Morning Joe - 'I don't think it was a sell': Richard Haass on why Trump didn't make the case for war in Iran

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

'I don't think it was a sell': Richard Haass on why Trump didn't make the case for war in Iran To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

They had some weapons that nobody believed they had. We just learned that out. We took them out. We took them all out so that no one would really dare stop them. And they're raised for a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapon like nobody's ever seen before. They were right at the doorstep. We are going to finish the job, and we're going to finish it very fast. We're getting very close. The United States has never been better prepared economically to confront this threat. You all know that. They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully. no longer. This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. Small sample of President Trump's address to the nation last night, trying to sell Americans on the war in Iran will have much more from that speech. Earlier in the day, the president briefly attended a Supreme Court hearing on his executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The justices seem just a tad skeptical about the arguments. against the 14th Amendment, as demonstrated by this short exchange. Eight billion people are one plane right away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.

Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. Yeah, we'll talk more about that. Can we just stop? Can we just stop for one second and just say, when you hear the quote of the year, you just want, you just, you just want to just stop, Willie. And you want it to wash over you. You want it to wash over you. It's proud to be American. This is what we, this is what we've been hearing, Willie, for, oh, so, so long now. This is a new world.

We have new child. It's never been this bad. We've got a shred that. And so yesterday, this poor John Sauer guy who we're going to get to the point where he's trying to explain to Neil Gorsuch, why Native Americans don't have birthright citizenship. or maybe he just doesn't know. It's also confusing. He's just a caveman lawyer.

How could he try to figure out whether people have been here hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years before white people even showed up might have birthright citizenship? But in this particular moment, Donald Trump's solicitor general, he goes, well, you know, Mr. Chief Justice. Well, now let me do that voice right. Well, you know, Mr. Chief Justice, this is a new world and there are new challenges to which John

Robert said, well, you may be right. This may be a new world, but it's the same old Constitution. Whoa. I mean, if there's ever been a line that explains to the Trump administration, how them setting their hair on fire and running around, like in front of TV cameras, in front of the White House, is performative nonsense when it comes to the Constitution of the United States of America. That exchange, maybe a new world, sir,

but it's the same old Constitution. That exchange really wraps it all up in a neat give and take. Yeah, and that's the interesting. entire ethos of the Trump administration, the first and second, create an emergency, create a crisis, or at least expressed to the public that there's a crisis when there isn't, and then say, this is why we have to take extraordinary means. And now you have the chief justice in an equally extraordinary moment. And we'll quote that I suspect will last for generations, which is that the

Constitution doesn't change as the world does, which is kind of the point of the Constitution, because they knew that new people, new leadership, different kinds of men and women would come through as leaders. And we needed something as a bedrock, as a guardrail against their whims. And here we are in really, truly an amazing moment yesterday. Yes. Yeah, it really was an amazing moment. But I've got to say another amazing moment, Mika, was, you know, when my children either come visit me or return from school, they usually don't go. Dad, as we're getting ready to sit down and eat, can we turn on the TV?

Can we turn on cable news? They never do that. But they did yesterday afternoon because the crew aboard the Orion Spacecraft, it's already 12 hours after the mission after an incredible launch yesterday at Kennedy Space Center. But Mika, my kids, and I'm sure your kids and Willie's kids, you know, this is something they haven't grown up with. It's something that my dad, you know, when we'd go to First Baptist Church in Shambly, Georgia, and would have 12 Apollo tie tacks on our ties and rockets all up and down our lapels, these things they used to give out whenever the astronauts were orbiting space

or going to the moon. I mean, it's something we grew up with, and it was really exciting. But for this generation of kids, even born well after the Challenger tragedy that we all remember. This was very exciting. And I loved the fact that my son came in and said, let's turn this on and watch it. He was very excited about it. So were his friends. We'll have much more ahead from the Kennedy Space Center, along with Joe Willie and Me. We have the co-host of our 9 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire. You're not giving me anything. Were your children excited about this? You're older children excited about this?

I actually were out there and they were opening their phones and talking about it. And I guess there hasn't been an effort for the moon since the 70s. So it's quite historic. Well, quite a so. And the kids, they were excited about it. So I just, this is a dialogue back and forth between the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court. I mean, this is how the back and forth goes with, you know, George Burns and Gracie. and say good night, Gracie.

Right, no. Say, good night, Gracie. So here's the thing. I'm kind of trying to balance the shim-sham of Morning Joe and the gibbitty-shimmy. But at the same time, President spoke on the war last side, and I'd like to get to the top story. So, yes, we are talking. Well, we're going to get to that buzzkill. We can talk later.

But yeah, but we can have a conversation now or later, which since you've decided to take this stat, I am now, I am Al Haig. And if you read your Constitution, I now have complete control of this government. And so I'm going to Willie guys now. And Willie, first of all, you are no Al Hay. You're kidding. I were true. I know. Hey, they, make it.

