As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47. Hi again, everyone. It's 5 o'clock in New York. We're back with special breaking coverage of the Supreme Court's rare and stinging rebuke of Donald J. Trump. As the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's use of emergency powers to impose his sweeping tariff regime, they're telling him in no uncertain terms that only Congress, not the president, has the power to impose taxes on the American people. The ruling was a 6-3 decision with the chief, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joining all three liberal justices. In the decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the court states this, quote, The framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch. The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article 3 of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Donald Trump reacted to the news badly in a mercurial, rambling press conference. If he was anyone else in entertainment or sports, people would be worried about him this afternoon. He said he would be imposing a 10 percent global tariff instead and in response to losing in front of the Supreme Court. He claimed out of nowhere that the United States Supreme Court is controlled by foreign interests. Donald Trump also falsely claimed that he can do anything he wants with IEPA saying, quote, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country. I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want. So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. President of the United States said that today. As Donald Trump noted in those remarks, the tariffs he imposed using other authorities are still in effect. And the Budget Lab at Yale finds that consumers will still face an eye-popping average effective tariff rate of 9.1%, which remains the highest since 1946, excluding last year, of course, While many questions still remain unanswered, such as whether businesses and consumers will receive refunds for the tariffs they've already paid, which the Supreme Court said today were illegal. One thing is clear. Today's ruling is a long overdue setback for Donald Trump, someone who clearly expected the Supreme Court to enable him to assert executive power as ever he pleases, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. We have gathered our best and brightest. They are our own primetime colleagues as we continue our special coverage of this seemingly long overdue check on Donald Trump's attempt to wield power. Our senior business analyst, the host and anchor of the 11th Hour Stuff Rules here. Our chief legal correspondent, the host and anchor of The Beat, Ari Melber, my time slot neighbor, is here. Plus, the co-host of the weeknight, former chair of the RNC, Michael Steele, is with us. Michael, I start with you because you're the farthest away from where I sit. But Donald Trump revealed actually in 2020 what he expects from his Supreme Court when he kept wanting the election challenges to just get to the Supreme Court, just get to the Supreme Court. It was clear that in his head, those are his fixers. That was clear again today in his rebuke of all six justices. But he really had the most vitriol for the three Republicans and especially the two he appointed. Oh, he does. You know, like a kid who's, you know, mad at some of some of his playmates. You know, he got up there and he scowled and he, you know, he beat his breast because he has expectations. I mean, he references loyalty in the context of Supreme Court justices where they're not loyal to you. They're not supposed to be loyal to you, except for the three who are loyal to you. And that was, you know, a profoundly disturbing moment in that in that sense. Look, Nicole, I'm not going to sit here and think, oh, we've turned the corner on the Supreme Court. There's some still some really big decisions coming down the pike where this court could really, really disappoint, disappoint the hell out of a lot of people. When you get into voting rights, when you get into, you know, citizen birthright citizenship. So we'll see what this this ruling means in the context of everything else that Trump has done to disrupt and destroy and undermine, I think, the very fabric of democracy. One last point that I want to make, though, at the top about this was that when you're looking at the opinions and there were myriad opinions that were woven into the overarching ruling by Chief Justice, Justice Gorsuch, I thought, in many respects, highlighted and pointed the light on this subject directly where it belonged. And that was in the United States Congress when he noted it can be tempting to bypass Congress, but deliberation was the whole point of the of his design. Right. Something like this is supposed to go in front of the Congress, not to a president. You know, deliberation tempers impulse. Right. It gives an outlet for that. The American people send elected representatives to the Congress to debate the big and the small of tariffs, which our friend Stephanie Rule knows a lot about from an economic standpoint and how that plays out and what that may mean to constituencies. constituencies. It's not left to one person to decide. It's not left to one