All In With Chris Hayes 5/30/2026 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 News Breaking News Today May 30, 2026

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. Donald Trump's 80th birthday is coming up in just two weeks, and as is his style, he's been corruptly lavishing himself with presents all year in preparation. But today, three separate federal judges started reigning on his parade. A quick succession of court decisions over the course of just a few hours, rebuking Trump on some of his seemingly highest priorities in office.

[00:00:23]I mean, these are the things that keep him up at night. These are the things he thinks about, that he plots about, that he talks about to the press and anyone who's listening. There is clear evidence of the growing backlash to his profitering off of his petition. Like when he unilaterally put his name above John F. Kennedy's on the Kennedy Center, not, you know, profit per se, but let's just say self arandisement. A federal judge today ordered Trump's name permanently removed from the building, saying, quote, and this is true, Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.

[00:00:56]That was just the beginning of Trump's very bad day. The next shoe to drop was over his planned $1.8 billion slush fund to pay the people who helped him try to overthrow an election the last time he lost, and we should say essentially anyone else that he wants to. The plan is now falling apart. A federal judge in Virginia put the brakes on that slush fund today, halting it as multiple lawsuits against Trump's DOJ worked through their way through the courts.

[00:01:21]Remember, Trump's DOJ proposed this fund at a settlement to Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS that Donald Trump controls. And today, the federal judge in Florida who heard the lawsuit right when Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS, she said she is reopening that lawsuit to investigate grievous allegations that the settlement was quote premised on deception and made the court the victim of a fraud. That was a response to a motion by 35 former federal judges saying the Trump administration might have defrauded the court with its settlement. The settlement seems like a product of collusion, not a good faith process, between two parties in a lawsuit who are crucially adversarial to each other in a controversy as uh the con the constitution describes. In fact, one of the signatories, one of the retired federal judges who signed onto that brief explained on our show just last night how there could have been a fraud on the court.

[00:02:21]>> This could only be paid over if there was litigation, if there had been a claim. And so therefore they went to court to make a claim. The problem is that the claim was really as we said in our papers a collusion was was a fraud on the court that that the claim was really not a real claim because it was Donald Trump bargaining with uh himself as you said before the snake bargaining with himself.

[00:02:49]>> So the the the motion was to to reopen the case. Not that we're making, not that we're saying that it is a fraud or not fraud. We're saying there's enough here that the judge should investigate, should be opened to see what's going on.

[00:03:06]>> Now, I'll be honest with you. When we had Nancy Girtner, who you just saw there on the show last night, who's been a frequent guest and who I always love hearing from, when we had her on the show saying this, I again, I don't know the law well enough, it seemed a bit of a long shot, like to go in and be like, "Wait a second, wait, not so fast." But guess what? Not such a long shot. That judge that received the filing is now giving the government until June 12th.

[00:03:27]They have to file something explaining how the slush fund plan is legitimate.

[00:03:33]They actually have to reply and say, "No, no, no. We weren't colluding. We were adversarial." As hard as a case that might be to make, or the whole thing might be scuttled entirely. So, that's three huge rulings just today, just in a few hours this afternoon into the evening challenging some of Trump's most grossly corrupt acts. Then just before he got on air, another federal judge ruled that he could not dismiss the indictments of Oathkeepers leader Steuart Rhodess and fellow supporters who plotted the attack on the capital on January 6 because the Justice Department hasn't offered any facts or evidence to justify it despite the fact that they are trying to resin those just more evidence of Trump's waning power and influence and also of the just sheer lawlessness of his rampage through the nation that federal judges have been trying to top. This is even as he's taking nation's birthday party and turning it into his own. I mean, it's a 250th birthday of the the country. Trump has sort of appropriated the whole thing as a Donald Trump birthday party. Um, he's throwing himself a USC party. It's there. It is in front of the White House. A live televised cage fight that's happening on the White House lawn on Trump's 80th birthday in two weeks, by the way. And that pairs wonderfully with another one of Trump's gifts to himself. And again, he's been making lots of these. He's not someone who likes to deny himself much. A big bunch of stock in, yes, you guessed it, UFC's parent company. Between 15 and $50,000 worth in late March. According to disclosures first reviewed by Huffost, the White House told MS Now, there are no conflicts of interest. Great. Note, there's just a stock purchase and then a giant UFC event on the White House lawn that he's been promoting for months.

[00:05:12]What could possibly be a conflict of interest about that, right?

