Joe Scarborough (3:56)

The ones that were screaming all weekend.

Richard Haass (3:57)

Well, this is it. Here's Charlie Kerr leading the charge.

Joe Scarborough (4:01)

Really upset.

Richard Haass (4:02)

Yes.

Joe Scarborough (4:04)

Children were molested and raped and the truth had to come out.

Richard Haass (4:08)

Over 200, maybe 250, according to Pam Bondi.

Joe Scarborough (4:11)

Delight.

Richard Haass (4:12)

Well, here's Charlie Kirk talking about the administration's handling of the matter rather critically.

Mike Allen (4:18)

Take a look, make some noise.

Richard Haass (4:19)

If you care about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Joe Scarborough (4:26)

Raise your hand. If it matters a lot to you, raise your hand. So every hand of 7,000 people, everybody cares a lot.

Matt Lewis (4:34)

I said a lot.

Laura Ingraham (4:35)

Every hand.

Joe Scarborough (4:37)

That's, that's a lot.

Richard Haass (4:39)

But now he says he is, quote, done with the matter.

Joe Scarborough (4:44)

Hmm. Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein. For the time being, I'm going to trust my friends, the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it. Balls in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend. Balls in their hand. So you trust them. Okay.

Richard Haass (5:02)

Laura Ingram was also on stage at that Florida summit where she polled the audience about the topic.

Laura Ingraham (5:11)

How many of you are satisfied you can, you can clap. Satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation? Clap. Okay, I told you to clap. You guys aren't listening. I'm not going to grade you on a curve. So I was going to get to that. How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation?

Richard Haass (5:39)

And then yesterday, she scolded other conservative influers influencers for discussing the matter. Take a look.

Laura Ingraham (5:47)

Now, as conservative influencers were eating their own about Epstein, the President was stealing the show on the one Year anniversary of the day he almost lost his life, he made a triumphant appearance at a global sporting event. Meanwhile, Democrats keep shooting in their own goals, stumbling from one embarrassment to the next.

Joe Scarborough (6:12)

You know, sometimes, sometimes you get it wrong. Hey, as I've said here on this show, I get wrong every day. Sometimes you make mistakes, you read something wrong. Most notably last year, after spending a lot of time with Joe Biden, I talked about Biden at his best. I got it wrong. Sometimes you change your mind and you see some facts, the facts change, you change your mind with those facts that happen. But I must say, very rarely have I ever seen people going from a decade long crusade against pedophilia, against sex abuse, against, against child exploitation and making that almost a centerpiece of their existence, saying, when we get in power, we're going to release the Epstein files. When we get in power, we're going to be different. When we get, we're not going to do what Joe Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, we're going to expose it all. And you go on your podcast and you go on your podcast and you go on your podcast and you keep repeating that over and over again, or you go on Fox News or you go on any of these other channels and you say, we're going to do this. And then you have a weekend conference in Florida where everybody's enraged, what Charlie Kirk said, 7, 500 people outraged by this. The truth must come out. And then the next day, magic pixie dust is sprinkled over all of the, all of the podcasters and voila, this moral crisis of a decade long about little children getting raped by the richest and the most powerful men in the world goes away.

Richard Haass (8:26)

No flight logs.

Joe Scarborough (8:27)

I'm just, I don't need the flight logs. They're saying, I don't need the flight logs. They're saying, we don't need the list. They're saying all the things that we've said before, everything we've said over the past decade about Hollywood stars and lefties and Democratic politicians, never mind, never mind, done with it. Let me say, I was asking these questions, I think before most of these people were back in 2017, 2018, going, why is this Epstein guy walking around, what kind of sweetheart deal? Why did he get a sweetheart deal? Why is there justice for the poor, justice for middle class Americans and not justice for the rich? It's a good question to ask. And yet overnight, suddenly they go from a decade of rage to saying, I'm going to trust the government. I know what I said about the JFK conspiracy theories. I know what I said about the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories. I know what I said about the JFK Jr. Conspiracy theories. I know what I said about the 9 11. But here, here I'm going to just trust the government. Okay, that's really something strange because we've got a decade of quotes of you saying never trust the government. We got a decade of quotes saying never trust a Justice Department that's not releasing all the. About Jeffrey Epstein. Never trust people who are protecting the richest among us. Now listen, a caveat, and this is an important caveat. We have Tom Winters and we have other people, Kendallan, who are saying Donald Trump's right, not Trump's right. There were no lists, there were no smoking guns. Donald Trump's right. But these podcasters who built their careers who made millions of dollars telling you that there was this Jeffrey Epstein list and they were going to get to the bottom of it. They were going to tell the truth about it. They were going to make the government tell the truth. And then they go to the White House and they're holding up these files, the Epstein files. You know, inside there were like Bazooka Joe cartoons. Like it was absolutely crazy. And then the Attorney General gets on tv. This is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. You. That's disgusting what these people did. And we're gonna release it all. What happened? I don't understand.

