Morning Joe - AG Bondi: ‘All’ Epstein files have been released

Episode Date: February 16, 2026

AG Bondi: ‘All’ Epstein files have been released To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Who gives a shit who owns Greenland? I don't. I've heard it said by someone that who gives a shit about who owns Greenland. The 55,000 indigenous people of Greenland give a shit about who owns Greenland. And at the end of the day, we need to show them respect. Gene Shaheen with that head nod, that's the exchange between Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Tillis coming on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. We're going to go through the big takeaways, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, taking a less aggressive tone with European allies than President Trump did in Switzerland just last month. It comes as envoy Steve Whitkoff and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner,

are set to meet tomorrow with Iran's foreign minister. We'll preview that high-stakes sit-down. We also have a lot to cover on the issue of immigration from borders our Tom Homan's new comments on ICE operations in Minnesota to new reporting on the harsh conditions families and children are facing inside the Dillie Immigration Processing Center in Texas. Plus will dig into a concerning story tied to President Trump's fix. on the 2020 election, a lawyer involved with Stop the Steel movement is now playing a key role in his current administration because why not? Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Monday, February 16th. I'm Ali Vitale in for Joe Meekha and Willie on this president's day with us for the hour.

Is MS now senior Washington reporter and co-host of the weekend, Eugene Daniels. Eugene, we have a lot to get to this morning. We're going to dive right into it. We begin with the latest development surrounding the files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In a letter to Congress on Saturday, day, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the Justice Department has released all of those files, claiming it had fulfilled its obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That's a little bit up for debate. The letter also outlined its justification for the redactions made in the released files, explaining they were limited to victim privacy, including personally identifiable information and medical details. Republican Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky, who led the charge to pass

the Epstein Files Transparency Act, along with Democratic Congressman Rokana, was asked yesterday about this new reasoning from DOJ. Watch. Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions, so you are not satisfied with that. No, they're citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Rokana and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not

prosecute whether to investigate or not investigate. Do you still have confidence in Pam Bondi as Attorney General? I don't think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn't confident enough to engage in anything but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don't have confidence in her. I'm not really sure he ever did, but that's also beside the point. Bondi's letter to Congress also included a list of more than 300, quote, politically exposed people. whose names appear in the files in a variety of contexts. They include Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and other politicians, business people, and artists. I mean, Eugene, when I look at this, this is the letter that we've been waiting for from the Attorney General.

It is weeks and weeks late. But then again, so is the full release of the Epstein files. Because even as they say that they're being fully transparent, there are members of Congress looking at the files, literally saying, I see things that are missing. I still want more information about X, Y, or Z. but now the DOJ is basically saying too bad? I mean, what happens next? They're saying they're done at the end of the day, right?

That we have fulfilled our obligation. The problem is they weren't on time. They were very late. And they don't seem to have fulfilled the obligation of the law. When we talked to a bunch of Congress folks, I know you did too, just about this idea of client attorney privilege, right? They say that there are certain things that are redacted because of client attorney privilege. Who's the client and who's the attorney?

That also wasn't a reason why they could redact. In the literal law. In the literal law. And some of the redactions that they've done, they kind of explained why, but they were supposed to, according to lawmakers who wrote the law, explain each redaction, right? Maybe that's coming soon at some point. But with Pam Bonney saying, Finito, that we have fulfilled our obligation with this list of 300 folks, you know, Beyonce's on there.

You know, Maryland Monroe was on there. There's a lot of dead people on there. Elvis. Elvis. People whose names were in tweets that got picked up and they, do it on this list, kind of a, you know, poking their eye at Congress, as she did this week. Yeah. I think what's really interesting here and concerning is that both both the White House, the DOJ,

have not really focused on the victims. Right. Right. They have not taken that aspect of it seriously. We have talked to a lot of survivors on our show. I know you guys have as well. And every time they have felt that this DOJ, this administration, and administration's past have never done them right.

They have always ignored them. They have put them to the side, and that is only going to continue. What happens next is more of this, I think. More of members of Congress begging for more information and not getting it. And this is also why I think it's so important that we've seen these parallel tracks, right? Yes, Congress is the initial genesis of this law that pushed for compulsion of transparency here. But that's just one side of this equation. The other side is that the House Oversight Committee is still doing their investigations.

