All in With Chris Hayes 7/22/26 | 🅼🆂🅽️🅲 Breaking News Today July 22, 2026

[00:00:01]Good evening from New York. I'm Jacob Soberoff in for Chris Hayes. Today, Donald Trump attended the dignified transfer of four US soldiers who lost their lives in his war with Iran. But the commander-in-chief's approach to his war of choice has been anything but dignified. Starting with his comments to reporters, lying to the American people, and trying to convince them that this war, his war, is not deeply unpopular.

[00:00:29]say to families of these fallen soldiers when Americans are wrongly against this war. How do you ask them?

[00:00:39]>> Well, Americans aren't against the war.

[00:00:41]The >> a poll a poll just came out. Americans don't want to high gasoline prices, but they're not against the war. That just came out loud and clear in a poll.

[00:00:51]>> Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Do you want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? You think it's good?

[00:00:57]Americans are not against the war. Yep.

[00:01:00]That is not not even remotely true. Even the president's supporters are starting to turn on this war. We know this thanks to a political political poll. It came out today. As it drags on and more troops are put in harm's way and gas prices keep rising, there is no real end in sight. MS Now reporter Alex Tabot was in North Carolina asking people about this exact thing. Just listen listen to what one retired military wife responded to those comments from the president.

[00:01:30]>> My opinion on the war, it's an unnecessary war that should never have taken place.

[00:01:38]If there was a problem with Iraq, words can solve a problem better than a war can solve any problem.

[00:01:47]Death never solves anything, especially during the war.

[00:01:52]I saw you get emotional there for a second.

[00:01:57]>> How did that make you feel?

[00:02:01][gasps] >> And like I say, it's unnecessary for any war. I'm a retired military wife. I have brothers, cousins, grandparents that's fought in so many wars that I've never understood the the purpose of a war and still don't.

[00:02:22]>> The people know so much more than the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That that was a similar sentiment to what I heard while talking to folks today as I was filming what we call our prediction market segment uh for my new show, Connect.

[00:02:36]>> What's your prediction? When do you think it's going to end?

[00:02:39]>> I no clue. And we have three sons that all serve in the military. So, >> thank you. Thank you to them.

[00:02:44]>> So, I just I worry about them and that's where my focus is is on their safety.

[00:02:48]>> How do you feel about Are they overseas now?

[00:02:51]>> Nope. Yeah. Thank God. No. My oldest has done four tours. He's home right now.

[00:02:54]Thank goodness. But a lot of his friends are over there.

[00:02:56]>> What's it like to to sort of have a time now where we have a war where you don't know what's going to happen or when it's going to end.

[00:03:01]>> I don't sleep well [laughter] >> as a mom. I just think there were some miscalculations with the straight of her mood and then um yeah, I don't I don't see an exit plan. So, I I worry about that.

[00:03:13]>> I cannot imagine it helps when the president speaks so flippantly about it all. He posted today in all caps on social media about how he is taking time to honor our heroes exclamation point, signing the post, President DJT.

[00:03:31]At least this time he managed to take off his branded baseball cap while honoring the fallen soldiers. And at least as of right now, he is not trying to fund raise off of his appearance at the dignified transfer like he did earlier this year. Maybe you remember that. That was the fundraising email where he weirdly promised to send national security secrets to his donors.

[00:03:53]The soberness of the dignified transfer and the human costs of war that we are seeing on all sides did not stop Trump though from threatening war crimes on social media. Here's what he said.

[00:04:04]Quote, "From this point forward, anytime the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the straight of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to or in the capital city of Tehran." what he is describing is considered illegal under international law. Trump is so desperate for a win in the Middle East. He just announced a new nuclear deal, not with Iran, but with Saudi Arabia. The Trump administration believes that this will provide billions of dollars for the US nuclear industry, starting with Westinghouse, which designs many of the reactors sold abroad. Currently, the plan is to build a civilian nuclear program in the country, allowing the Saudis to enrich nuclear fuel with few safeguards. The kingdom publicly says it will only pursue a nuclear weapon if Iran does. Although, it is worth noting that in 2024, journalist Bob Woodward reported that the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman told the late Senator Lindsey Graham, quote, "I don't need uranium to make a bomb. I will just buy one from Pakistan."

