Morning Joe - House advances Trump agenda bill, setting up a final vote

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

House begins debate on Trump's agenda bill after GOP holdouts relent

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, July 3rd and you are looking at live pictures from the floor of the House of Representatives where congressional Republicans are now pushing toward a final vote on President Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries there speaking. It's known as a magic minute where leadership can speak essentially for as long as it wants to, much longer than a minute. Of course, when he finishes, the House will proceed to the final vote on the so-called big, beautiful bill. Speaker Mike Johnson, with a big assist from President Trump overnight, got to this point when after an all-night session, the chamber voted 219 to 213 to adopt a rule governing debate on the legislation. that opens up discussion and then tees up this coming final vote on the package. A group of hardline conservatives and moderate republicans had combined forces earlier in the evening to stall the bill raising their protests

and speaker johnson held the vote open for five hours as he worked to garner support. Around one o'clock in the morning president President Trump called those holdouts directly, then fired off a handful of social media posts calling for Republicans to get the legislation passed. Democrats have continued to rally against this bill with some Republicans who flipped to yes votes after some persuasion defending their positions. Congressman Derek Van Orden of Wisconsin pushed back at a suggestion Republicans will do whatever Trump asks of them.

President of the United States, please give us an assignment. I'm not a bunch of little b******. I'm a member of Congress that represents almost 800,000 Wisconsinites. Is that clear? Some tough talk from the congressman there. Let's bring in the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale, NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Serkin, and MSNBC political analyst Brendan Buck. He was communication strategist and former aide to House speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner. Good morning to you all.

Brendan, I want to start with you because of your experience with Paul Ryan and with Boehner, the two speakers of the House. And just about what happened overnight, how this sort of negotiation goes. You didn't generally have a president with the sway, let's say, of Donald Trump to call directly these members and say, of Donald Trump to call directly these members and say, vote for my package or else, despite some of the protests we heard at least from one congressman there, that's basically what happened. So describe a little bit about what was happening overnight that brought us to this moment where

we're expected now Republicans will have the votes to pass this big bill. Yeah, well, obviously, Mike Johnson had a big hill to climb yesterday after the Senate did what they did you had a lot of members Really both sides of the conference you had moderates who didn't like what? The Senate had done in terms of cutting more deeply in the Medicaid and you had a lot of conservatives who said this is still Just too expensive and I'm not gonna vote for it and that all melted away really quickly But not quite enough where they had the votes at the time they needed it last night. There was a key procedural vote that basically sets the terms for debate last night, and they rolled the dice. And it was a bit

of a gambit by Mike Johnson to say, look, we don't have the votes right now. We're close, but we're going to go for it. And you do that every once in a while in the speaker's office. You say, we're short, but we're going to use the pressure of the floor to try to break some members. Of course, having Donald Trump to help break them as well is useful. They kept the vote open for a really long time overnight. And eventually, Donald Trump, I guess, made enough assurances that he was going to instill some fiscal responsibility going forward.

That was enough for some of these conservatives. I don't know what the promises were. I don't know how realistic they are. At this point, when they realize that this is going to pass some way or another, you kind of have members who want to be lied to a little bit. Tell me what I need to hear to be okay with this. And ultimately, after a long, painful night, they did that.

And so it seems like they're on a glide path now. But some credit to Mike Johnson for basically saying, we're gonna use this July 4th deadline. Nobody thinks we're gonna be able to pull this off, but I am going to insist on it. We're going to put this on the floor and we're going to pass it. Having Donald Trump again hanging over your shoulder makes that a little easier to do. But I think credit to him for believing that this could be done and forging ahead when people doubted him.

And so, Julie Serkin, that vote was left open, as I mentioned, for five hours by Speaker Johnson, which means during those five hours by Speaker Johnson, which means during those five hours, he's twisting arms. Donald Trump is getting involved. Vice President Vance is making phone calls to his friends on the Hill and trying to get some of those members of the Freedom Caucus, some of those moderates who have misgivings about this big package, to come along to their side. And they did that.

