somewhere in this group, there's somebody. that is going to captivate some movie producer, not harvey weinstein, but somebody else. >> harvey seen a better day. >> so it won't be harvey, but it will be somebody. and i'll say that that guy. >> is perfect. >> for a movie. and you're going to become. >> a star and. >> your friends are going to call you, and you won't even return their phone. >> call. >> anymore, you know, because you say, what do you. >> do for a living? >> i put up flagpoles. i'm not even. >> going to talk. >> to you. i'm a big movie star. so somewhere here. you have that. >> anyway, let's have a good. >> they call it a lifting. >> they also use another word. >> but i'm not. >> going to use that word. >> do you know what that is? the word. it starts with an e. you know what the word is? if i ever. >> used it, i'd be run out of. >> town by you people. all right, so enjoy it, doug. >> you're but this is pretty exciting.

that's some equipment. i'll tell you what. look at that crane. that's some beautiful equipment. it's. there's nothing like america. have a good time, everybody. >> have you even answered questions about whether you are moving closer or you believe the u.s. is moving closer to striking iranian nuclear facilities? where's your mindset on that? >> i can't say that. right. you don't seriously think i'm going to answer that question? will you strike the iranian nuclear component? and what time exactly? sir. sir, would you strike it? would you please inform us that we can be there and watch? i mean, you don't know that i'm going to even do it. you don't know? i may do it. i may not do it. i mean, nobody knows what i'm going to do. i can tell you this. that iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate. and i said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? why didn't you go? i said to the people, why didn't you go with me two weeks ago? you could have done fine. you would have had a country. it's

very sad to watch this. i mean, i've never. i've never seen anything like it. it's. so you never thought it was going to be the reverse? i didn't i didn't think so. and i was telling him, you got to. you got to do something. you got to negotiate. and at the last minute they said, no, we're not going to do that. and they got hit. remember 60 days. and then came the 60. 61 is going to become a very famous number. that was one hell of a hit. that first hit, that was one hell of a hit. not sustainable to be honest. that's where it ended. it ended on the first night? yes. >> is it too late, though? >> do you think it's too late to now? >> really? nothing's too late. the only thing too late is powell powell's too late. too late? powell. >> mr. president, what have you reached out to you? >> yes. >> and what did he say? >> i said it's very late. you know, i said it's very late to be talking. we may meet. it's i don't know. there's a big difference between now and a week ago. right. big difference.

may be this is about. >> vance and. >> it's about anybody. they even suggested they come to the white house. it's a big difference. but they've suggested that they come to the white house. that's, you know, courageous. but, you know, it's like, not easy for them to do. but they suggested, because i can't go now because of what's going on. i had to come back early from the g7, which was terrific, by the way, in canada, really terrific. good people. >> is there a possibility of next week or sooner than here? >> well, i don't know how much longer it's going to go on. i mean, they're totally defenseless. they have no air defense whatsoever. they're totally captured. you know, we've totally captured the air, brian. >> mr. president, you've been fairly compassionate towards the iranian people, suggesting. >> i know a lot of people from iran, from new york, from washington, mostly from new york. they're incredible people. they're smart, they're energetic. they can be difficult, but so can you, you

know? no, they're great people, smart people. and those people are getting the hell out of them now. and it's really a shame. it's so stupid. it's so stupid. it's another one. you know, russia. ukraine is so stupid. would have never happened if i was president. you guys agree with that? would have never happened. if i was president, putin would have never done it. and i spoke to him yesterday and i said, you know, he actually offered to help mediate. i said, do me a favor, mediate your own. let's mediate russia first. okay? i said, vladimir, let's mediate russia first. you can worry about this later. but i think that's going to work out too. but it's so many people have been killed. the big thing with that one is far more people are dead than have been reported in the ukraine, russia, many, many more people. a building falls down. they say nobody was hurt, you know. so ridiculous. >> i mean. >> what are you doing? >> unconditional surrender two. two. very simple words. very simple. unconditional surrender.

that means i've had it. okay, i've had it, i give up. no more than we go blow up all the, you know, all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place. >> they're. >> no they had bad intentions, you know, the for 40 years they've been saying death to america, death to israel, death to anybody else that they didn't like anywhere. bullies. they were schoolyard bullies. and now they're not bullies anymore. but we'll see what happens. look, nothing's finished until it's finished. you know, war is very complex. a lot of bad things can happen. a lot of turns are made. so i don't know. i wouldn't say that we won anything yet. i would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress. and we'll see. the next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week, maybe less. but is there anybody here that said it would be okay to have to have a hostile, very, you know, zealots really, but to have a hostile country have a nuclear weapon that could destroy 25 miles, but

much more than that could destroy other nations just by the breeze blowing the dust. you know, that dust blows to other nations and they get decimated. this is just not a threat you can have. and we've been threatened by iran for many years. and if you go back and look at my history, if you go back 15 years, i was saying we cannot let iran get a nuclear weapon. i've been saying it for a long time, and i mean it more now than i ever meant it. >> yeah. mr. president, you said last week that changes would be coming for farmers who have seen a lot of the workers they rely on taken away. but then dhs said this week that worksite enforcement would remain in place, that it's a cornerstone. so what's your message to farmers? >> you got to get the bad people out of here first. and we're doing that. we're taking them out by the thousands. murderers, drug dealers, people that are mentally insane from insane asylums. what they gave to us fellas they gave. do we have anybody in here that's a member of the media? no, i don't think

