Morning Joe - Joe: None of Hegseth's stories on the boat strike is stacking up

Episode Date: December 4, 2025

Joe: None of Hegseth's stories on the boat strike is stacking up 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.

You release video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves? I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release. No problem. All right. One of the biggest stories in the country for days now, and President Trump still says he knows very little about it. How could he?

Why should he? Yeah. Well, lawmakers hope to get more answers about the attack when the admiral. who is in command heads to Capitol Hill today. Meanwhile, defense secretary Pete Hexseth in the spotlight this morning ahead of the release of a report from the Pentagon Inspector General on Signalgate, a month-long investigation into Heggseth, sharing plans for military action in a group chat.

He was really damning. He thought he could go on X and tweet something cute, maybe a turtle or something. No, it doesn't wash. He got scald. it in that report. Plus, we are learning more this morning about the sudden resignation from another admiral, and Hegg Seth's role in that move. Also ahead, we'll dig into the criticism of Speaker Mike Johnson coming from members of his own party, particularly from women. We'll tell

you who they are and what they're saying about his leadership. And good morning. Welcome to Morning, Joe. It is Thursday, December 4th, along with Joe, Willie and me. We have the co-host. of our 9 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, Senior National Security Report of her MS now. David Rode is with us. columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post. David Ignatius joins us once again this morning and senior political columnist at Politico,

Jonathan Martin is here as well. So, Willie, you know, so we move forward with this investigation, possible war crimes. Jim Garrity at National Review yesterday, They had a wonderful summation of the chaos. It's been going on today. Listen, if you just said this from the beginning, it might be okay. But here's all the different iterations we've been through last Friday.

You keep changing your story. Then we find out yesterday that Pete Higgsith himself is sounding even more strident about what the Democratic senators said in that video back in 2016 when there was a Democrat in the White House. And then we find out this morning the reporting that, of course, the JAG officer, or quit because of real problems with all it was going on in Venezuela. And then regarding his top, Admiral Halsey, he resigned. He said, you're either on the team or not. When you get an order, you move fast and you don't ask questions.

When you get an order, you don't ask questions. Now, let's just back up for one second. most conservative, serious conservative thinkers like Andy McCarthy, Jack Goldsmith, others, they think this entire operation is illegal. Not the double tap. They think the entire operation is not a war. George Will put it very, very well yesterday when he said, Pete Heggzeth committed a war crime without a war.

That's quite an accomplishment. So it is a real mess, and you have the top admiral and the top Jagovs are going, now, now we're, this, this doesn't look right. And again, it's all going to come out, even though they're scrambling around and trying to protect themselves, there's no protecting themselves from the truth. And imagine being that career admiral, Admiral Halsey, who just talked about in this incredible piece in the Wall Street Journal, and being told by Pete Heggzith, get on board or else. And when you get an order, don't ask questions.

Don't ask questions, pal. That's what Pete Hags is the saying to these admirals. So we will hear from Admiral Martin this morning when he talks to Congress. And the explanation we're hearing a little bit is that maybe these two guys who survived were attempting to get back on the boat and somehow continue the mission. This flaming smoking vessel that these guys were going to climb back on board and continue their drug run. And that's one of the reports, one of the spins we're hearing, totally insane, which is insane. Right. That's part of the spin we're hearing the sworn that those two people were still a threat.

Therefore, the double tap was warranted. But again, that's just today's explanation. That's today's explanation. That's something different every day. And then there's also the, oh, well, they had a radio and they were radioing. Oh, so that, oh, does that mean now the new sort of rules of warfare is if you have a prisoner and they're in defense, and they have a radio, you can shoot them in the head? Right. That's now the new Hegzith policy. If they have a radio, you can shoot them in the head.

Yeah. Forget the war crimes. Forget what the U.S. Army manual says. Forget what the military, the DoD manual says. So, yeah, they're making shit up as they go along every day. And the inconsistency of it all, again, looks very bad. And heggisth is still meeked claiming fog of war, which is to say there's a lot of stuff that goes on in war in the moment that, you know, you got to just accept. It's utterly ridiculous. Okay, so in combat, he calls it combat, that, blowing up a boat. So we're going to get to the outcome in Signalgate, which also has Pete Hagseth at the center in just a moment. But continuing this, this morning, Admiral Frank M. Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Kane will head to Capitol Hill to brief top members of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees about the Trump administration's deadly boat strikes. This comes as lawmakers from both parties have been demanding answers about that September 2nd attack

when the U.S. military launched a follow-up missile after seeing survivors from the first blast still clinging to the fiery wreckage of the alleged drugboat. As Willie mentioned, various officials are giving new accounts now to the news outlets about the strike that some lawmakers say could be a war crime. The New York Times reports that, according to multiple U.S. officials, Defense Secretary Pete Hagseth, had approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial attack left survivors. The paper describes those plans as attempting to rescue survivors who appeared to be helpless, but trying again to kill them if they took what the U.S. deemed to be a hostile action. In a boat that's 95% incinerated. On fire. On fire.

