Katty Kay (4:50)

Yeah. It's only a matter of time probably before President Trump weighs in on that Hunter Biden interview because it seems like there's not a topic out of his reach at the moment. First on Hunter. Yes, I heard from some Democrats who felt like this wasn't helpful. There's certainly there's a element, a wing of the party that is desperate just to put the last year's election behind them to stop relitigating went wrong when so many things did go wrong. But you saw there, you know, A son angry at how his father has been treated by some in the media, but also by members of his own party. We know President Biden, he was sick, he was exhausted and he was old. This is the first time we've heard about the ambient element of this. But we do know his travel schedule was brutal. There were some in his camp who were second guessing that at the time, thinking he was doing too much shuttling back and forth between Europe events and the States. He had to go out to the west coast for a high profile fundraiser. We know the litany of things and certainly Hunter Biden angry about how his father has been treated. You know, some agree that like there's been a lot of finger pointing among Democrats at the Biden campaign and how it was run at the time. Others also are just eager for him to move on and the party to move on. But Joe, you're also right about President Trump. It's been a rare stretch here. He has not taken a question from the media he in a number of days. And look for all of the criticisms one can level of President Trump. He's extremely accessible to the press. He is. But he has not taken a single question from the press since the Wall Street Journal broke the story about the birthday letter he allegedly sent Jeffrey Epstein that came out Thursday night. We haven't seen him since, but we've heard from him quite a bit on Truth Social. And it does say, I'm told from aides that he has been angry about some of the coverage. He is trying to change the subject. We do expect that he'll have some public events today. He'll probably take some questions. We'll see where the story goes from here.

Joe Scarborough (6:48)

And we'll of course be talking about how the Wall Street Journal reporter has been pulled from the press pool for his overseas trip. But yeah, a lot of things going on. In fact, the lead in the Times today, Trump's deflections is bases fury over Epstein Caddy. This is the lead story and man, they're doing everything from releasing records from Martin Luther King Jr's assassination against the family's best wishes to spinning Oldies but Goldies, the political equivalent of Blueberry Hill. I mean, talking about Barack Obama and quote, Russiagate, which of course takes you back to the first months of Donald Trump's first administration.

Al Sharpton (7:39)

Yeah, I mean, far be it from any of us to suggest that Tulsi Gabbard may do something that is not directly in line with intelligence but might be political. But this does look like another political attempt to try and change the conversation. So here's what's going on. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard is threatening to prosecute members of the Obama administration over their handling of the 2016 Russian election interference probe. On Friday, Gabbard declassified a series of emails claiming officials manipulated and withheld key information from the public in an effort to undermine President Trump's entire first term in office and beyond. She says on December 8th of 2016, officials prepared an assessment that found Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, but they pulled that information before it reached President Obama. Gabbard then alleges that Obama directed his staff to create a new assessment on Russia, even though it would contradict other reports. Will note that just a week later, on December 16, President Obama also publicly said there was no credible evidence of voting totals being manipulated.

Joe Scarborough (8:50)

I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was of concern and will continue to be of concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted. They were counted appropriately.

Mika Brzezinski (9:15)

We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with.

Joe Scarborough (9:20)

So that assurance I can provide.

Al Sharpton (9:26)

Okay, so, I mean, it's worth remembering that Hillary Clinton had just lost the election at that point, but there is Barack Obama still saying this was not tampered with. It's also worth noting that in 2020, during President Trump's first term in office, the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee found Russia posed, quote, a grave counterintelligence threat to that 2016 presidential election. That report was signed off by the panel's acting chairman, Senator Marco Rubio, who is now, of course, President Trump's Secretary of State. Gabbard's report names former DNI James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey. Gabbard says she will provide the documents to the department, the doj. They've declined to comment. President Trump has praised the report's findings on Truth Social, calling it, quote, the crime of the century. House Speaker Mike Johnson also called for more accountability, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network he's ready to subpoena former President Obama to get more answers. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy criticized Gabbard's claims, calling them frivolous. In an op ed for the National Review, McCarthy writes in part, quote, no new light is shed on this episode by Gabbard's email disclosures last Friday, which unsurprisingly, were accompanied by an overwrought and misleading press release rather than an analytical report. I mean, the thing is, they're actually saying Kind of the same thing Barack Obama said. We have seen the evidence from intelligence community that there was Russian meddling. But as President Obama said, they didn't actually tamper with the machines.

Joe Scarborough (11:00)

But look at this. It's eight after, right? It's 608. And, and when you have one administration going after a former administration, you should report on it. But here we are, seven, eight, nine years later, going back over ground that's already been covered repeatedly. And again, it goes to the bigger question again that the Times is asking Caddy, you know, what's he distracting his base from? I mean, we're not talking about Jeffrey Epstein right now. We're not talking about his low approval ratings when it comes to immigration, how the CBS YouGov poll showed he's, he's really upside down on immigration when you look at his detention policies. We're not talking right now off the top of the show about any of that, which David Drucker means that perhaps this is part of a plan, especially when you hear the names Clapper and Comey and all these others. Again, ground that we've covered before. But why don't you take us through it and tell us what your reporting shows you about not only this story, but, you know, talking about the need for calling the Washington football team the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians. And we could go down the laundry list of things that the president's thrown against the wall over the past couple of days. Here we go on Joe Biden, President Obama, Adam Schiff, Martin Luther King Jr. Hillary US, the former USAID administrator, Harvard immigration, Rosie O' Donnell tariffs, NPR, PBS, and then, of course, ID student murders and sports teams. What, what's your take, David? What does your reporting tell you?

