Joe Scarborough (0:00)

The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA Auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today, restrictions apply. Usaa. I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or dsw.com what it was, we believe is somebody that was on the line with permission of somebody that was with Mike Waltz, worked for Mike Waltz at a lower level, had, I guess, Goldberg's number were called through the app and somehow this guy ended up on the call. Now, it wasn't classified, as I understand it. There was no classified information. There was no problem. And the attack was a tremendous success. President Trump blaming a national security staffer for adding a journalist to a group chat where military plans were shared. We'll have the latest on that major story as the president and top officials try to minimize the seriousness of this security breach. Also ahead, we're going to go through a hearing on Capitol Hill that went a bit under the radar yesterday. President Trump's nominee to oversee the Social Security Administration grilled by lawmakers about the future of the program amid massive cuts by Elon Musk and the federal government. Wasn't he the guy, Jonathan, who said he was going to shut down the Social Security Administration because he didn't like a judge's ruling on Doge? That is the one. Yeah, okay. That you don't want to do that. Just listen, I, I'm not good at this politics thing. Politics one on one, don't threaten to shut down Social Security. It's a problem. Also ahead, we have an update on the cease fire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine after three days of intense talks with US Officials in Saudi Arabia. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, March 26th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the co host of our fourth hour contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lem, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack. And Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University. Historian Jon Meacham he's an MSNBC political analyst. I mean, we have a lot of things coming up right now. Of course, Willie. Major League Baseball tomorrow starts tomorrow. The home and away substack letter, of course. Out two days, three days from now. Jon Meacham does his annual military reenactment. Oh, he does. Of the French and Indian War, how it touched on. On Tennessee. Yeah. That's a dip. Closet. Fort Necessity. The view from Fort Necessity. Yes. It's good. He could even. I better get that. I love him. I love him. You know what? Richard looks so excited. Yeah. About the Russell Wilson era in New York. The Giants, James Winston and Russell Wilson. Very exciting. But. Yeah. Question is, what happens in the Drift. Yeah. Mike, you walk across. They know who you are. Just go. Okay, Senator, Camera. Yeah. Thank you, Senator. All right. Power of the people. Right on. He's already complaining. We're going to get into. Willie, we're going to get in this. We're going to get into this ongoing mess. Yeah. With. With. With signal. Yeah. I've seen this time and time again in the White House over 30 years. Administrations come and go, and, you know, I usually have the same advice for them. Republicans, Democrats alike, you know, they come in cocky. They think they're the first people that have, like, figured this out. And I mean every single one. And now Richard will tell you that. And every time I say, do you not think the last administrator, I remember telling somebody in the Obama administration, you know, I think the Bush administration, when they walked through those gates the first time, thought that, like, masters of the universe, say, head down, do your job, serve your country, you'll be fine. But if that's the goal. Yeah, but it just, It's. It's just again, and I'm not comparing the Trump administration to any past administration. I'm just saying there's just a degree of arrogance in this administration, top to bottom. You see, in a lot of administrations, maybe not to this level, when something like this happens, you go, yeah, we effed up. You know what? We screwed up. We shouldn't have done it on signal. It was a mistake. We're not going to do it again. Lessons learned. They just can't do it. And the thing is, it doesn't serve them well. They may think this serves them well. Even their own base knows. I mean, we can read from the, the Wall Street Journal. We could read from the National Review. You could look at even some people on Fox News. You can look at Brit Hume going, for God's sake, just admit you screwed up. But this whole Thing about like it's the journalists fault that we added on our top secret, you know, national, I mean that would be the wrong journalist that blame or saying it's not classified. When you're talking about targets, you're apparently, there are CIA personnel listed in there. You're talking about the timing of an attack. This is classified material in every sense of the word. Just say these guys messed up. We have confidence in them. These are the reforms we're going to do to make sure it's like not going to happen again in the future. And we're, right now, we're undergoing investigation to make sure there were no more incidences like this. Just to make sure American intel is safe. Just, just do it. It helps the administration that does that, but they just can't do it. They can't do it. And of course it comes from the top. Donald Trump's guiding philosophy is no retreat, no apology, of course, no humility about anything whatsoever. So you get Mike Waltz, the national Security advisor, going on fo and talking about the journalists, talking about Jeffrey Goldberg, saying he's scum and he's a loser and how dare he do this? He didn't do anything except be added by you guys to a signal chat in which, according