Morning Joe - Micah Lasher joins Morning Joe to discuss his primary win and becoming the Democratic candidate for NY-12

Episode Date: June 24, 2026

June 24, 2026 - 8am: Micah Lasher discusses his primary win and becoming the Democratic candidate for NY-12 Colin Hanks and Scott Eastwood discuss their WWII film inspired by true events, “Lucky Strike” The U.S. and Iran continue making conflicting claims about the state of negotiations Mamdani allies sweep New York House Primaries The New Republic's Michael Tomasky discusses the latest issue of TNR celebrating ‘America 250'  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.

What we have here is an opportunity to elect partners to help fulfill our affordability agenda. I've spoken to New Yorkers time and time again about my focus being the transformation of the nation's most expensive city into one that they can afford. And we can only achieve that if we have partners in Washington. And in Daria, Lisa, in Claire and Brad, I see those partners. And I'm so excited that New Yorkers across the five boroughs have not only an opportunity to vote today, but for many of them an opportunity to vote for these kinds of champions. The slate of progressive candidates in New York City, backed by Mayor Ziran Mamdani, swept primary elections yesterday, topping establishment-backed Democrats and ousting two incumbent congressmen. That includes the city's 10th district where former city comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander defeated incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in a race where Israel's war in Gaza became a top issue. And in the 13th District, Daryaliza Avila Chevalier defeated incumbent Congressman Adriano Espayat.

Outside of Mamdani endorsed candidates in the 12th District, state assemblymen and former aide to New York Governor Kathy Hockel, Michael Lacher came out on top of an eight-way race that saw artificial intelligence industry giants spend tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the outcome. And in the 17th District, national security expert in combat veteran Kay Conley won the Democratic nomination for a key swing seat that could help determine control of the House in November. Her victory sets up a showdown with Hudson Valley Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, who has tried to balance moderate policy positions while also defending President Trump. And one notable result from South Carolina in that state's first congressional district, former Navy Admiral, fired by Defense Secretary Pete Hexoff, won the Democratic nomination in the race to fill Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace's seat. You know, Willie, it's, it's, I think it's funny. I think it's funny because it's going to allow other news channels, it's going to allow people on their little podcast. podcast today. It's going to allow everybody go, oh, they're going to look at New York City and go, oh, the Democratic Party is so far left. I actually saw one guy who's fairly respected, had the nerve

to say, oh, well, this just proves. And if you're the Democratic Party, you have to be crazy to win. I'm thinking, wait, this from Trump's MAGA Republican Party. But, you know, they're going to focus on New York City and they're going to ignore the admiral winning in South Carolina, a woman who's committed her entire life to protecting and defending the United States of America, they're also going to ignore a woman just up the road that's going to be running against Mike Lawler, who was a bronze star three-time, was awarded the Bronze Star three times. She was Special Ops, one of the first women to ever lead special ops units. She toured Afghanistan and Iraq had six.

tours there, a bona fide war hero. And this is, I've got to say, this is what the Democrats are proving themselves really, to be really pragmatic. If you look at what they did last night, New York City, they go far, far left. That'll work for New York City in places like Lawler's District, which is a swing district, South Carolina, one swing district, finding these military heroes, much like they did with the New Jersey race, Mikey Sherrill, and in Virginia, Spamberger, while they were electing a socialist in New York City, Mom Donnie. It worked then. We'll see if it works this fall. Yeah, these are congressional races. These are not statewide races, so it's not terribly surprising that someone, to the far left, won the Upper West Side or one areas of

Brooklyn. It is impressive that Mayor Mamdani in his short-term in office was able to sort of bless these candidates and some of them winning overwhelmingly and unseeding incumbents. Dan Goldman losing by 30 points in his district, the incumbent and Congressman Espiat, who is a major figure in congressional Hispanic caucus, the leader of that caucus as well. He was unseated in a closer race there. So, yes, as the New York Times says this morning, Mondani showed he can be a kingmaker, but to make this a national story and not look at what you just discussed, which is the race up in Westchester County, where Mike Langell,

