shop now at a sleep number store near you. (♪♪) behind every splenda product is a mission. helping millions of people reduce sugar from their diets. now try a sweetener grown by u.s. farmers. introducing zero-calorie splenda stevia. at splenda stevia farms, our plants are sweetened by sunshine. experience how great splenda stevia can be. grown on our farm, enjoyed at your table. (♪♪) well, that does it for us this weekend. we'll see you back here next saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. be sure to follow us on social

media everywhere everywhere @theweekendmsnbc. velshi continues our coverage. let's see what you're wearing. >> i got a little pushback about the tie and stripes yesterday. >> i know, that's why i asked! >> i mean, i love the tie. i didn't love the shirt with the tie. >> oh, my gosh! >> interesting. because somebody didn't like the shirt, but they liked the tie. it's very hard. it's very hard. michael, you and, we'll have to -- >> do you check what the lady in the house before you leave, with these combos? because she always looks fabulous. >> she looks great. >> i expect, no, because i'm getting dressed in the dark with nobody's input. i think i probably need to take your advice on that one. >> ali, ali, real easy, turn a light on. >> there's that, also. y'all are always up. maybe i'll just face time y'all.

"velshi" starts now. good morning. it's sunday, november the 17th. 64 days until donald trump's second inauguration. as he begins to make good on his promise to stack the government with loyalists, some of his cabinet picks have proven so dangerously unqualified that the countdown to inauguration day is becoming a deadline of sorts for trump himself. with a slate of nominees so controversial that even fellow republicans are balking at some of his choices, trump has turned to pressure to push republicans in the senate to bdicate their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. normally, nominees for the cabinet and other senior positions in the federal government would be vetted and confirmed by the u.s. senate. but the president-elect is already putting republican lawmakers through a loyalty stress test of sorts, demanding that the new republican-led senate, the legislative branch of government, give up one of the few and most important checks it has on the presidency and the executive branch of the government.

members of congress from both sides of the aisles have already begun voicing concerns about some of trump's cabinet choices , including the anti-vaccinationer robert f. kennedy jr. and tulsi gabbard. nbc news is also reporting that a majority of republican senators are privately saying that they don't see a path forward for trump's pick for the attorney general, matt gaetz. now, this early pushback suggests that trump might not be able to easily push through his entire cabinet of dangerously unqualified picks the way he wants. normally, the senate has the responsibility to confirm these appointments, and that is a power that is explicitly written into the institution. quote, the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consoles, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the united states, whose appointments are

not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be published by law, end quote. that is the united states constitution. it's one of congress's most important oversight powers. it's designed as a safeguard to prevent unqualified and corrupt individuals from taking top government positions. but before trump can even be inaugurated and formally nominate his picks, remember, these are not nominations yet, because he's not the president, he's already asking the senate to abdicate that responsibility, so that he can easily install all the people he wants across the federal government without any trouble. and that's where recess appointments come in. while the constitution gives the senate the power of advice and consent on nominations, it also allows for the president to, quote, fill up all ies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session, end quote. recess appointments would allow

trump to put in anybody who he wants, bypassing the normal vetting or confirmation process. if he uses recess appointments, no congressional committee or the senate himself would have to approve a nominee, and it could be a nominee that the senate has previously rejected. and those cabinet members could stay in office until the next congress was sworn in. so they could technically stay in their position for up to two years, in this case, until january of 2026. our understanding of the recess appointments clause has evolved over the year. when the founding fathers drafted the constitution in the late 18th century, when people still traveled by horse and carriage, it wasn't practical for congress to convene as regularly as it does now. back then, congress recessed for weeks, if not months at a timt, which made the recess appointments clause arguably necessary during the nation's early years. that's not the case today. but until relatively recent, presidents of both parties have taken political advantage of recess appointments to fill

vacancies. during his eight years in office, bill clinton made 139 recess appointments. george w. bush made 171. barack obama made 32. now, for the most part, it stopped there after the supreme court ruled that obama overstepped his bounds by making a recess appointment when the senate had only been out for three days. the justices set a benchmark and ruled that the senate must be in release for at least ten days before the president can make any recess appointments. and ever since, congress has effectively blocked the procedure by holding what they call pro forma sessions every few days. all that requires is for one member to gavel the house or the senate into session and then end it, even if it's just a few minutes later. it's a technicality, but it means that congress has not been on a recess long enough for trump during his first term or joe biden to make any recess appointments. trump wants to change that when he returns to the white house. and looking at his list of cabinet picks, it's easy to

