Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/20/25

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

Trump calls Zelenskyy a 'dictator'

Trump is also crippling other countries out there, starting with Ukraine. This week he sent Marco Rubio to Saudi Arabia for Russia-Ukraine peace talks, but Ukraine wasn't invited. That makes it kind of hard to find peace. Honey, oh my gosh, that was the most amazing couples therapy today. Been there. Dr. Brad and I agree, everything is your fault. Oh, and I forgot, I'm leaving you.

Then, Trump called Zelensky a dictator who refuses to have elections and is very low in Ukrainian polls. Unlike Trump's democratically elected buddy Putin, who is very popular in Russia, latest polls show 90% approved and 10% falling out of a window. And there we go. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, February 20th. We have a lot to get to this morning, including Donald Trump's latest pro-Putin comments, calling the president of Ukraine a dictator. We'll play for you that and show you the reaction from Republican lawmakers.

Where's the line for them? Meanwhile, the president is backing the House's budget bill to support his tax and spending cuts. We'll break down the effect it could have on millions of Americans. Plus, Delta is offering a lump sum for the passengers who were on the plane that crash-landed in Toronto. We'll have the details of that offer. Also ahead, we'll get expert legal analysis on yesterday's hearing in the corruption

case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, as the Justice Department pushes for a dismissal of the charges. With us, we have the co-host of the fourth hour and contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News and host of The Rest Is Politics podcast. It's so awesome. Cady Kay, columnist. It's good. It is so good. It's fun awesome. Katty Kay, columnist.

It is so good. No, I really, I was, it's amazing. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post. David Ignatius is here again with us and we appreciate that. And here we got the managing editor of the bulwark, Sam Stein. That was not as enthusiastic. No, I'm enthusiastic.

We need a little youth. Pretty little youth. You can say that for 15 years. All right. This is where the fun ends. Let's get to the news. President Trump escalated his rhetoric on the Ukraine war yesterday, falsely claiming that President Volodymyr Zelensky

is a dictator. He came in a long post on Truth Social yesterday morning that included a number of inaccuracies. Then, last night, Trump essentially repeated the post while speaking at an event in Miami. A dictator without elections, Zelensky better move faster. He's not going to have a country left. Got to move. Got to move fast.

I love Ukraine, but Zelensky has done a terrible job. His country is shattered and millions and millions of people have unnecessarily died. And you can't bring a war to an end if you don't talk to both sides. You got to talk. They haven't been talking for three years. This turn on Ukraine, of course, has a history. We all remember 2019, where Trump wanted Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, get dirt on Joe Biden, basically trying to shake down a foreign leader for dirt on a political rival. And he was withholding military aid.

I think it was about $400 million back then. So this, in some ways, is not shocking, but the turning on a country that is fighting for its survival and fighting for peace for the rest of the world and fighting against oppression, for a lot of people who love this democracy, that hurts to hear. On Capitol Hill, some Republicans were critical of the overall message of Trump's comments to Russia, but most, they just stopped short of actually criticizing the president. Would you call Iranian President Zelensky a dictator, as President Trump has? Well, like I said, the president speaks for himself.

I cannot agree that President Zelensky is to blame anyway. If he's talking about the President Trump, then he's waiting for the people to be blamed by Russia. I absolutely would not say that Zelensky started the war. It is quite clear who started the war. It was absolutely Russia. That's Putin's directive. I don't think that there should be any confusion with that. To the extent that the White House said that Ukraine started the war, I disagree.

I think Vladimir Putin started the war. I also believe, through bitter experience, that Vladimir Putin is a gangster. He's a gangster with a black heart. He makes Jeffrey Dahmer look like Mother Teresa. He has Stalin's taste for blood. And as I've said in another context, I wouldn't, I trust this guy like I trust gas stations sushi. But make no mistake about it, that invasion was the responsibility of one human being on the face of this planet. It was Vladimir Putin in a calculation to go through Ukraine and not stop there to go through

Moldova, to go through the Balkans, to ultimately go to the Baltic states and send the signal to China that now is the time that they can take action in the South China Sea. That's what this is about and that's what we as members have to communicate. I didn't hear that. I'll let other people use their words. It's not a word I would have used. I used to be a divorce lawyer and I did it for about a year. The last thing you do is you get the antagonistic couples in the room at the end, not the beginning.

I am okay with talking to Russia about what, where's your headspace and relaying that to the Ukrainians. There will be no deal without Ukraine being consulted and on board because it won't work. I talked to Zelensky today. Nobody is going to do anything that you're not involved with. But talking to the Russians separately, I'm actually okay with that. Then go back to Ukraine and see what they think and keep working, keep working. At the end, you got to get both parties into the room.