Mika, can I say, though an American patriot, thank you very much for saying I'm no Al Hay. Literally, he was at our house. He was at our house in McLean, Virginia, days after making that comment. So I knew Al Hay. And I knew, I know exactly. All right. Okay.

President Emeritus. Despite the shot. He also, he also, he also, he also never, never, you know, stuck his head up next to a referee. I need some, I need an explanation since I've completely taken over the top of the show. Willie, I need you and Lamere, help me figure out what was going on here. Because it made me one of the great moments in college basketball, better than the shot itself. Willie, why was happening here? So this is after.

the Brayland Mullen shot to win the game, the miracle shot that's speaking of lasting for generations, Hulley goes head to head. Play it again! With the official, head to head with the official. So what's going on there? Well, he did a podcast, Hurley did a couple days later, and he explained that the ref was coming over to tell him

how much time was that, that the game wasn't over, 0.3.4. And Hurley said he's known this guy a long time, and he was leaning in to listen. He said it was not a confrontation, it was not a headbut. It was just the line he said he says, honestly, I thought he was coming over and gave me a chest bump because the shot was so good.

He wasn't. He was coming over to say how much time was left. Hurley said I was caught up in the moment. I was fired up. I'd been hugging and chest bumping everybody, so I gave him one too. Yeah, I mean, this is, I mean, the look at Hurley here, who's obviously delirously happy and his jacket is half off. He's pure adrenaline right now.

Yeah, exactly. The swagger. That's how I interpreted it. He's like, yeah, we made it. And I'm, I will just I'm also glad that Mike Barnacle's not on the top of the show this morning, because that's how Mike and I start every show. That's our pre-show. That is confrontation. Head-to-head. No, no, it's sort of an alpha thing. Like, he's going to win today. He does every day. But, yeah, but this is an extraordinary. This also will live four generations, much like this. Joe. Yes, yes, it will. Seriously. So that was all fun and games, we can be, you know, we do have a war going on.

And if you don't mind, could you please do your job and get us to the news? Okay. President Emeritus, the Council of Foreign Relations Richard Hawes is with us. He worked for Al Haig. Ten minutes in. And MS now, how did that go? MS now National Affairs analyst, John Healman, he's chief

part, he is partner in chief political columnist at Puck, and it's good to have Heilman with us. He was actually, Al Haig was underestimated as Secretary of State. He actually did a very good job, and he saved the Reagan administration from making some enormous mistakes early on. He was the traditionalist.

I don't disagree, actually. Hey, so, Richard, since we've brought up Al Haig's name joking around, tell us, tell us really quickly in 60 seconds. Tell us how Haig actually, because he's usually seen as this loudmouth, buffoon who did what he did, which again, I respect what he did, even though he was constitutionally wrong. He was trying to show, hey, somebody's in charge here. You guys just relax. Even though he ended up being the butt of jokes, let's see, now it would be. 46 years later. But I think his intentions were very good doing that. He was also sort of involved at the end of Watergate as well, trying to clean that up. But give us a couple of high notes of Al Haig

and how he saved the Reagan administration from doing stupid stuff early on. He was the Secretary of State for the first year and a half, 18 months before George Schultz came in. The first decision of the Reagan administration was whether to honor or not, the Iran, funnily enough, the Iran hostage agreements that have been negotiated by the Carter administration. Most of the people in the Reagan cabinet wanted to not honor them. And Hayes was the person who at the first cabinet meeting basically said, hold it. Do we want our administration, Mr. President? Do we want your administration to be totally defined by the Iran hostage crisis like Jimmy Carter's one? Was, let's just let this go. And then you can get on with your agenda. Hague dominated the meeting.

Then when it's the question a few months later turned to Europe, Joe, we'd had a this effort about whether to have a new generation of missiles approved for NATO. People again said, we don't want to do this. Haig was the one who talked about, again, relevant today. He reminded everyone about why NATO was so important and why the United States acting consistently to put the missiles in Europe was essential for security and also potentially to get an arms control agreement. He had his excess, obviously, going to the source and other things.

But he was the one who stood by traditionalism. Okay. So since we are going back. in the way back machine. My sister-in-law sent me a video of my dad talking about what an award would look like. Good. We don't have it exactly ready for you, Joe,

but we're going to show it because it's actually kind of fascinating and piercing. But let's get to what happened last night. President Trump last night addressed the nation for the first time since starting a war with a run. The roughly 20-minute speech was meant to make the case.

case as to why the conflict is necessary. Yet he gave very few details and repeated his vague timeline for when it may end. For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest, and mass murder from behind. A nuclear shield. I will never let that happen. And neither should. any of our past presidents. This situation has been going on for 47 years and should have been handled long before I arrived in office.

Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home. This short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. This is yet more proof that Iran can never be trusted with nuclear weapons. They will use them and they will use them quickly.

Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done, so it should be easy. And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally. It'll just open up naturally. They're going to want to be able to sell oil because that's all they have to try and re-revehaping. bill that will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up. I've made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our

objectives are fully achieved. Thanks to the progress we've made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next. two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. So, Willie, I think the national reaction to a lot of what the president said last night will be negative across other media outlets. And it may be, it may be quite negative from the friends that we have around the table today, very smart people, smarter than me, that are sitting

around the table. I do want to go through a few things because I often fact-checked Donald Trump. and it's usually fact-checking him in a way that is quite negative. But in this case, I'm going to fact-check a couple of things that are the established belief of the foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C. Number one, he said a nuclear Iran is intolerable. I think most foreign policy experts in Washington, D.C. believe that. It is intolerable. He said they have been building this strength for 47 years.

This should have been taken care of much earlier. That is also a belief. I've had several intel officers who did not like how the war began. Some of America's greatest experts on Iran through the decades telling me, I don't like how this war began. I don't like the lack. of planning, but at the same time, presidents have been kicking the can down the road. If we didn't go in now, we were eventually going to have to go in. So he's correct there. This should have been taken care of

earlier, 47 years earlier. Now, the president said most of our military objectives have been met, will be met over the next two to three weeks. Again, whether you're talking to military or intel officials, they will tell you, yes, that is also true. And again, we have to separate military objectives with political objectives. Those are two radically different things. But on the military side of the ledger, the president may be correct. On the political side of the ledger, of course, serious problems with the straits. I suspect we may the Wall Street Journal. And I mean, it is remarkable. We've said it all the time. It is remarkable, though, the work the Wall Street Journal is doing, they seem to lap their competition every morning. And this morning, they have

stories about the islands that control the flow of oil, not just card, but the others throughout the straits. I suspect that may be, those islands may be targets directly or indirectly. And maybe that's why the buildup is going. I've just noted the timing of the Wall Street Journal article. So, but anyway, Willie, so those are on the plus side of the fact check. On the other side, the president said the hard work's been done and things are going to be easier from this point on. I don't think that's the case at all. I think this has continued to be a difficult situation, which is one of the reasons why the UAE, the Saudis, a lot of our other allies don't want the president to cut and run. They want him to say they're another two, three, four weeks and try to get as much of the job done as possible. And then the president said that the straits were going to open up naturally. No, they're not. They're not going to open up naturally. We're either going to have to.

to get a deal with the Iranians or we're going to have to figure out a way to force those straits open. The European allies are incapable of doing that. Our allies in the region are incapable of doing that. The only force that can do that is the United States military and we either do it directly or we do it hopefully, hopefully through negotiations. But that's my rundown of the speech. I'm curious what you thought. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot in there. I mean, obviously, I think most people agree with you that a nuclear Iran is intolerable. It's just unclear in this latest version of the war how that has been debilitated, how the nuclear program has been debilitated. If it wasn't already obliterated to use the president's term last June, what has changed through this operation over the last month or so.

I think we can officially abandon hearing the two to three week timeline since he says it every day, which means that timeline hasn't changed and has been saying it for a long time. So don't put much stock in that. And obviously, like you said, opening the straits will open naturally when we leave. That's not true. The short-term increase in gas prices here at home, very dismissive of what people are living through and going through right now at $4 a gallon, oil up again today, the market's down again today. And Richard Haas, I think there's just, he's abandoned the idea of regime change, suggesting

that was never a goal. He said that explicitly the morning after the invasion started. So I think as facts on the ground have changed, perhaps has been more. more difficult than he expected in terms of Iran's response to it. The objectives have changed along with it so that he can somehow declare victory. No, absolutely. I'm reminded, really, a little bit of Senator Moynihan. When he once talked about defining deviancy down, we kind of lower our definitional standards, that's what we're doing here in Iran. We've lowered the standards. We've changed the standards. As I say, regime changes happened is essentially preposterous.

Where I think I take a little bit of issue with Joe is on the nuclear. Yeah, no one wants to Iran with nuclear weapons, that is a vital American national interest. The question is, though, how we accomplish that goal. And it's not obvious to me we've advanced our aims through the use of military forces. There is probably not going to be a military solution to the nuclear challenge. One way or another, we're going to head back to the negotiating table, which, by the way, is exactly where we were at on the eve of this war. So I still don't think last night, if the president was trying to make the case for this war, both what it accomplished and what why it had to be launched, when it was launched?

I don't think it was a sale. Well, I think it's an uphill cell for this president. And again, just facts here. It's a president who hasn't paid for gas himself or hasn't had to worry about what the cost of a gallon of gas is and hasn't served this country in the military. And on top of it has been previously critical of the potential of other presidents invading Iran.

President Trump has said on multiple occasions that no one could have predicted Iran would attack its Middle Eastern nations. neighbors if it was struck by the U.S. and Israel. Trump has said his administration was shocked by it. But back in 2012, my father, Dr. Zbignyaf Przinski, not only predicted it, he clearly laid out the global implications of a new war in the Middle East and America's limits in controlling the outcome. If the issues pose in a way in which they have to, in effect, objectively capricably, Then I think great many of them will say, no.

