Morning Joe - Bessent threatens new sanctions against Iran

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

August 25, 2026: 8am — Bessent threatens new sanctions against Iran  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.

It is now a time for world leaders to make a decision between prosperity and isolation, peace and terror, America and Iran. The campaign we begin today will gather force with every day that follows, and it will not end until this regime stands alone. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent yesterday, as the Trump administration is now focused on economically isolated, Iran from the rest of the world will explain why this pressure campaign could depend largely on China. Also ahead will bring you expert legal analysis on the Supreme Court's ruling that

opens a possible path for President Trump's executive order on voting by mail. Plus, we'll show you some of the top moments from Abdul al-Sayed's appearance on Fox News last night. The Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, sparred several times with host Jesse Waters, and it was quite a conversation. Good morning and welcome to morning, Joe. It's Tuesday, August 25th. With us, we have the co-host of our 8-m. Hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and politics, Beard Chief and Senior Political Communist at Politico, Jonathan Martin. And we begin this morning, Willie, with the Supreme Court's ruling, allowing the, um, allowing the the president Trump's executive order on mail.

It's actually the way he votes, right? Mail in, right? Yeah, he just did it a week or so ago, as a matter of fact. And the clock is ticking on this because mail-in ballots are going out next week in North Carolina. They've got to figure this out soon. The president's order signed in March calls for his administration to create a list of eligible voters and directs the United States Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on those lists created by the Trump administration. The Supreme Court's conservative majority

did not decide in the legality of that executive order. It instead ruled that 23 states who have sued did not have the legal right to challenge the order because the states could not demonstrate there was sufficient harm by voting rules that had not yet taken effect. Join us now, MS Now Justice and Intelligence Reporter Kandalenian and MS Now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin. Good morning to you both. So Lisa, let's help our viewers understand. this a little bit better, that the Supreme Court was not commenting on the legality of this, as I said, just on standing for the states that are suing. But as I also said, the clock really is ticking on this because ballots are about to go out. So if you can explain the ruling a

little bit, but then also how quickly it might come back to the Supreme Court. It absolutely might come back very quickly to the Supreme Court and not necessarily in this case. Let me explain a little bit about what this ruling does because there's a lot of confusion about it. Technically, what the court is doing is staying what a lower court enjoined. Basically, a lower court prohibited the implementation of certain sections of the president's election integrity focused executive order. But he can't technically move forward with the parts of it that govern mail-in ballots yet because another lower court has an injunction that's still in place that prohibits the United States Postal Service from giving effect to its rules about mail-in-balloting.

That having been said, here are the couple of things that the president can do right now. He can authorize the Department of Homeland Security to start compiling lists of citizens in each state sent out to those states. And he can also tell the DOJ that they have to prioritize the prosecution of people who give ballots to those who are unauthorized to vote. The majority here says those two things are not connected and that they don't force states to do anything. But the three dissenting justices say you have to see these two things as of a piece. If you give states a list of citizens who are allowed to vote and you also tell DOJ, go after the people who give ballots to people who are unauthorized to vote, what you're essentially doing is saying you had the list all along.

And if you give a ballot to someone who's not authorized to vote, the fact that you're giving them a list of citizens is something that DOJ may use in the future to say, you intentionally did this, you recklessly did this. In other words, as Justice Sotomayor says, you're basically giving people tools that you're going to use against them in future prosecutions. That could very much chill state and local election officials in their provision of ballots, obviously giving state citizenship lists to people who are supportive of the president's agenda is also potentially a problem.

Think about red states with deep blue cities that maybe have large immigrant populations. That's where you could see the list, I'm sorry, the use of these citizenship lists being potentially really pernicious in the lead up to the November election. So, Candelanian, there are so many layers to this story. First of all, we should remind everyone how vanishingly rare fraud in mail-in voting is, perhaps why, as Mika said, the president uses this. In the 2024 election, about 30 percent of ballots were sent in via mail of those. Found the Brookings Institute.

