Morning Joe - Concerns over legal loopholes Trump could use to restore $1.776B fund

Episode Date: August 4, 2026

August 4, 2026 - 6am: Blanche set to vote on advancing nomination to become Attorney General Concerns about legal loopholes in Blanche’s order to rescind $1.776B so-called ‘anti-weaponization�� fund and IRS deal Trump: Pirro ‘choked’ in reflecting pool case Michigan Primary: Ali Vitali live from Detroit Tim Barnicle: American Times, piece “Prove It: Democrats and the Working Class” 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.

These people were treated horribly, and this fund could have given them some solace. But, you know, it happens to be very popular among many quarters. And I don't participate in that fund. I was certainly treated badly. I don't participate, but I thought it would be very fair for people that spent years in prison, people that were treated so badly, for in many cases people that did absolutely nothing wrong. So I view that fund as a positive, and a lot of Republicans do too, not so many Democrats. From the sound of it, President Trump is not giving up on the nearly $1.8 billion fund that could be used to pay January 6 insurrectionists,

the people who attacked the Capitol and police officers that day. We'll bring you expert legal analysis on the loopholes in the memos from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as he faces a vote today. Also yesterday, the president calling out Janine Piro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., after she told the truth in court documents about what caused the damage to that reflecting pool. And we'll go through new reporting on a potential major development in the Middle East as Iran may have a deal to take complete control over the Strait of Hormuz. Plus, it is primary day and several states will break down the big races, including the closely watched Democratic primary in Michigan for a U.S. Senate seat that could tell us a lot about the state

of the Democratic Party. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, August 4th. With me this morning, the co-house of our 8 a.m. hour. Staff ready at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnists of Politico, Jonathan Martin, MS Now, Senior White House Reporter Vaughan Hilliard, and MS Now, Senior Legal Reporter Lisa Rubin, with a lot to get through. So let's dive right in this morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing Todd Blanche's nomination to become Attorney General on a permanent basis. It appears President Trump's former personal attorney now has the support he needs

after he issued a pair of orders late Sunday night, rescinding the president's $1.776 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund. Blanche's order also clarified the president's settlement with the IRS for tax audit immunity for Trump and his family members that it only applies to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect the president or his family from future tax filings. Those two one-page memos from Blanche were enough to win the support now of Republican senators John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Tillis of North Carolina who had blocked the confirmation vote because of that fund. The senators put out a joint statement yesterday writing, quote,

from the outset, we were clear that we needed a written document addressing our concerns. The senators go on to write, we want to express our gratitude to Mr. Mr. Blanche and his staff were working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination. Yesterday, MS Now White House reporter Jake Trailer asked the president about Blanche's memos. Mr. President, did you sign off on Todd Blanche with Senator? I didn't look at it. All I know is that Todd Blanche is great. He's going to do a great job.

Everybody knows it. And I understand there's been a sign-off. But I didn't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanche agreed to reconfirm things that he's already said and what he said was okay. But this morning there are concerns about legal loopholes the president could use to restore that taxpayer fund of nearly $1.8 billion. Okay, Lisa, that's a lot to comb through right there. Effectively, Todd Blanche, who looks like he's going to now make it throughout the Judiciary Committee at the very least and could become the next Attorney General of the United States, put out these memos to kind of,

assuage the two senators, Tom Tillis, and John Corner, now they say, we're good, thanks for the written memos. But when you dig into what he actually wrote in those memos, what do you see? I see a lot of possibility left for the president to restore the anti-weaponization fund. Let's start, Willie, with the fact the anti-weaponization fund is a creation of a settlement agreement between President Trump, the IRS, and the Department of Justice. And nothing that Todd Blanche did yesterday, eviscerates or even modifies that settlement agreement. The settlement agreement obligates the Attorney General to create the anti-weaponization fund. Todd Blanche, of course, did so through an order in May. Yesterday, he rescinded that, but there's nothing that would

preclude him from doing it all over again. These orders of the Attorney General, they are at best department policy, but at worst, this is really nothing more than like me scribbling something on a napkin handing it to you and you saying that it has the force of a binding written order, which is how Senators Tillis and Cornyn characterized it yesterday. That may be a political tool for them to sort of force Todd Blanche into a corner where he can't revive it at a later point in time. But as you and I both know, with Cornyn and Tillis, leaving the Senate after the expiration of this year, their ability to enforce that binding written order, which is not a binding document or an order, is very limited.

