"Here is where things stand"

Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. I'm pretty confident talking into a mic. Hey, I'm doing it right now. But home projects? I second guess everything. Is that noise normal? Is that water damage? Who do I even call? That's where Thumbtack comes in. Just upload a photo or voice note and it uses AI-powered search to match you with the right top-rated local pro. So instead of guessing, you get clarity and can hire with confidence. For your next home project, try Thumbtack. Hire the right pro today.

Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o'clock in New York. It is day 20 of the war with Iran. And here's where things stand. A series of retaliatory strikes by Iran on oil and gas facilities across the Middle East is adding fuel to the fire that is the worst oil supply crisis in history. It is so bad, in fact, that Donald Trump's own Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, says they're considering lifting sanctions on oil from Iran. That is, of course, the country that we are at war with. Here at home, Donald Trump's top national security officials left us all with more questions and answers in a series of briefings. Speaking before the House Intel Committee, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, repeated a line she first trotted out yesterday to much criticism that a, quote, imminent threat to our country is whatever Donald Trump says it is. Take a listen to this line of questioning and answering by Congressman Jason Crow. Did you or the IC make any assessments as to the timing of potential threats facing the United States from Iran in the last 90 days? I'm sure there was timelines factored into the intelligence assessments that were delivered. Did any of them show imminence? The imminent nature of a threat is determined by the president based on a totality of the intelligence and information provided to him. Okay. Her former deputy Joe Kent didn't agree and didn't leave it to Donald Trump to tell us what the meaning of imminent is. Here he is in no uncertain terms saying that there was, in fact, no imminent threat posed by Iran. The argument that there was an imminent threat, as in Iran was planning to attack us immediately. That just simply did not exist. There was no intelligence that said, hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack. They're going to do some kind of a 9-11 Pearl Harbor, et cetera. They're going to attack one of our bases. There was none of that intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard also said that the goals of Israel, our ally and our ally in this war, are not aligned with the goals of the United States of America. The objectives that have been laid out by the president are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government. And how do they differ? We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the Ayatollah and the supreme leader. And they continue to focus on that effort. How does that differ from our goals? The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran's ballistic missile. launching capability, their ballistic missile production capability, and their Navy, the IRGC Navy. Those comments are particularly significant today in the wake of an attack by Israel and an Iranian gas field, which led to scenes like this all across the Middle East, a wave of attacks on oil and gas installations in Qatar.

led to fears that the energy crisis will only deepen. New York Times explains it like this, quote, while an end to the conflict would reopen the shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, serious damage to oil infrastructure would be longer lasting. That outcome is what economists fear most as they try and forecast the potential impact on the global economy. As crude rises, so does gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, and eventually those increases pass through to the prices of everyday goods. The attacks by Iran have sent Donald Trump scrambling in a true social post today. He announced that Israel will no longer target Iran's natural gas facilities and said that the Trump administration did not know about those strikes in advance. However, three Israeli officials tell the New York Times that Israel's strike on Iran's gas field was coordinated with the Trump administration. And Trump himself seems to suggest that he knew about the strike in comments in the Oval Office today. Watch those. And talked to Prime Minister from Benjamin Netanyahu about attacking the oil and gas fields. Yeah, I did. I did. I told him, don't do that. And he won't do that. We didn't discuss. You know, we do, we're independent, we get along great. It's coordinated. But on occasion, he'll do something. And if I don't like it. And so we're not doing that anymore. What? What? What? Yeah, I knew. We're independent, but sometimes he does what he does. We'll let you decide what those words mean. The direction of this war spiraling out of Donald Trump's control is abundantly clear, but it's happening at the same time that the questions are multiplying about the rationale for the war to begin with. It is where we start today with House Intelligence Committee's ranking member Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. Congressman, thank you for being here. Good to be with you, Nicole. Do you know the answer to, I mean, do you know what he, do you know what the, did they or did they not know about the strikes on oil and gas fields? I don't know the answer to that question. You know, I'm not privy in the day-to-day communications that the Oval Office has with the Israeli government. So I don't know. Look, it should surprise nobody that from time to time the interests of Israel and of the United States will diverge. You know, generally they don't, but sometimes they do. And, you know, the Israeli prime minister, I know him relatively well, have visited him on a number of occasions. head about what he thinks is who should and will happen here. And I'm sure he listens to the President of the United States. But, you know, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do everything the President of the United States tells him to do. Congressman, let me see if you can help us understand your current understanding of why we are at war with Iran.

