Morning Joe - Joe: Huge takeaway from WH meeting is a security guarantee with the U.S. involved

Episode Date: August 19, 2025

Joe: Huge takeaway from WH meeting is a security guarantee with the U.S. involved

We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to work with everybody, and we're going to make sure that if there's peace, the peace is going to stay long term. This is very long term. We're not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. We're going to make sure that everything's good. We'll work with Russia. We're going to work with Ukraine. We're going to make sure it works. And I think if we can get to peace, it's going to work. I have no doubt about it. When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help. It's going to be good. They are first line of defense, because they're They're there. They're Europe, but we're going to help them out also. We'll be involved. That's President Donald Trump yesterday discussing the possibility of security guarantees to prevent future attacks on Ukraine if there is a peace deal with Russia. And Willie, that really was really the biggest takeaway yesterday. Other than an extraordinary show of support from Europe, they stood shoulder to shoulder.

And I don't remember seeing anything quite like that inside the White House. But as the Wall Street Journal editorial page said, which we're going to be reading in a minute, the huge takeaway was this is the first time that President Trump said, there's going to be a security guarantee, the United States is going to be involved, their first line of defense, because they're there, they're Europe, but the U.S. will be there as well. Yeah, I mean, that's a major development saying the United States will support the security guarantee that the president has proposed. We don't know what it looks like exactly, but as you say, it was an extraordinary event just to pause and take the 30,000 foot view to have all the leaders of Europe, of the Western countries, the leader of NATO, the leader of the European Commission, traveling to the White House to show how important this is, not just to Ukraine, but to all of Europe and to the Western world, sending a strong signal to President Trump. And obviously the tone of the meeting was completely different than the one when President Zelensky was berated inside. the Oval Office a couple of months ago by President Trump and Vice President Vance. Even the Trump-friendly members of the media showed a little more deference to President Zelensky. But we'll see. The devil's in the details.

Does Vladimir Putin really want peace? Many people are skeptical of that, or does he just want to grab the land, which was the intent of his invasion three and a half years ago? Right. And the feeling of the White House last night was that Putin basically is surrounded. He is isolated. They've got, you know, this is, we say Europe, this is the West. Yeah. Like the West, the leaders of the West, came to the White House yesterday. They stood shoulder to shoulder.

It was quite striking. We talked about this yesterday and can't wait to hear from Richard on this. Quite striking how in his first term, he was constantly battling Theresa May. He was constantly battling Angela Merkel. There was just this constant friction. Yesterday, it was just the opposite. The White House pointed strangely enough to the negotiations. the negotiations on the tariffs, that they got to know each other and the give and the take of

the tariff negotiations. So when there was something big and significant like that, everybody knew everybody, everybody, was comfortable with everybody, and they were able to come together and, again, come up with a plan to give Ukraine what Ukraine is desperately needed, and that security guarantees. President Trump far more comfortable with the European leaders. the European leaders also much better at managing President Trump. Even yesterday, we saw brief moments of disagreement. We heard from Macron, we heard from Chancellor MERS saying that they thought a ceasefire is needed first before permanent peace, breaking with President Trump.

But they did so couched in flattery, couched in thanking him for his leadership. It's a much more convivial atmosphere. And certainly to Willie's point, even President Zelensky, taking notes, showed up with a jacket and a shirt, which was, you know, President Trump appreciated, members of the media, Trump-friendly members of the media did as well. There was just a better feeling in the room, significantly better than February. Again, there are some of the details, Joe, to your point, security guarantees to be worked out. We will see what they are. Still some real mixed messages from what Russia is willing to accept.

We know there was reporting over the weekend that Europe would send, perhaps once a deal was struck, a peacekeeping force to Ukraine. And the White House had said Putin had agreed to that. Now the Kremlin is saying, no, that's not the case. We're still not sure when the next summit might be and who would be involved, whether it's Putin and Zelensky. whether Trump would get in. We also don't know whether the Kremlin would ever put Putin and Zelensky in the same room. But there's no question here. Europe feels much better at the situation today than they did Friday night.

They really do. And you almost think, Willie, that the Kremlin's statement yesterday came at them looking at the West united against them, saying, you know, this dream, this dream of Vladimir Putin's, again, we talk about it being a 20-year dream. It's a lifelong dream. I mean, and especially starting in 1989 when he was burning files in eastern and in East Germany for the KGB, he would, you know, thinking my life mission is to reconstitute the old Russian empire. And Ukraine's a massive part of that. So when he sees the West united together inside the White House and finally talking about security guarantees in a strong way, obviously, I think that's, That's probably why we saw the reaction from the Kremlin that we saw. So fascinating, a lot of details left to be worked out.

The important thing, again, is the Wall Street Journal editorial. It's been very tough on Donald Trump. But as they said, I think they said Donald Trump gets real about security in Ukraine. I think that's a difference maker. Let's see if it lasts. Let's bring the President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. Also, Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University, historian John Meacham. and staff writer for the Atlantic, Vivian Salama.

