Morning Joe - More than 100 dead, 160 missing in Texas floods

Episode Date: July 9, 2025

161 still missing as Texas officials give few answers about emergency flood response

Texas will not stop until we finish the job. We will not stop until we identify, recover every single body. We will not stop until every road is rebuilt, every inch of debris is removed. We will not stop because we are a state that cares about our people, cares about our communities, and we'll be with them every step of the way. That was Texas Governor Greg Abbott yesterday in Kerrville. The death toll in central Texas is rising as a staggering number of people are still missing.

Now, five days since the historic flooding in that area. We'll bring you the latest with a live report in just a moment. And it comes as we're seeing more severe weather turn deadly in other parts of the country. This video is out of southern New Mexico, which is under a state of emergency this morning. Also ahead, President Trump is promising more military aid to Ukraine in response to his growing frustration with Vladimir Putin. We'll look at whether the move can push the Russian president any closer to a peace deal. And we'll show you the moment President Trump tried to shut down questions about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi's explanation for a missing

minute of surveillance video from outside Epstein's prison cell. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, July 9th. Along with Joe and me, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, with us this morning. We begin in Texas Hill Country, a community that is now mourning the deaths of at least 110 people, 30 of them children, after flash floods ravaged the region late last week. Today, five days after those deadly storms, Texas Governor Greg Abbott says more than

160 people are still missing in the Kerr County area alone, which saw some of the worst of the fatal flooding. But the governor vows not to give up the search. Know this. We will not stop until every missing person is accounted for. Know this also. There very likely could be more added to that list. Texas is in this with the people in the Hill Country right here.

We are not leaving until this job is finished. The Governor Abbott also said that the emergency alert system would be addressed during a special session of the state legislature later this month as questions continue to mount about the Texas community's preparedness and response. Also today we're learning more about what residents faced as Friday night's storm rained down. NBC's Morgan Chesky spoke with a 10-year-old camper from Camp Mystic who described the

moments when raging floodwaters began to rise. People from like different cabins started coming to our porch and yelling like wake up and go to Rec Hall because there's a flood. How would you describe that four-hour window where you didn't know how Lucy was? I mean just the longest four hours of my life. She was wrapped up in a blanket and had a teddy bear. We just held each other tight and I held her all night, you know, and just so grateful to God. Joining us now, NBC News senior national correspondent Jay Gray live this morning from Kerrville,

Texas. Jay, what's the latest today? Well, Mika, I think we need to have some perspective here. You know, we've been told dozens were missing for days. The numbers were, and I'm quoting here from officials, a lot. I don't think anyone expected to hear the governor reveal that there are more than 160 missing just here in Kirk County alone, over 170 across the six counties affected by this flooding. It's been a gut punch for this community, which is already reeling, by the way. We're along the Guadalupe River. You can see some of the debris here.

This is the kind of thing that these first response teams are going through now and trying to locate those missing, some of the larger pieces of debris like these huge trees that were just toppled and snapped they're going through that they're urging people if you have something like this on your property if you have damage to your home don't clear it out let us come through and make sure that there's no one trapped underneath all of this and make sure that there are not missing people somewhere there. We've had stories already of people who have been swept away for 15 even 20 miles and so there's a huge area to cover and that's the

next step in all of this as they begin day six of the search and recovery here. Getting into some of those areas they've yet to get into using some high-profile military vehicles to do just that and I've talked to a couple of the response team members last night one who said point-blank Mika we're not surprised at this number we've seen the devastation firsthand and we're not surprised that over 160 are missing in Kirk County. I talked to one man from the Cajun Army who told me he thinks that number is going to

climb. So Jay, I'm curious. I know it hindsight's 2020, but for those living near the Guadalupe River, and we have camps and campers and also people who are camping and people who live there. Are questions beginning to arise about the warning system that was not there for them? Because this is an area where for camps, for children, they choose not to have cell phones. And for people who live near the river, often cell phone service is spotty at best. Yeah, no, I think you make a great point, Mica.

And absolutely there is concern about that. You know, there's been this back and forth for years with council members here, with the local government, about funding some warning sirens and getting a proper warning system in place the state as at times that will give you a percentage of what it will cost but we're not going to pay for the whole thing and so they've just passed i mean i think it's

important to reference the city of comfort which is not far from here and dealt with the same type of flooding lost no one and they do have warning sirens there. We've heard from the governor, we've heard from the lieutenant governor, they do have a special session. They say that they are going to pay now, the state is going to pay for some type of warning

system that includes sirens. They have what is about a 30 billion at last count rainy day fund, they call it, so they're going to pull that money from there and and do that but a lot of people here want to know living in such peril knowing that they are in flash flood alley as it's called why hasn't this happened before how did we get to this point NBC News senior national correspondent Jay Gray reporting live this morning from Kerrville Texas once again thank Thank you very much. And Jay brings up a great point.