But here's the thing. The substance of the bill didn't change. So what did overnight for those members who flipped from no's to yes? The reality that if they voted against this bill, they would face President Trump's hammer, essentially, and the power that comes with him. The message that we kept hearing all day long

from Republican leadership was, I wouldn't want to be the member that stands in front of Donald Trump and the 77 million people that voted for him. And obviously, as we've been following all year long, as we followed in the first administration, but this has just increased this time around, his pressure is real and it has worked. And it is working now with a group of Republicans in the House who have sworn up and down that they would never vote to increase the deficit, that they would never vote to raise the debt ceiling, that they would never vote for a bill that doesn't cut spending by two trillion dollars. None of

that is happening with this piece of legislation. I think Brendan is exactly right. Mike Johnson does deserve a tremendous amount of credit for essentially telling us months ago, we're gonna get this through, setting that arbitrary deadline of July 4th, keeping the pressure on and of course Starting this whole thing out by saying it's gonna be one big beautiful bill and not too like the Senate had wanted to address some of the concerns of the border and other items and Instead they managed to get a bill that the Senate had changed that it had at the last minute Essentially weakened and softened some of the Medicaid provisions, including that rural hospital fund that, of course, cut even more of what this bill was able to save.

And they made some changes on the clean energy tax credits. The Senate kind of played this beautifully as well, with Leader Thune essentially making this bill a little bit more conservative at first, and then watering it down to try and get those moderates like Lisa Murkowski on board. Ultimately, in the end, the House Freedom Caucus here folding on this issue, I think, is a big marker of what's to come for the rest of the year and the lack of leverage they will probably have moving forward in this process. And Minority Leader Jeffreys is talking right now about some of that hypocrisy that you

just described on the debt. Let's listen in. Tax breaks. It had been my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we'd be able to have a robust debate, passionate support or passionate opposition in connection with this bill, that hundreds of members on both sides of the aisle could participate in. Instead, we have a limited debate, where the relevant committees of jurisdiction have been given 15 minutes each on a bill of such significant magnitude as it relates to the health, the safety, and the well-being of the American people.

And because that debate was so limited, I feel the obligation, Mr. Speaker, to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time to tell the stories of the American people. And that's exactly what I intend to do. Take my sweet time on behalf of the American people, on behalf of their health care, on behalf of their Medicaid, on behalf of their nutritional assistance, on behalf of veterans, on behalf of farmers, on behalf of children, on behalf of seniors, on behalf of people with disabilities, on behalf of small businesses, on behalf of every single American, I'm't have made it.

If I lost Medicaid, it would completely change my life. It would also severely affect my husband with epilepsy. Without Medicaid, he wouldn't be able to afford his seizure medications, which means he'd have seizures every week, like he did before. This would leave him unable to function or work. Before he had Medicaid, he'd have a seizure. And it would take him days to recover. His health is inconsistent.

This makes it hard for him to hold down a job. I still have my house, my car, my husband, and my health. Thank God for that. But why should we have to struggle so hard just to live. In a country with so much wealth, I'm considered one of the lucky ones. And yet I still struggle to make ends meet for the basics. That's Maria pouring her heart out to us as members of Congress about her struggles. She lives in Iowa's first congressional district. So that's Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sharing personal anecdotes from

voters about the potential impact of this bill. If it does pass as expected a short time from now, once the full vote is opened up. Ali Vitale, Minority Leader Jeffries saying, I will take my sweet time as he stands there to rousing applause from his Democratic colleagues talking about what's in this bill and what will happen in this country as a result of its passage today. From your reporting overnight, Ali, you know, listening to Speaker Johnson early this morning

saying we got the votes not by making deals. Some of those members just needed the time to read and understand the bill. I don't make deals, he said. That opens Pandora's box. So what's your sense of the flip? Is it purely downward pressure from President Trump who posted over and over again last night,

MAGA is not happy with you Republicans get the job done. Yeah, I think it's less reading the bill and more reading the political tea leaves here. The fact that Republican leadership, as Julie mentioned, were regularly warning about the fact that they wouldn't want to be the ones left in the White House's crosshairs if they were to vote against this bill. And I think momentum has a real role to play here. The idea of this July 4th deadline, Brendan has talked about how powerful and how steadfast Johnson was in sticking to it.

But it's amazing that it stuck because it's fake. It's not a deadline, unlike the debt ceiling, for example, that would have had a hard ex-state in the middle of August and thusly really put pressure on members to do it to avoid financial catastrophe for the country. This is a fake deadline that they were able to hold to regardless and they were able to flip members not by giving them anything.

