Morning Joe - David Ignatius: Trump is waiting for Iran to tap out when it comes to blockade

Episode Date: April 16, 2026

David Ignatius: Trump is waiting for Iran to tap out when it comes to blockade 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.

Vice President Van said yesterday that the Pope should be very, very, very important for the Pope be careful when he talks about matters of theology. Do you agree with that sentiment? You talk about matters of theology? Yeah. Isn't that his job? Senate Majority Leader John Soon responding to Vice President Vance's advice to Pope Leo. And despite backlash for posting a picture depicting him as Jesus, President Trump shared. Another religious image on social media yesterday.

This one shows Jesus embracing the president to which Trump wrote, The Radical Left Lunatics Might Not Like This, but I think it's quite nice. Yeah, no, it's not the radical left lunatics that are upset about this. It's actually, it's people of faith that are offended by this. and the continued use of Jesus in these grotesque AI generated images, it's not the radical left. I thought, my gosh, Republicans, I thought the radical left were godless. I thought, so I'm not sure why he would think that would upset the left.

It's actually conservative. So you can read many of his longtime supporters and read the Times yesterday, Ross do thought, talking about how bad this is. And again, the continued savaging of the Pope and the continued justification of the savaging of the Pope by the vice president and the president is, again, your problem is not from the Manhattan Young Marxist League. The problem is coming from inside your house, sir. You might want to stop mocking Jesus Christ. It's what the kids call a 90-10 issue, and you're on the 10 side of that equation there.

90% are deeply offended by that. Also, Vice President Vance was asked what the administration has done that he's proud of. We'll play for you that answer. We're also going to talk about New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani, who's one step closer to fulfilling a major campaign promise we're going to go through that just ahead. With us, we have the co-host of our 9-A.m. Hour staff writer of the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and former spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, Hagar Shemali. She also worked

at the National Security Council and the Treasury Department. So the push for peace between the United States and Iran is gaining momentum this morning, less than one week away, from the expiration of the ceasefire. Two senior Pakistani officials tell MS now the warring countries will likely meet again next week for a second round of talks, noting that Pakistan, which has emerged as a key mediator, will once again likely be the venue. A White House official adds to MS now that future talks are under discussion, but nothing has been scheduled yet. This comes as there are signs of optimism on the ground. Pakistan's army chief traveled to Tehran yesterday to meet with Iran's foreign minister in a continued effort to ease tensions and secure another round of negotiations. There are also signs of

optimism from the White House. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt told reporters in a briefing yesterday, quote, we feel good about the prospects of a deal. That comes as a, as U.S. Central Command says its blockade of Iranian ports along the street of Hormuz is holding firm. According to CENTCOM, no ships have passed through since the operation began Monday morning. Officials say nine vessels turned around in the first 48 hours after being warned. Sentcom also released this audio of those warnings to ships approaching the area. The U.S. has announced a formal blockade of Iranian ports in postal areas. This is a legal action. All vessels are advised to immediately return to port and leaving and discontinued transit to Iran if that is your next port of call. We do not attempt the breach of blockade.

Vessels will be boarded for interdiction and seizure, transit to or from an Iranian port. Turn around and prepare to be boarded. If you do not comply with this blockade, we will use force. The whole of the United States Navy is ready to force compliance. David Ignatius, from talking to people in the region, in the Gulf region, talking to people inside the white, House connected to the negotiations. I'm hearing a growing sense of optimism, something that wasn't really there a week ago, a growing sense of optimism, that the moving forward with a blockade actually is a low-risk, high-reward alternative to what was going on before that began.

And they believe, you know, I have passed by members of the administration. Your observation, your observation, a week ago. We needed to get into a position where time was on our side instead of time being on the Iranian side. They feel like this has gotten them into that position. What do you think? What are you hearing? So, Joe, I think you described the sense of optimism of the White House team correctly. I think the meeting in Islamabad went better than it might have seemed, given that they immediately moved to the blockade. There was actually quite a lot of trust established, and by the end of that meeting, they were down to kind of dickering over details over what the, how long the agreement

to refrain from nuclear activity would last, the terms for which the straight of reform was to be open. They couldn't get to a deal. But I was told when the meetings broke up, that Pakistan was likely to continue the process of dialogue. and that's what we're seeing this week. I think two things strike me right now, Joe. First, President Trump continues to negotiate in this way

where he plays both good cop and bad cop at the same time. And it's sometimes confusing. He's adding even more force to the Middle East at a moment where it's clear. He wants to get the exit ramp from military action. He didn't want to keep fighting this war. He wants to end it. But even so, he's still maintaining military.