There were four documented cases in 10 million ballots of fraud. So let's start there. Then there's the idea of this list, a political list, perhaps started by the Trump administration. There is the stacking of the board of governors at the post office, the post office a political arm of this administration. So how are you looking at this through the prism of the courts, but also of the government using the post office in this way? Right. Well, that is extraordinary, really, because as you know, the Constitution says that the states dictate the time and manner of elections, and it allows the Congress to make rules

governing national elections, but nowhere does it mention the president's role in elections. And yet the Trump administration is coming in here and saying, we control the Postal Service. We're the executive branch. So we can tell the Postal Service to decline to treat and deal with and convey certain mail-in ballots. That's extraordinary. The other extraordinary thing about this decision is that it's once again an example of where the conservative majority has said, oh, no, no, no, we're not ruling on the merits, but you haven't shown that you've been injured yet. You states have not shown that you have actually experienced an injury.

we can't rule yet. And the dissenters, the liberals are saying, you've got to be kidding me. The midterms are around the corner. Are you saying that we have to wait until the Trump administration improperly interferes in an election that's supposed to be governed by the states before you will act? And yet that's what the Supreme Court has done here. And it's not the first time they've done this in other cases involving the Trump administration. As Lisa said, it's not the end of the story. We're going to see more litigation on this. And the Supreme Court may well ultimately decide that what's happening here, is improper. But what they've done is they've left a sense of unease here, along with all the

other ways that we are concerned that the Trump administration is going to try to interfere in the elections with this midterm. Here is the latest example, Willie. And yet another moment where the Supreme Court, of course, seems highly deferential to President Trump and the executive branch, the conservative majority at times acting like it's part of the team. And J-Mart, let's talk about the politics of this. the polls suggest this November, we could be heading for a Democratic wave. And a strategist in both parties think the House is heavily favored to go Democrat. Senate, true toss-up now, something that would have been unthinkable a year ago,

considering the map looked pretty favorable for Republicans. But now Democrats think they've got a chance, but there's been this fear hovering over this election for IBM, so for a year or more, that the Trump administration was going to find a way to put its thumb on the scale, whether that was the ICE agents in the streets, the National Guard, trying to crack down on voter rolls. You know, of course, we'll see if they even accept the results if they don't like them come November. But here it appears at least temporarily they're getting yet another assist from the courts. Yeah, let's just get straight to the point. The coverage and the attention to this ruling would be vanishingly small, at least in terms of the national media,

or not for precedent, to borrow a legal term. We all live through the 2020 election in the aftermath, John. That's the reason for the concern. We know what Trump is capable of, and we know the degree to which we as a country relied on the courts in the aftermath of 2020 to effectively cast aside Trump's challenges one after the other and affirm Joe Biden's election and swearing in as president. So once again, we're at the mercy of the courts. That's why this matters so much because, yes, I think there is this assumption for good reason, given his past action, that Trump is not going to sit by and lose control of one or both chambers of Congress without a protracted fight that invariably will get into the courts. And here we will be again, much as we were six years ago, hoping and waiting for the court to do the right thing.

So, Lisa, let's talk about next steps at the Supreme Court. As you said, that may be back there very quickly. What happens from here after yesterday's ruling? Well, first of all, Willie, there's an, the stay that the Supreme Court entered yesterday on that case will be in effect until a federal appeals court can rule and until this case comes back to the Supreme Court. So it's not necessarily in this case that will be back before the Supreme Court. But there is another injunction in place. That's in a case brought by the League of Women Voters. And that still prohibits the president from implementing the part about the United States Postal Service in mail-in balloting.

That's the part where the USPS basically says to states, you send us your lists of people who are eligible to vote by mail, and we're only going to send in the ballots of people who are on your lists. There's an injunction against that rule-taking effect. However, late last night, Department of Justice went to the court and said, we're asking you to reconsider your ruling in light of the Supreme Court ruling, and if you don't, we're going to ask a federal appeals court to do the exact same thing. Stay your ruling.

