Morning Joe - Joe: DOJ was caught in an Epstein cover up, but GOP is dragging Hillary Clinton into a deposition?

Episode Date: February 26, 2026

Joe: DOJ was caught in an Epstein cover up, but GOP is dragging Hillary Clinton into a deposition? 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.

Our nation is back. Bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever before. This is the golden age of America. Oh, okay. That's great news. I actually think an optimistic, uplifting state of the union might be just what the country needs right now. Let's hear more about this golden age. Drug lords, murders all over our country. Killed and maimed thousands ambushed and shot in the head shut. Violently in the head, one bullet after another, violently and viciously.

We're talking about the edge of that. This is the golden age. Can we just get back to the uplifting optimism? Gushing blood, which was flowing back down the aisle, viciously slash, bleeding profusely. Blood all over, shredding his leg into numerous pieces. Unbelievable what's happened to his legs. God, the violence. Was this the State of the Union speech or a Quentin Tateenna?

Tarantino movie. All it's missing is Uma Thurman's bare feet. No, no, no, no, no, no, mas. That was a daily show with its recap of the state of the union address. My gosh. And yeah, there was a lot of attention to gore and detail and the kind of gore, too, which is very funny because if you see, you know, over the past day or two, a couple of things stand out. one, more data that shows that the murder rate in America is dropped to a century low. And that chart, the White House actually put down out. It was very funny. It showed the number going straight down.

But somebody responded to that chart from the White House saying, I don't think this says what you think it says. And it shows that that precipitous decline, of course, started. when Joe Biden became president of the United States. That's one. But the second thing to do is, you know, will people love to talk about, oh, how long you think this state of the union address is going to impact, is how long it's going to dominate the news? Is it going to be a week? Is it going to be a month? Nah, it wasn't even a day. I mean, we, by the middle of the day, a new Epstein scandal had exploded. And this one, obviously, gaining a great deal of momentum, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times.

of course, it started with NPR, uncovering documents that showed the Justice Department. It's involved in some sort of cover-up. Why they're covering up for Donald Trump? We don't know. We don't know all the details of it. But we definitely know there's a cover-up there. So you have that going. At the same time, you have F-22s now being positioned in Israel, as more and more people coming out of those secret meetings with the White House and the president

are suggesting that we may be on the way to war. So again, this state of the union, like most state of the unions, will have a lasting impact maybe of 24 hours tops. Yeah, maybe you remember best for the hockey team showing up at the very beginning and being acknowledged up there in the gallery. And then the rest of it kind of has vaporized

and add to that, Joe, you mentioned the Epstein files today, that Hillary Clinton is going to be deposed that the Republican-led House Oversight Committee is going to pull the, Epstein files back into the news at the very moment there are these now explosive reports confirmed this morning now, too, by the New York Times that more than 50 pages were missing from what was made public involving testimony about President Donald Trump. We're going to dig into that in

just a moment. We're going to fact check much more from the president's speech with Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. He's got some charts for us. Plus, we'll bring you the latest from Geneva, whereas Joe mentioned another round of talks between U.S. and Iranian officials. is underway with fears. There could be some kind of a strike and soon if nothing comes out of those talks. Plus, we'll go through the questionable credentials of President Trump's nominee for Surgeon General following her hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill. With us, the co-hosts of our 9 a.m. hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire,

columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and MS now senior Capitol Hill reporter, the host of way too early with us here in studio in New York this morning, Ali Vitale. There is growing fallout over revelations of those missing documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files, including interviews with a woman who leveled accusations against Donald Trump. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal now both have confirmed reporting by NPR and MS Now that the Department of Justice has withheld dozens of pages of FBI memos and notes of interviews with a woman who accused Epstein and Trump. of sexually assaulting her as a minor.