[00:05:13]So, here we are nearly 5 months into this regime change war. Thousands of people are dead in Iran and in Lebanon.

[00:05:22]Hundreds more in the surrounding countries. At least 18 Americans are dead. Nearly 500 Americans are injured, likely many more, but we don't actually know because the Pentagon will not tell us. and a commander-in-chief with seemingly little interest in actually ending any of this madness. Senator Tim Kaine is a Democrat of Virginia. He sits on the Armed Services Committee and he joins me now. Senator, it's good to see you. Thank you for being here.

[00:05:49]>> You bet, Jacob. I'm glad to be with you.

[00:05:51]>> Senator, what do you what do you make of the tone um that the president uses when talking about our fallen soldiers? The the all caps in social media today particularly got me.

[00:06:03]The president is very confused and and kind of careening all over the deck on this as he has been from the very beginning. This is a war that is illegal. Uh and it was a war that was foolish and unnecessary from the start.

[00:06:18]Um, what I thought about during this ceremony as the remains of these brave soldiers are coming home is what the parents of these soldiers or the spouses or the kids or the brothers and sisters want to know is why. Why was this necessary? And the president has never been able to answer that question. If you're going to send our best and brightest into a war, you better be able to answer the question why. And he's never been able to do that. no plan, no rationale, no allied support, no consultation with Congress, hence deeply unpopular with the American public. And five months into a war that he thought would probably last as long as his own attention span, he still can't look these parents in the face and answer the question why.

[00:07:07]>> It's the same question, Senator, that those the father and mother, the military father and mother I met from Buffalo today, um ask uh down in the financial district of New York. and the woman that Alex Tabet spoke with um when he was out today and the tone I think is what is so so uping and the president uses the same tone that he used on social media when speaking about these war crimes potential war crimes. He's threatening again to target civilian infrastructure. What is your response to that?

[00:07:35]>> Well, first the the United States has already destroyed civilian infrastructure. um water treatment plants, the destruction of a school that caused the death of probably more than 175 students. The w the Pentagon has said they're doing a study of why they had a school and we know the study's done, but they haven't yet released us to it to us. Um I I think I know why they don't want the public to see it. Uh threatening civilian infrastructure.

[00:08:04]It's a war crime. It's a war crime. And and again, you you add to the illegality of the war because A, the president didn't come to Congress as the Constitution said, B, he's ignored the War Powers Resolution by prosecuting the war past 60 days, and C both houses of Congress under Republican majority voted that the war was illegal and he had to stop it unless he got an authorization.

[00:08:30]And he's ignoring the law. So that is why this war is so deeply unpopular. And why you, you know, in Virginia, a very promilitary state, I just left an event where a a a Marine who said, "I'm a real conservative guy. I voted for you once, but generally I haven't voted for you.

[00:08:51]Thanks for doing what you can to stop this foolish war."

[00:08:55]>> Yeah. Yeah. And and those same Republicans you're talking about, it sounds like they now want to want to sneak more funding for the war into the reconciliation bill. Um, do you think that they they have the votes um even along party lines at this point?

[00:09:09]>> It's interesting. So, the House barely got a bill done to, you know, push more money into the Pentagon. The president is asking for a 40% increase in the Pentagon's budget over last year with no guard rails in the middle of an illegal war and coming to us and asking for an additional $67 billion to fund a war that is illegal and that's deeply unpopular with the American public. What Congress needs to do is be the article one branch and do everything we can to bring an end to this war.

[00:09:45]We're we're I mean the reporting is very clear that we are running out of of interceptor missiles and that's part of the problem here with these casualties that we're seeing and the injuries that are being now finally disclosed to the American people and the war just keeps dragging on. Is a standalone defense spending bill something that you would support? Well, when the Pentagon says they're running out of money, they neglect to tell you something. That the reconciliation bill that passed last year that gave 153 billion extra dollars to the Pentagon, 89 billion of that has not yet been obligated. And now they're coming and saying, "We got to get another 67 billion because of of of this war in Iran and to replenish our munitions, which never should have been drawn down in the first place, hadn't if they hadn't foolishly declared war."

[00:10:31]What about the 89 billion you have sitting over there that we gave you last year that you haven't even spent? So, I I think this math doesn't add up. Um, and particularly when they're not willing to accept any guard rails on how the the money is being used. So, no, I don't think in the middle of an illegal war that's deeply unpopular with Americans that President Trump never should have started. I don't think that's the right time to just inflate the Pentagon budget dramatically.

