Trump restores gun rights for the mentally ill (seriously)

Good evening, Chris. Thank you very much, my friend. I actually, if you don't mind, if you do not have to rush off, can I just, can I interview you a little bit about the Grant Dottner news? I wanted to know, I mean, I saw your coverage of it over the course of this last hour, but what do you think is going to happen? It seems untenable for me that he will continue. Although I'm, you know, ultimately we should note that the way this works is that it is his decision. He won the nomination. So no one can force him out. Obviously, all the signals are being sent from, I think, anyone that has any influence that they want him to drop out. I think that's a combination of a political calculation, probably first and foremost, that he is too damaged politically to beat Susan Collins or be the best candidate. And I think also a moral calculation that the allegation here is the most serious allegation of everything that has been said about him. Mm-hmm. And I think that's a combination of everything that has been said about him. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And I think because of the way that the individual making the allegation presented it, how manifestly, obviously tortured she was, cross-pressured about politics, that that is also having a resonance with people. But again, he did win the primary. And a lot of people didn't run in that race because they thought it was going to be really hard to beat Susan Collins. And they ran the gubernatorial race, which is the context for all of this of why, in some ways, it has gotten to this point. Yeah. And I was just, I mean, as soon as I read the news, I was like, oh, my God, this is today. I mean, there was this sort of rumblings as he had canceled a bunch of events, including Independence Day events, and his campaign schedule kind of blew up. So it kind of felt like something was coming. And then as soon as the Politico piece came out, I just immediately was thinking about your, you know, seminal interview with him after the last round of very serious allegations against him, which he denied, like he denies these. And I mean, having that conversation, having that conversation with him in that incredibly intense moment right around the primary, what was your, I guess, what was your take on, like, is this the kind of guy that no matter what is said about him, no matter how big the bomb is that goes off, he is committed to never apologizing and never getting out? Or did you feel like, you know, it matters on what the revelation is? I think I came away with the latter. I also didn't feel, we played this in my show, but there was a few different ways. Two different ways I asked, two different ways of, is there anything else out there? Yes. And I'll just say that I didn't, he basically said no, but I didn't necessarily feel like that no was 100% convincing. Again, this has been just like reading body language and making a personal judgment. It's not because I have inside knowledge, just the way that you react. That no felt like a little wobbly. I'll just say it. I think other people who heard the no felt like it was a little wobbly too. And I think, you know, I think that's, that's obviously borne out. Yeah. And I will tell you just a little, I, when you did that interview, I listened to it live on Sirius XM as it was happening. And on that point, which you were very insistent with him on, I was like, I, that doesn't sound like a categorical clear, no. And I went home and watched the tape version of you. Yeah. Do it. Cause I wanted to see him give his answer too. And that was my take too. And again, you know, reading body language and reading like somebody's personal affect on things like that is the world's most unscientific assessment. But I, I think you and I had the same, I at least had the same inkling that you did there. And the thing I would say adjacent to that is that like voters are allowed to do that too. I mean, that's part of it too. Right. So there's like the, the, the, the question of credibility, which said you do believe him, but there's also like, this is a person who's going to run for office and which he's going to say things to voters and they are going to believe him. Or not believe him. And there is going to be a real credibility challenge. Uh, I think going forward, if he stays in the race, I think that's, that's, that's intensified. Um, and that's a political reality because, you know, voting for a candidate is not, it's not the jury room and it's not like a, it's, you know, uh, uh, a test, right? Like the voters, voters get to make decisions based on all kinds of stuff that they're, that they're getting in the atmosphere or getting off your body language or voice. And that's just kind of the way it works. That's right. And, and, and perhaps rightfully so, since they're going to have to decide whether or not you're a trust, trustworthy, literal representative of them and their needs, um, in Washington. Well, um, as I said, we're going to be keep watching this all night. Obviously a developing story, very, uh, appreciative of the chance to talk to you about it, my friend. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. Thanks. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Um, so there are a lot of developing stories that we've got eyes on tonight. Um, and even though, you know, this is July and arguably this Monday night, you know, like still kind of feels like the holiday weekend. It turns out there really is a lot of news unfolding right now, both tonight and things that look like they're going to be developing. And then in the next couple of days, um, as I was just discussing with Chris, the, the U S Senate race in Maine really did run into a brick wall this afternoon. As you know, Democrats are expected to do well in the midterms this year. That said in the Senate, that, um, the cap is pretty stacked against the Democrats this cycle, sort of just luck of the draw in order to win control of the Senate. Democrats are going to need to defend all 13 seats that are up that are currently held by Democrats. They need to hold all 13 of those and they need to flip four Senate seats that are currently held by Republicans. So they are instead held by Democrats. That is a really tall order in terms of democratic chances for taking the Senate, even in a year when the Senate, I think rightfully have wind in their sails and the Republicans are on their heels. I mean, Democrats have a, I think a very good shot of, of taking what is now a Republican seat in North Carolina, uh, with former democratic North Carolina governor Roy Cooper, who was just on tonight with Chris. Um, that's one Cooper is a fantastic candidate. And I think Democrats feel great about that seat. Uh, he's going to need a lot of support and a lot of money and a lot of good campaign strategy to get there, but he can get there. I think Democrats also have a very good shot in Ohio, uh, with the sort of beloved and very popular Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. I think Democrats have got a pretty good shot in Texas of all places with this democratic phenom, James Tallarico running against an odious, odious Republican candidate. Who's basically got one foot in jail and one foot on the dais. I think Democrats have good, a good shot in Alaska with Democrat Mary Peltola. I think Democrats have a good shot in Iowa with Democrat Josh Turek, but one place Democrats ought to have a great shot is in Maine, where Susan Collins has been a Republican Senator disappointing the people of Maine since the Paleolithic era. Maine Democratic governor, Janet Mills, put her hand up to run against Susan Collins. But frankly, Janet Mills was pretty easily trounced in the Democratic primary by this charismatic political outsider, combat veteran and Maine oyster farmer, um, or, Maine oysterman, um, Graham Platner. After, after weathering more than your average candidate's share of scandals and unflattering accusations and revelations, Graham Platner insisted, including in a seminal interview with Chris Hayes, that they, there was no chance he was going to drop out. Um, his supporters in Maine clearly stayed committed to him through all of those waves of scandal and accusation. That said, his broader support outside his base, was not as evident. Um, he has not been polling particularly well of late against Susan Collins, especially for a state that Trump lost by nearly seven points. But then today there was this thunderclap report in Politico, uh, later followed by an interview with CNN, uh, from a woman who says that Graham Platner raped her in 2021. Platner has denied the allegation, but he also says he's going to take time to reflect on it. And he's going to take time to reflect on it. And he's going to on his, on the best path forward for his campaign. Um, since then things have been falling apart for his campaign. Prominent Democratic endorsers of Graham Platner, like Congressman Ro Khanna of California, Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, uh, today both pulled their support from Graham Platner. The very influential progressive Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Tonight she also called on Graham Platner to withdraw from the race. The main Democratic party this afternoon called on him for a second term. And he called on him for a second term. So he's going to call on him for a second term. So he's going to withdraw as the Democratic Party's nominee for Senate. Now the Democratic Senate campaign committee has done the same. This is the Senate committee for the National Democratic Party, which helps candidates, helps Democratic candidates in all Senate races in the country. They're now saying that if Graham Platner remains the nominee in Maine, the Democratic Party Senate campaign arm will no longer provide any support to the campaign in the state of Maine. Now on top of that, just in the last few minutes, the Chairman of the National Democratic Party, Ken Martin, has also said that it is time for Graham Platner to end his campaign. Now under state law in Maine, as long as Graham Platner withdraws from the race within a week from now, as long as he withdraws by July 13th, one week from today, the state Democratic Party can choose someone to replace him. They'll have another two weeks. They'll have until July 27th, to do so, all that means is that this is a story that's going to resolve quickly one way or the other. I think in normal times, 99 out of 100 political observers and probably 99 out of 100 just regular people would say that all signs point to the exit tonight for this candidate, Graham Plattner. That said, when's the last time it felt to you like we were living in normal times? These are not normal times, and I'm not making any predictions as to what is going to happen, but I will tell you honestly that the wheels are coming off, including some important financial considerations to take into effect