"Donald Trump's political coalition is fraying"

Rural Britain, is there any greater value out there than giga-clear full-fiber from only 19 pounds a month? It's out of this world! Speed and reliability! Fast upload and downloadiness! Right here in Rural Tranquility! Saturn's Dreams! Is that a bull? Gigaclear! Faster broadband for Rural Britain from only 19 pounds a month! Season C's apply! 18 month contract! Prices may rise during contract! Check availability at gigaclear.com MS Now presents the chart-topping original podcast, The Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, podcaster and MS Now contributor Alex Wagner. We share a belief in the common good. We are in it together. And in times where that's really tested, people show up. The Best People with Nicole Wallace. Listen now! For early access, ad-free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MS Now! Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hi there, everyone! It's 4 o'clock in New York. It is the 33rd day of the war with Iran. Here's where things stand. As gas prices soar past $4 a gallon, and Iran continues their attacks across the Gulf and effectively controls now one of the world's key waterways. With 13 United States service members dead and hundreds injured, Donald Trump has chosen tonight to finally address the nation about the war in Iran. We do not know exactly what Donald Trump will say to the country, but we do know this. He will address the country in a moment when his political coalition is falling apart, in a moment when some of the highest-profile MAGA media voices have more than defected. Some of them are questioning whether or not he can take in information. He will address the nation at a moment when the American public in very large numbers has made clear that it does not support the war in Iran. This is the backdrop against which Trump will make his first comments, his first address to the nation. His polling is reaching devastating new lows. The CNN poll out today shows Trump's approval rating on the economy is just 31%. That is a full 8 percentage points lower than it was in January. It is likely caused by the economic tailspin the war has sent the world into. Donald Trump also faces an erosion of support from within his own party. That is something that doesn't happen very often. A new poll from YouGov shows that support for the war with Iran has fallen to 62% among Republicans. The GOP's approval of how Trump is handling the war has dropped precipitously from 81% to 68%. When it comes to a decision to put boots on the ground, men and women of the military on the ground to fight in Iran, there is 30% support for that among Trump's party, among MAGA Republicans. According to a poll released earlier this week, only 8% of all Americans support placing the men and women of our military on the ground for a ground invasion inside Iran. Despite all that, despite the fact that solid majorities of Americans here on day 33 have evaluated the situation and decided they do not support it, they do not support an escalation, they do not support sending in ground forces, there's Brownie reporting in the Atlantic that says this, quote, military officials are planning for two potential ground assaults in Iran. One on Karg Island, the hub of the country's energy industry, and the other to seize and enrich uranium to hovel Iran's nuclear development program. That's according to three people familiar with the matter. They just need to go ahead from Donald Trump. They add this, quote, putting troops in Iranian territory would rank among the most dangerous missions of either of Trump's terms. Now looming over the possibility of sending ground troops into Iran is the fact that so far virtually none of what Trump has said he wanted to achieve or promised would happen has been accomplished. New York Times sums it up this way, quote, Trump has yet to fully achieve many of the goals he set out to achieve when he entered the conflict, including ousting the theocratic government in Iran and ensuring that it could never achieve a nuclear weapon, nor has he resolved problems created by the war, including the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the increased regional instability caused by Iran's missile attacks on neighboring countries. Donald Trump addressing the nation at a political low point for him is where we start today. Former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, Ben Rose, is here with me at the table for the hour. Senior political analyst contributing host on Pod Save America, host of the podcast, Runaway Country Alex Wagner is here. Also joining us, Paul Rykoff, he is the host of the Independent Americans podcast, the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. I start with you. Ground troops and the debate about whether or not to send them in and the reading off with poll numbers can sound like a data point, right? But it is real real life stuff, the men and women of the military and their families. Yeah, I think when you think about this address tonight, which I think is Trump's attempt to try to snatch the microphone back and try to shove the narrative down the country and the world's throat, I think you have to remember that military families