Listen to your favorite MS Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline White House, and the Rachel Maddow show. Every small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Laurence O'Donnell, the beat with Ari Melbour, The Weeknight, and more. On the go, wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. No mail-in ballots, corrupt mail-in ballots. We're the only country in the world that does it that way, corrupt as hell. We're the only country that does mail-in voting. Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating. That's what they're good at. They're professional cheaters. No mail-in ballots. Right? We don't want to have mail-in ballots where they're mailed in from all parts of the place. Mail-in ballots are crooked as hell. Mail-in ballots make it automatically corrupt. If you have mail-in ballots, automatically it's correct. The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible what's gone on. And it's very clearly covered. Very, very clearly. So I think this will help a lot with elections. Hi again, everybody. I can't unhear Laura Ingram wondering if Trump is able to quote, take things in when he's briefed. It's now five o'clock in New York. Einstein's theory of relativity suggests faster-than-light travel is impossible. But you honestly never know that today, observing the sheer speed with which pro-democracy forces are mustering their legal might, setting land speed records on their way to courthouses all across our country, to challenge Donald Trump's latest, perhaps most egregious, least authorized attempt to assert control over America's system of elections. It has to do with what you just heard him rail against over the course of many months after complaining about it over the course of many years. That is mail-in voting, an essential arm of what has been the safest, most secure, used to be Republican-dominated way of voting in Democratic elections that our planet has ever known. Yesterday absent any evidence and explicit constitutional authority over elections, Trump signed an executive order that The New York Times points out appears difficult to enforce. Times writes this, quote, It directs the Department of Homeland Security to create a state citizenship list based on data from citizenship and naturalization records, social security records, and other federal databases. That order directs federal officials to send the list to state election officials and orders the Attorney General to prioritize prosecution of election officials who provide federal ballots to ineligible voters. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service not to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual not included on the state citizenship list. Again, if it sounds sketchy or illegal or unconstitutional to you, then you have something in common with the significant portion of the country's legal community, perhaps that's why Donald Trump sought to frame it like this. I don't know how it can be challenged. It'll probably challenge it. You may find a rogue judge. You've got a lot of rogue judges, very bad, bad people, very bad judges. But that's the only way that can be changed, and hopefully, well, with an appeal if it is. But I don't see how anybody can challenge it. I don't see how they can challenge it. And remember, it's about voter integrity. I love these showing and telling us at the same time. Now, whether or not Trump can see how anybody could challenge his new order is immaterial. It has been challenged. It is being challenged and for good reason. In the end, though, it is another example of Donald Trump in a rather transparent effort to cut down on non-existent voter fraud throwing, you know what, at the wall to see what sticks. And sure, people fighting it can win. They can clean this up. And it will be thanks to the tireless efforts of the pro-democracy legal community. But that doesn't mean it doesn't leave a mark. It's where we begin the hour with voting rights attorney and founder of democracy doc at Mark Elias. And with me for the hour, my friend and colleague, senior contributing editor, Michelle Norris. Mark Elias, the lack of constitutional authority, the lack of a problem that this sort of so-called solution aims to fix doesn't feel like the point. It feels like this is another machination along the path of discrediting our elections and throwing our hurdles to free and fair elections. Yeah, I wrote recently that, you know, Donald Trump doesn't so much flood the zone, as people say, is he tries to grind us down. And he has been trying to grind us down about elections and grind us down about trusting mail-in voting now for, you know, the better part of a decade. And this is just the latest effort to do that. Now, this is a major escalation. You know, I'm sort of wondering where in all of the analysis of what Donald Trump is doing, you know, whenever people are going to point to the oath of office that he took when he put his hand hovering over a Bible, not touching it, but hovering over it, and said that he would uphold the Constitution. Where is the analysis that he is disregarding his constitutional obligation to take care of the laws of faith? The fact is, he has already been told after his first effort to pass a executive order that my law firm and I we sued and we won, that the president has no role, has no role. That's the words that a federal judge used, not a rogue judge, a federal judge in describing the role of the president. And yet here he is back claiming powers he does not have, asserting authority he does not have, claiming powers, frankly, over the US Postal Service that he doesn't have. And so we need to recognize that what he is doing right now is not just unconstitutional. It is a violation of his oath. It is a violation of his obligation as president. And every Republican who's