If that happens, you can bet that the losing party will be back before the Supreme Court faster than we can say. They go. So, Ken, let's talk about why the Trump administration is doing this politically, because they see what perhaps is coming down the pike, at least in the House of Representatives come midterm elections a couple of months from now. But why are they going to such lengths to use the machinery of government to make it harder to vote by mail?

Yeah, and it's not just the Trump administration. It's Republican attorneys general. Look, I mean, we've seen this for years, right? Republicans don't like mail-in voting. They believe that it favors the Democrats. Donald Trump made mail-in voting a central plank of his bogus arguments that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Remember, he said he went to bed and he was ahead, and then he woke up and he was losing. And so because of mail-in voting, he claimed. And so, you know, but that argument's been with us for years. What's new here is the Trump administration using the levers of government to try to stop Americans from exercising their right to vote in a way that their own states and the people they all to govern elections have dictated is okay. And they're using every possible avenue, not just this one. And again, as I said earlier, that's part of a panoply of levers they're

trying to pull to potentially try to influence this upcoming election, including, you know, I'm covering the Justice Department. I hear people concerned every day about what the FBI, what the DOJ could do in a contested state if they decide to pursue bogus allegations of fraud by, for example, serving a search warrant and seizing voting machines or somehow interfering, sending armed agents to polls, even though the law prohibits that. So there is a lot of concern right now about what this says about what the Trump administration is willing to do in this upcoming election, guys. And they've already shown it in the state of Georgia going in and seizing all those ballots a few months back. MSN now Justice and Intelligence Reporter Kendallanian and MSN now senior

legal reporter Lisa Rubin. Thanks so much, guys. We appreciate it. Mika. Well, Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day yesterday, marking 35 years since the country broke from the Soviet Union. The annual holiday has held a deeper meaning since the start of Russia's invasion four years ago. Ukraine has remained defiant, and the country's drone warfare has proven surprisingly effective in countering Russia's attacks. Several European leaders made the trip to Kiev to attend celebrations. The UK's new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, made Keeve his first trip to a foreign country since taking office. He sat with Ukrainian President Zelensky to discuss additional assistance in the war effort. Nearly a dozen other European leaders showed their solidarity by attending the day's events as well.

Zelensky addressed the ongoing war with Russia, saying Ukraine absolutely wants peace. But it is not going to simply surrender. I know we have a lot to get to, but Jonathan Lemire, let's just talk about this Independence Day celebration. They had a drone parade. A lot of it was actually shown to make sure that others see it, like Russia, because Ukraine continues to defy expectations. And it's getting to the point where their domestically developed defense industry is so impressive that they may share it with their European counterparts. they really are the surprise here and the incredible force for peace. Meanwhile, we're all distracted by Iran and tariff and all the other things going on. Ukraine keeps plugging on and defying all expectations.

Yeah, an appropriate imagery yesterday because Ukraine is such a survivor. A remarkable story here, how they've fought off the much larger opponent. And they've done so with the help of the rest of Europe. And that's why it's so fitting that the European leaders were there yesterday, even as the U.S., frankly, has largely withdrawn from that conflict. The Europe has stood shoulder to shoulder with Kiev. I mean, the fighting on the ground has been frozen for a long time. Very little territory changing hands there. This has changed into a very new conflict.

You know, Russia is still able to fire missiles from distance into Ukraine, still hitting Ukrainian cities, inflicting civilian casualties. is in Ukraine running low on defensive measures. But their drone warfare, as you say, Mika, the advances in the technology they made are extraordinary. They've offered to share that with the rest of the world, with Europe, with the Middle East, with the United States. But Russia has an effective drone development as well. We've seen horrible footage in recent days of these Russian drones

heading into Ukraine, killing innocent civilians. One, a man on a bike, and this drone simply kills him a reminder of the human toll of this conflict. And we'll see if the U.S., Mika, does reimbus. engage here. President Trump, when he met with Zelensky, said the right things, but has yet to follow through with missiles, with funding, with patriots, or even a lot with pushing Elon Musk to allow Zelensky and Ukraine access to Starlink in Russia, which would improve their targeting. For now, the U.S. remains on the sidelines.