Yeah, I mean, look, let's start with the facts here. You know, there was no imminent threat from Iran. Full stop. I've reviewed thousands of intelligence reports and talked to lots of people. There was no imminent threat. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't deny that. Tulsi Gabbard has developed this construction that I think is in the service of keeping her job because she can't contradict the president or you don't keep your job in that administration. But there was no imminent threat. And there was certainly no near-term. nuclear threat. And you don't need to take my word for it. You know, nine months ago, Donald Trump was saying that the nuclear infrastructure was obliterated. I don't know if that was precisely true or not, but there was no near-term threat. So that leaves the question, you know, why did the president decide to launch this strike, particularly given the fact that our intelligence community and presumably people like Marco Rubio would have said there's some chance that the Strait of Hormuz is getting closed and, you know, gasoline prices. will go up by a dollar. You know, that I can't tell you other than I think that, you know, Donald Trump, in that moment, this is not a deep, long-term, multi-dimensional strategic thinker. In that moment, he thought it was his moment, I guess, to secure a place in history by finally doing whatever his version is of wiping Iran off the map. I mean, I give you that because that sort of sees, seems to be the through line of his explanation for why we're at war in the Middle East again. So no imminent threat, and it is not the testimony of Tulsi Gabbard today or yesterday that there was. But you're coming to another rationale that is out there, and that's regime change. It seems that it was known ahead of time that the regime could turn to someone more hardline and anti-American. than the Ayatollah, which based on reporting the Wall Street Journal, sounds like exactly what it has done. What is your sense of whether regime change is or was or could be the goal? It's not the goal. And in fact, I think you played a clip there in which that was one of the examples of where our objectives differ from the Israelis. But I've heard multiple senior Trump administration officials say that is not our goal, which, by the way... On the one hand, makes you feel good, right? To actually change the regime, you would need a massive amount of military assets on the ground. You know, you can't change, you very rarely can change a regime from the air. And so I'm not looking for ways for us to get more involved here. But on the other hand, and this is the classic definition of a dilemma, on the other hand, if the same regime is in place, look, they can keep the strait of Hormuz closed. with, you know, three guys in a motorboat in a couple of mines, right? You know, they don't need aircraft carriers or destroyers or, you know, F-35s to close that straight. They can keep it closed. And if you have the same regime run by a more extreme Supreme Leader than we had before, who's, by the way, mother and daughter and wife were apparently all killed in military strikes. If that regime is still in place, what do you think they're going to do? Are they going to enter into good faith negotiations because Donald Trump declares victory and it's time to leave? Hard to imagine. What is your understanding of their current internal discussions about whether or not they will send troops into Iran boots on the ground?

