Morning Joe - Joe: Trump loyalists drop decade of rage over Epstein files. Why?
Episode Date: July 15, 2025High-profile Trump loyalists, including conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who voiced concerns over the lack of transparency regarding the Epstein files, are falling in ...line and moving on from talking about Epstein for the time being. The Morning Joe panel discusses.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
as it relates to this whole-sorted Jeffrey Epstein matter.
Democrats didn't put the Jeffrey Epstein thing into the public domain.
This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and these MAGA extremists have been
fanning the flames of for the last several years.
And now the chickens are coming home to roost.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries weighing in on the Jeffrey Epstein saga that continues
to be a major focus for President Trump's MAGA base.
The president wants everyone to move on, but are prominent right wing voices willing to
let it go?
We'll dig into that.
Meanwhile, President Trump is taking a tougher stance with Russia, threatening sanctions
and promising critical military aid for Ukraine.
We'll look at what's behind this move.
Plus, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo is not giving up on becoming mayor of New
York City.
We'll have more about his run as an independent.
And speaking of New York, a rough night
for commuters after storms slammed the area.
Look at this causing flash flooding.
Oliver, New York City, also parts of New Jersey.
We'll have more on that as well.
Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe.
It is Tuesday, July 15th.
With us we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at the Atlantic,
Jonathan Lemire, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News and the host of The Rest Is Politics,
podcast Cady K. and co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen is with us this morning.
A lot to get to and we begin this morning with the Trump administration trying to portray a united front as the president continues to face the
threat of revolt from his MAGA base over the Jeffrey Epstein files. After telling his supporters
not to waste time and energy on the deceased convicted sex offender. The White House released this statement yesterday, declaring the president's entire team would
continue to work in, quote, lockstep, despite the reported feud involving Attorney General
Pam Bondi, FBI Director Cash Patel, and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino.
Bongino was reportedly back at work yesterday, according to CNN,
after he took Friday off and was rumored to have threatened to quit. CNN also reports
Bongino's long-term future is still uncertain at this point. President Trump told reporters
on Sunday he spoke to Bongino earlier that morning and thought Bongino was in, quote,
good shape in his current position.
Meanwhile some high-profile Trump loyalists who voiced concerns over the
lack of transparency regarding the Epstein files are now apparently heeding
the president's suggestion to just simply move on. At the Turning Point USA
Student Action Summit, yeah in in Florida, on Friday...
Like the ones that were screaming out weekend?
Well, this is it.
Here's Charlie Kirk leading the charge.
They're really upset.
Yes.
He's...
Children were molested and raped and the truth had to come out.
Over 200, maybe 250, according to Pam Bondi.
They're saying, and I would make a lot.
Well, here's Charlie Kirk talking about the administration's handling of the matter rather
critically.
Take a look.
Make some noise if you care about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Raise your hand if it matters a lot to you.
Raise your hand.
So every hand of 7,000 people.
Everybody cares.
A lot.
I said a lot.
Every hand. That's a lot.
But now he says he is quote done with the matter. Honestly I'm done talking
about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the
administration. I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what
needs to be done. Solve it. Ball balls in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend.
Balls in their hand.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham was also on stage at that Florida summit where she polled the
audience about the topic.
How many of you are satisfied, you can clap,
satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation?
Clap.
Boo!
Boo!
Okay, I told you to clap.
You guys aren't listening.
I'm not gonna grade you on a curve.
Not satisfied.
So I was gonna get to that.
How many of you are not satisfied
with the results of the investigation?
Applause What's going to get to that? How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation?
And then yesterday, she scolded other conservative influencers for discussing the matter.
Take a look.
Now, as conservative influencers were eating their own about Epstein, the president was
stealing the show on the one year anniversary of the day he almost
lost his life. He made a triumphant appearance at a global sporting event.
Meanwhile, Democrats keep shooting in their own goal, stumbling from one embarrassment
to the next. Yes. You know, sometimes, sometimes you get it wrong.
Hey, as I've said here on this show, I get wrong every day.
Sometimes you make mistakes.
You read something wrong, most notably last year after spending a lot of time with Joe
Biden.
I talked about Biden at his best.
I get it wrong. Sometimes you change your mind and you see some facts, the facts change, you change your
mind with those facts that happen.
But I must say, very rarely have I ever seen people going from a decade-long crusade against against pedophilia, against sex abuse, against child exploitation, and making that almost
a centerpiece of their existence, saying, when we get in power, we're going to release
the Epstein files.
