Morning Joe 6/3/25

Summary

Morning Joe - June 3, 2025: In-Depth Episode Summary

Hosts: Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski
Producer: Willie Geist
Release Date: June 3, 2025

---

1. Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood

The episode opens with a strong discussion on the ongoing challenges faced by Planned Parenthood amidst the Trump administration's efforts to restrict abortion access.

• Mika Brzezinski emphasizes the resilience of Planned Parenthood:
  “The bottom line is, even as the Trump administration tries to end abortion access, funding and shut down health centers, Planned Parenthood continues its vital work without flinching. The assault on reproductive health is strategic and persistent.” (00:00)

• Willie Geist succinctly highlights the primary victims of these policies:
  “Women? People of color, Rural communities, folks with low incomes. The people who already face the biggest barriers to care.” (00:16)

The segment underscores the disproportionate impact of reproductive health restrictions on marginalized communities, reinforcing the necessity for continued support and advocacy for Planned Parenthood.

---

2. Government Bureaucracy and DOGE's Reforms

A significant portion of the discussion centers on the Trump administration's attempts to streamline government operations, led by DOGE. Hosts and guests critically analyze the outcomes of these reforms.

• Willie Geist criticizes the administration's approach:
  “It's actually a scene out of a comedy. Except, of course, the consequences are very real.” (04:11)

• Richard Blumenthal elaborates on the inefficiencies introduced:
  “The whole idea here was to streamline the bureaucracy to make government more nimble, to make it like a startup, like a Silicon Valley company.” (04:58)

• John Heilman and Willie Geist further highlight the failure to achieve promised savings and the resultant bureaucratic snarls:
  “They are going to end up having cost the taxpayer a ton of money, having gone through this exercise.” (07:24)
  “DOGE creates a new layer of bureaucracy.” (04:58)

The consensus among the panel is that DOGE's reforms have backfired, resulting in increased inefficiency and unnecessary complexity within federal agencies.

---

3. Second Amendment and Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban

The Supreme Court's decision to decline hearing Maryland's challenge to its assault weapons ban is dissected, with implications for gun control laws nationwide.

• Willie Geist explains the ruling's significance:
  “The second amendment is what the second amendment says it is as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” (12:04)

• Richard Blumenthal provides details on the legal reasoning:
  “The Maryland law's ban on what critics call assault weapons... did not violate the second amendment because rapid firing long guns are military style weapons designed for sustained combat operations.” (13:37)

The discussion highlights the ongoing legal battles over gun control and the Supreme Court's current stance, suggesting future cases may further define the scope of the Second Amendment.

---

4. Corporate Response to Law Firms' Ties with Trump

A pivotal segment addresses the repercussions for law firms that have aligned with Trump's administration, as major corporations sever ties with these firms.

• Richard Blumenthal introduces the issue:
  “At least 11 big companies no longer are working with law firms that struck deals with President Trump.” (14:18)

• John Heilman analyzes corporate motivations:
  “They were afraid of what you might call like regulatory retribution...” (15:27)
  “They wouldn't stand up for themselves in the face of a clearly clearly illegal executive order.” (17:18)

This segment underscores the tension between corporate interests and political affiliations, illustrating how businesses are distancing themselves from entities perceived as supportive of the Trump administration's contentious policies.

---

5. Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks and Sanctions

A substantial focus is placed on the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the stalled peace negotiations, and the bipartisan efforts in the U.S. Senate to impose sanctions.

• Joe Scarborough shares firsthand insights from Ukraine:
  “They are absolutely determined. And Trump may have told them they have no cards, but they beg to differ.” (19:06)

• Senator Richard Blumenthal questions the effectiveness of negotiations:
  “Zelensky's done everything, literally everything Trump has asked him to do. He is absolutely determined.” (21:20)

• Willie Geist discusses the bipartisan support for sanctions:
  “We have 82 co sponsors in the Senate, which is a super veto proof majority, and I believe they'll stand up.” (26:40)

• Jonathan Lemire comments on the implications of Ukraine's military strategies:
  “$600 drones taking out $100 million Russian bombers.” (43:16)

The panel emphasizes the critical nature of the sanctions bill in curbing Russian resources and supporting Ukraine, reflecting a unified front in Congress despite differing political affiliations.

---

6. Terrorism Incident in Colorado and Rise in Anti-Semitism

The episode covers a recent violent attack in Colorado, labeling it as an act of terrorism and discussing its ties to rising anti-Semitism.

• Willie Geist reports on the incident:
  “The man who police say shouted Free Palestine and attacked a group of people in Colorado with a flamethrower has been charged with attempted first-degree murder.” (30:18)

• Mika Brzezinski connects the attack to broader anti-Semitic trends:
  “Just another horrid example of anti-Semitism which again continues to spread the attacks.” (31:55)

• Richard Blumenthal and Barbara McQuaid discuss the societal impact and potential legislative responses:
  “If it sounds untrue and crazy, I tell my kids it probably is. Go check it out.” (53:53)
  “We need to implement media literacy courses into our schools.” (54:54)

The discussion highlights the alarming increase in hate-driven violence and the urgent need for measures to address misinformation and promote societal resilience against such extremist acts.

---

7. Appointment to Office of Special Counsel and Concerns

The hosts delve into President Trump's controversial appointment of a former far-right podcast host to the Office of Special Counsel, raising alarms about potential conflicts of interest and the erosion of institutional safeguards.