Yeah, I can't give you an answer to that question. What I can tell you is what they're telling the Congress. And what they're doing is they are leaving the door open to troops on the ground, which if you've watched any of these conflicts or if you go far, you know, if you go back to Vietnam where we started out with a very, very limited military mission or look at any number of other conflicts, this is the way you get something called mission creep, right? So this war was sold. It was sold to the American public in as much as it was sold as all, as a very brief thing. We'd be in and out. And now all of a sudden they're keeping the door open to troops on the ground. No congressional approval, no congressional deliberation, and no real backing either by our allies or by the majority of the American people. That is a very perilous place from which to be expanding an already difficult war. And let me just, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but the troops maybe put on the ground to do what if the goal is not to change the brutal heinous regime and not to deal with any imminent threat because there wasn't one. What do they say the troops are being kept on the table to do? Well, again, they're not being that specific with us. And oh, by the way, you're welcome to give me a hard time everybody else does. But here's why they would do it. They would do it for some set of missions that would involve maybe trying to secure the land from which you can fire very rudimentary missiles into tankers trying to get through the Strait of Hormuz. There is talk about maybe a special operations raid to get the uranium out of there. By the way, that's completely bananas, right? I mean, the idea that we could put troops into three or four different locations in a hostile country to dig out a bunch of uranium that is whatever it is, 300 meters underground is crazy. But, you know, there are, you can see the temptations because right now military people are telling the president, we can't open up the Strait of Hormuz. To do that, we would need to control that straight. And to do that, we would need to control the land next to the strait. So that's, you know, that's why they're not foreclosing that option. Let's deal with the straight of our moves. Donald Trump has spelled it straight like a straight line and called them the straits. It's clear that his grasp of what and where it is and what it does was not extensive ahead of the beginning of the war. But that's not the same thing as the intelligence assessment, not predicting this would happen. What is your sense of the economic calamity before us in the energy markets and the... decision-making or planning or lack thereof of the Trump administration. Well, I mean, two things. Let's be clear. You don't need to be a CIA analyst to understand the risk and the capability of Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, even if we've sunk their Navy, destroyed their missile launchers, and set back their nuclear program. You basically need to be like a freshman in college who is vaguely familiar with the Middle East, right? This is easy stuff. There's no question in my mind that that information was there. Now, whether somebody had the brass in the Oval Office to say, Mr. President, if you do this,

is a meaningful risk that oil will go to $110 a barrel, which is what it was today. Gasoline prices will be up by over a dollar. Whether somebody read him that riot act is an interesting question. That's a pretty good way to lose your job in this administration. But the information was there, why the president chose to go hell for leather, even though there was a good chance that we would be precisely where we are today, right? And by the way, it's not just gasoline prices, Nicole. Talk to farmers. A huge amount of fertilizer comes. through the Strait of Hormuz, but it's not, and it hasn't been for the last two weeks. So farmers all over the world are saying, oh my God, food prices are going up because I can't get fertilizer. All of this stuff was known, but Donald Trump took the decision he took, even though that information was available to him. What are you telling your constituents who are scared and stressed about both the idea of being at war and sucked as we've gone through even deeper into war that even someone on the receiving end of all the briefings that are happening can't really sort of clearly explain what we're doing and how long we're going to be there and why they're there? What are you hearing from your constituents and what do you tell them about both the war and the economic impact? Yeah, I'm trying to be forward-looking, Nicole. Look, the American public will decide and visit accountability on the Trump administration. for doing everything that Donald Trump has said he wouldn't do, right? Remember, when he was campaigning, really low prices and no wars. Well, now we have lots of wars and really high prices. So the American public will deliver accountability for what has happened. What I'm really focused on is how do we get out of there? How does this end, as General Petraeus so famously asked? How does it end without any more bodies being unloaded at Dover Air Force Base? The tragedy that we've now seen 13 times. How does this end so the three months... from now, people aren't paying $5 a gallon to fill up their cars. That's where I'm focusing. What I'm telling my constituents is that as awesome as our military power is, this ends when we strike a deal. When we say in exchange for whatever it is that they need, you will reopen the Straits of Hormuz. You will guarantee not to build a nuclear weapon and whatever else is on our list. But that's how this ends. And I don't see it trending that way right now. This was a threat briefing that you had today, even before Trump started a war with Iran. I think you were one of the few people saying publicly what most former national security officials have said privately now for many months, which is that we are vulnerable and the chatter is as high as it's been really ever, including before 9-11. What is your sense of our preparation for the threat environment we face now with the addition? of the war on Iran. Well, we're seeing it, right? And I can only hope that the Oval Office, that the President didn't think that this was going to be a Caracas, where we overwhelm them, you know, kill 40 Cuban bodyguards and were gone, or even the bombing of the nuclear sites, which went flawlessly, right? This is now us with all of our military capability.

