everybody together.
- [26:38]
Mark Joseph Stern
Yeah. So Congress had two justifications when it passed this law. And the Supreme Court was very clear that it was only relying on one of them, the much narrower justification. The court said, look, Congress proved that TikTok is gathering all this data on American users. It proved that the Chinese government can access the data. That is enough for us to uphold the law, because that is not an attempt to censor speech or suppress ideas. And what the Supreme Court declined to address was Congress's other rationale, which I think was actually fairly troubling, which was this idea that the Chinese government, government could sort of change or alter the speech on TikTok in order to sow discord in America or promote the Chinese Communist Party's aims. The Court said, you know, that is a kind of secondary rationale. It might trouble us a little, but it's not necessary for us to decide the case. I think what united Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch is that in a weird way, they are very much the civil libertarians on the court. Even though they're far apart on a lot of issues, they do share a deep distrust of government. And they were both concerned that Congress had this other idea about, you know, preventing the Chinese government from spreading propaganda. And they wanted to note that propaganda might be bad, but it's still free speech. And that the Court's decision was very narrow, only focused on protecting data, and that the Court did not pass judgment on some potential future law that attempts to limit propaganda on social media. That kind of law might pose much more serious First Amendment problems.
- [28:03]
Alex Wagner
Well, it's clear that this is not the last time we're going to have to grapple with this because I believe that the most downloaded app in the US on Monday was the alternative to TikTok, RedNote, sorry, little red Book, which is known in Chinese as xiaohongshu. So, you know, it's not like the apps owned by the Chinese are going anywhere here in the 21st century. And neither is the hot potato issue of how to regulate them. Mark Joseph Stern, making the complicated, distilling it to the very clear. Thank you for making the time tonight, my friend. I appreciate your Friday tonight.
- [28:37]
Mark Joseph Stern
Of course. Thanks so much.
- [28:38]
Adam Chandler
Alex.
- [28:39]
Alex Wagner
Still had this evening, Donald Trump is hosting billionaires at Mar a Lago, planning to party with them next week and offering massive tax cuts for the rich. What's he doing for all the non billionaires who voted for him because of the price of eggs? That's.
- [29:05]
Reporter
The federal minimum wage has been 725 since 2009. For these 19 states that voted for you, are you going to raise the federal.
- [29:15]
Donald Trump
It's a very low number. I will agree. It's a very low number. Let me give you the downside though. In California, they raised it up to a very high number. It's had a very negative impact. But there is a level at which you could do it. Absolutely.
- [29:28]
Alex Wagner
It's a very low number. That may be how Donald Trump thinks about most economic issues. Big number or small number. And it definitely seemed like Trump was saying in that interview that he was open to some sort of increase in the federal minimum wage. But just in case anyone believed that, here was Trump's pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, at his confirmation hearing yesterday.
- [29:53]
Rachel Maddow
Will you work with those of us who want to raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage to take millions of Americans out of poverty?
- [30:03]
Scott Besant
Senator, I believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue.
- [30:09]
Rachel Maddow
So you don't think we should change the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?
- [30:14]
Scott Besant
No, sir.
- [30:16]
Alex Wagner
There you have it. There it is. The incoming Trump administration thinks it's just fine that about a million Americans live on $7.25 an hour, hour or less. For context here, that's an annual salary of $15,000 with no time off. It has been nearly 16 years since we have raised the federal minimum wage in this country, which is the longest stretch in U.S. history that the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant since it was established in 1938. Later in his testimony, Scott Besant also made it clear that he will prioritize preserving tax cuts for the wealthiest American, even as he maintains that the poorest among us should essentially make do with sub poverty wages.
- [31:02]
Senator Warner
Do you agree that ending the tax cuts for those making more than 400,000 would help close the deficit and reduce our national debt?
- [31:11]
Scott Besant
Senator Warner, I do not. I believe that you would capture an inordinate amount of small business people who largely are in that cohort of 400,000 to a million.
- [31:26]
Senator Warner
So you wouldn't cut it off at 400,000. What about $1 million?
- [31:30]
Scott Besant
Again, I believe these are small business pass through owners.
- [31:33]
Senator Warner
What about those making more than 10 million? Would we reduce the deficit by extending those tax cuts for folks making about $10 million?
