Morning Joe - ‘Full Bondi’: Joe slams ‘immature’ Hegseth for combative remarks at Iran hearing

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

Joe slams ‘immature’ Hegseth for combative remarks at Iran hearing 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.

I look forward to sharing the incredible successes of our military, achieved in a matter of weeks. President Trump, unlike other president, has had the courage to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, and he's ironclad in that. We have the best negotiator in the world driving that deal. The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. How sad. How sad, first of all, that a child is allowed to hold that position, an immature child,

that doesn't even understand. There's so many things he doesn't understand. But the first thing he doesn't understand is that the people that are on that committee are members of the Armed Services Committee. And as a former member of the Armed Services Committee, I can tell you, most of those people have military bases in their district. Most of those people represent the men and women in uniform that fight for this country, that are deployed across the world, that are deployed across the Middle East.

And their first concern is the safety and the security of those soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guard members. That's their concern. And this guy acts like a punk, a little punk, saying that those, members of the Armed Services Committee, who, who mind you, who mind you, are actually fulfilling the oath before country and God that they gave and following the orders, not of one president, but of our founding fathers in the Constitution in Article 1, to have oversight over an administration, any administration, just like we did with the Clinton administration, just like we did with the Bush administration, just like Republicans did with the Obama administration. That is what they take an oath to do. And Pete Hagsith, the Secretary of Defense, just said that these Article I representatives were a greater adversary to America than Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

than Iran's mullahs. A greater adversary than all of those groups, the terrorist proxy groups that are trying to kill our soldiers every day. Isn't it? Pretty remarkable. Pretty remarkable that we've been lectured by Maga World over the past week that you can't say anything. You can't say, oh, the president. acting like an authoritarian, because you may get him killed. The president is actually, he's acting like a fascist, or he's speaking. He's using fascist rhetoric. So you can't say that. You can't say that because you might cause people to shoot him as if the two go together.

And here you have Pete Higgs and saying that members of Congress doing their constitutional job are greater threats, greater threats than the revolution. Guardian. Listen, just for the record, as Jonathan Chait pointed out in the Atlantic a couple of days ago, Donald Trump regularly calls his opponents that he disagrees with communists, traitors, people who need to be shot in the face. So it's just such nonsense. It really is. And I really, and I understand hacks doing it. I understand hacks. But when the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review goes down that tired. line. It's crazy. It's just, it's absolutely crazy. So here we have, Willie, a Secretary of Defense

that says the greatest adversary to U.S. troops right now, not the Revolutionary Guard, but members of Congress who want to know, I don't know, basic things. How much money have we spent there? We finally got the answer yesterday. What actually are the reasons why we went to war? Because he really still didn't give us a clearly defined answer. He did say, and I'm glad he said it, there can never be a nuclear Iran. So if he decides, and this administration decides to cut and run, while Iran still has nuclear weapons, then well, I guess by his own definition, there's a failure. But another thing happened yesterday, and I swear to God, it's just, I don't know if their children are they thinking that everybody that follows them or children. children. But we heard once again yesterday them kind of juggling the ball saying, we destroyed Iran's

nuclear capability. Oh, okay, great. We have to go to war because Iran's two weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. Wait, but you destroyed it a year ago. Now you're saying they're two weeks away. And we had the same sort of tap dance yesterday. We can't leave until their nuclear programs destroyed. Oh, the president destroyed their nuclear program. So this whole thing. thing, again, it's an embarrassing exercise, and I do mean this. He's not only, it's not only embarrassing for the United States of America. I keep saying this. It's embarrassing for the Republican party. It's embarrassing for the president of the United States who deserves and needs somebody better running the Pentagon than this child who embarrasses Donald Trump every time he goes out and

talks. Yeah, these performances that we see from Pete Hags with once a week or so are designed to humor the president, to please the president, to get a pat on the back from the president. As you say, they're not helping the president in this war effort at all. And any basic question, the ones you just laid out, how much does the war cost? Did you not see the consequences of war like the Strait of Hormuz potentially being closed, which every former military leader we've had on this show said, that's one of the first questions you ask. When the subject of Iran comes up, the next question is, what about the Strait of Hormuz?

the cost of gas is now $4.23. All of these consequences, all of these outcomes, did you not consider them? And the response to that from Secretary Heggzith yesterday is, effectively, why do you hate America? Why are you rooting against the war? You're the actual bad guys. If you deign to criticize or ask questions about this war, you're rooting against America. That's just not how it works here in America, Jonathan Lemire. But President Trump seems to like Secretary Heggeth, likes his country.

