“Bondi’s out. What next?”

Saving Seekers, we hear you! Seeking energy savings, always keep your energy prices under the price cap. With Next Pledge, your energy prices are guaranteed to always stay below the price cap. Satisfy those savings cravings. Check out our full range of tailored energy solutions at eonnext.com forward slash save. Eonnext, we make energy savings work. Next Pledge is a 12 month fixed time trucker tariff with variable rates lower than Ofcham's price cap for standard variable tariffs. Direct debit required, T's and C's apply. Home to the Rachel Maddow Show. Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. MS Now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at MS.now. MS We see our most activist judges that we lose to every single day are without a doubt. Nothing more than an extension of the partisan arm of which they came from. There's a lot of ways that we can work within that to get some of our cases where we want them to be, where we're going to have a judge that we know is going to be fair. Hi again everyone, it is five o'clock now in New York, ladies and gentlemen of the United States, that as of this very afternoon is expected to be your new acting Attorney General. Just one of the immediate after effects of that breaking news we've been covering today. And as we've been reporting, Pam Bondi is now out as US Attorney General, a shock to some, sure, but not necessarily a surprise, at least for those of us who've been following the reporting of our MS Now colleagues in recent days. So why? And why now? Bondi's 422 days on the job were a lesson in Trumpism. She fired officials who prosecuted her boss and prosecuted officials who crossed him. She gutted her agency's civil rights division and oversaw a broader generational brain drain from some of the most essential positions. To quote one former official, Bondi took a sledgehammer to the Justice Department and its workforce. Not to mention under her leadership, the DOJ very literally hung Donald Trump's face from its headquarters. And yet, somehow, none of it appears to have been enough for Trump. Sources tell our colleague Ken Delaney and that Bondi was fired largely because Trump grew dissatisfied with her inability to deliver on prosecuting his perceived enemies. But again, not for lack of trying, there was just never enough there there. Which begs the question, what's the now acting Attorney General Todd Blanche supposed to do differently? And what way can Bondi's eventual replacement go further to properly satisfy a president evidently hell-bent on political revenge? Trump may not like the answer, and perhaps the American people won't either. And that is where we start this hour. Former Chief of Staff at DHS during Trump's first term, Miles Taylor is with us, political analyst and host of the Bull Work podcast. Tim Miller is here as well. Plus legal analyst Barbara McQuachy is a former U.S. Attorney, now a law professor at the University of Michigan. Tim Miller, what actually changed today? Well, like, I'm not exactly sure what changed between today and yesterday. Donald Trump being frustrated with the way the presidency is going probably. Look at his poll numbers, probably didn't help. I think that what actually happened today was an accumulation of frustration that's been leaking out into the public for a while that Donald Trump has had with his Attorney General. And it's kind of crazy when to frame it up like this, but this is just the truth and we live in crazy times. Pam Bondi has been at Susan Glass, her was a New Yorker on the podcast this morning, said she's been the most corrupt Attorney General of all time, including John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, who went to jail. And so Donald Trump looked at that and decided that she wasn't being corrupt enough for him, or she wasn't as successful or effective in her corruption as he wanted her to be. And there was a lot of frustration around the mag of media and with Trump himself and in his inner circle that the so-called enemies list, the miles my co-panelist is on and many others are on, that all of those enemies are still walking free. And that none of them had to deal with the type of legal challenges that Donald Trump had to deal with because of the crimes that he committed. And I think Donald Trump wanted his opponents to have to sit through courtrooms like he did. They haven't for the most part, or when they have, those have been very short stints and the trials have been dismissed. And he's mad that Pam Bondi has been more effective at doing that. And I think all of the other complaints about her are on the periphery. I think if you just look at the people who are reporting the closest to the White House, you see that Trump's frustration with her for not going after his enemies effectively enough is the real reason that she's out. Miles Taylor, since your name was invoked, we've talked about response today from folks inside DOJ, inside FBI, the Epstein survivors. Your reaction as someone who has gone toe to toe with this DOJ and the Seiji? Well, first I'm going to say this. I'm glad that you opened with that banner, Alicia, because my response to your question is to point to that banner of Trump's face that now hangs outside the