Transcript of Even Republicans object as Trump DOJ nominees are disturbingly noncommittal on obeying courts

Goodbye, old friend. Hello, new one. Upgrading your Apple device is now more affordable with Select. For a limited time only, Tradeinn any eligible device and Select will top up the value by up to €100, meaning you can get the latest iPhone, iPad, MacBook, or watch for less. Tradein, upgrade, save. It's a win-win-win. Tradein is available in-store only. T's and C's apply. Visit selectonline. Com/tradeinn for more. Select your local Apple expert.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja news. All MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why is this Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

At the end of last night's show, you might remember, we were counting down to a midnight deadline that had been given to the Trump administration by a federal judge. A judge had ordered the Trump Administration to restart funding on foreign aid. Now, this is a judge who had previously ordered the Trump Administration to restart that funding, and they had not. He had then brought Trump administration lawyers back into his courtroom this week and said, It doesn't seem like you're complying with my earlier order. Can you tell me what steps are being taken to comply with my order. The Trump administration lawyer then responded by basically going, How many, how many, how many, how many, how many, how many, how many, how many. We got the transcript, actually. The judge at that point said, Hey, I guess I'm not sure why I can't get a straight answer from you on this. Hey. After that just humiliation of the Trump administration's lawyer unable to explain why the Trump administration was defying this lawful order, that judge issued what's called a motion to enforce. He set this midnight deadline for midnight last night by which the Trump administration had to do what he said, had to restart that aid funding.

That's what we were talking about last night at the top of the show. Then just as we were going off the air at the end of the show last night, the Trump administration ran to the US Supreme Court. Just before we went off the air, just before the end of last show, the Trump administration obtained an order from the Supreme Court, saving them from that midnight deadline. They're less than three hours away from that deadline, and the Supreme Court, at the very last second, steps in and says, No, no, no, Trump administration, you don't have to release that funding by midnight after all. We want briefing on this by noon on Friday. We'll see what happens by noon on Friday, by tomorrow noon at the US Supreme Court. But because of the Supreme Court's intervention, that USAID funding did not start flowing last night at midnight. This confrontation in this series of events raises a whole Niagara Falls of issues and consequences. First of all, and most importantly, it's the substance of it, right? What's that funding for? Well, among other things, it's for the magnificently successful, world-renowned US AIDS treatment programs that have been interrupted.

That puts tens of millions of lives at risk. With that funding not flowing, those programs aren't restarting. The new work that is not being done because that funding hasn't restarted includes little things like, I don't know, work on the previously unknown brand new hemorrhagic fever that has just broken out in Congo. It killed three little kids in Congo over the course of three days. Then immediately within 10 more days, the death toll was 53. Now it's in at least two different locations in Congo, and they don't know what it is or how it spreads. It is a disease they have never seen before. It does seem to have an alarmingly high death rate, something like a 12% death rate, which for a hemorrhagic fever, an infectious disease, is a massive death rate, and even scarier than that, those it kills, it seems to kill within 48 hours. This is bad. An outbreak spreading fast of a previously undiscovered, unknown hemorrhagic fever that is already killing humans by the dozens. That's the thing that United States global health programs would be all over, usually, to identify this thing, to contain it, to treat people and keep them alive, to stop this thing from spreading, among other things, to make sure that it does not come here to the United States.

But we're not doing the foreign aid funding anymore. Stopping USAID means stopping efforts to combat things like that. It also means stopping America's traditional and leading and totally irreplaceable work to help and contain the damage when not just hemorrhagic fevers break out, like Ebola in Uganda and Marburg in Tanzania, both of which are happening right now, but also to stop things like tuberculosis and malaria. Domestically, here in this country, this confrontation, this drama with the Supreme Court getting involved means that we are about to have the US Supreme Court meaningfully weigh in on this sledgehammer that Trump and his top campaign donor have taken to the US government thus far with no seeming regard for either the law or the Constitution. We will see, probably for the first time, how the Supreme Court is oriented toward this radical change that has happened over the last five and a half weeks in our country. Honestly, this is also important because of the way this came up. That midnight deadline we were looking at last night was set so firmly and so urgently by the federal judge who was hearing this case because he had to do it by a motion to enforce.