understand why. and yet some republican senators , including the new majority leader john thune that they're open to that possibility. trump is already poised to have fewer checks on his power this time around and the senate cannot give up one more check on this presidency. our democracy relies on this system of checks and balances to ensure that the country is safe and secure and that no one branch has too much power. this is the senate's responsibility. and they owe it to the american people to do their job. joining me now is the democratic senator, chris van hollen of maryland, he's a member of the appropriations, foreign relations, and budget committees. senator, good to see you. thanks for joining us this morning. >> ali, great to be with you. >> this new incoming senate majority leader, john thune, your colleague, has spoken about the possibility of recess appointments as recently as thursday. let's listen to what he said. >> what i said is i think this is -- that all options are on the table, including recess appointments. hopefully it doesn't get to that, but we'll find out rather

quickly whether the democrats want to play ball or not. >> what does that mean? we'll find out very quickly whether the democrats want to play ball or not. >> well, ali, you laid out this procedure very well in your opening comment. i have my pocket version of the united states constitution. and essentially, what donald trump is asking republican senators to do is to give up their constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. consent. i don't know exactly what the incoming senate majority leader john thune was talking about there. the democrats will do what republicans have done, which is to use our current powers to vet nominees and they should go through the process. at the end of the day, we have an up or down vote. 51 senators, a majority of the senate, can vote to confirm somebody. we should not contract out that responsibility, that constitutional responsibility to

the president of the united states. >> anding ing to be clear, the republicans will have a majority in the senate. ultimately, if it is their view that the president's picks are the president's picks, they can generally get that done. the advantage of these hearings is that the members of the senate, the elected members of the senate, and the public can get insight. can get some very serious questions answered. in light of some of these picks, tulsi gabbard, and matt gaetz, flornt questions that people deserve answers to. >> that's right. that's exactly why the constitutional framers put this power in the senate, as a check on the president's power. so a president couldn't just pick anybody, regardless of how unqualified they were, without it being subject to this hearing process, where the senate gets to convene, have hearings, people have seen this process and they vote. so the president certainly has the prerogative of making the

nomination, but the constitution very deliberately provides this check on the president's power. so the only way that the senate could somehow get -- you know, decide to end-run the constitution would be through their own complicity. >> there are a number of people who are hearing some of these nominations and i'm sure are alarmed inside those departments that in preparation for that, they're getting ready to leave. donald trump and his allies, including some who are expected to join the administration have said that one of their top goals is to shrink the federal government. to shrink the civil service, to replace civil servants with what they call loyalists, which could mean tens of thousands of civil servants, i've heard the number 50,000, losing their jobs, many of whom live and around the capitol, including your state of maryland where the social security administration is based. what are you saying to these people who are uncertain about what might happen, literally, to them and their jobs and their neighborhoods and communities

under the next administration? >> well, ali, we all want a more efficient government, but what they're talking about actually is eliminating what has been the merit-based civil service. these are civil servants, federal employees who are in jobs, based on their qualifications, based on their expertise, based on their experience. and what president donald trump wants to do is essentially allow him to throw out the merit-based system and bring in political cronies who will do his will. so they're not really after efficiency. what they're really after is replacing merit-based civil servants with people who will do the president's bidding. of course, the president gets to set the agenda at the high levels of the executive branch, and everybody else will follow.

but we have merit-based protections for a reason. it's in the best interest of the united states to make sure that we have a professional merit-based civil service, not one based on political cronyism. >> is there some sense, though, that they may achieve some of their goal in getting these civil servants who are there because of their merit, to pull themselves out of the civil service. not even -- project 2025 talks about literally getting rid of them on the basis of certain weird criteria. but just people who are going to say, i'm not up for this fight. >> well, it's very possible that civil servants who believe that they cannot execute or faithfully implement the donald trump agenda, they may well choose to leave and that's their prerogative. what i hope is that federal civil servants continue to stay in these position ss.

obviously, they have a duty to the constitution to the united states, to abide by the laws of the united states. and one of the reasons incoming president trump wants to get rid of them and replace them with political cronies is he doesn't want people who have allegiance to the constitution. he wants people who are loyal to him and him alone. >> and i think that's an interesting distinction that you make. because loyal to the constitution is not something we're worried about. it is the distinction between the constitution and the president. senator, good to see you, as always. thank you for being with us this morning. democratic senator chris van hollen of maryland. still to come, donald trump is essentially giving two tech billionaires unbridled access to government institutions. it's the ultimate merger of money and power. we'll discuss how decades of legal decisions have normalized the role of money in politics. and tariffs can be a useful tool if and only if they are implemented in a thoughtful and strategic way. we're going to get to the truth about donald trump's tariff plans, next. e truth about donald trump's tariff plans, next.

