“Debate in the nation’s highest court”

Mike Rowe here with another random fact. Those cracks on your walls aren't just cosmetic. They could mean your home is sinking. Whether it's drywall cracks, exterior cracks, or sticking doors or windows, do yourself a favor and call a groundworks company. I spend some time working with these guys, and they're the real deal. Their people are trained and certified to stabilize your foundation. Schedule a free inspection with JES Foundation Repair. A Groundworks Company. Licensed at all states where work is performed. See website for details. 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. Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o'clock in New York. More than 68 years after Martin Luther King pleaded, give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights. The beating heart of the Voting Rights Act was the subject of debate today in the nation's highest court. And the justices appear to be on the verge of a decision that could have enormous consequences for the upcoming midterms and for our very democracy. At issue today, Louisiana's congressional map adopted last year with two majority black districts in order to comply with curbs on racial gerrymandering put in place by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The justices today are being asked whether race can be considered a factor in drawing maps. Here is how Jinnai Nelson, the lawyer defending Louisiana's congressional map, describes the stakes. Were Section 2 to cease to operate in the way that you just described, what could happen? What would the results on the ground be? I think the results would be pretty catastrophic if we take Louisiana as one example. Every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA Opportunity District. We only have the diversity that we see across the South, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act. Every justice in Louisiana has been elected through a VRA Opportunity District and nearly all legislative representatives. The New York Times reports this, quote, without Section 2, Republicans could eliminate upward of a dozen Democratic-held districts across the South. The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn the map and potentially bring down Section 2, argued that creating majority black districts amounts to discrimination against white voters. Here's what Justice Sonia Sotomayor said about that. My humble point is that the government has no business telling citizens in which districts they may live or what voting power. But it's not doing that, counsel. The six plaintiffs in this case are white plaintiffs who live in a district with black voters. So no one's keeping them out of that district. No one's stopping them from participating in the voting process. No one is stopping them from trying to run candidates or support candidates.

that reflect their views. An attorney for the Trump administration called the voting map of, quote, reverse partisan gerrymander, saying that white Democrats and red states do not get maps drawn, allowing them to elect Democratic candidates. But the logic of that ignores the history. It ignores why the Voting Rights Act exists, why it was put in place in the first place. And it ignores the impact that any decision weakening or striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act will have. Once again, here is Janai Nelson. My opponents here would like to make this a partisan issue because they believe the case law will enable their case to prevail, but it does not. This is about race. Section 2 and the Voting Rights Act is laser focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process regardless of party. And if we look at... Many of the black congresspeople who were elected, they came out of Section 2 opportunity districts. They don't have to be majority-minority districts. Many of them are crossover districts. And so if we remove Section 2, we also recognize that there will likely be a resurgence of discrimination because Section 2 plays a deterrent effect. That is where we begin today with some of our favorite experts and friends. MSNBC Senior Contributing Editor, Michelle Norris, is here. Also joining us, Voting Rights Attorney, founder of Democracy Docket, Mark Elias. Mark Elias, I ask you the same question that we started with here, the stakes of today's arguments in case. Yeah, the stakes are enormous. I mean, the fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case today that, to be clear, no one brought to them. The case that was brought to them out of Louisiana was argued last term, did not challenge the underlying constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. We went through briefing. We went through oral argument. We all waited for a decision by the end of last June in the case that was actually brought by the plaintiffs and the petitioners in that case. Instead, what happened is the Supreme Court decided that it wanted to hear a different case. So it ordered the parties to brief and re-argue a broader question. The question of whether or not Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains constitutional, and if so... how does it get severely limited? And that was what the argument was about today. Like, make no mistake. I never predict with certainty what the outcome of cases will be. You never know what the dynamics are among the justices. But this was a case that was set up to do immense damage to the crown jewel of American democracy, which is what Democrats and Republicans have called the Voting Rights Act.

