Trump floats hosting rally for America's 250th after artists back out

[0:00] Let's discuss with MSNOW White House reporter Akela Gardner, [0:03] Bloomberg White House correspondent Jeff Mason, and Glenn Thrush of the New York Times. [0:08] Akela, what's the status of Freedom 250 of these concerts and who's paying for them? [0:15] Well, even though President Trump called for this series to be canceled over the weekend, [0:20] at least three artists are still participating. That includes Vanilla Ice and Flo Rida. [0:26] You can actually apply online to be featured in this concert series if you would like. [0:31] But when it comes to funding, the administration says they are receiving private donations [0:36] to fund Freedom 250 events, but they have not been transparent about [0:40] who or what companies have given towards this effort. [0:45] Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum was asked about why that's the case. Take a listen. [0:52] This is Freedom 250, and the celebration of the 250 is a nonpartisan event. [0:56] Private sector donations coming in to support that. [0:59] The Freedom 250 organizations run out of the White House, [1:02] but it is not about the transparency of the donors. [1:06] It is, again, this is about Americans celebrating the 250th anniversary. [1:14] Now, part of the confusion here is the fact that there is two separate entities. [1:21] One was created by Congress, known as America 250, [1:24] and another was created by President Trump, known as Freedom 250. [1:29] But the fact that President Trump is now headlining this event, [1:31] and he will speak on June 24th, it really is affirming some of those concerns [1:36] that Freedom 250 is, in fact, a partisan organization, even though they claim to be nonpartisan. [1:42] OK, so then, Jeff, is this nonpartisan, like Doug Burgum was suggesting, [1:48] or is Freedom 250 just going to be a Trump rally? [1:51] Well, if Trump speaks and he's already suggested that he'd like to do a rally, then it's a rally. [1:58] That doesn't mean it's not a rally to talk about 250 years of American history. [2:03] But the president is putting himself at the center of that, [2:06] and you've seen that beyond just the good reporting that Ikela was sharing. [2:10] You've seen that with the fact that the administration is considering putting his face on a $250 bill or coin. [2:17] You've heard that in the words that he has used when describing the fact that [2:23] the 250th anniversary is something that he can't actually take credit for, [2:27] but he can take credit for the Olympics and the World Cup. [2:30] So this is a president who likes to be at the center of things. [2:35] This is a big milestone for the United States, certainly this anniversary. [2:38] And the president has put himself right in the middle, be it bipartisan or not. [2:43] So, Glenn, you know, as Jeff suggests there, this is just the latest example of Trump making himself the focal point during his second term. [2:51] You've got the upcoming Birthday UFC event at the White House, the efforts to put his face on U.S. currency. [2:57] And then you also have the DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund, [3:01] which even has Republicans on Capitol Hill bristling at this point. [3:05] You've done a deep dive into how that fund was created. [3:08] Let's just start kind of simple here. [3:10] Who came up with the idea and who signed off on it? [3:13] Well, first, let me just slow down that sequence that you just said. [3:18] Donald Trump wants to put his name on, what is it, a $250 bill? [3:21] I think we should just all just take a moment to reflect on that and this other sequence of events. [3:27] But this is very much, I think you're right, to bundle it all together. [3:30] It's very much a continuum. [3:31] Trump, he politicizes everything and he personalizes everything. [3:36] And so the Justice Department, which has had a long 150-year history of independence, has been completely taken over by Trump and his compliant leadership, led by Todd Blanche, have acquiesced to everything. [3:49] About two weeks ago, this remarkable proposal popped up, which was to create a $1.776 billion fund for weaponization to pay out individuals who were, quote-unquote, victims of weaponizations under Democratic administrations. [4:07] Really what, and our reporting showed this, what this sprung from was a desire by DOJ officials not to put themselves on the wrong side of the law, face potential disbarment, by concocting a deal that allowed Donald Trump to pay himself $10 billion that he was requesting from the IRS for having his tax returns leaked. [4:30] That was a no-fly zone. [4:32] So believe it or not, this idea of creating a $1.8 billion fund, which Democrats have pounced on as a slush fund and is bringing, grinding the gears of American government to a halt as we speak, was the best option that was available. [4:49] Because Trump had made maximalist demands and he was about to run askance of a judge who was going to throw that $10 billion lawsuit out of court. [4:59] And a remarkable development on Friday. [5:01] They tried to shut this lawsuit down. [5:03] Part of the agreement was Trump would withdraw his lawsuit in exchange for this weaponization fund. [5:11] Well, guess what? [5:12] The Obama-appointed federal judge has reopened the case and wants to see—wants to have some look into whether or not anything illegal or unethical took place in order to create this proposal. [5:27] But Kayla, how's the White House responding to the pushback on what some critics and Glenn had mentioned