The Briefing With Jen Psaki 5/14/26 — 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 14, 2026

[0:00] weekend, so I'm going to catch up, and then I'll have some questions next week, but I'm going to [0:05] get right to it because I have Director Comey sitting right at the table, and there's a lot [0:09] of things we could talk to him about, but I'll talk to you tomorrow. Okay, yesterday I started [0:16] the show with the news that Trump was reportedly planning to settle his $10 billion lawsuit against [0:21] the IRS, potentially for enough money to double his net worth, I would note, potentially for [0:26] protections from future IRS audits, and that whole settlement was reportedly expected to happen out [0:32] of court before Trump's lawyers were expected to appear in front of a judge next week. It had [0:37] already been scheduled. A judge who very well may have thrown out the case entirely. So yeah, that's [0:43] what we started the show with yesterday. If you're watching, you may remember, and just Trump's personal [0:48] lawyers, again, again, this is just like I have to restate this, coming to an agreement with the [0:52] Justice Department run by his former personal lawyers privately to potentially give Trump [0:58] billions of your tax dollars. And yesterday, that seemed unfathomably corrupt and brazen, [1:05] far beyond what he had ever attempted in the past. And then came tonight's news, just this evening, [1:13] because tonight, ABC News reports that Trump is expected to settle his lawsuit with the IRS [1:18] in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who claim they were [1:26] wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration. As ABC put it tonight, the arrangement would be an [1:32] unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight. And under the terms of the potential [1:37] settlement, the money would be controlled by a commission made up of five members. But of course, [1:42] there's always a but here. That commission would really answer to just man, because one man, [1:48] because here is part of the story as well. President Trump would have the authority to [1:52] remove members of the commission running the fund without cause. And the commission would be under [1:58] no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than [2:04] a billion dollars. Let's be, let's just take a break. Let's be clear-eyed about what this means here. [2:11] I mean, that is $1.7 billion of taxpayer money in a slush fund controlled by Donald Trump with no [2:21] transparency or oversight. Now, I should note that a spokesperson for the Justice Department [2:25] declined to comment to ABC News on this story, and representatives for the White House, the IRS, [2:30] and the Treasury Department didn't respond either to a request for comment. And sources told ABC News [2:37] that while a settlement of some kind is expected in the coming days, the final terms will not be set [2:42] until they are officially announced, which I would just note is not a that story is trash, [2:48] that's not true response either. Now, that is also kind of an incredible statement, considering both [2:54] sides negotiating the settlement are essentially representing the same person. I mean, what will [3:01] Trump's personal lawyers and his former personal lawyers land on here? Will he get a few billion [3:05] dollars? Will he get protection from audits? Will he get a slush fund to reward his allies? Or will he [3:10] get all of the above? I guess it depends on how much he thinks he can get away with, because all of this [3:17] is so brazen. And this is truly further than he has ever gone. I mean, just think about who exactly would [3:24] be eligible to get a big, fat payday from this Trump slush fund. First of all, anyone who alleges they were [3:31] harmed by the Biden administration's weaponization, as the Trump administration calls it, of the legal [3:35] system, when the legal system was actually independent, like, say, the 1,600 people who [3:41] were charged for their actions at the riot at the Capitol on January 6th, or all of the people [3:47] involved in Trump's fake elector scheme and his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, [3:53] all of his co-defendants in his litany of criminal cases. Trump has already pardoned most of these [3:58] people, people who beat up police officers, people who threatened to kill Mike Pence, people who tried [4:03] to subvert our country's democracy. Now he's reportedly trying to siphon taxpayer money from [4:09] the U.S. Treasury, your money, to reward those same people, not despite the crimes they committed, [4:16] but because of the crimes they committed, because those crimes were committed on Donald Trump's [4:21] behalf. And we already know what this kind of system could look like. I mean, two months ago, [4:25] the Justice Department settled a case brought by former Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn. [4:29] The