And it seems that Johnson learned something from his predecessor, Speaker McCarthy, on the giving away the store in the process of negotiating towards what you want. That's a lesson clearly from that. But the idea that people flipped and they actually got nothing, I think, is really stark and really telling here. But one of the things that happened, Brendan,

is they did have meetings with the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besson, about some of the math and the pay-fors here. They had meetings with the head of the OMB, Russ Vogt, about rescission packages that could come in the future. So it's not just these cuts, but they could be clawing back other appropriation funding there. What are those conversations like behind the scenes when you've got members that, as you said, may just want to hear what they need to hear to get to yes, but are going to have a really hard time defending this on the campaign trail a year from now? Yeah, I mean, one of the hallmarks of this whole process has been like, we'll get to that later. Every step along the process, Mike Johnson or John Thune said, don't worry about that.

We'll get there. Now you're at the end of the road. There's really nothing else to do. Yeah, where's the later? And so now we're talking about, well, we're going to do another bill like this. Or we're going to do this, what we call rescissions, where the executive kind of just says,

we're going to take back spending that was going on. So this is one of those things where the bill can't change. They can't do anything at this point to change it. So what can you give me? What assurances can you give me? Really, they're just looking for a talking point. I think it's important to know that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for this thing on the Republican side. Democrats, they're putting up their votes early. They're on the floor. They want to talk about it. And surely there

are some Republicans who are excited about this. But I think every one of them knows that the political liability that comes with this, even if you're not in a swing district, you're probably not going to lose. But Kakeam-Jeffrey is on the floor right now. What started off as a tax bill has really become defined as a health care bill. And that is not what Republicans set out to do in the beginning. And some of this is they were making health care policy on the fly. We're making changes to Medicaid purely as an offset, not because this is how we improve the health care system in the country.

And that's caught a lot of, I think, Republicans, even conservative ones who don't really, again, have anything to lose off guard. They don't know how to defend this. I mean, we're talking about there were hours at sort of house sort of freewheeling negotiations where we didn't know what was in, what was out. If you remember, if you don't know what's in, what's out, you certainly don't know how to explain or defend or promote what's in there. And so they've got themselves sort of on their heels now.

Kim Jeffries leaning in on the healthcare stuff. So the politics of this are tough. So credit to Mike Johnson for getting them over the finish line here. But I don't think this is the end of the story because the politics are gonna stick with them for a while. And by the way, by some accounts, even President Trump was surprised to learn

about the massive cuts to Medicaid within this bill, Julie. Let's remind our viewers now as we move toward passage of what exactly is in this $4.5 trillion tax cuts, really just extending the 2017 tax cuts, making permanent those 2017 tax cuts from Donald Trump's first term. You have cuts to Medicaid amounting to nearly a trillion dollars, big cuts to food assistance that's SNAP, big spending increases on border security and on the military. It is quite a hodgepodge, a lot thrown in here and this is what you're looking at in front of

you right now. This is what all those Republicans are signing up for this morning. Absolutely and can we just talk about this moment that the house including the Freedom Caucus is about to pass a bill that is nearly 900 pages that these guys really have not had the opportunity to digest. And I'm only bringing that up because, of course, Republicans have been saying for years that they want to end this whole mega bill process, that they want to pass single subject bills.

We know reconciliation, this process by which the president and the party majority is able to pass a bill with only their votes essentially it Pretty much leads to a big package like this, but when you look at everything that's in there, you're absolutely right It is going to be extremely difficult and Brendan's right This isn't the end of the road for Republicans to defend these things back home Especially leader Schumer told me this is not the end of the road for them either They are going to spend the next few months until the 2026 midterms and probably after campaigning on the fact that Republicans slashed Medicaid by over $1 trillion, campaigning on the fact that America might be behind now on renewable energy because

of the clean energy tax credits, specifically in solar and wind and for electric vehicles have been rolled back as part of this bill, putting constituents in front of these members that are vulnerable, especially in swing districts, to try and defend some of this. I will tell you though, as an early preview of how Republicans plan to message this, they definitely plan only to focus on the tax cuts piece of this.