Records confirmed the woman had four interviews with investigators, but only documents from one of those meetings made it into the public release. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ, requires by law, to release most Epstein-related files and explicitly forbids withholding files to avoid embarrassing public figures. In a statement the DOJ said it is reviewing files and, quote, should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the department will, of course,

publish it consistent with the law. MS now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin reports during the Epstein Files review process, the Justice Department was tracking the very type of document that now is missing. In a memo last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche ordered all department workers who were reviewing files to tag documents that include specific information. One of the types of documents, Blanche required to be tagged by workers, is called a 302. That is the form that the FBI uses to memorialize interviews, the same type of document that is missing from Donald Trump's accuser. President Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein. Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,

are set to testify in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. This morning, Hillary Clinton will give a deposition behind closed doors. Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify tomorrow. It comes after months of haggling between the couple's lawyers and leaders of the House Oversight Committee, which voted unanimously to issue a subpoena for their testimony back in July. Bill Clinton's ties to Epstein, including four flights on Epstein's jet in 2002 and 2003, as well as photos in the files released by the Justice Department, are central to the committee's interest.

Hillary Clinton, however, did not travel with Epstein and had said she never even, even spoke with him and only met his associate, Galane Maxwell, a handful of times. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein Joe. So Hillary Clinton, Joe, deposed today. Bill Clinton deposed tomorrow. Hillary Clinton's name, yes, is in the Epstein files hundreds of times because Jeffrey Epstein clipped articles about the 2016 election and would send them to friends, talked in one instance to my friend, he would have no luck setting up a meeting with Hillary Clinton because he didn't have a relationship, whether it didn't know her well enough. So she is very,

very tangentially related to the Epstein files. Yeah, so, so remote in this whole issue that Jonathan O'Meer, it really does just completely expose, totally expose. Comer and the Republicans here, show what bad faith operators they've been in this so-called investigation, where you have with Hillary Clinton somebody that, again, hardly ever spoke to Jeffrey Epstein, never on his plane, had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. She's being deposed today, while the Justice Department clearly, clearly got caught in a country. cover-up by NPR, clearly get caught in a cover-up as reported by the New York Times, as reported by Murdox Wall Street Journal. And again, it's just a farce. The whole thing is a force.

If I were Hillary Clinton, and of course, Hillary Clinton is much smarter than me. But if I would spend the whole time saying, I didn't know him, what do you think are in those files? What do you think in their files with a young woman who was 13 years old who's accusing the president doing X, Y, and Z? I mean, again, it is such a sham. And the fact that Todd Blanche is telling people to look for a certain sort of files that now have disappeared, now have not been released with the rest of the Epstein files, this whole thing looks like such a cover up. And I will just say what we've been saying for six to nine months now. If they have nothing to worry about, they should have released all the documents nine months ago,

this story would have been over eight months ago, but they keep dragging it out. And Willie brings up a great point. I mean, here we have a scandal. Just probably the biggest scandal of the entire Epstein files right now, the cover up by the Justice Department, of these files that reveal testimony of the most terrible things about Donald Trump. We don't know whether they're true or not.

But they cover those up. after the law orders that they'd be released. And at the same time, they're dragging Hillary Clinton into a deposition. And she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. It's really bizarre. Yeah, the Department of Justice's claim of impartially handling the Epstein matter is undermined by the fact that the Department of Justice's headquarters in Washington, there's a giant banner with Donald Trump's face on it.

That's true, right there on Maine Justice. And they are acting like it. As you said, Joe, as we talked about it in real time, every move DOJ has made, and that by extension, the Republican-led Congress has only raised more questions about Trump's involvement with this matter, that there's something in there that he does not want out there, reflective of him or his friends or loved ones, whatever it might be, we don't totally know. And we don't know the claims here or if they're true or not. But we do know there's stuff missing. And the Department of Justice seems to be deliberately hiding it and the playing with the help of the Republican Congress misdirection.