Jonathan Lemire (12:53)

Well, listen, Joe, I mean, it's the circus is back in town. I mean, we've been doing this now for a decade plus or yeah, we've been doing this for a decade plus. I think the president is most comfortable in this situation. In this case, it actually seems to be planned. But you know, you know, my favorite example of how, of how the president of the United States operates, you know, just go back to the opening days of his first term. There's so much skepticism of him. His polls are upside down from the get, which is unusual for presidents initially. Even the president this time around looked better in the first few months. He delivers a State of the Union address, a message to the joint session, and because of the low expectations, everybody's like, hey, he's presidential. This is amazing. Look at that. Not so bad. Two Days later, he goes on Twitter and he complains about President Obama spying on him. Right. I mean, he can't live in a good moment anyway. And obviously right now, you know, they're trying to get the one big beautiful bill act, that reconciliation package from upside down to right side up. He's having certain issues with his immigration strategy in terms of how it's being received in the public. And so it really does look like he's reaching. But the difference this time around is he has a, a staff around him, high ranking officials who instead of trying to push him off of stuff like this, are embracing it and furthering it. And so I just think this is what the next, you know, three plus years is going to look like. I don't think any of us should be surprised. This is the way the man functions. I mean, the question is, have voters largely become numb to all of this or do they really, after a while say, I wanted a secure border and a better economy and you're giving me chaos and I'm tired of it.

Joe Scarborough (14:44)

Yeah, I mean that, that really is a political question. I think. Jonathan Omere David. David's suggestion, and I completely agree with, I think, I think most voters are just completely at this point, not, not numb to it, but most just shrug their shoulders and say, hey, that's who he is. That's what he does. Again, pushing the reality TV show analogy out there. I mean, the one thing Donald Trump can't stand is a boring TV show. And, and so he keep, he does keep it churning in good times and bad times. In this case, though, I'm wondering if all of this lines up with what you and Ashley Parker reported a couple of days ago, which was really great insight, which is anything the staff suggested to the President on Epstein. And some of them were genuinely bad ideas. I mean, really Covid like press conferences every day on Jeffrey, whoever suggested that to him should, should like be, be removed from the White House. It's a stupid idea. But there were other ideas in there and the President was saying no, no, no. And they really didn't have a focus, a strategic attack against some of these Epstein charges from their own base. So who knows, maybe the best defense is an offense that just throws everything at the other side and at the media. And that appears to be what they're doing right now.

Katty Kay (16:22)

Yeah, those Covid style briefings, of course, back in 2000, 2020 really brought President Trump's poll numbers down. So hard to see the upside to that suggestion here. But, but you're right.

Joe Scarborough (16:31)

And by the way. I'm sorry to interrupt. I wanted to also talked about Epstein. I talked about his handling of immigration with the mass detentions and how he's upside down there. But David Drucker also brought up another great point right now. The numbers on the big, bold, beautiful bill, or whatever they call it, absolutely in the tank. And I'm wondering if this is not something that Republicans are deeply concerned about, especially with their new CBO estimates that show a $3.54 trillion addition to the debt and 10 million Americans over the next decade losing health insurance. 10 million more people will be without health insurance 10 years from now than now because of the bill that Mike Johnson passed.

Katty Kay (17:20)

Yeah, there's real anxiety from Republicans about this. It's a, it's a triumph that they got something passed. It's, it's law. It's their entire agenda. But here's a sign as to how anxious they are. There are lawmakers who voted for it who are already trying to undo parts of it. Senator Josh Hawley already tried to put forward to try to eliminate some of these Medicaid cuts because he knows the impact it's going to have on his constituents in Missouri and those nationwide. So there is real trouble there. And each poll that we see about the so called one big beautiful bill suggests it is really underwater. And to your point about the Epstein matter, we haven't heard from President Trump publicly, but he is, as we reported, angry behind the scenes that there have been Republicans who've been willing to defy him, particularly those influencer types, and that the White House is sort of casting about for a strategy and they think that they have one now. And just in terms of trying to change the subject, they were able to unify their anger against the Wall Street Journal, suggesting that story was part of fake news bias, quote, quote. And now as you mentioned at the top of the show, Joe, the White House, which has seized control of the White House press pool, has now banned the Wall Street Journal from the travel pool, from the president's upcoming trip to Scotland this weekend. He's going to go golfing at some of his golf courses. So there is some real anger there. And they're trying to distract by throwing so much up against the wall, including more than 200,000 pages of documents related to the assassination and FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Those were declassified and released to the public yesterday. The documents had been under seal by a court since 1977 when they were first handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration. The massive document dump includes DOJ leads into Dr. King's assassination. It's not immediately clear if the files include any new information on Dr. King's life or murder. The King family was opposed to the public release of the records. They were given advance access to the documents, but in a lengthy statement asked anyone from the public also combing through the files to quote, do so with empathy, restraint and respect for the family's continuing grief. Bernice King, the daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Posted this picture on social media with the caption that simply reads now do the Epstein files and Reverend Sharpton it this one. You know, there have been some promises early in the administration that eventually they would release files into the MLK assassination. They already released some into the JFK assassination. It was a pretty partial batch. More promise. They might turn to Robert F. Kennedy Sr. At some point too. But this is what's striking about this one is the family really didn't want it. They didn't want the wound to be opened again. They didn't want any sort of embarrassing information to come out. They simply were like, we've moved on, the nation's moved on and they're flat out saying what a lot of us are suspecting here. This is simply an attempt to change the conversation from the Epstein matter, but also other things that are really dragging down the President's approval ratings.