[00:05:16]Donald Trump feels entitled to lots of guests all the time now, even when it's not his birthday. In fact, every day is kind of his birthday. I think that's the way he views it. This increasingly brzen and ham-handed corruption is also, I think, getting harder to stain as gas prices still hover above $4 a gallon and a vast majority of the country says the economy is awful and his political strength collapses. especially with regards to the sedition of slush fund, which might be the single most repellent and audacious idea he's come up with yet. I mean, members of both parties have now introduced bills to block it.

[00:05:52]One congressman is pushing to subpoena the Trump officials who were involved in putting the plan for that fund together.

[00:05:57]That congressman is Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. He's a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and he joins me now. Um, Congressman, I think you and I would both agree that that federal district court judges, that's the lowest level in the federal judiciary that has three levels, district, appellet, Supreme Court, across ideological lines across the party that that that nominated them have really consistently kind of just said up is up and down is down, you know, black is black and white is white when it comes to Trump. And today we have another example with respect to the slush fund. So, first let me just start with um your understanding of the significance of both of these rulings. One to just stop it and two down in Florida to reopen the case.

[00:06:40]>> Uh it's monumental and the constitutional philosophy that's been advanced by tens of millions of Americans across the country of no kings, I think, is also being taken up by the federal judiciary. These people are saying no kings. We're actually going to enforce the law as it is. So, it's a a remarkable day for the rule of law in America as uh the judges peel back the various layers of the onion and reveal nothing but a fraud at the heart of it. And that fraud uh is obviously propounded by Donald Trump, but Attorney General Todd Blanch is right in the thick of it. I mean, they filed a motion to dismiss on July 23rd of 2025 in a case not only exactly on point legally, but on exact on exactly the same point factually. It related to the same leak that Trump was uh concerned about. This is the one that sent Charles Little John to jail for leaking information about Trump's taxes. And the DOJ under uh Todd Blanch and under Pam Bundy sent in a motion to dismiss which succeeded saying that you can't recover against the government for the misdeeds of a private government contractor. They knew it. They won on that point and then they turned around in this case and they agreed with Donald Trump that he should get 10 billion.

[00:08:01]>> Yes. [laughter] Right.

[00:08:02]>> Yeah. So now, so now they're all going back and saying it was a fraud on the court from the beginning. There was collusion between uh the two sides. They didn't they weren't owed$1, much less $10 billion. So the settlement, the so-called settlement was completely fraudulent. It was attempt to set up this 1.77 $ 1.776 billion political slush fund for their friends and then also an attempt to wipe the slate clean for any tax fraud, tax crimes or other federal crimes or federal civil violations uh that were undertaken by Trump, his family or his businesses, which of course had nothing to do with the original matter of the leak in the first place. So they tried to uh sneak into this whole thing, this wipe out of liability, a super pardon by the attorney general for the president, his family, and his businesses. And now suddenly it's clear the emperor's got no clothes. This was a fraud in the court that they're trying to turn into a fraud against the country.

[00:09:02]the the the judge ordering halting the fund. This is Brinkma, uh says it's important the status quo be maintained until plaintiff's pending motion has been resolved, especially as pain alleged that defense council was unable to provide assurances of how long the status quo would last and declined plaintiffs request the government commit to not transferring money to the fund or processing or payment claims at least in June 19th, which is which is to say the government refused to commit. Okay, we'll wait. It seems like they want to ship the money out the door, forcing this federal judge to be like, "No, I'm actually putting an order in place that you can't."

[00:09:35]>> Yeah. I mean, they are treating them, and rightfully so, as people in caught red-handed in the middle of uh a massive theft against the taxpayers. So, they they're saying, "We're going to freeze the action." Judge Williams's action uh in response to these 35 uh retired federal judges is equally extraordinary and equally compelling and correct. And she basically just said, "Look, I never saw that settlement agreement, much less I see the cautisole to the settlement agreement that was introduced by memorandum the day after by the Department of Justice." G give giving all of this uh tax forgiveness and tax liability, a super pardon for any crimes. If you read it, Chris, it's not even just about tax offenses. It's any criminal or civil offenses. So it could be insider trading, it could be embezzlement, it could be Epstein related crimes, it could be sexreated crimes. All of that is forgiven by that, you know, one or two page memo that the attorney general sent in the day after the settlement agreement, which had never been seen by the court in the first place.

[00:10:39]>> Yeah. I mean, as is so often the case in these times, I I sort of feel like, well, you don't need a law degree to be like, that's not right. I mean, you can't you can't do that. I don't know what the law is technically, but I don't have a law degree, but like that can't be the case. And then you you also have I mean, this is what she said. She says uh she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump's efforts to settle lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. And what's also key to me here, and you talk about subpoening things, it's like there's a little bit of reporting in the Wall Street Journal today suggesting there's some people in the White House getting hinky about this and a little bit of naming of like who is doing this and who isn't in on this. I want to know how this thing came about. I mean, we there's still a lot to find out about how this thing came about. Don't you agree?