settlement resolved around the case Flynn pleaded guilty to twice. The Justice Department [4:36] from Trump's first term dropped the case, and then just before the end of his first term, [4:41] Trump pardoned him, protecting him from any future prosecution. But despite all of that, [4:47] Trump alleged that he had been wrongly prosecuted, Flynn, I should say, alleged that he had been [4:51] wrongly prosecuted for political reasons. And rather than fight the case, the Justice Department [4:56] just gave Flynn $1.25 million. Now last month, we saw an eerily similar situation play out in a case [5:03] brought by former Trump advisor Carter Page, who was investigated but never even charged. [5:08] The Justice Department gave him $1.25 million too. I guess $1.25 million is the going rate? I don't know. [5:17] And if Trump really does get this $1.7 billion trust fund, a lot more of Trump's former allies [5:24] could be in for a big, fat payday, just like Flynn and Page. [5:28] Trump is getting more and more unpopular by the day, and as he is clearly laying the groundwork [5:33] to contest elections yet again and to do anything he can to hold on to power, the message he is [5:40] sending to his followers here is terrifying. If you commit a crime that benefits Trump, [5:46] like many did on January 6th, you get a pardon and maybe even a payday. [5:50] So if Trump needs his followers to do something illegal for him again, what's going to deter them? [5:57] Joining me now is former FBI Director James Comey. He is the author of the new book, [6:01] Red Verdict, which is about counterintelligence, something a lot of people should read up on in [6:06] this particular moment. We're going to talk about that, I promise. But I just have to start by asking [6:11] you about this news from ABC, this news that ABC News reported earlier this evening, that Trump is [6:16] expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 [6:23] billion, I'm going to call it a slush fund, to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully [6:28] targeted by the Biden administration. What's your reaction to that? [6:32] When I first saw it, honestly, I thought it was an item from The Onion. [6:35] You didn't think it was real? [6:36] No. How could that be real? Putting a golden ATM at Mar-a-Lago. [6:40] So my reaction was, how about take the 1.7 and give it to the sick and the hungry in this country [6:44] who got pushed off assistance? But apparently it's going to go to his friends in the dark. [6:49] I just want to keep reading from this piece because some of it is so, it's really stunning, [6:55] to your point. It doesn't feel real. It feels like AI generated or The Onion or whatever you [6:59] want to call it, but it is real. Here's another part from the piece. The arrangement would be an [7:02] unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight. Under the terms of the potential [7:06] settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission [7:10] running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose [7:15] its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars. [7:21] This, to me, I mean, we don't like to be hyperbolic. It feels, though, like he is crossing, [7:26] it's so blatant and so in your face. It feels like he is crossing another line here. For people out [7:33] there who are also trying to digest this and find it completely troubling, what do you tell them? [7:39] We've got to get through two and a half years. It's going to be incredibly painful. He appears not [7:43] to care anymore. I think he said on the way to his helicopter, I don't care about what Americans [7:48] are experiencing now, and it appears he's bearing that out with his actions. So we have to just hope [7:53] that the rule of law holds, that we can change the makeup of Congress come this fall and get a second [7:59] branch of government involved and ride this out. I want to ask you about that because it's very [8:04] optimistic, and I want to be an optimist, too, I think, as many people do watching. But it's hard to [8:10] do. Because you see people like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio and others who seem to be wanting to [8:17] follow the MAGA trend. They want to follow in Trump's footsteps here. Are you really that confident [8:22] that two and a half years, if we get through it, if one of them is sitting in the Oval Office, [8:27] things will be different? [8:27] I guess I tell myself, sitting in the Oval Office, how? You've driven the American people, [8:33] except for the devout MAGA core, away from you with their expenses, with Iran, with all the [8:39] things you've done to horrify them, who is going to vote for the successor to Donald Trump? [8:44] Hopefully no one will, and we'll have a different kind of president and a different administration. [8:49] I think most people watching probably hope for that. But we also see that