Kim Ghattas (20:28)

No, this is clearly a distraction. The fact of the matter is to say you're going to release over 200,000 pages goes possibly beyond the assassination. And the concern the family has had, and I work closely with Martin iii, is that there was a lot in that file, possibly by Jedga Hoover and others who clearly were anti Dr. King had a bias. It has been well documented that J. Edgar Hoover and others had put out stories that were false about Dr. King. If these are now put out in the documents as truth because people decades later do not understand what Jed Hoover's FBI was like, what he was trying to do to the civil rights movement and Dr. King. You could smear man in your attempt to just distract us from what's going on today. So let me get this right. You can bring files out that's been under seal since 77 that were not even supposed to release be released now until a couple years from now. But you can't bring out files on Epstein. I mean, does he think the American public is that stupid? So you go after so called Native Americans, you're saying they're not Native Americans. You go after Obama, you go after King. So you throw all the race stuff and then the other stuff, anything that tried to distract and I think that the King family was right to try to protect the name of Dr. King, particularly if these are using some of Hoover's lies. But at the same time, I think Bernice King is right, saying what about the Epstein files? Don't try to smear my father. Let's deal with today's agenda.

Joe Scarborough (22:09)

You know, Rev, it's very interesting. You're talking about Martin Luther King Jr. Being smeared. It's already really happened over the past 40, 50 years where you've had these rumors that have leaked out and these personal smears against Dr. King that have leaked out. When again is a lot of legal scholars have been saying for some time and even said to the New York Times yesterday after this news broke that a lot of these smears are probably false and probably false because J. Edgar Hoover despised Martin Luther King. FBI agents were sent you talk about a witch hunt, sent on a witch hunt to attack him, to put personal things into files, you know, try to prove that he was a communist. So there are a lot of things that have been out there even in popular culture for a very long time now that are likely untrue and likely untrue because again, Hoover basically ordered his FBI agents to go out and find dirt on Martin Luther King.

Kim Ghattas (23:22)

No doubt about it. In fact, they sent tapes. I remember Mrs. King telling us how they sent tapes to the house of Dr. King to Mrs. King supposedly with all kind of salacious stuff on the tapes and which was false and telling Dr. King another letter, you know, what to do, like suggesting he remove himself from public life. So is these are the things they want released now to the public. So some of our conspiracy theorists on the other side start bringing out things that have been discredited 40, 50 years ago and bring that kind of pain on the King family. A granddaughter who he never lived to see is just so unfair and outrageous at this time.

Al Sharpton (24:09)

Yeah. President Trump finds himself in the unusual position of not being on the right side of the culture wars, not being ahead of it. And he's trying looks with all of that great list that you had up just a second ago that we had up of all the things he's posting about, it looks like he is just trying to get back in front of the culture wars into a position he's more familiar with. We'll have more on that, of course, coming up on the program. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll bring you the latest on the legal battle between Harvard University and the White House as A judge questions the Trump administration's reasoning for stripping the school of billions of dollars in research funding. Plus, what we're learning about the death of Malcolm Jamal Warner, who played the actor who played Theodore Huxtable in the Cosby show. And a reminder that the Morning Joe Podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

Mika Brzezinski (25:05)

MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of the Briefing.

David Drucker (25:08)

We've never experienced a moment like this in our country, and it leaves us.

Al Sharpton (25:12)

All with a choice.

David Drucker (25:13)

Are we gonna speak out or are we gonna be pressured into silence?

Al Sharpton (25:16)

I've worked for presidents.

David Drucker (25:17)

I've faced the tough questions from the press and even threats from the Kremlin.

Joe Scarborough (25:21)

And if there's one thing I've learned.

David Drucker (25:22)

It'S that you can't cower to bullies. We don't need to be hopeless. We have our voices, and I will continue using mine.

Mika Brzezinski (25:28)

The Briefing with Jen Psaki Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.

Joe Scarborough (25:45)

The second Trump administration has gone to.

David Drucker (25:47)

Unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.

Mika Brzezinski (25:50)

Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from expert shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com Jamal Warner, who was.

Al Sharpton (26:06)

Nominated for an Emmy for his role as Theodore Huxtable on the Cosby show, has died at the age of 54 after an accidental drowning in Costa Rica. NBC News entertainment correspondent Chloe Malas has more on his life and his legacy.