It's not moving as quickly as some people might like. there are questions about partisanship on the part of the Republican majority, who they're subpoenaing, why they're not rushing to subpoena, for example, key members of the administration, like Howard Lutnik, who are mentioned in the files, who had some kind of a relationship with Epstein, nothing to say of the president himself. That's even a bigger fish that they will have to at some point figure out how they square, getting Bill Clinton, but not Donald Trump. I digress.

These are all questions I ask James Comer on a pretty regular basis. But now does this tilt the focus to, okay, if DOJ is actually done, do you now have to just rely on the committee and the slow plotting work that they're doing? They have to rely on the committee. More importantly, they're going to have to rely on Democrats on the committee kind of being sly and sometimes tricking their Republican counterparts

to do things. And frankly, at the end of the day, they might have to wait when Democrats actually have the gavel if that happens at the end of 2026, if they flip the house, then 27 is going to look a lot different when it comes to these Epstein files. And I think they have,

Democrats have already started saying, we're putting folks on notice, that that's going to change. change, but they have to win first. Yeah, they have to win first. And I've been doing some reporting on the fascinating dynamics of the way that they are trying to use Epstein as sort of a way into some skeptical MAGA voters that might have felt lied to by members of the Trump orbit. They promise transparency. That's not what they're getting. And so Democrats are trying to use this and use it as a way to talk about other economics issues or systems that work for the haves versus the

have-nots. This is sort of a larger underpinning that I think will be following over the course of the next few months on the road to the midterms. I want to dig in a little bit more on this, too, with former litigator and MSNal senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin. Lisa, thanks for joining us to start the day. I know you've been reporting on this all weekend. We were texting about it a little bit on Saturday. And I think the thing that stood out to me in your reporting is the way that you're talking about this deliberative process privilege that the DOJ is trying to cite here, why does it not count? Why does it not work? Well, Ellie, one reason it doesn't work. And Congressman Massey was talking about this over the weekend on some of the weekend shows is it's not a part of the bill.

So let's start there. Congress sometimes does, sometimes doesn't recognize various privileges and immunities that parties, including the Department of Justice, will use to try and withhold or redact documents. But when they wrote the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Masey and Congressman Kana provided for a bunch of different reasons that files could be redacted or withheld. And privileges weren't one of them. It's as if the Department of Justice has sort of inserted the Freedom of Information Act and dropped it right into the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And just to zoom out for a second, the Freedom of Information Act is a federal law that allows people to essentially act as their own private litigators and try and get documents from the federal government. Oftentimes,

the government can withhold or redact those on the bases of different grounds, including the deliberative process privilege. That's a privilege. That's a privilege. that's meant to protect internal deliberations. But nowhere in the Epstein Files Transparency Act is there a provision made to redact, much less withhold documents on those bases, Alley. And so is that enough for Congress to be able to make another run at this through DOJ? And what is the mechanism for that? Because we've had multiple moments, including this one, where a law is on the books that seems

to be ignored by the White House or key members of the administration. And the next question is always, okay, so what do you do about it? What is the enforcement mechanism when it comes to full release of the Epstein files? Well, there are sort of two things we can think about. One is the House Oversight Committee had already had a subpoena out to the Department of Justice well before the Epstein Files Transparency Act was ever in play. And the House is within its rights to try and enforce that subpoena. That subpoena doesn't necessarily call for widespread disclosure to the public in the form of a searchable database that we have now.

but they can and likely will try to enforce that subpoena. But let's go back to your more fundamental question about the mechanism for enforcing the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It's a really sticky one. And there's a reason that members of Congress have tried to sort of go around it and get the judges who oversaw both Epstein and Galane Maxwell's criminal trials to act as an enforcer here. It's because written into the act is no enforcement mechanism. And there's no way for the survivors, much less Congress itself, to try to go to court to enforce this.