going along with him is giving him cover. But as you say, most dangerously, it is an effort to grind us down to make us give up in believing that we can have free and fair elections. Well, I'm not giving up. I'm getting ready to sue him and I'm getting ready to win. Mark, is it even about mail-in voting? I mean, Trump votes by mail. What is it about? It's not about mail-in voting. I mean, look, he's creating a list of citizens that are eligible to voting and by definition, excluding people who he says are not eligible to vote. You know, he used to be, you remember Nicole, he used to be Republicans who said, we don't want a national list of every citizen, right? It was the Republicans that said we don't trust the federal government to compile a list of who is in good favor and who is out of good favor. And once you buy into the idea that the federal government is doing that, if you think it ends with mail-in voting, you are mistaken. This is an effort by Donald Trump to create a list of who can be considered a full citizen for a whole bunch of rights. He will start with mail-in voting. It will then be used to disenfranchise not just by mail, but in person. It will then be used in a whole host of ways. And so, you know, this is a very, very dangerous point. Yes, it's going to be used to disenfranchise. Yes, it's going to be tried by mail-in voting. It's going to be used to disenfranchise. Yes, it's going to be tried to be used to steal the 2020 election. It will be used to try to discredit it when Republicans lose. It will be tried to claim that there were such irregularities that Donald Trump needs to seize ballots and take over who won and lost. But you know what? Tyranny it never ends with just the object closest on the horizon. It has all kinds of applications further on. I may be totally too many moons removed from Republican politics, but Republicans used to be unable to win elections, especially off your elections without mail-in voting. What happens to the, I mean, are you aware of any effort to build that vote up somewhere else, or is this all about rigging the game? Look, I mean, the Donald Trump's playbook is not, as you say, about mail-in voting versus in-person voting versus early voting versus election day voting, right? What they want to do is they want to constrict the franchise. They want to limit who can vote. They want to be able to have the discretion decide who can vote. They want their Department of Homeland Security, their Department of Justice to be the person who calls the balls and strikes on whether a voter gets to vote or not vote. And I always come back to this. You know, they say that, you know, they want birth certificates to prove citizenship. Barack Obama produced his birth certificate and Donald Trump still told the lie that he wasn't born in the United States. So like, it's not about this document or that document or this method of voting or that method of voting. Fundamentally, Donald Trump wants to do, as he said, he wants to be in control of who tabulates and counts ballots. And so, like, if you want to, if you want to rig the outcome of election, no better way to do it than you get to decide who gets to vote and then you get to decide which votes count and which votes get discarded. And there are just far too few people. And this is why I'm so frustrated. There are far too few people on the good side who just recognize this is not politics as usual. This is not just the usual, you know, back and forth between parties. This is an existential threat to democracy because you are an authoritarian who wants to try to drive the outcome of the election. Michelle, this authoritarian power grab comes in a moment of profound political weakness. And I know a lot of people on this show have said that Trump doesn't care about the polls. I'm not sure if I believe that. I think he's addressing the nation tonight because of the polls, not because of any discernible development that's happened in the region. But whether he does what he does because of the polls or not, I wonder if Republicans will do different things because of the polls. Donald Trump's central form policy issue, a ground invasion of Iran, if he decides to go that direction, has 8% public support. It has some of the loudest voices in MAGA, not just rebuking the decision but defecting from the coalition. You've got Joe Rogan calling MAGA people dorks. You've got Marjorie Taylor Greene attacking Donald Trump. You've got economic numbers lower than Joe Biden's ever were on the issue of inflation. I think he gets less than 31% support on tariffs and jobs. It's about 32%, 33%, 34% support. Those numbers are not coattails. It's not even the coat. It's like the scruffy little button left over on the coat. Do you think that there is anything about elections being local and the Constitution not giving the president the authority that Republicans could wake up and say, whoa, that's not how it's supposed to go? Well, in a normal set of circumstances, that's what you would hope would happen, is that they would see their own fortunes being washed away by this. I mean, Donald Trump perhaps doesn't care so much about the polls, but he does care about the narrative. And I think that's one of the reasons that he's speaking to the public tonight is to try to control the narrative. I'm not sure he does care about the polls. And I've always said that that's an even more dangerous place for America to be in is when you have someone in office who does not care about the polls and is willing to do whatever he wants to do without any kind of guardrails. This is not just about mail-in voting. I totally agree with Mark. This is about trying to create second-class citizenship for a whole group of people. You know, we trust DHS to compile that list after what we've seen with DHS in just the first three months of