Richard Haass (11:24)

What happened in 24 hours?

Joe Scarborough (11:26)

What happened in 24 hours?

Richard Haass (11:27)

By the way? Epstein's partner is available and she's in custody. There's a lot of ways to get information and a lot of opportunity to learn about this case and to perhaps bring justice for so many women.

Joe Scarborough (11:42)

I think they had a vote, Alex. Didn't they have a vote? Didn't they have a vote on the, on the floor yesterday and the Republicans stopped Maxwell's testimony. Didn't that happen?

Laura Ingraham (11:54)

Well, there was a vote about releasing the documents.

Donny Deutsch (11:57)

Mika, you got the script right there.

Joe Scarborough (11:59)

Yeah, releasing the, releasing the documents. Okay, well, so for the Democrats, overnight, put a vote up. House Republicans voted against the Democrats amendment that would force the Justice Department.

Laura Ingraham (12:13)

To.

Joe Scarborough (12:13)

Release the Jeffrey Epstein files. I know what you're saying. You're saying, well, the Democrats didn't seem to care before. Well, you seem to care before. So now the shoe's on the other foot. And I wonder how comfortable you are with that shoe that is on your foot. How ill fitting that is. The House Rules Committee voted against attaching the amendment to the bill. And there was only One Republican, Ralph Norman, who voted in favor of actually releasing the Epstein file. So here we are, Jonathan Lemire shoes on the other foot. We're not here talking about conspiracy theories. We're, you know, we've heard what Tom Winter said. We've heard what Kendallane said. He said there's no there there. This is what a lot of people in the government have said before, but not MAGA supporters. MAGA supporters have been on a crusade, a holy war, to get this information out that they believe shows the richest and most powerful men in the United States and the world molesting little children and then the federal government letting them go. So what happened? Why, why, why, why is Charlie Kirk and all these other people gone from making this sort of the, the centerpiece of, of, of their, their case.

Laura Ingraham (13:45)

To.

Joe Scarborough (13:45)

Suddenly saying, I'm done with it, I'm done with it. I'm never going to mention, he said, I'm not going to mention Epstein files. I'm done with it. I trust the government. Let me say that again. Let me say that again. The movement that is built on not trusting the government built on building up bullshit conspiracy theories about everything. The big dumper, he didn't win that last night. There were green screens. The actual winner was Roger Maris, who is still alive and living somewhere in Poughkeepsie, New York. Conspiracy theories about everything. Now we're saying, I trust the government and I will ask no more questions. I can't even say it. I will ask no more questions. It is painful again, sometimes you get things wrong. I get things wrong all the time. And admit it, sometimes you change your mind. We're talking about, but this ain't that. This is a complete and total capitulation on an issue that they claimed to be a moral crusade against a corrupt government cover up that's been going on for years. So what happened?

Donny Deutsch (15:15)

So the question we posed on this show yesterday, looking at this story through a political lens, would be how long would there be a MAGA rebellion against Donald Trump? How long would it be for the first time, it was the first time many of these voices ever questioned him. How long were they willing to do that? And the answer was about 48 hours. Because it does seem largely put to bed already that, yes, whether it is indeed Charlie Kirk or whether it was Benny Johnson, some of the loud at times, just over the top defenders of Donald Trump explaining away whatever he would do. And last week, Friday, Saturday, angry at the situation. Trump's social media post Saturday certainly didn't help. But here we are By Monday afternoon, by Tuesday morning, it's all being swept aside. Yesterday there was a study done how many Jeffrey Epstein references on Fox News through dayside, almost none. The network had which had been obsessed with that story at times turned the page. There was simply Donald Trump sent the word in that social media post and then in interviews he gave at the tarmac on Andrews on Sunday a little bit we heard from him yesterday saying dismiss this, sweep it under the rug. It was over. And that's what we're seeing right now. So joining us to talk about it further, contributing columnist for the Hill, conservative writer Matt Lewis, a perfect voice on this story. So, Matt, as Joe said, we've heard from Tom Winner, we've heard from Kendallane, and there is the investigative piece of this, the evidence. We know some of it can't be released. It's too sensitive. Also, some of it simply doesn't exist. There's no quote list like had been put forth in the MAGA feverish dreams, MAGA conspiracy theory land. So let's set that aside. Let's talk about the politics of this. Let's talk about this remarkable about face. Even in a political movement that is so impressive in its undying loyalty to Donald Trump, even for them, the about face here, breathtaking.