are watching and their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their kids are in harm's way right now. 50,000 of them, whether or not he announces or says he's going to put boots on the ground, which could endanger 10, 20,000 directly into the ground. You know, there are over 50,000 in the region and some of them have been gone for months and they're watching the television to see what's going to happen to their kids and their family members. And that's very, very personal and something Trump doesn't do very well to say the least. One thing that I continue to underscore to show how they don't really have a comprehensive plan, they're asking for $200 billion for the Department of Defense. They haven't asked for anything for the VA. So when they bring home a new generation of veterans from Iran, where's the money going to be? How are they going to take care of them? If you have to put forward the cost of war, you have to put forward the complete cost, I think that's just one hole in his plan that seems to have more holes by the day. What is your sense of what we're doing in Iran? I mean, I'm following the bouncing ball like everyone else. I mean, I've said this to you for months that he wants to just keep going. He wants forever war. He's all gas, no brakes. And I think an important question for the country and for the Democrats, especially, is, we know he doesn't have a plan. What's your plan to stop him? Because he's already said he's not going to stop with Iran. What could they do to stop him? They could deny the funding on $200 billion. They can shut down the government like they did over ICE and like they did over health care. They can turn it up a couple notches. And I think really emphasize that they're serious here. I think the American public is ready for action. They're seeing $4 gas prices, which no matter how much he talks tonight, he can't change that. And I think it's a moment for unity. And there's an opportunity for Democrats, and I always obviously look for independent voices as well, to seize the counter narrative and offer an alternative strategy to slow him down. But he just wants to keep going. He's already talking about Cuba. He's now floating the idea of Columbia. And he's also talking about stateside deployments. He's talking again about New York City and about Chicago. And I keep saying the most important story in the world is that Trump can do anything he wants to do in the most powerful military the world has ever seen, not just overseas, but here at home. And so far, nothing is stopping him, including poll numbers. He doesn't care about poll numbers. He keeps going. And the question for the rest of us is, what are we going to do to stop him? I mean, I think that the idea that he doesn't care about poll numbers, I think is true, Ben Rhodes, but there's someone around him that cares enough to schedule tonight's address to the nation. Because there's no development in Iran on the ground that we know about. There's no development in the region that we know about. And so the only real development, again, and there may be things we don't see, there are lots of things we don't see, but the big developments this week politically for Donald Trump are the number eight. That's the number of Americans, 8%, that support sending ground troops into Iran. Laura Ingram basically questioning his mental fitness, saying she's not sure if he can, quote, take in information that's been briefed to him on the nation of Iran or the war plan. Alex Jones, another high profile members of the MAGA Coalition. And again, I didn't assemble this political coalition he did, but they're in it. And they are calling him basically mentally unfit to run a war. Yeah, well, I think part of what's happened, Nicole, in accounts for this address tonight, is Donald Trump has started something that is so big that he cannot obfuscate or lie his way through it. He's tried that. He started a war for no clear reason, for no clear objective that he could articulate. We've heard shifting objectives, but then we've heard him try to say, the war's already won, or the war's about to end soon, or when the oil prices go up, gas prices go up, he tries to jawbone the market. So we're in some negotiation, the war's about to end. But this is a war, and Donald Trump isn't the only one who gets a vote here. And the reality that all Americans can see and feel is that the Iranians are continuing to control the Strait of Hormuz and run it like a toll road, that energy prices are soaring, and Donald Trump's statements can't bring them down, that there's chaos across the region as Iran lashes out and as Israel invades Lebanon, that we have a number of U.S. bases that no longer are operational because of these attacks. We've lost service members. And so he's been losing control of the one thing that he likes to dominate, which is the news cycle and the narrative. And so we'll see tonight what rabbit he tries to pull out of a hat, but I completely agree with Paul. I mean, he doesn't have a strategy because he doesn't even know what he's trying to achieve inside of Iran. And he doesn't have public support for whatever it is that he and Bibi Nenya are doing inside of Iran. And so there's a limitation, frankly, on