“Trump wants out of Iran”

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. MUSIC Hi there everyone. It's now four o'clock in New York. It is day 32 of the War with Iran. Here's where things stand. Gas prices have topped the $4 a gallon mark. That is the highest that gas has been in four years. Donald Trump now, though, appears ready to call it quits. Ted for the exits, potentially leaving Iran in some ways in a stronger position than before the war began. The Wall Street Journal is reporting this, quote, Trump told aides he's willing to end the U.S. military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed. Administration officials said likely extending Tehran's firm grip on the waterway and leaving a complex operation to reopen it for a later date. In recent days, Donald Trump and his aides assessed that a mission to pry open the choke point would push the conflict beyond his timeline of four to six weeks. Trump decided that the U.S. should achieve its main goals of hobbling Iran's navy and its missile stocks and wind down current hostilities while pressuring Tehran diplomatically to resume the free flow of trade. To be clear, the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes, is only closed and in need of a complex operation to reopen it because of the war Donald Trump started in Iran. Iran seizing the Strait was an entirely foreseeable consequence. Reporting from multiple outlets shows that intelligence had predicted and warned that this would happen. And now Donald Trump is considering leaving the Iranian regime in charge of this critical choke point when they did not have control of this critical choke point before the war started. This is the plot twist, though. Trump is now demanding that the same U.S. allies, who he denigrates and insults and didn't consult before the war started, fix it. Donald Trump all but confirming that reporting in the Wall Street Journal with a post on True Social that reads in part, quote, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just all caps, take it. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself. The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you were not there for us. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil exclamation point. That is your president, ladies and gentlemen. The sentiment was echoed by Pete Hegceth today, who had this to say. There are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It's not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad royal navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well. You call him big bad, Pete. But importantly, the royal navy and the United Kingdom, frankly, none of our allies started the war, and none that we know of were particularly read in. Trump administration started the war. According to Marco Rubio, we did it because Israel was going to strike. Anyway, here's the damage that will be done if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed again, according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting quote. The longer the Strait remains closed, the more it will royal the global economy. Multiple countries, including U.S. allies, are reeling from the downturn in energy supply that once flowed freely through the choke point. But according to Trump and Hegceth, it is up to those allies who were unwillingly plunged into this crisis, the one we created to now get the world's energy supply out of it. Our friend Tom Nichols writes it like this, quote, It took almost a century for the U.S. to build a global system of trade security and cooperation, and these guys are going to throw it away because they screwed up and have to save face, end quote. Donald Trump openly mulling, cutting and running from the global oil supply crisis he created at the expense of our allies and the global economies where we start today. The aforementioned Tom Nichols joins us. He's a staff writer at The Atlantic, a contributor to the Atlantic Daily Newsletter, as well as a professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Also joining us, Wall Street Journal National Security reporter, Vera Bergen-Gruin is here. Also joining us are friend Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. He served as the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe. General Hurtling, I start with you. Your thoughts on the public utterances of Donald Trump? Well, if I can combine those with the derogatory utterances of the Secretary of Defense, between the two of them, I'm not sure what each day is going to bring to us, Nicole. We are now over a month into this action, as you so eloquently said, was started by President Trump, was reinforced by Secretary Hague Seth and his actions with the military, and it just has gotten worse. Every single day, you know, you read the comment by Tom a minute ago, and both of us, both Tom Nichols and I, were part of the administrations over several decades that tried to secure alliances and build trust with other like-minded countries. That has all been thrown away in a 30-day time period, not just in Europe, but in the Middle East and in the Far East. This is what we're going to face. We've been saying for weeks now that there was no easy way out of this. I guess none of us considered the fact that the President would just say, I'm going to end my part of the war right now, even though it takes more than one to end a war. It takes both sides to do that, and in this case, many sides to do it. So we're in for some really damaged global supply chains with many of the links having been broken over the last 30 days, and we're going to suffer the consequences of this, even though the President is now telling our allies to have a free-for-all and go into the country and just take oil. Most of our allies, I would assume, know that that's a war crime, and they also don't have the capacity to do