The Briefing With Jen Psaki 7/31/26 — 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today July 31, 2026

[0:00] Steel in for Jen. Good evening, Michael. Good evening, Chris, and thanks very much, my friend. [0:04] Appreciate you. Folks, we have a whole lot to get to tonight, and so just settle in for a moment [0:10] because it's busy. Todd Blanche's nomination to be the permanent attorney general is hanging by a [0:16] thread, and Donald Trump is now threatening to withdraw that nomination altogether. Trump's [0:22] war in Iran is raging on, and there is new reporting that the president is growing exasperated [0:28] with his lack of options. And Democrats, well, they just got some good news about their prospects [0:35] in the midterms as the Trump administration grows more unpopular by the day. We're going to get to [0:41] all of that and more over the next hour, but I want to start tonight with an intervention for a guy who, [0:48] well, I think might have a serious problem. Do you regret getting so involved in politics? [0:56] Do you think it was a good thing to do? I think I got a little too involved in politics, [1:00] got carried away, frankly. Hmm. Great job, Elon. The first step is admitting you have a problem. [1:07] That was Elon Musk this week in an interview with The Economist, confessing that he got too [1:13] involved in politics. But it turns out that guy just can't quit because less than a week after that [1:20] interview, we got this news first reported by Axios last night. Quote, Elon Musk is planning a massive [1:28] push for the Republican Party in this year's midterms. They report that Musk's resuscitating [1:34] his dormant super PAC and has been in talks with Trump and his team about how he can help in the [1:41] midterms. The New York Times then posted a story of their own, revealing that Musk plans to spend at [1:47] least $100 million in this year's election. He apparently intends to target Senate races in five [1:54] states, Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio. And he's thinking about getting involved in North [2:00] Carolina, Georgia, and Texas as well. Now, folks, does that sound like a guy who really thinks he's [2:07] too involved in politics? Remember, just remember what happened the last time Elon decided to [2:14] enter the political arena and become involved in politics. After helping Trump get elected in 2024, [2:22] 2024, Musk sparked outrage and protests all across the country when he and his merry band of 20-year-olds [2:28] started hacking away at critical government programs, firing career civil servants and cutting [2:34] social safety nets, all without delivering any discernible benefit to the American people. [2:40] But like anyone with a serious problem, Elon Musk is still in denial about all of that. [2:48] I think there is, it is a fair criticism, but the way you shut down a whole bunch of programs, [2:52] was probably, in fact, certainly caused unnecessary suffering. I mean, no, no, no, no. You don't buy [3:00] that at all? It caused a lot of complaining. [3:04] Hmm. Elon Musk says everything is going fine and everyone is just complaining. Well, Harvard School [3:10] of Public Health estimates that Musk's closure of USAID led to deaths of hundreds of thousands of [3:17] people abroad. And researchers predict those same cuts could lead to millions of more deaths by the [3:24] end of this decade. And how is the government doing with foreign aid and the aftermath of Musk's cuts? [3:31] Well, this week, the State Department participated in a global conference in Brazil, right? All good, [3:38] where they presented this map to conference attendees to highlight their funding of HIV programs in Africa. [3:44] Okay, folks, now look closely at this map. You will see that they mislabeled every single African [3:52] country on the continent. Not a single one is in the right place. So that's how things have been [4:00] going since Musk gutted foreign aid programs and more than a year ago. And what about Musk's goal of [4:08] cutting the deficit? Well, he didn't do that either. Just listen to what one of Elon's loyal tech bros had [4:15] to admit in a deposition as part of a lawsuit brought against Doge. You don't regret that people [4:22] might have lost important income to support their lives? No. I think it was more important to [4:30] reduce the federal deficit from $2 trillion to close to zero. Did you reduce the federal deficit? No, [4:37] we didn't. So you weren't able to reduce the deficit and you still don't regret that people [4:42] lost some of their livelihood based on your actions? Exactly. No. Now the guy who brought [4:53] you that disaster wants to jump back into the political arena. And what will Musk's goal be [4:59] this time? What does he think a Republican Congress can help him achieve? Well, here's a headline from [5:05] this week that might give you an idea. Quote, Elon Musk's ex-AI sues Minnesota over its first in the [5:12] nation law banning nudification technology. Okay. You see, Minnesota state legislature passed a law [5:20] banning AI tools that let users generate sexually explicit images of people without their consent. [5:27] Okay. Now Musk and his company is fighting that law. That's the kind of thing Elon Musk is focused on [5:36] right