And that's J-Mart, just to go to you for a minute on this. That's what's so mystifying. about these two guys anyway who are leaving town, effectively run out of office in John Cornyn's case by President Trump. He basically said, just give me something I can go on so I can vote for Todd Blanche. He doesn't need to protect himself politically. This chapter of his political career is over anyway. And yet he appears satisfied by this memo, which as Lisa and others have pointed out,

really does nothing to stop President Trump from bringing it back. Why did these two senators go along for the ride on this? I think there's an impulse to be team players. And Willie, that current runs so deep in the Senate and especially with sort of party regulars like Tillis and Corn. And they don't want to be iconic class. They don't want to do Trump any favors necessarily. But I think that, you know, they believe that they've gotten something now that they can hold up to block this from happening at least for the next year. And that this is good enough for them to walk back into their Senate lunch.

with their party and say they're not trying to be obstructionist. They're trying to be constructive, but at the same time protect the rule of law and precedent. You and I know that Trump doesn't give to, you know, what's about whatever is on that piece of paper, Willie, but it's cover for two senators who are trying to be team players even on the way out. Yeah, I mean, John, we know when we heard it from the president's remarks yesterday, how he feels about this so-called anti-weaponization fund. feels people were wrong, even though they were convicted by juries of their peers in many cases.

I don't think there's a lot of doubt that President Trump, with his personal attorney, sitting as Attorney General, will work to revive this in quickly. No, he's made it clear that he will. And in recent days, it seemed like he was prioritizing the fund in these IRS protections, even over Blanche's confirmation. He had threatened he was willing to walk away from Blanche, even in the acting role, so he had gotten him in there anyway, in order to protect these things. And even when yesterday, as Blanche sort of signs these documents, you know, Trump is still in the Oval saying, hey, we want to be my idea. I still think this is a good idea. Many people are saying it.

So, Lisa, there's also, of course, the IRS part of this, which I think outraged many. And Tillis and Cornyn were not the only Republicans who expressed some misgivings about that. But the way this has been written, you have noted it can be changed, right? That there's some flexibility to this document to the IRS protections going forward. And it's hard to imagine that Trump would want to let this go as he stares at his post-political life in 2029 and beyond when theoretically there's a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat Department of Justice, a Democrat Internal Revenue Service, and he's going to want as much protection as he can for him, his son's his business. Let's contrast this with the kind of killing of the anti-weaponization fund, which can be revived. That may have holes in it right and left, but this is even worse. Jonathan, because the way in which the tax immunity was granted in the first place is through a one-page order of the Attorney General. And it has some really stark language in there that releases the plaintiffs to the Trump IRS lawsuit. That's Donald Trump, his two adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump organization from certain tax liability.

But it also releases people who are related or affiliated individuals I'm reading from the order right now, including without limitation, family or others filing jointly. Now, let's flash forward to yesterday where Todd Blanche through an unsigned thing that looks like a press release is saying, my interpretation of this is that it only applies to the main parties. That is belied by the plain text of what he signed on May 19th. So anybody who walked away thinking that this immunity was narrowed yesterday and anything remotely resembling an efficacious way is diluting themselves, diluting their constituents, and lying to the American people. And posting memos on X does not constitute binding orders. as you've pointed out, could be easily unwound.

More on the legal front, President Trump, not happy this morning with U.S. Attorney Janine Piro after her decision to drop charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Piero filed the motion to dismiss the charges against David Hearn last Friday. After prosecutors concluded,

the damage attributed to the former Olympian actually stemmed from defects in the installation of the Reflecting Pool's liner as part of that shoddy, million-dollar renovation. Here's what President Trump said yesterday about Piro's decision. I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her

department. And I guess she choked. I don't know what the hell happened. I was disappointed with Jeanette Pirore. Really disappointed with Jean-Ead O'clock. She folded like an umbrella. and people get away with things. It's a disgrace.

And she was called into the principal's office after that. More on that in the moment. CBS, meanwhile, has new reporting this morning on federal prosecutors in Piro's office, moving to dismiss three misdemeanor cases against people who were also accused of damaging the pool. Piro was spotted leaving the White House yesterday carrying a rolling briefcase and a large white box. No word on what was inside. But the New York Times reports Piro has not been fired. by Trump, nor did she offer her resignation during that meeting with the president.

That's according to two people briefed on that meeting. The Times also reports Interior Secretary Doug Bergam was at that meeting, and he continues to defend Trump's claims of vandalism at the reflecting pool without providing any evidence. Vaughan Hillier, I can't believe we're still talking about the reflecting pool, but we are. Judge Piro likely, Janine Piro likely, dismiss the charges for lack of evidence. coming out of her office, which is the case and a couple of others, as CBS is reporting this morning as well, that this Olympian says he saw a piece of something floating in the reflecting pool, reached down to touch it, and let it go when he was told to do so.