the kinds of things that President Trump wants them to do. So again, this is one of those courses of actions that all of us could have seen coming. And in fact, we've talked about it multiple times on this show when you don't put military forces in line with diplomatic and economic and informational elements of power from the United States. Gemma, what is the impact of an American President who also has the job of the Commander-in-Chief tweeting in such... I don't know the most sort of diplomatic and accurate word, but this is insane in an erratic way. I mean, one day it's to the oil companies, just go in, basically, you know, man up. The next day it's to our allies, will you man up? The next day it's, you know, we're going to go get the uranium. I mean, the headspinning way that the headlines are created by Donald Trump's own expressions of whatever they are, his insecurities, his fears, his glances at what's happening inside his own coalition. They are, to news consumers, ridiculous and mockable. And they're why he's at 33%. It's why he's ranking the lowest approval rating in the Fox News polling. It's why Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are an open revolt. It's why Rand Paul is being platformed on prominent broadcast shows. It's why more Republicans are talking about running for office against Trump-ism than ever before. But what does it do inside an operation like the military where Donald Trump's other official role is the country's commander in chief? Well, it's not only within the military part of the operation, Nicole. It's also with the families and with the supporters of the military. Those who know how challenging it is to conduct combat operations, to put together a campaign, to have military forces conducting missions that contribute to national strategy. You know, it's a surprise to me as you just read that true social post and mentioned some other things that now it's okay because we've defeated, or not destroyed, but defeated the Iranian Navy and destroyed a bunch of their weapons systems. Not all, but quite a bit. And that's enough now to say, well, that was our strategic end date, or end state rather. Those were not the strategic end states all along the last 30 days. They've changed dramatically day by day, week by week. And truthfully, Nicole, I'm not even 100% sure that we might not get another true social post tomorrow morning that goes back to, hey, we're going to spend another three months in combat until we open the straits. It has been that jaw dropping of a whipsaw over the last 30 days that to answer your question, how does this apply to the military forces? I heard the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs this morning saying, oh, we've got some forces over there and they can do multiple things. No, they can't. They can do one mission at a time. And that mission only comes when you give it to them and say, here's your campaign plan in order to accomplish these political objectives. If you keep whipsawing the military and have them stationed in an area of operation for a very long time when the mission keeps changing, it will certainly affect the morale. But more than that, I can tell you for the, let's say, 10,000 Marines and soldiers that are over there as well as the 50,000 on board various carrier strike groups, they've got a bunch of family members who for the last 30 days have been really tense about what might happen to their soldiers, Airmen and Marine. And now they're in an area of operation. No one knows when they're coming home. And those loved ones are back there saying, I'm proud of what my military person is doing, but I don't know what the hell is happening and how they are being used. I'll add one more point. You know, the allies across the board are seeing President Trump and I'm sure many of them will admit to what they are, what he is. But the concerning part to me is we are now associated with all these actions as the American people because we're allowing this to happen without our Congress stepping up or without people voting for someone who's sane in terms of conducting these military operations. Is it the sense, General, that he's not sane? I can't judge that, Nicole, and I won't. But certainly there are some things that are being done that can be questioned. That's for sure. Anyone who is taking on the mantle of the President of the United States, who will not listen to people and understand how military operations work, how diplomacy should proceed those military operations, and who concludes after 30 days of threats and intimidations that they can just stop and let the world go about their own actions to depend on global supply chains really doesn't have a good understanding of how things work. Let me, Vera, bring into this exact point that the General is making, the latest Wall Street Journal reporting that sort of puts these two things up as the contradictory things they are. Trump tells Aids he's willing to end the war without reopening the Strait of Our Moves, and then this reporting, quote, Trump's desire to end the war quickly is at odds with other moves he's planning to make this weekend. The USS Tripoli and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit entered the region. Trump has also ordered elements of the 82nd Airborne and is considering sending another 10,000 ground troops to the Middle East. Just based on what the journals reported, what we read there and what we read in the lead, what is the posture right now suggest could happen next? There's clearly, I mean, there's no clear answer here and that's kind of what they're doing here. What is obvious is that there's basically three competing pressures on Trump. He really wants to end the war quickly. He's been very clear. That's what he wants to do. He's being told by certain Gulf allies and others who are stuck with the