Officials tell the times that on September 2nd, one of the survivors radioed for help, leading to the launch of the second deadly strike. The Wall Street Journal cites two defense officials who say that today on Capitol Hill, Admiral Bradley is expected to tell lawmakers that he and his legal advisor concluded the two survivors were attempting to continue their drug run. Wait, wait, wait, wait. How could they continue their drug run when their boat is practically incinerated? We've seen the video.

President Trump put out the video of that first strike. The boat is gone. By the way, and Pete Higgseth himself said, hey, this ain't no AI. I was there and I saw it. Kaboom, we blew it up. And he was so sure that it was destroyed. Sorry, Pete, none of these stories stack up. You were so sure that it was destroyed.

and incapacitated, that you left the room. That's your story. Now, are you so stupid that you don't know when a boat's destroyed and when a boat's not destroyed? Pete, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, oh, well, it was still on its drug run, and, oh, well, I saw it got blown up, so I just left the room to go play Part cheesy.

Where is that boat going? Yeah. You just saw the video. They can climb back on. And also, if they're calling for help, they're not like they're calling for reinforcements. This isn't part of a Navy. It's a speedboat.

Right. There's not going to be other ships that would show up and then pose a danger to U.S. troops. There aren't no U.S. troops there anyway. I mean, yeah, they're scrambling for an explanation, which does seem to shift by the day. Again, if American soldiers are on a ship that's crippled, that's disabled, and they radio for help. And they're defenseless. And the Russians come, and they shoot everyone in the head. War crime.

We're going to try every one of them on a war crime. This is not even a close. call. And if they're really going to try to make this argument on Capitol Hill, they're going to look like fools. Here's what Jim Garrity of the National Review wrote, tracing the Trump team's convoluted conflicting accounts of the drug boat sinking. It reads in part, quote, depending upon which administration official you're listening to or when, the boat was headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, and it was also an immediate threat to the United States. So Marco Rubio said it was, we had to stop it because it was heading.

to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean? It remained an immediate threat even after it turned around. The president said that Heggseth told him a second strike on survivors didn't happen. Hegeseth said he watched that first strike live and also said he did not personally see survivors. Hegseth is going to be the one to make the call and also simultaneously Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. The target of the second strike was the cargo, or the target of the second strike were the survivors to ensure they did not call anyone to pick them up and retrieve the cargo.

Also, President Trump said he wouldn't have wanted a second strike on survivors. And the entire narrative of a second strike is completely false, according to the Pentagon spokesman, except for the parts that were later corroborated. Are you following? David Ignatius, are you following every day? is a winding road, as Cheryl Crow used to sing. And every day is a new winding, bizarre excuse on why they did things. And again, this only goes back to Friday.

They changed their story from Friday is Saturday. Then they changed it from Saturday. I mean, on Friday, Pete Texas said, this is fake news. So it was made up by those lefties. There was no second strike. And then on Saturday, he's posting pictures of cartoons. And then on Sunday, he understands that, yeah, yeah, he's been caught in his lies. So then he starts, and then Monday there's a new story.

And then Tuesday there's a new story. There's going to be a new story today, David. Can you keep up and tell us what is going on? I am struggling. As Robert Burns said, oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. So we've entered a new period, I think, in which the issue is exactly what has. happened. And what that means is that there's accountability, arguably for the first time, with what's been in anything goes Pentagon. That's over. If you're Admiral Frank Bradley,

you know that your career, your legal status is now in jeopardy, and you're going to tell exactly what you think the record shows about what happened. Hey, David, we look at the Admiral there. Let's just keep that picture up with the split screen with you. That admiral has given his adult life to the United States military, to protecting and defending this country, to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. And so when any Democrat or any Republican, be it Pete Heggseth in 2016 or Senator Kelly in 2025, tell them to take care and not follow crazy orders by civilians that could get them

and the type of trouble Admiral Bradley is in right now? I think that's actually a service to America. It's an enormous service. We can see more clearly now why that video was so important at this time when honorable officers and everything we know about Admiral Bradley suggests he's been an outstanding officer are put in these situations. But my point is we're now in the accountability phase

where congressional oversight committees will go over every bit of the video, they'll listen to every conversation. The New York Times wrote this morning about something called the Strike Bridge, which records every action, every communication between the commanders and the people carrying out their orders. And we'll find out exactly what happened. And that's the situation, I think, that Pete Hegg says Pentagon has needed to be in for months. I mean, we'll talk about Signalgate, but this has been a Secretary of Defense who says rules aren't for me. You know, I originate rules.

What I don't understand, David, and you tell me in all your years in Washington, if you've ever experienced this before, but you have a Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that demanded a month ago for the orders, for the recordings, for the records, and Pete Heggseth refused. He's Stonewall, the Republican chairman of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. So, Joe, that's why this is so powerful. now. Senator Roger Wicker and Senator Jack Reed, two of the most respected members of Congress who really understand military issues began asking in their letter of October, what happened

in September? We want to see the videos now. This was almost two months ago they began pressing this because they knew something was wrong here. They knew that the justifications being given for these military actions didn't add up. And so now we have momentum. You know, they kept pressing and kept pressing. And now you begin to see what the fundamental problems with this strategy were. It's not a war. It's an armed conflict. It's not law enforcement. It's an armed conflict. They're terrorists. A series of legal rationales. It's now going to all have to come before these congressional committees. And I think in that sense, this whole story is getting back a little more on track. We'll get answers finally.

and not more confusion. And now Senator Wicker, the chairman of armed services has said, Pete Higgs, you need to come testify before us about this. So, excuse me, David Rode, stupid rules of engagement to something that Pete Higgs, that the secretary said in that speech several weeks back. That may come back to haunt him here. He's taking great pains in the last couple of days to say, this was Admiral Bradley's decision.