And now he's being charged with vandalism. Those charges dropped. Why is this such a sticky issue for the president of the United States? Outside of it being a national monument and such a key place that represents Washington, D.C. in so many ways, Willie, I think that all of us have to look at this through a very clear lens. And that is that the president has no patience for literally anybody here as we approach the end of 2026. If he is willing to turn on Janine Piro, he is willing to turn on quite literally anybody in this administration. If you go back to Janine Piro after the 2020 election, in documents that were revealed as part of the defamation lawsuit by Smartmatic and Dominion voting,

one Fox executive said that Janine Piro was, quote, a reckless maniac. Another executive said that she had a tendency to find random conspiracy theories on weird internet sites. And in so many ways, fast forward six years later, Donald Trump is not demanding loyalty anymore. That's not the bar. It's more than loyalty. It is actual results. And that is where he grew frustrated with Pam Bondi. You can bring an indictment against James Comey. You can bring an indictment against Letitia James. But unless that they are in jail, like he depicted in social media posts after social media posts over the years, it's not good enough. You can go and indict David Hearn for allegations of ripping up the reflecting pool after a $16 million shoddy job by a contractor that he handpicked. But unless you get that man in jail, it's not good enough. And that is the difficult reality that everybody in this administration is now watching, everybody in the cabinet, unless you deliver for the president, even if it is on conspiracy theories that are not rooted in any evidence that you have to somehow deliver for him. And I think that is going to be really difficult here over the next two years for an

administration to grapple with as he continues to lose power in just 27 months left of his own presidency. I mean, Lisa, if you take this under normal circumstances, you have a U.S. attorney in Washington, Judge Piro, Justice DePiro, I don't know why I keep calling, Judge Piro, that was her former title. Janine Piro, that, you know, looked at evidence in her office saw that this guy, David Hearn, the former Olympian, did not commit a crime and dismissed the charges. And yet, this is elevated to a national issue. What do you see in all this? Well, I see a pox on two houses, Doug Bergum's and Janine Perra.

So on one hand, yes, we can praise Janine Perro for doing the right thing by moving to dismiss the case. On the other hand, there was a rush to indict Davey Hearn to begin with. Had the U.S. Attorney's Office done a thorough investigation and looked at internal communications among and between Department of Interior people, people at the National Park Service, the U.S. Park Police, they would have seen the same evidence that she now has told a judge makes it difficult, if not impossible for her

to convict Davy Hearn on a felony. To be clear, U.S. Attorney's Office isn't saying Davey Hearn didn't touch the bottom of the reflecting pool. They're not saying that he didn't commit that aspect of the crime that he, you know, reached in with intent. What they're saying is they can't prove that he caused more than $1,000 worth of damage.

Why? Because internally at the Department of, of Interior, there were all these conversations about the flawed installation and the fact that the no-bid contractor here was responsible. And that leads me to Doug Bergam. The fact that he is not recognizing what the people under his own command are saying and doing and yet doubling down and faulting Janine Piro for this, the sort of Game of Thrones, this way is a very nice way to go sort of Wizard of Oz like dialogue between people in the Trump administration is not constructive for the rule of law. It's not constructive for democracy. It's not even constructive. for the running of this White House according to the principles by which it lives, as Vaughn just laid out.

Jay Mart, this is embarrassing. Let's just say it. It's embarrassing. And it reminds you of an episode in the first term where Trump put out some warning on Twitter about a hurricane and he included Alabama as one of the states that could have been impacted by that. And that was wrong. He made a simple mistake. But then to justify it, he brought a map into the Oval Office with a Sharpie just like he uses.

He drew a thing. But then, more worrisomely, he then went to the government and had them almost go back. and reverse engineer the idea that Alabama actually had been in danger. And it was ridiculous, and it was a lie one of many, he told him that first term. This is also that. He's flat out embarrassed. He cared about this reluctant pool. He wanted it done for July 4th. It was, he picked the contractor. It didn't happen. And now he's trying to lash out because he, of course, can't admit a mistake. But here, J-Mart, here's where it's a little different than the Hurricane episode. Like, people were charged with a crime. The David Herne, the, the, the, the, the, the,

a former Olympian has said, given interviews, saying he's rattled. He can't sleep. He's had to spend a lot of money on lawyers. Like, he's upset by what's happened. And the pain of the process shouldn't be overlooked here. And it also shows, as Doug Berg illustrates, that there are still people in Trump's world. Maybe not Gene Piro at the moment. But there are still plenty of people in Trump's world who are willing to defy facts and reason

to give him what he wants. And that's scary for the rest of us. Yeah, there's an absurdity layer to it that's amusing, you know, saying that Janine Piro choked like she was taking the approach shot on the 17th hole and hit the ball like to end the water or something. But then there's the real life impact, which is, as you point out, somebody who is being popped by federal prosecutors for dipping his hand into the reflecting pool, who petrified, obviously, that he's in trouble with the law. all to sort of cover the president's fixation with the reflecting pool. And that's the bigger issue is how this president spends his days. I've written about this. You have two, John.