to Jeffrey Goldberg, they discussed, as you said, operational details of an attack, timing and target. He's sitting in his Atlantic office doing what Jeffrey does all day in his Atlantic office, you know, drinking vodka and playing Parcheesi. And all of a sudden this comes across. Yeah, I don't know where the Parcheesi comes from, but you'll explain that later. He gets sloppy when he plays. He does. He's pretty good. Is he? Pretty good? Yeah, pretty good. Even after a couple of stiff drinks. No, but seriously, he's sitting there, he's doing nothing, and they had him and they're calling him scum. Okay, come on. I mean, Jeffrey, I'm sure would get into a skiff with some members of the intel committee and, you know, let them perhaps see what exactly it is that they, I mean, he's being pushed now, defamed. He's going to be given no choice. Obviously he wants to be responsible. Can I say he actually did more to protect classified information than any of the people. It's that simple Then. So first of all, there is the public. There's what we're hearing, the public from the administration, which is again, no retreat, no surrender, straight out of a Bruce Springsteen song. The bit talk to us, go behind the doors in the White House. I mean, you're reporting some people not happy inside the White House at all. Yeah, no, first of all, it's just a real throwback also to the first Trump term, which was so chaotic and sloppy and messy. And they really tried this time around to pride themselves on being more professional. They're getting more things done. So for some in the West Wing, it was an unfortunate reminder of how things were. But there is some unhappiness here. The president himself, as I report today, you know, doesn't like a lot of the media coverage that's surrounded about this. Yes. It's a familiar playbook, though. Attack the messenger, go after the Jeffrey Goldberg, go after the reporter, the outlet. He called Jeffrey a sleazebag yesterday repeatedly in a White House meeting. Well, by the way, there's history there that goes back to Jeffrey reporting from people who work for Donald Trump about what he said about suckers and losers. Yeah, yeah. And so that, that's, yeah, there's a deeply personal for him, which of course doesn't explain why he's attacking the messenger, the guy who actually protected national security secrets better than his own national security team. Yeah. There's long held animosity there from Trump to Jeffrey, but this is something where he has expressed some unhappiness. He has told people he wants to see how this plays out next few days, but his instinct is to support Waltz and as you say, to never apologize, to always just attack, attack, attack. But there's also a bit of a dare here. We heard this from secretary yesterday, others in the administration over and over and over saying there was nothing classified. There's nothing untoward about this text. Well, what that's doing is to Richard's point, Jeffrey to this point has withheld a lot of this information, saying, look, this is, this could compromise individuals. This is classified. This isn't our place to put out in the public. Well, either you could A, go public with it because you've just been told it's not classified, so you can do that, or B, cooperate with members of Congress and show them what's in the material. Again, what's so crazy is Jeffrey is being responsible about the classified information. Even when they're saying it's not classified, they know it's classified. Yes, Jeffrey knows it's classified, so Jeffrey's not going to release it. It is interesting, isn't it? I heard Ali talking about this at the end of way too early, that it was the national security advisor whose staffer allegedly accidentally put this on this number on. And yet it does seem to be Pete Hegseth who's getting more of the blowback on this. I don't hear a lot of people going after Waltz saying oh, Waltz must be fired. Actually in that meeting yesterday at the table, Donald Trump, the president turned repeatedly to national security Adviser Waltz and said why don't you take this one, Mike? So he was sort of putting him out there to defend himself and answer those questions. And he did go out and talk on Fox News last night to Laura Ingraham. As I said, blaming the messenger. Here's Mike Waltz last night. Harrison. Yes, we're going to get to the bottom of it. We've have I just talked to Elon on the way here. We've got the best technical minds looking at how this happened. But I can tell you, I can tell you for 100% I don't know this guy. I know him by his horrible reputation and he really is the bottom scum of journalists. And I know him in the sense that he hates the president. But I don't text him. He wasn't on my phone. And we're going to figure out how this. So you don't know what staffer is responsible for this right now? Well look, a staffer wasn't responsible and look, I take full responsibility. I built the, I built the group to my job is to make sure everything's coordinated. But how does that, I mean I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number. Have you ever had a, have you ever had somebody's contact that shows their name and then you have an, and then you have somebody else that was mistakes. Right. You got somebody else's number on someone else's contact. So of course I didn't see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out. So you're, you're a staffer did not put his contact information. No. But how did it end up. Well, that's what we're trying to, that's what we're trying to figure out. Okay. But that's a pretty big problem. That is what there are numbers got the best technical minds. Right? That's just, and that's where I mean I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where you it was said one person and then a different phone number but you've never talked to him before. So how's the number on your phone? I mean I'm not an expert in any of this but it's Just curious. How's the number on your phone? Well, if you have somebody else's contact and then it. And then somehow. Oh, someone knew that, it gets sucked in. Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that wasn't on the chat that you thought? So the person that I thought was on there was never on there. It was. Who was that person? Well, I'm not. Look, Laura, I take. I take responsibility. I built the group. Okay, so. But look, that's the part that we have to figure out. I mean, there's so much wrong there. Where to begin? First of all, feeling the need to call a guy scum and bottom feeder and all this other stuff. I mean, again, it just actually speaks to the culture, just the sad culture there. Number one. Also, Laura, by the way, pushed. Kept pushing him. Wait a second. You know, he's saying, we've got the best technical minds. We're going to get Elon Musk. Why are you on Signal? We're going to get Elon Musk. You don't need Elon Musk. You added it and then it's like, okay, well, the staff. It's not the staffer's fault. It's my fault. We don't know how he got there. Maybe he put himself. No, he didn't put himself on there. That's not how it works. He added him or somebody in his office added him. But even there, as makes it way around signal number one. Number two, I'm sorry, but I think if I were on a national security chain like that, I'd be looking at every single number and say, okay, who do we have on here? I mean, I do that. Like I said, like I said, we're just a cable news show. But if I get a list of numbers, I'm like, all right, who's on here? Identify yourself. This is basic stuff, even when American lives aren't on the line. But can that attitude. You know what would have been great? You know what? Americans would have loved you. What Fox News viewers would love. You know, everybody would love. We made a mistake, won't happen again. We have used Signal because we were told that Signal was secure. Now we understand it's not secure and we're not going to use it again. Made a mistake. It'll never happen again. People, actually, I can say this as a formal politician. People love that. I screwed up. I don't know. I messed up. But I'll tell you what, it'll never happen again. That's not the strategy when Donald Trump is the boss. You Learn from the master. And he's telling you, attack the source. Attack the source. We've built this distrust in the media. Go after Jeffrey Goldberg, make it his fault. So there are two things here. Number one, Richard, with your experience talking about classified information on signal, you could make the case. Sometimes we get together and talk about unclassified things on signal. It's encrypted. But we would never talk about classified. We screwed up here. And is there any doubt in your mind, based on what Jeffrey Goldberg has described he saw with his eyes and actually has, but has not made public, that talking about the operational details, timing and targets of a military attack is somehow not classified? Not only is it classified, it's highly classified. Parts of it were probably compartmented as well, so that's not even an issue. And to deny that it was classified as preposterous, that unsustainable bigger issue is why did this take place on signal? See, God invented something called the Situation Room. And the Situation Room is a secure facility in the basement of the White House where you have meetings. It's an old fashioned word. And the idea is you have serious conversations around the table. Cuz that's when you discuss big national security. If you're talking about military attacks halfway around the world, 100%, should you do it? How do you do it? What's the likely responses of the Houthis? What would be the response of the Iranians? Who do you have to tell in advance? How do you coordinate with the Israelis? Do you give heads ups to others and so forth. And people like Vance, the Vice President, who had doubts about the wisdom of doing it. Now that's when you have that conversation. You don't do it in a group chat with emojis, for God's sakes. This is serious stuff. So the most important thing these guys could do is not just get off signal. They could run a serious national security process where you have meetings with agendas. You think about who needs to be. Why was the Secretary of the treasury in the room? Why was someone like Steve Witkoff in the room from Moscow? It's not just security questions. There's the question of how do you run a serious policy process from Moscow? The whole thing was wrong. I said one other thing. What also came through, the content, the loathing of this administration for anything European. Yeah. It is a pathology. It is, it goes way beyond anything. And it just. That has been the largest pool of allies and partners this country has had for 80 years to help us, not just in Europe, but around the world. And the loathing for them is quite stunning. You know, it is really stunning. Again, when you look at our military might, you look at combined with Europe, you look at our financial might. I've said it time and again, $26 trillion GDP Europe, $26 trillion GDP. You put those two together, we completely dominate the world. And yet. Yet we're dividing for a country in Russia that has a $1.4 trillion GDP smaller than the size of Texas. John Heilman, you have a theory on why Pete Hegseth may be more of a target than. Than Tulsi Gabbard and Radcliffe? Tell us about it. Less of one. Well, I think that you could see yesterday, you know, there was a lot of. There was a lot of very heated exchanges that went on in that Intel Committee hearing. But one of the things that came through was that both Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard testified after some angling around here, that they said that there was no classified intelligence material included in this signal chat. What that leaves out is the question of whether there was classified defense material. And I think this is what Richard's talking about. This gets to the war plan thing. Right. And that's sort of why I think a lot of people are looking at Hegseth, because the suggestion here is that although Waltz may have made a mistake by putting Jeff Goldberg on the group chat, again, the implication here is that the person who may have put classified material into that chat is Pete Hegseth by sharing the operational plans of the attack on the Houthis. On the Houthis in Yemen. So I think that'syou're starting to get this picture from a lot of senior intelligence, a lot of senior intelligence officials in the Trump administration who are all kind of quietly, or not so quietly, pointing in Pete Hegslas direction. And, Joe, I'll just say is, you know, there's no one I know who had. Who worried more about Pete Hegslas lack of basic competence and qualifications for this job. If it turns out that he did, in fact, put classified material on this signal group chat, it would be the first. The first time that America potentially has paid a price for that lack of experience and lack of competence. Well, I mean, there's been a lot of sloppiness there. I mean, there's been negotiating against ourselves with several things that he said publicly. And, Miki, you'll remember time and again when we were going over Pete Hegseth and the possibility of him being there at dod, what we repeatedly said was, it's not in our Troops best interest. It's not in America's best interest. But also said time and again, it's not in Donald Trump's best interest. It's not in Donald Trump's best interest. Cuz he doesn't have the experience to do this. He's going to bumble around, he's going to make mistakes. This was a very vivid, this was the sort of thing that I was concerned about and a lot of people were concerned about. I mean, imagine, because you can't imagine. Imagine Bob Gates doing this. Oh my God. Imagine. Because you can't imagine Leon Panetta doing this. You just can't. You cannot imagine it. Well, there's a lot of things happening here in the response, Jon Meacham, first of all, the muddling, the attacking, actually the reporter himself, all these crisscrossing excuses, I think takes away from the first problem which Richard pointed out, which was this was handled on a completely inappropriate app, let alone including the editor of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. And I'm trying to think if there's any precedent for managing a scandal or an embarrassment or whatever you would call this, a major breach. In a way, I guess it's effective because they do this, this, this, look here, look there, look there. And people forget what the real problem is. Is that what's happening here. Well, you know, I was, as I was listening to the conversation, I was thinking, okay, what clever thing can I say? This is as if Abraham Lincoln had told Matthew Brady what we were going to do at Antietam. Right. Or that's what I was saying. That's very good. I was about to say, however, however, what this really is and the reaction to it and the clip you showed is a clear case study. It's a symptom of the deeper condition, which is that basically the 49.9% of people who thought this was a good idea to do again, really have enabled an organization, a culture, as Willie pointed out, that has no capacity, apparently, for shame. And if you have no capacity for shame, then you don't have any incentive to learn to go to what Joe was saying. For them, it's a genuine autocracy. And what matters to them is that they are right and they are powerful. And I would love to think that this is somehow going to shift a dynamic. I fear it won't. And here's one further sign of what President Trump has done to the political culture. Within 60 seconds of reading Jeffrey's remarkable essay, I started thinking, this is how they're going to attack him. And I was 90% right in my head. I didn't think of the thing about somehow your number isn't your number. But I was thinking, oh, here's what they'll say. They'll say he should have identified himself immediately, and he is a globalist who was endangering national security and just shifted around. And what worried me about myself, since we're going to have a little therapy this morning, is instead of focusing on whether this could have cost American lives in a military operation, I was already thinking about the tactics that were going to be used to make everybody move on. And I just think this is what we've chosen to do, what a dispositive plurality of Americans chose to do. And the most important thing we can do, it seems to me, is we can choose not to. And it begins with everyone who wakes up this morning and thinks about if you had a son or a daughter in the United States military and they were part of a projected force around the world and their safety was in question, their lives were endangered by processes that are, as Richard was saying, are. To call them woefully inadequate is an insult to everything that's woefully inadequate. I would be deeply, deeply outraged. And I suspect that those folks won't particularly be. But the hope we have here, the hope we have here is that enough of us say, ah, it's not what we need, not what we want. And that's the one we know about. You know, I mean, the thing is, and it is what we know about. I mean, again, Wall Street Journal editorial page talking about how, again, the fact that this signal messaging was with Witkoff in Moscow, said it was security malpractice, suggesting once again that this is their words, that he's out of his