Do you think that Putin can be trusted in these negotiations? No. working, keep working. At the end, you've got to get both parties into the room. Do you think that Putin can be trusted in these negotiations? No. Putin is a war criminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed. OK, that last comment from Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi was from on Tuesday, before Trump called Ukrainian President Zelensky a dictator. Trump is also facing criticism from two of his former 2024 primary rivals. Look at this. Former Vice President Mike Pence wrote in a social media post,

quote, Mr. President, Ukraine did not start this war. The road to peace must be built on the truth. And former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said, quote, these are classic Russian talking points, exactly what Putin wants. So, David Ignatius, here we are again. It only gets worse. And while really consequential to hear this president turning on Ukraine.

When you look at the pattern of his behavior with Ukraine, I guess it's not surprising. It's also a huge distraction from the breakdown of the federal government that is happening in unlawful ways, as well as the controversial nominees that are getting basically corralled right through the Senate and out into their positions with seemingly very little pushback or questions to some really scary concepts that they bring along with them. One striking thing to me, Mika, is that Republicans finally seem to have found their voice in directly, clearly disagreeing with Donald Trump in his criticism of Zelensky and this absurd claim that Ukraine started the war. That seemed to have blown a circuit for the Republicans, and it's about time.

The concern I'm hearing from strategists, from military people who follow this is, is this negotiation heading into a sort of rough accommodation between the United States and Russia to big guys who are going to figure out how they resume their relationship? And then a decision by Europe, whether Europe stands with Ukraine and Europe provides the defense going forward. And if Zelensky is really left out of the picture by Trump and watching his comments, you wonder if that's not where we're heading. Will Europe step up?

Six months ago, it would have been impossible, three months ago, a month ago, to imagine anything like this. But this has become so personal for Trump. You know, you need to really think, why, what is it, where does this animus towards Vladimir Zelensky come from? Is it, he treats him like a little man, he calls him a comedian. He's like a secondary player with contempt. I

thought the tweets, the tweet yesterday was snide. It was just a gratuitous piling on and he's continuing with the speech last night. So I just know where we seem to be heading right now is an accommodation between the US and Russia and then a European decision to stand with Zelensky. And that would mean a break, not only with Zelensky, but a real break between the United States and Europe. That's the danger of the moment. And I think David's right how personal this is.

First of all, modestly successful comedian was the language that Trump used in his true social post yesterday. Of course, Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. And to make his point, I think some of this does stem from Trump's first impeachment in 2019 when Trump had enlisted Rudy Giuliani and others to try to get dirt on the Biden family. He thought Biden would be his likely opponent in 2020. He was right about that. Going over to Ukraine, trying to find dirt about them there.

Zelensky did not cooperate. Mika said, withheld the military aid. That led to an impeachment. And we know that there's a personal dimension to this between Trump and Putin as well. He's always been deferential to Putin. He has lavish praise upon him even before he entered politics and certainly afterwards. We know how deferential he was in Helsinki. He continues to be to this day.

And you're right, Republicans were critical of what he said, but they still weren't critical of Trump. They don't ever go after Trump himself, not yet. This does feel like it is a moment in this conflict. The Ukrainians and officials there, I've talked to last couple days, David, I'm sure you have as well, are deeply alarmed that they're being abandoned here by the United States, their biggest partner and ally, where it seems like, at least in some degrees, Washington leaning towards Moscow

now in this conflict. The Wall Street Journal adds their voice to this. Their editorial board continues its criticism of Trump's handling of Ukraine with a new piece titled Trump Tilts Toward a Ukraine Sellout. It reads in part this. The US has a profound interest in denying Mr. Putin a new perch on more of the NATO border, which is the real reason America has been right to arm Ukraine.

A deal that amounts to Ukrainian surrender will be a blow to American power that will radiate to the Pacific and the Middle East. It would be the opposite of Mr. Trump's promise to restore a golden age of U.S. prestige and world calm. Last week, Mr. Trump said Ukraine can't join NATO and must give up much of its territory to Russia. Concessions to Mr. Putin with nothing in return. Mr. Putin's response this week has been more drone attacks on Ukraine.

And here we thought Mr. Trump doesn't like being played. The better strategy than beating up Ukraine is making clear to Mr. Putin the arms and pressure he'll face if the Russian doesn't wind down the war to accept a durable peace. As it stands now, they go on, Mr. Trump's seeming desperation for a deal is a risk to Ukraine, Europe, U.S. interests, and his own presidency. And Cady, I mean, it's spelled out very well there. For so long, as we talked about yesterday on the show, the Republican Party, the party of Reagan,

of H.W. Bush, the Cold Warriors, that was part of their whole orthodoxy. And now Trump has abandoned that. And seemingly on the verge of rewarding Putin for this illegal war, asking very little in return. For the guy who wrote the art of the deal, there seem to be no real negotiations going on here. He's giving away the shot before talks even start.

And it's one that could fundamentally reshape Europe, not just now, but potentially set up Putin on a path for more going forward. Yeah, first of all, it's very interesting that the criticism of Donald Trump's policies at the moment is coming as much from the Wall Street Journal as it is from anywhere else. It's worth watching that.

Obviously, there are things the journal likes about what Trump is doing, but this in particular, they don't. The people who cover Russia and Ukraine much more closely than I do are surprised by the degree to which Donald Trump has already played his cards. Yeah. And once you've put all of your cards on the table, you don't have very much left. So they say Donald Trump is in a weak negotiating position now. He's put himself into that weak negotiation position.

The Russians, in contrast, are wheeling out some very skilled negotiators. My understanding is the people that were in Saudi Arabia are much more proficient in negotiating than those who have tried to negotiate before and more skilled in negotiating on Russia, Ukraine, and this particular area than any of the Americans who were sent. Now, was that by design? Did the Americans go in order to be rolled over? The speed with which this has happened has left Europeans scrambling. There is an opportunity for Europe to step up.

They have the money to do so. They could fund at least the holding of a defensive line. But that Paris meeting led to no unity. And that's the problem for Europe. It's easy to be a skilled negotiator when the person across from you gives you the store right up front. Right. It's like, here, take this.

Before they even get to the table. I had a question for David, actually. Because my view of this is colored by two preceding stories to what's happened, which is, one, the US made an offer to essentially take over Ukraine's mineral supplies. And Zelensky said, no, we're not going to do that. And I'm kind of curious from your reporting how much that has been affecting Donald Trump's mood and approach to Zelensky in the past couple of days, the fact that Zelensky just wouldn't give him basically a huge economic portion of the country.

And then the second one is there was a story a couple weeks back about how Trump wants this grand deal with Russia and China, in which they would enter some sort of pact and they would reduce their nuclear supplies and their armaments by what, 50% or something crazy. And my view of this is that everything should be seen through the prism, not necessarily of Trump's antagonism towards Zelensky, but his desire for some sort of grand deal with the Russians. And what he's trying to do now is essentially get Russia in a place where they can do a

secondary deal off of this deal, in which there is some sort of global agreement for disarmament. It's very sort of Cold War-ish in scope. So Sam, the thing that struck me the most in the last two days is the way in which Trump is making this about Donald Trump. It's just classic. You know, here's this war of enormous proportions. 700,000 Russians killed or wounded in the last three years. And it's about Donald Trump. And it's about, if only they'd listened to me,

and I could have made peace. So there is this dimension. Trump sent his Treasury Secretary, intimate advisor, Scott Besant, to Kiev last week with a demand. It was written on a paper, and as Zelensky described it at Munich, he kept pushing it toward Zelensky, sign it, sign it, you won't get any meetings if you don't sign it. And Zelensky wouldn't sign it. He said, I don't know if it's constitutional, I've never seen this, I can't sign it. And so he wouldn't. Is Trump now peeved at that? What do you mean you're going to, I gave you the deal and you wouldn't sign it.

Is that what this is about? Yeah, I did hear a couple of people, Sam, say that that's part of what's going on here. I do think there is this broader ambition that Trump has, and you put it well. He envisions this great big mega deal. It's not just a deal, it's a mega deal. The Ukraine war is small in scope compared to this. His ambitions now extend to something with China and Russia. And then here, you know, we enter the possibility

of a big arms control deal that actually, for the first time, draws in China. We've had deals with Russia, never brought in China. Well, that's a big ambition. for the first time draws in China. We've had deals with Russia, never brought in China. That's a big ambition. The problem is we are being seen as abandoning an ally that fought and bled on our behalf. And the world isn't going to like that. I got messages from Europeans yesterday who were shocked to their core at what they were

watching. And they're not going to forget it. And I think that doesn't seem to have penetrated Trump's thinking at all. We want to do a fact check of some of the claims President Trump made about the war in Ukraine. The president said Zelensky talked the U.S. into spending $350 billion. That is false. America's response to the war has totaled $183 billion through September 30th, 2024.

Trump claims the U.S. has spent $200 billion more than Europe. But according to the Kiel Institute, the U.S. has actually spent $18 billion less than European donors. Trump said America would, quote, get nothing back from the money it has spent on the war that is misleading. According to a 2024 report by the American Enterprise Institute, 70 percent of Ukraine aid has been spent in the United States or on U.S. forces. A lot of that money has gone to domestic weapons manufacturers. Trump said Zelensky claimed he's missing some of the money sent to him.

That comment also misleading. Earlier this month, Zelensky told the Associated Press he's only received about $75 billion from the U.S. and not the $183 billion that's often cited as what was appropriated by Congress. Not all of that appropriated money is supposed to go directly to Ukraine, though. Data shows Ukraine has, however, received $106 billion in direct aid from the U.S. Trump said Zelensky refuses to have an election and is low in the polls. That is inaccurate.

A recent poll shows Zelensky has a 57% approval rating among Ukrainians. Elections in the country have also been suspended under the martial law that's been in place since the war started. And finally, Trump falsely claimed millions have unnecessarily died as a result of the war. President Zelensky shared an update earlier this month that 45,000 Ukrainian soldiers and 350,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. And the United Nations estimates that more than 11,000 civilians have died.

While that figure is likely underestimated, it is still far less than the millions that Trump claims to have been killed. So we're working with trying to make sure the information that we get, even as President Trump is speaking on Truth Social or doing his press conferences, we got to fact check it. Yeah, an important fact check. And Zelensky himself, yesterday, was critical of Trump saying he's living in a disinformation space.

That's his phrase, saying he just doesn't understand why Trump is saying the things he's saying that are so blatantly incorrect about this war. And Sam, but it adds, though, the Trump team is using that as more means to make this personal. We heard from Vice President Vance yesterday delivering a warning to Zelensky saying it wasn't wise to start these negotiations. It was atrocious, I believe was his word, by quote, bad mouthing Donald Trump. So they're already, it's warning shot after warning shot after warning shot, including in that Trump truth social post, the idea where he said if Zelensky doesn't act quickly,

he won't have a country left. Right, well, Zelensky tried the other way too, remember? I mean, he visited with Trump during the transition, he tried flattery, he's worked any angle, I suppose, that he can. And it comes down to the fact that Trump doesn't support Ukraine's position in this war. Trump calls him a second-rate comedian.

Was it second-rate? Mediocre? Whatever. Yes, he was a comedian. And he fully believes that Ukraine actually invited the invasion. And if that's the case, I'm not really sure what kind of approach is the right approach for Zelensky, other than handing over your country's mineral supply. Zelensky's hand is that he knows that whatever America and Putin come up with, cook up with

between them, if he doesn't agree to it, if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, this is not a peace that's going to hold. Right. And the Ukrainians have made that very clear. They are prepared to fight whether or not some deal has been done in Saudi Arabia. I think it's fair to maybe make the criticism of Zelensky that he should have tried the diplomatic off-ramp earlier. And again, I'm coming at it from the set of Morning Joe, right?

But people could have foreseen Trump winning, and it's not entirely implausible to have foreseen where we are right now. I mean, Trump was fairly open about his antipathy to this war. So I don't know what went into the negotiations prior to the election. I know that there was a real push by the Biden administration to get as much money and support into Ukraine as possible in anticipation of this. But everyone knew at some point in time this could have happened. Yeah.

And to Trump's point about Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukraine constitution allows for martial law to be put in place during wartime, suspension of elections. And I think Churchill did the same. So it's, yeah, it can't be twisted too badly unless you want it to. So let's just stick to the facts here and move on. Still ahead on Morning Joe, President Trump calls himself a king as his administration moves to end New York City's congestion pricing plan. We'll discuss that new development. Plus, a federal judge is still weighing whether to dismiss corruption charges against Mayor

Eric Adams. We'll go over yesterday's proceedings and what could happen if the Justice Department's push to drop the case is blocked. Also ahead an upsetting scene on the tennis court in Dubai will explain what left one major champion in tears. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be back in 90 seconds. I get this 25 past the hour time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning, this week, Missouri clinics resumed offering abortion care for the first time in years after a judge temporarily blocked a restrictive anti-abortion law. This comes despite a continued push by conservative state leaders to block a constitutional amendment, enshrining abortion rights that voters approved in

November back in 2022, Missouri was the first state to enact an abortion ban after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Following the news, Republicans in the state said they vow to challenge the decisions. Delta Airlines is now offering passengers who were on the Toronto flight that crashed and flipped upside down $30,000. It was not immediately clear how passengers can claim their money but if all 76 passengers take up the offer Delta will have to pay out nearly 2.3 million dollars in total. What a deal. The airline is also telling passengers the offer has no strings attached and does not

affect rights. So far all but one of the injured passengers have been released from the hospital right now. The cause of the crash remains under investigation. And a man was ejected from the Dubai tennis championship this week following a visceral reaction to his presence by former US Open champion Emma Raducanu. The 22 year old player broke down in tears at the start of her second round match on Tuesday after apparently spotting the man among spectators. She then approached the umpire explaining to explain the

situation and hid behind the umpire's chair. The Women's Tennis Association released a statement explaining Raducanu was approached in a public area on Monday by a man who exhibited fixated behavior and that this same individual was identified in the first few rows during Emma's match on Tuesday and subsequently ejected. The association said he will be banned from all WTA events pending a threat assessment. Jonathan, wow. Yeah, that's obviously a scary situation there.

Let's remember, of course, it was Monica Sellis who was stabbed by a fan once during a match about 20 years ago. We don't know what's happening here, but certainly officials always alarmed when when a player feels uncomfortable. We'll learn more about that in the days ahead I'm sure. Meanwhile back here in the States the judge overseeing the federal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams is delaying a decision on whether to grant the Department of Justice's

request to dismiss the case. At a hearing yesterday, the judge questioned the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bovi, who originally ordered the charges be dropped. Bovi said he believes the case would hinder national security and immigration efforts by the Trump administration. Mayor Adams lost his security clearance as a result of last year's federal indictment. The judge also questioned Mayor Adams directly, confirming that he understood the charges against him could be refiled by the DOJ in the future. The judge indicated he would have a final decision soon, saying it's not in anyone's

interest here for this to drag on. Let's now bring in former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Arenberg. Dave, there's a lot of politics involved here as well, which we can get to in a minute. It's election year for the New York City mayor's office. But let's start just sticking with the legal proceedings yesterday.

What did you make of what the judge had to say, his questions to all involved? And when, your best guess, might we hear a ruling? Soon, Jonathan, Judge Ho said that he wanted to get moving on this, didn't want to prolong it much longer. It was quite a spectacle yesterday because you had the number two person, Emil Beauvais, at the Department of Justice, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, showing up himself to court. That's really unusual. It was the right thing to do though, because he broke it. He owns it. This is his baby. And in court, he said that there was no quid pro quo. He said that under oath. But then his reason for the dismissal of the charges sure

sounded like a quid pro quo. He essentially said, it's not a quid pro quo, your honor. We just gave Eric Adams something in exchange for something. I'm not a Latin major. Okay. Sure sounds like a quid pro quo, right? It does. Right? Yeah, in court, he reiterated what he wrote in that earlier letter ordering the dismissal

where the decision was politically motivated that they wanted Adams to assist with Trump's immigration crackdown. Of course, implication is if that is that if Adams didn't support Trump's immigration policies, he would still be facing criminal charges. So first off, that's bad enough as a prosecutor, you're supposed to uphold the rule of law, not undermine it to support a president's political agenda. But what's worse is that the charges were dropped without prejudice, which means they could be refiled at any moment. So if you think the charges are inappropriate, then drop the charges permanently or issue a pardon for the mayor. But when you dismiss it without prejudice, it makes it. It means that you're reserving judgment to see if the mayor plays

ball. And that's probably why the mayor was so compliant to the border czar when they were on the couch at Fox News the other day, where it seemed like the border czar was pulling the mayor's strings. I mean, that's what happens when you have the sword of Damocles hanging over your head. Yeah, David Samstein, I was kind of wondering about that. Is it possible, I don't know,

the procedureship, is it possible that the DOJ could amend its charge and get rid of that without prejudice element of, and just say, look, amend its charge and get rid of that without prejudice element of it and just say, look, we're just going to get rid of it entirely. We don't think there's a manage the case. And therefore, you lose that specter of politics playing a role here. And then the second question is, obviously, it's quite rare for a judge to come in and say, actually, no, we're going to not accept your dismissal of this case.

But let's say they do do that. How does this go forward? Would the judge then assign a different prosecutor to take up the charges because clearly the DOJ does not want to do this? It'll be so awkward, but it's the right thing to do. I do think that Judge Ho should reject the dismissal. He's got three options. He can allow the dismissal, he could block the dismissal, or he can order an evidentiary

hearing to get like Danielle Sassoon, the former intern, a US attorney to come in and talk about why she resigned and why she said this was a quid pro quo. I don't think he's going to do the latter because that would prolong things. So I think he will probably reject the dismissal because he knows how bad this looks. And although it's rare for a judge to block the prosecutor's decision to dismiss charges, it can and should happen when a prosecutor's dismissal is based on improper motives like politics. Then such a dismissal would be contrary to the interests of justice. So if Judge Hoh decides to block the dismissal, then things will get really interesting, because

the federal prosecutors will likely sit on their hands in a standoff with the court. All right. President Trump—just want to get one more topic in here with you, Dave—declared himself a king as he celebrated his administration's bid to end federal approval of New York's congestion pricing. He wrote on New York's congestion pricing. He wrote on Truth Social, congestion pricing is dead. Manhattan and all of New York is saved. Long live the king.

I mean, a little bit joking here. Let's not, like, get triggered here. But I mean, it's just exhausting. The congestion pricing program was approved under the Biden administration after years of challenges and implemented last month to raise money for the region's aging mass transit system. In a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Transportation Secretary Sean Dovey called congestion pricing a slap in the face to working-class Americans and small business owners. Hochul vowed to fight the Trump administration in court, saying New York is not ruled by

a king. The MTA also pushed back and announced it would continue to collect the tolls until a federal judge tells it to stop. How do you see this playing out, Dave? Yeah, it's going to go all the way up, perhaps, to the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan must be rolling around in his grave. I mean, first he sees that Trump's takes a side of the Russians. And now the whole concept of local rule, remember local rule, I'm old enough to remember when

they tried to get rid of the department of education because it's, they said that it's local rule. The locals should govern education. Well, when it comes to transportation, you're saying that that's coming out of the White House. That's why there's this inherent conflict. And I think it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court because I don't think you're supposed to do this. You're allowed to do this.

Local governments are supposed to be able to make decisions on what goes on on their roads and the federal government can't just veto it. Especially even if he's joking about being a king, you know that that's going to be used against President Trump in court. They're going to say, this guy thinks he's a king, and he shouldn't be allowed to do it. I do think it gets to the Supreme Court. And then who knows?

Because the Supreme Court has been very supportive of a very powerful executive in the White House. All right. Former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg. Always good to see you. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. So, the Senate is pushing ahead with Cash Patel's nomination for FBI director. Despite being one of President Trump's more controversial picks, senators are expected to hold a final confirmation vote later this morning. Patel is expected to be confirmed today unless more than three Senate Republicans vote against

him, which at this point appears unlikely. Meanwhile, the top U.S. prosecutor in D.C. has reportedly launched an investigation into threats against federal workers, specifically investigating Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. After people working at Doge, said they had been threatened. Interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin wrote in an email seen by Reuters that the investigation was inspired by a conversation with a Doge employee. Martin wrote,

Late last night, I took a call from a senior Doge staffer. We spoke about some pressing tech issues, and then he told me about the threats against Doge workers. It is despicable that these men and women are being threatened. Martin named the initiative Operation Whirlwind, stating that Senator Schumer is the subject of a threats investigation. Reuters points out that Schumer spoke out against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at a 2020 abortion rights rally and said, quote,

you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. Schumer walked back those comments a day later saying in no way was he making a threat and that he meant political consequences. Martin said he has not received a response from Schumer regarding the probe, but a Schumer spokesperson said the senator's office did respond to the inquiry on February 6th. Jonathan Lemire. Yeah, so Martin also sent a letter to Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia asking the California representative to clarify comments he made in an interview.

That's according to documents obtained by the Washington Post. Garcia made the statement on CNN after participating in the first House Doge subcommittee hearing in which he said this, what the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy." Martin's letter to Garcia said the comment, quote, sounds to some like a threat to Elon Musk and government staff who work for him. Their concerns have led to this inquiry. We take threats against public officials very seriously. I look forward to your cooperation. Garcia

told the Post that his office had not received the letter and added, quote, no reasonable person would view these comments as a threat. And it's interesting that the letter was sent to the Washington Post, yet we have not received it. We're living in a dangerous time and elected members of Congress must have the right to forcefully oppose the Trump administration. So David Ignatius, first of all, we should note, of course, there's no politician who uses more incendiary language than Donald Trump.

But yet we have now his administration policing language, it would seem, here on the heels of what they're doing with the Associated Press and the Gulf of Mexico, we should note. But just talk to us about this juxtaposition, about using the U.S. Attorney's Office to go after Senator Schumer, potentially a congressman in California. And we've heard so much from Republicans about wanting to de-weaponize government, but yet that's happening, perhaps the same day that Cash Patel and his enemies list become FBI directors. So, Jonathan, this is a snapshot of the new Washington.

Here is Elon Musk and Doge exercising a kind of power to reshape the government that I can't remember in all the years I've covered Washington. People by the thousands are being thrown out of their jobs. Lives are being disrupted all over the world. And fairly modest criticisms are made of the Doge operatives. And we suddenly have claims that these are legal threats against them. But it's just a sign that all the levers of power are now in the hands of Donald Trump

and his allies, and that they have the ability to call you out right away, as in this instance. When Cash Patel takes over the FBI, he, of all the people that I studied during Trump's first term, was the one who was the most loyal. That's how he really came to Trump's attention, was just battling his case when he worked for Congressman Devin Nunes, when he had other jobs, when he came to the White House. He was just always there to do the things that Trump most wanted. That's the person who's now at the FBI. You could argue it's the person most useful for Trump, but most inappropriate in terms

of the traditional role of the FBI. But again, a snapshot of where law enforcement is going. We're going to have to see whether the pushback that you'd expect from other parts of the government, which we're beginning to see with these criticisms of Zelensky, happens in other areas, where whether senators finally begin to find their throat and say, I'm not comfortable with this, but I wouldn't put any big bet on that happening. Not right now. And is there a point at which members, constituents,

start to feel the impact of the cuts that are taking place and therefore their phones start ringing? You're hearing some anecdotal evidence of that from members saying that they've had an awful lot of phone calls from somebody whose niece can't stay in a cancer trial program, for example, because of the NIH cuts. If that starts happening more, then you could get more pushback from Congress.

You could also see his approval rating starting to drop, which would have an impact. There were two meetings last week of people affected by the USAID cuts. And it's interesting, at those meetings, there were farmers whose agricultural products go overseas and Food for Peace and other programs. There were business people who depend on these programs speaking out against the people who were running the cuts. But again, there's no sign whatsoever that those protests are having any effect. All right.

The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you. We'll be following this together. We appreciate your coming in again. And coming up, the latest from Capitol Hill. As the Senate moves forward with its budget bill, despite President Trump's endorsement of the proposal from the House, we'll break down both plans and the impact it could have on Americans. Morning, Joe.

We'll be right back. Forty-six past the hour. Pretty look at the Capitol this morning. Senate Republicans are pressing ahead with a vote on their budget plan despite President Trump endorsing the House approach of one big, beautiful bill to enact his tax and spending cuts. The House will now move forward with a vote on their budget resolution package next week. If approved, Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to have the final package in place by April.

Joining us now, we have the host of way too early, the great Ali Vitale, who is unflappable, as you will see on my Instagram stories, and former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst, Steve Ratner. Steve, why don't you've got charts on this. Set the scene for us on just how big the national debt problem is at this point. Yeah, Mika, before we delve into the details of the House package, let's just remind ourselves and everybody just how bad this problem already is before we get to anything else that might happen. So, here's the federal budget deficit going back to 2018,

and you can see we were down here in the 500 billion or trillion range, and then COVID hits fine, the deficit jumps up, we would all expect that, and that's what government's here for. It did drop down again, but now it is on this relentless rise, and these are projections, the green bars, going all the way out here to over $2.5 trillion of deficits a year. This is not how it is supposed to work. When things are relatively good and the economy is growing, we should be having a lower deficit and saving our fire powder to use when we have a problem.

That's not what's happening here at the moment, even before you get to any of the president's new proposals. That of course has led to a lot more debt. We now have 30 trillion over 30 trillion dollars of debt for the first time in our history except World War II. We will have debt that's equal to 100% the size of our economy. It's gone up under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, but the scorecard over the last 40 years, out of curiosity, is $14 or so trillion dollars added under Republican presidents, about $12.5 trillion under Democratic presidents. So there are not clean hands on either side.

And then given the size of those deficits, not surprisingly, the debt will continue to rise sharply and well exceed the rate of growth of our economy. Hmm. OK, so let's—if you could explain to us how the GOP plan will work—would work, take us through the numbers. So what the House approved yesterday is what, as you said, Trump likes to call one big, beautiful bill.

It encompasses all of the things they're trying to get done. There are some various complicated parliamentary reasons why it actually needs to be in one big beautiful bill. But whatever. So, the signature piece of it, of course, are tax cuts, and I'll talk a bit more about those later. But up to $4.5 trillion of tax cuts over the next 10 years. And then spending increases, a few spending increases for their priorities, judiciary

and homeland are both basically border-oriented spending. And then defense, which both parties to a considerable degree needs to have spent more on them. So roughly $300 billion more spending. But then they're talking about cutting a lot of spending and so the Energy Commerce Committee Is tasked with cutting eight hundred and eighty billion dollars worth of spending. It's expected that that could be Heavily out of Medicaid could represent about 10% of our Medicaid spending and so they're very focused on spending on Medicaid But there's another guy who's not so focused on Medicaid. Take a listen.

Look, social security won't be touched, other than this fraud or something we're going to find it's going to be strengthened, but won't be touched. Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched. Nothing. You don't have to. Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we're going to get them out of the system and all of that fraud. But it's not going to be touched. We are going to love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We're not going to do anything with that other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something, but the people won't be affected.

It'll only be more effective and better. So this wasn't a campaign promise this is stuff he said since he's been president contradicting what the House is doing so it's going to be a very interesting process on Medicaid which is obviously a very sensitive subject and by the way programs like Medicaid like food stamps that he's talking about cutting as much as 20% the House talking about cutting as much as 20% of red states actually get a disproportionate amount of this money. So it's going to be interesting to see how Congress people hear, what they hear in their

districts and what they say. Student loans, another big target, could cut about 10 percent out of student loans. And then there's another 500 billion of unspecified spending. 62 of it would be what's called oversight. Those are federal pensions. So he's talking about cutting, they're talking about cutting $50 billion out of federal pensions. But when you add all this up, the administration, which says it's going to reduce the deficit, actually has a plan to increase the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

And so if you look here, this is the same chart we just looked at. You add in these new deficit increases, and you can see that instead of even dropping for a couple of years, it doesn't drop at all, and it just goes up further and further. So lastly, Steve, you're gonna show us how the GOP tax cuts favor the rich. Yeah, there's some interesting stuff

in the tax part of this. And basically what they want to do the central part of it is extending the tax cuts that were voted in 2017 that would expire at the end of this year was another bit of budget gimmick trick gimmick gimmickery would expire at the end of this year absent a renewal but those tax cuts are what we call highly regressive meaning they favor the wealthy substantially over the less wealthy. So people in the lowest 20% of the economy would get 6 tenths of a percent increase in

their after-tax wages under this plan. And people all the way up through the 80% below the top would get still 1.4% or less. When you get up here, the top 20%, the top 1%, you see the percent increase they get in their after-tax income. Let's turn that into dollars. If you're down here, you're gonna get $1,000. You might get $1,900 if you're close to the top.

The top quartile gets 9,000. The top 1% gets an average of $70,000. So these are again what we call highly regressive tax cuts generally we like to see them favor people at the bottom not at the top. These are the opposite. The other challenge they're going to have which is going to be a little bit fun if the stakes weren't so high, a little bit fun to watch is that they've got this and a half trillion for tax cuts in this budget plan, as I said. Almost all of that will be consumed by extending these individual tax cuts that would otherwise expire.

But during the campaign, the president ran around promising all kinds of other tax cuts. No tax on social security income. Restore the full deduction on state and local taxes, no tax on overtime, no tax on tips, deduct on your taxes the cost of your auto loan. So he made all these promises. The whole thing adds up to about $7.8 trillion. So they're going to have to fit $7.8 trillion of promises into a box that's $4.5 trillion in size.

And that's going to be an interesting push-pull between the administration and the Congress as well. Morning, Joe, economic analyst Steve Fratner with his charts and soundbites. Thank you so much, Steve. We really appreciate it. Ali Vitale, so where's this going to go? I agree with him that watching all of this come together is actually going to be really fun from a policy perspective because they're going to be trying to fit these things into

that $4.5 trillion box while also keeping the deficit hawks at bay on the rightmost flank of the House Republican conference and then also trying to appease members out of places like New York, New Jersey, who very much are interested in bringing back that salt tax deduction raising the cap there. This was one of the things that Trump did in his first term. It was seen as sort of a screw you to New York, quite frankly, when he took that salt cap deduction and took it out of the TCJA. So a lot of these members trying to get it back in there, it's not in the House budget plan as it exists right now.

But that's one of the things that House Speaker Mike Johnson, it might seem small but it could earn him six or so votes or lose him that and then the whole thing doesn't matter at all because he can't pass it. And this is the wrangling act he has to do. Sam, we've learned that Steve and Ali have a particular definition of the word fun. But this is going to be politically treacherous here, potentially, for the Republicans. Remember, that's what we saw during the transition, where Trump and Musk already blew up a deal on the Hill.

This one potentially more serious. I was kind of chuckling at Steve, not because anything you said was fun. It's fine. It was because he's going through all this great math and important math and crunching all these numbers. I'm just thinking these guys don't care. They're going to say, oh, we have this study that shows that if we cut this tax cut, it's going to create this incredible growth and everything will pay for itself.

And here you go. I mean, it's like we can almost jump ahead to like the last chapter of this where they concoct some sort of rationale, some pretext for doing this. And then they just pass it and then they get shocked when the deficit goes up yet again because this is what always happens. Now the other thing that we should note is that in this whole milieu is like,

they're gonna try to do a $4 trillion deficit ceiling increase, which none of them have ever voted for, well not none of them, but like a good chunk of them have never voted for it. So I'm not sure how this all works, but they'll figure it out, I suppose. Well, we'll see. Managing editor at the Bull Works, Sam Stein and the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Thank you both very much for being on this morning.