U.S. under Trump backs off countering Russian sabotage campaign in Europe

Hey, friends, Ted Danson here, and I want to let you know about my new podcast. It's called Where Everybody Knows Your Name, with me, Ted Danson, and Woody Harrelson, sometimes.
Doing this podcast is a chance for me and my good bud Woody to reconnect after Cheers wrapped 30 years ago. Plus, we're introducing each other to the friends we've met since, like Jane Fonda, Conan O'Brien, Eric Andre, Mary Steenburgen, my wife,

and Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. And trust me, it's always a great hang when Woody's

there. So why wait? Listen to Where Everybody 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.
Thanks, Stuart Holm, for joining us this hour. Really happy to have you here.
You know what tomorrow is? Tomorrow is Friday Eve, which means you're almost there. You're going to make it.
Trust me. Do you know Roz Chast, the cartoonist? Roz Chast does cartoons for the New Yorker magazine, and she has forever.
She's been doing that since the 1970s. Roz Chast also wrote a fantastic book that I read a decade ago that has stuck with me ever since.
It's written, it's cartoons. It's written in her style and in her art form, which is cartoons, but it's a memoir.
It's about her parents aging into their late 90s and all the crazy decisions or, or the lack of decisions that made their lives and her life, her life as their daughter, such a mess as they got really old. It's this very serious book, but told through cartoons.
It's really good. It has stuck with me for a decade.
It also has the perfect title, which is Can't We Talk About Something More Pleasant? Anyway, needless to say, I'm a big Roz Chast fan, and I have been my whole adult life. And one of Roz Chast's cartoons that I keep thinking about all the time in this news environment that we are living in right now is this one.
And she has done several cartoons on this theme of Venn diagrams, right? You got two circles and they overlap and the overlap is usually where the joke is. But in this one, it's a Venn diagram.
And on the left, the circle is labeled fun. and on the right, the circle is labeled boring.
And in the Venn diagram, overlap between fun and boring, that's Bob. Hi, Bob, who is fun and boring.
I think about that all the time. The version of this that I keep in my head in this news environment, though there's a slight difference, though.
The overlap isn't between boring and fun as it is in the original. The overlap that I keep in my head is between boring and scary.
Boring stories, scary stories. And there's one particular story that lives right in that overlap that I think about every day.
It is the story of Donald Trump's return to the presidency that keeps popping up for me right there. It is unrelentingly boring and unrelentingly scary in equal measure.
And I have thought about this story every day since it broke. And it is developing now.
This is a story out of the federal prosecutor's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C.
If you have been following the news about the rule of law in the Justice Department under Donald Trump, you have noticed that a lot of bizarre stuff has been happening in that prosecutor's office ever since Donald Trump installed a guy there who was it January 6th. And now Trump has named him acting U.S.
attorney in Washington, D.C. His name is Ed Martin.
And for at least some of the time that Ed Martin has been there, he was attempting to practice law in Washington, D.C. as the acting U.S.
attorney for Washington, D.C., despite the fact that he was not a member of the

bar in D.C. in good standing.
In one case, he wrote to a judge on behalf of the Justice Department,

telling the judge to drop the charges against a particular defendant. In so doing, Ed Martin did

not mention that he personally was also the defense attorney for that individual defendant. So he's the lawyer on

both sides of that case. You can't do that.
Ed Martin is the guy who said he wanted to open a

criminal investigation into Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and apparently tried to do so.

Ed Martin is the guy who has sent off typo-ridden, bizarre, threatening letters to at least two other

Democratic members of Congress,

Congressman Robert Garcia and Congressman Eugene Vindman. Ed Martin is the guy who has posted bizarre, like, pseudo-legal fan letters to Elon Musk on Twitter, like this one, where he scratched out the typewritten address and wrote in by hand,

Dear Elon, Dear Elon, after your referral, as is my practice, I will begin an inquiry.

In case you're wondering, no, that is not how prosecutors' offices are supposed to work.