how much he can talk his way through this. I mean, Alex, what is your understanding of their current rationale for what we are doing? I mean, so they'll say things like the Ayatollah was terrible, the Ayatollah has been replaced by the Ayatollah's more terrible son. Yeah, he was younger. The nuclear program is not something that Marco Rubio has ever talked about publicly. I don't know what he's saying privately, but it's all about the Navy and missile launchers. So the idea that we are sitting here and wondering, is he going to say something about sending troops into what removed the uranium? That is not a thing that they've been talking about as an explanation for why we've been there for 33 days. You know, if you were unlucky enough to be on the White House press office mailing list, you would have gotten a fact sheet like a couple minutes ago. I had an outtime as fluid in my mind, but like maybe an hour ago where they're trying to, Nicole, on day 33, outline the objective of this war. It is, first of all, if you're- What's on the sheet? I mean, I'm curious. It's the decimation of Iranians' naval capabilities, the decimation of their military. It's a shifting series of explanations, but what it points to is that if you are still trying to explain why you're going to war 33 days into the war, you're losing. And this is all spin. I mean, whatever he does tonight, and it is appalling to me that sending American troops to war would be part of spin maneuvering, but I believe that's what it is. It's a person who's backed into the corner and feels like such a colossal loser that he's got to do something about it. Not because sending American troops to war is in the best interests of our country or our security, but because he wants to get out of the cahole he's in, spiraling down with rising gas prices and becoming the butt of the global community jokes. I mean, he has empowered the Chinese. He's made it easier to sell Russian oil. He's putting more money in the pocket of the very regime that he says he's there to oust. I mean, he has given them control of the Strait of Hormuz. Yes. It is theirs to control. As Ben said, they are emerging more powerful than they were before the start of this. And America, in the meantime, has seen a diminishment of its standing, and it is lashing out at its allies and causing them to circle the wagons and say, you know, maybe we just really don't need you anymore. It is a fail on every single level. It's also revealed Pete Hegs' deficiencies for the job he holds. What's going on inside the military? Instability, indecision, chaos. I mean, yesterday, the Kid Rock thing with the helicopter was actually pretty significant. Tell me about that. The Army said they were going to launch an investigation. And then he went on Twitter and said, no investigation. Drive on, Patriots. I mean, he just basically... Explain what happened. An Apache helicopter flew by Kid Rock's mansion, and he gave him a salute and a thumbs up, and then it flew off, right? So somebody decided to use a government Apache helicopter to drive by Kid Rock's house for something that is overtly political. And Kid Rock used it as an opportunity to dunk on Gavin Newsom and crap on his political opponents. But it's the politicization of our military. And Hegs said, basically said, hey, don't worry about the rules. It's okay. Drive on as long as it's in line with our political objectives, which is very, very dangerous. Like if they stopped at Bruce Springsteen's house. Yeah, or Tom Morello's house or anybody else's, they'd probably be in Leavenworth right now. But I think a bigger issue about tonight, sometimes Trump wakes up and says, how can I make things worse? Right? So let's send ice into the airports. Tonight, he's going to go out and rail on NATO. And he's going to threaten to remove us from NATO. He might actually announce we're out of NATO in his mind, right? So we're in a regional war. We need airspace access. We need airfields. We need allies. We're in a bar fight where we need every friend we can get. And he's going to drive them all away by crapping on NATO. And we've already got, I think, Italy and Spain have closed their airspace to American aviation assets. So this is really important because not only does it further isolate us and it improves the stature of our enemies, it puts our troops immediately in more danger. It makes them less safe. They have less allies. They have less resources. They have less places to evacuate wounded, right? If they don't want to give us access. So this will make things much, much worse. And we could walk out of tonight with a situation that's actually more troubling than before he started. I mean, Ben, that's what makes this political standing so central to the story because there was a moment that you could imagine in 2017 or 2018 when he had MAGA sort of by the, by the throat and could try to, I mean, I don't know, I guess could try to sell to the MAGA faithful that NATO doesn't, he thinks of it like a golf club, right? Doesn't pay their dues on time, which is not what NATO is at all. And we're the only people that have actually taken out of the NATO bank by asking them to stand alongside us after September 11th and join us in the war against, in