Lawler is going to have a tough fight because a lot of the support he's shown for Donald Trump and in South Carolina and other places where it turns out Jonathan Lemire in specific congressional districts, Democrats pick candidates that they think can win. In this case, in New York City, some of those were socialists. Yeah, and Democrats feel good in recent cycles since the 24 disaster about finding the right candidates for the right races. I was talking to some Democrats yesterday who reminded us, as we look towards this November, the success the Democrats had running

moderates for the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. They won vote. And we're seeing the same there in South Carolina. They feel very bullish about a lot of races coming up this fall. But yes, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. And in New York City, certainly,

that's the story here, is Zohran Mamdani, you know, in his early days in office, having significant coattails being a kingmaker. And picking off, you're choosing Joe to use his political capital to pick off some incumbents to put in some of his sort of like-minded fellow travelers more to the left than others. I mean, Dan Goldman has a record that a lot of Democrats pretty happy with, with the exception of some of the support for Israel

in the months after the war. And also, there's also here in New York, there's sort of the the Latino political machine also showing its age. I think that's part of it as well. That's a subplot to what happened here. But no doubt, what worked in New York City, Democrats aren't trying to replicate it other places. It's not one size fits all. Coming up, it seems like the memorandum of understanding is anything but the U.S. and Iran are increasingly at odds over what exactly is in the deal to end the war. We'll have the latest. Next on Morning Joe. The United States and Iran continue to make conflicting claims about the state of the negotiations. On the issue of nuclear inspections, Iran's foreign ministry

spokesman said yesterday there are no plans to allow inspectors to access nuclear size bombed by the U.S. last year. That stands in contrast to comments yesterday from President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, who earlier this week asserted otherwise. They told us inside, and we have it down 100 percent inspections. And if they were right, I'd cancel the meetings right now. The IAEA chief said of the inspections today, this is going to happen. The two sides are also publicly at odds on the issue of frozen assets. The Trump administration is claiming that the billions of dollars in Iranian assets that would be unfrozen under the deal would be used to buy American products. Iran, however, once again, is pushing back with the country's foreign ministry spokesmen saying yesterday,

the assets can be used freely by Iran in whatever manner it deems appropriate. And, J.D. Vance, on our air yesterday morning live. saying that all these things were part of the foundation of a deal. It's not a foundation if the Iranians completely disagree with you. It's just an assertion. Well, and I must read in the New York Times this morning by David Sanger, David said that whenever you're talking about negotiations between Iran and the United States, there's one line to always remember.

Nothing is agreed to, nothing has agreed upon until everything is agreed upon. That's why it's so insane. that we're releasing money already, that we're already lifting sanctions. That's insane until you actually get the Iranians who were the toughest negotiators on earth. They just are. Yeah. Until you get the Iranians to agree on an entire package. The same point.

Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. And this is happening for a lot of different reasons. There are a lot of factions in the United States. There are people on the right that don't want this to happen. You have people in Iran. Again, a multi-layered governmental structure still that are going to be critical of a deal. So nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. So the idea that we start giving the Iranians the ability to make tens of billions of dollars on oil revenue is insanity.

Joining us now, editor at the insider, Michael Weiss. Let's talk first about what happened yesterday. We're giving billions and billions of dollars to the Iranians lifting sanctions for the first time in a very long time. And yet the Iranians spent all day yesterday on three items contradicting everything Donald Trump had said. Talk about it. Yeah, I mean, look, whether or not the Iranians are telling the truth or just trying to maximize this for propaganda value, it just shows yet again they see themselves as in the driver's seat, right? I mean, they're in control of the Strait of Hormuz. They put out a statement with the Omani government suggesting that they are indeed going to charge tolls or some kind of administrative fees on tankers that are bypassing that waterway in contravention to what the U.S. administration is saying.

You know, they sprinkle cold water on J.D. Vance's comments about nuclear inspectors. You know, at every turn, they want to suggest that they hold the cards. They are the superior party in these negotiations. And, you know, I've been talking to a lot of Republicans on the Hill about how they feel about this memorandum of a number. understanding. And there's two different schools of thought. One, there's resignation. Trump controls the party in Congress, and they're basically going to have to roll over and do whatever he says, but also a recognition that this is still just a memorandum of understanding, right? This isn't a treaty. This isn't a broad agreement. Congressional oversight, there's something called

NARA, which is going to give Congress the ability to kind of adjudicate any kind of long-term settlement with the Iranians. And one line I keep hearing is, we anticipate, meaning the Republicans in Congress anticipate this MOU for 60 days will be extended another 60 days once there's a failure to reach an agreement and then another 60 days and probably, you know, kicking the can down the street to the midterms. I mean, Republican senators, because they have longer leases on political life, six-year terms, are much more outspoken about how angry they are about this. I mean, this literally undoes everything the Republican Party has insisted they wanted to do with respect to Iran. When you hear Donald Trump saying he doesn't care about the missile program,

You know who cares about the missile program? The Gulf Arab states, which have been outspoken in the fact that they have absolutely no intention of contributing. One of their top concerns, Michael. They've said from the very beginning, that's one of their top concerns. Trump has to destroy the missile program. And of course, Hegzith and Trump and everybody said, oh, we've destroyed 80%. We've destroyed 90%. No, they haven't.