depth in dealing with world crisis. Had another op ed columnist very loyal to the Trump administration saying for the Wall Street Journal saying, you know, maybe this will didn't quite use the words humble them, but maybe this will make them slow down and stop being so focused on breaking stuff. The National Review coming in again demanding accountability for this. And I take, and I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Richard touched on it, one of the greatest problems with this, this terrible security breach is the security breach itself. But beyond that, the message, the lasting the message and the lasting damage that it does for our European allies to see, as Richard said, behind the scenes, the contempt that they have for allies that stood shoulder to shoulder with US Defeat to defeat Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, it's pretty stunning there will be lasting damage from this. And again, I just, I understand what everybody's saying about what the Trump administration is doing. This is not good for them politically. This could go in a case like this. There are people who voted for Donald Trump, who have children in the military, who have loved ones in the military who understand how what a mistake this was. And trying to blame a reporter that you put in on the group chat is not going to get it done. And you sort of saw that from Laura Ingraham last night in the interview there. It's not going to get it done. And by the way, when you have things like this piling up, you start getting election results like we saw last night in a Senate race in Pennsylvania that's a plus 15 Trump district, that McCormick won the Senate race by 22 percentage points, that the incumbent Republican didn't even have a challenger two years ago or in 22. And he loses the election, he loses the election. Democrats win in a deep red part Pennsylvania in Lancaster County. Why? Because of these unforced errors. Jon Meacham, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And coming up, President Trump's nominee to oversee the Social Security administration faced tough questions from lawmakers yesterday. We'll take a look at what happened during that confirmation hearing. Plus, in Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians take part in a rare anti Hamas protest. That's we'll have the latest from the region. Also ahead, top Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Congressman Jim Himes and Senator Mark Warner join us with their reaction to the Trump administration's signal chat fallout. Morning Joe is back in 90 seconds. Foreign 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 abortion, is a human right. Right now, Planned Parenthood needs your help to protect access to healthcare. Donate today by visiting plannedparenthood.org protect this season. Let your shoes do the talking. Designer Shoe Warehouse is packed with fresh styles that speak to your whole vibe without saying a word. From cool sneakers that look good with everything. The easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat. ESW has you covered. Find a shoe for every hue from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas, New Balance and more. Head to your DSW store or visit dsw.com today. This is an ad by BetterHelp. Let's talk numbers in person. Therapy can cost anywhere from 100 to $250 per session, which adds up. But with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save on average up to 50% per session. Therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp has served over 5 million people globally and helps you fit therapy into your busy life. Your well being is worth it. Visit betterhelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp. H E L p.com just about half past the hour. Time now to take a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Hundreds of Gazans took to the streets yesterday to demonstrate against the terror group Hamas, which has ruled over the territory and its people since 2007. The rare public demonstration comes hours after Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for firing rockets into Israel from northern Gaza. Last week, Israel resumed its offensive against Hamas after a weeks long cease fire. Brought home multiple hostages taken captive by Hamas and Richard in 2020. Very telling. I mean this is, this is Hamas is a terrorist group and also an autocracy that would kill any opponents of the regime. Very interesting that now very unpopular among Palestinians in Gaza. Very interesting. Now they're finally feeling like they can go out protest against Hamas without being shot in the back of the head or pushed off the A building. Great to see. I'll be interesting to see whether this catches, whether this builds a kind of momentum. Also you just wish some of the people out there protest in this country would remember the fact that Hamas ran Gaza for close to two decades. And what do they have to show for a dictatorship? Exactly. They ran the place into the ground. And that is what we're beginning to see. It's some of the pent up frustration. All right. The Washington D.C. health department is warning about the potential exposure of measles after a person infected with the virus traveled traveled within the district while they were contagious. The individual rode an Amtrak train on March 19 and walked through the concourse at Union Station. Health officials say the Capitol has high vaccination Rates for measles. So the chance of an outbreak is very low. Jonathan O'Mear, we talked about this the other day. We had Vin Gupta on the question is What's Bobby Kennedy Jr saying about this? Is he like saying get pixie dust and like run through daffodils and rolled down a hill three times or is he actually saying get the vaccine? He has large, by the way, for the record