← Morning Joe
Morning Joe
Morning Joe 2/11/25
00:47:22
Judge finds Trump administration violated court order halting funding freeze
Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:01]
Rachel Maddow
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows Now, ad free + ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News and all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why is this Happening? Felshey Band Book Club and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple podcasts. The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed and presidencies are defined. And for Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.
- [00:43]
Joe Scarborough
Now is the time. So we're gonna do it.
- [00:45]
Rachel Maddow
Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time.
- [00:48]
Joe Scarborough
How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?
- [00:54]
Rachel Maddow
The Rachel Maddow show, weeknights at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [01:01]
J.D. Vance
I think that what Trump should do, like if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts cuz you will.
- [01:14]
Mika Brzezinski
Get taken to court.
- [01:15]
J.D. Vance
And then when the courts stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.
- [01:23]
Joe Scarborough
Okay, there you go. A little precursor there for you. That was then US Senate candidate JD Vance giving Donald Trump advice for a possible second term. It's very similar to a social media post from the current vice president questioning the power of the judiciary branch. We're going to go through all of that and play for you the reaction from Republican senators. Meanwhile, we're seeing that defiance play out in the real world with a judge accusing Trump, the Trump administration, of ignoring a court order on the federal funding freeze. We'll bring you the very latest on that legal fight. Plus, New York City Mayor Eric Adams will not be going to trial in April after the Justice Department ordered the federal corruption charges against him to be dropped. We'll get insight on that move from the Trump administration and we'll go through the president's latest comments on the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel giving the terror group an ultimatum. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's only Tuesday, guys. February 11th, Willie's here. Joe. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale, and The host of MSNBC's Inside with Jen Psaki. Jen Psaki. And we coordinated colors. Jen Psaki and I, we left Allie out. We texted Joe. Where do you want to begin this morning?
- [02:52]
Willie Geist
Well, we have so much to talk about. Let's circle back to Willie, though, who wasn't with us yesterday, talking about the Super Bowl. First of all, Willie, the numbers came out, 126 million people on average watch the super bowl on Sunday. Obviously the biggest, the biggest audience for any super bowl ever. Obviously one of the biggest television events ever. But. Yeah, and what a game, huh?
- [03:17]
J.D. Vance
Yeah. Well, the amazing thing about that number, 126 million peaked at 137, I think, or 135, something like that is it was a terrible game and you had that many fans that it peaked in the second quarter. 130 million for the halftime show and then dwindled a lit a little bit down the stretch. But again, these communal experiences, the AFC Championship game, people want to sit and watch things together. And they did again on Sunday. Just extraordinary. And also, you consider, as we always do with the super bowl, that people don't necessarily even watch in their own home, that you go somewhere to watch at somebody else's house, you go to a bar, whatever it is. We keep setting records and we talk about this age of fragmented media, except.
- [03:55]
Willie Geist
With live sports and the NFL, especially Mika.
- [03:59]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, for sure. So let's get to the news at the top of the hour here. Two minutes past, A federal judge in Rhode island said the Trump administration has violated his order to lift a sweeping freeze on federal spending and has ordered the government to restore the funds immediately. This is the first time in Trump's second term that a judge has accused the Trump administration to be disobeying a judicial mandate. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by 22 attorneys general in Democratic led states after a wide ranging OMB directive caused chaos and confusion across the country. The Trump administration said they will appeal the decision. Yesterday, the president took a swipe at the judicial branch, saying that there have been some very bad rulings and that it's a shame to see it. This comes amid overall concerns the Trump administration will not comply with court orders from judges who have ruled against the president's agenda. That's because of a social media post on Sunday from The vice president, J.D. vance, who wrote in part, judges aren't allowed to control the executives legitimate power. Yesterday, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville was asked whether the White House has a right to circumvent judges who are halting executive actions. The Trump ally said, quote, I think they do. But here's how other Republican senators responded to that question.
- [05:32]
Ken Delaney
Well, I mean, the courts obviously are.
- [05:36]
Mika Brzezinski
The sort of the branch of our.
- [05:38]
Ken Delaney
Government that calls balls and strikes and referees. And I think that they've got an important role to play. And so I expect that to continue. And I expect the court to play the important role of ensuring that you know that the laws in the country are followed. When you have a lawsuit, somebody wins and somebody loses. But I support the process and I support the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. If you disagree, and many people I've disagreed with opinions before, that's why God made courts of appeal, and that's why God made the US Supreme Court. But you never going to hear me attack the illegitimacy of the federal judiciary.
- [06:25]
Joe Scarborough
Well, I don't even think we have seen that yet. So It's a hypothetical. J.D.
- [06:30]
Ken Delaney
Vance didn't say anything about anything that was not appropriate.
- [06:34]
Danny Savalos
He's saying on the appropriate use of executive powers.
- [06:37]
Ken Delaney
I think that's what he meant. I think it's a very, very clear line between the powers that are there, that are appropriate. This president is saying, I believe I have the authority. You find out in a court of law, and if they are appropriate, you.
- [06:51]
Joe Scarborough
Move forward with them and should follow.
- [06:53]
Ken Delaney
Whatever the court's decision ultimately is. We have to.
- [06:56]
Joe Scarborough
We will follow the decisions of the court.