Unless and until both bodies of Congress sort of in their totality agree that they're going to sue DOJ, it's going to be really hard for people like Massey and Kana or even their entire committee to run to a court and ask for further enforcement and compliance with the act, Ali. Yeah, you're bringing up two really sticky potential paths going forward because on the one hand, I've had multiple members of the House Oversight Committee come on and say to me, hey, we've had the subpoena hanging out there to DOJ since last summer and still not been fully complied with. So that's just one avenue that they're already complaints about. And they were hoping, frankly, that the Epstein Files Transparency Act would fix the need for them to have to continue pursuing that subpoena. Obviously, that's not the case.

And then, of course, you look at the other thing that you brought up there, the idea that there might have to be some kind of unanimous or at least hugely bipartisan vote to compel something from, DOJ. And if it was this hard to get something done through Congress the first time on just the Epstein Files Transparency Act itself, which took months, that is going to be a very tough road to ho, especially in a midterm election year. MSN now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin, thank you, as always, for your reporting. And Lisa and I often talk about when we talk about the Epstein issue as the court of law and the court of public opinion. And it's on that second court that I want to focus, because there's two other notable headlines I want to get to related to. the Epstein files. Veteran Hollywood talent agent Casey Wasserman is selling his agency amid growing

controversy over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and convicted accomplice Galane Maxwell. Wasserman made the announcement in a memo to staff on Friday. Recently released files by the DOJ include email exchanges from 2003, but the Wall Street Journal describes as, quote, flirtatious between Wasserman and Maxwell. Wasserman told Steph he felt he had, quote, become a distraction to the firm's work. The decision to sell his agency also comes after the departure of several high profile talent from his firm. Wasserman, though, is chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. And according to the journal, the committee organizing the games last week, voted unanimously to keep him as chair. That's according to people familiar with the situation.

And finally, Chief Legal Officer at Goldman Sachs and former Obama White House counsel, Kathy Rumler has announced she's leaving that firm. Rumler cited media attention over her past correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, saying it had become a, quote, distraction. Yes, we're using that word a lot. The DOJ's recent release of Epstein files released revealed that Rumler exchanged dozens of friendly emails with Epstein over the years, including after his 2008 conviction, calling him, quote, sweetie, Uncle Jeffrey, and writing, quote, well, I adore him. It's like having another older brother. Emails also show Epstein's assistant confirming luxury gifts for Rumler, including a designer bag. Rumler's spokesperson said the documents are consistent with Rumler's longstanding

explanation that she knew Epstein through shared legal clients while working as a criminal defense I mean, this is, I think, the way that accountability is probably going to happen, right? Especially as DOJ is stonewalling the potential for any further release. There's open questions about if there would be any further prosecution, which then squarely leaves the court of public opinion, which, look, is messy because we have a system of justice in this country where you are innocent until proven guilty. And yet, that's where this is driving. Yeah. And at the end of the day, people like Wasserman, they still have all their money. You know, he's going to be fine.

Rumbler's going to be fine, right? at the end of the day. So the court of public opinion is about people saying, you know what, this is not what we're accepting, right? And you're right, it is sticky because being in these files does not mean that you did something wrong. Maryland Monroe, another person. Probably did not do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epps, we can assume.

But when you look at what not just Democrats have been asking for, also more importantly, Republicans and most importantly, MAGA Republicans, they have been saying we want to see some heads figuratively roll around here because of the conversations folks were having with Epson, especially people who were having conversations and interacting with him after he was found guilty of some of these things. And when you look at Wasserman, it didn't happen because, like, you know, all of a sudden he woke up, Chaparone, one of the most famous people that was on his, you know, that was on his list of folks said, I'm leaving. People started leaving his firm. So he did become a distraction. But at the end of the day, what the survivors have been asking for,

of Congress are asking for are actual people in court, I don't know that that's actually ever going to happen. When you look at statutes of limitations, though there's a bill that they're hoping to change some of that, but it's going to be a long road ahead. Yeah. And the wheels of justice turned slowly, which is good because it's deliberative. But at the same time, it has been decades of this open question around this orbit. And I think we're waiting to see what, if anything, actually comes of transparency. Still ahead for us on Morning, Joe. We're going to bring you the latest on the search for Nancy Guthrie. As the family puts out a new video telling the person who took the 84-year-old,

quote, it's never too late to do the right thing. Plus, we'll go through the big headlines coming out of the Munich Security Conference. There were many, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And as we go to a quick break, a look at the Travelers Forecast this morning from Acuweathers Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Allie snow over across Long Island, New York City this morning now,

