Loading summary
Transcript119 lines
- [00:01]
Joe Scarborough
You know, anytime you ban people coming.
- [00:02]
Willie Geist
To the United States from other countries.
- [00:04]
Mika Brzezinski
It has a real impact, but it is chiefly in service of trying to.
- [00:08]
Joe Scarborough
Get us all talking about that or.
- [00:10]
Mika Brzezinski
Talking about the Biden investigation they launched today, instead of talking about the centerpiece of this story, which is this bill.
- [00:17]
Willie Geist
To make the rich even richer at.
- [00:19]
Mika Brzezinski
The expense of everybody else. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut putting into context a series of moves last night from President Trump. The president announced a travel ban to the US for people from 12 countries and partial restrictions for seven others. He also ordered an investigation into former President Biden and officials in the Biden administration for the use of the auto pen, a device Trump has himself admitted to using.
- [00:47]
David Drucker
Robot president.
- [00:48]
Mika Brzezinski
It all comes hashtag, robot president.
- [00:51]
Joe Scarborough
Yes, the things that are going out.
- [00:52]
Mika Brzezinski
There now continue to work through President Trump's massive tax and spending bill and its impact on millions of Americans. Meanwhile, Elon Musk ramps up his pressure campaign to kill the legislation, calling on Americans to contact their representatives in Congress. Plus, President Trump claims he spoke to Vladimir Putin for 75 minutes yesterday. We'll dig into the big headlines coming out of that conversation. Wow. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, June 5th. A lot to get to this morning.
- [01:26]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, Willie, a lot to get to. And Chris Murphy basically going, talking about what we've said for some time in the second term, try to separate the signal from the ground noise, the signal. Obviously, all that everybody in Washington's focused on right now is Elon Musk and how many Republicans he can take with him going against this massive pork barrel spending bill. So, you know, we're talking about auto pins, we're talking about. I'm sure robot presidents will come back into play pretty soon. It's. But, but, but this is really, this is what was DC Is focused on right now, this bill, and whether, whether it's in a lot more danger passing the Senate because of Elon Musk.
- [02:11]
Willie Geist
Yeah, we'll get into the details of this new travel ban from 12 countries in a minute. The effects of that are very real on the people trying to immigrate to this country. But as Senator Murphy said, President Trump obviously throwing a lot against the wall in the hopes of distracting people from a bill that yesterday the CBO said will inflate the debt by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years and increased by almost the number who lose health care because of cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act. So the impact of this, if it is passed, are very real. And as you Guys point out, Elon Musk now is again, from a distance, this time from outside of Washington, a central player in all this. Mika, because of the pressure he is putting on, saying, kill the bill, get rid of this thing. It's going to crush people on health care, it's going to crush people on the debt and drive this country into a ditch, effectively, is what he's saying. You have these members of Congress, including Speaker Johnson and senators, many of whom, by the way, their campaigns were bankrolled by Elon Musk, in many ways feeling pressure both from the White House and from the world's wealthiest man.
- [03:21]
Mika Brzezinski
It's very convoluted, but Elon Musk is ramping up its criticism of President Trump's legislative agenda, calling on senators to kill the bill. In a series of social media posts yesterday, the Tesla CEO tried to rally Republicans against the legislation, urging voters to call their senators and congressmen, writing, quote, bankrupting America is not okay. Musk also suggested drafting a new bill that won't add to the national debt. The comments mark what appears to be an escalation in the rift between Musk and the Trump administration. One senior White House official telling NBC News, President Trump is now considering how and when to respond, adding he was, quote, caught off guard, but, but not entirely surprised by Musk's opposition. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson had this to say.
- [04:15]
Joe Scarborough
Elon and I left on a great note. We were texting one another, you know.
- [04:18]
Julie Sirkin
Happy text, you know, Monday.
- [04:21]
Joe Scarborough
And then, and then Yesterday, you know.
- [04:23]
Julie Sirkin
24 hours later, he does a 180.
- [04:25]
Joe Scarborough
And he comes out and opposed the bill.
- [04:26]
Julie Sirkin
And it surprised me, frankly.
- [04:28]
Joe Scarborough
I think he's, he's flat wrong.
- [04:29]
Julie Sirkin
I think he's, he's way off on this.
- [04:31]
Joe Scarborough
And I've told him as much and I've said it publicly and privately. I'm very consistent in that.
- [04:35]
Julie Sirkin
But am I concerned about effect of.
- [04:37]
Joe Scarborough
This on the midterms? I'm not.
- [04:39]
Julie Sirkin
Let me tell you why. Because when the big beautiful bill is.
- [04:41]
Joe Scarborough
Done and signed into law, every single.
- [04:43]
Julie Sirkin
American is going to do better.
- [04:45]
Mika Brzezinski
Oh, my God, is every American going to do better? And what about Elon?