for us. He's using the blockade for an economic chokehold. Viewers who know UFC fighting, no one fighter puts the other guy into submission. He gets over on the neck and then waits for him to tap out. And that means that the fight's over. Donald Trump is waiting for Iran to tap out and then move into a different period where the U.S. has promised substantial economic aid, all kinds of inducements to get them to cross what one, official called the Golden Bridge into the future. That's the way Trump administration is trying to characterize the choices for Iran. So I think we're close.

I think the biggest problem, Joe, is that despite what the president says, there has not been regime change in Iran. There's been leadership change. And the person at the top of the leadership, Mohamed Ghali Baf is a very pragmatic dude. He has been for 20 years. I've been writing about him that long. as somebody who'd like to do deals with the West.

But he's facing, I'm told, quite a lot of opposition at home. So that's the space to wash. Very opaque for us to know what's going on in Tehran. But there's no question that President Trump and his advisors think they're close, think this deal is one that they can sell, that will at once cap the Iranian nuclear program in a significant way, and bring Iran into the life of the Gulf and into what would be a modern state

that would try to behave more like the United Arab Emirates than the Iran of old. You know, I don't usually, I usually go to Andrew Ross Sorkin to ask economic questions, but when geopolitical events impact our economy, I think I'll go to you on that one and just ask you, what impact has the markets continued resiliency had on actually putting the White House in a stronger

position? Because the markets are not responding quite as dramatically as many people thought at the beginning. They were expecting $125 per barrel, maybe 150. It's hovering at or below 100, and the S&P up to record highs. That gives the White House. That gives negotiators a lot more latitude with Iran, doesn't it? It does. I think Iran was thinking that as it continued to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage, and again, Joe, I see this as a hostage-taking,

that the effect on markets would be enormous. And the level of pain for Donald Trump would be, enormous. Instead, the stock market is setting records. The oil markets seem to be kind of sloughing this off. And that, in effect, devalues Iran's biggest weapon. And in fact, by blockading the blockade, it's Iran that now has a problem. It's only got a few weeks left. It needs the revenue badly to be able to, as one part of the U.S. team put it, Iran has been living in military version of COVID, there's no economic activity, there's no, nothing going on in Tehran. They need, they need this to end soon.

So I think you're right to describe the optimism that the White House feels as it looks at the markets and the undoubtedly the disappointment that Iranians feel that their weapon isn't drawing much blood. You know, Jonathan, I know you're going to be going to Hagar with the question. I just let's sum this up, though, a little bit about what's been happening over the past week or two inside the White House. Obviously, we've all been talking about how the United States has been doing exceptionally well hitting a lot of the military targets that they had laid out at the beginning of the operation. There have obviously been some tragic, tragic mistakes at the same time. Just real tragedies.

At the same time, most of the military. targets they wanted to hit, they hit so they've considered a military operation. But right alongside of that has been the fact that it's been a political failure. This has seemingly shifted that equation, at least talking to our allies in the Gulf region, one of whom told me a few days ago that they had been discussing this with Jared Kushner and actually saying a blockade would choke off Iran's support, financial support, and they would be left with no option other than deal with the United States. And my reporting, at least, from this Gulf ally, is that Kushner went to the White House, went to the president, and lobbied for this very hard to get that

blockade. And now that the blockade's in there, you and I were talking yesterday about it, our sources inside the White House suggest that when the president's not being blasphemous, when the president's not doing AI images of Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, they're actually feeling fairly optimistic on Iran and feel like this blockade has completely changed the dynamics. this gulf leader and artfully said the news was around our neck this move is taking it off of us and put it on Iran and now they have to act yeah making truth social posts about jesus takes up a surprisingly significant part of the president's schedule it would appear but yes uh this is a there there's all hold those you you get you get six to nine cable tv watching nine to 11

executive time, 11 to 1145, being blasphemous against Jesus of Nazareth, 12 o'clock, quick lunch, and then you go on with your day. But yes, this is, this is taking a lot of space there. That said, when he is not being blasphemous, when he's not attacking God's representative on earth, when he's not mocking Jesus Christ, he's running a war and right. Right now, that seems to be working fairly well, this blockade. Yeah, the blockade is. And you and I did speak yesterday afternoon comparing notes on this.