for the future of the Plattner campaign should he choose to stick it out. So we're watching that tonight. Also, also in the Senate, there's going to have to be some kind of resolution at some point over the circumstances, the sad circumstances, surrounding the former Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the senator from Kentucky. As you have no doubt heard, Senator McConnell hospitalized three weeks ago. Emergency services call from that date reflect the fact that emergency personnel, emergency medical personnel that morning treated a person at Mitch McConnell's address who was said in those emergency medical service calls, the person was said to be unconscious. Emergency medical personnel described performing CPR on that unconscious person. Nobody has seen Senator Mitch McConnell since. For the second week in a row now, his office has put out a statement saying Senator McConnell appreciates the outpouring of support he's receiving while he continues his recovery in the hospital. But they said that last week, they're saying that again today, and that's all they're saying. And if that makes you immediately start wondering what they're not saying, the headline tonight at Huffington Post quite bluntly sums up what is missing from that statement. Headline, Mitch McConnell's office won't confirm if he's conscious. I mean, to be fair, that statement they keep putting out says that the senator appreciates the support he's getting. Does that imply consciousness? Is it weird that we have to figure that out? So there's going to have to be some kind of further clarification there as well, not only for the larger consequences, but for the people of Kentucky, who, should have two senators representing them in Washington, particularly at a time as fraught as this. So we're watching that. President Trump this hour is flying off to Turkey for the NATO summit. Now, while he's there, we are sort of watching two expected storylines, two very, very different, but expected storylines. The first, of course, the really, really unnerving one is that, of course, we're expecting Trump to try to blow up NATO while he's there as best he can. You know, before the White House said anything about it, we learned this weekend from a Kremlin announcement that Donald Trump apparently had an hour and a half long call with Vladimir Putin this weekend. That's apparently how the president of the United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. He had a long, undisclosed, secret phone call with a foreign dictator he has weird, slavish devotion to and who helped him get elected to the White House in the first place. Again, it was the Kremlin that reported first on the existence of the call. After the Kremlin reported that the call had happened, not the White House. We had to hear it from Russia. Trump was then asked about it by reporters, and he did then admit today that he'd had the call with Putin right before heading off to NATO. Huh. Who called who? So now, based on past experience with Donald Trump and his conversations with Vladimir Putin, which he often doesn't admit to having, because of that past experience of how he has behaved after speaking with Putin in the past, everybody is now expecting Trump to make some bizarre announcement or expecting him to pick some bizarre fight at the NATO summit that reflects whatever it is Putin last said to him before he left. Right. It'll be something that Trump's never talked about before, never shown any native interest or understanding of whatsoever. It'll be some Russian talking point that will then become Trump's, you know, cause at this NATO summit. At least if past is any prologue, if he behaves at this summit like he has in past events like this. Also, just for your situational awareness on this one, this comes amid somewhat panicked reporting sourced from European intelligence agencies that the other countries in NATO, are expecting Putin soon to try some kind of military incursion or even a full-blown military attack against one of the European countries in NATO. Just to test it. Test it. Just try to demonstrate what everybody already suspects to be the case, which is that Trump won't make good on our treaty obligation to defend one of our NATO allies as long as that ally has been attacked by Russia. Any such attack or incursion and non-response from the United States would effectively end NATO once and for all. Right. The whole point of NATO is that the NATO countries commit to defending one another if any of them is attacked. Right. If Trump breaks that commitment, that will end NATO effectively, which of course is Vladimir Putin's fondest dream. And that is the loud static you're hearing. That's the sort of ominous portent that looms over Trump's trip to this NATO summit in Turkey, which he is leaving for right now as we speak. Now I said there's two things that we're watching for, though, for this Trump trip to the NATO summit. We've got this thing with him just talking to Putin and, oh God, what's he going to bring up now? What's he going to do? That's one. The second thing, though, sort of happily, is a totally different type of thing that we are also expecting from Trump while he is at this NATO summit in Turkey. And that is that, just by happenstance, there's a very good chance that while Donald Trump is at the NATO summit in Turkey, he is going to have to pay E. Jean Carroll over $5 million. This stems from the unanimous jury verdict against Trump in a 2023 civil trial