I mean, you have these rainy day funds for a reason. And when you have local governments unable to fund this, when you're in flash flood alley, you need the state to step in. If the state can't afford to step in, the federal government needs to step in to protect the people of Texas and to protect other people across the country. In this case, they just didn't do it. They were sitting on a fat rainy day fund. And unfortunately, the literal rains came. And a lot of people are dead now because they didn't have adequate warning systems in that they should have had in. And some of that is expressed in the editorial board of the San Antonio Express News, which

is out with a new piece entitled, Texas Officials Need to Stop Scapegoating the National Weather Service. It reads in part this, numerous meteorologists have said the National Weather Service, despite troubling and short-sighted federal cuts, did its job, noting that forecasts were as accurate as could be expected and that the warnings were timely. But one does not have to be a meteorologist or atmospheric science expert to understand that forecasts are estimates, general guides, really about the possibility of weather no one should expect to the inch precision.

Rather than shifting blame or nitpicking a forecast after a catastrophe that has killed 28 children, a more productive line of questioning is why so many people did not receive emergency alerts, or at least received the alerts with enough time to act. Why did the so-called last mile of communication break down? As we grieve this catastrophe, we also refuse to consign it to inevitability. We yearn for the day when Texas is proactive in working to prevent tragedies rather than

reactive in their aftermath. And the piece there came from the board of the San Antonio Express News. And Jonathan O'Meara again, let's underline the fact that Texas had a massive rainy day fund and we're not just talking about Texas here. We could talk about a lot of states that have moved over the past 20, 30 years to slash as much government as they could slash. We saw it actually on the federal level where, you know, they were just slashing government services without really much of a second thought. That, of course, probably has nothing to do with this, but I'm just talking about a general attitude that on the federal, state, and local level, slashing all governments, so the more

government services you can slash, the better. Well, tell you what, that's not always the case. And we always see these senators stand up and protest when you're trying to send FEMA assistance or emergency assistance to other states, but then when it's their state that's affected, they're first in line. We see people from states that aren't affected trying to make political light. Like for instance, out of the hurricanes in North Carolina last year, trying to scapegoat FEMA, trying to make people in North Carolina not trust FEMA. And they do that for political purposes.

But then, when something like this happens, they're the first to run to the microphone and say, how dare people try to use this terrible tragedy to politicize, to bring politics into it? It's just a reality they have. I mean, there has to be an understanding with all members of Congress, especially members of Congress from states that don't want to spend money. You got to do the basics. You got to take care of your people. If you're in Texas, you got to take care of your people that are in a flash flood alley.

If you're in Northwest Florida, you got to make sure, and they do make sure, you got to make sure your people in Northwest Florida know when the hurricanes are coming or know when the forest fires are coming in California. And right now, there's just not that understanding for a lot of local governments. They just either misuse the money or slash emergency responses, thinking, oh, this is going to make me look fiscally conservative. No, it's going to make you look responsible when little children are sleeping in cabins and they're not getting the emergency warnings that could have saved their life.

And as Jay Gray just said, you go to Comfort, Texas, they had the emergency systems. They had the sirens. They had nobody die in their communities. Yeah, no. The point of government, the point of government is to keep its citizens safe, is to take whatever steps are necessary to do so. And we know, we've reported the times I believe had first that there are people in that area who turned down the funding some of the emergency systems because they didn't want a tax increase.

As you just noted, the state has been sitting on a rainy day fund that should have been used. And you're right, a disaster like this should not be politicized. But far too often, it has become so. We have seen this administration, the Trump administration, threaten to disband FEMA entirely to put the onus on the states. We know in President Trump's first term, he threatened to withhold federal funds, places like California after forest fires because of political disagreements.

This is something that should be above that. And now, we just, as we look at these photos and hear these terrible stories, I mean, the final number, the final death total is going to be unbearable. You know, hundreds more still missing as the state pledges to keep searching. As for the federal response, President Trump confirmed during a cabinet meeting yesterday that he will travel to Texas to visit that devastated area later this week. We also heard from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Let's take a look. I'll be going down on Friday with First Lady.

It would be taking a trip and we don't want to get in anyone's way because that's what happens. The president goes and everyone's around focused on it. I don't want anyone to focus on us. But it's possible they could have some money saved still. There's a lot of areas. It's a big area. And it's probably unlikely at this point. But they're thinking there could be the possibility, but what a tragic situation. We as a federal government don't manage these disasters, the state does. We come in and support them and that's exactly what we did here in this situation. We're cutting through the paperwork of

the old FEMA, streamlining it much like your vision of how FEMA should operate. And it's been a much better response to help these families get through this terrible situation. And as I just mentioned, this tragedy in Texas comes as the administration has been moving to cut disaster response and relief agencies and as the president himself has previously talked about getting rid of FEMA. But in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophic Texas flooding, President Trump told reporters over the weekend

that this isn't the right time to talk about scrapping the agency. When asked on Monday whether the president was reconsidering his plan to eliminate FEMA, White House Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt told reporters that it was, quote, a policy discussion that will continue. So, Joe and Mika, this is something that the president

right now is trying to push to the side. You know, he's going on Friday. The federal government is pledging to step up. But he also has not backed down his previous thoughts that this should be something the federal government shouldn't be in the business of doing. It should be handed entirely to the states, and that alarms a number of people.