I support it, but this was Admiral Bradley's decision. So I guess the question is, is this decorated admiral going to go in a closed-door meeting of Congress and actually try to make the case that, yes, those two people clinging to the boat that was flaming and smoking represented a threat? He may, and I was on Capitol yesterday, it's what you were talking about. Senate Republicans are shifting. And one specific point was made to me is that the entire policy towards Venezuela and the drugs makes no sense. and they specifically cited the pardon of the president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez,

who was found guilty of trafficking 360 tons of cocaine, just letting traffickers take it through Honduras and the way the United States. That's 793,000 pounds of cocaine. Worth up to $15 billion on the streets of America. And he and a drug trafficker during the trial, you know, bragged about shoving the drugs right up the noses of the gring So the whole policy makes no sense because, again, and these boats are carrying cocaine generally bound for Europe. None of this fentanyl that's killing Americans is coming through the Caribbean.

It's coming by land that comes from Mexico. It comes from China. And so, and you saw this. It was a separate National Review story, but multiple senators. Kennedy Collins are saying, this all doesn't make sense. We're going to kill these people because they radioed for help and they possibly, the argument Bradley might make is that they were trying to continue trafficking the drugs. But again, the broader policy is that trafficking drugs is an act of war

and multiple Republican senators are just saying this doesn't make sense as a policy. You're not stopping the fentanyl and cocaine headed towards the United States. And conservative scholars aren't saying this. I mean, again, you look at Andy McCarthy, Fox News, you look at Jack Goldsmith, George Will, again yesterday,

I want to, you know, somebody called me and said, you want to, you want to hear a lead in a column? Here's a lead. Pete Heggseth committed a war crime without a war. Now that takes some doing. Yeah. And so far, you know, though President Trump has distanced himself from that second strike, the White House is largely standing behind. Secretary Heggs says, and we'll get into the details of Signalgate in a few minutes. And that report actually very damning for the Secretary of Defense.

But he and his allies try to turn it into a victory lap. And I think there was some projection there. Like, hey, I've been cleared in Signalgate. Look, everything's going fine here in the Caribbean as well, trying to almost convince himself and others that his standing is secure. And J-Mart, we have to wonder if indeed it is, because Republicans are asking questions. To David Rhodes' point, they've been asked to try to justify this pardon of the president of Honduras.

And we've seen Republican senators, including Senator Marshall of Kansas, on our air yesterday, be unable to do that. While at the same time, saying that's the reason why we're doing these strikes in Venezuela, as pointed out, the facts don't quite line up. So are we seeing Republicans you're talking to, particularly in the Senate? The last month or so, we have chronicled how they've created a little distance themselves from the administration. What are you hearing about just how high stakes these hearings are going to be? Is this going to be another moment for the senators to stand up, finally, to the administration? Yeah, I think it's one more rock on the back

of the members of Congress that they're carrying up the hill, and the hill is Mount Trump. And the Hill is having to burden this daily humiliation, quite frankly. I talked to a former GOP senator yesterday, somebody who I know Joe knows, who said two words to me, filing deadlines. Why is filing deadlines matter? What the senator was talking about was the filing deadlines for primaries next year, which is to say when that clears, when that passes, when these lawmakers know who is or is not running against them in primaries next year,

then you'll see even more freedom, even more independence, because these guys care about their seats and about their re-elections. And if they say that they don't have a primary challenger by date certain next year, 2026, they can start saying what they actually think about what George F. Will called the moral slum of this has been a slagration. All right. Well, speaking of daily humiliation, Next, we'll get to the Signal Group Chat IG report. That's the Pete Hegseth Group Chat on Signal that included some people in his life, but then by mistake, a reporter.

Jeffrey Goldberg, we'll be here. Talking about an impending military action. That's coming up. Also coming up House Speaker Mike Johnson facing massive frustration among members of his own party ahead of the midterms, particularly from women. We'll dig into details of that new reporting. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Ackyweather's Bernie Rainer. Bernie.

Bernie, how's it looking? No frustration there. Mika, more cold coming today, your Ackyweather exclusive forecast showing flurries and slippery travel in New York State, Pennsylvania, gusty winds in Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C. How about a chilly rain moving from west to east, from Texas, in the war, Georgia, including Atlanta and your ACUther travel forecast showing some delays with that rain in Atlanta this afternoon, gusty winds, monitor delays in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the

ACUweather app today. Love the music. I get a little bit closer Every day is a winding round Welcome back, beautiful shot of the White House On this Thursday morning What's that thing glaring to the left of the screen? John has some reporting for it.