Coming up, Senator Darlene Graham's political career is on the line today in a new test of President Trump's grip on the GOP. go live to South Carolina as Republicans head to the polls again to pick their nominee for November's race for U.S. Senate. Morning Joe will be right back. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant yesterday threatened a new series of sanctions aimed at crippling Iran's economy, but he provided a few concrete details on that. Besson also said President Trump is contacting world leaders to cease their interactions with the regime. Although he did. not identify the leaders or give any deadlines. He was also pressed on China's role in propping up

the Iranian regime. Chinese banks have often been talked about being targeted, but we don't see any of those institutions targeted here. Is that something that is coming in this campaign, or is the very delicate trade truce with China, something that could prohibit you? from going that far and taking that very big step. We want to make clear to hear today that no one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions, that if they facilitate transactions and are part of the ecosystem that turns Iranian oil into money, into repression, they will be targeted. We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet defense.

diplomacy, and we are level-setting with every country to tell them our expectations. You described this as an economic D-Day, but D-Day wasn't a threat of an invasion, and the U.S. didn't give a timeline to Germany. So why not impose the sanctions today? Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system? We believe that it is. important to level set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are serious. We believe that a warning shot and a level set of expectations is appropriate. And if people do not want to meet our expectations, then we expect,

and they should expect, that they should, will leave the dollar system. Okay, Iranian officials are dismissing the new threats with the country's parliament's speakers saying the United States is not in an economic position to restrict its relations with other countries. Joining us now to talk about that, senior writer at the dispatch, columnist at Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. So, David, Scott Bessett sounded really, really tough there, very much believing that the U.S. is in power of determining how this goes, but to use Trump's own equation, especially as he was talking to Zelensky once, we don't have the cards. Do we have the cards or does China have the cards? Yeah, well, that's a very good question, Mika, and I think we're

going to find out. I think there are a million ways I could pick this apart. Let me just first, you know, I mean, level set us as the secretary said and make clear that ratcheted up pressure on the Iranian regime to reduce the terrorism. that it proliferates all over the globe, particularly in the Middle East, is a very good idea and one that the United States should be engaged in at all times. I think the question is, would a strategy like this that targeted the Iran's economy been a good idea before we started shooting versus after, right? Because you can then gradually ratchet up pressure.

Secondly, Mika, this would be, I think, a much easier strategy to accomplish if we set aside for a minute that Tehran doesn't care about economic pressure because they don't care about having a thriving economy. Because if they did, they wouldn't have been in this position for the last 40-plus years. But let's set that aside. If you weren't antagonizing Europe and weren't antagonizing our allies in Asia, it's much easier when you pick up the phone for so-called quiet diplomacy. that this president never engages in, to get people to hop on board and help you out. Whether it's fair or not, it's just a fact of life. But we have antagonized Jirup, we've antagonized South Korea, we've antagonized our allies in Asia. And so getting them to set aside China's concerns and China's power and China's coercion

to do something with us is going to be a very tough sell. Now, I could be wrong about all of this, and this could go swimmingly. But I just think it has to be said that we've done this completely backwards, and it's like we're doing these weird somersaults. And now, you know, and Bessett, look, Besson is probably one of these smartest cabinet members and best choices that the president made in crafting the 2.0 cabinet. But the threaten expulsion from the dollar system at a time when people are questioning American leadership and influence around the globe seems to me to be an interesting approach to, say the least. Yeah, I mean, John, it's a good point by David, which is that President Trump thought militarily he was going to bring Iran to heal within a couple of weeks. That hasn't quite happened. They've closed the straight. They've pulled other levers. So now here we are