Joe Scarborough (26:22)

Is this my shirt?

Al Sharpton (26:24)

Is this the shirt I paid for?

David Drucker (26:25)

$30 for Malcolm Jamal Warner was just 14 when the Cosby show catapulted him to superstardom.

Joe Scarborough (26:32)

Hey, what's happening, dad?

David Drucker (26:34)

He became a household name playing Theo Huxtable, the only son of TV parents Bill Cosby and Phylicia Rashad.

Kim Ghattas (26:41)

The Cosby show has been a wonderful beginning and a wonderful stepping stone.

David Drucker (26:46)

Now the beloved actor is dead at the age of 54. Investigators in Costa Rica say that the actor drowned Sunday afternoon while swimming in the province of Limon after he was swept away by a ocean current, according to the investigators, who say Warner was rescued by bystanders and taken to the shore. He was treated by first responders, they added, but pronounced dead at the scene due to asphyxia. Warner leaves behind a wife and daughter just A few months ago, he posted this video on Instagram with a flower from his daughter tucked behind his ear.

Kim Ghattas (27:18)

No matter what's going on, there's always a reason to smile.

David Drucker (27:22)

Warner spent eight seasons in his breakout role on the Cosby show.

Al Sharpton (27:30)

Then went.

David Drucker (27:30)

On to build an impressive on screen career starring in Malcolm and Eddie.

Joe Scarborough (27:37)

I don't need you to explain taking.

David Drucker (27:39)

On reoccurring roles in suits and the Resident.

Kim Ghattas (27:42)

Do you think MY behavior is a weakness?

Joe Scarborough (27:45)

No, that's my superpower.

David Drucker (27:48)

Warner was also an accomplished musician, even winning a Grammy in 2015. He recently launched a podcast called Not All Hood, aimed at telling important stories within the black community, the latest episode dropping just days before his death.

Kim Ghattas (28:03)

I loved your take and your reminder that the hood should be as celebrated as the rest of the lanes of black culture.

David Drucker (28:15)

Among those honoring Warner, former co star Tracee Ellis Ross, who wrote what an actor and friend you were. Warm, gentle, present, kind, thoughtful, deep, funny, elegant. You made the world a brighter place.

Joe Scarborough (28:28)

I think I've been blessed, but I've also worked hard for it and it feels good.

Al Sharpton (28:36)

Too young. Our thoughts are with his family. NBC's Chloe Melas with that report. Turning to other news now, the Trump administration and Harvard traded jabs yesterday during a pivotal court hearing over the government's threats to cut billions of dollars from the university's federal research funding. Harvard attorneys accused the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights by freezing the funds, claiming the White House is trying to dictate how the school operates. The Justice Department argued that Harvard violated the Civil Rights act by failing to address anti Semitism on campus and claimed the government has the authority to cancel the grants after determining the funding did not align with the administration's priorities of combating antisemitism. US District Judge Alison Burroughs questioned how the administration could make ad hoc decisions to cancel grants without offering evidence that any of the funded research is antisemitic. The judge called the government's claims mind boggling, asking how cutting off medical research funding could help fight antisemitism. Trump then lashed out at the judge on social media and slammed Harvard and claiming his administration, quote, will not stop until there is victory. Both Harvard and the government were seeking summary judgments to avoid a trial. It's unclear exactly when Judge Burroughs is expected to issue her ruling. I mean, I've spoken to people who are professors at Harvard about this and they said that whether or not the administration has the right to do this, there has to go through a process. I mean, it's this due process idea. There is a procedure. And that's what the administration haven't done. They haven't done the full investigation. They haven't follow procedure. And that's why the judge is able to issue this ruling.

Joe Scarborough (30:13)

Right. And also obviously, First Amendment concerns, again, cutting off medical research because you don't like how, how a university is conducting itself in the classrooms, obviously very problematic. Let's bring it right now, national correspondent for the New York Times, Alan Blinder, who wrote about yesterday's hearing at a New York Times piece and also former state attorney from Palm Beach County, Florida, and Harvard grad Dave Ehrenberg, who is here to tell us that, yes, even Harvard graduates believe the university needs to be reformed, if not by the federal government. Alan, let's start with you. Harvard's attorney seems, seems at a very receptive audience in the judge. But they called what the Trump administration was doing a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment. It is a constitutional third rail, or should be, for the government to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination. Explain that if you will, to our friends watching right now. And also how the rest of the hearing went down.

Alan Blinder (31:25)

It didn't go especially well for the government. I mean, the DOJ sent exactly one walgger and to argue to Judge Burroughs. But essentially, Harvard's argument rests on two things. It rests on a First Amendment argument that the government can't just, you know, willy nilly strike away grants because they don't like what Harvard does. And when Harvard refused those demands, we saw back in April. And then they've got a more technical argument around some of the stuff you were talking about with procedures and processes not being followed. It's about a two hour hearing. And for most, for a good chunk of the time, the judge just kind of barraged the Justice Department's lawyer with questions and asked essentially, how can you do this to Harvard? And by the way, if you really are looking to make Harvard a real titan of American academia and keep it that way, she wasn't sure that taking away billions in research funding was the way to do it, or at least that's what she suggested.