She's reporting with Jonathan Lemire on President Zelensky's tactics during yesterday's meeting. We'll read from that in a moment. Let's start quickly with you, Richard, just your view of what you saw yesterday. What we saw was Zelensky having learned how to manage the president, Europeans there to make sure it didn't go off the rails, obviously a strong reaction to what happened in Alaska, which left a lot of people uneasy. And I think you've got it right here.

You saw a real sign of the West. And I think there's a couple of questions, though, that are big. One is, is Putin really prepared to climb down? Because his goal has never been a couple of square kilometers. His goal has been to end Ukraine as an independent sovereign country with fundamental ties to the West. He doesn't want to have a Slavic country on his border. That's a democracy.

That represents a different path for Russia. That's a threat to him. So is he prepared to live with that, which is, you know, a fundamental question. It goes way beyond whether he's prepared to have this follow-up meeting. But that's, you know, one of my take questions. The other is this, you know, again, you've got talking about security assurances. There's a terrible experience here in 1994. The United States, Britain, and Russia gave Ukraine security assurances in the Budapest memorandum.

They were worthless. So the challenge this time is if you're going to give them security assurances that are not going to include NATO, not going to include Article 5, not going to include American troops, and I'm not saying we should, then the question is, what is good enough? Well, I mean, an interesting thing, though, the difference there is, number one, you're going to have boots on the ground if what they talked about yesterday actually happened. European boots. European boots on the ground with U.S. support, whether that's Intel, whether that's weapons, whatever. That is, that's number one.

Number two, it's very interesting, and this sort of the quasi-NATO argument some people have been making, the leaders there in Europe kept talking about Article 5 from NATO. We need to give them an Article 5 guarantee, including the most right-wing nationalistic leader there, who was expected to be pro-Russian, and that was George Maloney, who kept talking about Article 5 and kept talking about tough security guarantees. That's legitimate issue, but again, Article 5 like is not Article 5. One question is an interesting, which I didn't hear yesterday, Joe, is whether the Congress would get involved. Is this something that would be permanent? Do you lock the United States in

beyond the Trump presidency? I think that's a legitimate question. Still also, the other big issue is the phrase land swaps should be banned. What's being talked about are not land swaps? They're land transfers. Let's call it what it is. And the question is, why would they be one-sided? What would Ukraine get? The idea that they would give up all that territory, millions of Ukrainians we'd either have to be displaced or live under Russian rule. I don't think that's going to happen. So the question is still, what is it that the United States is going to ask of Ukraine? And also, what is it going to ask of Russia in order to make this happen?

Don't know, I'll just, I don't mean to be the skunk at the garden party. But I think yesterday was an interesting day. I was reassured by the European presence. Still, though, to me, lots of fundamental questions. There are a lot of fundamental questions. But one question that is not out there. there is whether Ukraine is going to cede land to Russia. They are.

I mean, they said that in the Biden administration. Yeah, but there's a, it may just be clear that at some point, there's a big difference as part of a ceasefire where you seed land, what you might call de facto. Oh, no, no, no, no. I'm not talking about ceasefires. I'm talking about, in this permanent piece still that they're talking about. At some point, even the Biden administration was saying,

you know, we're going to have to seed land for have Ukraine. it's going to have to agree to seed land for security agreements. Everybody's basically said that. The question is, where are those lines and how strong is the security agreement? If the security agreement's strong and keeps Ukraine safe for years to come, that's significant, not just for Ukraine, that's significant for Poland, that's significant for Estonia, for Latvia, for Lithuania. That's why it's so important.

Again, I think there's a big difference, whether it's under Biden or now. whether you ask Ukraine to recognize reality, except that the Russians occupy certain things and say, okay, whether it's part of a ceasefire or peace agreement, this is the way it is, as opposed to giving up title and making it permanent. And I think that's a very different thing, because that would reward aggression,

and that would be a different thing. So to ask Ukraine to permanently transfer, to basically make this territory Russian, that is something that I would have real issues with. then I think, you know, that would be very hard for Ukraine to do. I think it might also be very hard for the Europeans to support. I think the Europeans, again, not to keep going back and forth, but everybody I have talked to in Europe.