When we get in power, we're going to be different. When we get in power,
we're not going to do what Joe Biden and his attorney general, Mary Garland, did. We're
going to expose it all. And you go on your podcasts and you go on your podcasts and you
go on your podcasts and you keep repeating that over and over again or you go on Fox News or you go on any of these other channels
and you say we're going to do this and then
You have a weekend conference in Florida where everybody's enraged. What Charlie Kirk said 7500 people outraged by this
the truth must come out.
And then the next day, magic pixie dust is sprinkled over all of the podcasters.
And voila, this moral crisis of a decade long about little children getting raped by the richest and
the most powerful men in the world goes away.
No flight logs.
I just, I don't need the flight logs.
The lists.
They're saying, I don't need the flight logs.
They're saying, we don't need the lists.
They're saying all the things that we've said before, everything we've said over the past decade
about Hollywood stars and lefties
and democratic politicians.
Nevermind.
Nevermind.
Done with it.
Let me say, I was asking these questions,
I think before most of these people were,
back in 2017, 2018, going,
what's, why is this Epstein guy walking around?
What kind of sweetheart deal did he get?
Why did he get a sweetheart deal?
Why is there justice for the poor, justice for middle class Americans, and not justice
for the rich?
It's a good question to ask.
And yet overnight, suddenly they go from a decade of rage
to saying, ah, I'm going to trust the government.
I know what I said about the JFK conspiracy theories. I know what I said
about the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories. I know what I said about the JFK Jr. conspiracy
theories. I know what I said about the 9-11. But here, here, I'm going to just trust the
government. Okay. That's really something.
Strange.
Because we've got a decade of quotes of you saying, never trust the government.
We've got a decade of quotes saying, never trust a Justice Department that's not releasing
all the information about Jeffrey Epstein.
Never trust people who are protecting the richest among us.
Now listen, a caveat, and this is an important caveat,
we have Tom Winters and we have other people, Ken Delaney,
who are saying Donald Trump's right.
Not that Trump's right.
There were no lists.
There were no smoking guns.
Donald Trump's right.
But these podcasters who built their careers, who made millions of dollars
telling you that there was this Jeffrey Epstein list and they were going to get to the bottom of it,
they were going to tell the truth about it, they were going to make the government tell the truth.
And then they go to the White House and they're holding up these files, the Epstein files.
Inside, there were like Bazooka Joe cartoons.
Like it was absolutely crazy.
And then the Attorney General gets on TV, this is the worst thing I've ever seen in
my life, you. That's disgusting what these
people did and we're gonna release it all. What happened? I don't understand.
What happened in 24 hours? What happened in 24 hours? By the way, Epstein's partner is
available and she's in custody. There's a lot of ways to get information and a lot
of opportunity to learn about this case
and to perhaps bring justice for so many women.
I think they had a vote.
Alex used.
Alex, didn't they have a vote?
Didn't they have a vote on the floor yesterday and the Republicans stopped Maxwell's testimony?
Didn't that happen?
Well, there was a vote about releasing the
documents. You got the script right there. Yeah, releasing the
documents. Okay, well so the Democrats overnight put a vote up. House
Republicans voted against the Democrats amendment that would force the Justice
Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein file. So I know what you're
saying. You're saying, well, the Democrats didn't seem to care before.
Well, you seem to care before.
So now the shoe's on the other foot
and I wonder how comfortable you are with that shoe
that is on your foot, how ill-fitting that is.
The House Rules Committee voted
against attaching the amendment to the bill.
And there was only one Republican, Ralph Norman, That is, the House Rules Committee voted against attaching the amendment to the bill.
And there was only one Republican, Ralph Norman, who voted in favor of actually releasing the
Epstein file.
So here we are, Jonathan Lemire, shoes on the other foot.
We're not here talking about conspiracy theories.
We've heard what Tom Winter said.
We've heard what Ken Delaney said, he said there's no
there there.
This is what a lot of people in the government have said before, but not MAGA supporters.
MAGA supporters have been on a crusade, a holy war, to get this information out that
they believe shows the richest and most powerful men in the United
States and the world molesting little children and then the federal government
letting them go. So what happened? Why? Why? Why? Why is Charlie Kirk and all
these other people gone from making this sort of the centerpiece
of their case against a corrupt government to suddenly saying, ah?
I'm done with it.
I'm done with it.
I'm never going to mention.
He said, I'm not going to mention Epstein files.
I'm done with it.
I trust the government.
Let me say that again.
Let me say that again.
The movement that is built on not trusting the government, built on building up bull
shit conspiracy theories about everything, about everything.
The Big Dumper, he didn't win that last night.
There were green screens.