combativeness, likes the way he performs. He sort of adopted the language of Donald Trump. And so there he sits at the head of the Pentagon as this war drags on, frankly, with no end in sight. Secretary Heggseth, frankly, doesn't have that many allies or friends within the White House, but he has the only one that matters. President Trump likes him, loves the performative outrage that we see in those briefings at the Pentagon and likely yesterday. That's worth highlighting this. We just showed what Heggseth said, that the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats. A few moments later when General Kane gave his opening remarks,

he included a line about General George C. Marshall's commitment to a nonpartisan military, saying, quote, that remains a constant standard and something I borrow from often. So General Kane, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying, what you should say there, the military is not supposed to be political. Secretary Hague Seth, not doing the same. And we, as Willie just said, there are real rammed. for this war. There are no negotiations plan. The Strait of Hormuz is shut. Yes, U.S. officials believe the blockade is working, but we have a long way to go. And overnight, oil prices

surged hitting a fresh wartime high, Joe and Mika. And right now, the Trump administration is looking for a way out without an obvious answer. Well, let's commend General Kane, first of all, for using, as his North Star, General George Marshall, who never voted an election. as his father never voted in an election, he always stayed away from politics, did everything he could to do that. He was a soldier first. And so when you when you see this petulant display, I can say, people would say, oh, Donald Trump likes it. I don't know. He didn't like it when Pam Bondi did it. And yesterday reminded me of Pam Bondi's performance, the worst performance on Capitol. I think certainly have ever seen before the Armed Services Committee. When you actually

tell Republicans and Democrats that they are a greater adversary than the Revolutionary Guard, that they are a greater adversary than the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs in Iran, that they're a greater adversary than the government that has actually run a state that's the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. And here's what is lost for president. President Trump. Oil prices are going up. If you actually had a grown-up go in there and explain, listen, we understand oil prices are going up and we feel terrible for the American people. This is what we're calculating, though. We need to keep the blockade in place because we understand we degraded their military targets. Our militaries are best in the world. They can't do

any better than they've done. And we're just so damn proud of them. But at this point, the real pressure point with the Iranians is now economic. We've done everything we can do militarily, and we've done it well, and we're so proud of that. But now, our military is going to be used to choke their economy off. And that at the end of the day is what's going to bring them to the negotiating table. So we can have a safe Iran. We can have a safe region. We can have a safe world free, free from a nuclear Iran. If somebody, if the right person had said that for the Trump administration, people would understand, okay, yes, oil's going to go up for the next week or two. But on the other side of it, you have the UAE proving what great allies they are, getting out of

OPEC, because they say they want to be reliable partners to the United States. So there was a way to do that. But because he decided to go full bondy, and you know. That was full bonding. You know, Willie, I think we all know this. You never go full bonding, right? You never go full bonding. No. It never works.

And he went full bonding. Man, you don't go full bonding. You don't do it. You went full bonding. You've just cited a new term, I think, that's going to be used throughout the briefings that we've seen from Secretary Hags. By the way, your point about the nuclear. program and ambitions is an important one because despite what he was saying yesterday, in June of 2025 after Operation Midnight Hammer, Secretary Heggis said, quote, Iran's nuclear ambitions

have been obliterated. It's over. That was 10 months ago. And now the defense of the war, which is, you know, it's warranted. If there's still nuclear material and nuclear program, he says, no, no, no, we've got to stop. We might have wiped out their capabilities, but they still have the ambition. That's why we have to keep fighting in Iran. Let's look at the big picture with us, author and staff writer for the Atlantic and Applebaum and decorated combat veteran and former commander of U.S. Army Europe, retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling, who we are happy to say is joining MS now as a military analyst. And that is a reason to strike up the band. We're going to get on to Ukraine in a minute, General, because so much is going on.

right now. We are literally seeing history move before our eyes. It's extraordinary what the Ukrainians are doing every day. But I want to first have you comment on what we saw yesterday. It's too easy, quite frankly, to continue criticizing this child's performance. What I'd like you to tell our viewers is what should a mature sect deaf in the middle of the war said to Congress yesterday? What would you have liked to hear? Yeah, Joe, it's a great question because, first of all, we have to review what this hearing was supposed to be all about. The center point of this hearing was to defend a $1.45 trillion request for a bump up in the Defense Department budget. I didn't hear a whole lot of discussion about the budget at all.

That's a 40% increase in what they were initially given by the NDAA. So that kind of fell by the wayside. And the second thing I'd say, having testified before members of Congress myself, the disrespect that was shown by the Secretary of Defense to the organization that has First Amendment powers of basically questioning different department heads, about what they're doing in an oversight role was just to me beyond the pale. There was smirks, there was bad body language, there was arguments, there was over-talking. And again, having myself testified before Congress, that's just not a way to win the approval of the budget that you're trying to submit. You know, there's 50%, almost 50% of the Congress now that just sees the

secretary as someone who is going to bluster, who's going to talk about things, who's going to overtalk and not answer questions. So in and of itself, I mean, even some of the answers he was giving in terms of the cost of the war, trying to answer good questions about potential war crimes that were committed, responsibility and accountability of him and the force, there is no one questioning the actions of the U.S. military. They have been magnificent in what they have been asked to do. I have not seen a single person say that, you know, the military actions have been bad.