in which a jury found Trump liable for sexual assault. This is the unanimous jury verdict against Trump in a 2023 civil trial in which a jury found Trump liable for sexual assault. Trump has now lost his appeals on that matter all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which has neglected to bail him out on this. And so he has kind of run out of appeals and run out of time. And it may be that Trump needs to step out for a moment from his day job of destroying the post-World War II Western-led international order in order to send more than five million dollars of his own money to a woman whom a jury says he sexually abused. Other than that, sir, how was your trip? So there's a lot of different types of stories that we are watching tonight, a lot that we are expecting to develop over tonight and into the next couple of days, even as we come out of this 250th anniversary 4th of July weekend. Okay. And, you know, as we headed toward this big 250th anniversary, understandably, there's a lot of looking back at how we as a country had handled previous big-number anniversaries of our country's founding. So, for example, there was a lot of looking back this year at 1976 and all the groovy, groovy psychedelic ways we celebrated the bicentennial, the 200-year anniversary in 1976. And actually, if you look back at the press from 1976, you will find that back then, 50 years ago, people, Americans, the press, commentators, people were also looking back at previous big-number celebrations. People in 1976 were looking back at 1876, the 100-year celebration, the centennial in 1876, when we celebrated 100 years as a country by having a big World's Fair in Philadelphia. We also look back at the 150th year celebration, which was in 1926, where this lady in Louisiana apparently got a souvenir coconut, which she held onto for 50 years. So she got the souvenir coconut at the sesquicentennial in 1926, and she was able to proudly display it to her local paper at the bicentennial in 1976. The coconut lasted! So, I mean, in ways big and small, you do what you can. We don't always do a great job at these celebrations. Jill Lepore, the historian who writes at The New Yorker, wrote recently about the 1926, the sesquicentennial, the 150-year celebration, where apparently they initially tried to give the Ku Klux Klan a permit for a "klonvocation." Literally, they tried to permit a huge, giant, huge KKK parade at the sesquicentennial, at the 150th anniversary of the country's founding, before somebody finally thought better of the idea. We do not always do a great job with these kinds of big-number, big-anniversary celebrations of the founding of the United States of America. But honestly, our generation is the one who had to figure out how to celebrate the 250th. We just had the 250th. What is anybody even going to be able to say we did for this one? I mean, honestly, if, like in all previous big number anniversaries, we look back at the last one to say like, oh, this is how they dealt with it last time. When generations hence look back on this one, the 250th, what will they be able to say we did as a country? I mean, Trump gave a speech for the 250th anniversary. He literally called it a Trump rally. And at the event, there was lightning and his followers reportedly argued with the Secret Service and police and refused their orders to leave because they didn't want to leave because they thought it was, quote, liberals in the Weather Service who were conspiring against them. It wasn't actually the weather. It was liberal weather. And Trump tried. He tried to put together something he called a state fair, but it was sad and petty and underwhelming and nobody really came. And the boogie woogie bugle boy dancers on Trump's weird National Mall stage were nearly killed by a big gold piece of the stage falling down on them while they were rehearsing. I mean, yes, there was a big military flyover and a lot of fireworks, but that was kind of it. That proved to be the. Only thing the federal government of the United States was capable of pulling off for its 250th birthday. And like I said, these anniversaries haven't always been great and maybe they weren't. They weren't going to be great no matter who was in the White House. But for the kind of leader we have in the White House right now, for this kind of a guy, this kind of an anniversary was never going to be his thing. Right. It was always going to be too much about the country and not enough about him. He is the only person to whom things. Actually seem real, right, or seem important if it's not about him, he doesn't really care. So really, the only things he even tried to do for this huge anniversary were things that were about him. I mean, so here's a federal government that spent the 250th anniversary of its founding, you know, holding a Trump rally and rolling out a passport with Trump's face on it and rolling out a Trump gold coin and rolling out Trump signed hundred dollar bills and they want to do a. A. Trump. Trump. Trump picture, two hundred and fifty dollar bill and they did this Trump state fair with a hoopty fall down staple gunned wooden model of the arch that he wants to build for himself. Who do you want this arch to honor? What do you want this arch to honor, Mr. President? I want it to honor me. Oh, and we also had a Trump visit to Mount Rushmore. And why did he go to Mount Rushmore? Because he wants to put his own face on Mount Rushmore. I mean, none of these things are even