Trump DOJ Withdraws Subpoenas for NYT Journalists

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. The days are longer, the calendar is filling up, and I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving Grooons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals, and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss my bag on the go, plus they're vegan, gluten-free, and HSA-FSA eligible for reimbursement. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at GRUNS. Welcome to The Beat. I'm Melissa Murray in for Ari Melburgh, and we start tonight with a huge loss for the Trump administration. Trump's Department of Justice said today that it will withdraw the subpoenas it issued to New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns related to the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Today, legal expert Andrew Weissman said the subpoenas were a glaring abuse of power from the start. Take a listen. This is either just intentionally lawless or just such a gross screw-up that this is one where, you know, if you're a supervisor, you were saying, how could this possibly happen? The move to drop the subpoenas came after a judge grilled DOJ lawyers for nearly an hour. The Associated Press reported that the judge was, quote, visibly irritated. The AP also reported that the judge specifically noted that he, quote, otherwise would have granted the New York Times request to reject the subpoenas because, quote, subpoenas are the last step, not the first step in an investigation. All of this comes on the heels of a filing from the New York Times itself, arguing that the subpoenas, quote, chilled potential sources from coming forward for fear of being criminally targeted. When the subpoenas were first issued earlier this month, the executive editor of the Times called them an intimidation attempt. Take a listen. The Trump administration issued subpoenas to five of our journalists in what I think is a naked attempt to intimidate the New York Times and to keep us from reporting on matters that we think are essential to national security. We're going to continue to report both about Air Force One and on the circumstances around the government use of prosecutorial power to intimidate the independent news media.

The subpoenas were issued on July 10th with the goal of compelling the reporters to testify. All of this came just before news reports this week of even more subpoenas issuing. This time, the subpoenas were directed to third-party phone service providers, and they sought the phone records of Times journalists and their relatives. All is part of the administration's effort to, quote, unmask the confidential sources who have provided information for the articles about the security capabilities of President Trump's new Air Force One Jet. Now, of course, all of those subpoenas will be dropped. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Lisa Rubin, MS Now Legal Correspondent. She was in the courtroom during today's hearing. Also with us is Maya Wiley, former SDNY civil prosecutor and president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Ladies, in a nutshell, What's your reaction to this loss in court, a self-inflicted loss? Yeah, I was exchanging some signal messages with somebody who was in the courtroom afterwards, and I said, wow, that was brutal. And the person's response was a shalacking. And I think that is the best encapsulation of what happened in court today. Because Judge Supermanian gave the U.S. Attorney's Office an opportunity to withdraw the subpoenas at the very outset of the hearing. And nonetheless, they insisted, as you just noted, for an hour that the subpoenas were lawfully issued. continued to have to make admission after admission about a bunch of rookie mistakes that they had made, about reading the federal regulations that pertain to subpoenas to media, about reading the case law wrong. And at the end, after asking for a break, Sean Buckley, who is now the chief counsel to the U.S. attorney, was the deputy U.S. attorney, someone who you would not expect to be in court arguing this motion in the first place. had to come back after seemingly making some calls to main justice and saying, you know what, Your Honor, we will unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas. But of course, at that point, the damage had been done because an entire courtroom full of people from New York Times lawyers to journalists had seen the embarrassment that he inflicted on the office. Maya, was this a shalacking, a true varnishing? It was not only a shalacking. I was trying to think of other S words I could say on television and was having a hard time coming up with one. But let me just say this. Good for the New York Times. Yeah. You know, the New York Times came in hard to recognize that if we're not going to counter the bald-faced intimidation, and I don't think there's another way to read this. intimidation of independent journalism on a legitimate public interest story about national security that it literally said, we want to make sure our motion is not under seal. We want to make sure our defense is part of the public record, that really there be a public reckoning. So I'm glad they didn't withdraw it because I think it's necessary for the public to understand how this has become a Department of Injustice, something that is a weapon.