[00:11:19]>> Well, yes. And I think, you know, to those of us on Capitol Hill, it smells to high heaven. We've got now robust Democratic and Republican groups working together to shut this down in the budget reconciliation uh process related to, you know, ICE and immigration and so on.

[00:11:38]The Republicans said, "We're not going anywhere near this." They don't want to be caught on the wrong side of this.

[00:11:43]They're already carrying weight for a billion dollar ballroom that nobody wants because Donald Trump like a king just bulldozed the White House. Then they got the 1.776 billion political slashf fund. And now you've got this attorney general driven super pardon for everybody in the Trump family and all the Trump businesses. And they said we're not going near that. So, if we can attach a rider in the appropriations process to say no money for this ripoff, for this fraudulent settlement, then Donald Trump will have to decide. Is he going to sign the money he claims that he needs for ICE and immigration enforcement, but include this ban on his ripoff, or is he going to veto the whole thing and try to force the Republicans uh back down that road and try to have his way with them again? We'll see.

[00:12:28]There are enough Republicans who he has completely antagonized and vilified in the campaigns that I think there are enough of them who are going to hang tough with the Democrats. Well, we'll see. I mean, that's always that's never been a safe bet over the last 10 years, but but maybe things maybe things I I think you're right on this that that there's a lot of free agents floating around, particularly over in that Senate, uh, where you got John Cornin and Bill Cassie, a few others who are looking to see what they're going to do with the rest of of their term.

[00:12:54]Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you very much.

[00:12:57]You bet, Chris.

[00:12:58]>> Coming up, Congressman James Walkenshaw is in the room for Pam Bondi's blow up with lawmakers today, and then he's going to join me right here on set to talk about it. That's next.

[00:13:12]Today, former Attorney General Pam Bondi finally appeared before the House Oversight Committee over her handling of the release of the Epstein files.

[00:13:18]Long-awaited closed-d dooror interview that she made multiple attempts to avoid. remember they like pulled together that last minute thing where they're trying to say that counted but it didn't. Anyway, as you might have anticipated, today did not go well.

[00:13:31]Bondi lost her temper points, got combative, grew particularly frustrated when asked questions about Donald Trump, according to a person inside the room.

[00:13:38]But she did answer at least one question about Trump.

[00:13:44]She was asked specifically about Donald Trump, President Trump's awareness of Epstein's crimes before they became public knowledge. She had the opportunity to say, "Donald Trump certainly wasn't aware of those crimes."

[00:14:01]She had the opportunity to say, "I know Donald Trump, and if he was aware of those crimes, he would have done something." Instead, she said, "I don't know."

[00:14:10]She also said, quote, this is a direct quote, I'm not certain of the extent of his knowledge.

[00:14:18]Bondi after the hearing tried to clean up her response by calling uh Congressman James Walking's account a quote misrepresentation misrepresentation, writing, "What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mara Lago decades ago because Epstein was a despicable creep." Joining me now is Congressman James Wenshaw, Democrat of Virginia, who was in that closed door interview before the House Oversight Committee, and you just saw him on your television, and now here he is. Um, so, uh, walk me through what happened today.

[00:14:44]Yeah, look, we had an opportunity to sit down with Pam Bondi and ask questions.

[00:14:48]Unfortunately, it wasn't on video, so you can't see her responses. You'll get the transcript later. I would say that she said, "I don't know," or, "I can't recall more than a hundred times." She refused to answer any questions about conversations she did or didn't have with Donald Trump about the files. But to me, the most shocking revelation is what you just shared there, that she did not say she was certain Trump was unaware of Epstein's crimes.

[00:15:17]>> First, on that first thing you said, was she are they citing executive privilege?

[00:15:20]Are they just saying like cart blanch, we're not answering anything about we talked to the president? Do they have a foundation for that? She described it as a voluntary appearance before the committee because the Republican chairman COMR let her off the hook with the subpoena. She didn't appear for the sworn deposition. So she was appearing voluntarily uh as she and Harit Dylan her personal/DOJ lawyer described it. So she picked and chose what questions to answer.

[00:15:45]>> Okay. [laughter] I mean >> as someone who has sat in a deposition, I would have preferred that arrangement than the one that that I ended up with.

[00:15:51]>> Much better. Yeah.