But just catch the flavor here a little bit of this thing. Quote,

Please let me reiterate again. Reiterate again, really.
Please let me reiterate again. If people are discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically, we will investigate them and, all bold letters, we will chase them to the end of the earth to hold them accountable.
We will not rest or cease in this. Noon is above the law.
Noon. That's actually what he wrote.
Noon is above the law. Get me noon.
So things have been a little crazy at the top federal prosecutor's office in Washington, D.C., even separate and apart from them firing all the career prosecutors and all the other things they've done. Things have just been a little bit nuts at the top federal prosecutor's office in Washington, D.C.
under Donald Trump. Noon! Noon! But when it comes to the overlap of scary and boring, not fun and boring, hi, Bob, but scary and boring.
When it comes to that particular story out of this office, the thing that has happened at this one prosecutor's office that I think about every day is a story about them freezing a bank account, freezing a bunch of money in a Citibank account. And I know each of those syllables is more boring than the last.
It's like impossible to even hold onto it in your head for a moment. Freezing a Citibank account? Why do I care? You know, part of the reason you could tell this was a really big deal when it first emerged is because it led to the shock resignation of the top criminal division lawyer in that prosecutor's office.
She basically laid out when she resigned what had happened there. And in non-legalese, what it boiled down to is that Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed prosecutor, the guy who was at January 6th, who's now running that office,

Martin appears to have ordered her to bring a criminal investigation when she said there was no evidence of a crime. Ed Martin, head prosecutor at that office appointed by Trump, told her to bring a criminal investigation.
She said, no, there's no crime. You can't open a criminal investigation without evidence of a crime.
He insisted. She resigned.
She said, no, there's no crime. You can't open a criminal investigation without evidence of a crime.

He insisted. She resigned.
She said publicly why she was resigning to her credit.

Ed Martin then tried to get another prosecutor's office to do it. They refused on the same grounds.

Then Ed Martin himself said, OK, I'll do it. He has no background as a prosecutor, which is sometimes obvious in the way he behaves, even in court.

In this case, he went to a judge saying, this is my criminal investigation for which I need a warrant to go seize that bank account. The judge said, no, no.
Hey, there is no probable cause that any crime has been committed here. No, you cannot have it.
Nevertheless, somehow, the FBI and then the Treasury Department were enlisted in this caper and they leaned on the bank. And the people whose funds were in that bank were denied their funds.
They somehow pushed this through anyway. That's how they froze that bank account.
And in itself, that sounds boring. But because of the way they did it, this seemingly boring thing is also the opening chapter of a very scary dystopian novel in which the government is seizing your phone records, obtaining all of your text messages and your emails and your iCloud and maybe raiding your house and raiding your office and they are taking or freezing the contents of your bank account.
When there is no probable cause that you have committed a crime. Because what there is, is a federal prosecutor's office that will do that stuff anyway, even when their own career prosecutors and a judge tell them, there's no crime here, you can't do it.
So like I said, this is, I recognize this seems like a boring story in terms of all the proper nouns involved here, right? But it is scary in terms of what this means. And I think about this case every day.
And now we have had two important developments here. First of all, number one, they are in trouble in court now because of this case.
A federal court has just ruled that nothing here seems kosher. Quote, there are serious due process concerns and questions of whether defendants' actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, contrary to statute, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
Quote, there are procedures that must be followed. Quote, defendants vaguely reference multiple ongoing investigations, but offer no specific information about such investigations, factual support for the decision, or an individualized explanation for each plaintiff.
This is insufficient. Quote, defendants have not provided the credible evidence required.
Quote, vague and unsubstantiated assertions are insufficient.

