'The time is now to stand up!': Eric Holder sounds alarm on Trump's war on the rule of law

You know that feeling when someone shows up for you, just when you need it most?

Yeah, I mean, we all need that. That's what Uber's all about.
Not just a ride, or dinner at your door. It's how Uber helps you show up for the moments that matter.
Because showing up can turn a tough day around, or make a good one even better. Whatever it is, big or small, Uber is on the way.
So you can be on yours. Uber, on our way.

We do have Obama administration attorney general Eric Holder here tonight. I have been trying to get him to do an interview here on the show for a gazillion years, but he is here tonight.
And boy,

what a night for it. I'm really, really, really looking forward to that conversation.
I hope you

are as well. That is coming up in just a moment.
This was Springfield, Massachusetts today. Protesters were outside of the federal building on Main Street in Springfield, chanting, holding signs that read, hands off our social security.
The group made up of concerned citizens and advocacy organizations believe social security that supports 73 million Americans is in danger. The changes that this government is trying to impose have a great deal of pain for a lot of people.
Their concerns are centered around the doge cuts to social security and the modernization of online systems, as well as the threat of a cutoff of telephone services that was

scheduled to take effect April 14, but has since been pushed back. The good news is that pushback

has happened a little bit and worked a little bit. We all have to do more.
No time to stop.

The Social Security Administration plans to cut over 7,000 employees and close regional offices,

which people worry could create an even bigger problem. Seniors and disabled residents tell 22

Thank you. administration plans to cut over 7,000 employees and to close regional offices, which people worry could create an even bigger problem.
Seniors and disabled residents tell 22 News this could break the system and interrupt benefit payments. This is really dire.
This is just going to throw a lot of old people and people with disabilities on the street. This is unconscionable.
I can't imagine. What are they thinking? That was Springfield, Massachusetts just today.
This was Washington, D.C. today.
As the Republicans did today, managed to pass their budget plan through the House. They tried last night, couldn't do it, pulled it at the last minute, but then they got it through today.
It will trade huge tax cuts, benefiting the richest people in the country for huge Medicaid cuts, taking health care benefits away from more than 70 million regular Americans. People turned out today in Washington to protest that.
This was Bloomington, Indiana today, where students and Bloomington community members turned up and protested after the Trump administration started stripping visas from kids at that school, kids studying at Indiana University, forcing them to abandon their studies and flee the country under threat of being arrested and imprisoned. We saw the same at UC San Diego protests there today in response to Trump revoking student visas from students at UCSD as well.
We saw the same in Minnesota, people coming out and protesting against students at the University of Minnesota at Mankato, where at least one student has already been seized, been grabbed by Trump's agents, and more University of Minnesota students are now under the same threat. Say it once, say it twice! Say it once, say it twice.
We will not put up with ICE. We will not put up with ICE.
After two separate incidents on MSU Mankato's campus over the past couple weeks, Mavericks for Change, alongside other student groups, demonstrated on campus Wednesday. The first incident saw a still-unidentified student detained by ICE, and another saw five international students have their visas revoked unexpectedly.
University of Minnesota at Mankato. This was Connecticut yesterday.
New Haven, Connecticut, there's a small airport there called Tweed Airport, and protests sprung up at the airport. Now, that's because there's an airline that operates out of New Haven Airport, a small carrier called Avelo Airlines, A-V-E-L-O.
You see it there painted on the side of the plane. Avelo Airlines has signed a contract with the Trump administration with ICE to fly people out of the country on Trump's deportation flights.
And they are doing that. They've announced that they've signed that contract with ICE to do Trump's deportation flights while they're still trying to market themselves to the public as a nice airline you might want to fly for your own vacation or business travel or whatever.
You can see why that might not turn out to be a feasible combination. Protesters are upset that Avello had signed a long-term charter agreement to fly for the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, the plan is to fly immigrants rounded up by the Trump administration out of the country. Activists are asking the public to sign a pledge that they're not going to fly Avello until Avello stops those flights.
Today, also in New York City, we saw a big protest at City Hall over disgraced Mayor Eric Adams' decision to put Trump's immigration agents at New York's Rikers Island.

Immigrants are New York. You see the signs there.