The actual winner was Roger Maris,
who is still alive and living somewhere in Poughkeepsie,
New York.
Conspiracy theories about everything.
Now we're saying, I trust the government and I will ask no more questions.
I can't even say it.
I will ask no more questions.
It is painful.
Again, sometimes you get things wrong.
I get things wrong all the time and admit it.
Sometimes you change your mind.
That's not what we're talking about.
But this ain't that.
This is a complete and total capitulation on an issue that they claimed to be a moral
crusade against a corrupt government cover-up that's been going on for years.
So what happened?
So the question we posed on this show yesterday, looking at this story through a political
lens would be, how long would there be a MAGA rebellion against Donald Trump?
How long would it be?
For the first time, it was the first time many of these voices ever questioned him.
How long would he be willing to do that?
And the answer was about 48 hours.
Because it does seem largely put to bed already.
That yes, whether it is indeed Charlie Kirk or whether it was Benny Johnson.
Some of the loudest, most at times, you know, just over the top defenders of Donald Trump
explaining away whatever he would do.
And last week, Friday, Saturday, angry at the situation, Trump's social media post Saturday
certainly didn't help.
But here we are by Monday afternoon, by Tuesday morning, it's all being swept aside.
Yesterday there was a study done, how many Jeffrey Epstein references on Fox News through
day side?
Almost none.
The network which had been obsessed with that story at times turned the page.
There was simply Donald Trump sent the word in that social media post and then in interviews
he gave at the tarmac on Andrews on Sunday, a little bit we heard from him yesterday saying
dismiss this, sweep it under the rug, it was over.
And that's what we're seeing right now. So joining us to talk about it further, contributing columnist for the Hill, it was over. And that's what we're seeing right now.
So joining us to talk about it further, contributing columnist for the Hill, conservative writer
Matt Lewis, a perfect voice on this story.
So Matt, as Joe said, we've heard from Tom Winter, we've heard from Ken Delaney, and
there is the investigative piece of this.
The evidence, we know some of it can't be released, it's too sensitive.
Also some of it can't be released. It's too sensitive. Also, some of it simply doesn't exist. There's no quote list like had been put forth
in the Manga conspiracy theory land.
So let's set that aside.
Let's talk about the politics of this.
Let's talk about this remarkable about face,
even in a political movement that
is so impressive in its undying loyalty to Donald Trump, even
for them, the about face here breathtaking.
No, it really is.
Think of all the things that Donald Trump has done that could have turned off his base.
Stormy Daniels might have elicited a backlash from evangelicals.
It actually didn't, right? Attacking John McCain at POW might have turned off some national security, military, you
know, veterans, really didn't.
Bombing Iran might have permanently alienated the America first isolationists.
You know, they sent off some mean tweets.
Trump famously said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters, and he was pretty much right.
And this is actually the first time that I've seen this sort of civil war actually erupting to this degree.
And it's over the thin. And I think this is telling what is the defining issue.
What is the issue that the MAGA base is passionate
enough to go to a civil war over? It's not at Stormy Daniels. It's not
storming the Capitol. It is this Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory.
I think that tells us a lot. And look, have some people capitulated? Clearly, yes.
But I don't think that Trump is out of the woods yet.
There are Charlie Kirk's and Laura Ingraham's who are now selling out and saying nothing
to see here.
But there are others who I think are actually true believers, whether that's because they're
just crazier and more into conspiracy theories? Or because they're actually sincerely concerned
about the fact that, look, Jeffrey Epstein
was a sex trafficker, and it just seems logical
that more people other than Epstein and Maxwell,
his accomplice, were involved in this.
So I'm not sure that he's out of the woods yet.
Okay, Mike Allen, I hope you've had as much coffee
as Joe seems to have had this morning
because the energy levels coming in on this are hot,
which is great.
You guys are writing about the suspicion
in MAGA world at the moment.
Are you still thinking that actually there is
a lot of dissent in MAGA world?
I mean, if we went below the influence,
if you kind of see it as a pyramid, right, with
Trump at the top and then you've got all of the influencers and then you've got kind of
MAGA world below that.
Are you thinking that actually amongst MAGA world, there is still a lot of disquiet about
Epstein and as Matt is suggesting, this may not be over yet.
Yeah, Katty, the pixie dust, as Joe put it, worked for now.
And my conversations with Trump World yesterday,
the headline was, Trump is pissed.
Like those three words, in addition to what he was saying
in front of the cameras, behind the cameras,
he was sending the same message.
And so that's why you saw Charlie Kirk backing off.
But pull back the camera.