They understand this is a difficult situation, but they want the security guarantee. They want the wall. They want Putin contained. And they want a deal. And if Ukraine has to cede land, they want it, whether it's Poland, whether it's the Baltic states, whether it's any of the states in central or Eastern Europe,

they're there yesterday because they want a deal. They want Putin, Putin's march, West stopped. So let's walk through what exactly happened yesterday. President Trump now is planning a face-to-face meeting between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyra Zelensky. Remains to be seen if that actual happen. The president sat down with Zelensky yesterday to talk about ending the war in Ukraine, meeting vastly different, as we said, from February's visit when Zelensky was berated by the president. This time, the two had cordial interactions, exchanging pleasantries, even agreeing on some points about the war. Though Zelensky did appear to dodge a question about whether he would cede that territory to Russia, something President Trump has been

pushing for. President Zelensky, are you prepared to keep sending Ukrainian troops to their debts for another couple years or are you going to agree to redraw the maps thank you for your questions so first of all you know we live under each day attacks you know that today have been a lot of attacks and a lot of wounded people and the child was dead small one one one year and half so we we need to stop this war to stop Russia and we need support American and European partners we will do our best for this. So, and I think we show that we are strong people and we supported the idea of the

United States of personal health, President Trump, to stop this war to make a diplomatic way of finishing this war. President Zelensky, very diplomatic, very diplomatic, even saying thank you for the question. John Lemire, question was framed. I mean, seriously, the Kremlin couldn't have written the question better. It could have very easily been asked, is Vladimir Putin willing to continue to allow another million casualties for an illegal invasion where he's stolen children from the Ukrainian people. Instead, that was the most twisted, tilted question against Ukraine. I don't even understand it. Yeah, the phrasing of sending Ukraine soldiers to their deaths as opposed to fighting for their nation, fighting for their land, for their families.

Yeah, there were a couple of questions. By the way, that would be like asking FDR after Pearl Harbor. willing to allow 500,000 Americans to die? I mean, that's the question. This was an invasion of their sovereign land. And you're asking that question at the end, while Ukrainian children and grandmothers are still being killed every day by Russia? Yeah. And there was a lot of sort of eyebrow raising questions, to say the least, coming from the reporters who were allowed in the Oval Office of State, including a few who were not in the press pool, but were from pretty MAGA-friendly outlets who were allowed to get in there and ask. some questions. Zelensky, though, to his credit, Willie, you know, he clearly this is one of the

key things he learned from last time around. Don't get in back and forth, not just with Trump, but some of the questions meant to provoke. He didn't. He stayed diplomatic. He stayed on message. Yeah, he did. And he expressed gratitude to the president, did all the things that blew up the last meeting. So after the discussion in the Oval Office there, Trump and Zelensky sat down with several key European officials, including the head of the European Union, the Secretary General of NATO, the prime ministers of Britain and Italy, the presidents of France and Finland, and the Chancellor of Germany. It was quite a showing. Much of that conversation focused on those security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, with the president affirming the United States will

support Europe's efforts. The Alaska Summit reinforced my belief that while difficult pieces within reach, and I believe that I'm optimistic that collectively we can reach an agreement that would deter any future aggression against Ukraine, and I actually think there won't be. I think that's even over-rated, largely overrated, but we're going to find out. And I think that the European nations are going to take a lot of the burden. We're going to help them, and we're going to make it very secure. Let's try to put pressure on Russia, because the credibility of these efforts, these efforts we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations,

from next step on. So I would like to emphasize this aspect and would like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which should be a trilateral meeting wherever it takes place. Well, we're going to let the president go over and talk to the president,

and we'll see how that works out, and if we can do that, I will say, and again, I say it, in the six wars that I've settled, I haven't had a ceasefire. We just got into negotiations, And one of the wars was, as you know, and the Congo was 30 years, 31 years long. Another one that we settled last week with two great countries was 35 years going on, and we had no ceasefire.

So if we can do the ceasefire, great. And if we don't do a ceasefire, because many other points were given to us, many, many points were given to us great points. I think as a follow-up, we would need probably a quadrilateral meeting, because when we speak about security guarantee, We speak about the whole security of the European continent. And this is why we are all united here with Ukraine on this matter. In order to organize such a trilateral meeting, your idea to ask for a truce, or at least to stop the kidding, as we discuss, is a necessity. And we all support this idea.

Richard, while we were watching that, you talked about the transformation of Europe in the past year. past six months or a year. What do you mean? The confidence, the fact that the Europeans, you know, we can talk about how they managed Trump, but also they were offering their own ideas like Merch was saying what he said on the East fire. But Europe has emerged individually and collectively now, some strong leaders, comfortable with saying what they think. They've made the pledges on defense. They're prepared to put boots on the ground, presumably, in Ukraine. Donald Trump should basically say, wow, look at the difference in Europe. And it didn't just happened because of Europe. It happened because of the changes from us. He should actually feel good

about yesterday. You mean, you mean like the pressure? Absolutely. From 2% even to 5% for the funding. We've seen something of a European awakening. In some ways, in the first time in recent memory, in the post-World War II period, we're beginning to see Europe as a confident, much more independent actor in the world. And actually, Donald Trump can take some credit for that. You know, Vivian, you and John wrote a piece talking about how Zelenskyy, uh, trimmed his cells a bit this time and figured out how to read the room. You can say the same thing with Europe. It's fascinating. These European leaders and other European leaders were budding heads with Donald Trump in the first term. He was answering back. Somebody in the White House said yesterday,