so. you've known all these people for a long time. any illegal immigrants in here? no. if they were, they'll find out, right? they'll be checking you. you won't. believe your whole life will be destroyed because of this press conference, which they'll destroy these people. i didn't want to tell them that before this happened, they'll end up being off. he's a so-and-so. this one is from. you know where? don't worry. i think you're. i think you're going to be okay. i'll be right behind you. i'm far behind you. i'll be right behind you. now, look, we have to take care of our farmers. we have to take care of people that run leisure hotels. i mean, we have to take care of them. but most importantly, we have to get the criminals out of our country. and biden let in thousands and 11,888 murderers, many of them murdered more than one person. can you believe it? many, almost 50% of them murdered more than one person. you let them into our country. they emptied out the jails of countries from all over the world, from the congo, from

venezuela, from all over the place. they emptied out. they just many of them. i would if i were running one of the countries, i would have emptied out my prison population into the u.s. and many countries did. and we're getting them out. okay. we're getting them out. thank you very much. let's let's watch this, brian. go ahead. are you okay? >> i'm going to follow up on the immigration real quickly. can you comment on the impact of the trump card and how much? >> yeah, we have a thing called the trump card. this has not been done before. i thought of. and for $5 million, this is usually people that would either be working for companies like apple, i think is going to buy a lot of them because they can't get people into the country. you know, if you come in through the southern border, you have no problem. you can be a criminal, you can be a drug dealer, and you have no problem. but if you if you go and graduate number one in your class from a great school, you can't get a job because there's no access to getting it. you can't get a green card. so we're going to sell that to people in some cases wealthy, in some cases not wealthy. they'll be paid for by

universities. look at harvard, they got $53 billion. the whole thing is coming to an end. it's amazing what we what we found out. what a disgrace. if they have $53 billion, we gave them 5 or 6. and some people say it's as much as $9 billion over a short period of time. so that's very much coming today. they want to make a deal more than i would say. harvard wants to make a deal more than iran wants to make a deal, and iran wants to make a deal. but, i mean, a lot of things look, a lot of things are happening in a lot of fronts, brian. a lot of good things are happening. and frankly, you know, it's a little bit of a, as we used to say, liberal. now they say progressive. i use the word liberal progressive's too nice a word because they're destroying the country. they're really destroying these. the liberal politicians are destroying our country. look what they've done during biden's four years. i mean, we're working on i mean, so much of our effort goes to getting people out of the

country that should have never been here in the first place. what what he's done to this country, it's not him. he had no idea what was going on. everybody knows that. it's other people. it's lisa and this one and that all these people, all the scum that was around the oval, you know, the oval office or around the beautiful resolute desk telling this guy here, do this, do that, and not even telling them. they just go over to the auto pen and sign whatever the hell they wanted to sign because say what you want about biden. he wasn't for open borders. he wasn't for transgender for everybody. he wasn't for men playing in women's sports. but he has no idea what the hell. he has no idea. and they were very upset. they wanted bernie sanders. and after about a week of this guy, they said, wait a minute, we just hit. we just hit gold. this guy has no clue he'll do anything we tell him. and then they realized they don't even have to get permission. they just go up to the autopen. that's a subversion. that's a

takeover of our government. and you people ought to start looking at it. that's a takeover. >> not you've been listening to the president speaking there from the white house lawn, touching on everything from tariffs and the fed to immigration to iran and the possibility of u.s. engagement as israel launches fresh attacks on iran's capital this morning, the president saying specifically, i may do it and may not do it when it comes to military action, but also not ruling out future and fresh negotiations with iran, saying it's never too late. let's bring in nbc news white house correspondent monica alba and senior national security correspondent courtney qb, where secretary hegseth is testifying this morning on capitol hill. also with us, new york times chief white house correspondent peter baker and nbc military analyst, retired four star general barry mccaffrey. monica, what do we know about the military options being discussed right now by trump's national security team? well. >> we know that there was a lengthy meeting yesterday in the situation room with the president and his top national security advisers, where he was

presented with. and they discussed a range of options. and this would include everything from continuing to do what the u.s. is doing now, which is to provide israel with this defense support as they continue to intercept missiles and drones from iran, or go on the offensive and try to join israel in providing some kind of military support with strikes in iran, specifically targeting those outstanding nuclear facilities. and that is something, of course, that the president was maybe hinting at with some of his social media posts yesterday. and then there's another option, which is a combination of helping israeli jets, potentially to refuel or from other supportive positioning. and there's also the option, the president says, of, again, doing nothing at all. and that is what he just spoke to in this lengthy q&a with reporters on the south lawn where he said, quote, i may do it, i may not. when he was asked if he had made a decision coming out of that meeting. so he

really was joking in a sense by saying, do you think i would tell you? and do you think i would tell you at what time we plan to bomb iran, if that's what we ended up deciding ultimately to do? so he didn't want to get into any of the specifics, but he did reveal a little bit of new information that requires some more reporting on, which is that he says the iranians have reached out to him directly to the white house, and that some offered some officials to come to the white house, to come to washington to perhaps continue some conversations. it's unclear exactly what he meant by that, but it kind of bolsters this idea that he's been trying to present, that he thought there was still a potential path for a diplomatic solution here. but at the same time, the president also just told reporters that that call or that outreach from the iranians is very different now than it was a week ago. he continues to say that had this been a week ago, or had they tried to take the deal or be a more of a player returning to the table in these negotiations to curb iran's nuclear capabilities, that may be some