He had to do a motion to enforce because Trump really was ignoring that court's previous orders. When we look to see how the Supreme Court handles this tomorrow at noon, we're going to be looking to see how the Supreme Court handles that very scary issue. How How this Supreme Court is going to treat the prospect of this president, this administration, potentially ignoring the courts. They have been joking about this and making macho-sounding bluffs talks about this for a long time now, particularly from the vice president, J. D. Vance. How is the Supreme Court going to deal with it now that it's real? Do they try to give him what he wants from the courts so that Trump doesn't break that glass, doesn't smash through the brightest bright line that we have and effectively end the Republic? They appease him because they, Oh, he's so scary. We better not make him defy a court order. We better make sure all court orders go his way. Or do they make clear to him that his power as his president actually don't allow him to defy the courts? To tell him that he's not always going to get what he wants from the courts.

When the courts tell him something he doesn't like, he has to obey the courts anyway. Do they tell him that if he does try to defy the courts, he is effectively declaring war on the United States of America? We'll see. We don't know how the US Supreme Court is going to handle this. We don't know how directly they're going to get at this key issue, but this case moves to them tomorrow at noon Eastern time. So eyes wide open on that and take it with all the seriousness it deserves. We've got the top Senate Democrat on the Judiciary Committee here tonight to talk about what happened yesterday in the Senate when Trump nomines for senior Justice Department positions told him and other members of the Judiciary Committee that they weren't sure that Trump should always obey court rulings. That happened It happened in the Senate yesterday. The leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to be here talking with us about it in just a moment, ahead of tomorrow's Supreme Court actions on this case. It's a very chilling subject. It's one I take very seriously. It is absolutely the end game discussion for us as a Republic.

It is as serious as it gets. Meanwhile, this is what it looked like in Washington, DC, today as workers from that agency, from USAID, were each given a grand total of 15 minutes by the Trump administration to come into USAID headquarters and retrieve their belongings from their offices. While they were doing that, people showed up in big numbers to support them and clap for them and to say thank you. There's so many emotions. I already cried this morning when I arrived, someone said, Thanks for being here, and I just burst into tears. Thank you. Thank you. We're here. We thank you. This is not happening in the dark. That was Washington, DC, today, as people showed up to support and thank USAID workers who the Trump administration is trying to fire as they try to shut down that agency, even though they pretty clearly are just legally not allowed to do that. People turning out to protest but also to support the people who are at the sharp end of this stick. One of the tools the Trump administration has been using to try to destroy USAID and to disassemble so many other agencies is wholesale firing, en masse firing, everybody who's considered a probationary employee.

You've heard that term over this last a couple of weeks when they have been using this as the basis for firing people. Being a probationary employee, it usually means you're in your first year or two on the job. It can also mean that you've transferred into a new job or you've been promoted within the last year or two. Probationary makes it sound like you've been in trouble, right? You're like, You're on probation. We're watching you because you did something wrong. It's not that at all. It is a meaningless category in terms of the importance of the work that's being done by that employee, their skill level, their performance, their value to the government and to their agency. But nevertheless, the Trump administration has ordered mass firings of people based purely on that classification just because they thought it would be easy to get away with that, legally speaking. It turns out not so fast. Tonight, a federal judge on the West Coast, federal judge in California, has just ruled that the Trump administration's instructions to agencies about indiscriminately firing all these thousands and thousands of probationary employees thus far. A judge just ruled tonight that the instruction from the Trump administration to all the agencies about firing these people is illegal and should be stopped, rescinded.