Justice Department. And we posted a video yesterday on defiance.org that shows what is going to happen to that banner right there on January 21st, 2029 is folks are going to get hoisted up there on construction equipment with hedge trimmers, and they are going to chop that thing down to a cheering crowd in the streets that are going to keep scraps of it as little mementos of the time we almost lost our democracy. That is what's ultimately going to happen. But there's a couple years between now and then. And I think it's pretty shocking that we're talking about what Tim just said about whether we're going to get more or less revenge from the next attorney general. I think it's so scary that we're in that conversation. I mean, Americans realizing Americans watching this are realizing how screwed up it is that we're measuring the levels of revenge that different Trump ages and acting ages might give us. There should be no political revenge from the Justice Department, none. And as Barb McQuade can attest to, because she's an award winning lawyer, any time that you carry out a federal investigation for the purpose of a political vendetta, that act in and of itself is a crime. It's illegal to selectively and vindictively prosecute people, yet this administration has made it policy. I want to return Barbara to the point that Tim made about this AG being the most corrupt AG in American history. What does accountability then look like? Well, I think that first we may see some challenges to her bar license in Florida. We've seen so far Florida bar authorities say they don't investigate sitting government officials. If she's no longer a sitting government official, I think she could see some problems with that. And I do want to just take a moment to think about the breathtaking sweep of what she has done that is so at odds with DOJ norms to refrain from using partisan politics in making charging decisions. She oversaw efforts to charge members of Congress for making a video correctly stating the law. She sought to investigate Tim Walz and Jacob Frye in Minnesota when they encouraged people to engage in peaceful protest. There's reporting that she oversaw the investigation of Jerome Powell when he refused to reduce interest rates. There is reporting that there were efforts to indict Jim Comey and Letitia James. We've seen again and again the use of the machinery of the Justice Department to go after Donald Trump's enemies. And so I think there will be some accountability for her in that regard. I don't think this Justice Department is going to do anything about her. Perhaps we could see some civil lawsuits filed, but perhaps bar authorities may make it difficult for her to continue to practice law elsewhere. So just to put a finer point on it, is there any criminal liability here? I don't think so. I mean, you know, abusing the Justice Department system is certainly something that is a violation of norms. It could even result in a civil lawsuit, I suppose, to the extent that she relied on fabricated information. There could potentially be obstruction of justice charges criminally. I don't know though that they relied on fabricated information. I think that they presented evidence to grand juries with a spin to suggest it was criminal behavior. But as we saw, many grand juries refused to indict. And even the ones that did, for example, when Jim Comey was indicted, we learned later that Lindsay Heligan had engaged in some mis-alleged, misconduct before the grand jury by representing that they had additional evidence that was not presented to the grand jury, and that Jim Comey would have his opportunity to tell his side of the story at trial, which of course would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. So perhaps some attrination misconduct. I don't know that it arises to the level of criminal misconduct, but certainly the kinds of things that could get someone disciplined or even disbarred in the state where they have their law license. I'm curious to, Miller, how you think this all plays out politically specifically among Magaluelas, which are really all he has left, and in that context, the names that are being floated, Blanche, Zeldin, Habba, Pirro. What does that calculus look like? Yeah, a couple of things there. First I want to say, I think I said George Mitchell, I meant John Mitchell, was Nixon's attorney general, I'm an 80s baby, you know, sorry, this was slightly before my time, I think I got that wrong, but it's important to get these things right. Look, I think as far as the Maga reaction, that is part and answer to your first question to me too, like what changed today? Because what else, who, which, there are a lot of groups that are mad at him over the way he's handled the Iran War, but parts of his own base are very mad at him. And the handling of the Epstein files and the handling of this war has created, you know, a lot of Sturmendrung among kind of the Maga faithful. And I think this is a way for Trump to try to at least patch that wound a little bit, to try to identify someone that they are going to be more happy with, that's, you know, more likely to feed their conspiratorial desires to go after their foes. The question is whether he's going to be able to get a person like that