sort of outcome could be reached. but he's saying short of that now, with the fire that's been exchanged between israel and iran over the last 5 or 6 days, that that seems less likely. and then he went into a lot of other tangents about the fed chair, about immigration, and about what he's out there to do, which is to witness this installation of a new flagpole that's going to be going on the south lawn and on the north lawn. and he indicated he might be taking more questions later when they actually are going to raise the flag up there on it. >> okay. let's focus back on iran here. now, general mccaffrey, one reason for potential u.s. involvement is to hit iran's deep underground nuclear facility with a bunker buster capability that, as i understand it, only the u.s. really has. talk to us about that and what that could entail. >> well, the u.s. does have a 30,000 pound targeted munition, deep penetration. it probably could get down to the 300 foot deep fordham nuclear site. it

would be repetitive strikes. it would probably also entail a widespread attack by u.s. fighter aircraft to further suppress air defenses, and possibly other nuclear targets. if you're a revolutionary guard lieutenant colonel right now, you think iran's really been knocked to its knees. the idf has struck throughout the country. they have devastated iran's offensive capability to fire missiles at israel. although israel has taken some hits, russia isn't going to intervene on their path behalf. their proxies are devastated. the houthis, hezbollah, the syrian regime's knocked out, so they're in trouble. i think a lot of this is just a mugging of iran in public to try and force them to negotiate may or may not work. president's language is simply outrageous. unconditional

surrender, 1945 who do they surrender to us? we might assassinate ayatollah. a lot of it, i think, does add pressure on the iranians. but it's a bizarre situation. >> and we're seeing these sort of dramatic pictures inside iran from recent attacks. just in the last 24 hours there lots of fire, lots of smoke. let's say the us does take this military action, general, if they they ae attack for the us, or is it just never going to be that simple? >> i would not think that we would send a lone b-2 bomber. and by the way, we've got exquisite intelligence on this underground facility. the five giant tunnels we know were there. ventilation shafts are the entrances are. you probably have to drop a series of these 30,000 pound weapons, one after

another, in the same strike point, but at the end of the day, until the iranians decide to end a nuclear program that's been going for over two decades, they're really all we can do is pause the whole action. and of course, there's the you know, when you elect, war is your choice. it may be a smart decision at the time. the question then becomes, where is it all going? if i think the us entering the war on with an air attack at this point will have unintended consequences, the iranians for sure, will then close the persian gulf. for sure. they will attack u.s. facilities. so, you know, i think we're watching a lot of us air power flowing to the region and to saudi arabia and to italy and to the uk. the navy's got another carrier battle group headed that way. it's a very credible capability now to devastate iran even further.

>> courtney, you're there on the hill monitoring this hearing with the defense secretary in front of the house, or rather senate armed services committee. has he addressed the white house's thinking on a potential iran strike? >> not really. although, i mean, candidly, i've been standing here for a bit, so i've missed the last several minutes. but before we went on the air here, he had not addressed it. look, the reality is, anna, we expect him to get questions about it. and the big question is, as monica and general mccaffrey have laid out, is will the u.s. military get involved? so at this point, we don't have an answer to that. it's not just what could the u.s. do? general mccaffrey laid it out very well there. the possibility of the u.s. using one of these, what are called a bunker buster, you know, or a massive ordnance penetrator, a mop to penetrate deep into the nuclear facility at fordo and potentially even at other locations as well. but the real question here is when could the united states get involved? the israelis have proven that they have a pretty substantial capability. they have shown now on several different occasions,

the ability to conduct airstrikes deep inside iran. several days ago, they already proclaimed that they had they had captured the airspace or they had superiority of the airspace over tehran. so the question is, what is the capability that the united states military really needs to bring here? and as general mccaffrey said, the one thing they don't have is this giant bomb. fordow is buried about 300ft below the surface. the gbu 57, what we've been calling the bunker buster, it has a capability of going at least 200ft deep. and critically, it's only about 5000 506,000 pounds worth of actual explosives. but it is because the total weight of it, the 30,000 pounds, is actually this very thick, very thick penetrator, strong alloy that's able to penetrate deep into the ground without allowing the explosives to detonate. the u.s. is the only one who not only has the ability to or has the bomb itself, but has the ability to employ it with these b-2 bombers. the question is, is there anything else the israelis need? in addition to that? we

don't have the answer yet. >> okay, everybody, thank you so much. peter baker, i'm so sorry that we didn't come to you. we have some breaking news right now from the supreme court that we need to bring in. we're just getting a decision having to do with transgender care for minors, specifically the supreme court upholding a tennessee law restricting gender affirming care for those minors. i want to get right to msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and leah litman, the university of michigan professor of law and author of lawless. lisa, you've been looking over this decision. what can you tell us? well, anna, i think the first and most important thing is the word restricts because it's not a strict prohibition. and that was important to. >> how the court decided this case. the law in tennessee that restricts gender affirming care to transgender minors allows the provision of transgender care in certain circumstances, such as when a minor has a congenital defect or a medical condition. what the court is saying here,

however, is that the state does not, that the state has a legitimate reason for imposing this law, and that this law, because it classifies, because it prohibits or restricts its gender affirming care to transgender individuals, regardless of their biological sex. it would be the same if you were biologically male or biologically female, that it is not deserving of what the court would call heightened scrutiny on the basis of sex. now, you may be remembering, as i'm sure leah does, better than i do, that there is a supreme court case from a couple of terms ago called bostock, that has to do with discrimination on the basis of not only sexual orientation, but gender identity in the workplace. that's a decision based on title seven, a statute. and the court here saying in somewhat tortured logic that doesn't apply here. we declined to take up the issue of whether we have to extend the logic of that employment discrimination case to a situation in which we are talking about the