Federal Judge William Alsup said from the bench in his ruling tonight, The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees within another agency. Agency. He said, It can hire its own employees. Yes, can fire them, but it cannot order or direct some other agency to do so. Judge Alsup further ordered tonight from the bench that the rescinding of the Trump administration directive to fire probationary employees. He ordered that the rescinding of that directive should be conveyed tonight to the Pentagon, to the US Defense Department. I think that's because tomorrow is the day on which the Pentagon was otherwise expected to march more than 5,000 fired employees out the door. Well, again, the judge said the Defense Department needs to be informed of my ruling tonight. Not tomorrow, tonight. Whether or not they still try to fire those 5,000 plus employees tomorrow at Defense Department, it may not happen because of this judge's order. We shall see. We don't think that this order from this judge tonight means that all the other probationary employees who have already been fired are going to be reinstated.

We don't think that's the implication of this ruling, but we're going to have to wait to see his written order in this case, which we expect tomorrow. Again, he ruled from the bench tonight. He ordered that his ruling from the bench be conveyed to the Pentagon, but we expect his written ruling tomorrow. Today, Noah, the National Oceanic and Atmosphoric Administration, which, among other things, gives us the weather forecast. They sent out notices today that they are indiscriminately firing hundreds of employees from that agency. Trump administration also today announced plans to close hundreds of help centers, places people can go to get free help and advice on their taxes. Oh, good. These are the so-called Taxpayer Assistance centers. They're going to close 110 of those all around the country. Yeah, can't to possibly have taxpayer assistance. That announcement comes as the IRS was told to fire more than 6,000 people this past week, just as tax filing season is getting underway. We're also going to be talking tonight with a reporter on VA issues tonight. Trump has just fired more than 2,000 people from the VA, from the agency that serves our nation's veterans, including people who work to support the Veterans Crisis Line, Yeah, there's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse there.

Got to cut that. Trump also cut funding for veterans cancer care? Seriously? And for veterans cemeteries. Seriously. Before good journalism about those cuts and a resulting huge outcry yesterday forced them to reinstate some of those things, but they did try to cut them. We'll have more on that coming up tonight. But these cuts that I'm talking about, the impact of these cuts that I'm talking about, the legal fight over these cuts, but also the pushback against these cuts and what they're doing, it's not at all a Washington story by now. It really is by now everywhere.

One of the places where we've already seen impacts from those federal cuts is right here at the Detroit VA. On a day that would have been his one-year work anniversary at the Detroit VA.

When I first got that email, I was shocked.

Quite frankly, in shock. Elliott Spray is instead unemployed. The 10-point veteran, one of the thousands of federal employees, terminated in the last few weeks as the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency work to slash what they say is government waste. A rally in Livonia, Tuesday, bringing out dozens of seniors concerned about social security and Medicare. I'm terrified.

My life would change drastically without social security, and that's our money. We put that in. Nobody gave us that money. We loaned it to the government. Even much has got to go.

Everything that is happening right now is impacting so many people. Delia Sharp in the crowd after losing her job on Friday when the Department of Education grant she was hired under was terminated.

Department of Education cuts the potential elimination of the Department of Education is one of two categories of actions the Trump administration and Republicans in Washington are taking that have potentially catastrophic effects, not just on the people who are served by those agencies or the people who work there, but also on the states. If the federal education department disappears, which NBC News reports is their plan to just eliminate that department and everything it does. If they kill the federal education department, and if they go ahead with these massive Medicaid cuts that are slated in the budget that Republicans have just started to pass in Washington, both of those things are going to just be nuclear bombs on the state budgets of just about every state in the country. Those folks in Michigan on Tuesday, including the woman who's just lost her job because of Department of Education, cuts. They were protesting, among other things, what Trump is doing to Social Security. They protested outside the Social Security Administration Building. Reporters this week, including Dave Dayan at the American Prospect, have warned that Trump's cuts at the Social Security Administration might be fully 50% of the workforce at Social Security.

Meanwhile, the expected cuts to Medicaid, which again would be devastating, not just to the people who work to Minister, that would be devastating to the tens of millions of people who get Medicaid in this country. It'd be devastating to state budgets in every state in this country. The expected cuts to Medicaid, specifically, led to this protest yesterday in Johnson.