a. About the country. Let alone for it. I mean, forty nine years and three hundred and sixty three days from now, if and when we hit our three hundredth anniversary as a country, I'm telling you, whatever media we have that will be looking back at us, we'll be looking at what we did this weekend. They'll be looking back at this two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. What are we going to say we did it? It's just going to look like this feckless, failed, truly laughable effort by a cult of personality, would be dictator, failed extremist president who is more unpopular than just about any other president in the history of the presidency, but who is nevertheless trying to turn the country into Trump a stand. And that has how he spent the two hundred and fiftieth commemoration of our founding as a nation. I mean, the. The one real national story we can happily tell about this anniversary will be that by another coincidence of the calendar, one of the truly honestly great things that has been happening all over the country at this time. One of the things that happened all over our country, specifically on our two hundred and fiftieth birthday, is that people from all over the world have been here. Right now to celebrate. The World Cup. Something that Trump sort of hadn't really acknowledged at all, maybe didn't even know was happening because it wasn't about him until until the day after the Fourth of July, when we learned that Trump has decided to foul that up to is now admitted that he waded into it, despite the fact that he says he didn't even know what a red card was, doesn't watch soccer, doesn't understand it. He nevertheless called the International Football Association. FIFA that administers the World Cup. And so now we have bleed over from the failed and ridiculous Trumpiness of everything he touches into what was otherwise a legitimately real and good thing. I mean, everything he touches turns to not gold. And so now what was otherwise kind of this unequivocally good thing, the triumph of the sort of good vibes World Cup. unfolding all across our country, despite everything else our government has been screwing up under Trump. Now, instead, that too becomes Trumpified. That instead becomes an instant worldwide global outrage and scandal about Trump admitting that he has tried to corrupt the World Cup by waiting in and getting FIFA to overturn a red card against an important American player. It should also be noted that Trump commemorated the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding this weekend by doing one extra thing that wasn't on the agenda, but he did nonetheless. He got online and posted a racist fake image of former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in a fake Air Force One that was all covered in graffiti. As the Associated Press delicately noted, quote, the use of graffiti is a coded message to remind people of crime and urban decay and the use of graffiti to remind people of crime and urban decay. As the Associated Press delicately noted, quote, the use of graffiti is a coded message to remind people of crime and urban decay and has been used in racist messaging against black people in the past. The AP also noting that this latest racist post from Trump for Independence Day weekend comes after, quote, another racist post by President Trump that showed the couple as primates in a jungle. Happy 250th anniversary. Happy 250th, America. How far we've come. We at least turned down the Klan permit ultimately in 1926. That said, you know what? We are not our government, right? Our country is a heck of a lot more than whoever's botching things and disgracing themselves in the White House. I will just note that the Tulsa, Oklahoma chapter of Indivisible marked Independence Day this weekend by spelling out 2547, 2547, as in use the 25th Amendment to declare Trump unfit and incompetent and remove him from office. 2547 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They did that in 96 degree heat this weekend. It felt like about that in Minneapolis on Independence Day as well, where people held a mock funeral through the streets commemorating, carrying coffins to commemorate the people who have died in Trump's immigrant prisons since he has been back in office. Even though Trump and his top campaign donor, Elon Musk, looted the Trump administration, the Trump administration, the Trump administration, the money that Congress had set aside for small towns and local communities to mark the 250th anniversary their own way, people all around the country have nevertheless still found cool free ways to mark the anniversary. You know, the anniversary that we're technically celebrating is the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The declaration was not actually read out loud to the people until four days later, July 8th, 6 p.m. on July 8th, 1776. That's when the people of the United States of America were essentially given the declaration that had been signed on their behalf. To commemorate that at 6 p.m. Eastern time all over the country in every time zone in every state in the country at 6 p.m. Eastern time this Wednesday, July 8th, people all over the country will simultaneously read aloud the words of the Declaration of Independence to commemorate the first time that we, the people, heard it. There's a lot going on in the news right now. We're going to get some late-breaking reporting on the debacle of Trump corrupting the World Cup. We are watching this Graham Plattner story and the Mitch McConnell story as well. We're going to get some expert help in just a moment on the truly nuts thing that Trump just did about guns. I use the word nuts advisedly here. Honestly, if you have not heard about this yet, you are not going to believe it. But take heart. I mean, this 250th birthday for our country, keep in mind, first of all, that it's all year. The birthday is all year. So Trump blowing it on the 4th itself says more about him than it does about us. We have all year to make it up any way we want to. Most importantly, though, it really is for all of us to celebrate the way we see fit, the way we will want to be proud of, the way we will want our generation to be remembered 50 years from now, 100%. years from now, God willing. 