One of the dumps of the Epstein files a few weeks ago was simply about Bill Clinton. It was so transparently political. And Ali, that's where we are again today. An attempt to shift this focus on the Clintons, even though we know President Trump has privately expressed some concern about this because by putting the spotlight on the Clintons and making them sit for these depositions like, well, okay, why not President Trump? He even had more of a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I know you're heading to Chappaqua.

in Westchester County north of here where the Clintons are. Talk to us what we should expect. I think you're right to bring up the hypocrisy that this then raises because it raises the question of if you want to talk to former President Bill Clinton, which I think there's some valid questions to be asked. He appears in photos. Let's ask those questions. Why are you then not asking the same of President Trump? I've asked James Comer, the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, that very question. He doesn't have a clear answer. In fact, he said, well, the President has talked many times on the record about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Okay, hasn't done that under oath to Congress. I think that's probably. probably a valid conversation to have. And then I think there's also a fascinating dynamic of Hillary Clinton once again being forced to answer for her husband. That I think has a ton of gender dynamics that we won't get into before seven in the morning. But I think there's also then the question of if we are asking spouses to talk about what their husbands might have been privy to, why are we not also asking Melania Trump that question? She has correspondence that is in the Epstein Files with Gillane Maxwell. That's just one example, right? So I think it does open the oversight committee and Republicans on that

committee up to some valid questions. And I think you only further see the politics of this by the fact that last week when the Oversight Committee went to New Albany, Ohio to talk to Les Wexner, Comer and Republicans were not physically there. They sent lawyers themselves. And that happens in Congress, especially for depositions behind closed doors. Sometimes they want lawyers who are actually trained in doing cross-examination to do these kinds of depositions before and if they make something public. But for Comer now, going to this closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, why are you coming to this, but you didn't go to Les Wexner's deposition. I think that's one of the questions that I want to ask the chairman of the committee as well, especially as you consider what they're likely

to get from this, and then the Clinton's desire to make it public at some point. Hillary Clinton will hold her own. No one has any doubt about that today. But, Ali, I'm curious, does the Justice Department just think that this will go away somehow? We watched Pam Bondi in that hearing last week or two weeks ago talking about the Dow being over 50,000, not acknowledging the survivors who were in the room, wouldn't even turn. He didn't have to say anything or apologize for legal reasons or whatever, but wouldn't acknowledge them. And yet, they seem to want to turn the page on this, but the oversight committee's opening the wound again. This isn't going away. Why won't they just release all the

files unless they've got something to hide? And I think that's the question. And there's always been a skepticism in bipartisan fashion from members of Congress who wanted to compel the release of these files in the first place. There was the question of, okay, we can pass the law, but are they really going to comply? And it gets them into the territory of how do you know what you're looking for if you don't exactly know what you're looking for? The benefit that the committee and frankly, Kana and Massey, who operate outside of it but are very much closely related to it, is that they have the survivors to help hold DOJ accountable. The survivors know the statements that they gave to the FBI at various points. The survivors also know who these men were that were part

of their abuse. And that is how the committee and other relevant lawmakers are going to be able to continue to hold DOJ's feet to the fire by saying, we know that this particular document should be in there. Why is it not in there? We know that it's missing. How do we get it? But the enforcement mechanism was always the problem with the law. And it's also the problem that the oversight committee faces, because as multiple members have reminded me, there is a subpoena that they issued last summer to DOJ and AG Pambandi for these very documents. If she's not complying with the law that President Trump signed, she going to comply with a committee that is not asking her or forcing her to comply, but they are enforcing subpoenas against the Clintons, just not enforcing it against the

Attorney General, at least not yet. Well, I mean, it is really, it's incredible. And it goes to what I said here last week. We have two systems of justice in America, and it's not a system for the rich and a system for the poor. It's a system for Republicans and a system for Democrats under this Justice Department. Think about it. Larry Summers faces the music out of, you know, leaving Harvard. Bob Kerry, a former United States senator, off a board in Nebraska.

Look what happened to Labor Party members, again, center left over in Britain, out of a job. And yet, conservatives that are all over these documents, whether you're talking about Howard Lutnik, whether you're talking about Donald Trump, whether you're talking about one, one Republican after another who has been in Donald Trump's orbit. That was also in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. There's absolutely, you know, no justice. No justice. And again, going to Chappaqua, why, why don't they just go to the Justice Department and talk to Pam Bondi, say, hey, you're really probably should follow the law. This is making all of us look bad right now. Willie, I wanted to ask Jonathan O'Mere really quickly. White House reaction.