Many of those who gathered on Wednesday. It just goes on and on. Came with stories. I have a 23-year-old son who has developmental disabilities. He has been on Medicaid since he was a toddler. And photos. I think people need to see that there are real people being impacted. Telling how Medicaid has affected their lives. He may have not been able to receive those therapies without it. They believe the budget plan, approved by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Today means cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid is an essential program for these folks, and we cannot let it be cut. We need to listen to the people. The Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services reported 1. 47 Family in Wisconsinites were enrolled in Medicaid in 2023. Heartbreaking to see how many people are going to be affected. Senator Johnson did not appear in person, but said in a statement, the rally has, No basis in truth or fact.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin never misses an opportunity to share how much he respects his constituents. Has no basis in truth or fact. These dummies with their disabled children rallying at his office. He doesn't see the need to respond. They don't know anything. You might have seen the headline in the Washington Post yesterday about how the, quote, resistance is beginning to, quote, wake in earnest. Post highlighted, among other things, the fact that Senator Bernie Sanders just held a couple of town hall events in two red states, in Iowa, where he went to Iowa City, and in Nebraska, where he held an event in Omaha. You can see from some of the local news coverage and the footage we've been able to get that these events were stuffed to the gills and beyond. In Omaha, the organizers of that town hall event with Senator Sanders said they had an inkling that the response was going to be pretty big, so they arranged for a really big venue for his event. They planned for a 1,000 people to show up. They got a venue that seated a thousand people. On the night of the event, though, the actual turnout was between 3,500 and 4,000 people in Nebraska, in February, to go to a meeting with Bernie Sanders.

In Iowa City, his talk there was at noontime. The Des Moines Register reports that thousands of people turned up in Iowa City. They started lining up at 7: 30 AM for an event that wouldn't start Back home until noon. Des Moines Register reports that lines to get in stretched multiple city blocks, and they had to set up a whole separate overflow event. In Iowa, in February, to go to a noontime meeting with Bernie Sanders. This is not just a Bernie Sanders phenomenon. This, for example, was the no special occasion regular organizing meeting last night for the Indivisible Chapter in Collingswood, New Jersey. They They, again, had guessed that there might be an unusually large amount of interest given everything that's going on. So they booked a hall that could hold a huge number of people for just a regular organizing meeting on a Wednesday night. They booked a hall that could hold 450 people, but they filled that 450-seat room, and then another 200 people showed up and could not get in, and they decided they would just meet in the parking lot instead. You might have also seen recent headlines just over the past few days about how Republican members of Congress are being advised to please stop holding town halls with their constituents because they aren't enjoying the national and local news coverage that those things are engendering.

Look at this out of Midlothian, Virginia. This gives you some sense of why Republicans might not want to be anywhere near their constituents right now, not when this is what it's like for them, even in Republican Congressional districts.

The event Whitman's office held today was called Mobile Office Hours. Congressman Whitman Whitman wasn't in attendance, nor was he ever scheduled to be. However, that didn't stop his constituents from giving his staff an earful. From angry chants.

Don't patronize us with your nonsense. Shade, shade, shade.

To passionate please. We want to know. We want to know. And even tears.

Who is representing me in Congress?

Constituents from across the first Congressional district filed into a Midlothian and Legion post on Wednesday. That's where Republican congressman Rob Whitman's office was holding what his team calls mobile office hours. He needs to answer to his constituents and stop hiding. His constituents saying they're concerned about the GOP budget resolution, which Whitman voted for on Tuesday, that some, including the mother of a child with lung disease, believe could lead to massive cuts to Medicaid.

You take away Medicaid You are saying that's okay for this child to die.

Plus cuts to other key social services like SnapBenefits.

And Rob Whitman voted last night to cut that by 23 %.

Constituents also upset with President Donald Trump's firing of thousands of federal workers like Chesterfield resident, Ebony Turner. She says she was fired from the IRS last week. The termination was not based on my performance nor My conduct.

My agency's leadership will attest to that.

Whitman's office turned down our interview request to address his constituent's concerns, but in a statement, the congressman said while he believes, enhancing government efficiency is important, he believes that goal should be, pursued with greater compassion. On potential cuts to social services, Whitman repeatedly didn't address our specific questions.

