tonight. thank you for being with us and good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. thank you at home for joining us this hour. so, it's been a busy news day today, it has also been a very tense day in the news. all day long and into tonight, ever since we saw the predawn headlines that iran's revolutionary guard corps was taking credit for shooting down an unmanned u.s. military drone near the strait of hormuz. now, the iranian government and the u.s. government both confirm that iran downed a u.s. drone. other than that, there are differences. iran says the drone had violated iranian air space and that's why they shot it down. the u.s. government says no, the aircraft was operating in international airspace. and so iran should not have shot

it down and it's there for a terrible provocation. in either case, there is no disagreement that the thing was shot down. it is also worth being doubly, triply clear about the fact that this was a machine. a remotely piloted machine. no u.s. personnel were physically involved or at risk in the shootdown. the pentagon said the drone was an rq4-a global hawk. i'm not sure that's what you should use to describe it. this is a large aircraft designed for surveillance. we think of drones as being -- if you think of commercially available drones, it's the size of an old fashioned model airplane. this is more like the size of an airplane airplane. the defense department released video earlier today that they say shows the american drone being taken out by an iranian surface to air missile. you can sort of see what looks like a trail of smoke after the drone is hit and as it falls

toward the earth. this incident happened last night in terms of u.s. east coast time, that means it was just before dawn today in iran, eight and a half-hour time difference. this afternoon, the white house held a bipartisan briefing for top leaders and summoned the top republicans and top democrats from both the house and the senate, along with the bipartisan leaders from the house and senate intelligence committees and the house and senate armed services committees, which is a serious kind of briefing. despite the obvious tension at home and abroad, i should say we got the initial reports about what happened here early on this morning. the story actually hasn't developed very much over the course of the day in terms of assertions from either side, in terms of what we've heard from our own government. i mean, we definitely got those clear assertions that that drone was definitely shot down by iran, and iran's clear assertion that they did the same thing. the president said it was definitely a big mistake by iran.

we've seen that kind of development in that story, but beyond that, we don't know what iran might do next. we don't know what the united states might do next. we don't know whether the president intends to respond in some way, or, frankly, who he would task with carrying out any sort of military response, if that's what he wants to do. his last acting defense secretary is supposedly leaving office tomorrow, which presumably means the new acting defense secretary is just starting tomorrow. maybe. in either case, no confirmed official is in charge at the pentagon, nor has there been one in charge at the pentagon since general jim mattis left more than six months ago. so, coming up on the show, i'm very happy to say, we're going to be speaking here in person in studio with ben rhodes. he has extensive, extensive experience with iran as a national security and diplomatic matter. he served as deputy national security adviser under president obama and ben rhodes is going to

be joining us here live in just a moment to give us his perspective on all of this, how this story may develop. what we should watch for from our own government and how serious this all is. ben rods coming up. we have also just tonight received the transcript of testimony before the judiciary committee in the house from hope hicks. hope hicks is the first trump white house official to have to testify to congress about the mueller report since it was partially published. we now know from the transcript of her testimony, which we've just received, that hope hicks was well armed in terms of legal firepower when she sat down before that committee yesterday. hope hicks brought with her into that committee room not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different lawyers. the one of her five lawyers, two of her own, two from the white house counsel's office and one of the office of legal counsel at the justice department. she's never been a justice

department employee. it's not clear what they were doing there objecting to her answering questions, but the justice department was represented, too. at the start of her testimony, it became very clear what all of those lawyers what that pyramid of lawyers was there to do. right at the start, the chairman of the committee, jerry nadler asked her to please read from a portion of the mueller report. it's a portion that describes corey lewandowski, who had been a major figure in the trump campaign. he was summoned to the white house. you might remember this incident from the mueller report as we talked about it a number of times here on the show. this is the incident where corey lewandowski takes dictation from president trump about a message the president wants him to bring to the attorney general. corey lewandowski, not a government employee, hasn't been involved since the campaign, nevertheless, the president summons him to the white house and says, take this down. this is what i want you to tell