Matt Lewis (17:21)

No, it really is right. Think of all the things that Donald Trump has done that could have turned off his base. Right. Stormy Daniels might have elicited a backlash from evangelicals. That actually didn't. Right. Attacking John McCain at POW might have turned off some national security military veterans. Really didn't. Bombing Iran might have permanently alienated the America first isolationists. They sent off some mean tweets. Trump famously said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. And he was pretty much right. And this is actually the first time that I've seen this sort of civil war actually erupting to this degree. And it's over the thing. And I think this is telling what is the defining issue? What is the issue that the MAGA base is passionate enough to go to a civil war over? It's not Stormy Daniels. It's not storming the Capitol. It is this Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory. I think that tells us a lot. And look, have some people capitulated? Clearly, yes. But I don't think that Trump is out of the woods yet. There are Charlie Kirks and Laura Ingrams who are now selling out and saying nothing to see here. But there are others who I think are actually true believers. Whether that's because they're just crazier and more into conspiracy theories or because they're actually sincerely concerned about the fact that, look, Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker. And it just seems logical that more people other than Epstein and Maxwell, his accomplice, were involved in this. So I'm not sure this is that he's out of the woods yet.

Mike Allen (19:14)

Okay, Mike Allen, I hope you've had as much coffee as Joe seems to have had this morning, because the energy levels coming in on this are hot, which is great. You guys are writing about the suspicion in magaworld at the moment. You see, still thinking that actually there is a lot of dissent in MAGA world. I mean, if we went below the influence, if you kind of see it as a pyramid, right, with Trump at the top, and then you've got all of the influencers, and then you've got kind of MAGA world below that, are you thinking that actually amongst MAGA world, there is still a lot of disquiet about Epstein? And as Matt is suggesting, this may not be over yet.

Laura Ingraham (19:49)

Yeah, Caddy, the pixie dust, as Joe put it, worked for now. And my conversations with with Trump World yesterday, the headline was Trump is pissed. Like, those three words, in addition to what he was saying in front of cameras, behind the cameras, he was sending the same message. And so that's why you saw Charlie Kirk backing off. But pull back the camera. Look at why this erupted and why, as you and Matt suggest, like, this may not be. If you look at how MAGA came to power, there's a story up, the lead story of Axios right now about MAGA paranoia, the MAGA siege mentality. This is by Tal Axelrod from Axios, who was at that Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa over the weekend, and Zach Basu. And they point out that MAGA came to power based on suspicion. Right, Of. Of elites, of globalists, of the deep state. And so that is wired into the MAGA DNA. And so they're always going to listen to Trump and Trump can tamp it down. But that's the reason that this erupted so ferociously. Why they rebelled against Trump and why there may be. This is totally Trump's whimsical, but there may be efforts to throw them a bone. Axio's Mark Caputo has some great reporting about off ramps. If Trump decides to take them, they could appoint a special counsel or some sort of investigative committee. They could ask courts to unseal documents that have been sealed. But I'm told from inside the White House, that's complicated because minors are involved, and they could also unredact some of the redacted documents that they put out.

Richard Haass (21:52)

All right. We'll continue to follow this with you. Mike Allen and contributing columnist for the Hill, Matt Lewis. Thank you very much for coming on the show and way too early this morning. We're going to take a moment now to look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. China says its GDP expanded 5.2% in the second second quarter of 2025 compared with a year earlier, suggesting the country's economy largely held up under President Trump's intense tariff campaign. According to the Wall Street Journal, Chinese exporters were able to offset those pressures by boosting shipments to Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that he will continue his run for mayor of New York City as an independent candidate. He lost last month's Democratic primary to Zoran Mamdani by a wide margin. In a new campaign posted on X, Cuomo vowed to stay in the race while criticizing his opponent.

Joe Scarborough (22:59)

The fight to save our city isn't over. Only 13% of New Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is in November, and I am in it to win it. My opponent, Mr. Mandani, offers slick slogans.

Alan Kellison (23:14)

But no real solutions.

Joe Scarborough (23:17)

We'll see if he's really in it to win it, whether he campaigns, whether he shakes hands, whether he goes to neighborhood events, whether he holds a press conference, whether he does any of the things that he didn't do in the primary campaign that has put him in this position. To start with, of course, his opponents in the general election will include Eric Adams, who's also running as an independent. Mamdani. I'm wondering, though, Jonathan o', Mear, you are our Daily News alum. There is a general feeling that, that this move by Andrew Cuomo guarantees that the independent independent vote is split and the Democratic socialist will become the next mayor of New York.