this year. In this administration, particularly with Donald Trump, an accusation winds up being more of a confession. And when he says that he is trying to do this to restore integrity in American democracy and in American elections, it's clear that what he's trying to do is undermine integrity in American elections and make people washed in the outcome. And I will say this until I'm blue on the face. When you can't, when clean, you don't play fair. And that may work for Donald Trump in his mind, but I'm not sure that it works for the people who, as you say, are holding onto the lint, you know, in his coattails trying to, trying to follow him down this path to destruction. It will not work for them. I'm old enough to remember a time when Republicans advocated for mail-in voting because it helped them. Mail-in voting is nonpartisan. One in three Americans use mail-in voting. It is not riven with cheating in the way that he describes it. And so you would think, you know, to your initial question, you would think that the Republicans would wake up to that. And if they can't talk sense to him, at least try to stand up and support the election system in their individual states. Well, and Mishra, you look at what's happening to his coalition, to the Republican coalition at large. I mean, they're losing the kinds, they're losing young men. They're, you know, young men in college campuses. There were hours of video of them, you know, standing in the lines. They had time to go vote in person. The kinds of people who traditionally, again, haven't been a Republican in many moons, but the kind of people that voted by mail were sometimes older voters who didn't want to stand on line. Those are the only people left in the MAGA coalition, MAGA people of a certain age. I mean, the political malpractice as opposed to the crimes against democracy seemed just as grave. I don't know how they're going to build the party after this. I mean, the MAGA coalition has drifted some distance from the Republican party for some time. But if you're concerned about party politics, and that's almost a side issue, because there's such a big, you know, so much bigger issues for us to deal with in terms of protecting the democracy. But to the extent that we're talking about, you know, party politics, you would think that someone would be trying to think about building the party for the future and trying to hold on to some sort of modicum of support in the future. And I don't know, for all the people who are just marching blindly behind Donald Trump, I don't know what they're seeing in their crystal balls in terms of a future for themselves and for the party. In terms of the numbers, in terms of the support, in terms of the kind of America that we all live in right now, it just doesn't make sense. I mean, Mark, if it wasn't so scary and if it wasn't so dangerous, it'd almost be funny that I don't know how they find themselves winning any of these contests. If they remove the right to vote in a year when Trump is at 30%, when the economy is below that, when the war in Iran has a low approval rating among Republicans, and now they're going to make it harder for Republicans who are sort of holding their nose to keep them there for whatever reasons to vote. Again, on the politics, they've decided the illegality and the autocratic elements of it. The politics seem very likely to backfire. Yeah, I mean, I can say this as someone, you know, I sat with the Kerry campaign in 2004 as we watched that presidential campaign slip away in Ohio, and we lost Ohio because of the Republican machine that turned out voters by mail. In 2016, I was literally with Hillary Clinton and the senior staff as we watched the election in Florida. Those results come in and people forget in 2016, there was still a thought that we could win Florida and just the machine that Republicans had built in vote by mail in Florida. I mean, those two states, just Florida, Ohio, which you guys are shaking your eyes, yes, because you remember, these used to be the quintessential swing states, battleground states. And at the presidential level, at least, you know, a lot's been talked about the demographics of those states. But boy, Republicans built a machine using voting by mail. And it was a way that they could spread out voting. It was a way that they could target voters in waves, right? You go to your early supporters, you get them to vote by mail, then you target your advertising towards the next folks and the next folks and the next folks. And yeah, they're throwing that all the way. I mean, they're throwing it all the way. They're throwing away early voting, you know, which they know is a problem because they're telling people just vote on election day. And so when you tell people just vote on election day, you're left with lines, you're left with people who have other things, you're left with weather, you know, weather challenges that come up. And so I don't know how they get out of this box, but they're right now not trying to get out of the box. Right now, they are all linked arm in arm with Donald Trump around the save act, which is more of this nonsense. Yeah, I mean, the other thing about election day is you only end up with an electorate that's really enthusiastic. And no one looking at 26 thinks that the Republican side is the enthusiastic side. But we'll keep watching. No one's going anywhere. When we come back, this is going to be fun. Well, Trump is at his own political low point and as a result, voices challenging him and questioning his fitness for office are growing louder, literally by the hour, even from inside his own coalition. But some stalwart supporters are now saying as Trump operates from a position of extreme weakness, we'll show you what that looks like next. Also ahead, brand new reporting on how the Trump administration's