now. Overturning laws that stop his AI robots from undressing you on the internet. And now that guy [5:43] is planning to commit $100 million to help Republicans stay in power this November. Remember, [5:51] Elon Musk spent more money than any other political donor in history to help Donald Trump get elected [5:56] in 2024. Then in 2025, he tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court election, handing out millions of [6:04] dollars, a million dollar checks to voters in a stunt that Wisconsin election officials say was [6:10] probably illegal. But the result of that spending have been mixed at best. Musk's candidate lost in [6:18] that Wisconsin Supreme Court race when Democrats turned out in record numbers to push back against [6:23] Musk and his influence. And Musk is still just as toxic voters. A YouGov poll from last month found [6:30] Americans disapprove of Musk by a 14-point margin. And independent voters disapprove of him by a 33-point [6:38] margin. If anything, Musk's late entrance into this election cycle shows just how desperate [6:44] Republicans really are. Joining me now to get into all of this, senior political reporter for Axios, [6:51] Alex Einzestad, who broke that story on Elon Musk's plans to spend big on the midterms, [6:58] Democratic strategist and senior advisor for Texas Senate nominee James Tallarico, Chuck Rocha, [7:04] and former ethics czar in the Obama White House, Norm Eisen. Welcome, gentlemen. So I just, [7:12] it's so much. You broke the story, Alex. Talk about that. What is your reporting showing us, [7:20] disclosing about Elon's coming back into the game this way and the money he intends to spend? [7:26] Sure. Elon is going to be a centerpiece of the Republican Party machinery this fall. He is going to be [7:35] playing a huge role in terms of, maybe the biggest role in terms of funding to get out the vote [7:40] operation, the door knocking, the mailers, that kind of stuff. He's not going to be doing TV ads. [7:45] He's going to be doing mailers, door knocking, stuff like that. And so he's going to be playing a [7:49] pivotal role in terms of the Republican Party's effort. You saw him play that similar role in 2024. [7:55] He funded GOTV efforts as well. And so this is going to be a sizable role that he's playing. [8:02] Well, you know, just real quick on that. And I really want to, you know, as a former county, [8:06] state and national chairman, I just tell you, money is an important play in politics. No doubt [8:12] about that. But I can't tell you the number of races that I've been a part of and seen where the [8:17] guy or gal who walks in the room with the most cash still loses. Right. And so I think there may be, [8:24] given where the voters are in the polling right now, this may be, Chuck, one of those things that [8:30] the money sounds good. It's big. And yeah, I guess a candidate would love to see it, you know, [8:36] flow into their Senate race. But it doesn't necessarily tell you that the outcome is going [8:43] to be what you think it's going to be. It's just like redistricting. You may draw the lines [8:47] to bring this community into your control, but you can't control how they vote. [8:52] That's exactly right. We're seeing this in Texas with the gerrymandering that many of us called the [8:57] Dummy Mander because they thought Latino voters would perform the same way they had for Donald [9:01] Trump currently. And I'll tell you right now, they're pissed. And to your point, Michael, [9:05] what this money could mean in Texas is Republicans right now are desperate for wanting to turn out [9:10] those voters who voted for Donald Trump, who were infrequent voters. Me and you understand this [9:14] verbiage because a midterm election, you have about 35% of the electorate that stays home. [9:19] So that's why he's spending this money is they are desperate to get some of those folks out [9:23] because if the folks who normally vote in and off your election show up in this election, [9:27] it shows across the board, not just in Texas, that Republicans are going to have a huge defeat [9:32] on election night because people are just sick and tired of being sick and tired. [9:35] Well, that that is that exactly where it is, particularly when you look at the dismantling [9:40] of our government, the way, you know, the bros and Eli went into the federal government. [9:48] You tangled with those guys over what they were doing with Doge. How do you see this money play [9:56] from from both the political and a legal perspective, just in terms of how much money can you actually [10:04] get in the game? Because at the end of the day, Elon Musk can't do what a party does. He can't use [10:10] his money the way a party does on the ground to turn out the vote, because if he did, then Alex would [10:16] be having a real story to write about. So how do you see this at Democracy Defenders Fund and Democracy [10:22] Defenders Action? We brought a series of cases exposing the abuses that Musk and Doge led that [10:29] hurt the American people and actually were very expensive and costing the American people. Then came [10:37] the 2025 Wisconsin state Supreme Court election. Musk thought he would do this same play. He'd pour money [10:45] in. But Wisconsin was smarter. We worked