Donny Deutsch (24:08)

I mean, that's a huge risk for those who don't want to see Mamdani win. Now Cuomo has also floated an idea that if by mid September he signed on to some pledge in calling for Adams and the Republican candidate, other potentially any other independents, to do the same, that they coalesce around one person then that basically whoever has the highest poll numbers in the non Mamdani category, that that person should be the alternative and everyone else should drop out and support that person, whoever it is. Cuomo, of course, betting that it's himself. We'll see. No one else has agreed to that. There are some people who wonder if Cuomo himself will follow through. But that's where things stand at the moment. But we should just note, Joe, to your point, I mean, Andrew Cuomo ran a lackluster campaign to this point.

Joe Scarborough (24:55)

That's fatic. He didn't.

Donny Deutsch (24:56)

Insulting to the word lackluster. Yeah. I mean, the pathetic lackluster user, it seemed like he didn't want to do it. And there's always been questions as to whether he even really wants this job. People around him say his eyes really are at the governor's mansion. Again, at some point, he feels like he was unjustly thrown out. So he says he's going to be out there. We'll see if he actually starts campaigning. You know, yesterday that video shot just on a couple blocks on the Upper east side of Manhattan.

Richard Haass (25:22)

All right, one more item. Severe flash flooding yesterday caused major subway delays in New York City and road closures across New Jersey. Take a look at this. A surge of rainwater was captured on camera pouring throughout the underground rail system. Stairwells were turned into waterfalls. And New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared a state of emergency and has advised everyone to avoid unnecessary travel. We'll be following that. And still ahead on Morning joe, we'll take a closer look at President Trump efforts to end the war in Ukraine as he pledges to send more weapons to Kiev and threatens to impose tariffs on Russia. Richard Haass will join us for that.

Joe Scarborough (26:07)

This is Barack Obama.

Richard Haass (26:10)

Plus, former President Barack Obama has a strong message for his Democratic colleagues. Stop whining. We'll dig into his latest comments and the state of the party. Also ahead, will artificial intelligence kill jobs or create them? The answer apparently depends on who you ask. Or maybe it's both. We'll go through Mike Allen's new reporting on that. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Joe Scarborough (26:44)

It will. It will do. Change your life.

Richard Haass (26:47)

You're watching MORNING Joe.

Joe Scarborough (26:48)

Prove your backswing.

Richard Haass (26:49)

We'll be right back.

Joe Scarborough (26:50)

It'll get chicken weed out of your backyard.

Katty Kay (27:03)

MSNBC Films presents Season 2 of Leguizamo does America, an NBC News Studios production hosted by John Leguizamo. On the next episode, John travels to Denver, Colorado.

Joe Scarborough (27:16)

These days, Denver is a surprising blend of cultures.

Laura Ingraham (27:19)

And one thing's for certain, everyone living in this city has a unique way of preserving their own traditions.

Katty Kay (27:25)

Leguizamo Does America continue Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.

Matt Lewis (27:32)

It might be enticing to try and.

Laura Ingraham (27:34)

Sleep through the next four years. But if you're wondering how to survive.

Matt Lewis (27:36)

A second Trump term while staying fully conscious, Pod Save America is here to help you process what's happening now and what comes next. I'm Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor, Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer, and I wade hip deep into the week's political news and fish out some political analysis you can trust. Yes, Tommy's shoes get ruined. Yes, he'll do it again tomorrow because the endeavor is worth it and so is your sanity.

Laura Ingraham (27:57)

Tune into Pod Save America wherever you.

Matt Lewis (27:59)

Get your podcasts and on YouTube.

Katty Kay (28:03)

Start your day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust stand out, moments from your favorite shows and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up now@msnbc.com.

Richard Haass (28:20)

Welcome back. Just about half past the hour. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took to social media last night to thank President Trump following yesterday's announcement that the United States will send Patriot missiles and other forms of artillery to Ukraine after first routing them through NATO allies. It comes as NATO's Secretary General, Mark Rutte, visited the White House for the second time since he took over as the head of the alliance last fall. In the Oval Office, President Trump spoke about what this latest weapons shipment will include. He also discussed possible consequences for Russia if an end to the war isn't found soon.

Volodymyr Zelensky (29:04)

But we've made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons and they're going to be paying for them. In a nutshell, we're going to make top of the line weapons and they'll be sent to NATO. NATO may choose to have certain of them sent to other countries where we can get a little additional speed, where the country will release something and it'll be mostly in the form of a replacement.