What the question is is, what's the end state? What comes after the military? What hits the next sets of decisive points in Iran, according to the theorist Jomani? And how do you get to the center of gravity to get them at the next? negotiating table. That's all by the wayside right now. And it's just, it's just confusing to me how he can, to use your term, go full bondy and expect any kind of coordination with the members of Congress who give him the money that he needs for the defense department. He went full bondy. You never go full bondie. Let me say this in a way that the president

will, may understand and I'm dead serious. Not only is it a decision. respectful. I know the president has no problem with that. But I've sat through hundreds of these hearings on the Armed Services Committee. It's ineffective. It's ineffective. It's ineffective. It's desperate. It's ineffective to everybody. Republicans and Democrats that may be split on other issues will come together afterwards. And they'll stick it to him every chance they get moving forward. It's ineffective. It's like using a 60 wedge, you know, when you're driving on a par five or are taking out a driver when you're 20 yards from. from the Green. Nobody does it. There's a reason they don't do it. It's ineffective. So Pete Hegesith

went full Bondi, and it's only going to hurt him with the committee. It's only going to hurt him with the Congress. It's only going to hurt him with this war effort. So we also learned yesterday that President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone for more than an hour. A top advisor to Putin said the Russian president expressed his readiness for a short ceasefire coinciding with Russia's Victory Day celebrations on May 9th that marked the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. President Trump was asked about their conversation yesterday in the Oval Office. But I had a long talk with President Putin. I suggested a little bit of a ceasefire, and I think he might do that. He might announce something having to do with that. Did he announce it yet?

No, but I was wondering, I was just going to ask you about, you know, I asked him about, even if it's a little bit of, ceasefire. There's so many people being killed. It's so ridiculous. Do you think the war in Iran ends first or the war in Ukraine? Well, we talked about more about the war in Ukraine, but he would like to be of help. I said, before you help me, I want to end your war. So we had a good talk. I've known him a long time. I think he was ready to make a deal a while ago. I think some people made it difficult for him to make a deal, but we talked more about Ukraine. But which war do you think ends first? That's an interesting question. You know, coming from you, that's very interesting, which war

would end first? I don't know. Maybe they're on a similar timetable. I think Ukraine, militarily, they're defeated. Okay. You wouldn't know that by reading the fake news. Okay, so based on what the president went on to say right after that line, he likely meant to say Iran is defeated militarily, not Ukraine. Well, I will say, though, perhaps maybe the reason and he said it is because Ann Applebaum, that's what they've been saying for a year. It's been a lie for a year. We've talked on this show about how they constantly lie inside the White House, everybody that I've talked to about how Ukraine's about to lose. Ukraine's about to lose the Dunbos.

Ukraine has to just take a horrible deal. Ukraine needs to crawl to the table and give the Russians whatever they want. That's just not the case. And can you help Americans understand just what's happening over there over the last two, three weeks? and the growing sense of confidence on the side of the Ukrainians? So it's really interesting whenever President Putin thinks he might be losing the war or whenever he needs an extra boost, he calls President Trump because he's hoping that by manipulating the American president,

he can somehow put pressure on the Ukrainians or on the Europeans because he's actually in a very, very bad position right now. As you have been reporting over many weeks, Ukraine has really transformed the battlefield. I mean, it's been true for the last couple of years, but it's become especially clear in the last few weeks and months. The Russians are not able to move forward. The Ukrainians are now able to kill more Russian troops every month

than the Russians are able to recruit. So the Russians now have a problem continuing to man the battlefield and even to keep the war going. And the other new element, or new-ish, because it's also been true for a while, is that the Ukrainians are using their ever better developed long-range drone capability to really hit Russian refineries and other infrastructure way behind the front line. And we actually saw that in the last few days.

They hit a refinery in a place called Tuops, and it produced these spectacular black smoke, billowing smoke that covered the town. And they did it repeatedly over several days, so probably putting a refinery that's critical for, providing fuel to Russian troops in the battlefield, probably putting that out of business. And so the Russians know they're not winning, and they're still hoping that through Trump

and through their ability to control him psychologically or whatever it is that they think they have, they're still hoping to win through some kind of pressure. But the Ukrainians actually have had very, very little U.S. help in the last year. I'm sure you'll want to go on and talk about that. Most of their funding now comes from Europe, 95% of it. And in the last few weeks, they've begun doing deals with the Middle East. You saw probably Zelensky in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, in the Emirates, selling Ukrainian drone capabilities to the Gulf.