Eric Adams wants due process for himself and his friends, but torture at Rikers for regular New Yorkers.

On that point of due process, we've had a flurry of news today.

And I got to tell you each piece of this news in a normal administration would earn like a week or a month's worth of sort of jaw-dropping headlines and scandal but when you're in the middle of an attempted authoritarian revolution for us these things just come one after other after the other. And today has been a little bit nuts.
Let's start at the United States Supreme Court. Even though there has been a ruling here, I would consider this still a developing story.
And I'll explain why. Tonight, the Supreme Court has intervened in the case of a Maryland father who the Trump administration admits it accidentally, oops, sent him to a foreign prison in El Salvador, even though they had no right to do it.
In court, the Trump administration has admitted he was not supposed to be sent to that foreign prison. Well, they have also maintained in court that, oh, well, that's too bad.
He's now effectively stuck in that prison, maybe forever, because the U.S. has no power to get him back, even though they sent him there mistakenly.
Now, a federal judge in Maryland ordered several days ago that that could not stand for obvious reasons, that Trump had to go and get him. The Trump administration had to go and get him and bring him back.
The judge, you might remember, gave the Trump administration a deadline of Monday night this week, this past week, this past Monday, Monday night at midnight was when they had to have that guy back in the United States. After that judge's order, the Trump administration succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to hit pause on that order until they themselves could weigh in.
Well, in this ruling tonight, the Supreme Court has weighed in and they have ordered that this man from Maryland, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, they have ordered that he has to be returned to the United States. Maybe.
I say maybe, and I say this is still a developing story. I'm just going to, I'm just going to show you and tell you exactly what the Supreme Court said.

And you tell me if you can figure it out.

This is an unsigned order that was issued on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court.

And it first says that that Monday night deadline, that deadline that the Maryland judge had set for earlier this week,

saying that guy had to be brought back by 11.59 p.m. on Monday night.
The Supreme Court first

says that obviously that deadline is no longer binding because that deadline has passed. So that part of the judge's order cannot be seen as still being in effect.
Okay, I get that. But then they say, aside from that deadline, quote, the rest of the district court's order remains in effect.
well the rest of the judge's order was to bring the guy back, right? I mean, at this point, at this point in the ruling, it seems like the Supreme Court is saying Kilmar Abrego Garcia needs to be brought back to this country from El Salvador, right? I mean, that was the judge's order. By 11.59 p.m.
on Monday, bring the guy back. They're saying, we're not going to do the 11.59 p.m.
on Monday part. But yeah, the rest of the order still stands.
Sounds like the Supreme Court is ordering that they need to bring the guy back. But then even in this very, very short order, the Supreme Court makes a very squishy case of it.
I mean, look for yourself. This is the exact language.
I mean, the rest of the district court's order remains in effect, but requires

clarification on remand. When they say remand, they mean when we sent it back to that lower court.

Ruling says the lower court judge's order properly requires the Trump administration to, quote,

facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his

case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. But the intended scope of the term effectuate in the district court's order is unclear and it may exceed the district court's authority.
The district court should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
The administration should be prepared to share what they can. What is this? Group therapy? Do you feel you can share? Do you want the talking pillow? Are we going to have a tissue issue? Do you want me to? The government should be prepared to share what it can.
It would appear that the United States Supreme Court is ordering that the Trump administration cannot randomly take literally anyone off the street and send them to a foreign hellhole prison, potentially for the rest of their life, without giving that person a chance to argue against it in court. But the Supreme Court also appears to be quite afraid to just say so.
And so they've given us this squish opinion that is being variously interpreted by various news organizations depend on which lawyers are advising them on how to phrase this thing. Because they can't just come out and say it.
Now there is a signed statement accompanying this unsigned ruling, specifically from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And in her very plain language, she appears to be trying to clarify that the court is saying, yeah, this kid does have to come back.
This guy does have to be brought back. This is just her statement that accompanies the ruling.
It's not the ruling itself. But she appears to be trying to clarify.
Justice Sotomayor says, in part, in her statement accompanying the ruling, quote, I agree with the court's order that the proper remedy is to provide Mr. Obrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador.
All the process to which he would have been entitled had they not just shipped him off. She says, quote, that means the government must comply with its obligation to provide Mr.
Abrego Garcia with due process of law, including notice, meaning advance notice, and an opportunity to be heard in any future proceedings. An opportunity to be heard in future proceedings, I guess, means they need to bring this guy back from El Salvador so they can produce him to the federal court in Maryland for those future proceedings? Yes, I guess, maybe? So they do have to bring him back? For their part, the lawyers for Mr.
Abrego Garcia are saying this ruling settles it. They released a statement in response to the Supreme Court's actions tonight saying, quote, the rule of law won today.
Time to bring him home. And it may be.
But we will have to see what happens now with the original judge in Maryland to whom this case is being remanded. We'll have to see if Trump still tries to keep this guy locked up indefinitely, again, potentially permanently in another country, even though Trump has had to admit that the administration never even meant to send him to that other country, nor were they even able to contend that they had any legal justification for doing it.
I mean, this is, this is like Kafka mixed with Bozo the Clown. I mean, when this case was in court in Maryland this past Friday, the lawyer for the Trump administration, who was trying to defend what the administration was doing, basically had to turn himself inside out in the courtroom and try to make himself disappear in order to try to make this make sense.
Because it became very clear in that courtroom, there was no way for that lawyer to be both rational and truthful to the court, which he was obliged to be, but also to defend what the Trump administration is doing. I'll just give you one little piece of it.
You'll see what I mean. This is from the transcript of that hearing, the judge.
Well, on what basis is he held in the El Salvadoran prison? What basis is he held? Why is he there, of all places? Trump administration lawyer. This is where I'm going to respond in a frustrating way, Your Honor.
I don't know. The judge.
You don't know? Trump administration lawyer. I don't know.
That information has not been given to me. I don't know.
The judge. Okay, well then, again, for everyone here, that means there's no evidence that there's a basis to hold him in that country.
So, so we got that straight. But let me ask you this, she says.
So there's not some other legal authority to hold him? Trump administration lawyer. I don't know.
The judge. Can we talk about then, just very

practically, why can't the United States get Mr. Abrego Garcia back? Trump administration lawyer.

Your honor, I will say for the court's awareness that when this case landed on my desk, the first

thing I did was ask my clients that very question. I have not received to date an answer that I find

satisfactory. The judge.
Okay, well, I do appreciate your candor. So the Trump administration has put its own lawyer between a rock and a hard place here, right? This lawyer is trying his best to answer the judge's questions truthfully, while also following the directions of his client, Donald Trump.

