← Morning Joe
Morning Joe
Morning Joe 5/16/25
00:43:55
Supreme Court appears skeptical of allowing Trump to implement birthright citizenship plan
Loading summary
Transcript101 lines
- [00:01]
Claire McCaskill
Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least into a catch me if you can kind of regime. From the standpoint of the executive where.
- [00:12]
Jonathan Lemire
Everybody has to have a lawyer and.
- [00:14]
Claire McCaskill
File a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights, I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.
- [00:26]
Willie Geist
That's Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during arguments over the Trump administration's push to end birthright citizenship. We'll explain why the case could have major implications for the court challenges against many of President Trump's other executive orders. Plus, we'll get the latest reporting from Turkey, where today Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to meet with Ukraine's delegation on those talks to end Russia's war against that country. Also this morning, Newark is not the only airport having major technical issues. Another airport has experienced an air traffic control outage. We'll tell you what happened there. Good morning. Welcome to MORNING Good Morning Joe. It is Friday, May 16th. With us we have the co host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's a contributing writer at the Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. NBC News and MSNBC political analyst former U.S. senator Claire McCaskill and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson. Good morning to you all. Great group assembled on a Friday morning. John, before we dive into the news, a big one for you and for me, for Boston and for New York. Tonight at the Garden, a pivotal game six. For me as a Knicks fan, it's must win. We don't want to go back to the Boston for Game 7. Got to do it tonight.
- [01:42]
Eugene Robinson
Tonight we'll test the bonds of our friendship, Willie. And I will say only one of these teams employs Luke Cornett. So maybe that's advantage Celtics. And I know you like him as a Vanderbilt guy. Look, Knicks rightly favored tonight, you know, without Jayson Tatum, the Celtics are wounded here. They, of course, blew a couple already this series. They showed some heart in Game 5. They won, they rallied at home. But it's an entirely different animal to do so at msg.
- [02:07]
Willie Geist
But you are right.
- [02:09]
Eugene Robinson
Knicks should better do this tonight. And I you if you could see a close game today, you could perhaps see the Knicks get tight, the crowd get tight. That's when Jalen Brunson, who has been so clutch this year, will need to step up. Because if the Knicks do falter this evening and they certainly, as you well know, have decades of faltering in their resume, a game seven Monday night back in Boston would be a hard one. But I, you know, my gut says that Knicks this feels like moment the Celtics will go down swinging, but it's going to be hard to pull out. How do you feel about it?
- [02:39]
Willie Geist
I think you're convincing yourself of the underdog status so that it won't happen. I know, I know that. I feel good, a little bit nervous. I like, of course, that we're home. I think it's going to be an all time great atmosphere at the Garden tonight. But in a weird way, now that we have the little bit of an advantage with Tatum out and that it is the Pacers and not the Cavs in the next round, there's this added pressure. Could this be the year for the Knicks? So one game at a time, as we say, one game at a time, tonight at the Garden will be absolutely rocking. All right. Let's turn to the news. Hundreds of thousands of commuters will be forced to find alternate transportation into the New York City area. This morning, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, that union walked off the job at midnight in a dispute over pay. This is the first New Jersey transit strike in more than 40 years. Shortly before the strike began, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy said he wants to see a fair deal for union workers, but that he could not back a deal that would cause other transit unions to demand more money as well. The government said doing that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the state. The union claims its members at New Jersey Transit are the lowest paid locomotive engineers of any major passenger railroad in the country. So, I mean, John, as somebody who grew up in New Jersey and whose town counts on New Jersey transit to get in and out of the city, this might feel like a local story, but this is a major story because it effectively shuts down commuting in and out of the city today.
- [04:09]
Eugene Robinson
Well, one thing we can do is connect it to our previous story. Where's Madison Square Garden? It sits atop Penn Station. What's Penn Station? That's where New Jersey Transit comes in into Manhattan. There's going to be a lot of Knicks fans who won't be able to get to the game tonight. Not by the rails anyway. This is going to be a significant deal. It's one of the largest commuter rail networks in the city. Some of the in the country, I should say some of the others, like Metro north, which serves Westchester and Connecticut northern suburbs. For those watching not from New York, they're going to the number of trains they're running. But this is going to be a disaster if it does continue. And this has been sort of years in the making. Now Congress, under the Railway Labor Act, Congress can step in here potentially. We have seen President Biden back in 2022 signed legislation that would ban a national freight rail shutdown, thinking it would be almost national security implications if the whole country's freight rail system were to go down. This is a much smaller network compared to that. So it's not clear yet if the federal government will step in. And we know the Trump administration has not always cast a kind eye toward the issues of blue states, New York, New Jersey in particular, we know that it's been trying to knock down New York City's congestion pricing issues. So it's unclear whether the federal government will step in. And if the longer this goes today through the weekend, especially as Monday rolls around again, it's going to be very challenging for New York City and there are ripple effects up and down the East Coast.