So Quote, vague and unsubstantiated assertions are insufficient. So that's the first thing.
This one boring, scary story that I think about every single day is now finally getting turned back by the courts, at least for now. Those funds are being reinstated into that bank account.
And whether or not you care about that bank account being restored, whether or not you care about all the, frankly, boring particulars of this case, what is important here is that this one quite bananas prosecutor's office, for the moment, they have been stopped from doing the one thing that they were trying to get away with that really does afford the possibility of Trump just opening the floodgates against Democrats, protesters, journalists, government officials, potentially judges. they have finally been stopped at least for the moment from doing something I think, if they were able to do this, might reasonably result in a lot of people actually fleeing this country in very short order.
So they have been held up on that by federal court in Washington. But I said there were two things that have happened on this case.
Here's the other thing. I mentioned that there was a big sort of splashy resignation when this all came into the public eye.
That prosecutor, the head of the criminal division, the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., career prosecutor, very well respected, not at all a partisan, right? Not somebody who they had it out for, who was seen as like some, you know, one of Trump's targets, not a person like that at all.
She resigned rather than play a part in this. She resigned rather than, frankly, gin up a criminal prosecution where she said there was no evidence of any crime.
When she resigned and explained in a letter what had happened, A, we the public got to see what was happening. Wow, scary.
But the other thing that happened is then her job became vacant and they replaced her in that job. There is a new person who is now the head of the criminal division at the U.S.
Attorney's Office in D.C. And now we know what the new person who they put in that job has been doing.
And surprise, he is apparently doing exactly the kind of thing his predecessor refused to do and resigned over. So we've been covering the story of this little agency, a nonprofit created by Congress during the Reagan era.
It's called the U.S. Institute of Peace.
They're a small agency. They operate independent of the U.S.
government. Their building is not a U.S.
government building. They own it and operate it themselves.
U.S. Institute of Peace, if you care, their basic remit is to try to stop conflicts around the world from metastasizing into wars.
Non-controversial, non-big agency in Washington. Again, essentially an independent nonprofit created by Congress, but they are their own thing.
They're outside the U.S. government.
On Friday, Trump and his top campaign donor, Elon Musk, sent Musk's people over to the U.S. Institute of Peace, USIP, to go try to shut them down.
And the people at USIP refused to let them in. And this is somehow how that went down.
This is from the Washington Post, something we've been covering for the last few days. Friday, Doge agents showed up at the USIP door with two others who said they were FBI agents, but did not further identify themselves.
Noting that the building was not the property of the U.S. government but owned by USIP, a registered non-profit, and that its personnel were not federal employees, the Institute's officials asked if Doge had a court order for admission.
The Doge agents acknowledged that they did not have a court order,

and on Friday they withdrew. Then this weekend, Sunday night, the longtime outside legal counsel for the Institute received a call from the head of the criminal division at the D.C.
U.S. Attorney's Office, newly appointed Jonathan Hornock.
Hornock said his office was investigating suspicions of criminality at USIP. Suspicions of criminality? What? Hornoch said Trump's newly appointed supposed directors of the Institute, including Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, would like to inspect the books and records of the Institute.
Hornoch said anyone who obstructs our efforts is subject to criminal investigation, according to one person familiar with the call. And again, no, in case you're wondering, no, this is not how prosecutors' offices are supposed to work, and this is not how prosecutors are supposed to talk.
This is not the kind of work that prosecutors are supposed to do or ever do. Not in this country.
But they used the force of arms to get what they want, threatened criminal prosecution, and ultimately guns. According to the Washington Post, a private security company that works at that building was called by Doge and told that they would lose all of their federal contracts as a company if they did not help Doge personnel break into this building.
Under that threat, these contractors then did help Doge force their way into the building. They forced their way in and then immediately went to the gun safe inside the building to get weapons.
The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police were also enlisted to help force Doge into the building, including, reportedly, picking the lock on the office's internal door.
Now, the D.C. police, why were they there? They have now said in a statement that the reason they did what they did was, surprise, because they were directed to by Ed Martin.
They said they got a call from Ed Martin at the Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney's Office telling them to do it, and so they did it.
So this is this bananas federal prosecutor's office in Washington, the U.S. attorney's office in Washington,