An impossibility. That court proceeding was on Friday.
By Saturday, that lawyer was gone. Put on indefinite administrative leave from the Justice Department, as was his supervisor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained the situation with this statement. She said, At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.
Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences. And that is this case.
That's the Maryland case of this Maryland father who they accidentally sent to El Salvador. That's this one case that has now gone up to the Supreme Court tonight and been put on puree by a unanimous but apparently terrified Supreme Court, which is desperately trying to spin something out of this that doesn't sound like it's saying no to Donald Trump.
But this pattern, this kind of thing in court has been happening again and again and again, and it's starting to have a really interesting consequence. For weeks now, we have seen this pattern emerging.
You've got lawyers representing the Trump administration who are being forced effectively to present arguments that either aren't truthful or don't make sense in court. And when they try to pull that off in open court, they face questioning from judges.
And the judges immediately suss out that what the lawyers are trying to defend is indefensible or obviously untrue. And so again, and again, and again, you're seeing Trump administration lawyers basically being thumbtacked to the back wall of the courtroom by one judge after another.
And it has produced these incredible headlines. Headline, is that really how you think this all works? Outraged judge repeatedly mocks DOJ lawyers, tears into them for being unprepared.
Headline, judge an alien enemies act case chides DOJ lawyer over refusal to answer key questions. Headline, judge snaps at Trump administration lawyers for gaslighting.
And again, this is just an untenable situation these lawyers are being put in, right? You have to be truthful to a judge. You have to be truthful to the court as a lawyer who's standing there in front of the judge.
But being truthful in this administration is seen as a betrayal of Donald Trump. So what are these lawyers supposed to do, right? You literally cannot lie to a judge and stay a lawyer.
But telling the truth to a judge in so many of these cases, not only is it not going to win you the case, it helps prove the point that the administration is losing all of these cases because they keep doing things that are really blatantly illegal, right? And if you lose the case in court or you lose that day's proceeding in court because you told the judge the truth, well, that's cause for firing in Donald Trump's Justice Department. So what are you supposed to do? I mean, honestly, the answer is obvious, right? Ethically, you can see whether or not you're a lawyer, right? You can see what you would do and what you should do if you were a lawyer in this case.
You just do the right thing, right? You zealously represent your client, yes, but you always tell the truth. If you do that as a Trump administration lawyer, you will get fired for it.
And so now we're seeing people get fired for it and their supervisors get fired too. And all the justice, all the justice department lawyers who are seeing that pattern emerge are sitting there thinking, do I want to lie to a judge and therefore be exiled from the legal profession? Or do I want to not lie to a judge and get fired from the Trump administration? Those are my choices.
What else can I do? And so they're all quitting. We are now seeing this untenable situation reach its natural mathematical conclusion in a pretty dramatic way.
The Washington Post is now reporting that at least half of the frontline lawyers in the Solicitor General's office are either preparing to leave or have announced their departures already. What's the Solicitor General's office? That's the office that specifically argues cases for the administration in front of the Supreme Court.
A majority of their lawyers have now quit or are quitting. Quote, many of the lawyers leaving the office are uncomfortable or turned off by directives from Justice Department leaders.
Again, the reporting here is that at least half of the lawyers whose job it is to defend Donald Trump at the Supreme Court, a majority of the office that has that responsibility has now quit or is about to quit. That seems like a bad sign, right? Seems like a bad sign in terms of what this administration is up to.
I mentioned that we have Eric Holder, former attorney general here tonight. We're going to talk to him about this.
And there's one other thing going on here that is really, it's the reason we called him. It's the thing I really feel like we all need to hear from him about.
And it's this new executive order that Trump has just signed. We don't pay attention to all of them because effectively his executive orders aren't law, right? His executive orders are basically just like long tweets with calligraphy that he puts on a big menu board and signs after he's told what's in them.
Like his executive orders don't have force of law, but they are orders from the president. And he has just signed an executive order that orders the U.S.
Justice Department to investigate two people, to investigate two officials from his first presidential term, people who Trump has decided are his enemies. Chris Krebs from CISA, the Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity agency, and Miles Taylor, who worked in the White House and wrote a book about Trump's

dangerous authoritarian inclinations. Now, as if he is trying a little too hard to prove Miles

Taylor's point about that, Trump has just signed this executive order that's not just him, you

know, yelling, lock him up into a microphone at a rally. It's him as president actually ordering

his Justice Department to open investigations into these individual people at his direction. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney's response was on point and succinct.
She said, quote, in a special mix of incompetence and evil, Trump has combined his disastrous implementation of 1930s tariff policies with Stalin-esque targeting of political adversaries. She says speaking the truth is only a crime in countries ruled by tyrants.
Legendary conservative judge Michael Ludig responded today by calling the demand, quote, the president's most constitutionally corrupt executive order to date. He says that this is occurring in the United States of America is shameful.
It is a travesty of justice that Mr. Krebs and Mr.
Taylor and the nation's law firms and legal profession are being forced to defend themselves against the president of the United States and his palpably unconstitutional conduct. The president obviously thinks the Supreme Court will ultimately side with him.
It is just as obvious that it will not. Judge Ludig says, quote, But the innocent American citizens targeted with these unconstitutional executive orders should not have to wait one day longer for vindication of their constitutional rights.
Their professional lives and livelihoods will be destroyed before such time as the Supreme Court rules. That is exactly what the president is counting on.
That's why he continues to issue executive orders in defiance of the rulings of the federal courts. Judge Ludwig says, quote, both Mr.
Krebs and Mr. Taylor should immediately bring lawsuits in the federal district court in Washington, D.C.
against the president, the attorney general, and the director of the FBI for vindictive slash malicious prosecution. They should be prepared to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court before the two men are actually prosecuted.
Judge Ludwig says, quote, in my view, the lower federal courts should summarily strike down this executive order and quash the president's ordered investigation of these two honorable American citizens. The Supreme Court of the United States thereafter should summarily affirm.
He concludes with this, we all know what's going on here at this point. The president is not going to stop until he is stopped once and for all by the federal courts.
So this is, this is one of the red lines, right?