[00:11:01]>> I don't I mean and and you have such a a a better vantage point obviously than I do to all of this, but it's hard to see from from where I sit both sides make their way back to um the negotiating table as as things stand.

[00:11:16]Even Fox News um some hosts are calling this now another um forever war. Is that what we're looking at? Well, look, you know, five months into something, I know the president thought it was going to be done in a couple of days because his adviserss told him Iran will close the straits and he said, "No, don't worry about it. The war is going to be over already," which anybody with any sense would have known was was wrong. There is a there is a path to getting back to the table. It is a ceasefire. It is reopening the straits. It's allowing Iran access to ports.

[00:11:48]it is um some of investment by u partners in the region to help rebuild what has been destroyed in Iraq and that could build some tighter relationships in the region that could be positive and then it is a discussion along the lines of what the president was discussing with Iran about um here's what we need to do to um put limits on the nuclear program and Iran is not going to just accept those voluntarily they'll want to trade And you know what it'll end up looking like if you get a deal? It'll end up looking a lot like the deal that the United States negotiated with Iran in 2015 that Donald Trump foolishly tore up. And we told Trump if if you make diplomacy impossible, you are making war inevitable. We told him that. His own Secretary of State and Defense told him not to tear up the diplomatic deal. The only reason we're at war today and our troops are dying is that Donald Trump tore up a diplomatic deal that was working.

[00:12:51]>> Well, help me understand what is up with this with this deal with Saudi Arabia.

[00:12:54]Are you concerned about about the potential for nuclear uh proliferation in the region with this this Saudi Arabia deal that that we're hearing about now?

[00:13:03]>> Yes. Um civilian nuclear power nations should be able to use it as they see fit. Um but the the sort of gold standard for the US in transferring technology has been to ask for two things. One, don't do your own enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of plutonium. We can provide that to you, but if you do your own enrichment and reprocessing, it can be used to proliferate nuclear weapons or inspire others to do the same. That's goal one.

[00:13:33]Goal two is if you're going to have a nuclear program, allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to do inspections uh that meet something called the additional protocol, which is designed to ensure that nobody cheats. This deal allows the possibility of the Saudis to enrich and reprocess. And the Saudis have also not agreed to allow the nuclear inspections that are necessary to make sure nobody cheats. When somebody says, "I won't agree to the inspections that guarantee my program is peaceful," the red flags start going up by the dozen. So, I'm very, very worried about this deal not containing those two elements to protect against proliferation.

[00:14:18]>> Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, I'm very grateful uh that you joined us tonight.

[00:14:22]I appreciate you being here. Thank you.

[00:14:24]>> Glad to be with you. Thanks.

[00:14:25]>> Thanks. Coming up, why is the MAGA Echo Chamber using Can't even believe I'm going to say this, rioton to try and rig American democracy? I'm serious. That's coming up next.

[00:14:42]All right, true story. This morning, Donald Trump congratulated himself for Republican primary victories uh in Arizona. Here's what he said. Quote, "Maga candidates won everything last night. A complete sweep. by one Arizona 18 months ago. The Democrats are dumbfounded. Congratulations to all.

[00:15:03]Yeah. Uh Trump endorsed candidates did win in key contests in the state last night. But but let's just take a look at who exactly Donald Trump endorsed.

[00:15:10]There's uh former uh Pinnol County Sheriff Mark Lamb who spent the final weeks of his campaign fighting allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of texting women outside of his marriage.

[00:15:22]For what it is worth, a spokesperson for his campaign uh did tell the New York Times that the allegations are lies. But even after the allegations became public and some of his his alleged text messages were released, the president reaffirmed his support for the guy and Lamb just cruised on to victory last night. Uh he will be replacing outgoing Congressman Andy Biggs. For his part, Andy Biggs easily defeated Congressman David Schwikert last night, winning the Republican nomination for governor.