at what they're calling the end game. Secretary Benson called it yesterday. President's called it economic D-Day. Secretary Besson talking about economic asphyxiation of Iran. But to do that, the countries that support Iran right now, China, Russia, North Korea as well, but President Trump's been flattering lately with President Xi coming to the United States one month from right now for a state visit in Washington. Is President Trump, is this administration really going to twist the arm of Xi to completely distance itself from Iran at this point? I mean, if passed his prologue, answer is no. I mean, I think we have to be really skeptical of this. And the fact that it wasn't part of the initial wave is telling. Yes, I mean, we've been chronicling this for a few. days now, the China, Russia, these are not places Trump has ever really been tough with. And now

suddenly he's sending Valentine's to Kim Jong-un again. It wants to have a summit with him this fall. So this is not, those are not things. If you're going to do those things, you're probably not going to slam them economically. So therefore, where does this leave us? I mean, yes, the president's probably right in that, you know, the military campaign isn't working. But let's also be clear. We're not resuming the hostilities also because we've run out of weapons. And we can't, we don't have the defensive munitions to be able to shoot down. Iranian rockets heading towards American bases in the Middle East or our allies in the region. So there's that. Yeah, diplomacy hasn't worked either. Not only of the Iranians not to be trusted,

to be sure, but frankly, they've got the better of us to this point. The MOU was a gift to Tehran, and Tehran sees it as almost codifying their control of the Strait of Homerousse, which is really what this is all about at this point. So yes, an economic punishment is probably the play, but the thoughts on that would be, you know, that first of all, that actually has to have teeth. And secondly, we don't know if it'll work or how long it will take to work because the hardliners in Tehran don't seem to really care how their citizens suffer. And there's been reporting the last 24 hours so that some of the more political figures there are pushing the Revolutionary Guard, hey, that like it's time to maybe come to the table, start talking.

But we'll see how much influence they really have. They seem settled in. This could take a very long time if it works at all. Yeah, they're clearly emboldened by all of this. We'll see if this brings them to the table or if any of the countries that are influential on Iran, want to participate in this economic as fixiation, as Secretary Besson called it yesterday. Coming up, the untold story of the famous restaurant atop the Twin Towers as the nation prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks. We'll have a preview of the new film, Top of the World. Straight ahead on Morning Joe.

Don't adjust your televisions. You're still on MS. Now, this is a live look at the World Robot Games in Beijing. We've been treated to a lot of video out of this competition in recent days. Robots setting records and sprints, others just toppling over at the slightest breeze. But here, these two seem to be sparring. Meg in the control room here in Studio has her money on the white. I'll go with black.

I don't know what the odds are just yet. But we will keep an eye on this developing situation here in Beijing. Although that one seems to be lost and it's leaving the ring. Perhaps the fight is over or maybe it's just making a run for it. That doesn't look good for my. It looks like white wins. Congrats to Meg and all of its supporters, the latest out of Beijing. Here, closer to home, the trade war is escalating between the Trump administration and Canada.

Officials in Canada are expected to announce retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. as soon as today. But as the White House defends its policy, it's creating tension for at least one Senate Republican in a tight midterm race. And that's no reporter Nick McCool explains. On the campaign trail and in the political fight of her life, this week Susan Collins dealing with a difficult hand. We begin with breaking news, new escalation in the trade war between the U.S. and Canada. President Trump imposing a new 50% tariff on some goods from Canada. Canada will match.

Washington's new tariffs, dollar for dollar. Canada was Maine's largest export market last year, 41% of its total goods exports. The trade standoff now threatening to hurt Maine businesses. I still think imposing new tariffs on Canada is a mistake. And just as she was trying to distance herself from the Trump tariff policy, Vice President J.D. Vance holding an event in Maine Monday, praising her. Susan is the most independent member of the United States Senate, and as the president of the United States Senate, she sometimes makes my job just a little bit harder.

Collins conspicuously absent, citing a scheduling conflict. She comes to work every single day, and she fights for the great people of Maine. It's bewildering that they would schedule vans to go to Maine because it's problematic. They know that politically. It's almost like the political office screwed up and just went to the wrong state. Collins has been walking a political tightrope for years with Trump, representing a state he never won outright in famously admitting she never voted for him, but voting with him well over 90% of the time in the Senate last year and backing one particularly controversial Supreme Court nominee. I, Brett and Kavanaugh be solemnly swear. Susan Collins put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, knowing damn well that they were going to overturn Roe versus Wade.