where intimidation is the point. And that's persecution, not prosecution, and we need to understand that. So this is being touted, and I think rightly so, as a victory for the First Amendment. But let's be honest, the First Amendment has taken a beating over the last 18 months of this administration as this administration has brought media institutions, accountability institutions to heal. Is this going to make a dent? Does this help turn the tide that the administration was forced to withdraw these subpoenas in the face of what was clearly judicial disagreement with the entire premise? Well, I think that you can liken this effort to sort of the administration's effort to extract a settlement from Harvard, meaning they never start with the bottom. It's sort of like anti-prosecution 101. They start at the top and use that as an attempt to intimidate everybody else. And so from that perspective, I think it was a big loss. But to your point about the beating that the First Amendment has taken, you know, one of the rules of lawyering is that if you win, you just sit down and shut up. And David O'Neill, the lawyer from Devil Boys in Plimpton, who represented the Times, did not do that because he wanted the judge to know. From his perspective and his client's perspective, there are First Amendment issues still. And he said, the efforts that the DOJ had made were replete with bad faith. And that's even clearer now, meaning after this hearing, it has been damaging not only to this reporter's abilities to do their jobs, but to the public's right to be informed. And I think the fact that he wanted to put that on the record speaks to the moment that we're in that you so aptly recognized, Melissa. Also, let's talk about this. The first thing that should be noted here is that typically when the government seeks a subpoena from a media institution, and it does happen fairly frequently, they will make the request of the institution, not of the individual journalists. So the whole idea that this is an intimidation attempt, I think that might be... Right. Like to go directly to the journalist, that seems unprecedented. And to intimidate their families. Yes. I mean, this isn't even just the reporters, to your point, when you set up the story. And they didn't disclose initially to the New York Times that they had submitted subpoenas for the records of two spouses and a mom, one of whom is in, does. mental health services. Yeah. The other is an attorney. There are privacy concerns beyond the fact of the reporting. But that just as a, I mean, it's a kindness to suggest that that's just being incompetent. That's a kindness. Although the judge did say that too during the hearing. I'm like, Lisa, it's my understanding based on the AP reporting that. The judge criticized the DOJ for what he termed sloppy legal work. And this is not the first time a federal judge has chided this administration and its lawyers. So what do you make of this very public rebuke of the lawyering here? Well, I think it's not ended because Judge Supermanian had issued an order tonight after the hearing concluded. And one of the things that that order says is he wants internal communications.

from the U.S. Attorney's Office about a non-disclosure attempt. So what they did was when they went to subpoena the phone service providers, they went to a judge and said, we want the phone service providers to be barred from telling anybody about these subpoenas. They got that order. And then they go to a judge and not disclose that they had the other. Well, yes. They went to a judge and they didn't tell that judge, these are subpoenas about journalists. These are subpoenas about New York Times reporting. And so he really excoriated them for that. And he said, I trust that if you come back before me, we won't have issues that have plagued this from the outset. But then tonight, in seeking those communications, what that suggests to me is he is thinking about sanctioning these people, referring them for disciplinary proceedings or something to that effect. Okay, so these subpoenas issued. from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which was headed until quite recently by Jay Clayton, who is now the president's nominee to be the Director of National Intelligence. Does this rebuke from the judge factor into those confirmation hearings in any way? Well, I think it should because, you know, Jay Clayton, when he testified, said specifically that these subpoenas were lawfully issued pursuant to regulation. The sad thing here, and we're already watching it with Todd Blanche's nomination hearing, is we're watching a party give oversight a pass. Mm-hmm. And essentially suggesting we'll just believe you if you say what we want to hear, which is not oversight. These are serious questions, whether it's the Epstein survivors or whether it's the issues of how subpoenas are being issued. And by the way, also to community-based organizations registering black voters, to organizations that are literally- You want to see people push back. Yeah, we need to see people push back because it is journalism, but is also well beyond journalism. which means if we're not seeing our elected officials of any party, making sure there's sufficient oversight into what these agencies are doing and what these individuals are saying and actually testing it, then we do not have a functioning system of government that's understanding its role in protecting the public. Lisa? I think that today reflects maybe a small moment of victory for the First Amendment, certainly for the New York Times, but do I expect that this will stop this administration from investigating? who the alleged leaker was, I absolutely do not. If anything today was just a series of admissions about sloppy lawyering and mistakes by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, a big blemish on the face of Jay Clayton and all those who serve under him, including the very supervisors, Andrew Weissman, was saying, should have known better. Well, as I say, one battle after another. All right, Lisa Rubin and Maya Wiley, thank you for kicking us off. Coming up.