up against somebody who understands that they don't need to sink our aircraft carriers or down our aircraft, although they would like to do that. What they need to do is they need to bring the American economy and the global economy to a halt by keeping the Straits of Hormuz closed. They need to create enough chaos so that Westerners and investors are fleeing the Gulf states. They need to, and this is to your question, They need to create fear in the Western countries by what we call asymmetric stuff, activating, trying to inspire people to undertake terrorist attacks. And that is a very real risk today, much more significant than it was three weeks ago. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Russia is giving Iran some pretty extensive and specific help in targeting U.S. assets and installations. It seems like a difference, even between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0, that that doesn't seem to bother anyone in the Trump administration. I think Trump's response was, well, we helped Ukraine. Any insight from the briefings over the last two days about the posture with Russia? Yeah, I can't go there on the question of Russian intelligence sharing at all. But what I can do is make a larger point, which is, given what we have been doing inadequately, in my opinion, in Ukraine for the last four years, would it surprise anybody if Russia was trying to extract some revenge from the United States? And secondly, oh my God, Vladimir Putin, if there's one winner here... Who really benefits when oil prices skyrocket the way they have? Vladimir Putin. And, you know, the infinite wisdom of this president, we are now letting the Indians buy his oil so that he can buy the weapons that kill the very Ukrainians that we are trying to get advice and help from to help us defend against Iranian drones. I mean, you know, you just can't make this stuff up. Yeah, it does seem to have consolidated all of our adversaries into formation against us. Congressman Jim Himes, thank you for your time today. Thank you, Nicole. When we come back, we have some breaking news to tell you about. It has been... coming into focus since we've been on the air. The former director of the FBI, James Comey, has reportedly been subpoenaed in that wide-ranging grand conspiracy case that they're trying to assemble against anyone who ever investigated and sought to prosecute Donald Trump. We'll get to that development next. Also ahead, the Trump administration's latest plan to fight back against what we're talking to the congressman about, skyrocketing oil prices. when they hope will solve its own self-inflicted crisis, the desperate push now for Iranian oil, all engaged in a war against Iran, and later in the broadcast, selling the war with Iran, new reporting on how the Trump White House is making the case.

for what we're doing in the Middle East using video games and TikTok mashups, bucking convention and showing little regard for the seriousness for the life and death matter of war, alarming former defense officials and members of the military. The reporter on that story had for us, all that and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built-in AI, scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, the explosive and unsettling rise of prediction markets? I think legally the Supreme Court is going to ultimately decide how these things should be regulated. If there's a Democratic administration after Trump, I do think they're going to crack down. But you can see Kalshi already trying to get ahead of that by staffing up with former Biden people, with former Democratic senators, as a way of sort of signaling to the world. We're not just a Trump thing. The Trump family loves us. But look at all of our Democratic lobbyists. So they are. definitely staffing up and readying for that fight. That's this week on Why Is This Happening? Search for Why Is This Happening? Where are we listening right now and a follow. Turning to some news that has broken since we've been on the air, Axios, reporting that former director of the FBI, James Comey, has been subpoenaed in a wide-ranging grand conspiracy case against the ex-officials who investigated. and some who would go on to prosecute Donald Trump. That's according to two sources with knowledge of that situation. The subpoena for James Comey was reportedly issued last week and relates to his alleged role in the drafting of a January 2017 intelligence community assessment concerning Russia's election interference that favored Donald Trump. This so-called grand conspiracy case is based in the Southern District of Florida. And it relies on the belief that officials who worked for President Barack Obama and later Joe Biden broke the law back then before they knew who would win the 2016 election to try to undermine Donald Trump from his 2016 election through his federal indictments in 2023. It sounds bat bleep crazy, but it's really happening. I want to bring in New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush. He's reported extensively on the Trump administration's retribution efforts, as well as the many years of...