threatening federal criminal prosecution against private entities who don't do what Doge wants them to do. Doge has no authority over private entities.
But Doge said they wanted in there, they wanted to break into that building and they wanted to get access to everything in that building. So the federal prosecutor's office threatened criminal suspicion, criminal investigation, and criminal prosecution of that private entity for saying no.
What did that letter say again? Dear Elon, after your referral, as is my practice, I will begin an inquiry. They are apparently using this part of the U.S.
Justice Department as a private police force for the president's top campaign donor. When he is on private property, going after a private entity.
They are threatening federal criminal investigation and prosecution if you don't comply. And they're threatening to revoke contracts, revoke federal contracts of private armed security if private armed security doesn't join in the armed takeover of these private entities.
And again, you may not care about the ins and outs of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

You may not care about that one Citibank bank account, right?

But what they are doing here is not about the outcomes they are seeking.

What they are doing here is all about the power they are trying to exert.

They are showing you what they think they have the power to do to you. In court today, the U.S.
Institute of Peace was unable to get a restraining order to try to stop the efforts to shut down their nonprofit, their organization. But the judge hearing the case today in Washington expressed astonishment at what has just happened here, saying, quote, this conduct of using law enforcement, threatening criminal investigation, using armed law enforcement from three different agencies, probably terrorizing the employees and staff at the Institute.
When there are so many lawful ways to accomplish the goals, why? The judge said, quote, why those ways here?

The judge just exclaimed in court today, quote, that's a lot of law enforcement at a charitable institution's building.

The judge questioned explicitly whether there was a way to accomplish the Trump administration's goals through legal procedures and through Congress, quote, without using the force of guns and threats by Doge against American citizens. There's a lot going on.
There's a lot going on right now. I recognize this is a fast-moving news environment.
USA Today is reporting this evening that Trump's going to issue an executive order tomorrow to shut down the U.S. Department of Education, something that roughly two-thirds of the American public is opposed to.
Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi went on TV tonight and threatened three different federal judges by name. Another federal judge today blocked the Trump administration's efforts to force trans women into men's federal prisons.
Another federal judge blocked them from unilaterally killing off money that Congress had appropriated for teacher training. In the insane case where Trump took three plane loads of people and shipped them to El Salvador with zero processing at all, just grabbed them off the street, forced them onto a plane and shipped them to a prison in another country without any hearing or legal determination at all.
Now the Trump administration has been forced to admit that, quote, many of the people they did that to had no criminal record whatsoever. But nevertheless, they're in prison now, indefinitely, in a foreign country, and we're not even allowed to know their names.
We're not even allowed to know if any of them are, I don't know, U.S. citizens? There's a lot going on, and a lot of it is very hard-fought and full of drama.
But as much as we are watching all of those stories,

those kinds of stories every day,

we are also trying to keep our eyes on the sort of shadow stories in the boring corners.

Because for now, that is where they are trying to seize

truly breathtaking authoritarian power.

Not in the future, but right now.

And the courts, for now, are kind of,

sort of, barely stopping it. For now.
We'll stay on it. hidden wonders on the Atlas Obscura podcast, a village in India where everyone's name is a song,

a boiling river in the Amazon, a spacecraft cemetery in the middle of the ocean.

Every day, the Atlas Obscura podcast will blow your mind in 15 minutes. You can find it on the

SiriusXM app, Pandora, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show so you never miss an episode.
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.
MSNBC presents a new original podcast hosted by Jen Psaki. Each week, she and her guests

explore how the Democratic Party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next.

There's probably both messaging and policy issues, but as you look to kind of where the

Democratic Party is, do you think it's more a messaging issue, more a policy issue?