Joe Scarborough (32:17)

Well, and also, Ellen, she pointed out, as did the lawyers from Harvard, there's just not a tight nexus between taking away, stripping away research funding, whether it's for Alzheimer's or cancer or AI research and their problem with viewpoint diversity in classrooms.

Alan Blinder (32:42)

She went off on that and she said, look, I'm a Jewish woman. I'm an American. I'm not, let's say we're not convinced that Harvard covered Itself in glory, I think, was the term she used on antisemitism. And then she immediately went and to this question of, let's say that's possible, how is this research funding connected to countering anti Semitism? You're not going after a lab that's been anti Semitic.

Joe Scarborough (33:06)

Right.

Alan Blinder (33:07)

And there wasn't really a clear answer for that.

Joe Scarborough (33:10)

Well, I'm curious, Alan, what impact would it have at the trial court level, especially when they're gathering facts that the president of Harvard, Harvard is saying, yes, we've made mistakes. We've. We need to be more ideologically diverse. There were some things we could have done better during the protests after October 7th. How does that play into building the record for Harvard that their, their, their president's aggressively saying, we've made mistakes, we're fixing them, and would like to work with the government together to fix those problems?

Alan Blinder (33:49)

That's exactly one of the things Harvard has argued is that they're not condoning anti Semitism. In fact, the Justice Department's lawyer kept holding up a three ring binder yesterday with Harvard's own report about anti Semitism when it released a few weeks after the administration really went on the attack against the university. And the judge said this yesterday. She said, no one is saying this is a debate if I rule in Harvard's favor, it's not that I am condoning antisemitism or anything like that. She said, this is a question of whether you can legally connect research funding and grant funding to anti Semitism. And that's the matter before her. It's not a matter of what Harvard has done or hasn't done.

Joe Scarborough (34:34)

Yeah. And Dave Ehrenberg, as a Harvard grad, you and I have talked at length about our concerns a couple of years ago that Harvard didn't do enough to protect Jewish students on campus during the protests that sprung up after October the seventh. Talk about, as an attorney, as somebody that studied this, how you see this going and whether you agree that Harvard understands it didn't do enough before and is trying to move in the right direction.

I (35:09)

Yeah, Joe, you know, I loved Harvard. It was a dream of mine and my parents to get in there. And I became student government president. It was just a transformative experience for me. But I walked away from my support of Harvard after October 7, when the 33 student organizations signed a letter that blasted Israel and blamed Israel for October 7, not Hamas. They justified the atrocities of October 7, and the weak administration did almost nothing about it, almost nothing about the encampments, the threats and intimidation and ostracization of Jewish students. So that really turned me and a lot of other alums off. And I give credit to President Garber. He has tried to do the right thing on this. But antisemitism on Harvard's campus is real. It's not made up by the Trump administration. But at the same time, it does look like that the Trump administration, instead of excising the cancer, is using a shovel and is beating the patient to death. I mean, why cut cancer funding from Harvard? What does that have to do with antisemitism? Why ban all foreign students for the sins of some? And so I do think that Harvard will win at the district court level. This is the same judge, mind you, who ruled for Harvard when it came to the ban on international students. She's going to rule for Harvard again here. But on appeal, that could be tougher for Harvard. At the Supreme Court, they may buy into the administration's argument that there are strings attached to money, and it's up to the executive branch to make those decisions. So if I were Harvard, I would try to settle this before it ever gets to the Supreme Court. And keep in mind, if you're going to go blame the tyrannical actions of a federal government, you also have to look within and address the tyranny on your own campus, the lack of free speech and the lack of academic freedom.

Katty Kay (37:02)

Dave, on that point, there's also precedents that could be set here that the Trump administration is trying to exert extraordinary power over universities across the country beyond Harvard. So talk to us about, you know, if they're able to do this, if they're able to slash funding, if they're able to try to, you know, as you just noted, try to restrict the, you know, the ability to enroll international students. And they have a Supreme Court that seems more apt than not to take their side. Talk to us about the chilling effect that could have on universities around the country. Should they all be looking to cut deals with the federal government? That seems to fly in the face of what a lot of these universities, principles they're founded upon.

I (37:47)

Yes, well, Columbia is trying to do that, but Harvard has the biggest target on its back because it is Harvard. And Harvard is saying, we're trying to fix these problems. This isn't about antisemitism, but rather Trump trying to regulate campus speech, the admissions process, hiring, and this is punishment for having the reputation of being the biggest, most prominent bastion of liberal thought. And so I get that. Plus, as Alan correctly said, there are procedural issues here that the Trump administration needs to follow certain steps on Title 6 and the administrative Procedures act, which they didn't. That could be the out here if this ever gets to the Supreme Court. Because you could see see Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts saying, okay, administration, you didn't follow the procedural steps, even though substantively you're right and you can withhold the money. So maybe that's the way out here. But you're right, Jonathan, this could set a chilling precedent for all universities. And that's why until the Supreme Court rules and I don't know if you want them to rule if you're a university, because of the way the Supreme Court has ruled lately about executive power, you may want to to settle with the administration.