[00:15:52]>> Um Okay. Let's talk about so one of the things that keeps coming up is there's there they keep telling two stories about what Trump knew about Epstein that are in tension with each other and I don't think both can be true. One is that he knew nothing and the other is he kicked him out of Mara Lago because he was such a and I quote her here disgusting creep.

[00:16:12]>> But those those can't both be true. If you kicked him out of Marlo because he's such a disgusting creep then you knew he was a disgusting creep. If you knew he's a disgusting creep, >> well then you had some indication of what he was doing and you didn't know nothing. Right.

[00:16:23]>> That's right. And they've told so many different stories about him being kicked out of Mara Lago or >> which by the way, no one has ever independently established.

[00:16:30]>> That's right. In fact, there's evidence to suggest it happened quite differently that in fact Mara Lago was sending people to Epstein to perform massages uh and maybe other other things. Uh, look, I have always found it very difficult to believe that over this time period, the 1990s, the early 2000s, before the 2008 um, uh, plea bargain, a plea agreement, I find it very difficult to believe that the people close to Epstein, including Donald Trump, didn't know what was going on. There were, by some accounts, a thousand women and girls abused, raped, trafficked. The idea that the only two people on the planet who knew what was happening were Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell I find implausible and people had very close relationships like Trump and there's a lot of pieces of evidence in the files right we have the birthday card we have Jeffrey Epstein saying Trump is the dog that didn't bark we have Virginia Du Fray trafficked from Mara Lago so many points of connection hard to believe Trump at a minimum didn't know or have a sense what Epstein was up to >> I mean there's also the fact Trump gives that quote to New York magazine, you know, where he says he goes out of his way to be like Epstein really likes him young. basically he likes you know he he's talking about of age women you know very >> ask since I have you here and I was asking Congressman Raskin about just the the the developments we have on the other legal front today um which is the the federal judges blocking the slush fund >> um and also ordering the Kennedy Center name to be restored since I didn't get to ask her we're asking about that let me start with that one which seems pretty clear-cut and if you read the judge's order she just says Yeah, like this name was put on by Congress. He can't just unilaterally change it.

[00:18:13]>> Yeah, the law is crystal clear on it.

[00:18:15]And look, the Kennedy Center is an important American cultural institution for the DC region that uh Rascin and I represent. Really important cultural institution for our region. Trump has driven it into the ground since his takeover.

[00:18:29]>> Comprehensively, people not showing up.

[00:18:31]They're going to close it for two years.

[00:18:32]I mean, yeah. If he could declare bankruptcy on the Kennedy Center like he did with his casinos, he maybe would have done it. My hope is he's lost interest in the Kennedy Center project and we'll move on and we can, you know, let the board and the professionals return it to its pre-Trump glory. That's my hope.

[00:18:47]>> You got to root for like the ballroom and the reflecting pool are getting all the old Kennedy >> plug the holes in the reflecting pool and let the Kennedy Center go and let's restore it to what it was. Congressman Raskin seemed to be um h be bullish um on the notion of real bipartisan support when you guys get back from this recess to block this slush fund. You got a federal judge who's ordered it paused right now. You've got another federal judge saying she wants briefing on whether this a fraud. If those both fail though, Congress of course could pass legislation. And are you similarly bullish that there's appetite for that?

[00:19:21]>> I think Republicans privately desperately want it to go away, >> right? They don't want to have to vote for it, but they don't want it to happen.

[00:19:28]>> That's right.

[00:19:28]>> Well, that's how they feel about a lot of things.

[00:19:29]>> That's right. But nor but nor do I believe that there are many of them that are up for a confrontation with Donald Trump on this. I don't believe that for a second. So, I think they're going to try to figure out creative ways to distract him from it or make him think that by putting it out there he gets something else, whether that's the ICE funding or reconciliation.

[00:19:50]>> Well, that's what they're talking about now. that they with they withdraw that and then they pass this, you know, enormous tens of billions of dollars more to go to ICE and CBP which already got over hundred billion dollars in the last bill.

[00:20:00]>> Yeah. Yeah. It's like I it's kind of like the negotiations with Iran. It's like open the straight of her moose and we'll give you something else. It's the same kind of thing. They're looking to figure out what >> it is his birthday. That's right. You have to concede it is the man's birthday and 80 is a big deal.

[00:20:16]>> Yeah. It's the oldest. He will be the oldest president in history. Yeah. Um f final question for you as a member of the oversight committee and obviously judiciary has some interest here too >> into payments made uh as to to sort of help fund the legal fees for Egene Carol. Uh in the beginning it looked like maybe it was directed at Carol.

[00:20:37]Subsequent reporting indicates perhaps it's looking at Reed Hoffman who is a billionaire wealthy progressive and democratic donor who had some given some money. This seems like cause for some concern and oversight.