Oh, is that the... Those are construction lights, because that's where the East Wing used to be. That's where it used to be. Okay. Kind of looks like... That's the crew starting the ball. Oh, here we go, yeah. They're working around the clock.

Okay. There. I want to make sure that happens. Yeah, that's nice pan there. T.J. A lot of companies contributed to that. Anyhow, completely different story. Let's get back to one of our top stories of the morning.

The Inspector General for the Pentagon says defense secretary Pete Higgsath put U.S. personnel at risk when he used the signal. app to send classified information. The IG's full report is expected to be released today. But sources who have seen it say the eight-month investigation found that Hegeseth violated security protocols by sharing plans for imminent strikes on Houthi targets across Yemen in a group chat that inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic. Who was sitting in his parking lot in a safe way? Yeah, just grocery shopping.

Yeah, what are you going to do? Sources also tell MS now. Hegseth refused an interview request, would not turn over his phone, and handed over only a couple of screenshots. Hagseth reportedly provided a written statement to the Inspector General that said he was permitted to declassify information as he saw fit and only communicated details he thought would not endanger the mission. Like Willie, when the mission was going to start, when the planes were going to take out,

basically all the things that, again, should be most classified. Yeah, a giddy new defense secretary telling people about this exciting attack that he had ordered. David Rode, the IG report says Hegzeth violated policy by using a non-approved device, shared classified information, and put people in harm's way. He immediately said, of course, I've been totally exonerated. Case closed. Move along, move along in a tweet last night. What else do we know? It'll be made public today, so we'll have a lot more information today from this IG report. But what else are you reading into this? Not case closed. It was our colleague, Laura Barone Lopez, the first of this tip, that he did not hand over his phone. Yeah. Senator Kelly. How can they have an investigation if he doesn't hand over the phone that the questioned?

you know, signal messages came from. And this is a great question, and that's back to oversight. Members of Congress demanding the phone, tired of the humiliations that were talked about earlier. And this isn't the only incident where he did this. He did this multiple times where he was using signal to communicate things. And Senator Kelly said this on the record, again, to one of our MSNOT colleagues in the Capitol, that he didn't buy this thing.

It's essentially, Hague, Seventh is arguing that he declassified all this. information just before he sent it on signal. It's kind of like President Trump declassifying everything he took to Mara Lago, almost in his own head. It's declassified because it's the guy, I said it in my head. And the secretary of war has no documentation showing he declassified any of this military, and he refuses to sit for an interview, and he refuses to hand over his phone. So I think this is going to continue. And I was thrilled you guys highlighted the phone detail, which we broke. And so I I think there's a lot more to come here. Yeah, I mean, the thing is, again, Roger Wicker and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Mike Turner and Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, I mean, I understand maybe they've been under a spell or a swoon or they've just kept their head down.

But I was on the Armed Services Committee for four terms. those those chairman aren't going to put up with this much longer with with the secretary of defense who likes to call himself secretary of war who decides that he's going to give up vital classified information that in any other time would be considered the most classified information and if a member of that committee had given up that information before the strikes began they would be in prison so again they're they don't know what pete hegsa thinks he's going to be able to keep doing. I don't know how long he thinks he's going to be protected by the president or dumb luck. But it seems to me, if you listen to Republicans on the hill, that time's running out.

They actually are going to make him act like every other secretary of defense. They are the ones who fund his operations. I mean, Hankseth on Signal about that attack didn't share anything except for the when, the wear, and the how, which is everything. And as this report concludes, It could have endangered American lives. It risked the lives and well-being of American military personnel, David Ignatius. And Joe's exactly right. These two stories happening at the same time, Signalgate, the questions about the September strike in the Caribbean, really turning up the heat on Secretary Heggseth.

He, yes, he and his allies took a victory lap last night, claiming, quote, total exoneration and thanking us for our attention. By the way, how could he have total exoneration if he didn't cooperate with the investigation? She didn't turn over the phone, which was a smoking gun in all of this. That is how. There is no total exoneration. That is how it works. There is no absolution.

No, there's not. That's how they think it works. It doesn't work that way anymore. No, certainly they're projecting that's how it works. But we have seen finally pushback from the else. So David Ignatius, that's my question to you, is we, you know, there's a lot of great reporting about what's in the report came out yesterday. We're going to see more of it today in the days ahead.

What are you looking for? What are some questions you still hope to get answered? and what sort of reactions do you think we'll get? So I think it's particularly important why Hegsa thought he had the authority to take these details which anyone would know could potentially compromise the security of people involved in this Houthi operation and put them into an unclassified chat. For Hexas' whole career since he was a major in Iraq, he has been somebody. who argued that the rules are not for warriors like me.

So he seems to have thought that, you know, there may be rules that limit how you can communicate, but they don't apply to me. I'm an original classifying authority. If I say it's not classified, that's, you know, all you need to know. If I don't want to turn over my phone so people can examine exactly what I did, what happened, I have that authority. I'm a warrior.

And I think that, he's run out of road on that one now. I think Congress is going to say, Mr. Secretary, we want to know exactly what you did, and why you did it, and finally get some answers. But this is a consistent theme for Pete Eggset, since he was in the military himself, since he was a Fox commentator. The rules don't apply to warriors like me. And, J-Mart, I want to ask you, first of all, how is that playing on Capitol Hill? that, again, you get this guy who is a talk show host.