on that at Democracy Defenders Action. That case, even though [10:53] that race, even though it was a Supreme Court race, it became a referendum on Elon Musk and led to a [11:01] double digit loss for the Republican candidate he was spending to support. I think the American [11:08] people are sick of this presidency, the harms it has caused to them, too much closeness to billionaires, [11:18] too little worrying about average folks. Musk is going to be a net drag. Plus, we're litigating [11:24] because the way he spends his money, often illegal like these lotteries. Right. Well, yeah, the lottery [11:30] thing was amazing to me. And the way, you know, again, even some of the press confused by didn't [11:37] really dig into that the way. This is why we have good lawyers like you on the line that go out and [11:41] show that up. Alex, your reporting, though, also touches on the before times, all right, when Elon Musk [11:50] and Donald Trump weren't as simpatico when they had their falling out. And so how does that play into this? [11:59] Is this kind of sort of a makeup thing we see going on where Trump reaches out to Musk or Musk reaches [12:06] out to Trump and says, hey, let's play? Or what's your reporting telling you about that? It's kind [12:10] of an amazing story, right? Because you go exactly a year ago, almost exactly a year ago, [12:15] Musk was saying that he might fund a third party to hurt the Republican Party. And now here we are. [12:22] And what happened was, was Trump and Elon, they had this blow up. They then sort of had a coming [12:29] together somewhat at the Charlie Kirk funeral. Things got better between them. But what I was [12:35] always told was that things would never get back to where they once were pre-fight. And then in the [12:42] last couple of months, Elon really never got out of touch with Trump's top lieutenants. He and Trump [12:48] didn't talk as much, but Trump, but he and Trump's lieutenants did speak. And in the last few months, [12:53] they came together to have this plan whereby he would, he would bankroll a lot of their turnout effort. [12:59] And, you know, that's, that's an interesting part because someone like Elon Musk, uh, Chuck, [13:05] doesn't do the do without getting something in return. [13:11] Some folks would say no peso, no say so. There you go, baby. That's about, that's what we're [13:17] talking about. But in today's politics, folks are tired of that. You know, you, you made a great [13:21] point earlier is that you're seeing that for the first time really play out. The Supreme Court [13:25] supposedly said your money is your speech. Well, folks are like, why do they get so much more speech [13:30] than I get? Right. And the, the elections that we're working on campaigns from California to New York. [13:35] And there's two things that are really popping up thinking about the unpopularity right now of all of [13:39] this. It's about cost, obviously, and corruption. Folks don't like to see somebody else getting an [13:43] upper hand when they're told, go to school, play by the rules, work hard, and you can build yourself [13:48] up in America. And you used to could do that a lot easier than you can today. That's why folks are [13:52] really aggravated. So much so in Texas today, a Fox News poll put out, Gina Hanajosa's one point behind [13:58] a four-term incumbent Republican governor, James Tallarico, beating Ken Paxton in my home state, [14:03] which hasn't seen this in a long time. Like, this is the reason this is happening, because it's [14:07] anti-incumbency. Republicans have had total control of Texas for 31 years, and folks haven't felt any [14:13] better. Well, you know, that it's been interesting. I've been a student of Texas for about 20 plus [14:19] years, going back to when I was a state party chairman, and my first real political ventures [14:23] down in Texas. And for me, it was always interesting to see how the Democrats were building the [14:29] building, putting the building blocks in place to begin to win in parts of Texas that they hadn't won [14:34] before, and win local races, and sort of build that up. And it's now benefiting them, I think, [14:42] potentially, as we've seen the succession of closing the gap between Democrats and Republicans [14:47] with the voters. And so that could be a positive. The politics is on your side, as they say. [14:53] How do you see the politics playing out as this thing heads to crunch time, meaning you turn the [14:59] corner into Labor Day, and then the races are really, you know, I mean, you're 51-48 right now, [15:04] outside, a little outside the margin of error. That's a good spot to be in at the end of the [15:09] summer. So many people, going back to 20 years ago, when me and you were working there many years [15:14] ago, so many more people have come of age, and you have working class folks that are coming of age [15:18] registering to vote and getting involved. The politics being on our side is not enough. You have [15:23] to run in the right year. It's the right year. You have to have unemployment at a certain rate, [15:27] and it is. You have to have gas prices at $4 a gallon, and you have to have a really flawed [15:31] Republican candidate like Ken Paxton, and a really good candidate like James