Trump is doing [8:54] everything to hold on to power. You're no stranger to that. You're very familiar with that. [8:59] I mean, one of the things that I find most outrageous about this new reporting is that [9:04] people convicted for their roles on January 6th could get payments out of this fund, [9:09] according to the reporting. And it feels like, and you are the expert on counterterrorism and [9:14] counterintelligence, not me, but it feels like it could incentivize people to commit crimes on [9:19] Trump's behalf. Or am I missing something there? [9:21] No. And he's been more blatant than that, right? Promising anybody who came within, I think, [9:25] 200 feet of the Oval Office, they would get a pardon from him before he left. [9:29] So he's making sure that if you're part of Cosa Nostra, this thing of ours, you're on my team, [9:34] I'll take care of you. I'll take care of you reducing your exposure. [9:36] I'll get you free dough. That's a very dangerous message. [9:41] I mentioned the payments to Michael Flynn and Carter Page. And obviously, in the past, [9:46] there have been payments and settlement payments with people in the past, far more justified. [9:51] But what, as you've thought about kind of what laws would need to be put in place to prevent, [9:56] to protect from this activity in the future, what would need to happen in order to prevent [10:01] payments like that that are abusive or the creation of, say, a slush fund? [10:05] Well, I would imagine Congress could create a more detailed structure around the federal [10:10] government's justice fund, excuse me, judgment fund, which is used to pay settlements like this, [10:14] requiring more layers of oversight, more restriction. I don't know what they might be. [10:18] But surely there's more we can do to keep an eye on that money. But at the end of the day, [10:22] it comes down to the character of the people that we elect and the people they pick to run the [10:26] agencies. [10:29] Trump's second term, and you and I have talked about this. I know you've been out there talking to a lot [10:33] of people in the last couple of days. I mean, this is all a pattern, as we've seen. He'll pardon [10:39] you or get your charges dropped if you do something for him. And if you do something he [10:44] doesn't like, you're a perfect example of this. He's going to go after you and continue to target [10:49] you. And all of this is happening in the light of day. It's happening. It's so blatant. It's so in [10:54] your face. What do you think that the American people see in the justice system that Trump has [11:01] been running? [11:02] Well, I worry that they're becoming numb to what he does because I feel a little numb to this, [11:07] right? I just got indicted for the second time. And my reaction is a little bit of a shrug. [11:12] We can't become numb to it because this is not normal. It's not okay. And it's not the way we [11:17] are. I hope they can see that the Department of Justice has been deeply damaged. I hope they can [11:23] see their way to the future, that it's going to be restored. Two and a half years from now, [11:26] it's going to be a different Department of Justice. We just need to make sure we do everything [11:30] possible that we get there. [11:32] When you say that justice can be restored and the Justice Department can be restored, [11:36] I think one of the things you hear a lot about from people out there in the country, [11:40] you see in polls too, is frustration with the courts, the Supreme Court specifically, [11:45] I should say. There have been a lot of victories in lower courts, in federal courts, [11:50] and state courts. And then last week, the Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act. [11:56] And it feels, makes people feel powerless out there. When you look at the court, my bet is, [12:01] and we haven't talked about this before, that you're probably an institutionalist about the court, [12:05] just like my old boss Joe Biden was for a long time. Do you look at the makeup of the court at this [12:10] point and think maybe it's time for change there? Maybe it's time to expand the court for term limits [12:16] or anything along those lines? I'm open to having conversations about that. But like your former [12:21] boss, I approach them all with a great deal of traditional conservatism, that I just want to be [12:26] careful that we don't take something that was the genius design of our founders. And it really has [12:31] saved us the rule of law through the judges over the last eight years. I don't want to mess with that [12:36] in a way that we may regret 20 years from now, 30 years from now. To me, the rule of law is not the rule [12:42] of me. I don't get to have decisions that I agree with all the time. There's lots I disagree with. [12:48] For me, the question is, is the regular order working? Are cases being heard in the right way? [12:53] Are they showing