through the Senate. And I think that the timing on this is particularly important in that context as well. Because with Trump's approval numbers as low as they are, it seems to me quite likely that Democrats could control the Senate in 2027, or it could be 5050 with Lisa Murkowski as the deciding vote. And in that situation, Trump wouldn't be able to get through any of the names you just said through the Senate. You know, the Democrats aren't going to confirm any of those people. You wouldn't think. And so this is kind of the moment in the window. And if he wants to have somebody that is going to, you know, try to impose a legal and judicial reign of terror on his, on his political foes, like the time to get somebody like that in is now. And I think even now, given his shaky political standing, Collins is up for reelection. You know, Murkowski is not been reliable. McConnell and Tillis are retiring. You know, even some of those names now, it's hard for me to imagine that Melina Habba, for example, could even get through the Senate. And I think that's why you end up trying to turn to maybe people that the senators know. Maybe it's a Zeldin or a Mike Lee. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me ask you about the Mike Lee thing. Let me ask you about the Mike Lee because the fact that his colleagues are floating that field, that there's a report that, I mean, is that because they're like, Mike Lee. Yes. I think it's kind of similar to every time a Supreme Court seat opens, Ted Cruz gets floated for the Supreme Court seat by, you know, sources inside the Senate. So like, hey, maybe this could be your guys's problem. No, Lee's chief of staff, even I think posted that on X earlier and said basically, I think some of the sources in the Senate that are, that are floating Lee for attorney general, the same people that are, you know, complaining about his unhinged actions inside the Senate for good reason. So, you know, who knows, right, like where they're going to remember the first nominee for this was Matt Gates. So it's hard to get any crazier than that. We come a long way, baby. For attorney general. Yeah. So I think he's going to look at these options. He's going to want a Loit List and he's going to want someone he thinks is going to be more effective at prosecuting these cases than Bondi was. We'll see what that looks like. And I think he's got a short window to get somebody like that through. Barb, just real quick, a technical question. How long can Blanche be in the position as an acting AG? You know, the rules on acting AG are different from the rules with regard to US attorneys. So I don't know the answer to that question, but they can't stay forever. And the reason for that is to avoid an end run around the Senate confirmation process. The idea is you can have somebody there to fill the gap during a vacancy, but that they can't stay. I think the rule is 280 days. But that means that there's time for the president to identify a candidate and get them confirmed. But the Senate does play an essential role in selecting cabinet officials. I am told in my ear by one of our industrious producers it is usually 210 days, Miles Taylor, but usually in the Trump administration generally means very little. This list that is being floated, Blanche, Zeldin, Habba, Pirro. First of all, do you think that list is legit? Second of all, how do you think that list is coming together? And third, to ask what is obviously a rhetorical question, do you actually think the DOJ is any different under those folks than it is currently? No, but I think that Tim's assessment was the right one here. And we don't need a crystal ball to know where this is going to go. We have the Petrie dish of the first Trump administration to know approaching a midterm election where he's probably going to lose some... So the MAGA side is going to lose some power in Washington. Donald Trump is going to be constrained on the types of people he can get past. So I believe that list is legit and that it's the people Trump wants. It's not legit in terms of these aren't people who are going to restore the rule of law in the United States of America. But I also think a lot of it doesn't matter. And I'll tell you why. I'm going to make a prediction right here and right now. You are going to see the parade of acting officials begin now or later this year. More and more of these people in these top jobs will be acting officials. The administration will blow past the Federal Vacancies Act as they did in the first administration and they'll do what they tried to do when I was at DHS, which is to get me to sign off on a revised order of succession. So even if their people got taken out by the courts in the top job and the second job and the third job, that they would stack that order of succession with loyalists. Trust me, White House lawyers are working on that now. They want to be prepared for the back end of the Trump administration to just have acting officials in all of the top jobs so that Donald Trump doesn't have to go to a potentially hostile Congress. And that is very, very bad as Barb notes for democracy because the Senate provides advice and consent for a reason. But that's where we're headed. It is in fact very bad for democracy. I want to