And I think that suddenly makes Zelensky look very different. It's not a pitiful country that it's about to lose. It's actually a country that has some of the most advanced military technology in the world. And lots of people want it, even if the United States is not enthusiastic. And I think the Ukrainians are not worried right now about running out of money or running out of weapons. And in fact, in the midst of their own war offering the United States our technology to fight the war in Iran. So, and it's been said many times by experts that for the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, Putin, Donald Trump, has been his easiest mark over the years because he knows how to manipulate him, as you just said, with flattery and these phone calls.

But how important is that relationship to the future of this war? In other words, if Putin keeps Donald Trump under his thumb as he has, does that allow him to survive the war that appears he's losing at the moment? Well, Putin hopes that it will keep Trump in the game, in other words, because Trump is actually at risk of being coming irrelevant to the war. If the United States aren't giving the Ukrainians much help, if their intelligence is less and less important, as I gather it is, then Ukraine can fight the war, whatever happens in the United States, because they now have a new 90 billion loan from the European Union, which is, by the way, according to the latest calculations, it's more money than the United States has given Ukraine during the entire war. that's a loan that's backed up by the Russian frozen assets. And so it's a loan that hopefully will never be paid back. But the loan has been now agreed to by the European Council now that the Hungarian election removed the last obstacle.

They have, they're developing these trade and financial relationships with the Middle East. And so the question is, is the U.S. still needed in the war? Is it still an influential player? I mean, of course, the Ukrainians don't want to alienate the U.S. but but it's it's now it's Putin who wants to keep Trump in the war. And Ann, a little more on that Trump Putin relationship. You know, first of all, the White House did not advise this call. You used to be with administrations, even Trump 1.0, if there's a foreign leader call,

they'd put out a read-up, they'd let the reporters know. State Department might say something. None of that. We only know about it because Trump said blurted it out in the Oval Office yesterday. We also should note that yesterday President Trump took the true social to rest of respond, it would seem, to what German Chancellor Frederick Mertz said that Iran has humiliated the United States. So he's oddly angry at Germany. And on True Social yesterday, says, the United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of troops in Germany,

which just so happens to be one of Vladimir Putin's goals is to, once again, is to reduce the American military footprint in Europe as there's growing speculation that even though Ukraine, the war has not gone at all the way Putin thinks, that he's eyeing some of these smaller NATO countries, whether it's Estonia or Lafay or whatever it may be. and testing, believing that at least the United States wouldn't come to their aid. So European countries are now, first of all, acting on the assumption or preparing for some kind of desperate Russian move as it becomes clear that they can't win in the war in Ukraine, maybe another invasion, maybe some kind of attack on a NATO state.

And while they're having that conversation, they're also asking, and they're doing it in public now. So it's not, it was behind the doors, behind closed doors for a long time. in public, they're now asking, would the United States come, and if it's not going to, are we prepared? And so one of the reasons you're hearing this kind of language from Europe is because that's now the ongoing conversation is how will, what will we do and how will we react? And there are preparations being made along those crimes.

I mean, again, nobody wants to break the U.S. relationship. And if you go kind of one level down, if you get generals talking to other generals, their relations are as good as they always were. And actually, the U.S. is using German bases in Iran all the time every day. And their military exercises between the U.S. and NATO and U.S. and other allies happening all the time. And so the breakage and the bad blood in the relationship is really only coming from Trump and from the cabinet, from the very highest levels. Lower down, it's everything as it was. And I know you've been covering the royal visit here to the U.S. as well. It was noteworthy to a lot of people. I'm curious if it was to you that, King Charles made a point in his address to Congress of highlighting the Ukraine cause and the need to continue supporting them in the pursuit of freedom and pushing back against authoritarianism. What did you make of that direct call inside that chamber? Oh, I'm sure it was, I mean, I'm sure it came directly from the UK government and it was meant to be heard.

It was also really important that it happened in the context of Charles mentioning 9-11 and mentioning the NATO reaction after 9-11, which is something Trump has. downplayed or maybe doesn't know very much about. Because for the British, this was very important. They fought in Iraq. They fought in Afghanistan. They considered that they'd always contributed to U.S. military and security projects all over the world. We have very integrated intelligence services between the U.S. and the U.K. They're almost the same service. And so I think it was Charles reminding Trump of this long relationship and also reminding him that Ukraine is a really important security issue for Britain. It's not just a random thing happening somewhere in Eastern Europe, but the Europeans understand victory in Ukraine as a way of securing everybody's security, and therefore