Afghanistan. But my sense is that with 8% of the country behind what he may do tonight, if he decides to send troops into Iran, you've got, you know, what, 92% of the country that could oppose something that he's flirted with doing now for over 10 years. Yeah. And I think there are a couple of things to this, Nicole. I mean, one is, you know, we've talked so many times, you and I, about the difference between the second Trump administration and the first one. And I don't want to diminish entirely the damage of the first one, but the actions have just been much more stream and unbound in the second one. You know, in the first Trump administration, you know, he would say things on Twitter or say things in his own voice to disparage NATO or to, you know, say nice things about Vladimir Putin. Well, now in the second term, he's launched a war that, as Alex said, has included somehow removing sanctions on Russian oil while driving up the price of oil in ways that enrich Vladimir Putin while demeaning our allies who he's also launched trade wars against, insulted and threatened to invade NATO territory in Greenland. Right. So we were dealing in consequences in the second term and the way we want the first. The other thing I would say is that this fracture in his political coalition is real, right? The promised and forever wars was not some ancillary part of MAGA. It was core. It was fundamental. It was along with immigration and, you know, upending the elites. This was the core of the project. So he's betrayed his own base on a fundamental issue that they do care about. And he's also nearing lame duck status. There's a midterm election right around the corner. He's in his second term. His polls are slipping below 40 percent. People are going to start looking beyond Donald Trump for their own political futures, including Republicans in his own party or those MAGA people who want to inherit the movement, who don't feel like they need to suck up the Donald Trump. They need to look beyond Donald Trump. That doesn't mean that he can do extraordinary damage in the next two years. But it does mean that his political grip on even his own party is beginning to loosen. We could do a whole two hours on what was worse because I remember in Trump 1.0 covering Senator Bob Corker, who called the West Wing adult daycare. And passed legislation, I think, for the first time in our country's history to limit an American president's nuclear authorities to put some checks in the system. So I don't know what Bob Corker saw, but there was enough concern in 1.0 in terms of whatever he saw that he wanted to take away some of his nuclear authority. I guess the difference was there were people like Jim Mattis and John Kelly and others around him. No one's going anywhere. To the point you're making, I want to show you what Republican Timbershed is saying that sort of illustrates what you're articulating. This toxic combination for Donald Trump of being both a lame duck and unpopular with 92% of Americans is resulting in some people saying things out loud that they've only said privately or on signal apps for the last nine years. I'll show you that also ahead for us with Donald Trump in attendance, even conservative justices at the United States Supreme Court sounded unlikely to buy his arguments against birthright citizenship. Later in the broadcast, a potentially dramatic escalation in Trump's war on free and fair elections. An executive order asked the Trump DOJ to make lists of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote. Friend of this program, Mark Elias, is planning a legal challenge and will join us to talk about that. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Gene, listen now, new episodes drop Thursdays for AdFri listening and bonus content. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. I don't think there's a will for a ground conflict between America and Iran. I know a lot of Republicans don't support that, but I know all the Democrats won't support it. So I firmly believe that there is room there for it, but I don't think that now is the time to let up. So just put a pin in that. Again, none of us knows what Trump will say tonight. He could start a new phase of the war. He could end the war. What he says out loud is totally detached from really anything that his cabinet says and anything that anyone else says. I want to show you Ben Rose that Marco Rubio said about NATO yesterday. We are going to have to re-examine whether or not this alliance that has served this country well for a while is still serving that purpose. Or is it now become a one-way street where America is simply in a position to defend Europe, but when we need the help of our allies, they're going to deny us basing rights and they're going to deny us overflight? I think these are very legitimate questions that we need to be asking. Yeah, I mean, I think President Zelensky would love to know the answer to those questions too. Here's the thing though, Ben. In 2023, which I don't know, sometimes feels a lifetime ago, but wasn't that long ago, Marco Rubio sponsored a bill with Senator Tim Kaine that's now law that requires two-thirds approval of the Senate or an act of Congress to withdraw from NATO. And