• Mika Brzezinski criticizes the appointment:
  “The Office of Special Counsel is the federal agency that was created post-Watergate to ensure that there are not politics in the federal workplace.” (46:26)
  “If you have someone there who is a loyal Trump supporter more than they care about the professional workplace, those complaints are going to fall on deaf ears.” (48:47)

• Barbara McQuaid elaborates on the appointee's problematic stance:
  “Picking Paul and Gracia to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is not like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It's more like setting fire to the whole farm.” (46:26)

• Willie Geist connects this appointment to broader patterns of misinformation:
  “He is trying to rewrite history... an effort to really rewrite history.” (52:29)

The segment underscores serious concerns about the integrity of the Office of Special Counsel, emphasizing the risks of appointing individuals who may undermine whistleblower protections and politicize federal oversight mechanisms.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• “If you believe everyone deserves to control their own body and future, donate [e-mail].” - Mika Brzezinski (00:16)

• “They are absolutely determined. And Trump may have told them they have no cards, but they beg to differ.” - Joe Scarborough (19:06)

• “It's actually a scene out of a comedy. Except, of course, the consequences are very real.” - Willie Geist (04:11)

• “Picking Paul and Gracia to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is not like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It's more like setting fire to the whole farm.” - Barbara McQuaid (46:26)

---

Conclusion

The June 3, 2025 episode of Morning Joe provides a comprehensive analysis of pressing political and social issues, from reproductive rights and government inefficiency to international conflicts and the safeguarding of democratic institutions. Through informed discussions and expert insights, the hosts and guests offer listeners a nuanced understanding of the complex landscape shaping today's political discourse.

Transcript

[Mika Brzezinski]

The bottom line is, even as the.

[Joe Scarborough]

Trump administration tries to end abortion access.

[Mika Brzezinski]

Funding and shut down health centers, Planned Parenthood continues its vital work without flinching. The assault on reproductive health is strategic and persistent. And who gets hurt the most?

[Willie Geist]

Women?

[Mika Brzezinski]

People of color, Rural communities, folks with low incomes. The people who already face the biggest barriers to care. If you believe everyone deserves to control their own body and future, donate [e-mail].

[Willie Geist]

Defend the rural way of life is.

[Ali Vitale]

About making everyone feel at home.

[Willie Geist]

Tractor supply chose advanced 5G solutions from T Mobile for Business to transform intelligent customer service.

[John Heilman]

Together we put the power of AI.

[Willie Geist]

To work across 2,200 stores, keeping things running seamlessly inside curbside and countryside. This is elevated customer experience. This is Tractor Supply with T Mobile for Business. Take your business further@t mobile.com now.

[Richard Blumenthal]

You'Re.

[Joe Scarborough]

Not in a good position.

[Willie Geist]

You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards right now. You don't miss a serious you're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War Three. You're gambling with World War three.

[Richard Blumenthal]

It certainly does establish that this country, whose president was being told at the White House that he didn't have any cards to play, that he apparently has quite a few cards to play, including this daring attack which, you know, if the Ukrainians can be believed, wiped out about, you know, 30 to 40% of Russia's strategic bombing force. That's a major setback for Russia. It is an embarrassing intelligence failure and an embarrassing defense failure and who knows what else the Ukrainians, who proved pretty ingenious, may have up their sleeves.

[Ed Luce]

Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume pointing out last night that President Trump was apparently wrong about Volodymyr Zelensky following the Ukrainian drone attack against Russia. We're going to go through yesterday's peace talks and whether Operation Spiderweb impacted those negotiations. Also ahead brought the latest from Capitol Hill, where Republican senators are starting to hash out their differences on President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. Plus, it appears there are consequences for cutting deals with President Trump as law firms that appease the president are now losing some high profile clients. And a concerning headline out of Washington, the acting head of FEMA telling staff he wasn't aware the United States has a hurricane season. We'll show you, he said he was joking how the Trump administration is responding. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, June 3rd. So good to have you all. Despite Doge's vow to make the federal government more efficient. A new Washington Post report reveals the department's new procedures and requirements are doing just the opposite. According to interviews conducted by the Post, federal staffers throughout the government are being hit with new layers of red tape, and employees say they are spending hours justifying the most basic purchases. At NASA, for example, employees tell the Post they recently wrote several detailed paragraphs across multiple rounds of emails to win approval to buy simple fastening bolts. And at the Food and Drug Administration once routine tests on food were delayed because of a requirement to get department level approval for expenses like lab supplies. Employees say the new rules mandating a review and approval by political appointees are leading to thousands of contracts and projects being held up for months. And large scale firings spearheaded by DOGE have cut support offices that assisted federal workers with issues ranging from glitching computers to broken desk chairs.

[Willie Geist]

I've got to tell you, really, it is, it's actually a scene out of a comedy. Except, of course, the consequences are very real. Very real. They're very significant. But, but again, this is what happens when you go in to a government organization thinking you can wield a chainsaw and change things in two, three, four weeks. Again, the the result, again, not, not a great deal of cost savings. In fact, many people believe the consequences of the cuts will end up costing more than the proposed cuts themselves, the ones that are actually real. But in this case, who would believe it? DOGE creates a new layer of bureaucracy.

[Richard Blumenthal]

Yeah, the whole idea here was to streamline the bureaucracy to make government more nimble, to make it like a startup, like a Silicon Valley company. Instead, these stories that are coming out one after another are of a government and a bureaucracy mired in wastes of time, like trying to find out if you're holding an event at the State Department if one of the vendors, the caterer or something supports dei. So you can't just get those things done. All these little pinpricks that slow down the government that Mika just laid out to go along with the big stuff, like eliminating tons of jobs at the VA or the things that affect our veterans or our health care system. All of those and as you say, Joe, don't add up to the promised big savings. Because as we've said a million times and people are probably sick of us saying it, the big savings are in places where Doge and Elon Musk are not looking.