total focus on deportation is making our country less safe. The thousands of criminal investigations that have been dropped abandoned so that DOJ can instead go after non-criminal, nonviolent immigrants. We'll bring you that reporting and the outrage surrounding it later in the hour. So then White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. Tonight, we ask all of you to join with us in choosing hope over fear, democracy, over authoritarianism, the rule of law, over lawlessness, ethics, over unbridled corruption, resistance, over complacency, unity, over division, and peace over law. That was Bruce Springsteen, a mic drop moment from him. Bruce Springsteen kicking off his Land of Hope tour in Minnesota, where two American citizens were murdered by Trump administration federal agents. Bruce Springsteen is no stranger to having the courage and the standing to criticize Donald Trump. What is unusual and what he may have been a part of ushering in is the growing permission structure to do that. Now, what's really a plot twist is that it's also coming from die-hard Trump allies. And I can't believe I'm about to say this on this program, but please watch Alex Jones. When your ankles swell up three times the size they were before, that means heart failure. And he does look sick. And he does babble and, you know, sound like the brain's not doing too hot. And so we just cut made on Trump and we just mobilized against the Democrats. We need to be sad about Trump. This is not funny. This is not good. But he's gone. And that's it. We need to pray for Trump. The Holy Spirit touch his heart and loose him from whatever evil control he's under. I'm serious. And I think that's the answer. We need to pray for President Trump. We need to, we need to pray for other people to be elected. Again, I did not assemble a political coalition and nor did I vote as a part of it. That's what Alex Jones, but Donald Trump did. And that's what Alex Jones has to say, quote. He does babble, quote. He's gone. Michelle. I know I'm going to be very careful here in talking about someone's health because that is, you know, a delicate situation. And yet he is the president of the United States at a time when we are facing all kinds of serious issues. And the public deserves answers about his health. And when he, when the White House brags about him acing a cognitive test, you have to ask, you know, someone usually only takes a cognitive test if there is reason to suspect that there are issues around mental acuity. When they say that the bruises on his hands are a result of vigorous handshaking, it's just not the kind of explanation that makes sense. So, you know, on the health issue, there are legitimate concerns and Americans need real answers to that. On the politics of this, in terms of the coalitions that are being built and the permission structure to speak out against Donald Trump, not just on his health, but on his politics in general, I think those floodgates are now open. In part because of the pain that people are feeling across several sectors of their life. They're concerned about the war. They're concerned about rising prices. And they're very concerned about the direction of the country. And instead of providing anything in that feels like bomb or even a cogent explanation, people are not getting that. And I doubt that they're going to hear much of that this evening, even though the president is going to make an address to the nation. You two, I believe, were on this program, if not the day after Trump won a second time, but that week, Michelle, you were here the day after. What is different, and the reason we track this is because what Donald Trump did in the first year was what Timothy Snyder writes about on page one of Vontirene, right, gets people to obey in advance. But that is based on a misperception of political power and strength, right? So here are the people who have attacked Donald Trump in the last 10 days. Joe Rogan calling all MAGA supporters, quote, dorks. Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Sean Ryan, Alex Jones, Timbershut. I mean, the list could go on for longer than we're left on the air today. And the substance of what they're saying isn't new at all, right? I mean, it isn't new. You know, Lauren Grimm saying yesterday, quote, I wonder if he can take it in, the briefings that he's getting on Iran. I think it's a concern that the people have voiced about him. Bob Corker, who was a Republican senator from Tennessee, introduced legislation to remove an American president's nuclear authority. So the first time in our country's history, because he called the West Wing, quote, adult daycare. That was during Trump's first term. I think that was in either 2017 or 2018. But, Mark-Alai, what is new is that this time Trump isn't just doing things that are unpopular. He isn't just ignoring the will of the people or ignoring the will of 92% of the country if he decides to escalate the war on Iran to a ground invasion. He is now defying the loudest voices in his own political coalition. What happens next? Yeah, so look, at the risk of quoting a well-known conservative, Andrew Breitbart was right, that politics is downstream of culture. And it's particularly true on the right. And, you know, Donald Trump's power, as you point out, was not just a sense that the public was behind him, but that the culture, and particularly the culture on the right, was all about him. That was the manosphere, and that was these very prominent conservatives. And this idea that he was not, even if he was babbling, and even if he was incoherent, and even if he was whatever he wanted to call it, he was still culturally on top of it. And now he's underneath it. And when that happens, you know, politics shifts really fast. Like some things in politics move slow, and some move fast, and some