he tweeted this, quote, No U.S. president should be able to withdraw from NATO without Senate approval. Thankful for my colleagues in Congress for passing this bipartisan measure. So I guess the point is Marco Rubio doesn't believe or didn't believe in the year 2020-23, the things he's saying on TV. Who are we watching at this point in terms of trying to understand what we're saying we're doing in Iran? Well, in Marco Rubio, you know, Jay-Z, J.D. Vance gets a lot of focus as someone who shape-shifts and kind of lets Marco Rubio off the hook. Because the degree to which he has completely flipped his own views on their head to service Donald Trump and his personal political ambitions is quite astonishing, even by the standards of the Trump era of the Republican Party. And the reality is I have no idea who to listen to in terms of what we're doing in Iran. Donald Trump has said that the Iranian people should rise up. He said that we were getting rid of the nuclear program. He said we're on the cusp of a deal with Iranian leaders who claim that they're not even negotiating with Donald Trump. He said we need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Marco Rubio likes to talk about destroying the Iranian Navy as if that's something that most Americans, you know, thought would be a good idea. We just don't know who is speaking for the objectives. I will say this, so, Nicole, he could end the war today. And the global economic impact, in addition to the destruction of life, would still be catastrophic and would still endure, because it's going to take a very long time to restore the energy that's been taken offline because of this war. He could double down on this escalation and put ground troops in and find us in a much bigger mess. But I do want to just emphasize on this NATO point. He has weakened America globally, putting aside even Iran and the global economic standpoint. China is stronger, Russia is stronger, and NATO is more divided because of this unnecessary action that he took. And for Marco Rubio and Donald Trump to put this on NATO, Nicole, the Europeans are suffering even more than us because of these higher energy costs. The Europeans are suffering even more than us in terms of an emboldened bottom of Putin that is on their borders. Donald Trump is the one who's made NATO less secure, not the other way around. And if there's anybody who in NATO who has the standing to say, you guys are the ones who've turned your back on this alliance, it is the Europeans saying it to us, not the other way around. Alex? I think we lose sight of the fact that the mere reality that we have no idea whether the president's going to escalate the war and send in ground troops or end it, or say that his goals of regime change have been accomplished when they haven't, or decide that the Strait of Formosa is Europe's problem or Asia's problem. The choose-your-own-adventure nature of this is testament to an administration that has no idea what it is doing. And to be honest, the only reason that he's doing this is not because he wants to get this war back on track and have some deliverables and keep America safe and see the finishing of some project. It's because gas prices are $4 a gallon. And those numbers that you showed at the top of the show, if you dig into those numbers in terms of Republican MAGA support for this war and you go by age, I mean, he is collapsing among young men. Some of the same people who are going to have to fight this war, young men and young women, right? But also part of the essential coalition that delivered the White House for Trump, young Latino men, young men of color, young men in general, are all saying, oh, we never asked for any of this in combination with immigration, rising costs, health care premiums going up. I mean, it is a wholesale rejection of the Trump agenda. And like, you know, I don't know, Tim Burchett's saying, what, man, it's not the right time. When are Republicans going to realize they have an election in a couple months? When's the last primary? Because as far as I can tell, the only thing that Trump can deliver to them safely is a primary. Beyond that, why are they still aligned with the sky? This is a colossal fail and it is political malpractice. And it's been happening day in and day out. Every week there's been some unprecedented 100-year political swing, either in the state legislative race or a special, or it's happening in every pocket of the country. So that is not, you know, just Democrats getting their act together and communicating more effectively. That is people who voted for Donald Trump 15 months ago saying, no, thank you. In many ways, it's kind of the collapse we've been anticipating for a long time. It's his Katrina moment. It's his Afghanistan collapse moment. It's what we thought would happen after January 6. The moment when the foundation collapses. And I think there's something really important happening within his base and within men, especially white working class men and a lot of the folks that make up his base. The big lie is something that never caught on with regard to January 6 within the Republican base. This is now the big lie. You lied to us about wars. You told us no new wars. You told us no regime