- [04:51]
Joe Scarborough
I guess that's what speakers have to do. I don't know. They have to put together big, horrible bill, a pork barrel bill. I mean, let me just be really clear here. This bill would never pass when, when, when, when we serve and we balanced the budget four years in a row and actually ran a budget surplus for two years. Part of the reason why is these huge, massive bills never went through because what Happens is when you have leadership working with the White House, any White House, any leadership, and they try to jam everything into one bill. There's so much in there that you're going to be shocked. We've seen it from everybody, from Marjorie Taylor Greene being shocked that the AI forces basically were out and the lobbyists got it. So no states can do anything, can touch. AI are regulated at all for like a decade or so. And you have other people seeing, spending, pork barrel spending bills in there. We have a $37 trillion debt and as Willie said, this adds $2.4 trillion more dollars to a debt that's going to already grow by $20 trillion over the next decade. That's unsustainable. That's going to lead to a fiscal meltdown. Jamie Dimon is right. That's going to lead to a bond meltdown. This isn't even a close call. This has nothing to do with politics. Nothing to do with politics. This is just pure simple math. And it's as if these House Republicans who claim to be conservative, it's as if these House Republicans, they see this, a house on fire, and they run to it. $37 trillion debt, they run to it and they throw trillions of gallons of gasoline on the fire to have it explode. Specifically, $2.4 trillion worth of, of debt added on. No ideology. This is black and white, by the way. This is something that Democrats, my Democratic friends and Republican friends need to understand. The game is over. The gig is up. You can't keep kicking the can down the road. But that's exactly what this bill does. We can't afford it anymore. And we especially can't afford it. Willie, as you said, adds $2.4 trillion to the debt. Going to take 10, 11 million people off of insurance. So much of that is going to be gutting rural health care. When you got Medicaid, you got rural health care. So this is, this is how bizarre things have gotten in Washington D.C. think about it. You have House Republicans who claim to be for the working man. House Republicans are going to gut rural health care to give tax cuts to the richest billionaires in Silicon Valley, Wall Street. Let me say that again, cuz nobody's doubting this. I mean, everybody knows this. You talk to rural hospitals, you talk to any health care provider in rural America, they will tell you this bill will gut, will gut rural health care in the reddest of the red states. And for what? So billionaires in Silicon Valley, people running monopolies in Silicon Valley and billionaires on Wall street hedge funders so they can get even more tax cuts. The rich can get richer and the poor, well, the poor just lose their health care. Willie, I'm sorry. I don't know where Mike Johnson thinks his members are going to be running over the next two years, but they're going to be running in red state America where they're going to be a lot of people who are going to be hurt by this bill. They can call it a big beautiful bill all they want to, but the fact is this is a type of bill no conservative would ever vote for, ever. It's reckless, it's irresponsible, and it's a fiscal nightmare.
- [09:00]
Willie Geist
And people who've built their careers on being fiscal conservatives and saying that we've got to shrink the size of government. And yet Here you have $2.4 trillion Republicans saying there are $1.3 trillion of cuts in this package over a decade. True, but There are also $3.7 trillion in lost revenue because of the tax cuts, as you just pointed out. The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile this morning has some new reporting on that fraying relationship between two of the world's most powerful men, maybe the world's two most powerful men. According to that reporting, President Trump is losing patience with Elon Musk's outbursts over the last couple of days over this bill. A senior White House official said Trump was not happy about Musk's decision to lambast his signature legislation, describing the president as confused as as to why the Tesla chief executive decided to ratchet up his criticism after working so closely with the president for four months. The official said senior Trump advisers were caught off guard by Trump's latest offensive. The piece continues, quote, Congressman Thomas Massie, one of the two House Republicans who voted against the bill in the House last month, was pleased Musk is speaking out. I figured he would eventually get there, said Massie, who noted the two have not spoken on the issue. You don't land rockets backwards or get cars to drive themselves by ignoring the people who are lying to you, end quote. Let's bring in Bloomberg columnist and senior writer for the Dispatch, David Drucker and NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Sirkin. Good morning to you both. Julie, let's talk about that back and forth on Capitol Hill. We just heard Speaker Johnson doing his best to say that Elon Musk is wrong about this bill. Despite all the data we've just talked about, despite what the CBO has come out and said about adding $2.4 trillion to debt over a decade. Where does this play out from here. You have conservatives, Republicans who are trying to please effectively Donald Trump on the one hand and Elon Musk on the other.
- [10:57]
Julie Sirkin
Well, I don't think unless Elon Musk really promises to fund challengers, primary challengers, or even Democrats, which is a concern for Republicans in the White House, that Republicans on the Hill are going to pay attention to him, at least the ones who want to pass this bill.
- [11:11]
Joe Scarborough
Right.
- [11:12]
Julie Sirkin
I think that's the distinction here, because I think what Elon Musk illustrated yesterday or helped us understand was the Republicans who are going to vote for this no matter what and are just making noise, like Senator Josh Hawley, who has a big issue with the Medicaid cuts and reforms because he, of course, represents a rural constituency in Missouri, or Senator Rand Paul, Senator Rand Johnson, who have been talking about the deficit and are echoing perhaps what Elon Musk has been saying online. For Josh Hawley, for example, yesterday he told me, this is Donald Trump's administration. Trump drives the train. He does not think that Elon Musk is going to have influence to kill this bill. But one very important through line in all of this is, yes, it's about the deficit. Yes, Elon Musk, of course, helped the president run a campaign that was all about cutting the debt. And now this bill, as you point out, will add to it. But it's also about the electric vehicle tax credits that were removed as a part of this bill. That's very important for Elon Musk and his business. In fact, a couple of months ago, he said he doesn't need those tax credits because his business was doing so well. Of course, now that's not the case for Tesla. And we have new reporting that Elon Musk actually spent the last few weeks trying to lobby Speaker Mike Johnson, who is the only member of leadership, Republican leadership, that he has that kind of relationship where he can call and text to keep those credits alive, to not put them in this bill. By the way, another thing, in this bill, people who drive electric vehicles are now going to have to start contributing to the Highway Trust Fund. So a lot of changes made in this legislation that would hurt Elon Musk, Musk's bottom line. And a lot of people I'm talking to think that's exactly why he's making noise right now.