The fact that they were able to cut taxes on overtime and tips, a signature campaign promise from the president. There was a poll that went out yesterday by the Senate's campaign arm, essentially instructing all of the people that want to run for reelection, the incumbents and also the people who are seeking to flip key states, including Michigan. Listen, keep messaging on those tax cuts because that's what's polling well. And they know that what isn't polling well are all those deep cuts to Medicaid that they are going to have to defend. And that is exactly why we saw Senator Tom Tillis say,

I'm not running for reelection. This is a lose-lose for me. Right. And therefore he was able to take that no vote in the Senate. By the way, there was one Republican holdout on this vote on the rule. Brian Fitzpatrick, the Republican congressman from Pennsylvania in that Bucks County swing district outside of Philadelphia that Kamala Harris won in the last presidential election. NBC's Julie Serkin, thank you, MSNBC political analyst Brendan Buck, great to have you with us as well and we of course will stay on top of this all-night session on Capitol Hill. Live coverage continues. House Republicans now moments away likely from passing the president's sweeping domestic policy bill. We'll take

you there when it happens. Also, I had a federal jury find Sean Diddy Combs guilty of two prostitution-related charges that could carry years of prison time, but lets him off on a couple of others. We'll go over yesterday's verdict and explain why some people are calling it a victory for the disgraced hip-hop mogul. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available every weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts.

You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in just 90 seconds. ["Morning Joe"] Disgraced former music mogulul Sean Diddy combs was found not guilty of the most serious charges against him yesterday acquitted of the counts of sex trafficking and racketeering NBC News correspondent Chloe molasse has details on what comes next in the case.

Sean Diddy combs sinking to his knees in the courtroom moments after a jury found him not guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking the most serious charges he was facing. He was convicted on 2 counts of a lesser charge transportation to engage in prostitution. Today is a great victory. It's a great victory for Sean combs in the the courtroom, an emotional scene combs is lawyer wiping away tears as family members, including his 6 kids clapped and cheered. His mother later blowing a kiss to the crowd as she left the courthouse.

It's a block party like atmosphere outside the courthouse with dancing and others protesting today's verdict. But one thing is for sure we're here for a front row seat to history. The jury of 8 men and 4 women're here for a front row seat to history. The jury of eight men and four women deliberated for a total of 13 and a half hours. Late Tuesday, they sent a note saying that they'd reached consensus on four counts, but were split on one. They returned deliberating for under an hour before announcing they had a verdict. During the seven-week trial, prosecutors argued that Combs was the leader of a criminal enterprise

and everyone was there to serve him. They called 34 witnesses, including two of Combs' former girlfriends, singer Cassie Ventura and another known only as Jane. Ventura's lawyer sharing her reaction to the verdict. We're pleased that he's finally been held responsible for two federal crimes, something that he's never faced in his life. In a statement, the US Attorney's Office acknowledged

the victims writing sex crimes deeply scar victims and the disturbing reality is that sex crimes are all too present in many aspects of our society. Combs opted not to testify and his lawyers did not call any witnesses. They said he was put on trial for his lifestyle and didn't commit the crimes he was charged with.

This case was never what it was made out to be this case was ridiculous in so many different ways. He's also facing dozens of civil suits comes is facing far less prison time that he would have if convicted on the most serious charges. NBC's Chloe Milas reporting from lower Manhattan. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Good morning to you both. Danny, I'll start with you.

24 hours ago, you and I were having a conversation about what looked like were going to be convictions on sex trafficking. You conceded that the racketeering charge was very complicated. You could see an acquittal there. How surprised are you about the not guilty verdicts, though, on the sex trafficking charges? Yeah. 24 hours ago when the news was there was a verdict, but we didn't know what it was on four of the counts related to sex trafficking and prostitution, and they were deadlocked

on the conspiracy for the racketeering conspiracy. That made sense to me. I was not surprised. I am now surprised. The only difference being that I thought the rest of those counts, two through five, would be convictions. They did acquit on counts that related to sex trafficking. That was a surprise to me.

But there was never any doubt that they were going to convict of the Mann Act, which is transportation for prostitution, because essentially the elements of that crime are transportation plus prostitution. The government in this case had the actual prostitutes coming in and saying, I'm a prostitute. They had evidence that there was interstate transportation. So there was little doubt that they would convict of the Mann Act. But the Mann Act was easily the least serious of these crimes, so much so that barely anyone even talked about it in the last couple years. The lead crimes and the most dangerous crime for Combs was absolutely the sex trafficking,

which carried a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Instead, even by the government's calculation, he may be looking at four to five years and the government's calculation is on the high end. Lisa, how about for you as you absorb this live on the air yesterday when these verdicts came down, were you surprised about the acquittals on the sex trafficking charges? Yes and no, Willie, because let's go back to the day before yesterday when we heard that the jury was deadlocked on count one and had reached a verdict on two through five.