group to decide. And I think that, to me, is the heart of this ruling. So at the bottom line, the Supreme Court said to the Congress, get off your butt and do your job. Yeah, I want to pick up with what Michael's saying about Gorsuch. So he seems to clap back at Clarence Thomas a little bit in writing this. I could not see why the tariff power would be something Congress could delegate away wholesale without scrutiny and forever. Justice Thomas suggests all that is possible because at the founding, the tariff power was considered a prerogative right of the British king. Are we really to believe that the patriots that night in Boston Harbor considered the whole of the tariff power some kingly prerogative? Yeah, I mean, the back and forth there goes to the no kings moment that we're in. Exactly. There aren't enough votes. Maybe you saw the Bruce Springsteen billboards. They're everywhere. Maybe, you know, when your TV screen sometimes comes in mirror backwards and maybe it's like King's on, like he's into the King thing, but there aren't enough votes for that. I thought it was striking the interplay across the court. You read that key line in your setup here, Nicole, that this is about power. It's not about economic theory. And the court isn't saying that they are going to be drawn into an economic policy, an economic policy parsing of different trade states and that that can happen if you work with the Congress. But the King-like powers that this president has seized in multiple areas, always claiming emergencies, stop today. And I was reminded of a very simple lyric. No one man should have all that power. And it is that simple. I mean, there were there were concurrences. This was one of those rulings. If you go through it, there's a there's a three B. They agree on part. They disagree on part. But the headline is we don't have a king. The tax and tariff authority is very clearly something that the whole government has to work on together. And another word for that is democracy. Well, let me just say, I'm always curious, you know, you can sort of comb through the legal implications. You understand better than anyone here the business implications. Michael and I think kind of come to these stories sometimes with what will the people feel in our politics? And we are really in this moment where No Kings is transcending partisanship. 53% of Americans identify with the No Kings movement, while 30% and dropping identify as MAGA. And so I think if there's part of this decision that people find out of it in their local paper, in their local news, it's interesting that the conservatives, even the ones appointed by Donald Trump, are basically saying you are not a king. You're not a king and the taxing power, and I'm sure Stephanie can brief us on how consumers and businesses are affected, but I don't think anyone doubts they are affected. And so the whole reason the Congress, which is the most democratic every two years piece of this has to be involved is that the founders and framers originally said when it comes to taxing, when it comes to how people are living, what they're paying, their jobs, their relationship with the government, their direct representatives are involved. And that's the funny part of all of this. Just to zoom back, all the court really said was you'd have to work with Congress on this. A lot of other presidents might say, OK, we know what this president is like. And he was asked about it today and says, no, I'm going to find my loopholes. I'm going to give you a temporary five month thing. His party controls Congress. Maybe not enough for them agree with him on this idea now that we're months into it. But this was a democracy ruling. And I say for democracy, not in a partisan way. In that sense, it was a good news day. OK, so what happens now? Well, I would say businesses big and small to take a page from Ari's lyric book are saying, I will survive. They're breathing a huge sigh of relief. However, I spent yesterday with a number of CEOs and we're talking tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. Today's announcement lets them breathe a temporary sigh of relief. But look no further than the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besson, who says basically, don't hold your breath. We don't plan on refunding that money anytime soon. And what's most frustrating for businesses isn't that we're faced with the tariffs. It's that on a Monday, Trump says they're going to be 20 percent. On a Tuesday, he says 30 percent. On a Wednesday, he says, you were sweet to me last night. It's zero. So if you think about the last year, U.S. businesses spent 90 percent of their time navigating how do we figure out this tariff situation Chinese businesses spent no percent of their time They spent all of their time thinking about productivity and growth So now you have the president completely unraveling today saying I not going to stand for this These tariffs are still coming one way or another So businesses I spoken to today are saying great ish. But with this man in the White House, who knows what's to come? But you brought it up with Steve Leisman. Then let's go, boys. Why aren't you saying anything? They're not because they're afraid. They're either