Tallarico running it. [15:36] And all those things have to line up. Well, guess what, boys and girls? They're lining up. [15:39] And that's why you're seeing these polls say that right now. And the big difference in Texas right [15:43] now are these Latino voters. We're seeing a swing of anywhere between 5% and 25% because they were [15:49] like, we gave this guy a shot, and now he's locking up our aunts and uncles. It's big. It's big, [15:53] Norma. And the energy there is palpable when you consider the success that Democrats have had in [15:59] special elections going back to 2025, how this momentum has built for them. What have you heard [16:07] or what do you think Republicans are, how they're processing this and what this may mean? Because [16:15] we know, because you and I have had this conversation, on the back end that Wednesday, [16:20] everybody needs to be prepared, honestly. They need to be prepared for when the president [16:25] and his Republican ilk get out there and start declaring certain races as invalid [16:32] or there was cheating and illegitimate, trying to throw and sow seeds of doubt and confusion. [16:39] How do you see that piece playing here? [16:42] Three points. In addition to the cost crisis that Chuck points out that is driven by the corruption, [16:50] Musk comes back in because there's two other Cs, the chaos crisis and the competence crisis. [16:57] And Musk was driven out of Washington by lawsuits. We brought seven against him. We're still litigating. [17:03] Those, the cost, corruption, chaos and competence crises, very bad for Republicans. [17:11] Point number two, they are freaking out. We have a bipartisan board at our organization, [17:19] nonpartisan organization, half Republicans privately. And we sometimes represent Republicans. [17:24] The president is not making the course corrections that he needs to, like with the Iran war. [17:30] His ego won't let him. [17:31] He's stuck. And we're going to talk about that with Todd Blanche. He's got Todd Blanche hanging [17:36] because his ego won't let him give up his settlement agreement and his slush fund. [17:41] So the president is not helping them either. Those factors are very likely going to lead to one of [17:48] those situations where it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it. The people don't want MAGA. [17:55] They don't. And that's very clear, Alex. I think you're seeing more and more, as we've discussed, [18:01] a response by voters out there that's showing itself reflected in the polling numbers. I mean, [18:07] you know, polls have the president as low as 32 percent. Elon's walking into this space. [18:13] What kind of dirty tricks, gimmicks, crazy do you expect or you may hear being considered, [18:21] as we saw in the last race with the million-dollar giveaways, you know, which you're going to give [18:26] a voter a million dollars to vote? That even sounds illegal right off his face. What are you seeing [18:32] and hearing out there in that space, if anything? Yeah, I think we had a story up on our site on [18:37] Axios today about concerns among the public about just generally how the elections are going to go [18:43] and how they're going to be conducted, the amount of litigation surrounding them. There's just a lot [18:48] of concern out there within the electorate about how these elections are going to be administered [18:55] and how they're going to go. You can kind of feel that anxiousness starting to ratchet up as we get [19:00] closer and closer here to the campaign season. Well, we need you to stay on that front line, [19:05] baby. You got to stay there, man. Keep writing those stories and digging in. We really appreciate it, [19:09] Alex. Chuck, do your thing, man. You guys are having fun in Texas. Norm, unfortunately for you, [19:15] you have to stay here with me at the table for it because I got a little bit more grilling to go [19:19] for you. Because up next, we're going to talk about why Donald Trump cares more about his slush fund [19:24] than he does about getting Todd Blanche confirmed as attorney general. You just heard Norm touch on [19:29] that. We'll be right back. So today was supposed to be the day that Trump's acting attorney general, [19:40] Todd Blanche would pass a key committee vote, a major hurdle on his path to locking down that [19:46] permanent attorney general gig. Well, that did not happen. More than a month now, for more than a [19:53] month now, Blanche has faced resistance from two key Republican senators who sit on the Judiciary [19:59] Committee, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina. Both of them have been [20:05] demanding that Blanche put pen to paper and formally kill the deals he cut with Trump that would create [20:11] a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump's allies and to formally kill aspects of the deal that would give [20:18] Trump and his members of his family immunity from IRS audits. For Blanche's nomination to make it out of [20:26] the Senate Judiciary Committee, he needs both Cornyn and Tillis' vote. As of today, it appears he still [20:34] does not have them. The committee vote, which was initially scheduled for tomorrow, or today rather, [20:40] has been postponed. This morning, Trump floated the idea that he could just