I know that there have been some that would actually admit concern to you inside the White House, but with the president's approval ratings in the 30s and these revelations coming out in the afternoon of the president's state of the union address, again, the worst sort of allegations that you could have and long-running allegations that obviously would turn the attention back to the president. What is the reaction inside of the White House? What are you picking up? I mean, there's been frustration all along with how this has been handled. And that's sort of counterintuitive because so much of what DOJ is doing is that the direction, at least an unspoken direction perhaps of the White House. But the president has said to people close to him in

last few months that he's been soured on how Attorney General Bondi has handled this, and then we see Bondi try to do a course correction to protect him, and that only seems to make it worse. But there's no doubt that they were upset with the timing of these revelations. It drowned out of the state of the union, which we talked about yesterday, probably wasn't going to move the needle much anyway. And as an aside, when was the last time a president delivered a state of the union and then didn't go tour the country to support those ideas or even appear in public? We never saw President Trump at all yesterday. Truly strange on the heels of a speech like that meant to reignite some momentum for his presidency.

But they understand. They understand that this Epstein matter is much of the president's frustration. He since last summer has urged it to go away. Remember when at first it was percolating on the right, Willie, with those podcasts and stuff? And he's like, no, stop talking about it. Stop talking about it. A few did. Most didn't. And the story just simply won't get to his great frustration, he can't shake this. And I don't, I haven't picked up any sense that there's like a legal here from the White House, but they know it's bad politically. And we've been asking for many months why he's so desperate for this to go away, why he's so desperate to turn the page, it's not going to be turned because of stories like

the one that came out yesterday. We'll have much more on this coming up later in the show. Also ahead, we'll talk with David Ignatius about what to expect from the high-stakes meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials underway right now in Geneva. Plus, Steve Ratner joins us with charts fact-checking some of the claims President Trump made about the economy during that state of the union address. And as we go to break, a look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Acuweather's Bernie Rayno.

Bernie, how's it looking out there? It is a quiet Thursday across the northeast. Your Acuweather exclusive forecast, some sun in Portland, some sun in Boston, increasing clouds, New York City, Philadelphia, maybe a shower in the afternoon. But the steadier rain, here it is around Washington, D.C., Charleston on south, in the Raleigh, in the Charlotte, a couple of thunderstorms around, and it. Atlanta, Jackson. How about sunshine in 83 in Dallas and 80 degrees in Miami? That rain will cause a few minor delays in Atlanta, but across the northeast shouldn't have any problems today. To help you make

the best decisions and be more in the know, download the AccuWeather app today. U.S. and Iranian negotiating teams are meeting today for another round of high-stake talks in Geneva, Switzerland. Now, during his stead of the union address, President Trump had said he'd yet to hear Iranians promise that their country would never have a nuclear weapon. Though hours before that speech, Iran's foreign minister posted a message online saying that Tehran will never seek to develop one. Secretary of St. Marco Rubio talked about today's meetings with Caribbean leaders, and after that meeting, this is what some of what he said.

Well, I think tomorrow, Steve and Jared will be there. I think they're on their way there now, actually. And the president was very clear last night that he always prefers to diplomacy. But I want you to understand and everyone should know that Iran poses a very great threat to the United States and has for a very long time. They are in possession. First and foremost, after their nuclear program was obliterated, they were told not to try to restart it. And here they are, you can see them always trying to rebuild elements of it. They're not enriching right now, but they're trying to get to the point where they ultimately can. The other thing I would point you to, however, is that Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range

ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, in Qatar, in Bahrain, and they also possess naval assets that threaten shipping and try to threaten the U.S. Navy. So I want to have better to understand that beyond just a nuclear program, they possess these conventional weapons that are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans if they so choose to do so. These things have to be addressed. David Ignatius, first of all, it sounds like the Secretary of State is now expanding the aperture of items that the United States wants Iran to curb. Secondly, I heard about a possibility of an economics incentive coming from Iran to Washington to try to encourage Donald Trump

to support peace. But third, I'm really curious. based on your conversations with leaders throughout the region, diplomats throughout the region, I'm curious how much is riding on today's talks in Geneva? Could it be the difference between whether we see war or peace in Iran and the region over the next week or two? So, Joe, I think these talks are about seeing if it's possible to get to yes, as we say, when we talk about negotiations. The U.S. has been conducting what I would call coercive diplomacy with Iran now for many months. President Trump said during his state of the union what he wants.