And the White House definitely feeling better about where things are. Let's be clear, this war is still politically very unpopular here at home. I wrote a piece yesterday for the Atlantic looking at a variety of things that have combined at once. To give Trump a real losing streak here, that's including what we saw Viktor Orban's defeat in Hungary, that of course is the fact that this Iran war has dragged on to nearly 50. days now. It is about the economic numbers. It's about his polling. And of course, the fight with the Pope. None of that is well received at home. But what would be even worse for the president would be if the blockade weren't to work or if he opted for a ground assault. And that's still, you know,

on the table as a possibility. I'm told if the week or so back, President Trump leaning that way, even though a lot of his senior aides did not want him to, thinking that would be risky, of course, for the American soldiers who's been putting their lives in danger, actually conducting the operation, but also for his political fortunes and the fortunes of Republicans here at home. So the sigh of relief that that is at least put on the back burner for now. So the blockade is front and center. So Hagar, let's get your sense here. You know the region so well. You know the economy of the region. The biggest question is, how long can Iran withstand this? You know, there seems to be some sort of conflicting analysis from the region. Some say, yes, it's a matter, you know, could just be a

couple of weeks and they're going to capitulate. Others say, well, maybe they can hang on for a few months, and especially if that's the case, then the economic pain is going to be felt acutely here around a globe in the West and here in the United States. What's your sense? If the blockade holds, the president stays to course here, how long can Tehran put up with it? Sure, Jonathan, this is a really good question, actually, because it's always easy to believe that that dictators will fall and that these regimes will fall. And I've been on the other end of making that mistake when I handled Syria at the White House that we thought that Assad was near falling.

And the mistake you usually make is that we don't really realize the extent to which other governments and allies will jump in. But with the Iranian regime, that's not really going to be the case. Russia, even with some reports here and there about intel assistance, is not going to save the Iranian regime. China as well, there have been, there were past exports, but they're not going to go in and get into a proxy war with the United States. And when you look at the economics of it, the Iranian regime has been in an economic collapse since last year. And Iran's own central

bank highlighted that, alerting that their own banks, each one was about to explode all of their major ones. One of their major ones exploded Bank Ayande in the fall of last year. And that's what precipitated the protests because of the regime's economic mismanagement. So when it comes to how long they can hang on, this is a question of how long they can pay their soldiers for. And the fact is that in a matter of months, the regime is not going to be able to pay their soldiers. But I don't think the blockade will last that long. I think you're talking more a matter of weeks, days. But as a regime economically, it doesn't have an economic like to stand on. And that's when you're going to see a problem. Military defections, a military can only be so

loyal when it's not getting paid. Okay. So David Ignatius, lay it out for us. What's next in the peace process and also how does the Israel-Lebanon situation play into that? So taking them in turn, what's next to the peace process is to have another meeting brokered by the Pakistanis in which the issues that were left on the table unresolved move closer to resolution. It's probably going to take more than just one meeting. These are complicated technical issues. They'll need good technical advisors with them, but They're going to have to think about things like, okay, how do you actually get the highly enriched uranium, roughly 440 kilograms, that's in Iran out? Do you, or make it safe?

Do you dilute it in Iran, which is a proposal that the Iranians made before this war began? Do you make it less dangerous that way? Does the IAEA remove it as a separate operation? that's visible, verifiable. Those are a couple of the obvious ways. How long does Iran agree to stop enriching? Is it five years? Is it 20 years as the Trump administration wants?

And how comfortable are people? How confident are that that really means the effective end of the Iranian nuclear program? What about ballistic missiles? What's the formula for limiting what Iran can do on the ballistic missiles that now are so part? They threaten not just Israel, but Europe. How are those going to be limited?