- [06:57]
Ken Delaney
And I don't think there's been anybody.
- [06:59]
Willie Geist
Saying no, of course. And Willie, it's one of the things I said yesterday. It's like though it was meant to TROLL and though J.D. vance has said, and we heard it a couple of years ago on that podcast, that he thought you should just run over the third branch, like Andrew Jackson, the United States Senators, I would say, other than maybe Tommy Tuberville and maybe a handful of others, overwhelming majority of senators are going to say what an overwhelming majority of members of Congress are going to say, which is you have to follow the court's decisions. And the fact that anybody would even suggest that you don't is. Yeah, it's okay for us to say that's shocking that they missed, I guess, civics class starting in fourth or fifth grade, or maybe they didn't have it. Maybe that's the problem.
- [07:57]
J.D. Vance
But.
- [08:00]
Willie Geist
As Senator Round said, it is the courts we listen to and they define what is legitimate. They define what is not legitimate. Sometimes a president likes it, sometimes the president doesn't. And yesterday we went through four years of federal rulings where the federal courts enjoined, stopped or overturned what President Joe Biden did.
- [08:25]
J.D. Vance
Yeah. And we saw just yesterday, and we'll go through some of it, a flurry of court action of stopping some of these policies and these executive Orders put in place by the Trump administration. And almost everyone we heard there is a lawyer, Joe, and we've talked about this. J.D. vance went to Yale Law School. He was on the Yale Law Review. John Kennedy went to prestigious schools. They're all lawyers. They can't say anything other with a straight face, I hope. Then we have three co equal branches of government. If you don't like the way a court rules, we've got the Court of Appeals you can go to, and then you can go up to the Supreme Court if you think it ought to go that far. That's just the way the system works. And anything else ought to be noise. We'll see again how they hold up under pressure from Donald Trump. But for now, at least a handful of them there saying the right things. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Guys, good morning. Danny, start with you. What do you make of that back and forth there? J.D. vance saying, well, we don't always have to listen to what the courts say. And some other senators pushing back on that idea or trying to interpret for JD Vance what they hope he meant by that. What did you hear?
- [09:28]
Mika Brzezinski
Yeah, historically, this has happened before. I think J.D. vance even referred to this situation way back. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce an order by the Supreme Court that resolved a clash between the Cherokee Nation and the state of Georgia. And history's lesson is, well, not a whole lot happens to a president or an administration who refuses to follow an order because we operate on this kind of trust that the president will do that. And while it's probably apocryphal that Jackson said he has his order meaning the Supreme Court, let's see them enforce it. It's a scary quote, if true, because it's really an unspoken thing that the courts don't really have their own. They don't have a powerful arm to enforce their orders. They rely on the government working properly and not defying them. So it is a scary concept. Presidents may have that power. Maybe it's not so much that they have that power, it's just that no one can stop them from not following the courts.
- [10:29]
Joe Scarborough
Ali?
- [10:30]
Ali Vitale
Ken, I do have a question for you, though, because although senators are talking about this as theoretical and hypothetical, even as some of them are saying they're uncomfortable or trying to explain away what the vice president and others have seemingly suggested, you are seeing this federal judge up in Rhode island saying that the Trump administration is already balking at the court's order, not unfreezing the frozen spending and federal grant money. So push is seemingly already coming to shove here.
- [10:59]
Danny Savalos
That's absolutely right, Ali. Taking us out of the realm of a theoretical discussion into the practical and the real. Here you have this federal judge in Rhode island saying very explicitly that we believe you are. I believe you're violating my order that you stop this spending freeze and resume funding to places like the National Institutes of Health, because I think that's unconstitutional. And he began his ruling with a quote from a Supreme Court decision that essentially says those who defy federal court orders risk criminal contempt. Now, he didn't explicitly threaten the Trump administration with criminal contempt in the rest of the ruling, but that was certainly the implication of opening that way. And it raises a whole host of questions, which is how does a judge hold an administration in criminal contempt? I mean, who do you. You can't jail the president, obviously. In fact, if we remember, you know, Donald Trump was held in criminal contempt by the New York judge in his criminal case. But that judge was very reluctant to mete out that ultimate sanction of jail time. It didn't happen when he was the ex president. It's not gonna happen when he's the president. So what are the remedies? I mean, we were gaming this out yesterday. Can they. Are they gonna throw some hapless Justice Department lawyer who happens to be in the courtroom, throw that person in jail? Do they levy fines? What would be the point of fining the federal government, which has unlimited resources? So we're really at that point where it's starting to become a practical question, not just a theoretical question. And the other issue is it's really difficult for the judge to get the facts. When you have a government agency and, you know, the plaintiffs aren't allowed inside, and you have Elon Musk and his people, and they're saying, well, we are spending the money, and folks are saying, well, we're not getting the. So it's a really difficult situation, guys.