I mean, literally. I mean, seriously. No offense, Joe. No. No offense taken. Some of my best friends. Something about my best friends. No offense taken.

I wouldn't take the job as like head of physics at MIT. You got to know your limitations. And you've been offered. Yeah, just last week. I was also asked, hey, would you like to coach Old Miss? I know what I can and I can't do. And I could never coach Old Miss because I'd hate to beat out. Alabama every year. That would upset me. Thank you so much, dear. That makes me feel so much better.

But anyway, so how much longer will these veterans on Capitol Hill who have served with the best of the best? And it's not like Roger Wicker just showed up. Like Roger Wicker like me. That's exactly what I was going to say. When we got to town, there were giants on Capitol Hill. Roger came in the same year I did. He worked with me with Floyd Spence. Floyd. Spence was the guy who would say, hey, listen, we're all in this together. Ron Delums, he may have nothing in common with me. But when it comes to the defense of the United States of America, Ron and I stand shoulder to shoulder.

And he set that example early on that when you're talking about national defense, everybody works together to get answers from the generals and admirals of the Pentagon that may not want to give it. And to get answers from the White House, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, that don't want to give it. These two worked together. I'm wondering how long Roger, who's really speaking out, we're proud of him. Roger and these other guys and women that have been around a very long time,

how much longer are they going to put up with this weekend talk show host that thinks that all the rules of Washington changed the day his hair jail got to Washington, D.C. You know, I'm just thinking about the folks you serve with. And there were a roster of folks who, in hindsight, look bigger and bigger every day. You mentioned Spence, tell them. Think about Ikeleton from Missouri. It's a long list.

Mike, yeah. Look, I think about Wicker a lot. You know, Joe, he came 94 with you to the House. He's not going to be on a ballot ever again. He's not running for re-election in 2030. This is the last term. Everybody in Mississippi and Washington, who follows politics, knows that.

He feels very strongly about the, Ukraine issue, deeply, deeply passionate about it. And I think he also is offended at a moral level about somebody like Pete Hegseth leading the biggest and best military in the world. I know for a fact, Joe, here's why. I interviewed him in Munich in February of this year when in his first foreign trip, Pete Hengseth made 17 gaffs in three days across Europe. And Wicker told me it was a rookie mistake. But when he said rookie mistake, his eyes said something else. his eyes said, holy, could you believe what this guy just did? So I think Wicker has seen enough.

I'm not sure how far he'll go. But I think these guys, Joe, every day that goes on, if they're not going to be out of ballot again like Wicker, I think they're going to show more independence as the days, weeks, and months go by. And here's why. It's not getting better. Pete Hankseth tomorrow is not going to become like some combination of like Admiral Nimitz and like Henry Kissinger, right?

it's not going to happen. So I've learned how to speak out more. And what have you seen in the past? You've seen people in the past make mistakes and then be humbled by it, put their head down and say, I'm going to do a better job. And Washington gives those people a pass. Pete Heggseth's not even in that universe. He screwed up that first time, like you said. He's continued screwing up. He screwed up with Signalgate. John, John O'Meer will tell you, any White House reporter will tell you, they were pissed off at that guy for Signal Gate. They were on this three-month run and felt like everything was going their way,

and he stopped him dead in their tracks. And he brings his family in with him to meetings. And the Pentagon's a mess. Yeah. The building's a mess, too. The building is a mess. And everybody knows the building's a mess. And there's no clear lines of authority.

And you have a talk show host who is trying to run the Pentagon, while his secretary of the Army is overdoing. diplomacy in Ukraine. It's just, it doesn't add up. It's Trump world. So I think it gets tolerated for a while. But Joe, you know this. Everybody with Trump is only entitled to so much sand in the hourglass. And eventually, Hegstaff's number is going to be up. Because if you get too much bad coverage, that is that with Trump. And I think that's the risk for Hegsteth. It's not his conduct. It's not his morality. It's the bad coverage. And I think once Trump gets tired of the bad coverage with Hague Seth, B. It's going to have to go.

Not to pile on, but even before all of this, there were so many people really warning very seriously President Trump not to nominate him, people warning those not to vote him through, and there were serious signs of a potential long-running, ongoing drinking problem. And this is not to pile on. This is about the Pentagon and the people who serve our country and who leads them? And is this person from the get-go fit to do the job safely and not do any harm? Well, and there were concerns, same concerns, but actually worse, you know, going back to John Tower, David Ignatius, and I mean, here you had a guy that had run several organizations into the ground we had heard, veterans organizations in the ground, one example of misconduct after

another. But for the White House, the most important thing during the interim period was for the Trump transition team, the guy wasn't forthcoming with him several times. So they didn't like him on the transition team. They don't like him in the White House. The president doesn't want to throw anybody overboard because the press wants him to throw anybody overboard. But the guy doesn't have friends. He doesn't have friends in the Pentagon. And talking about the Pentagon being a difficult place to run, I mean, I've said this before. for on air, I, you know, I've told friends that before they talked about possibly working over at the Pentagon and getting other jobs.