Laura Ingraham (29:28)

Will these be Patriot missiles specifically or.

Donny Deutsch (29:30)

Patriot batteries that you're planning?

Joe Scarborough (29:32)

And when do you, when do you. It's everything.

Volodymyr Zelensky (29:33)

It's Patriots.

Joe Scarborough (29:34)

It's all of them.

Volodymyr Zelensky (29:36)

It's a full complement with the batteries.

Laura Ingraham (29:38)

And when do you expect them to.

Richard Haass (29:39)

Arrive in Ukraine, sir?

Volodymyr Zelensky (29:41)

Well, we're going to have some come very soon, within days, actually, because a couple of the countries that have Patriots are going to swap over and we'll replace the Patriots with the ones they have. And Matt will coordinate with NATO. But so it's going to be, they're going to start arriving very soon. And one of the reasons that you're here today is to hear that we are very unhappy. I am with Russia, but we'll discuss that maybe A different day. But we're very, very unhappy with them. And we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days. Tariffs at about 100%, you'd call them secondary tariffs. You know what that means. And I'm disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it's, it doesn't seem to get there. So based on that, we're going to be doing secondary tariffs. If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple. And they'll be at 100%. And that's the way it is. That can be more simple. It's just the way it is. I hope we don't have to do it.

Richard Haass (30:46)

In a phone interview later in the day with the BBC, the outlet reports President Trump continued to express his disappointment with Russia's Vladimir Putin, but added that he's, quote, not done with him.

Joe Scarborough (30:59)

So, Jonathan Amir, the president has been exceedingly patient with Vladimir Putin again in the hopes of getting that peace agreement that he believed he would be able to get once he got into office. You have been writing for some time that his patience is wearing thin. Yesterday your reporting was he just outright angry at Vladimir Putin. And you know, when you hear 50 days, you got 50 days. Vladimir Putin hears you've got 50 days. You might be wise to remember what Donald Trump said about the Iranians, that they had 60 days. This does not appear to be a president, a commander in chief, in any mood to back down. And as much as he's hoped, and it's been his dream, we've all talked about it, it's been his dream to bring the US And Russia closer together politically. At this point, you say that's not happening. And it's not happening because Putin has humiliated Donald Trump and he's angry about it.

Donny Deutsch (32:16)

Yeah, that's exactly right. This is not President Trump adopting a new strategic worldview. This is not President Trump suddenly warming to Vladimir Zelen Zelensky or Ukraine. This is not President Trump suddenly being all in on alliances, though he and the head of the new Secretary General of NATO, the two of them do get along. Let's be clear about that. This is about President Trump being fed up. This is about President Trump being made. He feels that he's been made to look weak, that he has for months now, over and over and over publicly and privately demanded that Vladimir Putin bring the fighting to a close. Putin not only is not doing that, he's only escalated his attacks. Ukraine has signed onto cease fire. Russia has ignored it. We have seen some of the largest missile and drone strikes of the entire conflict in the last week or two. So that is why President Trump is angry. And Joe has taken this step. Now, we should note, I mean, the US And Russia barely do any trade. So that piece of this, the sanctions punishment, not really important. President Trump, though, is suggesting that he would sign off on some secondary sanctions with countries that do business with Russia, not to the degree that the Senate wants, but still pretty significant penalties. And now sending author, you know, with NATO as the middleman, sending these Patriot missile batteries which will really help Ukraine in its defense against these Russia strikes. That's significant.

Joe Scarborough (33:43)

Yeah, very significant. Let's bring in right now the president of Meredith, the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. He's the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away on Substack. Also longtime Wall Street Journal Moscow correspondent who's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Alan Collison. Thank you both gentlemen for being with us. Let me begin with you, Richard. I will say the announcement of the Oval Office yesterday seemed to be a very positive development, not just for Ukraine, but also for Western powers who want to push back against Russian aggression. I also, and I know you have taken note of it too, the NATO Secretary General Mark Ruda, has a much better working relationship with Donald Trump than most European leaders and it seems to be working well in coordinating these arms shipments. What can you tell us?

Mika Brzezinski (34:37)

Look, the arms shipments that are going to Ukraine in principle really welcome a little bit of uncertainty, Joe. About what? Besides patriots, how many patriots, how fast do they get there? So this is not a done deal, but directionally this is welcome. The so called secondary tariffs. Basically this would be tariffs or sanctions against countries that import oil and gas from Russia. I don't take that that seriously. Not just the 50 day trigger, but also if you think about China, China, we've already backed down several times the idea that we're going to impose massive tariffs against China for doing this. Well, then China is just going to cut off all their export of rare earth minerals to us. Again. That's something we're not in a good position to live with. If Russia can't export any of its oil, that would take, I don't know, 6, 7 million barrels a day off the market. Energy prices would go up. That would be inflationary here.