including the U.S., which is so involved in the European economy and European defense. And general, how fascinating you just had within the year, the J.D. Vance being petulant, humiliating himself in front of the world by yelling at Zelensky, who's leading freedom fighters against Russian invaders. You had the president bellowing that Zelensky and Ukraine had no cards. Now I'm not going across some Middle East to the Saudis, to the Emirates, to the Qataris, to everybody else, even being kind enough to offer to us this technology that is pushing Russia back by the day. frighteningly effective military technology. As General Petraeus said this past week, if you want to see the future of warfare, go to Ukraine. You'll see it there. But by doing this, we've made ourselves

less relevant and less needed in Ukraine. We're making ourselves less relevant and less needed in Europe. Certainly with the president's pronouncement yesterday, going to make ourselves less relevant less needed to Germany, who sits at the center of Europe and is an industrial power that will continue to grow in the future. Talk about how, again, when you were in the position you were in, how important those alliances are. And the last thing you would want is for our allies to think, we don't need the United States. We can go it alone. It was my number two mission, Joe, and I'll reinforce what Ann just said. My number one mission is the commander of U.S. Army in Europe, where we had at the time.

It was downsizing from 90,000 to 33,000 during my time on the continent. And I'm not sure, by the way, I should add this. I don't know how it can downsize a whole lot more and maintain our capabilities as a global footprint because Europe does so much more than just have forces on bases. It's literally the lily pad for various theaters. But when I was in command, we would, number one, train our soldiers and care for our families so that they might be able to deploy.

And they always did throughout my time in Europe. The second major mission I had was something called Theater Security Cooperation, which meant I was dealing with the 49 different countries within the footprint of Europe on a daily basis in terms of partnering with them and strengthening the alliances. As Ann just said, we would conduct, my last year there, we conducted over 400 different training exercises with various partners, not just in NATO, but those that were not connected to NATO.

And it was a constant stream of sharing ideas, training together, but most importantly, building trust. between allies. And trust is not something you can deploy. As soon as you lose trust, you're up the creek. And that's what we have done to a degree, not necessarily with our military, as Anne said, but with our government. The Europeans do not trust the administration. They still partly trust the military members that are conducting the exercises with. But truthfully, you know, when you're talking about sharing of intelligence and sharing of capabilities, because we haven't been doing that lately, we lose trust. All of those things are important in any kind of alliance.

And that's what I fear. And it pains me on a daily basis to see different things happening. Like the president's comment yesterday that he was going to withdraw all the troops from Europe. We literally have billions of dollars of infrastructure and great relationships in terms of training and connections, not just with the military, but the governments over there because of our military presence there. We are fighting above our weight class, if you will. That's a term I always used to say,

with 30,000 plus soldiers, an additional Air Force and Navy and Marine that come in and out of the theater. But truthfully, you know, if we lose that alliance, it is going to harm us significantly more, exponentially more than it will hurt any of the Europeans. And they are already starting to see that. Makes no sense.

MS now, military and analytics, retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling and the Atlantics. Anne Applebaum. Thank you both very much for your insights this morning. And still ahead on morning, Joe. We'll get to the Supreme Court's historic voting rights decision that could have major implications ahead of the midterms as states across the country now consider redrawing congressional lines. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Acqueweathers, Bernie Rayno.

Bernie, how's it looking? Meek, it's a cool Thursday across the northeast. A little bit of rain here this morning from Boston, Portland, up toward Bangor, even in New York City, there can be a leftover shower, some drizzle. Clouds will break in the afternoon. Nice afternoon in Washington, D.C. It's cool, though, 51 degrees, a couple of showers in Pittsburgh. Some showers early, Atlanta, Charlotte, then clouds will break for some sunshine.

Boys are going to be turning wet over the next couple of days. already wet in Texas today. We'll get some much-needed rain in the southeast. Watch out for delays this morning in Atlanta, Boston, New York City as well. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Accuether app today. It's another beautiful morning in Fort Lauderdale, 637 a.m.

The Florida legislature has approved a new congressional map that could help Republicans keep control of Congress in this year's midterms. The state's legislature gave its final approval to the new map yesterday. It came just two days after Republican, and Governor Ron DeSantis unveiled the proposal. The redrawn congressional lines could help give the GOP as many as four new seats.

Opponents are expected to file lawsuits challenging that move. Meanwhile, in a huge 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled Louisiana's 2024 election map is, quote, unconstitutional racial gerrymander, delivering a significant victory to Republicans and a major decision that narrows the landmarks. Voting Rights Act of 1965. The High Court upheld a lower court ruling yesterday, saying the state's map makers replied too heavily on race when they redrew the state's voting boundaries. Justice San Bill Lido wrote for the majority in part, quote, plaintiffs failed to show

an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision, quote, renders section two of the Voting Rights Act, all but a dead letter. The ruling goes well beyond. Louisiana map as it effectively voids one of the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act without directly overturning the law and opens the door for more partisan congressional maps. President Trump and House Republican and Democratic leadership weighed in on the ruling yesterday. That's good. That's the kind of ruling I like.