- [05:36]
Willie Geist
Yeah, an already difficult commute into New York just got a lot worse today. I suspect there's going to be a lot of working from home on this Friday morning, if I were guessing, staying on transportation. We're learning about another air traffic control outage. This one in Colorado. Part of the Denver Air Traffic Control center lost communications with planes for about 90 seconds at around 1:50pm on Monday. That's according to the FAA. Despite the brief outage, controllers were able to use another frequency to send instructions to pilots. The this comes amid the wave of delays and cancellations plaguing Newark International Airport because of communication outages. Airports in Atlanta and Austin, Texas, also recently have experienced problems due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. So we will stay on this story, but let's turn to the Supreme Court. President Trump's goal of ending birthright citizenship is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of the Trump administration's fight with lower courts which blocked his executive order barring citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented parents. NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett has the latest.
- [06:46]
Chuck Rosenberg
The high stakes clash between the White House and the federal courts reaching the.
- [06:52]
Marco Rubio
Supreme Court Presidents want to get things done.
- [06:55]
Chuck Rosenberg
The Trump administration hoping to convince the justices that a single federal judge in a single state has no authority to block an executive order for the entire country. President Trump facing nearly 40 so called nationwide injunctions on a host of issues so far in his second term, particularly on immigration, including the case about lower courts blocking President Trump's executive order stripping birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented immigrants. The court's conservative majority seeming open to the administration's arguments on the dangers of judicial overreach.
- [07:31]
Eugene Robinson
There are 680 district court judges and they are dedicated and they are, and I'm not impugning their motives in any way, but you know, sometimes they're wrong.
- [07:42]
Chuck Rosenberg
But some liberal members of the court grilling the administration on what happens if judges cannot block an executive order they believe is illegal on a nationwide basis.
- [07:53]
Claire McCaskill
Let's just assume you're dead wrong. Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?
- [08:02]
Chuck Rosenberg
Democratic state officials backing the suit arguing a patchwork of citizenship would emerge if the administration wins here with rights varying from state to state. Still, there has been bipartisan criticism of judges abusing nationwide injunctions, incentivizing so called judge shopping for sympathetic courts.
- [08:22]
Marco Rubio
We are being hit hard by judges.
- [08:24]
Willie Geist
That I think they're trying to take away the power of the presidency. Laura Jarrett reporting for us there. Let's BRINGGING IN Former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg. Chuck, good morning. So just fascinating, I'm sure, for you, but for all of us too, to sit and listen to this open debate in the Supreme Court about such a critical constitutional question. It seems there are two things at play. There's the issue at hand of birthright citizenship guaranteed in the Constitution. But then this larger question of the ability of district courts to strike down orders from the president, executive orders. So it's a lot to sift through. I know, but what did you take away from what you heard yesterday inside the court?
- [09:04]
Laura Jarrett
Right. I think the court really is wrestling with two very different models. If something is clearly unconstitutional, you want a federal district court judge, wherever she may be sitting, to be able to put a nationwide halt to it. But to Justice Alito's point, sometimes these judges are wrong. And you've imposed a rule on everyone, even though everyone may not be a party to the suit in a particular case. On the other hand. Right. The other side of this tension is that district court judges sit in a particular place in Seattle, in Topeka, in Wichita. And if they have something, it may be the case that a party is seeking out a particular judge. Judge shopping purposefully will he to get an order nationwide to get a blanket order. But what do you do when. And let's just assume the executive order turns out to be unconstitutional on birthright citizenship, do you really want to have every single person who may be harmed by the executive order filing individual lawsuits in 94 different federal district courts? Right. So that on One hand, that seems highly inefficient. So you're trying to balance a system that wants agility and fairness and uniformity and efficiency. Right. With a system in which we normally require plaintiffs to bring a case when they are adversely affected. It's a tough trade off, and you could see the Supreme Court wrestling with it. And frankly, as much as I watch this stuff, it's not clear to me how they're going to come out or when they're going to come out with a new rule.
- [10:47]
Willie Geist
So, Claire, if you listened yesterday, it does appear that the court is broadly skeptical of this president or any president's ability to strike down birthright citizenship. It's in the Constitution. But we did hear from Justice Alito and a couple of others an openness to the idea that perhaps district judges should not have this broad ability to file injunctions to stop the president's executive orders. So what did you hear as you listened yesterday?