[00:15:50]Biggs, um, you might remember, was a critical ally to the president in in 2020 and 2021 when Arizona became pivotal to overturning Trump's loss to Joe Biden. Bigs even pressed the state Republican House speaker to descertify the state's electors there. And he was not by any means the only election denier to win last night. There is the Republican nominee for Secretary of State in Arizona. It's Alex Coddlin. He is a state representative who aided a failed uh aided those failed attempts to overturn the state's election results in 2020 and by the way in 2022. And now as Donald Trump celebrates his election deniers inching ever so closer to controlling elections in a crucial state, Republicans are trying to help pass Donald Trump's voter suppression bill by, I swear to God, invoking the Olive Garden. The chain recently brought back its never-ending pasta pass. You might be familiar. It provides 13 weeks of all you can eat pasta to any customer who presents proof of purchase and a photo ID. Sounds kind of good. But from the halls of Congress now to the echo chambers of MAGA media, the talking point about neverending pasta, as they think it's fair to say, been never ending.

[00:17:13]Photo ID is a form of verification is a part of American life. Americans must show an ID to participate in a wide range of everyday activities, including boarding a plane, entering government buildings, cashing their checks, buying a gun, and enjoying Olive Garden's endless pasta bowl.

[00:17:36]>> Have you looked at what Olive Garden's doing?

[00:17:38]>> No photo, no pasta. [music] Nowadays, if you want to go to Olive Garden and get unlimited pasta, you got to show a picture ID.

[00:17:45]>> That's weird. Olive Garden takes Pasta Pass security more seriously than Democrats are taking election security.

[00:17:52]>> We have the Olive Garden require ID.

[00:17:56]>> You can you can buy you can buy a um a pasta pass, an unlimited pasta pass.

[00:18:02]>> You must present a photo ID with your all you can eat pasta pass. If that's the rule for Riotoni, should it be the rule for voting?

[00:18:10]>> Problem is you don't want a situation like Red Lobster had with people sharing. Maybe we just need to change the name of the bill to the Olive Garden law.

[00:18:18]>> I think it's great. Change it to the Olive Garden law.

[00:18:20]>> I I was told that's like, you know, like voter ID. Isn't that racist?

[00:18:25]>> Access to fetuccini at Olive Garden is vastly more secure than deciding who is commander-in-chief of the company.

[00:18:32]>> Not a complicated subject.

[00:18:37]>> Mark Elias is a celebrated voting rights attorney and founder of the Elias Law Group. He is also founder of Democracy Docket. He joins me now. Uh, Mark Elias, Steven Miller has never had the feta cheese at Olive Garden. Number one, the bread sticks are delicious. Number two, uh, and number three, I do want to talk about this insane obsession that they have with the Olive Garden. Um, I don't have a question. You're What do you want to say about the Olive Garden?

[00:19:02]>> All right. First of all, I've eaten at the Olive Garden, so like, you know, now that may not surprise a lot of you out there, but here's the thing. What Donald Trump and the Republicans are trying to do with photo ID is a bit of a bait and switch because I bet you if you go to the Olive Garden, they don't say that your driver's license is from out of state and therefore you can't vote. I bet you at the Olive Garden, they didn't put in the fine print that that uh that if you have a college ID issued by the state, that is the only form of state ID that cannot be used to buy pasta. Right.

[00:19:36]The fact is it's the fact is it's one thing for Republicans to constantly be saying photo ID or ID bills are popular, but what about proof of citizenship? Do you have to prove citizenship in order to order the fetuccini at the Olive Garden?

[00:19:52]>> I mean, I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. And I would hope that that is not the case. And that's the >> You and I can go we can check it out.

[00:19:59]>> This is I I would love to. And I'm not kidding about the bread sticks. They're very good. I'm glad you don't need an ID for the bread sticks because I don't know what I would do uh to be totally honest with you. It does it does seem though, Mark. Um like what they are doing is is just more of the same. They are trying to freak people out about the elections coming as they are getting closer to um trying to ram through the Save Act. Um and I know that that is something that that is of grave concern to you.