making money with him or they're quiet because they don't want to lose money. Today is a partial win for business, but it's really a win for the Constitution. What about the shopper? Listen, so the shopper is really getting the short end of the stick because nobody is sending back a check to you. Nobody is sending a check to you. And over the last year, we've all paid more. Now, you could argue that businesses ate a large portion of the tariffs. They could have raised the prices higher than they did. Sure. But we all paid more for almost everything in our lives, and we're not getting any sort of refund checks. And it's going to be really complicated because this president has already pledged this tariff money to so many different places. And if you remember in the last year, while so many other countries were negotiating with this president, urging him not to do this, he's spoken over and over that we're going to be getting $5 trillion in direct investment in this country from foreign countries. You think any of them are going to do that now? It was unclear if they were ever going to, but now Why would they? Well, I mean, the tourists aren't even coming. So what business would come here? Well, I mean, businesses have said, you know, we're going to we're going to build a plant here. We're going to do more. But nobody long term was going to. And now it's for real, because to your very point, there is no kings. And the president's ability to even convince Congress. Right. What he should have done from the beginning was try to convince Congress that this was a good idea. And maybe he could have convinced enough Republicans a year ago beforehand. But now that we've lived through it, right, Mitch McConnell said it today. He's like the people of Kentucky know better than others. It costs more to build and buy in America with tariffs. You're not going to get any Republicans unless they're super magas in the safest seats imaginable to buy into this if the president wanted to use Congress. But he doesn't want to. So how's he going to face the Supreme Court at the State of the Union in five days from now? Well, we know he's going to call them. Well, let's see. The words he used today were disgraceful, embarrassing to your families, unpatriotic and under foreign control. That's what he's likely to say Tuesday night. Michael Steele. I guess what I don't want to leave off the table is the failure of Republicans in Congress. You and I were Republicans. I think you still are in name only, right? You're leaving the light on. I've never worked for or known of a Republican that was for the sweeping tariff regime that Donald Trump put in place. The reason he didn't go to Congress is because they're all against it. So I guess Tuesday night he could ask them to pass tariffs. And if Lindsey Graham is in charge, he'll say, sir, yes, sir. And can I go pick up your stuff, your bag or whatever candy? And Kevin McCarthy, if he's still around that town, will pick out the Starburst. I mean, I'm not saying that because they're against it, they won't be for it if he asks them to do it. But there is zero policy interest in the sweeping tariff regime that Donald Trump passed on Liberation Day in the Republican Party. Oh, there is absolutely none at all. And, you know, I talked over a period of time with a number of members who, you know, quietly, again, as you know, Nicole, in the stillness of their heart, expressed their frustration and the difficulty they face in already in a political landscape in which they're going to get shellacked in November in the House and possibly setting up, you know, maybe not a shellacking, but a shah in the Senate. where just, you know, there's just enough of a hit, if not to scare or even to take a little bit of control. So there are a lot of nervous Nellies on the Republican side. You would think, though, with the encouragement of the Supreme Court, the encouragement of the business community who doesn't want this, and certainly more important than those two, the encouragement of their own constituents who have seen the price of eggs go up. Beef is now up 17 percent, according to my colleague, Simone Sanders Townsend. And so real people out there are experiencing day in and day out exactly what Stephanie's talking about. You know, everybody's focused on corporate America and what their response is going to be. Well, damn it, what's happening on Main Street? How many small businesses have closed over the last year? How many employees have lost their jobs because of the connective tissue that is our economy? So Republicans in the House especially, or the closest to the ground, are hearing this. That's why they stopped having town hall meetings, folks. That's why they stopped going back into their districts for an extended period of time, because they don't want to hear the grief, because they have no answer for it. How are they going to justify to grandma that, yeah, I'm going to go and support Donald Trump at the State of the Union for increasing that, giving him more power to tax you? That's not an argument they want to make. Yeah, I mean, and it started, it actually started with the town halls when Kilmar Beggar Garcia was sent to Seacott. And I remember Chuck