aftermath that they want him, you know, they prefer a complete victory in a longer war. So basically, you know, they want this to end more decisively. And then he's got the domestic pressures at home, you know, like it's starting to really be felt. It's not some abstract thing happening abroad anymore. It's really affecting people. And so, you know, he's got all the options on the table, but he's going between all of these different ones. The market seemed to read his social media posts the way teenagers consume social media. What are they reacting to? I mean, I think we've seen the president kind of play that up. You know, but by the timing of his post, he tends to go, you know, post something before the markets open and make his deadline after the markets close. We've seen them react on and off at the beginning, especially, you know, whenever he would give a new deadline. We saw them react pretty predictably. Now it's not as predictable anymore. I think people have kind of caught on that there's only so many times he can do that over the many weeks and perhaps months that this war will last, that he can kind of play the markets. You know, I think people, you know, again, we saw it again today. Well, you know, whatever it seems like the war is going to come to an end, you know, we see the markets react. The president is obviously doing this on purpose, but we don't know how much longer that's going to be effective. Tom Nichols, you know, I'm the farthest thing from a financial expert, but the markets believe Donald Trump more than the MAGA base does. Tom, can you hear us? Tom Nichols? I think we lost you, Tom. I mean, what do you think about that, General, that we've got all this evidence sort of in plain sight? We've got Trump's utterances, which again, I mean, I don't know if he writes his posts or not, but they're public. We've got all this cabinet talking and again, that's public. All that we know about why we're there is what we've gleaned from public statements. There haven't been a lot of addresses. There haven't been any addresses to the nation. But what is your sense of who still believes them if not Trump's own political coalition? Yeah, it's interesting to watch the markets. And Nicole, you know I'm certainly not an economist, so I'm not going to comment on that. But it has been fascinating to watch the ups and downs based on the utterances before and after the market opens of the president. And, you know, I'd reinforce the fact that he's probably playing with the market. But I'm going to go back to something I said earlier and just re-emphasize. Truthfully, I don't give a damn about what the market's doing. I do. That's a little bit too harsh. But what we're also seeing is not only the swings in the market and people figuring out who work on Wall Street and hedge funds, what the heck he's doing. But this is a damning indication of the American nation, of our society, that this is going on. To send forces overseas to bluster and intimidate and to have different press conferences that are so disjointed by various members of the administration over a period of 30 days, it speaks of what we have become and that's not what we aspire to be. The markets are just an indicator and it's evident that someone is playing with them. And we've seen that in ways other than just the ups and downs of the Dow Jones. To me, it is one of the most sort of, I won't say misunderstood, but undercovered parts of this story. I want to come back to the part of it, though, that affects every single person. Every single person, whether they drive or not, if they consume goods, if they commute to work, if they had hoped to go on vacation this spring or summer, is impacted by the soaring price of gas. And I just, Vera, want to put up some of the headlines. Gas prices hit $4, a headache for drivers and Trump, the Associated Press, gas prices eclipsed $4 a gallon in the U.S. The highest since 2022, CNBC, U.S. gasoline hits $4 per gallon. Highest since 2022 is Iran war drives at fuel prices for more than 30%. This has historically in this country had an economic impact. Real families make real decisions differently when gas is at this point, but also a psychological impact in terms of how people feel about their personal finances. What is your sense of what there are now public indifference to whether or not the Strait of Hormuz reopens and who does that reopening and when that happens? What impact is that likely to have on gas prices? I think that's a really good question because, again, it's not an abstract foreign policy story anymore. We've seen a lot of people initially freak out with Operation Midnight Hammer last summer or even with the Venezuela operation when it seemed like something could really cause some regional chaos. And then, you know, it went away both times and Trump was really quite emboldened by that and he decided that, you know, he could contain the fallout from this as well. But, you know, again, his messaging that he's willing to leave the Strait of Hormuz, just basically pack up, go home, leave it to allies to clean it up. I mean, he keeps emphasizing that European countries and Asian countries and other allies get more of their oil through there than the United States. And therefore, it's their mess to clean up even though, as you noted, the United States and Israel launched this war without consulting them. But as we're seeing now, I mean, it's really impacting, you know, it's really hurting US consumers. It's a midterm year. You know, it's really interesting to see how much longer. We don't have a great sense of it so far. But, you know, the longer this goes on, week by week, it's really likely going to affect the polls as well. And it's also going to affect his allies. I think one of the under-covered aspects of this is that some of the leaders, conservative ideological allies