talk about something else that is bad for democracy because we have talked a lot about what this DOJ has meant to Epstein survivors and the release of the Epstein files. We've talked about his retribution campaign. I don't think we've talked sufficiently about our upcoming elections. I want you to take a listen to Lee Zeldin. Here he is two months after the January 6 insurrection being asked if Joe Biden won the election. Can you unequivocally state that Joe Biden won the presidential election? And just to remind viewers, you voted against certifying the results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Can you unequivocally state that? Yeah, Joe, why is the president of the United States? I ask it very intentionally that he won the presidential election. Yes. And then I went on to continue an answer. If you'd like to give my answer for me, you could go ahead and do that. But I thought I was going to be here to answer my own questions. No, no, I'm not giving your answer. I'm just saying you said he is the president and I was asking, did he win? Okay, you're asking me now for a third time and I've said yes twice. So I don't know how many more times you want me to say yes and what your agenda is. But really, it's a bit ridiculous to be asking me a third time. But please go ahead and ask me again. That's clarifying the answer to make sure that he has it right. You have a fourth time. I mean, I wouldn't call that a question. I want to go for a fifth time next too. Is every time I speak a question, we could keep going. Let's do it a sixth time. I made you sit through the pain of that Barbara to ask you whether it is Zeldin or someone else from this list, what it means to have this person in place in advance of both the midterms and the next presidential election. I mean, it's very frightening. I mean, as you just saw in that clip, he never did answer the question. And that's because he doesn't want to annoy Donald Trump. And so to the extent we want an attorney general who is independent, who follows the rule of law, I don't see that based on that demonstration that we just saw that Lee Zeldin is that person. And I think it's critically important with the 2026 elections coming up, there is a lot of room for an attorney general to make mischief in what happens in our elections. Right now, we've got the Justice Department trying to obtain voter rolls from various states, trying to say that it has a role to play in verifying who's eligible to vote. We know that they executed a search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized some of the voting records there. And so an attorney general who has an agenda, who is an election denier, I think is a very dangerous person. Barbara McQuade, thank you so much for being here and getting us started. Tim and Miles, you are sticking with me when we come back. Donald Trump finally addresses the American people on day 33 of the war with Iran, but offers no clear plan, no timeline, just a slew of contradictory statements. We're going to talk about the reaction to his speech next. And later in the program, one year after Trump's so-called Liberation Day, tariffs announcement sent the world economy into chaos, and Trump continues to inflict pain on the American people. With the fallout from the Iran war leading to higher prices at the pump. Done Line White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. The Best People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now for early access, ad-free listening and bonus content. Subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts. In starting a war with Iran, a lethargic and low-energy Donald Trump offered next to no answers to the questions that the American people have had for over a month. On the issue of a timeline, Trump offered no pathway to ending the war, claiming that the United States was on track to complete all of its military objectives very shortly, but not before, quote, we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. As Americans continue to struggle to afford gas and prices rise as a result of a growing oil supply crisis of his own making, Trump essentially told American families, deal with it. Trump saying, quote, it's very important that we keep this conflict in perspective and that this is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. And as for our allies, well, Trump had this to say. So to those countries that can't get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before. Should have done it with us, as we asked. Go to the straight and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done so it should be easy. Those comments come on the heels of reporting from the Wall Street Journal that, quote, Trump has discussed leaving NATO or potentially finding a way to weaken the United States commitment to the organization. Today, a spokesperson for NATO confirmed that Secretary General Mark Rutte will visit Washington next week. Joining me at the table, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs during the Obama Administration, political analyst Rick Stengel is here. Miles and Tim are still with me. So I just want to always apologize for the fact that I'm going to try to ask you to make sense of something that makes no sense, is internally