[00:20:26]>> Yeah, look, Donald Trump doesn't have a plan to win this election by inspiring voters. He doesn't even have a plan to win this vote this election by like, you know, having voters begrudgingly buy on to his policies. He he he has nothing to run on. Like prices are up, the economy is down. Like the the Congress under Republican leadership has done literally nothing for the American people. All Donald Trump does is is wander around the Oval Office adding fake gold and weird statutes and ripping down parts of the the the buildings. And so what he's realized is that his only chance of winning, the only chance he has to holding control of Congress is by making it harder for people to vote and easier for Republicans to cheat. And so that's what he's doing, right? Like the Save Act is just an opportunity to try to make it harder for people to vote. His executive orders where he's trying to, you know, force the postal service to only deliver the mail and ballots to people on a list that he approves of, that's just like trying to disenfranchise voters and have Republicans cheat. So this is their only strategy and they are left lying about things. They're left, you know, exaggerating things. They're left giving bizarre speeches like Donald Trump did about foreign interference which was all a bunch of nonsense. And but here's here's where we're at and we just need to be prepared for the fight this November.

[00:21:47]>> Let's talk I want to talk a little bit about the election deniers that won their races in Arizona last night because it wasn't it really wasn't just um Andy Biggs. There's the state senate President Warren Peterson. He got the Republican nomination for state attorney general. He made um unfounded claims about fraud in 2020. And then earlier this year, people should know that he gave the FBI files from a 2020 state senate probe into claims of of of uh election irregularities in Maricopa County as part of the effort by the president to question the results.

[00:22:13]There's also um this other guy, Alexander Kot uh what is it? Koladin. Um and he won the Secretary of State nomination. He was sanctioned by the State Bar of Arizona and he was placed on probation. um he was trying to prevent the states electors from from casting their ballots for Biden who obviously won Arizona. If all three of these folks um were to win, Mark, in November, what does it mean for Arizona in 2028? Uh and >> don't forget the Kraken.

[00:22:41]>> Go ahead. Go ahead.

[00:22:42]>> Don't forget the Kraken litigation, right? He was involved in the Kraken litigation which were these cases my law firm and I I litigated 60 plus cases on behalf of President Biden and the DNC including these Kraken cases which involves some mythological sea creature or something you know whatever. So it's not a surprise that lawyers got sanctioned over that. Um but the the fact is that you know each one of these positions the governor obviously certifies uh the electors uh and also uh certifies uh uh members of the house and senate. Secretary of State also uh countersigns a certificate of election for Senate and and other uh down ballot races. The attorney general obviously is a critical role in making sure that for example counties that refuse to follow election laws, you know, they they can take action. In fact, the the current attorney general uh had to sue some uh Republican counties for refusing to certify elections in the past. So, these are vitally important positions to democracy. The problem is it's not only happening in Arizona. Like Arizona is among the worst, but we are watching this happen in state after state after state where the only people who can get through a Republican primary are these election deniers. And it is a real threat to the future of free and fair elections. And as you pointed out that they they just keep repeating the playbook from all of these other states because hours before the polls closed they announced they were monitoring polling sites all across Arizona, Maricopa, Apache, Puma counties. They say it's to ensure transparency and ballot security and all this stuff and to comply with federal law, but um the DOJ has done this in in many states and and you know probably will continue to do so. I wish we had more time, Mark, but um we will continue this conversation another time. I appreciate it. Mark Elias, uh thank you so much for being here.

[00:24:24]>> Maybe at Olive Garden.

[00:24:26]>> Anytime, Mark. I'll text you on the side. I got you. Uh, still ahead, ladies and gentlemen, Congressman James Wenshaw on what he learned at a closed door briefing with ICE leaders today. That is coming up next. You're not going to want to miss that.

[00:24:43]This month, ICE killed two people.

[00:24:44]Lorenzo Salgado Ajo in Houston, Texas, and Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Bifford, Maine. Communities around the country are mobilizing for a national day of action. and it's going to be this Saturday to honor the men and also to demand justice and accountability for their deaths. Meanwhile, today in a closed door briefing to the House Homeland Security Committee, ICE officials disclosed that there have been 53 different reports of excessive use of force by ICE and Border Patrol agents.

[00:25:12]53 immigration agents have shot at least 23 people since last year. Six have died, but so far only one one has been referred for disciplinary action. Joining us now is one of the members in that briefing, Congressman James Wenshaw. He is a Democrat of Virginia who serves on the Homeland Security Committee. Thank you so much for being here.

[00:25:37]>> Thanks for having me, Jacob. What were your main takeaways from the ICE briefing today?

[00:25:43]Well, it was it was shocking to hear what you just shared that with 22,000 officers, thousands of violent encounters across the country, six deaths, only one officer, one single solitary officer has faced any kind of disciplinary action.