that President Trump has expanded quite a bit of capital on to put in power, to keep in power, to bolster in their countries are really being impacted by this as well. We just saw this with a Chile's president, you know, a conservative who Trump has really backed, who's now a couple of weeks into office already floundering in the polls because of energy prices. So it's affecting, you know, not just the United States and not just, you know, US voters, but the entire system that Trump has been setting up for the last year. It would be amazing if he destroyed MAGA and MAGA worldwide. All right, no one's going anywhere. We've got an IT SWAT team trying to get Tom Nichols back online. He'll be with us on the other side of the break, I am told. Also head for us, Pete Hegg says financial broker allegedly trading on a war started by his client weeks before news of the operation was public. The leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee will join us on whether that can be investigated, plus a first from some of Donald Trump's most ardent defenders, publicly questioning whether he's really capable of understanding just how complicated and complex the war in Iran was. Going to be. We'll show that to you. And later in the show, breaking this afternoon, a judge blocking construction of that $400 million ballroom. We'll show you what the judge had to say and where the project goes next. All that and much more. And Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Never before have so many people worked so hard to get Tom Nichols back on television, but he's back. Tom, we've quoted you right and left. I don't think you heard any of it, but I'll quote you again with your latest piece in the Atlantic. I'll write this quote. Donald Trump and his administration have pioneered the practice of vice signaling or saying insulting or odious things, both as attention seeking behavior and as a way of showcasing their supposedly transgressive political views. Vice signaling is rampant throughout the Trump administration because the president's appointees know that the boss likes underlings who emulate his aggressive indecency. When the man in charge of the Defense Department disgorges this kind of toxic waste, it seeps into the groundwater of military culture. It tells young service members and men, especially that racism, sexism and the display of faux masculinity are signs of a true warrior. That's appalling anytime, but especially, especially when you've taken the country to war and in Iran. And taking the country to war for no reason other than the glory of Donald Trump, of these people who have stumbled their way into a war, can't figure out how to stumble out of it. I'm glad to be back. I heard Mark right at the end saying, who knows, we could wake up tomorrow and the president's going to say that he's putting 5,000 troops into Iran because I'll say it again, because the president is an emotionally unstable and cognitively impaired person. And so we can't really know at any given moment what our policy is, and I don't think anyone else in the government knows what our policy is. But to put people in harm's way and then to have Pete Hegseth, who's clearly working out issues of his own in public somehow, talking about, you know, preying for overwhelming violence and no mercy and, you know, all of this kind of chest thumping, very juvenile behavior that, you know, real warriors like people like Mark know is, you know, the sign not of a man but of a boy is really a terrible thing. And it sends a message along with Hegseth's other behavior, which is like, includes things like yanking the promotions of two women and two black officers of, you know, the things that he has said about women in combat and his attempt to clear them out of the senior ranks of his, you know, childish behavior and childish rhetoric about war, which is, you know, the most serious thing a country can undertake. It sends a message that, you know, to the rest of the force that this is not a serious business, that it's okay to be sexist and racist and misogynistic and all the other isms that Hegseth thinks he's so proud to transgress. And I think it sends a terrible sign to the families of the people who serve, you know, that their sons and daughters are in the hands of somebody, two people, the president and the secretary of defense, who think this is all about them and are acting, you know, like a couple of jumped up teenagers when we're at war with a country of 90 million people. I mean, Tom Nichols, what is your best explanation for why the men and women in Congress who see everything you just articulated just as you do, doing nothing? I mean, Hegseth has oversight committees. There are things that people could do to protect the men and women of the military who don't have a lot of recourse. They have to follow the chain of command. And as we've been discussing, Donald Trump sits atop it with Pete Hegseth right there. Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing was obscene. It was, I would say it's a joke, but it was too deadly serious to be a joke. And yet, he was confirmed by the by one by a tie breaking vote, which should never have happened. The reason that no one steps up now is that Republican members of Congress like being members of Congress. They like being in Washington. They like their jobs. They like being driven to work and having people bring their coffee. And they don't want to have to go home and live among their own constituents after they get primaried for standing up and opposing the behavior of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. So they're just keeping their heads down, hoping to survive yet another electoral cycle and, you know, waiting for the moment when all this goes away. And so far, for a lot of them, that's been a pretty good survival strategy. But make no mistake