What about Iranian proxies? How can people be confident that Hezbollah and the other proxy organizations? We'll just go back to war. So those are the kinds of deals that they're going to have to work out. The Trump administration has said, look, we want a big deal. And to get a big deal, we're willing to offer you a lot in terms of lease of money that's been held by the U.S. under sanctions, a broad program of economic reconstruction recovery for Iran, an attempt to bring Iran into the community of the Gulf. There are a lot of big ideas that they're throwing around,

but it begins with these details, Mika, and I think they'll get, I guess they'll move further this week on those details, but I'd be surprised if they finish. Lebanon, Hagar knows that better than anybody, and I should ask Agar to help us think through that. I'm struck Hagar by the fact that we now have Israel prepared for direct peace talks with Lebanon and a Lebanon that sounds like it's finally prepared to stand up to Hasbollah, take control of its territory, and be a real country again. Is that too optimistic? No, it's not too optimistic.

This is one of the most significant pieces of what came out on Tuesday. is the fact that you have a Lebanon, Lebanese government that has asserted itself as the state authority and as the only authority that can negotiate on behalf of Lebanon and not Hezbollah and not Tehran. Hasbullah itself told the Lebanese government, we don't want you participating in these talks. And the Lebanese leaders said, told them to go pound sand.

And they showed up in Washington. And it's not just that they showed up in Washington, by the way, there are a lot of other wins that give me optimism. And as David knows, I do have a lot of hope for this. I do tend to be optimistic on it. I say that if you weren't optimistic and you work on these issues, we won't get out of bed. But that said, I have optimism because you see the wins. They made a joint statement.

Two sides that have been at warring ends where Lebanon has a law, a boycott law, where they literally can't even speak to Israelis, can't be seen within Israelis, certainly can't travel to Israel. And yet they agreed on a joint statement on the first day of these talks being launched, agreed on a joint statement, Lebanese government reasserting itself, and they agreed on being committed to crafting a comprehensive peace deal.

These were called, quote-unquote, working-level peace talks. There are going to be ups and downs. I don't want to be, you know, over-idealistic here. But they committed to talking about the security of civilians on both sides. Territorial integrity, border delineation.

The Israeli government reiterated emphatically over and over again. We have no territorial interests in Lebanon. We just want to make sure that our citizens aren't threatened by Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon, well, and from Lebanon in general. And so on the whole, these talks went really well. All three sides, I know all saw it as really productive as they all have all, they all have real hope for it. And so do I personally. All right. Former spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, Hagar Shammali, and columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius. Thank you both. much for your expertise this morning. And still ahead on morning, Joe, what New York City Mayor,

Zoran Mamdani, is saying about a new plan to tax some of the city's wealthiest residents. Plus, Steve Ratner, standing by with charts breaking down, President Trump's proposed 2027 budget that includes historic defense spending. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Accu-Rather's Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mickey, it's looking hot again. Your exclusive ACU of the forecast. How about 89 in New York City? 94 in Washington, D.C., the all-time record high for April's 95.

Cooler in Boston, spotty thunderstorms, Buffalo, Syracuse, Pittsburgh. That's where you can have some minor flight delays. Cooler in Chicago today with a high temperature of 68, bone dry in the southeast, dry and warm across Texas, including Dallas. At the major airports, I don't have any delays today. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. You know what's coming next?

A beautiful view. Look at that shot of New York City, where we have news for you this morning. New York City Mayor, Zoran Mamdani, is backing a new plan to tax some of the city's richest residents. When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we're taxing the rich. I'm thrilled to announce who secured a pia to tear tax, the first in New York's history.

This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million. This pia deter tax is specifically designed for the richest of the rich. Those who store their wealth in New York City real estate, but who don't actually live there. All right. So as you heard there, this tax would apply to the ultra wealthy who own multiple homes in the state, putting an annual surcharge on homes valued above $5 million when there is no resident who lives primarily in New York City. The mayor's office says the tax is estimated to generate $500 million annually and would impact 13,000 New York City homes. The plan was unveiled

yesterday by New York's Democratic Governor Kathy Hochle and expected to be part of the next state budget which legislators are months behind and approving. Let's bring in... Joe, let's go to you first on this. You're going to have to get rid of your pieter. Sorry. Yeah, I am on the 87th floor of... I don't know.

So, this is very interesting. It sounds like a plan that most New Yorkers will actually approve of. I remember, as you know, I usually get one of those bicycles. Like somebody, you know, somebody... City bikes. actually drives me.