Well, and the states just aren't capable of it. No. States aren't capable of it. We saw, we've seen that time and time again. We saw it in Hurricane Katrina. The biggest mistake that George W. Bush made was thinking that the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and the mayor of Louisiana, the mayor of New Orleans, were going to be able to take care

of that hurricane. And they were just incapable. And so the federal government came in belatedly. There was so much suffering. There was so much devastation because they didn't get in thereatedly. There was so much suffering, there was so much devastation, because they didn't get in there quickly enough. So yeah, listen, there's some things a local government can't do and then the state government has to get involved. There's some things the state government can't do and that's when the

federal government has to get involved. Most states, even a big state like Texas, a rich state like Texas, one of the richest states in America, they don't have the ability that the federal government has in times of emergencies and times of disasters. And so, however they decide they want to reorganize FEMA, they're not going to reorganize it on the backs of states, because if they do, they're going to see a lot more suffering. It seems to me that it would bounce back politically as well because it's not like they're not gonna be natural disasters. Of course. There was also deadly flash flooding yesterday in

New Mexico. Three people including a seven-year-old boy were killed in the southern New Mexico town of Rio Doce. Floodwaters triggered by monsoon rains trapped people in their cars and homes and at one point swept away entire houses. Emergency crews have carried out at least 85 swift water rescues. The waters of the Rio Rio do so rose nearly 19 ft in a matter of minutes. The area was devastated last year by wildfires and the remaining burn scar was not able to absorb much of the rainfall. Search and rescue efforts in the area continue this morning. Let's bring in meteorologist Michelle Grossman. Michelle, what is the risk for more flash

fludge in these impacted areas? Yeah, unfortunately we're going to see more of the same today and I fear that over the next few months this will be the story. We're looking at very slow moving storms, that connection to climate change where things are not budging in the atmosphere, a tremendous amount of moisture as we've seen with these two fatal flash flooding events. We're going to see more flash flooding today in New Mexico. We're going to see the daytime heating spark those storms later on this afternoon and also looking at radar right Mexico. We're going to see the daytime heating spark those storms later on this afternoon and also looking at radar right now. We're looking at some storms and portions of Texas that will be the same story

today. We're going to see that daytime heating igniting storms that could unleash a lot of moisture in a short amount of time. Remember flash flooding happens fast and then it recedes fast, but it causes a lot of damage and destruction. This is what radar looks like right now in Texas. Most of the moisture is now off to the left or to the east of central Texas. But you notice all those bright colors. That is telling us that we are looking at heavy rain falling right now. The reds, the oranges, the yellows, and that will be the theme throughout this

Wednesday and also throughout the next couple of days. So we're looking at scattered storms once again with that daytime heating, isolated amounts of one to two inches of rain and this could come down in a short amount of time. The ground is so saturated. There's so much limestone, really hard to absorb any water. The creeks, the streams, the rivers are swollen. That is not the only place. We are looking at the chance for severe storms in the east. Once again, we had flooding events too yesterday in parts of Pennsylvania. 24 million people impacted by severe weather. You notice major airports once again will be impacted. We saw that on Tuesday from DC to Philadelphia down to Baltimore, also Greensboro.

So this bullseye here is from portions of southeastern Pennsylvania into the Carolinas. So we are looking at the chance for flash flooding once again and damaging winds. This will be a story that we're going to follow, obviously, for many, many months to come. Meteorologist Michelle Grossman, thank you for that update. And still ahead on Morning Show, a lot more to get to. A look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning, including the Democratic governor who visited with voters in a presidential primary state. We'll read those political tea leaves. Plus, contributing writer for The Atlantic, Pete Wehner, joins us to explain why he says evangelicals turned their back on PEPFAR, the program to combat AIDS in Africa that

has saved millions of lives. And was inspired by evangelicals' faith in Jesus Christ to help the poorest among us. 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. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 21 past the hour time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning the US government is moving to restrict the amount of American farmland that can be purchased by Chinese buyers and by other foreign investors.