change. You and Tulsi Gabbard and all of you said it and we voted for you and we went to the wall for you and we turned out for you. And now you hear Sean Ryan, the very influential Navy SEAL podcaster saying, Don't come knocking on my door. I'm done. And I'm hearing this from a lot of people that I grew up with that have been MAGA supporters that have been die hard. They said, I'm done enough. And you're especially hearing it with veterans. Joe Kent might have been breaking the SEAL. So when you say what's next, the question is, will anybody in this administration actually leave? Look to someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who's been a political opportunist her whole life. This would be the moment for her to leave, become an independent, run against Trump and try to create a new life. Because there are people within this administration. Look to Dan Driscoll, the Army Secretary. They're going to fall down on their sword here and say, this is principle. This is the moment. I'm going to follow Joe Kent and break the SEAL and they will be rewarded politically for it, especially if they're moderate Republicans, if they're independent and the Democrats that can jump on board of that message too. How do the Democrats get them? They need to be stronger. They need to be clearer. They need to drop all the calculations. They need new leadership. I don't think that Chuck Schumer and Jefferies are going to meet this moment. I think that's been clear. And now they're suffering from that. What about Alyssa Slackin and Mark Kelly? Slackin's been really strong. We talked about that. I think Mark Kelly has a moment. Now it doesn't hurt. There's also a NASA launch happening today. So he can stand behind a rocket ship and say, look what I did versus look what Trump did when he avoided the draft. I think it's a moment for them to rise. And I also think it's a moment for retired generals. We need to hear from the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We need to hear from folks like C.Q. Brown. We need to hear from folks like Kelly and others. Millie, not us. And folks who were inside. Folks who were inside who have never spoken, now is the time to speak especially because he might announce that Boots on the Ground has already happened tonight, which is the most dangerous course of action in my view beyond blasting apart NATO. Well, be watching. I hate to say that. I never say that. But because the lives of the men and women in the military are in the balance here, we will. Ben Rose, thank you so much. We should do that, which was worse, one point out or two point out. Fun. Sticky, musically, a little reminder in my brain. You can be there too. Great. You have to be there. We should do it. Thank you guys for starting us off on this. Alex sticks around after the break, quote, It's a new world. It's the same Constitution. Justices on the Supreme Court sounded deeply skeptical of Donald Trump's efforts to get rid of birthright citizenship. We'll bring you that extraordinary story that sadly isn't from the onion. Next. We'll be listening in bonus content. Subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple podcasts. Or arguments at the Supreme Court today showed that even the conservative justices are, shall we say, troubled by Donald Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents. And that skepticism was plain to see for everyone in the courtroom who would appear even Donald Trump. After publicly attacking the justices for days, today Donald Trump became the first ever sitting president to attend oral arguments before the highest court. Sitting in the public gallery, Donald Trump heard the Chief Justice swiftly shoot down the arguments made by his Solicitor General. You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. We're in a new world now, as Justice Leader pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane right away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. I mean, there's that. There's a slew of arguments and concerns brought up one by one by nearly every justice. We'll let you listen to some of them. The text of the clause, I think, does not support you. I think you're sort of looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning. As far as I can tell, you know, at the time of the 14th, you're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept. How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule? You say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual. So how do you get there? I get the point. Thinking about, gee, European countries don't have this, or most other countries, many other countries in the world don't have this. Doesn't that, I guess I'm not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretive matter. During our coverage, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department, Mary McCord, led her organization, the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, won the first nationwide preliminary injunction against Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order. Alex is with me as well. Mary, tell me what you heard today. So I feel very positive after listening to that argument. As you just illustrated with the excerpts, there was a lot of skepticism