- [11:15]
Claire McCaskill
Well, it's interesting to me that a fringe theory, legal theory that has been struck down by every court that's heard it in the country is being proposed with a straight face. So that's a starting point. The second point is, you know, Chuck's right. We're talking about uniformity versus the power of what is essentially a trial judge in the federal system. That's what people need to understand. The people who are issuing these injunctions are not any kind of appellate court. They're the entry point into the federal system. So I guess what I want to know, Chuck, is it seems to me that there is a middle ground here. It seems to me that if it is something that is this chaotic in that one person could be a citizen in one state and then cross the line and be deported in the next for being an immigrant that does not have legal status, that is crazy. We can't have that. So how optimistic are you after listening yesterday, that they'll find some middle ground, say if there is a serious constitutional question, the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, birthright citizenship that is laid out in the Constitution, that they can either have an expedited appeal regardless of whether someone appeals. Because that's the problem, right? That the Trump administration may decide not to appeal and just get what they can because they know they're going to lose if they appeal, or is there a middle ground here?
- [12:52]
Laura Jarrett
So much to my detriment, Claire, I'm always optimistic. I think you can fashion a rule where if there is a constitutional question, and a lot of people would be harmed, Right. If it was you know, take birthright citizenship or the right to bear arms. If a lot of people would be harmed by a particular executive order, that you can get this to the Supreme Court quickly. And a single federal district court judge would have nationwide injunction powers. But fashioning that rule is tricky, right, because it's in the eye of the beholder. What's important to one person may not be important to another. What seems unconstitutional to us may seem perfectly constitutional to a scholar coming at it from a different perspective. It's a hard and you could see the justices wrestling with this. A couple of them asked, how do we get this question in front of us and how do we get it quickly? How do you propose to get it to us?
- [13:47]
Claire McCaskill
Could they decide it now if they wanted to?
- [13:49]
Laura Jarrett
In theory, yes, they could.
- [13:50]
Claire McCaskill
They should.
- [13:51]
Laura Jarrett
Well, I think they should. But I don't think of this as a Democrat Republican problem or a liberal conservative problem. This is a president versus courts problem. And whether you're a Democratic president or a Republican president, recent presidents have been bedeviled by this very issue. And so I think the Supreme Court does need to come up with a fix, a way to get constitutional questions to them quickly without introducing a ton of disparity into this federal system.
- [14:20]
Eugene Robinson
So, Eugene Robinson, let's bring you in on this. As Ben has so well laid out, it's really two things going on at once. The issue on birthright citizenship and then about nationwide injunctions. Tell us about what you heard yesterday and your hopes or fears about the implications going forward.
- [14:36]
Keir Simmons
Well, that quote we came in with from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, I thought was absolutely spot on because looks like a sort of catch me if you can situation in which the government says, you know, I can do it over here, I can do it over there, you stop me there, I can do it someplace else. And everybody's got to file a lawsuit and got to file it in a timely fashion or else they have their rights taken away. That doesn't seem like a situation that anyone should want in this country. But you know, I've heard there's a saying in the profession that bad cases make bad law. I wonder, Chuck, about this case. Birthright citizenship is it strikes, it seems to me everybody here this morning and maybe a majority of the justices think this is kind of a settled question, that the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on this, is very clear on this. So is this the right case to sort of fashion that some sort of middle ground that would affect other cases that are not so clear cut? And, you know, beyond that, do you think there is any chance that the court will actually rule on the substance of birthright citizenship this time?
- [16:08]
Laura Jarrett
Yeah. So first, Eugene, is this the right case? I mean, the Supreme Court has had the ability to rule on this issue many times in the past and sort of kick that can down the road. I do think we need a rule. I do think we need some direction from the Supreme Court about whether a single federal district court judge can issue a nationwide or non party injunction. Is this the right case for it? It's as good as any other. I mean, the underlying issue, to your point, Eugene, birthright citizenship needs to be resolved because you don't want disparity. You don't want to be a citizen in one state and not a citizen in another. That makes no sense at all in our federal system. So I think the Supreme Court can fashion a rule. I hope they do it quickly. I hope they do it clearly again. Nationwide injunctions have been a problem for many past presidents. It's not just a Trump thing. It happened to Biden, it happened to Bush, it happened to Obama. And it will continue to happen unless the Supreme Court can, you know, give us some order here.