Thank you weather says, clouds will slowly break today. 38 in Boston, snow state off to your south, 41, New York City, wait for it. The rain of foghorn, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Columbus toward Indianapolis. Clouds break this afternoon and boys are warm. How about 65 degrees of New York City? From Texas toward the southeast, it's dry, although there can be a shower in Miami. Travel delays, west coast, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego. But for the rest of the country, despite the shower in Miami, it'll be quite.

quiet. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the note, download Yakut, weather out today. Welcome back. Presidential Envoy, Steve Whitkoff, and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are set to meet tomorrow with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. The second round of nuclear talks come, as President Trump says any agreement must include zero uranium enrichment in Iran. As those talks occur, the United States continues to build up military assets throughout the region. two aircraft carriers, the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the USS Gerald Ford, are being positioned for potential strikes as well as multiple fighter jets.

That comes following the Munich Security Conference this weekend, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio skipped a high-level meeting with Ukrainian officials alongside representatives from Poland, Germany, and other countries. Rubio did meet with Zelensky in Munich, but didn't join the larger meeting due to scheduling conflicts. After Munich, Rubio traveled first to Slovakia and then Hungary, where moments ago, he met with Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban. I want to bring into our conversation, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. MS now senior national security reporter David Rode is back from Munich and joins us as well.

So, Richard, I want to start with you just on the general idea that underpinning the news coming out of Munich was this seeming rethinking about some of the bedrock principles that have made us allies with, for example, the Europeans in the aftermath of a Rubio speech that was pretty much, magified, even though he delivered it in his typical Rubio cadence. So different than Vance, but at the same time, you're still watching all of these foreign leaders sort of grapple with the ways that our typical world order has changed or has it? I mean, what do you see coming out of this? Look, Ali, the backdrop to the speech was important. You had all the towing and froing a few weeks ago at Davos over Greenland, Europeans of lost faith in the article,

commitment of the United States that we would come to their defense against Russia. You have four years of U.S. policy towards Ukraine, and over the last year, you had the United States pulling back from Ukraine and tilting heavily in Russia's direction. So yes, as you say, and David will talk about this, there was, I think, an appreciation of aspects of the, of Rubio speech, and it was not J.D. Vance, but it still had questions about, real disagreements with Europe over climate change, over support for international institutions, immigration, and so forth. So yes, I think the speech was basically welcome, but could it undo all the differences again over Ukraine, over tariffs, over really the totality of U.S. policy

towards Europe over the last 12, 13 months? Absolutely not. Yeah, it's like a tough love, love letter is the way that it was being talked about, David. And I wonder from your conversations on the ground, does that description capture what key U.S. officials or certainly European officials on the ground felt in the aftermath of watching it? Look, Rubio is a great politician, and he delivered a very strong speech. But the key thing in the speech was that he constantly referred to Western civilization and Western values. And it was sort of this nationalist culture argument. He said the word, the phrase Western civilization is often as he said the word democracy. And that image you just showed of him meeting with Victor Orban, the authoritarian leader.

leader of Hungary, you know, says, and I heard this from people at the conference, this is about democracy, and there's real questions in Europe whether the United States, under the Trump administration, you know, aggressively supports democracy and aggressively supports human rights in general. There was a tenor of the speech about Western civilization and that sort of the West had certain rights, but the rest of the world was different. And a fascinating dynamic, too, was that there were many young Democrats there. AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was there, and she made a point in a meeting she had with some reporters of saying human rights extends to Palestinians. That's obviously a very controversial topic Gaza, but it was a really stark contrast,

even though Rubio tried to smooth it over between, you know, Trumpism, what that stands for, and then Democrats trying to offer a different, I think, vision for the future. Richard, one of the things that is really important, and you know this better than I, in foreign policy is consistency. And a lack of consistency that we've seen from administration to administration on foreign policy in this country, but also in this administration from speech last year, from J.D. Vance, the vice president of the United States, to the speech this year, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, what did you read into the difference in tenor where you have J.D. Vance chiding all of the European allies in a speech in Europe last year to what