chase really knows how to put the hart in your local community. see what i did there? hey, jackie! (♪♪) evan, my guy! you're helping them with savings, right? (♪♪) i wish i had someone like evan when i started. somebody just got their first debit card! ice cream on you? ooo, tacos! i got you. wait hold on, don't you owe me money? what?! your money is a part of your community, so your bank should be too. like, chase! make this christmas the year you go all-in on joy. at balsam hill, celebrate with one of our beautifullly crafted, life-like trees. for a limited time during our black friday sale,

save up to 50% off plus free shipping. and start making memories at balsamhill.com if you have heart failure, farxiga can help you keep living life with the ones you love. ask your doctor about farxiga today. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

your business needs a network it can count on... even during the unexpected. power's out! power's out! -power's out! power's out! -power's out

comcast business has you covered, with wifi backup to help keep you up and running. wifi's up. let's power on! let's power on! let's power on! -let's power on! it's from the company with 99.9% network reliability. plus advanced security. let's power on! power on with the leader in connectivity. powering possibilities. comcast business. power's out.

donald trump campaigned on a promise to lower inflation and fix the american economy. an economy that most experts say is right now one of the strongest performing in the world. but much of trump's economic plan lacks some detail. and one piece of his economic plan for a second term is to impose sweeping tariffs on other countries, particularly china. trump has favored tariffs as a solution to economic problems for years, even saying on the campaign trail that tariff is, quote, the most beautiful word in the dictionary. which is weird, but whatever. bottom line is that tariffs are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. they are a tool, which when used strategically, can remedy trade imbalances, protect certain domestic industries or influence other countries to improve their trade, wage, or human rights practices. trump already imposed considerable tariffs during his first term in the white house,

and the biden administration has maintained $360 billion worth of trump's china tariffs. they've even imposed some of their own. trump now says that he plans to increase tariffs in his next presidency, floating the idea of a blanket 20% tariff on every u.s. trading partner and up to 60% on most ed goods from china. he's said to keep chinese electric vehicles from undercutting american electric vehicles, he would impose whatever tariffs are required, 100%, 2 00%, 1,000%. in 2023, china was responsible for 58% of the global electric vehicle market. that's five times the size of the u.s. market, but these chinese electric vehicles are not sold here in the united states, in part due to restrictions that trump imposed in his last protest, and restrictions that were upheld by the biden administration. one of the most popular chinese

electric vehicles in the world is the sleek byd seagull. it costs approximately $10,000 to buy in china. nah vehicle were imported to the united states, with the current tariffs on chinese evs at 100%, you would pay $20,000 for it here in america. and $20,000 would still be cheaper -- it would be $8,000 cheaper -- than the least-expensive electric vehicle made here in america, like the nissan leaf or the chevrolet volt. so in order for the u.s. to have a competitive edge with china in the electric vehicle industry, these tariffs could help even the playing field. it's worth noting that there is an american-made electric vehicle company that happens to benefit directly from tariffs like these, and that is, of course, elon musk's tesla. musk the now part of donald trump's incoming administration, a co-head of the so-called department of government efficiency, which we'll talk about a little later in the show. but here's the downside of tariffs. they almost always, at least in the immediate future, until

markets can adjust, make goods more expensive for the consumer. tariffs are not, in fact, paid for by foreign companies. it's the importers, aka, the american companies that pay those tariffs, and those companies universally end up passing that tax on to the customer in the form of higher prices. so in the end, you the american consumer end up footing the bill for tariffs or you just don't buy the product. here's where things get even more complicated. if you impose tariffs on another country, that country will return the favor, they will impose tariffs on you and then you can have a trade war. donald trump sparked a trade war with china during his last presidency. as a result, u.s. exports of agriculture goods dropped significantly. american soybean farmers were hit the hardest, since china is the largest buyer of american soybeans in the world. to help fix this crushing blow, you, the taxpayer then had to

subsidize american soybean farmers to the tune of $28 billion. in the end, you paid for the tariffs twice. and i am not here to argue for or against tariffs. that's a conversation for people much smarter than i am. but as i've said, sometimes they're a useful and necessary tool, but a policy of this magnitude needs tyke into account the whole picture. as economic journalist bethany mcclain writes in an essay for "the washington post," quote, a targeted tariff that's part of a broader policy code could be the right thing to do, even if there are economic costs but we need to be humble about what we don't know and think nah a nuanced, careful way, about exactly what kind of problem we're trying solve and what the costs could be. which is sage advice. unfortunately, donald trump's policy-making vibe is not one we would generally call humble, nuanced, or careful thinking. after a quick break, i'll talk to ian bremmer who does know a lot about this particular issue. he's a geopolitical expert who just turned from a trip to china.