- [17:17]
Willie Geist
So, Chuck, fascinating to hear these two hours of oral arguments, this conversation out in the open. But the question now is what happens from here? Just as a practical matter, what's the next step?
- [17:28]
Laura Jarrett
Right. Well, so if the Supreme Court says that nationwide injunctions are improper and that they are not going to rule on the underlying birthright citizenship question just yet, then you're going to see many, many, many more cases brought in the federal system by people who might be affected by Mr. Trump's executive order. It would be more litigation, it would be more churn, it would be more chaos. You could have different rulings in different places. Ultimately, Willie, the birthright citizenship question will be before the Supreme Court, I hope sooner rather than later. And to Eugene's point, I think it's reasonably settled law. Doesn't mean it can't change. But we've had Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1898 and as you well know, the 14th amendment dating back to 1868, which suggests that somebody who is born in this country to parents who are undocumented are United States citizens. I expect that will remain the case. But we will see.
- [18:31]
Willie Geist
We will see, indeed. Former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg. Always great to have your expertise and perspective on this. Thanks so much. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the high stakes talks between Russia and Ukraine are set to take place in Turkey this morning after they were postponed yesterday. NBC's Keir Simmons is standing by for us in Istanbul with what we should expect from those discussions. We're back in 90 seconds. These are live pictures of Air Force One 2, 20 in the afternoon, Abu Dhabi, as the President United States gets ready now to be wheels up from the UAE and head back to the United States after that four day trip to the Middle East. Yesterday, the White House announcing The President signed $200 billion worth of deals with the UAE. It includes a more than $14 billion commitment from Etihad Airways to invest in Boeing jets, as well as an agreement with the UAE to build the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the United States. This all comes as the country has pledged to invest $1.4 trillion into the United States over the next 10 years. The president touted those deals during a breakfast roundtable with business leaders in Abu Dhabi earlier this morning. He also spoke about the peace talks happening right now between Russian and Ukrainian officials in Turkey, saying he needs to meet directly though with President Vladimir Putin.
- [19:56]
Marco Rubio
I think it's time for us to just do it. I said, you know, they all said Putin was going, Zelensky was going. And I said, if I don't go, I guarantee Putin's not going.
- [20:07]
Claire McCaskill
And he didn't go.
- [20:07]
Marco Rubio
And I understand that.
- [20:09]
Willie Geist
We're going to get it. We're going to get it done.
- [20:11]
Marco Rubio
We've got to get it done. 5,000 young people are being killed every single day, single week on average. And we're going to get it done.
- [20:19]
Willie Geist
When do you think you'll meet the president?
- [20:21]
Marco Rubio
As soon as we can set it up. I was going to, I would actually.
- [20:25]
Willie Geist
Leave here and go, I do want.
- [20:27]
Marco Rubio
To see my beautiful grandson. It's his son and we'll be doing that.
- [20:35]
Willie Geist
So the president saying there he will meet with President Putin as soon as he possibly can. Saying there the audio was a little off there, but just saying that he would have gone to Moscow, he claims immediately from where he is there in the UAE right now, but he wouldn't have get home to see his grandson ahead of those talks between Russia and Ukraine. In Istanbul, a US Delegation led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down with Ukrainian officials. Expectations, though, are low. At a news conference in Turkey's capital yesterday, President Zelensky said the Russian negotiating team does not include, quote, anyone who actually makes decisions. Ukraine, however, has sent its minister of defense to negotiate. Let's bring in NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons live from Istanbul here. What more are we learning about these conversations and President Zelensky himself sort of Setting the bar pretty low there.
- [21:29]
Marco Rubio
Well, really, the Russian and Ukrainian delegations are now inside the building behind me here in Istanbul. The first direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in three years. You can see international media gathered outside this former Ottoman palace, Dallas. But you're right, this isn't turning out to be the great day that President Trump suggested it would be just a week ago, anything but honestly, after President Zelensky said that the Russians had sent a low level delegation. Secretary Rubio has been in the building behind me in the past few hours, meeting with the Ukrainians himself has also been a US Official meeting with a Russian official just in the past hour. So things are happening, but you know, President Trump isn't here, President Putin isn't here, President Zelensky isn't here. And that is largely down to President Putin who has refused to budge, refused to come, despite the fact that he said that this meeting should take place actually yesterday. And you played that quote there, Willie, at the beginning. President Trump really had two options in this situation, either to say, okay, a time to punish Russia for this or to say, okay, I'm going to intervene personally. He's choosing the latter and saying that let's get it done, let's get a meeting done with President Putin and that he wants, you heard it there, that meeting to happen as soon as we can set it up. There's going to be plenty of critics who are going to say that this is President Trump rewarding President Putin's obstinacy. The Kremlin, though, just in the past hour saying that you cannot overestimate the importance of a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Trump and President Putin. I think what you can say about this process is it is distilling down the positions on either side. The Ukrainians just sticking to the policy that they need to see a sustained cease fire before they can negotiate on the, the principle, the principles around a potential peace. The Russians continuing to say they want to simply negotiate on what they call the root causes by what which they mean that they want, for example, Ukraine to be mostly neutral. That's the kind of thing that was talked about three years ago when they met in the same building. It's the kind of thing that the Ukrainians simply are not going to agree to. Jonathan.