investigations into Russian interference. Also joining us former top DOJ official general counsel and former general counsel for the FBI are legal in us, Andrew Weissman, who was many moons ago, many lifetimes ago on the Mueller investigation, which was the post-2016 investigation into whether Donald Trump's campaign had any ties to Russia. This all sounds... like a soap opera, and it sounds crazy, but I just want to put before both of you what we're learning today and what we had as background and ask you to tell us what this means. Again, this is from Axios, Andrew Weissman, who's reporting former FBI director James Comey has been subpoenaed in the wide-ranging conspiracy case against the ex-officials who investigate and prosecuted Trump. Tell me what this means, and we should make clear this is totally separate from the... Trump administration's efforts to indict him in the Eastern District of Virginia. That was where Lindsey Halligan went in because the career officials wouldn't. This is a different investigation based in Florida with the perception at least of friendlier jurors and friendlier judges. So there's substance to talk about and there's procedure to talk about. Substantively, it's a little bit odd because many people will remember that James Comey, if you're looking at him in connection with his purportedly trying to undermine Donald Trump's 2016 bid for... The presidency, many people will be going, what are you talking about? They can remember the events of October, let alone in July of that year when James Comey did things that dramatically hurt Donald Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, both in July when he gave a press conference and denigrated. her and then when he announced in October that he was reopening the investigation. So that's the same person who, at least that the reporting is correct, is supposed to be engaged in a conspiracy to undermine Donald Trump. There are also, as you have reported over and over again, Nicole, there have been investigations into this by the Inspector General and by John Durham himself and nothing was found. In fact, they cleared him of and sort of the whole time period of any sort of wrongdoing in terms of any sort of intentional misconduct that was engaged in to hurt Donald Trump. So that's sort of substantively. Procedurally, it's quite odd because even though this is apparently a very different investigation, than the one in Virginia. Remember, the government is appealing the dismissal of the James Comey indictment in Virginia, and so that is pending. And so you do not under DOJ policy, or at least under DOJ policy, up till today, you don't subpoena somebody who is actually your targeting in a criminal case. He is every right in that situation.

to not only not be subpoenaed under DOJ policy, but he would have every right to assert the Fifth Amendment because the Department of Justice is trying to prosecute him and to get that case reinvigorated. So it's very, very odd. I have never seen that where you subpoena somebody who is a target in maybe one, if not two criminal cases that sort of violates DOJ. policy. There's also just a lot of issues about why it is in Florida, the statute of limitations having run because we're talking about something in 2016 that it's going to be very hard to sort of bootstrap into being some sort of timely investigation. So there are lots of procedural issues as well as substantive issues here if this reporting is accurate. The conduct that is reportedly under scrutiny, Glenn, is about the intelligence community assessment concerning Russia's election interference that Russia favored Trump. I believe Russia has said publicly standing next to Donald Trump that it and he, Vladimir Putin, favored Trump. The other piece that I think Andrew's getting at is that John Durham investigated the intelligence community's conduct and the Steele dossier that resulted in zero successful prosecutions, spent millions of dollars, went on longer than the Mueller probe. Horowitz, who was the Inspector General at DOJ, looked at James Comey's role in that specifically. And Jim Jordan has been holding hearings all over the country investigating these things for the better part in nine years. What is newly under investigation or are there simply new investigators? It's not clear. I should say we haven't confirmed the latest Axios report, but it's very consistent with what we've heard in the past and what we've reported in the past, which is the issuance of a dozen subpoenas with regard to the investigation into that intelligence assessment. The principal target of this is John Brennan, who is a former administration official. And the saga of this is quite remarkable in and of itself. The initial investigation was tasked to the Trump appointed U.S. attorney in eastern Pennsylvania, as we have reported, it appears he wanted nothing to do with this. And Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi's number two at the Department of Justice, shipped this down to Jason Kenyones. who is responsible for the investigation into the quote-unquote grand conspiracy. What is the grand conspiracy?