we saw from Marco Rubio this year? Let's go back to your first point, which is consistency and predictability are essential, if you want. to be a successful great power and one that has alliance commitments. You can't introduce doubt. Doubt is corrosive for alliances, countries that depend on you. It's also corrosive for deterrence because it makes others much more likely to challenge you, in this case, Russia, China, North Korea, and others who mean us, no good. So, you know, it was, again, Marco Rubio's speech, as you saw, people in the hall reacted favorably, at least at the moment. I think the more they read the text carefully afterwards, was a little bit less favorably, as it didn't really

indicate a change in policy. And look how you began this segment. You've got Steve Whitkoff and Jarab Kushner meeting with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Quite honestly, Marco Rubio, unfortunately, does not control U.S. policy towards Ukraine. Based upon Senator Rubio, he'd probably be much more supportive of Ukraine, much tougher towards Russia. But he doesn't control it. So again, I think the speech was welcome. But a speech doesn't make a policy. And the speech ends. You wake up the next day. Donald Trump is still president. Wythkoff and Jared Kushner are doing Ukraine. They're doing Iran negotiations. And then Marco Rubio didn't help himself by flying off to meet with Victor Orban, who is symbolic of an illiberal

alternative to liberal Western Europe. So again, speech positive, but I think more than offset by the totality of American foreign policy. Yeah, David, I want to kind of pick up there as you talk about the ways that Wittkoff and Kushner have increasingly come to control some of the major negotiations on foreign policy topics during this administration. Can you talk about some of the conversations that you had on the ground about that role that they are playing, specifically as you have Wittkoff leading in these conversations, making multiple trips to Russia, speaking with Putin in attempts, we believe, to end the war in Ukraine, and then, of course, also controlling these discussions around Iran. what are you hearing about Wittkoff's role itself, but then also what they might be driving towards in some of these key negotiations? So in terms of Russia, a senior European official warned me that essentially Moscow and Putin are dangling money in front of the Trump administration.

Last week, President Zelensky said that an aid to Putin is sort of talking with Wittkoff in private about up to $12 trillion somehow in economic and business agreements between the U.S. Richard just pointed out to me that the entire Russian economy is two trillion. So how it grows by four or five times between now and then is unclear. But essentially, there's been great reporting also by the Wall Street Journal about family business deals being made in the Middle East and also the pursuit of that, specifically by Whitkoff for business deals in Russia. So there's real concern about what the priority is for the Trump administration among European officials. And then on Iran, there's a sense that, that the United States will use force there. Some sources in the Middle East have told MS now that if the bottom line is this demand by President Trump of no enrichment of uranium of any kind in Iran, the Iranians won't accept that. So it's, you know, you're looking at confrontation there as well. Yeah, that's always been a key sticking point in these conversations with Iran, not just for the Trump administration, but for the Obama administration too. Everyone stay with us because we're going to stick

with foreign affairs coming up and dig into a new piece for the Atlantic titled Putin didn't know how good he had it. Morning Joe, we'll be right back with that. Welcome back. Beautiful shot of the White House on this Monday morning. Get right back to the news here. A Ukrainian skeleton athlete who was disqualified from the Winter Games this week just received his country's order of freedom medal. Vladislav Harris-Skiewicz was removed from the competition by the IOC because of a policy banning messaging. He had a helmet with the faces of the nearly two dozen athletes and coaches who have been killed since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and refused to wear a different one.

Harris Kavitch met Friday with Ukrainian President Volodemir Zelensky in Munich, where he was presented with that medal. Zelensky praised his pursuit of honoring fallen Ukrainians and commented on the IOC's decision, saying, quote, memory is not a violation. Meanwhile, a recent piece by the New York Post editorial board is titled, Vladimir Putin's finally starting to sweat, so it's time for Trump to turn up the heat. It reads in part, with Vladimir Putin's war machine sputtering, it's time to push the Kremlin even harder to force an end to his war on Ukraine.