for decades. And that is where this court today signaled it wants to go. Again, understanding it may not get there, it may back away from it, it may at the last minute decide not to do this, but everyone needs to be clear-eyed that that is what the court is poised to do. And if it does so, it will have dramatically detrimental effect to black and Hispanic and other minority voting rights. And it will also potentially tilt the balance of power going into the 2026 midterm elections. Mark Elias, just refresh my memory on the history of the lack of partisanship. Is George W. Bush the last Republican president to renew the Voting Rights Act? I believe I remember an event in the Roosevelt Room where that is renewed. And then it becomes a political pinata in the last two decades. I mean, just take me through the political side, not the legal side of this debate. Sure. So the Voting Rights Act gets enacted in 1965 with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats both voted to enact the Voting Rights Act. It was renewed under Republican presidents. It was renewed by Ronald Reagan in 1982. And in fact, not only was it renewed under Ronald Reagan in 1982 with, again, overwhelming bipartisan support, it was actually expanded. The provision that is now being attacked, this Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which... prohibits both discrimination in voting it with intent, but also with the effects of discriminating against voters. That was put into law in 1982 under Ronald Reagan. Again. wide, right, partisan support. It was, as you point out, reauthorized again in 2006 under George W. Bush passed the Senate 98 to 0. There were only 33 no votes against it in the House. It was sponsored by the business community, Walmart's president, CEO, pushed for reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. And it is only in the age of Donald Trump and in his first term and now, you know, today, in which which it has become a party line issue in which no Republican will support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Michelle, I thought that it just, I think it's important context that legally and politically, right now it's something, another thing, pulling our country apart. Through its existence, it has been one of the few things that. that brought us together, that Democrats and Republicans agreed on, that had unanimous votes in the Senate, and 22 was even in those times a very small number of dissenters in the House. And here we are now. With that larger frame, tell me how you watch today's arguments. I want to pick up on something that Mark mentioned intent. There was an intense argument over intent in the arguments today. And this notion that... that pernicious outcome, you know, has to be based on someone intending discrimination or, you know, that rather something could happen because of a series of accidental decisions and that would lead to something pernicious, but it wasn't about intent. I think we have to look at intent here, particularly when we're talking about voting access and put it in context because it's been widely reported that Donald Trump has been pressuring states to redraw their electoral maps as Democrats work hard to take over the House.

is a result of discrimination in itself there because the reason that they're so concentrated is because they couldn't live other places. They didn't have access to capital. They didn't have access to mortgages. And so you create a system over time based on discrimination where you've got large groups of people who are concentrated. And then you create a system that doesn't allow them to have access to the boat because you either have them concentrated in so many, so small districts that they don't, they're not able to elect a large number of representatives or you crack and frack their voting blocks and you. distribute them in places where then they aren't able to vote in their best interest. And at the same time, arguing that this has nothing to do with race on its face just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense. The politics, though, are the mask-off moment for the Republicans. And let me just show the map from the New York Times that shows 12 Democratic districts in the South that could be eliminated. One in North Carolina. One in South Carolina. It's the only Democratic district. One in Georgia. Two in Alabama. The only Democratic districts. Two in Louisiana. At least two in Florida and one in Tennessee. I think the Times analysis of this, Mark Elias, is that the Democrats would have to win the popular vote by 5.1 to 6.1 points to win the House if all of the map shape-shifting that Republicans aspire to do takes place. Yeah, and I think that 12 seats is actually sort of somewhat of an undercount of what the actual impact would be when Republicans took the gloves off and went all in. So, you know, I don't think anyone should think 12 seats is the worst case scenario. I think that that is actually, you know, kind of will be there jumping off point. I want to add one thing, though, to all of this, which is that, you know, having been lectured for years and decades by conservative lawyers and Republican lawyers about the importance of textualism and originalism. be clear, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which is what the Voting Rights Act is premised on, particularly the 14th and 15th Amendment, were enacted after a bloody civil war against the South, and were put in place precisely, precisely, precisely, precisely, and the 15th Amendment and the 14th Amendment give Congress, not the courts, not the states, but Congress, the authority to enact legislation in order to remedy those harms. And I frankly sometimes find myself sitting in kind of an alternate universe as I listen to conservatives talk about the importance of this policy or that policy, race neutral, or, you know, Jim Crow is over, when Congress has made a judgment over and over again under the constitutional power given it to... given to them, to enact and to strengthen the Voting Rights Act. The answer is if Republicans want to do away with Section 2, they need to pass a law.