the attorney general. jerry nadler asks hope hicks to read that portion of the mueller report out loud and she does so. and then this. chairman nadler -- are you familiar with the events described in the special counsel's report that you just read? lawyer, objection. chairman nadler, and you are objecting on what basis? lawyer -- the same basis that would call for her knowledge of events that occurred during here time as senior adviser to the white house. chairman nadler -- in other words, you are asserting absolute immunity that she cannot testify as to any knowledge of anything that occurred after the president was inaugurated? lawyer, during her time as adviser to the president, she cannot -- >> chairman nadler, she cannot refer to anything? she cannot state anything about knowledge of any during the period of time in which she was employed in the white house? lawyer, for the purpose of this hearing, yes. chairman, okay. question to ms. hicks. when mr. lewandowski visited on

june 19th, 2017, he was not an employee of the white house and the administration, correct? lawyer, objection. chairman nadler. that's a matter of public knowledge. it has nothing to do with whether or not she was white house staff. she would no that in any event, so it should not be covered by this. the lawyer, under the terms of absolute immunity, she may not speak about anything that occurred during the time of her employment in the white house as a close adviser to the president. the chairman, anything that occurred during that time? the lawyer, during her service as close adviser to the president. chairman nadler, so did a war break out between israel and egypt during that time period? lawyer, same objection. chairman nadler. same objection. well, i'll ask these questions for the record so you can object for the record. question to ms. hicks, do you recall if you knew why mr. lewandowski was at the white house that day?

lawyer, objection. chairman nadler, were you present for any portion of that meeting? lawyer, objection. question, do you know if anything else was present for any portion of that meeting? objection. have you discussed that with anyone outside the white house. objection. have you discussed that with anyone outside the white house? objection. i know this sounds like slam poetry, but legally this whole thing probably has a point because congress not only notes wants to ask hope hicks these questions and other white house staff these types of questions, they think that hope hicks and other white house staff will ultimately be legally compelled to answer these questions by a court, because a court, they believe, will eventually rule that the basis on which these lawyers, the white house and the justice department are objecting here, is a made-up basis. it's not a real legal basis to prevent a witness from testifying to congress. and so, i mean, in pages and pages, for hours and hours and

hours of hope hicks' testimony, they ask her lots and lots of questions that she does not answer. and this fleet of lawyers, instead, objects. but i think the reason they have gone through this exercise is for a forward-looking reason, which is that they're getting the supposed legal basis for those objections on the record so they, they hope, a judge, in the future, will later rule that these objections to her answering all these questions, those objections are not legally sound and after a court has a chance to rule on that, she will ultimately have to answer. so, again, i am not a member of the judiciary committee and i was not there and i have no idea knowledge, but that is what it seems like they were doing here. that said, the whole thing isn't just objection, objection, objection. they also do get her on the record on a whole bunch of stuff. here, for example, is hope hicks testifying yesterday behind closed doors in the judiciary committee about the prospect of getting foreign assistance to

help a campaign and should that occasion a call to the fbi. question from committee staff. to your knowledge, did the campaign ever report any information about contacts of any kind with russia to any law enforcement official? answer, report to law enforcement when? during the campaign? question, during the campaign. answer, not to my knowledge. did you receive a defensive fbi briefing or any kind of law enforcement briefing while you were in the campaign? answer, i did not, no. were you aware of whether the campaign received such a briefing? answer, i'm not affair. question, do you understand what i mean by defensive fbi briefing? i do, yes, sir. what do it mean to you, ms. hicks? answer, it means to have law enforcement to make you aware of risks. if the risks exist already or might present themselves at some point in the future. question, on july 27th, 2016, mr. trump publicly stated russia, if you're listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you'll probably be rewarded mightily be our press.

do you recall that statement? answer, i do, yes, sir. question, did you have any discussions about mr. trump about that statement prior to the statement being made? . answer, not prior to, no. did you have any discussions with him about the statement after it was made? i did, yes. were you with him at the time? i was, yes, sir. when did you discuss it with him? when we were on the plane. what was the discussion? the discussion was me informing him that some in the media had taken the expression literally and they were concerned he was encouraging fortunate governments to, you know, locate those emails and that was obviously that the media felt was extremely inappropriate and demanded a response from mr. trump and the campaign as to what exactly he meant by that. the media felt it was inappropriate. question, and did you have a view on the appropriateness of this statement? good follow-up. answer, you know, it was my understanding from both the way he made the remark and the discussions afterwards that this was a little bit tongue in