Grassley's town hall in deep red parts of deep red Iowa. His constituents were mad. They're mad about mass deportations. They're mad about shooting two Americans. They're mad about tariffs. And 86% of Americans think the federal government is hiding something when it comes to the Epstein files. It doesn't seem like the right moment to ask them to swing at tariffs. It's such a treat to have all of you. I'm going to ask all of you to stick around through the break. We'll have much more ahead with Steph, Ari, and Michael on the Supreme Court's pretty seismic rebuke of Donald Trump's signature economic idea. Our special primetime coverage continues in just a moment. also had for us the other big story we're following, the glaring lack of accountability at the highest levels of the United States government over what is contained in the Jeffrey Epstein files we have seen. Brand new reporting on just how vast Epstein's network was and how deep it reached into the institutions of the American government. Epstein survivor Danielle Bansky will be our guest later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Steph, Ari and Michael. So Ari, in the break, I was handed this invoice from the people of the great state of Illinois to the White House with the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a bill for a little over $8 billion for the people of Illinois, past due and delinquent, the reimbursement owed to the Illinois families for illegally imposed tariff taxes. Is there anyone that can look at that? Here we go. Anyone is going to pay that? Not in the short run. I think one of those giant publishers. I mean, this is where it is. It's real, but it's all been put into tiny sums. Right. We were talking about how much consumers paid versus businesses versus other officials. The Supreme Court was very nice to Trump. They left the tariffs in place this whole time and they didn't have to. Now we see the backlog problem. And I do think that it's a real problem that probably won't be immediately legally required to have a financial solution. But yes, these tariffs are illegal. You can't do tariffs like this. If he doesn't get to Congress, as we were discussing, then you wind them down. And the question is, yeah, do you do you pay them back or do anything like that? An honest government might care about that. And we know a lot of Republicans at times have said, oh, you know, I want my tax rebate. I want my check back in the mail. The performative kind of symbolism around those debates. But however hard it was to track, this also was a tax on the American people. And if you want to put political debates to the side, six Supreme Court justices with the force of law ruled it in illegal tax. So the rest of its campaign ads and spin. But this was Donald Trump taxing people. And yeah, he would owe them the money now that it's been deemed illegal. Nicole, he hates this for two reasons. He hates it because he doesn't like to be embarrassed. He doesn't like the Supreme Court ruling against him. But he hates it because he loves how tariffs work for him. It's because of the tariffs we have had businesses, big and small, and foreign leaders show up at that White House with gold phones and frankincense and mirth and saying, dear leader, please give me an exemption. And the message has basically been to these CEOs who want to meet with the president, yeah, yeah, yeah, you've got a case to make. What are you going to give him? There's now a cottage industry right outside the Commerce Secretary's office of lobbyists that companies can pay huge sums of money to to get the meetings with Howard Lutnick and then hopefully with the president to get an exemption. Right. So the president loves this whole universe because all of it is how he feels most like a king. And so the fact that that's all been undone today, he doesn't like how that feels. Michael, it's amazing how, you know, we've talked a lot about Donald Trump's political immunity from things that are normally political death for normal politicians. It's amazing that the grift, which was so central to how he got there, I'm going to drain the swamp. I'm going to get rid of the elites. I'm going to get rid of the informed. I'm going to get rid of the structures of think tanks. I'm going to get rid of sort of all the things that were here before have been replaced, not by populists, not by people that are putting everyday Trump supporters who are, you know, we've studied them now for 11 years. It is all about self-enrichment. It is all about making people who were so rich that they forgot about stopping by an island owned by Jeffrey Epstein with three nannies and three kids and a wife, you know, that that kind of trip was so forgettable that on their yacht, they popped by an island and forgot about it. That's Mr. Latinx story about his hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, that those people are actually getting richer is not a political problem for Donald Trump. Seems surreal to me. Yeah, it's not a political problem for Donald Trump because who has raised it as a problem for him? No one. Not John Thune, not Mitch McConnell, certainly not Mike Johnson. Oh, my Lord, no, not Mike Johnson. Right. So no, no, no. There's been