- [12:41]
Joe Scarborough
So it was good to hear some of the Republicans saying, you're not going to hear us thwarting the law. But at the same time, Danny, if you look at the front page of the New York Times right now, it says, basically, we're in a constitutional crisis, even though there isn't a complete, clear definition, citing different deans of law schools from across the country and experts talking about being in this crisis because of the flurry of things that Trump has done from birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, shutting down agencies, removing leaders from agencies, the systematic, unconstitutional and illegal acts Create a constitutional crisis, one legal expert said. The distinctive feature of the current situation, several legal scholars said, is its chaotic flood of activity and collectively amounts to a radically new conception of presidential power. It is a constitutional crisis when the the United States doesn't care what the Constitution says, regardless whether Congress or the courts resist. Up until now, while presidents might engage in particular acts that were unconstitutional, there was never a sense that, you know, the Constitution was meaningless. And the bottom line is the flurry and the chaos of it may make it so that the courts won't even have the time to react to that. You say what?
- [14:05]
Mika Brzezinski
I think we need to be careful with the term constitutional crisis, because as I define it, that would be a situation where the Constitution doesn't have an answer and there is a pressing conflict. The flurry of executive orders, the chaos that I think doesn't get us to crisis yet. It is irritating for the courts, it is challenging. It could lead to a serious problem. If, as you said, they become too congested with dealing with these orders. It keeps coming, the crisis occurs, and we've already talked about it at the moment, when there is a court order and the president or the administration refuses to follow it, because historically we don't really have a clear answer for what to do in that situation. On the first half of it, issuing a bunch of executive orders, not only do we know that the courts can handle it, they already did this back in 2017. This is the same M.O. the Trump administration then would just fire out executive orders. It felt like they weren't even spell checking them. And then they would let the courts prune them like the proverbial bonsai tree. Or they would just withdraw them and go back to the drawing board. It's probably not the most efficient way of doing it. It's chaotic, as you said, it's problematic. But constitutional crisis for me is the moment the court issues an order and the administration resists. You could say that the last notable occurrence was when Nixon initially refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the Supreme Court. Eventually he capitulated. But history is full of these near crises examples. The question is, what do we do going forward?
- [15:37]
J.D. Vance
And the funding freeze is just one case of the courts pushing back. We have a long list in front of us. This morning, the buyout pause was extended by the federal judge. The birthright citizenship contesting, that was blocked again. Funding of nih, that was cut by the administration, that's been blocked again by a judge. So you're seeing the courts stepping in here. We'll See what happens next. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is ordering federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The order from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovey would dismiss all charges against Mayor Adams without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled in the future. Adams was charged with one count of conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals and to commit wire fraud and bribery, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals in one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe. NBC reports. In a memo, Bovee argued that the indictment of Adams in September came too close to this year's mayoral primary in June and that it limited Adams ability to aid President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigrants and to fight crime. Bovey, without citing specific evidence, also suggested the charges were politically motivated. It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed, he wrote. Bovey said Adams case would be reviewed by a Trump appointed US Attorney, but not until after the general election for mayor in November. Important to note, the charges against the mayor have not yet been officially dismissed. For that to happen, a formal request will need to be filed in court and reviewed by a judge. Mayor Adams lawyer responded to the dismissal order in a statement that reads in part, the facts of the case are clear. The mayor never used his official position for personal benefit, nor did he have any role in violating campaign finance laws. Despite a lot of fanfare and sensational claims, ultimately there was no evidence presented that he broke any laws ever. End quote. And here are the front pages of the New York tabloids, New York Daily News simply saying, off the hook. And remember, this involved the nation of Turkey, so quit cold turkey. So, Ken Delaney, we should also add to this conversation that Eric Adams has courted Donald Trump very hard to get to this day. He went down just days before the inauguration to Mar a Lago. He raced down to the inauguration itself. He has met many times with Donald Trump priming the pump for this moment. And now he's off the hook. For now.
- [18:10]
Danny Savalos
Yeah. And it's easy to make light of this, Willie, but I gotta tell you, I feel like a broken record. But it's hard to overstate what an earthquake of a story this is in Justice Department circles, because you just don't see this. They explicitly said they were not dropping the case because of the facts or the law, that it was no reflection on the legal theories or the work of the career prosecutors who brought the case. And so what was their grounds? Well, it was, you know, charges without evidence that the U.S. attorney who had been appointed by President Biden, you know, was using the case to burnish his image. And also some concerns that the trial would take place during the New York primary season, even though the indictment was brought nine months before the New York primary. So, look, I mean, this. What this is starting to look like is a political decision to drop charges against someone who, as you said, has been been courting Donald Trump and the Trump administration and who has claimed that he was persecuted by the Biden administration because of his stance on immigration. And they even said, actually in their justification, that another issue they were concerned about was that he had lost his security clearance because he was under this criminal cloud and therefore couldn't cooperate with federal authorities in immigration enforcement. So, look, this is not done. I mean, it's creating the impression that there's a Biden Justice Department and a Trump Justice Department. These decisions are made for political reasons. The Southern District of New York is full of career prosecutors who are apolitical, and they brought this case based on the facts and the law. There's a mountain of evidence, much of which they revealed in a speaking indictment that accuses Eric Adams of soliciting bribes and favors from the government of Turkey and then in turn, doing the government of Turkey favors, using his official position, including getting the approval for a building that the Fire Department said was unsafe to occupy in New York City. And so here you have a situation where the main justice is ordering the Southern District to drop this case. It hasn't been dropped yet, but then saying that it's being done without prejudice, meaning the charges could be refiled at any time. Well, what position does that leave Mayor Eric Adams in? He is now beholden to the Trump Justice Department. Those charges are hanging over him. So this is a really, really extraordinary situation, guys.