They had asked some questions earlier in the day about the racketeering conspiracy charge and specifically about some of the underlying acts that go into a racketeering conspiracy charge. There's a part of me that said to myself, if you're convinced that Sean Combs was guilty of sex trafficking, you wouldn't need to ask detailed questions about whether or not he also participated in drug distribution, because those sex trafficking acts and the MAN Act violations, that is the transportation for purposes of prostitution, should have been enough to get you there. So I was one of the few people who doubted that it was an across the board conviction, at least from the outset on Wednesday.

On the other hand, I am surprised about the sex trafficking lack of conviction because the prosecutors were so clear that all it took was one episode that you could be in what looked like a consensual romantic relationship with Sean Combs and indeed the two primary victims proffered by the prosecution were two of his ex-girlfriends. You could be in what looked like a romantic relationship with him and yet still be a victim of sex trafficking because what that crime is about is taking someone somewhere or enticing them or recruiting them to participate in the Commercial Sex Act. And Danny just referred to the fact that these women participated in sex with escorts and prostitutes. Basically, sex trafficking is for the, you do it

through force, fraud, or coercion. And the prosecution had lots of evidence that they were coerced to participate in this, if nothing else, then by physical force, particularly with Cassie. They focused on that now notorious security video that we've all seen of the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles, where Sean Combs is beating her up. He admitted that he beat her up. And what the prosecution said is, you can't separate the sex from the violence. The reason he was violent with them was to make control over them for purposes of his sexual gratification. That the jury rejected that theory was, I think, both a mistake and also really just hard to watch for people who believe that sex crimes prosecutions can be messy and complicated and yet can and should lead to convictions. Danny, that celebration from Combs and his team as the verdicts came down was tempered by the fact

that he was then denied bail by this judge. He won't be released from prison while he awaits sentencing. Do you read something into that about what we heard during the trial, which is that his own defense team concedes that he is an abuser, that he abused women. We saw it on videotape, as Lisa just said, and you had some witnesses coming out after the verdict and saying, we fear for our safety if this man is out in public. Federal law creates a default rule that once a defendant is convicted, the burden is on the defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence both that he's not a risk of flight and that he's not a danger to the community.

And while I thought it was interesting that Judge Subramanian sort of put it on the defense, hey, you're the ones who own the domestic violence, the reality is the defense always had to own the domestic violence. There was a video of the domestic violence, so there was little doubt of violence in this case. And the defense had to own it to gain credibility with the jury. So even though that moment may have seemed like Judge Subramanian was sort of a little adverse

to the defendants, the reality is this. Federal law created a presumption that Combs was going to be detained pending his sentencing. The defense had an uphill battle to get him out. So it was not likely the fact that he was detained shouldn't be much of a surprise, but the defense did try valiantly to make the argument that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, but Judge Subramanian focused on the risk of violence including in recent times, not just the 2016 video, but that there may still be

a threat of violence to people involved in the case. So Lisa, Combs convicted on two of the five charges, the two he's convicted on, transportation for prostitution. Let's talk about what he's facing now in terms of sentencing. What could those two convictions carry? How much time could Combs spend in jail? Well, Willie, the statutory maximum for each of those counts is 10 years. And we heard the lead

prosecutor, Maureen Comey, tell the judge yesterday that the federal government intends to seek 20 years, which means they would stack the sentences on top of one another. Not only isn't that very likely, but yesterday when they were talking about detention, as Danny noted, both sides put in letters to the judge and the government essentially conceded that under the federal sentencing guidelines, which aren't mandatory anymore, that COMAs would do about 51 to 63 months for both of these crimes. What we're realistically looking at here is the number of years in the single digits, not anything close to the 20 years that the prosecution told the judge

yesterday they intend to seek. But make no mistake, at sentencing, the judge is allowed to take into consideration other relevant factors. He sat through that trial just like the jurors did. He heard all the testimony about all of Sean Combs' propensity to violence. And there, I'm not just talking about sexual violence. I'm talking about the kidnappings, the arson, the bribery, the guns that he owned without serial numbers on them. Prosecutors did a good job of laying out that Sean Combs, either by himself or at by by his employees was sort of carrying out a pattern of violence over more than two decades you can expect judge super manian to have to think hard about whether those are aggravating factors

that sort of warrant the top end of the range and not the bottom and again combs will be detained until that sentencing takes place MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin NBC News MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos, thanks both for your insights this morning we appreciate it. Coming up President Trump announces a trade agreement with Vietnam that comes with a significant tariff increase on imports from that country. We will break down the terms of the deal, what it could mean for the economy. Plus, we are keeping a close eye on the House floor this morning, where Republicans have worked through the night to push their mega bill to a final vote expected at any moment.