They haven't come closer now. At the end of this, Donald Trump says, oh, of course they can have missiles. If our allies can have missiles, they should have missiles. That is the antithesis of everything those Gulf region states have been saying since the war began. Right. And they think it's absolutely ludicrous that they would have to contribute $300 billion to a reconstruction fund to rebuild Iran when their own infrastructure was pummeled by Iranian drones and short-range missiles. So there's a bundle of contradictions here. And I think it's very interesting.

MS now had a report yesterday suggesting, and I mean, this has been an open secret since the MOU was announced. but Marco Rubio, he's kind of, you know, he comes out of the shadows every once in a while to issue a statement. But what he said when he landed in, I think, Bahrain or one of the GCC countries yesterday was very interesting. He said, if Iran chooses to be a country, not a revolutionary movement that exports terrorism. And I forgot the rest of the comment because that clause alone telegraphs, I think, what the Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor believes about any kind of longstanding or lasting agreement with the Iranians. He doesn't think this thing has legs. He is all too happy to allow J.D. Vance to go out in public and own this agreement because it's polarizing the Republican Party. It's allowing us in the media to litigate and savage every item on this thing.

And it's also giving the Democrats a lot of talking points to use against the administration. I mean, for the first time, the Democrats look hawkish on Iran by comparison. Coming up, the highs and lows of the American experiment, the new republic is reflecting on the country's 250th, and editor Michael Tamaski joins us to talk about that straight ahead on Morning Joe. Fermant counteroffensive has been going on for three days. We need you to block that road this morning. Yes, sir, sir. Let's go.

Come on, come on. Sorry, sir. You do realize we have 400 pounds of explosives back there, right, Mur? It's the first SS Panzer Division coming down that road. You boys have never fought anything like them. Remenition about the beaches of Puerto Rico ramp From the upper west side, Miller I take a New York winter over there

That was a look at the new World War II action thriller Lucky Strike coming to theaters nationwide on Friday, June 26th. Inspired by true events, the film tells the story of one soldier, played by Scott Eastwood, who becomes trapped behind enemy lines during the Battle of the Bulge,

later following his extraordinary journey as he fights to find his way home. And Scott joins us now, along with Golden Globe and Emmy Award nominee Con Hanks, who plays Colonel Neal in the film. And our thanks to you both for being here. Congratulations. Scott, I'll start with you. You know, certainly, just the clip sets it up so well. Sure. You know, it's a World War II movie, but this one very quickly turns into like a fight for survival, one man against the elements, sure, but also, of course, tank divisions. Yeah, yeah, it's an interesting one in that regard where it follows, you know, sort of turns into a one-man survival story.

And I thought what was, you know, sort of interesting about this is it really examines what it would feel like to be caught behind enemy lines in that time. And so tell us a little bit more, if you will, about the true story this is based upon. Yeah, our producer, Mark Freeman, who is a French national 50 years ago interviewed a bunch of soldiers for a high school, project actually in France post-war-2 and heard this incredible story and said, hey, this should be turned into a movie. And then 50 years later, well, we got it made. So, Colin, tell us about your character and what, and what drew you to this particular film? I mean, certainly, you know, war movies or have a timelessness to them. Why do you think this is a story, though, that the American that the people needed to hear? Well, I think there's something inherent just in the story of

World War II itself. It was a time in which the lines were very, very clearly drawn. It was good versus evil. And, you know, when the script came to me, it was an opportunity to be able to, you know, play in that sandbox, so to speak. And it was an opportunity that I just, I, I, I, I, I, lunged at because, you know, it's kind of fun, obviously, to play a kernel, you know, it is still make-believe. I am still wearing makeup and pretending to be other people for a living. But at the same time, it's an important story and it's a dramatic story, you know, regardless of, you know, Germans, Nazis, tanks, all of that sort of stuff. It's a very human drama. And to see Scott's character go through what he does, it's, it's, you know,

It's a compelling story. And I think you're right. There's no ambiguity about this conflict. And I think that's appealing to audiences and why World War II movies have had such staying power. Both of your fathers, of course, appeared in some. So let's take a look at a clip from the film where your characters, Castle and Colonel Neal, are discussing the situation on the ground. What's Charlie Company status? They have full sections and individual engineers, mining and bullying up bridges where they can.