about it. It's cowardly. It's shallow. It's, it's venal. And it says that they would rather keep their jobs and not get primaried than speak up and point out that, you know, these, the people that are putting our, our children in danger. Our young men and women in danger don't know what the hell they're doing. I guess I'd say is the only person here who who who worked on campaigns. I mean, it's not the political flex that they think it is sending troops in Iran has an 8% approval rating. The current operation in Iran has about a 20% approval rating. I mean, Tom, just pull that political thread a little tighter for me. To whom are they cowtowing other than a president with a plunging? I mean, his popularity is plunging faster than a cement brick. But what else have they got, Nicole? Where are they going to go? Remember that to get taken out in a primary, you don't need, you know, an overwhelming turnout against you. Primaries are low turnout affairs that are controlled by often by the most vocal and engaged and sometimes the most extreme part of the electorate. So, you know, and that's true in both parties, by the way, that you can get primaried up. You know, the, I always point out to people that the future speaker of the house got primaried out of his seat by Alexedro Cácero Cortez in a primary that had something like a 15% turnout. All you have to do is have Donald Trump get enough people mad to show up to a primary and to give you a run for your life. And look at the situation John Cornyn's in in Texas right now. Look at the situation other Republicans are, other Republican electeds are in. So you're right. It's as, you know, you know this as a campaign person. This is really, you know, hitching yourself to a dog of an issue. But what else, you know, to quote a famous movie, an officer and a gentleman, they've got nowhere else to go. So what are they going to do? Yeah. Well, we'll see what sort of judgment the country renders in November. Tom Nichols, we're so glad we got you back online. And Vera and Lieutenant General Mark Curling, thank you for starting us off today when we come back. How much can members of Trump's inner circle get away with? What's the new $64 million question, right? There's brand new reporting on Pete Hegses' broker's conduct and a big investment he allegedly tried to make weeks before the war in Iran began. I'll tell you about it next. I called Pete, I called General Cain, I called a lot of our great people. We have great people. Let's talk. We got a problem in the Middle East. We can take a stop and make a little journey into the Middle East and eliminate a big problem. And Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said, let's do it because you can't let them have a nuclear weapon. Let's do it. Like stopping for, I don't know, Margaritas on the way home. It was Donald Trump last week on Defense Secretary Pete Hegses' enthusiasm, quote, let's do it. And I came to go into war in Iran. There's brand new reporting in the Financial Times that makes that an alarming admission by Donald Trump. It raises, frankly, frightening questions about just why Pete Hegses might have responded that way to Donald Trump, why he was so gung-ho. The Financial Times writes this, quote, a broker for Pete Hegses, the U.S. Defense Secretary, attempted to make a big investment in major defense companies in the weeks leading up to the U.S. Israeli attack on Iran. That's according to three people who are familiar with the matter. Pete Hegses' broker and Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multi-million dollar investment in the Asset Manager's Defense Industrial's Active ETF, the people said, shortly before the United States launched military action against Tehran. That inquiry on behalf of the high-profile potential client was flagged internally at BlackRock, according to the people familiar with the matter. The investment discussed by Pete Hegses' broker did not ultimately go ahead, as the fund, which launched in May last year, was not yet available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy. A Pentagon spokesperson responded to the story on social media, quote, this allegation is entirely false and fabricated. Neither Hegses nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment. Of course, that's not what the reporting says, but okay. It's just the latest though piece of reporting in this vein that raises questions about the additional dangers posed by the Trump administration and the ability of members of the cabinet to make financial bets and investments while in office. Here's Senator Alyssa Slotkin on National Security Implications. Watch. No one in the government, whether you're a career government person or a political appointee like the president and his kids, anybody, no one should be able to place a bet based on insider information they have, especially on issues of war and peace. And so what we know from the simple, but just to put it in perspective, you know, you would have people before we went into Venezuela. You had a bunch of people get online anonymously and go under the prediction markets and say, I bet we're going to have some military action in Venezuela tomorrow and made a ton of money. Same thing ahead of the Iran War. And these are people we can assume who have insider information that we're launching military operations. Number one, that's insider trading. Number two, it's also a complete operational security risk. If you're the Iranians and you're sitting there and you're like, huh, I noticed there's a bunch of bets coming in for a war tomorrow. It's like, oh, I think we're about to have a war. So I think that it's like this thing all around. During our garbage former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, National Security and Intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg is back. We're