[00:20:49]>> Yeah. Look, whether the investigation is directed directly at Eugene Carol or those who supported her legal efforts that ultimately led to Trump being found liable for sexual abuse. Uh it's a terrible and tragic irony that on the same day we had Harit Dylan from the Department of Justice sitting next to Pam Bondi saying, "Don't answer that question."

[00:21:10]>> She was there as the lawyer in the room.

[00:21:11]>> Yeah. Yeah. Department of Justice saying, "Don't answer that question.

[00:21:14]Don't answer that question."

[00:21:16]Stonewalling the Epstein survivors of sexual abuse. The Department of Justice with another hand is going after a survivor of sexual abuse in Eugene Carol. What kind of message does that send to survivors across the country?

[00:21:29]>> Well, also uh notable that while some of the women who were victimized by Jeffrey Epste have received um some compensation or restitution via civil litigation, not all of them have.

[00:21:40]>> That's right.

[00:21:41]>> And uh as he cooks up a $ 1.8 an 8 billion settlement fund for people that beat up cops and uh defecated on the office of of Congress members, >> tried to kill the vice president, >> tried to kill the vice president. That that there's no money uh being flooded for them. Congressman James Walken, nice to have you here in person. Come back.

[00:22:00]Thanks a lot.

[00:22:01]>> Still ahead, New Yorker editor David Remnick on the systematic dismantling of a legendary journalistic institution. 60 Minutes. That's next.

[00:22:14]Back in April of last year, the executive producer of 60 Minutes, Bill Owens, the third person to ever run the show in its decades on air, abruptly resigned. And in his reg resignation, he cited a lack of editorial independence ahead of the impending sale at that time of the network to David Ellison, the son of Trump mega donor and billionaire Larry Ellison. Since Ellison Jr. took over, things have not gotten any better.

[00:22:40]He installed Barry Weiss as the head of CBS News. Weiss has absolutely no experience running network TV or TV news at all. Uh she previously wrote and edited for the New York Times opinion pages and then started a moderately popular blog that spent most of its time whining about liberals. Now it appears as if she has undertaken an explicitly ideological project and one would imagine at Ellison's behast to transform CBS News into a conservative outlet, a mega friendly outlet, at least an outlet that Trump likes more than what he liked before. Not surprisingly, perhaps ratings have cratered. But Weiss is undeterred. She seems to be dead set on dismantling 60 Minutes, the crown jewel of broadcast journalism. Since its creation in 1968, 60 Minutes has aired countless interviews that caused genuine shifts in public opinion and policy exposees on everything from big tobacco.

[00:23:31]There was a big movie about that, to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to drug trafficking by the CIA.

[00:23:36]This week, we learned that Weiss essentially fired longtime correspondent Sharon Alfonsi, who clashed with her new boss last year after Weiss, remember, tried at the very last minute to spike or delay, she says, a package on Secott, the mega president El Salvador, where Trump lawlessly sent migrants without due process. After a contract was not renewed, Alons told the New York Times, quote, it sends a chilling message to the entire newsroom. I think it was a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize accurate reporting. Weiss also cut ties with Cecilia Vega, a recent hire by the program. Vega released a scathing statement. Quote, "In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories. Let's call this what it is.

[00:24:19]Censorship, both imposed and self-driven." CBS News refutes that assertion. Now, in the latest move, Weiss has installed Nick Builton as the show's new executive producer. Turn out now built into a former technology columnist for New York Times. Uh he's done some other stuff. Wrote a book, was at Vanity Fair. He's sort of been around. Like his boss, he has zero experience producing TV news. Certainly not producing a show like 60 Minutes.

[00:24:43]David Remnick is a longtime editor of The New Yorker. He's spoken out about the hostile takeover at CBS. New Yorker just had a good piece by Clare Malone on it, and he joins me now. Well, David, as the um as the captain of of another august uh journalism institution in the 21st century with the buffeting pressures from every direction, I'm I'm curious what you make of the developments over there at CBS.

[00:25:08]>> Well, I think if you're if you're open-minded and you were looking at this from the beginning, you could say, well, the Secot story was delayed because the new person in charge wanted more sourcing. Um, it's not unusual for an editor to demand more sourcing or improvement in a story. I've held stories for periods of time when I didn't think they were ready. In fact, it's, you know, once in a blue moon, you kill a story because it it's doesn't get over the bar.

[00:25:34]>> But as time has proven, this is not that this is not the demand for a still higher standard on a particular story or the program itself. This is an ideological project and you'd have to be blind not to see it at this late date.