constitutional protections available to transgender youth, even though in an employment discrimination context, we have decided that the phrase because of sex protects people on the basis of their gender identity. we're not going to do so in the context of thinking about what the equal protection clause necessarily provides to transgender youth. so you see the three liberals here really taking issue with that, in particular, justice kagan saying she's not sure how that test would come out, but she thinks that the kids here who have sued and their parents deserve that heightened scrutiny that the court usually gives to sex based classifications. and here that the court is refusing to apply to tennessee's law. >> and so, leah. bottom line, if you are a transgender minor right now in the us seeking gender affirming care. what does this decision mean for you? >> unfortunately, this decision opens up a pathway for states to restrict gender affirming care for transgender minors. in

addition to concluding that this law does not discriminate on the basis of sex and trigger heightened careful scrutiny for that reason. the court also said that a law restricting gender affirming care so treatment for gender dysphoria does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity, does not discriminate against trans individuals as trans individuals. i think that portion of the opinion is alarming because in order to reach it, the court had to rely on some very outdated equal protection cases. that said, state laws that discriminate against pregnant individuals don't discriminate on the basis of sex because even though the group harmed includes only women in that case, and here includes only transgender individuals, the group of individuals who can still obtain gender affirming care for other reasons, like the congenital diseases that lisa mentioned, includes both trans and non-trans individuals. and the concern with that logic is it allows states to enact laws

that burden only the transgender community, and seems to invite them to create more of those laws. >> and so lisa touched on this 2020 ruling that seemed to go the other direction. right. and it was actually penned by justice gorsuch, and it was a63 decision. so there were not just justice gorsuch, but other conservative members of the court who had ruled in this case. and it was concluding that the federal law that bars sex discrimination in employment protected transgender and gay people. so why do you think this situation is different in the justice's eyes? >> so i think the justices concluded that that decision was about interpreting a statute that congress had created a particular standard for establishing sex discrimination that encompassed discrimination on the basis of gender identity. here, they're saying the constitution's guarantee of equal protection is not

implicated. when a state restricts health care for transgender individuals, at least transgender minors. and so they are limiting bostock to a case about a federal statute. they also say that concern the area of employment, which seems to suggest that they might not be inclined to extend bostock to other federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, such as laws that prohibit discrimination in the area of health care, for example. >> so, lisa, more than 20 states have enacted similar laws as tennessee's law. what does this mean? does this ruling now apply to each of those states? i think. >> states that have similar laws to tennessee, to the extent that they offer a carve out on the basis of medical conditions, and that carve out, as lisa pointed out, can apply to both trans and non trans youth. this case essentially gives them a permission structure, right? you don't have the absolute

certainty that a case involving one of these other statutes would turn out exactly the same way if the text is not identical. but for the most part, these states can take comfort in today's ruling that they can ban gender affirming care for transgender youth and not trigger the sort of heightened test that the supreme court traditionally applies to sex based classifications. the one other thing that is alarming to me about this decision is that the equal protection clause, unlike title seven, doesn't contain the word sex anywhere in it. the court had to wrestle in the bostock decision with a statute that plainly prohibits discrimination because of sex. right? you can't wish that out of the statute. but where equal protection is concerned, the word sex and gender don't appear anywhere. and we have seen again and again from the court in its current composition, sort of a failure to extend the equal protection clause to contexts that plainly look to people with common sense, as if they involve gender or sex based discrimination. the abortion context is another one of these, where abortion rights

advocates have for years tried to get the court to look at abortion restrictions in the context of sex discrimination. and that's something that this court has refused to do, saying it's really not about gender based discrimination. again here. similarly, the text of the 14th amendment sort of allows them to kind of divorce themselves from it and gives them the out to say they're not going to use a law like this to trigger the more exacting, precise examination of whether a law like this is justified by the scientific evidence and whether the state has a compelling interest, and regulating health care to transgender youth. instead, they apply what's called a rational basis test, which is sort of the lowest level scrutiny that the court will apply to something that's alleged to be discriminatory. and all they have to have is sort of, you know, a reasonable interest in it. it's not a very exacting standard, and it's one that most state based regulations and laws

can very easily meet. >> all right, lisa, stay with us. everybody, please stay with us. we're going to squeeze in a quick break. much more on this breaking news from the supreme court when we come back. stay david trusts prevagen for his brain court when we come back. stay right there. and this is his story. nice to meet ya. my name is david. i've been a pharmacist for 44 years. when i have customers come in, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescription. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen has been the number-one selling brain supplement nationwide for over 10 years. my generalized myasthenia gravis was unpredictable, and limited what i could do, but ultomiris is continuous symptom control with improvement in activities of daily living. it is reduced muscle weakness. and ultomiris is the only long-acting gmg treatment