250 more years down the road. Lots to get to tonight. Stay with us. In 2017, the first time Donald Trump was president, when Republicans had the White House and the Senate and the House of Representatives, do you know what was the very first substantive piece of legislation they passed? They've got, they've just got full control. Republicans can do whatever they want. What is the very first thing that they're going to do now that they've got full control in Washington? What's the first thing they did? Their first piece of substantive legislation was a bill that made it easier specifically for mentally ill people to buy guns. And this is not me being hyperbolic. I don't mean like, oh, these people are crazy. No, I mean, no. In Trump's first term, the very first substantive bill that Republicans passed with unified control of government was a bill that made it easier for people to buy guns, specifically people who had been adjudicated to have a mental illness. That was their number one legislative priority in the finite window when they had complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government. That was the most important thing for them to get done. It's very important that mentally ill people have more access to guns and bullets. Well, now, of course, Donald Trump is back in the White House. He once again has unified control of Congress, though this time they can't seem to get much of anything passed. So now Trump is not bothering Congress again to address what still appears to be his number one priority, but he is still working on this matter. And this time he's going even further. Quote, the Trump administration is scrapping more than three dozen firearms regulations. Abandoning a crackdown on illegal sales, loosening oversight of private weapons transactions, and, oh, one more thing, quote, restoring gun rights to some people with mental illness. For real. He's actually doing this again right now, trying to take this further, prioritizing and taking government action specifically, not as like a, a, a washover effect, not as an unintended consequence, but deliberately and on purpose, and specifically to ensure that mentally ill people can have access to firearms and ammunition. This is what's most important to you? This is your priority? The mentally ill aren't well-armed enough in America? In a, in a sane, forgive me, world, every Republican in the country would be asked about this every time they show their faces in public. More ahead on this. Stay with us. In his first term, uh, Trump and the Republican Congress, as their first act of business, passed a law to make it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns. Uh, now that he's back in office for a second term, he is taking executive action to roll back a regulation that will make it possible for even more people with adjudicated mental illness to access firearms and ammunition. Uh, this, seriously, this second time around, um, Trump's own administration studied the consequences of rolling back this regulation. In their study, they found, they, they actually wrote down that making it easier for more mentally ill people to buy guns will increase the risk to public safety, quote, up to and including potential mass casualty events. They determined that the, the Trump administration determined that that would be the effect, and then they decided to do it anyway. Joining us now is Marianna Mitchum. She is the former associate assistant director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, where she worked for 20 years. She quit last year when the Trump administration started rolling back gun safety measures. She's now the senior industry advisor with Everytown for Gun Safety. Uh, Ms. Mitchum, thanks very much for taking time to be here tonight. I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. What goes into that kind of analysis? The Trump administration itself says this kind of change will lead to more, more mass casualty events. They are nevertheless doing it anyway. Um, what, what kind of, um, what do they study in order to make that sort of determination about the likelihood of the impact of this kind of regulation change? Yeah, unfortunately, I can't tell you what exactly went into this study since, uh, I am no longer at ATF, but I can tell you what we used to do when I was there previously. Uh, we made some very important regulatory changes under the previous administration. Uh, and in all of those changes, we always had an eye towards public safety. We must always ensure that no harm will be caused to the public when making these changes. Uh, it seems like that wasn't the same, uh, process this go-around with these 30 proposed regulatory changes. And