But it can't be said enough. This is what consumes the president of United States. It's not affairs of war and peace. Certainly isn't the day-to-day lives with the American people. It's aesthetics. It's appearances. Appearances of people. Appearances of property.

And especially the White House property. Washington at large. That's what he cares about. That's why he drops everything on a Monday night and summons the Interior Secretary and one of his U.S. attorneys in to talk about the fate of some poor fella who happened to be at the reflecting pool. He has nothing better to do than just focus on this. And the answer, as you point out, John, is no, this is what animates him. This is what drives him more than anything else. It's not a sideshow. This is what his life day-to-day is like focused on these issues. And sometimes innocent people get drawn into these fixations like happened after a

reflecting pool. And CBS News reporting about the other people who had the charges dropped against. And one of them actually lost their job over this because it was seen as something that was political. The things that swirl around people's lives in these cases are very real, even though it's kind of used as a game by President Trump. He did say kind of giving it away yesterday. He wasn't 100% thought.

thrilled with the renovation of the reflecting pool, perhaps conceding that it was, as prosecutors put it, a botched installation and not a former Olympian who messed with the reflecting pool. MS Now, senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin, MS now Senior White House reporter Vaughan Hilliard. Thank you both. We appreciate it. Still ahead on morning, Joe. Voters in Michigan are set to cast ballots today in the States closely watched Democratic Senate primary race that poses a big test for the direction of the party. We'll get a live report from Detroit straight ahead.

Republican Senator Rand Paul will be our guest this morning. A lot to talk to him about, including the war in Iran and his questioning of Dr. Anthony Fauci last week. And as we had to break a look at the traveler's forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking out there? Well, a much better day in the Northeast today. Your Accuather forecast, sunshine, lower humidity. Boston 87, New York City, 84 degrees.

Washington, D.C., Richmond, on south, into the Carolina. China is in the southeast. There's going to be thunderstorms in the afternoon. Some of those, especially in the southeast and Florida, will have some downpours. The heat continues in Texas and the southern plains travel delays. Well, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, New York City, Philadelphia. Great day today. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. Voters in Michigan head to the polls today to decide one of the most closely watched Democratic primary battles in the country. It marks the end of a bruising.

and very expensive intra-party fight between moderate congresswoman Haley Stevens and progressive former Detroit Health Director Abdul Al-Sayed. El-Sayed, who's backed by Senator Bernie Sanders, among others, spent much of his campaign positioning self against the establishment. While Stevens, who is backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, made her case based on her electability and her experience in Congress. Both were out on the trail yesterday, making their last-minute pitches to vote. voters. And when Michigan is facing challenge, when Michigan is facing difficulty, friends, I'm running right at it. All right. And I am running at it the Michigan way to give us solutions,

to give us results. You know, not just lip service, not just anger, not just antics, but results. You can't buy hope. You can't buy hope. You can't buy belief. And so what we've got is worth way more than their 80 million. They can burn their money all they want because ours is the democracy that will do the work of correcting for the past 250 years and for the future if we are willing to show up for it. All my friends, I'm telling you, you have showed up for it. Whoever wins tonight will go on to face Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November, despite how divisive the primary has become. Both candidates say they will attend the state's Democratic Party rally scheduled for this Friday, no matter who wins the nomination. Let's go live now to Detroit and bring in MS Now's Senior Capitol Hill Reporter and the host of way too early, Ali Vitale.

And also with us this morning, contributing writer to the Atlantic, Eugene Robinson. Good morning to you both. Ali, let's start with you on the ground there. Set the scene for us a little bit as polls are set to open shortly here. Hey, Willie, Brisk, Michigan morning out here. are setting up behind me at just one of many polling places across Michigan. And you're right to point out the contours of this race. And the reason that we are looking at it so closely, not just as a litmus test in a must-win

race here in Michigan for Democrats, especially if they hope to keep the seat that they currently hold by Senator Gary Peters and have any chance of taking back the Senate. But this race also, when you think about it from an intra-party perspective, the Democratic primary itself, it's going to teach us a lot about where the party is going. in a Michigan sense and in a national sense. And I say that because we've seen recent polls that show progressive, Abdul El-Sayed, gaining some momentum here, while Haley Stevens is also trying to build a different coalition, one that Democrats have used to win in this state before.