This is a country of 80 million people. And they know that while we can inflict enormous damage on them, they can hurt us a lot. Charlie, we have been now in two 10-year-long wars. We have wasted an enormous amount of financial wealth, not to speak of lives. Our position in the world has deteriorated. Can you imagine what the consequences would be for us

if the conflict in Afghanistan expanded, expanded because of the Iranians. If Iraq was massively destabilized, if Bahrain was set on fire, if the northeastern oil fields in Saudi Arabia were attacked. Do they have the capacity to ignite all of that? To ignite, yes, to prevail. No. But in the meantime, the consequences, the costs would be cumulative. And all prices would go through the roof. Yes, and the global economy will be affected. So we're playing with fire here. So we've heard time and time again, John Lemire, from people in the administration. Oh, we could have never seen this coming.

Who could have ever seen this coming? Dr. Brzezinski saw this coming 14 years ago. I must say also the men and women who have wargamed this. People like Dr. Brinski over the past three, four decades, have wargamed this. They've all come to the same conclusion. We had an oil crisis in, I think, 73. we had another oil crisis in 79. They understood the chokehold that Iran had over the straits

and the chokehold that would have over the prices of oil across the world because, again, children, if you're staying at home and say, well, let's just drill, baby, drill. Well, that's great. But oil, are you ready? Get your number two pencils out. Get your notebook out. Oil is a global commodity.

If oil goes up in Europe and in Asia, oil goes up in America. So anyway, but a couple things here, just going down this list, this wasn't hard to see. The first thing that Dr. Prasinski said would happen, which, of course, the president, everybody else says, oh, we're shocked that this actually happened. Dr. Prisensky said Bahrain would be set on fire. Saudi Arabia would be attacked. The oil filters would be set on fire. Charlie Rose asks, can they prevail?

said, no, Iran cannot prevail, but they can cause a significant damage. And we're playing with fire. That's the reason why. I had somebody who saw this Dr. Prasinski clip, a journalist who's been around for about as long as Dr. Prisinski's been around texting me late last night saying, smart guy that Dr. Prasinski. This is why every president before Donald Trump did not go into Iran, despite the fact they would have loved their legacy to have been toppling the Ayatollah's government. Yeah, Dr. Brasinski saw this coming. Most foreign policy experts saw this coming. There are those in the Trump administration who suspected this could come, but the president and his top leaders ignored it because they did not.

They were so taken with their success in Venezuela that they thought the same thing would happen here. That's how it's been explaining to me. And that connects to the speech last night, too. The speech last night was the kind of speech President Trump should have given at the beginning of the war. Here's why we're doing this. He didn't then because he didn't think he needed to because he thought it would be a conflict that would only last a few days, a week or two at most, and therefore he wouldn't really have to explain the stakes to the American people. Well, we're now in the month of the number two.

John, let me ask you. You just said he only thought this would be a conflict that would last a couple of days a week or two. Who does that sound like? Vladimir Putin going into Ukraine? See, we live in the age of asymmetrical warfare. The age of asymmetrical warfare where weaker countries may not be able to prevail outright, but they can bleed dry another country. You look at Russia, who thought they were going to have key.

even three days. A million Russian troops maybe have died. 1.3, 1.4 million casualties. Their economy's been wrecked. They haven't been able to take it over the Dunbos, despite the fact the administration keeps lying and saying that Russia is about to take over the Dunbos. Ukraine better to make a deal fast. The Ukrainian say, yeah, no, we're fine. Eat this drone, Russia. And that continues. The words that you just said, you apply that not only to Ukraine and Russia, but now to the United States and Iran. I think we're doing much better, obviously, than Russia is as far as degrading military assets. But this is the new world we're living in. And I just have to underline it again, if Donald Trump didn't hate Zelensky so much, if Donald Trump

didn't hate Ukraine so much, if the administration didn't have such contempt for Ukraine, they would have called them before the war and said, listen, we're going to go in there. We know the Iranians have been supplying drones to Russia? Tell us how do we stop them? But they hated them so much that they didn't do that a month, they're two months or three months in advance. If they had, this war would have looked radically different, mainly for our Gulf region allies who are getting pounded every day. Yeah, the parallels here are uncanny. Ukraine still making that offer today to help that the administration is turning it down. So a few other things about last night. So President Trump was meant to be framing this, this is why we're doing it. I don't know how effective that was.

In fact, I heard from a number of people, Democrats, Republicans alike, who was like, what was the point of that speech? It didn't really go anywhere. There was nothing new. But I do think, Mika, it is interesting. We should dwell on a couple things that he didn't say. Yes, there was the vague timeline of, oh, this will be two to three weeks. There was some thought before he took the podium last night that he was going to actually announce an end to this conflict. The markets were hoping he would. So when he didn't, they fell last night. Number two, There were, there's talk I reported yesterday. The Pentagon has presented the president with two distinct military options.