The president ordering the Justice Department to target individuals that he doesn't like.

That is one of the red lines we have been expecting him to cross.

And here it is.

This is like Tyranny 101.

This is intro to tyranny.

This is no longer an advanced class where you have to read the subtleties. This is intro to tyranny.
This is no longer an advanced class where you have to like read the subtleties. This is very elementary stuff.
Once the tyrant starts directing his prosecutors to open investigations into his named enemies because he named them as enemies, you're there. So what's going to be the response? if we've still got the antibodies to defend ourselves as a democracy, if our civil society is still working, if our legal profession is still on the job, what we ought to see here in response to this, in response to what will be not just these two guys being targeted, it'll be a dozen, it'll be a hundred, it'll be a thousand of these if Trump likes how this one goes and he hasn't stopped from doing it.
What we ought to see here, if our democracy is still kicking, what we ought to see here is a battalion of the highest end lawyers in the country flooding in to provide Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor with free legal representation and with the kind of no-holds-barred, super-aggressive legal fight that Judge Ludig is describing today. Are we going to see it? As the biggest, poshest, most powerful law firms in the country, even tonight, continue to suck up to Trump and promise to do him favors in exchange for him no longer criticizing them or threatening them? Do we still have the juice as a country? Are we still kicking? Legal profession, you still there? Are all the pretty words America's most prominent lawyers are famous for about the rule of law and no fear or favor, are all those just pretty words? or are we going to see them show up? Because time's up.

It is now. Everything you were supposedly preparing for, it's here.
Eric Holder joins us next. Stay connected with the MSNBC app, bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.

All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.

Watch your favorite shows live.

What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the U.S. government.

Read live blogs and in-depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds.

Go beyond the what to understand the why.

Download the app now at msnbc.com slash app. Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes.
This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, New York Attorney General Letitia James. It's important that individuals understand that in our system of justice, that there are judges independently analyzing all that we put forth.
They make a determination as to whether or not our cause of action, our claim has any merit based on the law. Politics stops at the door.
That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
A couple months ago, Donald Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.
posted a message on social media addressed to a law firm, a law firm called Covington and Burling. Bizarrely, the message said, save your receipts.
We'll be in touch soon. Not long after, President Trump signed an executive order targeting that law firm, calling for their federal contracts to be ended, even though Covington & Burling doesn't appear to have any federal contracts.
It was all because Covington & Burling had represented Jack Smith, a special counsel who investigated and prosecuted Trump before he returned to office and thereby made all his federal charges go away. It's also the firm, incidentally, where former Attorney General Eric Holder is senior counsel.
But that first shot at Covington and Burling would be the first of just many law firms Trump would go on to target in recent weeks. It's continued even through tonight as he's announcing more deals with more law firms who he says have come to him essentially as seeking appeasement from him.
Happens amid what feels like a multi-front assault on what's commonly thought of as the rule of law, but we're getting real familiar with all the specifics of it as Trump takes

aim at them one after another after another.

Joining us now for the interview tonight is former Attorney General of the United States

Eric Holder.

Mr. Attorney General, it's really nice to see you.

Thank you very much for being here.