going to start with Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia of California. He's a ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, if the committee were to proceed and investigate this, the defense secretary's own statement is sort of a riddle wrapped in a lie. The story doesn't allege that Pete Hegseth contacted BlackRock. The Financial Times is reporting that Pete Hegseth's broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock and an internal alert system was set off by a quote, multi-million dollar investment request for a product that wasn't even available outside of BlackRock. It feels like something begging to be investigated. Is this on your radar? Well, this is complete corruption. And not only is it on our radar, in fact, today we are opening an investigation into what is incredibly serious. And both Morgan Stanley and BlackRock will be receiving letters from myself and the Oversight Committee today, asking a series of questions to preserve documents. The reality is we need answers. And we're also today, we've contacted Secretary Hegseth. We also are expecting him to answer our questions. I mean, the idea that our secretary of defense or war or whatever he wants to call himself is trying to make money to enrich himself of playing games with our military is pure corruption and insane. First, he should never be trading stocks as it relates to defense in the first place. And the fact that his own broker at Morgan Stanley, which by the way, this has been now, this is being claimed by multiple people. The allegation is coming from multiple sources that are being reported. And it's also being reported that the folks at BlackRock were very concerned about this. And the fact that the secretary's broker at Morgan Stanley is trying to invest in war, where we know very well that Pete Hegseth has the power to deploy our troops. I think this is some of the most serious reporting that we've seen out of this administration as it relates to the Pentagon. And what I told the team earlier today as we were discussing this is, look, we have a lot of big investigations right now, whether it's Jeffrey Epstein, whether it's Kristi Noemann, what she did at DHS with Lewandowski, whether it's RFK Jr. at HHS. But this also has to be a serious investigation because we're talking about war in peace and about launching a foreign war that could possibly enrich the Secretary of Defense. Congressman, you've got in the Trump administration a cabal that seems to operate with impunity. Would you spread the word to financial institutions that they won't be there forever, that Democrats might be in control as early as November, and all of this will be investigated? I mean, this is, again, reporting about an internal check inside BlackRock. I just want to be really specific. Quote, the inquiry on behalf of the high-profile potential client was flagged internally at BlackRock, according to people familiar with the matter. We know that Pete Hegseth uses Signal. We know that he has in the past communicated classified information on Signal. Would you sort of investigate from the other side, from the financial institutions back to the Trump Cabinet in terms of whether or not they have classified information in their possession? We've been discussing throughout the day our approach here. Now, both BlackRock and Morgan Stanley, if they haven't received our letter, they will by the end of the day. We've contacted them. They're aware we are asking them a series of questions. We expect them to comply. They're also very aware that the majority right now in Congress and Mike Johnson, they're not going to be there forever. And if things go a certain way, we will be the ones with the subpoena power and the ability to ask these questions and get this information. We expect Morgan Stanley and BlackRock to comply. They're going to be asked questions by the oversight committee. And this is of the highest concern. This is not just by the way a corruption issue. This is a national security issue. We're talking about our military. We're talking about the secretary who leads the Pentagon and his broker is trying to cut deals and buy a package of stocks through BlackRock related to defense. This is pure corruption. And I think we have to be very serious at this moment. The fact that this war has been launched. There's clearly been a distraction that we still have no real explanation as to why and what's happening. We're seeing already what's happening in Venezuela with the profiting. We see what's happening with Jared Kushner and Middle East profiting through this investment firm and the billions of dollars for that firm. All of this goes back to what is the most corrupt president and administration in history. And we must investigate it thoroughly. What is your sense of whether or not Republicans now that Trump is at 33 percent in the polls sending ground troops into Iran polls at about 8 percent. You've got an open revolt among key MAGA figures like Beg and Kelly and Tucker Carlson. What is your sense as to whether or not this could also be bipartisan as the Epstein investigation is. Well the one thing that we have learned from the Epstein investigation is that when you push real hard and you get the American public to stand with you you can actually make progress even within the MAGA base and Republicans and we've seen that. And the same goes as it relates to our investigation with Secretary Noam. Look we put a lot of pressure there and she stepped aside and she was at the White House saw what was happening and that there was real anger even amongst their own base. Donald Trump's been underwater on issues of immigration. As it relates to this issue in the Pentagon and Secretary Hexeth. I think the same has to be true. We've got to apply the same level of pressure because you are seeing those cracks and you