Joe Scarborough (35:34)

What's the best move then, Richard? If, if you don't think that's enough, what's the best move?

Mika Brzezinski (35:39)

Best move is to make it clear that this administration is prepared for a long term commitment on military and intelligence help to Ukraine. Essentially go beyond the patriots, make it clear that we're prepared to give large amounts of aid for as long as it takes to bring Vladimir Putin in good faith to the negotiating table. So what's basically a one off deal, make it an open ended deal.

Donny Deutsch (36:02)

And so this point that has not happened. There was also some reporting, some suggestion that some offensive weapons might be included in this package. It does not seem like that's the case, at least not yet. But Richard, we come back to the crux of this is that Vladimir Putin thinks he's winning. Apparently there's been reporting the US And European intelligence agencies believe that Putin is about to launch a summer offensive of some sort. The airstrikes are going to continue and ratchet up. Is this here? I mean, this is a. Well, the European leaders applauded what President Trump did yesterday. It's a welcome step. But, but there's also people I talk to say, well, it's not quite enough.

Laura Ingraham (36:40)

Right?

Mika Brzezinski (36:40)

It's not quite enough. Vladimir Putin cares more deeply about his claims to Ukraine than he does about his relationship with Donald Trump. Let's just be blunt. For Putin, this is his legacy. In the same way that Taiwan might be the legacy for Xi Jinping, the same way Donald Trump feels about tariffs or what have you. This for Vladimir Putin is the big deal. So it's going to take a lot of and more than the President put out there yesterday. Again, it was a step in the right direction, don't get me wrong. It's belated, but good to see. Glad to see. And the President's clearly frustrated and for good reason. But the only way to change it is to deliver large amounts of Ukraine and make clear there's more to come. Putin has to understand that time is no longer on his side until he realizes that he's going to continue to prosecute the war.

Joe Scarborough (37:27)

I think if you look, if you look at this from 30,000ft and you see where Donald Trump has moved over the past month, two months, three months, six months, even caddy, it is quite a good distance to where a lot of people in Europe, a lot of people in NATO, want him to move, I think it's fascinating. Listen to Richard talking about Vladimir Putin's summer offensive that's coming. And I can't help but think of the fabled Ukrainian spring offensive last year that was going to make a big difference. It's as if they are literally locked in World War I groupthink where they think this next offensive is going to be the offensive where we bust through lines and then a thousand drones come and blow everybody up that's trying to go into this sort of no man's land. It's extraordinary that Putin is even banking on that. Maybe this is the breakthrough that happens. But my God, this has been such a bloody hellacious war of attrition and something that Donald Trump brings up all the time. There's so many people being killed on both sides. It seems fantastical to believe that this summer will bring the offensive that brings Ukraine to its knees.

Mike Allen (38:49)

Yeah, actually, I'm reading a book about the First World War just at the moment, Joe. Testament of Youth. And I thought exactly the same thing, that it's full of these offensives that are meant to bring the end of the war. And what happens, just a whole load more young people get killed and nothing really moves. And that feels like the stalemate that we're in at the Ukraine at the moment. And with these pictures that we're getting out of Kyiv of people sleeping the night in the underground stations, because that's the place that's safe from the drone attacks. It doesn't look like Russia is backing down, but it also doesn't look like they have a chance to make a huge big offensive. I mean, Alan, just on the point of what Moscow is thinking about what Donald Trump said yesterday, I mean, it was interesting yesterday the stock exchange in Moscow went up almost 3%. There seemed to be almost a sigh of relief from the Kremlin that it wasn't worse, that they have this 50 day window to reshuffle things if they need to, if there is the prospect even of these secondary tariffs really being imposed. And I think there's a kind of sense of taco about those as well. So how much does this change the dynamic? Is it, and we don't have enough details yet, is it really a question of how big this arms package is and what's in the arms package and whether it's sustained?

Alan Kellison (40:01)

It's hard to imagine an arms package that would really alter Moscow's view of things in the short term. I think that the Ukrainians are not in a good position, but also the Russians were expecting this from Trump sooner or later because what they've been saying to Trump has been pretty consistent that they were, of course, they paid lip service to a ceasefire, but they were not. They wanted to address what they called the root causes, which was a signal that basically they were not really ready for a ceasefire. So I think they're prepared for Whatever's coming, they're not impressed by sanctions anymore because they've resisted them so far. And, you know, the sanctions we have waged against them were unprecedented in the course of the past several years. And what would threaten them on the military level? Maybe if Ukraine had some sustained, was able to sustain a bombardment of Russia, deep into Russia for weeks at a time. But so far they haven't been able to do that. And there's not a real indication that the US Weapons aid will do that for them.