The congressman repeatedly did not address our specific questions, nor did he show up in person to face that from his constituents in his Republican district last night. That report from WAVY in Virginia from last night. One of the things that does keep cropping up at these townhallss and also at protests that we're seeing all over the country is just rage and expressions of disgust at the President, putting his top campaign donor in charge of destroying the government. That has also led, increasingly, to protests that specifically target that campaign donor, Elon Musk. This one a few days ago in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on the street outside the Tesla dealer in that town. Pretty considerable turnout outside that Tesla dealership in Cherry Hill. There was another protest targeting Elon Musk, specifically at the SpaceX and Starlink offices in Redmond, Washington. This was yesterday. They seem to have had a pretty good turnout there up in Redman, Washington. It'll also be interesting to see what turnout there is this Saturday, March first, in Hawthorn, California, which is right near LAX, right near the airport in LA. They're telling people to dress up like Elon Musk for the protest at that SpaceX headquarters building on Saturday.

If nothing else, it should be funny, they specifically went out of their way to say, If you do dress up like Mr. Musk for the protest, please do not choose to express your opinion of him by dressing up as a Nazi. They do not want anybody there in Nazi Elon Musk outfits. Thank you. Thank you. Please, no. That protest at SpaceX Global headquarters in LA, again, expected Saturday. As the concerns and objections to Elon Musk now are starting to extend not just to what he's doing to the rest of the government, but what he's doing for himself as he's taking apart the government. The Washington Post is now following on reporting initiated with Bloomberg News and other outlets that Musk has now, apparently just somehow engineered the overriding of an existing FAA contract with Verizon to instead install his own company in its place, to instead install Starlink at the FAA. They're just doing that. Is that legal? Aren't there rules for contracts and conflicts of interest and stuff? As we get to that part of the definition of oligarchy already right away, One of the more unnerving things that Mr. Musk has developed an interest in in recent days appears to be the American judicial system.

Now, on top of everything else he is doing in his capacity as the President's top donor, Musk has also started railing publicly that American judges and the judiciary are the real problem in this country, and that therefore we need to start, in his words, firing judges because courts should not be allowed to stop him and to stop Donald Trump from doing whatever they want. Naturally, Republican members of Congress are obliging. They've started filing impeachment proceedings against multiple federal judges who've had the temerity to rule against Trump. This seems, at the same time, to be just the natural evolution of where these guys have always been heading. But it also seems to be the single brightest bright line we have as a country when it comes to figuring out whether the authoritarian takeover they are attempting will be stopped or whether it will go all the way. Americans from sea to shining sea are turning out in huge and increasing numbers to say they are not down with this. They do not want any of this. And amid this fight and amid this drama and amid the American people being so palpably mad about what they are doing.

The single most important line that just cannot be crossed ever is to have a president defying the law and defying the courts, because that is the end. On that, Senator Dick Durban joins us next. Stay with us.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. All MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content. Including Why is this happening?, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed, and presidencies are defined. For Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.

Now is the time, so we're going to do it.

Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time.

How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?

The Rachel Maddow Show, weeknights at 9: 00 PM Eastern on MSNBC. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

I do think it's worth being very clear-eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc. Com.

During a confirmation hearing yesterday, something happened that I don't think has ever happened before. Multiple colonies for Senior Justice Department jobs said during their confirmation hearings out loud that they're not sure that presidents have to obey rulings from the courts. Not always. There is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision. Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it.

Why do you say generally? Give me an exception.

I suppose one could imagine hypotheticals in extreme cases. The President has now asserted that he has the right basically to do what he thinks is necessary to save the country. I'm asking whether that includes violating a Supreme Court order. I've represented President Trump for two years. I've never been put in any situation like that, and I don't know- No, I just got to say, Mr. Chairman, that's a little bit frustrating. That's a little bit frustrating. You may recognize one of those nominees, the guy with the raspy voice. He's named John Sauer. He is the lawyer who told a federal appeals court that Donald Trump would be within his rights to order a team of Navy Seals to assassinate political opponents that Donald Trump could not be prosecuted for giving such an order. Mr. Sauer is now up for the job of solicitor general, which is the person who represents the United States government before the Supreme Court. The inurving refusal by him and other Trump Justice Department nominees yesterday to say that the President must always obey the federal courts. That prompted a stern and somewhat unexpected admonition from one Republican senator, from John Kennedy of Louisiana.