Glad to be here with you, Rachel. So I have a million things I want to talk to you about, as you might expect.
I first want to get your reaction tonight to what we've seen from the Supreme Court. There's this young man from Maryland, a father who was arrested by the Trump administration.
They sent him to a prison in El Salvador. They say it was in error, but also they have no intention of getting him back.
The Supreme Court appears to have ruled tonight that they must bring him back, but also the ruling is sort of hard to parse. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it yet or what your reaction is to it, but I'd love to hear it.
Yeah, I've not had a chance to read thoroughly the opinion, but I think you can boil it down, and people, as lawyers do, we can start to parse words here and there. But I think what the court is essentially saying is that, look, you admit that you made a mistake.
You took this guy without due process, placed him in a detention facility in El Salvador, and are now saying that you can't get him back. That is unacceptable, that this man is entitled to due process.
A determination has to be made as to whether or not he can be deported from the United States. And through due process, that is going through the court system, he has to have the ability to put forth any arguments that he has, and then a judge is going to have to make a determination.
I think that is the clear input. That's a clear—that's the obvious thing that the Supreme Court is saying.
The question is going to be, now, how will the Trump administration react to that? The court talks about facilitating. How are they going to, you know, interpret that? Are they going to do it over the course of the next couple of days, the next month? And I wouldn't be surprised if we end up yet with another proceeding before the district court saying the Supreme Court said the client had to be brought back.
He's not here. We demand to have him brought back as soon as is possible.
I want to ask you to reflect a little bit on what we're seeing in terms of the treatment of immigrants right now. I feel like, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm a person who pays attention to the news and reports the news as best as I can. But I feel like my sort of moral tuning fork, I guess it is, is resonating so hard I can hardly stand it in terms of the way that immigrants are being treated in one policy decision after another that all seem to rely on this basic sense that when it comes to the treatment of immigrants, there's really no law that constrains what the administration can do.
And so you're seeing student visas revoked, which they have the right to do, but you're seeing students not notified of that. And the first time they find out about it is when they're snatched off the street, thrown into an unmarked car and put into a prison when they had no idea they'd done anything wrong.
Tonight, we're seeing, I mean, we're seeing some of the fallout from this El Salvador decision to put people with who've had no legal process whatsoever in a foreign prison with no recourse to American justice or even to answer to the non-charges against them. We're seeing reporting from The New York Times tonight that people who registered and are in this country officially and essentially with the permission of the U.S.
government under the CBP-1 app, they're having their social security numbers revoked, which instantly makes them not only liable to arrest and deportation, but also makes it impossible for them to continue to live in this country in any legal sense. All of this just feels like they believe no law constrains them when it comes to people who aren't U.S.
citizens. And there's more that I could add to that universe.
But what is your reflection on that in terms of us as a country and how the administration is treating these people among us? I mean, let's cut right through this. This is disgusting.
It's shameful. It's inconsistent with the rule of law.
And it's also inconsistent with who we say we are as a nation. And every American citizen, every inhabitant of this country should be offended by what this administration is doing.
But beyond that, every citizen in this country ought to be afraid, because the reality is, if they are successful in doing this to immigrants, and now they're doing things against American citizens, as you talked about before, who criticized the president, it won't be too long. And the president himself has said he had no objections to taking convicted criminals and putting them in the same jail in El Salvador.
There is a treadmill that we're potentially getting on here that could result in the erosion of rights for American citizens. Now, I'm not saying that's the only reason that we should be concerned about this.
People who are in this country deserve the ability to go before courts and have courts make determinations about whether they can stay, whether they should leave, how they should be treated. And this administration wants to take upon itself to the derogation of the ability of the courts and certainly of the legislative branch, the ability to decide everything.
This is how you get authoritarianism. This is remarkably similar to kind of what happened in in Europe in the 30s.
It's consistent with what we saw happen in Hungary and in Turkey in later days over the course of the last 10, 15, 20 years. And that's not a path that this country wants to go down.
And I want people to understand this. If you don't stand up and fight now, if you don't take a position now, it's going to be too late.
We can't say we can wait just a little longer. No, no.
The time is now to stand up and do all that we can to fight this administration. Now, do you believe that the lawyers in this country, particularly the private sector lawyers at big firms, are doing enough to stand up for the people who are at the sharp end of the stick with this administration? And I do mean the people who have been treated the worst.
I mean immigrants and I mean the trans community and I mean other people who have just had rights stripped from them even more aggressively than the rest of the country is experiencing. I feel like we're not seeing a rush to the barricades on behalf of the legal community in the way that we did in the first Trump administration.
And I think that's because the legal community,