[00:25:49]The Ellison's took over CBS. Um, uh, that's not the prize they wanted. CBS News is not what they were seeking.

[00:25:57]That's the favor to the president. What they wanted was Paramount. They wanted that's that's the prize here. CBS has become an ideological football that the Ellisons are willing to put into play.

[00:26:09]Unfortunately, this is an extremely important institution in American journalism and and now you have it um being treated so shabily and Tanya Simon, for example, was uh fired the other day and it's it's it's terrible.

[00:26:25]This is a woman who's did wonderful work at 60 Minutes. None of us are are flawless. God knows I'm not. But th this is a misery and it comes and it really strikes me in a week when uh one of the people that ran the company that I worked at Donald New House died at the age of 95 the brother of Sai New House and never once in 28 years of running the New Yorker. Not once did I get a phone call from Donald or Sai New House saying I didn't like that story or Steve New House or Roger Lynch who's the CEO who runs it. Not once. And you can be damn sure that somewhere along the way they didn't like something I ran. I'm absolutely how could that it be otherwise, but I never heard from them.

[00:27:10]Independence is what's required uh at at in journalism and it's getting rarer and rarer.

[00:27:18]>> That's it's so well said. I mean, independence is so essential because like you said, like people can have editorial disagreements. People can be annoyed at their bosses or their editors or whatever. and you can have fights over it and you can think of stories ready not ready but there's the world in which that's happening within good faith exchange right and then there's a world where you feel like okay there's something corrupt fundamentally that's happening here there's something there there's a force behind the wall that I'm feeling and I think again to see the the the sort of line of people leaving that place and saying that starting with Bill Owens right that what we're seeing from outside is like for them to come out and say I was being manipulated There was political pressure that we were getting bias. You just have to kind of consume >> sooner or later the message gets clear.

[00:28:04]>> Right. Exactly.

[00:28:05]>> That's exactly right. I think Bill Owen was trying almost in a form of self-sacrifice to throw himself on the bear and say uh you know almost challenging CBS to to behave in a better way. Challenging Barry Weiss to behave with some sense of spine. Look look at the deal here. Barry Weiss is a is a journalist of modest accomplishment. She wrote a book on anti-semitism uh and she worked on the op-ed page of the New York Times and she left there uh after really falling out um ideologically with that with that paper and her famous resignation letter is is something that should be read.

[00:28:44]>> And then she started something called the free press. I have no beef with publications that don't agree with me. I read I read them all the time. They put pressure on my assumptions, on my arguments. They're absolutely necessary.

[00:28:56]That's what a democratic press should be all about or part of it, but it was bought for some preposterous price that I have a hard time believing had anything to do with its value in a market sense. And it was clearly part of this overall deal uh to satisfy the president of the United States and to assure him that the Ellison would be on board with the Trump administration as part of the cost of doing business. That is rotten >> and and and part of it too when it comes to 60 Minutes, this is something I think you and I both have some insight into because we you know you obviously helmed the New York for years. I'm here at MS Now. I've been on you know corporate media if you could call it that for for years. is that you know when you look at coar when you look at some of the stuff with late night right they they said it was a financial decision I find that somewhat implausible but it is the case right that linear TV can be true right there's pressures and all these things but with two things can be true at once question Chris >> 60 minutes is crushing >> that's right there's no >> that's the thing >> there's no question that late night television in the old form was getting killed by new technology and YouTube very few of us watch Saturday Night Live with the late night shows at 11:30 live.

[00:30:08]We consume it in YouTube in little bits and that had a big business effect. But 60 minutes where where linear television is concerned is one of the rare programs that is both a journalistic and a commercial success. That's what the definition of a crown jewel is in a network. And that didn't that doesn't bother the Ellison. That's small change.

[00:30:28]That's chump change to them. What matters is the larger deal that they really wanted to have come through. and the and the cost of doing business was this kind of sac this ideological sacrifice >> to the great leader and that is dangerous and it's not unique. It's happened elsewhere as we know.

[00:30:47]>> Yeah, that was what brought me up short today when I saw the news and this is no I don't I don't have a personal relationship with Nick Bolton and he might be the most brilliant guy and maybe he'll do an amazing job there. I I really I really don't know. But talk about I mean when you talk about a crown drill it's like this is simultaneously it's the rarest thing in the world right to get these two things journalistically and commercially successful for decades and and successful at a moment when it's hard to sustain that concess right like that's that's the hardest thing to do in this business and you got this thing that's doing it. It's like oh boy I don't know you want to mess with that unless there's some other reason to mess with it.