you never beat Donald Trump under the race to the bottom. I said, but yesterday, I think just like Richard noted, not only was Zelensky knowing how to work with Donald Trump, Trump also, the president also, far more gracious with the European leaders. It looks like, at least in this case, they're learning how to work together. You know, Joe, one of the things that Jonathan and I learned from covering the first Trump administration together is that managing Donald Trump is an art. And a lot of that has to do with flattery and just basically playing the game. And you're European leaders are catching on to that. It's taken some time. Zelensky is catching on to that. Obviously, we saw that big unprecedented blow up in the Oval Office in February, where both Vice President J.D. Vance and the president accused Zelensky of failing to show enough respect to the U.S.

Even though, to be fair, Zelensky has regularly thanked the U.S. for its support, both in weapons and aid throughout the course of this war, obviously, you know, President, President Trump. Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was doing a lot for Ukraine as well. And he used to thank him profusely. But this time around, obviously, the relationship is different. He came in where President Trump has long been very skeptical of Ukraine. He thought that they were a corrupt country. Obviously, he carried grievances dating back to the first impeachment and the so-called perfect phone call with Zelensky. And so, you know, there was beef there just to kind of keep it's simple. And Zelensky has now figured that out. And obviously after that February incident where they were booted from the White House before even getting served the lunch

that was prepared for their delegation and everything was abruptly canceled following that Oval Office spat, European leaders pleaded with Zelensky basically with a simple message. You do not engage Donald Trump because you're not going to win. You're not going to come out winning this one. And so he learned a lesson. Everything from his attire, where, you know, he heeded some of the comments from some conservative outlets, some pro-Trump reporters who said that it was disrespectful for him to show up in his usual sort of military attire that he's been wearing for the past few years. So he donned the same black suit that he had worn to the Vatican in recent months and really came showing his gratitude, repeatedly thanking reporters for their questions. And the European leaders did the same. Jonathan and I wrote in our story about how the roundtable, the multilateral, the expanded session with the European leaders,

was very similar to how President Trump holds his cabinet meetings, where he would go around the table and ask each individual, every individual to speak. And part of their comments would obviously be very much in gratitude of the president and thanking him for his leadership. And there was a little bit of that on display yesterday from the European leaders. So they've figured this out. Vivian, great piece. So let's talk about how Europe feels now going forward. You know, there was a real alarm coming out of Friday in Alaska. They feared that Trump was willing, you know, suddenly no longer insisting on a ceasefire.

There was a point of contention yesterday. But also, perhaps falling back into his sort of history of being too deferential to Putin. And from what you can pick up, and it's only a few hours later, does Europe feel better about the situation going forward after, as noted in the story, they feel like they did manage Trump effectively yesterday? From everyone I spoke to after the meeting, I'm getting a feeling that they're cautiously optimistic. There's definitely a sense of skepticism because of the fact that Putin is, you know, unpredictable.

He's very savvy. He has learned also how to manage Trump just as the European leaders have. have learned to manage Trump. And so they failed to see any opportunity for Putin to say, you know what, let's settle this. You know, you can have Ukraine, you can have your territory back. Let's let bygones be bygones. I mean, Vladimir Putin literally believes that Ukraine should not exist.

He has repeatedly said this. He sits with European leaders. He's sat with Trump and gone into detailed history from his version. his account of why Ukraine is actually part of Russia and it shouldn't exist. So it's very hard to negotiate with someone like that. And so the Europeans really are aware of that. Of course, Donald Trump believes that he is negotiator in chief and believes that this is his strong suit. And so he thinks that he can pull it off. But in order to do that, everyone has to kind of give something up. It remains to be seen what Russia will give up.

All right, staff writer for the Atlantic. Vivian Salama, you did a great job, consider. who you were writing with. I'm not even sure how you made deadline. Wow. We're real handicapped. Yeah, it was a real handicap. Pulitzer, just for that. Yeah, just for just for that. Yeah, for just for just for keeping her head down. It's a tough job. It's a tough job. Somebody has to do it. Yeah. Somebody has to do it. You know, you know, so Willie, I was talking about yesterday how this could be a three-act play, first, Alaska, second, the White House. And if the White House went well, third may be Putin saying no and being isolated. And then Donald Trump holding the cards

of the United States Senate just itching to hit Russia with some even more tough sanctions. There was the talk yesterday of a big military aid bill. Zelensky talked about a possible $90 billion military aid bill. I would say, going back to who's holding the cards right now, Donald Trump And the White House holding a lot more cards than Vladimir Putin. If the United States decides to lean in on him, to push him to this deal, we certainly have the levers to do that. Remains to be seen if the president will. He hasn't in the past. He's been deferential to Putin almost always, literally rolled out the red carpet for him in Alaska.