I wrote about this yesterday afternoon. One would be taking troops to Karg Island, try to seize those energy productions. The other would be into Iran to take their uranium materials to try to prevent them from ever getting a weapon. They're ready to go. The assets are in place. The president just has to give the go ahead. He has not yet. He may never.

But those options are ready now for the first time in this conflict. like he could say yes. And then the last thing that, thankfully, did not happen last night. There were rumors widespread throughout Europe yesterday. The president was going to use his speech last night to announce that he's pulling out of NATO or that he was going to pull out or at least say, we're moving our troops, we're going to begin the process of withdrawing from that alliance. That didn't happen.

There were some criticisms of allies, but not to the point that was feared. But of course, that will be a worry that persists in the days and weeks ahead as long as the Strait of Hammuz remains closed. But can I say something about that? He didn't say that. But no one should kid themselves. No one in Europe any longer believes that the American commitment to come to Europe's defense and under Article 5 exists.

We are now in, if you will, a post-NATO moment. It is weakened, yeah. It is dramatically changed. Oh, yeah, sure. Joe, real quick. Well, it has. And even in the first Trump administration, there came a point where Engel and Merkel said to the rest of Europe, we have to stop looking to America.

We're going to have to start looking east. We're going to have to start looking to China. we're going to have to start looking to others because we can't depend on America anymore. That was in 2018. It'll be very interesting to see what happens, how close he goes up to the line, whether it's just Radrick or whether he steps over that line. I suspect he can't do that for a variety of reasons. A lot of that has to do with the fact that despite the fact that they are mute right now, Republicans of the Senate would object to it. I just want to say in closing this block, I want to say,

The president may not have said everything that people wanted to say. I'm glad he spoke to the American people. He may not have expressed himself in the way that everybody wanted him to express himself. But our commander-in-chief needs to communicate regularly with the American people about what's going on in this war. One of the most significant wars we've had certainly since 2003. So we have a lot of things still that need to. to be answered. But, and I suspect if ground troops do eventually go in to try to take those islands and the straits to guarantee free passage of oil, even after the United States leaves,

that's something the president needs to explain either before it happens or while it is happening. The Americans need to be kept informed from their commander-in-chief. Okay. We still have to get to the politics of this, and we do have John Heilman's standing by for that. Coming up, we're going to talk about new polling, devastating economic numbers, and also just overall political implications of this war as we move forward. We'll be right back with much more morning, Joe. Picture of the sun coming up over Washington this morning. President Trump's approval rating has hit a new low for a second term. According to a new CNN SSRS poll, President Trump's

approval is at 35%, 64% of Americans disapprove of his performance. The president's handling of the economy even worse. Only 31% of Americans approve of the way he has handled the economy, 27 approve of Trump's handling of inflation, and 24% approve of his handling of gas prices. Nearly 80% described the economic conditions of the country today as poor. Roughly six and 10 people say they expect the economy to still be in poor conditions. a year from now. And about the same number of field Trump's policies have made the economy worse. Price of the prompt has caused a severe or moderate financial hardship for more than 60% of those surveyed in the CNN poll. And a majority of people say recent economic conditions have led them to

change their grocery buying habits, cut back on spending and to limit how much they drive. So Jonathan, John Heilman, those are just the latest numbers that tell a story of what's going on with real people in this country and the impact that the war that the president was talking about last night has had on it. He was dismissive of the gas price spike over $4 a gallon now. Last night saying those are short-term increases. Once I'm done with this war in two weeks, again, they'll go right back to where they were. So is there any recognition or acknowledgement beyond the military strategy of the political and economic consequences, the suffering that's happening in this country and the impact that it's having on this president?

Well, clearly not, Willie. I mean, beyond the economics of this, right, which you guys were alluding to a little earlier, we live in a global, of all the markets in the world, the energy market is about as globalized as any market there is. So, you know, there's no one who's an expert in that sector who won't tell you that the president's argument, which is, we have all the oil we need in the United States. It's the biggest oil producer in the world. And so therefore, the Europeans should deal with the Strait of Hormuz because that's where they get their oil.

We have our oil. No, it's a global market in oil. And so if you have a cutoff of the strait of Hormuz choked off, it doesn't matter whether we have a lot of oil in the United States. The price for oil rises around the world. And the fact that Donald Trump didn't lay out a clear path to exit, you're already seeing reflected in the futures this morning in terms of the stock market. What does all that tell you, though? It comes back to the question that John Lemire raised earlier, which is, what was the point of this speech, politically speaking? If you're sitting in the White House right now, you put the president on a prime time address. This is another thing that is not, I still don't think,

has changed in our politics to Joe's point earlier about the Constitution. You put the president on prime time to say something, to say something new, to either announce that you're doing something, to make a case for doing something else, to address some change in the situation on the ground. There was literally nothing that Donald Trump said last night that we haven't heard from Donald Trump about Iran over the course of not just the last four weeks, but over the course of the last four days,