are starting to hear from Republicans that are starting to look at their electorate and seeing a very pissed off electorate even within conservative base. Republicans also can't explain why we are in Iran why we're doing what we're doing. They're the only explanation that someone is profiting off this war. People are making an enormous amount of money. And I think this reporting by the Financial Times is actually quite breathtaking in the scope and the level of corruption that it could represent and the harm that it could represent to the men and women who serve our country. Absolutely. It's a stunning story. We'll continue to stay in touch with you as your investigation proceeds. Thank you for sharing that news with us today, Congressman. We'll bring Michael Feinberg in about what potential crimes could have been committed based on what we're learning in this reporting after a quick break. Michael Feinberg, I read stories like this and again let me just read from the story so we stay more on the facts. New reporting by the Financial Times raises alarming questions about why Heg Seth might have been so gung-ho. The Financial Times writes, quote, a broker for Pete Heg Seth, the U.S. Defense Secretary, attempted to make a big investment in major defense companies in the weeks leading up to the U.S. Israeli attack on Iran, according to three people. It strikes me that this story might be in the Financial Times because the people that used to man the phones at the public integrity section, the corruption section, and the national security division and the Iran desk at the FBI are gone. I mean, tell me what you would do in a functioning FBI with this information. It wouldn't just involve a functioning FBI, it would involve a functioning entirety of government because this isn't just the FBI's purview. This would involve the Department of Defense Inspector General, would involve the Securities and Exchange Commission, depending on if the sale was finalized and what sort of profits were and what the reporting requirements were, it might involve the IRS. This is the sort of thing that in any other administration, if you heard of the Cabinet official behaving in this way, it would cause a five alarm fire. That is not to say that charges would automatically result. You still have to do an investigation. You still have to determine whether there was any illegality in what occurred. But there's enough smoke that you would not be doing your job as an investigative or law enforcement agency if you didn't look into this. But white collar crime has been heavily deprioritized by this Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of DOJ has explicitly said in speeches that he is generally not in favor of white collar laws that overburden the transactions of businesses. That's not a demand signal to investigators and prosecutors that this is something they should be working on. What is your sense, though, of who will get to the bottom of whether or not decisions that result in the loss of life? I mean, men and women have died in the war in Iran, are being fueled by financial interest. Yeah, and you hit the nail on the head. Congressman Garcia just very eloquently explained that this is not just a public corruption issue or a national security issue. But I think we also need to add it's a moral issue. Young Americans, patriots who signed up to serve their country, have recently died in this conflict. And I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to sit in their parents' shoes or their children's shoes or their spouse's shoes. And to find out that the Secretary of Defense was trying to make a profit on this conflict by trading stocks. People were rightly upset that Donald Trump appeared at a transfer of servicemen's remains wearing a baseball cap, which was completely inappropriate. But that pales in comparison to what the Financial Times is alleging. This is a government official literally trying to make money off of the deaths of American servicemen and women. Again, a quote, multi-million dollar investment in a defense product. Stunning. This conversation, I have a feeling, is very much to be continued with you, Michael Feinberg. Thank you so much for your time today. After the break for us, the White House obsession is controlling its own narrative, now extending to its image and images. We'll explain and show it to you next. The Trump administration's war on a free press apparently extends to bullying the people who make sure they are seen at all by the public. Our friend Oliver Darcy over on his site Status broke a story about the wire service AFP. AFP removed this photo right here on your screen right now. It's a photo of White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt with her son and a turkey named Waddle. The AFP says that the White House told the AFP that it was an unflattering picture. And then they decided that it didn't meet their standards after that. According to Oliver Darcy's reporting, that photo had been published in just one place, a single Swiss newspaper. But Caroline Levitt isn't the only Trump administration official who seems to be carefully curating her physical image. The Washington Post reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took time out of his day, waging an unpopular war in the Middle East to bar photographers from the AP Reuters and Getty after they took photos that Hegseth and his staff deemed to be unflattering of him. Of course, they might just be following Donald Trump's lead here. Trump himself had a social media meltdown in the middle of the night about this cover photo in Time Magazine. Quite a sensitive bunch, aren't they? Up next for us, the shifting reasons for starting a war with Iran. Much more on this when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Stay 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.