The Blueprint with Jen Psaki. New episodes drop every Monday.
Listen now. Western intelligence agencies believe Russia is behind two recent attempts to smuggle explosives onto cargo planes and may be targeting planes bound for the U.S.
Tom Costello is with us. Tom, this is quite concerning.
What have you learned? It really is. The explosives went off in DHL cargo hubs in Germany and Britain.
Had a bomb exploded while the plane was in the air, the head of German domestic intelligence says the plane would likely have crashed. A Western security official tells NBC News it could be a Russian operation to

undermine support for Ukraine and cargo flights to the U.S. and Canada could be targeted.
Last summer, explosions at DHL cargo hubs. They were not accidents.
They were not isolated incidents. They were part of what European and American officials described as an expanding campaign of Russian sabotage, including arson in the UK and the Czech Republic, attacks on pipelines and data cables in the Baltic, and tampering with water supplies in Sweden and Finland.
Earlier last year, the U.S. also helped Germany interrupt an alleged plot, an alleged Russian plot, to assassinate an executive at a German arms manufacturer, a German arms manufacturer that supplies arms to the Ukrainian military.
Those cargo bombs on those DHL planes, even with all that other stuff, when the DHL planes started having bombs on board, U.S. intelligence officials said they were a Russian test run to figure out how those devices could get aboard planes bound for the U.S.
And as such, that was a frightening new escalation for American officials. The idea that that sabotage campaign could be coming here.
Months later, the New York Times reported that White House officials became, quote, increasingly alarmed by secretly obtained intelligence, suggesting Moscow had a far larger plan in mind to bring the war in Ukraine to American shores. President Biden dispatched his national security advisor and the CIA director to send a series of warnings to Putin's top aides.
The core of the warning was that if the sabotage campaign led by Russia created mass casualties in the air or on the ground, the U.S. would hold Russia responsible.
They didn't specify what that response would be, but they made it clear they would take the shadow war between Washington and Moscow to new levels. So that was last year.
A new in-depth study of Russia's sabotage campaign finds that the number of Russian sabotage attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and last year after quadrupling the year before that. Reporting on that, here's how the New York Times put it, anger at Russia's sabotage efforts has the potential to influence European reactions to the U.S.-led push for an end to the war in Ukraine.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland noted in a social media post on Monday that Lithuanian officials had confirmed his assessment that Russia was responsible for a series of fires in shopping centers in Warsaw and Vilnius. Mr.
Tusk wrote, quote, good to know before negotiations. Such is the nature of this state.
The message to countries supporting Ukraine has been that Russia can impose costs and increase them. So we had this very big scare last year with not just this sabotage campaign rapidly escalating in Europe, but it appearing to start to target the United States.
Yesterday, we get data that Russian sabotage attacks in Europe quadrupled one year and then tripled the year after that. Well, now today we get this from Reuters.
U.S. suspends some efforts to counter Russian sabotage as Trump moves closer to Putin.
Quote, several U.S. national security agencies have halted work on a coordinated effort to counter Russian sabotage, disinformation and cyber attacks, easing pressure on Moscow as the Trump administration pushes Russia to end its war in Ukraine.
The effort involved at least seven national security agencies working with European allies to disrupt plots targeting Europe and the United States. Since Trump took office, much of the work has come to a standstill.
Reuters cites 11 current and former officials here. I'll tell you what Reuters, that Reuters did ask the Kremlin what they think about this reporting.
Quote, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Trump administration was trying to get rid of everything ineffective, corrupt and implausible. Something he said was, quote, understandable.
Joining us now is one of the reporters on that story, Reuters national security correspondent Erin Banco. Miss Banco, thanks very much for being here and forgetting this scoop.
I appreciate the chance to talk with you about it. Yeah, thanks for having me.
Is the United States pulling back from anti-Russian sabotage efforts because they don't believe they're happening or because they believe that the efforts are ineffective? What's the rationale on the U.S. side for cutting back on these efforts? I would say it's very clear from officials we've spoken to, both in this administration and in the prior administration, that our intelligence, U.S.
intelligence, European intelligence, still shows that Russia poses a threat both to the U.S. and to Europe in regard to its hybrid warfare campaign or its sabotage campaign, that threat has not gone away.

We've spoken to several very senior intelligence officials about this fact.

This intelligence has been circulated as recently as last week here in the U.S. and in Europe.