No, I'd not seat bike, but where I'm being driven behind. Like Lewis Bergdorf used to always take me into, yeah, Rickshaw, that's how I used to get into the work. I still do. But we were going past, it was about a decade ago, the plaza. And it was like, why are the lights always dark when you go by there? And Lewis, of course, who knows the city better than anybody else, he goes, well, that's because most of those places, I don't know if it's a case now at the plaza now, but most of those

Those places are owned by wealthy people from, whether it's China, Russia, Europe, Saudi Arabia. They buy them and they put their money in them and they maybe show up one or two nights a year. And so that's happening all over the city. I always thought it was a shame, a real shame, especially because it drove up the costs for other New Yorkers, people who live. there. But now, this is interesting, a very good way to possibly raise revenue from people who park their money here and actually raise rent for other New Yorkers. And they do that and don't pay taxes. So at least don't pay income taxes. Let's bring in a man who I know is going to think this is the greatest idea ever, former Treasury official. And Morning Joe economic analyst

Steve Ratner, we're going to get to the charts in a moment, Steve. Hey, Steve, you know, even for an old Republican like me, this seems to make an awful lot of sense if you have to raise revenue. Yeah, look, it's not the stupidest idea in the world. I'll grant you that. We're dealing in a very complicated political dance between the mayor who would like to raise taxes all over the place on everybody and the governor who has to get elected across the entire New York State, who is a moderate herself. and but nonetheless needs the support of the progressive side.

So this is a kind of clever way to thread the needle, if you will, of taxing people who either aren't here or who can afford it or a relatively small percentage, and you're only taxing people on their second homes, and you're only taxing non-residents. And so it's not a question of somebody from New York picking up and moving to Florida to avoid the tax. You don't avoid the tax. And so all of that makes good sense.

I would just point out on the other side of that these people already do pay a lot of property taxes on those really, really expensive houses that they have or apartments that they have in New York, that they don't use a lot of New York services because they are not here, as you will, and that they did contribute a lot of construction jobs and maintenance jobs to creating them. So I'm sympathetic to it. I get the idea that we have to raise taxes, and if you're going to raise taxes, you want to find a way to thread the needle, raise it on the rich, but not drive the ones who pay the New York State income taxes, New York City income taxes out of the state. And Mika, just a reasonable response. A quick thought on this. For the politics for Mabani, it's a home run.

Yeah. I mean, first of all, it's, there's those skinny skyscrapers on 57th Street. Yeah. That's the issue now in the last 10 years or so. If you look up at them, you realize how few lights are on. And that's because a lot of them are just indeed for wealthy people to park their money. And Maldani, who's still doing these campaign, like, for instance, a view like that. Yeah. You know, for Mammani, you know, still doing these campaign-style videos direct-to-camera. this is his message. And I think it'll pull very, very well here. Steve is right.

It's a little more complicated for the governor. But right now, Montheon's approval rating is 60-odd percent. Yeah. Like, you know, it's not a bad idea for her to, like, meet him halfway. Maybe. Those skinny skyscrapers, do they move or is that an optical illusion? Some of them do, they're designed to sway in the wind a little bit. They have to.

No. No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't live there. Okay, Steve, your charts this morning. Take a look at the Trump administration's budget proposal. And the impact it would have on demand. programs and the nation's rising debt. Let's start with spending on war and less at home. Yeah, so this has not gotten a lot of attention, obviously, with the war going on.

But the president a little while ago put out his budget plan for fiscal year 27, which begins October 1st of this fall. And you all remember Project 2025. This is kind of a little bit of a reincarnation of that. This would be the most dramatic resweeping of the federal government since certainly the New Deal and who knows when beyond that. Now, I also want to emphasize this was prepared before the war in Iran started. So this is not about the war. This is about the president's other priorities. So let's start with the red.

Red is bad, obviously. He's cutting stuff. He's cutting virtually every single domestic agency in the country. And even states' foreign aid programs get slashed. Labor goes down by 25%, labor department rather. And what this would do when you adjust for inflation, it would bring spending in these departments down to extraordinarily low level. So, for example, the Labor Department would go down to levels of spending it hasn't had since 1976, inflation adjusted. The Agriculture Department, which administers food stamps, down to 1976.