♪♪ over 600,000 usps employees working in sync to ensure everything sent on its holiday ride ends with a moment of joy. ♪♪ the united states postal service. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! ♪♪ safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ reminder, bent finger appointment. i don't want to wait or have surgery for my dupuytren's contracture. i want a nonsurgical treatment. and if nonsurgical treatment isn't offered? i'll get a second opinion. take charge of your treatment. if you can't lay your hand flat, visit findahandspecialist.com to get started. why use 10 buckets of water when you can use 1 fire extinguisher. and to fight heartburn, why take 10 antacids throughout the day when you can take 1 prilosec.

for easier heartburn relief, one beats ten. prilosec otc. one pill. 24 hours. zero heartburn. at betmgm, everyone gets a welcome offer. prilosec otc. so whether you're courtside trying to hit the over... or up here trying to hit the under. whew! or, hitting that win with your crew. ohhh! yes, see defense! or way up here with a same game parlay. yaw! betmgm's got your back. get your welcome offer. and play with the sportsbook born in vegas. all these seats. really? get up to a $1500 new customer offer in bonus bets when you sign up now. betmgm. download and bet today.

so, what are you thinking? i'm thinking... (speaking to self) about our honeymoon. what about africa? safari? hot air balloon ride? swim with elephants? wait, can we afford a safari? great question. like everything, it takes a little planning. or, put the money towards a down-payment... ...on a ranch ...in montana ...with horses let's take a look at those scenarios. j.p. morgan wealth management has advisors in chase branches and tools, like wealth plan to keep you on track. when you're planning for it all... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management.

all right. before the break, we talked about tariffs, how they can be an effective tool when used in a thoughtful and strategic way, and about donald trump's promise to wield them particularly against china. joining me now is ian bremmer, president and founder of our asia group and the author of many important books, including with the crisis: how three threats and our response will change the world." ian, thanks for being with us. this one is complicated, because it's not as straightforward. we know that china engages in practices that are anti-competitive for some of our u.s. industries. we do know we're headed towards a place where we've got to re-think our economic relationship with china. what do you make of where we are right now? >> as you mentioned, i just got back a few weeks ago, and i was stunned with just how badly the chinese economy is performing

right now. certainly worst than any time since the' 90s, maybe the '70s. their provincial governments are essential in receivership. they're bankrupt. it needs an enormous bailout from the central government and they are so far unwilling to do that in a structural way. it's all been piecemeal. the only part of the economy that's working, it's not consumer demand, because real estate has fallen apart, and that's 70% of chinese wealth, it's the manufacturing sector. but because there's no demand at home, that means that the chinese need to send all of these goods abroad. and that means we're seeing enormous dumping at lower prices, extending the chinese surplus that they're running with the united states and everyone else. in other words, a really challenging time for the chinese to see that the americans have just elected donald trump. so on the one hand, ali, the chinese are particularly vulnerable to the united states saying they're going to put

major can tariffs on china. if you wanted to try to cut a deal and see what the chinese would give you in return, now is probably the best time that we've seen in decades, to give that a shot. having said that if our intention is to go forward with tariffs, significant additional tariffs, no matter what, the cost on the chinese economy is going to be massive, and how that might respond to that will be very interesting to see. >> okay, are there instances -- i used electric vehicles as an example, because the chinese dominate the electric vehicle market, except you will not see an electric vehicle made by china in the united states. there's an example of the place where we can grow an industry and maybe it makes sense. what about the danger? the danger i see is this discussion of across-the-board tariffs and very high tariffs on china. should we just see that as a starting point in what is going end to up being a good global negotiation, or is there a danger of a trade war that can be very harmful to the american economy and the american worker?