Look at why this erupted and why, as you
and Matt suggest, like this may not be over. If you look at how MAGA came to
power, there's a story up, the wheat story of Axios right now about MAGA
paranoia, the MAGA siege mentality. This is by Tal Axelrod from Axios,
who was at that Turning Point USA Student Action Summit
in Tampa over the weekend, and Zach Posse.
And they point out that MAGA came to power
based on suspicion, right, of elites,
of globalists, of the deep state.
And so that is wired into the MAGA DNA.
And so they're always going to listen to Trump, and Trump can tamp it down.
But that's the reason that this erupted so ferociously, why they rebelled against Trump and why there may be, this is totally Trump's
whim, but there may be efforts to throw them a bone.
Axios' Mark Caputo has some great reporting about off-ramps.
If Trump decides to take them, they could appoint a special counsel or some sort of
investigative committee. They could ask courts to unseal documents that have been sealed, but I'm told from inside
the White House that's complicated because minors are involved.
And they could also unredact some of the redacted documents that they put out.
All right.
I will continue to follow this with you, Mike Allen, and contributing columnists for The
Hill.
Matt Lewis, thank you very much for coming on the show and way too early this morning.
We're going to take a moment now to look at some of the other stories making headlines
this morning.
China says its GDP expanded 5.2% in the second quarter of 2025 compared with a year earlier, suggesting the country's economy
largely held up under President Trump's intense tariff campaign.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Chinese exporters were able to offset those pressures
by boosting shipments to Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday
that he will continue his run for mayor of New York City
as an independent candidate.
He lost last month's Democratic primary to Zoran Mamdani
by a wide margin.
In a new campaign posted on X, Cuomo vowed to stay
in the race while criticizing his opponent.
The fight to save our city isn't over. Only 13% of New Yorkers voted in the June primary.
The general election is in November and I am in it to win it. My opponent, Mr. Mondani,
offers slick slogans, but no real solutions.
We'll see if he's really in it to win it, whether he campaigns, whether he shakes hands,
whether he goes to neighborhood events, whether he holds a press conference, whether he does
any of the things that he didn't do in the primary campaign that has put him in this
position to start with.
Of course, his opponents in the general election will include Eric Adams, who's also running
as an independent, and Mom Donnie.
I'm wondering, though, Jonathan O'Meara, you are our daily news alum, There is a general feeling that that this move by Andrew
Cuomo guarantees that the independent vote is split and the
Democratic Socialist will become the next mayor of New York. I mean that's a
huge risk for those who don't want to see Mamdani win. Now Cuomo has also floated
an idea that if by mid-September he signed on to some pledge
and calling for Adams and the Republican candidate other potentially any other independents to do the
same that they coalesce around one person then that basically whoever is whoever is that has the
highest poll numbers in the non-Mamdani category that that person should be the alternative and
everyone else should drop out and support that person
whoever it is come of course betting that it's himself we'll
see no one else has agreed to that. There are some people
who wonder if Como himself will follow through. But that's
where things stand at the moment but we should just know
Joe to your point. I mean Andrew Como ran a lackluster
campaign there is this. I mean that's fat and he did something to the word lackluster yeah, this point. It was pathetic. It was pathetic. He did nothing.
Insulting to the word lackluster.
Yeah, I mean, the pathetic lackluster user,
it seemed like he didn't want to do it.
And there's always been questions as to whether he even
really wants this job.
People around him say his eyes really are at the governor's
mansion again.
At some point, he feels like he was unjustly thrown out.
So he says he's going to be out there.
We'll see if he actually starts campaigning.
You know, yesterday that video shot just on a couple blocks on the upper east side of
Manhattan.
All right. One more item. Severe flash flooding yesterday caused major subway delays in New
York City and road closures across New Jersey. Take a look at this. A surge of rainwater
was captured on camera pouring throughout the underground rail system.
Stairwells were turned into waterfalls.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared a state of emergency and has advised everyone
to avoid unnecessary travel.
We'll be following that.
And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll take a closer look at President Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine as he pledges to send more weapons to Kiev
and threatens to impose tariffs on Russia.
That wasn't Donald Trump.
Richard Haass will join us for that.
This is Barack Obama.
Plus, former President Barack Obama has a strong message for his Democratic colleagues.
Stop whining.
We'll dig into his latest comments and the state of the party.
Also ahead, will artificial intelligence kill jobs or create them?
The answer apparently depends on who you ask, or maybe it's both.
We'll go through Mike Allen's new reporting on that.
And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast
is available each weekday,
featuring our full conversations and analysis.
You can listen wherever you get your podcasts.
It will change your life.
You're watching Morning Joe.