Putin is still throwing bodies into the war, hoping to somehow blow a big enough hole in the line to allow a full breakthrough, still seeking to slaughter civilians to destroy Ukraine's will to fight on. But it's not working as the Western Alliance holds together in supplying and supporting Keeves' forces and turning the economic screws ever tighter. The braying of the Kremlin's despicable diplomats suggest Vlad is sweating. Trump set a new deadline of June for a peace deal. If he wants Putin to deliver by then, he should keep turning up the heat.

Let's bring in Alan Culleson. He's a journalist fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Moscow correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. He's also the co-author of a new piece for the Atlantic titled Putin didn't know how good he had it. I wonder, Alan, as we start this conversation, what you make of this push to further pressure Putin, especially when it comes as a plea to an administration that every time it seems like they're getting tough. They pull back.

Well, getting through to Putin is going to be difficult. I think that there might be signs that some of the elite around him would like an end of the war, but the latest indications are that he wants to continue it, at least through the spring and summer this year. Latest rumors are that possibly he might want to make another push and go for some kind of talks in the summer. But it's, yeah, looking not very hopeful. But when you hear the post editorial board saying tighten the screws, is it best in your estimation to continue that pressure campaign through sanctions, through economic means, or is this now a moment for a different diplomatic avenue that can seemingly as well increase pressure but

in a different way? Well, pressuring them has been pretty difficult so far because they had a really, they did a very very good job in responding to Western sanctions, but the situation has been changing gradually in the sense that sanctions have bitten and the, you know, Russia rerouted a lot of its trade relationships over toward China and India, you know, hoping that that was, they would just basically circumvent all sanctions. But, you know, the economy is beginning to bite. It's actually having an effect on living standards of Russians. So I think that pressure now might be actually more it might be a more relevant topic than pressure was before, at least on the economic level.

Yeah, timing is always everything. I want to circle back to the piece in the reporting that you did. When you say that Putin didn't know how good he had it, how good did he have it? Well, the idea was that Putin didn't want, he thought that the world was basically run by the United States, you know, through various mechanisms. and he wanted a multipolar world, as he said, and it was sort of a more unipolar world in previous years. But our argument was that essentially there might be a multipolar world with Trump, but Russia is going to be too weak to be a poll because he's become so weakened by the war,

but also because Trump doesn't seem to realize or doesn't seem to respect the spheres of influence that Putin was hoping for. essentially that, you know, the Russians were banking on a deal where we would get the Western Hemisphere and then Russia would be allowed to treat Europeans the way we're supposed to treat Latin America. But it's not really working out that way. Yeah, I mean, Richard, jump in on that, right? Because we have seen Trump sort of exercise the beginnings of what he's called the Don Roe doctrine. But at the same time, if you look at the way that Europe has sought to sort of fill the gap that America is leaving, when it comes to.

to a clear-eyed view of Russia as an adversary. I mean, what do you see in this multi-pole universe that Alan is talking about here? Yeah, there's a lot of talk about a so-called spheres of influence approach to the world that we would take the lead in Latin America, Russia and Europe, China, in the Asia Pacific, but there's problems in all three regions. Our ability to control the Western Hemisphere is in some ways limited. There's lots of nationalism and potential pushback there. You have in Europe, obviously, all sorts of Europeans' opposition to what Russia is doing.

And if the United States would turn up the heat on Russia economically, if we'd stop pushing a one-sided peace deal, if we'd open up the spigot to help Ukraine with arms, I actually think we could put enormous pressure on Putin, and we'll learn a lot more about China and U.S. policy in a couple of months when President Trump goes there. So this is kind of grand structure.