So today, yesterday was a day. We'll see what today brings. Let's bring in John Meacham. John, extraordinary, historically, just to see that image of the, effectively, entirety of the West, seated around a table, rallying to support Ukraine sitting inside the White House. I'll probably defer to you on this. We can count on one hand that a number of times we've seen that in the last few decades. But it was significant. The question is, what comes today? What does Vladimir Putin do next? Well, I think Putin is the central question here. In some ways,

the most important person yesterday wasn't there. This is a war he began. And Richard said he didn't want to be the skunk at the garden party. But I was sitting thinking, you know, we are living in a world that Donald Trump has created. And so our incentives, the reality to which we have to respond, has been created by the president. And I was reminded watching everyone do the ritual flattery and the sartorial diplomacy of Zelensky and that really horrible question that was framed in the Oval Office. I was thinking

about something my father who fought in Vietnam he would say casually, the great trope remember that the Paris talks couldn't begin because they couldn't decide on the

shape of the table. Remember that old that bit there. And I remember his saying, you know, if you took the diplomats and put him in play coup for a half hour, I bet they would figure out

what shape the table should be. The reality on the ground is that the president of Russia, who wants to be not the general secretary of the Communist Party, but wants to be the Tsar, began a war

for his own and his country's aggrandizement. So what To me, the central question out of all of this is what will President Putin see as victory in this exchange? How does he define this? And I think that to me that's the central question. I wanted to ask you, John, about Europe, about the West. We've heard about the West and declined the West, being weaker, Europe, weakening.

Of course, we've always talked about it here that, you know, the United States GDP is around $26, $27 trillion. The EU's is $25, $26, $27 trillion. Can we, let's talk about, you and I always talk about the post-war world. Let's follow up on what Richard said about the fact that Europe has been reawakened. Europe's talking about spending 5% of their GDP on the fifth. They were all there yesterday. Every one of them was saying they wanted to be part of a peacekeeping force. George Maloney talking about Article 5 type assurances.

This is a far cry from the complaints that we heard that the Germans would not send their troops out at night in Afghanistan. Right. Yeah, this is 1914, right? I mean, this is a pre-Cold War world where there are a number of nation states who are powerful players who are now relevant in a conversation that, and I always defer to Dr. Haas on all things, but particularly on this. But this was, we lived in a polarized world for 80 years, right, 75 years from 1945, really until 19. You could argue until the early years of this century, where what mattered, actually, was what Moscow or Washington and then ultimately Beijing thought. That was the first question.

Now it feels as if we are in a much sort of like everything else in our life, right? We live in a fractured world. Communication is fractured. The economy is increasingly fractured. And now diplomacy is fractured. And so there are more players. and therefore there are more possibilities both for good outcomes and alas for bad. I think to me the disintermediation, if you will, of power has reached the diplomatic world after it's reached how we all consume information and make our livings.

And I think it's unstable and it's uncomfortable. And we have to figure out, will the principles that we established in the bipolar world, will those endure? The bipolar one was aggression will not stand, as George H.W. Bush said, after Richard Haas handed him a note in a borrowed jacket without a haircut in August of 1990. Willie, that's the Haas family trivia card. That is. Yeah, we're waiting for it. You got to it late, but you got there. You know what's so interesting is you and I yesterday, we're at the dog track,

and we're in between the seventh and eighth race, and Willie turns to me, he goes, Joe, you know what concerns me right now? And I said that Leopard's Little Helper is not going to win the next race. He goes, no, the disintermediation of power in America. Yeah. That's what concerns me. You ignored me. You had the rolled-up newspaper.

I was laughing at it. And if you want to win. Oh, yeah. If you want, if you want to get a Pulitzer Prize, you can't start talking like Meacham. I'll get that. I couldn't even begin to spell that. And by the way, yeah. I think it's a fair, I think it's a fair point.

It's a good word. It's a good word. And listen, we'll take disintermediation over more, more waxing and waning about, waxing on about Shays Rebellion any day of the way. We're very good. And we should point out this aggression will not. stand made famous by the big Lebowski. This aggression will not stand.

It all comes together. Yeah. John Meacham. That's what I'm great to talk to you. Thank you, John. As always, still ahead on morning, Joe. Hamas reportedly has agreed to a ceasefire proposal. We'll dig into the terms as Israeli officials weigh their options.

Plus, President Trump says now he wants to ban mail-in voting. Take a closer look at what's behind that renewed push. and a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available every weekday. It features our full conversations and analysis. You can listen to wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. I listen while I go off. My handicap has gone down five.

To the podcast? Wow. Yeah. Nice. Oh, wow. Oh, my God. New York City, sunrise 633 on an August Tuesday morning. How does T.J. Dial those. Amazing. No, it's really serious. Venus Paradise.