Donny Deutsch (41:18)

So, Alan, certainly President Trump frustrated. I spoke to a senior adviser to him yesterday saying that Putin, quote, overplayed his hand, that he overestimated Trump's willingness to be frankly humiliated here, that he's been so deferential to Putin for so long. But in recent months, he has really asked him to stop this conflict. Putin simply won't. And he left the door open for more aid down the road. But in this interim, talk to us about how this is being perceived, if you will, in Europe from Kyiv itself, Zelenskyy and Trump obviously have had a pretty turbulent relationship at times. Trump has put real strain on the European allies there, NATO itself. Is there a sense from Europe that they can start counting on the US Again, or do they think this is more of a short term measure and that they need to be able to fill the gaps?

Alan Kellison (42:08)

Well, I think there's been a cognizance in Europe that they do need to fill the gaps and they feel that they can fill quite a few gaps if they're given enough time to retool and get ready for it. So what they have been really asking for or hoping for behind the scenes is just time for them to adjust. I think this is an encouraging signal, of course, but it was more or less expected at some point that the gap between Trump's hopes for Russia and the reality was going to close and that Trump would finally realize. So, yes, it's good news for both Europe and Ukraine, but it's hard to say whether it's really enough to make much of a difference regarding these sanctions. You know, again, the sanctions sound severe, but one has to wonder whether the sanctions are really meant to pressure Russia or whether they're meant to pressure China and India to try to pressure Russia into being more reasonable in negotiations.

Donny Deutsch (43:14)

Richard, I think that might be right. We'll see if China or India do that. So just sort of final thoughts to you here, as I think it would be an overstatement suggestion. Yes, this is a turning point in the war, but it's a Marker. It's a marker all the same. What are you looking for next?

Mika Brzezinski (43:31)

It is a marker and it's a welcome marker. So let's just put that out there. Again, I think it's the details of the arms package and as you just heard, it's not just whether it's defensive systems, quote unquote. For example, do you give Ukraine long term strike capabilities that could bring the war to Moscow in the same way that Russia has brought the war to Kyiv? That's a real question for this administration. Chance of escalation, but also chance of making Putin pay a larger price for the war. That would be one thing. Also whether if these, in 50 days, if these sanctions came on, the country that could have trouble dealing with them is India. Again, China has lots of ways to push back. India is less well positioned to push back. And one of the questions would be are we prepared to do real damage to our relationship with India in order to do this? So I think there's some big questions out there. But yes, yesterday was a step in the right direction, a welcome one. But now, like most things in foreign policy, it's the follow up and the follow up to the follow up.

Joe Scarborough (44:26)

It really was. The White House meeting was a step in the right direction. The President's message, I think, was a good message. More importantly, the relationship between the NATO Secretary General and the President, positive for a variety of reasons. And, and let's hope they continue to move in the direction that pushes back against Russian aggression and Putin's aims. Ukraine to take over Ukraine.

Richard Haass (44:52)

President Emeritus on the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you. And fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Alan Kellison, thank you as well. And coming up, Wall street continues to post record highs despite President Trump's tariffs and the passing of his sweeping domestic policy bill.

Joe Scarborough (45:10)

It's pretty incredible. And we've been talking about this, something Andrew Rossork and I have been asking for the past several months, will the market absorb the tariffs?

Richard Haass (45:20)

Yeah.

Joe Scarborough (45:21)

And we've been saying, yeah, they have been absorbing the tariffs. You look yesterday and see the market responded fairly positively.

Richard Haass (45:28)

Yeah.

Joe Scarborough (45:29)

It's completely, as they say, baked into the cake, priced into the stock.

Richard Haass (45:33)

You hear what's playing?

Joe Scarborough (45:36)

Oh, yeah.

Richard Haass (45:36)

Our Steve Ratner is standing by the Southwest Wall to break down what's likely driving up stocks. Morning Joe.

Joe Scarborough (45:45)

We're gonna actually ask Steve to recite all the lyrics to the Gambler.

Richard Haass (45:51)

It's not hard.

Joe Scarborough (45:51)

Yeah. When he comes back.

Richard Haass (45:53)

Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

Katty Kay (46:02)

Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.

Richard Haass (46:09)

All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.

Katty Kay (46:13)

Watch your favorite shows live.

Richard Haass (46:14)

What's happening right now is a hostile.