[00:26:04]If the agency is truly seeking accountability, if they're serious about their professionalism and their standards, that is impossible. There is no way that only one officer has violated their use of force standards and is being held accountable. Any local or state law enforcement agency, small, medium, or large, in this 18-month period, I promise you, has had more than one officer who's faced some kind of, perhaps minor, perhaps major disciplinary action for violating use of force standards. It is not possible that there's only been one at ICE that has violated those standards.

[00:26:44]It it is so true and certainly I'm not the adjudicator of these types of things, but I with my own eyes from from LA to Chicago or Charlotte or Minneapolis or even the hallways of 26 Federal Plaza have watched over and over again as they use these aggressive and heavy-handed tactics. Um sometimes resulting in people being injured and of course and well although I haven't seen it myself, people dying in these incidents and that's what is so important to continue to underscore. I have a question about this briefing because it was organized by Republicans um on the committee. Why was it why can you explain why it was behind closed doors and why it was not open to the public?

[00:27:20]>> I think that's a great question. You know, Democrats have demanded open public hearings with ICE and CBP officials under oath to discuss these incidents and their respective departments policies. And what we got was a closed door briefing where these officials were not sworn in and weren't under oath. I want them to answer these questions under oath in front of the American people. I want them to explain to the American people how it's possible in 18 months with 22,000 officers, thousands of violent encounters, serious violations. In my view of their policies that we can all see with our own eyes on social media and television, there's only one officer who's been disciplined.

[00:28:05]I want them to explain that to the American people in public.

[00:28:08]>> There was a video that I saw first I saw a tweet shared by Pablo Enriquez, the great um reporter on Capitol Hill. Um but then we tracked down the video of Steven Miller on Capitol Hill today. Um a reporter tried to ask him about the killing of Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine. I would like to just play that for you real quick. Let's watch.

[00:28:28]>> Mr. Miller, what do you have to say to John Sebastian Guerrero's family?

[00:28:33]>> Mr. Miller, how do you mean today?

[00:28:37]>> Mr. Miller, who what do you have to say to the family of John Sebastian Ger?

[00:28:41]>> That was um Eric Garcia asking those questions. Obviously, Steven Miller didn't say a thing um when when asked about that killing in Maine. What how does that strike you watching that video?

[00:28:55]Well, one to hear to see a guy like that Stephen Miller who uh calls himself pro- family and says we need to be a pro-f family nation to not have anything to say to the family of this individual who was >> he excuse me for interrupting you as I think as he walks with his own family there if I'm not mistaken.

[00:29:17]>> It appears to be the case. Yeah, obviously that makes it even more more striking. Uh, look, one of the things that also came up in this briefing was the background checks at ICE. And we know in that instance, the officer who was involved had some very, very serious issues with violence that clearly ISIS's background check failed to capture. Uh, this is a guy who should not have been out on the street with any position of responsibility and yet ICE failed to flag that. That puts the American people at risk. When you have folks like that out on the street with weapons terrorizing communities, Steven Miller should answer for that. It happened on his watch.

[00:30:01]>> And um on Friday, my understanding is you're going to go to Houston, right, for a for a another shadow hearing and to meet with the family of another man killed by ICE, Lorenzo Salgado or um I I spoke to his son um Ronaldo on my show a couple of weeks ago. tell us tell us about what you are hoping to achieve to learn when you visit with the family um in Houston.

[00:30:26]>> I was in Minnesota after Renee Good was killed and it was powerful for me to look into the eyes of motans and see their fear, their anger, their frustration and as painful as it's going to be I want to look into the eyes of Mr. Rajo's family and feel for myself the pain that they're experiencing so I can take that back with me to Washington and communicate it to my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues.

[00:30:56]>> Um, Congressman James Wenshaw, thank you so much for being here and letting us know what you learned and what you weren't able to learn um in this in this hearing and this meeting today.

[00:31:05]Appreciate it.

[00:31:07]>> Thanks, Jacob.

[00:31:09]Still to come, stay with us because Donald Trump is investigating the White House press as the White House press prepares to celebrate the First Amendment. We'll tell you all about this [music] coming up next.