temporarily withdraw [20:46] Blanche's nomination and keep him in the acting attorney general role until Cornyn and Tillis are out [20:52] of the Senate next year. But then this afternoon, a source familiar with the matter told MS Now that [20:58] Blanche and Cornyn were having yet another meeting on Capitol Hill to iron out some sort of agreement. [21:05] So where does Blanche's nomination actually stand? Does it actually matter whether he gets [21:11] confirmed by the Senate or is he just as dangerous in the acting attorney general role? And what does [21:18] all of this mean for the future of Trump's slush fund and IRS immunity? Well, joining me now are two [21:24] people in a uniquely good position to know. Stacey Young spent 18 years at the Justice Department and is [21:31] the founder and executive director of the organization Justice Connection, which earlier this month [21:37] organized a letter for more than 1,200 former Justice Department employees explaining all of the [21:44] reasons why they opposed Todd Blanche's nomination. And back with us is Norm Eisen, the co-founder of [21:51] Democracy Defenders Fund, which organized the amicus brief from a group of 35 former judges that got [21:57] Trump's IRS settlement thrown in the trash by a federal judge to begin with. Norm, I've been saying [22:07] this for a while now. From Trump's perspective, this is a win-win, because if Blanche is not formally [22:18] approved by the Senate, he's still acting and he's still in the job in the role through the election, which right now is the [22:26] most important thing for Trump. Or the Senate buckles as been the deal and give Trump his permanent attorney [22:36] general, who again will be in position going into the election. So does it really matter if, you know, [22:45] this approval of Blanche goes through by the committee? I think it does matter. There is a big [22:53] difference in the legitimacy of an attorney general if they have the blessing of the Senate or not. [23:01] You and I were talking on the break. All of these legal fights that we've had over the past 18 months [23:08] are going to come to fruition around this election. The Democracy Defenders Fund and Action, [23:14] we're ready to litigate across the country, up to twice as many cases, Michael. We had 63 in 2020. [23:21] We'll do 126. You're going to be busy. But whether Todd Blanche has the imprimatur of the Senate or not [23:29] matters to his ability to enter into that fray. Number two, it matters because what are we talking about? [23:36] The slush fund. Right. The settlement. The Trump corruption. That is why Trump has sunk [23:43] to Nixonian lows. So these fights are important for our democracy. Finally, maybe Donald Trump should [23:52] not have opposed John Cornyn and Tom Tillis in their Senate races. And he would not be having this [24:01] problem. Now, they have nothing to lose because they are lame ducks. Right. And they seem to be [24:06] willing to fight to get a written agreement erasing this odious slush fund and settle. Well, you know, [24:14] Stacey, it's interesting, you know, what what our friend here says about, you know, maybe they shouldn't [24:20] have, you know, Trump shouldn't have gotten into this fight with these guys. Todd Blanche seems to think that [24:25] your letter with the twelve hundred former DOJ officials opposing his nomination was how did [24:32] he how did he put it? Was it a high percentage compared to the entirety of the Justice Department's [24:37] workforce? In other words, twelve hundred people. I know if I got a letter from twelve hundred people [24:42] telling me not to do something, I don't think I would do it. So what do you make of that response [24:49] and really just how tone deaf the acting attorney general is to the reality around him? I mean, [24:58] I'll tell you, if twelve hundred of my former colleagues opposed my promotion, I'd probably [25:03] withdraw my name from consideration. But what is really telling about that response is after Todd [25:10] Blanche said twelve hundred isn't that many, seventy seven DOJ alumni sent the Senate Judiciary Committee [25:19] a letter supporting the nomination. So, you know, I Todd Blanche said after our letter was sent, [25:26] I'm not a numbers guy. But twelve hundred doesn't seem like that many. Right. I'm not a numbers guy [25:31] either. But twelve hundred seems like a much bigger number than seventy seven. Yes. So it's resounding [25:37] that twelve hundred DOJ alumni who don't generally speak out against an attorney general nominee were [25:45] willing to do so in this case. That speaks volumes. And every senator on the Judiciary Committee and [25:52] every senator in the Senate should pay close attention to that. What specifically, and maybe you can touch [25:57] on it a little bit with regard to the letter, but what was animating those twelve hundred? What was it [26:04] about Todd Blanche's nomination, credibility to serve in the in the in the role as attorney general that [26:12] really triggered a lot of a lot of the signatories? I think almost all DOJ alumni are appalled at what [26:21] they've seen over the last year and a half. The assault on the rule of law, the assault on the institution [26:27] itself and the assault on the institution's workforce. So