cheek. this was not a comment that was intended as an instructive or a directive to a foreign government. it was a joke. and that was the intent based on my conversation with him and that was it. question, and what did he say in the conversation about the statement? answer, just what i just said. it was intended on as a lighthearted comment. question, the president said last week told george step nop louse that he would take information from a foreigned a verve tear in the next election. he said there is nothing wrong with listening. it's not an interference. they have information. i think i'd take it. if i thought there was something wrong, i would maybe go to the fbi if i thought there was something wrong. do you think that was a joke? answer, i don't know. i have not discussed that remark with the president. i didn't see the entire interview. i saw the clip you're referencing. i don't know if there was additional context. i don't think that was a joke based on what i saw. question, all right. in your experience, knowing all

you do, you've reflected on it. i'm asking you this based on your experience and the expertise you developed. would you take foreign oppo information from a foreign government if that were offered when working on a political campaign? >> answer, you know, knowing how much chaos has been sewed as a result of something like the steele dossier, no, i would not. question, and again, i'm asking you about your expert opinion. would you advise another person to do that if that were in a position to do so? answer, no, i would not. question, would you call the fbi if you were offered such information? answer, if i thought it was legitimate enough to have our law enforcement dedicate our time to it, sure. and then the committee staff says, according to mr. mueller's report, there were over 120 contacts between the trump campaign and individuals in the campaign and russian individuals during the campaign. so, we will see how the

judiciary committee follows up on this, and, you know, what they may be able to get hope hicks to answer, if and when they take the administration to court over what they're saying witnesses can and can't answer in congressional testimony. but there is one more episode here from all the objections, no, she won't talk about, no she won't talk about that, there are things she does talk about it, and there is one more episode from the campaign, which hope hicks just testified about, that is of interest, because this is not the way we previously publicly understood what was going on at a very key moment in the campaign. a very key moment in terms of how the overall campaign worked out, but a very key moment in terms of russian interventions in the campaign to benefit trump. we learned something from hope hicks' testimony about what was going on in the trump campaign at the time which is something we did not knoll before. so, again, listen closely here. a couple of things we knew about

but we didn't know they went together. anyway, you'll see what i mean. question from committee staff. when did you first become aware of the "access hollywood" tape? answer, about an hour before it was made public. question, what was your reaction to it? honestly, my reaction was it was a friday afternoon and i was hoping to get home to see my family for the first time in a few months and that wasn't happening. question, did you have any other reactions? answer, look, i obviously knew it was going to be a challenge from a communications standpoint. did you discuss it with mr. trump? i did, yes. tell me about the discussions, please. i made him aware of the email i received from "the washington post" which described the tape and i don't know if the initial email did this, but certainly one of the subsequent emails in exchange provided a transcript of the tape, so, i described those different components to mr. trump and tried to evaluate the situation. and how did he react to that? you know, he wanted to be certain, before we engaged, that it was legitimate, and we all felt it was important that we

see the tape or listen to the aud yoel before responding. was he upset? yes, i think everybody was in like a little bit of shock. did he ask you how did he seek your advice on how to respond? yes. there were quite a few of us and it was very much a group discussion, given that this unfolded at a debate prep session. question, do you remember who else you discussed the tape with? answer, who else was present there? yeah, at that time. sure. reince preibus, chris christie, jason miller, steve bannon, kellyanne conway and later, jared kushner. i think that's it. question, do you recall reaching out to michael cohen about the tape? answer, my recollection of reaching out to michael took place the following day and it wasn't about the tape, meaning it wasn't about the "access hollywood" tape. she says, quote, it was about -- this is going to get confusing, but the day after the "access hollywood" tape, there were rumors going around, i'm not

exactly sure where, i heard it from our campaign spokesperson, who was sort of -- she had a lot of contacts, grassroots, she had called to tell me that or maybe sent me a message about rumors of a tape involving mr. trump in moscow with, you know, can i say this? and then the transcript notes discussion offrecord and she comes back on record. trump in moscow with, you know, russian hookers. participating in lewd activities. and so obviously, i didn't -- i felt this was exactly how it had been described to me, which was a rumor. nonetheless, i wanted to make sure that i stayed on top of it before it developed any further to try to contain it from spiraling out of control and the person that made me aware of the rumor said tmz might be the person who has access to this tape. i knew michael cohen had a good relationship with harvey levin at tmz so i reached out to see