You're all adults. You're all officers of the court. So I'm going to give you some advice. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court, ever. Now, you can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can criticize it, you can appeal it, or you can resign.

Joining us now is Illinois Senator Dick Durban. He is the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate. He's the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Durban, it's It's a pleasure to be able to have you here on the show tonight. Thank you so much for making time.

Thanks, Rachel. Good to be with you.

I know that you have had a strong reaction to those nominees playing with the idea that Donald Trump doesn't have to obey court orders In an interview today, you called it, Breathtaking. You said it raises serious existential constitutional questions. We've got to step back and have an honest discussion about this. Why do you feel so strongly about that? What can you explain to our viewers about the seriousness of this that you've now come across in these confirmation hearings?

Rachel, you and I have heard many people use the phrase constitutional crisis and try to define exactly when it reaches a point, a breaking point with our Constitution. It seems to me that the final question is the one I raised with these witnesses. If you were given a court order that says to this president, or any president for that matter, that there are certain actions that they cannot take or should not take or have to take? Or are you going to follow that order? It turned out to be a debating topic. I thought the answer was a clear yes and let's move on, but they wanted to debate it. You heard one of them qualify and say, Well, generally, yes. We had these equivocal answers. The most definitive answer came from John Kennedy, as you noted, a Republican of Louisiana who made it clear what I think the law is. You may hate the order of the court, but you either follow it or resign, period. I can't think of an exception to that. They tried to use an illustration, Korematsu, Dread Scott, those terrible decisions. One of the Republican senators used as an illustration of a court order that you could morally rationalize opposing.

But the bottom line is you cannot take a subjective test on this issue. If you did, you'd have someone who might be a racist who says, Brown versus Board of Education, integrating our schools? I don't believe in that. That's morally reprehensible to me, and I will not enforce that order in my administration of education. You see, that's the slippery slope. I think we've raised a threshold question for the Department of Justice appointments by this administration, and we'd better debate it out because it gets to the heart of our democracy.

It does get to the heart of our democracy. It is the closest thing that we have to an existential question, I think, in terms of our Republic. To see the wholesale destruction of the federal government, which I think they're trying to do, to see them appearing to ignore laws when it comes to doing what they're trying to do to the US government, is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Disobeying the law seems to be bad. But the prospect that when a court corrects that, when a court declares it to be illegal and orders them to change course, that they will not do it. We are just in a territory that's where the roadrunner runs off the end of the cliff, and then there's nothing there, and it just drops. I have to ask you, because I think you do very clearly see the seriousness of this, what contingency plans elected Democrats have for further sounding the alarm and for trying to correct course and pull that roadruner back onto the cliff if they go as far as they're signaling they might?

Well, I can tell you, I think this is going to be a standard inquiry of all those appointed to serve in the administration, particularly in the Department of Justice. As I said, I was a little bit surprised, not totally, because we've seen some rather amazing things done by this administration so far. But I was surprised by the answers yesterday. We cannot take for granted that any of these committees from the Trump administration will follow the basic tenets of our constitutional law. We have to ask the question. If the answer comes back no, as did yesterday, or at least qualified as as he did yesterday, it is right for us to continue to press the case. As the minority, it's a frustration that we don't have controlling votes on the question. But I am hopeful, and I hope John Kennedy is an illustration, that there will come a moment when Republican senators will come out of hiding and speak up clearly on something as basic as this principle of constitutional law, because if we abandon this, I'm afraid we've abandoned our democracy.

Senator Dick Durban, of Illinois, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senior Democrat in the Senate. Sir, thank you for your time tonight. I do really appreciate you being here.

Thanks, Rachel.