- [24:10]
Eugene Robinson
So Kier, we know that President Trump met with President Putin a couple of different times during his first term, most famously in Helsinki. But President Putin has not had an audience with American president since he met with President Biden in Geneva in summer of 2021, almost a year before the war. What is it? As we're hearing rhetoric from both Moscow and Washington about this possible Trump Putin meeting, one that Trump clearly wants and wants soon and would be a reward for Putin. What are you hearing from the Ukrainians in response? Is there a concern if Trump is so Putin focused that the deal that they end up negotiating might largely leave Ukraine on the sidelines?
- [24:50]
Marco Rubio
Yeah, it's a great question. We haven't heard officially criticism behind the scenes. They will be worried. They'll be worried that they are being left on potentially on the sidelines again. There are national security advisers from the UK, France and Germany here in Istanbul. They're not in the meeting behind me there. The Russians, according to Russian media, said they didn't want the Americans, an American official at one or more in the meeting behind me there. So there will be a concern by the, on the part of the Ukrainians and others in Europe that a meeting between President Trump and President Putin will not go Ukraine's way, if you like, that President Trump is so hungry to see the end of this war that he may agree to things that the Ukrainians I wouldn't agree to. I guess on the other side, Jonathan, of the argument, you could say that President many critics of President Putin have suggested that he's just trying to slow walk all this, that he wants to continue with the war because he thinks he is winning. You can see President Trump trying to move things quickly and will he? Perhaps that is one aspect that people can credit President Trump with. He's trying to get this war to.
- [26:09]
Willie Geist
End here briefly, before you go, you follow these and cover these negotiations so closely in this war. Do you expect President Trump to meet face to face with President Putin as he claimed he would a few moments ago?
- [26:25]
Marco Rubio
Yes, I think it will happen because I think President Trump has had a number of options, a number of opportunities to say, okay, we're done here. I'm fed up with this. And he suggested it sometimes, notably on Truth Social and his social media platform, that he's, you know, fed up with President Putin. And yet here he is again after these two. I mean, these talks have been pretty much a failure. Here he is again saying, okay, time for us to meet. I think the meeting will happen. And the really the elephant in the room about all this, the huge question is what will happen of that meeting.
- [27:03]
Willie Geist
We will see NBC's Keir Simmons live for us in Istanbul. Kir, thank you as always for your reporting. Coming up, we'll get the latest on the Republican Party's effort to pass a sweeping domestic policy bill, White House Republicans are struggling to get over some internal disagreements. Their bigger issue might be with Senate Republicans, a battle between House Republicans. Senate Republicans will explain. Plus, we'll show you how a high school in Washington, D.C. is teaching his students to hold constructive and nuanced conversations about our nation's politics. Imagine that. That's straight ahead on Morning Jo. That's a beautiful live picture of the White House at 6:33 on a Friday morning. The House Budget Committee is scheduled to hold a markup session today on the Republican Party's so called one big beautiful bill to advance President Trump's agenda. But at this point, there's a question of whether that mega bill actually will move forward. After three Republican hardliners pledged to oppose the legislation, House Speaker Mike Johnson has imposed a Memorial Day deadline. But the bill needs to get through the Budget Committee and House Rules committees first. Even as Speaker Johnson does manage to get the mega bill through the House, several Senate Republicans are warning they will not accept the legislation in its current form. Joining us now is the host of Way Too early, Ali Vitale. So, Ali, good morning. Big beautiful bill. It is big, to be sure. And that may be the problem for Speaker Johnson.