She's broken with Trump too, including her vote. to convict him in his second impeachment trial. But now with the GOP Senate majority on the line, Does she have your full support and endorsement in her sense? She does because she's a sane woman. She's not my best friend at all. Susan Collins has been successful because she's demonstrated true independence. Collins's race is not the only one complicated by the trade war. Republican Mike Rogers is fighting for an open Senate seat in Michigan, which also counts next door neighbor Canada as its biggest export market, but his relationship with Trump is different. In some ways, it's going to be tougher for Mike Rogers because he's just more aligned with

the president. When Trump keeps putting forward these policies that directly hurt Michigan, it's really tough for Rogers because Rogers is not as willing as Susan Collins is to stand up against Trump. We're now exactly 10 weeks out from Election Day, and in a recent poll by Fox News, Democrat Troy Jackson was leading Susan Collins in the main Senate race by just two points. within the margin of error. Back to you. MS now is Nick McCool with that report and perhaps not a good sign for progress in the U.S.

Canada trade dispute. We expect tariffs from Canada later today. And just now on truth social, President Trump posts the United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, and that we don't expect to be doing much business with Ontario any longer. There you go. Lake America. Up next, from one Senate race to another. it is Decision Day in South Carolina as Republican voters make their pick for U.S. Senate in a race that also measures the popularity and political coattails of President Donald Trump. We're going to get a live report from that state. The town of Lexington, straight ahead.

I'm morning, Joe. There we go. Yeah, no one playing volleyball yet this morning. Myrtle Beach, 8.38 in the morning. Looks like a pretty morning there in South Carolina. And Republicans in that state will head to the polls today in the runoff primary election to choose a replacement for the late Senator Lindsay Graham. Today's race is the fourth GOP election in that state since June.

This one, Pitts Trump endorsed Senator Darlene Graham, who was appointed to fill her late brother's seat against Republican Congressman Ralph Norman. The election has also become a test of Trump's grip on the GOP, particularly after a handful of his endorsed candidates lost their primaries. It does seem like perhaps his influence is way to. just a smidge. Joining us now, MS now, senior capital reporter and host of Wait Truly, Ali Vitale. She's back. And MS now congressional reporter Michael Schnell, who joins us live

from Lexington, South Carolina. Michael will start with you. Thanks for joining us. You know, the late Senator Graham, you know, passed away just a month or so back. His sister filling his seat. President Trump immediately said, this is who I want to win this election, to stay in the Senate full time. We saw her struggle on the debate stage a week or so back. She is candidly, by her own admission, not a politician. Tell us where things stand today as voters start to go to the polls. Yeah, Jonathan, just to put it into perspective, the sprint that it has been to get here to runoff day, it was just 45 days ago when the late Senator Lindsey Graham passed away and 42 days ago when Darlene Graham was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. Now voters are going to go to the

the polls, as you mentioned, for the second time in this Senate GOP special primary to elect their nominee for November's general election. It's a head-to-head matchup between Darlene Graham and Ralph Norman. Graham being this political novice, Norman, being a nine-year veteran of the House. And it seems like it's going to come down to two factors, experience and President Trump. On the experience, you mentioned, you had said that Darlene Graham had that flub during the debate. She said she's not informed on national security, a massive gulf from her brother, who's where national security and foreign policy was his North Star. I've heard from some voters across the state who say that wasn't a big deal.

They like that she's a political novice. They think she could shake things up in Washington and that she innately understands the needs and wants of South Carolinians. But I've also heard from voters who say it's a problem. And she does not have a true and crack record of getting things done in Washington. And for that reason, their support is waning. I met yesterday a voter named Roger. He told me he was initially supporting Darlene Graham. But after that debate, he's now undecided.