How Trump is losing Fox, Senate Republicans, and the American people when it comes to the war in Iran. Plus, new reporting on how Donald Trump Jr. is leveraging links to his father's administration to pad his own bottom line. And how Democrats are planning to push back if Trump tries to put ICE agents at the polls. We are back in just 90 seconds. The Genesis GV70 with all its award-winning tech and performance is built to thrill. So you can hit the road, hit the turns, and hit Sport Plus mode for serious acceleration and handling. Inside, you'll find intuitive tech that elevates every driving experience. And wherever you go, the GV70 will have you on the edge of your seat. It's luxury that's built to thrill. Learn more at Genesis.com and feel the GV70. 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. The days are longer, the calendar is filling up. And I want to feel as good as this beautiful summer weather. That's why I've been loving Grooons. It's one daily pack of gummies that covers my greens, vitamins, minerals, and even has 6 grams of prebiotic fiber. So I don't need to juggle a complicated wellness routine on top of everything else. They taste amazing. They're easy to toss my bag on the go, plus they're vegan, gluten-free, and HSAFSA eligible for reimbursement. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooms.co. That's code podcast at GRUNS.

Donald Trump is facing new backlash from the right as the Iran war spirals, the economy sputters, and the midterm elections loom. Today, Congress dealt Trump a new bipartisan rebuke over the Iran war. Four Republicans in the House joined Democrats to pass a measure directing Trump to seek authorization for the war. The measure also got some GOP support in the Senate before ultimately stalling out. The price of oil is now back above $100 per barrel, on average. Gas prices are now over $4 a gallon. Here's Republican Senator Rand Paul weighing in. I think the Iran War was not been a success, a bit opposed to the Iran War from the beginning. I think by any objective matter or measure were worse off than the war on. Will there be backlash in November? Probably. That was Senator Rand Paul predicting some backlash in November. And right on cue, new polling today shows that Democrats hold an 11-point lead over Republicans when presented with a generic midterm ballot. Also today, Fox News is out with a poll that, according to the Daily Beast, is, quote, humiliating to the president. The poll shows that 76% call the president's economy fair or poor. Just 24% say it's excellent or good. And that's not all. Take a listen. The president who campaigned on the economy now receiving negative marks on the issue with 65% saying they disapprove of his performance. Voters favored Democrats by 22 points on income inequality. Dems are up 21 points on health care. They're up 10 on inflation. They're also leading on the economy, foreign policy, government spending, even immigration. And take a listen to Fox business host Larry Kudlow, who served in Trump's first administration. He's here confronting a Republican senator. Call it swag, swagger, riz, aura, or just plain messaging, but the GOP doesn't have it. You're bungling everything. Nothing is getting done. Your messaging is non-existent. You've lost your swag, your swagger, your Riz, or whatever the young people say. No one knows what the heck you're doing, sir. They have no idea.