They need to repeal the law that's on the books. But there is nothing conservative about a jurisprudence or an approach to a law passed by Congress and reauthorized over and over again on a bipartisan basis that is expressly authorized by the Constitution. There's nothing conservative about that to now say we're going to ask the courts to impose their policy judgments over that of Congresses. Mark, can I ask a dumb question? It feels like a full-on... assault on voting rights from all the voter suppression laws, 48 states enacted some form of voter suppression predicated on the big lie, a lie so audacious Bill Barr said it was BS. You now have the Supreme Court sounding the way they sounded today. I don't want to sugarcoat it. And you have Trump driving... partisan gerrymanders in Texas and Indiana. What does what does the pro-democracy side look like on the other side and does it stand a chance? Look, I mean, I come on your show all the time and try to sound this alarm that the, that the Republican Party and the and its supporters have an all-out. assault on voting in the United States. They want to make it harder for you to vote and easier for them to cheat. They want to enact laws that make it harder for you to register to vote. They want laws that make it harder for you to be able to vote by mail. They want to make it easier for ballots to be disqualified if they are voted by mail. They want to target young voters through discrimination against college and other methods of young voting. They want to restrict voting opportunities by minority voters. This is their game plan to keep power in 2026. Redistricting is really just one manifestation, as you point out, of a larger strategy that they have. It is the most obvious manifestation because everyone can see that when you shift lines on a piece of paper and move district lines, that is a way that Republicans can rig the outcome of elections in their favor. But it is not the only way. Putting troops on the city streets of our nation's cities is a way they do it. By Donald Trump saying that he is going through executive order to disqualify certain voting equipment or to do away with certain methods of voting is another way they do it. Republican states enacting voter suppression laws is still another way they do it. The fact that the Department of Justice is trying to gain access to sensitive voter data on every individual voter in this country and is currently suing eight states that have refused to turn that over, and my law is intervening to defend voters in those states. That is yet another way they are doing this. This is a holistic effort to try to keep power in 2026 and beyond by literally disenfranchising people they think who don't support them and by trying to take control of the vote counting and certification process. Michelle, if there were one thing that could focus everybody else, it would be make sure you get to vote. Make sure you get to pick your leaders in two and four years. What is your observation of the counteroffensive? You know, there's a lot of people that are working very hard at this.