He said they need to say the secret words that they will not make a nuclear weapon. Iran seems very close to being willing to do that and indeed to take steps that would reassure Trump and his negotiators that they have backed away from whatever new resumption of their nuclear program they were conducting that Secretary Rubio talked about. So that's one of the things behind closed doors right now in Geneva that's being discussed. Is there a formula that the U.S. would find acceptable? I think the difficulty is that that leaves a powerful Iran with this ballistic missile program that has hit Israel.

Israel was rocked during the 12-day war by Iranian ballistic missile. Israel has a strong interest in those being curbed. So to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, which are just across the Gulf. And there's going to need to be some other forum for discussion of the missile issue. Everyone has said that's really not the topic for these Geneva negotiations.

And finally, Joe, we have this enormous military force that's poised to take action. Our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Kane, has been warning. every major newspaper has carried versions of the warnings he's been given giving to president Trump that we may not have enough force or the right force to carry out a sustained campaign against Iran. He's worried that without key allies in Europe and others, this may be a very difficult military mission for the U.S. I said to you when you and I were talking about this

a couple days ago. I wish there was a sign posted in the White House as they think about Iran. The sign would say, this is not Venezuela. There's a view after the enormous success of Venezuela that using military power quickly, surgically is easy.

Just, pow, knock them with these advanced weapons the U.S. has developed and you'll get what you want. This is not a situation like that. It's much more complicated. And I think that message is being sent by the chairman of the Joint Chief and others.

Well, it does seem to be sent by the chairman of the joint chiefs. It does seem, though, that there are many senators on Capitol Hill who are not receiving that message who are encouraging the president to move forward with attacks on Iran. But as I said back to you, this is not Venezuela. I don't even think it's Iraq. I think Iran poses a set of challenges that the United States probably hasn't faced maybe since Vietnam. Talk about how difficult an attack against Iran and a sustained war with Iran would be. So Iran, which I've visited twice, is a big, complex, in many ways, advanced country,

poised to become a fully modern country, but prevented from being that by this really retrograde regime run by the religious leadership but poised for change I've said on the show and in other contexts that my best sources describe Iran as a one-way street for this regime this regime is heading down hard to say how quickly but I think that's the thing that we should keep in mind this is not a one-and-done process it's it's not going and bomb and extract a concession and that's it. At least it shouldn't be. It should be about seeing what we can do. David, really quickly, could you expand out a very real concern of yours? Could you expand out before you

continue on how you believe this is a dying regime headed down? It's a one-way street for them. The only thing that could revive the extremists that have been running this country since 1979 is an attack from the United States, which would unite all elements inside that country. Explain how that would happen. So, Joe, that's, I guess, my biggest worry. One thing that's striking about Iran is that year after year, you find brave young people in the streets risking their lives to demonstrate their anger at this regime, their desire to live in an open and free country women who don't want to be forced to wear head scars. Women life freedom was the demand of this. set of protests two years ago. We had people out on the streets in December and January. The number

dead is still subject to different interpretations. But President Trump said in the state of the Union it was as many as 32,000. So you have a wave of desire for change in Iran. The question is how to keep faith with that. The Washington Post ran, I thought, an excellent piece. A day ago by a former CIA officer who worked the Iran file who said, But do this carefully slow. This is not a quick fix. It's a long-term commitment to seeing a different kind of Iran. The way we behaved with the Soviet Union took years and years, but it worked.