Take a listen to why that changed. Her answer that she gave on the Taiwanese, it was the worst answer I've ever heard in my life. So I'm still sitting on the fence on it. I am voting for sure. But that answer was terrible. You're concerned that she doesn't have the requisite experience to be a U.S. Senator? I think she can do it with Lindsay's team.

What I didn't like was, you know, Lindsay was into foreign politics, huge. And she just didn't have a, you know, she blew the answer. And Jonathan, it's her lack of experience on one hand, but on the other hand, it's the fact that voters are still trying to understand what she believes in. She's offered up platters of red meat in different settings to conservative voters, giving them the top lines that they want to hear. But when pressed on policy, she does not give specifics. Yesterday, she was asked what specifically she would do on affordability, which he said is her number one topic. she didn't have an answer. And then I pressed her on the results of the 2020 election, asking if she agreed with her brother that Joe Biden was lawfully elected. And if she would have

certified those results, again, not a direct answer. So this is going to come down to South Carolina Republicans. Today, polls are open. The winner set to take on Democrat Annie Andrews come November. MS now, Congress reporter Michael Schnell, live for us in South Carolina. Thank you so much. We'll be checking back with you later in the day. Allie Vitale, You know, in fact, Darling Graham has staked that position to the right of her brother on a few issues, including immigration here. But she's running against a credible opponent and a former congressman,

not much in the way of polling that we can really point to this morning. But I do think if Graham were to lose, and I think that would be a surprise. That would be a significant blow to President Trump, who has taken some real losses recently after having a near undefeated record with endorsements that slipped. and he's put in a lot of capital and finally some money behind this campaign. And we know that he keeps track, right, of that win-loss record.

So this will be notable, especially because I think a lot of Republicans in South Carolina that I was talking to, thought that the Graham appointment to finish the Senate term was a good move. But there are a lot of younger ambitious Republicans who were looking at this Senate seat when it came online, obviously a huge shock and surprise to so many. But when it's a safe seat like that that someone has held for so many years, there's a lot of people waiting in the wings waiting to see when it is their turn and when it is their moment. So I think Trump really roiled things when he not just put Graham up to hold the seat, but then to take on another tenure as the full person to serve the full term. So I heard some grumbling among Republicans about that. But then I also think that Congressman Norman benefits from two factors potentially here.

And you're right that polling is slim, but we did see one come out overnight that showed them basically neck and neck. It was like 0.2 percent between them. It's probably a more conservative electorate. And now Norman is likely the more conservative with more bona fides behind him. But the second piece of it is, too, he just ran for governor. He lost that bid. But there's some recency bias on the part of this electorate who probably saw the ad, saw his candidacy, and might know more about him simply because he was just someone who was vying for a statewide ticket. That could help him here too. And we'll see ultimately.

And as we saw that sound, her debate answer, I think really could really could hurt her. MS now, senior capital reporter and host of way too early. Natalie, thank you. We're going to be looking for much more of your interview with Senator Ted Cruz throughout the day here on MS Now. We played you some earlier, both on way too early and here on Morning Joe. Still ahead here, the new film, Top of the World is telling the story of the famous restaurant that sat above the World Trade Center and the lives that were lost there on September 11th. The documentary's executive producer, Katie Lee Beagle, joins us next with a preview. Morning Joe. We'll be right back. The World Trade Center was built during this financial crisis. It was a very big expense. People just didn't like these two buildings.

And so the idea was open a restaurant, humanize it. Joe Baum, who was opening this restaurant over 100 stories up in the air. He understood that people went out because he wanted an experience. With 450 employees, Windows was like the UN of the restaurant world. I was from Peru. It's New York City. is a melting pot. I came from the Ivory Coast.

In the U.S., it was a big, a big dream. This, Justin, the plane has crashed into one of the towers. My friend's wife called me to say, your building is burning. I'm trying to call my husband. We didn't know who was there. We are still here. Then we retained the memory of them.