with the freedom of just 6 to 7 infusions per year, for a predictable routine i can count on. ultomiris may lower your immune system's ability to fight infections, increasing your chance of serious meningococcal and other infections which may become life-threatening or fatal. complete or update meningococcal vaccines at least 2 weeks before you start. if treatment is urgent, and you're not vaccinated, you should receive antibiotics with your vaccines. don't start if you have a meningococcal infection. infusion reactions may include back, belly, limb, or chest pain; muscle spasms; blood pressure changes; tiredness; shaking chills; bad taste; breathing problems; or face, tongue, or throat swelling. ultomiris is continuous symptom control. talk to your neurologist today. where are all the animals, dad? dunno kiddo. just not our day. it's a rare thing when someone you've been with for so long finds a way to surprise you. it's like discovering e*trade's easy-to-use platform

now comes with expert insights from morgan stanley... to help you navigate the markets. can you do a dolphin?! eee!!! ...sorry. (♪♪) still have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis... ...or crohn's disease symptoms after taking... ...a medication like humira or remicade? put them in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when symptoms tried to take control, i got rapid relief with rinvoq. check. when flares tried to slow me down,... ...i got lasting remission with rinvoq. check. and many were in remission... ...even at nearly 2 years. and rinvoq... ...helped visibly reduce damage of the intestinal lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting remission. and visibly reduced damage. check. rinvoq can lower ability to fight infections. before treatment, test for tb and do bloodwork. serious infections, blood clots, some fatal;... ...cancers, including lymphoma and skin;... ...serious allergic reactions; gi tears; death;... ...heart attack; and stroke occurred. cv event risk increases in age 50 plus...

...with a heart disease risk factor. tell your doctor if you've had these events, infection,... ...hep b or c, smoked,... ...are pregnant or planning. don't take if allergic or have an infection. put uc and crohn's in check... ...and keep them there. with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist... ...about rinvoq. got an itchy throat from allergies? claritin liquid provides powerful, all-day allergy relief in an instantly soothing liquid. for relief of even your most irritating symptoms, like an itchy throat. claritin liquid. live claritin clear.® new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job on indeed, it's easier for talented candidates to find it. which makes it easier for you to hire them. visit indeed.com/hire

the wifi is booming. which makes it easier for youbooming! them. and everyone's getting iphone 16 when they get xfinity mobile. point is, pair iphone 16 with xfinity mobile wifi powerboost... oh we're talkin' maximum performance with laptop speeds on the go. ...and, with apple intelligence, ms. barba has created 731 genmoji. 733! yes... darryl. where can i get iphone 16? at your xfinity store. new and existing customers can get iphone 16 on us with a new xfinity mobile premium unlimited line. from the supreme court. the court upholding a tennessee law that restricts gender affirming care for minors. lisa rubin and

leah lipman are back with us. also joining us now, msnbc legal analyst joyce vance and barbara mcquade. so, barb, this specifically affects transgender minors in the state of tennessee, as we mentioned before the break. there are about two dozen other states here in the us that also have similar laws on the books. what does this mean for the broader transgender community, and the kind of slippery slope that could now come? >> well, absolutely. any transgender minor is now at risk because states are copycats. they see now that tennessee has been successful, and so they are going to implement laws that copy the language here. and, you know, one thing i find incredibly noteworthy is that the court has really reflected a worldview that transgender rights are very different from gay rights in the way it interprets the statute. the statute does use the term inconsistent with sex, and nonetheless decided that this was not entitled to the heightened scrutiny that we saw in the bostock case. so that

really means that the floodgates are open for other states to follow suit and pass laws that will similarly put these restrictions in place. so i think if you are a family today with a transgender child, your child is likely at risk. if you live in a state that is hostile to transgender americans. >> joyce, what's your reaction to this ruling today? >> so, you know, i think we've had a great analysis so far. this is an equal protection case, and it's about whether or not the laws provide equal protection to transgender youth in tennessee. the factual treatment that's at risk in this case is relatively modest. it involves puberty blockers and hormone treatment. we're not talking about any kind of surgical intervention. and so the court's decision to apply a very low standard in evaluating the constitutionality of tennessee's law doesn't bode well for what other states might decide to do. states are not only copycats, but in some

areas, there's a race to the bottom where states try to outdo each other to see what kind of restrictions they can impose. let me just read one sentence from the opinion to you. it's 118 pages long. none of us have had the chance to read it all through yet, but noting that the standard that the court is using is helpful, they say as long as there's any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification, laws like tennessee's will be permitted to stay in effect. so bad news for people in the transgender community who wanted to seek this sort of non-surgical intervention. >> barb, i know you have a lot of experience when it comes to national security issues. i can't help but wonder when a decision like this comes down. do we see an uptick in violence towards the marginalized community? >> well, i think one of the things a message like this sends is that transgender people are not on equal status with the

rest of us, and i think that does give license to people to turn that sort of view into hate. now, i don't want to suggest that this is in any way rationalizes that kind of political violence, but i think any time we divide our public into us versus them, into people who have the full enjoyment of rights as american citizens and those who do not, we create a second tier of citizenship. and i think those people become vulnerable in many ways, not only legally, but also societally in the way that people look upon them. and so certainly it just makes them all the more vulnerable today than they were yesterday. >> roberts writes in his opinion, quote, this case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. the voices in these debates raise sincere concerns. the implications for all are profound, he says. the court's role is only to ensure

the law does not violate the equal protection clause. lisa, what do you make of that? >> i find that particularly interesting because this is the second time in sort of a big decision where the court, roberts goes on to say, i should say that one of the things that folks who want these laws not to be implemented can do is, of course, resort to the political process. so even though the court is not extending equal protection in this instance, if you don't like this law, the political processes should work themselves out. that's, of course, something that the court also said. and the dobbs decision in overruling roe versus wade. and so the court may see a different kind of backlash, not a backlash involving, for example, violence against transgender people, but an upswell of support. when people realize what this decision really means. and by the way, i should note that the aclu's chase strangio, who was arguing for the tennessee parents and kids at the supreme