us their work so we can criticize it or agree with it? And honestly, I by and large [12:58] think it has, even though I don't agree with all the court's decisions. Even the Supreme Court? [13:02] Even the Supreme Court. Yeah, I think that the actions of a number of the Supreme Court justices [13:06] have brought understandable skepticism, even dishonor on the court. But in the main, we see [13:13] the work. We understand why they're saying what they're saying, even if we disagree with them. [13:16] That's the way the system works. I think it's brought fury. Even my old boss, [13:21] Joe Biden, has come around to the need to do some reforms of the court. You're not a politician, [13:25] but I still wanted to ask you because you talk a lot about the justice system. [13:29] Let me ask you just about how you spent a lot of time in your career thinking about how our [13:33] adversaries look at the United States and look at what's happening here. And I know even from [13:38] traveling when I worked at the State Department, that's one of the things that they ask about. [13:42] You're telling us to defend democracy or stand up for democracy? Look what's happening in your own [13:46] country. How do you think other our adversaries are looking at our justice department, our justice [13:51] system right now, I should say? I think they see us as weak, confused in a lot of ways, understaffed in [13:58] very significant areas and led by a leader who's amoral and transactional and focused on his own [14:03] ballroom and whatnot. And so I'm sure adversaries think it's an opportunity because we've taken our [14:09] eyes off of what matters most. And you see it in the just in the body language in the president's [14:14] visit to Beijing, right? President Xi looks in command and control. He's not sucking up to Donald [14:20] Trump. Trump looks confused and old and looking to curry favor with this powerful man and slather him [14:26] with compliments. That's a very bad sign. But I think it's the way our adversaries see us now. [14:32] I'm sure you've thought about this. One of the things you've said back in 2018 is that Trump hadn't [14:37] criticized Vladimir Putin yet. He still hasn't. Why do you think that is? I still don't know. [14:44] Now, in fairness to Trump, I guess he's done things that surely Putin must get angry about. [14:51] Venezuela, Iran, some of the other actions he's taken hurt Russia. But in the main, [14:57] he continues to admire that dictator in ways I cannot explain. [15:02] Unexplainable. Let me ask you just something about another question just about the future, [15:06] because some of this is how can the system be protected moving forward in case there's another [15:11] actor like Trump? And I think everybody hopes most people hope there is not. But one of the things [15:16] that has struck me is that our legal system doesn't seem always prepared for the type of abuses that he [15:21] is capable of. And there are systems, of course, in place in the Department of Justice for recusals [15:26] that people who are the attorney general or the deputy attorney general, others have partaken in for [15:31] many years, including people who were just in those roles. Should someone who has served as the personal [15:37] attorney to the president be able to represent him in prosecuting cases that involve him? I know you [15:42] don't want to speak to Blanche specifically, but as Congress looks to things they should do in the [15:46] future, is that something they should take action on? [15:48] Yes. It ought to be one of the things as part of the rebuilding that's examined. [15:53] Now, granted, I don't think we've ever had a president convicted by a jury of 34 felonies [15:58] who then made one of his criminal defense lawyers from that trial the head of the Justice Department. [16:03] So it's new ground for the ethics people. But we need to make sure that even if we didn't [16:09] anticipate something as absurd as that, the rules address it. [16:14] I've been I talked with Tim Weiner the other night and I said his books are some people should be [16:19] reading right now if they're trying to better understand law enforcement and these systems [16:23] that are under attack. And your new book, Red Verdict, is at the heart about the heart of it [16:27] is about counterintelligence, which is, of course, a whole world that people didn't know a lot about [16:33] until they started digging into Kash Patel and what exactly is going on there. And he's, of course, [16:38] gutted an FBI counterintelligence team specifically tasked with monitoring threats from Iran. He's gutted a lot [16:44] of things within the FBI. What do you hope for people who read your book and try to better [16:49] understand that unit of the agency you once ran, they take away? What do you hope they understand? [16:56] Probably two things. One, how important the counterintelligence work is. There really are [17:00] two