And so when you look at this primary, it's going to be the initial test case for what it could look like in the general election. And I think when I talk about El-Said's candidacy, this race is interesting both for him as a candidate, but then also for the moment within which it falls, because we have seen in the months prior to this, voters in places like you might expect in New York, for example, with wins by Democratic Socialists, in Colorado as well, an incumbent lawmaker there losing her seat to an incumbent to a progressive challenger. All of those are part of the story that Al-Sayette is writing the next chapter of. And so if he were to win here, it is a test case of proof positive for progressive candidates that they can win in,

maybe unexpected places. Because for El Seid, his coalition tonight is going to be really important when you think about what it could look like to win in this perennial battleground state come November. For someone like Mike Rogers, who's the Republican candidate, Republican strategist that I talk to, feel good about the fact that he didn't have to go through a bruising primary. He is able to just build his case ahead of November. And there have been leaked calls where Rogers himself might say that he thinks El Seid is the better candidate for him to run against. That's something, that I and the piece we ran here yesterday showed that some voters are thinking about. And then on the other side of the coin, you have Democratic voters who say, you know what,

this theory of the idea of electing establishment Democrats, of putting forward people who have served within the system hasn't worked before. And so they might be looking for someone new. I think at the end of the day, I am so interested and excited, frankly, for what voters are going to teach and tell us, because it will be a really important litmus test and mile marker for where the Democratic Party is going and where the energy truly is right now among those voters. Let's go to our resident Michigan man. Spent some time in Ann Arbor, Eugene Robinson. Gene, what has your sense this morning and of this moment inside the Democratic Party, specifically in the state of Michigan where you have two very different candidates?

El Saeed positioning himself as the anti-establishment. I'm not Chuck Schumer. I'm not all these people in Washington. I'm one of you. He has some views that many Democrats view is extreme on Israel and others. What are you feeling right now about the state of the party and what may play out tonight? Well, this is going to be fascinating. I think there are basically two things at work here. Number one, the Democratic establishment is not popular right now. And it's not popular among Democrats to say nothing of the party at hold.

That doesn't mean Democrats won't do very much. well in the midterm elections because Donald Trump is much more unpopular among Democrats in a lot of the country than perhaps even the Democratic establishment, but still it's a bad time to be a Democrat with the support of the Democratic politicians who are seen by a lot of voters as yesterday's news, as a over as a lot of voters see it as time for something new. And I think El-Sayed, as at least according the polls, may be capitalizing on that. And then there's the old rule about how Democrats versus Republicans that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. And I think a lot of,

you know, Al-Sayyid is a really charismatic politician who's a great campaigner. He really electrifies audiences, and I think in, you know, in some ways, some, perhaps a lot of primary voters in Michigan and the Democratic Party have fallen in love with this relatively new face, this charismatic guy, as opposed to falling in line behind arguably the safer choice for November, Haley Stevens, who was better-neau. known and again, establishment linked. So we'll see how this comes out. I'm not sure it makes a lot of profound statements about the Democratic Party nationwide, simply because we see candidates like El-Said, these insurgent younger candidates, some of them Democratic socialists,

although he's not. We see them doing very well in some places, and not. in others, and perhaps that's as it should be. Maybe Democrats should run the candidates who are appropriate to that district and to that state rather than trying to come out with some sort of national template for a candidate. So, Jay Martin, let's get your thoughts on Michigan. To Eugene's point, that's right. I mean, we're seeing different kind of candidates win in different places. Much is made of the more moderate candidates, the Democrats put forth for governor last year in New Jersey, Virginia. That was a success. This year, it's more of a mixed bag. they're going for the much more progressive liberal candidate, others less so.

But for whatever reason, it does seem, though, that this Michigan race is almost being viewed as a proxy war or a preview of the sort of fight for the Democratic Party ahead of 2028. Like, what is our party going to look like? Who's our nominee going to be for the presidency? And there seems to be almost an outsized importance being placed in what we see tonight. John, I feel like we're going to be on this show in the 2060s. the two of us, and then we're going to be talking about the Bernie versus Hillary proxy war, and we're going to be wearing dentures, and we'll have really bad toupees on, and it's going to be the same fight, man.