>> whenever you put tariffs on, you're making goods more inefficient. and that means that the cost to the consumer is going up. now, there's no question that keeping chinese electric vehicles out of the united states is giving a lift to american producers. having said that, that means that the americans don't have the opportunity to buy less. less-expensive, more-efficient electric vehicles, as consumers do all over the world. i was in mexico city recently. you get out of the airport and the first thing you see a massive billboard for byd, as you just mentioned, in the last segment. why? because it's inexpensive and everyone wants to buy those electric vehicles. any tariff you put on it, can be on a washing machine or a refrigerator, you know, a coffee maker. those costs are going up when you're putting those tariffs on. having said that, a tariff is not just -- talking about tariffs is not just about

implementing a tax on american consumers. it's also a point of leverage. and if you are talking big, but ultimately prepared to deal and use the threat of tariffs to get something else that you might want, as the americans, for example, did with friends, like the south koreans, as leverage on the bilateral trade deal under trump, or with the canadian and mexicos, as leveraged in better outcomes for the usmca trade deal that seceded nafta under trump, there are lots of ways that tariffs can be useful not only in protecting industry, but also as a point of leverage. let's keep in mind, in bilateral relations with other countries around the world, the united states is always the most powerful country. so the fact is the u.s. does have leverage, both carrots zpiks. tariffs are sticks. there are also carrots that can be used. and we'll have to see exactly

how much trump is prepared to use both and whether or not the intention is to cut a deal, if a good deal is on offer, as opposed to just further decoupling the u.s. economy from china. >> we'll watch it closely and with you if thank you, my friend. ian bremmer is the president and founder of our asia group, east the who of multiple books, including "the power of crisis." coming up, elon musk is set to play a central role in donald trump's incoming government and stands to benefit personally in multiple ways. what you need to know about america's billionaire era and the surprising figure who wander us that it was coming. d the surprising figure who wander us that it was coming. have you compared your medicare plan recently? with ehealth,

you can compare medicare plans side by side for free. so we invited people to give ehealth a try and discover how easy it can be to find your medicare match. this is pretty amazing. i can go on a vacation with this money. i have quite a few prescriptions. that's why people call us. we're going to compare plans, and i'm gonna try to get you as much bang for your buck as possible. that's great. this one here covers all your prescriptions, your doctors as well. oh, wonderful. i have a hard time with this. that's okay, that's what i'm here for. based on our conversation today, i would highly recommend this plan. you're so helpful. you know, you don't know. i'm excited for you, sir. again, my name is sham. and if you have any other questions, give me a ring. thank you very much. oh, my god, that was super easy. uhhh! see how your medicare plan stacks up with the big changes for 2025. just call this number or get started at ehealth.com. compare plans that cover your doctor's prescriptions, pharmacy and budget, and compare plans from the nation's top insurance companies. they pay us to help you.

how much do you think you'll be able to save using ehealth? at least $300 a month. would you say you found your medicare match? yes i did. what sham did she explain to me exactly what i needed to know? well, i have a surprise for you. sham, come on out. oh my goodness. it's a pleasure to meet you today, sir. what does it feel like to be face to face? you helped me out quite a bit. call to meet your advisor. they're paid the same. no matter which medicare advantage plan you choose. ask them about ehealth, live advice or get started on your own at ehealth.com. either way, it's always a free service. see if you could get more for less with ehealth, like these folks did. the savings are unbelievable. i could see the costs side by side. ehealth is wonderful. $1,200 savings in my pocket. i was really pleasantly surprised with that. (♪♪) (♪♪) ehealth. your medicare matchmaker.

back in 1985, a young white house lawyer by the name of john roberts issued a prescient warning. in a memo on the reagan era grace commission, which sought to reduce waste in vernment spending, roberts cautioned in allowing private sector ceos to oversee the very agencies that regulate their businesses, calling it a disaster due to inherent conflicts of interest. decades later, the young lawyer now sits at the top of the supreme court, overseeing a nation confronted with an unprecedented consolidation of wealth and power. and in a move that critics describe as the ultimate merger of the two, president-elect donald trump this week appointed the tech billionaires elon musk and vivek ramaswamy to co-chair the so-called department of government efficiency.