The Agriculture Department cited national security concerns. Recent data shows foreigners own nearly 45 million acres of crop land and forests in the United States. Jonathan O'Meara, this is something you brought to my attention a few weeks ago. The Chinese bought a lot of farmland actually around military bases. I believe there's an Atlantic article about it. Tell us about that. No, you're right. This is in the wake of what we've seen in the Russia-Ukraine war with this emphasis on drone strikes and what we saw Israel launched its attack against Iran. Both Ukraine and Israel used drones, snuck drones across the

border, in trucks and by other means, secretly set them up in locations that they controlled in the other country and then launched the attack. That raised the fears the United States could be vulnerable to something like that too. That if land was acquired by another country, it could be used as a staging ground for attack and in particular China. That's what this piece in the Atlantic did indeed that concern was raised and it was noted that China had acquired over years not the government itself but sort of Chinese owned corporations entities with connections to Beijing had bought up a lot of farmland across the United States

we've known that for a while but in particular near military bases so certainly no one's saying that's what happened here, is happening here, but it's certainly raised concerns, and we saw this move yesterday. Certainly needs to be in abundance of caution there. Perhaps some highway projects need to go through those farms and pay them pennies on the dollar, eminent domain. But no, that's just a security risk. It's really, like you said, we need to look at what's happened in Ukraine.

We need to look at what's happened in Iran. This is a real security risk if we ever get into a war with China. All right, more headlines now. Crews are making progress in fighting a massive wildfire that reached France's second largest city. The intense flames and thick smoke forced widespread evacuations in Marseille along with the Mediterranean coast. More than 100 people have been injured. The fire, which was fueled by hot summer winds, grounded all flights around the city and halted train traffic as well. And California Governor Gavin Newsom

is busy meeting with voters in South Carolina. That's interesting. The Democrat has been traveling. That's a long flight, actually. It seems right opposite side of the country. The Democrat has been traveling throughout the state, which is expected to play a pivotal role in the primary race for the presidency. Congressman Jim Clyburn, who helped resurrect President Biden's White House campaign in 2020, introduced Newsom at an event last night adding, quote, I feel good about his chances. And he's of course talking about he feels good about his

chances cleaning up the quality of life issues back in California. There's that. I mean, I gotta say, Jonathan O'Meara, if Gavin Newsom, I mean, he goes to South Carolina, they're talking about his presidential race, well, let the early morning talk about 2020, what year? Eight? But again, I mean, that's a guy who if he runs, he's got a lot to defend in California. If you look at quality of life issues there, man, that's going to...

He's a good fighter though. He's really good fighter on TV. He's a really good debater, but he's got a really big pile of problems back in California. Yeah, I'm just doing some preliminary research here. I don't see too many direct flights from Sacramento to Charleston or Columbia, in fact, there in South Carolina. Governor Newsom, we should note, not the only Democrat who's gone there, Congressman Ro Khanna,

another 2028 possibility, was also in South Carolina over the weekend. And we suspect there'll be far more to the Palmetto state in the days ahead. But you're right about Governor Newsom. Certainly California has long been sort of the Republican bogeyman. We know how they attacked former speaker Pelosi with San Francisco liberalism and the like. Governor Newsom, certainly there have been concerns about things that have happened in California, as you say, quality of life, particularly post-pandemic. Some of his handling of the pandemic also will be called into scrutiny were he to run on the national stage. But he was someone who's handed a political gift earlier this year when he became sort

of the face of democratic opposition to President Trump during those moments in Los Angeles with the ICE raids, the accompanying protests, you know, perceived to be overreached by the federal government, deploying the National Guard and the like. Governor Rousselm stood up to President Trump in a strong way, and that would be his pitch, guys, is that I'm a fighter here.

I tackled him, I took him on in his first term, I'm doing it again now. I could represent our party going forward. All right, we're to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to have more on Donald Trump's very, President Donald Trump's very tough words about Vladimir Putin, what that might mean, and also what the attorney general is saying about the missing minute in the Jeffrey Epstein prison tapes, both those stories when we come back.

Just about 32 past the hour, live look at the White House. On this Wednesday morning, President Trump is expressing growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin promising to boost US military aid to Ukraine just days after the Pentagon ordered a pause in critical weapons deliveries to Kiev. During yesterday's Cabinet meeting, reporters asked the President who ordered the initial pause on Ukraine assistance. Last week the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine. Did you approve of that pause? We want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not treating human beings right.

He's killing too many people. So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that. So who ordered the pause last week? I don't know. Why don't you tell me? All right. CNN reports Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not inform the White House before he authorized a pause on weapons shipments to Ukraine last week.

How do you do that? According to five sources familiar with the matter. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. A Secretary of Defense pauses weapons transfers and you don't tell the commander in chief? And one of the two most important, like foreign policy issues that are going on right now, a war that the president promised to stop, and you have a sect f just winging it not telling the commander in chief we'll get to that in a second here's the president who is the commander in chief who is the one in charge is in charge this I want is this like Hegseth giving Elon Musk a secret briefing on China before the White House found out about it?

Like what? Like... Is he going to do whatever he wants to do? Well, here's President Trump explaining to reporters why he wants to continue sending weapons aid to Ukraine. We're not happy with Putin. I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now because he's killing a lot of people and a lot of them are his soldiers. His soldiers and their soldiers mostly. And it's now up to 7,000 a week and I'm not happy with Putin. And I don't know, we get a lot of bull**** thrown at us by Putin for you want to know

the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless. You know, Jonathan LaMire, you reported on this several weeks ago that, you know, Donald Trump wanted to be different and we can, everybody's talked about this relationship with Vladimir Putin, but let's just assume he wanted America to have better relations with Russia. And he thought that he would be the guy that would be able to do it. You wrote a couple weeks ago that he has given Vladimir Putin enough rope, and he continues to.