Joining me now is Molly Jung Fast, contributing writer for The New York Times and MS Now Political Analyst and hosts of the Fast Politics podcast and someone who is literally dripping in RIS. Oh, wow. Okay. It's got to be said. Has the Republican Party lost its Riz? Are they no longer aura farming? Let's just say that, by the way, Larry Cudlow doing a monologue that involves Riz, oral farming. It's a much longer monologue than just the piece you played. And it is nothing I ever thought I would see Larry Cudlow say. And it's interesting to me because the subtext of it is he's running cover for Trump, right? He's figuring out people to blame. And we've seen different machinations, sort of variations on this in Fox business and Fox regular. And it is all, when they start to deviate messaging-wise, when that starts happening, that's because things have spiraled out of control. And that's what we're watching right now. So how bad is it? Have they lost core elements of their base? Or is this just sort of the standard kind of stuff that you can expect from a very unpopular war, a pretty bad economy, and the fact that the midterms were always a time that the Republicans were likely to take some losses? Okay. So if you look at the 2018 midterms, that we had our, you know, it was a D plus eight. And that was a shalacking for Trump. These were seeing polls. I mean, this. This D plus 11 poll may be an outlier because... That's the Democrats up by 11 points. Right. That's the generic ballot for Democrats up by 11 points. But if that happens, it's game over for Republicans. I mean, 11 points is like a sweep to end all sweeps. Now... Is this the war? I think, well, and I'm going to refer you to a Politico poll, which was from yesterday, which... One in five self-proclaimed magas want the war to end today. They don't care how they just want it done. And I think that's a pretty striking number. And I would think, you know, there was another war powers resolution today, Representative Jai Paul. Also, Jason Crow was in there. I texted with him a little bit, talked to him about it. And, you know, what I think is so interesting about these war powers resolutions are... A, you had four Republicans vote with it. And B, like, these are post-Nixonian anti-corruption, you know, right? This is from Vietnam. We have these War Powers Act because Congress was not supposed to lose its power like they did during Vietnam. Wait, so we have Congress pushing back on this. So that's nice to see Congress off the couch. We also see voters weighing in here. So I want to take a listen to some sound from Trump voters in North Carolina who talked to MS now about the war. Let's take a listen. President Trump campaigned on No More Foreign Wars. You've obviously supported him. Three times. Three times. Very disappointed. My entire family is very disappointed. You could talk directly to the president. We know he likes to watch TV. What would you tell him about this war? President Trump.

You shouldn't have got us in this war and was going to end it fast soon. And now you're starting all over again. This war has been, it's been taxing on everyone. And I'm on the fixed income. And so it's, you know, other ones that don't fix the income are, I mean, I'm really feeling it. How do the Democrats harness this all the way to November if they can? Can they keep up this momentum? So something that's working well for Democrats, I think, and a sign that voters sort of understand the gas prices are so tied to this war is that, you know, Brent Crude went to over $100 a barrel. Trump said, we're going to get a ceasefire. We're going to get a ceasefire. We're in a ceasefire. The war's over. We have all these quotes of him saying the war's over. Crude went down. Gas prices went down. And then the ceasefire did not hold and gas prices went up. So it's very easy to see, to make the connection between gas prices and the war. And remember, Unlike other Republican presidents who have gotten us into war with the Middle East, he never made a, you know, the story of why this war is happening is changing. Right. And that's another thing. And that goes back to this idea that when they can't, when they get in trouble is when they can't all be in lockstep. Right. When the messaging starts to devolve into different strains. So I think that's what we're seeing here. Again, look. Democrats need to keep it together. They need to keep the coalition together. Like, you know, it's a big tent. They got to make sure everybody's in the tent. And then, and that, you know, is not necessarily, you know, could be problematic. And they need to run on one thing, affordability. All right. Molly Jungfast, thank you. Up next, the head of the midterms, Democrats warn of a potential mega-fueled doomsday scenario of election lies and voter suppression tactics. Also coming up, a staggering new expose reveals Donald Trump Jr.'s windfall profits as he cashes in on his father's policies. I'll talk to the New York Times journalist who broke that story wide open. And a top Democratic lawmaker joins the beat. on the quagmire in Iran, the heat on Pete Hegseth, and so much more. All of that when we come back. On this vote, the Yeas are 214, the nays are 208. The concurrent resolution is adopted, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. That was the House of Representatives today voting to limit President Trump's war powers in Iran. This is a rebuke of both the war itself and how the commander-in-chief has overseen it.