move slower than you think, and then faster than you think. And we're in the slower than you think, faster than you think. And what's happening now is that Donald Trump is just losing control of the culture that buoyed his power. And once he loses that, he loses a big part of what it is that Republicans down-ballot fear from him, which is that if they don't go along with him, these cultural figures, that you'll have this rising up of right-wing figures, and that's just not happening. And so, you know, whether Republicans are fast enough to get ahead of it or not, I don't know. I suspect they're already too slow, and it's probably too late, and that they will face the wrath of the voters this November, because they stood within too long. But it also means that he will be more desperate and more dangerous, because he will cling to the worst of the worst voices that are still with him, and do the most extreme things that he possibly can. And that is why we all need to stay vigilant as we head towards November. Yeah, and I mean, look, whatever you think of him, he's got his hands on the steering wheel for three more years of our country, of our democracy, of our military, the Justice Department. Michelle, one piece of this that I find interesting, there's some polling that suggests that women view listening to Joe Rogan's podcast as one of the red flags. It's like up there with, you know, living at home in your 30s. The virility piece seems to have slipped well away from the MAGA movement. What do you make of the opportunity right now for Democrats? It's, there's a great opportunity for them to reach across the aisle, to come with solutions, to come with a message, to actually attract people to, you know, a big tent and figure out how to show people that there is a place for them, because there are a lot of people who at the end of this Trump era will feel like they don't have a political home. And I don't know if we're going to see more third party candidates or more fracturing, but there is an opportunity, you know, for them to reach out. I just want to reach back to something that Mark said about the danger of this moment, though, just to cap what we were talking about and Donald Trump being in a rather dangerous position, because normally the polls that you mentioned, the way that his coalition is turning against him, usually that would have a leveling effect, that there would be some humility that people would demonstrate. You would think that they would, you know, kind of tone things down a little bit. I don't think that we should expect that from Donald Trump. I mean, he operates on a hot gust of retribution, and I think that we're going to see a lot more of that. And instead of trying to reach for an olive branch, I think he's going to pick up a really big stick. And I think that that's going to cause a lot of pain for a lot of people as a result. A hot gust of retribution that's haunting but accurate. Mark Elias, thank you so much for joining us. Michelle sticks around. When we come back, stunning new reporting to tell you about the Trump Justice Department and how it is now abandoning criminal cases, including terrorism cases, all in service of Trump's mass deportation agenda. That is next. And now we're friends and colleagues and on our podcast, Clock It. We are positioning ourselves at the intersection of culture and politics. Clock It is where we talk about what we see and hear in the news so you can start to clock it too. Clock It with Simone Eugene. All episodes available now. On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history. We're going to get them out. We have no choice. I will rescue every city in town who will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or will kick them the hell out of our country. We'll want them out. Donald Trump's big campaign promise that he was going to suddenly and magically solve all crime through the single solution of mass deportations. Well, Trump has doubled down on mass deportations time and time again. New reporting by ProPublica uncovers that the Trump administration is actually abandoning criminal prosecutions in order to pursue immigration cases. ProPublica writes this quote, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of Trump's administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases. That's according to the analysis by ProPublica. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, DOJ declined more than 1,300 cases involving terrorism and national security nearly twice, what was typical at the start of the most recent new administrations. While domestic terrorism was the hardest hit program, just over 300 cases involving charges of providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations were also dropped. Jimmy Garool, a former federal prosecutor who investigated the financing of terrorism, said the decline in terrorism cases is troubling. Quote, the Trump DOJ has been used as a political weapon. It's a question of prioritizing resources. Are they going to be used for national security threats or to prosecute his political enemies and critics? A DOJ spokesperson tells ProPublica that the number of declinations, quote, is a direct result of our efforts to run the agency in a more efficient manner. While the Trump administration is abandoning the prosecution of criminals and terrorists, they are targeting the families of America's best and brightest. NBC News reports this, quote, ICE agents will be stationed outside graduation events for the nation's newest Marines. To identify whether any of their family members are undocumented, according to the Marine Corps, people without identifying documents who arrive at the gate of Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Paris Island in Beaufort, South Carolina, for recruit family days and graduation events this