- [12:49]
Joe Scarborough
Well, and David Drucker, of course, also the NASA administrator issue came up there. So no doubt there are a lot of reasons for the bottom line for Elon Musk, for him to be upset right now. And perhaps that has something to do with all of this. Perhaps it has a lot to do with all of this. But I'm just curious. In your reporting, I. Forgive me for being naive here. This, I just, this bill, if this were put in front of us by Newt Gingrich or anybody else as speaker, we would have laughed it off the floor. And the last thing you would want would be for somebody supporting this bill to do what Donald Trump did yesterday and say, oh, I agree with Elizabeth Warren. We should get rid of the debt. Debt ceiling forever. We go, aha. Okay, there you go. There's your evidence. Right. But I, I just, I, I'm incapable of understanding how somebody who calls himself a fiscal conservative could vote for this bill. The size of it would be a deal killer in the first place. The added $2.4 trillion in debt on top of 20 trillion in the next 10 years, on top of 37 trillion. I, yes, still cutting. Go on and on, on and on and on about this. But, David, is there, I don't understand why there's not a level of unease from a lot of people that I served with that are still there to pass what looks like to me, the most fiscally irresponsible bill in American history.
- [14:33]
Richard Haas
Yeah, well, listen, Joe, as you know, lawmakers don't like to push boulders uphill. They only like, excuse me, they only like to push them downhill. And the people you served with are now in a Republican Party where populists are ascendant and fiscal conservatives, really, the traditional conservative that we like to think of from the Reagan era is a minority within the coalition. And so there just isn't a lot of support for the kind of fiscal restraint that used to sort of characterize the Republican Party, at least philosop.
- [15:07]
Joe Scarborough
But, David, are there not four or five in the House? And this isn't even fiscal restraint. This is just like not jumping off a cliff fiscally. Yeah, well, I mean, four or five conservative Republicans left in the House that say no to this.
- [15:22]
Richard Haas
Well, yeah, but saying. It's not saying no to this. It's saying no to President Donald Trump. And their voters trust Trump more than they trust them. So as long as Trump wants this bill, this bill is likely to pass one way or the other. Now, I've talked to Republican strategists about this, and this is the point I want to make, is that Republicans, with their thin majorities in the House and Senate, really aren't doing much else. Every ounce of energy they have, most of the legislation that they might pass is all rolled up into this reconciliation package. That includes a lot of the tax cuts for middle and lower class voters that the President campaigned on. That also includes a lot of the border security components that are broadly popular that he campaigned on. And so if this thing collapses, the entire Trump agenda collapses. That, that, that which he can't do by executive order, and the entire congressional Republican agenda collapses, they risk going to the voters empty handed next year. That's a recipe for disaster. One other thing here, and Republicans have told me that if they were to start from scratch and do this in a way that wasn't going to add to the debt, that would require actual normal legislating. And they'd have to negotiate with Democrats, at least in the Senate where Democrats can filibuster. And the Republican base would look at that as a complete failure and be really, really upset that they weren't just plowing this stuff through. So there are a lot of political considerations that are, not surprisingly, are looming larger in the minds of these Republicans than the fiscal considerations. Because no voter finally here, no voters beating on their door complaining about the debt, they're just not.
- [17:04]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, well, they will be. They will be, Willie. You know, it's amazing that one of the arguments for, for, for not going back and doing this right is you would have to actually go through regular order. You would have to actually go to committees, you would actually have to start at subcommittees, go to committees, go to the House floor instead of the House speaker and one or two other people writing this bill behind closed doors that nobody sees, nobody reads. And after it's out there, you have members being shot going, oh my gosh, I didn't know that was in there. That's what happens when you say, oh, we're not going to go through regular order because we want to jam a lot of BS in here that nobody's going to read. You know, when they find out about that, they find out about that about two weeks into their campaign because I guarantee you, they may not have read the bill, but their opponents and the DNC will have read the bill and everything they're voting yes on, they're going to pay for politically every single thing.
- [18:13]
Willie Geist
And we're seeing that from members already in the House who voted for the bill and now after the fact, are hearing exactly what you're laying out, which is people saying, wait a minute, the bill, this massive bill includes this. And they go, oh, well, I didn't like that. I guess I should have fully read the bill. And they're going to hear more about that. As you say, if this makes it through from people in their districts whose hospitals are eliminated, who lost health care because of this. And Julie Serkin, maybe people don't care in the abstract about the debt. Maybe that's not something that motivates them and brings them out to polls. But, but if you take away their health care, as this bill, according to the CBO, does to 11 million people, they sure notice that and they know who voted for it and why they lost their health care. So, you know, if history is our guide, Republicans do not cross Donald Trump. In the end, they raise protests and they say they don't like something, but they eventually fall in line. Do you suspect, based on your reporting on Capitol Hill, that's what's going to happen here?