- [31:46]
Scott Besant
Sir, again, I think it's important that we put in incentives for them to Invest.
- [31:52]
Senator Warner
What about $1 billion?
- [31:54]
Scott Besant
Sir, again, that. I think that these are the job creators.
- [32:03]
Alex Wagner
Donald Trump has somehow managed to convince a significant portion of Americans into thinking that he is a champion of the working class. But even before he takes office, the people Trump has surrounded himself with are revealing the real agenda. In just three days, Trump will take office in front of an audience that is set to include the three richest men in the country, all of whom have either donated seven figure sums to his inauguration or spent massive amounts of money helping Trump get reelected. One of those billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg, is going the extra mile to throw Trump a lavish party on inauguration night. One that will be co hosted by a posse of Zuckerberg's fellow billionaires. All of that comes as President Biden prepares to leave office, having enacted one of the most pro working class agendas in generations. In an interview last night with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell, President Biden expressed regret about how he communicated his successes to the American public.
- [33:00]
Donald Trump
The mistake we made was, I think I made was not getting our allies to acknowledge that the Democrats did this. Ironically, I almost spent too much time on the policy and not enough time on the politics.
- [33:24]
Alex Wagner
How do Democrats win the messaging war? And how do they make sure the American people see Trump and his fellow plutocrats for what they are? I'll talk to someone who has traveled the country talking to working class Americans about some of these very issues. Issues coming up next. In the weeks since Donald Trump won reelection, Republicans have been flocking to Mar? A Lago to huddle on Trump's legislative agenda. There has also been a procession of Silicon Valley billionaires traveling to Florida to genuflect to Trump in person. Elon Musk took it a step further and just moved it to a cottage on Trump's property. But Democrats are also getting in on the action. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman accepted an invitation from Trump earlier this month saying that he will meet with anyone to secure some wins, including President Trump. We don't know if any wins were secured in that meeting, but Trump told the Washington examiner it was fascinating and that Senator Fetterman impressed him. Another Democrat who may be looking to secure a win is the federally indicted New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who met with Donald Trump at Mar A la Chicago today. Joining me now is Adam Chandler, a journalist who reports on labor and the author of the new book 99% a new working History of the American Way of Life. First of all, congratulations on this book, Adam. It is coming out at such an important time as Democrats try and figure out the way forward. You know, we talk about Adams and Fetterman going down to, I don't know that they're ring kissing so much as they have different agendas, I think. But there's, there's this, I won't call it a circling of the wagons, but there's a real sense that Democrats need to figure out how to make their message resonate more, what the message should be and what didn't work in the last election and maybe the last several election cycles. You have been talking to people about sort of the promises and the failures, and I kind of wonder what your sort of working thesis is given your reporting in this book about what parts of the democratic agenda have worked and which ones haven't?
- [35:30]
Adam Chandler
Well, it's a great question and it's a tough one to answer. But what I think we're circling around is the reality that we spent a lot of time in the last year talking about preserving democracy. It's an important thing and we're only going to hear more about it as things ratchet up in the next couple of days. But for people who are struggling, for people who have been working hard and have been told all their lives, all you have to do is work hard and you'll get ahead and have fallen behind anyway. Preserving democracy doesn't resonate. It's not a message that really hits home in part because they've been let down by democracy.
- [36:03]
Alex Wagner
Yeah. Do you think when you say preserving democracy, I think immediately of January 6th in the conversation therein, do you think that extends to all the sort of institutional bulwarks Democrats say they represent? I'm thinking of President Biden talking about oligarchs, like does the idea that the government, the federal government would be controlled by a cabal of rich billionaires, do you think, and I know that's not a question you necessarily expect explored in the reporting you did last year and the year before, but do you think that kind of abstract concept of how a democracy should work and that it should be representative of the people and when it's not, that that's a problem, do you think that that matters to people, the oligarchy argument?