court, noted at oral argument that if this law was upheld, it could also mean that states could restrict gender affirming care for adults because there was nothing about the decision or about the ways that tennessee had structured its arguments. even though the tennessee law itself is limited to youth and exempts adults, he said. if you took its reasoning to its, you know, farthest extent that the court would also be endorsing discrimination against transgender adults who want to receive gender affirming care. if that's true, we may see the birth of a sort of resurgence of a political movement on behalf of transgender people in this country who say, my only recourse now, given what the supreme court has decided is through my state legislatures and we are going to have to rise up and demand equal protection in that way. >> and so, justice sotomayor is one of those who dissented here. and she writes in her dissent, quote, it also authorizes, without second thought, untold

harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them, because there is no constitutional justification for that result. i dissent, obviously, very strong words and opinion there from justice sotomayor. leah, as you look at this situation at this point, are there other legal remedies that you see for the transgender community now? >> so one potential avenue is to make the argument that, as lisa noted, the majority in skrmetti does not address namely, whether a law that discriminates against transgender individuals as such might trigger heightened scrutiny and careful review under the equal protection clause. again, the court said this law banning gender affirming care for minors did not discriminate on the basis of gender identity because although the group negatively affected included only trans people, the group of individuals who were still able to access certain forms of care included both trans and cisgender individuals.

so if there was a law that just prohibited healthcare for transgender individuals, technically the majority opinion in skrmetti does not answer the question of whether that law would trigger heightened scrutiny. but concerning is the fact that justice barrett wrote separately, together with justice thomas, and she seemed to think that justice alito's separate writing also agreed with her to say that even if a law just targeted the transgender community singled out transgender individuals as such, it would still not trigger heightened scrutiny, and that opens up the door for much more invidious targeted discrimination, potentially. >> and leah, i understand you have some other thoughts on justice coney barrett's part of the decision here. break it down. >> so the fact that she was willing to go bigger and adopt a ruling that is more broad than the majority, majority, i think should really lay to rest the wishful hopes that she is some sort of moderate on the supreme

court, at least when it comes to issues of social policy, because her writing would allow states to do more damage and harm to the trans community than the majority did. and so that really tees up the question, why bother writing separately when you can decide the case on these narrower grounds? why invite states and potentially the federal government to do more harm for this community? >> one of the arguments that we heard joyce from the plaintiffs was that this law violates the rights of parents to make health care decisions. clearly, the justices, at least the majority, didn't see it that way. i'm a parent, so i can relate to that argument. explain why that doesn't apply here. >> so this is a clever argument raised by the plaintiffs in this case, because this is a court that has been very often

sympathetic to arguments about parental rights. in fact, there's another case this term about whether parents rights are violated when children are exposed to education in school without parental permission on certain kinds of topics. but the reality here is that the justices were always going to take this approach. they were always going to find this path forward. and the conversation you've just been having with lee is very instructive because there are two, perhaps three votes that would have gone further in this instance. there is so opposition to applying equal protection to transgender people that even this notion of parental rights wasn't sufficient to break through in the court's judgment. and one of the points that they hammer home in the majority opinion is this notion that this care that's being sought is harmful for transgender youth, that it can actually have negative medical

implications, that they are not old enough to fully comprehend. so the focus was there, as opposed to on the ability of parents to make decisions for their children. >> and lisa, there's still a couple weeks left in this term. we're still waiting on at least one more big one. which ones are you keeping your eye out for? >> i'm keeping my eye on a constellation of three cases that together present what we commonly call the birthright citizenship case. but as you and i have discussed and i've discussed on other shows, what that case is really about is about the power of lower courts to issue what are called nationwide or universal injunctions. what's at issue there isn't whether the president's birthright citizenship executive order is lawful per se, but whether any single district court in the 94 judicial districts in the country can issue an injunction or order restraining it, such that it impacts everybody all over the country. and so it's about three individual court's orders saying the president's executive order forbidding birthright citizenship is

unconstitutional. here. his department of justice has said, we want you to limit the impact of those three orders just to the plaintiffs in those cases, or maybe just to the judicial districts that they impact. the impact of that would be huge, because it would cause people to have to file their own individual suits all throughout the country to prevent sort of patchwork effect, where the birthright citizenship executive order is lawful in some places, not lawful in others, that would be chaos with respect to how we confer citizenship in this country, as well as wreaking havoc on individual lives. >> and so you just set the stage for what could come still, what will come as the supreme court concludes its term, we are expecting additional decisions to be revealed on friday and then could also go into the following week. lisa rubin, leah lipman, joyce vance, barbara mcquade, thank you all very much for walking us through today's breaking news. this decision affecting transgender minors and

gender affirming care. we appreciate you all. up next here on ana cabrera reports. thousands of iranians fleeing tehran amid the intensifying conflict with israel. one nbc reporter there says the capital, home to about 10 million, has the eerie feeling of a post-apocalyptic movie. could it post-apocalyptic movie. could it turn up the pressure for (♪♪) don't let congestion take over. afrin no drip. wow! ridiculously fast nasal congestion relief. wow! the wow is real. >> don't let what's happening outside affect how you feel inside. pella windows are tested inside. pella windows are tested against extre i'm not a doctor. i'm not even in a doctor's office. i'm standing on the streets talking to real people about their heart. how's your heart? my heart's pretty good.