- [19:09]
Julie Sirkin
Absolutely. They are not going to back away from this bill because Elon Musk told them so. And it's a shift because a couple of months ago, everything that Elon Musk would put on would really scare Republicans in Congress. But that was because he had the backing of the president. Right. There's no pressure. Dave is absolutely right. Like the one that can come across Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill from Trump. And I think it's an important point that they have not done much legislatively in the House at this point in 2017, at least, the House already passed the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Of course, it was blocked in the Senate, but for Republicans, they had a win on that issue. Now, of course, as you point out, Americans being kicked off their health care is not a win politically, but at least they were able to show their base that they did something that the president ultimately ran on. Of course, they weren't successful, but in this case, you really have a House that has not accomplished much. And remember, the reason it was put in this one big, beautiful bill is because there are such fragile majorities. You really, the only way that you can get all of this through to fund the president's agenda, the border, the military, the energy, all of these things that he ran on that he now wants Congress to make due on is by stuffing it all together and force people to swallow the things they don't like in addition to the things that they might like. And so now you have a situation, of course, where the House passed a bill that is probably going to get torn up by the Senate at least a little bit. There's no way they can send back even close to the same product because you have those moderates in the Senate. Even Josh Hawley, of course, is not a moderate. But they know what's at stake if they take away Medicaid from millions of people. They know that they are going to lose in the midterms in 2026. Trump might not be worried about that because he can that historically, that's what happens. The party in charge loses in the midterm elections. But the senators who are in their seats right now are worried about that.
- [20:55]
Mika Brzezinski
Right.
- [20:55]
Julie Sirkin
And you have to think about the Republicans in the House just quickly here, who voted for things that the Senate is going to change. And now their primary opponents, Democrats, are going to still be able to run on that and throw that in their faces in 2026. So this is a huge problem for them. Trump is not ideological in any way, as we know. He doesn't really care about that. He's going to make deals with whoever he needs to, even if it's Democrats at the end of the day.
- [21:22]
Joe Scarborough
So, so that's so important to point out. There's so many House Republicans, and this goes way back. There's an old saying that a lot of people watching may not remember, but there was an old saying. You would go around when they were trying to get you, as a member of the House to vote for something that the Senate would never vote for. You'd say, I'm not going to be BTU'd, which was Bill Clinton passed a bill that, that had a BTU tax that House members fought against but ended up voting for. And then it got stripped out of the Senate bill. So they voted for nothing, but every one of them had to defend that on the campaign trail. Why did you vote for an increase in energy tax? Why did you vote for this? Why did you vote for that? I'm, I, I'm sitting here most likely because a conservative Democrat who was in leadership voted to get the bill over to the Senate. And then after he saw what's happening, he said, I don't need this. I'm not going to be defending this on the campaign trail every day. And that's, of course, this is important. That's the reason why Republicans took the majority for the first time in 40 years because of a terrible bill, a terrible budget bill. And so this is a game changer, Mika. When you have somebody like Josh Hawley who's, he's looking at and he's thinking, am I really going to take away health care from the reddest parts of my state so Silicon Valley monopolists and Silicon Valley billionaires can get an even bigger tax cut? Like, that's a game changer for any Democrat that's running. If you have a Republican willing to do that, that's fine. And by the way, the whole thing, we had to vote for it because it was an up or down. But no, no, no. Why don't you legislate? Why don't you do your job? Why don't you go through subcommittees? Why don't you go through committees? Why don't you do it the way Congress had done it for like 220 years, where you actually go to Capitol Hill and work? You actually go to Capitol Hill and legislate. You actually don't let the speaker of the House and the majority leader and a couple of lobbyists sit behind closed doors, locked closed doors where 430 members are locked out. Think about that. They lock out like 430 members from this process and two, three, four people write this bill. Yeah. Go try selling that on the campaign trail and say, oh, I couldn't really do anything. It was an up or down vote. It was an up or down vote because you're allowing it to be an up and down vote.
- [24:09]
Mika Brzezinski
Yeah.
- [24:10]
Joe Scarborough
You're adding, you're adding trillions to the debt because you're deciding you don't want to do your job. It's too hard. It's too hard to be a subcommittee member or a committee member and actually take this through the process. Too hard. So it's an up or down vote. It's ridiculous.
- [24:27]
Mika Brzezinski
Big, beautiful bill has some ugly consequences.
- [24:30]
Joe Scarborough
Well, we'll see what happens.
- [24:31]
Mika Brzezinski
NBC's Julie Sirkin, thank you so much for your reporting this morning. And still ahead on MORNING joe, the latest from Gaza as Israeli forces recover the bodies of two hostages who are being held by Hamas. Plus, President Trump says he spoke with Vladimir Putin yesterday over the phone. What the Russian president is saying about the war in Ukraine and the possibility of a peace deal. Also ahead, more problems reported at Newark International Airport. We'll go over the latest travel troubles there. And a quick reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each day, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcast.
- [25:14]
Joe Scarborough
And as we go get a break, look at absolutely beautiful shot of the Brooklyn Bridge and New York work. Friday yet. Close.
- [25:24]
Mika Brzezinski
Close.
- [25:25]
Joe Scarborough
Ok. MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with Jason Bateman and Rachel Maddow.