far, almost 20,000 DOJ employees [26:35] have been pushed out. Hundreds have been fired illegally, some by Todd Blanche himself. What that [26:43] purge of talent is doing is making our country less safe. It is having a negative effect on our economy. [26:52] It's me. It means that our rights are less protected. It means that our elections may be less secure in [26:59] the fall. The attacks on the department are unprecedented and the institutional norms that had [27:07] helped maintain the department as a solid institution that upheld the rule of law have been almost destroyed. [27:16] You know, Norm, because that is the leading concern going into the nomination on the other side of that, [27:24] if the Senate approves it, or if it doesn't, he stays in an acting role, you then have the concern about [27:31] what he does going forward in the job. And what do you think the Congress, groups like the both of yours, [27:40] and others out there, can do to safeguard against arguably a rogue attorney general who's acting [27:49] as he said, his words, I am the president's lawyer? You know, what do we do? How do you contain that? [27:57] How do you control for that? Perhaps the most important thing to do is to push back on the [28:05] illegitimate criminal prosecutions. Todd Blanche and Donald Trump's Department of Justice are [28:12] prosecuting innocent people. And we have been very active as a coalition, Justice Connection, [28:19] Democracy Defenders, and everybody else in our coalition. At Democracy Defenders, [28:24] we were part of the team that helped get the case against David Huerta, the union leader in [28:30] California, who was being wrongly prosecuted. That case went away this week. We've supported [28:37] those pushing against the Tish James bogus prosecution, Jim Comey bogus prosecution. [28:45] We've represented Dr. Lisa Cook. There were false charges made. We took that case [28:50] with our wonderful partners all the way to the Supreme Court. And dozens more cases where, [28:56] as a coalition, that is the single worst thing that Todd Blanche has overseen these baseless criminal [29:03] prosecutions. And the next worst thing is the election intrusion. We just won a landmark case [29:10] there. They tried to use criminal power in Fulton County, Georgia, a criminal subpoena. We got the [29:17] courts, a Trump judge, again, wonderful team, quashed that subpoena. And we need to get ready to continue to [29:24] fight. Above all, the abuses that Todd Blanche is overseeing in the courts, whether civil or criminal, [29:33] must continue to be resisted. And I think that's part of those terrible Trump numbers. [29:38] Michael, the American people don't want that from their Justice Department or president. [29:44] You know what? Can you just lower the gas prices? It's not complicated, right? I appreciate that. [29:50] Stacey Young, thank you for the work you're doing out there and being with us tonight. Norm, [29:53] as always, thank you, my friend, for being at the table. Coming up, [29:57] a shocking new report about just how up-safe Donald Trump is making this country. [30:02] Former CIA Director John Brennan is standing by. He joins us next. [30:06] Throughout Donald Trump's second term, we have seen his administration [30:14] repeatedly undermine key national security and law enforcement agencies in order to pursue [30:19] Trump's political projects and objectives. And according to a new report from Senate Democrats [30:25] obtained by MSNOW, the Trump administration has engaged in a systematic dismantling of the [30:31] post-911 counterterrorism protections. As Democrats write in their report, the administration has [30:38] canceled critical funding, fired or reassigned essential national security personnel, [30:43] and prioritized targeting its political opponents and indiscriminate mass deportations at a time when [30:50] national security experts warn that the threat of violence from U.S.-based violent extremists and [30:56] overseas terrorists remains high. The report says the Justice Department and the FBI have lost more than [31:03] 15,000 employees. Others have been reassigned, including the entire staff of the FBI's domestic [31:11] terrorism operations section. MSNOW has reached out to the White House for comment, but we have not heard back. [31:17] Joining me now is the former CIA director under President Barack Obama, John Brennan. [31:25] John, this is so telling. It's national security is the one thing Republicans always beat their breast [31:33] about, certainly since 9-11. This report essentially says politically motivated moves by this administration [31:40] have made this country more vulnerable, made us less safe and more vulnerable to attacks from bad [31:48] actors out there. What from this report stands out to you? Well, Michael, as you know, we're just six [31:56] weeks away from the 25th anniversary of 9-11. And over the past 25 years, successive administrations, [32:03] Republican and Democrats, have put together a national ecosystem of counterterrorism professionals, [32:11] of technology, of networks, of relationships, in order to ensure that we're never going to be facing [32:18] another 9-11. And apparently, according to this report, over the last 18 months, and I think it's [32:24] quite