Hard to say. It's a notion of Donald Trump. It's this fantastical idea that there was a broad conspiracy by all these officials to destroy Donald Trump through various means, but it seems to have focused more squarely on this intelligence assessment and the use of the steel dossier. It gets very, very complicated. And also, as Andrew said, The five-year statute of limitations has run out. And again, apart from the fact that Eileen Cannon, the judge who essentially let Trump slide on the Miami documents, on the Marlago documents case, it's her jurisdiction. It's impossible to figure out why it's down there. So the bottom line is, this seems to be a mashup of two of Donald Trump's obsessions, getting... putting James Comey in court in one way or the other, who he regards as an enemy, and investigating this very, very broad conspiracy that Trump sees is seeking to undermine him. The piece that's important for people to understand is that this is not a secret effort that we're talking about. This is something that Trump allies talk about in public. Here is an advisor of the White House named Mike Davis talking about what his buddy, Mr. Kenyones, is up to. My good friend, Jason Redding Cignonettes, got confirmed as the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida and Miami. And I've been calling for a criminal probe for the last three plus years since the Mar-a-Lago raid for a grand jury to investigate conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S. C-S. Section 241 for these Lawfare Democrats, how they politicized and weaponized intel agencies and law enforcement, going back eight years to crossfire hurricane to take out Trump. His top aides like Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Jeff Clark, his supporters on January 6th. I've been very publicly calling for that on your show and 5,000 other media hits for the last three years. There's now a special grand jury that Jason just motioned the court in the Southern District of Florida to open in Fort Pierce. That's going to be impaneled in January. I think that sounds like a great place. to open up this grand jury on Crossfire Hurricane. So that's the plan. Karoline Leavitt also took to the podium of the White House briefing room over the summer and described former President Barack Obama as being very much in their sights as part of this investigation. Andrew Weissman, your thoughts.

Well, one really quick thing, just to correct one minor point, which is that John Durham, everything you said about John Durham's investigations correct other than he did have three prosecutions, one of which was a guilty plea. The two that went to trial were acquittals. I just wanted to point that out as a minor correction. Thank you. The idea of this grand conspiracy is... the way that they can try to get over the problem of the statute of limitations and also why they can somehow bring this in Florida. The piece about the statute of limitations to get little wonky is something about the conspiracy has to have happened within the last five years. So if you're trying to go after James Comey, or John Brennan for something that happened well past five years ago, you have to be able to say that some part of the conspiracy they were part of happened within the last five years. And then second, to get it to Florida, they have to somehow say that the Florida Mar-a-Lago case is part of the conspiracy. In other words, there's something that happened in Florida, and that's sort of the only thing I can think of that would be able to tie it to Florida. But remember, that is a case where a federal judge signed off on that search. And even Judge Cannon, I believe in connection with motions there, rejected the idea that the defendant who made the claim that it was a sort of selective or vindictive prosecution. So I'm not really sure how they're going to claim that. Plus, it's going to put back on the table. the validity of that case. I mean, this is something that Judge Cannon, as Glenn pointed out, really sort of made clear that was never going to see the light of day. Donald Trump tried to have that never see the light of day. Well, if this case goes forward, It's going to put front and center the Mar-a-Lago case, which, you know, I'm not saying that John Brennan and James Comey or anyone else should be made as sacrificial lamb for that. But you sort of wonder about the strategy here of putting back on the table something that the Trump administration tried mightily with some help for many people to not have it ever go to court. Glenn, I'll give you a quick last word. What happens next? It's not clear. I think we're going to see a lot more of these subpoenas. I mean, the real question here is, what are the external events? How does it impact this? Trump's been able to kind of have his way. He was riding the way from his 2024 election. We're in a very different political environment right now. There's not a political appetite for this kind of thing. Let's see where this goes. I think the wheels are going to spin, but whether or not it's going to go anywhere is the politics is going to decide. Yeah, the Times has had some great reporting on the fact that the retribution is a lot of smoke and thunder, but not a lot of results. Glenn Thrush, Andrew Weissman, thank you for hopping on the air with the breaking news for us. Thank you. When we come back, the desperate measures the Trump White House is trying to take to get gas prices under control to start going down instead of soaring ever higher. This war in Iran does not seem to be winding down anytime soon.