- [26:02]
Mika Brzezinski
We are in a really important moment and we're an important place in it, and I'm glad that we're there together.
- [26:08]
Joe Scarborough
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. Ouch.
- [26:24]
David Drucker
Now to fly down the right field line.
- [26:27]
Joe Scarborough
That one heading toward the stands. And that's going to be a fair ball.
- [26:31]
Richard Haas
And that ball is gone.
- [26:32]
Joe Scarborough
It's out of here. He tucked it in there and he walks it off. Sedan Raffaello with a home run.
- [26:40]
Willie Geist
Little League dimensions. Zidane Rafaela curls one around the pesky pole and right field. That's a two run walk off home run. Giving the Red Sox an 11, 9 win over the Angels. 308ft. That's the second shortest home run on record ever in baseball. Well, it's definitely the shortest walk off, right? Isn't that the whole point of the thing? But that pesky pole. Jonathan Lemire, very generous.
- [27:05]
Sam Stein
That'd be 20 rows deep at Yankee Stadium. Absolutely.
- [27:10]
David Drucker
Put aside your haste just for a minute.
- [27:12]
Willie Geist
They should.
- [27:13]
Sam Stein
20 rows deep.
- [27:14]
Willie Geist
I should not have accepted that. Just destroyed.
- [27:17]
Sam Stein
I mean, just look. Yet look, you play the ball park, you're in. Sox needed that win.
- [27:23]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, we need that win badly. For people who haven't been following the Red Sox this year, you're very lucky if you, especially if you're a Red Sox fan. But Willie, I think we, you know, we have a seat mark for Ted Williams longest home run there. We need to mark that one for the shortest three. 300. Look at this now. 308ft. And this. Literally look at that. You've got the pesky pole. That's about 15ft past first base, Willie. And nothing like it in baseball.
- [27:59]
Willie Geist
Yeah, I mean even he was surprised. You can see him as he ran up the first baseline, kind of putting his hands out like, is that, should we count that as a home run? I'll take it. And then he kind of embraces it. Rounds the base walk up. But as we talked about Yesterday, Joe, they've 17 one run losses for the Red Sox this year, which seems impossible given the smallish sample size of games they've even played. But this time they got one. They got the walk off home run in a tie game.
- [28:25]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, I mean, Jonathan Lemire, see it right there going past the yellow pole. And it just dropped in inside the yellow pole. Yeah, exactly. Jonathan. We're not even halfway through the season. This has been like the most torturous season yet. Been a Red Sox fan since 1975. This has been hard because as Willie said, every game. See, I lost my voice screaming at that game. Every game seems to be a one run game. Everyone. We go into the ninth inning time and time again. One run ahead or one run behind?
- [29:00]
Willie Geist
Yeah.
- [29:00]
Sam Stein
Joe was screaming just how Rafaela crushed that. Look at that, 500ft. That's why he lost his voice. No, you're right. This has been. It's been extraordinary because they came into the season with such high hopes. They had a good off season. They spent money for the first time in a while. We thought that they would be a contender this year. And yes, you're right, it is still early June, but it's been 17 one run losses, by far the most in the league. They have by far the most blown saves in the league. They've had a number of key guys hurt, and, you know, they showed some fight yesterday. They fell behind multiple times and kept coming back. That's good. They still lost two out of three to a pretty lowly Angels team. There's someone. They need some changes and soon. And we all. Joe, I know you are, too. Waiting for Roman Anthony, this top prospect, to be called up. There's a sense that some lineup changes could be on the horizon.
- [29:46]
Joe Scarborough
Yeah, we're going deep in Red Sox baseball. We better stop right now. I will just finish with this. As Mika said to me last night, she turned, she had her PIMS cup, and she goes, you know, Joe, she said, if the Red Sox were just.500, they'd be in first place.
- [30:09]
Mika Brzezinski
I think that's.
- [30:10]
Joe Scarborough
If that's what she said. She then put down and said, I'm done with this thing.
- [30:14]
Sam Stein
Yeah.
- [30:15]
Joe Scarborough
If horses had wings. If the Giants actually had. Had anybody in their front office, maybe suck every year. Richard.
- [30:24]
Mika Brzezinski
President emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas being insulted. As we said.
- [30:32]
Joe Scarborough
Giants are being. Yeah, exactly.
- [30:35]
Mika Brzezinski
Managing editor at the Bulwark, Sam Stein is here, too. Good to have you all on board. Shall we get to our top story?
- [30:41]
Joe Scarborough
I'd rather talk about the Giants trading running backs, but that's okay. We can talk. Okay.
- [30:46]
Mika Brzezinski
Okay. And get to our top story.
- [30:48]
Joe Scarborough
Let's do it.
- [30:49]
Mika Brzezinski
Are you ready? All right. President Trump says Russian President Vladimir Putin told him Moscow will have to respond to Ukraine's major drone attack over the weekend.
- [30:58]
Joe Scarborough
And then Ukraine will have to respond to their.