- [28:49]
Jonathan Lemire
Yeah, because Johnson is always in the position of herding cats within the Republican conference. And he's doing so with the slim margins that we often talk about about the idea that they're holding this Budget committee vote when right now it doesn't appear that they actually have the Republican votes to pass. It is sort of an open question of whether or not that holds as we get deeper into the morning. That committee hearing is supposed to start at about 9am so it might come into clearer focus as lawmakers start actually heading up to the Hill. But the problems that they're having right now is first, one member on that committee is actually on paternity leave. His wife had just given birth to their child this week. The second piece of it, too, is that some key members of that committee, like Ralph Norman and Chip Roy, these conservative hardliners that we talk about, they've got some big problems with the ways that the committees on Ways and means and others wrote parts of this bill. Specifically, for example, when it comes to Medicaid, the idea that they are adding means and work requirements to it, that's something that placates a lot of Republicans. But people like Chip Roy want to see those new caveats put in place a lot sooner than the bill currently does it. He wants them to snap in place immediately once this is passed. That would then also allow Roy to placate some other members of the conference who want the state and local tax deduction cap to be raised. That's people like Mike Lawler, Elise Stefanik, a lot of the New York and California Republicans. So again, it's this larger balancing act and it all culminates in this Budget committee vote. If it passes there, then it goes to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is always the last stop before a bill goes to the full House floor. If all goes well, we could see that next week. But it's a big if because we don't even know if they're going to have this committee hearing and if they have the votes once they are in it willing.
- [30:30]
Willie Geist
And again, Speaker Johnson has set a timeline effectively next Friday before the Memorial Day recess. That's a pretty fast timeline for a bill of this size. Claire, let's talk about your former colleagues over in the Senate, Republicans just hammering this bill. Senator Ron Johnson calling it a sad joke, Rand Paul saying it's wimpy, it's anemic. Josh Hawley going after its cuts to Medicaid in your state of Missouri, for example, but of course across the country as well, saying in its current form this has no chance of passing the United States Senate. Break it up if you want to, but we're not even looking at it the way it is.
- [31:04]
Claire McCaskill
Yeah, they've got a problem in the Senate. And the other problem they have. Willie, to Ali's point about Johnson trying to get the votes on the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee, keep in mind we have two different mindsets here. We have the moderates who say you've got to give us what we need to get reelected next year. And you've got the conservatives saying we're going to lose the House next year. So we got to do this now. We've got to do these really conservative cutting Medicaid, you know, making sure the tax cuts are there for the wealthy. We got to make sure we do that this year because we're going to lose the House next year and we can lock it in because most people, I don't know that they're right about this, but most people think the Republicans will hold the Senate next year. So in the minds of Chip Roy and the other hardliners, they think if they get this done now, it can't be undone before the next presidential. And the longer things are in place, the harder it is to change them.
- [32:01]
Eugene Robinson
So, Claire, let's talk about just the politics of what's in this bill we've had, you know, there's talks, the taxes on tips is something that would go away just for the duration of President Trump's term. A gift for a few moments, perhaps, and then would come roaring back. Yet other stuff, it seems like Republicans are, in order to make the cuts needed to do the tax cut, they're treading on very dangerous ground.
- [32:22]
Claire McCaskill
Yeah, the gimmicks in here would make gimmicks blush. And there's a lot of gimmicks that, frankly, if, if everybody understood them, if there was time to unpack every one of them, there would be a lot of outrage around the country in terms of how the stuff that affect working people is going to be around for 10 minutes. And the other stuff they want to lock in permanently, the tax breaks for the wealthy, but the cuts to Medicaid, they cannot get around this. They can argue whether it's 7 million people that are going to be thrown off or 15 million people that are going to be thrown off. They're saving money because they're taking health care away from Americans. That's how they're getting the money to do the tax break for wealthy. They can't get around that. That is not a political winner for them. Medicaid is very important to the states. And by the way, the other thing they're proposing is to change the way that Medicaid recipients are taxed in terms of hospitals, nursing homes. They're doing away with what's called the provider tax. Well, that is really essential to hospitals and nursing homes across the country. That's how they're getting funded for Medicaid patients. And if that's taken away, huge burden shifts to the state. And that's another thing that's going to start happening. You're going to start seeing the states rise up and start lobbying their members of Congress, especially in the Senate, and say, hey, you can't do away with the provider tax, or we're in a heap of trouble in state budget.
- [33:54]
Willie Geist
Yeah. So with Senate Republicans saying, no thanks to this bill, we'll see how Speaker Johnson proceeds here in the next week. So, Ali, with political temperature across the United States running hot, to say the least, for the last decade or so, especially hot, one high school there in Washington is placing a premium on teaching students not just politics and history, but the art of respectful political debate. And, Ali, you visited that school. What did you see there?