about John Sauer's position. It is not like Cecilia Wong arguing for the babies and pregnant mothers. It's not like she didn't get any tough questions, but I would say the tougher ones went to John Sauer. It's because his position is not consistent with the text of the 14th Amendment or a statute enacted by Congress almost 100 years later in 1940 and 1952. Certainly, Congress, if they'd had problems with the way the 14th Amendment had been applied or interpreted, or problems with the way that the Supreme Court had interpreted in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Arc, they could have done something differently in 1940 or 1952, but they didn't. I feel like the government has been really struggling over the course of all the briefing for the last year on the cases that have been brought challenging this to find a theory that would work and that would exempt from birthright citizenship that relies on juice soil being born on the soil of the land. And not who your parents are. They've really struggled to find a theory and they landed on this domicile theory that just doesn't really have a lot of roots anywhere in the other than the fact the word is mentioned a number of times in the Wong Kim Arc case, but it is not load bearing in that case. Mary, what did you think other than the fact that he had the free time about him being there today? Of the president. So, you know, you can't help but think given the way he attacked the justices after the tariff decision has continued to attack them, including as recently I think his last night or maybe even this morning, you can't help but think that some measure of what he was trying to do was be an intimidating presence. I will tell you listening to the argument though I didn't see any indication that any one of the nine justices was feeling that John Sauer might have been feeling the pressure because his boss was there and you know his position depends on the president of the United States. You could hear his voice get more and more exercise and animated it almost was like he was getting faster and faster and almost yelling at times. But I don't think it impacted the justices. Alex, the attacks against judges are a feature of this. We were talking last last block about differences between 1.0 and 2.0. The frontal menacing threats against judges smearing them as left lunatic judges whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush or Donald Trump is a constant refrain. We don't always follow what happens next but Judge Esther Salas has been here and talked about how her murdered son. His name is invoked when people send pizzas to judges homes. They come in the name of her son who was murdered by a disgruntled litigant who came to her house. I mean the threat of violence against judges is real and I just wonder what his presence there was about. He's not someone who has ever as far as we've known steeped himself in constitutional legal arguments or debates. He's never live tweeted oral arguments before but he showed up. Why? Well, fully intimidation. I mean there's no question that that's what it was. First American president to do that. Really a low point for the separation of powers to say nothing of the sort of moral fabric that governs this democracy. It is worth mentioning that here's one of the most virulently anti-racist, anti-immigrant presidents ever. Who's married to an immigrant who was not born here? Whose own mother was an immigrant and seems to have forgotten both his own personal history and the history of this country. And instead had his legal team trot out race, literally racist arguments from 1896 that were built around just very toxic anti-black and anti-Chinese sentiments at the turn of the century. And then regurgitate and recycle those arguments again at the Supreme Court. If fail done, and I do believe it's going to fail now. I mean, but the fact that John Eastman was on the steps of the Supreme Court after this is a powerful reminder that this anti-birthright citizenship movement is really the stuff of crazed conspiratorial racist kooks. This is John Eastman's bailiwick, right? And somehow it's exactly dignified in the highest court of the land with the president of the United States sitting in on it. And just like, you know, we talk about shredding norms. This is really like above and beyond even for the Trump administration. Again, we don't know what the final decision will be, but I want to ask both of you what we think he'll do if he loses again. No one's going anywhere. We'll be right back with that on the other side. We're back with Mary and Alex. Mary, I won't ask you to predict how this turns out, but I will ask you to predict if it doesn't go Trump's way. Do you think this is the end of this? Will this be settled? Well, it kind of depends on how he loses. You know, both the challenges brought both under the terms of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and as a violation of the statute I mentioned earlier, Congress passed a statute that largely mirrors the constitutional provision. And one of the things that Justice Kavanaugh asked of counsel for both sides was sort of like, you know, how should we rule? Should we rule just based on the statute or should we rule based on