We had a break the glass plan across the administration and a treasury. We unsanctioned Russian oil in the coming days. We may unsanction the Iranian oil that's on the water. It's about 140 million barrels. So depending on how you count it, that's 10 days to 2 weeks of supply that the Iranians had been pushing out. That would have all gone to China. In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians. You heard it there from the Treasury Secretary himself, confirming today that the Trump administration is considering lifting sanctions on Iran's oil amid its war against Iran. It is seemingly the latest desperate perplexing, and as Scott Bessent said, temporary fix for this massive global energy crisis and soaring gas prices at the pump right here at home. AAA says the national average at the pump surged to $3.88 per gallon today, officially the highest since 2022. An expert at GasBuddy says Americans are now spending half a billion dollars more and counting on fuel every single day than Americans were spending three weeks ago, predicting will likely hit an average of $4 a gallon next week. I want to bring in the author of the message of the market substack, Ron Insana, also joining us, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General, Steve Anderson. General Anderson, let me first ask you, is it normal to lift sanctions on the country with which you are at war and the country, Russia, that is aiding the country you are at war with? Well, thank you, Nicole. And the answer is no, unequivocally no. You would not give money to an adversary like Russia that is engaged in a war in Ukraine. And of course, they're going to use their revenue from those sales to continue and to accelerate that war against Ukraine. It's a terrible thing. And oh, by the way, the Russians are also sympathizing and assisting the Iranians. So it's going to give them more fuel in order to do that. But this is absolutely terrible that we're doing this. And it just shows that what you get in this administration is people that were selected for their positions solely on the basis of their loyalty to Donald Trump. They're arrogant, they're ignorant, and they have no business doing what they're doing. And Scott Bessent is one of those. What this is going to do is going to fuel the fire in another nation, another war, and it's going to come back to burn them. What we need to do, of course, is do everything we can to open the strait of Hormuz. You know, there's a risk, I believe, of global recession.

But the only person though that's getting, or the only country that's getting any ships through the strait or who moves is Iran. They've actually increased their output of oil since this war began. They've sent 90 ships through the strait since this war began. The war is expanding. It's driving more and more stability. This is bad for the global economy, bad for global security, and bad for the United States. Ron and Sana, I had Congressman Jim Himes on and was not trying to badger him, but he's had a lot of briefings and was trying to understand what the administration says the war is about. If Tulsi Gabbard's testimony is that there was no imminent threat, it is Congressman Jim Himes' attestation that no one is saying it's about regime change, despite Donald Trump posting on social media, some things that seem to contradict that. But if the... Economy doesn't understand why they're there. How does the economy intuit why or how it might end? Well, what happens is you end up with headline-driven markets and, you know, second-order effects in the economy based on what markets do, particularly the oil market, which sold off on the comments from Secretary Scott Bessent. And also we saw oil drop about $1.3.4 today after spiking overnight on comments from Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the war could be over earlier and that Israel would be helping the U.S. clear the straight. But the... element of not just uncertainty, Nicole, but unpredictability about this entire process can freeze businesses in place, you know, keeping them from making decisions they would otherwise make or investments they would otherwise make. Certainly you outlined the impact as having on consumers at the pump and also generally pushes up inflation and keeps the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates. So this all redounds in a negative way to the U.S. economy as long as this persists. The longer the war goes on, the higher oil prices are likely to go. particularly if there's more damage to oil infrastructure throughout the region. And so we're basically, you know, tied to the events as they happen, as opposed to these, you know, kind of very short-term reactions to comments made by either U.S. or Israeli government officials. I want to press you on which officials, Marcus, are responding to because they often say different things. I have to sneak in a quick break before I do that. Ron and General Anderson will be right back. Stay with us.