for you that don't know, we eliminated measles by the turn of the century. This nonsense has brought it back. The anti vax nonsense has brought measles back. Is Bobby Kennedy Jr saying get the vaccine? Bobby Kennedy Jr has been largely MIA. He's been a pretty invisible member of this cabinet at this point. But when he has spoken, no, he has not said that measles has eradicated, now has come back. We're seeing this outbreak in Texas, a few other states now looks like at least one case in Washington D.C. and he has. Kennedy has supported these alternative theories with no science behind them. And he for years of course has been so skeptical of vaccinations and that theory has taken hold and so many on the right, we're seeing those vaccination rates drop, infections rise, he talks about nutrition, live a good life, get outside, eat well and you won't get measles. Also, by the way, the Washington Post has new report reporting this morning that the federal government is putting in charge now. They've deputized someone to look at again the connection between autism and vaccines, which has long been disproved over decades of medical science. That comes from the top from Bobby Kennedy, a skeptic. Okay, and one more news story here. YouTube took the number one spot last month when it comes to where most people are watching TV. The service accounted for 11.6% of all TV use in the country. That's an all time high for YouTube. And the second time it has topped the list of distributors is Ireland still with us And Barnacles here. I remember. You remember, of course, the extraordinarily famous line in Time magazine. I've seen the future of rock and roll and it is Bruce Springsteen. I think we can say that about YouTube and media. I mean YouTube and media just continues to explode and, and the numbers people are getting are off the charts. Off the charts, Joe. And you know, there's this, the unraveling of the old world of media has been, you know, a striking thing over the last 20 years. And the question has kind of been what's going to rise up in its place? Because obviously There are still lots of people consuming a lot of media and consuming a lot of video. And these numbers that YouTube continues to generate on behalf of small organizations and the individual creator economy, it's got a kind of parallel in the substack world in terms of print, in terms of text. It's an astonishing thing. Obviously giving people access to all the world's video clips was a big first step. But it turns out that YouTube has a second and even bigger life potentially as a platform for, as a viable economic platform for a new structure for the business, for, for, for, for live events. And you're certainly seeing some crazy numbers out of, out of London. Piers Morgan is actually using this and I think he's leaving traditional television. He's doing these YouTube events where he'll have like Douglas Murray and Mehdi Hasan debate Middle east issues and they will just go at it. And, and, and, and the numbers are driving up there. I would say something else. So that's, that's actually moved me. I say I'm not on social media but you know, X threads a lot of these things. Just so angry. It's like I'm just not going to even wade into it. Sometimes even Instagram, you know, show, show a picture of a baby because. Oh yeah, well, why did you, how do you vote in 1972? It's your, you know, it's like, okay, whatever. That's one of the great things. And I think YouTube is benefiting from just the rage and the anger on so many other social media platforms. Ah, come on man. I want to look at some video, especially X. I mean I have an account but I don't use it anymore. Instagram's much better. I advise you not to reach the comments. That's always good advice. But as you know very well, I have a 15 year old and a 17 year old. My son just watches YouTube. I mean that's, I honestly don't think my children know where the clicker for the cable is because their instinct is they just go on. Yeah. And they go to whatever the streaming service of choice is. If we're watching the NCAA tournament, you find CBS and tv. We don't talk sports. I'll say something else, but otherwise about that much also is like Reddit. We don't talk about it much here. Yeah, but Instagram and Reddit will be watching a game and I'll be getting a, you know, there'll you know, be a 15 and out pass route and you know, Jaguar saying, yeah, you know, they say that I'm going where Are you getting. And it's Reddit and it's just. It's pretty. That's pretty fascinating. Social media platform. But again, away from just the absolute hatred of some of the other social media platforms, you know, absolutely fascinated about all of this. And this just on top of it all. Who's this? Mike Barnacle? Space age whiz kid. Actually, I am. I know a couple of younger people who are very well versed on social media. Yeah. And what do they tell you? They claim that in the snap of a finger, a lot of TV programs that we're used to watching on things like MSNBC, CBS, whatever, it's all going to be on YouTube. It's all going to be on YouTube. To your point, Willie, the Barnacle boys are right. Yeah. No. All right. Well, I don't know, you know. Oh, I totally think so. Television is the new television and It'll be on YouTube. We'll see. Yeah, could be television. Is television on YouTube? That's where it's going. Why would you want to deal with the cord and the boxes and the bills and. No. Where are we? Geez, we are. Wait. Hey, Alex, did we have the 7 second delay? Push the button. What did I do? Well, I mean, we need. That went out years ago. She's on her own. Oh, I realize now the problem. I completely disagree with her. I completely disagree with her. Well said. Well said. Well, I will say the reason why you need the box. The reason why I didn't. Why