For the moment, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is holding the floor. Morning Joe's coming right back. Recently voted. coming right back. Fighting hard on your behalf. The House floor on Capitol Hill. That is Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York holding the floor as he talks about the so-called big beautiful bill that is now set to pass after some overnight breakthroughs among Republicans. Speaker Johnson says he has the votes as soon as Speaker Jeffries finishes talking, we'll hear from Speaker Johnson, perhaps another Republican or two, and then a vote where again

Republicans say they have the votes after flipping some of those moderates, some of those members of the Freedom Caucus who had misgivings about this massive sprawling bill, some pressure from President Trump, Vice President Vance, also factoring in here, of course. We'll keep a close eye on the floor and a close eye on that vote throughout the morning. Bring it to you as soon as it happens. Let's turn now to CNBC's Dom Chu

for more on the economic impact of this bill. Dom, with news that it looks like this bill will pass a short time from now, how are markets reacting? What does Wall Street think about the impact here? So that's the lens that we're looking at all of this through, Willie, and to be fair, we've been watching it happen over the course of the last several weeks because the market does become, for whatever it is, a kind of

handicapping or discounting mechanism for everything that's developed. So we've seen the iterations from the House. We've seen what they sent to the Senate. We've now seen what the Senate has sent back to the House and what the reconciliation looks like now. And all during that span, what the markets have done is make a slow creep higher, but to record highs. So as the market tries to assess what the actual impact will be from this legislation,

the thinking incrementally has been as each version of this bill has progressed, it is now going to be something that could perhaps stoke economic growth. Now there is a massive debate, of course, because that's the reason why House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is addressing the chamber right now to make their case against this. There is a debate about whether or not those types of growth profiles come to their full fruition. But for right now, many of the Wall Street folks

that we are talking to here seem to feel as though if this bill does pass that it could unlock a growth profile for America that could lead to higher markets down the line, hence the all-time highs. So again, we don't know exactly what it's going to be like. We have a lot of projections on this. But the idea that Republicans have somehow seemingly come together to get behind this, even when Texas Congressman Chip Roy called it quote unquote garbage just yesterday,

seems to imply that perhaps there is enough here that makes everybody happy or less happy enough where this can actually get something done and be good for the economy. I think you just coined a new term, Dom, less happy enough, which will have to be good enough for now for some people. Dom, so what about the idea of $3.3 trillion of debt over 10 years? Does that not factor into the calculations that some of these markets are making? Sure, it does. And one of the things that we look at with regard to just how much that debt or

projected deficit could factor into this is what happens with the bond market. One of the places that you will see that play out more markedly is in U.S. sovereign debt, the treasury market, right? And that's the 10-year yield. Interestingly enough, we have seen over at least the short term a slight tick higher in just the last couple of days. But if you look since the highs that we saw over the course of the last 12 months, we are still relatively low.

Oftentimes when you have real debt concerns, deficit concerns, it leads to a sell-off of U.S. government debt. And what that does lead to is higher interest rates. We're not seeing a massive surge higher in US debt interest rates, meaning at least for the time being that some investors and Wall Street traders out there are looking beyond some of the deficit concerns. Now if there were pervasive deficit and debt concerns tied to the so-called big beautiful bill, which you could see is a spike higher in interest rates. And one of those terms that has been tossed around going back now a couple of decades

is the bond vigilantes, right? Those investors or traders who punish US sovereign debt because of things like deficit and debt management. We're not seeing that just yet. So Willie, that's something that we're gonna be watching for if it does come to fruition over the course of the next few weeks. And we should point out one of the reasons perhaps the market corporations like what they're seeing out of this bill is because it makes permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts,

which includes a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 21%. So we'll keep a close eye on what's happening in the House. Meanwhile, President Trump says, the United States has reached a trade agreement with Vietnam. He made that announcement in a social media post yesterday, writing the deal includes a 20% tariff on Vietnam's imports and that the U.S. will have access to Vietnam's markets without paying tariffs.