And Putin just won't take, you know, he won't take the victory that Donald Trump is trying to hand him, saying, listen, the war can come to an end. You can have Crimea. You can have these. And by the way, these are the same things that the Biden administration were whispering as well, saying, you know, I know Mark Milley was saying Russia's not gonna get to Kiev and Ukraine's not gonna get back all of their land. He told me that back in 2023.

So this is nothing shocking. But Donald Trump continues to give Vladimir Putin benefit of the doubt. Vladimir Putin continues to mock him, ridicule him, thumb his nose at him. And as your reporting suggested a couple of weeks ago, the president is only going to have so much patience, and it looks like his patience is running out with a guy who continues to ridicule, ignore, and mock him. Yeah, Putin has only escalated this conflict, and you're right.

I mean, I reported some time ago, President Trump, he simply wants this war to end. He does want to improve relations with Russia. You can weigh in on that another time, whether that's worth it. But that's what he wants to do. He wants business deals with Russia, rare mineral deals with Russia. He wants it, and he also wants simply the fighting to end.

It's a largely frozen conflict. They have proposed sort of ending things along these lines. Ukraine is objective to some of that. But Ukraine, let's remember, agreed a long time ago to the US proposal for a ceasefire. Russia still has not. And in fact, it's Moscow is stepping up their attacks. And we should note President Trump frustrated yesterday also at the Pentagon.

Eldridge Colby is another name to keep in mind here. Pentagon, a top official there, policy planning. He and Hegsett seem to be the ones behind this pause while they did an inventory of US arsenal. Seemingly the president doesn't agree. Can I ask you about that? I mean, that rises to such a high level. I'm shocked that any secretary of defense would freeze weapons transfers to a country

that is on the front lines of a hot war in Europe. I mean, this reminds me of him deciding to give Elon Musk, according to reports, a secret briefing on China before the White House found out and said, no, no, no, no, don't get, you know, Donald Trump coming out going, he's got economic interest in China. Don't give him that briefing. But we see this again. I mean, this is pretty shocking, isn't it, that you'd have a secretary of defense

unilaterally make this decision according to five different sources? Tell me what you're hearing about... Did the president know anything about this? Yeah, did Pete Hegseth blindsiding the commander-in-chief on an issue this big? Yeah, now, look, we certainly know, in the past, Does the president know anything about this? Pete Hegseth blindsiding the commander in chief on an issue this big. Yeah, now look, we certainly know in the past,

President Trump is quick to distance himself from things that may be unpopular. He claims he doesn't know about them. Later, it turns out he did. But in this case, it does appear that this did not go to the Oval Office. This was a decision made at the Pentagon. They were doing a weapons inventory.

What do we have left in our stockpiles? And to be fair, there are concerns across the defense community about the low supplies that the U.S. has. Right. But there does not there was not seemingly an order from the White House. But Jonathan, shouldn't the Commander in Chief, of course, like if there are low supplies in our weapons, shouldn't the Commander in Chief be told that and say, Mr. President, commander in chief, what would you like to do? Yeah, that would seem, that would be the correct order, the sequence here. And that was not the case here. And there's been real frustration, and we know this, we've talked about this on the

show, growing frustration within the West Wing as to how Defense Secretary Hegseth has been running the Pentagon, not just Signalgate, but sort of the day-to-day operations there and how he's managing and has so few voices around him in the Pentagon that the White House trusts. So there's a lot to explore here. Let's bring in a great panel to help us do so. MSNBC contributor Mark Barnacle joins us, as well as New York Times opinion columnist David French and contributing writer for The Atlantic and a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, Pete Weiner. He's also a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum, a faith-based nonprofit.

Great to see you all, guys. David, let's start with you. This is increasingly tough rhetoric from President Trump towards Vladimir Putin, but we know that every so often he does this. He gets angry at Putin but doesn't fall through with action. of the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the

United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president

of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States,

the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president of the United States, the president that's been stalled in the Senate for a while because Trump previously didn't give his blessing. Now the White House didn't weigh in on this. They simply pointed to Trump's comments. And so it seems like it's not official yet, but Graham optimistic that maybe as soon as next week, these sanctions could be a go. Well, you know, one thing that's happening is Putin is overplaying his hand right now. Putin, by launching wave upon wave of attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine, what he's doing is essentially just thumbing his nose at Donald Trump. He knows Trump wants to get some indication, some hope that there's some possibility of

peace here, or at least a ceasefire. And Putin keeps doubling down. And it's starting to make Trump look bad. It's starting to make Trump look weak. And while Trump obviously has no real love for Ukraine, Trump has a lot of love for Trump, and Trump doesn't want Vladimir Putin to make a fool of him on the world stage. There might actually be right now a window of opportunity to get some additional aid to Ukraine, to get some additional sanctions on Russia.