They've determined that the last map that was drawn for Louisiana was done unconstitutionally, and we've been saying that consistently from the beginning. Today's decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice. Join us now, the host of Politics Nation on MS Now, Reverend Al Sharpton, he's president of the National Action Network and MSNANN. Mike Barnacle. Guys, good morning to both. Rev, this is a banner headline this morning in the New York Times. There you can see it across the top.

Dealing a blow to the Voting Rights Act, we should say another blow to the Voting Rights Act. What's your reaction this morning? I think that it's more than another blow. It is probably a devastating blow because it takes the last part of dealing with racial inequality and gerrymandering off the table. I remember in 2014 when we had the decision of Holder. The whole question then was, are we headed toward nullifying Shelby versus Holder decision? Are we nullifying the Voting Rights Act? And I sat during the oral arguments in the Supreme Court, and I looked up the John Lewis and Reverend Jesse Jackson was there.

And then those of us that were active then were looking at them because they paid a price to. get that. We've gone now to where you can't even bring up race. Look at the fact that if you look at Mississippi, for example, 37.7% of Mississippi black, only one congressional seat. That didn't just happen. And when we look at the fact that during Reconstruction, we went up to eight blacks on the Congress when the ended reconstruction, it was until 1969 before we got eight blacks in Congress. So there was a deliberate racial scheme. Now we're acting like that is all over with when it is not. And I think on the merits we had to argue with, but you have a court that went the other way.

The question now is, can we deal with it? The answer is yes, because many of the blacks that are in Congress are in swing districts. Many whites will vote for blacks now that wouldn't in years be passed. and many blacks will be energized by this decision. So I think it's a devastating decision, but I think it will, in many ways, inspire a movement of people black and white to say we're not going to live in America

that's going backwards despite a backwards Supreme Court decision. One thing it does and already is doing is open the floodgates now of people redrawing districts all over the country. The Wall Street Journal editorial page in its closing line writes this this morning. The Voting Rights Act was a landmark of American liberty and help to break Jim Crow.

But that storied purpose has been twisted over the years by both parties to justify the use of race to gerrymander. The argument by the Supreme Court by the majority is effectively like, we should be a colorblind country, we should remove race from any drawing of congressional districts. What do you say to that? Well, I think that we should be color conscious and not color blind given the history the country. I mean, you can't in one or two generations get away from the fact that by law, we were less than a human, less than equal. By law, we're getting ready to celebrate the

250th anniversary of the country. We had to remember blacks were slaves then. We were not at the Declaration of Independence. Some of the signers owned slaves. Now, that doesn't mean you just condemn it. That means it shows that we've grown this far from then. And we should say, celebrate that growth, not try to return to acting like it didn't happen. Colorblindness suggests that it wasn't there. Being better cited, clear-sighted is better than being colorblind. You know, what's kind of sad, I think, is that despite we've made enormous progress in race relations in this country, but the historical weight of discrimination based on color still is with us. It still burdens the United States of America, still prevents the United States of America from grasping

the claim to being a truly great universally together nations. And I'm wondering, it's been 61 years since Bull Connor and Selma, Alabama, in terms of progress, we've made progress, as I just alluded to. But this decision sort of, I think, opens the door, gives license to too many state legislatures to turn back the clock. Absolutely. I think that this does give them the opening to turn back the clock. I think this does say that there are those that will try to legislate to really turn the clock back.

But the thing that I won this morning and many of us leading national civil rights groups are meeting this morning virtually, you can turn back the clock, but you can't turn back time. Some of us are not going back, including many whites. And I think that many of our allies and many well-meaning Americans are going to say we're not going back there. Because we have lived at a time that had made advancement. We have lived under a black president and a black vice president. And when you compare them to the president, you have now.

Most Americans are saying they operated better. So I am confident that we can take this bad and hugely impactful decision and use it to energy. to bring America back to where this generation and the generations behind us say, no, we're not going back. Yeah, and many have said, of course, equal rights in this country were not really achieved, Rev, until the mid-1960s, and now that's being undone here. And yes, in this short term, there's such people who are analysts were noting that there's such democratic enthusiasm, the Republicans' poll numbers are so bad that for this midterms, maybe this won't matter that much. But we'll see what it means in November, but also future cycles, if these districts can be. so gerrymandered. And now Republicans have rushed to defend this, of course. Some state, they're looking at other states. And they're condemning, say, for instance, President Barack Obama, who came out

in support of the redistricting in Virginia, but came out against this yesterday, declaring that hypocritical. But explain why you think that's different. I think that is much different. When you deal with the redistricting in Virginia, you're dealing with that, one, was responding to what started in Texas. And secondly, they were dealing with trying to build districts, not based on race, but based on how they can fairly distribute and deal with it somewhat in a partisan way. What's happening in Florida and in other places is clearly tilting it and being totally blind to the fact that you're eliminating seats of color and doing it boldly and proudly. So I think that what President Obama said was absolutely clear and I don't think debatable.