[00:31:24]Well, look at us. We're having a conversation on cable television and you're talking to an editor who runs 10,000word pieces with talking dog cartoons in it and sending reporters all over the world and paying them decently and trying to pull that off in the modern world is rough.

[00:31:41]>> Yes.

[00:31:41]>> Is rough. But I it's very much worth doing. honest journalism, independent journalism, journalism that puts power under the microscope, that puts pressure on power in its competence or its honesty. We have to have that. It does.

[00:31:57]It's not about you, Chris. It's not about me, David. It's about these have preserving these institutions and getting them to flourish in a democracy that needs it desperately. Not just during the Trump era, but always.

[00:32:10]>> Yeah. And I totally agree about the free press. I've came up in the nation. And I'm a I'm a small like independent magazine person whether it's online or print. Let a flower thousand flowers bloom. I love that stuff. Go people starting things. I love when people start things. I love to read all kinds of different things. It's a very different [laughter] uh phenomenon than what we're watching here and and I I hope uh some course corrections might change. You know that the future's unwritten. David Remnick always a pleasure to have you on my friend.

[00:32:35]>> Thanks for having me.

[00:32:37]>> Still to come with three years left in his term. How Donald Trump stopped just trying to be president. That's next.

[00:32:49]There's been a genre of newspaper article that's emerged over the last decade or so where a reporter from New York or DC ventures out to the rust belt to reaffirm that Trump supporters still support Trump. We've seen them adnauseium. This week, as Trump's approval ratings crater, the Washington Post did get a different message from Trump voters in Ohio. Quote, "Anet Dembroski said she believed Trump when he promised during his last campaign to lower prices. She watched excitedly alongside her boyfriend last year as Trump signed one executive order after another, but now her bills for gas, groceries, and other necessities have gone up." "I don't even want to vote for anybody in the next election," said Dumbowski, once a reliable voter in the midterms. "I don't care because they're all crap." She's not alone. The broad cultural shift that MAGA seemed to have made in this country about 18 months ago has just come and gone. Trump is heveraging support from his white working-class base and the inroads he made with black and Latino men in 2024 are shrinking. According to one recent poll, 25% of Hispanic 2024 Trump voters, those are people already voted for him in 2024, said they wouldn't support him again. Maria Theresa Kumar is a president CEO, voter Latino. Shelani Cobb is a staff writer from New Yorker, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, and they join me now. Maria, let me let me start with you because I think one of the most consistent findings we have seen in polling as Trump approval declines uh is among Hispanic Latino voters and young voters.

[00:34:09]Those have been the two where it's like it just hits you in poll after poll after poll. Um here's the Unidos poll.

[00:34:16]One that that said one in four Hispanic Trump voters said they would not vote for him if given the choice. The twothirds of Latino voters disapprove of his job performance compared with 30% who approve. disapproval majority in every region tested, including in Florida. And on the generic ballot, this is really striking. Latino voters back the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate 54 to 27 with 19% undecided. What do you make of that?

[00:34:42]>> Well, I think that he did two things, right? He's failed on two fronts, Chris.

[00:34:46]He promised that he was going to lower inflation prices, that people were going to basically make their dollars stretch under his administration, and that when he said that he was going to do mass deportation, he meant people that basically were convicted of some sort of felony or what have you. He's done neither. And in the Latino community, it hits particularly hard because Latinos are really struggling when I tell you that close to 35% of folks have actually had to sit back on bills. They're back they're they haven't been able to pay electricity. They're trying to they're some of them are even skipping meals.

[00:35:15]And this is going into the summer months where a lot of their children may get food assistance during the during the school year but now all of a sudden do not have it. So that's one. And then you have the added pressure of the racial profiling. There is not one Latino that I speak to on a daily basis that doesn't know someone that either been targeted by this administration or that actually knows a loved one that has been either detained or frisked or what have you simply because they're Latino. And so those two pieces of it was like he not only did he lie, but I'm also underwater. It's very serious. And I think that the Latino community right now in this country is facing a completely different experience than the rest of Americans because of that extra layer of the racial profiling we're experiencing in mass.

[00:35:56]>> It's a great point that the there's a great publication here in New York City called The City uh which I really recommend to people. It's an incredible uh and they they just did some amazing reporting on the percentage of immigration arrests happening not no longer in the courts or other places just on the streets in New York City and it's massively massively overindexed for Latino folks. I mean massively um they they have the numbers to show it. I also think Gelani there there's this interesting thing happening. We're thinking about the I sure you've been following the sort of concert stuff which has been kind of funny, right?