this one about mental illness is, is one of them. Uh, taking the larger group, um, as a whole, as you say, some, some 30 regulatory changes that they're making all at once. What do you see as a result of that? Well, I mean, I think, you know, I think What should we as Americans, as the public, expect will be the practical impact of these changes that they're imposing? Yeah, unfortunately, we really have to look at these 30 regulatory changes together, right? Don't look at each individual one in a vacuum because they are intended to work together. They are layered upon each other. And some of the biggest things that I want to draw everyone's attention to are the changes to non-over-the-counter sales. Right now, any individual in this country, in every single state, it does not matter where you live, if you want to purchase a firearm, you have to do it in person. You actually have to go into the gun store, you have to fill out paperwork, and most often have to complete an on-site point-of-sale background check. These proposed regulatory changes are looking to completely wipe that out. They would allow for mail-order sales. So individuals could sit within the comfort of their home. And purchase a firearm 100% online. They do have in the proposed changes, they have some information that they claim will ensure that the person who is purchasing the firearm is who they claim to be and is not prohibited. Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that, right? With the technology that's out there, it's very easy to produce fake documents, to have a fake Zoom. To have a fake Zoom call where you are pretending to be someone that you actually are not. And unfortunately, you know, spending 20 years regulating the industry, I always found that the gun store was actually the best and first line of defense in stopping dangerous people, criminals, and juveniles from obtaining weapons. And this non-over-the-counter change will completely eliminate their ability to stop those transactions. That's stunning. Um. Mariana Mitchum, um, formerly with the ATF, now senior industry advisor with Everytown for gun safety. I really appreciate you being here to help us understand this. As these things roll out, I think we're going to need a lot more public education about what this means. I'd love to have you back to talk about it again. I would love to do that. I'd be honored to do that. I want to make sure that the public is aware of just how dangerous these things are. Because at the end of the day, we should all be aiming to make sure that we are protecting each other, protecting our children, and making sure that dangerous people do not have access to fire. Mariana Mitchum, thank you so much. I appreciate it. All right, we'll be right back. Stay with us. So here's the lead, Wall Street Journal. In the hours after the U.S. secured its first victory in a World Cup knockout match in more than 20 years, the mood inside the White House was anything but celebratory. The game had been marred by a controversial red card for the American's top scorer at this tournament. And it meant he would be automatically suspended for the next two years. The White House was in a state of shock. he did. The president said repeatedly today that all he did was ask for a review, that he didn't order FIFA to do anything. It's almost like even this president knows this story might sound better if it had less of him in it. Joining us now is Natalie Andrews. She is White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. She's part of the reporting team behind this incredible story inside the White House campaign to overturn a World Cup red card. It is a dystopian headline. Natalie Andrews, thank you so much for your reporting and for being here tonight. I appreciate it. Thanks. Yes. My sense is that President Trump, in sort of an uncharacteristic way, kind of both wants credit and doesn't want credit for what happened here. Does that sort of track with your reporting and what you're seeing from the White House? I know in talking to folks inside the White House yesterday, they were very excited that this was the direction. They were seeing this as a win. It was exciting. Trump posted yesterday. But his comments today, yes, he wanted everyone to know he didn't ask specifically. He didn't make the direct ask. But we know that his team that he assembled after the red card went down, after the U.S. game, he assembled a team to look into this. And it was led by Andrew Giuliani, who's leading the World Cup for the U.S., and the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, was there as well. They assembled lawyers who are loyal to the president. And they discussed and kind of went behind the scenes all week on how could they mount a challenge? How could they present this to FIFA in the best way? Tapping a Giuliani to overturn the results. Who could have possibly seen that this might have ended up going the wrong way? One of the things that was, I thought, very interesting in your reporting was when you and your colleagues wrote that the White House thought they could, or knew, in your words, that they could count on a willing ally in FIFA's president. Can you just unpack that for us and explain that a little bit? The relationship between Trump and Infantino has been one of the more interesting bonds that have come out of the second Trump administration. He's popped up at the White House on days that have nothing to do with soccer. He would— He was at the UFC