6-3 ruling yesterday. New York Times says decision deals blow to voting rights act. Reverend Al Sharpton, thank you as always. We appreciate it. Coming up, Ali Vitale joins us more of her exclusive interview with former vice president, Mike Pence, including his thoughts on the state of the economy and his own future in politics. That's next on Morning Joe. Welcome back to Morning Joe. Beautiful shot of the White House, Washington, D.C. as the sun comes up over the nation. Capitol and joining us now, Senior Capitol Hill reporter for MS now, Allie Vitale, with more on her exclusive interview with former Vice President Mike Pence. So what did you learn, Ali? This was such a fascinating interview, Mika. And it comes as just this week. The Cook Political report actually reported the GOP's new catch-22, because in a new survey that they write about, Republican voters say they prefer MAGA candidates over more traditional Republicans, but

the MAGA brand is actually a drag in a competitive general election environment, which is quite the finding ahead of a competitive midterm election where Trump's brand of politics dominates his party. It's also against that backdrop that Trump's former vice president Mike Pence is looking ahead to where the Republican Party might go next. That is to say, post-Trump. Mike Pence wants to rebuild the Republican Party, which of course presumes that he thinks it's broken. There have been departures from the agenda that really defined the Trump-Pens' years and has long defined the Republican Party. The one-time Trump VP, who now leads the conservative advancing American freedom think tank, says the parties strayed on multiple fronts.

I truly do believe free nations in the world need to continue to give Ukraine what they need to defeat and repel that Russian invasion. Is America giving that right now through the Trump administration? I think that's an open question. The president's broad-based tariffs against Iran. friend and foe alike, coming from a party that has always advocated free trade as a core principle is a profound departure to see the president appoint a pro-abortion secretary of HHS. Not that it's all bad. I couldn't be more proud of President Trump for making the decision to unleash the armed

forces of the United States against the leading state sponsor of terror in Iran. What it amounts to is a delicate dance, criticizing the man he once shared a bumper sticker with, but sticking close enough to remain in the GOP tent. Pence's reemergence comes as some MAGA faithful struggle to keep it. You and I and everyone else who supported him. He wrote speeches for him. I campaign for him. I mean, we're implicated in this.

It feels like MAGA is fracturing. So what takes its place? Well, I really do believe the Republican Party is now. and has always been a conservative party. I've never really seen a distinction between people drawn to the conservative movement and the overwhelming majority of people who identify as part of the MAGA movement. They're all the same Americans, with some exceptions. Do you consider yourself MAGA then by that?

Well, I was proud to be a part of a movement to make America great again. But I'm a conservative and always have been a conservative. There was no bigger divergence between those two factions than on January 6th, 2021. I'll always believe that we did our duty on January 6th. That was an inflection point in Pence's relationship with Trump, but another looms. Each day of the president's second term brings the party closer to grappling with what and who comes next. What I'm looking at right now is the need to have a fulsome debate in the Republican Party over the next two next two. half years.

You sound like someone who's at least thinking about what it would look like to run for president again. We have a very deep bench in the Republican Party. I have no plans to reenter the political arena. But I do have plans to continue to be an unwavering voice for the conservative values that have defined this party. And so well served our nation over the last 50 years. that is the first time Pence has said publicly he has no plans to run for elected office again.

Certainly, newsy as we look to who might be part of that 2028 Republican field. It feels more like Pence wants to be a conservative kingmaker of sorts, someone shaping the field. And I asked him to that effect, who might be the best to carry the mantle forward? And some of the names he gave me were Governor Rhonda Santos of Florida, Governor Brian Kemp in Georgia, Bill Lee, Governor of Tennessee. Notably, all of them governors. That's Pence's background, too, former governor of Indiana. but also notably, none of them serving in this current Trump administration.

Fascinating interview with the former vice president. I want to bring in here on set with me, former chief of staff to vice president Mike Pence, Mark Short. He also served as the director of legislative affairs during the first Trump administration, currently chairman of advancing American freedom, the conservative think tank run by Pence. It's where we did this interview. Thank you for giving us that time and for coming on to talk about it now. You know, I think there is a distinction that I was struck by that Pence made.

where he said, you know, I'm a conservative. I'm not necessarily assuming the MAGA label, despite the fact that he doesn't think there's much of a difference between those two. But it's that subtle distinction, I think, that is the backdrop of the tension of what he's trying to build. Well, I think that having been a governor in the Midwest, Mike could see what was happening with the rise of President Trump in the 2016 primary, seeing what's happening in the Midwest and recognizing the anger, frankly, after eight years the Obama administration, and wanting to change in direction, and wanting somebody who would go to D.C. and kind of blow it all up.