- [36:43]
Adam Chandler
Well, it's a hard concept to grasp in part because it also does seem abstract compared to what we're dealing with. But yeah, you listen to these extremely wealthy people talk about slashing the government, making it more efficient. The opposite of weak government is oligarchy. That is what happens when you have a weak government. You have people who are unelected officials and powerful people calling their shots. And you can hit that note pretty hard and say it's ridiculous that nobody elected Elon Musk to any position and he's wielding enormous influence and power. That's a problem. And that's something that people should resent, especially given his track record, his wealth, the things that he did to get his wealth. It wasn't that he's a self made man. That's a lot of the things I talk about in the book is the reality that he inherited a lot of money. He got a lot of tax breaks, we paid for a lot of the innovation that he is Capitalizing on to become the richest person in the world. And that's something that gets left out of the story.
- [37:39]
Alex Wagner
That seems like a very important, I mean, I feel like the Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, the cabal of billionaires that Trump is gonna have in attendance at his inauguration is a very important pressure point for Democrats. Like this notion that it's the silver plate club doesn't seem like that's something the American people want. Right. And we played in the earlier block some sound from the treasury secretary saying over and over again, he didn't believe in a federal minimum wage. He didn't believe on increasing taxes for the richest Americans, not just 401 million people who are making a million dollars a year, $10 million a year, a billion dollars a year. It seems to me that that is an opening for Democrats to really expose what the Republican age people. From your experience, how, how do you deliver that message? How do you, how do you talk about it in a way that's resonant?
- [38:31]
Adam Chandler
Well, you know, one, I'm not a Democratic pollster, strategist, but what I will say is we had this opportunity in the early days of the pandemic where we saw all these social safety net reforms and safeguards come into place. We gave rental assistance to people and had eviction moratoriums so people weren't thrown out of their homes. We had this big boost in unemployment insurance that people used to pay down debt and get certifications, get better jobs. We also had the expanded child tax credit, which reduced child poverty by over half and was ultimately not renewed. None of these protections were renewed. We were a few votes shy of making these huge, sweeping changes where government would be responsive to citizens and citizens would be a way to look at being American as opposed to being just an individual.
- [39:14]
Alex Wagner
Right.
- [39:15]
Adam Chandler
And they all disappeared. No wonder people were furious. No wonder people were so upset. And that's really, in my travels, what I hear a lot of is just. And I'm sure when you hit the road too, you'll hear a lot of it. Ultimately, people are angry about the fact that they had the makings of a social safety net. For a minute that seemed extraordinary. But it's pretty commonplace in all the countries that we compare ourselves to.
- [39:37]
Alex Wagner
And then that it went away. And they don't know where to go to get that back. Because if they're looking to Donald Trump, I'm not. Well, we don't know.
- [39:44]
Adam Chandler
Right? We don't.
- [39:45]
Alex Wagner
It's a big open question. You and I will both be examining the answers to it in the come I'm sure in the coming weeks and months. Adam Chandler, the book is 99% perspiration. It is on sale now. Thank you so much for joining me tonight, my friends.
- [39:56]
Adam Chandler
Thanks and good luck on the road.
- [39:58]
Alex Wagner
Thanks. We'll be right back. On Monday, Donald Trump begins his second term as president. Along with my colleagues Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell, Joy Reid, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Stephanie Rule and Rachel Maddow, I will be part of MSNBC special coverage which begins at 10am Eastern. Monday will also mark the beginning of MSNBC's very special programming covering Trump's first 100 days in office. That's part of what I am referring to as a special metabolic event where we are all going to be working extra hard. The great Rachel Maddow will be guiding you through the events of those first 100 days in this 9pm hour, five days a week starting Monday night. And for those same 100 days and 100 nights, I will be out in the field reporting from across the country and overseas, looking at the people making all of the big decisions and going to the many, many, many places impacted by them. It's part of a new series we're calling the first 100 days. I'll be covering the biggest stories on the ground as they develop in real time. And you're going to be able to watch that coverage across the network in primetime as well as in this 9pm hour. I also plan to document all of it in a brand new podcast, Trumpland with Alex Wagner. This also means that tonight will be my last show here at 9pm for 100 days. Who knows when I next sit in this chair? I may be completely gray or have a new tattoo or an accent. It's anyone's guess. It's going to be an adventure. These are extraordinary times. And so we are all aiming to achieve what the moment demands. And we hope you will hang with us for these next 100 days and of course, beyond. Buckle up, guys. That is our show for tonight.