Joining me now to discuss is Congressman Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York. He is the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Representative Meeks, what signal does this House vote on Iran send to the president, especially in light of the fact that the Senate failed to pass a similar resolution? So let me just say that it shows that 70% of Americans disapprove of this president's war of choice, and they wanted to stop. It says that members of the House, we had four or five Republicans that joined us, and I think that's going to grow as we finish the summer recess, that this war has to stop and that the president has to come. to us. And let me also say, I know that the vote failed in the Senate today, but we had, I had a war powers resolution that passed the House and the exact same resolution passed the Senate. And so we are now going to move forward and continue to pressure. I dropped another resolution today that goes to the Speaker to say that we need to enforce. the resolutions that were passed in the House and the Senate and sue the administration for not following that order. So we're going to continue to put the pressure on, stay with the American people, try to make sure that we are doing our constitutional responsibility of it only being us who can declare a war. This is an undeclared war by this president. So you've anticipated my next question. What is on deck for enforcement? The president is now saying that he is likely to order a, quote, massive attack on Iran to inflict pain on that nation. That seems to be at odds with the resolution's intent to force the president to come first to Congress before taking any other steps in this region. So there's two things, three things that I think that could happen. One, the resolution that I told you that we are going to move forward to us to sue the president. Two, we have a bipartisan group of legal scholars. to also talk about taking into court. But third, and most important, Congress has the power of the purse. We've got to stop and make sure that his supplemental dollars that he's asking for to continue this war, that we cut that off, that he has to come and ask for what we call a authorization for the utilization of military force, not to give it to him. Use those same powers, actually, that had to be utilized in to stop. the Vietnam War. You know, and I heard your guest beforehand, said that's the reason why we had the World Powers Act. We've got to use those same strategies that Congress utilized at that particular time right now. We cannot let up on it.

Well, speaking of the power of the purse, this week's Secretary Pete Hegseth said that this war has cost about $37 billion, but other estimates actually put the cost at a much higher amount. Has there been a lack of transparency from this administration in terms of the war and its costs? And how does Congress plan to take steps in the future to ensure that there is more transparency? Let me just tell you something. There hasn't been a lack of transparency. There's been zero transparency. None. We bring these up at the few hearings that we've had. Well, we haven't had any hearings at the few briefings that we've had in both classified and unclassified sessions. And there has been no transparency. And so that this president has not identified or talked to Congress in regards to that. And unfortunately, most of my Republican colleagues are allowing that to happen. You know, I'm the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We've had not one oversight hearing on this war. And when asked, oftentimes you're told what we'll get back to you on those figures. And they're trying to hide all of the information in regards to the cost, because as you've indicated, I've heard from many that is up to a hundred. billion. And you see that he's asking for another $300 billion moving forward. So no, have there been a lack of transparency? There's been no transparency. So one of the ostensible justifications for this war is to thwart Iran's nuclear capabilities. But yesterday, the president announced a deal that would give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. And there was a lot of criticism of that announcement. And it seems that the president is now backpedaling, saying that that will only happen if the Saudis recognize Israel, something that seems relatively unlikely. If this goes forward, how do you balance on the Foreign Affairs Committee all of these different competing concerns and the threat of nuclear capability? expanding in the Middle East. Well, look, I'm going to try to stop it. We have 90 days to review it. I have not received the documents yet. I heard the Saudis say that the document was signed yesterday. And so this president is saying now that it is required that they become part of the Abraham Accords has no relevancy. It says a tweet does not equal the agreement that they signed yesterday, which could cause a nuclear proliferation drive in the Middle East, which is exactly the... opposite thing that we want to do. So I have what's called a JDR that I will be putting forward to stop this process from happening. I'm working with a number of senators to do the same thing in the Senate. This, it seems as though in the reason for him to do this at this particular time, it just scratches. One has to scratch their head. It makes no sense. And we've got to make sure that we stop it from happening. All right. Congressman Meeks, thanks so much for joining us tonight.