if he heard of this and if harvey contacted him and if he please could be in touch with me. committee staff, and do you recall anything happening in connection with wikileaks at this team? yes. and what happened in that connection, ms. hicks? i believe the same day the "access hollywood" tape was released, wikileaks also released emails from john podesta's account. question, do you have any information about how those came to be released at that time? answer, no. okay, any other reason you reached mr. cohen? besides the harvey levin connection? answer, no. i know what michael said in his testimony about reaching out to him to help spin reporters. number one, i wouldn't reach out to michael for spinning reporters at that point in time, and number two, you know, there was really no spinning that tape. so, this is not long before the election. this is october. before the election. the "access hollywood" tape comes out and the campaign threatens to blow up. we know from subsequent accounts

that senior people on the trump campaign were telling trump to drop out of the race, to resign. they are threatening to quit themselves. but now, from hope hicks, we know that the very next day, after the access hollywood tape comes out, as the campaign is spiraling, maybe to death, because of the "access hollywood" tape an its impact, the next day, the trump campaign goes into a totally different kind of damage control on a totally different matter entirely, because they hear that's a tape of russian hookers, lewd activities, trump in moscow? ah, number one, that means that the campaign and presumably the candidate were not, for the first time, being told about the rumored existence of the trump hooker pee tape when james comey sat the president down during the transition and very gingerly told him about it. james comey has written about that interaction with the president during the transition and he has described it as if the president appeared to be very shocked to hear about this tape.

he was outraged to hear the rumors of this tape. remember, i'm a germophobe. that's ridiculous. but now we know that trump and his campaign had heard about that supposed tape and had been trying to track it down themselves. at least since the previous october. and they had tasked michael cohen with handling that. so, it was feigned surprise from president trump to james comey when he thought he was telling trump about that tape for the first time in january during the transition. secondly, we now know that the campaign's reaction when they heart about this tape, the supposed tape, was that they should call michael cohen. he's the guy. when they got this news that there might be a russian hooker's tape from trump in moscow, right, at that moment, they're are having probably the biggest breakout of the campaign, understandably, about the "access hollywood" tape where the president brags about

sexually assaulting women and getting away with it. while that unspooling within that period, they stop on a dime and -- call michael. call michael. we have a situation. we got to get a handle on this. how did hope hicks put it? i wanted to make sure i stayed on top of it before it developed to contain it from spiraling out of control. of course, we know that from the mueller report, michael cohen followed up on that rumored tape or tapes of trump in moscow. since we know he received a text message from a russian businessman who said this. stopped flow of tapes from russia, but not sure if there's anything else. just so you know. in an interview with the fbi, that russian businessman who told cohen he stopped the flow of tapes from russia, according to mueller's report, he told the fbi in a subsequent interview that when he said tapes, he was referring to compromising tapes of trump rumored to be held by

persons with the real estate group crocus group, which had hosted the miss universe pageant in russia. so, that russian businessman, the one who told michael cohen the same month that the "access hollywood" tape came out, when cohen had been tasked with the handling of that, that same businessman who said he stopped the flow of tapes from russia. that same businessman was involved in the trump tower moscow project that he was keeping secret, right? this guy was working on trump tower moscow while the president was denying having any business dealings with russia, and then, from russia, he was also apparently helping michael cohen out with the hooker tape freakout, which the campaign had tasked michael cohen with fixing. we learned today that the house intelligence committee wants that russian businessman's testimony as well. they are seeking testimony from him and they are going get testimony from phoenfe felix sa

tomorrow, michael cohen's partner on trump tower moscow. they got one trump administration witness, they had one so far since mueller's report was concluded. one witness who sat down with five lawyers and objected to basically everything she was asked and they still got all of that out of her. this is going to get more interesting over time, not less. stay with us. stay with us play it cool and escape heartburn fast with new tums chewy bites cooling sensation. ♪ tum tum tum tums thanks for coming.ewy bites cooling sensation. no problem. -you're welcome. this is the durabed of the all new chevy silverado. it looks real sturdy. -the bed is huge. it has available led cargo area lighting. lights up the entire bed. it even offers a built in 120 volt outlet. wow. plug that in for me. whoa! -holy smokes! -oh wow! and the all new silverado has more trim levels than any other pickup. whoa!

oh wow! -very cool. there's something for all of us. absolutely. it's time to upgrade. (laughter) cancer is the ugliest disease mankind has ever faced. we got the idea that if we took two dimensional patient imaging and put it in holographic displays, we could dissect around the tumor so we can safely remove it. when we first started, we felt like this might just not be possible but verizon 5g ultra wideband will give us the ability to do this. ♪ - don't let an amazing adventure pass you by. tripadvisor makes it easy to book your tours,

attractions, and experiences ahead of time. so you never miss out on can't miss adventures! book things to do on tripadvisor. when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint.