I said, you know, there's only one job in Washington I wouldn't take. And I mean, if I, as a talk show host, there's only one job in Washington I couldn't take. I think I can figure out most of the others. I've been around there for 30, 35 years. I would never take. I would never take the job at the Pentagon. That's for the Dick Cheney's of the world. That's for the Robert Gates.

that's for the people who understand that that's the toughest job in town. And even when you have the best of the best, it is an almost impossible behemoth to control. And here we have somebody who is the amateur's amateur, and we are seeing just the absolute chaos and the consequences of that chaos. As you said, Joe, Being Secretary of Defense running the Pentagon is the hardest management job, I think, in America.

Nothing comes close to it in complexity and importance. And the people who've held that job and done it best have had a kind of humility that they've understood in the way that George Marshall did as commander and then as Secretary of State that these issues, the people that he's working with are so consequential that you just have to. to have to be humble in their presence and do your best to lead. You never have that sense with HECSeth, that he ever thinks, how can I be a good leader? How can I be a servant leader to use a phrase that's common in the military? Again, the best military commanders often are humble people like Dwight Eisenhower. They don't strut and show their stuff. They listen and they lead by example. And that's what's been so distressing. I talked to many, mostly retired military officers. As they watch this spectacle, it just breaks their heart. They put their

whole lives into the military, and they know this just isn't, this isn't right. And we hope somebody in the White House watching all this at some point says, enough. This just, this isn't going the way it should for the country. And it may get to that point sometime here pretty soon. It's worth pointing out, again, many of these Republicans publicly and privately worried about complaining about Pete Hexeth did vote to confirm him not so long ago, David Rode. And, again, off the record, many, many of them regret it. And just again, not to beat up on talk show hosts. Please.

That's why we're here. We're ready for it. Going away in terms of violating and committing war crimes, way back in 2019, it was Pete Heggseth on Fox and Friends who started this whole campaign of Eddie Gallagher, and it led to Donald Trump in his first term, pardoning, exonerating or sort of going easy on Gallagher. and then pardoning two other soldiers who had been convicted of killing Afghan civilians, reported by their peers, convicted by a jury of their peers, and just a separate issue, and I kind of defer to you on politics.

All of this helps the Democrats with their mojo. And back to the president being frustrated about dominating headlines, they are just going to keep at this. From the video of Epstein's Island, but to Signalgate, to the boat strikes, and they will just keep changing the narrative, and I think that will get deeply frustrated. reading to President Trump. MS now senior national security reporter David Rode, the Washington Post, David Ignatius,

and Politico's Jonathan Martin. Thank you all very much for paying on. Hey, Jonathan, before you go, tell us about your column today. Well, one of the most striking things about the Trump era is obviously the breaking of norms, the sort of undermining of laws, handing out these pardons like their lollipops. But there's also something else about Trump in this second time around show that I find striking is that it's also a sort of adult fantasy camp. We're living through a presidency that's kind of like Tom Hanks and Big.

And it's like ice cream for dinner every night in the White House. And if you just look at his schedule, it's remarkable what he does. And it's not that much different from a 12-year-old kid. There's lots of screen time. There's always a kid's menu so you can get hamburgers and ketchup. He hangs out with cool athletes and celebrities all the time, whether in the Oval Office or Yankee Stadium's locker room or Beth Page's Fairway or, you know, anywhere he goes. It's kind of like, yeah, it's if you're a dog show host. Yeah, and go ahead.

Or if you're a 12-year-old kid, right? It sounds pretty sweet. Same thing. The difference between this time around and last time around is that nobody's telling him no. And the best wave, Joe, for job security, as you know, to work for Donald Trump is, just never tell him no. And so he has zero people in his ear saying, you know, maybe you shouldn't say that. Maybe you shouldn't do that. So in some ways, this is like free range Trump. He's just sort of living his best life, but he's doing so in ways that I think sort of diminish the job

and make it seem like it's not the sort of responsibility that it is. So anyways, that column is now on Politico, our great pre-adolescent president. Wow. Okay. Thank you, Jay Mart. We appreciate it. I assume this problem would be about Lane Kiffin. I know.

I thought it would be about Lane Kiffin. I thought that's where we're headed. Well, I mean, I. Okay. Ahead. We are going to be speaking. But you notice, Alex is not showing us, Jonathan, because no, this will be a 30-minute conversation on why LSU would want Lane Kiffin.

Not Alex's first radio. No, it's fine. Straight ahead. We're going to be speaking with. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg about the IG report on SignalG, which he was kind of at the center of. But first, we're going to dig into new polling from Harvard that shows Gen Z has a pretty bleak outlook on the direction of America and their future career prospects. Morning Joe is back in a moment. Okay, perfect picture to bump in with because the other day you were at the Paley Center talking about, once again, this is where Joe is sort of a savant.

He knows everything there is to know about the Beatles. Well, everything. Not everything. There are people up there than I did. But the Paley Center did an event. They do really exciting. extraordinary events, the Pala Museum. And this was to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the release of anthology.