And if there is that window of opportunity, I by all means seize it. So the Wall Street Journal editorial board has a take on this and Pete Weiner, I'd love to get your reaction to it. Trump calls out the Putin charade, it's entitled. It reads in part, the president is grasping what some of his own staffers don't. Arming Kiev is realism rooted in America's security interests. The case for arming Ukraine is a realist one. By the president's report, Mr. Putin is showing nothing but recalcitrance.

The Russian dictator is refusing to end the war he started because he still thinks he can accomplish enough of what he wants on the battlefield. The U.S. has tried moving Mr. Putin off that position through persuasion, flattery, and unilateral concessions. It has not worked. What matters is giving Ukraine enough firepower to change Mr. Putin's cost-benefit calculation about continuing the war. You listen.

When it comes to dealing with Russian leaders, with Soviet leaders, the past is always pro-lawed. You know, Ronald Reagan talked about peace through strength. And he built upon what Jimmy Carter learned at the end of his presidency. Ed Luce's new biography of Mika's father, Zbig, talks about Pete Weiner, about how Dr. Brzezinski kept warning Jimmy Carter and the State Department about Russia's imminent invasion of Afghanistan. But Cy Vance was an idealist, Jimmy Carter was an idealist. They wanted to start two treaty.

They were bending over backwards to deal with the Russians. And after the invasion, which fortunately Dr. Brzezinski had prepared for, sort of set a trap for the Soviets. After the invasion, he went to Jimmy Carter, he said, Mr. President, if you want to govern with the ideals of Woodrow Wilson, you have to start with the hard-headed toughness of Harry Truman. That's the only thing Russians understand. And of course, that's what Ronald Reagan said when he said peace through strength,

something that George W. Bush ultimately figured out. Barack Obama ultimately figured out like the Russians. They don't do anything for the good of others or the good of the world. Not not not this Russian leader. So talk about lessons learned and what where Donald Trump appears to be right now and just saying enough. He's learned the lessons that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and every other American president have ultimately learned.

Yeah, I think it's a good point. Dr. Brzezinski was right. Unfortunately, there's not a Dr. Brzezinski in this administration and they have Pete Hegseth and others. So that's one problem. I agree with David. There's a bit of a window open, but I wouldn't be surprised if it shuts. I mean, this is Donald Trump's position on Wednesday. He may be in a different place by Monday. He is so unstable and so unreliable. He's like a turning top. And it's so late in the game. I mean, I am 100% for giving support to Ukraine because they need it. But a lot of time has been lost. Your broader point is exactly right, Joe. I mean, the Soviet Union and now the Russian Empire, they understand one thing, which is strength, resolve, steel.

And I don't think Donald Trump sees that fundamentally. I think he may see it episodically. And that's why I think at the end of the day, he's not reliable on this issue as well as a lot of others. You know, Jonathan, Pete is exactly right there in terms of what Putin is looking at. But we shouldn't step on the lead here in this story. And the lead still is that Ukraine outnumbered perhaps personnel-wise on the battlefield, maybe five, six, maybe 10 to one in terms of sheer numbers of Russian troops versus

Ukrainian troops. And yet Ukraine has fought the Russians to a standstill. And there's no one at the Pentagon that you'll speak to at the higher levels who know about combat, who know about warfare, who will tell you that if they were given the proper tools to use, they would beat Russia. They would beat Russia and thus relieve NATO and the NATO countries of the overwhelming thought, the fear that Russia is using Ukraine as an appetizer for coming after Poland or who knows like that.

So what do you have at the Pentagon? You have a secretary of defense mismanaging the entire operation, and as Joe alluded to, suddenly, independently, restricts, calls back weapons shipments to the Ukraine, because he says we are under sourced in terms of we have to have enough weapons of our own to protect ourselves. And yet the President of the United States, in every speech he gives, talks about the strongest military in the world. Well, how strong is it that we have to figure out, you know, oh, we can't send them Patriot

missiles. We need them for ourselves. How strong is the Army? The Army is very strong. But there's something really, really run afoul when the Secretary of Defense, as Joe indicated, goes over the head of the president, doesn't even tell the Chief of Staff, Suzy Wiles, who gets great high marks for running that operation, and restricts the weapons flow to Ukraine. Yeah, there are very few questions on the strength of

the US Army. There are a lot of questions in Washington right now about the Secretary of Defense, those who sit atop the Pentagon and the leadership there. Your point about the Ukraine is exactly right. They have fought against dramatically tough odds, have fought Russia to a standstill. But Joe Amica, what is so concerning here is the way this conflict has morphed. It's morphed into this sort of new age drone-based war. We talked about it earlier. And Russia, in particular, using their drones,