Others back into the 1980s and years like that. And meanwhile, down here, what's going on, you're having this massive 44% increase in the same. size of the defense budget. And then some related things. Veterans, of course, are part of defense in a sense of taking care of them. DOJ, terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and so forth, prosecutions, got to fix our air traffic control. So he's got a few pluses. But boy, it's a sea of red ink for all of our major cabinet departments. And Steve, the biggest plus, of course, heading to the Pentagon. Talk to us about how this is now potentially your second chart, the largest defense budget in history. This is a big. This is a bigest,

on an inflation-adjusted basis, we can say the largest defense budget in history going all the way back to World War II. He wants to go from roughly a trillion dollars to a trillion and a half dollars. You can see some of our other, you can see some of our other recent wars here. You can see, for example, you can go all the way back to Vietnam. You can see in the early 80s, the early 90s rather the First Gulf War. You can see the Iraq War. And now he wants to go all the way up here. But even more dramatically than that, because it's coming from everything I just showed you before, it dramatically reverses the kind of detente, if you will, or the balance that the two sides had found and how our budgets are constructed. For a long time, domestic and defense spending

were roughly equal as a percent of GDP. That was a kind of informal, as I said, packed between the Republicans and the Democrats. COVID pushed up domestic spending. We all knew why, but that balance stayed pretty much the same. This would be this dramatic reverse. reversal, an unbelievable reversal in which defense spending would be twice as much as the share of GDP, and in dollars, for that matter, as would defend domestic discretionary spending, all the other things that I just showed you. So there's been no remaking of the federal government of anything along these lines really in centuries. And Steve, as we turn to your third chart, they'll be spin from the White House, of course, as to what this will mean. But give us a sense as to the impact to

economic growth and also the nation's debt. Yeah, so as we go into the campaign, this all should be great campaign fodder for the Democrats, simply to stand up and say, this is what he wants to cut, this is what he wants to cut, this is what he wants to cut. And what he's going to claim is that he's going to be bringing down the debt as a percentage of GDP. So you can see, of course, we all know, the percent of GDP, debt's been going up, up, up. He's going to claim, and his budget, he shows, he claims 94% decrease in debt to GDP. The reality is debt to GDP is going to continue to go up. It's actually going to go up slightly faster than in the current budget, the current baseline,

we call it. And how does he do this light of hand, this magic? How he does this magic is he assumes an unbelievable rate of economic growth, the rate of growth we have not seen on a sustained basis in decades and decades. He's assuming 3.1%. here's a whole plethora of private and government forecasters. You can take your pick, but they all cluster right around 2%. And by the way, in the first quarter of this year, where he's already penciled in 3.1%.

We didn't grow a fraction of that. We grew just over 1% in the first quarter of this year, so there's no way we're going to get to this number. So, you know, budgets are always, as they say, dead on arrival. They are always involve a certain amount of creativity, shall we say. But this is a statement of what the president wants to do. and therefore for the Democrats needs to become a statement of what he would like to try to do if he gets away with it. And I think there's enormous campaign fodder for the Democrats and the midterms in all of this. Morning, Joe, economic analyst, Steve Ratner.

As always, thank you so much. And coming up, we're going to turn to sports with Pablo Tori and show how the war in Iran could soon impact the Trump-backed LiveGolf as reports, signal an end to Saudi involvement. That's next on morning. Joe. A federal jury has found that Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, operated as an illegal monopoly that harmed consumers and overcharged ticket buyers. The verdict by a Manhattan jury yesterday came after four days of deliberations that reviewed weeks' worth of antitrust claims. The jury found that Ticketmaster overcharged consumers by nearly $2 per ticket. The judge will use that figure to determine total damages, which may include major divestments and even a possible breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

Later in the show, we'll be joined by Colorado's Attorney General, who is one of the many state leaders involved in this lawsuit. Joe? Let's bring it right now MSN now contributor Mike Barnacle, also host of Pablo Tori finds out. MS now contributor Pablo Tori. Pablo, we may be in the last days of Live Golf. The CEO said earlier that the show's going to go on. That said, the Saudis aren't so sure. Where do we stand now?