As Mark has noted, the Republicans have been at this for a very long time. The Democrats are in some ways playing catch-up on this, but I think that there are a lot of people that are working hard on this effort to make sure that people understand the importance of voting. I was just actually in Chicago, and there were people out on the streets. They're actually registering people to vote. I think that those kinds of things are happening. But this has to be an asymmetrical battle that is happening on several fronts because, as Mark laid out, it's happening in all kinds of ways. And there is a another case that's sort of in the background out of the eighth circuit, the North Dakota case, which wants to limit the ability of individuals or private parties to actually sue to enforce the voting rights act, saying that only government can do that. And if the government is controlled by Republicans who are interested in limiting your access to the ballot, well. That is another example of that's not conservative, trying to take away rights from people to actually enforce something like this. So it has to happen on all kinds of levels. But what Mark just laid out is interesting, because said more simply is sometimes if you can't, if you can't wing clean, you don't play fair. And I think that that's what we're seeing here. is that it's harder and harder because of demographic changes, because of rights that people have won, either through Congress or through the courts, that it's harder and harder for Republicans to imagine that they can hold on through voting in a country that is rapidly changing demographically. And so sometimes if you can't win, clean, you don't play fair. And that is what this looks like. I like your shorthand a whole lot. I'm going to borrow that and use it myself. I'm Michelle and Mark. Thank you so much for starting us off on this story. Wow. When we come back, my dear friend and colleague, Rachel Maddow, will be our guest. We'll talk with her about the potential gutting of the Voting Rights Act and what it could mean for voters, especially black voters in this country. And we'll talk about Andrew Young, a friend and aide to Martin Luther King. An architect of the civil rights movement who spent his early career organizing voter registration drives, marches, and who drove the movement into congressional legislation. He's the subject of a new documentary that Rachel executive produced about his decades of public service and the hard work it takes to ensure that our democracy holds. It's called Andrew Young, the dirty work. We'll show you some of it and talk to Rachel about why she took on this project. Don't go anywhere. Nobody really wanted to go work for Martin Luther King. He had been stabbed, bombed, jail, and he didn't have any money. If I had to take a few kicks and licks to get a civil rights act, I'd do it any day of the week. That's what I call the dirty word. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for teens. Instagram teen accounts have built-in content settings and limits for who can contact teens. Plus, teens under 16 can't change these default safety settings without parental approval. So parents can help teens connect safely. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. 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. Normally in these ads, you expect somebody to ask you to buy something, but this is something different. I'm Julian Barnes, and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm a national security reporter, and that means I'm reporting on military operations. These are fast-paced, quickly-moving situations. What exactly is happening on the ground is often shrouded in mystery. But we turn to trusted sources, satellite imagery, and expertise built up over years in order to ferret out the facts that wouldn't otherwise come to light. I'm here to ask you to seek out a news source that does firsthand fact-based reporting. If it's your local paper, great. If it's the Times, thank you. Because where you go for your information matters. What you're suggesting is that people of one race are blacks in Louisiana. who will have to be 6.51% of the population before they'll be able to elect another black candidate. Because what you're saying is, partisanship is non-negotiable. You have to create maps where you're going to have six districts out of seven, always white, because that's our partisanship. That means blacks never have a chance, no matter what their number is until they reach more than 51%. That was today. That was Justice Sonia Sotomayor discussing the dire consequences and implications of the Supreme Court potentially gutting the Voting Rights Act, that black voters may not get the chance to elect a black candidate if they are gerrymandered into districts that deny them a voice. With a key section of the Voting Rights Act up for debate at the Supreme Court today, and with fears growing that the legacy of the civil rights movement is in deep danger, Our friend and colleague, Rachel Maddo, is out with a new project centered on one of the heroes of that movement and the fight for civil rights and our democracy. It details the life and legacy of civil rights icon Andrew Young, whose incredible career started as a close confidant of Martin Luther King Jr. After King's death, which he witnessed, Young continued King's work serving in Congress as mayor of Atlanta and as the United States ambassador to the United Nations here in New York. It is titled Andrew Young, The Dirty Work. It is a tribute to Young's willingness to do what he describes as, quote, the things that nobody else wanted to do, but feeling that you had the responsibility to try. Take a look. When Dr. King went to jail in Albany, it was my job to go in and visit him every day. My presence meant that he didn't have to assert his middle class values, that he could be neutral.

And so I was sort of known as the Uncle Tom in the group. Nobody particularly wanted to go meet with white folks. Nobody wanted to take the time to go around and explain to the black middle class what was going on. In everything I've done in life, there's always something that somebody considers too difficult and nobody wants to do. That's what I call the dirty word. And I decided that that was my job. Wow, joining me now is my friend, the host of the Rachel Maddo Show right here on MSNBC, New York Times bestselling author, a beloved colleague and friend. She's also the executive producer of this, of this brand new documentary, The Dirty Work. This is so amazing, Rachel. I'm not going to ask you what I really want to know, which is when the hell did you do this. I'm going to ask you why, why this story and why now? You know, first of all, thank you for having me here, Nicole. I know there's a lot going on. It's an honor to be here with you on this show on this day. But thinking about what you've been talking about with Michelle and Mark and what happened to the Supreme Court today with the Voting Rights Act, I mean, one of the reasons to make this film, one of the reasons to watch this film now is to hear. Ambassador Young, here, Andrew Young, talk about what it took to get the blood on the pavement of that bridge to Selma, which allowed the United States government to get over itself and pass a Voting Rights Act to guarantee voting rights for black Americans in the South. And to think about not that that was ever, ever seen as something that was inevitable. I mean, President Johnson, after the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had flat out told Martin Luther King and Andrew Young, I have spent my political capital. I do not have additional political capital to spend to get you a Voting Rights Act instead. Martin Luther King and Andrew Young. left the White House, having been told that by President Johnson and said, we're going to go back down to the South and get him the power he needs to be able to pass a Voting Rights Act. And the way they got him that power was with their incredibly disciplined, spiritually grounded, impeccably nonviolent movement, which showed the American people what it meant to stand up for that kind of righteousness, even in the face of horses and dogs and fire hoses. and blood and death. And that is the moral inheritance that we have of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court is seemingly pretty glibly willing to throw away right now. And it's just while we are fighting for those things while we are recognizing The stakes of what we're up against right now, I think it's really worth hearing from the people who earned us those things in the first place. I want to play a little bit more of it. I know you're going to anchor an hour and then play the whole thing on Friday, which we'll all watch. But I want to show a little bit more of it here. It's hard to pick from all of this. But I want to show Young describing the assassination of Martin King, MLK Jr. He was there. When we came out.