But it's very clear from the conversations we've had over the last month or two that this administration does not view the countering of Russia's hybrid warfare campaign as a priority. This was a very high priority for the prior administration, a program they stood up in 2024 to across the interagency track combat this campaign, both in Europe and potentially in the U.S.
And a huge part of that was coordinating with Europe. So that included everything from sharing intelligence to drawing up strategies for trying to counter Russia's campaign.
So it was a massive priority for the Biden administration and something Biden officials briefed Trump officials on right before they left, urging them to continue this program. The sabotage that Russia has been accused of, their efforts mostly have been documented in Europe.
There is this very worrying case on the record in terms of them targeting parcel bombs that were on planes,

potentially to be bound for the United States. What do you understand about the balance of,

I guess, the balance of how much heavy lifting was being done in this effort by European nations versus by the U.S.? Presumably, the Europeans are going to still be trying to counter this stuff

because they've been bearing more of the brunt of it. With the U.S.
withdrawing, how much harder is their work going to be? Yeah, that's a really good question. Local law enforcement in many of these countries are leading the way in terms of investigations looking at some of these sabotage acts.
But I should note, it's not just sabotage acts. It's not just arson attacks we're talking about here.
We're talking about everything from arson to influence campaigns and political elections to cyber intrusions. And a huge part of what the U.S.
did under Biden was shared critical intelligence on not only the unfolding sabotage plots, but on what was going on in the cyberspace as well. And so what happens when the U.S.
pulls back or deprioritizes something like this is that the coordination in terms of intelligence sharing then gets lost. I should note that there's no evidence that sort of the systematic intelligence that gets shared from the U.S.
and Europe has ceased. But there was this coordinated effort by the White House in particular, the National Security Council, the FBI, DHS, where a lot of those conversations were happening.
That is no longer. And so when the U.S.
pulls back from something like that, you lose a lot of not only the coordination, but the intelligence as well.

Reuters national security correspondent Aaron Banco, thank you very much for this time. I know this is very difficult reporting in this sector of government operations.
It's really valuable. Thank you for helping us understand it.
Thanks for having me. The Trump administration just, I mean, on day one with Pam Bondi at the Justice Department,

they announced they're no longer enforcing the rules against foreign But the Trump administration just, I mean, on day one with Pam Bondi at the Justice Department,

they announced they're no longer enforcing the rules against foreign agents.

They no longer are going to enforce efforts by Russians to evade sanctions.

They announced at the Defense Department that they're standing down cyber command operations

against Russia.

And now we have this reporting from Reuters that they're no longer going to try to counter

Russian sabotage efforts that have included assassination attempts and arson and package bombs targeting the United States originating in Europe. It's all pointing in one direction, right? All right.
Much more to come tonight. Stay with us.
explore the world's hidden wonders on the atlas obscura podcast a village in india

where everyone's name is a song, a boiling river in the Amazon, a spacecraft cemetery in the middle of the ocean. Every day, the Atlas Obscura podcast will blow your mind in 15 minutes.
You can find it on the SiriusXM app, Pandora, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show so you never miss an episode.
MSNBC presents Main Justice. Each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice.
The administration doesn't necessarily want to be questioned on any of its policy. I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action.
This is it coming to fruition. Maine Justice.
New episodes drop every Tuesday. Listen now.
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. A town hall is not a performative event.
It's an expression of the people's right to petition their government. It's also about free speech to be able to stand up and speak of what you're doing.
There's nothing conservative about an unelected South African nepo baby firing people at the VA. Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, the Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee in this past election, speaking in Iowa this past Friday night.
Like a number of Democrats this year, Governor Tim Walz has been showing up for town halls in Republican districts, in districts where the Republican member of Congress hasn't been willing to do it. So Friday night, that meant Tim Walls showing up in an Iowa district that includes

Des Moines, where Republican Congressman Zach Nunn has yet to commit to doing an in-person

town hall with his constituents. Tim Walls is not the only one putting the pressure on Congressman

Nunn. Have a look at this ad.
This is a new ad that I think is really, really effective from

the political group Vote Vets, and they are running it in Zach Nunn's Iowa district. Watch.
I was at Barnes and Noble with my two children, four and ten, and my husband, and I received a text from my coworker and he said, have you seen the email? I served in the military for over 33 years, just accepted a new position in the VA,

come into the office, fire up my computer, and I come back, and there's an email sitting there for me. I knew then.
I knew what was coming. I have not had a single negative performance review in my 10 years.
It feels like veterans are being personally attacked by Elon Musk. I did not put my life on the line for some tech bro billionaire from South Africa

to come in here and try to destroy our country.