It hasn't changed. It's very similar here, similar forces, left of center versus left, and that's the fight you see playing out. Gene touched on this. You know, the bottom line is that El-Said is the superior candidate. It's run a superior campaign, and that shows. The deeper issue is that winning a primary is fine, but you've got to win a general in a battleground state like Michigan. It's difficult when your view is out of the mainstream,

and that's going to be El-Said's challenge. Can he come back to the center and win over voters in the political middle? And I got to say, this is on Michigan Democrats. If they don't win this election, they had two options here. Number one, Gary Peters, the incumbent senator, could have run for reelection. You know, he's not 87 years old. He's pretty young by the median of the U.S. Senate. And secondly, the outgoing governor, two-term governor of the state, Gretchen Whitmer, also could have run, potentially cleared the field or at least been a much more formidable candidate than anybody else in the race. Neither of those two things happen. So that's why Michigan Democrats are left where they are. Here's why it matters for the Senate math. If Democrats lose this state, they're already one in the hole. They're minus one.

That means they'd have to net five seats, guys, to get back to the majority. And that's not even mentioning the question about John Federman and where he winds up after election day if you're looking at a 50-50 Senate. So it's a proxy war. It matters. But more immediately, it matters for the Senate math, because Democrats can't afford to lose one and take back the Senate. I don't think.

That's a great point, J-Mart. Already a steep climb for Democrats to take the Senate. They can't afford to lose one more. So, Ali, let's talk about issues that are raised. resonating on the ground. Voters you've talked to there, obviously the economy, healthcare, those things always top of mind, the cost of living. But at the center of this campaign, we hear again and again, not just from candidates, but from voters about the issue of Israel. And these two candidates could not be further apart on that.

Yeah, this is actually a great example of a primary where you've got different messengers, but also some very key different messages. It's not just on things like health care, where I'll say it is for Medicare for All and Haley Stevens is for a more universal public health option. It does very much come down to Israel. And the reason that that's an important litmus test in Michigan is because this is one of the places where the uncommitted movement in 2024 began and frankly blossomed. This is also a place that never fully within that movement embraced Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. And when you talk about a state that really votes on the margins, that is very important when you think about the coalition that did turn out in 2024. And so

L-Said is a continuation of that story. He is campaigning, yes, around the issue of leaning away from future aid to Israel. It's something that I pressed him on in my interview when I was with him here last week. But he's also leaning on it through the role of money. One of his central premises is getting money out of politics. And he's talking specifically about the more than $30 million that have flowed in from a pro-Israel group tied to APEC. That is, of course, backing Haley Stevens. On the other side, when I asked Haley Stevens, if there's anything that would change her posture toward continued U.S. aid to Israel, She said she's running for a long term, six years if she gets this seat, maybe things will happen going forward, but she's committed to a two-state solution.

And so that is one clear marker for voters if they want to see the differences between these candidates. The other thing that I think of and the reason that I do think of this as a bigger question and a bigger proxy for the Democratic Party is because candidates for 2028 are always looking to two theories. Am I someone who's going to turn out the base or am I someone who's going to turn out people who were on the sidelines and not feeling engaged? I think an El Ceyed win here puts one in the column for turning out people who might not traditionally be part of the Democratic Party or coalition. For someone like Stevens, she is looking at people who are more typically turning out, specifically black voters. And in areas like here in Detroit, that is going to be essential when you talk about November and being able to make sure that whoever the nominee is can pull together all parts of that coalition, guys. And we'll have answers on all of this just a few hours from now. MS now, Senior Capitol Hill Reporter.

of way too early. Ali Vitale, Ali, thanks so much. Jaymart, in the new episode of your On the Road podcast, you sat down this time with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Here's part of your conversation with Buttigieg about today's political climate. In your reflective moments, you ever say, no damn it, I did everything right, busted my ass, got into Harvard, you know, was elected mayor as a young man. I was just born too late. aren't too late. What I mean? That you would have been a better fit in the Birchby era,

that you're somebody whose style, whose politics, frankly, would have been better in a sort of less heated, less pugilistic moment that was more consensus-oriented. I mean, first of all, I'm gay and I'm up from Indiana, so I was born two years earlier than I was. It would have been impossible, I think, to even get reelected.

I think there are moments in our past that... That actually raises an important question. If you would have pursued a kind of career in an earlier day, you would have had to stay in the closet, wouldn't you have? Yeah, which I think at some point would have become unsustainable. But I guess what I'd say, there are different seasons in the story of this country that reward different things. there's moments where

you know people want steady and stable there's moments when people want to burn the house down there's times when institutions are respected there are times when institutions show all of their foibles and wind up having to get overhauled together

but I would be a little bored in a season when it seemed like everything was going along just fine in the way some people think about the 90s or the way some people think about the 50s I just can't imagine it would have been as interesting to do the kinds of government that I care about. It's precisely when the house is on fire that you wind up having the most interesting and exciting changes. When you take something from the realm of the preposterous into the possible or from the possible and actually happening, I actually think that kind of orientation is right on time for a moment like this.