That is, yeah, I know. That's our friends at WNBC, Chopper 4. Wow. Bringing us to pictures. Beautiful. All right. Hamas reportedly has accepted the terms of a new ceasefire put forward by mediators from Arab countries. The New York Times is reporting the deal would see the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. That's according to two diplomats familiar with the negotiations and an Egyptian official. Unclear whether Israel would accept such proposal, which also would allow for Israel to redeploy its forces into Gaza

and allow for sufficient humanitarian aid to enter the territory. Two of those officials told the paper. Meanwhile, the Times also reports Israel has held talks with South Sudan on accepting Gazaan refugees into that country. That's according to officials and people briefed on the discussions. South Sudan publicly has denied any involvement. Let's bring an NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley, who joins us live from Tel Aviv. So, Matt, we hear from time to time quite frequently actually proposals, ceasefire deals. They tend to fall apart.

What about this one? Yeah, I mean, it's always been just soul crushing watching these negotiations rise and all of the talk, all of the optimism, and then just to see them come crashing down. This really could be the same thing. And there's, you know, nobody's using the word optimism anymore around these negotiations because they've just failed so frequently. Now, this one, given this Hamas approval that we heard about yesterday, it looks like the ball is very much in Israel's court.

And we've been seeing a lot of internal division tearing apart of the fabric of this country here in Israel for just the past couple of days. NBC News spoke with Egyptian foreign minister Badr Abdullati, who has been instrumental in presenting this proposal from the Egyptians that now has signed on to. We spoke to him really just about an hour ago, and here's what he told us about this proposal. It has three main pillars. One is, of course, a ceasefire for 60 days, and during this period of ceasefire to start negotiations between Hamas and Israel for ending the war and having a sustainable ceasefire. The second pillar is, of course, to allow the flow of humanitarian and medical aid to Gaza as soon as possible to deal with

the current starvation in process in Gaza. The third pillar is related to the release of hostages, 10 alive hostages and around 18 bodies return of release of specific numbers of Palestinian detainees. So really what we're seeing here, guys, is a proposal that doesn't satisfy a lot of the requirements that have been set forward by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, nor President Donald Trump, who posted on Truth Social, they have to finish the job against Hamas. And this is the central question, guys, but splitting this country.

We've seen protests over the past couple of days. against Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to expand ground operations in the Gaza Strip because family members of the hostages who are still remaining there are worried that those expanded operations could harm their loved ones. And that's something that the Israeli government has to, they're trying to take care of, but it looks as though there's already mobilization efforts to try to expand that operation in the Gaza Strip. Now, this whole thing, this whole proposal that has been approved by Hamas is now waiting on sign off from the Israelis.

And we heard already today that the Israelis are standing by their position that they will not end fighting until Hamas is completely destroyed. So basically, it looks as though after a weekend of enormous protests that have clogged the streets here in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem and cities throughout Israel, we're about to see whether Benjamin Netanyahu will cave to pressure from the streets, from angry people, from the family members of the hostages, and from the public who overwhelmingly say they want to see an end of the war immediately in the release of the hostages, even if that might not necessarily mean the full defeat of Hamas, or whether or not Netanyahu is going to cave

to his far right, who have already said that they want to see this proposal essentially rejected. Guys? NBC's Matt Bradley, live from Tel Aviv. Thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it, as always. Richard, there can be protests in the street all they want. Benjamin Netanyahu's government hangs together by right-wing extremists. And by the way, if you look at the three to four most powerful parties in Israel right now,

they're all right to far right. There is no center in Europe and Israel. There hasn't been a center in Israel since October 7th. We certainly understand the reaction to October 7th. But here we are with Israel continuing to do things that their own military leaders and intel leaders say are not Israel's best interest. And they're walking into a quagwire. There's a reason they gave up Gaza before, but they're walking. So the question is, will Benjamin Netanyahu, accept this ceasefire? The question answers itself, doesn't it? I would think the odds highly unlikely he accepted. When people talk about finishing the job against Hamasjo, that's simply a recipe for permanent war. You can never quite finish the job against an ideological, political,

military terrorism. And yet, that's exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump are saying, finish the job. That's a recipe for permanent war. Also, if you do, want to ever marginalize Hamas, you need two things. It's what the British did in Northern Ireland. You need a military dimension. The Israelis have got that. You also need a political dimension. You have to sell Palestinians on the idea. There's an alternative better way to realize some of their political ambitions. That's what the British did in Northern Ireland with the provisional IRA. The Israelis are refusing to put on the table a political dimension to their policy. So as a result, you cannot succeed against Hamas with a one-dimensional military

only policy that is simply a formula. We'll have this conversation. But here's the difference, John. And Richard knows so much about obviously what happened in Northern Ireland. The difference here is with the Palestinians, you don't have players that are willing to come to the table. Hamas is still calling for the destruction of Israel. Even the Palestinian Authority, you know, didn't condemn Hamas's slaughter of Jews on October the 7th. So you need a player. You know, in Northern Ireland, there were, you know, there was Jerry Adams, and there were other, you know, Martin McGinnis. You know, there were people that would step forward and say, okay, we're going to take a chance for peace.