- [31:02]
Mika Brzezinski
Trump posted on Truth Social that he and Putin spoke for about 75 minutes yesterday, and while the call was a good conversation, it was not one that will lead to immediate peace. Trump also wrote that the pair discussed the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. According to Trump, Putin suggested he would participate in those talks and possibly help to bring them to a, quote, rapid conclusion. Meanwhile, a Ukrainian delegation led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's chief of met with U.S. officials yesterday in Washington. They held discussions with the Trump administration's envoy to Ukraine and Russia. Kit Kellogg, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Zelensky's adviser, called the meeting productive, saying they discussed Monday's peace talk in Turkey as well as the need to strengthen support for Ukraine's air defense.
- [31:56]
Joe Scarborough
Jonathan Omir, you've written extensively on the Putin relationship right now with Donald Trump over the past several weeks. Tell us about it and go to Richard for the first question. If it doesn't have anything to do with the Giants, we'll set that aside.
- [32:09]
Willie Geist
Poor guy.
- [32:11]
Sam Stein
As far as the Trump Putin call was interesting, it wasn't scheduled. It was a relatively spontaneously planned call. The one thing that the readout does not include, the one that President Trump posted suggesting that Vladimir Putin told him that Russia would have to retaliate. Trump didn't say anything about him telling Putin not to to and I think that's where we are right now with this war with Putin, with Trump. I have reporting out was, you know, very was frustrated by Ukraine's attack on the weekend simply because in his mind it will extend the conflict that this was. Now Russia will have to hit back. Ukraine will likely have to hit back to that. The talks in Istanbul this week, which Trump had actually put some hopes into, I reported last week saying that maybe they can make a first step. They went nowhere. So, so, Richard, that's where we are right now. We have, we have, we have president of the United States not attempting to curb Russia's response here. We know Putin. He talked yesterday to officials at the Kremlin. He called Ukrainians terrorists for what they did. I think the US Is bracing for a Russian counterattack of some kind in the days ahead. And as far as Trump's perspective, even as he tried to cozy up to Putin a little bit with help with Iran, it's like he's throwing up his hands in the air and suggesting there's not going to be an end to this fighting in Ukraine anytime soon.
- [33:23]
Richard Haas
Soon.
- [33:24]
David Drucker
Well, he's right. There's not going to be an end to this fighting anytime soon for the simple reason Vladimir Putin wants to prolong the fighting, because he thinks continued war serves his interests more than Ukraine's. The fact that the call happened yesterday in and of itself tells you something why it's as if the Ukrainian military action was somehow the problem. Forgetting about all the Russian actions day in, day out against Ukrainian civilian targets, against cities and so forth. So again, the administration is one sided Here. If the president wants to realize his own peace proposal, there's one way to do it. Stop sabotaging it. Give Ukraine open ended support to remain a viable independent state. All this talk about secondary sanctions against Russia, all this talk about peace talks is going nowhere. If the president wants peace, he has got to persuade Vladimir Putin that continued war will not give Russia anything but more dead soldiers. The president, however, is not willing to send that message. So the peace talks are going nowhere.
- [34:23]
Willie Geist
Axios is reporting just now that from the White House that President Trump thought the Ukrainian drone attack was, quote, badass. He liked what he saw out of that and perhaps gave them a little more credibility in his mind and their position in this war at least. So Donald Trump has shown no proclivity for how many years now to oppose, let's say, Vladimir Putin in any real way. So do you think their dynamic has changed at all because Ukraine has shown this ability to fight, to reach deep inside?
- [34:55]
David Drucker
Well, it should. I mean, the president always tells Zelensky what he has bad cards, you know, a terrible hand to play. Well, Zelensky showed he had some, you know, hole cards here. He could play them. It also showed that even if the United States backs off, Ukraine's position is not hopeless. They can, you know, by themselves, with a little bit of European help, they can buy some arms off the market from the United States. They can stay in there. Their ingenuity compensates. I don't see the president warming up to Ukraine. And again, it gets back to the mystery of his relationship with Russia. But no, I think I'm really sad to say, here we are in the middle of the fourth fighting season. I think it's quite possible we'll be talking around this table about the fifth fighting season. I just don't see anything in the works right now that's going to bring this war to a close because again, Ukraine is willing to accept an unconditional ceasefire. Russia is not. It's almost that simple. And for some reason, American foreign policy will not adjust to that reality.
- [35:56]
Joe Scarborough
But Sam Stein, I mean, what Richard just said has been a reality, though, since the beginning of this war. And you look at Vladimir Putin and American presidents trying to deal with Vladimir Putin. You can start with George W. Bush. He invaded Georgia. Putin invaded Georgia. You go on to Barack Obama. Putin invaded Ukraine, took Crimea. You go to Donald Trump and he's not listening to Donald Trump. Joe Biden, Joe Biden spent two years trying to move Vladimir Putin, trying to get Bill Burns to be able to negotiate. So I don't know what anybody thinks Donald Trump could say to Vladimir Putin, that we get Vladimir Putin to respond to him any differently than he did to Joe Biden or Barack Obama or George W. Bush. I mean, this is, this war will go on until Vladimir Putin decides that he just can't afford it anymore. And even with America leaning in all the way, I guess what I'm saying is America's president, if you go back to George W. Bush, when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul, America's president seems to be opinion secondary to what Vladimir Putin's opinion is.