I said, you know, you really probably ought to get your top coat. I got the impression that he was sort of looking up, kind of checking the weather, looking at the sky, trying to decide. And at that moment, a shot rang out. He fell. There was a South African photographer who had been following us around, and he took the picture that has become so infamous. We were pointing because the police who were supposed to be protecting us were all on the other side of the street, and they were all running toward us. And we were saying that the shot came from over there. When I saw him, there was no hope. His entire... neck had been severed and you could see his spinal cord. His heart was still beating, his pulse was still there. But I don't think he ever heard the shot. I don't think he felt any pain. Maybe that's just what I want to believe. It's... haunting, it's harrowing, and yet on and off television. You and I have talked a lot about political violence. I think you were the first person who said this thing to me that violence isn't politics, it's something else. Yeah, and... You know, in this film, Andrew Young is alive. He's 93 years old. The reason we wanted to make this now is because he can tell us about his own mind, his own heart, his own experience. Through these things, I think that's really valuable as millions of Americans are planning to take to the streets the morning after this film airs on Friday night here on MSNBC on Saturday. So, you know, five or six million Americans are going to turn out to go protest. And I think it is valuable to be able to hear from somebody. who was part of one of these, you know, moral cornerstone movements of our country, what it was really like as a person, not to be the figurehead, not to be the guy at the podium, but to be somebody who's just doing the work. Because so many Americans right now are doing the work and are thinking about what it means to be part of a difficult, longstanding, dug-in pro-democracy movement. That's going to take years in this country. So there's that. But, you know, we only show them a couple of times as current day. Andrew Young in the film, and one of them is after he reflects on the death of his friend, Dr. King, where he's emotional still about thinking about his loss. And it just, it's a reminder as if any of us needed it, that There is nothing strategic about political violence. There is nothing that is tactically consequential about it at all. All it is is crime and loss and failure. And there's nothing ever positively gained about it other than regret and lives crushed.

And, you know, it doesn't, that's why it doesn't matter. The motivation of assassins, the motivation of people who commit political violence, I think should be barred from the airwaves when we talk about these things. Because once you've crossed the line into violence, you're no longer committing a political act. You are doing something else, and you should pay for it regardless of why you did it. Andrew Young is, as you said, he's still alive. He's still sharp as attack. What are his thoughts about this moment that you can, you know, I think one of your gifts to all of us is to take us out of ourselves and put us back into our history. What does he tell us about our history that's instructive or has changed the way you cover this moment? Well, you know, he's, like you said, he's sharp as attack. And some of what he has to say about this moment, I can't repeat on television, having talked to him about it in person. We'll get there. We'll get there. Like, you're three, we'll get there. Exactly. He's pretty clear-eyed about exactly where we are and what he thinks about a lot of people in American politics today. And I will always let him speak for himself along those lines. But I think part of the reason he's telling the story now is to kind of prepare Americans right now who are engaged in this struggle right now to be dug in for the long haul and to make sure that we've got... You know, whether or not you're religious, to at least have a spiritual grounding in what you're doing so that you know what you stand for. You have the discipline to always be nonviolent in the way that you stand for it. You have the ability, which is difficult and under pressure, you have the ability to trust those who you are standing up with so that you are a movement and not just a collection of individuals. We got to think about this task that's ahead of us right now. I mean, we have an authoritarian government in this country that is trying to destroy the democracy. And millions of Americans are standing up to try to preserve the democracy and defeat this authoritarian movement. This is something that is not going to be a quick fight. This is something that is going to take discipline. It's going to take a long time. It's going to take us making mistakes. iterating, sticking with it anyway, doing the drudge work, doing the dirty work that it takes to get movements like this over the finish line, even when you don't get recognized for that movement. And we just need to start thinking of ourselves that way, I think, in this country. And I think Andrew Young wants to help us do that. I want to play a few more clips. I want to ask you a million more questions. We need to sneak in a break. Will you stick around? Of course, of course. Okay. We'll be right back. Normally in these ads, you expect somebody to ask you to buy something. But this is something different.