—you sure? —i think so. how do you know? you're driving a car, you have the check engine light. but the heart doesn't have a hey, check heart sign. i want to show you something. put both fingers right on those pads. there you go. in 30 seconds we're going to have a medical-grade ekg reading. —there it is! —that is you. look at that. with kardiamobile, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. how much do you think this device costs? probably a thousand. $99! wow. that's impressive. checking your heart anytime, anywhere has never been easier. and kardiamobile is how hsa/fsa eligible. get kardiamobile today for just $79 at kardia.com or amazon. ♪♪ ♪♪ did you take your vitamin today? that's my job. ♪♪ nature made.

the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. splits and it always leaks. and it's way too heavy to carry around. it's time to get the brand new pocket hose. copperhead. just turn on the water and watch it grow to a full size hose. it stretches and expands like a rubber band. old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the new pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees. just connect to the spigot and watch it pivot. and when you turn off the water away, it goes shrinking back to a pocket sized hose. and it makes it easy to carry and put away. copperhead. it's the hose that grows and pivots, flexes and sprays. it puts itself away for another day. the pocket hose is so unique and so innovative. it was awarded over 100 patents.

call or go online now to get the super lite 25 foot pocket hose copperhead today for only 39.99. but wait. order right now and you'll receive an instant $10 discount, so it's only 29.99 and it gets better. order right now and get our copper spray nozzle with our exclusive thumb drive free. simply use your thumb to turn it on or off, and with ten unique patterns, you'll have a setting for every job. a $30 value yours free with every 50 foot copperhead plus copperhead comes with a full ten year warranty. it's that order right now with total confidence, but this special offer is not available in stores or on amazon, so order right here, right now. and with rising costs, this may be your last chance at this low price. there is a strict limit of three per order, so don't wait. order now. >> to order. >> call one 807 190706 or visit

copperhead comm. so call 1-800-719-0706 or visit. get copperhead. com order now. >> to avoid digital threats. just turn on nordvpn, improve your protection against trackers, malicious websites and malware ridden downloads. get the deal now. >> breaking news this morning as israel launches new strikes on iran. inside iran, people desperately trying to avoid the danger after days of strikes. look at this video emerging. this we found yesterday. it shows missiles of seemingly standstill traffic out of tehran. although we should note nbc news hasn't been able to verify when that video was taken. and nbc producer inside tehran right now describing a city transformed into a scene out of a movie in a matter of days. neighborhoods nearly abandoned, supermarkets shuttered new security

checkpoints all across the city. yesterday, much of the country was plunged into darkness. what's believed to have been a cyber attack taking banks offline, throwing atms offline, cutting iranians off from the outside world. in many ways, nbc's yasmin vossoughian tracking, tracking what's happening right now inside iran and is joining us. so we're seeing these videos emerging of bumper to bumper traffic. what is it like for people inside? >> much of that traffic has subsided at this point, because all the people that were running for the borders are out of town to tehran, have actually gotten to the places in which they need to be at this point. here's the thing. and i think it's important to talk through the economic makeup of not only tehran, but the country as well. as we talk about how people are actually getting out and getting to safety, because the average income for an iranian middle class iranian is a couple hundred dollars a month, right? but there is kind of more of a higher class within iran. the individuals that possibly have, for instance, a weekend home that they're able to escape to outside of tehran, or family that live outside of tehran as

well. and many of those people have sought out refuge outside of the city, kind of running for the hills, literally and figuratively because of feeling like they are under fire. and as we've seen, you know, many of the kind of weapons depots and the military sites being targeted in tehran. and of course, what we're hearing coming out of israel and from president trump as well, that folks in tehran should in fact evacuate. and that is why so many iranians have literally run for and are running for their lives right now. fuel is liquid gold. i mean, they're running low on fuel, water, food as well. people in the car for 20, 24 hours, some trying to make it all the way to the border, much in the northwest region of iran, the armenian border, the turkish border, the azerbaijan border. accepting u.s. citizens, british citizens as well, some iranians making it across the border. it is an incredibly desperate situation, right? banks are not giving money out right now, as you mentioned, because of this cyber attack. whatsapp, for instance, you were unable to talk to your family members over whatsapp. if in fact, you're

part of the diaspora here in the united states wanting to get in contact with your family members there, that was completely shut off. and so being able to communicate inside iran from outside into inside. and then also whether or not you have the supplies and you're hunkering down inside, iran is also a precarious situation. so they feel isolated, cut off from the world and the way it's being compared to for me, when talking to folks on the ground in iran is covid times, not knowing what tomorrow may bring, we can all think back to what happened during covid, right? thinking we were hunkering down for two weeks, but then not knowing what you know may 12th, may look like when we were on march 12th. and that is exactly what they're feeling today. tomorrow they may wake up and the house next to them may be gone. >> obviously, that that survival instinct is kicking in for a lot of people, and that's their immediate need front and center. but i do wonder, as we've had the conversation around potential regime change as part of this ongoing conflict, how do people inside iran feel about the current regime and the leadership there? >> i mean, so you remember back