week may now have to answer to immigration and customs enforcement officials, the Marine Corps said. I want to bring in Scott McFarland. He is Chief Washington Correspondent and host of Scott McFarland reports for Midas Touch. He was also a longtime Justice Correspondent for CBS News. And an even long ago time friend of the show, we're so happy to have you back. Also joining us at the table, Immigration Correspondent for NPR, Jasmine Garza is here. We're so happy to have you back as well. Scott, first congratulations on your new moves and we're very happy to have you back at our virtual table. Take me through what this means with this longer lens of what DOJ has now been turned into. This is a really underreported story, Nicole. The Department of Justice is by choice, undermanned right now. This is a decision they made to fire a lot of people or force a lot of people out. And according to this new reporting from ProPublica, in my own reporting, they may be underutilizing the manpower they still have. Listen to these numbers. In February 2025, per ProPublica, they declined 11,000 prosecutions. That's the most since 2004. And the numbers I have is that they're down roughly 5,000 full-time staffers from this time in early 2025. That's madness to be down that many people and you just can't pick up the cases you want with fewer bodies in the building. So Scott, what is happening to these criminal cases? Are they just dismissed and the criminals go back out into the community? In so many of these cases, they're not launching the prosecution. They're declining what federal agents are bringing them. And when I say federal agents, I mean the FBI, the inspectors general, immigration and customs enforcement. They're bringing potential cases and they're being declined. So they're never getting to the grand jury. They're not getting to the trial jury. But Nicole, you'll note, some cases are getting to the grand jury still. Proposed cases against Letitia James, against James Comey, against the guy who threw the sandwich at the federal agent. Some things are still matriculating through. I mean, and just to Scott's point, things that aren't working. I mean, they're not prosecutions that are sticking because they're so brazenly and clearly politically motivated. The truth is the mass deportation campaign just has a very small intersection with people who maybe hear illegally or don't have status in committed violent crimes. But that is not at all in 14 months, who the mass deportation campaign has targeted. They've targeted families. They've targeted children. I mean, the numbers are extraordinary and the numbers speak for themselves. Right now, pretty consistently, for the last 14 months, it's been around 70,000 people in detention, pretty consistently. And around 74% of those people have no criminal conviction whatsoever. And so I think this information is extraordinary because on the one hand, you have this failure to go after white collar crimes. And on the other hand, you have a historic amount of people who, again, no criminal conviction and are sitting in detention centers, which by the way, stand to make a lot of money. There are a lot of people that are going to be making a lot of money from those detention centers. What is your sense of their efforts to sort of be done with Kristi Noem, bring in a MAGA adjacent senator and try to change the subject? I think the administration knows that the majority of Americans at this point are not in favor of this, even horrified by what has happened. And I think Minneapolis was a turning point. I think for many Americans, Minneapolis was just this moment of, this has gone too far, this is too much, this is not what I voted for. And so I think that the administration is trying to backpedal. I think the new head of DHS, he even said, my goal is to keep us out of the news. And even this morning, the news broke that many of these warehouses, these massive warehouses that DHS has been purchasing in order to convert into detention centers, it's on pause now. So I think this is kind of a topic that the administration is stepping away from a little bit. If they were to reverse this policy immediately, Scott, which I doubt they will, it would take years to turn back on the investigative and prosecutorial powers that they've cannibalized at DOJ. I mean, what do your DOJ and law enforcement sources say about the damage that's been done? Oh, they're saying a lot. First of all, to Jasmine's point, one of the reasons the administration is dialing back those new immigration detention warehouses is because they're losing in court from local challenges against those warehouses. But what happens next? How do you staff back up a Department of Justice when it's being so explicit, Nicole, with its politicization, when it's clearly an extension of the White House political arm, makes it real difficult to recruit across the country to a job that used to be pretty easy to recruit for. Who wants a piece of a politicized Department of Justice job? Some subset of Americans may still, Nicole, but it's a lot fewer than did a couple years ago. Yeah. All right, I'm going to ask all of you to stick around. We have to take a short break. We'll all be right back on the other side. I don't know. I feel betrayed. The back was Scott Jasmine and Michelle. Michelle, that was Alejandro Barranco, his father, Narciso Barranco was the landscaper who folks may remember with a weebacher who was accosted on his landscaping job and detained, rather aggressively and violently, by federal immigration officials. His three sons served the country in the United States military. His story, his father's story, the story of Liam Ramos, the story of the children at Dilly, the stories of the men sent to C.Cot without due process, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0, saying that