[ giggling ] ♪li'm a slick chickp♪ [ doorbell ] [ slap ] your nails! xfinity home... cameras. xfinity home... disarm the system. door's open. morning... welcome to the neighborhood. do you like my work? secure your home with x1 voice control. and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo at an xfinity store, call or go online today.

ben rhodes was president obama's deputy national security adviser and served in the white house for barack obama's entire presidency. was known to be very close to the president. and worked on some of the most consequential foreign policy decisions. he led back channel negotiations from cuba, worked on the osama bin laden raid. ben rhodes was one of the few people on the inside working the negotiations from the american side. president obama of course signed that agreement in july 2015, a historic achievement taking a nuclear iran off the table for the foreseeable future.

since president trump took the united states out of that deal unilaterally, since he decided to undo that work as fast as he could, ben rhodes has spoken out, saying the president has created a destabilizing situation for the middle east and the world. with today's news about iran shooting down a drone, a u.s. drone near the strait of hormuz, with the president now openly flirting with a potential war with iran, honestly, ben rhodes is the brain i want to hear from on this. ben rhodes, thanks for being here. >> thanks, rachel. >> what is your top level take on how serious the situation is with iran right now today after these reports about this drone shootdown? >> unfortunately, i think it's incredibly serious. and rachel, like you said, this was very predictable. when trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement, since then,

all he's done is stack provocation on provocation for months. more sanctions and designating a terrorist organization his own administration didn't want him to do. they thought they would hit back. what ends up happening is the effect of the threats pushes the iranians to respond in kind and now what we're seeing, potentially, with the fires on the tankers and with the shootdown of this drone is the iranian hardliners saying, we've taken enough and will push back. they said they will reaccumulate stockpiled nuclear material. so, the dangerous moment we're in, rachel, the trump administration's escalating and now the iranians are escalating and we're counting on those two actors to find and off-ramp and that's a very destabilizing moment. >> i feel like, as a lay obse e observer of national security things, somebody with no particular expertise in the matter, but somebody that just washes watches it from the outside,

when john bolton became national security adviser and mike pompeo secretary of state, we were all able to assert that these were among the hardest hardliners in u.s. government, in u.s. national security circles ever in terms of iran. i never thought about either and why they might be such hardliners or what they might mean they want to do. it's hard to believe they want a land war with the united states invading. it's hard to see the value they see in shooting missiles at iran. do you understand what they might see as the desired outcome here? >> bolton in particular has been outspoken in calling for not just a military strike on iran, but regime change in iran. you cannot get regime change through just a missile strike. that is a significant military action. that is a war, in my opinion. and if you look at what's happened since bolton was appointed, it was after he was appointed that we pulled out of the iran deal. it was after jim mattis resigned as secretary of defense six months ago that we saw this escalation really take off, and

we know from reports that mattis was apparently a break at the situation room table in saying, we shouldn't pull out of the iran nuclear deal. we should be cautious. since we've been without a secretary of defense for six months which never happened before in the history of the united states, this has taken off. and john bolton has controls of the plane and he is flying it. john bolton is committed to regime change in iran. >> we have no defense secretary, as you said, we won't have a defense secretary for a long time. we have a new acting one, who maybe is taking over tomorrow. that sort of vacuum within u.s. leadership is felt, specifically in terms of the absence of mattis and the type of role you're describing, given that chain of command and the way these decisions are being made, how do you think the government should proceed? what do you think this administration is going to do next? >> it's simple. you have a debate around the table. this is john bolton and mike pompeo wanting to take us into a

military confrontation with iran, and donald trump, literally donald trump is the guy we're counting on to potentially be the break. because he knows that runs against what he said, he wasn't going to get us into more wars. a normal administration would say, yes, if they shot down a u.s. drone that was not in iranian air space and that remains to be determined, by the way, because i don't know that we can just trust the administration on this but you would take this to the international community and you would try to get other nations to join you in condemning this and seeking sanctions on the iranians. my concern is, if you think that you can just start a military confrontation with iran and it won'ts that late, you don't know anything about the mindset of the iranian revolutionary guard, the iranian regime. they can retaliate in iraq, in afghanistan, in israel, in leban lebanon, across that region, potentially terrorist attacks beyond. this is not a simple war. this is a bigger, more sophisticated country than iraq or afghanistan was, and look at how those wars went.