inconsistent. But he's saying we're having these negotiations, but also we're going to hit them hard. How much more difficult does that make the role of the folks who are doing the diplomacy? You know, I was thinking the same thing. How to try to explain what he was doing last night because it's from the outside. It's like, why are you giving this speech? Why are you giving it now? Why are you giving this speech when you don't have explanation for people, what people want to know, the exit strategy, the plan B, whatever. I actually think he might have been contemplating a very different kind of speech and pulled back because it was so odd to have that first address there. You know, the NATO thing is bewildering. It's obviously not good. It's something that he's been talking about for decades and decades. But the truth is that the Ukraine war in a way has been a shock for NATO. And all the French, the British are realizing we need to do these things on our own. Iran is the same wake-up call. The British and the French are thinking about their own nuclear umbrella for Europe, beefing up their own munitions supplies. I mean, I think it's altogether ultimately a good thing for NATO that the European part of NATO will be strengthened. The irony, by the way, another thing that he doesn't know is the way you exit NATO is Article 19. You tell the US you're leaving NATO and you have a year to extricate yourself. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I mean, here's the thing, Tim Miller. I think we referred to his presentation as lethargic. I think that was one of the kinder words we were able to come up with. It was rambling. It was chaotic. And I think we've all become accustomed to that. The differences, the stakes weren't war in the other moments when we have heard him carry on in this way. Were you able to make any sense, whether it be politically or strategically, of what it was that we heard last night from this president? No. Yeah. He was lethargic. I would say sundowning, maybe. I think more important than whether I was to make any sense of it, I think it's important to look at what sense of it the market's made. Over the course of the past month, you know, I'm just a lowly podcaster. Alicia, I saw you have my opinion. And I've been looking at what Trump's been doing and saying this makes no sense. He doesn't have a plan. He doesn't have a plan to extricate us from this. There's no clear objectives for what we're trying to achieve. And the thing is going to drag on. There's no clear way out of the pickle with the Strait of Hormuz. And as a result, we're going to end up having energy shortages. You know, it's going to hit Asia and Europe first, but that is going to affect the global supply and demand. And the $4 gas we're seeing now is just the beginning. It's going to get much higher. This has been clear to me for a couple of weeks now. And I've had some, you know, finance and oil experts on the board can ask them about this. What am I missing? And they see this, but the markets have been behind. The markets, I think, have been presuming that Trump was going to taco, as they say, and that eventually there'd be enough pain that he would decide, OK, I'm just going to declare victory, pull out of this. And, you know, and we'll be able to kind of offset the worst of the economic consequences from this. Well, if you look at the market's reaction to the speeds last night, it was basically panic. The oil prices skyrocketed. We've hit that now the peak on the price per barrel of oil. Anybody that was looking at their 401k today, I would not recommend it. The stock market was down significantly. And I think that a lot of folks are coming to see what many of us have been seeing for a couple of weeks now, which is that, like, this is a quagmire that he doesn't know how to end it. Right. I mean, Miles Taylor, I asked him for his thoughts. He refers to himself as a lowly podcaster. He's one of the best in the biz. And Tim references the markets. I would argue that the most important audience and the most important question for how this landed was with the American people. I think the fact that they realized they needed to give this speech, however late in the game, the fact that they had Rubio out straight to camera on Instagram and other social media platforms saying, we know a lot of people are asking why we chose to attack Iran, why we chose to attack Iran now, trying to work backwards in creating a timeline and a rationale. It says to me that they know that this is problematic for them, that the American people are not on their side, that someone inside the administration knows how to read a poll. The problem is that the explanation they are offering still does not make sense, and the timeline they are offering still does not make sense. I don't know that there was anyone who was more reassured after hearing the president speak last night than they were prior. Yeah, look, I'm not sure that putting Marco Rubio on Instagram is the type of thing that can save you from catastrophe. Even our lowly podcaster friend can tell you that's not going to get ratings. Tim gets major league ratings compared to Marco Rubio on Instagram, and he does anyway. But look, I think you're right, Alicia. I think that it didn't