Joe Scarborough (38:54)

Well, it certainly has allowed Alan, I'd be curious, get your take on it. The Supreme Court has certainly allowed the executive branch more latitude in controlling the executive branch. I think that's quite different though, than engaging in viewpoint discrimination against the university and cutting cancer research, cutting Alzheimer's research coverage, cutting R and D for AI, you know, putting us behind in race against China. All of of course, that's, that's my editorial, of course, not yours. As a reporter, I am curious so where you see this going and lining up the Supreme Court decisions from this past term, where it might fall. When you're looking at where Amy Coney Barrett, where Justice Rob Chief Justice Roberts.

Alan Blinder (39:43)

Would rule, I think what's interesting is that Harvard very clearly built its legal team with a long term goal in mind. They didn't build this just thinking this was going to go before Judge Burroughs, the lawyer who was arguing for Harvard yesterday. As a former Scalia clerk, you've got really some stalwarts of the conservative bar all over that legal team. Robert her, the old special counsel in the Biden documents investigation, Trump U.S. attorney was in the courtroom for Harvard yesterday. So you've got a group of lawyers who's really expecting this to go to Washington. That said, we do know that Harvard and the Trump administration have been involved in settlement talks for about a month now. That's what was so surprising about the president's social media post yesterday. He really went after Harvard. Yet just last month he was saying he thought there could be a deal between the university and the administration within a week or so. That obviously didn't come to pass. And the administration just kept pelting Harvard every step of the way.

Al Sharpton (40:41)

Yeah, a bit like we were talking about earlier in the program. There is an element of the culture wars in this too. And the president wanting to stay ahead of those. National correspondent for the New York Times, Alan Blinder. Thank you. And his latest piece on the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration is available. You can read it online now. Former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, as ever, Dave Adenberg. Thank you very much for joining us too. Coming up, we'll bring you the latest on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza following an attack on a unconscious convoy that was trying to deliver aid. Morning Joe. We'll be right back in just a moment.

Mika Brzezinski (41:17)

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

Joe Scarborough (41:35)

The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.

Mika Brzezinski (41:39)

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at msnbc.com project47. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access. Add free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

David Drucker (42:18)

Look, the president enjoys a good working relationship with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and stays in, you know, frequent communication with him. He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza, which, as you know, I addressed at my briefing last week. And in both accounts, the president quickly called the prime minister to rectify those situations.

Al Sharpton (42:42)

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt there telling reporters yesterday that President Trump was caught off guard by Israel's strikes in Syria last week as well as a strike on a Catholic church in Gaza. Israel has said the strike on the church was caused by stray ammunition which hit the church by mistake and that it's opened an investigation into the matter. Meanwhile, Israel is facing criticism after its troops fired on UN Convoys who were trying to deliver aid on Sunday. Israel says it fired warning shots to deter threats as the trucks were headed towards areas controlled by Hamas. Critics on both sides blame each other here on their aid systems, while experts on aid distribution say that the real issue is Israel's failure to plan, leaving access in Gaza fractured and civilians caught in the crossfire. Joe, I mean, these pictures that are coming out of Gaza at the moment are just A heartbreaking. And again and again, we're seeing pictures of civilians and children and families lining up to try and get food and then getting caught by Israeli fire.

Joe Scarborough (43:45)

Well, and Kadi, yeah, the deaths, the violence against these children, against these civilians who are starving and trying to get food for their family. They go to relief sites and either either bombs are dropped or they're shot. And of course, also, it seems so many supporters of Israel tried to put this down as propaganda from Hamas. But you have, we've had the International Red Cross on twice talking about the numbers of civilians that are being slaughtered while they're going there and trying to get food relief in a region that's been on the precipice of famine now for a year. And you have UN Convoys being attacked by Israel trying to bring food in. It really is, it is a despicable, deplorable, pick the word situation that continues even a year, even a year after so many people in the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence services said there are no more military aims in Gaza that we can achieve. We need to move to the next phase. And Netanyahu just refuses to do it. Let's bring in right now contributing editor for the Financial Times, Kim Gattash. She is also a contributing writer at the Atlantic. Kim, much to talk to you about. I first want to talk about this story that I just don't think is being picked up enough in the US Press. The Times has done a great job over the past two, three days putting it on the front page, talking about all of the Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas, all of these Palestinian children who are being slaughtered, their families, their grandparents being slaughtered as they try to get enough food to keep their family alive. Since Israel doesn't allow journalists in a lot, a lot of these areas, these relief areas, what can you tell us about what's happening on the ground there?

J (45:50)

Joe, great to be with you on the show. I read a statement yesterday by the journalist Society of the French news agency Agence France Press, and they were describing what their own journalists were going through in Gaza. They've been reporting on this war now for almost two years. And their colleagues in Paris and around the world can see them withering away, thinning away, because they don't have enough food. They have the money. They can get the money to them, but there isn't enough for them to buy. They're down to one meal a day, sometimes one meal every two days. And it's really quite a sight seeing some of these journalists. Also for Al Jazeera or others, because there are journalists in Gaza. They're just Palestinian journalists. And you know, that has caused some to question their reporting. But they're there on the ground. They are doing an incredible job. They are the voice of Gaza at the moment. They are giving us all this reporting with their phones, with whatever means they have. And we're watching, watching some of them become thinner and thinner on television. And that's really quite something. And that is those are people who have the possibility, who have connections to the outside, who have money. They just can't get the food. And the statement by Jeans France Press ends with this awful line which says, we've, you know, since our founding In, I think, 1954, we've had many colleagues die in conflicts by violence and accidents. But we've never seen our colleagues die from hunger. And that just sends a chill down your spine.

Al Sharpton (47:32)

Yeah. Kim, what's the latest thinking in the region? And you spend so much time in Beirut about what the Israeli government, what Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan is. Here we see him stepping up today. I think, for the first time, they're in a long time. There are tanks back in Gaza again. We've seen the bombing of new civilian areas that hadn't been bombed until recently. You've written about this. What's the political game plan? Is there just still not one, or is it still just to prolong the war as long as possible?

J (48:06)

I think there is no plan beyond prolonging the war, and I'm not the one saying it. We're watching it unfold. We're hearing it from Americans officials, from Israeli officials who oppose Mr. Netanyahu's or former officials who oppose Mr. Netanyahu's lack of vision. You had a guest on television yesterday talk about strategic malpractice. There were so many military victories over the last year or so in Lebanon, in Gaza, in maybe in Yemen, not so sure. Iran to be debated, inconclusive. And Israel could have capitalized on those military victories to put forward a diplomatic vision for the region. But as the New York Times so brilliantly demonstrated in its last report last week, and you had Ronan Bergman on yesterday as well, Benjamin Netanyahu is simply trying to prolong the war until the next election to save his political career. And that has led a lot of people in the Middle east, including people in, you know, officials in Gulf countries feel like they are hostages now to Benjamin Netanyahu's political career. You know, very often Arab countries have been told, you know, you're not doing enough to advance your own, you know, reforms, progress, you know, to improve your economies. And you should forget about the Palestinian cause. You know, we'll deal with that when we can deal with it. Well, now the region is moving forward. You know, look at Saudi Arabia, incredible progress despite, you know, lack of political freedoms in Syria, where it got rid of Bashar al Assad. There are problems ahead for sure. Lebanon, Hezbollah's decapitated, decimated. But we can't move forward really as a whole, as a region with Israel as long as this war continues in Gaza.

Joe Scarborough (49:54)

One is a mistake, actually. There are great things about the Abraham Accords. One of the things I express concerns about from the very beginning is a Middle east peace that doesn't include a solution for the Palestinians is sure to fail. And, and we've seen it here, this fighting continues. That's the next piece of the Abraham Accords, figuring out a solution to this problem, especially with, with, with, with famine in Gaza, at least on the verge of hitting Gaza. David Drucker, I'd love to bring you in here and talk about President Trump's relationship, very complicated relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, Carolyn Levitt saying that the president was surprised by the attack on Syria actually says much more than it appears on the surface. Donald Trump does not want to be surprised by Benjamin Netanyahu attacking a country that he's trying to stabilize. Then you add on top of that, the attack of the Catholic Church, the bombing of the Catholic Church that Pope Leo criticized earlier this week, continued Christian persecution and the west bank by Israeli settlers, violence against Christians on the West Bank. I'm wondering where you see this going and if the president's going to speak up more aggressively against what Netanyahu is doing.

Jonathan Lemire (51:22)

Yeah, really good question. And, you know, I think it's especially perplexing for the President because he keeps trying to sort of withdraw the United States from the Middle east, reduce our military and diplomatic commitments there. Not necessarily a good idea, regardless. But that's what the President wants to do. I think. I think the more important part of this discussion as it relates to the United States, Joe, particularly from Israel's perspective, is that we've seen a rising hostility to Israel among younger progressives, but not just younger progressives, but younger conservatives. When I talk to Republican operatives in MAGA circles, they talk about the fact they tell me that younger conservatives do not have the same affinity and sort of love for Israel and support for Israel as rank and file Republicans do. And so as the Netanyahu government and the Israeli government generally figures out how it wants to operate going forward. It needs to take a couple of things into account. One, there are lots of American voters that have been raised in a different era and look at Israel differently, rightly or wrongly. And number two, I think Israel has to look ahead and prepare for the, the possibility, number one, that there'll be a Democrat in the White House in 2029. And just next year, Republicans could lose control of one or both chambers of Congress. That affects military funding and other support for Israel. I think Israel often gets blamed and blamed for things that happen in the Middle east because it's easier to go to a Democratic ally and ask them to do things differently. Even though this entire war in Gaza was the result of Hamas on the October 7th atrocities. Right. And Hamas could easily just disband and return the remaining hostages. That would change things on the ground. But the way domestic politics in the United States works and international politics works is that people look at Israel as a powerful country with agency in a way that they do not with other countries in the region, let alone the Palestinians in the territories. And they expect Israel to function according to, to standards which Israel should. But my point here is that Israel has to take all of this into account, and they need to find a way through this and not just assume blanket American support, shielding them from international criticism in perpetuity.