[Willie Geist]

Let's, let's bring it right now. NBC News national affairs analyst and partner in chief political columnist at pac, John Heilman. John, these are all things that we all predicted before when Donald Trump, you know, reportedly turns and says, was this all just bs, the saving of a trillion? Yes, it was. Yes, it was bs. We told everybody it was bs. I said time and again, when they said, oh, they may save up to $2 trillion, that's what I heard in December. Then say that they may save up to $1 trillion. I keep saying now, now, maybe you'll find 100 billion, maybe you'll find 150 billion. You're not going to find 2 trillion. There's not 2 trillion there. You're not going to find 1 trillion. There's not 1 trillion there. Instead, what they do is they do all these random cuts that end up hurting so many people. And I'm not talking about the federal employees who, yes, they're Americans too many of whom have dedicated their entire life to being public servants thrown out for random reasons, but they actually end up hurting the constituents that they're supposed to be representing. And here we find now that after Elon Musk leaves, you've got a bureaucracy that's even less efficient because of the new bureaucratic snafus that he's laid out there for a reduced workforce.

[John Heilman]

Yes, all true, Joe. And you could play the tape back and hear everyone on this show, led by you with Willie and Mika and me all chiming in, saying this is all unrealistic. But I think if you haven't even added in yet the costs of all the legal stuff that's gone on around this, all of the court challenges, all of the things that were halted that had to be restarted, all of the various critical agencies that got shut down or where people got fired, then they had to be rehired, and what the cost of firing and then rehiring people who work for Nuclear Regulatory Agency and stuff like that. I think when the whole thing is said and done, it's going to net, net out. Not only that, the savings have been, have been minuscule. In fact, they're not going to be savings. They're in fact going to end up having cost the taxpayer a ton of money, having gone through this exercise. But the most interesting thing is the thing you said about Donald Trump, because all I'm focused on now is what happens between now and next November. There is no doubt that Elon Musk and Doge are going to be at the center of the Democratic attempts to retake the House. Are Elon Musk and Donald Trump going to stay together with or are we seeing the signs of an increasingly growing split? That note that question was he always just full of bs. That's the first stage of not just the separation, but a divorce, I think, between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And when these two turn on each other, God knows what's going to happen to the politics for the Republican Party.

[Ed Luce]

Yeah, we'll be following this. It's hard to see exactly what Elon Musk did in terms of efficiency and waste rather than just come to Washington and hurt a lot of people around the world. Well, and in the United States, and then leave.

[Willie Geist]

It doesn't work that way. It just doesn't work that way. There are rules and people think that, you know, there's a column this morning talking about, I think it's in the Wall Street Journal, the rule of physics, the rule of economics. There are rules and there are rules in Washington. There's a way to do things, there's a way not to do things. And if you do things wrong and you think you can change 240 years of history, of tradition, of the way Washington works in a blink of an eye, you're going to do things that end up making the situation even worse. That's exactly what happened. And again, anybody that's been around for more than five minutes could have told you that. That's what's so frustrating here. Again, they're sitting here, how in the world can somebody as smart as Elon Musk come to Washington D.C. look at the budget with all the people around and say, hey, I'm going to cut $2 trillion. Just go on AI ask, hey, can you cut $2 trillion from these agencies? No, no, you'd be laughed. You'd be laughed like off your phone by ChatGPT. Yeah, it's just, it's ridiculous they ever thought this was going to happen. So they ended up not saving money, not substantially at all, and again creating another layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency, the last thing government needed.

[Ed Luce]

All right, we're going to revisit this. But moving on now, the Supreme Court has declined to hear a major Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law that bans assault style weapons. The move, over the objections of conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, means the state's ban will stand. According to the New York Times. In a 10 to 5 ruling in August, the U.S. court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, said the Maryland law satisfied a history based test which was set out in the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruin. The law's ban on what critics call assault weapons ban did not violate the second amendment because rapid firing long guns are military style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill suited and disproportionate to the need for self defense. Wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, who was appoint by President Ronald Reagan. We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military style armaments which have become primary instruments in mass killings and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes. Judge Wilkinson added. The Supreme Court's decision holds off on the second amendment challenge for now. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could become the fourth justice to accept a similar case, said he believes the courts will rule on this issue, quote in the next term or two.

[Willie Geist]

We'll see. You know this, this Maryland law was passed after Sandy Hook, right? And you know you have people going around basically saying the second amendment is what I say the second amendment is. No, the second amendment is what the second amendment says it is as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And time and time again, whether you look at the Connecticut law that was passed after Sandy Hook, whether you look at this Maryland law, if you look at other laws that in states ban military style weapons, the Supreme Court's decided time and again not to take those cases allowing those state laws to remain intact. And suggesting, Willie, not suggesting, actually saying that what Harvey Wilkinson said, we are not going to, to keep military style weapons beyond the reach of the democratic process. We are not going to allow the, the courts to be, to be held in front of the voters. If the people of Maryland want to ban AR15s, they have that right. If people of Alabama don't, they have that right. And that's the way it's always been. So when somebody says, oh I have a constitutional right for this, for that, for other, you know what, check, check and see what the Supreme Court's done. Because if the Supreme Court hasn't protected it and hasn't held it under the second amendment, it's not a second amendment right as defined by the Constitution. And that's what Judge Wilkinson said last night.

[Richard Blumenthal]

Yeah, Judge Wilkinson saying basically that these are military style weapons. And they also this law banned magazines more than 10 rounds, saying you don't need that gun and multiple, multiple rounds beyond 10 to defend yourself. This is not a question of self defense. Argued that Judge. This is not a question of the second amendment. We heard from Justice Kavanaugh who said we want the lower courts to hash this out a little more. It'll probably come back to us down the road. On the other hand, Justice Thomas saying the Supreme Court needs to step in and answer this question about whether law abiding citizens can own a semiautomatic rifle under the Second Amendment. So we'll see how that plays out. Story this morning, at least 11 big companies no longer are working with law firms that struck deals with President Trump. That's according to the Wall Street Journal. General counsels at those businesses and people familiar with the decisions tell the Journal companies are giving more work to law firms that are actively fighting the Trump administration's executive orders. The Journal reports the corporations include Oracle, Morgan Stanley, a major airline and a pharmaceutical company. According to the Journal, general counsels have raised concerns about how they can trust these law firms to fight for them in court if they're not willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. Since taking office, President Trump has issued several executive orders going after law firms claiming they represent his political enemies and weaponize the legal system. The orders remove the firm's security clearances and their clients government contracts. Four firms are currently challenging those orders in court, with judges so far siding with them. Eight other law firms have signed deals with the White House agreeing to provide President Trump a combined total of about $1 billion worth of pro bono work. So, John Howman, a little pushback here from corporate America.