But, you know, I think it's important to remember that, you know, Mike has always been the conscience of our modern conservative movement. During the Bush years, you and Joe remember that he rose to prominence because he was one of the only Republicans who stood up and opposed Bush administration policies on bigger government, whether it was introducing no child left behind, expanding its entitlement programs like Medicare Part D, the first to go to the House well and oppose the law. Wall Street bailout opposing cash for clunkers. And it's why Mike was actually invited right here

to be one of the only two members of Congress to speak at the Tea Party rally in 2009 was Mike Pence and Jim Demand. And so that was the background he brought into the Trump administration. And I'll always believe the first administration was very conservative. Rhetoric was similar with the president on a lot of populist appeal, but the record on the Supreme Court, on taxes. on even Ukraine, the president boasting about sending javelin missiles when Obama only sent blankets. The record across the board, the Supreme Court, was conservative. But I think in this administration, there's some things that we want to applaud on extending tax relief on the border success, on standing partner with Israel. But there are other things, Allie, there are enormous departures, whether or not it's the trade policy, whether or not it's principles on social and family values, whether or not it's candidly, you know, state-owned enterprises.

And the government's saying where it's our job to enforce caps on credit cards or tell people who can buy a home and who can't and continue to have these massive nationalization of private sector companies. That's not conservative or free market. Yeah, you know, Mark, we may disagree on the first term of Donald Trump's, but let's look forward to see where the conservative movement and where the Republican Party's going. You know, an old guy, I guess, because when I was a Republican, we balanced the budget four years in a row. We have a $39 trillion debt, and a lot of that debt piled up by George W. Bush's two terms and Donald Trump's two terms. Barack Obama, he was a part of it, too, but Republicans haven't been conservative economically in 25 years. We believe free markets and free trade made America stronger. This Republican Party does not.

We believed in alliances in Europe and across the world that helped us take down the Berlin Wall and destroy the Soviet Union. This Republican Party does not. The president keeps cuddling up to Vladimir Putin for some bizarre reason. We also believed in Article 1 powers, and it's just not the case now. So I've laid that all out. And you're right, Mike, very conservative. I had a 95 lifetime rating with ACU, but this Republican Party is not conservative.

And my question is, is there a Republican Party in the future for Mike Pence? That is conservative. Well, I think we're more focused actually on the policy than the party, Joe, more focused on rebuilding the conservative movement because I think in many cases. So let me ask you that. Yeah, because I really don't care about parties. I just don't care about parties.

So you actually thank you for refining my question. The conservative movement has been destroyed over the past decade by Donald Trump. What does the future of the conservative party look, the conservative movement look like? Well, Joe, I don't think we'd be experiencing as much growth if, in fact, donors and others believe the same that the movement was dead. I think they want to return to these time-honored principles. And I, look, I agree with you. I think one of the biggest, although I think the first administration was very conservative, very proud of it and defendant, I think one of our biggest mistakes or failures was actually the budget and continuing to pile up massive debts.

And you're seeing that again in the second Trump administration. We're now at $39 trillion. It's hard for Americans to even fathom. And so I agree with you on that criticism. But I think that we wouldn't be having people looking to want to be a part of our team and donors wanting to come back to this. And I think a lot of it, Joe, is that many people believe whether they like Trump's rhetoric or not, they believe the record in the first version of was conservative and they thought it would be the same in the second. And now a year plus into it, again, I don't think maybe we're thinking

we would be a party that would be advancing state-owned enterprises and basically partnering with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on major government intervention on credit card. Can I ask you, Mark, is that not socialism? Republicans, like, well, look at somebody, a Democrat that's like carrying a Snickers bar in the left hand and said the right and call them socialists or communists. You actually have a Republican party that is taking over Intel. You have a Republican party that's taking over U.S. You have a Republican party that looks a lot like the British Labor Party looked like after Clement Attlee beat

Winston Churchill following World War II. Is this not socialism that the Republican Party is engaging in? It absolutely is, Joe. And I think it's important that their voices to stand up to say, stop, go no farther. And I think that that's one of the reasons we're enjoying the growth that we're enjoying is because there are people saying, yes, we need to begin reclaiming that we're the party.

that stands for free markets. All right. Republican strategist and former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Mark Short. Thank you very much. MS Now, senior Capitol Hill reporter and host of way too early, Ali Vitale, thank you as well.

Thank you for bringing us those interview. You can see the full interview with Mike Pence on MS Now's.