using their missiles to target Ukrainian cities. The front lines are pretty frozen. There's not much movement one way or the other. But Russia seems intent on inflicting as much civilian damage as possible on the Ukrainians' senseless killing. And that is something that President Trump, in recent weeks, has begun really speaking

out about. He wants this war to end. The question now is, does he follow through with the pressure to bring Moscow to the table? Right. He seems fed up. Well, he does seem fed up. And I would just suggest that people who say there's no way he's going to stand up to Vladimir Putin need to look back to what everybody was saying before the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Everybody's saying, oh, well, the two weeks. He's saying two weeks. This means he's not going to move on. And he ended up catching Iran and the rest of the world off guard. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't allow the Senate to move forward with sanctions, if he doesn't start doing some things that will bring Vladimir Putin to the table. Because again, there's no other option. If he wants this war to end, he can't have a secretary of defense just going off on it.

I guess I also, the secretary of defense. What is that? That's been a problem from the very beginning. Mike Barnicle talked about how Suzy Wilds runs a tight ship. Everybody you talk to going in and out of the White House will tell you that, that it's a massively different White House this time as far as how things are run than the first term. on than the first time. And you know, they had problems with him during transition when he wasn't straightforward with them time and time again.

And they kept getting surprised. The Trump transition team kept getting surprised. And now it keeps happening. It's happened with Signalgate. It's the first thing that really got them off of their sort of pace, fast pace when they started. So you had Signalgate. You've had other episodes where just real embarrassments coming out of the Pentagon. And now again, reports that Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of even think of a parallel to this, historically.

I can't think of a historic parallel. I do know that if this had ever happened before another administration, Secretary of Defense would be fired. The next day. Yeah, the next day. You don't undercut a commander-in-chief on an issue this big. Still ahead, political endorsements from the pulpit without the threat of financial consequences. We'll explain that major policy change from the IRS.

Plus, we'll go through the Supreme Court ruling that, for now, allows the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to reshape the federal government. There's a fascinating opinion. It really is. Unfortunately, we've got a really smart dude here named David French. It's going to help us understand it. Walk us through this opinion that's not as cut and dry as everybody's suggesting it is. Morning Joe is back in a moment. President Trump says he is done talking about Jeffrey Epstein. The president

openly criticized a reporter at yesterday's cabinet meeting for asking Attorney General Pam Bondi about the convicted sex offender. Could I just interrupt for a second? Sure. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking, we have Texas, we have this,

we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time and do you feel like answering? I don't mind answering. I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we're having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration, but you go ahead.

The attorney general did eventually respond explaining why she seemed to confirm a client list earlier this year and why the officially released video of Epstein's cell had a missing minute in it. In February I did an interview on Fox and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list and my response was it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that

video. It's old from like 1999. So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night. And that's it on Epstein. So they have a Jonathan Amir, I'm not a surveillance expert, but they,

they set up a system that has a minute missing every night? I'll tell you what we're going to do. I got this great new system we're going to set up in a prison because we want to make sure that nothing really, really bad happens. And so this system is great and it's going to go all 24 hours. But like late at night when bad shit can really go down, what we're gonna do is we're gonna have a minute missing so it can reset. Is that, would you go, I'm curious,

would you go to this surveillance company to set up your home security cameras? My understanding is for 23 hours and 59 minutes, it's the safest prison you could want. They're the best. They're the best. They are the best. You know, the last minute, is for 23 hours and 59 minutes, it's the safest prison you could want. They're the best. They're the best. They're the best.

You know, that last minute, you take your chances, I guess. Yeah, I mean, this sort of explanation defies reason. And certainly, it is remarkable on just the shift in tone here. President Trump himself has not spoken that much about Epstein, but plenty of people throughout. But plenty of people in this world have for a very long time. And that's what we're seeing.

We've been in a real, almost not civil war, but a real infighting in Trump world, in MAGA land right now because they've been promised for so long to get the goods. We just lost a minute there. We just lost a minute. And again, it's the minute before midnight. Here we go. Ready? Everything's good.

Oh, well. Oh, okay. I'm sure nothing happened in that minute. Nothing at all. Well, you know, and the thing is, since everybody- Is he seen after that minute? Since everybody knows. No.

Since everybody knows that you have that minute that skips. I mean, thank God. Thank God they know that because they'll make sure not to do anything bad during that minute when the film doesn't work because, as the attorney general said, they set up a system that just doesn't record every minute. Yeah. I can't see any possible wrong, possible worry spot. I can't see any possible concern about being widely known

that there's one minute that doesn't record. You know, that seems totally reasonable. Is the next time he's seen on that video, he's dead? I think so, yeah. Yeah, I've never seen it all. Not seen it all. I don't think he's seen it all. You know, and I had heard yesterday somebody say

that Bill Barr had said, I looked through all of the minutes. I said, I did it intentionally to know that nothing went awry. Well, yeah, no, you didn't see everything because you didn't see the minute that we now find out is not a bug, but a feature. It's missing a minute.

