Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/11/25

Episode Date: February 11, 2025

Judge finds Trump administration violated court order halting funding freeze

I think that what Trump should do, like if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and then when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Okay. There you go.

Little precursor there for you. That was then US Senate candidate JD Vance giving Donald Trump advice for a possible second term. It's very similar to a social media post from the current vice president questioning the power of the judiciary branch. We're going to go through all of that and play for you the reaction from Republican senators. Meanwhile, we're seeing that defiance play out in the real world with a judge accusing

Trump, the Trump administration, of ignoring a court order on the federal funding freeze. We'll bring you the very latest on that legal fight. Plus, New York City Mayor Eric Adams will not be going to trial in April after the Justice Department ordered the federal corruption charges against him to be dropped. We'll get insight on that move from the Trump administration. And we'll go through the president's latest comments on the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel,

giving the terror group an ultimatum. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's only Tuesday guys, February 11th. Willie's here, Joe, along with Joe, Willie and me. We have the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale, and the host of MSNBC's Inside with Jen Psaki, Jen Psaki, and We Coordinated Col coordinated colors Jen Psaki and I. That's right. Out of this.

So guys, Joe, where do you want to begin this morning? Well, we have so much to talk about. Let's circle back to Willie, though, who wasn't with us yesterday talking about the Super Bowl. First of all, Willie, the numbers came out. One hundred and twenty six million people on average watch the Super Bowl on Sunday. Obviously the biggest the biggest audience watch the Super Bowl on Sunday. Wow.

Obviously the biggest audience for any Super Bowl ever. Obviously one of the biggest television events ever. But yeah, and what a game, huh? Yeah, well the amazing thing about that number, 126 million peaked at 137 I think or 135, something like that, is it was a terrible game. And you had that many fans that it peaked in the second quarter 130 million for the halftime show and then dwindled a little bit down the stretch but again these

communal experiences the AFC championship game people want to sit and watch things together and they did again on Sunday just extraordinary and also you consider as we always do with the Super Bowl, that people don't necessarily even watch in their own home, that you go somewhere to watch at somebody else's house, you go to a bar, whatever it is. We keep setting records when we talk about this age of fragmented media, except with live sports. And the NFL especially, Mika.

Yeah. For sure. So let's get to the news at the top of the hour here. Two minutes past, a federal judge in Rhode Island said the Trump administration has violated his order to lift a sweeping freeze on federal spending and has ordered the government to restore the funds immediately. This is the first time in Trump's second term that a judge has accused the Trump administration to be disobeying a judicial mandate.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by 22 attorneys general in democratic-led states after a wide-ranging OMB directive caused chaos and confusion across the country. The Trump administration said they will appeal the decision. Yesterday, the president took a swipe at the judicial branch, saying that there have been some very bad rulings and that it's a shame to see it. This comes amid overall concerns the Trump administration will not comply with court orders from judges who have ruled against the president's agenda. That's because of a social media post on Sunday from the vice president, JD Vance, who wrote

in part, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Yesterday, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville was asked whether the White House has a right to circumvent judges who are halting executive actions. The Trump ally said, quote, I think they do. But here's how other Republican senators responded to that question. Well, I mean, the courts obviously are the sort of the branch of our government that calls balls and strikes and referees. And I think that they've got an important role to play. And so I expect that to continue and I expect the court to play the important role of ensuring

that the laws of the country are followed. When you have a lawsuit, somebody wins and somebody loses. But I support the process and I support the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. If you disagree, and many people have disagreed with opinions before, that's why God made Courts of Appeal. And that's why God made the U.S. Supreme Court. But you're never going to hear me attack the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. Well, I don't even think we have seen that yet.

So it's a hypothetical. JD Vance didn't say anything about anything that was not appropriate. He's saying on the appropriate use of executive powers. I think that's what he meant. I think it's a very, very clear line between the powers that are there that are appropriate. This president is saying, I believe I have the authority. You find out in a court of law, and if they are appropriate, you move forward with them.