[John Heilman]

Yeah, and I would say, Willie, entirely predictable pushback from corporate America. The law firms overwhelmingly in big law, these big prestigious firms, you've seen people moving to settle with Trump, capitulating because of their fear, primarily if they are in law firms that deal primarily financially with transactions with mergers and acquisitions and other corporate matters. They were afraid of what you might call like regulatory retribution, that Trump could not only by hurting them with the executive order directly, that the administration could also block deals that the law firms were going to profit handsomely from. So they made this deal. They found out very quickly that Trump suddenly not only wanted pro bono work, but started talking about putting those law firms to work on other matters, not just on pro bono work to fight anti Semitism or whatever, but he was talking about engaging these law firms and trying to get free work from them on a variety of government business. But of course, it was the case that no serious defendant or no serious corporation that was gonna get involved, who needed legal representation on a high stakes and high value litigation or a complex deal, was going to want to work with a law firm that wouldn't stand up for itself in the face of a clearly, clearly illegal executive order. And, you know, the firms that have challenged Trump have won uniformly in court, everyone knew that the executive order was illegal. And if those firms had just decided that there was strength in numbers and of all the law fir had banded together and pushed back, they would almost certainly have won those cases and be in a much better position now to continue to have the faith in their clients who want aggressive legal representation in everything that they do.

[Ed Luce]

All right, now let's get to the very latest in Ukraine. Delegations from Ukraine and Russia met in Turkey yesterday for the second time in a month to discuss peace negotiations, but left without a major breakthrough. Their meeting lasted barely an hour. Citing Russian media, Reuters reports that Moscow put forward terms that would see Ukraine surrender large chunks of its territory and accept restrictions on the size of its army in the future. Kyiv has repeatedly said those terms are unacceptable. Ukraine's defense minister, who led his country's delegation, said he believes only a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin can effectively settle the major areas of dispute. Russia and Ukraine did agree to another prisoner swap, however, which will focus on the youngest and most severely injured soldiers. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently hosted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut for talks in Kiev. The meeting happened just days before Ukraine launched that series of drone attacks targeting Russian warplanes. And Senator Blumenthal joins us now. He's a member of the Homeland Security, Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. Also with us, the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Good to have you. So, Senator, tell us what your takeaway was from your trip, especially given the fact that it was just before this massive drone attack and the status of the talks between Russia and Ukraine.

[Joe Scarborough]

Thanks for having me, Mika. Always uplifting and inspiring to spend time with Volodymyr Zelensky. My seventh trip to Ukraine, most of them with Senator Graham. But I've met with him on numerous other occasions. And sadly, one of my main takeaways was that peace, even a ceasefire, are nowhere in sight. Obviously, Putin is launching, even as we speak, a major offensive, mobilizing forces in the east, Donetsk and Luhansk and other territories. But the Istanbul proposal that he made yesterday shows how unserious he is about peace talks. He's mocking Trump, playing him. And my visit to Ukraine confirmed for me that that country is in it for the long run. They're planning for the future. They've pioneered and championed the revolution of ground warfare through the use of drones. They're ahead of the United states, which produced 100,000 last year. Ukraine will produce 4.5 million of these small drones. I've visited the plants where they do make them, but I also had a chance to see the sites in Ukraine that have been bombed. Putin has escalated his attack on civilians, too, a order of magnitude that is just brutal beyond words. Whole neighborhoods destroyed. And so he's going to retaliate probably again in response to this attack on his airfields. But the combination of the attacks in the east, the offensive there, and the attacks on civilian populations are in no way deterring the people of Ukraine or Zelensky. They are absolutely determined. And Trump may have told them they have no cards, but they beg to differ. They have cards and they're long term cards. 18 months is what it took to plan this attack on the airfield. And they have other measures in the works.

[Richard Blumenthal]

Senator, good morning. I'm curious if President Zelensky told any more about that breathtaking attack where they smuggled all those drones in onto trucks. The tops of the trucks came off and they went and attacked those bombers. If you can shed any more light on that and more broadly, how unserious President Zelensky must think Russia is about peace, given what was offered in Istanbul, which is give us a bunch more of your country and also limit the size of your army, Ukraine, going forward. How is he viewing these negotiations with Russia?

[Joe Scarborough]

Even before yesterday, there was intelligence about what Putin was going to offer, which is in essence more of the same. Disarm Ukraine, new elections to displace Zelensky, secession of territory, no security guarantee. It's what Putin has called eliminating the root causes of the conflict. And it's just totally mocking the people who think peace is possible with Putin at this point. But he indicated nothing, and I mean, not a hint of what was to come. And that is one of, I think, the very noteworthy aspects of that attack that nobody knew about it, despite the very substantial amount of planning and preparation that had to go into it. Zelensky sat in the Oval Office with Donald Trump as the President demeaned him and insulted him by saying he had no cards and kept secret these plans. I think it will go down with the United States Osama bin Laden raid and the Israeli pager operations, one of the great special operation maneuvers of all history. And the more we learn about it, the more incredible it seems. But he kept it under wraps from everyone, including many in the Ukrainian government itself. Senator, you got a chance to see what's happening firsthand there on the ground. Now, of course, you're coming back to Washington and there are some actions that you were involved in that the Senate might. Might take up specifically that bipartisan sanctions.