It's a feature? Who's ever heard of a prison surveillance camera that was set up to not record the same minute every day? They really should have read the fine print. Read the fine print. It's just right there. Look for that one minute. Sorry.

That's just how it works. Okay. Let's move on. No, we're going to come back to this and keep covering it. But yes, we'll move on right now. The Internal Revenue Service now says churches can endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status. The IRS made the statement in a court filing aimed at settling a lawsuit challenging a

tax provision that prohibits all nonprofits from formally endorsing or opposing political candidates. A federal judge still needs to approve the agreement before the case is officially resolved. Let's bring in the president of the National Action Network and a host of politics nation, Reverend Al Sharpton. Reverend, this may be shocking for some people, but I will tell you as somebody that campaigned, you know, they may in churches, they may not have been able to officially endorse, but they all, you know, priest would always say, now I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but I will tell you who my blessed family and I are going to vote for, Joe Scarborough.

You know, so you take it however you want to take it, but I mean, it seems to me that this actually just allows the reality to move on without one side or the other specifically being targeted. What do you think? I think it is inaccurate the way you have outlined it. I think the real issue is going to be that how are they going to set up guardrails here? Are they saying that

churches are now going to be able to put in the church bulletins that we support candidate A? Are you going to be able to bring candidate A or B to the pulpit and say this is who we endorse, what about those in the congregation that don't support it? The guardrails on this is going to be interesting. And I think the right wing, this lawsuit that the IRS was responding to with right wing Christian right kind of broadcasters and religious organizations, I think it will end up seeing that two can play that game.

And you're gonna see a lot of people on the other side that are gonna do that. We're having a national, a Zoom called the Black Church Leaders early next week with the Council of National Black Churches, Reverend Franklin Richardson and National Action Network to break down what this means and what it could, it could really impact

the midterm elections next year and some mayoral elections this year when ministers can get in the pulpit and say, I endorse ABC. Well, David French, I mean, hasn't it sort of been that way already? I mean, again, I will say on both sides, and I'll talk about myself. You know, a preacher didn't have to say even who he was voting for. I would look at precincts where big churches were, where people that went to that church were surrounded by that. These churches would vote 95% the same way.

And they would make sure during the church services that somebody put leaflets on every single car outside, walk outside and go, oh, well, all right, I guess they think I'm a good guy. Doesn't happen much in church, but okay, I'll take it. Yay. Drive home. But this was, this is just de facto reality on both sides, hasn't it? Oh, it's been a de facto reality for a long time. But I really think this is also just an important First Amendment moment. The First Amendment, if there's any kind of speech that the the First Amendment was designed to protect, there is a primary reason

for the First Amendment. It would be to protect political speech and to say to nonprofits, you have to give up a key part of your First Amendment right to receive this benefit of nonprofit status has always struck me as really skating on the edges of what the First Amendment should permit. Now, to say that pastors can do this according to the First Amendment

and the administration's interpretation of the First Amendment is not the same thing as saying that pastors should do it. I do know there are a number of pastors I've already heard from who are not terribly happy about this because they know they're now going to hear from congregants saying endorse, endorse, endorse when they don't wanna do it.

But I do think there's a core First Amendment interest here. I think this is the right decision and then leave it up to pastors and churches as to the wisdom of how they use their own pulpit. Well, I was going to say, you know, and Pete, this actually makes the life of preachers so much more difficult for the reason that David has said. I know that we've all talked about the politicalization of the evangelical church, and I know that we've all talked about the politicalization of the evangelical church, and yet I know we've all talked to evangelical pastors

who say, man, I wish I could just preach the gospels. I got these people talking to me about politics, and they want me to say, you know, go in there waving a flag for Donald Trump, or they want me on the other side criticizing his immigration policies and policies that seem heartless. you know, go in there waving a flag for Donald Trump, or they want me on the other side criticizing his immigration policies and policies that seem heartless. I want to preach the gospel.

This seems to actually put more pressure on these pastors who have, many have told me, this is just a miserable time to be in the pulpit because so many people that are coming into their church wanted to be about politics and they wanted to be about Jesus Christ. Yeah, I agree with that, Joe, 100%. I've talked to a lot of pastors, too, and in a way this ruling that they couldn't endorse from the pulpit and from churches, gave them a rationale, an excuse not to weigh in. And many of them don't want to.

I would say, speaking of the evangelical world, which I know the best, I'd say most of the problem in terms of the politicization of the evangelical church and the corruption of the church comes from the congregants, not the pastors. There are obviously exceptions like Robert Jeffress and others. But overall, I think that that's a fair assessment. And pastors often don't want to weigh in on politics. Doesn't mean they never should. There are issues and moments where I think that morality compels them to, but for the most part, I think that they should be careful about getting

away. One other point, which is, I agree with you too, I mean, this is a, there is a de facto approval of churches speaking out. 82% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, overwhelming number of black Christians voted for the Democratic nominee. So we're talking about numbers on the margins.