many of those things are contradictory and internally inconsistent. What he says about, you literally could headline that story. Donald Trump threatens to escalate the war while telling us he's getting out soon at the same time. If you were a political operative in the White House, you go into a speech like that, you say, we have one objective, we're driving one headline. It's absolutely unclear to me that there is anything that he said last night that will do anything

to mitigate or ameliorate the political free fall that he's in right now that we just heard Willie go through in those CNN poll, that CNN poll numbers, which are consistent with all the poll numbers that we've seen in the course of the last week. Not a thing, Joe. That may be the case regarding the polls. I will say what the president did was for the first time he addressed this war to the American people. I think that's important in and of itself and everybody else in the media has been saying the president needs to speak to the American people. And he did say a few things

that maybe just as a former Republican as a conservative. He said a few things that I thought, again, that I'd heard from people who've been in the Intel community and who knew Iran very well for decades. One of those things he said was, you know, we can't, we can never have a nuclear Iran. They have been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. We needed to go down, go in and do it. Presidents before me have been kicking the can down the road. We can't continue kicking the can down the road. So that set that up. And, and, and he also did say we, we are going to achieve most of the military objectives that we set out to achieve at the beginning of this war. What was not said, of course was what would happen with the straight, what would happen with a nuclear material,

what would happen with some of these things that you brought up. But I bet the president's continuing to do two things at once. And again, John, he holds his cards very closely to his vest. One thing he's saying is that we're going to wind down this war, two to three weeks. He's been saying that for quite some time. But I suspect as the economic pain continues, that two to three weeks, At some point in the future, we'll actually be two to three weeks. The second thing he's doing is saying we're ramping up our attacks. If the president just said we're going to be out in two or three weeks, the president would be attacked for showing his hands to an evil regime,

as many people have called the Iranians, and then they can just sit and wait. Instead, he's saying, we're going to be out in two to three weeks. We're also going to hammer them harder than ever before. And I suspect that's for negotiating purposes. This is my question to you, though. And it's speculation. It's going to be speculation on your part and my part. But we've known this president, directly or indirectly.

As a politician for over the past 10 years, he's not been a guy that has been willing to take political pain. Just hasn't. He's, you know, it's Bob and Weave, jab in the face, pull back, sort of Muhammad Ali when he's dancing. around somebody in the center of the ring. I have been surprised at the amount of political pain he's been willing to tolerate for this war. And my speculation has been, well, he knows he's going to lose the midterms. He wants the toppling of Iran to be his legacy along with the toppling of Venezuela and the toppling of Cuba. And that's my best guess why he's willing to put up with high gas prices for another month or two. I'm curious if you've thought through this and why you think

Donald Trump in 2026 is doing something Donald Trump in 2018 would have never done. Yeah. Joe, it's a great question. And I think, you know, what we've seen, I think, over the course of the first, whatever it is now, 14 months of Trump 2.0 is that he has become increasingly detached from political reality. President Trump, whatever you think of him ideologically or in terms of policy, he has always had a very good fingertip feel for his political standing. He's had a particularly good fingertip feel for his standing with his political base. And one of the things we're seeing right now is obviously the kind of splintering of that base. It's been building over the course the last 14 months as Trump has been increasingly pictured to the MAGA base as someone

who's just another politician, spending a lot of time with billionaires. The Epstein thing was a betrayal and now the walking away from his 10 years of saying, I am an anti-war president, not just first in Venezuela and now more dramatically in Iran, he's, you know, John Lamere's, someone who's pointed this out as much as almost anybody I know. Donald Trump is just not out among the people very much, the people of his party, the people of his coalition. And it feels as though he's not maybe even listening very much to MAGA Media, which is turned together. Laura Ingram's on Fox News now, Joe, suggesting that Donald Trump may not have the mental capacity to understand the foreign policy advice he's getting.

That is a sign of a rupture that has something to do with the fact that Trump is looking more and more like a lame duck. You have J.D. Vance now announcing that he's leaking to the press like crazy that he was never for Iran and now he's got a memoir coming out about his Catholic faith. We are into the 28 presidential cycle now. And I think you're right that Donald Trump on some level, the combination of detachment and the sense of kind of fatalism about what's going to happen. And if he's going to save himself in the midterms, save the party in the midterms, he's going to have to do it through things like the Save Act. And maybe with all this increasing talk, deploying ICE to polling places. Those are the only, he's not going to be able to turn this around in a conventional political way. That's the one thing I think he still knows.