What would your message be to President Trump right now about this war? Think about the people. Think about the people. The working class people like us. It's not just the fishermen, the truck drivers, the delivery, the shipping companies. It's got to have a major, major effect on everybody. I don't understand the goal in this one. And it's just... He's definitely straying from his objective as far as the people are concerned. He, you know, he pleaded of the people, the people, the people, make America great again. Make America, we're tearing America apart right now. And it's sad because it's the working class people that are suffering the most. That was our colleague, Alex Tabit, with fishermen in Cortez, Florida. We're back with Ron and General Anderson. So Ron, the American people render judgment on how important various issues are. And 14 months ago, they rendered a judgment that affordability was their top issue. And they gave Donald Trump high marks on that issue. The message is now, you know, suck it up. Sometimes you have to sacrifice and pay higher prices. What is your sense of the real pain and the real reaction to the economic pain brought about, not just by the recent events of the war with Iran, but by the tariffs and the digging in on tariffs and finding a way even after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal? Well, I think, Nicole, you know, it's still really the same story. And this is the one that, you know, got. the Biden administration, ultimately Kamala Harris punished at the ballot box for, which is that prices have not come down for groceries. Prices have not come down for child care. Prices have not come down for health insurance. In fact, they've probably gone up. This just adds to that pain that the average family is feeling. You know, Mark Zandi at Moody's, which is an economics forecasting firm, pointed out just recently that the top 10% of all wage earners in the United States account for half of all consumer spending. This notion of the K-shaped economy, which is being debated right now, still though, is showing up in the attitudes of the average American. They're struggling with those costs if they're not. higher income, if they're middle income or lower income, they're struggling either to keep pace or falling behind in their bills. And that's problematic. And certainly, while some of that might be considered soft data from an attitude perspective, it is showing up in hard data where we're seeing job losses in the economy. We're seeing prices remain elevated. We're seeing the Federal Reserve admit to all that by not lowering interest rates because they're stuck between a weak labor market and inflation that's above target. And this is hitting people in two ways. One job prospect. are diminishing to an extent, and two, prices remain too high for them to cope if, again, they're in the middle and lower income groups. Trump, I understand. We talk about voters. I mean, they rendered, the Republican Party rendered a judgment three primaries in a row that Donald Trump's isolationism was their preferred foreign policy posture on the world stage. It broke the hearts of Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio in 16 and countless others in 20.

and 24, and the country rendered that judgment in electing him twice. What does it mean for the men and women of the military to have this war represent the most blatant reversal of the person who won 14 months ago? Well, unfortunately, Nicole, I think that what Donald Trump is doing with the way that he and his staff have mismanaged this war is they're highlighting the fact that really there's a new era upon us in which America is no longer a world leader, no longer the beacon on the hill. Our power and prestige have been seriously degraded by this war. NATO allies are scratching their heads. What is going on in the United States? I mean, anti-Americanism is at an all-time high. Trump, you know, he's unpopular here in the United States, even more so in Europe. I mean, Charles Manson, I think, has higher approval ratings in Denmark than does Donald Trump. You know, the GCC is very upset at the war of his management and the hits that they're taken in their homeland. And of course, our enemies are celebrating. The Russians, the Chinese, you know, they're standing back, they're watching, and they're very, very pleased with what's going on. The bottom line is that, you know, our soldiers are realizing. that America is no longer a reliable ally to so many of the people that we've allied with in the past, such as NATO and such as Japan and Korea and Australia and the like. And I think that it's very disheartening to them because, you know, most of them signed up in order to be part of this great alliance that we seem to be crumbling beneath our eyes. Yeah. Ron Asana, Brigadier General Steve Anderson, thank you so much for taking time to talk to us today. Quick break for us. When we come back, new details today on the White House plan to sell the Iran War to the American people on TikTok. The reporter who has that reporting will join us when Dylan White House continues after a quick break.

Ever since I was young, I've watched people working hard, chasing opportunity, making sacrifices, doing everything they can to build a better life. And now, we're shining a light on what matters most. Our economy, our national identity, our democracy, our future. The stakes have never been higher. It's all on the line. On the line with Alicia Menendez. Weekdays at 12 p.m. Eastern on MS now.