Everybody's notion of the restaurant changed. It became ours. We weren't just co-workers. It was a family. That's part of the trailer for the new documentary film, Top of the World, recounting the remarkable story of the legendary Windows on the World Restaurant that sat atop the Twin Towers here in New York City. The film details the ambition, opportunity, and community that define the restaurant

and the devastating loss of 79 employees in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Joining us now, the film's executive producer, Emmy Award, Award-nominated host, Katie Lee Beagle. Katie, thank you so much for joining us. You know, before we get to that day, and it's hard to imagine that day was 25 years ago. Isn't it? It's no less heavy now. Yeah, I totally agree.

Just remind viewers what this restaurant did mean, that the World Trade Center, which now, of course, we think of as an icon, and I guess by 2001 it had slowly become beloved. It was not liked to start. But this restaurant was always something special. It really was. the beginning when the Twin Towers were being built, people were not happy about it. And people didn't go downtown. It was a different place that was dangerous. It was dirty. And Windows was a way to lure people downtown. It was founded by Joe Baum, who was really the first great American

restaurateur. And he changed the way that we dine forever. And you could say that Windows changed the landscape of New York. It made people want to go downtown. So Joe believed that dinner should be theater. And Windows was the greatest show on earth. And as we just mentioned, though, on that day, all 79 restaurant employees were killed along with 91 guests. I mean, of course, sat above where the impact zone is no one survived above where the planes hit. You know, it's true, true tragedy. But you speak to it for the documentaries, a lot of firsthand accounts. So tell us some of the people you spoke to, the lives that we will learn about.

There were really amazing people who worked at Windows, and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to celebrate the people who made it what it was, the restaurant workers. There were people 400 employees. They were from two dozen countries. And restaurants didn't run without immigrants. Then they don't run without immigrants now. And we talked to some amazing people, Sikusibi, who told his story. He had actually traded shifts with someone that day.

So he was supposed to be there that morning. And he had traded shifts with a man named Moses Riva. and his story is just so moving and touching. So what, you know, there's obviously so much have been written about or, you know, documentaries about the September 11th attack, but this is a new thing. Tell us why this particular story, why the tale of this restaurant is resonated with you. Obviously, you are someone in the food world. Why do you feel like this was important for you to tell?

Well, I first read Tom Rosten's book, The Most Spectacular Restaurant in the World, in 2019 when it came out. and I handed it off to my husband because I couldn't put it down. My husband is a TV producer. And the two of us just felt like this is a story that has to be told. We couldn't believe that it hadn't been told on the screen yet. And we spent about six years assembling our team. We partnered with Time and Tribeca Films.

Our directors are amazing Oscar-nominated, Betsy West, Julie Cohen, and our partner's CNN films. And we just felt like this had to be told. We've both made our car. careers and telling stories through food. And this is really a special, unique story. So there was obviously a lot of debate after the attacks, what to do in that site. How do we rebuild? There were some thoughts. There should be an exact replica of the Twin Towers. Obviously, that didn't happen. We see the One World Trade Center anchors that complex. Was there any thought to revisiting

the restaurant idea? With Windows in the world? With Windows on the world? Well, there was a group from Windows who eventually opened a restaurant. But I, At one world trade, there is a restaurant there, but it is more of like a cafeteria style and not a splendor of windows on the world. Yeah, it doesn't certainly. This is a really touching piece. And, you know, it is, as we mentioned, 25 years. But yet it is still so vibrant and sad. Thank you for bringing these stories to screen for us. Thank you. Thanks for having me. The new film is titled Top of the World, the Untold Story of the Restaurant in the Twin Towers. It premieres in select New York City theaters this Friday. Executive producer Katie Lee Bilgle, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it.

And certainly, as the anniversary does approach, we will have a lot of coverage here on Morning Joe and MS now, 25 years from a day that certainly changed the nation and the world. That does it for us this morning. We really appreciate it. We, of course, we'll see you tomorrow at 6 a.m. Eastern for another morning, Joe. money, power, politics with Stephanie Rule is up next after a short final break.