I think he also knows that doing those things, eyes to voting booths and what he's trying to do with the SAVE Act is not going to go through. It's going to backfire. I think he's more setting up the argument after the losses and the midterm for that. I do think, though, Jonathan O'Meer, though, this is at the end of the day about legacy. And what Donald Trump sees regarding the MAGA base is he sees a CNN poll that was out last time that showed 100% of the MAGA base still support. him, MAGA Media. A lot of MAGA Media does not support him. I suspect, though, those are self-identified MAGA voters. So, of course, there may have been more MAGA voters in the past that now do not

identify themselves as MAGA voters. And perhaps that's why that number is still sitting at 100 percent. Regardless, there obviously is a split in the MAGA, or we will say slash, they call themselves conservatives. Is there anything but conservative? But just for the purposes of the show. I will say the, quote, conservative coalition, a real split right now down the middle about this war in Iraq. Yeah, I think it's becoming more and more clear that President Trump is looking sort of beyond the horizon and is focused on legacy building, right? He does want to be, as we've talked about, the person who has overthrows Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, clearly next. And he's also trying to build physical monuments to himself. That's the White House ballroom. That's the arch that nobody wants

near the Lincoln Memorial. That's the Kennedy Center. The list. goes on and on and on in terms of what he wants to to construct. But Richard Haas, right now, his party, is going to be potentially left with a disastrous November, especially if this war does continue for a long time. And it may. So let's return to where things are. Last night's speech didn't really move the middle much.

Let's throw out the timeline. The president has a significant decision on his hands. We know if you cut and run now, the straight of Hormuz will remain closed, or at least Iran will have real power over it. That's bad for the global economy. But if he sends in ground troops, the options I outlined earlier, the islands or to try to recover the nuclear reactor material,

that's really risky. That's risky, first and foremost, for the American soldiers who we put in harm's way. But it's also very risky politically here at home for the president and his party, because the American public have made it clear. They don't want that. 100%.

At the end of the day, there's two big issues here. Keeps coming back to the same too. One is the nuclear, one is the straight, of our most. Those are the two outstanding issues. I'm not convinced there's a military solution, certainly to the nuclear issue. I do think we're going to have to get back to some awkward negotiations where we're not going to, quote, unquote, solve the issue, finish the job, awkward realities. And then the question of the straight. And it's not clear how taking islands is going to solve the issue, whether it's cargo or the smaller islands, escorting tankers

is a loser of an idea. I've proposed the idea. a blockade outside. The strait needs to be open for all or close to all to put pressure on Iran. Maybe there's some new kind of authority we set up with the local states, and maybe Iran could participate in that, the idea that you would charge a fee, and it would be distributed among the local countries. But one, either militarily or diplomatically, we need a proposal to open the straits. It cannot last. This is unacceptable for the region and for the world. And what was so out about last night on neither the nuclear issue nor the straight issue, did the president have anything to say?

It goes back to John Hyland's point. If you're going to get prime time, by the way, the first night of Passover, it was a strange night to do a major speech from the Oval Office. Why would you not set a new direction for policy? So I think the president still has two or three more weeks of inflicting pain on Iran is not going to change the basic decisions either on Iran's side or ours. So the president says he doesn't want to kick the can down the road. Last night, he kicked the can down the road.

Right. And the region, by the way, watching that closely. Richard Haas, John Holman, thank you both very much for coming on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe. Republican leaders in Congress announced a plan, they say, will end the partial DHS shutdown. We'll have those details. Plus, we'll go through yesterday's arguments at the Supreme Court, where President Trump attended the hearing surrounding his bid to end birthright citizenship.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Acuethers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mecca, a much cooler day along the eastern seaboard of the Ackyweather exclusive forecast. Some rain and drizzle, Boston, New York City this morning, just cloudy in Philadelphia, shower in Washington, D.C., warm Pittsburgh toward Chicago. Severe storms around Chicago will cause major travel delays. today. Southeast only spotty showers, but there will be some thunderstorms, Litter Rock toward New Orleans, some rain in Dallas this morning. Your acuether travel forecast, some delays

in Boston and New York City today and watch for the thunderstorms in Miami this afternoon. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the acuether app today. For Trump, he's not a great legal scholar, so he probably thought a Supreme Court argument was going to be like this. I want the truth! You can't handle the truth. when actually it was more like this. Is the application of that general rule limited only to the situations that they had in mind when they adopted the general rule?

Or do we say they adopted a general rule they meant for that to apply to later applications that might come up? There is no way Donald Trump was still awake at that point. That's the Daily Show's take last night. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of the White House argument against birthright citizenship at yesterday's hearing. The case hinges on the meaning of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has been understood to give U.S. citizenship to people born on American soil. The Trump administration is challenging that interpretation when the president signed an executive order limiting to whom citizenship applies. Solicitor General John Sauer, who you heard there, faced.

tough questions for both liberal and conservative justices. He argued the amendment was written specifically with the children of former enslaved people in mind, and that what he called birth tourism was creating a massive number of children with citizenship, but no real ties to the United States. Here are some of the arguments from yesterday's hearing. You say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. but that's not textual.