I also got some guys on the front line. Other than that, we're pretty much ready to roll. All right, well, we got Abel and Baker already out there with their M1, so I'm counting on Charlie Company. Okay, guys, get the maps out. Hey, Ram, grab our maps. Moving top. Here you are, sir. There's something to crowds you're good at. It's making noise. All right, Aventi, turn Lassie off.

Yes, sir. All right, no time for small talk. This road here, between Lazznorath and Elsonbourne. Now, that's about what? About what? Five miles from here, would you say? Seems right, sir. I know it, sir. Yeah, it's a little under that, maybe. Okay, well, we need you to block that road this morning.

So, Carla, talk to us about filming this, on location, I've been in Bulgaria, and just obviously expansive sets in order to try to capture the scope of what was one of the biggest battles in the war, the Battle of the Bulge, really sort of the last real German offensive on the ground there in Europe. Well, the thing that always strikes me is particularly about the Battle of the Bulge are the elements. It is freezing cold. And, you know, I took one look at that frame and just went like, yeah, I remember being very cold that day. That is exactly what that was like. But, you know, it is truly one of the most stunning moments, I think, in military history. You know, when you take into account the elements, the location and the stakes, you know, it is that last defensive. It was sort of the turning point,

you know, within the European theater. So, you know, there is a tremendous amount at stake, you know, during that entire operation. And quite frankly, it's a miracle. It turned out the way that it did. Yeah, no question there. And Scott, last one to you. What do you hope, you audiences who go to this? What do you hope they take from it? That's a good question. You know, for me, it's great because I feel like we get to honor our service men and women by seeing these movies, making these films. They're movies that, you know, may not be made forever as we, you know, you get a further and further away from World War II. But like you said before, it's a war that we all can get behind, good versus evil.

and we did something, you know, that was good for the world fighting this war. All right. Well, the new film, Lucky Strike, in theaters nationwide on Friday, June 26th. The actor Scott Eastwood and Colin Hanks, our thanks to you both very much. We really appreciate it. Congrats again on this. And we'll be right back with more. Morning, Joe.

Welcome back. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Bill Pulte, is facing growing backlash after reportedly moving to cut staff just days. into the job. Critics warned that these layoffs, including at the National Counterterrorism Center, could hurt national security. Outgoing Republican Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina said yesterday that he is deeply skeptical about Pulte's decision to cut staff. If Pulte does a reduction in force the way that I've been engaged to do it before, where you do the analysis, you make sure you retain the most capable people, and you only eliminate the people.

whose jobs can be either automated or never should have been there. Good. My guess is, based on his past experience, it's just going to be another hot, steamy pile of doge. I've staked myself out on Pulte. I think he's incompetent psychofan. If only he would tell us how he really feels, we will keep you posted on that situation. We've, of course, also been talking this morning about yesterday's primary races in New York, and we are now joined by one of the winners. State Ascendant Michael Lashar, who emerged to victorious from the crowded field in New York's 12th District. Also with us at the table, the editor of the New Republic, Michael Tamaski, and co-founder and CEO of All In Together, Lauren Leader. Our thanks to all of you for being here.

And congratulations on last night. It was a close race, as anticipated. Crowded field, close race. What do you think made the difference in the end? I think at the end of the day, the voters of the district that I'm running in or that I've, I've won the primary in, still want seriousness in government, want someone who can take on Donald Trump and continue the representation they've had from Jerry Nadler, who's been a progressive leader in the House and a voice of moral clarity. So of those you defeated, Kennedy Air, Jack Schlosberg,

George Conway, pundit, Assemblyman Alex Boris, who was close second place. We've had a debate this morning about what these results mean. And certainly, New York City Mayor Zoha Mammani had a good night. Some of the candidates that he blessed won. He wasn't really involved in your race. But there was a thought here that there was fear expressed that the Mabdani label could actually then make it easy for Republicans to paint with a broad brush all Democrats. Joe pushed back on that and said, no, you have different candidates for different races, different states, different cities, What's your take? I think that every election cycle, the Republicans pick a boogeyman, and it's been Nancy Pelosi, it's been AOC, and they're always going to find a boogeyman. And so that, to me, who won the primaries last night is not going to make the difference in the upcoming midterms.