And what anthology, what the Beatles have done this time is they've added a ninth episode on Disney. It's streaming on Disney. But a ninth episode of things that you didn't see the first time it came out. And of course, it's extra poignant because it was a couple of years before George died as well. But so interesting, you know, Peter Jackson had get back. which was the, you know, really long documentary that took you behind the scenes and let it be. And when the Beatles broke up, everybody just, you know, because of what John Lennon was saying, Dionne Winter in Rolling Stone, you know, for 25 years, beetle history was shaped by that interview.

And there was just a belief, even among the Beatles, they started believing it. They just everybody hated everybody when they broke up. You look last year, a couple years ago, or maybe it was six years ago, I don't know, time flies, but you look at Get Back, and you see that John and Paul loved each other. It just came through. And in this anthology, in nine, the ninth episode, you really see Paul and George, too, you know, George is always the younger brother, and they're always sort of knocking heads. But here, you see, you know, they love each other. They're competitive, but they love each other. Four brothers. There's going to be competition. So we're going to get along better than others. You're going to have good moments and bad moments. But the genius that came out of whatever that relationship was is evident. And as you know, Joe, they're doing this four-part biopic that's coming out in 2028. I interviewed Paul Neskel the other day, the great young actor. And he's playing McCartney for the McCartney biopic. And he is learning to play the guitar. He's right-handed, left-handed. He's like, I can play it okay, right-handed. Now I'm learning to play it left-handed.

But that's going to be extraordinary, and they're all going to come out at once, and they're going to be integrated, and the characters are going to be in each other's four separate films in 2028. Sam Mendoz is going to be doing four separate. Isn't that amazing? That's unbelievable. There's this one great moment in there where Paul McCartney, because, you know, these guys from Northern England,

and they're all tough. And it's like Paul said, you know, people said, well, did you tell John? that you loved him before he didn't. You don't talk that way. You get beaten up in Northern England at that time. It just wasn't done. And it's almost like they were even ashamed to admit that they were impressed by themselves. But there's this great moment where Paul just says to George and Ringo,

George kind of always playing it kind of tough, the younger brother who's trying to play it tough. Paul goes, hey, I loved being in the Beatles. I was proud to be in the Beatles. I'm not ashamed to say it. That's actually, weirdly enough, that's like the first time, like any of them ever kind of cracked and said, no, I loved this. This was my, Paul said, this is my life. I loved it.

And so it was very cool. And the others were like, yeah. But I always say, George was, to the end, he was a tough one. George Martin was playing, you know, the end of Abbey Road, the second side of Abbey Road. And, you know, George is always like, hmm, Beatles, man, whatever. And, you know, you never give me your money when the horns come and the da-da-da-da-da. It's just one of the most dramatic moments of you're a Beatle fan. He said, they go, oh, my God.

And George leans back and he starts to smile. And you go, all right, he's going to admit he loved being the Beatles. And he goes, it's pretty cheesy. Oh, my God. Didn't get there. Almost got there. He knows everything about the Beatles. All right.

That would seem like a lovely note. Oh, they're wonderful people there. I just loved them. Want them to get on the show something. Harvard Youth poll is out this morning, and it's painting a pretty pessimistic picture of how young adults feel about the state of our nation and more. The poll finds only 13% of younger Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. A majority, 57% say the country is on the wrong track. Additionally, artificial intelligence is reshaping how younger Americans

think about work, mostly in negative ways. Forty-four percent say they believe the advancing technology will ultimately take away job opportunities. Let's bring in right now to get the numbers direct for polling, Institute of Politics, Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John Del Volpe. He is an MS now contributor. John, first of all, I want to get to all of that. But first, let's talk the impact that it has on politics, because a lot of people watching are going to want to know about that first.

You know, we had heard that a lot of youth voters had moved over to Trump and Republicans in 24. That's evaporated in 25, hasn't it? How badly has it evaporated and why? When we look ahead a year, Joe, to the upcoming midterms, we see that among registered voters, it's a year out. There's a significant margin for Democrats, 46 to 29. Why is that? Well, because of the numbers Mika just showed, right?

The right track, the wrong track numbers, the deep, deep concern about the economy. Joe, I've been here many times. We talked about the stress that young people feel. Today, it's more fear than stress. You have the deep economic concerns. You have concerns exacerbated by AI that we just mentioned. Not only is it seen as a threat to future job opportunities,

but it's also seeing as kind of sucking the meeting out of work. And what I'm most concerned about is we know about the distrust in institutions. But younger people in this survey say they're not trusting each other to have meaningful conversations about the trust. their future. Adding to that, I've been reading about how they don't trust news organizations, they don't even follow the news, they seem remarkably tuned out to what's actually going on. One reason that, I think they know more than they might let us know, but one of the reasons that they seem to say that they tune out for the news is to protect their mental health, right?