do anything to shore up Donald Trump with any of the audience as he needed. And in fact, it backfired. It had the opposite effect. Just the presentation itself was the antithesis of confidence inspiring. It was almost like how people felt after that Joe Biden debate. Well, I hope that MAGA people watched that presentation and thought, oh man, we are toast because politically they all feel like they are after this. He did a very similar speech just before the holidays when his numbers were through the floor, and it had the same effect. He went out there to just boast and try to give consumers more confidence going into the holidays, and it had the opposite intended effect. But this is a much bigger deal. This past Saturday, Alicia, I ran into a three-time Trump voter where at a no-kings protest. That's got to tell you something. If three-time Trump voters are showing up at no-kings protests, that's a bad, bad sign for the president. And that person was there, a veteran, because they said Trump had broken yet another promise. No more forever wars. And here he was in another forever war. And he said nothing last night to give them more confidence about that. Again, his administration is still confused about why we were even there. And I'll add to what Rick said on NATO, but just note that Donald Trump doesn't need to formally pull out of NATO to have the effect. He's done it. Right now, NATO is dead. NATO is like the corpse in Weekend at Bernys being paraded around to make people think it is alive. Donald Trump has effectively killed the alliance. It is going to take a generation to restore that. And don't listen to me. Talk to European officials who privately will say, that is what has happened. They are not going to trust us again without a full cavity search. It will take years and years, as if we've cheated on them, for them to believe the United States of America again. And the American people should hold Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone accountable for that. It's a heck of a warning to land on Miles Taylor. Thank you so much for joining us today. Tim, Rick, you are sticking with me. After the break, Team Trump's message of short-term pain for long-term game when it comes to Iran, it is falling flat with the American people. That story is next. The small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Laurence O'Donnell, the beat with Ari Melber, The Weeknight and more. On the go, wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts. That was Nicole's reaction to Donald Trump's gaslighting last night on his war in Iran claiming success, but no clear timeline or way out. Gas prices continue to soar. They are now over four years old. The reason other issues are cratering along with it is because if he's telling you not to believe the thing that you can see every time you drive by the gas station, the price for gas, what else is he lying about? That was Nicole's reaction to Donald Trump's gaslighting last night on his war in Iran claiming success, but no clear timeline or way out. Gas prices continue to soar. They are now over four dollars a gallon. Voters, too, are increasingly frustrated. According to a new CNN poll, approval of Trump's handling of the economy has dropped to a new low of 31%. Joining us at the table, Executive Editor and New York Bureau Chief for The Economist Charlotte Howard, Rick and Tim are still with me. Charlotte, you have Amazon announcing they're adding a 3.5% fuel and logistics surcharge for third-party sellers in the US and Canada. What's next? I think you're going to continue to see the ripple effects of these high oil prices throughout the economy, whether it's consumers who are trying to buy airfare for the summer, going on trips with their families. They'll see it in the price of goods. One thing that's interesting to note about Donald Trump, and we were referring to this in the break, this is a man who's been obsessed with oil, specifically oil in the Middle East for decades. He was talking about Iranian oil coming out of the last oil crisis in the 1970s, right? And it's interesting now that for a man who's been fixated on this for so long, it really may be part of his undoing, his legacy and his political undoing, because it's proved to be such a toxic point, certainly in the polls, but more substantively on the real meat of America's economy. Well, part of his undoing too, Rick, because he doesn't seem to understand how it functions as a market, right? To say that the closing of the Strait of Hormuz is not actually affecting American consumers is to not understand how oil works. And the other thing that he didn't understand, and we saw this in the excerpt, is that when he urged Europeans to buy more American oil, I don't think he knows that Europe buys most of its oil from the United States, because we asked them to stop buying Russian oil after Russia invaded Ukraine. But when oil goes up, as you know, everything goes up. It's the basis for almost everything in our society, fertilizer, concrete, building expenses, shipping expenses. This will hike up inflation, which is also the thing that he's desperate to avoid for the American voter. So I think he doesn't have an understanding of the market. He doesn't have an understanding of the