- [20:31]
J.D. Vance
Yet, in another case, Mayor Adams, knowing what a lot of people know, that flattery will get you everywhere with Donald Trump. Go down, flatter him, court him, support his policies, and you'll get what you want out of the deal. But how disheartening is this for prosecutors building cases, as we could say about all the January six prosecutors as well?
- [20:47]
Mika Brzezinski
Yeah, the memo itself says, well, this has nothing to do with the line prosecutors who worked on these cases. It's more about management. But that's got to be a hollow compliment to the line prosecutors who worked on the case, because when you do, you live that case. And these are. There's a difference between the line prosecutors and the appointed positions. But I got to tell you, will he never in his have there been so much in the way of subtext between the lines? It's two pages and there's so much in there among them. The smarter thing for the administration might have been to just make this memo three lines, dismiss the case against Mayor Adams. It's the explanation that's going to subject them to a ton of criticism. And if anyone else is concerned that this is a quid pro quo between Eric Adams in exchange for him helping with immigration enforcement and dismissing the case, that's not me saying it. The memo at itself worries about that. In a footnote saying, that is not what this is, we promise you. But critics are going to say that's exactly what this seems like. And the magic word that you seized on, Willie, is the word without. Without prejudice does mean. And the memo says that they could bring these charges again, which normally wouldn't have that much meaning. But in this case, because they also mentioned the things that they want Eric Adams to help the administration with, the implication is going to draw a lot of criticism. Again, my recommendation would have been make this three lines, dismiss the. It's the explanation that's going to get him in trouble.
- [22:14]
Joe Scarborough
NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos and NBC News justice correspondent Ken Delaney. And thank you both very much for your reporting and analysis. So, Jen Psaki, let's talk big picture now. And the Democrats, what should they be doing right now? What are the options?
- [22:33]
Jen Psaki
Well, look, I think in Washington, it's important to remember they're in the minority in the House and the Senate, so they have not as much leverage as I think most people who are rooting for them to push back think they might have. But there are still things they can do. We've seen this threat of a potential to shut the government down. I'm not suggesting shutting the government down is good politics. It's certainly not. But it is a negotiating moment. The deadline's March 15, March 14, where they could use that to try to put some pressure on Mike Johnson and Republicans. We've seen them much more active and participating in peaceful protests. We've seen them showing up at agencies where Elon Musk and his team is getting in. The Doge team is getting into business they shouldn't be getting into. So we've seen some activity. There needs to be more, I think, but that's one of the way. Those are a couple of the ways that they can be active. The last thing I would say, Mika, is we've seen some. Some try attempt this. There needs to be a little bit more fearlessness of calling out when Republicans are behaving in ways that are contradictory to their own values, that are contradictory to what they've believed for some time on some of these nominees, and that are contradictory to what the American public really wants. And there are a lot of opportunities to do that with what Musk is doing with some of these nominees. I'd love to see more of that. We're seeing kind of inklings of it at this point.
- [23:52]
Joe Scarborough
All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're getting the latest from Paris, where Vice President J.D. vance is attending a summit on artificial intelligence. Plus, President Trump elaborates on his proposal to take over Gaza and gives Hamas an ultimatum. We'll play for you those comments. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds.
- [24:17]
Ali Vitale
This podcast is supported by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America exists so all people can get access to the sexual and reproductive care and education they need. Planned Parenthood organizations advocate for health equity and policies that allow people the freedom to control their own bodies, lives and futures. More than 2 million patients a year rely on Planned Parenthood Health center services like STI testing and treatment, birth control, gender affirming care, abortion, cancer screenings and more. Reproductive health care and rights are under attack from public officials who are out of step with the will of the vast majority of Americans. The constitutional right to abortion has been stolen and politicians in 47 states have introduced bills that would block people from getting the sexual and reproductive care they need. Planned Parenthood knows that equitable access to healthcare, including safe, legal, legal abortion, is a human right. Right now, Planned Parenthood needs your help to protect access to health care. Donate today by visiting plannedparenthood.org protect as.
- [25:20]
Rachel Maddow
President Donald Trump returns to the White House, what will the first 100 days of the presidency bring? Follow along as his agenda takes shape with the new MSNBC newsletter, Trump's first 100 days, weekly updates sent straight to your Internet and expert insight on the key issues and figures defining this second term.
- [25:39]
Joe Scarborough
We're seeing a really radical effort to change the American system of government.
- [25:43]
Rachel Maddow
Sign up for Trump's First 100 Days at msnbc.com TRUMP100 get the All New CNBC Sport newsletter. Alex Sherman brings you exclusive interviews and the biggest news impacting the world of sports, business and media, all straight to your inbox.
- [26:01]
Mika Brzezinski
Sign up for free@cnbc.com sportnewslet 24 past the hour.
- [26:07]
Joe Scarborough
Welcome back. Vice President J.D. vance is in Paris this morning for an artificial intelligence summit. The Associated Press reports that Vance took a moment during his address to warn global leaders and tech CEOs that, quote, excessive regulation would kill the growing AI industry. Joining us live from Paris is NBC News international correspondent Raf Sanchez. Raf, what more can you tell us about Vance's address?