All right. Much more news ahead here tonight. Stay with us.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus, ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Dajia News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why is this Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Hey, everyone. It's Chris Hayes.

This week on my podcast, Why is this Happening?

Author Yoni Applebaum.

When Americans were moving all the time, what it meant was that there were always people coming into your community with a different background, a different set of political views. It reduced polarization. Over the last 50 as people have moved less and less, you live in a community for long enough, you start to reflect the views of those around you. We're conformists by nature. Our polarization is being driven in part by our lack of mobility.

That's this week on Why Is This Happening? Search for Why Is This Happening? We're listening right now and follow.

Get the all-new CNBC Sport Newsletter. Alex Sherman brings you exclusive interviews and the biggest news impacting the world of sports business and media. All straight to your inbox. Sign up for free at cnbc. Com/sportnewsletter.

Do not let anyone tell you that pushback does not matter. Look at this. This was the headline Tuesday night at the Washington Post, Doge to cancel government contracts that help veterans record show, The 875 contracts on the chopping block help cover medical services, fund cancer programs, recruit doctors, and provide burial services to veterans, according to internal VA documents. Also, a contract to, quote, safely dispose of chemical waste. Yeah, who needs that? Look, the word waste is right there. Let's cut that. This is the VA. This is Health Care for American Military military veterans. Here's Donald Trump announcing proudly as President, We're slashing funding for cancer care for American military veterans. Also, burial services. Literally, burial services for veterans. Hey, just toss that chemical waste out back behind the shed. It'll be fine. Put that back up there. That was the headline at the Washington Post Tuesday night, Doge to cancel government contracts that help veterans. This was Tuesday night. But then look at this. This was less than 24 hours later. Ding. Under pressure, VA halts contract cancelations in major reversal. After one night and one day of shock and outrage at what Trump was doing, hey, it turns out they decided to reverse it.

Not going to do it. Don't let anybody tell you that pushback doesn't work. That said, it's not like they're leaving veterans alone. The Trump administration fired 1,000 people who work at the VA two weeks ago. This week, they fired 1,400 more people who work at the VA. Leo Shane, reporting at the Military Times, quote, Official said the moves did not impact any mission critical jobs, but did not provide any specifics of the types of assignments that were eliminated. One VA official telling NBC News, It's leading to paralysis and nothing is getting done. The official described absolute chaos at the agency with even Trump political appointees afraid to misstep and incur a backlash from either the White House or the public. As bad as this already is, though, heads up that the kinds of cuts we've seen this far might It might be an order of magnitude smaller than the cuts that Trump has coming next. The American prospect was first to report that the Social Security Administration is preparing to slash fully 50% of its workers. That would mean filing nearly 30,000 people who work on getting people their Social Security checks. Social Security Administration has already lost thousands of employees in the last decade.

They want to cut 30,000 people now. That a mass firing, called a reduction in force is reportedly being planned all across federal agencies. But slashing jobs and programs for veterans in particular is not something the Trump administration is going to be able to do quietly with no pushback. That's obvious. Military Times says, Leo Shane was on a call with lawmakers this afternoon about federal workers being fired. He posted this quote from Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, I think Donald Trump in six weeks has already achieved the record of having fired more veterans than any president in the history of the United States. That is not a distinction, he says, That is a disgrace. Joining us now is Leo Shane. He's Deputy Editor at Military Times. Mr. Shane, Leo, it's nice to see you. Thank you very much for being back.

I appreciate the invite.

What's your understanding of how this 24-hour reversal went down at the VA? They announced all these cuts, and then they took it all back. What happened?

I'm not sure that they have taken it all back. We've gotten an official word from VA that they're reviewing contracts and that they will make sure that there's no impact, there's concerns about it. But I've talked to sources within the VA and some of these offices, they haven't gotten official word that these have been rescinded. They're still working under the assumption that these will eventually go away, that at least most of the contracts they've started looking at will disappear at some point in the future here. There's just a lot of uncertainty. I think the VA is now realizing just how deep some of these cuts are, and they're trying to call back maybe Some of these will be reversed, but at least officially, these offices haven't been told that they're in the clear.