the Constitution? And counsel for the plaintiffs, the babies said, we'd like you to rule on the basis of the Constitution, but we'd take it when either way. John Sauer said, we'd prefer you just address the statute because if they don't interpret the Constitution against Donald Trump's executive order, then he could theoretically, but if they say you lose based on the statute, theoretically he could go to Congress and try to get Congress to pass some sort of other statute. The restricted birthright citizenship. All that would do would be start a whole new round of litigation about whether, you know, that statute itself complies with the 14th Amendment. I think more likely though, you will see if Donald Trump does lose, you'll see the sort of attacks that you saw after the tariff decision, attacks on the justices, and maybe even, you know, an amping up of his attacks on immigrants, which would be really a shame because they've already, you know, had over a year of just incredible, incredible enforcement in ways that are very humane and very unconstitutional. I think Mary Taree Wright in her predictions. I do think though, to attack the Supreme Court at a moment of profound political weakness does open the door for some Republicans to side with the court. Yeah. Wouldn't it? I mean, I'm not going to predict that they'll do it, but. Well, what's interesting is this week, Trump is calling on Congress to pass a crime bill that would go after rogue federal judges. And I don't think Congress is not interested in doing that because really Republicans in Congress have whiffed. So I've just taken a knee on all of this and decided we're not going to keep this guy in check. We're too scared about our political fortunes. They only have the judiciary. Well, I mean, a lot of those rogue judges are appointed by Republicans. Totally. But the only people that are really legislating and they're not supposed to be at the Supreme Court to us, they're the only ones that are acting as a check on the executive branch. And Republicans need the Supreme Court to remain independent. Also, these are died in the wool conservatives. Let's not like forget about the real sort of partisan affiliations of the conservative supermajority on the court. So, you know, I think tantrums are to be expected. Yeah. Toxic rhetoric is to be expected. Does he lash out even more at immigrants? Ice, you know, Republicans are talking about funding ice through reconciliation for the next three years. Trump loves taking out his indignations and his in his personal hurt on those who are the most vulnerable. And in this particular case, in this moment in America, those are people of color and people who are either newly arrived to this country or don't have their papers yet. And that scares me. Yeah. Mary, thank you so much for joining us today on this. Alex, thank you for spending the hour with me. Thank you for having me. It's nice to have you at the table. And thank you for being my guest on this. Oh, hi, guys. It was so fun. I loved it so much. It was such a lovely conversation. It's such a dream to hang out with you, like double headers. But also, I got to use expletives like, I guess like a deep T's for the fun. Do we swear? I think we got an E reading on it. I think I gave it to you. See, it's so, that's what I aspire to having an E reading. It's it. That's all that I aspire to. It was a dream. It was a dream. Listen to our explicit conversation. That's probably a good T's. It is a T's. I think it's a good T's. Whether it's good is a whole thing. There it is. You scan the QR code there to listen, or you could download it wherever you get your podcasts. You don't want to miss it. We have breaking news for you. Republicans caved to Democrats in a deal to end the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. This led to incredibly long lines across the country. You know that already. If you've tried to fly anywhere, we'll tell you about it next. After weeks of stonewalling, House Speaker Mike Johnson appears prepared to swallow the Department of Homeland Security funding deal. He called a quote, crap sandwich just a few days ago. It is a move that marks the apparent end to the partial government shutdown, which has led to massively long lines at airport security. Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced that they will pass a bill to fund most of DHS with the exception of ICE and parts of Customs and Border Patrol, and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package. The deal, which was over the objections of some of the more conservative members of Johnson's political party, appeared to come at the direction of Donald Trump, who posted on social media in a rambling statement, urging Republicans to pass funding for ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation, an approach that would allow Republican lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition. However, it would require near unanimous GOP support. Trump is demanding that legislation to fund ICE appear on his desk by June 1. We'll stand top of that story. Coming up for us an all hands on deck effort to fight a Trump executive order that is trying to stifle mail-in voting. We'll bring you that story after a short break.