you couldn't deprive anyone due process. The stories have sort of been lodged in people's brains at this point, and these are Trump's approval ratings, I think, that reflect that. In April of 2025, just a couple months into his second term, 50% of Americans approved of Trump's performance on immigration. By July, after the military was on the streets of Los Angeles, just 41% today, the number is 35%, hovering to, I think that's the lowest it's ever been since Trump has been on the political stage. The people who are committed to deportation probably don't care about those numbers. I mean, the reason given for pulling back the investigations into white collar crime, into drugs, into terrorism, drug trafficking and terrorism at the Department of Justice was allegedly to spend more time trying to investigate drug cartels and immigrants who were involved in criminal activity. And that is not what we are seeing with the deportation numbers. They are not going after the worst of the worst. Instead, they are going after people who in many cases have no criminal records at all, and those stories are really breaking through. But many of the stories that we've seen, the gentleman who had three sons who were in the Marines, I mean, over and over people are seeing these stories and recognizing that what they are committed to is mass deportation that is not going after the worst of the worst. What it is doing is trying to drive up numbers because they have created this massive system now to house large numbers of people and that system sadly has to be fed. They need bodies in those beds. They need to make sure that the people who stood up those warehouses where they're holding people will get paid for the work that they're doing in housing and frankly warehousing human beings. And so I don't know that we're going to see a pullback in the deportation program just today. Some mega allies released a playbook calling for the administration to increase workforce enforcement, which again, I don't think they care about polls because you realize if you increase workforce enforcement, you're going to to alienate people in the construction industry and the hospitality industry and the agriculture industry. And so for them, it might be ideological. It might be some other commitment to mass deportation to creating second class citizens and they're troubled by apparently the browning of America. But I'm not sure that we're going to see Donald Trump pull back from this and his allies that are most committed to it pull back from this simply because of poll numbers. What do you see happening on the ground? You know, what I see happening on the ground to Michelle's point is these massive warehouses, this infrastructure has been built and you know, there's a lot of money to be made off of it. You know, something I've been doing lately is I have been phoning in to listening to public quarterly earnings calls for these detention centers and the companies that run them. And the language used is quite extraordinary. Like what? Investors saying, well, we thought that we would have more detentions by now. Do you see it picking up anytime soon and being reassured that yes, the infrastructure is being built so that this will pick up? And I think that's something really important going back to the pro-public piece that came out is that we are now in a country in a situation where white collar crimes are just being cast aside. Not that important to prosecute those. But this massive infrastructure is being built to house people who up until now in those detention centers, mostly people who don't have convictions. And I've visited several of these warehouses. They look like Amazon processing centers. They're just these windowless, massive structures. Sometimes in the middle of a town, you know, in the middle of a very bucolic southern town, there's this massive warehouse that is going to be built. And it's going to house up to 10,000 people. It's unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. To be continued, I hope. Scott McFarland, it's very nice to see you again. Jasmine, thank you for being here with all your great reporting. Michelle, thank you for spending the whole hour with me. I am grateful. When we come back, we are minutes away from NASA's historic moon mission. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. We are watching the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where NASA is just moments away from sending astronauts on a moon mission. This is the first time they have done that since 1972. They won't be landing there on this mission, though, but at 624 Eastern, four astronauts, three Americans, and one Canadian will lift off to launch a 10-day journey around the moon and back to Earth. Farther than any human being has ever traveled, it is a necessary step toward returning to the moon's surface by testing systems on the space capsule, the Orion, which the US uses for lunar journeys. NASA is set to attempt two actual landings in 2028, but this mission is historic in its own right. With a crew full of firsts, Victor Glover, the pilot will be the first black man to travel around the moon. Christina Cook will be the first woman. Jeremy Hansen will be the first Canadian to make the journey. This will also be his first time off the planet. We're going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live, so don't go anywhere tonight. In the meantime, one more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful. We're also going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live. We're going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live. We're going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live. We're going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live. We're going to be watching closely and you'll be able to see the launch live.