Love these conversations, Jay Mark. That one, Traverse City, Michigan, beautiful backdrop. there for the two of you. You know, Buttigieg has been out there a little bit lately, kind of hinting, though not committing, to perhaps looking at running for president again, talking right there about sort of relishing this political climate, not running from it. What's your sense of what he does next? Well, it was a deft answer. We were on Grand Travers Bay up north and in Michigan, where he actually now lives full time with his husband, Chaston, which is Chaston's hometown.

Look, well, I think he's inclined to run. You don't have the success he had as a 30-something mayor and then just walk away. I think he wants to give it another go. Part of the reason why you passed on running for office in Michigan this year. So I think he's tempted to look at it. But I kind of liken it to a doctor who is so sophisticated that they can diagnose themselves. He's such a student of politics. and he's such a natural talent that he understands his strengths, his weaknesses,

like a doctor understands what's happening in their body. And I think he understands the challenges that he would face in the nomination fight and the general, Willie. I think he gets the fact that he is so even measured that, you know, is this a moment for that? You saw him talking about the structural demands, the kind of reforms he believes are needed. The deeper question is, is his persona fit for this pugilistic moment? And I think he understands that that could be a challenge. It's not clear if this moment kind of rewards, you know, nuance rather than provocation.

And obviously, he's a more nuanced guy, as you can just see, playing that clip. And there's lots more where that came from. You can watch the full hour on the podcast on the road. Whether he runs or not, Democrats, look at him as a huge asset, even if he's just going on Fox news and making the case are having conversations like this with you. The podcast is on the road. You can watch it on YouTube or listen to it wherever you get them. Politico's Jonathan Martin, Jay Mart.

Always great to see you, my friend. Thank you. Coming up, we've talked a lot about Michigan this morning. Also, though, primary day, several other states, including Virginia. We'll have a live report a bit later from that state as Democrats hope to flip a couple of key house seats in November. Morning Joe's coming right back. Whether they occurred in Colorado or Idaho or Idaho or Idaho.

wherever they occurred, it was the people in the Democratic Party and the people in the United States want to change. That's Robert F. Kennedy, championing change in what would be his final speech back in June of 1968. Our next guest argues, 58 years after Robert Kennedy's final victory, the people in the Democratic Party want change again. But to make real change, Democrats need to target the coalition Kennedy sought in 1968 to win. Author Tim Barnacle joins us now with his new piece for his American Times substack. It's titled Prove it, Democrats and the Working Class.

Tim, it's great to see you. As always, you do, a lot of Red Sox talk. We're going to put that to the side. We're only two games behind the Yankees. So we will not be discussing that as long as I'm seated here. But Tim, let's talk about your case. This ties into our previous segment. What's happening in Michigan right now,

which is who has the right message to appeal again to working class voters, to minority voters, the same coalition that Robert F. Kennedy was trying to put together in 68. Right. I mean, you look at 68, and it was a moment in which the establishment of the Democratic Party was incredibly unpopular, and you had this insurgent candidate who was increasingly progressive, who was increasingly looking for working-class coalition, working-class solutions. It was Robert F. Kennedy. It was the former attorney general to his brother and senator from New York, but he found a insurgent kind of lane that mirrors a lot of what you're seeing today, within the Democratic Party. Now you're seeing it in Michigan with Syed and Stevens. And where

that plays out, we don't know. But it's one of these things where is it a left versus right problem within the party or is an up versus down appealing to working class voters that have just been bleeding from the Democratic Party for over a decade now? Can we talk about the historical irony that Robert F. Kennedy, as you said, brother of the president, the attorney general, senator from New York somehow staked out the anti-establishment ground in 68. How did he pull that off? Well, he was the attorney general, obviously, to his brother, and then he leaves Lyndon Johnson's administration once Johnson becomes president, and he runs for Senator of New York.