I would go back to 2000, and say, Bill Clinton managed an extraordinary deal for the Palestinians. Yasserifat wouldn't take it. They, they, they, the old saying is, Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So that's one of the problems here, is who do they negotiate with to come up with a deal like Northern Ireland? Yeah, it's a diminished Palestinian authority these days, too. And Richard, to that point, there could be a pressure posed from Washington, but President Trump seems not willing to do that. That's what's changed here.

His focus certainly has shifted more towards the Ukraine-Russia conflict. We did hear from him a few weeks ago, break with Netanyahu about the famine conditions in Gaza. More aid, not enough, but more aid went in. after that. But otherwise, to Joe's point, he's sort of seeing almost like washed his hands of this and say, do what you need to do. You're right. But he's right now the most popular guy in Israel. If Donald Trump wants to push the Israelis, he has more political power there, quite honestly, than anybody, including Bebe Netanyahu. And Joe, you're right. There isn't a Palestinian leader right now who's willing to play the role of Jerry Adams and Martin McGinnis

when they turned away from violence. That's the challenge for the United States and Israel ought to be set out conditions so a new generation of Palestinian leaders begin to emerge and Israel will say, we're willing to talk to you if you're willing to check these boxes to accept these conditions. Sometimes... And by the way, it starts with accepting Israel's right to exist. And giving up violence as a legitimate tool. That's the buy-in. If the Israelis are willing to do then, that they can ultimately cultivate the emergence of someone they can negotiate with. They don't have them now. No argument. But that's the goal of diplomacy sometimes to bring that about. Richard Haas, spanning the globe for us this morning. Thanks, Richard. Coming up, Dr. Vin Gupta

joins us to discuss some of the morning's medical headlines, including a new at-home vaccine option for flu season. Morning deal. Coming right back. Hi, I'm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. You're A.J.J. Secretary, I mean, here was Secretary Exif from the Department of Defense. And we had our big, big, big, and Bobby challenge today. 50 pull-ups, 100-put-ups. You try to get under five minutes. How'd you do?

We got close. We got close. That was about 525. You were right behind me. Jonathan Lemur asking the appropriate question, why does RFK Jr., who at 70, let's admit, it's Jack? We don't know if it's a Donnie Deutsch, H-G-H-G-H thing, you know. Remember when Donny would use to wear the Baby Gap black T-shirts? Still does.

Yeah. Still does. Summertime. Yeah. It is summertime in the Hamptons. But, yeah. But, yeah, but, you know, our question here is, and Lemire, you asked it. So, answered for us, why does RFK work out in blue jeans?

And it's not just here. It's consistent. No, it's everywhere. Every time we see foot of RFK Jr. You're working out. He works out in jeans, which is not normal workout attire. Get some sweat. He's committed to it, though.

No, he does. And look, there you go. I mean, he's doing all the things. The jeans don't seem to be holding him back. But I've never heard, Willie, I've never heard him offer an explanation for this particular. We talked about tutorial diplomacy early. Does he swim in? Let's not forget what he's swimming in, wasn't that Rock Creek Park?

He was swimming in his blue jeans. So that's Bobby Kennedy Jr., defense secretary, Pete. Exit flexing for the cameras while thanking President Trump for setting the example through his presidential physical fitness initiative, which is a good thing. Let's bring an NBC news medical contributor, Dr. Van Gupta, also with us, MSNBC contributor and fitness guru. Yeah, that's from Mike Barnacle also works out in full denim. Yeah, he's got the full. The Canadian tuxedo. It's the urban cowboy.

Yeah. A tire that he wears. First of all, doctor, let's just say, there have been a lot of things to be. critical of RFK Jr. about. That's not one of them. I mean, you know, you look at kids in school. I remember we all grew up doing presidential fitness. Fitness stuff. And we get outside a lot more than we do now. Kids are overweight, out of shape, looking at their phones. This would be a good, this would be a good step. Even if symbolic, I mean, you'd be a good step, wasn't it? Oh, 100%, Joe. I mean, I think the, what they're very good at is getting the message out. And in this case, getting the message

out on healthy living, exercise, him doing these videos, nothing wrong with that. And I agree with you. I think we've deteriorated as society, especially at the adolescent level in terms of activity. So absolutely. This is, he should be praised for this. No question. All right. Let's talk about the make America healthy again push as they're calling it. There was a leaked draft of White House health strategy documents that came out, appears. The Trump, administration may not come down on the use of pesticides as hard as the health secretary initially said he wanted to. What more can you tell us? Yeah, well, you know, there was a push from a lot of environmental activists, a lot of people that really believed in the MAHA agenda

prior to Bobby Kennedy being named HHS secretary to say, you have to take a firmer line on pesticide use. And specifically, chemicals that are in Roundup. Many of you may have that, many of our viewers may have that at home. There's a chemical in Roundup that has gotten a lot of scrutiny as potentially being carcinogen. So we expected in this Maha draft agenda report that was released last week that something would be said about this pesticide, that they were going to take firm action here. What did they do? They said that they were going to do more research on it.