i hope that i'm wrong and this doesn't lead to a war. i think the risk of it is such that people need to be making more noise. and some democrats are doing that in congress, i'd like to see more saying, this would be illegal, this would be potent l potentially catastrophic and i'd like to see them saying, you're not authorized to do this and we want a revolution to prevent a war with iran. >> ben rhodes, deputy national security adviser under president obama, intimately involved in high level dip phone si. thanks for helping us to understand this. i feel like we will be calling us a lot. we'll be right back. stay with us.

when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. ok i'll admit. i didn't keep my place as clean as i would like 'cuz i'm way too busy. who's got the time to chase around down dirt, dust and hair? so now, i use heavy duty swiffer sweeper and dusters. for hard-to-reach places, duster makes it easy to clean. it captures dust in one swipe. ha! gotcha! and sweeper heavy duty cloths lock away twice as much dirt and dust. it gets stuff deep in the grooves other tools can miss.

y'know what? my place... is a lot cleaner now. stop cleaning. start swiffering. the recommendations have just come in from the governor's charter school policy task force, confirming the need for increased accountability over how charter school dollars are spent. and giving local school districts more control in the authorization and review of charter schools. all reforms wisely included in bills being considered by lawmakers right now. so join parents, teachers and educators in supporting ab 1505 and ab 1507. please call your state senator today.

how's this for two headlines flashing by in rapid succession? first one, from the a.p. u.s. air quality slipping after years of improvement. the air quality in the u.s. has been getting better for years, thanks to better environmental regulations and enforcement. it was getting better for years until these past couple of years, whereupon the trump administration has been setting environmental regulations on fire and then dousing them in banned chemical pesticides that killed condors and now the air quality in the united states is getting worse. that was one headline from the a.p. can we put that back up on the screen? right after we got that headline, it gave birth to its own twin. new headline, also from the ap. epa gives coal plants a reprieve. yesterday, the coal lobbyist who

trump put in charge of the epa signed new legislation to roll back the obama era legislation that had tied up -- excuse me, tightened up standards on polluting old fashioned coal burning power plants. he signed that new rule just as his own agency's data were released that showed how the trump administration has turned around american air quality so it's now in decline. trump's own epa says the furtherer quality decline they're expecting from this rule change they just signed yesterday should probably be expected to kill around 1,400 americans every year that it's in effect. 1,400 extra dead americans because of new air pollution that they're purposely causing. as i mentioned, the trump administration's epa chief is a coal industry lobbyist. and maybe you can spot the pattern here. trump's hand-picked epa director, coal lobbyist.

trump's secretary of health and human services, lobbyist, as well. and tomorrow, trump's defense secretary will be run by a defense industry lobbyist. so much swamp draining. literally on the day trump had to replace the aerospace executive he had running the pentagon with the defense industry lobbyist who will run the pentagon instead, it would be hard on that very day for the president to launch his re-election campaign on the promise that he's been busy taking on the lobbyists. right? >> we stared down the unholy alliance of lobbyists and donors and special interests who made a living bleeding our country dry. that's what we have done. >> that's what -- we stared down those lobbyists. staring contest was easy. nobody actually seemed tense. didn't seem like it would escalate at all. we gave them all jobs and then went out for diet cokes

afterwards. we stared them down. that's one way to capture a federal agency. right? put a lobbyist from the industry that that agency is supposed to regulate or oversea and put a lobbyist in the top job of the agency. but in the trump era, it turns out there is now another side to this story about one agency that is trying to if not take itself back, that is trying to insulate itself from these trump-driven winds. it's fascinating. you have not heard this story. and that's coming up next. stay with us. the mercedes-benz of tomorrow

will transform not just the automobile, but mobility itself. an autonomous-thinking vehicle protecting those inside and out. and it's the mercedes-benz of today that will help us get there. the 2019 e-class, with innovations that will change the way we drive from this day forward. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease and financing offers. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

this is a story that's been happening kind of under the radar, but i think it's worth knowing about. it cuts against a lot of what we think is going on in washington right now. it's about a single federal agency where the trump administration has undertaken some really aggressive methods to undermine the work of that agency. i don't know how much you know about the u.s. department of agriculture. one thing to know about it is, it does a lot of research.