We're going to bear a lot of this, a lot of this cost with rising cost, inflation.

I'm literally donating plasma to buy eggs.

And our congressperson does absolutely nothing. Congressman, stop Elon's war on veterans now.
Stop Elon's war on veterans. There's a lot of positions you don't want to be in as an American politician, but maybe top of that list is do not mess with veterans, right? VoteVets is running those ads in five Republican congressional districts, including Zach Nunn's district in Iowa, also in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and in Virginia.
Despite advice from their party that they should not hold town halls, there are a few Republican members of Congress who have been doing it. Whether virtually or face-to-face, these Republican members of Congress have been met with hundreds and in one case, thousands of angry constituents who are demanding answers.
A Washington congressman faced lots of booing last night as he held a town hall event in Spokane. I am an attorney that took an oath to support the Constitution.
A long and loud Tuesday evening for Nebraska Representative Mike Flood in Columbus. What was intended to be an hour-long question and answer turning into questions interlaced with shouting, chanting, and booing from the audience inside Columbus High School.
After voters protested outside of his office earlier this month, Congress member Kevin Kiley holding a virtual town hall tonight, taking on their concerns. And get this, 25,000 constituents logged on to this call.
25,000. Trying to run these events on the computer instead of in person has not necessarily limited the demand from voters.
For weeks now, town hall after town hall, one question, one topic comes up again and again and again at every single one of these Q&A sessions. And it's one of those issues that, again, you just can't be on the wrong side of in American politics.
But Republicans are this year, thanks to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Watch.
Our next question is from Polly from a 288 zip code area. What are you doing to ensure the protection of our Social Security benefits? Good question.
I really want to know from you, will you protect Social Security in its current form? Next question, what are your plans to cut Social Security? I want to be very, this is a very easy question for me to answer. Any changes to Social Security are not on the table and I will not cut your Social Security.
It is a promise between you and the federal government. Social security is a promise between you and the federal government.
Congressman Mike Flood doing his best yesterday in Nebraska and you could hear his constituents reacting. If his constituents are feeling a little insecure about social security, there's good reason for that.
In addition to social security firing thousands of people who work at that agency and announcing plans to shut down dozens of Social Security field offices, the agency now plans to put new requirements in place that will send millions more people to local offices in person, if they can find one, instead of being able to solve things with the administration over the phone. An internal memo from top officials at Social Security says 75 to 85,000 more people each week, senior citizens and disabled people, will have to deal with their Social Security benefits in person because of the changes Trump is making.000 to 85,000 more customers in person per week

while the agency is shutting down offices and firing their staff.

These new rules are no longer just proposals. They are apparently set to take effect March 31st,

a week and a half from now. One Democratic member of Congress who is hopping mad about all of this