Eight billion people are one plane right away from having a child as a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. I get the point thinking about, gee, European countries don't have this, or most other countries, many other countries in the world don't have this, doesn't that? I guess I'm not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretive matter. How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a child, citizen of the United States under your rule. I'm just talking about the particulars, because now you say your rule turns on whether the person

intended to stay in the United States, and I think Justice Barrett brought this up. So we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions. What are we doing to figure this out? Do you think Native Americans today are birthright citizens under your test and of your friend's test? I think so. I mean, obviously, they've been granted citizenship by statute. Put aside the statute.

Do you think they're birthright citizens? No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens. I understand that's what they said. But your test is the domicile of the parents. And that would be the test you'd have a supply today, right? Yes, yes. So a tribal Indian, for example, gives up allegiance to... Born today, birthright citizens.

I think so on our test. They're lawfully domiciled here. I have to think. I have to think that through, but that's my reaction. I'll take the yes. Justice Gorsuch there, joining us now, former U.S. attorney, former senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg and president of Voto Latino Foundation, Maria Theresa Kumar. Good morning to you both.

So, Chuck, the consensus from legal scholars seems to be that it was a tough day for the Solicitor General because a lot of what we heard yesterday, critical and skeptical of the argument, did come from conservative justices. We'll point out many of them appointed by Donald J. Trump, who was sitting in the front row for at least half of the hearing or so. What were your takeaways yesterday? Yeah, Willie, I think the Solicitor General had a tough day in court. You got good questions from the so-called liberals and the so-called conservative justices.

By the way, the woman who represented those challenging the executive order also got good and tough questions from both sides of the court. I like the argument. I think they both did well. I think she had the stronger position. I think the Solicitor General had much more to defend. Sometimes it's the hand you're dealt. But I think that I agree with you, Willie.

It seemed like the court was skeptical of the administration's position, and I hate predicting votes and I won't predict votes, except to say that I think the executive order will be found to be either unconstitutional or in violation of a 1952 statute that mirrored the language of the 14th Amendment. So, Chuck, I'm curious your reaction when you heard the exchange between the Solicitor General who said, this is a new world, and the Chief Justice of the United States said it may be a new world, but it's the same Constitution. Yeah, I heard what you had to say at the beginning of the show, Joe, and I agree with you. I think it's an important reminder to Americans about who we are and where we come from. and the rules that bind us all.

Yeah, the world has changed and the world will continue to change, but there are certain basic bedrock principles that apply. The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868. It's not a new thing. It was enacted specifically, Joe, to overturn a repulsive Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott, an 1857 decision that held that blacks never were, never could be citizens of the United States. our common understanding of what the 14th Amendment is and does has really been unchanged.

It has been challenged from time to time. But our common understanding has been changed. I think that's the lesson of what Chief Justice Roberts was saying. Maybe new facts, but it's the same constitution. And as a nation, we are knit together by a set of common rules. Maria, Teresa, we should note that the president, after leaving the Supreme Court, put up an angry post on truth, social blasting birthright citizenship again. So perhaps that's a clue as to how he felt things went yesterday. But give us some of your takeaways as you listen to these exchanges with the justices.

Well, I think one of the things that for this justice is what I think is, I think, refreshing is that we're actually starting to see a separation of government. I think a lot of folks were very skeptical that the judges would go, the Supreme Court would actually abide by institutions and rules of law. And they were very concerned that they were going to be weighted very much by the sway of this president. And we have not seen. seen that, Willie. I've just, you know, the fact that they stop the National Guard from going into Chicago, the fact that they stop tariffs and saying, no, that's a legislative congressional issue. And now basically contesting saying you really have no legs to stand on on birthright citizenship

is fundamental because I think that we're seeing is a Supreme Court that is really reflecting the values of our institutions. And I know oftentimes Joe and Willie, we've had these conversations of like, will the Supreme Court have the separation of powers? And we are seeing just that. On the issue itself, though, of birthright citizenship, I think that it's fundamental for all of us to remember that by creating a second-class citizenship, which is what the president wants to do, is that we are relegated back to the 1800s. We've already lived that history. And I think that what we're seeing right now is not only the American people saying,

no, this is not what we want. I mean, when you actually look at independent voter of all that, it actually makes them uncomfortable. But the fact that we're also seeing the Supreme Court saying, not only do we not want to legislate of the past, you know, the policies of the past and statutes of the past that were so dangerous of creating second-class citizens, we also want to make sure that the president is not freewheeling, as he does, oftentimes, when it comes to a sleight of his pen. And again, what I'm watching very closely is the fact that not only are we seeing ACLU, Cecilia, Cecilia, way showing and demonstrating what it means to be, you know, a child of immigrants going into the Supreme Court and saying what is possible, but we're working. also seeing is the American people increasingly at being skeptical and asking the right questions of why do we want to divide Americans with what the Constitution is provided is a beautiful

blueprint of what our possibility is as a country. And a lot of times when immigrants come here, my family included, is because we recognize on the true values and our true principles of what unites as Americans. And it's our possibility of being able to define ourselves as individuals and not because of the sleight of someone's pen.