Still ahead, Donald Trump and his allies are ramping up their attacks on voting as their midterm prospects dwindle. But first, shocking new revelations about Donald Trump Jr. and alleged profiteering from his father's office. Tonight, there are stunning new revelations about the ongoing Trump family grift. New reporting from the New York Times outlines how Donald Trump Jr. has reportedly leveraged his father's office to maximize profits for his investment firm, 1789 Capital. As the Times explains, quote, just two years ago, 1789 managed a few hundred million dollars. It now oversees more than $3 billion. The Times continues. Many of the companies that 1789 has invested in have large government contracts, while others have benefited directly from new Trump policies or rollbacks of existing laws. These include companies like Polymarket and SpaceX. Donald Trump Jr.'s business partner said, on the record, that the company's proximity to officials in the Trump administration, quote, helped them position their investment strategies to benefit from White House policies. Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. maintains that he isn't doing anything illegal, but business leaders are acutely aware of this cozy dynamic. According to the Times, quote, in interviews, executives at companies that 1789 is invested in said they viewed being involved with 1789 as a way to get close to the Trump orbit. These revelations fit a broader trend among the Trump family, with reports that Donald Trump himself has been profiting from the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars. As president, Trump has frequently elevated companies in which he has a personal stake. Take a listen. Go out and buy a Dell computer. They make a great product. They're not looking for any publicity. He committed to 200 Boeing. I told this to Boeing and General Electric. We're going to go to the General Electric engines, which are great. Apple, a great company. Oracle will be building. a $14 billion worth of cloud computing and AI infrastructure in the kingdom. I didn't know that, David. We have to talk to your father about that. Joining me now is Maureen Farrell from the New York Times, who broke this incredible story. So, Maureen, what to say about the grift that keeps on grifting, it seems? What was the most shocking thing that you discovered in this reporting? I think it was shocking just to see how much money this firm has raised so quickly and their returns. I mean, the returns are absolutely staggering. So this is unusual for a fledgling investment firm to go from managing a few million dollars to having $3 billion in assets to manage. Exactly. I mean, we talk to various people who say it's essentially unprecedented. I mean, firms raise money quickly, even in the billions, but for first-time fund managers.

which Donald Trump Jr. and his partner are. I mean, they both have investment track records, but they haven't actually managed money for. So to get $3 billion very, very quickly. But then their returns have been, I mean, kind of are really... like shocking, completely shocking, how extremely been. So the law professor and me, my eye was drawn to the point in the story where you wrote, quote, many of the companies that 1789 has invested in have large government contracts, while others have benefited directly from new Trump policies or rollbacks of existing laws. I'm going to need examples. Sure. I mean, Polly Market, when they invested in it before the Trump, this Trump presidency, you couldn't bet as a U.S. citizen. You couldn't put money on. And they rolled back those regulations. It changed. They got a license to operate since then. And the company's value has skyrocketed. It's skyrocketed. I mean, it's booming in value. I mean, they've been one of the things is we said during, they called the election. You know, they've made a lot of. calls, but it's, people are using it. You're allowed to use it in the U.S. The value skyrocketing. It's booming. And then there are other companies, like another company called Vulcan materials, and they make magnets. They mine and mine form produce rare earth magnets that we use in cell phones and planes, these really important things that. has been a really a big strategic priority for both administrations. So it's not even just rolling back the laws, but just like if you are a company whose mission aligns with the agenda of the administration, you're in a position to really benefit. Potentially. In this case of Vulcan, they got a $620 million loan from the government. Got it. And Don and his partner talk about this very openly. They talk about something they call patriotic capitalism, which is putting money. into industries and into companies that are for the strategic priorities of the United States, which they say happen to align with the Trump president of what the administration is putting money behind too. I want to ask you about some reporting from the Wall Street Journal. So it has noted that the president is offering, and some firms are paying for priority access to True Social. So on True Social, the president often tells like his preferred brands, whatnot. Some of this, I guess, could have market-bearing impacts. What do you make of the president offering certain firms priority access before the public can access? I mean, it seems like it's just starting. And who knows where it goes from the wrong reporting I've seen. But it's, I mean, totally mind-boggling. It's hard to imagine that.