I'm Julian Barnes, and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm a national security reporter, and that means I'm reporting on military operations. These are fast-paced, quickly-moving situations. What exactly is happening on the ground is often shrouded in mystery. But we turn to trusted sources, satellite imagery, and expertise built up over years in order to ferret out the facts that wouldn't otherwise come to light. I'm here to ask you to seek out a news source that does firsthand fact-based reporting. If it's your local paper, great. If it's the Times, thank you. Because where you go for your information matters. At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans, and we've got just the shoes, at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. Let's check in on the Serta counting sheep. Why aren't we counted anymore? Well, the all-new Serta Perfect Sleeper has the Q4 support system that helps relieve aches and back pain. We'll never get counted again. Uh, nope. Serta, we make the world's best mattress. Mrs. King said to me, I really wish you would go to the United Nations. She was worried about my security. I said, look, I stayed alive with all of those sharks and snakes around your husband. I said, I'm not at least been afraid of the folk I'll run into it to the UN. I'm very well prepared to work with people I disagree with. As a black boy in the deep south, I learned to be comfortable talking to people from different backgrounds. And that's the key to our relationships around the world. It's also the key to successful resistance movements, right, cobbling together an unlikely coalition that wants one thing to preserve our democracy. How do you see that mindset, which, I mean, as you said, is sharp as a tag. This is still a core belief. What do you think the pro-democracy movement could glean from that? Well, I mean... Some of it is just reflection on like how far we've strayed, how far we've gotten off course. I mean, he's, you know, the first black congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction. Now, today in the Supreme Court, we're looking at the Supreme Court, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court apparently poised to impose. I mean, drop all the euphemisms, drop all the legalese. What they are talking about here is guaranteed all white rule again.

in Alabama, in Mississippi, in South Carolina, in Louisiana. You mean, you think about how diverse those states are. What they're talking about reimposing, going back to, is guaranteed all-white rule. in states that have huge, huge populations of black voters. I mean, that is where we are exactly today. And you look at Andrew Young, and we think of him as like carved in the mountain, right? We think about Andrew Young as a titan of the civil rights movement and how far he came. But Andrew Young coming up today would have no path. that he, like the one that he had in the immediate wake of the civil rights movement, as the MAGAP movement and the conservatives today undo not only the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but essentially the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well. I mean, that, I think, is part of it, is recognizing exactly what's being walked back. Rachel, how do you... How do you swim through that new reality that, you know, I mean, I asked Mark Elias in the last block, how is it that MAGA and Republicans are successfully pressuring Republican states to re-jerrymander, gerrymandered maps likely prevailing at the Supreme Court in putting into place exactly what you just articulated? and menacing the act of voting by normalizing soldier-like people and actual soldiers on the streets of American cities. Yeah, well, I mean, it's what Andrew Young talks about in terms of his role in the civil rights movement, that part of what he describes is the dirty work is having to go and negotiate with the other side. I mean, he's beaten severely in Florida when he crosses the street to go to try to negotiate with the clan on a Saturday night when they've got guns underneath their robes. We've got Andrew Young crossing over and meeting with segregationist white businessmen. We've got the Andrew Young crossing over and meeting with segregationist white churches. He's having, he's the one who's having those very difficult, very uncomfortable conversations. And it's a reminder of his skills and his ability to diffuse situations and to, you know, cross bridges rather than burn them and all those things. But it's also a reminder that there was another side to this fight. It wasn't just the civil rights movement against prevailing conversations. it was the civil rights movement against an active organized segregationist movement in this country. And what we've got right now, what the movement is right now that Americans on the other side are up against, is a movement that is deathly afraid of the fact that there are no longer, there is no longer going to be a white majority in this country within 20 years.