- [34:20]
Jonathan Lemire
Look, constructive, nuanced and civil are not words we typically use to describe this current political climate. But a school right here in Washington D.C. as you mentioned, Willie is training the next generation to change the conversation and the way they have it. Watch. You may think you've heard this conversation before. How would you describe politics right now?
- [34:38]
Claire McCaskill
I would say that politics are sort of a mess. Either you're one side like you support.
- [34:43]
Laura Jarrett
One side, or you're the enemy. Demolition derby.
- [34:46]
Jonathan Lemire
But the students here at the School for Ethics and Global Leadership are doing it differently. How would you then describe the political environment here?
- [34:53]
Eugene Robinson
It is relieving and it's inspiring. Honestly, being here, like, I've gotten to hear a lot of different perspectives.
- [35:00]
Laura Jarrett
We come from a place like in the School of Mutual Vulnerability.
- [35:04]
Jonathan Lemire
The school just blocks from the White House on Capitol Hill, brings together high schoolers from all over the country.
- [35:09]
Willie Geist
The facts still are very important and.
- [35:11]
Claire McCaskill
Can be very apparent.
- [35:12]
Jonathan Lemire
Powerful tool to use and directly engages with the most complex issues of the day, from the Israel Gaza war to abortion rights. I wanted to note how often you.
- [35:23]
Laura Jarrett
Referred to each other's points.
- [35:25]
Jonathan Lemire
It's the brainchild of teacher Noah Bopp. The central insight of founding the school.
- [35:30]
Laura Jarrett
Is that in a post 911 world, we need American leaders who are ethically.
- [35:34]
Jonathan Lemire
Strong and internationally aware. Awareness drawn from across the political spectrum. With guest speakers like Tucker Carlson and former President Barack Obama. They've all spoken here.
- [35:45]
Willie Geist
Yeah, no, that's. That's part of our model. It's at the core of our model.
- [35:50]
Jonathan Lemire
All ideas shared in good faith are welcome here. It's hard, I think, for people who might watch this piece and say, I yearn for a civil political debate where I can engage with the nuance. And yet the stakes seem so high and the good faith seems like it's gone.
- [36:07]
Willie Geist
It's because the stakes are high that we do need to show as much.
- [36:10]
Jonathan Lemire
Grace as we can back in the classroom. A chance to learn firsthand playing the part of lobbyists across from actual lobbyists defending assigned positions. Why are you trying to get rid.
- [36:21]
Laura Jarrett
Of the tax breaks?
- [36:22]
Claire McCaskill
I don't believe that the tax credits are the best use of government federal funding.
- [36:26]
Willie Geist
I have the research right here and I also have a graph.
- [36:28]
Marco Rubio
You can see the.
- [36:29]
Willie Geist
All right, that's good. Never mind.
- [36:35]
Jonathan Lemire
You may also notice no distractions. It strikes me that here you guys don't have your phones, so I think.
- [36:40]
Eugene Robinson
Not having my phone has kind of led me to have a lot more.
- [36:43]
Willie Geist
Of a healthy relationship with politics. We stay up till early hours in.
- [36:48]
Laura Jarrett
The morning, even if we shouldn't be.
- [36:50]
Claire McCaskill
Talking about issues that do exist in our society.
- [36:54]
Jonathan Lemire
I can tell you they've got Their phones in Congress and they certainly have social media, but how could they do a little bit more of what you're doing?
- [36:59]
Claire McCaskill
Talk to someone genuinely, like if you're in Congress, go to another Congress member and talk to them about.
- [37:05]
Laura Jarrett
Their opinions come from a place of.
- [37:07]
Claire McCaskill
Willingness and openness instead of a place from combativeness.
- [37:12]
Jonathan Lemire
They make it sound so simple. Maybe it is. But look, students at SEGL apply to leave their so called home school to come here for either half or all of the year. And they come from across the country, places like Texas, California and New York, just to name a few of the states. And the students do have different stances on political issues, but they told me some of the discussions that they've had have changed the ideas and biases that they came in with. And what was most fascinating to me was when I asked them about the issue that they're most motivated around right now, they all said some version of social justice. It evoked this larger theme that the institutions as they exist right now, don't seem to them like they're working. And they want to change that both in tone and substance. Eugene?
- [37:55]
Keir Simmons
Well, good luck to them.
- [37:57]
Jonathan Lemire
Yeah.
- [37:58]
Keir Simmons
You know, Allie, this school, is it a private school or public school, charter school? How does it.