Something that, frankly, has existed for the last 10 to 15 years. So research, you know, that draft agenda, whether it was EPA and greenhouse gases, whether it was water quality, whether it was, you name it, this was light on actual specifics and really focused on just waffle words like more research. And really, when you look at it, it was more about research into vaccine safety, autism, fluoride, sort of his clarion calls. So those are his clarion calls and things that disturb a lot of us. I keep hearing that there is, you know, a lot of people who support the Mahaj and even independent of the vaccine push. Are there, what are, are there positive things that he's talking about regarding food and, and pesticides, et cetera, et cetera, that you actually

think we should, we should focus on? Absolutely. I mean, sure, you said it in the T up here. He's, he's, he's using his platform and he's doing video messages from a gym. That right there, he's using his platform in a helpful way. He's talking, they're talking about ultra-processed foods, but let's, Again, there's a gap between how they market and how they talk about something. They talk a lot about it. This draft agenda, Joe, had one mention of ultra-processed foods. And what did it say? It says, we're going to do more research into the impacts of ultra-processed foods.

But you really don't have to do more research into the impact of ultra-process foods, do you? It's terrible for health. No, and what activists wanted, what they expected they were going to get was a food label. They really wanted a warning on food that say, this is an ultra-processed food, to make it as clear as day. Could you give us examples of ultra-processed food? Cereal. You know, I hate to say it.

Those forms of cereal. Frosted flakes? Frosted flakes are probably enemy number one. Oh, no. Enemy number one. I thought it was Putin. It's frosted flour. Everything's upside down.

So that is interesting, Willie. A lot of people talking more and more about processed food, ultra-processed food. I'm a cereal freak. I eat it all the time. That explains a lot here. But we do need to get, I think we need to get that information out. And that part of the agenda has been popular broadly.

I think a lot of people who view as dangerous, a lot of what he's saying about vaccines and MRI vaccines in particular, as dangerous, say, wait, the food part, we agree with. And by the way, you know, who else agrees with his former first lady Michelle Obama, who was attacked by the right for talking about this stuff for many years. And now he's adopting exactly what she said. Right. I mean, this is an anemic draft agenda. It stops short of anything meaningful.

that hasn't been done over the last, say, three decades. And it really focused in on not upsetting anybody because they didn't really, they didn't want to upset the food lobby, which is why there isn't that food warning label on ultra-processed foods. They didn't really want to go after the ag lobby, so we didn't really do anything meaningful on pesticides. What do they do?

If you really distill it down, it's vaccine safety, autism research into the root causes of autism and fluoride. And really, that exactly is what the Mahajenda is, and it's very light on specifics otherwise. So let's talk about these new vaccines. that's being rolled out that people can use apparently right there at home. AstraZeneca launching a delivery option for its flu mist nasal spray can be administered at home with a prescription for anyone between the ages of 2 and 49.

Tell us more about this talk. In this pretty extraordinary moment, Willie, I would say that in this age, we're just talking about MAHA RFK, impacts more broadly. We've been talking about his messaging on vaccine safety, undermining vaccine confidence. This, I would say, is a tailwind for vaccine adoption. You know, I mean, I would say this is a flu mist has existed since the swine flu epidemic. So early 2000s. And why was it developed?

It was developed because you can effectively glive the flu vaccine through a nasal spray, self-administered. And now what we're saying is we can actually send that home, basic instructions to mom, dad, to give to their child, to administer themselves, two to 49 years of age. And it's effective. It's actually been re-engineered, so it's more effective against prevailing strains. There was concerns about efficacy early on, which is why it fell into disfavor. But that's been addressed. So now you can actually go to flumis.org and fill out a few questions and see if it's right for you.

Again, between 2 and 49 years of age, pregnant women, those with immunocompromised status, probably you need to have a conversation with your medical provider to make sure. But this is a big deal. Most children are needlephobic. 30% of adults are needlephobic. But most people don't want to make an appointment at a pharmacy because it's time out of your day. So imagine if we can start to do this for more and more conditions at home. Again, in this era of tailwinds on vaccine adoption, or headwinds, rather, this is a tailwind.

And available for this flu season? This flu season, yeah. All right, that's good news. I do note that most of us at this table are outside the top end age limit. It's very sad at this point. We've aged out. Good luck. It's all you, buddy.

All right. It's all you. NBC News Medical contributor, Dr. Vinggoop. It's always great to see you. Thanks for being here. Thank you.