Joe Scarborough (53:56)

And you're right, the United States has shielded Israel from international criticism. There has been, have been over the past few years. There have been important gains strategically by Israel against Hamas, against Hezbollah, against Islamic Jihad, against Iran. I mean, Israel basically wiped out Iran's air defenses with the help of the United States and certainly with the help of the United States intel. But Jonathan Meir, David brings up a great point. And the great point is right now, the assumption that Israel will always blindly have American support is a faulty assumption, especially if you look at younger Americans on both the right and on the left. And I'm saying this as someone who has been a light, lifelong supporter of Israel. And what we're focusing on here is something again, the David Ignatius where general hurdling other military people who have been supportive of Israel their entire life, saying what the Israeli military has been saying for a year, what intel officials in Israel have been saying for a year, there is no military objective left left in Gaza. They have to go to clean up operations, where they start rebuilding, whether that's bringing in a regional peacekeeping force, whatever it is. And that's why I think the New York Times article last week was so important, so relevant, because Benjamin Netanyahu continues to fight this war in Gaza long after military gains become negligible and the people are suffering there. If you care about Israel, then you care about the fact that civilians continue to be gunned down. They continue to be bombed. Catholic churches continue to be bombed. Evangelical Christians continue to be persecuted in the West Bank. None of this is good for Israel. None of this is good for the long term political health of Israel, especially in the United States where younger Americans are not like me. They're not reflexively, as they grow up, supporting Israel on all points. That's why this is madness. And it seems to me Donald Trump.

Jonathan Lemire (56:41)

Trump.

Joe Scarborough (56:43)

Would be especially, especially upset again by the attack on Syria without talking to him. And also by Netanyahu continuing to flood the zone with these horrible images and these horrible stories where the International Red Cross, the United nations, other relief agencies talking about the attacks against civilians who were starving to death.

Katty Kay (57:10)

Yeah. At this point, it is nearly impossible to defend Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza. There are, as guests tell us each and every day on our show, Joe, there are no more military objectives left. And that what we're hearing, accounts of women and children simply lined up to get food, being gunned down. We know there's real fears of famine and starvation. We talked about that a few minutes ago. It is a, it is a humanitarian crisis and yes, politically dangerous for Israel to stoke this much anger, which as the Times reported, seemingly to just keep the political hopes alive of one man. So, Kim, let me go to you then on that very point we just discussed. There's certainly some president anger from President Trump. We'll see how that effectively changes the relationship, whether he will act upon it or not. But, you know, you're a frequent visitor to the region. You're there living it, talking to people there. What is the mood there that you've talked to within Israel but also regionally about what the patience they might have for Netanyahu? Trump wants his criminal case to go away. You know, Netanyahu still faces some legal peril. What is the mood there in Israel and beyond its borders about just how Netanyahu is conducting his time in office now?

J (58:30)

So just a quick point first about, you know, the humanitarian crisis and the military goals. Even if there were military goals that Israel were still trying to achieve, that does not excuse the humanitarian crisis and the lack of food and aid entering Gaza. You cannot condition by international humanitarian law, you cannot use aid and food as a weapon. So I think we need to make that clear. Even if there were military goals you cannot allow people to starve while you're conducting your war. And Israel in particular has a responsibility because it is also the occupying power in a way now back in Gaza, but also in the west bank in the rest of the region. I think we have to remember that. But Benjamin Netanyahu is not only holding the region hostage, but also Israel and Israelis have been living in a dark tunnel of fear and war and trauma since October 7th. And they also deserve to be given a vision for how they could live at peace and security in the region. And war, war, war, until some unknown victory destination is really not what I think most Israelis want. And we're seeing increasingly that show up in the polls and people are demonstrating and protesting against Netanyahu in the streets in the rest of the region. I think there is, you know, great frustration and disappointment with Netanyahu's belligerence, particularly when it comes to continued strikes in Lebanon, where there is supposed to be a ceasefire since November in Syria, where the new governing authorities, Interim President Ahmad Al Shara has responded 0 times to Israeli military strikes and has signaled again and again that he does not want war with Israel and that he wants to engage in talks for security arrangements. And so there is real frustration in Saudi Arabia, in the rest of the region about Netanyahu's belligerence, but also disappointment in the apparent inability of President Trump, Trump to rein in Netanyahu and allow this vision of the Abraham Accords to go forward. I think it's going to be very difficult to get the Saudis on board for this unless there is a clear signal from the Israelis, from Netanyahu that they're willing to consider, as the Saudis have said, credible and irreversible steps towards a Palestinian state. But before we get there, let's at least get the aid in and stop the war and get the hostages.

Al Sharpton (61:09)

Such an important point. And war, war doesn't help the Israelis either. Contributing writer at the Atlantic and contributing editor at the Financial Times, King Friend, thank you very much for joining us. And senior writer for the Dispatch, David Drucker. David, as ever, thank you as well.

Mika Brzezinski (61:26)

MSNBC presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with actor Jeff Daniels.

Joe Scarborough (61:36)

When you check out of the Ambition Hotel, you kind of go, okay, now I just want to do stuff that keeps me interested.

Mika Brzezinski (61:43)

The best people with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access and free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.