- [38:05]
Jonathan Lemire
Yeah, this is a private school. But I think that the way that they take these students out of their home school, they all live here, then in Washington D.C. they've got other campuses set up, one in Johannesburg, I believe, and then one in another place here in the States. But they've got these students for either half a year or a year, and they're able to really mold their minds. And I think the way that they're trying to do that is urging them to have constructive conversations, ask questions about issues that maybe other schools might feel the pressure to shy away from. These places are tackling them head on. And the other piece of that I think is really important. We touched on it here. They don't have their phones.
- [38:40]
Keir Simmons
Isn't that amazing? I mean, it's amazing. Look, I can't imagine trying to run a classroom where students do have their phones. So that seems like a no. Why is that so difficult to.
- [38:53]
Jonathan Lemire
Public schools are grappling with this too, right? The idea that you can take students phones, it's less distractions. But when you think about it through the political lens, what some of these students told me is they came in feeling so energized by what one of them called slacktivism, the idea that you could repost someone and show that you're engaged on an issue, but maybe you don't understand the nuance of it or maybe you're alienating people who see you post about it and think, okay, maybe that person's not gonna wanna be my friend. What one of them said here, Willie, is that they are able to forge more friendships across biases and across party lines because they're not being motivated or hyper partisanized by their phones. And I think that's a really important.
- [39:30]
Willie Geist
Piece of this absolutely thoughtful civil debate. No phones. It's a real throwback. And you're right, Ally, that other school schools are doing this. I think there is a real reaction to what we've seen in the country over the last decade or so and what to do about it. Starting at the school level, public schools, private schools, colleges and universities, encouraging debate instead of screaming at each other and name calling. So let's hope this is the start of a new era. Fascinating. Look at that. Ali, thanks so much. Enjoy the weekend. We'll see you Monday. Still ahead, California is among the states that filed a lawsuit against President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. That state's Attorney General Rob Bonta will join us with his takeaways from yesterday's Supreme Court hearing. Morning Joe's coming right back. Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security are investigating former FBI Director James Comey after he posted a photo yesterday to social media that some are arguing could be a call to violence against the president. Comey posted and then deleted this picture of shells and rocks on a beach formed to read 8647. The phrase 86, as you may know, is common slang used in restaurants to mean an item is sold out. So don't sell it or throw it out. Get rid of it. That has some Trump allies saying it proves the Post actually is a call to violence against President Trump. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem wrote on social media both her department and the Secret Service are actively investigating the post as a threat. And Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in an interview last night she believes the Post is enough to send Comey to prison.
- [41:18]
Claire McCaskill
The rule of law says people like him who issue direct threats against the president of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law.
- [41:28]
Eugene Robinson
Do you believe Comey should be in jail?
- [41:30]
Claire McCaskill
I do. Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be, I'm very concerned for the president's life. We've already seen assassination attempts. I'm very concerned for his life. And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.
- [41:58]
Willie Geist
That is the director of National Intelligence saying the former FBI director should be sent to prison over this. Comey responded in a statement to NBC News writing, I saw it on the beach today. I didn't realize some folks associate it with violence. That did not occur to me when I saw it. But I am opposed to violence in all circumstances. So I took it down talking about the post. So the argument he's making here, Jonathan Lemire, is that he was walking down the beach and saw this shell formation on the beach saying 8647 took a photo, posted it, didn't realize it would be interpreted as a call to violence. Of course, President Trump survived that assassination attempt last summer. There was another assassination plot against him not long after. Some people, you could make the case, are arguing here in bad faith because of the way the president and others feel about James Comey. But how do you see this playing out?
- [42:46]
Eugene Robinson
Well, we should remind D9 Gabbard, of course, that Comey would have to be convicted of convicted before he went to prison. I mean, look, this is a stupid thing that he did, clearly. I think there's certainly a lot of faux outrage here. But to be fair, if it had gone the other way and someone had posted 8646 about President Biden, there would be some on the left who would be angry as well. We heard from FBI Director Kash Patel that they're going to be investigating it. You already read a number of Trump officials who said they would as well. It's hard to know whether or not there'll be a there there. I mean, Comey took the post down immediately. He apologized. It is still surprising to me that he is so disliked on the right considering the role he helped play in Donald Trump's original election in 2016. But this is certainly for those in Nagasphere who want to talk about something else, who want to be angry about something. James Comey provided a convenient target for them right now, and they're happy to do it. We should also note that after this Willie, this brouhaha with the social media post Comey took went back on social media later today to promote his new book, which is coming out in the next few weeks.
- [43:54]
Willie Geist
All right, we'll see where this goes from here. Coming.