He thought, should they run for Governor of Massachusetts or Senator from New York? That's a Kennedy problem, not when we can relate to, but he runs for Senate in New York, and he realizes as the Ted Offensive goes on, as he looks at the Democratic Party, that he's is moving away from working class solutions he finds. And he really has a kind of crisis of confidence within himself and shifts away from him. I mean, this is Robert Kennedy who started with McCarthy, with Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin during, you know, kind of the red scare in the 50s. So he moves all the way to the left. And I think it, in a way, mirrors not only what's happening within the Democratic Party in terms of its leaders, but also its voters. I mean, you see people in

Michigan who, you know, voted for even, forget about a Democrat and, you know, Obama in 2012, voted for Trump in 2020, 2020, 24 and see, you know, someone like El Sayed and say, maybe that's the solution I need. I mean, real solutions to real problems that people feel that moderate Democrats just aren't offering. Yeah, so let's talk about that. This idea that Democrats have forgotten the working class voters, right? We have seen them in recent elections, hemorrhage those supporters to Trump in particular. And RFK saw that. It was working class voters. He also reached out to Latino voters in a way that was sort of new at the time. So how can that playbook be applied now? What sort of messages do Democrats need to do to try to win what had been the sort of historically

the foundation of the party? How do they get them back? Well, we talk about, you know, day to day how unpopular Donald Trump is, I think is, you know, disapproval rating is something around 60%. The Democratic disapproval rating, the party's disapproval rating, is around the same number. So they're historically unpopular. So when party leaders, moderate leaders want to wonder, you know, what is the issue? They should probably just, it appears, look in the mirror because that's what voters feel. Now, in terms of solutions, I think 66% of Americans, you know, are for universal health coverage, well, 67% of Americans feel that the economy is going in the wrong direction. So there are solutions to be made. But again, I think in 2024, Democrats ceded, 56, percent of working class voters to Donald Trump. I mean, and since 2018 have been seating working class voters since 2016, really. So if they can't get that class of voters back, they're just going to continue to lose. And if they win something like the House, it'll be on margins that are much smaller than we're expected. Tim, Gene Robinson's got one for you. Gene.

Yeah, Tim, to what extent has the middle, has the working class changed, though, since 1968? It seems to me that our definition of working class voters is a bit different now. Back in 1968, there was a big manufacturing sector in the economy, for example, which has shrunk so much. It seems to be back then it was easier to get one's arms around what's the working class as opposed to now. How do you see that change and how do you see candidates' Democrats responding to that? Well, the working class has been hollowed out in this country, and it is kind of this amorphous term that we hear on the primary kind of debate stage, so to speak, but those without a college degree are technically working class.

But it is the majority of Americans. It's the majority of voters. But it's been hollowed out in a sense that right now, more than half of Americans, can't afford an $1,000 emergency expense. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So it's not just a democratic problem. It's not just a Republican problem. It's an American problem.

And Donald Trump has made these cultural appeals to working class voters on, you know, racial lines that have been appealing, obviously, and it have been beneficial to his voter roles, but have not been beneficial to the voters themselves. And that is a problem. Democrats now have to deal with not just appealing with how to get those voters back, but actually how to provide real solutions that will get them to come back and become loyal to the party as they once for, which is, again, what Senator Kennedy sought in 1968. We'll get a snapshot on this conversation tonight in Michigan. We'll see which way they swing.

All right, since your piece was so excellent and you explained it so well, I'll allow a moment for the Red Sox. What's going on here in Boston, guys? They've won 28 of their last 33. Yeah. No one quite knows how. They've had great pitching. They've patched together. They have a little magic going. And yesterday they made some significant moves at the deadline, including Adley Rushman, a former first overall pick, three-time all-start.

Now he's hurt, but it fills a huge area of need as catcher. They gave up a lot of prospects for him. But Tim, bottom line is, unthinkable a month ago, the Red Sox are going for it. At one point, we were the worst team in Major League Baseball. Now you see me brighten up. I mean, we're talking about, you know, the national issues of facing the date. but now really what matters, which is the Boston Red Sox. Now, Adley Retchman is a star, former MVP candidate in the American League and can be a difference maker when he comes back in a week.

But we added a bullpen arm. Red Sox are going for it. Life is good. The Yankees are on the decline. Red Sox are on the incline. People are happy. I let this go on too long, haven't I? Yeah, it's coming out.

It's supposed to be a brief moment about the Red Sox. I thought there's a next hour. Large exposition about the Red Sox. No, it's amazing. I mean, you guys, with good reason, we're sitting here, a month, two months ago, Mike Barnacle, Joe, saying this is among the worst Red Sox team. It was. And unwatchable.

Unwatchable. And look at them now. Two games behind the Yankees. Tim Barnacle, thanks so much. The new piece available to read on the American Times with Tim Barnacle subsect. Tim, always great to see you. Thank you. Still ahead, we'll dig in a new reporting on a possible deal that would solidify Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz.

We'll discuss that and more with Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. morning joe's coming right back