and who just got done with his own town hall tonight tonight joins us here on this next. Stay with us.
Look at the empty seats here. Where's Elon Musk? If he's so great, if these plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found are so eminent, why isn't he here explaining it? You know why.
Because he's out to privatize Social Security. He's been on television the last couple of days talking exactly about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and what he intends to do.
Privatize it. The American people, some of them may have been born at night, but not last night.
They will teach that clip in freshman orientation for new members of Congress, if there's any justice in the world. The moment when Connecticut Democratic Congressman John Larson pretty much burned down the barn over the issue of Social Security and what Trump and his top campaign donor are doing to it.
Since Congressman Larson made that speech last week, Trump's plans for Social Security have come into sharper focus. Yes, they are firing thousands of people who work for Social Security.
Yes, they are closing down field offices where people who receive Social Security can go to get help. But now they are making it materially harder for millions of Social Security recipients to get their benefits, forcing millions of retirees and disabled people to travel in person to one of the remaining field offices in order to handle basic transactions with the agency that for decades you could do over the phone.
They're apparently going to go ahead with this starting March 31st. Joining us now is Congressman John Larson, Democrat of Connecticut.
Congressman, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I really appreciate taking the time.
Oh, glad to be with you, Rachel. And thank you for your voice.
Well, let me ask you about your voice. You gave a real clarion call in Congress last week.
We highlighted that here on the show. I wanted to ask what you are hearing from your constituents.
I know you just had a town hall, and I know you got a lot of attention for those remarks. It's the same thing.
There's frustration across the country and in the districts. And most of the time, it's individuals saying, look, we don't hear enough from Congress, even though I assure you, and I think you know this, how hard everyone's working, et cetera.
But this particular proposal that they had was a resolution that actually started back in 1799 and was modified in 1879, which provides a check for the legislative branch on the executive branch. The resolution of inquiry requires that they take the bill up within 14 days or the bill goes directly to the floor for a vote.
So what the Republicans did was adjourn the Congress on Tuesday night, hold a meeting Monday morning early with little people there, and clearly, as you saw from the clip, no Elon Musk and no head of the Social Security Administration. And the outrage here is what they're doing and the fact that they think that Elon Musk is above the law and that he doesn't have to come before the United States

Congress or the Ways and Means Committee. I think my Republican colleagues were embarrassed by this fact, but we're going to keep it up.
Rich Neal was in the papers again today calling for another, you know, motion of inquiry so that we get Elon Musk before the committee and demand answers for the American people. What do you think they are trying to do to Social Security? The changes that they are forcing through that they now say are going to start the last day of this month seem like they are changes that are designed to cause chaos, designed to cause breakdown, and designed to screw up the basic functions of the agency.
To what end? What do you think they're doing? I think you hit the nail on the head with the hammer there, Rachel, because that's exactly what they're doing. And here's the goal.
What they're trying to do is say in the committee that Trump's indicated that he's not going to touch Social Security. And the Republicans continue to repeat, and all Elon Musk is after is fraud, abuse, and waste.
Well, if he is, bring it before us because we'd like to hear it. In fact, bring him before us so we get to see his plan.
But the plan, unlike previous plans to privatize Social Security, is to scuttle the agencies themselves. Social Security already has an administrative operating cost of under 1%.
There's no other agency in the federal government that operates like that, or I dare say in the private sector either. I'm from an insurance capital of the world, and their administrative costs are 16 to 26 percent.
So what they're up to is to scuttle the agency, make it appear that it's not working and not answering people's concerns, and then passing legislation that's unpaid for, draining the Social Security trust fund. When Trump charges him with finding $2 trillion, everybody's attention should go up when you look at the Social Security trust fund, which is $2,700,000,000.
And so he's made no bones about it on Larry Kudlow or any other place that they're going to privatize it. And then they deny that in front of the committee and won't bring them in front of the Ways and Means Committee to face the public and to face the questions that Congress has.
Congressman John Larson, Democrat of Connecticut, please come back and talk to us about this. I know you're not going to let it go.
Thank you, sir. I look forward to it, Rachel.
Thank you so much. All right.
Of course, we'll be right back. All right.
That's going to do it for me for now. I will see you again tomorrow and every night this week at nine o'clock Eastern.
Hey, friends, Ted Danson here. And I want to let you know about my new podcast.
It's called Where Everybody Knows Your Name. With me, Ted Danson, and Woody Harrelson.
Sometimes. Doing this podcast is a chance for me and my good bud Woody to reconnect after Cheers wrapped 30 years ago.
Plus, we're introducing each other to the friends we've met since. Like Jane Fonda, Conan O'Brien, Eric Andre, Mary Steenburgen, my wife, and Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
and trust. We'll see you next time.