no there's been no political consequence to the grift because, you know, back in the day. I mean remember Congress I believe his last name was Johnson who got was embarrassed of course but just raked over the coals by Washington in Capitol Hill because he got caught with in his freezer right And that was the height of political humiliation and embarrassment, right? Probably because he got caught with $90,000 in your freezer. But today, that's really, baby, I got it under my bed. I got it in my linen closet. I got it in my pantry. and $90,000. Donald Trump made over a billion dollars last year as president of the United States. The Emoluments Clause was the first thing he wiped his behind with, to put it rather crassly, because he didn't care, because no one was going to stop him, not in this Washington. So if you don't stop him in 2017, right, when he starts the grift and just ignores the Emoluments Claus, what the hell you think he's going to do in a second term? Of course, you know, the line outside the Commerce Department, every damn department, it's all a grift. Everybody's getting paid. And that's the interesting part where Marjorie Taylor Greene comes in. Because there were those true patriots, right, those true MAGA loyalists who believed in America first, who believed Donald Trump was actually going to come and drain the swamp. And then suddenly over time realize, oh, hell, he's the biggest polluter in the swamp. And so that reality has started to sink in. It is not just around Epstein files. Epstein is really kind of sort of a placeholder for a lot of other frustrations that they've had. Now the question becomes, What do they do? Because you're on the precipice of a big election this November. Going back to the last part of our conversation, how do you have that conversation with those voters, let alone the ones, you know, who are sitting there thinking, I thought we were doing something different? Yeah. What did we learn about the Supreme Court today? That there is a what we might call a super majority to stop Donald Trump's abuse of emergency powers. They're slow, frustratingly so. They're inconsistent, right? We hear about precedent and doctrine. And then you look around and go, I guess you care more if Wall Street or other interests come up. You seem to care more than than on many other cases we've discussed. But Donald Trump and his team cynically have abused the way that the law does move slowly. That's supposed to be a good thing. It's supposed to be because it's deliberate and it doesn't make flash judgments. They've used that as a time loophole to knowingly break rules and say, OK, maybe you'll catch us in eight months and maybe you won't. And here we're seeing we just talked about how hard it is to unwind, the cost that to the American people. But the good news, if you care about the rule of law, is it's not hanging by a thread of one vote. It's it's six with two Republican appointees, including a Trump appointee that say an emergency is not just when you say it's an emergency. And so if he tries this on other things that involve long term deployment of troops, a fake emergency abroad, an emergency used to hijack an election, you would expect we can't predict this six to again say not an emergency or here's the rule that you actually have to follow. Now, will that help us if we are in the breach, if they're putting ICE agents out and they need to be stopped today, not in six months because the election is next week? I think that's a closer call. But the doomsday worst case mood that I've heard is not the ruling we got today. What did we learn from the dissent? I mean, I'll tell you this. When you go to law school, they tell you all this stuff and you like need to learn it and pass the test and then you grow up. a bit. And you go, oh, yeah, we said those things. It's not true. So we've heard a lot about there aren't red and blue judges. And look, what we learned about the dissent is. They would clip Biden's powers over nominal things like student loan debt. And if they were consistent and held that line this term, then you'd say, OK, you're consistently just trimming presidential powers. But no, the dissents were very clearly saying we have this exception. It's called the Trump exception. And he could do whatever he wants, including be a king. And there's just I'll just tell you, there is no evidence that presidents have unilateral tariff powers. We had a revolution partly over king taxes. It's not like you don't have to be a scholar to remember that. So the dissent would let him do a lot more than he's allowed to do under the Constitution. The markets seem to stay the same or go up a little bit. What are they an indicator of when it comes to our politics? I mean, it's hard to say at this point because the markets are driven at this point largely by AI, right? We've talked about this, the magnificent seven mega tech companies that are not largely impacted by tariffs or mass deportations. But if you look under that seven, things are much shakier. And we've talked about it before. So many businesses are in this no hiring, no firing, no growth. They're bracing themselves, right? Foreign investors are not feeling great about investing in the U.S. And a