two things. And we all know this. And I'm not the only one who said this. Sports news. Yes. It's like that's what that is. What? Still, you talk to anybody in the media and they say people, people keep it because they need news and they need sports. Yes. Yeah, that's when I watch. Sports are moving in the streaming direction too, though. Yeah. I'm just saying it's all. Some of them are. But I don't want to go to Ruby or Tubi or whatever to watch. Pardon the interruption. I'm going to go to Espia. Okay. He's trying to save me here. Anyhow. Coming up, people agree with me, really. We'll turn back the fallout over the Trump administration's Signal Group chat and the national security threat this poses. A retired U.S. army lieutenant general will join us to discuss his key takeaways ahead. Hey, look, it's going to get kicked out of her penthouse today. Auto insurance can all seem the same until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage. Switch to USA Auto insurance and you could start saving money in no time. Get a quote today, restrictions apply. I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock Night, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or dsw.com this is an ad by BetterHelp. Let's talk numbers in person. Therapy can cost anywhere from 100 to $250 per session, which adds up. But with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save on average up to 50% per session. Therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp has served over 5 million people globally and helps you fit therapy into your busy life. Your well being is worth it. Visit betterhelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp. H E L p.com 43 past the hour. Live look at the White House as the sun has yet to come up over Washington. New reporting from the Washington Post reveals the strain the Social Security Administration is feeling under cuts led by Elon Musk. The agency delivers $1.5 trillion a year in earned benefits to 73 million Americans. According to the Post, poor customer service, website crashes and long phone wait times have now become commonplace after the agency pushed out more than 12% of its staff. Doge's mission is to fine benefits. Fraud has also reportedly become a top priority, despite evidence the problem is overstated. Meanwhile, President Trump's nominee to lead the Social Security Administration faced questions about Doge's work during his confirmation hearing yesterday. Take a look. I think common sense would suggest that when it's bad now, you don't lay off half your staff. Would you agree with me? I believe that we can drive efficiency for the rest of our life. I also understand that it takes 20 plus minutes to answer the phone on a good day, right? Well, that's the average published, right? It's not how I would report the numbers because I think. All right. But all that I'm asking, when you have a system that is not working now, do you think it's a great idea to lay off half of the employees? I don't know if do I think it's a great idea to lay off half of the Employees when a system doesn't work? I think the answer is probably no. Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? I believe it's a promise to Pay. It's an 89 year institution so far. It will continue. Yes or no, do you think it's a Ponzi scheme? It's a promise to pay. If you are confirmed in this job, will you commit to reversing these cuts so that seniors get the money that the law says they are entitled to? What I will commit to is that I will run the agency and I will be in charge of the agency and I will look at every item you want me to look at. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking. You just answered the previous questions by saying you would follow the law. Yes. The law is to deliver the benefits that people are legally entitled to. If you don't have the staff, if you don't answer the phones, if you don't fix the mistakes, people don't get what they're legally entitled to. So I want to know, are you willing to commit right now that you will put enough people back to work so they can do the job of delivering the benefits that Americans earned? Yes or no? I will commit to have the right staffing to get the job done. To get the job done, meaning delivering the benefits people are entitled to? Yes. I'm going to hold you to that. So, John Heilman, there's so much I don't understand here. Simple country lawyer and all that stuff. But even I understand that Social Security is the third rail of American politics. Touch it and die. And yet you keep hearing about cuts by the taking away of phone service. I'm already hearing complaints from people who are having trouble with Social Security on a personal level, not being able to get through to anybody. They're talking about shutting down centers. I mean, you've got, you know, the billionaire head of the Commerce Department saying that any senior that doesn't doesn't get their Social Security checks are fraudsters. Basically just suck it up like his mother does. He's a billionaire, so. And then you've got Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, calling it a Ponzi scheme while they're talking about slashing Social Security administration. Again, this makes no political sense. What's going on? Well, Joe, you know, the same question I would say could have been asked and was asked back at the beginning of George W. Bush's second term when a lot of people in 2005 said that, hey, you know, don't talking about partial privatization of Social Security is going to backfire on your administration. And yet a bunch of smart people in the Bush administration decided to go forward with that. And that was, as you will recall, the beginning of the unraveling of George W. Bush's second term of his presidency. Really, it is nuts to think that to not