[00:31:25]So, Donald Trump hopped on his new Qatar gifted Air Force One for a little bit of domestic travel today. And uh you might remember this is the very same jet that there it is. uh the Secret Service implored him not to use to fly home from the NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month. That was according to the New York Times because you know why? Because it lacks the same counter defensive capabilities that Air Force One is is actually expected to have especially when the president is traveling abroad near a country that we are at war with and that is based on multiple conversations with officials. The Times reported this that the Qatari donated plane seems to lack advanced anti-missile capabilities and also a defensive system designed to defeat heat-seeking missiles, a mission communication system, and other security modifications that the uh that the older model has. And Trump said on Sunday that the Qatari plane will be out of commission for a month to be quote maxed out amid all of these security questions raised by the Times reporting. Nobody really knows what maxed out means. That reporting, by the way, prompted the president's justice department to subpoena the Times reporters and their family members, including somebody's mom. Some reporters were even served by federal agents at their houses.

[00:32:41]But the president still plans to attend the rescheduled White House correspondents dinner on Friday, I guess, to celebrate press freedom and I guess to honor journalists like the ones he's investigating.

[00:32:55]Maybe he'll show up in his uh soon to be maxed out jet. Bill Bump is a senior data editor and columnist at CT Insider.

[00:33:02]Nikki McCann Ramirez is a politics reporter with Rolling Stone and they both uh join me now. Um you guys want to just start with the subpoenas. These are I talked to Maggie Haberman um on my show about about her book and about her colleagues who had done some of this reporting and how abnormal and unusual this is. What do you guys see Mickey when you start when you see these subpoenas? I don't think it's abnormal for this presidency. I think we've seen time and time again that Trump's instinct when he sees reporting he does not like is to retaliate against the papers, retaliate against specific reporters, whether it be targeting them on true social or outright lawsuits. I think the White House Correspondents Association being one of the most recognizable journalistic entities in this country has throughout the Trump era been accused of failing in its responsibility to sort of draw the line between this president and the notion that yeah, it's cool. We can sometimes set aside our differences, but there's some moments in time where your differences in values matter more than the fact that you work in the same building. And that's where I think we are right now. I just want to point out neither of you are going to this reschedled White House correspondent there. I guess when we talk about the nature of them um being abnormal, it's just how fast they came down. I guess after the article came out and how quickly these agents showed up on the doorsteps of of people's homes.

[00:34:22]>> Yeah. I mean, there have been times in the past when administrations have sought information from reporters and had internal conversations and at times taken further steps to figure out if they are able to identify the source of a leak. That is not abnormal by itself.

[00:34:35]What is abnormal is the way in which this appears to have been done very haphazardly and very quickly right there there we have seen instances in the case in the past in the Obama administration if I'm remembering correctly where there were a lot of internal negotiations and conversations about what this means what you know how you protect the first amendment and Trump doesn't care at all >> I was going to say you know there there have been times even in my reporting on on on the border with homeland security officials and other law enforcement agencies in both Democratic and Republican administrations when they say you know what you have obtained or the documents that you have or you know can we talk about right the nature of the reporting and what's going to be out there and and why we think this is too sensitive to put out at any particular moment that is not this >> yeah correct >> um I want to show what the times journalists um who were targeted described when they when they actually got served these subpoenas at home um let's listen to this real quick >> I was out for some drinks sitting on a patio >> my wife and I were over at some friends house for dinner you know having a really nice evening, glass of wine and all that.

[00:35:38]>> My family and I had sat down to watch Sheep Detectives, a murder mystery. And right as we were about to find out from the sheep, who had committed the murder, I get a call >> and I pick it up and it's it's an FBI agent who identifies himself and says, "I'm in front of your house right now.

[00:35:59]Are you coming home anytime soon?"

[00:36:02]When I got home, my wife was in the front yard with our kids and they were playing with some sparklers left over from the July 4th celebration and she pointed to this unusual car sitting there across the street from our house.

[00:36:15]Inside were two FBI agents that were effectively staking us out.

[00:36:19]>> My son is at the front of the house looking through the window and he shouts, "They're here."

[00:36:28]Streams of sheep detective have skyrocketed since the subpoenas, I guess. Um, you know, you know, in all seriousness, this is this is not the, as you said, this is not the only time that this has happened. Um, people showing up from the federal government to a journalist home, including Georgia Fort, by the way, who was taken into custody in in Minneapolis.

[00:36:46]No matter what way you look at this, this is this is an escalation, is it not?