Improve your backswing.
We'll be right back.
It'll get chicken weed out of your backyard.
Welcome back.
Just about half past the hour, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took to social media last
night to thank President Trump following yesterday's announcement that the United States will send
Patriot missiles and other forms of artillery to Ukraine after first routing them through NATO allies.
It comes as NATO's Secretary General Mark Ruta visited the White House for the second time
since he took over as the head of the alliance last fall. In the Oval Office, President Trump spoke about what this latest weapons shipment will
include.
He also discussed possible consequences for Russia if an end to the war isn't found soon.
We've made a deal today where we're going to be sending them weapons and they're going
to be paying for them.
In a nutshell, we're going to make top-of-the-line weapons and they're going to be paying for them. In a nutshell, we're going to
make top-of-the-line weapons and they'll be sent to NATO. NATO may choose to have certain of them
sent to other countries where we can get a little additional speed, where the country will release
something and it'll be mostly in the form of a replacement. Will these be Patriot missiles
specifically or Patriot batteries that you're planning?
Everything.
It's everything.
It's Patriots.
It's all of them.
It's a full complement with the batteries.
And when do you expect them to arrive in the Ukraine, sir?
Well, we're going to have some come very soon, within days actually.
There's a couple of the countries that have Patriots are going to swap over and we'll
replace the Patriots with the ones they have and Matt
will coordinate with NATO.
But so it's going to be, they're going to start arriving very soon.
And one of the reasons that you're here today is to hear that we are very unhappy, I am,
with Russia.
But we'll discuss that maybe a different day.
But we're very, very unhappy with them and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs
if we don't have a deal in 50 days.
Tariffs at about 100 percent.
You'd call them secondary tariffs.
You know what that means.
And I'm disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have had a deal two months
ago, but it doesn't seem to get there.
So based on that, we're going to be doing secondary tariffs
if we don't have a deal in 50 days.
It's very simple.
And they'll be at 100%.
And that's the way it is.
It can be more simple, but it's just the way it is.
I hope we don't have to do it.
In a phone interview later in the day, with the BBC,
the outlet reports President Trump
continued to express his disappointment with Russia's Vladimir Putin, but added
that he's quote, not done with him. So Jonathan Amir, the president has been
exceedingly patient with Vladimir Putin, again in the hopes of getting that peace
agreement that he believed he would be able to get once he
got into office.
You have been writing for some time that his patience is wearing thin.
Yesterday your reporting was he's just outright angry at Vladimir Putin.
You know, when you hear 50 days, you got
50 days. If Vladimir Putin
hears you've got 50
days,
it might be wise to
remember what Donald Trump said
about the Iranians, that they had
60 days.
This does not appear to be a president,
a commander in chief,
in any mood to back down.
And as much as he's hoped, and it's been his dream, we've all talked about it, it's been
his dream to bring the U.S. and Russia closer together politically.
At this point, you say that's not happening, and it's not happening because Putin has humiliated
Donald Trump, and he's angry about it.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
This is not President Trump adopting
a new strategic worldview.
This is not President Trump suddenly warming
to Volodymyr Zelensky or Ukraine.
This is not President Trump suddenly
being all in on alliances, though he
and the new Secretary General of NATO, the two of them do get along.
Let's be clear about that.
This is about President Trump being fed up.
This is about President Trump being made.
He feels that he's been made to look weak, that he has for months now, over and over
and over, publicly and privately, demanded that Vladimir Putin bring the fighting to
a close.
Putin not only is not doing that, he's only escalated his attacks.
Ukraine has signed on to the ceasefire.
Russia has ignored it.
We have seen some of the largest missile and drone strikes of the entire conflict in the
last week or two.
So that is why President Trump is angry.
And Joe has taken the step.
Now we should note, I mean, the US and Russia
barely do any trade, so that piece of this,
the sanctions punishment, not really important.
President Trump though is suggesting
that he would sign off on some secondary sanctions
with countries that do business with Russia,
not to the degree that the Senate wants,
but still pretty significant penalties.
And now sending author, you know, Not to the degree that the Senate wants, but still pretty significant penalties. Significant, right.
And now sending author, you know, with NATO as the middleman, sending these Patriot missile
batteries, which will really help Ukraine in its defense against these Russia strikes.
That's significant.
Let's, yeah, very significant.
Let's bring in right now the President of the United States of America, the Council
on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.