things that the FBI does that only the FBI can do in the United States, counterterrorism [17:05] and counterintelligence, which means understanding how our adversaries are trying to steal our secrets, [17:10] corrupt our people, break up our systems and defeat that threat. And the Bureau devotes tremendous [17:16] time to it. So I hope people will see in my work why this matters so much. Then I want them to see [17:21] the kind of people who do the work, because what I try to have my books be is accurate. Exciting, [17:26] because the work is exciting. But I want to show readers, these are the men and women who do that [17:30] work. They're flawed like all humans, but they are honest, hardworking people making enormous [17:36] sacrifices. Because sometimes in the, all the stuff you read about the Trump team, [17:41] that can be obscured. And I want people to understand that's the beating heart of the [17:44] department and the FBI. And people who serve in civil service and people who serve in the [17:49] foreign service and across government, no question. We're going to take a quick break. You know how [17:54] this goes. Thank you for being generous with your time. When you, when we come back, I want to ask you [17:59] something about snorkeling and about bourbon. You've certainly heard these stories, I'm sure. [18:03] Unfortunately, I have to ask you about those things because of who is currently sitting [18:06] in your old job. We'll be right back. [18:14] Embarrassing headlines surrounding Trump's FBI director, Kash Patel, come out. The more of them [18:19] you see, the more you get the sense that this guy really likes his recreation time. He loves it. I [18:24] mean, Patel, of course, has faced widespread criticism for his personal use of a government jet, [18:28] which he has used to make multiple trips to Las Vegas, where he used to live, as well as Nashville, [18:33] where his country singer girlfriend resides. He's also used an FBI jet to travel to see his [18:38] girlfriend sing the national anthem at a wrestling event held at Penn State University. So there's [18:43] that. And for a multi-day excursion to his friend's family's boondoggle ranch, literally the name in [18:48] Texas. Yes, again, that's what it's called. Now, those trips were on his personal time. But Patel has [18:53] reportedly also managed to fit some of his beloved recreational activities into his workday. Back in [18:59] January, the New York Times spoke to 45 current and former FBI employees for a profile of the [19:04] department. One senior executive told the paper Patel, quote, doesn't like meetings in office [19:09] settings. According to the senior official, during a secret conference in Britain of the critical [19:14] intelligence alliance known as the Five Eyes last May, Patel's staff said that he was, quote, [19:18] unhappy because he wants premier soccer games. He wants to go jet skiing. He'd like a helicopter tour. [19:24] Now, the FBI did not respond to the Times questions about that trip, but it all seems to fit with a [19:30] string of escapades Patel has managed to embark on during some of his official trips. I mean, [19:35] who can forget Patel chugging beers with the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team during a trip to Italy [19:39] earlier this year, which the FBI and Patel insisted was for professional purposes? Okay. Today, [19:45] we learned that the FBI director went on a VIP snorkel last summer around the solemn Pearl Harbor [19:50] Memorial and Military Cemetery, the USS Arizona. Patel was visiting Hawaii last summer during a trip [19:56] that the FBI took pains to note was definitely not a vacation. And the AP noted in its reporting [20:02] that snorkeling around the memorial is off limits with few exceptions. And that while other FBI [20:07] directors have visited Pearl Harbor on official business, as many people have, none going back to [20:12] at least 1993, and I'm betting before, have gone snorkeling at the memorial. Former FBI director James [20:19] Comey is back with me. His new book, Red Verdict, is out now. Okay. Patel has a mountain of [20:26] potentially disqualifying scandals, and each time a new one comes out, part of the defense is to throw [20:31] around numbers that are supposed to show what a great job he's doing. Well, this week we learned [20:37] from reporting from MSNOW, actually, that he has been padding the stats in a variety of ways [20:42] to make himself look better, including inflating the count of fugitives captured off the FBI's 10 [20:48] most wanted list by apparently adding people they are about to arrest. Now, this seems unprofessional, [20:56] it seems immoral, but walk us through the danger of that. The danger is it strikes at the core of the [21:03] FBI's integrity, its reputation for being truthful and trustworthy. The FBI is the custodian of the [21:10] country's crime stats. And if chiefs or citizens come to