[Ali Vitale]

Package there that would make it very.

[Joe Scarborough]

Costly to do oil and gas business with the Russians. We heard from Leader Thune yesterday that.

[Ed Luce]

He could see that move this month.

[Mika Brzezinski]

What's your expectation of how that will fare in the Senate, where it has.

[Joe Scarborough]

Wide bipartisan support, but then in the House as well? Good question, Ali. It's crunch time in Ukraine, but it's also a pivotal moment here in Washington. And our sanctions bill would make a tremendous difference in stopping the flow of revenue to Putin's war machine. 500% tariffs on any country buying energy products, oil and gas from Russia would target India and China. They buy 70% of it. And the message to China would be, we are choking off the revenue flow. We're putting Putin's economy on a trade island. And if you continue to support that war machine, you will do no business with the United States or Europe. And the reaction and support in Europe is absolutely astonishing. We spoke to President Macron when we were in Paris, and he is 100% on board. Germany is as well, which is significant because you'll remember that Europe used to buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. It has weaned itself away from it. And that support is critical. And, of course, President Zelensky believes that these sanctions are a critical source of support, along with more air defense, which he needs desperately to fend off the reign of terror from the skies that Putin is imposing on his people. And I also want to say, Ali, that while I was there, I visited for the first time with some of the kidnapped children. And I will tell you, my heart was in my throat. There are tears in my eyes now as I think about those children who were abducted, 20,000 of them, 20,000 of them still in Russia, taken from their families by Russian soldiers who called them orphans because their parents were either shot or imprisoned. They became orphans. And I met with two of them about that experience and the trauma and the pain are going to be with them, I'm afraid, for their whole lives.

[Willie Geist]

So, Senator, let me ask you, Joe Scarborough here. Let me ask you, are Republicans going to stand up and defend those children? Are Republicans going to stand up for the people of Ukraine who continue to get indiscriminately killed by Russian missiles? Are Republicans that you're with, when the time comes, will they stand up to Vladimir Putin, do what's right, and pass the sanctions bill that you and Lindsey Graham have put together? Will they push it to the floor and get a Vote on it.

[Joe Scarborough]

Key question, Joe, I'm very encouraged.

[Willie Geist]

What's your best guess?

[Joe Scarborough]

My best guess is yes. My best guess is probably 75%. Yes. And here's the reason. First of all, Speaker Johnson yesterday said he was in favor of sanctions. Very good sign. Because he wouldn't say it if the White House were telling him that it would oppose it, which I think is the critical factor. White House can stay neutral, it can stay hands off. And Republicans will stand up to Putin. Also, remember, in the United States senate, we have 82 co sponsors and we will be adding more. Lindsey Graham and I have worked tremendously hard to build this coalition. 41 Democrats, 41 Republicans. And Donald Trump himself has mentioned sanctions as a potential remedy. The mystery to me is why Donald Trump is taking these insults. The degradation of Putin, in effect, playing him in this very overt and demeaning way. So I am hopeful that Putin's continued resistance to any kind of serious ceasefire proposal. Zelenskyy's done everything, literally everything Trump has asked him to do. He's come to the table, he is ready to do a ceasefire. And of course, it's in his interest because his people are being murdered by the missiles and drones. But he has come around to do what Trump wants him to do. So I think, yes, Republicans will stand up as long as they're given a chance to vote. All we need is a vote. We have 82 co sponsors in the Senate, which is a super veto proof majority, and I believe they'll stand up. Well.

[Willie Geist]

And if Mike Johnson is saying in the House that he supports the sanctions and that is Donald Trump basically giving him the go ahead because he would never do it unless he didn't. And that's, of course, most likely his response to Vladimir Putin.

[Ed Luce]

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, always good to see you. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. All right. Still ahead, what we're learning this morning about the man accused of committing an act of terror during an event meant to raise awareness for Israeli hostages in Gaza. Plus, Republican Senator Joni Ernst continues to defend herself after telling constituents at a town hall event, we're all gonna die.

[Willie Geist]

That was her response to them being concerned about cuts and healthcare for their parents and children.

[Ed Luce]

We'll show you what she's saying now. And a quick reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Morning Jo is back in 90 seconds.

[Willie Geist]

MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the.

[Ali Vitale]

Best People with Nicole Wallace.

[Willie Geist]

This week she sits down with Jason Bateman and Rachel Maddow.

[Ed Luce]

We are in a really important moment and we're an important place in it, and I'm glad that we're there together.

[Willie Geist]

The Best People with Nicole Wallace Episodes one and two are available now for early access ad free listening and bonus content. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

[Ed Luce]

Welcome back. It's half past the hour. The man who police say shouted Free Palestine and attacked a group of people in Colorado with a makes flamethrower has been charged with attempted first degree murder as officials update the number injured from 8 to 12. Mohamed Sabri Solomon is also facing a slew of other charges, including one count of a hate crime involving actual or perceived race, religion or national origin. An attorney representing the 45 year old did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jail records show Solomon's bail was initially set at 10 million and officials say the attack is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Solomon is an Egyptian national who entered the US in August of 2022 on a visa that allows temporary visits, but that visa expired in February of 2023. The Department of Homeland Security said he had a pending asylum claim. Meanwhile, investigators say Solomon was the was planning the attack for a year and carried out his plans on Sunday. Unlocke unleashing Molotov cocktails on the group of people marching in Boulder. The injured range in age from 52 to 88, with several hospitalized suffering from burns. They were part of a group that was marching each week to bring attention to the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza by Hamas.

[Willie Geist]

Just another horrid example of anti Semitism which again continues to spread the attacks as we heard yesterday. The attacks yesterday continue. Jonathan Greenblatt talking about how anti Semitism continues on the rise. More attacks than ever before. And here's just another example of it. It is such a serious problem in the United States. We're going to keep talking about this throughout the show. Barry Weiss will be on in a few hours. Be talking about it as well.