And how did it get to this? How did an institution that came to define not just golf, but just the greediest aspects of golf? How did it get to this low point? Yeah, look, the origins of Live Golf are those who fell asleep. sleep over the last several years. It starts with one of the most craven place to use American sports, one of the most ancient traditional of all American sports to effectively launder the image of Saudi Arabia. And so what we're seeing now, frankly, is reporting, I saw the Financial Times, there's a headline that was indicating what I had heard in whispers behind the scenes

for days now, which is that the war in Iran has triggered the possibility for something like a forced majeure clause in the contract. that Liv Golf had with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And that basically means that the kingdom, if they so desired, could perhaps end the funding. Now, of course, in the hours and days after that, we've seen Live Golf, Scott O'Neill, the head of Live Golf, the American face of the sport,

say, no, no, no, everything's happening. We got this tournament in Mexico City. We got, in fact, two Trump events coming up. This is all happening. And behind the scenes, what everyone is thinking of themselves is, is it possible that the war in Iran has led to a domino effect in which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia re-evaluates, are we really paying eight figures to a bunch of golfers that many Americans,

many people in the world had not heard of? Because that's Joe what it took, right? You overpay to disrupt the sport. Yeah, they did. And it certainly seems like it's on life support now. So Mike Barnacle, let's turn to one of the best days in the Major League Baseball calendar yesterday, and not just because the Red Sox secured a rare win, but it was because it was Jackie Robinson.

And this is something that it's wonderful every year, every ballplayer in the league, where's number of 42 in tribute to civil rights icon, American hero, Jackie Robinson, and all these decades later, it really does feel like what he went through is just as resonant as important today. You know, one of the shocking aspects of Jackie Robinson Day was I was reminded of this by a couple of different people. when he became eligible for the first time for the Hall of Fame voting, back then in the early 1960s,

he got 77% of the vote to get into the Hall of Fame. Jackie Robinson should have been the first unanimous into the Hall of Fame. 77% that, to me, is shocking. Stole home 19 times during the course of his career. Incredible. He changed the game in so many ways, and it speaks to the error. he wasn't unanimous. Not only changed the game physically, but changed the game intellectually.

Jackie Robinson, a uniquely honorable human beings, spoke for centuries of despair among many, many black people, black families in America. He stood for them back in the 50s, in the early 1950s. He and Branch Rickey, oddly enough, the twins of the pioneers of the civil rights legislation. Yeah, and Jackie Robinson, by the way, he was the guy who needed to be equipped to withstand. to withstand a spotlight that had been unprecedented, right? And so everything you're saying, Mike, it's fascinating to go back historically and be like, oh, wait, yeah, he was not overhyped. There's this conversation about how good really, look at what he did athletically,

and then the context politically, and imagine who, what's the list of athletes, people, human beings ever who could have done what he had done under those circumstances? All right, still ahead. President Trump will travel to Las Vegas today, where he is supposed to promote the tax and spending bill. He's signed into law. last year, but can he actually deliver a message to voters who are feeling real economic pain?

We'll dig into that coming up on Morning Joe. The White House says it will be looking into the growing list of missing or dead U.S. scientists. Over the last few years, some scientists who worked at NASA or on NASA

programs have vanished or died. The list includes experts in advance space, defense, and nuclear fields. The mystery surrounding these incidents is fueling concerns over national security issues and even speculation involving conspiracy theories that all this is somehow connected to a UFO cover-up. Peter Ducey of Fox News asked the press secretary about this yesterday in the briefing. There are now 10 American scientists who have either gone missing or died since mid-20204. They all reportedly had access to classified nuclear or aerospace material.

Is anybody investigating this to see if these things are connected? I've seen the report, Peter. I haven't spoken to our relevant agencies about it. I will certainly do that and we'll get you an answer. If true, of course, that's definitely something I think this government and administration would deem worth looking into, so let me do that for you. You know, this is a story. It's actually, it's one of these stories where, you know, people will send you things. And you look at it and go, okay, yeah, sure, whatever. It's a conspiracy theory.

It's on some offsite. The New York Post has actually picked up on this. And, you know, they give, and other publications, and they give names and dates and the manner of disappearances. And many of them have disappeared or been killed in really, a really suspicious manner. it would be great if other news agencies would actually look into this. Because, again, it's a lot of scientists that reportedly have gone missing or been killed violently. And, yeah, I'm glad the White House is looking into it. And I'd love to see that not just the New York Post, but the New York Times,

Wall Street Journal and other news agencies looking into this and try to see why in the world this keeps happening. Yeah. All right. follow this for sure. And coming up, we're going to get