now, i know that it has the word "department" in its title, but it's not an actual government agency. only congress has the power to create those. instead, it's more of a pet project of sorts for two billionaires who seem to get a kick out of trolling our government institutions. what is the department of government efficiency? trump tells us that it will serve as an outsider advisory commission to his administration, one that will drive large-scale structural reform. its billionaire co-chairs say they want to slash government regulations and spending while downsizing the federal workforce. musk has pledged to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, though he's offered very few specifics beyond that. and just for the some context, the total amount of discretionary spending in the federal government is about $1.7 billion. that does not include mandatory spending, which includes social security, medicare, and other programs. which means that musk's proposed cuts would have to extend beyond

discretionary spending, potentially targeting critical programs. critics argue that such steep cuts would devastate working and middle class americans, while leaving the wealthy untouched. in fact, in late october, musk seemed to acknowledge exactly that, stating that his proposed spending cuts could cause economic hardships for americans. quote, we have to reduce spending to live within our means. and you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity, end quote. which is super easy for a billionaire to say, temporary hardship. what's the deadline for this major overhaul of the entire government? trump tells us this will be completed no later than july 4th, 2026. musk promises to get it done much faster. the commission's position outside the formal government structure, which includes over 400 actual departments, raises serious questions about how it's going to achieve its goals. if musk's management of the social media platform "x" is any indication, the rush to

restructure our government institutions should deeply worry you. under musk's leadership, "x" has 80% of its value according to a study from the firm fidelity. beyond that, there are questions about allowing billion nars unbridled access to our government institutions. musk is the head of companies like spacex and star link, which hold billions of dollars in federal contracts. spacex alone has received over $15 billion in government contracts, including classified pentagon deals. . so musk's close ties to trump are clearly well documented. he's seen as insiders as trump's co-president. his super pac played a key role in helping trump get elected. his social media platform "x" significantly amplified trump's political messaging. but with the creation of the department of government efficiency, musk's influence is being formalized, rewarded, even, with a pseudo-government

title. consumer advocacy groups like public citizen have labeled the opinion quote, the ultimate corporate corruption. in a report published last month, the same growth found that at least three of musk's businesses are currently under scrutiny for alleged misconduct by at least nine federal agencies, end quote. musk will now oversee the overhaul of the very same agencies that are currently tasked with investigating his companies. and this is not the first time trump has appointed billionaires to his administration. his first cabinet incomed billion aires like wilbur ross, rex tillerson, betsy devos, and all faced criticism of prioritizing public interests over the public good. unlike tillerson who divested from exxonmobil once he became the secretary of state, musk has shown no intentions of stepping back from his businesses. there don't appear to be any safeguards at all against potential conflicts of interests. instead, musk will retain control over tesla and spacex

all while overseeing policies that could benefit his companies. my next guest, thom hartmann, argues that how we got this point, how our institutions made space for this to happen is the culmination of decades of legal decisions that have normalized the role of money in politics, starting with the supreme court's 1976 buckley versus vallejo decision, which equated spending money with free speech. a decision that opened the flood gates for big money to dominate elections. two years later, the same court in boston v. bellgoti expanded those rights. dissenting judges warned that it would derode our democracy. justice byron white warned that corporate power would dominate not only our economy, but the very heart of our democracy. nearly five decades after those decisions opened the door to buying influence, musk's appointment risks entrenching corporate interests within the very structure of our federal government. the 2010 ruling in citizens united versus fec only

exacerbating these vulnerabilities, allowing corporations to pour unlimited funds into political campaigns, solidifying their grip on power. and the opinion was written by none other than the once bright-eyed and bushy-tailed john roberts, prompts critics to label if the roberts court wore on democracy. the top 1% in this country are no longer just influencing policy from behind the scenes. they are seizing control of the actual levers of power in government. a logical and perhaps inevitable consequence of allowing money to dominate our politics. this dramatic shift mirrors the dynamics of autocracies, where billionaires often blur the line between public office and private interests. a 2023 study found that billionaires are far more likely to hold office in autocracies than in democracies. a trend that some fear could erode america's democratic foundations. back in 1816, thomas jefferson, then president, foresaw these dangers and issued a stark warning about the risks of

concentrated wealth. quote, those seeking profits were they given total freedom would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government, end quote. as trump's oligarchy begins to take shape, jefferson speaks to us from his grave. a sobering warning of what will happen when we entrust the keys of democracy though those who profit from its dismantling. fr. . moat the... library.s right... for a better clean with less... it's got to be tide.

my name is brayden. i was five years old when i came to st. jude. i'll try and shorten down the story. so i've been having these headaches

that wouldn't go away. my mom, she was just crying. what they said, your son has brain cancer. it was your worst fear coming to life. watching your child grow up is the dream of every parent. you can join the battle to save the lives of kids like brayden, by supporting st. jude children's research hospital . families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live . what they have done for me, my son, my family-- i'm sorry, yeah. life is a gift, especially for a child battling cancer. call or go online and help save another lives of children like brayden. now, i'm 11 years old. we were actually doing the checkup for my brain.