understand the political equities in play here. But I do think that of all the things that you just rattled off there, the central thing is that is, and I will say, Donald Trump. One thing that has been consistent with Donald Trump from the time he entered political life has always been seemingly to understand this, he's consistently always said, never touches Social Security, never going to go there, never, never, never, never, never. Only now the guy who he's vested so much power in, Elon Musk, has sort of given the game away. And by saying the things he said, not just, I mean, most flagrantly when he called it a Pozzi scheme, but all of his discussion of it seems to be exhibited total ignorance about what the program means to people, what its history has been and how politically freighted it is to try to tinker with it or mess with it or even miss a single. You're talking about these micro examples of making it harder for someone to get their check, someone missing an individual check. These are the kinds of things that bring down political careers. And I think it's just one of the most glaring signs of how politically ill adept Elon Musk is and does not seem to have been chastised at all by the experience so far. So I think we have to wonder what the long term game here is, and if it is to try to undermine the system in the way that rhetorically Trump has done in that speech to Congress and so on, that could be pointing the direction towards real political disaster for Donald Trump's second term in office. Mike, one in five Americans get Social Security. 20% of people living in this country get Social Security. A lot of people believe this man we saw yesterday, who was the CEO of Pfizer Financial Services company, is seeking in some manner to privatize Social Security, a goal of some people in this country for a long time. But this gets at a philosophical debate, which is that this administration believes bringing in people from the private sector, Elon Musk, the most prominent of them, who know how to shake things up, who know how to trim fat, who know how to streamline and make more efficient these programs coming in and applying to a smallish company, not a small company, but relative to the size of the federal government, a company, and see what they can do with Social Security, what they can do with usaid. You can go down the list, Willie. I can guarantee you that Elon Musk has absolutely zero sense of what a Social Security check for $375 means to an elderly couple living largely off of Social Security. None. Zero. And the other aspect of Elon Musk involved in this is he's fooling around with Social Security. Bernie Sanders introduced this segment. He comes from a rural state. He's been there forever. He knows more about that state and the people in that state than I think most United States senators know about the people they represent. And he knows that when they close a Social Security office in Burlington, Vermont, or whatever, you're going to get, you know, two old people in a car driving, you know, 60 miles another hour to find another Social Security office that might be open. Phones, forget it. You can't get anybody in the phone. This is an item that is going to hemorrhage in terms of Trump's weakness. It's going to hemorrhage, yeah. Richard, let's make another point. People in business live in a world where if you get one big thing right, it can offset getting nine small, smaller things wrong and you still have a net profit. Government works the opposite way. You can get most things right, but if you get certain things wrong, it can, it can come back to really bite you and hound you. Say the phone system at Social Security. So the people who would basically try and shake up Social Security to increase its efficiency in the process, they're going to make massive mistakes. And the political system has no tolerance for those. This will not work. Richard Haas, John Halden's benefits. Absolutely. Very different culture. People depend on it. Thank you both very much for being on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, there was no classified material that was shared in that. So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee. You can't have it both ways. These are important jobs. This is our national security. Was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system? I don't recall specific weapons systems being named. Democratic Senators Mark Kelly and Mark Warner with tough questions yesterday. Actually not so tough for Intel Chiefs Tulsa Gabbard and John Radcliffe, both senators will be our guests this morning. We'll also speak with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and rank member of the House Intel Committee, Congressman Jim Himes. Morning Joe will be right back. Isn't Trump decided to send J.D. vance's wife, Usha to Greenland to meet with their realtor. I guess I don't know why, but when they asked about it during a Cabinet meeting yesterday, it didn't seem like Trump could quite remember her name. Greenland is confused about the second lady and the national Security advisor visiting this week. I thought it would be great. I have great respect for the wife of our first of our great vice president. I think she's doing a. She's a brilliant woman. She's a very nice woman. And she loves the concept of Greenland. Yeah, well, you know who doesn't? She loves the concept of Greenland. I. I've always said that about her. Whatever her name is, she loves the concept of Greenland. 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. Now is the time, so we're gonna do it. Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time. How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country? The Rachel Maddow show, weeknights at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.