He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away on Substack. Also, longtime Wall Street Journal Moscow correspondent, who's now a
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Alan Cullison. Thank you both, gentlemen,
for being with us. Let me begin with you, Richard. I will say the announcement of the
Oval Office yesterday seemed to be a very positive development not just for Ukraine but also for Western powers who want to push back against Russian aggression. I also
and I know you you have taken note of it too the NATO Secretary General Mark
Ruda has a much better working relationship with Donald Trump than most
European leaders and it seems to be working well in
coordinating these arm shipments.
What can you tell us?
Look, the arm shipments that are going to Ukraine, in principle, really welcome.
A little bit of uncertainty, Joe, about what besides patriots, how many patriots, how fast
do they get there.
So, you know, this is not a done deal, but directionally, this is welcome.
The so-called secondary tariffs, basically, this would be tariffs or sanctions against
countries that import oil and gas from Russia.
I don't take that.
That's seriously not just the 50-day trigger.
But also, if you think about China, we've already backed down several times.
The idea that we're going to impose massive tariffs against China for doing this, well,
then China is just going to cut off all their export of rare earth minerals to us again.
That's something we're not in a good position to live with. If Russia can't export any of its oil,
that would take, I don't know, six, seven million barrels a day off the market.
Energy prices would go up. that would be inflationary here.
Well, so Richard, what's the best move then, Richard, if you don't think that's enough,
what's the best move?
The best move is to make it clear that this administration is prepared for a long-term
commitment on military and intelligence help to Ukraine.
Essentially, go beyond the Patriots, make it clear that we're prepared
to give large amounts of aid for as long as it takes to bring Vladimir Putin in good faith
to the negotiating table.
So what's basically a one-off deal, make it an open-ended deal.
And that's to this point that has not happened.
There was also some reporting, some suggestion that some offensive weapons might be included
in this package.
It does not seem like that's the case, at least not yet.
But Richard, we come back to the crux of this,
that Vladimir Putin thinks he's winning.
That Putin, apparently there's been reporting,
the US and European intelligence agencies
believe that Putin is about to launch
a summer offensive of some sort.
That the airstrikes are gonna continue and ratchet up.
Is this here, I mean, this is a well,
the European leaders, well,
y'all plotted what President Trump did yesterday
It's a welcome step
But it there's also what people I talked to say. Well, it's not quite enough, right?
It's not quite enough
Vladimir Putin cares more deeply about his claims to Ukraine than he does about his relationship with Donald Trump
Let's just be blunt for Putin., this is his legacy, in the same
way that Taiwan might be the legacy for Xi Jinping, the same way Donald Trump feels about tariffs or
what have you. This, for Vladimir Putin, is the big deal. So it's going to take a lot and more than
the president put out there yesterday. Again, it was a step in the right direction. Don't get me wrong.
It's bladed, but good to see, glad to see, and the president's clearly frustrated and for good reason. But the only way to change it is to deliver large amounts of Ukraine
and make clear there's more to come. Putin has to understand that time is no longer on
his side until he realizes that he's going to continue to prosecute the war.
I think if you look at this from 30,000 feet and you see where Donald Trump has moved over
the past month, two months, three months, six months even, Cady, it is quite a good
distance to where a lot of people in Europe, a lot of people in NATO want him to move.
I think it's fascinating.
Listen to Richard talking about Vladimir Putin's summer offensive that's coming.
And I can't help but think of the fabled Ukrainian spring offensive last year that was going
to make a big difference.
It's as if they are literally locked in World War I groupthink, where they think this next
offensive is going to be the offensive where we bust
through lines and then a thousand drones come and blow everybody up that's trying to go
into this sort of no man's land.
It's extraordinary that Putin is even banking on that.
Maybe this is the breakthrough that happens, but my God, this has been such a bloody, hellacious
war of attrition and something that Donald Trump brings
up all the time. There's so many people being killed on both sides.
It seems, it seems fantastical to believe that this summer will bring
the offensive that brings Ukraine to its knees.
Yeah, actually, I'm reading a book about the First World War just at
the moment, Joe,
a testament of youth.
And I thought exactly the same thing, that it's full of these offensives that are meant
to bring the end of the war.
And what happens?
Just a whole load more young people get killed, and nothing really moves.
And that feels like the stalemate that we're in at the Ukraine at the moment, and with
these pictures that we're getting out of Kiev of people sleeping the night in the underground
stations, because that's the place that's safe from the drone attacks.
It doesn't look like Russia is backing down, but it also doesn't look like they have a
chance to make a huge big offensive.
I mean, Alan, just on the point of what Moscow is thinking about what Donald Trump said yesterday,
it was interesting.
Yesterday, the stock exchange in Moscow went up almost 3%.
There seemed to be almost a sigh of relief from the Kremlin that it wasn't worse, that
they have this 50-day window to reshuffle things if they need to, if there is the prospect
even of these secondary tariffs really being imposed.
And I think there's a kind of sense of taco about those as well.
So how much does this change the dynamic?
Is it, and we don't
have enough details yet, is it really a question of how big this arms package is and what's
in the arms package and whether it's sustained?
It's hard to imagine an arms package that would really alter Moscow's view of things
in the short term. I think that, you know, the Ukrainians are not in a good position, but you know,
but also the Russians were expecting this from Trump sooner or later, because, you know,
what they've been saying to Trump has been pretty consistent, that they were, of course,
that you know, they paid lip service to a ceasefire, but they were not, they wanted
to address what they called the root causes,
which was a signal that basically they were not really ready for a ceasefire.
So I think they're prepared for whatever's coming. They're not impressed by sanctions anymore
because they've resisted them so far. And you know, the sanctions we have waged against them
were unprecedented in the course of them
in the past several years.
And what would threaten them on the military level?
Maybe if Ukraine had some sustained,
was able to sustain bombardment of Russia,
deep into Russia for weeks at a time,
but so far they haven't been able to do that.
And there's not a real indication that the US weapons
aid will do that for them.
So Alan, certainly President Trump frustrated.
I spoke to a senior advisor to him
yesterday saying that Putin, quote, overplayed his hand,
that he overestimated Trump's willingness to be, frankly,
humiliated here, that he's been so deferential to Putin for so long,
but in recent months, he has really asked him
to stop this conflict.
Putin simply won't.
And he left the door open for more aid down the road.
But in this interim, talk to us about how this is being
perceived, if you will, in Europe.
From Kiev itself, you know, Zelensky and Trump
obviously have had a pretty turbulent relationship at times.
You know, Trump has put real strain on the European allies there, NATO itself.
Is there a sense from Europe that they can start counting on the US again, or do they
think this is more of a short-term measure and that they need to be able to fill the
gaps?
Well, I think there's been a cognizance in Europe that they do need to fill the gaps
and they feel that they can fill quite a few gaps if they're given enough time to retool
and get ready for it.
So what they have been really asking for or hoping for behind the scenes is just time
for them to adjust.
I think this is an encouraging signal, of course, and, you know, it was more or less
expected at some point that the gap between Trump's hopes for Russia and the reality
was going to close and that, you know, Trump would finally realize. So, yes, it's good news
for both Europe and Ukraine, but it's hard to say whether it's
really enough to make much of a difference.
Regarding these sanctions, again, the sanctions sound severe, but one has to wonder whether
the sanctions are really meant to pressure Russia or whether they're meant to pressure
China and India to try to pressure Russia into being more reasonable in negotiations.
Richard, I think that might be right. We'll see if China or India do that.
So just sort of final thoughts to you here as I think it would be an overstatement to suggest
this is a turning point in the war, but it's a marker. It's a marker all the same.
What are you looking for next?
It is a marker and it's a welcome marker.
So let's just put that out there.
Again, I think it's the details of the arms package.
And as you just heard, it's not just whether it's defensive systems, quote unquote.
For example, do you give Ukraine long-term strike capabilities that could bring the war
to Moscow in the same way that Russia has brought the war to Kiev?
That's a real question for this administration, chance of escalation, but also chance of making
Putin pay a larger price for the war.
That would be one thing.
Also, whether in 50 days, if these sanctions came on, the country that could have trouble
dealing with them is India.
Again, China has lots of ways to push back.
India is less well positioned to push back.
One of the questions would be, are we prepared to do real damage to our relationship
with India in order to do this?
So I think there's some big questions out there.
But yes, yesterday was a step in the right direction, a welcome one.
But now, like most things in foreign policy, it's the follow-up and the follow-up to the
follow-up.
It really was.
The White House meeting was a step in the right direction.
The president's message, I I think was a good message. More importantly, the relationship between the NATO secretary
general and the president positive for a variety of reasons. And let's hope they continue to
move in the direction that pushes back against Russian aggression and Putin's aims to take
over Ukraine.
President Emeritus on the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you.
And fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Alan Cullison, thank you as well.
And coming up, Wall Street continues to post record highs despite President Trump's tariffs
and the passing of his sweeping domestic policy bill.
It's pretty incredible. And we've been talking about this.
Something Andrew Rossock and I have been asking
for the past several months.
Will the market absorb the tariffs?
Yeah.
And we've been saying, yeah,
they have been absorbing the tariffs.
You look yesterday and see the market responded
fairly positively.
Yeah.