big law in particular, is afraid of Trump and is trying to appease him rather than confront him. I wonder if you share that view.
Yeah, some are doing, I think, the right thing. Some are being timid.
Some are showing themselves to be cowards. Some are making business determinations when they ought to be making legal decisions or putting into their decision making a sense of moral obligation.
And I've been disappointed by some in the legal profession about the ways in which they have interacted with this administration. You can't make deals with these folks.
This is an attack on the rule of law. They want to go after people who are their critics.
They want to go after people who would defend those people, that is the lawyers. They want to have a justice department that fires lawyers who tell the truth to judges.
They want to then go after the judges themselves. This is all part of a piece.
It's all about the erosion of the rule of law so that Donald Trump will have the ability to have authoritarian powers in this nation. This is the person who the founders tried to put a system in place to prevent from coming to power.
And unless we as lawyers stand up, joined by the judiciary, and somehow, somehow get Congress to find out that it has power within our system of government, we will lose that which defines this nation, that which makes this nation exceptional. That is really what is at stake.
But you have to get granular. And every lawyer, I think, has to ask him or herself, every law firm has to ask itself, where do we stand? You know, it was an easy thing after George Floyd was murdered, when we had a videotape of a black man with a cop with his knee on that man's throat as he was pleading for his life.
It was an easy thing at that point, as horrible as that was, an easy thing to come and say that we are against that. We are for the rule of law.
People like that cop need to be held accountable. Now it's not so easy.
Now it's difficult. And as Tom Paine said, you know, this is not the day of the sunshine patriot.
Oh, this is the day of the sunshine patriot. We have to make sure that when it gets tough, we're prepared to do the difficult things.
Some, some, unfortunately, I think too many have made the determination that they're not willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the very system that has sustained them, not only economically, but given them privileges that we as lawyers have. It is our responsibility to stand up for the rule of law.
I hear the urgency in your voice there. I also believe that those who have made the weak decision thus far should know that it isn't a decision forever, and they can turn around.
They can recognize that they were wrong and turn that around. Mr.
Attorney General, if you wouldn't mind holding on for one more moment, I have a lot more to ask you. Can you stick with us? Sure.
All right. We'll be right back with more with former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Stay with us. It's President Trump's first 100 days, and MSNBC's Alex Wagner will be covering it all from the front lines.
What issue matters to you the most? Join her as she travels the country to talk to the people at the center of the president's policies and promises. Do you think now that he's pardoned everybody, he can count on this group of people again? Search for Trump Land with Alex Wagner wherever you're listening and follow.
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen ad-free. Sir David Frost gave us a front-row seat to history.
What I'm interested in is conversation, not an interrogation. He was the person to be interviewed by.
There's a great wave of revolution, and David Frost was right at the front of all of that. MSNBC Films presents a six-part documentary series, David Frost vs.
on the next episode. Muhammad Ali! You think I'm gonna get on this TV show and deny what I believe? Sunday at 9 p.m.
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.

Joining us once again is former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
Mr. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here again.
Last night, President Trump ordered the Justice Department in a bizarre executive order. He ordered DOJ to investigate two named people who served in his administration during his first term in office.
Each of them had criticized or contradicted him publicly. This is one of the anti-democratic bright red lines that I've been waiting for the Trump administration to cross.
The president ordering his prosecutors to go after named people who displease him. We're there.
What do you think the response should be now that this has happened? Well, in some ways, this is the most disturbing of the executive orders that he has signed. Everybody needs to understand executive orders do not have the power of law, and yet they can move parts of the executive branch.
I would hope that lawyers, I assume that they have lawyers, will be as creative and as aggressive as they possibly can to forestall any investigation that might be taken. That might be a difficult thing to do.
I'll have to look actually at what the terms are of the executive order. It may state a reason.
I have not seen it. It may state a specific reason.
He's not been shy in putting into his executive orders exactly why he is ordering these things. And if he's ordering that it be done because they were, in essence, critics of the policies that he had in place in his first administration, that might serve as a basis for trying to forestall any action by the Justice Department pursuant to the orders of the president.
But this is a time, I think, to be aggressive in pushing back as much as is possible against these really absurd and shameful executive orders. And thinking about putting together that kind of aggressive legal defense, that gets us right to the question of what's been happening with the president's efforts to, I think, shockingly successful efforts to intimidate law firms.
And we've talked about this a little bit.