- [26:38]
Danny Savalos
Well, Mika, this was Vice President Vance's debut on the world stage. He was speaking to an audience that included French President Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister of India, senior leaders from China and other countries. And he used the opportunity to deliver a full throated America first vision of artificial intelligence. He said that he is determined and the Trump administration is determined to see the United States remain the world's AI superpower. He warned against any efforts to choke off to overregulate the American AI industry. And he spoke in pretty stark terms. I want you to take a listen.
- [27:20]
J.D. Vance
The United States of America is the leader in AI and our administration plans to keep it that way.
- [27:27]
Mika Brzezinski
We invite your countries to work with.
- [27:29]
J.D. Vance
Us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations.
- [27:33]
Mika Brzezinski
However, the Trump administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering.
- [27:40]
J.D. Vance
Tightening the screws on US Tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that.
- [27:51]
Danny Savalos
Now, you heard him there saying the United States is open to cooperation, but that it will be on American terms when it comes to regulation. Interestingly, Mica, he did not name China in his address, but China has been very much hanging over this summit. Silicon Valley, Washington Capitals throughout Europe very rattled by the success of that Chinese startup, Deepseek, which appears to have produced a pretty sophisticated AI model at a fraction of the cost of Western companies. He did warn European nations about yoking their technology to what he called authoritarian regimes and becoming dependent on supply chains from those countries.
- [28:32]
Joe Scarborough
NBC's Raf Sanchez live from Paris. Thank you very much. Let's bring in President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on substack. Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson joins us as well. Richard, we'll start with that. We do want to talk about God Gaza, but what do you make of the stance that the vice President was putting out there, especially about the regulation of AI?
- [29:01]
Ken Delaney
I think he's on to something. I simply don't think AI lends itself to regulation. Let me give you one image would be nuclear weapons. United States and the Soviet Union had them. We had arms control because nuclear weapons were basically in two hands, very large, concentrated efforts to build them. AI is so different. It's distributed, decentralized dozens of companies in the United States and around the world. So the idea that seemed like the.
- [29:25]
Joe Scarborough
One, one thing that really needs to be regulated, given the potential.
- [29:28]
Ken Delaney
Well, the problem is, first of all, how do you regulate the bad sides and not the good sides? Who decides? How do you somehow discriminate? China and others aren't going to want to do it. There's too much economic upside here, Mika, potentially too much strategic and military upside. You can't regulate things when they're in a stage of fast development. They have to reach plateaus. AI is not going to reach a plateau. It's going to keep moving. I simply don't think the nature of the beast lends itself to regulate.
- [29:55]
J.D. Vance
So is it just the Wild west then? How do you, how do you have some control over AI or do you not?
- [30:01]
Ken Delaney
I think, I simply don't think you do. I mean, there's two ways to think about it. One is nationally, what do we, as the United States do? Maybe we can do some things again, I think it's very hard. But internationally, Willie, I just, I think it is sort of the Wild west and countries going to be looking for ways to exploit it for economic advantage, intelligent advantage, military advantage. Now, we may reach a point where it reaches levels of maturity that in select areas you can get some select regulation or limits, but we're not even close to that yet.
- [30:29]
J.D. Vance
All right, that's what the vice president's doing in Paris. Meanwhile, more news out of Gaza. Hamas is postponing the release of any more hostages, accusing Israel of violating the terms of the cease fire agreement. The terrorist group was supposed to hand over hostages on Saturday, but now is delaying the move over claims Israel is slow to allow displaced Palestinians to return to northern Gaza and that it's not been letting aid enter the enclave. In response, Israel has put its military on high alert, telling troops to prepare for any scenario in Gaza. President Trump also weighed in on the conflict yesterday, issuing an ultimatum to Hamas. As far as I'm concerned, if all of the hostages aren't returned By Saturday at 12:00, I think it's an appropriate time. I would say they cancel it and.
- [31:18]
Mika Brzezinski
All bets are off and let hell break out.
- [31:21]
J.D. Vance
Let hell break out Saturday at noon, he says. Meanwhile, the president says Palestinians would not be allowed to return to Gaza under his plan to take over and redevelop the region. The president made the comment during the pre taped super bowl interview with Fox News host Bret Baier. We'll build beautiful communities for the 1.9 million people we'll build beautiful communities, safe communities.
- [31:43]
Mika Brzezinski
Could be five, six, could be two. But we'll build safe communities a little.
- [31:48]
J.D. Vance
Bit away from where they are, where.
- [31:50]
Mika Brzezinski
All of this danger is. In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate.
- [31:56]
J.D. Vance
Development for the future.
- [31:58]
Mika Brzezinski
It would be a beautiful piece of land.
- [32:00]
J.D. Vance
Would the Palestinians have the right money returned? No, they wouldn't because they're going to have much better housing.
- [32:07]
Mika Brzezinski
Much better. In other words, I'm talking about building.
- [32:09]
J.D. Vance
A permanent place for them because if they have to return now, it'll be years before you could ever.
- [32:15]
Mika Brzezinski
It's not habitable. It will be years before it could happen.