- [37:24]
Jonathan Lemire
Yeah, but I think you've hit the nail on the head, which is the stumbling block of this issue, which is that Donald Trump, to a degree now it's become a test of his own abilities to negotiate and maneuver in his own relationship with Putin. I mean, Trump has promised time and again that he can get through to Vladimir Putin, and he's obviously publicly wooed him in ways that I don't think any recent president has done. And so if Trump were to fail in these negotiations, if he can't bring some sort of ceasefire to this conflict, then it becomes almost an indictment of Trump as well. And that's creating this untenable situation that Richard's outlining here. It's also creating problems for Republicans back home. And I want to talk to David about this because we have this massive sanctions bill that the Republicans and Senator Blumenthal Democrat are considering and trying to push, which essentially put tariffs on countries that try to buy fuel from Moscow. Trump is blocking it. And now we've seen Republicans put in this interesting and difficult bind where, you know, after the JD Vance Alinsky blow up and the Oval, they all kind of tepidly rushed to J.D. vance's and Donald Trump's defense saying, yes, Zelensky should have said, thank you. Now they're back and saying Putin's wrong here. What is your sense of how the Republican Party outside of the Trump administration is viewing this saga?
- [38:44]
Mika Brzezinski
Now?
- [38:45]
Richard Haas
You know, the polling on this has always been interesting in that Republican voters are still traditional in their view of Russia, and they've opposed the invasion. They've held Russia responsible. You know, I think the question is, are Republicans in Congress willing to exert their will like they did in the first term? You know, there was a bill in the first term that was signed into law because Republicans in the House and Senate insisted on it that said that the President couldn't make any deals with Vladimir Putin without congressional sign off. People forget about that. But they've been Much more deferential this time around for all of the reasons we always discuss about the president's political comeback and where, you know, and his sort of takeover, his domination of the party from a sort of ideological and political standpoint, wherein in the first term he was still really an outsider in the party in the process, process of taking it over. So I don't really think that there's much that they're going to do until at least, number one, until this reconciliation package is pushed off the table. All of their energy, all of their effort. And this is true when we discuss the issue with the tariffs and all of the concerns about that, nothing's going to be dealt with until this package is off the table. Then maybe you get them to turn their attention to Russia and Ukraine. And the way they would do it, if they do it, is to say, say, we're here to help you, Mr. President. You're being hurt by this. Let us help you. You know, the question is whether they want to really get involved. They will love that and push back.
- [40:16]
Joe Scarborough
You know, though it is interesting, Jonathan Lemire, you look at Roger Wicker, who's a chairman of the Armed Services Committee, coming out strongly calling, calling Putin, I believe, you know, war criminal, but, but, but praising Zelensky. You have the most powerful Republicans in the House on the appropriate committees who have, who've always done that as well. So it seems the Republicans will continue to put pressure on, on the White House and on Putin if they get their chance. But, but I want to go back and talk about this relationship with Donald Trump again. And Willie, quoting Axios, the first thing we've heard thus far about Donald Trump's saying that these attacks by Ukraine were, quote, badass. But also your reporting shows that Donald Trump's patience with Vladimir Putin is growing thin right now. And there actually does seem, for the first time, from what I've read in your pieces, Italy, perhaps a change in the nature of that relationship as it pertains to this war.
- [41:29]
Sam Stein
Yeah, it has changed to a degree.
- [41:31]
Willie Geist
Yeah.
- [41:31]
Sam Stein
I mean, to the Axios story, heard similar things where he was impressed by the audacity of the attack, but still unhappy with it because it's going to prolong the war. And that's his biggest thought right now, is Trump simply wants this to be over with. He promised it in 24 hours to end it. That, of course, didn't happen. He does not inherently like the violence. He also wants to move on to trade deals and normalize relations with Russia. He just simply, obviously, he wants to put the conflict in his rearview mirror and he's exasperated with both men. It has been well established how his issues with Zelensky. But you're right, in recent weeks, his relationship with Putin has changed at least a degree. He's still largely deferential. The US has largely been deferential to Moscow throughout this process. But Trump is, he's fed up with some of Putin's stall tactics. You know, he has said publicly and privately, he now wonders if Putin actually does want to bring the war to a close. And to a lot of observers, it's like, well, yeah, that's been obvious for some time, but Trump is there now, too, and that might have some meaning. That said, the Senate sanctions bill has been sitting there. It's got 80 co sponsors, Graham, Graham Blumenthal, bill, and they're simply waiting for Trump to give the go ahead, like make this happen. And he hasn't yet. So he still wants to see this process play out a little further. Joe and Mika, but he's frustrated with both sides and anything that he thinks is prolonging the war, escalating the violence, draws his unhappiness.
- [42:52]
Mika Brzezinski
All right, senior writer for the Dispatch, David Drucker, thank you very much. His new piece entitled Weak and Woke Dems Seek to Improve Standing with Working Class Voters is available online right now. Thank you, David. And coming up, nine Democratic candidates for New York City mayor faced off in the first primary debate. We're going to bring you those highlights and tell you who Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is now endorsing. We're back in 90 seconds. Morning Joe will be. Be right back.
- [43:46]
Joe Scarborough
MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing.
- [43:50]
Mika Brzezinski
We've never experienced a moment like this.
- [43:52]
Julie Sirkin
In our country, and it leaves us.
- [43:53]
Joe Scarborough
All with a choice.
- [43:54]
Willie Geist
Are we gonna speak out or are.
- [43:56]
Julie Sirkin
We gonna be pressured into silence?