and they saw something in my throat. it's thyroid cancer. it was heartbreaking to find out that he has cancer again. but we knew who we had behind us. it just gives me hope. you can make a difference. join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. without st. jude or its donors, we would have been in a bad place. these kids, they've done nothing wrong in the world. finding a cure for childhood cancer, it means everything. help st. jude give kids with cancer a chance. [audio logo]

all right. my line producer and senior presidential scholar, mark katz, reminded me that thomas jefferson was not the president in 1816, he was not the president after 1809, but thomas jefferson did say the things that i told you that he said about the dangers of oligarchy. joining me now to discuss this new chapter in america, the billionaire era, if you will, is thom hartmann, syndicated talk show host of "the thom hartmann" program, also the author of "the crash of 2016: the plot to destroy america and what we can do to stop it." also joining him, joseph stanley, author of the new book, "erasing history: how fascists rewrite the past to control the future." thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. this is definitely a conversation that has to come out of the an distract become very real for us with actual

billionaires actually taking certain reins of power and influence in the government, thom. "the washington post" that reports that slashing the budget, the federal government is going to rely -- it's going to rely on decimating an array of government sources and because it goes beyond what our discretionary spending is, this involves things like food, health care, housing aid, funding for programs that lawmakers in both parties have sworn to protect, including social security. talk to me about how this makes sense to you. how do you think about vivek ramaswamy and elon musk saying they're going to take $2 trillion out of the federal government, two guys who know nothing about government. >> i think a lot of it -- good morning, ali, thank you for having me. i think a lot of it has to do with the definition of freedom these days. bank in the' 30s, franklin roosevelt said, you're not free if you're homeless, you're not free if you don't have a job, you're not free if you're capable of getting an education and can't get one.

the right-wing billionaires have by and large reinvented that word to say, oh, no, you're not free if you have to pay taxes. you're not free if you have social obligations. you're not free if your company gets regulated because it's poisoning the water and the air. and so, you know, we've got this situation now where the kind of gop definition of freedom is coming to dominate. we're going to get more freedom for billionaires, and by franklin roosevelt's definitions, frankly, kamala harris' as well. she used this comment frequently on the campaign trail, the rest of us are going to get a whole lot less freedom. >> jason, this -- i want to sort of understand how far we should take this analogy, that a lot of countries that have less democracy, all the way to countries that have autocracies and dictatorships, seem to have a lot more of these people in power, billionaires, rich people, or people who control media, tied in very closely to the government. we can use -- pick any example

you want. but, you know, all the way to russia. talk to me about that relationship. what is it about democracies that mean that people in business -- they might have influence and they might have influence through money, but at least we should consider them an arm's length away from government, which we don't seem to be prepared to do now. >> that's right. a democracy is a system where you can speak truth to power. so, of course, if you destroy truth, you can speak truth to power. so that's what one of these billionaires has managed to pull off. so you can't really run a country as an autocracy, unless you have a billionaire backers and this sort of situation. you require billionaire backers, and in this case, christian nationalists and angry young men. but, look, we've long been an oligarchy. dch dick cheney was in power during the iraq war and profited from him, the obama administration bailed out the big banks,

timothy geithner went right from being the secretary of treasury to a private equity firm. what we have now is another instance of strengthening the contradictions. the american people want the hypocrisy removed and a very explicit marriage between the oligarchs and the dictator. however, this is hypocrisy. this is, if you will, the gulf elite now running the country, for the rest -- forever. so people are marketing this as the anti-elite election. that is fully ridiculous. the elite are not public school teachers, social workers, and professors. what we've got now is an oligarchical elite that's complete unfettered. >> thom, you write that america has a severe problem of big money controlling our political system. quote, no other developed country in the world has this problem, which is why every other developed country has a national health care system, free or near-free college,

strong unions that include a healthy middle class. they're taking active steps to stop climate change, they don't fear being shot when they go to school, the theater, or shopping, end quote. this is one of those things where to jason's point, at least some voters have been convinced that the constraints on society are certain freedoms and certain control by certain groups who are not actual super-rich people who are making our decisions for us. >> and the thing that concerns me the most about this, ali, is that oligarchy, as jason so brilliantly points out in his writings and today, oligarchy, and i discovered this when i was writing my own book, the hidden history of american oligarchy, is typically transitional phase of government. it's an extraordinarily unstable form of government. because eventually, the average person -- i mean, you've got basically a kleptocracy. the oligarchs are running the government will use that to enrich themselves. that rips money away from the