they publish peer reviewed scientific papers all the time. unfortunately for the trump administration, independent data collection and analysis and research has recently produced some findings the administration really didn't like. like the republicans new tax law would help rich farmers but would actually lower farm output overall and raise taxes on lo r er income farms. also that the president's trade wars are hurting american farmers. and found that climate change is a big problem for american agriculture and needs to be urgently addressed and these are the kinds of things that the trump administration did not want to hear. the way the trump agriculture secretary, sunny purdue, responded to these politically unpalatable findings coming out of his department is that he has tried to make the scientists in his department go away. over the last several months, trump's agriculture secretary has announced a series of new plans to try to bring the

scientists in that department to heel. he started by saying he would take the agriculture economic research division, which currently operates independently, separate from the whole political side of the department, he decided he would bring those independent researchers instead directly under the control of his office. he also directed all the scientists at the agriculture department to start labeling their published research as preliminary, to put that disclaimer on all their published work, as if it wasn't actually finished or maybe it wasn't super solid. then, he announced that, you know what, let's just send all the scientists 1,000 miles away. but only the scientists doing the work we don't like, the ones working on climate change and trade policy and food stamps and stuff like that, congratulations, all of you, you all get to uproot your families immediately and move to kansas city, we're moving your jobs to kansas city, right now. you're all going. unless, of course, you'd like to quit, that is, in which case, we

could replace you with people we like better. on mare not replace you at all. the usda chief scientist from the obama and george w. bush administrations told congress that a relocation like that would set usda's research back five to ten years because of all the specialized employees the agency would lose. so, that's one thing to know, the trump administration has been waging a sort of quiet war on government scientists, particularly at this one agency, because they've been producing quality work. that nevertheless makes the trump administration's policies look bad. but the other thing you should know is that we are seeing an unusual and interesting fight-back by the scientists who are being squeezed out by this operation inside this one agency. the scientists inside the agriculture department have very recently scrambled to unionize. they have formed a union. in part, so they can try to fight back against these decisions from trump's

agriculture secretary. they have rallied to drum up support for their cause. they have lined up support among members of congress to try to help them block what the trump administration is trying to do. and in some ways, you might look at this and think this is a fruitless last stand they're trying, i mean, as of a week ago, sunny purdue said they are moving ahead with this plan to ship the scientists across the country, hopefully to make them all quit. but one of the other things to know is that there's a handful of instances now in which we've seen the trump administration, we've seen the agency's secretary propose something that their own staffers were totally opposed to, but because of pressure, because of backlash, because of criticism, they've actually had to back off from some of the worst stuff they tried to do. that plan to try to force scientists to label their research as preliminary, that plan was killed because of an angry backlash against it. that plan to move all the scientists into the secretary's office so they'd have to answer

to him instead of being independent of the political side of the agency? that plan, too, had to get called off because of an angry response. just today, a plan to cut off a job corps program that trains underprivileged youth, that plan got bipartisan opposition in congress, in addition to opposition from staff inside the agency, and now the usda has backed off that, too, they're keeping that. and so, the scientists, the career nonpolitical staffers inside this agency are trying these unique tactics to try to basically keep their agency in tact, try to save the important work of their agency. and again, this is not democrats versus republicans, this is the people who actually do the important work the country needs from this agency, they're trying to save themselves and their jobs and the function of what they do from what trump is trying to do to make it go away. and they are trying, some what desperate tactics, but so far, they have been having some

success. it's really interesting. undertold story about what's happening in washington right now, but one of the scientists who has been involved in leading that fight joins us live next. stay with us. ay with usit relies pressure, bloating and discomfort fast. so no one needs to know you've got gas. gas-x. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. know you've got gas. and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously.

before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? (vo) cascade platinum does the work for you. prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. (mom) wow! that's clean! (vo) cascade platinum.

i come face-to-face with a lot of behinds. so i know there's a big need for new gas-x maximum strength. it relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort fast. so no one needs to know you've got gas. gas-x.

a week ago today, trump's agriculture secretary sonny perdue stood before employees to announce that he was moving ahead with a plan to uproot hundreds of his agency's scientists and ship them 1,000 miles away, to kansas city. this was the response in the room.