They want to guarantee all white rule, and to the extent they can, one party rule in this country in a way that is impervious to those democratic changes. They do not want people who are not white and people who are not on their side of the issues to have a shot. that political power anymore. This is not a new idea. This is not some innovation of the 21st century. This is simply a return to the kind of politics that kept Jim Crow in force in the era that Andrew Young risked his life to lead us through. One of the things that you bring into sharp focus for all of us, I always describe you as our North Star in a lot of ways, but also editorially, is the protests. And you started covering them after election day and before Trump was sworn in, right? So the immediate response to his election. has a grassroots response. It's organized by no one. I mean, I don't think Democrats got out of bed the next day, but there were protesters on the streets in blue states, in red parts of blue states, in red parts of red states. What are you seeing and can you sort of quantify what's happening organically in this country in terms of protest and dissent on the streets? One of the most interesting things about it, Nicole, and I was really interested in the part of your conversation earlier this hour with Michelle and Mark about this as well, is that we are seeing very much ground up, ground level up, grassroots and very spontaneous forms of protest in this country. You look at what's happening in Chicago, these scrappy, instantaneous, almost reflexive neighborhood by neighborhood reactions and responses. hyper-local, not top-down organized at all. And yes, there are some, you know, aldermen and alderwomen involved, and there are some state legislators who are involved in there's some Democrats who are kind of trailing behind catching up with what people are doing. But people are instinctively, you know, in Los Angeles, in Washington, D.C., in Memphis, in Chicago, in all of these places, in Portland, obviously, you've just got sort of the heart of the American people showing itself. in this instantaneous, emotional, nonviolent reaction to say, no, we are not doing this. This is not who we are, and you work for us. And seeing the energy there and the persistence of it, the, I think, good-hearted nature of it, that it is fierce, but instinctively nonviolent. I think because we have the moral inheritance of movements like the civil rights movement that have created who we are as generations of Americans by this point. I mean, There's a lot going on in terms of the, I think, native reaction to this. And you get all of these like graybeard commentators saying, why aren't the American people reacting more strongly to what Trump is doing? Well,

I don't know, maybe because you haven't noticed what they're doing is why it seems that way to you. I mean, there's protests in this country every day. And actually, the little ones in Republican-held states and the little ones that arise seemingly out of nowhere, the spontaneous ones that happen when people see what's happening to their neighbors and they park their car and they get out and they link arms to their neighbors to try to protect people. And that's the soul of this country right now. And the political movement. And the elected officials that learn how to draft in that wake and learn how to harness that energy toward electoral ends will win in the electoral side of this democracy. But the street side of this democracy, I think, is going to show its force on Saturday at the No King's protests. And I think has been a just continuing inspiration to me since before this last inauguration. Rachel, because I have you, and I would regret it if I didn't do this, I'm going to take a break and ask you to weigh in on some breaking news coming out of the Pentagon. I think we both knew about the 5 o'clock deadline today to sign on to state-sanctioned content or not. There's some developments there that I want to ask you about on the other side of a break. We'll both be right back.