consequences of this. And the fact that oil, because that straitjacket of Hormuz closes off oil from the Middle East, that makes the oil go up everywhere, including American oil. So American oil billionaires will be making a lot more money. I'm just so struck to Miller by the point that Nicole made last night to our colleague Chris Hayes about the fact that this becomes part of a larger narrative, right? We all have to fill up our tank. We all know the price of gas. And if the President of the United States is telling you, don't believe you're lying eyes, then well, what else is it that he's lying about? I think it is why, unlike some of the other big issues and challenges in this administration, this one seems to have broken through. Yeah. Well, the last time I think we were together, Alicia, you're coming to gunhouse uncharacteristically optimistic. So I'll go back to my usual type behavior here and say that I think that even Nicole and Rick's negative assessment of his political standing based on the economy, I think it's much worse than even that. If you look out to how things are going to look this summer economically, as a result of these shortages, to Rick's point, yeah, gas prices are going to go up. That's going to drive food prices up. That's going to drive everything up. The economy before this war started was very stagnant. We barely created any jobs this year. You know what else is going to go up? Interest rates are going up. If you have a home mortgage and we're looking to maybe to move because you thought that rates were finally coming back down, that's not happening anymore. That's going to go up. We could end up in a stagflation situation where we just have a disaster where we have an economy that has no growth and costs and we have inflation costs are going up for everybody. People are stuck. People can't move. I think that we are staring down the barrel of economic calamity and he gave the speech last night. To me, it's reminiscent of maybe a speech that could have been given two weeks before COVID had really hit our shores, two weeks before Tom Hanks said he got COVID and everybody woke up. It's kind of like that. Two weeks from now, there's going to be gas lines in other countries around the world and prices are going to be up even more. His speech last night was like status quo. They don't have any plan for it. They're not even presenting an idea for how they're going to manage the economic problems ahead. He just said it was going to magically come back down. I think that a lot of regular people are already upset. As you can see in that polls with his number at 31%, I think he's got a lot of room to go down from there. I think a lot of people are going to be shocked by how bad the economic consequences are of this war that they don't even understand why we're flaging it. Charlotte Tim's Eeyore energy notwithstanding his analysis. It is fair. Yeah. I mean, I covered energy for the economists for a period. I can say that certainly your point is correct, that the global oil markets are not as Trump commands them to be. He can't control the price. America continues to import millions of barrels of oil, so it's not like America is actually truly energy independent, even though we now are an net exporter. We're importing millions of barrels of oil a day. So Americans will continue to feel this pain when they go to gas prices. I think there's a distinction to make between the performance of the global economy, the performance of America's economy on a macro level, and the way that consumers experience the economy. Because the macro numbers, they may be as bad as Tim suggests, or they may not be as severe. That won't, however, I think, have an impact on how consumers feel about the economy. We already have seen really cratering consumer sentiment over the past year. Gas prices, as we've discussed, are one of the most visible indicators that consumers have, and they feel, I think, rightly, that they don't understand why they're paying this high price. The President hasn't made that case to them. He could have made it last night. He could have, A, provided justification for the war. He could have explained how the United States plans to get out of it, whether he has a plan to lower prices for consumers. He really did none of that, and you saw the reaction, not just in the oil price in the markets, but I think you'll continue in the polling that's done in the next few days to see Americans respond to that lack of information. I have more questions about that, so no one is going anywhere after the break one year out from Trump's Liberation Day announcement. And Americans have completely soured on Trump's handling of the economy. Stay with us. Donald Trump's so-called Liberation Day was one year ago today, when he announced sweeping tariffs that American taxpayers and businesses would bear the brunt of. He promised his tariffs would make Americans rich, and that they'd bring factories and manufacturing jobs roaring back. Instead, as Politico explains, manufacturing payrolls actually declined slightly over the past year, with 98,000 fewer jobs year over year based on the most recent data from the Labor Department. There are 29,900 fewer auto manufacturing jobs and 18,000 fewer wood manufacturing