evident to all, there's been quite an exodus of professionals, of individuals who have populated [32:31] the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and others, [32:35] the ones who not only are the counterterrorism experts in the substance and the nature of the [32:41] threats, but the ones that maintain the systems, the networks, and make sure that the databases are [32:46] kept up to date. And the state and local officials, which is really where the rubber [32:50] meets the road, where you actually stop terrorist attacks, they're the ones that rely so heavily on the [32:56] federal government in order to get the information, the guidance, the direction, and the help that they [33:01] need. So what we see now is basically a dismantling of this national network, which nests within an [33:08] international architecture. Because what the federal government does, and the counterterrorism [33:13] professionals do, they not only feed down to the state and locals, they also share information [33:18] abroad, so that our British colleagues, our French colleagues and others, can piece together the dots [33:23] that we provide them, so that we're able to have better insight and stop people from coming here to [33:28] the states. But as you point out in this report, it shows that this administration is redirecting [33:34] those professionals, not to go against, you know, those terrorist groups and the ones that really [33:38] worry us, is to go against, you know, undocumented workers, go against these phantom violent groups [33:44] on the left, like Antifa, whatever. And so there's a neutering of capability, but also misdirecting a lot [33:52] of the capabilities that still exist, not against the threats in the areas that we really need to be [33:56] concerned about, but other politically motivated directions. You know, that's such an important [34:02] point, because it levels up for me, Director Brennan. One of the things that this country continues to [34:09] fail at, and that is recognizing the homegrown variety of domestic terrorism that has plagued this [34:16] country since the Civil War. One of the things this report points out is how the Trump administration has [34:21] broadened the designation of terrorist organizations, you know, to include gangs and cartels, as well as [34:30] designating Antifa, which isn't a structured organization. It's an idea. They're anti-fascist, [34:36] right? Anti-fascism as a domestic terrorism organization. How does this undermine our national [34:44] security at the expense of Trump's political goals? Because you're going again after political [34:52] opponents, as opposed to going after real domestic homegrown terrorism, which we've experienced [34:59] here in the United States? Well, I think kind of terrorism professionals over the past couple of [35:04] decades recognize that while, yes, there are some left-wing groups that do engage in some violence, [35:10] the number of those groups pales in comparison to those that are on the right wing, whether it's here [35:16] in the United States or in other places around the globe, such as in Germany, like the AFD group. [35:21] These are neo-Nazi groups and others. And so we've really seen here over the last, you know, [35:26] 10, 15 years, the growth of these right-wing groups. And this is where I know the FBI professionals [35:31] that I had worked with were very concerned about. They're making sure that we're able to understand [35:35] exactly what they're doing, who they're collaborating with. Are they getting outside support, [35:39] foreign support, foreign instigation? These are the things that the counterterrorism [35:43] professionals really want to understand. But if you're taking away, for example, FBI analysts [35:49] and sending them down to Georgia to take a look at, you know, some of the voting issues there, [35:55] it really is just, you know, taking away the capabilities that we have to prevent the attacks. [36:00] We want to stop these terrorist activities upstream, not when somebody is ready to set off a bomb, [36:07] but to see them when they're starting to gain the financing or put together the [36:11] capabilities to make the contacts and relationships, to start to plot and plan. [36:15] These are the things that, again, federal, state and local officials are supposed to be doing, [36:19] as opposed to going after these, again, politically motivated objectives that really make this country [36:25] less safe and is undermining the work that I said, you know, under President George W. Bush, [36:31] you know, I was the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He made sure that the [36:35] different agencies and departments had the capabilities, had the resources, [36:39] but also were working together with one another. Now it seems as though the Trump administration is [36:43] taking that apart. And unfortunately, I think it does put us at greater risk. [36:47] All right. John Brennan, really appreciate your friends for being with us. Coming up, [36:52] we're going to tell you why Donald Trump was yelling expletives behind closed doors about his war of [36:58] choice with Iran. Rear Admiral John Kirby joins us next. Let's go to the Wayback Machine. Remember when [37:08] Donald Trump called his war with Iran