And should follow whatever the court's decision ultimately is? We have to. We will follow the decisions of the court, and I don't think there's been anybody saying no. Of course, and, Willie, it's one of the things I said yesterday. It's like, though it was meant to troll, and though JD Vance has said, and we heard it a couple of years ago on that podcast, that he thought she should just run over the third branch,

like Andrew Jackson, the United States senators, I would say other than maybe Tommy Tuberville and maybe a handful of others, an overwhelming majority of senators are going to say what an overwhelming majority of members of Congress are going to say, which is, you have to follow the court's decisions. And the fact that anybody would even suggest that you don't, is yeah, it's okay for us to say that's shocking that they missed, I guess, civics class starting in fourth or fifth grade,

or maybe they didn't have it. Maybe that's the problem. But as Senator Round said, it is the courts we listen to, and they define what is legitimate. They define what is not legitimate. Sometimes the president likes it. Sometimes the president doesn't. And yesterday we went through four years of federal rulings where the federal courts enjoined, stopped or overturned what President Joe Biden did. Yeah, and we saw just yesterday, we'll go through some of it, a flurry of court action of stopping some of these policies and the executive orders put in place by the Trump administration. And almost everyone we heard there is a lawyer, Joe, and we've talked about this.

J.D. Vance went to Yale Law School. He was on the Yale Law Review. John Kennedy went to prestigious schools, they're all lawyers. They can't say anything other with a straight face, I hope. Then we have three co-equal branches of government. If you don't like the way a court rules, we've got the Court of Appeals you can go to, and then you can go up to the Supreme Court if you think it ought to go that far. That's just the way the system works and anything else ought to be noise.

We'll see again how they hold up under pressure from Donald Trump, but for now at least a handful of them there saying the right things. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Guys, good morning. Danny, start with you. What do you make of that back and forth there? JD Vance saying, well, we don't always have to listen to what the courts say.

And some other senators pushing back on that idea or trying to interpret for JD Vance what they hope he meant by that. What did you hear? Historically, this has happened before. I think JD Vance even referred to this situation way back. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce an order by the Supreme Court that resolved a clash between the Cherokee Nation and the state of Georgia. And history's lesson is, well, not a whole lot happens to a president or an administration who refuses to follow an order, because we operate on this kind of trust that the president will do that. And while it's probably apocryphal that Jackson said he has his order, meaning the Supreme Court, let's see them enforce it, it's a scary quote, if true, because it's really an unspoken thing that the courts don't

really have their own armies. They don't have a powerful arm to enforce their orders. They rely on the government working properly and not defying them. So it is a scary concept. Presidents may have that power. Maybe it's not so much that they have that power. It's just that no one can stop them from not following the courts. Ali.

Ken, I do have a question for you though, because although senators are talking about this as theoretical and hypothetical, even as some of them are saying they're uncomfortable or trying to explain away what the vice president and others have seemingly suggested, you are seeing this federal judge up in Rhode Island saying that the Trump administration is already bulking at the court's order, not unfreezing the frozen spending and federal grant money. So push is seemingly already coming to shove here. That's absolutely right, Ali. Taking us out of the realm of a theoretical discussion into the practical and the real. Here you have this federal judge in Rhode Island saying very explicitly that we believe you are. I believe you're violating my order that you stop this

spending freeze and resume funding to places like the National Institutes of Health because I think that's unconstitutional and he began his ruling with a quote from a Supreme Court decision that essentially says those who defy federal court orders risk criminal contempt. Now he didn't explicitly threaten the Trump administration with criminal contempt in the rest of the ruling, but that was certainly the implication of opening that way and it raises

a whole host of questions, which is how does a judge hold an administration in criminal contempt? I mean, who do you you can't jail the president, obviously. In fact, if we remember, Donald Trump was held in criminal contempt by the New York judge in his criminal case, but that judge was very reluctant to mete out that ultimate sanction of jail time. It didn't happen when he was the ex-president. It's not gonna happen when he's the president.

So what are the remedies? I mean, we were gaming this out yesterday. Are they gonna throw some hapless Justice Department lawyer who happens to be in the courtroom, throw that person in jail? Do they levy fines? What would be the point of fining the federal government, which has unlimited resources?

So we're really at that point where it's starting to become a practical question, not just a theoretical question. And the other issue is it's really difficult for the judge to get the facts when you have a government agency and the plaintiffs aren't allowed inside and you have Elon Musk and his people and they're saying, well, we are spending the money and folks are saying, well, we're not getting the money. So it's a really difficult situation, guys.

So it was good to hear some of the Republicans saying, you're not going to hear us thwarting the law but at the same time Danny if you look at the front page of the New York Times right now it says basically we're in a constitutional crisis even though there isn't a complete clear definition. Citing different deans of law schools from the cost across the country and experts talking about being in this crisis because of the flurry of things that Trump has done from birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, shutting down agencies, removing leaders from agencies. The systematic unconstitutional and illegal acts create a constitutional crisis, one legal expert said. The distinctive feature of the current situation, several legal scholars said,

and is it's chaotic flood of activity and collectively amounts to a radically new conception of presidential power. It is a constitutional crisis when the president of the United States doesn't care what the constitution says, regardless whether Congress or the courts resist. Up until now, while presidents might engage in particular acts that were unconstitutional,

there was never a sense that, you know, the Constitution was meaningless. And the bottom line is, the flurry and the chaos of it may make it so that the courts won't even have the time to react. To that, you say what? I think we need to be careful with the term constitutional crisis, because as I define it, that would be a situation where the Constitution doesn't have an answer and there is a pressing conflict. The flurry of executive orders, the chaos, that I think doesn't get us to crisis yet.

It is irritating for the courts. It is challenging. It could lead to a serious problem if, as you said, they become too congested with dealing with these orders. They keep coming. The crisis occurs, and we've already talked about it, at the moment when there is a court order and the president or the administration

refuses to follow it. Because historically, we don't really have a clear answer for what to do in that situation. On the first half of it, issuing a bunch of executive orders, not only do we know that the courts can handle it, they already did this back in 2017. This is the same MO. The Trump administration then would just fire out executive orders. It felt like they weren't even spell checking them. And then they would let the courts prune them like the proverbial Bonsai tree or they would just withdraw them and go back to the drawing board

It's probably not the most efficient way of doing it. It's chaotic as you said, it's problematic Yeah, constitutional crisis for me is the moment the court issues an order and the administration resists You could say that the last notable occurrence was when Nixon initially administration resists you could say that the last notable occurrence was when Nixon initially refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the Supreme Court eventually he capitulated but history is full of these near crisis examples. The question is what do we do going forward and the funding freeze. It just one case of the courts pushing back. We have a long list in front of us this morning.

The buyout pause was extended by the federal judge. The birthright citizenship contesting that was blocked again. Funding of NIH that was cut by the administration, that's been blocked again by a judge. So you're seeing the courts stepping in here. We'll see what happens next. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is ordering federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The order from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovi would dismiss all charges against Mayor Adams without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled in the future. Adams was charged with one

count of conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals and to commit wire fraud and bribery, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and to commit wire fraud and bribery, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals and one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe. NBC reports in a memo, Bovi argued that the indictment of Adams in September came too close to this year's mayoral primary in June and that it limited Adams' ability to aid President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigrants and to fight crime. Boevi, without citing specific evidence, also suggested the charges were politically motivated. It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed, he wrote.

Boevi said Adams' case would be reviewed by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, but not until after the general election for mayor in November. Important to note, the charges against the mayor have not yet been officially dismissed. For that to happen, a formal request will need to be filed in court and reviewed by a judge. Mayor Adams' lawyer responded to the dismissal order in a statement that reads, in part, The facts of the case are clear.

The mayor never used his official position for personal benefit, nor did he have any role in violating campaign finance laws. Despite a lot of fanfare and sensational claims, ultimately there was no evidence presented that he broke any laws ever, end quote. And here are the front pages of the New York tabloids this morning. There you go. New York Daily News simply saying off the hook.

You remember this involved the nation of Turkey, so quit cold Turkey. So Ken Delaney, we should also add to this conversation that Eric Adams has courted Donald Trump very hard to get to this day. He went down just days before the inauguration to Mar-a-Lago. He raced down to the inauguration itself. He has met many times with Donald Trump, priming the pump for this moment, and now he's off the hook for now. Yeah, and it's easy to make light of this, Willie,

but I gotta tell you, I feel like a broken record, but it's hard to overstate what an earthquake of a story this is in Justice Department circles, because you just don't see this. They explicitly said they were not dropping the case because of the facts of the law that it was no reflection on the legal theories or the work of the career prosecutors who brought the case and so what was their grounds well it was on you know charges without

evidence that the U.S. attorney who had been appointed by President Biden. You know was using the case to burnish his image and also some concerns that the trial would take place during the New York primary season, even though the indictment was brought nine months before the New York primary. So, look, I mean, this, what this is starting to look like is a political decision to drop charges against someone who, as you said, has been courting Donald Trump and the

Trump administration and who has claimed that he was persecuted by the Biden administration because of his stance on immigration. And they even said actually in their justification that another issue they were concerned about was that he had lost his security clearance because he was under this criminal cloud and therefore couldn't cooperate with federal authorities and immigration enforcement. So look, this is not done. I mean, it's creating the impression that there's a Biden Justice Department and a Trump Justice Department and these decisions are made for political reasons.

The Southern District of New York is full of career prosecutors who are apolitical. And they brought this case based on the facts and the law. There's a mountain of evidence, much of which they revealed in a speaking indictment that accuses Eric Adams of soliciting bribes and favors from the government of Turkey, and then in turn doing the government of Turkey favors using his official position,

including getting the approval for a building that the fire department said was unsafe to occupy in New York City. And so here you have a situation where the main justice is ordering the Southern District to drop this case. It hasn't been dropped yet. But then saying that it's being done without prejudice, meaning the charges can be refiled at any time. Well, what position does that leave Mayor Eric Adams in? He is now beholden to the Trump Justice Department. Those charges are hanging over him.

So this is a really, really extraordinary situation, guys. Daddy, another case, Mayor Adams knowing what a lot of people know, that flattery will get you everywhere with Donald Trump. Go down, flatter him, court him, support his policies, and you'll get what you want out of the deal. But how disheartening is this for prosecutors building cases, as we could say about all the January 6th prosecutors as well? Yeah, the memo itself says, well, this has nothing to do with the line prosecutors who worked on these cases.

It's more about management. But that's got to be a hollow complement to the line prosecutors who worked on the case, because when you do, you live that case. And there's a difference between the line prosecutors and the appointed positions. But I've got to tell you, Willie, never in the history of memos have there been so much in the way of subtext between the lines. It's two pages and there's so much in there. Among them, the smarter thing for the administration might have been to just make this memo three lines.

Dismiss the case against Mayor Adams. It's the explanation that's going to subject them to a ton of criticism. And if anyone else is concerned that this is a quid pro quo between Eric Adams in exchange for him helping with immigration enforcement and dismissing the case, that's not me saying it. The memo itself worries about that in a footnote saying, that is not what this is, we promise you. But critics are going to say, that's exactly what this seems like.

And the magic word that you seized on, Willie, is the word without. Without prejudice does mean, and the memo says, that they could bring these charges again, which normally wouldn't have that much meaning. But in this case, because they also mentioned the things that they want Eric Adams to help the administration with, the implication is going to draw a lot of criticism. Again, my recommendation would have been make this three lines, dismiss the case. It's the explanation that's going to get him in trouble. NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos and NBC News justice corresponding Ken Delaney.

Thank you both very much for your reporting and analysis. So Jen Psaki, let's talk big picture now. And the Democrats, what should they be doing right now? What are the options? Well, look, I think in Washington, it's important to remember they're in the minority in the House and the Senate. So they have not as much leverage as I think most people who are rooting for them to push back think they might have. But there are still things they can do.

We've seen this threat of a potential to shut the government down. I'm not suggesting shutting the government down is good politics. It's certainly not. But it is a negotiating moment, the deadlines, March 15th, March 14th, where they could use that to try to put some pressure on Mike Johnson and Republicans. We've seen them much more active and participating in peaceful protests. We've seen them showing up at agencies where Elon Musk and his team is getting in,

the Doge team is getting into business they shouldn't be getting into. So we've seen some activity. There needs to be more, I think, but that's one of the ways, those are a couple of the ways that they can be active. The last thing I would say, Mika, is we've seen some try to attempt this.

There needs to be a little bit more fearlessness of calling out when Republicans are behaving in ways that are contradictory to their own values, that are contradictory to what they've believed for some time on some of these nominees, and that are contradictory to what the American public really wants. And there are a lot of opportunities to do that

with what Musk is doing with some of these nominees. I'd love to see more of that. We're seeing kind of inklings of it at this point. All right, still ahead on Morning Joe, we're gonna look at the latest from Paris where Vice President JD Vance is attending a summit on artificial intelligence. Plus, President Trump elaborates on his proposal

to take over Gaza and gives Hamas an ultimatum. We'll play for you those comments. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Twenty-four past the hour. Welcome back. Vice President JD Vance is in Paris this morning for an artificial intelligence summit.

The Associated Press reports that Vance took a moment during his address to warn global leaders and tech CEOs that, quote, excessive regulation would kill the growing AI industry. Joining us live from Paris is NBC News International correspondent, Raph Sanchez. Raph, what more can you tell us about Vance's address? Well, Mika, this was Vice President Vance's debut on the world stage. He was speaking to an audience that included French President Emmanuel Macron, the prime minister of India, senior leaders from China and other countries. And he used the opportunity to deliver a full-throated

America first vision of artificial intelligence. He said that he is determined, and the Trump administration is determined to see the United States remain the world's AI superpower. He warned against any efforts to choke off, to over-regulate the American AI industry. And he spoke in pretty stark terms. I want you to take a listen.

The United States of America is the leader in AI, and our administration plans to keep it that way. We invite your countries to work with us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations. However, the Trump administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that. Now, you heard him there saying the United States is open to cooperation, but that it

will be on American terms when it comes to regulation. Interestingly, Mika, he did not name China in his address, but China has been very much hanging over this summit. Silicon Valley, Washington, capitals throughout Europe, very rattled by the success of that Chinese startup DeepSeek, which appears to have produced a pretty sophisticated AI model at a fraction of the cost of Western companies. He did warn European nations about yoking their technology to what he called authoritarian regimes and becoming dependent on supply chains from those countries.

Mika. NBC's Raf Sanchez, live from Paris, thank you very much. Let's bring in President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. Poll surprise winning columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson joins us as well. Richard, we'll start with that. We do want to talk about Gaza. editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson joins us as well. Richard, we'll start with that. We do want to talk about Gaza.

But what do you make of the stance that the vice president was putting out there, especially about the regulation of AI? I think he's on to something. I simply don't think AI lends itself to regulation. Let me give you one image would be nuclear weapons. United States and the Soviet Union had them. We had arms control because nuclear weapons were basically in two hands, very large, concentrated efforts to build them.

AI is so different. It's distributed, just decentralized, dozens of companies in the United States and around the world. So the idea that we're- Doesn't it seem like the one thing that really needs to be regulated, given the potential of AI? Well, the problem is, first of all, how do you regulate the bad sides and not the good sides? Who decides? how do you regulate the bad sides and not the good sides? Who decides?

How do you somehow discriminate? China and others aren't going to want to do it. There's too much economic upside here, Mika, potentially too much strategic and military upside. You can't regulate things when they're in a stage of fast development. They have to reach plateaus. AI is not going to reach a plateau. It's going to keep moving.

I simply don't think the nature of the beast lends itself to regulation. So is it just the wild west then? How do you have some control over AI? Or do you not? I simply don't think you do. I mean, there's two ways to think about it. One is nationally. What are we as the United States?

Maybe we can do some things. Again, I think it's very hard. But internationally, Willie, I think it is sort of the wild wild west and country is going to be looking for ways to exploit it for economic advantage, intelligent advantage, military advantage. Now we may reach a point where it reaches levels of maturity that in select areas, you can get some select regulation or limits, but we're not, we're not even close to that yet. All right. That's what the vice president's doing in Paris. Meanwhile, more news out of Gaza. Hamas is postponing the release of any more hostages,

accusing Israel of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement. The terrorist group was supposed to hand over hostages on Saturday, but now is delaying the move over claims Israel is slow to allow displaced Palestinians to return to northern Gaza and that it's not been letting aid enter the enclave in response Israel has put its military on high alert telling troops to prepare for any scenario in Gaza president Trump also waited on the conflict yesterday issue an ultimatum to Hamas. As far as I'm concerned if all of the hostages are returned by

Saturday at 12 o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time, I would say cancel it and all bets are off and let hell break out. Hell break out Saturday at noon, he says. Meanwhile, the president says Palestinians would not be allowed to return to Gaza under his plan to take over and redevelop the region. The president made the comment during the pre-taped Super Bowl interview with Fox News host Brett Baer. We'll build beautiful communities for the 1.9 million people.

We'll build beautiful communities, safe communities. Could be five, six, could be two. But we'll build safe communities a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is. In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. Would the Palestinians have the right to return?

No big money spent. No, they wouldn't, because they're going to have much better housing, much better. In other words, I'm talking about building a permanent place for them, because if they have to return now, it will be years before you could ever, it's not habitable. It will be years before it could happen. The president reiterating Palestinians would not be allowed to return to Gaza. At the White House yesterday, he doubled down on an idea and suggested cutting aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refuse to take in Palestinians.

Both countries have made clear they don't want to do that and voice opposition to the president's plan. President Trump is set to meet with the King of Jordan at the White House today. So, so much in there, Richard. We can start with all hell breaking loose at noon on Saturday. If all the hostages are not returned, that's what the president said yesterday. What do you take that to mean? Look, I think at some point Israel might be tempted

to restart military operations. Getting from phase one to phase two of this agreement is really tough because phase two is really demanding. It means that Israel has to completely withdraw from all of Gaza and you have an open-ended ceasefire. I find that hard to believe. As much as many Israelis wanna do that to get the hostages back,

Hamas is out there out of the tunnels. I simply am skeptical that we're at a point where we're going to get a phase two of this agreement in place. So I think you could see renewed violence. Ali Vittali, I'm curious on the reporting front, has there been any follow up? I know initially the White House didn't respond specifically. Is there any follow-up to Donald Trump saying, I am going to own Gaza, and it's going to think of it

as basically a real estate development? Any follow-up on whether he was talking about himself personally or whether he's talking about the United States, quote, owning Gaza? It's an excellent distinction and one that I've not yet heard the White House make, but that is also predicated on the way that Trump explained it,

which is he says Israel will give the land to the United States, and that's not Israel's land to give. And so there are still a lot of questions about this idea that Trump has. However much he's thinking about it, not as an executive or the leader of the greatest country in the world, but thinking about it as a real estate developer, it doesn't matter the mindset.

It matters that there are a lot of clear roadblocks to the way that he's talking about trying to achieve this. But certainly those are key questions that the White House has had to and will have to explain. The one that they made a clear point of explaining was when Trump weighed the possibility of U.S. troops being used towards this effort, that's something that they quite quickly knocked down. But just because they're knocking down one thing doesn't mean that the rest of the questions

have been answered, at least not in a way that allows us to have a fuller sense of what the president's talking about here. And Richard, back to you. What are the consequences for our allies, our Sunni Arab allies, like Jordan, like Egypt? The Saudis have already spoken out against this. Of course, the rest of the region has as well. What are the ramifications, not only for our allies, but also for our enemies there who wish to do us harm if the White House moves forward with

this plan for Donald Trump to take over Gaza in the name of the United States or in the name of his own development? Sure. I mean, I can't even, it's hard to even imagine that this question is being asked, but he has said it. He has doubled down on it, and he has tripled down on it. What are the consequences if he continues down this path for U.S. alliances and the region? Well, let's just be stark about it, because the president, as you said, has doubled and

tripled down about it. Let me start with by saying it will not resolve the Palestinian issue. The idea that Gazans are going to be placated with quote unquote beautiful or better homes in Alexandria or somewhere in Jordan, and they're going to give up their aspirations for a national home of their own is simply not going to happen. That simply, I think, misunderstands the nature of nationalism. Second of all, Jordan is already, as you know, Joe, more than 50% Palestinian. It's interesting, the king is here.

I actually think the king sits on a very uneasy throne, and he's in an impossible situation. If the Palestinians were to enter Jordan, I think that could tip the domestic balance and stability. If the United States cuts off, hey, Jordan, I think that could tip the domestic balance and stability. If the United States cuts off aid, Jordan, I believe, is the second largest recipient of American aid to that part of the world. And unlike Egypt, its aid was not protected in the freeze at AID. So I think Jordan is very, very vulnerable, as potentially is Egypt. So we can end up with the worst of all worlds, not satisfying anything the

Palestinian wants, if anything, supporting Hamas's radicalism. They could say, we told you you need us. The only alternative now is we have to resist, rather, or we're going to be deported. And we could destabilize. Egypt and Jordan, don't forget, those are the two first countries in the Arab world to make peace with Israel. They are the foundation of Israel's acceptance in the region, of the Abraham Accords and all else. So I simply don't understand what is motivating the president to continue to push an idea that I simply think can succeed, and if it's actually implemented,

potentially would make the Middle East much more unstable than it currently is. At a time, there's enormous opportunity to do something with Iran, to do something given as what Israel has accomplished militarily. I don't understand why the president would introduce elements of instability when there's real progress potentially to be made. I mean, that's the right question, right? Eugene, why would the president be pushing this kind of a plan, given the landscape that Richard so frankly lays out? No, I think there's no good answer to that question because it is a crazy thing to do at this time.

It's a crazy thing, crazy idea at any time, to tell you the truth. But particularly now, you know, the Saudis keep putting out statements saying, no, no, this will not happen. This cannot happen. My question, I have a question for Richard Haag, which is, do the Saudis have any leverage here? I mean, they have clearly said there is no normalization of relations with Israel. If any part of this plan goes forward, there's no normalization until we're on a path to a two-state solution. Is that real leverage still, or is there other leverage that the Saudis have?

I don't think it's that much leverage, because the Israeli government has in some ways discounted the importance of normalization with Saudi Arabia. If they valued it more it would have happened somewhere sometime earlier Jean and it would have interfered with their goals in Gaza. I think the principal Saudi leverage right now is to produce more oil because that would basically put create downward pressures on oil pricing which would help offset renewed inflationary pressures here and even more would hurt Russia. And if President Trump is committed to getting a ceasefire in Ukraine, one way to do it is

to put more economic pressure. That might be the greatest Saudi leverage, not in the Middle East, but in Europe. Jen, we're getting a reminder, too, of the Trump playbook, even when it comes to allies, whether it's threatening those tariffs against Canada and Mexico, our closest trading partners, to extract some concessions from them. In the case of Mexico, those concessions had already been in place, and they just reminded him, sure, we'll go through with those. And in this case, in the Middle East, our closest partners threaten to cut off aid to our closest allies who we need desperately in the Middle East.

If they don't get on board with the program. This is how he does business. How he also does business is he has a special liking, penchant for, friendship with, whatever you want to call it, Prime Minister Netanyahu. He also has an affection for Vladimir Putin. And I think the Netanyahu relationship is, to me me one of the clear reasons or one of the explanations for what we're seeing here. Obviously people from the Trump administration, the incoming Trump administration played a

role for the Biden administration on getting the ceasefire across the line. To Richard Haass's point, the first stage of this was actually the much easier stage. Trump, we don't know what Trump, how he thought about it, what he was deciding, but that may have been in his mind. We know that Netanyahu wanted him to be president. We know that President Trump respects Netanyahu, and I think that's not a non-factor here. That's how I would look at it. All right.

Jen Psaki, thank you very much. We're going to be watching Inside with Jen Psaki, Sunday at noon and Monday at 8 Eastern, right here on MSNBC. and check out her new podcast. It's called The Blueprint with Jen Psaki, which takes a deep dive into the state of the Democratic Party. The first two episodes are available now and they are amazing. Again, The Blueprint. Congratulations, Jen, on that.

And coming up, we're going to dig into President Trump's latest tariff announcement, imposing a 25% tax on aluminum and steel imports. Plus, why the Trump administration is now renaming Fort Liberty. We'll tell you who the White House is trying to honor. Morning Joe will be right back. 45 past the hour. Last night, President Trump signed new 25% tariffs, 25% on all steel and aluminum imports to the United States. The tariffs applied to all shipments of the metals, including from Canada and Mexico, despite Trump granting a 30-day delay of the blanket tariffs on all goods

from those countries last week. U.S. steel and aluminum suppliers may benefit from the decision, as they'll have the chance to undercut foreign competitors. But Americans could soon feel the impact on their wallets, as aluminum and steel are used in a wide range of products from appliances, smartphones, soda cans and more and higher import costs would filter through consumers.

So Richard, why does this make a lot of sense? Well, first of all, your analysis is right. This will save some jobs. I was waiting for you to say it doesn't. Well, it doesn't. But I'm trying to explain it. It will save some jobs in this country, or maybe even create a few, in the steel and aluminum industries.

But it will do so at enormous cost. Because there's far fewer jobs there than, for example, there is in the construction industry, which uses steel, or they are a mobile industry. So the knock-on effects of this will, one, add to inflation, and two, will reduce sales for other businesses. So unemployment in other parts of the economy. And then MECA, and the reason it doesn't make sense, is this will invite retaliation. The idea that we can do this and other countries won't act in kind. So this basically will start something of a trade war. And that will be, like most wars, there's no winners.

This will add to cost. So what worries me about this, and this is something the president believes is an article of faith, it's what economists call import substitution. Instead of importing things, we're going to substitute it by domestic, but it's much more expensive. So it doesn't make sense. And what's so odd about it, can I say one last thing? He inherited economy that's in pretty good shape.

It's humming along at close to 3%. Inflation is way down. Things were moving in the right direction. Employment was way up. What this threatens to do is disrupt what was basically a very strong economy. And he could have done some tweaks to it and taken credit for it. What I think he will rue the day here, because at the end, Americans are going to care about inflation more than anything else.

And this is going to set emotion trends, whereas there's going to be new unemployment and steel dependent industries. And there's going to be inflation. So the president, I think, risks the stability of an economy that he inherited that was in pretty good shape, which, by the way, allowed him to focus on other things, like the border or anything else. And the idea that he wants his focus to have to be on an economy that's in trouble,

I do not understand the political or economic wisdom of it. So getting back to your question, I don't think it makes sense by his lights. So how do you explain it, Richard? We were just talking, you've been discussing the economy and foreign policy with Donald Trump for 30 years, well before he was in politics. Why is he doing this?

If he knows prices are going to go up, it's just the way it works. His own economists are telling him that, his own treasury knows that. Why is he doing it? Donald Trump has two articles of faith that have propelled him for four decades. Maybe now longer five decades One is the trade we get disadvantaged by trade to be it's rigged against us We get screwed to use an elegant word off We're always getting ripped off and then a second strong view is allies again are ripping us off They're freeeloaders.

And the United States pays much more, if you will, for the world than we get from it. So he wants to do two things. He wants to address what he thinks is the unfairness of trade. He sees trade imbalances, bilateral. And he said that we must be somehow, it's rigged against us. Why isn't the playing field level? There's a whole bunch of economic theory about Ricardo and comparative advantage that essentially we shouldn't be making things that others can make more cheaply. We should be focusing on making the things that we make best, quality at better cost. But the president wants to bring back certain types of manufacturing industries that we don't have a comparative advantage, but that is where he is he's in it's almost as if his views on this got locked in 30 40 years

ago during the problems with Japan and so forth and he just feels this way so I actually feel sorry for his economic advisors because you can't waltz into the Oval Office and persuade the president out of this this is an article of faith for him he also sees them as leveraged 25% new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports coming into the United States. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has renamed the Army base Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. But this time Bragg is not a reference to the Confederate general. The previous name was changed, you'll remember, to Fort Liberty in 2023 as part of an effort to cut military honors bestowed on those who rebelled

against the Union during the Civil War. The name now honors an enlisted Army soldier named Roland L. Bragg who took the Pentagon and says was awarded a Silver Star, Purple Heart for combat during World War II. Hegseth issued the memorandum Monday while flying to Europe on a military plane. In a video posted to social media, Secretary Hegseth is seen sitting at a desk while signing the memo and then reading a portion of the order commenting, quote, brag is back. So these, uh, Gene Robinson are the little cultural things that Donald Trump has been talking about for a long time.

Part of the anti-woke agenda, if you can say, renaming a base under the name of someone who was a Confederate general but saying it was a different soldier who served with honor, I'm sure, but this is obviously a cute way around that. This is sort of delivering on those promises on the margins to get rid of woke in the government. Yeah, on the margins is right because, okay, this is what I guess what he put Pete Hedges in the Pentagon to do. But do you think he might find some time to like think about our defense posture to think about our defense our military industrial complex is it is it able to build the right enough ships? Are we producing

enough ammunition? Are we producing the right weapons? Are forces in the right configuration and numbers for the potential conflicts of the future and not of the past? What is he doing about this intractable Pentagon bureaucracy that seems never, it seems to move like molasses. I mean, there's lots to do with the Pentagon. And if this is the way Pete Hegseth is going to spend his time, then this appointment of him as secretary is as bad as I feared it would be because there is so much to do so much that should be done and he is you know

worrying about finding a brag to rename now Fort Bragg after it's ridiculous and and a tragedy of the Trump administration that I hope we won't see repeated throughout the government but I fear we will. Yeah, President Emeritus on the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you very much for being on this morning. We appreciate it. We're all stumbling through. Me, you and Joe Willie are sick. We're doing our best. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the FBI just unearthed about 2,400 records tied to JFK's assassination. We'll go over the new discovery.

Plus we'll dive back into the new book, Booster Shots, which makes the case that measles remain a threat that should not be. Underestimated, the author joins us to discuss the urgent lessons parents need to know. Also ahead, we'll speak with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency she helped create, and why the Trump administration is now going after it.

Morning Joe, we'll be right back.