those folks turning their backs to the secondary are not standing up buzz they are stretching their legs. they are turning their backs on the secretary of their agency. the research scientists in the nation's agriculture department have been raising the alarm every way they know how that the trump administration is trying to gut their agency's scientific research, specifically targeting scientists who research results the trump administration finds politically unpalatable. the scientists have now unionized. they have protested, they have tried to line up support for their cause in congress. this is a fight that's been happening a little bit under the radar, but it is worth knowing about. these scientists are engaged in this interesting and unusual effort to, as they see it, try to save their agency's work from an administration that's trying to disappear them. joining us now is kevin hunt, a gee yoger if, who has been told he has to move to kansas city if

he wants to keep his job. he is part of the newly formed union fighting the relocation. i appreciate you being here. thanks for your time. >> thank you, rachel. i'm glad to be here under the hard circumstances for myself and my family and union family. it's a hard situation that we are dealing with this week. >> this relocation order, i realize that you have been told you need to move to kansas city if you want to keep your job. you and many dozens of colleagues. do you believe this is an effort to try to make you and your colleagues quit so they can either replace you with people they find more likable, given the administration's politics, or to not replace you at all, to try to reduce the amount of science that the agency does? >> i do believe that that's what will happen if this goes through, because most of us can't make this move. there's just too little time for us to decide. it's a really hard decision to

make in 30 days that we have to make it in. kansas city is not close. we can't even really visit it. we have to do it on our own dime if we were. this is -- it's definitely part of that presidential budget that was proposed where it would reduce our staff by 50%. so, essentially, that that could occur after we, you know, after we are assigned to these new locations, that could happen. >> in terms of what's likely to happen next here, i have been trying to describe the things you guys have been doing to try to fight this and to let people know that it's happening, the protest with the secretary, the forming of the union, in which you are now serving. i understand you have been getting some support in congress. there may be some legislative support to try to block this effort by the agency. >> yeah, the house has put through the appropriations process a bill that would stop

this move and, so that's what we find so concerning about the timing here. if we're all supposed to be located at this new facility, the last day of the physical year, then why -- what's the rush? it obviously has to do with this appropriations process. >> when you say they recommended that your agency in particular within usda, that your, as far as i understand, the budget for your entity should be cut by half and the staffing should be cut by half. has the secretary explained the way they intend to meet the budget cuts is by attrition? are they being overt about the fact that the move is intended to push you guys out? >> no, they act like they're going to, you know, who can't make it will be replaced in kansas city and they've advertised it as a great opportunity for that city. but the reality is, we're from the whole country.

i'm from columbia, missouri. i grew up there. i went to the university there. i went to a land grant university. most of my colleagues are from all over the country, because we came here to work on national policy and research that we're doing, you know, scientific-based research. >> kevin hunt, gee yoger if at the u.s. department of agriculture, vice president of the scientist's new union there. keep us apprised. this is moving fast and it's an urgent matter for you and your colleagues. we are interested in the story and we want to keep our views up on it. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back, stay with us. s.mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. for a restless night's sleep. pain settle there's a better choice. aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid and the 12-hour pain-relieving strength of aleve

that dares to last into the morning. so you feel refreshed. aleve pm. there's a better choice. you know those butterflies aren't actually in the room? hey, that baker lady's on tv again. she's not a baker. she wears that apron to sell insurance. nobody knows why. she's the progressive insurance lady. they cover pets if your owner gets into a car accident. covers us with what? you got me. [ scoffs ] she's an insurance lady. and i suppose this baker sells insurance, too? progressive protects your pets like you do. you can see "the secret life of pets 2" only in theaters. "the secret life of pets 2" doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu.

when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. hey, one heads up for you in terms of tomorrow's news. we have been covering the story on the show about the state of missouri, where the republican-controlled state government is trying to shut down the last abortion provider in the state. they are trying to make missouri the first state in america that does not have any legal abortion

providers, first time that's happened since roe v. wade in 1973. tomorrow, there's going to be a crucial court hearing in state court in missouri about whether or not that last clinic can stay open as the state government shuts them down. the judge is due to weigh in and we will be watching it closely. that does it and we will see you again tomorrow. it's time for lawrence o'donnell. >> i was so, so happy for you at 5:27 p.m. today when the transcripts came into our hands here. i thought she's got three hours. a little more than three hours with the transcripts. this is gonna be great and i was right. it was great. >> it was almost enough time to kaftan actor. you know what i mean? >> no, that's not why we are