Laura, let's get you your, take a question, please, to some men, but let's get your thoughts on that, the sort of the branding, if you will, of the Democratic Party. Yeah, I mean, I wish I agreed with Mike on this one. I do worry very much about it. And I think there is something very different. To me, this was like a tea party kind of election for Democrats. We have been seeing this growing backlash against incumbents. I mean, Micah, you were really one of the few in New York that benefited from the support of incumbency, as you said, the support of Jerry Nathar, all of the other races that support

from incumbents, whether that was Nidia Velasquez or, you know, Adriano Aspiat, they all lost after that. So your district, you know, kind of unique in New York City. I think the concern that I hear everywhere, obviously, and you have a very heavily Jewish district on the Upper West Side, on the Upper East Side, you know, there's a lot of angst about the mainstreaming of some very, very virulent anti-Israel rhetoric in the Democratic Party. Lots to say about the role of APAC in there. Your district's a little different. But where do you think now in this new delegation? How do you guys find a way to come together and, you know, govern together as a New York delegation? in the fall? I think it's a really good question. I, you know, I'm very proud to represent the most Jewish congressional district in America, or to hopefully represent the most Jewish congressional district in America pending the results in November. And Rann is a very proud Jew. And I think there are real questions, real concerns that people in my community and Jewish community around

the city are feeling about anti-Semitism being normalized. And that is something we're going to have to confront. It's certainly something that I want to play a role in confronting as we go forward. We certainly saw on the lander victory over Goldman, the incumbent, that the support for Israel was a key factor there. And many believe what's why Goldman was defeated. Michael, again, please take a question to the settlement, but also, you know, talk about the Trump factor in all of this. Because like George Conway, who joined us yesterday on Election Day, made clear. His whole campaign was to nationalize it and to make it about Trump. He didn't fare that well.

Other candidates have struck more of a balance. Is that the lesson from Democrats? Yes, you have to talk Trump, but you've got to make sure you keep local issues at my heart, too. I think you always have to keep local issues in mind when you're running for Congress. And you have to, as you already know, and certainly will learn the job will teach you, you're going to have to tend to the district. And you've been doing that anyway as a staffer for Jerry Nadler. But yeah, local issues are always important.

And you have to pay it. When you lose touch with those, that's when they start thinking you're out of touch. that's when you're vulnerable to that kind of attack. We've seen that happen many times with veteran members of Congress. I do think that Israel's going to be the big divide between these socialists and members like you. I think that on economics, I don't see all that much disagreement, really. I mean, everybody's moving in a more progressive direction on economics, and I personally think that's a good thing that Democrats need to do more to show working Americans

that we're on your side and we're going to fight for you. I think everybody more or less agrees on that, or most people do. But Israel's going to be a dividing line in the Democratic Party in a big way. No question, both this fall and in 2028. Last question to you, if you are elected, again, you do have a general election opponent. But it's certainly a heavily Democratic district. But if you were to represent the Trump factor, what would be some things that a Democratic House, if the House is flipped, which many prognosticators believe it will, what are some things that could be done to check Donald Trump? I think we need to go in on day one with a robust plan for oversight and investigations and accountability, as well as focus on the laws that they have exploited or norms that need to be codified in statute to ensure that we don't have a future president who can do what Donald Trump has done to our rule of law. And I think Democrats need to walk in with a plan on day one.