[Ed Luce]

President Trump says the US Will not allow Iran to enrich uranium as part of a potential nuclear deal. The President posted that statement last night on social media, appearing to respond to reporting from Axios that his envoy Steve Witkoff made a proposal to Iran on Saturday that would allow limited low level Uranian enrichment on Iranian soil. But it does not appear that Iran is going to accept the deal anyway. An Iranian diplomat told Reuters yesterday the proposal from the US Is a quote non. Joining us now, the co host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's a contributing writer at the Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. And U.S. national Editor at the Financial Times, Ed Loos. He's the author of the new book entitled the Life of Zbigniew, America's Great Power Prophet.

[Willie Geist]

And a great book. I'll say.

[Ed Luce]

Oh, it's so good, a great book. Love it so much.

[Willie Geist]

So, so, John Lemire, help sort through what's going on with these negotiations with Iran. And I'm curious specifically, and I know a lot of people on the right are curious as well, what has compelled President Trump to move as far as he's moved on trying to get a deal with Iran?

[Ali Vitale]

There's a few things at play here. First of all, Steve Witkoff, the man has a very, very full portfolio. He's been tasked with, of course, trying to bring peace there to Gaza. He's working with the Russian side of the Russia, Ukraine conflict. And now he's really pivoted to an Iran deal. And the administration a few weeks ago, per my reporting, was feeling pretty hopeful that they were on the brink of something that they felt like that they were going to come to an agreement that Iran could live with. And their opposition, in fact, was not from Tehran, but rather from Jerusalem, from Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu was the one who felt that this was insufficient, that Iran should be punished. And we have reported here that there were plans drawn up for attacks from Israel to kind of go after some of Iran's nuclear facilities. And the US Said, no, we're not going to be involved with that and we don't want you to do it. And those were shelved, at least for the time being. So there's a bit of a setback here in the last few days with Iran saying no to that proposal. But interesting that Axios and they're well sourced from reporter said yesterday that this was part of the deal. And then last night on Truth Social, President Trump took great strides to say no, that's not the case. So we will see what happens next. A bit of a holding pattern, but there are still some in the administration that believe even over Israel's objections, they think they can get to a deal. But they're a little further than they.

[Willie Geist]

First thought at loose. There are a few things that are fascinating here. One, of course. Well, many things that are fascinating here. One, of course, is is President Trump moving closer to President Obama's position on negotiating with Iran in a deal that he was so critical, greatly critical of. And I was as well, many People very critical of that deal. But President Trump moving back towards that deal. That's one. But the subplot here continues to be with everything that he does and sort of reordering the Middle east, which his last trip did, is his reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu. More importantly, his lack of reaction to the protests of Benjamin Netanyahu, which we must say continues to fight a war that continues human suffering continues to escalate. And again, that's something that, you know, whether it's Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu, you have Donald Trump, Trump growing more and more wary of and less and less patient of these people who he thought were going to be pushovers because they were allies and getting him to the peace table.

[Jonathan Lemire]

Yeah, I mean, it's very interesting just how much Trump has cold shouldered Netanyahu, particularly that recent trip to the Gulf, you know, which did not include a stopover in Israel. Same as in his first term. He went to the Gulf first, but in his first term he did stop in Israel this time he didn't on that trip. And I think that when Mike Waltz was removed as National Security adviser by Trump and sent to be UN Ambassador in New York, which of course is the equivalent in his mind of being sent to Siberia, that UN job, one of the strikes against Waltz, he was urging something more aligned with what Netanyahu were wants on Iran, a much more aggressive stick approach, not just a carrot approach to Iran. And that clashed with Trump's instincts. Trump, I think, I mean, highly improbable outcome here, but I think has desires to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the Middle East. He really does want to reorder the Middle East. And to do that he needs to get sort of Saudi and Iranian to prevent any war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And he needs Saudi Arabia, Saudi, Israel normalization. And the Saudis will, will require some concessions to the Palestinians, not just in Gaza, as their price for normalizing. All of which clashes with Netanyahu's agenda. So it's a very interesting relationship to watch.

[Willie Geist]

And Jonathan Omir, you've covered Donald Trump for a very long time, talk about his aversion to war. Of course, people talk all the time about how he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. But you get a sense that. I get a sense. I bet you actually would know much better because you've been following reporting on this for a very long time. I get a sense that he sees war as a distraction from making money, that war gets in the way. You know, he's gone to the Middle east like I said his trip has in significant ways probably reordered the Middle east in a way it has, at least in the short term, in a way that hasn't been reordered in over over 50 years. And in large part it's because he's got business deals with Saudi Arabia, with the uae, with Qatar, that, that he believes are going to be very good for the United States. Some of his critics will say good for him as well. But he there's no doubt the Saudis and other people across the Middle east had to be saying while they were talking about increasing financial ties between the countries, the last thing we need is a war between Iran and Israel and Netanyahu, who just simply does not want the war that he's fighting to come to an end.