average working person, which is exactly what elon musk is talking about doing, and the average working person gets pissed off and tries to rebel. that leads to one of two things. either you go back to being a democratic system. there's a radical change. we saw this in brazil when bolsonaro was thrown out, or you flip into tyranny. you become hungary or russia, which both went through oligarchic phases and turned into essentially autocracies and dictatorships. and the thing that concerns me so much about this moment, and particularly some of the people that donald trump is surrounding himself with is that they are -- they seem to be people who would be very, very comfortable with a strongman authoritarian government government rather than a small "d" democratic government. >> at least you have some chance that the reaction could be a democratic reaction which pulls us back from this.

but jason, you've done so much research on this, you see potential solutions that could mitigate the influence of billionaires like elon musk on our democratic institutions? some of it, there's a movement to get a constitutional amendment out there to reverse the effect of citizens united. what else or what other things could people actually be thinking about? >> well, people can be thinking about not obeying vance. so we'll have an attack on all the institutions. i think we have tech fascism. figures like elon musk are tech fascists. they want their own, completely unfettered and unstrained rule. what's going to be important is that everyone does their job. and this kind of crony capitalism and corruption, where loyalty matters more than competence, all of us will be asked to sacrifice our principles in order to bend the knee. and if every single citizen does

what they're supposed to be -- do in their jobs, and i mean teachers, and i mean journalists, and resists this kind of pressure, then confidence can hold the line. and there's going to be a ton of pressure and there's going to be a ton of opportunity for ordinary heroism in the years to come. >> tom, real quickly. there is one group of people who should be holding the line, and that is congress. that's actually their constitutional job. on friday, democratic senators called for an investigation into elon musk's federal contracts, because he's actually going to gain very directly from a relationship with the government. what -- what are the concerns, if that doesn't happen? if this is just normalized, that we're not even talking about him divesting from his companies, we're literally going to give this guy a seat at the table who has billions, billions with a "b," with contracts in the government. >> it's not just him. it's others that are close to trump and who may end up in his cabinet.

and certainly did the last time around. i think that this is a sign that america, you know, jimmy carter was on my program seven years ago, and he said, america is no longer a democracy because of citizens united, we've become an oligarchy. and i think that what we're seeing right now is evidence that jimmy carter's analysis was absolutely correct. and as jason points out, we've got to stand up. we've got to push back, and we've got to encourage our members of congress to hold the line, whether it's, you know, demanding that the senate actually vet candidates like the constitution requires or investigating these folks. >> thanks to both of you. thom hartmann, host of the syndicated radio show, the thom hartmann program. jason stanley professor of philosophy at yale university, author of multiple books including "erasing history." one of the consequences of all of this is that roughly 93 million users have left "x," formerly known as twitter, just

in the last year. and as users have been looking for alternatives, a million new accounts have popped up on blue sky just in the last week. you can find me on blue sky, too. i've been posting to these alternate sites for over a year now. those are my handles right there, @alivelshi on threads. another hour of "velshi" begins after a quick break. "velshi" be after a quick break. easy to apply for the whole family. vicks vapostick. and try new vaposhower max for steamy vicks vapors. patients who have sensitive teeth but also want whiter teeth, they have to make a choice- one versus the other. new sensodyne clinical white, it provides 2 shades whiter teeth as well as providing 24/7 sensitivity protection. patients are going to love to see sensodyne on the shelf. say christmas. christmas! for holiday traditions old and new, when you want gifts to express a lifetime of love. we've

spent a lifetime crafting them. harry & david, 90 years and still sharing. what's up, you seem kinda sluggish today. things aren't really movin'. you could use some metamucil. metamucil's psyllium fiber helps keep your digestive system moving so you can feel lighter and more energetic. metamucil keeps you movin'. and try fizzing fiber plus vitamins. [children playing] hey guys, come on! time to eat. time to eat. i don't want this. i want corndogs! ♪♪ corndogs! corndogs! corndogs! ♪♪ i need another corndog!

drop everything and get some magic of your own during the xfinity black friday sale. xfinity internet customers, our best deals of the year are back! switch to xfinity mobile and get your choice of a free 5g phone, plus your next unlimited line free for a year. get amazing savings and connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go with xfinity mobile. fly don't walk to get our best deals of the year. connect to the world of wicked this holiday, only in theaters november 22nd. ♪ ♪