funny thing, as happiest people have been about the markets in the last year, look abroad. Markets abroad have been stronger than ours have. The amazing thing is that they don't react badly to Trump anymore. They just kind of grin and bear it and hope to get through. And the positive for the markets is that they hope that Trump won't like regulation. But when something like this happens today, they really like it because it means that we do adhere to the rule of law here. And if we're a country that doesn't adhere to the rule of law, then expect your markets to fly out the window because nobody's going to invest a red cent here. It's so interesting. Steph, Ari, Michael, it's an honor to get to be on the air with all of you during our hours. Thank you so much. You've all done double and triple duty to be here. Thank you. We'll see all of you on your shows throughout the night for our special coverage when we come back. The other big story we're all covering today, stunning new reporting about the extent of Jeffrey Epstein's network, just how far he went to work the system, the government, for his own benefit. That new reporting and reaction from Epstein survivor, our friend Danny Benski, after a very short break. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad-free listening, and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart-topping series The Best People with Nicole Wallace, Why Is This Happening, Main Justice, and more. Plus, new episodes of all your favorite MSNOW shows ad-free and add free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. Every single revelation about just how vast and how deep Jeffrey Epstein's tentacles and network was raises fresh new questions about who was aware, who knew what when, of the monstrous crimes the deceased sex offender and child sex trafficker was committing. The latest revelation that Jeffrey Epstein built incredibly close ties to Customs and Border Patrol officers, individual officers in the U.S. Virgin Islands, while traveling to and from his island, where he abused women and girls. The New York Times reports this, quote, Mr. Epstein dispensed food, helicopter rides, financial advice, and even musical gigs to a handful of CBP officers stationed on St. Thomas, the American port of entry that was near Little St. James, an island that Mr. Epstein owned. At the same time, Epstein enjoyed concierge services from some of the customs officers in St. Thomas, according to emails and other records recently released by the Justice Department. They whisked him through inspections and they helped him troubleshoot when he encountered problems at airports on the mainland. These very agents had the ability to intervene in what was happening on Epstein's Island, like the trafficking of women from foreign countries. At one point, Epstein's relationships with these officers triggered an FBI investigation. But the Times reports this, quote, the outcome of the investigation, which focused on at least four CBP officers, including a supervisor, is unclear. The CBP, in response to the Times, said, quote, any claims of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and appropriate action will be taken as necessary. Joining me at the table, Dani Bansky. She's one of the Epstein survivors who's been sharing her story and advocating for the other survivors and for transparency from the Trump administration. Also joining us, senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin. This is an incredibly disturbing piece of reporting about the power network inside the federal government. and that it wasn't just a former White House lawyer for President Obama turned sort of extra legal advice layer. It wasn't just fancy head of Paul Weiss, who was also emailing about a strategy to denigrate the survivors and the victims. It was actually taxpayer funded government employees. Yeah. And in that respect, and more closely parallel, some of the investigations that we're seeing, Nicole, in other countries, right, where people who did hold government positions appear to have misappropriated information belonging to the government and shared that with Epstein in what looks like nakedly transactional exchanges. Well, lo and behold, thanks to the Times, we now know that some of that was occurring sort of at a lower level here, at least in the U.S. government, with respect to people who were CBP officers in and around the Virgin Islands, that they would look the other way with respect to who was coming into the island in exchange for financial advice, in exchange for a gig as a steel drummer on the island, a luncheon for CBP workers on the island consisting of sandwiches and wine. And I want to say that while you're right, these people actually worked for the U.S. government at taxpayer dollars. The behavior that we're seeing is very, very similar how much people are willing to overlook in exchange for whether it be an Hermes bag and a Fendi coat on one hand or a more pedestrian lunch of sandwiches and wine in a luxurious setting on the other. It's amazing how much we can normalize behaviors that should never be normalized when somebody offers to do us a favor and bestows upon us their attention, particularly when we think there's someone