We have some breaking news to tell you about on the story we've been covering here all week. Since we've been on the air, dozens of news outlets covering the Defense Department have left the Pentagon after refusing to agree to and sign the Trump administration's new demands that significantly curb access to and the ability to report on and cover. that building, the Pentagon, and the men and women of the military. The people refusing to sign include Fox News. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth us, former place of work. A Pentagon reporter from the AFP posted this photo of journalists on the steps of the Pentagon after handing in their badges that gave them access to the building. A correspondent from Reuters tweeted this, quote, the physical Pentagon bureaus of Reuters and virtually every other news organization are now officially closed. But we will continue to cover the Pentagon fairly and aggressively from outside the building. holding the U.S. military accountable. We're back with Rachel. I know you got everyone's attention, the world's attention, with your open a week ago Monday, about how authoritarianism is here. It's not on the horizon. It's not something theoretical that you and I both covered in the months leading up to the election. It's not a question before the voters. It's what they have ushered in with the re-election of Donald Trump. And this, this is, you know, chapter one, shutting out the free press, shutting out access to the truth about the military. Yeah, but this is also a really important chapter in what it means to stand up to authoritarianism. Nicole, we have talked about the fact that, you know, the people have been brave. Individual Americans, the people who you're going to see out this Saturday, the No King's protests, the people who you've seen in every state of the country, almost every day of the week, taking some act of protest against Trump. Those folks have been brave and principled and unafraid. The cowardice that we have seen has been from institutions. includes media organizations and news organizations, where we've seen executives over and over and over again make cowardly and craven decisions to try to appease Trump or please him in some way in the hopes that maybe that earns you another day of being allowed to operate at his pleasure. It's just been disgusting what we've seen from the most important and valuable corporations in this country and law firms and universities and all the rest of it. In this case, we've got all of those Pentagon reporters with their news organizations behind them standing up and saying, no, we are not stenographers. We are not going to work under strictures where we are only allowed to write down what you tell us we.

can write down. That's not journalism, and we're not going to do it under those terms. We'll do it some other way. We'll give up these bureaus, these physical bureaus inside the Pentagon, sure, and that is a compromise, absolutely. We will find other ways to do this work because you keeping us here, while we only write what you want and approve us of saying, would have us working here as your lackeys rather than working as journalists and we're journalists. I find this to be incredibly inspiring. And I don't know how it's going to result or how it's going to resolve in terms of what happens with that press space inside the Pentagon. But when journalists and the news organizations that employ them stand up like this, particularly ones on the right, it is a good sign about the self-respect and vision and values and bravery of people who are really important to the health of our democracy. I just, I think this is a really good sign. Do you think it's happening because it's the military, or do you think it's happening because there's something different about the Pentagon Press Corps? I think it might be happening because news organizations have realized that it's really embarrassing to cave to Trump. I think that, you know, that we haven't. necessarily, you know, I don't, I think the Trump administration, people who are working for him know what they're trying to do. I think they are trying to impose one party permanent rule, getting rid of American democracy and all for all intents and purposes and having an authoritarian takeover of the country. Like I think, I think they know what they're doing. So are they susceptible to changing their minds because of people protesting and calling them out for what they're doing? Maybe not at this point, although I think people are going to keep chipping away at it. Every other institution in the country that is public facing in particular, whether it is a company, whether it is a news organization, whether it is a professional organization of every kind. I think people have now gotten the message that it is a humiliation. And it is something that you cannot live down until you change course and change your mind to bend the need of this guy. And so I don't think anybody, any new, any self-respecting news organization knew that they could accept these sort of rules and leave their reporters in there under these. these Orwellian rules. And so I think that the weather is changing and that institutions know it's not a good luck to capitulate to this guy and to this insane stuff they're demanding of people in this country anymore. It's something that Martin Sheen said on Saturday at our MSNBC Live event. He said, this is fleeting. And the idea that people think that this will be the weather, to use your word, forever, and that it won't at some point be the most hideous brand ever to be. I mean, imagine being Paul Bari Weiss, right, the first law from the capitulates to Trump. That won't always be a good look. but they will have always gone first. It's so nice to talk to you. And we got our hook in you. We made you stay the whole hour. Rachel, thank you so much for spending the hour with us. The doc is Andrew. Thank you.

Thank you. The doc is Andrew Young, The Dirty Work. It airs here on MSNBC at 9 o'clock Eastern, but Rachel anchors the hour before that. So just cuddle in on Friday night for an incredible night and important night of television. There will be that special edition of Rachel ahead of the film and then the film itself. Up next for us, new reporting and new threats from Donald Trump on his retribution campaign. Much more news ahead. Quick break. We'll be right back. Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business. None of which are connected. And each one are expensive and more complicated than the last. Scaling with you while being magically affordable. And some say Odoo's programs for manufacturing and accounting and more are left building blocks. And they're all connected on one platform. But I say Odu sound all amazing. Fertilizer magic beams are harmonized your business. For business. A efficient software that can handle everything for every fraction of the price. Sign up at odu.com. That's Odio.O. com.