- [43:58]
Willie Geist
I've worked for presidents.
- [43:59]
Joe Scarborough
I've faced the tough questions from the.
- [44:00]
Mika Brzezinski
Press and even threats from the Kremlin.
- [44:02]
Willie Geist
And if there's one thing I've learned.
- [44:04]
Joe Scarborough
It'S that you can't cower to bullies.
- [44:06]
Willie Geist
You don't need to be hopeless.
- [44:07]
Julie Sirkin
We have our voices and I will continue using mine.
- [44:10]
Joe Scarborough
The Briefing with Jen Psaki Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC.
- [44:20]
Mika Brzezinski
Just before 10 minutes before the top of the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other making headlines this morning. The United Kingdom is pushing forward on plans to strengthen and expand its military. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled the spending blueprint this week, which called for the construction of new attack submarines, munitions plants and for the modernization of its nuclear warheads. As the Washington Post reports, Britain is a formidable military power, but analysts say it has been constrained in recent years by tight budgets. A Guatemalan man who was wrongfully deported to Mexico has been brought back to the United States. It comes after the Justice Department said it would comply with a federal judge's order to facilitate the man's return. He is expected to remain in federal custody as the Trump administration considers the next steps in his case. As the New York Times Times reports, the government's actions mark a significant departure from the defiant stance it has staked out in other immigration matters. We'll watch that. And a look at this date in history. 57 years ago today, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and later died after claiming victory in California's Democratic presidential primary. It happened at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. The gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested at the scene and is serving life in prison. Kennedy's assassination came just two months after the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was murdered in Memphis. And still ahead on Morning Joe, one of our next guests says, quote, we're being governed by the Trump Organization, incorporated. New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman will join us to explain what he calls Trump's gilded gut instinct. Plus, we'll bring you the latest in the president's feud with Harvard University as the White House suspends the school from participating in the student visa program. MORNING JOE will be right back.
- [46:40]
Willie Geist
We mentioned at the top of the show this proclamation signed by President Trump yesterday banning travel to the United states, states from 12 countries, reminding people of what he did in 2017 when he first came into office. And we should remind people this is something he promised literally on Inauguration Day. He asked the State Department and other organizations within the government to look at dangerous countries, as he would put it, where vetting is not sufficient, where there might be terrorist threats. And he's come up with the list that you see on the screen in front of you. This will get legal challenges, obviously, many of them. It's set to go into effect at midnight on Monday morning. But how do you see this playing out?
- [47:19]
Jonathan Lemire
Well, on the one hand, it's obviously significant. It's going to impact a lot of people's lives. On the other hand, it seems pretty evident to me that this is, you know, done as somewhat of a distraction. Right? I mean, the whole premise of this was this attack, this horrific anti Semitic attack in Boulder which prompted Trump to take this action that was from an Egyptian national. If you Pull up the names of the countries in that list. Egypt's not on the list. Okay. And then the second thing here is that Afghanistan, this one was particularly interesting because we are simultaneously saying that Afghanistan, the national security situation has deteriorated so badly in that country that we can no longer take people in from that country. On the same hand, we are also saying we are deporting people back from our country into Afghanistan, people who are translators, for instance, back into Afghanistan because the national security situation, situation in that country has stabilized. Those two things don't actually coexist in reality. And so, you know, yes, this will be legally challenged. Yes, this is a significant policy announcement. It will have ripple effects and immediate impacts on people's lives. But there obviously is politics at play here.
- [48:23]
Joe Scarborough
So, Richard, I want you to first of all give us an update on the pga. You've realized really fallen short as being our golf analyst where it is right now. Perhaps you can do that after you talk about your latest piece where you talk about the Trump Doctrine and on the Trump Doctrine, I want to ask you this. Are there places where, where disruption by Donald Trump doing it a way that other presidents have not done it? Are there some positive things coming out of that? Like for instance, Iran wanting to talk to, there was Britain saying, and other European nations saying, hey, we need to rebuild our, our military and in the Middle east shaking things up in the Middle east. So Netanyahu doesn't think we're going to depend solely on him as our only Middle east ally.
- [49:19]
David Drucker
Short answer to the latter is yes, and you chose some of the main ones. I think the idea of trying to reach an agreement with Iran where they would essentially get out of the nuclear weapons business is worth trying to. And the Israelis in some ways have set the table where I think he's got a shot at that, much more, by the way, than succeeding with Ukraine and Russia or succeeding with Israel and Hamas. I think the Europeans are all going to become somewhat more self sufficient. So, yeah, I think there is some good that's come out of that. I wouldn't have necessarily done it in exactly this way, to say the least, but I think there are some positives. My bigger argument is that in 20 years, Joe, we've gone from George W. Bush, who wanted to bring democracy to the world and transform it, to Donald Trump who basically says to the world, you go do what you want. We don't care. We don't care about human rights, we don't care about democracy. All we want to do is deals with you. So I think we're likely to see a world where there's less rule of war, rule of law. And then you see countries like Russia and China where, again, we just ignore what they're doing. What we're seeing is countries that treat their own citizens really badly also tend to treat their neighbors badly. And that's in the case of Russia. So I think this is a doctrine where we give up trying to have an impact on the world. And I think ultimately it'll make the world not just an uglier place, but also a messier, more violent place.