That's exactly right. It's voter suppression by doubt, by making people have less confidence in our processes because he doesn't like the outcome of... Or the expected outcome. Or the outcomes that he's experienced in the past. I mean, he's been trying to sabotage the confidence in our elections since he became a political actor, right? Right before the 2016 elections, you recall, he said that he wouldn't necessarily accept the outcome if he weren't the victor. And ever since... then. He's been casting a shadow on the legitimacy of elections and creating this faux foundation of fear and lack of integrity. And nothing could be further from the truth. We need to go back to that Steve Bannon clip. I need you to talk through this. So we know that it is not permissible. It is unlawful for the federal government to send federal agents to polling sites to work during the polling. What are civil rights groups doing to prevent that sort of thing and to get the word out to communities that may feel the heat of those kinds of threats that they need to come out and vote? Yeah, so let's be clear. You can send federal monitors. So the Department of Justice has a history of sending neutral, unarmed monitors who are meant to ensure that voters are not being intimidated, that there's nothing untoward happening at our polls. But you cannot send... Armed agents to police officials who have absolutely no business going to polling sites because there's no reason for their presence other than to make people feel fearful or intimidated. So that is absolutely unlawful. And civil rights groups like the Legal Defense Fund are already working with states and locales to encourage them to create their own barriers for ICE agents where they cannot be permitted in public places. Most of our polling sites are at. elementary schools or other public sites, and state and local officials have the ability to limit the presence of ICE agents. And these are things that need to be in place well before the election, well before early voting commences to give the American public the confidence that they can go out and cast a ballot. Better yet, they can vote by mail early so they can avoid any spectacle altogether. So MSNL is the first to report that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer held a meeting, which basically was about engaging in doomsday planning, like planning for various scenarios regarding election interference, voter role purges, troop deployments. And this race, some eyebrows among some, even in the Democratic wing, former associate attorney general, Vanitha Gupta, warned, quote, I think it can be dangerous for people to have a catastrophizing attitude around our elections where people can only see the threats and then decide, you know what, I'm too scared. I'm not going to vote. How do you balance on the one hand the need to prepare for every eventuality and the need to ensure that people don't feel so scared that they don't go out and vote? Yeah, that's always a tension when we have to be truthful about the threats that we're facing, but we also need to encourage people to continue to participate. Because if you leave a threat unaddressed, it's only going to get bigger. There's no way for us to combat the threat to our democracy, the threat that this administration is posing to civil rights and human rights more broadly without using the one tool that we all possess, and that is our right to vote. That is our voice.

We need to know what the threats are and we need to prepare. We need to get the documentation we need to vote. We need to have a plan for voting. We need to vote in overwhelming numbers to ensure that there can be no question about the outcome of the midterm elections, whatever they are. Right. So just today, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the president's executive order that would restrict mail-in voting. The order effectively would force the Postal Service to reject ballots without specific barcodes. She said that it was likely unconstitutional and said that, quote, if this executive order was allowed to stand, it would lead to the, quote, disenfranchisement as to the upcoming election that is plausibly likely and imminent. What is the strategy to protect voting by mail? We already had a Supreme Court decision this term, basically beating back an effort to limit voting by mail. What's the plan to protect it? Because this seems to be the next frontier for those who believe that voting fraud is widespread. Absolutely. I mean, our country has a 160-year history of voting by mail, but because more and more voters are using this as a mechanism to vote. And certain voters. And certain voters like the president who voted as recently as March by mail when he was on a golf court. Actually, I wasn't thinking of him. Oh, you weren't. Well, I was because he's the biggest hater of mail in voting. So he's used mailing voting, but actually, like, a number of marginalized communities post-pandemic have really used mailing voting in record numbers. Rural voters, voters of color. Black voters vote by mail around 40%. Yeah. And, you know, it's not coincidence, I think, that we now see this crackdown on mail and voting, even though it has been proven to be safe and secure and convenient, especially for voters who... don't have ready access to polling sites or ready access to transportation or have a hard time getting away from their day jobs in order to cast a ballot and participate in our democracy. All right. Janay Nelson, thank you. We will be right back.

That does it for me. In the U.S., there's a break-in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near, SimplySafe home security steps up. Stop. This is SimplySafe. Police are on the way. Using AI alerts, U.S.-based live agents help deter breakins. SimplySaf, no long-term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at Simplysafe.com slash SXM or with promo code SXM. Outdoor deterrence requires a SimplySafe active guard outdoor protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit Simplysafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information, Tennessee 2012.