[Ali Vitale]

Yeah, a few points here. First of all to what Ed said, President Trump has made very clear he would like a Nobel Peace Prize, you know, whether it's from the Middle east or for the situation in Europe. This is something President Obama got. He feels like he would like to and that's part of why he doesn't love some of the reporting that he's moving towards the Obama position on Iran because he's such an aversion to anything Obama. But you're right, that's where they are right now. But to your Joe, it's a good point. This is something that the President Trump as we talk a lot about. There aren't too many ideological consistencies here, but this is one he genuinely abhors. The idea of war. Some of this is based out of his upbringing in 70s and 80s during the Cold War. I am told people close to him he's very afraid of the idea of a nuclear attack. That's something that keeps him up at night. He has said he also can be moved sometimes by images. We know he's a visual, he reacts to pictures. His briefings are filled with them. And in fact I reported last week for the Atlantic that partially why he has gotten a little tougher and frustrated with Putin just in this last 10 days or so in that conflict is because he saw, he was shown images of some of these strikes on Ukrainian cities that also included killing children. And that really bothered him. We saw that in the first term as well when he was given pictures of Syrians and victims of chemical attacks that led him to actually authorize the his first military strikes as president back in early 2017 because of those pictures that he saw. And these really bothered him because it came after he believes Putin should have taken his cease fire deal. So Ed, that leads me to you here, shifting to Ukraine. It is striking to me. President Trump silent so far in terms of what, in response to what Ukraine did over the weekend, this audacious drone attack into Russia. We've been waiting for Russia's. That still hasn't come just yet. Certainly not much came at the negotiating table there in Istanbul. But President Trump and the administration, deadly, we know they weren't given a heads up. They haven't. They've been deadly silent in response to it. What's your read on that?

[Jonathan Lemire]

It's very interesting. I mean, you know, clearly the reason why the Trump administration wasn't given the heads up is because I think probably on correct grounds, Zelek Zelensky's team did not trust them not to misuse that information. There are Putin sympathizers in the Trump administration, including Putin himself. Trump's frustration, I think with Putin should logically lead to one of two actions or both. The first is ratcheting up sanctions on Russia to prevent, to cut off its oil revenues, as Senator Blumenthal was just saying, which are feeding its war machine. Trump hasn't considered that. And by the way, this was another thing Mike Waltz was suggesting that Trump didn't like. And the other logical thing is, well, if Putin won't come to the negotiating table and won't agree to a ceasefire, then we've got to give Ukraine more Patriot defense missiles. We've got to strengthen its defense against incoming Russian missiles. And Trump isn't prepared to do that either. And so, so these kinds of operations by Ukraine, which might embarrass it, might embarrass Trump and do serious damage to Putin's credibility, are going to happen more and more in one way or another. They're also going to cast doubt on Trump's big initiative, the Golden Dome, the missile defense system, massively expensive, looks like a white elephant already. The age of drone warfare is with us. You know, $600 drones taking out $100 million Russian bombers.

[Ed Luce]

That's incredible.

[Jonathan Lemire]

That changes everybody's calculations. And Golden Dome looks like, looks like a waste of money already.

[Ed Luce]

Wow. Ed Luce, thank you so much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. We'll be following you on your booktube.

[Willie Geist]

And you know, maybe one of the reasons we haven't heard from the president yet. We'll see. Maybe we hear from him today. But actually, the Ukrainians in his mind may be moving Vladimir Putin, not immediately, but eventually toward peace talks and only hope.

[Ed Luce]

Coming up, President Trump is picking a former far right podcast host to lead the Office of Special Counsel Council. We'll dig into that decision and the impact this could have on the watchdog agency. Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

[Willie Geist]

It's conversation, it's perspective. It's the Weeknd on MSNBC with three.

[Ali Vitale]

New dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniels and Jackie Alemani.

[Willie Geist]

And in the evening, it's the weekend.

[Ali Vitale]

Prime Time with Eamon Mohadin, Katherine Rampel, Elise Jordan and Antonia Hilton.

[Willie Geist]

Join them as they offer analysis on the week's most important events and set the agenda for the week ahead. The weekend at 7am eastern and the weekend primetime at 6pm eastern. Saturdays and Sundays on MSNBC.

[Richard Blumenthal]

Beautiful live picture of the White House at 6:49. On this Tuesday morning, a new opinion piece MSNBC.com is highlighting President Trump's recent pick of a vocal January 6th apologist for a key watchdog role. The author of the piece, Barbara McQuaid, predicts that decision will not end well. Barbara writes this quote, picking Paul and Gracia to lead the U.S. office of Special Counsel is not like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It's more like like setting fire to the whole farm. His views on the January 6 riot are extreme, even by MAGA standards. In December, Ingrazia called for not only pardons of the January 6th defendants, but also for $1 million per family in reparations. He advocated for Trump to expressly name in a public proclamation any judge and prosecutor involved in the J6 scam, his words, and calling them to resign from their offices and pressure Congress to undertake impeachment proceedings against them if they do not cooperate. Engracia also urged Congress to make January 6th a national holiday, to place the day's events in their proper historical context. He wrote, as a peaceful protest against a great injustice affecting our electoral system. Again, those are all the words of Mr. Ingrazia. And Barbara joins us now. She's an MSNBC contributor, former U.S. attorney, her new York Times bestseller, attack from How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America, a huge hit now out in paperback. Barb, great to see you. I want to talk a little bit more about the book in a minute, but can you tell us more about Paul Ingrazia, his experience, who he is, and how he got to the doorstep of this key role?

[Mika Brzezinski]

Well, this is a man who graduated from law school three years ago. He has worked at the Claremont Institute as a research fellow, and he has been a Trump loyalist since the term began. He first started as the White House liaison at the Department of Justice he ruffled feathers there, even with the very pro Trump leadership they have there, and moved recently to be the liaison to the Department of Homeland Security. But one of the things that's so disturbing to me about this appointment, you know, certainly their political loyalists throughout any administration. But the Office of Special Counsel is the federal agency that is created post Watergate to ensure that there are not politics in the federal workplace. This is the agency that protects whistleblowers and enforces prohibited personnel practices so that employees are insulated from politics when they work in the federal workforce. It is, in my view, the absolute worst possible kind of match between a person and a professional responsibility.

[Richard Blumenthal]

So a 30 year old, three years out of law school, gets this huge job in the government. What are your specific concerns about what he may or may not do in that role?