to the women life freedom movement. i mean, this is this is a country. the large majority of the country does not agree with the current government in iran. >> but is there an organized opposition? >> no. and there was, to a certain extent during the women life freedom movement. but one of the issues with iran, and we could have a whole history lesson as to what happened in 1953 with the overthrow of them, democratic leader mossadegh. but what there hasn't been kind of an organized opposition movement inside iran. and one of the reasons was they felt as if they needed international support from the outside to help organize on, on the inside. and, and we thought there may have been kind of a potential overthrow of the regime during the women life freedom, but it didn't actually happen then. what's happening now is iranians are feeling like, yes, we do not agree with our government. we don't want this government in charge any longer. but we certainly don't trust that the israeli government, this is what they're telling me and or the united states government has our best interests in mind. right. and so many of them are nationalists. they want to do this on their own terms. they

want to do this with their brethren involved. and if they plan to overthrow the regime on their own, but they worry that they will become the targets, the fatalities, the, you know, of what this war is turning out to be. it seems. >> yasmin vossoughian really appreciate your reporting and giving us a little bit of a light shine on what's happening inside this country. we have, you know, access so easily to israel right now, but not so much inside iran. and i know your family is you have family members in iran right now. so i know it's a stressful time. we wish you and your family also safety and security. thank you, thank you, thank you. defense secretary pete hegseth is testifying right now as all eyes are on the military community. president trump considering launching an attack on iran to assist israel's efforts to wipe out tehran's nuclear program. secretary hegseth was part of trump's high level meeting on this issue yesterday in the white house situation room. nbc's julie sirkin has been monitoring that hearing. julie,

what should we know? >> well. >> hexa has been questioned on a variety of topics, particularly among democrats. this is really their first time since he came before the committee earlier this year to get confirmed, to be able to question him in the hot seat, though the hearing is supposed to be on the department of defense budget, it is anything but. senator hirono, just before it came on with you, was pressing hegseth with multiple questions. i think the overarching theme here is pressing him on whether the administration is following the courts. of course, a recent ruling came out about the legality of the trump administration sending national guard troops, other, of course, military forces on the ground there to help curtail protesters, even though gavin newsom, the governor there, expressly told the president those were not needed. there was a back and forth that has kind of become all too familiar in these hearings between hegseth and democrats, with him kind of sidestepping the questions there, getting heated in some moments. also questions about how he has treated service members, especially women in the military. this is a point of

questioning from hirono as well. all in all, here hex the forces here. as you heard from yasmin on the day where we are talking about, of course, the israeli strikes on iran, the planned forward u.s. involvement in those strikes, if there were to be any further military action on the ground. i asked several senators whether they support what the trump administration is doing, especially republicans. senator lindsey graham actually told us that he spoke to the president last night. for now, though, congress does need to provide some approval on these strikes if they get to an offensive place. republicans are supporting the president here. anna. >> okay, julie, we appreciate that update. as you continue to monitor this hearing, we'll of course, bring highlights to our viewers as we get more information from the defense secretary. we'll continue to follow that. breaking news. hegseth on the hill. president's iran calculations, all part of the conversation. plus, we'll talk to new york city comptroller brad lander, who was detained by ice in the latest confrontation between immigration officials and

democrats opposing president democrats opposing president trump. more after a qui you got this. one — remember, i don't want surgery for my dupuytren's contracture. two — i want to be able to lay my hand flat. three — i want a nonsurgical recovery. ♪♪ four — i want options — nonsurgical options. and five... and if nonsurgical treatment isn't offered? ♪♪ i'll get a second opinion. let's go! take charge of your treatment. if you can't lay your hand flat, visit findahandspecialist.com to get started. smart mouth is the only mouthwash that prevents bad breath for 24 hours. this is the only mouthwash i recommend. the only mouthwash i recommend. upgrade your mouthwash when allergies throw a sucker punch... the power of claritin-d punches back, harder. [boom!] get fast, powerful relief of your worst symptoms,

like nasal congestion. claritin clears. join the more than 7 million adults, like michael, who have taken ozempic®. like nasal congestion. as touring musicians, my type 2 diabetes could have slowed us down. but i didn't let it. i'm michael from the war & treaty, and this is what my ozempic® era looks like. i'm lowering my a1c. and i lost some weight, too. i also learned some people take ozempic® to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events, like stroke, heart attack, or death. and others take it to lower the risk of worsening chronic kidney disease. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take if you or your family had mtc, men 2, or if allergic to it. stop taking and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or any of these allergic reactions. tell your provider if you plan to have surgery or a procedure, are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. serious side effects may include inflamed pancreas, gallbladder or severe stomach problems, or changes in vision. call your prescriber if you have any of these symptoms.

taking with a sulfonylurea or insulin may raise low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, constipation. some side effects lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. discover the glp-1 with the most fda-approved uses, ozempic®. dad, come on. let's go! i'm working on it! from watching her first hockey game... ...to playing in one. at credit one bank, we believe having the credit and rewards for the little moments today can lead to even bigger ones tomorrow. credit one bank, for what's ahead. it's time to get away and cash in at cache creek casino resort. can lead to even bigger ones tomorrow. to rock and to roll. to go all out or go all in with four stars and rising stars. northern california's premier casino resort is the perfect place to do as much... or as little as you want. make your getaway now

and cache in at cache creek casino resort. the first time. who are you? embark. know your dog better. >> hello. it's 11:00 eastern, 8 a.m. pacific. thanks for staying with us. i'm ana cabrera, reporting from new york. and president trump just moments ago, refusing to show his hand and give any indication of his plans for possible direct u.s. action in iran. >> you don't know that i'm going to even do it. you don't know. i may do it. i