According to the President, Vietnam also agreed to impose a 40% tariff on goods made in other countries but routed through Vietnam before being shipped to the United States, a practice known as trans shipping. Think China there. It's unclear from Trump's post when the deal will take effect or if it has been officially signed by both parties. The 90-day pause on many of President Trump's reciprocal tariffs, by the way, set to expire

next Wednesday on July the 9th. So Dom, we take the president at his word here for now. That's all we have is what I mean, that he just posted this on True Social. We haven't heard any kind of official announcement from Vietnam or from the United States. So what is inside this deal? This is sort of the rationale for all these massive tariffs that President Trump has been placing, which is, I'm going to bring people to the table and we're going to make a deal. But obviously, even bringing the rate down to 20% is much higher than it was before he

started putting tariffs on countries like Vietnam. Sure, Willie. OK, so here's the phrase I've heard over and over again since that announcement came out from the White House on True Social, all the official channels. The phrase that I've heard, Willie, is the devil is in the details, right? It's kind of cliched. That's coming from all parts of Wall Street, Main Street, K Street, for that matter that we've spoken to here.

So here's what we know. President Trump announced that bilateral agreement, right? 20% tariff on goods exported from Vietnam to America. The U.S. will have tariff-free access to markets in Vietnam. That compares to the 46% tariff that was threatened to go into effect if a deal was not reached before the deadline. During this 90-day negotiating period, remember that tariff went down to 10 percent to allow time for this deal to get done. Another point of interest has to do with something that you just referred to for

that trans shipping. You mentioned China. That's a big deal because this is when goods are made in a country, shipped to another country as a waypoint before then making their way to their final destination. Trans shipping can be used and has been as a loophole to tariff policy. But sending goods to a country with lower tariff rates that the originating country already has in this agreement, the president says that Vietnam has agreed to that 40% tariff on trans shipped goods. Now here's where the devil in the detail stuff comes into play. Beyond those broad strokes outlined by the president, there hasn't been any

disclosure about whether there will be nuance or exceptions on any goods or types of goods in particular. So you think back to trade negotiations between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico exemptions for things like autos. It's also unclear whether this is a done deal, which has actually been agreed to and signed by both the U.S. and Vietnam. We're still waiting for some kind of official statement from the Vietnamese government itself. There's also the question of non-tariff barriers, which has been a real sticking point for many of these negotiations

between all of our trading partners. Even if there are not explicit tariffs on certain goods, the ban of certain imports on certain things or putting specific product standards in place that preclude certain goods. Also the currency, the foreign exchange, how you let your currency appreciate or depreciate.

Analysts are gonna be looking for a lot of details on that. And I'll end on this, Willie. You mentioned the China factor with regard to trans shipping. Yes, the trade negotiations are still ongoing with China and the US, but how will Beijing react to the trans shipping clause that was mentioned? Trans shipping is seen by some experts as a jab at China, which does send its products through Vietnam as a waypoint for certain products to other markets.

So how will Beijing react to a deal where Vietnam says it may see it as a way to throttle Chinese exports through that market. Those are just some of the issues that a lot of details are going to be sought after by economists, analysts, companies, CEOs, and consumers, of course, Willie. They're waiting to see any kind of detail on those fronts. Yeah, so are we. CNBC's Dom Chiu covering a lot of ground for us this morning. Dom, thanks as always.

Joining us now, the former chair of President Biden's Council of Economic Advisers, Jared Bernstein. Jared, good morning. So just your reaction to what we know so far, again, just a social media post from Donald Trump of what he's presented so far and what it could mean for our economy here. Well, my first reaction is that this lands on a pretty high tariff rate. 20% is actually quite a high import tax on something like $140 billion worth of goods and services that were imported from Vietnam last year.

I think it's useful to look at some of the company's reaction in the market yesterday. We're talking about big name American companies, Nike, which by the way, produces about half of their shoes in Vietnam. Lululemon, Columbia Sportswear, Under Armour. Initially, when they heard there was a deal, I think they really liked the certainty of at least having this thing done before July 9th. Then when they heard the terms of the deal, so the stock initially went up, when they heard the terms of their deal, their stocks reversed course and ticked down some before climbing up a bit later in the day. And I think that's kind of indicative of the

bottom line here, which is that it's good for companies to get more certainty to see a deal is completed. But a 20% tariff, and we're not even talking about trans shipments right now, that's a very high tariff rate and it's going to show up in higher prices for a lot of things that Americans really like to buy. Jared, we've of course heard the White House promise 90 deals in 90 days. We're coming up on that first deadline. Of course, the Vietnam deal, just one of them, and you're talking about the implications there.