fight on Trump's birthday. He was also at the peace signing that Trump did in Egypt. He's—Trump has called him the king of soccer. And Infantino invented the FIFA Peace Prize and gave it to the president. So they do have this relationship. They've been known to talk on the phone. They have really formed a bond as the World Cup has been playing—as they've been preparing for the World Cup. Natalie Andrews, White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Really appreciate you being here to help us understand this still-developing story. I appreciate it. Anytime. Thank you. All right. We'll be right back. Stay with us. So, surprise. Here's a development in a story we have followed super closely over the course of last year. As you know, the Trump administration had this plan to build all these gigantic Trump prison camps all over the country. They spent over a billion dollars on these huge warehouses, buying up huge warehouse facilities all over the country, and they were going to use them to lock up tens of thousands of people. Huge Trump prison camps. Some of them would have been among the biggest prisons in the world, all to hold people without trial. After ferocious resistance to these facilities from basically every town all across the country where they wanted to put one, we got reporting last month that the Trump administration has now abandoned this idea. They are pulling back from almost all of them. They bought 11 of these warehouse facilities, and the reporting, first in The New York Times, was that at least seven of the 11 warehouses they bought, they're now planning to either resell them or repurpose them for some other government use. But they're not going to make them into these gigantic Trump prison camps after all. So, of the 11 they bought, seven of them to be resold or repurposed. But then what about the other four, right? That would leave four of these prison camps that they're still apparently going forward with. Well, one of those, we have an update on. One of those was a facility in Surprise, Arizona. That is the name of the place, Surprise. And there, like many of these places where these things were going to be cited, we have seen ardent and intense and dedicated local pushback. Early on, more than a thousand of these places were going to be cited. And so, people showing up to a Surprise, Arizona city council meeting to say, no, they do not want this. The pushback has gone so far as a dramatic proposal from local residents in Surprise that their city government should be dissolved altogether. Because if their local government can't be counted on to fight hard enough against this Trump prison camp, these activists in the town, people who live in the town, are proposing that they should disincorporate Surprise, Arizona to get those local leaders out of the way, because maybe the country is going to be in trouble. But the city government is going to be in trouble. And so, we have seen a lot of these people, the city government, who are going to be in trouble. And so, we have seen a lot of these people, the Maricopa County, where they are. The Maricopa County in Arizona will help them fight. That said, the Democratic-run state government in Arizona has been an ally to those locals in Surprise, helping them push back. Arizona's Attorney General Chris Mays filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from building this thing. Arizona's two U.S. Democratic senators are very much trying to associate themselves with the fight against the prison, which is a sure sign that the people fighting against the prison are all going to be in trouble. And so, we have seen a lot of people who are on the right side, and they're going to win. Here's Senator Ruben Gallego with some of the young people, some of the high school kids who've been fighting against this thing. Their school would be just blocks away from this huge prison camp. Just today, we got a statement from Senator Mark Kelly's office congratulating the people of Surprise, Arizona, particularly the young people in Surprise, Arizona, for how hard they've been fighting against this prison camp, commending their work to stop this thing. Senator Kelly told us today, when people stand up for their community, they can make a real difference. So, we've seen this huge pushback, pushback dramatic enough that they're willing to dissolve their town in order to fight back more fiercely against this thing. We've got the two U.S. senators in Arizona now saying, we are on the side of the people who are fighting this thing. We've got the Democratic-led state government in Arizona saying, we are fighting this thing. And they brought this lawsuit. And now, this was one of the four remaining places where the Trump administration was still supposedly going to push ahead with one of these giant prison camps. It looks like it has now been stopped. It looks like the Surprise, Arizona prison camp has been stopped, at least for the foreseeable future. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays now says the state has reached a legal agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that will halt any construction, will halt construction on building this out into a prison until, an environmental review is completed. And while that might sound like a temporary halt, you should know that those environmental reviews, everybody admits, can take years. Pushback. Pushback works. Doesn't always work, but it's the only thing that does. Watch this space.