special. But I guess what isn't special about, and you're talking about Kathy Rumler with the fancy bags and the CBP officers is that there nothing special about him as his M I mean he starts with a lot of his victims in the same way This is what I was going to going to say Totally None of this actually surprises me at all I feel like he I mean we said from the beginning survivors have always said he a master manipulator He's a master in the art of deception. Everything was a game. And so now you're starting to see that with Border Patrol. Right. It's what we were talking about inside the house is just magnified. And now you're looking at the abuse of power and all of these different angles. So not surprising to me. What, if they hadn't been so charmed by him, could federal law enforcement officers have learned about the island? It's a really good question. I mean, just to be able to separate the charm, right? I think that, I mean, they could have started investigations. They could have absolutely looked around and said, there are things here that are inappropriate, that are happening. I mean, they have seen the manifest for the flights going in and out and seen how many young girls were on those manifests, the DOBs were on there, right? It's all the same in that, you know, I think about in my situation at the mansion, I often talk about all the people that saw me enter every single day, right? The maid, the butler, I talk about that a lot. But even just people on his street, we know Howard Lutnick lived next door, right? There were so many people that could have alerted authorities. And now you're looking at it in the scope of border patrol coming into an island, the manifest of the plane, like you're seeing young girls in and out. And nobody is reporting. And I think that's all part of systems failing. That's what we've been screaming about and banging the drum about. You know, Maria started it. Maria Farmer started it in 1996 where she said, hello, this is not acceptable. And it's just more of the same, just broader strokes. A king has a brother who was once a prince who was arrested yesterday. Your thoughts? That feels like a big victory, even though the charges might not be exactly what we wanted to see. right? We wanted a little bit more. I think survivors want a little bit more on like the sex trafficking charges. We wanted to see maybe a little bit more as far as like ties to Epstein and Maxwell. But what a win, right? For us, I think, you know, Lauren Hirsch always says the earth is shaking. And it felt like that for the first time. It was like, I think it's been 400 years, right? Since a royal was arrested. And now we're seeing that. And it feels a little bit like Virginia Jufri, who, you know, just was screaming from the rooftops, this happened. And she was famously quoted in saying, you know, Andrew and I, one of us, I forgot exactly what the quote was, but like one of us is telling the truth and I know it's not him, right? And so just to see what her bravery and what those seeds that she planted can now grow into was just incredible for all survivors. Yeah, I mean, all of you are changing the weather that we're covering. I want to talk more about that with both of you. We have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll be right back. The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. I never believed that America would be doing this. A stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat. Rachel Meadow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. You were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender. It was a convenient place to stay. I mean, I've gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with the benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time, I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do. And I admit fully that my judgment was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable, but that's just the way it is. Because during that time, those few days, Witnesses say they saw many young girls coming and going at the time. There is video footage of Epstein accompanied by young girls. And you were there staying in his house, catching up with friends. I never, I mean, if they were, then I wasn't a party to any of that. I've heard that clip so many times, but after talking to you, and you just mentioned it again, that anyone that wanted to open their eyes, especially after 08, when he's a convicted child sex offender, could see what was happening. And this projection, it's Trumpian to say, I stayed there because I was too honorable. And then to describe himself as too honorable twice, after knowing now what Virginia Jeffrey describes as Ghislaine telling her to do for Andrew, quote, what you do for Jeffrey. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't know how he could stay there knowing. I think it would be really hard to not know what Jeffrey was up to. I think about that often, actually, as we think about more and more people in his orbit. I just always think about even just walking through his house. He had, sorry to say like paraphernalia, but like it was more than that. It was like the entire, like the art everywhere, the sculptures everywhere, anatomy, you know, and it just cameras, cameras everywhere. Yes. Yeah. So, you know, I do want to say, I think we're really grateful for the way that the UK is handling all of this. And we really hope as survivors that the US will follow suit. I don't know if that's likely, but the rest of this, the rest of the world is taking this seriously. And we're starting to see the light be shown in places that have been dark for a long time. And I think it is not, it's not just Epstein and Maxwell survivors that are doing this. It really is survivors as a whole. This feels like a movement and it feels like people are not allowing the page to turn. I saw this silly meme yesterday that was like, you know, Donald Trump had said, it's time to turn the page. And somebody wrote like, your name is on that page too. It's like ongoing joke because it's like, yeah, we're not backing down and nobody's backing down. And I just appreciate that. It feels like there are a lot of people who have survivors backs right now. I'm very glad that you're mentioning the prime minister because I thought there was a marked contrast between his statements the other day and the statement that the president made when he was on Air Force One with reporters. Keir Starmer saying to people, if you have any information that could be of help to women and girls who are victimized or to prevent the further victimization of women and girls. Please come forward. We're asking you to do that. But at the center of his remarks was a concern for survivors. Contrast that with the president who said, I'm fully exonerated. He must have said the word at least. Well, they released the files. I mean, like that doesn't make sense either. But he's not fully exonerated. But even on what we know now, Let's just take at face value. There is an accusation in the files that has not been fully corroborated yet. And so I don't want to repeat it. But there is also within the files a situation where a woman who was a survivor of both Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell, who testified at the Maxwell trial under the pseudonym of Jane, has said both in FBI documents and during her trial testimony that she was introduced to Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago when she was 14 years old. She was brought there by Jeffrey Epstein in his green Jaguar. She says that Epstein said to Trump, I got a good one here, huh? And that there was some knowing exchange of looks between the two of them. Put aside whether or not Trump is complicit in the actual sexual abuse of girls himself as a participant. The fact that he was there for that exchange, the fact that he apparently told the then Palm Beach chief of police that everyone knew Jeffrey Epstein was doing this. That is not exonerating behavior by any stretch of the imagination. We can and should demand more from somebody who occupies the highest office in the land. And you're going to be at the State of the Union on Tuesday. Yes. Yeah. A bunch of survivors. So we'll all be there. Yeah. We'll continue to check in with you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for all your reporting on this. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. It has been a theme on our program for years now. the power of an individual act of courage to inspire other acts of courage. More and more, we're seeing brave people from the sports world, many inspired by the survivors in the music world, the world of entertainment, use their massive platforms to speak out against what's happening in our country and against Donald Trump. On the newest episode of the Best People podcast, Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro, a vocal Trump critic, explains why he's not letting Donald Trump and his allies intimidate him or force him to keep quiet. Watch. Trump is so spiteful and threatens people that speak out, especially famous people. Are you afraid of him? I can't afford to be afraid. Of course, you have anxiety. You're afraid. You're afraid. But you got to get out. You got to defy this. You cannot allow them to intimidate you. It's the classic story. You cannot allow them to intimidate you. So it's better that you strap on your balls and get out there and face them. Because you're not going to win the other way. They take your lunch money on a Monday. Don't think they're not going to take it on a Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday and more. The bully in the schoolyard. It was a great privilege to have a chance to speak in this forum with legendary actor Robert De Niro. You can listen to the entire conversation right now by becoming an MS Now Premium subscriber. just scan the QR code on your screen. The conversation will be available to everyone starting Monday. Give it a listen and let me know what you think. I want to thank you for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are so grateful. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad-free listening, and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart-topping series, The Best People with Nicole Wallace, Why Is This Happening, Main Justice, and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNOW shows ad-free, an ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.