[00:36:25]It's like let's book Millie Vanilli and CC Music Factory and and then they pull out or some of them have pulled out.

[00:36:32]There was this moment in 2024 where there was this like kind of crescendo of like weird kind of cultural power. It was like Snoop Dogg like was kind of like sort of maybe Trumpy and 50 Cent was maybe Trumpy and you know all the billionaires were there and UFC and all the podcasters and like that just seems so distant now and went by in a blink of an eye.

[00:36:54]I mean, it was easy, you know, I think if you if you look I mean, it was easy for people to to make those kinds of pledges then, but now, you know, people have buyers remorse uh because you have to actually look at what he's done, not what he said he was going to do, although I I would say some of what he he's done was predictable based upon what he said. But when people heard selectively when people heard what they wanted to hear and you now have to compare that to what has actually happened uh if you were thinking about a person who's led a populist movement and then imposed tariffs uh which are being paid for uh on on the backs of workingclass and middle class people uh and then launched an an optional war with Iran which spiked uh you know gas prices. Uh and then you know the Wall Street Journal has a story out uh today about there being uh this staggering record gap between corporate profits uh and wages. Uh and all these things have happened on his watch. Uh, so it it pretty much is difficult to square with, you know, all the uh the macho uh, you know, UFC fighting and, you know, we're just going to bro out and, you know, the the country is going to be great and, uh, you turn around and you can't afford to to feed your kids and that actually doesn't go as far as you thought it might.

[00:38:08]>> Yeah. that the material thing the thing that you were just saying those sort of twin things Maria like the the sort of racial profiling and the and the the cost of things material things like it is striking how checked out Trump seems from the economic stuff and how we said this last night where he sort of even stopped pretending you know when you think about like the the McDonald's sticktick he was doing and the thing during the campaign where they broke brought out the groceries like look at how expensive like they're not really even trying anymore. more, >> right?

[00:38:41]>> Well, well, and I think Chris, I think not only are they not trying, but I want to go back to you how you opened up the segment. There was a voter who was very enthusiastic that voted for Trump and then basically says, "Look, I vote every single midterm, but I'm out. I don't want to." The American people have to understand that that in itself is a strategy. Tiring out a voter because they feel that it doesn't matter what they do that they can't get out of it.

[00:39:02]That's the strategy of the of the of the right. But then you really will have to wonder what is wrong with the Democrats that they cannot fill this void this void where they're looking for someone that actually says look this is how we are reimagining when you vote for us.

[00:39:15]This is how you create the firewall so we can get course correct and prepare the country for the 21st century. And every single time we have these conversations with folks whether I'm talking to a donor whether I'm talking to someone on the grassroots or someone that's infected affected by these policies everyone keeps saying is like where are the Democrats? There's so much opportunity right here to get that voter that voted for Trump last time to come back into the game and saying, "Hey, actually there are solutions." And I do have to say that there's so much controversy around what MDM is doing, but he at least is fixing the potholes and the bar is so low for so many Americans right now, they're asking the Democrats, just fix the potholes and let me come back and vote for you.

[00:39:52]>> Yeah, it's a good it's a good point.

[00:39:53]There's also Gelani, we were talking to David Remnick last segment about 60 minutes. There's also just this sense in which like this real attempt again at the high point of his perceived power, right, and the cultural cache and just won the election to like roll up the media and sort of push it under. And I worry there's a little bit of a gap like there was some early success that we're going to be living with now because of things that happened last year that sort of shadow all of us who work in the media even as his popularity declines.

[00:40:23]>> That's true. Uh and but I think that they they've pursued this strategy relentlessly. Uh even I mean just yesterday, you know, they they refiled a suit uh that $10 billion uh bogus lawsuit that had been tossed out uh by a federal judge uh against the Wall Street Journal uh and against two journalists uh Kada Safar and Joseph Palazo Palazolo uh who uh had written the the story who had covered the story about the Epstein birthday card. Uh and so that has meant is the case has already been tossed out once has been refiled just as a mere means of making it difficult to expose things that the public because they know that they've been wounded by the Epstein story and they know that somewhere in there as they're hemorrhaging this kind of support it is connected to Epstein and the reporting that brought it to light. Uh and so people have to be very clear that this is effort to intimidate the the press uh is part of a bigger strategy to pursue uh policies that are not in their interests.

[00:41:26]>> Yeah. Maria Theresa Kumar, Galani Cobb, thank you both. Great to have you both.

[00:41:30]Stay tuned. Just a few minutes. Shaki will speak to former US attorney P.

[00:41:33]Barara about all of Trump's legal setbacks today. And there were a lot of them. We'll be right back.