And in the end, the Soviet Union collapsed. As I know that Iran in the end will collapse, it's the question of getting the right policies to achieve that big outcome and not thinking about a quick hit, short-term fix. So I think those are the issues that are really weighing on the White House right now. It's no surprise to me, really, that President Trump didn't surface yesterday after the State of the Union. He's got a lot to think about. This is war and peace. The consequences of starting military action, as always, can't be predicted. You just can't tell where something will end up, what the consequences will be. So to that point, John, you have

diplomacy underway right now, these talks in Geneva. On the one hand, on the other hand, you've had the last several days, president posting on social media these threats and accusations about Iran. You've had Iran's foreign ministry replying, calling the President of the United States a liar, saying professional liars, this is what they do, saying he's exaggerated the deaths in the streets, and on and on. So there are these sort of these two tracks of the way the conversation is going. But if these talks fail in Geneva, and they very well may because the demand for the United States is a promise from Iran to never have a nuclear weapon. Iran says it can't promise that. Is this administration prepared to make some kind of a strike that could lead to a wider war in Iran?

So with President Trump, we always have to keep in mind how he personalizes foreign policy. And he's in the perception, he's deeply concerned about not appearing weak. So I think that his, I've been told reliably by advisors, his preference is to get a deal. But it's going to have to be a good deal, a deal that he can really claim is a big win. We solve this. Let's walk away. And anything short of that, we're considering the Armada, have there, the amount of resources in the region, a second carrier group has arrived. I think there

will be a real pressure for some sort of limited strike to try to force Tehran to make a better deal. But of course, you do that, that opens the Pandora's box of where this could go, including into a much wider conflict, which they want to avoid, but they have not ruled out. So I think at this point, to what David said, no decisions have been made. They're in a lot of meetings right now to figure out what to do, and the hope is still that some sort of agreement will be reached, Alley. But it's also striking how Congress continues to play no role in this whatsoever. Yes, the Gang of Eight was briefed the other day. We had Leader Schumer on yesterday say that he was really concerned, that is very serious. But we've had this, we could be on the precipice.

And I know there's still doubts, but we could be on the precipice of a major war right here. And the president has made no attempt to sell the public, including in the state of the the union of the night, didn't do it. And Congress continues to play next to no role. what are you hearing about concerns lawmakers may or may not have? Well, they have them especially after what happened in Venezuela, where you saw in the Senate very close to them trying to rein in what the administration could do without congressional consent on foreign interaction. There's a similar effort that's being mounted right now in the House that would be a resolution that hems in the administration from doing anything kinetic or militarily until and unless they come to Congress. That being said, that is likely to fail in large part because Congress has seemed keen, especially Republicans, to farm out foreign policy and a litany of other issues to this White House

and to the President of the United States. And so I don't think the cavalry is coming for a Congress that does have people, Republicans and Democrats alike, just concerned about what the end goal is here. We heard a lot of conversation in the aftermath of the ouster of Maduro in Caracas. What is the end game here? Are we doing regime change? There's a lot of similar questions in Iran. And I will also tell you that there's the concerned caucus, we'll call them. But then you've also got key allies of the president on Capitol Hill, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who's often loud about his desire for regime change so much so that he sort of jokes about it now at the press corps. He is someone who wants and is actively pushing for regime change and action in Iran.

And so when you take that all in totality, David, what is the sell if the administration were to make one, two skeptical lawmakers about either doing a targeted action that, as Lamere was saying, doesn't balloon into a larger conflict in the Middle East, and how easy is it to contain a tinderbox? So with any war, once you start, you don't know how fast the tinder is going to spread, and that's what concerns our military. Having watched so many wars over the last 30 years, I really do think war needs to be considered as a last resort, not as a first, first resort, or does a performative gesture, and I hope the White House is looking at that way too.

The President does need to set clear goals, whether we're heading toward a diplomatic solution, he needs to explain what it is exactly that we've achieved through that solution that leads him to then pull the forces back. If he decides to use force an explanation of the country of exactly what they're doing, what they're seeking to achieve, why this is essential for U.S. national interests, That process needs to begin right now because the negotiators are meeting.

In a few hours, that meeting will break up and then we'll be on the edge of a decision to accept a deal. Why or to not accept it and move toward military action? Why? And as we've been saying, that process has not begun yet in a serious way. It needs to. The president has said, we need to hear the magic words from Iran that it will not get, will not pursue a nuclear weapon. David Ignatius, thank you so much. We'll be following this very closely all morning. Coming up, lawmakers from both parties yesterday grilled President Trump's pick for Surgeon General.