I mentioned that your firm, Covington & Burling, was the first firm to be targeted by Trump. I know that your firm has signed a brief in support of another firm that is targeted by the president and that's fighting the executive order in court.
But, you know, just tonight, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that four more big firms are nearing deals with Trump where they're going to do tens of millions of dollars worth of pro bono work for causes that he chooses. All in an effort to sort of appease him and keep him from criticizing them or targeting them.
You said that you've been disappointed in the way law firms have responded here. What do you think the right response would be from law firms, from big law partners, when these threats started coming down the pike? What should they do now, even now that so many of them have already signed these deals? Well, I think, first off, the profession should have stuck together and said, rejected all of the attempts to go after them in the way that he has done, reject all of these executive orders and go to court and sue, as some have.
If we had stuck together, if we all stuck together, these facially invalid, clearly unconstitutional orders would have had no impact on the profession and would have allowed the profession to proceed in the way that I expect that it would. It's unfortunate that some have decided to cut deals with the administration, some even before they were the targets of executive orders.
And I think that, you know, they're going to, you know, some place $40 million, $100 million, whatever it is that he can help determine how the money is to be used for so-called pro bono activities. And I saw today he was talking about getting these law firms to help him negotiate trade deals or work on this whole tariff controversy.
I'm not sure that they anticipated that, but that's what happens when you make deals with people like the president. You can't really tell exactly how you're going to be used.
And so I would hope that people, that firms would consider their obligations, stand fast, understand that if you sue, if you sue, you're likely to win and that you will not suffer any consequence as a result of your opposition. Now, it also means that other firms should not be trying to poach clients of firms that are the recipients of these executive orders, should not be trying to poach lawyers of the firms that receive these executive orders.
The profession, these firms need to stand together. But if we do, I think we ultimately win.
And for those who make these deals, what are you going to say five years from now when this is over? And when you start to talk about all the great culture that you have, the commitment that you have to the rule of law, how you're willing to take chances to take on unpopular clients, how are you going to say that with a straight face? How are you going to recruit young lawyers to come join you in what you say is the noble quest of the legal profession? These are all the kinds of things that ought to go into the calculus that these firms make when they're trying to determine how they're going to react to executive orders that are either put against them or threatened to be put against them.

Yeah. What the legal profession, as a non-lawyer looking from the outside,

what the legal profession has needed here, plainly, is leadership. I think with those words,

you're providing some important leadership here tonight. Former Attorney General Eric Holder,

it's an honor to have you here tonight, sir. Come back anytime.
We'd love to have you.

Okay. Thank you.
All right. We'll be right back.
Stay with us.

When Trump picked his interior secretary, a bunch of outdoorsy companies lined up to endorse the

guy, including the crunchy retailer REI. Well, yesterday, REI decided, who are they sorry about

that? They've decided to pack it out. Never mind.
Doug Burgum, take a hike. Earlier this year, REI signed an outdoor industry letter supporting Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior.
Let me be clear. Signing that letter was a mistake.
I'm here today to apologize to our members on behalf of REI, to retract our endorsement of Doug Burgum, and to take full accountability for how we move forward. A fairly rugged unendorsement for Secretary Doug Burgum, or Secretary Warm Cookies, as we call him now, after the Atlantic Magazine reported that Doug Burgum apparently has assigned staff in his agency to make him warm, freshly baked cookies in his office.
The news of REI so publicly taking back their endorsement of Interior Secretary Warm Cookies comes amid a bizarre personnel headache for one of the agency's secretary cookies overseas, the Bureau of Land Management. This week, the Senate was supposed to consider the nomination of Trump's pick overseas, the Bureau of Land Management.

This week, the Senate was supposed to consider the nomination of Trump's pick to run the Bureau of Land Management.

The Senate Energy Committee was supposed to consider her nomination today.

But a couple of days ago, an investigative group revealed that she had once criticized Trump over the January 6th attack.

She said she was disgusted by the violence and that Trump had spread the misinformation that incited it, which is true. Nevertheless, today, instead of hearing her nomination, Republican Senator Mike Lee opened her hearing with this announcement for the ages.
Watch this. I've been informed this morning that Ms.
Kathleen Sagama has withdrawn her consideration to be the director of the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of the Interior. We are here today to consider the nomination of Kathleen Sagama to run the Bureau of Land Management.
What's that? What's that? I have been informed that not happening. Warm cookies? Anybody anybody would anybody like some warm cookies

it's been an awkward week for interior secretary doug burgum

sometimes that is the way the cookie crumbles i'm already sorry that i said that

that's going to do it for me for now see you again tomorrow night at 9 p.m eastern