jobs. The new higher tariffs on steel and aluminum, moreover, have hindered the construction of factories. The industry's hiring rate is lower now than it was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are back with Charlotte, Rick, and Tim. I want you to connect some dots for us, Charlotte, both from the tariffs to the war on Iran and this cover of the economists this week of Trump and China's president Xi Jinping reading, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Well, I'll thread together some of those things, maybe not all of them in one answer. But yeah, I mean, it's a pretty remarkable, it's been a pretty remarkable year. He went into this year declaring it was Liberation Day. We at the time at the Economist called it Ruination Day because we thought it was a horrible idea. But for him, tariffs represented this kind of Swiss army knife of policy. It was going to do all these things. It was going to raise revenue. It was going to bring jobs back to the United States. It was going to secure American independence from China. It was quite a long list. And so if you look back, what has it done, what has Trump's trade policy not done, it has raised revenue. Tariffs now account for a larger share, more than double the share of tax receipts than it did last year. So it has done that. On pretty much every other metric, I would argue, he's failed. I mean, there's not been a tariff wall to judge it on its own terms. It's not really a wall. It's more like a flexible netting with lots of holes, with different exemptions given to different countries. You already went through the statistics on jobs. It's certainly not had a big effect of reinvigorating American manufacturing. If you look at some of the other measures, I would argue that America has consciously and deliberately harmed itself on the global economic stage by encouraging its erstwhile economic allies to form relationships amongst each other with America playing a less dominant role. You see Britain, the EU, Canada and others across the global south making deals now with each other, sometimes with China, because they realize that the United States is no longer the reliable partner that it was. I think across a few different dimensions, I would argue that the Trump tariff agenda has neither been as harmful as it could have been because it's not been as rigid as he originally promised. So it's failed on Trump's own terms and then on other people's terms, I think it's failed because it hasn't achieved its Swiss Army knife set of goals of bringing jobs back, reducing dependence on China, strengthening America's role in the economic stage, in fact, precisely the opposite. I'm desperate to just play this sound because you've talked about this in sort of a national security, geopolitical context, but there's also what it means here at home for domestic policy. Can we play the sound of Donald Trump talking about daycare? We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. Okay, I know it's a hard pivot from Xi Jinping to the daycare, but to me, the point is that's where people feel it. I just want to be able to drop my kid off in an economy that forces me and my partner to each have employment outside of the home. Why does this feel so hard? And Donald Trump answers his own question by saying, because I chose to go to war and that's costing me a ton of money. Yeah, no, I think it's kind of the kryptonite for him because basically he's the guy who wanted to keep us out of endless wars and now he's in an endless war. And as a result, you can't pay for the things that people actually want. So like, oh, he invaded a country in the Middle East and that's why I can't have daycare. I think that's how voters will see it. Rick Stengel, Charlotte Howard, thank you both so much for being with us. Tim Miller, as always, thank you for being a realist and for being with us. I'm going to take a quick break and then we'll be right back. Nicole's episode of the best people this week is a must listen. She sits down with our friend and colleague, Alex Wagner, talk through the state of play at this moment in the second Trump administration. Here's what Alex told Nicole about a lesson for Democrats from a surprising source. I genuinely think that like if you learn anything from Trump, it's like pick your position and then go sell it. Because I think, first of all, Trump has just broken so much shit that like you could come in there with any idea. And first of all, if it's a coherent idea, that's a bonus. But also if you can sell it and you believe it and you have the conviction, I do think if Democrats have learned anything, it's like go along with the person who's going to pitch this the best, who has an idea with conviction that seems sensible, even if it is not exactly what it is. Like you got to go along with it and you got to prop this person up and lift them up and like give people a reason to believe. The entire episode is available to watch right now on YouTube. You just scan the QR code on your screen and take another break. We'll be right back. Thank you for spending part of your Thursday with us. Home to the Rachel Maddow show. Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. MS Now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at MS.now.