I mean, burial services for veterans, cancer care in terms of veterans health care, disposal of hazardous waste and medical waste from VA facilities. I mean, this is the stuff. Are they making a substantive case that these are legitimately things that veterans should not have? Or is the idea that some of these things were a mistake and they didn't notice they were such core services.

The common theme with these contracts seems to be that they're not direct services. These aren't like doctors who are working directly with a patient or someone who's actually taking over a funeral and actually transporting a casket or doing things like that. These are support services. It may be a contract who helps coordinate that. I've heard from folks who are involved in benefits processing who aren't directly doing the benefits claims themselves. But what they are doing is they're helping guide veterans through that process, making it easier for them. Clearly a very valuable service, but at least in the eyes of someone in the administration, it's not a direct benefit to veterans. That's what seems to be the trip up here. The VA is insisting that they're not going to hurt anything that would benefit veterans, beneficiaries, families, but it feels like they're going after these secondary services that are still very valuable, but maybe don't directly touch veterans in connecting them to medical care or some disability payout.

They fired more than 2,000 people who work there already. Leo, I have to ask you tonight about a late-breaking legal development. Tonight, there's been this ruling from a federal judge in California that the memos from the Trump administration, from OPM, directing the firing of employees, probationary employees, that was illegal advice. The The judge tonight has ordered that OPM should communicate this to the Defense Department right now, ahead of planned mass firings tomorrow. Do you have any sense of what impact this ruling might have on planned mass firings at the Defense Department or at the VA?

Yeah, right now, we're just guessing. I have heard that there were scheduled mass firings at VA tomorrow as well with the Defense Department. Those might be on hold at this point. As you said, the judge's ruling, We've just got the loose parameters of it right now. He does say that he doesn't have the power to reinstate anyone, but that OPM also doesn't have the power to fire anyone. It feels like this might just end up in a situation where VA has to actually take the step of being the ones who order the dismissals, being the ones who actually accept the responsibility for it. That's not a small task. As you reference, there's a lot of lawmakers out there who are furious with Secretary Doug Collins for not standing up for veterans, for not doing his part to say everything in VA should be protected. We'll see in the next few days here exactly what it means for those folks who've been dismissed.

Well, I may be calling you during business hours tomorrow, Leo, to try to get a handle on what happens here and that as we try to put some specifics on this evolving story. Leo Shane, Deputy Editor at Military Times. Thank you, as always. Thank you.

We'll be tracking all of it.

I appreciate it. Indeed. I know you will. We're grateful for it. This is at the Iowa State Capitol this week. Big crowds rallying to support trans people and their rights as the Trump administration and Republicans everywhere accelerate their efforts to, frankly, persecute and take rights away from trans people. Tonight in Iowa, after this show of force in support of the Iowa trans community, tonight, Iowa Republicans nevertheless passed a radical bill to rescind state civil rights protections for transgender people in Iowa. The vote was largely along party lines, except for five Republicans who sided with the Democrats in voting no. Iowa's Republican governors expected to sign the bill into law. It will roll back protections that have been in place in Iowa for 18 For 18 years, the Des Moines Register notes tonight that while businesses in Iowa generally supported, vocally and actively supported the LGBT rights bill that became law in the state in 2007, major employers and business groups in Iowa have stayed silent on the anti-trans bill that's now on its way to the governor's desk. One advocate for LGBT rights tells the paper, I think these groups have abdicated their responsibility to Iowians, and I think they're being pennywise and pound foolish with their own workforce.

We're watching tonight for a continued reaction in Iowa and around the country. Watch this space. All right, that's going to do it for me for now. Heads up that the new episode of Alex Wagner's podcast, Trumpland, just came out. It's really good. She's looking in this episode at the Trump administration's strengthening ties to Russia and Russian authoritarianism as Ukrainians in the US marked the third anniversary of Russia invading Ukraine. If you want to listen to the podcast, it's great. Just scan that little circular code on your screen with your phone, and it'll take you right to it. It's easy.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus, ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why Is This Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.