Donny Deutsch (46:17)

Takeover of the US Government.

Katty Kay (46:19)

Read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now@msnbc.com app subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Joe Scarborough (47:04)

Going forward, many work that we do, a lot of work that we do will be automated. It's going to create new work. It's going to create new jobs. And so I would say that some jobs will not be necessary.

Laura Ingraham (47:18)

Some jobs will be created, but the.

Joe Scarborough (47:20)

Net overall is this.

Laura Ingraham (47:22)

It is well understood historically that productivity.

Joe Scarborough (47:26)

Gains comes along with it, new jobs.

Laura Ingraham (47:29)

And in the last 30, 40 years.

Mika Brzezinski (47:32)

When the computer industry drove a level of productivity into all these different industries.

Joe Scarborough (47:37)

It came with more productivity. Came with more jobs.

Richard Haass (47:41)

Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang speaking with us on Morning Joe last week when we asked him about AI's impact on the job market. Mike Allen, you have a new piece with Jim Vande Hei looking at the question whether AI will create or cost jobs. And Mike, you found it depends on who you ask.

Laura Ingraham (48:01)

Well, that's right. Mika and Joan there from Jensen Huang, you were hearing the bull case on AI jobs. And for your viewers, just to pull back the camera, this is one of the most consequential debates of our time. We've seen it playing out here on Morning Joe on Axios. And these changes are going to affect every town in America, every employer in America, and then therefore every employee in America. So I spent an hour with Jensen Huang when he was here in D.C. meeting with President Trump. And by the way, breaking news, Nvidia is lifting the whole stock market around the world this year this morning, based on the news last night that they've gotten assurances from the Trump administration that they're going to be able to sell their AI chips into China. They say they hope to start delivering those soon. So a big news and big deliverable from Jensen Huang's trip to dc. But we talked to him about what AI is going to be doing to jobs. And here on Morning Joe, your viewers heard Dario Amadei, the CEO of Anthropic, one of the biggest AI companies, make Claude him saying that we need to be pragmatic, clear eyed about the fact that ultimately there may be more jobs, jobs but in the interim a real disruption. Him saying that unemployment could go to 20% among entry level white collar jobs, half of entry level white collar jobs will go away. And what he's been saying is that policymakers, employers are just closing their eyes to this sugar coating it, not facing what's going to happen. Jensen Huang, the other side of the debate, taking the bowl case, saying as you saw in that clip, that yes, everyone's job is going to change, but it's going to make us more productive. So the case he makes is that if we never changed what we did, if we never had any new ideas, if we never did anything new, that that other case would be right. And he says that AI companies are trying to scare us. I put one of the toughest cases to him. I asked him what about a long haul trucker? If I'm a long haul trucker, I'm screwed, right? Because there's going to be autonomous technology that will do my work. What he said is maybe they don't like that job. Maybe they would rather be a short haul trucker who's home with their family at night and the AI does the driving in between. And so the bottom line of this is that the, the models are becoming more capable faster than employers, government are dealing with it.

Mike Allen (50:55)

Mike, we've spoken with Steve Rattner before on the program a week or so ago about this entry level white collar jobs. And anecdotally I'm seeing it in my own family, a couple of kids with master's degrees who are kind of part of that rejection generation, sending out hundreds of applications, just not getting them back. I don't know yet if that's AI, but we're seeing it factored in along with uncertainty around the economy already. I mean this is happening now that these college educated kids, some with masters, some with undergrads, are just not getting the job. So where is the discussion about what to do about that if we miss out a whole load of entry one generation of entry level jobs, what's the knock on implications of that and how are policymakers and companies dealing with that?

Laura Ingraham (51:43)

Yeah, Kenny, that's such a great topic and I've been feeling it in my family too. I've been at graduations around the country of nieces and nephews. And we've been having this conversation just to put some meat on the bone. When we talk about entry level jobs. We're talking about those analyst jobs, for instance, or my first job at the Fredericksburg. Freelance Star, the Richmond Times Dispatch Employers are holding back because of that uncertainty you mentioned, Katie. They just don't know how these jobs are going to change. Nobody's stopping hiring entry level or early career jobs, but I think we're already seeing signs that people are hiring less. The opportunity is that great new companies, great wealth now will be built from laptops on tools that are free. The AI tools, unlike the tools of the earlier Internet revolution, computer revolution, are basically free to everyone. And so the advice Jensen Huang had and that we have for everyone at Axios is learn how to use these tools, learn how they can extend your superpower, how they can help you do your job better, because they're coming.

Richard Haass (53:02)

Co founder of Axios, Mike Allen, thank you. They're already here. Still ahead.