There are very few things that they can control themselves, and we see that mainstream media is overwhelmingly seen as like not helpful to their mental health. We see this reflected in the poll as well, but they're clearly still getting information, unfortunately, from their own algorithmic bubble, which drives up partisanship. One of the fascinating items I found in this poll was just the complete lack of trust in leadership, which is to say, if you're a college student or a 25-year-old or a 30-year-old, you're watching the news and saying, what are these people do? Are they doing anything to actually help my life? Are they doing anything to make me help me afford a home, which I can't do right now? Are they doing anything about AI? They're just seemed to be fighting

with each other and scoring political points and taking, you know, partisan sides. And I get that. I mean, I think a lot of adults feel that way, too. What is our leadership doing to make my life better? Well, it's not, we would ask, our generation, Willie would ask, what have you done for me lately? They're asking, what have you ever done? What have you ever done? And again, I talk about it quite a the number of younger people that I meet routinely who are on the verge are currently homeless is a crisis that we're not talking about. And what I think leaders need to do is begin to listen first and not lecture and show some strength through offering up some stability. That's all younger people are asking for, stability in their politics, in their home

life, as well as in work. So connected to that, the poll also finds that, partisan identity. It still happens. There's partisan alignment, but it's not out of any sort of loyalty. It's just about anger and frustration. Yeah, one of the questions we asked, John, was if you could use one word to describe each party, you know, what would it be? And our students coded 2,000 responses of the last couple of weeks. We found that 57, 56 percent said a negative word about both parties, okay? The most commonly used word for Democrats was weak. The most commonly referred to word among Republicans was corrupt. That is where I think young people are

about both parties. There has been a switch in terms of, when from younger men in particular, switched from Biden, significant number back to Trump. They seem not to be Democrats today, but they're open, I think, to messaging across the Democrats or the Republicans based upon where they're moving, but clearly Democrats have a significant advantage heading into next year. And that's what I wanted to ask you is you look at these polls and it looks like Republicans and Democrats and Donald Trump are all mired in the 20s. So they're all within the margin of error. So it's basically a tie. And yet you start looking at polls for actual elections and Democrats gain a big advantage.

Why is that? Because we'd heard the same thing. I mean, you know, we kept hearing before the elections a couple weeks, you know, a month or two ago, oh, Democrats' approval ratings 26, Democrats' approval ratings 27, so on. forth. And they end up having just a remarkable day the first Tuesday in November. Why is that? Because I think voters overall, specifically younger voters are more pragmatic perhaps than we might expect. I think they would tell us their choices between bad and worse. Right. Okay. And one of the things I've been saying for quite a while, both millennials as well as Gen Z, their values generally align more with the principles of the Democratic Party,

the challenge Democrats have had is the kind of the perceived softness or weakness in terms of they're not able to actually execute on the promises that they've made. And if they can tighten that up and show strength and stability and a plan to actually, you know, kind of create more housing opportunities, right?

To create more job opportunities to lower inflation. Then they'll be, you know, address health care, extremely important. And how much better position? And Democrats, they're saying they look weak and they've seen his handwring. I'm wondering how the whole, I hate to even say it, but the whole sort of woke phase from 2017 forward. I don't know if we can say it's closed yet in 2025. But certainly we're going down, the amount of wholeness.

And there's more of a recognition that needs to be more balance. If you talk to the president of Harvard, you talk to the president of Yale, you talk to the president of any of these universities. We're going to be talking to President Dartmouth today. And they'll all say the same thing. Listen, we've had blind spots. Ideologically, we've had blind spots. And we're not saying this because of Donald Trump. We're just saying this couldn't be a positive process for us.

How is that impacted students? The fact that I saw one line in there that they don't talk politics because they're afraid of what their friends are going to say. I'm telling you that is among my children and their friends and Mika's children and their friends. We've been hearing over the past eight years, eight years at the best institutions in America. They won't raise their hand and give their opinion because if they say the wrong thing, they will be destroyed socially. This won't just be like me where I say something in class and, you know, lefties like Boomy at the University of Alabama, which was interesting. This is a, if I say the wrong thing now, my life is over. And they will say that.

My life is over. So they don't talk in class. They don't talk in class. They don't talk outside of class in the peer-to-peer conversations that they used to especially. younger conservatives and Republicans well over a half feel shame for just sharing ideas or questions or thoughts because too often in their lifetimes when they've asked a basic question they've seen the eyes roll from someone else not because they're necessarily disagree with them but because they dare ask such a question and what i've always believed is that some people you know just

you know think about politics on a on a on a with a different cadence than other people but you know Okay to ask questions and engage. Listen, and I will say, as a conservative, I grew up. And again, it's southern state schools. And, you know, there were times that I would get hissed at by people in my law class for simply citing precedent from the Supreme Court. And I turn and go, you don't like it. You can take it up with the Supreme Court.

I'm just quoting precedent to ask a question, right? But now there are people. There are students who voted for Biden. There are students who come from Democratic. households. There are students who, you know, when it's not just on Israel, but if during all of that, and even now, if they even said Israel has a right to exist, there would be a group of friends that completely cancel them. And that's, that is still happening. Well, what I kind of believe is that because of the toxic nature of our politics over the last several years,

we have taken civic education and these conversations out of public education. And every conversation, every focus group, people after it's over, they ask me if they can come back and do it again, because it's a civil conversation that they want to have. And I think we all can do a better job facilitating that. I love that. Director of polling at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, John Della Volpe. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning.