Morning Joe - Kristi Noem made final call on deportation flights after judge ordered planes to turn back: DOJ

Episode Date: November 26, 2025

Kristi Noem made final call on deportation flights after judge ordered planes to turn back: DOJ 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.

Good morning and welcome to morning, Joe. It is Wednesday, November 26th, and we have a lot to get to this morning. Is it Thanksgiving Eve? It is. It is. A lot to get to, including the FBI, now seeking interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who President Trump called traitors after they posted. that video telling service members to simply disobey unlawful orders, something that's part of

their oath. It comes as defense secretary Pete Hegeseth has ordered the Navy to investigate Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. We'll go through those developments. Plus, we'll dig into a story, a big story involving the president's special envoy as transcripts appear to show Steve Whitkoff coaching a Putin aide on how to pitch a plan. to President Trump. With us, we have the co-host of our 9 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, co-host of the Restis Politics Podcast,

the BBC's Caddy Kay, columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and managing editor at the bulwark, Sam Stein, who's not running for D.C. mayor, but he was considering it during way too early, Joe. It was something that just, you know, a thought. popped into his head as a possibility.

Can I just, can I just say, first of all, it was not a Sherman-esque pronouncement. I think he may well still run, and I think he would serve. And I'm thinking right now there are candidates for mayor, potential candidates for mayor, who are afraid that like Mom Donnie, this young whippersnapper from Connecticut, from the most Tony, Tony parts of Connecticut made a sweet to victory. Just like Mom Donnie, he came, you know. Legends were made.

Wasn't raised on. Man, Danny, fan. Exactly. It's all very, it's all very exciting. Hey, David, at the top of the show, we're going to be talking about Ukraine, but just really quickly off the top of the show. What happened overnight in,

in Geneva, how were these negotiations going along? It seems like some progress is being made. And of course, the question is, will enough progress be made that the Russians will then reject it outright? So some progress is being made. I'm told that the list of 28 items has been narrowed to 20, and of those 18, 90% have been basically resolved. Unfortunately, the two that remain, although I don't know the details, are described as among the hardest. So just getting to yes with Ukraine is still not done. And the sign of that is that President Zelensky is not coming to Washington to meet with President Trump. Trump wants agreement on all the points. But to your correct point that then the hard part begins. I mean, getting agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine is one

thing. Getting Russia to sign onto that is something entirely different. And I have seen no sign yet that Russia is prepared to move from what has basically been a demand for victory. Russia, Russian President Putin is not seeking peace. He's seeking a win. And I don't see any sign, Joe, that that's changed. Right. No, and you know, K. What's so fascinating is there are several checks and balances. You know, I always talk about it. We have the Madisonian checks and balances in America, but there are checks and balances across America and across the globe,

and you can't just write up a deal that the Russians are going to like because the checks immediately come in, yes, from some elements of Madisonian democracy, where Republicans in the United States Senate who actually care about defending the West, the West, they speak up. And they just simply say, this is not acceptable. And when you have Roger Wicker, the Republican Armed Services Chair, basically saying as much, well, that makes a huge difference. But then you also have European countries, European allies, that simply were

suggesting that the early drafts were not acceptable. So you have these different elements coming together in negotiations, which they should do, to come up with a workable, feasible plan. But the question is, if they come up with anything that would be acceptable to a reasonable person, does Vladimir Putin then walk away because he's still stuck on this 18th century concept of reconstituting the Russian Empire? So I was talking somebody in the Senate on the foreign relations side last night, Joe, who said to me, there are actually two questions, really. is there a plan that is acceptable to Ukraine and to the Russians? And does that plan exist

somewhere at the moment we don't seem to have it yet? The Russians are making kind of disparaging comments already about the watering down of the proposal that these transcripts showed. They clearly had put on the table themselves. They didn't like those changes. But I think the second question is, is then what does Donald Trump do? If we get past this round of this week's negotiations and we are no nearer to a deal. It's pretty clear that the White House believes Ukraine is weak. I'm told that they don't think that Ukraine is going to get any stronger between the corruption scandals that have engulfed Zelensky's administration

and the frontline situation and the troops on the ground. But what does Donald Trump do? Does he push, try to, after this round, does he try to pressure Zelensky again? Does he try to pressure Putin to bring Putin back to the table if Putin says this agreement is not acceptable? to him. He's made it clear that he's fed up with the situation. I'm told that he's frustrated that he couldn't get to a deal quicker. He wants this out of his inbox. If it refuses to jump out

of his inbox by Thanksgiving, how much more patience does he have? How much more does he commit himself to the process? All right. We're going to have much more on this a little late in the show. But let's get to our top story this morning. The Department of Justice has revealed that Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noam, made the final decision not to comply with the federal judge's order earlier this year to stop those deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. According to a court filing, Nome was informed of the judge's orders to turn the flights around last March. But she decided that the detainees had already been removed from the United States so they could continue

to be transferred to the notorious Seacourt prison in El Salvador. The disclosure comes as Judge James Boseberg seeks to revive criminal contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials who authorized the flights. The Justice Department argued the decision was lawful and consistent with its interpretation of the court's order, but Judge Boseberg said deportees likely did not receive due process. Additionally, a whistleblower has alleged former principal deputy attorney general and Emil Bovi told subordinates to consider ignoring court orders, which Bovi denied during Senate confirmation hearings. Plaintiffs want at least nine current or former Trump officials to testify in contempt hearings, including Bovi. So, Joe, kind of a big development in this in terms of this goal.

going all the way up to the top of the Department of Homeland Security. Yeah, you know, I hope there are people around Todd Blanche and Mr. Bovi, Judge Bovi, that can explain to them what happened to people in the first Trump administration that thought they were above the law, that thought they could go into courts and do whatever they wanted to do. They ended up being disbarred or having, you know, in the case of, I believe, Jenna Ellis having their law degrees practice suspended for several years. I mean, this doesn't end well. And there's another problem here, Jonathan Lemire. And the problem is that they're dealing with a judge, Judge Bozberg, who's not some like 1960s ninth circuit hippie. He is

one of the most respected conservative jurists in Washington, D.C. There are people on the Supreme Court who know him extraordinarily well, long before Donald Trump ever thought about running for the Republican nomination in 2015, this judge that you're looking at right here was a rock solid member of the jurist community in Washington. D.C. and beloved and respected by real conservatives. So to try to paint him as some left-wing radical certainly is not going to work in Washington among conservatives, and it's not going to work on the Supreme Court. They know who Judge Bozberg is. They knew him well before they ever dealt with Donald Trump for the first time in 2017, either directly or indirectly. And so,

When you read news stories that Todd Blanche and Emerald Bovie, both, according to news reports, told Christy Nome to ignore a judge's orders. And Todd, I mean, Emerald Bovie actually saying to tell the court to F off. The consequences for these two men in the long run just aren't good. And again, all we have to do is look back to what happened in the first Trump term. I would say the same thing for those who are going after United States senators who are war heroes. This is all so short-sighted. And part of my Thanksgiving gift to them is to stop, think about what you're doing, and understand what I tell every, at some point, I have to tell everybody that is in the White House. you only rent this house, you're going to be on the other side a lot sooner than you think,

please be careful with what you do. And I would say that to these gentlemen because, you know, they've put themselves in a legally dangerous position now. And there's no question of that. And Judge Bosberg, respected, accomplished, and clearly out of patience. He's made it very clear that this has gone on too long. He wants to hurry this matter. long the contempt process continues. And let's just remember, you know, armed with these legal arguments from Bovi and others, what Kirstie Nome did with it. She gave the order to, per reporting now, to continue these flights to this, just the prison in El Salvador, which is described as a hellish prison, one of the worst, harshest conditions on earth. And we now know

through terrific reporting from a number of our fellow outlets, just that more than half, I believe, of those who were sent there, had no criminal records. We know, per reporting, the horrendous abuse that they received while there, torture-like conditions. Some reported of being sexually abused, not given any food, not given the ability to sit down, have to stand for hours and hours on end. And Kirsty Nome decided to use that as a backdrop for a photo op. Let's remember, she went to Seacot. You're seeing it right here, standing in front of, glammed up, standing in front of mostly shirtless.

Jonathan, this is disgusting, but this is happening after this very person was the one who defied the judge's court order. She is the one who's going to be possibly held in contempt for ignoring what a federal judge instructed her to do. Yep, and she's the one who's potentially being held responsible. She's the one who posed in front of these shirtless men there at the prison,

who we know endured horrendous conditions. We don't know the identities of all of the men in that image, but that is what that prison is like. That is what Seacot is like. And Sam Stein, it's stuff like that, images like that combined with

the images of masked unidentified agents, you know, storming into American cities, going into school lines, apartment buildings, using helicopters to raid a Chicago high rise, only for us to find out later. There were no actually arrests done there. Another thing just done for the sizzle reel, done for the photo op. But it's these extreme measures. As much as Americans, they maybe want a closed border.

We're seeing that. But these extreme measures the Trump administration has taken, extreme and now it appears illegal measures they've taken, has led to this widespread backlash. and why the president is so underwater on what's supposed to be his signature issue, immigration. Yeah, you guys hit on the two elements of accountability that will come at some point in time. We just don't know when. One is the sort of extrajudicial actions that they're taken here that they will be held accountable for, whether it's in Judge Bozberg's courtroom or somewhere else.

And the other, of course, is the morality and politics of what's happening with ICE. And, Jonathan, you're absolutely right. I mean, some of the images that we're seeing from these cities, frankly, is shocking, right? I mean, mass people going through streets, people being detained who are American citizens, families being ripped apart, you know, husbands who can't find their wives. It's just an incredible hit to the soul of the nation in our psyche. And they will answer for that, too, frankly. If you look at any polling data, if you look at any sort of contemporaneous commentary, from people who were with President Trump.

I'm talking about Manosphere podcasters like Joe Rogan, Theo Vaughn, who were with President Trump. There is real revulsion at what's happening around these ice raids, a real sense that they've gone way too far in the extreme, questions about what the actual objectives are here. And if you look at the numbers of President Trump on the topic of immigration, sure, people are supportive of the fact that he's closed the border. But immigration, which was this incredible benefit for him,

has become a weakness. The pendulum has swung in the other direction if they keep at this is going to continue to swing. Yeah, it really is. And David Ignatius, just one final thought on this about the permanence of Washington, the permanence of the Constitution of the United States, the permanence of these values about Madisonian democracy and separations of powers and checks And balance is, you know, we will hear every once in a while someone, some very young person in the White House saying, oh, you know, these judges are, you know, Stephen Miller, these judges are taking control and trying to, I don't know if they use the word coup, but doing what they have no right to do, and that is to check a president's power. again, when they say things like that, they're revealing themselves to be so ignorant of history. They're so ignorant of our Constitution, so ignorant of our founding.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 78, and I pulled it for this, that an independent judiciary is, quote, an indispensable ingredient in its Constitution and in great measure. the citadel of public justice and public security. That is in our founding documents. That's in founding documents. That's what our founders believed. That is one of the reasons why when Richard Nixon was ordered by the United States Supreme Court to turn over the tapes,

he knew he had no choice. And he turned over the tapes immediately, even though he knew. his time and the White House would be over. And so again, I hear some of these people. I understand a lot of them didn't have a good education and maybe they didn't study civics. But still, I don't study physics,

but I know there are rules of physics that I cannot defy our bad things happen. And we have the same here thing here. The complete ignorance of these people saying defy a respected conservative jurist and just keep the plane flying. It is so short-sided, and it works, of course, against the interests of these poor souls on the plane, but it also works against their own long-term interest. So, Joe, it may be a question of ignorance of the Constitution, of the idea of an independent

judiciary as being one of the foundation stones, or it may be contempt. People may know very well, that's what the Constitution says, but that's not how they're going to behave. That's, to me, an even greater danger. I'm waiting for our Supreme Court to establish clear lines about the independence of the judiciary, appropriate legal conduct by officials. We have some extraordinarily strong lower court rulings by judges like Judge Boseberg. I have been impressed as I read decisions around the country in key issues, especially involving immigration, just how good these district court judges, the finders of fact are. They look carefully at the facts.

They write clearly, sometimes almost poetically, about our country and how it works. But we have yet to have a Supreme Court affirmation of the kinds of principles that Judge Bosberg is enunciating and the way he feels. Just to say one last thing. A picture that you showed earlier of Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Nome, in the kind of glamorous outfits standing in front of a prison with these half-naked men suffering. I hate to say it, but that's a photograph that 30, 40, 50 years from now, people will look at and they'll be shocked. They will look at that and they'll wonder, who were these people? How could they have

done that? And I think that's just something we should all think that that's an image, sadly, that will stand for this period that we're living in now. There's no doubt. David, it's so brilliantly said 50 years from now, people will be looking at this time period, and they will be looking at that video image. And if you wonder why Pope Leo, and if you wonder why the archbishops of the Catholic Church, and you wonder why priests are reading Pope Leo's messages to congregants across America, talking about the moral crisis going on right now with harsh immigration policies. We're not talking about, we're not talking about upholding the law. As I've said for 32 years in public service, I think it's a problem when you come to America

and the first thing that you do is an illegal action. So I'm pretty conservative on this stuff. More conservative than a lot of my Republicans I served with in Congress on it. That said, you can do two things at once. And the any human. humanity, the un-Christ-like behavior of how these mothers and children and grandparents are being dragged out of school lines, are being dragged out of preschools, are being treated in the worst, most despicable ways. That will be something, unfortunately, regardless of whether you're like me and you want a strong border. or whether you're more moderate on the issue, it's still, it's going to be, it's going to be

a real, real blight on this time. And that's why I'm so grateful for Pope Leo and the Catholic Church stepping forward the way have. I will say, Mika, one final thing to the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court needs to stop allowing this ambiguity that allows the President of the United States to talk about illegally sending Marines talking about sending troops to American cities to, as he said to his generals and admirals assembled in Washington, D.C., or in Quantico, to train on American citizens and crime control. That's just illegal. And the Supreme Court knows that, but they won't take that ambiguity away from there. And, One final thing, David's talking about these judges, these federal judges that have been doing a really admirable job, unlike the Supreme Court, who continues to wallow in ambiguity, and they're causing chaos in America every day that they do that.

These federal judges, they're not left-wing hippies either. I mean, they're Trump-appointed judges, some of the Comey case, their Trump-appointed judges. Some in the Comey case, their Trump appointed judges, some in these military cases, they're Trump appointed judges, their Reagan appointed judges, their Bush appointed judges. In this case, you have a lot of strong district court rulings that are creating the proper check on the executive branch. And it's being done by people who were appointed by Republican presidents, including Donald Trump. Yeah. And that's all connected to the next story that we're going to cover. Still ahead on Morning, Joe. The other big story we're following this morning, we're digging into new reporting about the FBI now investigating the Democratic lawmakers who urged troops to defy illegal orders. Plus, we'll get into that stunning phone call between President Trump's special envoy, Steve Whitcock, and a top Russian official last month. What it says, about the U.S. efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Ackeyweathers. Bernie Rayneau. Bernie, how is it looking on this morning before Thanksgiving? Mecca, another mild day in the northeast, but a couple of showers. Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., windy and cold in Chicago with a few flurries. Cooler across the southeast at Atlanta, Jackson, and Dallas. boy, it's still warm in Miami. The Ackyweather Travel Forecasts, some minor delays in New York City and Philadelphia this afternoon,

also delays in Chicago because of wind. To help you make the best decisions and be more than to know, make sure to download the Ackyweather app today, and happy Thanksgiving. Good morning. You're looking at an image of the United States Capitol and a city rocked to its core by the breaking news. Sam Stein, considering a run from mayor of Washington, D.C. Sam Stein, Dartmouth graduate, he of Yale background.

I have no Yale background. Connecticut background, close enough. Prep school, probably went to Groton our St. Paul's. I don't know. One of the two.

But I'm curious, Sam. First of all, first question, number one, what will your first item of business be when you become mayor of Washington, D.C., and number two, will you follow the guidance and the good common, as we used to say in Dalton, Georgia, horrors sense of mares that have gone behind you

before you, like Mary and Barry. Oh, wow. That's a deep cut. I will definitely model myself after Mary and Mary. Thank you for asking, Joe. I've been really outlining a platform here for my membership. I have three key items that I've already settled on. One is instantly, I will deport Caddy K for laughing at my bid.

That's order of business number one. Two, I'm going to outlaw electrical scooters. I might lose articles. No, no, no, no. But I think it's worth it. People are getting hit. The citizens of D.C. People are getting hit by those scooters on sidewalks.

Three is I'm going to knock down that Capitol building and build a ballroom. Mine will be made of silver. And it'll be called the Steinballroom. That's it. That's all I got so far. It's a winner. How could you not vote for that? I will say, let's talk about these things, these scooters going around hitting people in Washington, D.C.

City bikes in New York. I will say, walking around in New York City, Mika absolutely loves what Mayor Bloomberg did, but I will tell you these bike paths. I mean, it's far more dangerous getting hit by a bike. than a car in Manhattan now. They whizz around. They pay no way. They just don't. I'm telling you, it is dangerous,

but it's a part of New York City life now, Mika. Yeah, and the bike paths, I get it. It's a wonderful concept. But for people trying to cross the street and then cross the bike path, the bike path is way more dangerous. And you can look both ways, and then you start walking,

and then a bike shows up, and causes horrific injuries. I mean, I... Do we actually have the mortality statistics on this? I don't know. Bikes cause more injuries and deaths than cars. I mean, I would just like... Stop asking questions, Caddy.

Sorry, I've been deported already, right? Deer Stein. Affirming my platform by asking these questions. No scooters with Stein. Yeah, that's a simple... It totally works. Yeah, just a scooter and then a line for it. Yeah, well, I will say, Caddy, and I will say, unfortunately, several years ago, one of my sons took a fall going under the subway and ended up at Bellevue, and he was in ICU, and I would say about of the 10, yeah, he's doing fine now, of the 10, unlike me, of the 10, of the 10, of the 10,

ICU units, about four or five of them were bicyclists who had been hit on the streets of New York City. And several of those didn't survive. It's extraordinarily dangerous. So I don't know. Sam Stein, you have to do something about that, too. Yeah. I will get on it. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. In New York. Okay. Thank you, Sam. And please, let us know when you're going to deport Caddy, because we've got to schedule London Studios and, you know, studios in the south of France before that's going to happen. If you could just... And also, we could have him pay for that, I think. Don't you think, Joe, as part of his platform? I mean, I think that's fair enough.

I think that has to be in the budget. I agree. I mean, by the way, he's a socialist, so, you know, he'll make the people pay for it. But don't worry, Caddy, you won't have to pay for anything. Free deportations for everybody did the south of France. Okay. Let's get to our other top story of the Bulls. morning, FBI and Justice Department officials are working to arrange interviews with six Democratic

lawmakers who appeared in a video advising service members not to follow illegal orders. The video enraged President Trump, who posted on social media last Friday, that the lawmakers, all of whom have previously served in the military or U.S. intelligence should be arrested. He also accused them of seditious behavior, punishable by death. The four members of the House who appeared in the video, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chris Eulahan released a joint statement yesterday, accusing the president of using the FBI as a tool to intimidate or, and harass members of Congress. They also defend their actions, writing no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.

This comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is accelerating his investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, now directing the U.S. Navy to launch a review of the lawmaker. In a memo posted to social media, Hegseth orders the Secretary of the Navy to look into what he calls, quote, potentially unlawful comments made by Kelly. Heggseth then asked the Navy Secretary, a former businessman with no prior military experience, to report any findings by no later than December 10th. Kelly's comments in question were, of course, part of that message to service members, reminding them of their obligation simply to refuse illegal orders.

And as the Defense Secretary escalates his investigation, into Kelly, he is also ramping up his personal attacks against the senator. Heg Seth took to social media yesterday to mock the decorated Navy veteran who flew nearly 40 combat missions

in Operation Desert Storm over a picture of his uniform, taunting him with the prospect of uniform inspection, if necessary, if he were called to, if he were recalled to active duty.

Something you pointed out, his uniform, my mirror might be perfectly fine. It might be just the mirror, but whatever. Pete Hagsath has a thing with his picture of his uniform. It is. Now, there are even some Republican senators who are coming to their colleague Mark Kelly's defense. That's interesting.

Senator Lisa McCasky of Alaska wrote on social media that Kelly, quote, valiantly served our country and, quote, to accuse him and other lawmakers of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that service members can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat out wrong. Murkowski added the Department of Defense and FBI surely have more important priorities than this frivolous investigation. Then also Senator John Curtis of Utah wrote this in part. I know Kelly is someone whose career has been defined by service. His record as a combat

naval aviator and NASA astronaut reflects his example of the discipline and dedication that are important for success. So there are a couple things here, David Ignatius. This is, again, part of President Trump's retribution campaign, you know, and perhaps he gave a direct order. Perhaps he didn't. But those around him take their cues from his angry, true social posts, and they go after his political foes. We've seen some real problems with that with James Comey, Letitia James, recently. But now it seems like Mark Kelly and perhaps some other Democrats, hence FBI investigation, might be in some trouble. That is, that is dangerous, to be sure.

And we should also note that Pete Hankseth, the Secretary of, as he likes to put at war, is concerned with uniform violations, while it's one of his deputies, Dan Driscoll, who's actually over in Europe, negotiating the hard stuff with Ukraine and Russia to try to bring an end to that war. And we'll get into details there in a moment.

But it just goes to show you, frankly, as was Lisa Murkowski just said, a lack of seriousness from the Pentagon's boss. So, Jonathan, just to unpack this briefly, the reason that these six members of Congress felt that it was appropriate, may be necessary to briefly remind members of the military that they should not obey illegal orders is because the Trump administration,

Secretary Hegsseth, back in February, essentially moved to neuter the legal advice at the Pentagon that commanders depend on. They fired the top three judge adjutant generals who had the military lawyer group, which had the effect of intimidating all of the lawyers in the Pentagon. So there was nobody left to say to a commander who asked for legal advice, I believe that order is illegal. I believe that, you know, you need to look carefully at that general or admiral. Those people are gone.

So quite properly to me, these members of Congress who have extensive, you know, admirable military service, said that the simplest thing possible, which is people in the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a president, and they have an obligation not to obey orders that are at least. There were no lawyers left to give them that advice at the Pentagon. If there had been, I'm sure they wouldn't have made the statement. So that's what lies in the background of this. And I think simple truth is people in the military owe thanks to lawmakers who care enough about proper functioning in the military to speak out and say, you don't obey illegal orders,

which is simple. The idea that that somehow is seditious, reminding people of what the Constitution, says is sedition. How do we get to that point? Well, we get to that point, obviously, because some people in the administration may think that there may be orders that may be coming that are not legal. I don't know. That's the only conclusion they can lead us to, but it's not going to work, Sam Stein,

and it's not going to work. I've got to say because just the political stupidity, the political negligence, of talking about the execution of a war hero, a highly decorated fighter pilot, a revered astronaut, the husband of a nearly assassinated member of the United States House. Somebody who's respected and loved by other members of the United States Senate, Mark Kelly, you're talking about putting this guy out front. And Mark Kelly, not to undermine Mark Kelly's political skills, but all you're asking Mark Kelly to do here

is to defend his position that men and women in the military need to follow orders. And that men and women in the military need to uphold their oath. That's all this is. This is Civics 101. So when he says you don't have to obey an illegal order, again, my only correction would be, that's not optional. You can't obey an illegal order and uphold your oath. Or like these other people I've been talking about this morning, they're going to find themselves on the witness stand defending themselves if they do follow illegal orders.

And again, so the political negligence of Republicans for somehow putting these war heroes up front to simply defend the concept that our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and members of the Coast Guard should uphold their oath to go. God and country? Seems to me a very short-sighted and stupid political play by Republicans and members of the Trump administration. Yeah, 100%. A couple things to remember. For many of these cabinet members, including Hexeth, they were asked during their confirmation hearings, would you execute an illegal order? So this concept that this is some sort of grand, weird conspiracy that Trump might issue these executive orders or orders that were illegal is not far-fetched.

I mean, this is a hypothetical that's been engaged by Hexoth and others already. Secondarily, yeah, by elevating Mark Kelly, I mean, by doing this, you were just elevating Mark Kelly, who, frankly, has been through tragedy, doesn't deserve to have the threat of execution level at him by the President of the United States, but also, if we're being honest, will surely benefit politically from this. all he has to do is put on his bomber jacket go on TV and say I'm not going to be intimidated by this guy

I just spoke the truth and I'm sure the fundraising money is going to come pouring in and frankly rightfully so I will just say the other thing though the third element of here is and maybe I'm alone in interpreting it this way but Jonathan Lemire was right like the contrast the split screen of a defense

secretary who has to be engaged in partisan Twitter warfare while his deputy is over there negotiating with the Russians, the incredible insecurity that seems to come off from Hexeth in this whole episode demanding that the, you know, the Secretary of the Navy get back to him

by December 10th to, you know, decide whether Mark Kelly should be court-martial. It's all like theater. And it all seems so desperate. And so, and I, you know, who knows what if he's doing this because Trump's demanding it of him? But it's not a great look for Pete Hexeth either.

no no regardless of why he's doing it uh it's again it's a it's a very bad look uh but but meek again you you you look at what mark kelly is saying and it is obvious i will go back again to the democrats and i will say also members of the media i've been play this a little too much down the middle this is not something you play down the middle this is where you give the facts And if you're a broadcast, a network, if you are a newspaper, you give the facts. And the facts are very clear. This is not a, tell me, Mark Kelly, what you do? No, no, no.

No, the fact is, Mark Kelly said, you can't do things illegal. So the media doesn't need to be playing sort of this both-sidesism routine. There is no both sides of this. They need to clarify this much more clearly than they have thus far. That's number one. But number two, it is, this is a straightforward problem, and there's not ambiguity. Again, it's one of the reasons I was surprised Alyssa Slotkin couldn't answer the basic question that Mark Kelly did answer. If a Democrat is asked, why would you ever think about such a thing?

You would say, well, first of all, in 2016, when Donald Trump was talking, talking to Brett Baer at a presidential debate. And Brett Baer said what you're asking troops to do would be illegal. And Donald Trump said they would still follow my orders. That's what strong leadership's about, believe me. So Donald Trump said in 2016 in the fact that strong leadership means they will follow illegal orders. That's like from the beginning. I was talking about the federalist papers being the basis of this country.

Well, that goes back to a state of mind from the very beginning of his campaign and his presidency. And as I've said several times before, when you have the president of the United States saying, on Air Force One, that he's going to send troops into other cities for crime control, and there's nothing the courts can do about it, that also would be an illegal order. When you have the president of the United States at Quantico, in front of military leadership saying we're going to use the military on American cities and on Americans in these dangerous cities as a training ground. That is an illegal order. Of course, the United States Supreme Court, again, as we said before, needs to stop wallowing in ambiguity and simply state the law and simply put an end to these, these dangerous debates that are going on right now.

Yeah, and also I think it's time for the American people and definitely members of the media, some who cover Trump in a positive light and sort of take his side here. It's just a fact that there was this sort of idea that, oh, he doesn't mean it. You could ask them, you could ask people, Trump supporters, what do you think of the tariffs? He doesn't mean it. It's not really going to

happen. So whether it's tariffs or deportations or retribution, I think we're at the point now where you can safely say you have now evidence that shows when he says something, he means it. And you can't fall back on that anymore. You have to work with what he says. And Joe, that's something some people have had to have a process of learning. Yeah, and Mika, you also have, again, you have some of these networks that really are acting like their viewers are idiots. I know. Acting like they can't read the word illegal.

Acting like they can wish away the word illegal. I've just seen dopes go on there and screaming and yelling and waving their arms and acting as if the word illegal is not in there. I saw, unfortunately, I saw a CIA spokesperson do the same thing last night, suggesting, or yesterday, suggesting that Alyssa Slotkin had said the CIA was issuing illegal orders and CIA operatives should ignore them. No, that's a lie. Right. That is a lie. There's no ambiguity there.

That's not what she said. she said, in the future, if you receive illegal orders, you are duty bound by the oath that you have taken not to follow. And yet, the insulting of these viewers, the insulting of the American people by pretending that the word illegal is not in that Democratic statement again, it's just going to end up hurting Republicans in the end. This whole thing, I know it's so shocking to a lot of people, but it just is going to end up helping Mark Kelly, helping these veterans, helping these former CIA analysts. It's going to help them. And it's going to end up hurting this Republican Party that keeps engaging in political self-harm because they will not stand up and say not only the right thing, but the thing that everybody knows in America. Stop playing games, you're just hurting yourself. All right, coming up, President Trump has claimed that the U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats are meant to stop overdose deaths. It appears that's

not how the administration officials are framing things, we'll get to that new reporting and why the discrepancy may matter legally. That's ahead on Morning Joe. You know, as we've been predicting for weeks during the government shutdown when the president was overseas, traveling, as we said, a very important trip for the United States security. We had suggested when he got back and focused on health care that he was probably going to have a different position than the Republicans who are running this issue into the ground. Well, he may be changing the White House stance on the extension of affordable health care. affordable care act subsidies. Health insurance premiums, of course, as you know, were set to skyrocket if the subsidies expire at the end of the year, which would make coverage even more unaffordable for millions of Americans. The looming deadline was a main point of contention that caused that

record breaking government shutdown. But Republicans with the life raft thrown out to them are tossing it back toward the boat and saying, no, thank you. We don't want to extend the subsidies, even though it is going to be extraordinarily damaging to them politically. President Trump yesterday, though, still moving forward and saying he's talking to Democrats about this deal. Somebody said, I want to extend him for two years. I don't want to extend him for two years. I'd rather not extend them at all.

It may be some kind of an extension may be necessary to get something else done because the Unaffordable Care Act has been a disaster. It's a Democrat plan, and the premiums are going up, and it's the Democrats' fault. But, you know, they are negotiating with me. It's very interesting. They want to see something happen. Who are you talking to? I can't tell you who, but we have a lot of Democrats want this plan to happen.

They would love to see the money go to the people, and the people go out and get their own health care. And there would be nothing like it. you know sam stein uh we've been saying uh for the past couple weeks as this shutdown was going on how it's going to be damaging to the republicans because health care has become such a a key issue uh and donald trump of course has uh as good of political instincts as anybody in washington dc probably much much better uh and understands what a huge issue this is going to be so uh it's not that surprising is it that he's actually trying to move the democrat his direction, or move the Republicans his direction,

and tried to get some sort of deal that doesn't expose the Republican Party going into the 2026 elections. 100%. I mean, Trump understands that this is a real albatross. We know that he recognizes that medical costs are a political issue because he keeps talking about the price of prescription drugs,

you know, he's going to get that down through Medicare negotiations and favor nation status and so on and so forth. He also understands that when it comes to insurance premiums, same exact dynamics. If they are going to rise, he will get the blame. The Republican Party will get the blame, even though this is Obamacare-related. The reason they'll get the blame is precisely because Democrats have been warning about this issue for months. Sagan needs to be dealt with. They shut down the government over it. They actually emerge

from that shutdown fight better off, despite conventional wisdom that they were going to lose the shutdown. They emerged by polling standards better off from that shutdown fight. People wanted action on these Obamacare enhanced premiums or subsidies. that are going to expire. And now Trump's in this place where he's got a couple weeks, where he's got to get some sort of deal. But the issue here, of course, is that House Republicans cannot sign off on anything that seems like they are sustaining Obamacare. It is part of their constitution. It is in their DNA that they cannot support the affordable care. So Trump's in a really hard spot. It's interesting. And I'm very curious to see what he does with it. I don't think

he's going to do this, Joe, but a more dexterous politician in this case. a Clinton-like politician in this case would triangulate. He'd tell his party, you know what? Pounce end. Like, I'm going to do this for the American people. I'll have a bunch of moderate Republicans and a handful, a lot of Democrats, and I'll cut a deal and you can yell

at me, you can bark at me, but I'm going to make this thing happen. I don't know if Trump's going to do it, but that would be a smart play potentially. I'm not sure that he wouldn't do it, Jonathan Lemire, because the one thing Donald Trump wants to avoid is Democrats winning

in 2026 and on January 4th, 27, having the power of the subpoena. And they will have that. If Republicans remain as flat-footed as the Republicans in the House of Representatives have been, you know, they love to go around saying, abolish Obamacare. Oh, I wish they can abide. You know, they'll throw these phrases out and Americans will just look at them and say, Okay. My insurance rates are exploding. I don't really care if this is the Democrats' fault. I don't really care if this is Obama care's fault. I don't really care who's fault this is. Right now, Republicans in the House, you're the ones who are blocking my family getting relief on health care. And that is, again, as we've always said, that's something Donald Trump understands to his political core. And right now, The Republicans in the House, they just may not be smart enough to take the life, you know, the life fest he's throwing them. I think we should never lose sight of, and we've talked about this for months, I've reported on it. So many of Trump's decisions are based purely out of fear about those looming midterms because he knows what would happen if the Democrats get back, even just one House of Congress.

Let's say it is the lower chamber. And as you say, has the power of the subpoena for him and his family potentially could even impeach him again. He wants nothing to do with that. This is a tricky spot, though, as Sam just outlined, Republicans in the House, they want nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. Trump himself, though he does, he's made clear, understand the need to address some of these rising costs. We know how he feels about anything attached to Barack Obama. The Affordable Care Act is something he would love to undo if he could, but he seems pretty stuck. So there is a tension point here, and we have seen the last few weeks over the Epstein matter in the wake.

of the elections, Republicans are just starting to willing to defy President Trump. Let's not overstate it, but it has been happening now and then. And they did it this week. The White House was going to put out its own health care plan this week, and the House said no, and they had to pull it down. Pretty embarrassing move for the West Wing, Joe, that they had to do that. So we don't know what's next. Maybe it's some sort of short-term solution, as the president sort of hinted at there

on Air Force One. but it is a looming political crisis for a White House and Republicans who are just for the first time may be starting to look at their political future beyond Donald Trump. Well, the thing is, though, Mika, if they are, there are a lot of these Democrats, are a lot of Republicans in these Democratic swing districts

that aren't going to have a political future unless they do something along the lines of what Donald Trump is talking about doing, and that is extending some of these health care subsidies that Democrats were funding for. You know, there are times, and Bill Clinton, speaking of Bill Clinton, there are times where a president understands, I've got no choice, I've got to move. You know, on welfare reform, Bill Clinton vetoed our welfare reform bill.

One time, we sent it back to him. He did it the second time, vetoed it. We sent it back the third time. He knew we had to sign it. It's the same thing with the balance. budget. We kept fighting. We shut down the government. We kept going back and forth. He finally had to move our direction because he understood that's where the American people were. Just like Donald Trump is understanding right now, the American people are hurting because of health care costs.

And Republicans in the House, if they want to win, they need to wake up and listen. Yeah.