Instead of going from a world that the United States leads to a world where these other countries, Russia and China, has a large role, it's one thing to talk about or on paper. I think something quite different in practice. Yeah, especially when you consider a spheres of influence model in geopolitics, sort of leaves out the idea of how interconnected all of us are in this age of social media and the Internet and the ways that everything touches, frankly, everything else. journalist fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Alan Cullison, thank you for your reporting for joining us here to talk about it. His latest piece is online now. And David wrote, as we close here and we consider the way you spent your weekend, what the meetings that we're driving toward tomorrow in Geneva, what those might ultimately bring, it sort of brings us back to the way that foreign policy is also equivalent to the politics of the day here. And I was so struck by your lead coming

out of Munich, where you talked about the competing views of the world order from Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely considered to have higher office aspirations, likely the presidency, but who knows it could be the Senate. And I think you made the point that it was thousands of miles away from Washington, but these arguments could have easily been seen as an opening salvo to 2028. So when you balance these two things, diplomacy on the world stage and a looming 2028 presidential election, which is close, even though it seems far away.

How do you square those circles and how are they working together? In a way, the world's getting closer. You were just talking about social media and everything else. And so you had Gavin Newsons show up there and other people. But I want to point out one other piece of news that came over the weekend. European officials did an investigation, and there's

evidence, very clear evidence, that the main Russian opposition leader, Navalny, was poisoned by a kind of poison that comes from a frog in Latin America. So essentially the Russian government under Vladimir Putin killed Putin's primary opponent. That's been talked about, but I just want to get back to the, but one observer called the moral rupture. I mean, we're negotiating with Russia. There's talk of like business deals with Russia when it's, you know, run by a dictator who kills his opponents. And there are, there are senators, and these are Republicans that well that they're, you know this better than I

do, but there are 84 senators who now support a much tougher sanctions bill on Russia. sponsored the Graham bill and Lindsay Graham backs it himself. So the Senate can act. There's a clear majority of senators who support supporting Ukraine and not Vladimir Putin. So we'll see if they actually move ahead with that vote at this point. Yeah, that's just been sitting there in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion for months now. Republican leadership just sort of waiting for the go ahead from the Trump White House, unclear if or even when they will get it. MS now, National Security reporter, David Rode, fresh off the plane. Thank you for using your jet lag to our advantage.

We appreciate it. And President Trump was in Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Friday, where he delivered a campaign-style rally to a crowd of troops. Speaking to uniformed service members gathered at the Army base, the president went after his perceived political foes, bragged about his administration, and urged troops to vote for Republicans. Michael Watley, if he's here, I don't know, Michael, Michael. Michael, will you come here for a second, please?

He's running for the Senate, and if he gets in, you're going to be taken care of. If he doesn't get in, we're going to be stripping the military like they always do, the Democrats. We really created a tremendous military. Now, some of it was given away, actually, a lot, but small compared to what we did to Afghanistan. You remember that, where they left all the military equipment behind? We wouldn't have left anything. We were going to get out with dignity and strength, respect. We looked like we were running.

We don't run from anybody. That was a Biden embarrassment. What a terrible president. We want to keep this area safe, and we can't do that without the leaders. And your ex-governor is not one of them. It would be a disaster if he got in. My message to all of the warriors here today is that your commander-in-chief supports you totally. I support you more than – I know you've had a couple of good ones. Not that many if you want to know the truth. But we support you more than any of them.

I'm thrilled to be back One of the greatest and most celebrated military bases In the history of the world, Fort Bragg We have your name back. We got your name back from the radical left. The radical left is not happy about it. It's another reason you have to vote for us because I'll change it back to whatever it might be.

Richard, we talked about this a little bit on way too early, but the idea that it's not abnormal to see a commander-in-chief address troops and yet it is very abnormal to see them give such an overtly political speech such as this, and yet Trump has almost made it a norm, even though it's not one. No, you're right, Ali. And it actually worries senior leadership in the military.

It's that. It's also the greater either actual or potential use of the military domestically. And they're worried that this institution, which has been carefully and really has been built, rebuilt after Vietnam, and it's now become one of the great institutions in this country, the professional military, they're wondering, they're worrying that by introducing all this political conversation, it potentially splits it. And it creates in two ways. Within the military, it creates friction within it. And then second of all, it creates mistrust between American society and the military. So the senior leadership, on one hand, yes, they appreciate the rhetorical support,

but there's an enormous butt here. They worry about the politicization of the military, and ultimately losing its standing, its trust on the part of the American people. And these kinds of repeated speeches raise that concern. Yeah, and of course, Pentagon Policy says that as an active duty member, you cannot do political or partisan actions. So some of the cheers that we were hearing there, my understanding from readouts on the ground,

were from some of the political attendees, not the troops who were there in uniform. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, always great having you. Thank you for your expertise, as always. Thanks, Ellie. Still ahead for us this morning. We're going to get to the latest on the search for Nancy Guthrie as it enters its third week. We'll go live to Tucson, Arizona, where investigators say new evidence found near the home is getting them closer to the man caught on surveillance video. That's next on Morning Joe.