believe that they're monkeying around with [21:16] the stats, they've lost it all. And so it's touching something that is indispensable, which is your [21:23] ability to be trusted. I want to ask you about another story. Notice published a report this week [21:28] that the FBI created a so-called payback squad of special agents to handle politically sensitive [21:34] cases, of course, like yours. A senior FBI official speaking on background denied that a squad was [21:39] created with that name, but referred to an effort that is officially called the director's advisory [21:44] team, which they said is a special investigative unit tasked with getting to the bottom of some [21:49] abuses of power that happened during the previous three presidential administrations. What do you make [21:56] of that? I hope it's inaccurate. There were no special squads that reported to me when I was [22:02] director. I'm confident there were none when Chris Wray or Bob Mueller were directors, because again, [22:08] the regular order matters when you're going to use the enormous power of the FBI to investigate [22:13] Americans. And so we do it through particular squads with lines of authority that are clear. [22:18] We keep track of everything. It's all done in a way that is predictable and reliable because you're [22:23] using power against potentially innocent people. But so often in public or on television, the other [22:29] thing he does is he talks about the morale and the motivation within the department and says it's [22:35] very high right now. I mean, he uses all sorts of superlatives about it. I know you've talked about, [22:40] you've said you still talk to people in the department. How would you characterize it? [22:44] I'd be surprised if that were accurate, but we can solve this. He can release the climate survey. [22:49] Every spring, we would produce an anonymous climate survey where every employee was asked, [22:54] how are things going? How do you feel about the director? I used to read all of those so I would [22:59] get direct feedback. So it's available. It's knowable to understand what the FBI's feelings are. [23:05] Last time I saw it released was when Donald Trump was lying, saying the FBI was happy to have me [23:09] fired. Someone got a FOIA release of the climate surveys. Turned out that was a lie. [23:15] So we could check the same thing. Easily checkable. Easily can put that out. There's [23:20] lots of things people are waiting for from him. There have been only nine FBI directors, [23:24] as you know well. Nine is actually the number on the bourbon bottle, which is how maybe people [23:28] out there who have not served in the FBI learn that in specifically. He's only served a year and [23:33] a half. But what, Mark, do you think Kash Patel has left to date? Well, the FBI is suffering. [23:40] It is, despite what he said, demoralized. It is shorthanded. They have diverted people. [23:46] From critical roles to roles that were much more important to the president, [23:50] immigration enforcement. If they're screwing around with the crime stats, that's a stain [23:54] that will take a long time to get past. So it's in a tough spot. The good news is, again, [23:58] I hate to be the optimist, but I am. The culture in that place is too hard to change in two years [24:04] or five years. I tried to change it in four years of work with respect to things like diversity and [24:09] leadership. Very hard. Even if you know how to change culture, it'll still be there in two and [24:15] a half years. And the quality people will hang on and lots of others will flow back in. So it's bad, [24:21] but it can be very good in short order. [24:23] You're a fiction writer now. And you also have a lot of expertise in all of this, [24:28] which is one of the reasons we're talking to you about both of those things. Does it make it harder? [24:32] I mean, you're writing fiction about a time that almost feels like fiction. [24:37] Yeah. If you put some of this in a book, your editor would be, nope, nope. Let's write something [24:42] closer to the truth. For me, it's a bit of an escape because I get to write about institutions [24:48] that I love, show people what they're really like, and tune out a little bit of the world while I write. [24:54] But then the good news is I get to talk about the book and lots of other things once a year. [24:58] Dr. Comey, thanks for being here with me. [25:00] Great to be with you. [25:00] Okay. John F. Kennedy, the grandson, and New York congressional candidate Jack Schlossberg [25:06] is about to join me here at the table. But first, what can Democrats actually do about [25:10] the corruption and conflicts of interest on full display everywhere, but certainly in China right [25:16] now? We all want no solutions. Senator Chris Van Hollen has an actual idea he put forward. [25:20] More than that, but he has one he put forward today, and he joins me next.