But this larger specter of uncertainty that the trade war has put throughout the economy, you heard Jerome Powell talk pretty candidly about the role that that's playing on him keeping interest rates where they are going against what the president wants. But also this larger conversation about where are the economic indicators of the uncertainty? Why hasn't the chaos shown up in some of the economic reports that we're looking at? Are you seeing it show up in places or are you still waiting as well? No, I'm seeing it show up in places though you have to look pretty far under the hood. So the gist of your question is spot on. But one place where I'm

seeing it is a really a quite considerable concern and that's consumer spending. Consumer spending has actually been quite flat for four or five months now. Now this is 70% of our economy and it's been driving this expansion. Let me tell you, when I was in the White House chairing the CEA, we were scrutinizing everything we could because we knew that the consumer, the strong American consumer,

being driven, by the way, by a tight labor market with rising real wages, pushing this economy forward. We're now seeing cracks in the job market. Hiring rates are down. We'll know in a few hours, by the way, what that looked like in June. So that will be a really important piece of information. We've seen the unemployment rate creep up a bit.

But again, in the most recent report, we saw consumer spending really quite flat. We saw some prices on some goods, many of which are of course imported, start to creep up. So you're right, it's not a broad aggregate macroeconomic story yet, but you are seeing some early headwinds from the impact of tariffs on prices of consumer spending and the job market.

Yeah, we'll get that by the way, as Jared mentioned, that jobs report for June coming up a little bit later this morning. I want to pick up on what you just mentioned, prices starting to creep up, Jared. Obviously, the big concern here when these tariffs went into place was that they were going to hit American consumers, that the cost of everyday goods was going to go up. They've creeped, as you said, haven't jumped, I wouldn't say, yet. Is that still coming? Because the Trump administration says, see, this is just a negotiating tactic. We're bringing Vietnam to the table. We're bringing Japan to the

table, and the prices haven't gone up. Should we still expect inflation on the horizon? Look, I would say these days, everybody's crystal ball is a little bit cracked. So let me be careful in my forecast. I think Chair Jerome Powell has this right when he says we think they're going up. That's our forecast. They think inflation could be as much as a point higher once these tariffs don't just bleed into the details of the price reports but start showing up tariffs don't just bleed into the details of the price reports, but start showing up more fully in ways that pretty much every forecaster, including the Federal Reserve, expects. But we'll have to wait and see. Again, if we look at goods prices, and of course, that's where our trade deficit is by far most pronounced, we actually have a surplus, a

trade surplus in services, but of course, our trade deficit has been in place for decades. That's where you start to see some prices creeping up. And if you pull out the particularly import-sensitive sectors, you can see some tariff effects, but they're still small. And most people's expectation was it was going to take a number of months for the tariffs to find their way into prices. Again, we're seeing some early signs of that potentially. All right, Jarrett Bernstein, thanks so much for your insight this morning. We appreciate it. Coming up, we'll have the latest on Iran's nuclear ambitions, nearly two weeks after

the targeted U.S. strikes against that program. And we are watching live the House floor where minority leader Hakeem Jeffries has been speaking for about two hours now, holding the floor, making the Democratic case that we now expect to see for, well, a year and a half or so against this massive bill as Republicans appear to have the votes expected to pass it a short time after leader Jeffries yields the floor. We'll have that final vote when it happens. Morning Joe coming right back.

Welcome back to Morning Joe. If you're just waking up with us, this is a live picture of the floor of the United States House of Representatives at 653 in the morning. Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries has been speaking for about two hours now making that case against the so-called one big beautiful bill and its contents, which include tax cuts of four and a half trillion dollars, cuts to Medicaid amounting to nearly a

trillion dollars, big cuts to food assistance, spending increases for border security, the military priorities that President Trump underlined during his campaign. And now Speaker Johnson says he has the votes. We talked yesterday about some defections. We also talked about how we fully expected them to come around once President Trump started making phone calls, as he did overnight with the help of Vice President J.D. Vance. Twisting arms, convincing members on the Republican side to vote for this bill, Speaker Johnson

says he has the votes, that this will become law and get to the president's desk by that self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. We're bringing that vote just as soon as it happens, we expected shortly after leader Jeffries is done speaking there.