Welcome back. The search for Nancy Guthrie is now entering its third week as investigators fan out across Arizona looking for any clues that might lead to the location of the 84-year-old. mother and grandmother. The FBI said yesterday that a glove was found near Nancy's home, and that appears to match those born by the masked person seen here on her front porch the night of her disappearance. The agency says the glove contains DNA, and it's now being analyzed. Today's show co-host Savannah Guthrie, meanwhile, posted a new video on social media last night, once again pleading for her missing mother's safe return. Here's part of her message. We still have hope. We still believe. And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is, that it's never too late. And you're not lost or alone.

And it is never too late to do the right thing. I want to bring in MS Now investigative reporter Mark Santia live from Tucson, Arizona. Mark, you have been there for weeks now. what is the latest on the ground? And I guess one open question of just, how did it take so long to find this glove? So, Allie, it's been more than two weeks since Nancy was taken from her home behind me. And to your point, we have seen teams of FBI agents, Border Patrol agents, as well as local police, teams of four, and they've been scouring the area. They found that glove about two miles from Nancy's house on the side of the road. That glove was picked up and taken in for evidence. Now, we drilled down. We were asking the FBI to sort of of walk us through. When they talked about, it appeared to be similar. That surveillance video that came out that's on your screen right now, it appeared talking to law enforcement sources, it appeared that that person was wearing two pairs of gloves. The one they found out in the

desert appeared to match. The appearance of it seemed similar. So they found 16 gloves, Alley. One of those had a hit on it. DNA that didn't match up with the searchers. So they took that, they looked at it, they sent that to the lab, the Pima County lab, that's being used. But the FBI wanted a closer look. It appeared they belonged to a male, and the DNA profile seemed different than the other gloves that were taken. So they sent that to Quantico. They're going to get a better look. Once they get that, they'll put that into the database and see if there's any hits.

If a name pops up. I was speaking to a law enforcement source last night, veteran law enforcement, who was troubled that many of these gloves found belonged to searchers. And they wondered why searchers would discard their gloves when they're looking for gloves. you don't want to sort of contaminate or pollute that area. So, and this is also just the terrain we've been out and about. We've seen gloves discarded as well. So the one they're looking at, the FBI says, was one of 16 that didn't match searchers' profile,

searcher's DNA. That one is being analyzed. We're hoping to hear some results today, tomorrow. Hopefully this could be that break that leads to Nancy at this point. Still, no signs of Nancy. All of us remaining hopeful for Nancy Guthrie for our former colleague, Savannah, MS Now investigative reporter Mark Sintia, live from Tucson, Arizona. Thank you for staying on top of this, helping us understand the latest from the ground. We appreciate it.

Eugene, I think all of us are, of course, keeping the faith, what Savannah Guthrie said there, of it's never too late to do the right thing. I think all of us are just keeping that front of mind as we watch this story and have hope that they are going to find something. And Savannah for, if you know Savannah, she's a woman of faith, of deep faith. And so when you hear and watch her say her and her family have hope, I really believe that. And it is something that we should all be pushing toward her and her family because there are a lot of unanswered questions about what happened, who was involved. But at the end of the day, our jobs as her friends, as people who love her and watch her and have on television for a long time is to make sure that we're trying to uplift them in this moment until they end. of this whenever they end out. Yeah, exactly. I think the power of prayer is really important right now and positive thinking and positive vibes being sent their way and just strength during what I can

only imagine is such a difficult time. Eugene Daniels, never difficult having you with me for the hour. I so appreciate it. Thank you. And we're always watching on the weekend. So thanks for stretching. And stay coming on for us. And stay coming on. I will always. Twist my arm. Coming up.