is being dubbed a slush fund for Trump and his allies, and this idea in Democratic-led states of putting in 100 percent tax on any of the payouts that may come from this fund? [5:45] Well, the administration points to other settlement funds that were created under previous administrations, including one in particular that was made under the Obama administration that helped Native American farmers. [5:58] But a key difference with this settlement is the fact that the president initiated this lawsuit against the IRS, and then the Justice Department created this fund without consulting judges or notifying them in advance. [6:11] That is why you're hearing these allegations of corruption and fraud. [6:14] And it's ultimately going to be up to the courts whether this fund will be allowed to continue, and potentially Congress as well, because there's Republicans and Democrats who are concerned about this fund and could seek to block it. [6:26] Jeff, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says that he'll force Republicans to vote on this fund. [6:32] He'll put them on record for this. [6:34] And prominent GOP lawmakers have criticized it as well. [6:37] Then you have to add in the so-called Wounded Bear Caucus of Senator Tillis, Cassidy, Cornyn. [6:44] They're going to start criticizing Trump more and more openly, it's likely that we'll see that. [6:48] So is the White House going to be concerned that they've squandered their political capital with Republicans on Capitol Hill? [6:54] Or do they just not care? [6:55] Well, a couple of things on that. [6:57] I think the White House probably is concerned about it because of the meeting that Todd Blanchard held with Republican senators just last week, I believe, which really did not go well. [7:07] So the telegraphing coming out of the White House's own party, President Trump's own party, is very negative about this fund. [7:15] That said, you asked if they care. [7:17] You know, I think President Trump broadly believes that he has unlimited political capital. [7:21] It's the same kind of attitude that he applies to governing as well as politics writ large. [7:28] It's the same view that Susie Wiles described in her interview last year in which she said the president believes he can do everything and he does. [7:34] And that's evidenced by everything from tearing down the East Wing to using tariffs as a cudgel in foreign policy. [7:42] I think that applies to this fund as well and to his relationship with Republicans. [7:47] But that does not do away with or ignore the political reality that if Republicans in Congress, including that Wounded Bear caucus that you describe, start using their power to stand up, they have the ability to do so. [8:01] So history just has shown over the last year and a half since President Trump has been in his second term that they haven't wanted to or they haven't chosen to use that that authority or that power. [8:12] But they have it. [8:13] And it might come more now or might come more naturally now that you've got a few Republicans in the Senate that don't feel as beholden to this president now that they have lost their bids for reelection. [8:24] Glenn, on the other side of the aisle, it's not so surprising that Democrats are trying to make the midterms a referendum on President Trump himself. [8:32] Here was Senator John Ossoff, who is up for reelection in a battleground state of Georgia. [8:40] He's trying to put his face on the money. [8:42] Did you see that? [8:47] He's building a monument to himself. [8:52] But see, Atlanta, he's doing these things now because no one will honor him when he's gone, because he's a failed president and a national disgrace. [9:10] Pretty pointed message there. [9:14] But does it underestimate just how much Trump has entrenched himself in the GOP and the federal government more broadly? [9:20] And does it resonate with voters? [9:22] You hear the cheering in the background there. [9:23] But are voters going to vote on this? [9:26] Well, a couple of things. [9:26] First of all, I think Ossoff has thus far made the clearest articulation of a good Democratic argument, right? [9:33] He's taken a situation in Georgia where he appeared to be quite vulnerable, and he's actually casting it into a national campaign. [9:40] He's nationalizing the Georgia campaign. [9:42] So I think Ossoff gets pretty high marks from political consultants on both sides of the aisle. [9:47] But I want to toggle back to the Wounded Bear Caucus. [9:51] Would they be wounded bears if they had been bears a year ago? [9:55] I mean, part of the problem here is these guys, Cassidy in particular, acquiesced to the nomination of RFK Jr. as HHS secretary. [10:05] Would they have been in this position had they not stood up to Donald Trump earlier and not given Trump this impression, which he seems to be running with, that he is the entire federal government? [10:21] You know, there is—we talk about the White House. [10:23] We use the terms President Trump and White House interchangeably. [10:26] They are not interchangeable. [10:27] Trump has an agenda, and I think the White House officials under him want to act more conventionally and be part of the larger Republican Party because they understand that they'll be toast if the midterms turn out to be a catastrophe. [10:39] But Trump is totally playing by his own playbook. [10:42] And I think a big question is, why didn't these guys stand up sooner? [10:46] Why are they waiting to the very end of their political careers to create boundaries for a president who doesn't respect any boundaries?