a short-term excursion? Well, now it's an unmitigated disaster. [37:15] Attacks are escalating across the Middle East and gas, grocery and emergency energy prices continue [37:22] to surge here at home. And here's the thing. Donald Trump knows how bad and unpopular this all is, [37:29] and it appears to be getting to him just a little bit. NBC News reports that angry about his military [37:35] options and frustrated that he can't close a deal with Iran, Trump erupted during a meeting last week [37:41] with some of his top national security officials yelling expletives. One Trump ally told NBC News the [37:48] president is exasperated. I don't think he believed it was going to be this difficult to get the [37:54] Iranians to agree to a deal. You don't say? You didn't listen to any of your predecessors? [38:02] Anyway, join me now is former Pentagon press secretary and state department spokesman, [38:07] retired rear admiral John Kirby. It's amazing, Admiral Kirby. Donald Trump appears to be losing [38:16] his cool over a war he started. According to NBC News, the military has been preparing for a resumption [38:25] of major combat operations without clear guidance. You know, he's mad because he's not giving clear [38:32] guidance. He's mad because he's changing his mind every 12 hours. He's mad because Iran has figured [38:39] out his M.O. And so they're punking him as much as they're trying, he's trying to punk them, right? [38:46] So how dangerous of a combination is this right now between the president who's on an emotional [38:53] roller coaster and the results we see? We're at a very dangerous stage right now, Michael. [38:59] We've already seen just in the last, what, 24, 48 hours a real geographic escalation here. [39:07] Egypt has now taken hits from a couple of drones. Iran's claimed responsibility for that. [39:13] The Houthis are continuing to hit ships and strike ships in the Red Sea. And now the Saudis are [39:18] involved in the war in the Red Sea. They're trying to form a coalition of other nations to help them [39:24] patrol the Red Sea. And then they actually joined in strikes yesterday with the U.S. military. [39:30] So it is now really expanding inside the region and becoming a much bigger conflict than it was. [39:36] And that just increases the chances of miscalculations by all sides here. [39:41] And for maybe even a deeper and broader war than it already is. [39:45] Well, you know, I took note of what you just said, you know, you know, deep in the possibility [39:52] of miscalculations by both sides. You know, the Iranians have shown themselves to be the better [39:57] player at this table, to be quite honest. They hold the Strait of Hormuz. You mean you didn't figure [40:05] that out? Well, we see what they did with the Africa map. So they got that wrong. So it's not [40:08] surprising that even figure out the Strait of Hormuz and the importance of it. So the Iranians know this. [40:15] How do you think they're reading this chaos inside the administration? And what do you think that [40:19] they could potentially take, you know, tactically, you know, the risks that they're willing to take [40:26] tactically to sort of move this thing more in their favor? I think it kind of depends on where in [40:31] the Iranian government you're sitting. If you're one of the pragmatists in the civil government [40:37] and you're helping negotiate with Mr. Kushner and Mr. Wyckoff, then yes, [40:41] you're probably trying to find an off-ramp here, a diplomatic off-ramp, which allows the regime to [40:46] survive, which gives it some equities over the Strait of Hormuz and preserves their ability to drag [40:51] out nuclear negotiations. But if you were in the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard, or the Mullahs, [40:56] the hardliners, then you want exactly the situation that you were just describing. You want to drag this [41:02] out. You want to continue to strike at ships. You want to continue to strike at U.S. military bases [41:06] and U.S. allies in the region. You want to continue to inflict pain, even though it's not [41:12] a major strategic way, certainly in a tactical and operational way, on the U.S. military and on [41:17] Donald Trump. And what I meant by miscalculation was I worry that both sides are kind of misreading the [41:22] other. The president seems to keep putting pressure on Iran. They'll finally knuckle under and come to the [41:27] table. But that has not happened. And it's not likely to happen. Because the people that Mr. [41:31] Krishna and Mr. Wittkoff are negotiating with are not the people literally with their fingers on [41:37] the triggers of the drones and the missiles. And I worry that the Iranians are miscalculating [41:42] a little bit of the desperation that the Trump administration is feeling right now. And they [41:46] might over or underestimate their ability to preserve and to stay resilient. And in other words, [41:54] just invite even increased military action by Mr. Trump and now the Saudis. [42:00] And that's why we need to listen to smart guys like you. [42:02] Who can understand exactly what the dynamics are and what's at stake. Rear Admiral John Kirby, [42:07] thank you much, my friend, for being with us. Thanks for everything. We'll be right back, folks.