With you the question raised about her medical credentials, as well as concerns over her views on vaccines and on birth control. Morning Joe's coming right back. A lot picture of the Capitol 642 in the morning on Capitol Hill yesterday, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle press Dr. Casey Means, President Trump's nominee for Surgeon General on topic. ranging from vaccines to birth control and her own medical background. Means a Stanford educated physician turned wellness influencer who dropped out of her residency and does not have an active medical license appeared before the Senate Health Committee, which now will decide whether to advance to a full Senate vote

her nomination as the nation's top doctor. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the committee, and a doctor himself grilled means on how she would approach vaccines? Would you encourage other mothers to have their children vaccinated against measles with the MMR vaccine? Like you, I'm a physician. I believe vaccines save lives. I believe that vaccines are a key part of any infectious disease public health strategy. And I would work with you, the CDC, then IH, ASEF. FTAA. But would you encourage mothers to vaccinate their children with the MMR vaccine,

seeing how we've had children die and this outbreak in South Carolina. I'm supportive of a vaccination. I do believe that each patient, mother, parent needs to have a conversation with their pediatrician about any medication they're putting in their body and their children's bodies. Would you encourage her to have her child vaccinated? I'm not an individual's doctor. Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington also press means on her past comments about birth control pills, which the Surgeon General nominee has called a quote,

quote, disrespect of life. Help me understand. Should women trust the FDA, which approved all 18 methods of birth control after a very rigorous look at the evidence, or should they trust your statement that there are horrifying health risks to birth control, which contradicts that evidence?

I'm curious if you're aware of what the side effects of hormonal contraception are. I'm curious if you are with the FDA that went through all of these and rigorously looked at them, or as surgeon general, if you're going to tell the truth to the American people? I absolutely believe these medications should be accessible to all women. And also, all medications have risks and benefits. And in our current medical climate with the burden on doctors, we do not have, doctors do not have enough time for thorough informed consent conversations.

Some of the horrifying side effects of birth control that I have mentioned include blood clots and stroke risk in women who have clotting disorders, who are smokers. So it's a g-city? No, it's not general. I'm speaking. I'm very careful with my words. Let's bring in MS-Now reporter Will McDuffie, who covered yesterday's hearing, Will, a lot to talk to you about. I do want to put up a tweet yesterday or a social media post written by Dr. Jerome Adams. You'll remember he was the U.S. Surgeon General under Donald Trump in that first term. He writes this, as a former U.S. Surgeon General who held an active

medical license and practiced medicine while in the role at Walter Reed and aboard the USS comfort, it is incomprehensible that the Senate is even considering a nominee for this role who lacks any active license and has never practiced unsupervised. Again, that's a former U.S. Surgeon General under Donald Trump talking about Casey Means. Will, tell us a little bit more about what the energy was like in the room and whether it looks like Casey Means will pass through this process. Well, a little bit about what. Jerome Adams just said and some background on means. So she was Stanford educated. She got a medical degree there, but she dropped out of her residency in Oregon shortly before it was supposed to end.

And she says she was disillusioned by how doctors were trained to practice medicine. She said they were too focused on treating illnesses and not preventing them. She has a current medical license, so it hasn't expired, but it's not active. She inactivated it. So she can't actually practice medicine right now. And that's what Jerome Adams was referring to. And look, she got a lot of questions about that from Democrats yesterday. Concerns about her qualifications. But I will say, Willie, that's the exact same reason why she's supported by a lot of folks in the Maha movement and was backed by Secretary Kennedy. This focus on holistic health is what really brings a lot of folks in that movement together. And there are a lot of them yesterday in the hearing room supporting her.

And yet, well, it's exactly the thing that makes some of those senators very nervous as well, especially because you and I were talking about this earlier. There are several instances there, including with Senator Bill Cassidy, where she could have given clear answers and direct responses when it comes to efficacy of vaccines and the need for Americans to take them. And yet, she did not ultimately give those answers. And so can you break down a little bit the political dynamics of what it will take for her nomination to actually get to the Senate floor? because she has to go through this committee, and there are a lot of skeptics there who might not have been assuaged by her testimony yesterday. Yeah, look, Allie, if you're going to serve as a health official in this administration, you will be asked about vaccines. And I don't think she satisfied a lot of senators, especially Democrats, yesterday. And her answers to Cassidy, who is a physician, he leads the help committee.