[00:36:50]>> Absolutely. And an open intimidation tactic. I mean, these reporters did not receive highly classified schematics of the plane or information. It was stuff that was very clearly visible in photos comparing the Air Force One of two months ago with the Qatari jet that Trump received as essentially a bribe from the Qatari government. This wasn't anything that required, as Philip said, a sensitive investigation into classified materials. It was basically open- source reporting. How do they justify not only going after the reporter's information, but their relatives information as well?

[00:37:23]>> Well, I mean, when you're doing an investigation, it's not uncommon to sweep up other people who are in the surrounding vicinity, you know, electronically or literally for their information. We see this lots of times.

[00:37:33]Oh, you know, like all the senators that got subpoenaed January 6th for having contacts with with Donald Trump. Like that that itself isn't abnormal. What is abnormal here, and I think it's important to put a fine point on this, is this administration is is antithetical to freedom of the press, to the freedom of speech, to have a celebration with him, to sit in that room. It's always a gross event to be very frankly, no offense to those who may have attended. This year in particular, it's at some point in time, those reporters need to remember they are there to speak truth to power and they are there to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. And that dinner doesn't do it. And doing it in this context is embarrassing.

[00:38:06]>> There's a group, by the way, of 500 current and former journalists. They signed a letter calling for the correspond correspond correspondence association. This is what it says. To take stronger action by issuing from the podium a forceful defense. This is what you're saying. Of freedom of the press and reaffirm without equivocation that freedom of the press is not a partisan issue. What are the odds that happens?

[00:38:24]>> I think someone will do it. The reality to me is that we've watched this president, particularly this summer, the the World Cup just ended, use the trappings of a celebration, of a glitzy event to whitewash his actions. And part of the reason Trump has been able to get away with so much is because he operates under this assumption that institutions will not punish him for it. It's not that someone needs to call him out from the podium. It's that this in invitation shouldn't have been given out in the first place. It was a mistake to have him earlier this year. It's a mistake to have him again.

[00:38:56]>> To your exact point, in June, Trump posted this on social media. He said, "I was asked to be there uh and speak by the president of the White House Correspondents Association, and I have accepted. I don't know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon um find out." He's going to say the same crap.

[00:39:13]>> Sure.

[00:39:14]>> Uh this weekend, will he not?

[00:39:16]>> Yes. I mean, he'll Yeah. I mean, he'll say whatever's on top of his head. I think there there are a lot of reporters who fail to see that you can be objective and uphold free speech and freedom of of the press and that is an objective value that we should all hold as journalists and we should defend that and you are not being partisan by saying actually if you are attacking the press then you are not someone that we are going to celebrate and honor. I was talking to a a UN special reporter tour um about courts and and judges over the weekend on my show as it relates to immigration courts and the and the restriction of the rights of these judges and and the way that using administrative law um authoritarian tendencies are starting to become very clear sort of at least in that very narrow um sense. What does it say the administration's actions against journalists um here say to other countries about how we are treating freedom of the press and what the United States believes is appropriate to do overseas?

[00:40:09]>> I mean, we're hypocrites and this is the kind of behavior that the White House Correspondents Association that other journalistic entities would regularly condemn abroad >> all every time these ceremonies.

[00:40:21]Exactly.

[00:40:21]>> And I think to me, I've never been to the White House Correspondent Center.

[00:40:24]I've also never been invited. Uh but the moment to me that really sticks out was I believe in 2024 when you had all the protests about journalists who were being murdered in Gaza and you had the White House Correspondents Association essentially shut out protesters from the conversation refused to address it. This is an organization that time and time again postures itself as a representative for journalistic values and freedom of speech not just at home and abroad. And in the critical moments in this decade where it's been asked to take a stand, to draw that line in the sand, it's retreated into itself and just thrown the party as if everything is normal.

[00:41:03]>> Ain't happening. Um, it's so good to see you guys. If you change your mind and you go, let us know because I think we should let the audience know for sure.

[00:41:08]Um, so good to see you, Philip Bump and Nicki Men Ramirez. Appreciate you being here. And, uh, ladies and gentlemen, stay tuned because in just a few minutes, Jen Saki will be speaking with another man whose last name ends in off, Georgia Senator John Oaf. It is going to be an amazing conversation. Stay with us.