It's completely, as they say say baked into the cake, priced
into the stock. You hear what's playing? Oh yeah. Our Steve Brattner is standing by
the southwest wall to break down what's likely driving up stocks. Morning Joe.
We're gonna actually ask Steve to recite all the lyrics to the gambler. It's not hard. Yeah, when he comes back.
Morning Joe, we'll be right back.
["Morning Joe"]
Job front going forward.
Many work that we do, a lot of work that we do
will be automated.
It's gonna create new work, It's going to create new jobs.
And so I would say that some jobs will not be necessary.
Some jobs will be created.
But the net overall is this.
It is well understood historically that productivity gains comes along with it, new jobs.
And in the last 30, 40 years when the computer industry drove a level of productivity into
all these different industries, it came with more productivity, it came with more jobs.
NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang speaking with us on Morning Joe last week when we asked him
about AI's impact on the job market.
Mike Allen, you have a new piece with Jim Van De Hei looking at the question whether AI will create or cost jobs and Mike you found
it depends on who you ask. Well that's right, Meek and Joan there from Jensen
Wong. You were hearing the bull case on AI jobs and for your viewers just to
pull back the camera this is one of the most consequential
debates of our time. We've seen it playing out here on Morning Joe, on Axios, and these changes
are going to affect every town in America, every employer in America, and then therefore every
employee in America. So I spent an hour with Jensen Wong when he was here in D.C. meeting with President Trump.
And by the way, breaking news, NVIDIA is lifting the whole stock market around the world this
year, this morning, based on the news last night that they've gotten assurances from
the Trump administration that they're going to be able to sell their AI
chips into China.
They say they hope to start delivering those soon.
So a big news and big deliverable from Jensen Wong's trip to DC.
But we talked to him about what AI is going to be doing to jobs.
And here on Morning Joe, your viewers heard Dario Amadei, the CEO of Anthropic, one of
the biggest AI companies, make Claude. Him saying that we need to be pragmatic, clear-eyed about the
fact that ultimately there may be more jobs, but in the interim, a real disruption, him saying that unemployment could go to 20% among
entry-level white collar jobs.
Half of entry-level white collar jobs will go away.
And what he's been saying is that policymakers, employers are just closing their eyes to this
sugarcoating it, not facing what's going to happen.
Jensen Wong, the other side of the debate,
taking the bull case, saying, as you saw in that clip,
that yes, everyone's job is going to change,
but it's going to make us more productive.
So the case he makes is that if we never changed what we did,
if we never had any new ideas,
if we never did anything new,
that that other case would be right.
And he says that AI companies are trying to scare us.
I put one of the toughest cases to him.
I asked him, what about a long haul trucker?
If I'm a long haul trucker, I'm screwed, right?
Because there's going to be autonomous technology that will do my work.
What he said is, maybe they don't like that job.
Maybe they would rather be a short haul trucker
who's home with their family at night
and the AI does the driving in between.
And so the bottom line of this is that the models
are becoming more capable faster than employers, government are dealing with it.
Mike, we've spoken with Steve Ratner before on the program, so a week or so ago, about
this entry level white collar jobs.
And anecdotally, I'm seeing it in my own family, a couple of kids with master's degrees who
are kind of part of that rejection generation, sending out hundreds of applications, just
not getting them back. I don't know yet if that's AI, but we're seeing it factored in along with uncertainty around
the economy already.
I mean, this is happening now that these college educated kids, some with master, some with
undergrads are just not getting the job.
So where is the discussion about what to do about that?
If we miss out a whole load of entry,
one generation of entry-level jobs,
what's the knock-on implications of that,
and how are policymakers and companies dealing with that?
Yeah, Kati, that's such a great topic,
and I've been feeling it in my family, too.
I've been at graduations around the country
of nieces and nephews,
and we've been having
this conversation just to put some meat on the bone.
When we talk about entry-level jobs, we're talking about those analyst jobs, for instance,
or my first job at the Fredericksburg Freelance Star, the Richmond Times Dispatch, right?
And employers are holding back because of that uncertainty you mentioned, Cady.
They just don't know how these jobs are going to change.
And so, nobody's stopping hiring entry-level or early-career jobs.
But I think we're already seeing signs that people are hiring less.
The opportunity is that great new companies, great wealth,
now will be built from a laptop on tools that are free.
The AI tools, unlike the tools of earlier internet revolution,
computer revolution, are basically free to everyone.
And so the advice Jensen Wong had,
and that we have for everyone at Axios,
is learn how
to use these tools.
Learn how they can extend your superpower, how they can help you do your job better.
Because they're coming.
Co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen, thank you.
They're already here.
Still ahead.