He's clashed with Secretary Kennedy on vaccines for the past year. And he even mentioned this in his line of questioning. the nation's doctor. She's not anyone's individual doctor, like she said, but as Surgeon General, her main job would be to message to the American people, and Surgeon General's past have led flu vaccine campaigns, you know, encouraging folks to get their flu shot. And by the way, she didn't commit to doing that either when asked by Cassidy. The dynamics are going to be really interesting. Cassidy himself will be a fascinating figure because he's being challenged in his primary by someone who is backed by President Trump and also backed by a group that is funded by

some of RFK's best friends. They're spending a million dollars to support his challenger. I think other senators to watch to see if she gets through will be Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, two other Republicans who asked challenging questions of means yesterday. If any of them jump and all Democrats vote no, she won't get through. And just like Bobby Kennedy himself, Casey means yesterday, took the approach. I'm just asking questions about the connection between autism and vaccines disproven over decades of research, saying science is never settled. We should leave no stone unturned when figuring out why we've had these spikes in autism over the years. MSN now reporter Will McDuffy

inside the room yesterday. Will, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Still ahead, we'll explain why the Pentagon is threatening a leading American tech company with a designation normally reserved for foreign adversaries. We'll explain, when morning, comes right back. Beautiful live picture of the White House at 6.54 on this Thursday morning. There is a showdown this morning between the Defense Department and Anthropic, the maker of the AI platform, Claude. MS. Now reporter Nick McCool explains the dispute over how the U.S. military can use

the company's technology. This morning, the battle over AI on the battlefield. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatening Anthropic, the maker of the Claude AI models with a $200 million defense contract demanding that restrictions on its military uses be lifted. He's basically saying, you have to give us this technology, and we will use it for what we deem to be lawful activity. CNBC reports in a meeting Tuesday with Anthropic CEO Dario Amadeh. Hegsteth demanded broad access to the company's AI models and set a Friday deadline to agree. This is not anthropic demanding new terms.

It is the Department of Defense demanding new terms a change from what they had previously agreed to in July 2025. Anthropic wants to maintain its restrictions on mass domestic surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons without human supervision. But CNBC reports Hegsteth said if the company doesn't agree, it could be designated a supply chain risk, a designation usually given to foreign adversaries. Gregory Allen, former director of strategy and policy of the DOD's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, says that it wouldn't only cut off Anthropics business with the Pentagon, but also... It means in many cases that you can't do business with any companies that do business with the Department of Defense. That honestly could be a fatal blow to Anthropics overall business. Another scenario, Hegset's saying the DoD could also invoke the Defense Production Act,

which has been used in recent years to ramp up medical supplies during COVID. I want to highlight the obvious contradiction between those two threats. The supply chain risk designation essentially says that Anthropic is someone who cannot be trusted. Then the Defense Production Act says that Anthropic is so trustworthy and so urgently needed for national security that we have to force them to work with us. So which is it? In a statement to CNBC, an Anthropic spokesperson said of the Tuesday meeting, we continued good faith conversations about our usage policy to ensure Anthropic can continue to support the government's national security mission, in line with what our models can reliably and responsibly do.

Alan says he's sympathetic to the Pentagon's position that it wants to decide how to use this technology, not a supplier. But he said the DOD's strategy here is unwise, given the international AI race. Escalating this fight in the way the Department of Defense is threatening to do would be akin to taking an American crown jewel of our technology industry and lighting it on fire. We reached down to the Defense Department for comment and did not immediately hear back, but to give you a sense of how deeply integrated Anthropics product is in the military, the Wall Street Journal and Axios reported that Claude was used during the Venezuela raid last month. Back to you. Nick McCool reporting there, and Axios is reporting this morning that the Defense Department indeed has taken those first steps toward blacklisting Anthropic with that deadline coming tomorrow.

We will see.