- [32:19]
J.D. Vance
The president reiterating Palestinians would not be allowed to return to Gaza. At the White House yesterday, he doubled down on an idea and suggested cutting aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refuse to take in Palestinians. Both countries have made clear they don't want to do that and voiced opposition to the President's plan. President Trump is set to meet with the king of Georgia, Jordan at the White House today. So, so much in there, Richard. We can start with all hell breaking loose at noon on Saturday if all the hostages are not returned. That's what the president said yesterday. What do you take that to mean?
- [32:51]
Ken Delaney
Look, I think at some point Israel might be tempted to restart military operations. Getting from phase one to phase two of this agreement is really tough because phase two is really demanding. It means that Israel has to completely withdraw from all of Gaza and you have an open ended ceasefire. I find that hard to believe as much as many Israelis want to do that, to get the hostages back. Hamas is out there out of the tunnels. I simply am skeptical that we're at a point where we're going to get phase two of this agreement in place. So I think you could see renewed, renewed violence.
- [33:23]
Willie Geist
Ali Vitale, I'm curious on the reporting front, has there been any follow up? I know initially the White House didn't respond specifically. Is there any follow up to Donald Trump saying, I am going to own Gaza and it's going to think of it as basically a real estate development? Any, any follow up on whether he was talking about himself personally or whether he's talking about the United States, quote, owning Gaza?
- [33:52]
Ali Vitale
It's an excellent distinction and one that I've not yet heard the White House make. But that is also predicated on the way that Trump explained it, which is he says Israel will give the land to the United States and that's not Israel's land to give. And so there are still a lot of questions about this idea that Trump has, however much he's thinking about it not as an executive or the leader of the greatest country in the world, but thinking about it as a real estate developer, it doesn't matter the mindset. It matters that there are a lot of clear roadblocks to the way that he's talking about trying to achieve this. But certainly those are key that the White House has had to and will have to explain. The one that they made a clear point of explaining was when Trump weighed the possibility of US Troops being used towards this effort. That's something that they quite quickly knocked down. But just because they're knocking down one thing doesn't mean that the rest of the questions have been answered, at least not in a way that allows us to have a fuller sense of what the president's talking about here.
- [34:54]
Willie Geist
And Richard Bakhti, what are the consequences for all allies? Our Sunni Arab allies, like Jordan, like Egypt, the Saudis have already spoken out against this, of course, the rest of the region has as well. What are the ramifications not only for our allies, but also for our enemies there who wish to do us harm? If the White House moves forward with this plan for Donald Trump to take over Gaza, Gaza in the name of the United States or in the name of his own development? I mean, I can't even, it's hard to, hard to even imagine that this question is being asked. But he has said it, he has doubled down on it, and he has tripled down on it. What are the consequences if he continues down this path for US Alliances and the region?
- [35:48]
Ken Delaney
Let's just be stark about it, because the president, as you said, has doubled and tripled down a bit. Let me start by saying it will not resolve the Palestinian issue. The idea that Gazans are going to be placated with, quote, unquote, beautiful or better homes in Alexandria or somewhere in Jordan and are going to give up their aspirations for a national home of their own is simply not going to happen. That simply, I think, misunderstands the nature of nationalism. Second of all, Jordan is already, as you know, Joe, more than 50% Palestinian. It's interesting the king is here. I actually think the king sits on a very unique, uneasy throne and he's in an impossible situation. If the Palestinians were to enter Jordan, I think that could tip the domestic balance and stability. If the United States cuts off aid. Jordan, I believe, is the second largest recipient of American aid to that part of the world. And unlike Egypt, its aid was not protected in the freeze at aid. So I think Jordan is very, very vulnerable, as potentially is Egypt. So we can end up with the best of all, the worst of all worlds, not satisfying anything the Palestinian wants, if anything, supporting Hamas radicalism. They could say, we told you, you need us. The only alternative now is we have to resist rather, or we're going to be deported. And we could destabilize Egypt and Jordan. Don't forget, those are the two first countries in the Arab world to make peace with Israel. They are the foundation of Israel's acceptance in the region of the Abraham Accords and all else. So I simply don't understand what is motivating the President to continue to push an idea that I simply think can succeed and if it's actually implemented, potentially would make the Middle east much more unstable than it currently is at a time there's enormous opportunity to do something with Iran, to do something, given what Israel has accomplished militarily. I don't understand why the President would introduce elements of instability when there's real progress potentially to be made.
- [37:52]
Ali Vitale
I mean, that's the right question, right, Eugene? Why would the President be pushing this kind of a plan given the landscape that Richard so frankly lays out?
- [37:59]
Eugene Robinson
No, I think there's no good answer to that question because it is a crazy thing to do at this time. It's a crazy thing, crazy idea at any time, to tell you the truth, but particularly now. You know, the Saudis keep putting out statements saying, no, no, this will not happen, this cannot happen. My question, I have a question for Richard Hodge, which is do the Saudis have any leverage here? I mean, they have clearly said there is no normalization of relations with Israel. If any part of this plan goes forward. There's no normalization until we're on a path to a two state solution. Is that real leverage still or is there other leverage that the Saudis have?
- [38:49]
Ken Delaney
I don't think it's that much leverage because the Israeli government has in some ways discounted the importance of normalization with Saudi Arabia. If they valued it more, it would have happened somewhere, sometime earlier, Gene, and it would have interfered with their goals in Gaza. I think the principal Saudi leverage right now is to produce more oil because that would basically create downward pressures on oil pricing, which would help offset renewed inflationary pressures here and even more, more would hurt Russia. And if President Trump is committed to getting a cease fire in Ukraine, one way to do it is to put more economic and pressure and that might be the greatest Saudi leverage, not in the Middle east, but in Europe.
- [39:28]
J.D. Vance
Jen, we're getting a reminder too, of the Trump playbook, even when it comes to allies, whether it's threatening those tariffs against Canada and Mexico, our closest trading partners, to extract some concessions from them. In the case of Mexico, those concessions had already been in place and they just reminded him, sure, we'll go through with those. And in this case in the Middle east, our closest partners threatening to cut off aid to our closest allies, who we need desperately in the Middle east if they don't get on board with the program. This is how he does business.
- [39:57]
Jen Psaki
How he also does business is he has a special liking penchant for friendship with whatever you want to call it, Prime Minister Netanyahu. He also has an affection for Vladimir Putin. And I think the Netanyahu relationship is to me one of the clear reasons or one of the explanations for what we're seeing here. Obviously, people from the Trump administration, the incoming Trump administration played a role, per the Biden administration, on getting this ceasefire across the line. To Richard Haass point, the first stage of this was actually the much easier stage. Trump, we don't know what Trump, how he thought about it, what he was deciding, but that may have been an assumption. Mind. We know that Netanyahu wanted him to be president. We know that President Trump respects Netanyahu. And I think that's not a non factor here. That's how I would look at it.
- [40:46]
Joe Scarborough
All right, Jen Psaki, thank you very much. We're going to be watching Inside with Jen Psaki Sunday at noon and Monday at 8 Eastern right here on MSNBC. And check out her new podcast. It's called the Blueprint with Jen Psaki, which takes a deep dive into the state of the Democratic Party. The first two episodes are available now and they are amazing. Again, the Blueprint. Congratulations, Jen, on that. And coming up, we're going to dig into President Trump's latest tariff announcement, imposing a 25% tax on aluminum and steel imports, plus why the Trump administration is now renaming for Liberty. We'll tell you who the White House is trying to honor. MORNING Joe will be right back.
- [41:47]
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC presents Main justice each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice.
- [41:59]
J.D. Vance
The administration doesn't necessarily want to be.
- [42:01]
Ken Delaney
Questioned on any of its policy.
- [42:03]
J.D. Vance
I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action. This is it coming to fruition.
- [42:10]
Rachel Maddow
Main Justice. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple podcasts for ad free listening and bonus content.
- [42:17]
J.D. Vance
It might be enticing to try and sleep through the next four years. But if you're wondering how to survive 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 Vitor, Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer, and I wade.
- [42:30]
Danny Savalos
Hip deep into the week's political news.
- [42:32]
J.D. Vance
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. Tune into Pod Save America wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube, get.
- [42:48]
Rachel Maddow
All of Rachel Maddow's original chart topping podcast series in one place with Rachel Maddow Presents, Binge, the entire Bagman series, seasons one and two of Ultra, and every episode of Deja News, along with all of Rachel Maddow's new podcasts to come. These are untold stories of our country's past that could help us understand the state of our country today. Search for Rachel Maddow Presents and follow to listen now. For ad free listening, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple podcasts.
- [43:22]
Joe Scarborough
Welcome back. 45 past the hour. Last night, President Trump signed new 25% tariffs, 25% on all steel and aluminum imports to the United States. The tariffs apply to all shipments of the metals, including from Canada and Mexico, despite Trump granting a 30 day delay of the blanket tariffs on all goods from those countries last week. U.S. steel and aluminum suppliers may benefit from the decision as they'll have the chance to undercut foreign competitors. Competitors. But Americans could soon feel the impact on their wallets as aluminum and steel are used in a wide range of products from appliances, smartphones, soda cans and more. And higher import costs would filter through consumers. So Richard, why does this make a lot of sense?
- [44:17]
Ken Delaney
Well, first of all, your analysis is right. This will save some jobs.
- [44:20]
Joe Scarborough
I was waiting for you to say it doesn't.
- [44:22]
Ken Delaney
Well, it doesn't. I'm trying to explain it. It will save some jobs in this, or maybe even create a few in the steel and aluminum industries. But it will do so at enormous cost because there's far fewer jobs there than for example, there is in the construction industry which uses steel or the automobile industry. So the knock on effects of this will want to add to inflation and two will reduce sales for other businesses. So we'll have unemployment and other parts of the economy. And then Mika and the reason it doesn't make sense is this will invite retaliation. The idea that we can do this and other countries Won't act in kind. So this basically will start something of a trade war. And that will be, there's no, like most wards, there's no winners. This will add to cost. So what worries me about this, and this is something the President believes is an article of faith. It's basically, it's what economists call import substitution. Instead of importing things, we're going to substitute it by domestic. But it's much more expensive, so it doesn't make sense. And what's so odd about it? Can I say one last thing?
- [45:24]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah.
- [45:25]
Ken Delaney
He inherited economy that's in pretty good shape. It's humming along at close to 3%. Inflation is way down.
- [45:34]
Joe Scarborough
Things were moving in the right direction.
- [45:36]
Ken Delaney
Employment was way up.
- [45:37]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah.
- [45:37]
Ken Delaney
What this threatens to do is disrupt what was basically a very strong economy. And he could have done some tweaks to it and taken credit for it. What I think he will rue the day here because at the end, Americans are going to care about inflation more than anything else. And this is going to set in motion trends where there's going to be new unemployment and steel dependent industries and there's going to be inflation. So the President, I think, risks the stability of an economy that he inherited that was in pretty good shape, which, by the way, allowed him to focus on other things like the border or anything else. And the idea that he wants his focus to have to be on an economy that gets in trouble, I do not understand the political or economic wisdom of it. So getting back to your question, I don't think it makes sense by his lights.
- [46:25]
J.D. Vance
So how do you explain it? Richard, we were just talking. You've been discussing the economy and foreign policy with Donald Trump for 30 years, well before he was in politics. Why is he doing this if he knows prices are going to go up? It's just the way it works. His own economists are telling him that. His own treasury knows that. Why is he doing it?
- [46:42]
Ken Delaney
Donald Trump has two articles of faith that have propelled him for four decades, maybe now longer, five decades. One is that trade. We get disadvantaged by trade to be. It's rigged against us. We get screwed to use an ineligible.
- [46:56]
J.D. Vance
Always get ripped off.
- [46:57]
Ken Delaney
We're always getting ripped off. And then his second strong view is allies again are ripping us off. They're freeloaders. And the United States pays much more, if you will, for the world than we get from it. So he wants to do two things. He wants to address what he thinks is the unfairness of trade. He sees trade imbalances bilateral, and he said we must be Somehow it's rigged against us. Why isn't the playing field level? You know, there's a whole bunch of economic theory about, you know, Ricardo and comparative advantage that essentially we shouldn't be making things that others can make more cheaply. We should be focusing on making the things that we make best quality at better cost. But the president wants to bring back certain types of manufacturing, manufacturing industries that we don't have a comparative advantage. But that is where he is. He's in. It's almost as if his views on this got locked in 30, 40 years ago during the problems with Japan and so forth. And he just feels this way. So I actually feel sorry for his economic advisers because you can't waltz into the Oval Office and persuade the president out of this. This is an article of faith for him.
- [48:00]
J.D. Vance
And he also sees them as leverage. 25% new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports coming in. United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has renamed the army base Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. But this time Bragg is not a reference to the Confederate general. The previous name was changed, you'll remember, to Fort Liberty in 2023 as part of an effort to cut military honors bestowed on those who rebelled against the Union during the Civil War. The name now honors an enlisted army soldier named Roland L. Bragg who took the Pentagon says was awarded a Silver Star Purple Heart for combat during World War II. Hegseth issued the memorandum Monday while flying to Europe on a military plane. In a video posted to social media, Secretary Hegseth is seen sitting at a desk while signing the memo and then reading a portion of the order, commenting quote, bragg is back. So these, Gene Robinson, are the little cultural things that Donald Trump has been talking about for a long time, part of the anti woke agenda. If you can say renaming a base under the name of someone who was a Confederate general, but saying it was a different soldier who served with honor, I'm sure. But this is obviously a cute way around that. This is sort of delivering on those promises on the margins to get rid of WOKE in the government.
- [49:17]
Eugene Robinson
Yeah, on the margins is right. Because okay, this is what I guess what he put Pete Hegseth in the Pentagon to do, but do you think he might find some time to like, like, think about our defense posture, to think about our defense? Our military industrial complex, is it able to build enough ships? Are we producing enough ammunition? Are we producing the right weapons? Are our forces in the right configuration and numbers for the potential conflicts of the future and not of the past? What is he doing about this intractable Pentagon bureaucracy that seems to move like molasses. I mean, there's lots to do with the Pentagon. And if this is the way Pete Hegseth is going to spend his time, then this appointment of him as secretary is as bad as I feared it would be because there is so much to do, so much that should be done. And he is worrying about finding a Bragg to rename now Fort Bragg after. It's ridiculous and a tragedy of the Trump administration that I hope we won't see repeated throughout the government, but I fear we will.
- [50:48]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah. President Emeritus on the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you very much for being on this morning. We appreciate it. We're all speaking stumbling through me. You and Joe Willie are doing our best. We're doing our best. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the FBI just unearthed about 2,400 records tied to JFK's assassination. We'll go over the new discovery, plus, we'll dive back into the new book booster Shots, which makes the case that measles remain a threat that should not be underestimated. The author joins us to discuss the urgent lessons parents need to know. Also ahead, we'll speak with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency she helped create, and why the Trump administration is now going after it. MORNING JOE will be right back.
- [51:41]
Rachel Maddow
The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed and presidencies are defined. And for for Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.
- [51:53]
Joe Scarborough
Now is the time. So we're gonna do it, providing her.
- [51:56]
Rachel Maddow
Unique insight and analysis during this critical time.
- [51:59]
Joe Scarborough
How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?
- [52:05]
Rachel Maddow
The Rachel Maddow show, weeknights at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.