U.S. Congressional Democratic nominee, New York, a sub minute. Michael Lashire. Thank you. Congrats again. We appreciate it. Now, coming up, Michael Tamaski, will take. take us through the new issue of the new republic featuring lists from top historians, including, we were already talking about this here at the table offset, the best and worst presidents in our

nation's history. Where's Chessaray Arthur? Well, you'll soon find out. That's next on Morning Joe. Welcome back, Michael Tamasky, as we just mentioned, the new edition of the New Republic celebrates America's 250th birthday. It features a slew of in-depth articles about the state of democracy today, while also taking a look back at some of the most influential Americans over the past two and a half centuries. It includes several lists, rankings like top presidents, worst presidents, and the most important American women. We, of course, can't get into all of that today. That's why you should pick up an issue and read for yourself. But let's do a little now. I mean, of course, best presidents. Give us a quick set. These are historians. These isn't

just you and your staff. Give us, we're seeing the list here. A link. I'll link. Can FDR tie at the top, George Washington, a strong third? Yeah. Yeah. It's about 100 historians and others. We asked some other scholars and public intellectual types. And they gave us answers over the course of the spring. Best presidents, worst presidents, greatest moments in American history, worst moments in American history, images that define American history for better and for worse. The greatest works of art in American history, the most influential politicians who weren't president, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Culminating in, we asked them to name their liberal Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you've had many barstool conversations about the Red Sox Mount Rushmore. Always. I can do it real quick. We'll save that for later. So we decided to apply that principle that sports fans use to the history of American liberalism and who's your liberal Mount Rushmore. It's a lot of fun.

So you talk to us about the most important women, that list you mentioned. Yeah, well, Eleanor Rose. Harriott, Harriet Tubman. I can't remember all the... Here we go. They're showing on here. Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony. The list goes on from there, Lauren. What do you think? Yeah, no, this is pretty good. I'd like to commend you, A, for asking the question, and B, for putting it in the magazine. Because I think it is one of the pieces of American history that does continue to get overlooked.

I mean, we have very few statues to women in history in Washington or in other key places. So thanks for doing that. But just, I guess, I feel like the, the worst and best presidents, or like the historians' Oscars? They love these lists. What's your sense about the kind of how we process these as Americans and how Americans are thinking about this anniversary, even as it's been, you know, very polarized and politicized, maybe not as celebratory as some would like?

What's your hope for Americans to take away? Well, you know, we have two Americas. You know, we have the America that people like us live in, and then there's mega-America. And, you know, Donald Trump was the worst president on our list. And I would imagine in MAGA America, he's very much not the worst. He's probably, they probably put him at the top. I will say that our list, though our panel of historians obviously leaned liberal, they were objective in some ways. You might have, people might have noticed Phil Schlafly was on that most influential women list. John C. Galhoun and Barry Goldwater were on the list of most influential politicians who never became president. And then we had a little section where we did just. asked some conservatives for their point of view. And that was really interesting, too. We asked people like Judge Ludig and other influential conservative thinkers. So we gave the conservatives

their say as well. And I guess to returning to Lauren's point that we saw the list there, Donald Trump, obviously fair is pretty poorly. And these lists, and I think that's where a lot of people are having a hard time right now is we barrel into the 250th anniversary, is that what should be a unifying moment doesn't feel that way. And I think the president, I mean, there are lots of factors for that, but the president probably takes the most blame. In fact, the fact that tonight was supposed to be a America unity concert. Instead, it's just, in his own words, a mega Trump rally. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, what he's doing to Washington to the footprint of our nation's capital and tearing down the east wing and trying to build that arch in that little traffic

circle, it's a small traffic circle where he's trying to put this 250-foot high arch. And, of course, what's going on now at the reflecting pool? And, you know, you could say he's trying to beautify Washington, but these are vanity projects. He's trying to leave the stamp of Trump on the nation's country. The arch in particular in that sacred place, I find just despicable. Lauren, final thought to you, it is the four-year anniversary since the end of Roe v. Way. Well, it's notable that abortion really wasn't on the ballot in many ways during the election yesterday.

It's sort of faded in many senses from the public campaigning. there are a whole number of initiatives that are, you know, ballot initiatives across the country. It remains a deep battleground for women and families across America. As much as America is divided into red and blue, America is also now divided into abortion, access, and not. And, you know, Virginia being the only state in the South where abortion is legal, this remains a day-to-day life-and-death issue for American women. It is faded maybe from the headlines, but it is not faded from the lives of everyday Americans. just last flag the All-N-Together substack today has a breakdown of all the details of where there are upcoming referendums and what's happening in all the states. We do need to keep watching it.

This remains a critical issue for America. All right. Co-founder and CEO of All-N-Together, Lauren Leader and editor at the New Republic, Michael Tomaski, our thanks to you both. And that does it for us this morning. We'll see you tomorrow. 6 a.m. Eastern. Money, power, politics with Stephanie Rule, is up next after a short final break. See you tomorrow.

Thank you.