[Mika Brzezinski]

So if you have a problem in the federal workforce, a federal employee, you want to be a whistleblower about fraud, waste or abuse in your agency, this is where you go. If you are an employee and you're concerned that people are engaging in politics, politics on taxpayer dollars, you would complain to the head of the Office of Special Counsel if you have someone there who is a loyal Trump supporter more than they care about the professional workplace, those complaints are going to fall on deaf ears. And in fact, I think whistleblowers are going to be concerned that if they raise the issue and it is something that would be opposed to the president's agenda, it will fall on deaf ears or maybe even bring retaliation to them. You probably saw recently that there's this new questionnaire that federal employees have to respond to when onboarding about what's your favorite executive order and why and how are you going to execute it? I worry that our federal workforce, which for more than 100 years has promoted professionalism, people who can do these jobs based on competence will instead be turned into just one more political arm of the Trump administration.

[Ali Vitale]

This appointee, of course, his background is far right. Podcast host, you know, and he's not alone in terms of someone who is a purveyor of disinformation, now, first from the outside, now occupies a place within the government. This, of course, subject to what you tackled in your book now out in paperback. So how worried are you here that this information is now coming from inside the house, if you will? This is from the federal government and what can be done to combat it.

[Mika Brzezinski]

Yeah. So you think about some of the narrative that Willie just read about this. Not just normalization of January 6th, but a celebration of January 6th, an effort to really rewrite history. And it was all part of this same plan of pardons for the January 6th defendants and dismissing all of the cases against them and firing FBI agents or prosecutors who worked on those cases, suggesting that they did something wrong. And so I worry that we are going to see that erasure from history. What can we do about it? I think we can do things like we're doing right now, speak up about it. People who have a platform, like all of you, need to speak about it, but also all of us individuals can talk to our friends and our neighbors and our loved ones about what we believe to be true. You know, we all have maybe that friend, uncle, neighbor who's gone down that rabbit of disinformation. I think we can talk with them respectfully, with grace, with curiosity. Maybe they won't change their mind the first time we have a conversation with them. But if you can just plant a seed, asking them, what is the source of your information? What is the basis for that information, sharing with them other sources, maybe we can have dialogues where we can get past these kinds of things. I think it's at that interpersonal level where we can reach people, perhaps more than at another level where sometimes people. People are shrill and argumentative.

[Richard Blumenthal]

John Hellman's got a question for you. Barb.

[John Heilman]

Hey, Barb, I'm just taking you to a related story here, which is the story of. Of Cash Patel and dan Bongino to January 6. Purveyors of misinformation and defenders of the Capitol rioters, both now kind of running the FBI. There's been some coverage of the fact that they have had to back off some of their claims. Claims including the. Some of the conspiracy theories spread about Jeffrey Epstein when they came into actual contact with the facts of the case. At the same time, there's a lot of concern about what those guys are doing. Do you. I know you're constantly paying attention to the waterfront of related issues. What. What can you. What kind of updates can you give to people who have been concerned all along about what will happen when people like Cash Patel and Dan Bungino take over the nation's most important law enforcement institution?

[Mika Brzezinski]

Yes. So, John, it's a really significant concern for me because, you know, for decades we have had an FBI that is professional, that is apolitical. And what I worry about is not so much violating the law, but violating their internal operating procedures. They are governed by something called the diag, which stands for Domestic Investigations Operations Guide. That was put forward after abuses at the FBI called cointelpro where they were investigating Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. But all of that is just internal policy guidance. If they want to change it with the stroke of a pen, they could. And they could begin investigating people based on political viewpoint as opposed to actual predication that a crime has been committed or that there's a threat to national security. That's what I worry about most, because I think it would be done very quietly. It would require whistleblowers to come out and tell us about that. And they could use the vast powers of the FBI, wiretap powers, surveillance powers, even knock and talks in a way to intimidate Americans into changing their political speech.

[Willie Geist]

You know, Willie, as. As John brought up, what's so fascinating is that right now the grief that they're receiving actually is from the maga. Right. Because on the Epstein issue, they're saying, hey, this is. This is what happened. He committed suicide. And, you know, we've. We've got tapes. If you have any more information, send it to us. But that has been fascinating to see how that's watched, how that's played out, that, that you have people that are in the position of authority, looking at the information, passing it along, and now they're the ones being attacked by the maga. BE base.

[Joe Scarborough]

Yeah.

[Richard Blumenthal]

I mean, the Epstein files have been an obsession of many people for a very long time. And the fact that they appear, at least to some in the Magnum movement, To not have delivered and to say we've looked at all the evidence. He killed himself in a jail cell. Sorry to disappoint you. Is not sitting well with some of the supporters. Barb, let me ask you quickly, before you go, just about the book came out just over a year ago, and it really resonated with people because I think it's what everyone is dealing with, whether you're following the news or a teenager in high school trying to understand what's true and what's not through social media. What are the best ways, as you've had all these conversations for a couple of years now about this, to begin to combat this as a society?

[Mika Brzezinski]

Yeah, well, I think there are things we can do, you know, through legislative action or regulatory action. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. I think at the state level, we can think about implementing media literacy courses into our schools, but I think what we can do right now is educate ourselves about media literacy. When we see a claim, we need to ask ourselves, what is the source? Are they motivated to tell us what they want to tell us, or are they giving us the objective truth? What is the evidence to support that claim? And is there more than one source reporting that same thing? That's really important. I think the other thing we can do, Willie, is disinformation is not just. Just false facts, though. It is an effort to persuade people that our tribe is better than your tribe. And I think one of the things we need to do is even when it serves the interests of our political tribe, so to speak, we still need to choose truth. And so in that way, if we're not piling on, you know, engaging in the war of words with other people, but instead trying to use facts to persuade, I think we can be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[Richard Blumenthal]

That's well said. And if it sounds untrue and crazy, I tell my kids it probably is. Go check it out. Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid. Thank you. The paperback edition of her New York Times best selling book, Attack from Within, is out now. Thanks, Barbara.