Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/28/25

Episode Date: February 28, 2025

Trump seems to forget his recent controversial remarks: 'Did I say that?'

The European Union has been... It was formed in order to screw the United States. I mean, look, let's be honest. The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it. And they've done a good job of it, but now I'm president. What will happen if these countries or the EU retaliate? They can't. I mean, they can try, but they can't.

You said yesterday that the EU was constructed to screw the US when it comes to trade. What can our Prime Minister say to you to persuade you not to impose tariffs on the United Kingdom? Did I use the word that you said? That bad word? I think so. Think of it a modestly successful comedian, a dictator without elections.

Zelensky better move faster, He's not going to have a country left. Mr. President, do you still think that Mr. Zelensky is a dictator? Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question. Donald Trump either being coy or forgetting what he said in recent days. I don't think he forgot. forgetting what he said in recent days? I don't think he forgot. But talking about the EU and Ukrainian President Zelensky, Willie, yeah, not exactly sure how they're going to be reading that in Kiev or in Brussels or wherever EU leadership reads things, but yeah, that's that's that's only going to raise more troubling questions for leaders of the EU and Ukraine. Yeah, that's by the way something Donald Trump

always does say something inflammatory then deny it or walk away from it or try to anyway, unfortunately for him, that's on tape and things very interesting because Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will visit the White House this morning to finalize that mineral rights deal. Unclear still though if he'll get the security guarantees he is seeking. We'll get into the details of that. Plus, we'll go through a federal judge's ruling on memos from the Trump administration directing

the mass firing of federal workers and what it means for employees who already have been let go. Meanwhile, inflation heading in the wrong direction. The price of eggs has been getting a lot of attention, but now meat prices are nearing record highs among many other products. With us this morning, the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, managing editor at the Bullwark Sam Stein, Washington bureau chief at USA Today Susan Page, co-founder of Axios Mike Allen and Rogers chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt

University, historian John Meacham. Joe? Yeah you know Willie we we've got this show that's like I think Meek and I timed it out. It's like 47 hours a day. And so when you get off the show, right? Yeah. People are calling. So what's going on and what? So what? You don't really want to talk about politics. And, you know, you and me, especially I work not only with the orphanage, but with this documentary that the Barnacle Boys are going gonna do with us about our time locked up in Turkey in 72, 73. We're busy. So usually when people are calling me,

they're calling and saying, hey, wait, no, asking about politics. But you know that something's really cut through. And when, especially over the last couple months when that's not happening, and I got a couple of calls yesterday, I think in part because people knew, you know, what a huge fan of Gene Hackman's I was. But I think also just because the further we get away from this breaking news, the stranger it gets. So I got a couple people

calling me, hey, could you tell me, and I say, what are they going to ask me about, you know, about what's happening in Washington DC but they go back to this Gene Hackman story because it seems to get stranger the the more you hear about it it's it's hard to figure out exactly what happened there. Yeah I mean when this crossed yesterday morning around this time early it already felt a little strange that Gene Hackman and his wife both had died and that one of the dogs was dead. There were many questions surrounding it. And now we're getting a little bit more information. Police in Santa

Fe are calling the death of Gene Hackman and his wife suspicious. NBC News correspondent Dana Griffin has new details. Chilling new details in the death of legendary actor Gene Hackman and his wife of 34 years, Betsy are a call. You know all I can say is they have been disease deceased for for quite a while. Their bodies found Wednesday afternoon after a groundskeeper called 911 after arriving at their Santa Fe New Mexico home

and seeing them through a window. They moving at all. No they're not moving to send somebody out here really quick. Authorities are investigating the deaths as suspicious, but have already ruled out a carbon monoxide leak and say there were no obvious signs of foul play. There was no indication of a struggle. There was no indication of anything that was missing from the home or disturbed. When deputies arrived, they located the body of Hackman's 65 year old wife in a bathroom located near the front door, which was open according to the warrant.

Officers noted an orange bottle of prescription pills scattered on the countertop and a space heater near her head, which detectives say could indicate she fell abruptly to the ground. 95 year old Hackman was found dead in a mudroom near the kitchen, according to the warrant. It states his cane was next to him, indicating he may have fallen and was unable to get up. Deputies also found the couple's German Shepherd dead in her crate.

The warrant says both Gene and Betsy's bodies showed signs of decomposition. This is an investigation, so we're keeping everything on the table. You know, I think the autopsy is gonna tell us a lot. Dana Griffin reporting there. Joe, so the way the police have reported this out is that a couple of maintenance workers

who regularly were doing work over the years at Gene Hackman's home saw the front door open, thought that was suspicious, called the police, and the police went in and saw the scene you described in the affidavit there. But yeah, Hackman and his wife found in different places in the home, the dog still in a crate, all of it indicating that they may have died some time ago. Yeah, and and and Jonathan, the autopsy obviously is going to be so important, but police

reporting that nothing was missing from the house. Yeah, it's just, it is a strange one. We'll learn more in the, in the days ahead. Police have been now a couple of times, they didn't circumstances suspicious, but they have said now a few times, there's no evidence of foul play. One theory that a law enforcement person familiar with the case floated to me yesterday is it's perhaps Mrs. Hackman, Gene Hackman's wife died first of some sort of medical episode.

And then Gene Hackman, who was 95 and not in the best of health, perhaps died afterwards, whether he was trying to assist her or sometime later. It's unclear, but from the initial reports, it seems like both have been dead for some time and maybe her more than him. And then there's the moment of the deceased dog and the one dog who did die was near the prescription pills that were spilled. Perhaps the dog got into those pills while the others were still alive elsewhere on the property.

But again, this is just one theory at this point. Nothing is certain. But it'll take days and potentially you know a week or more before the you know autopsy and all the toxicology reports are complete these things do take some time. You know when that initial autopsy report is finished in the next couple days we'll learn more but we may not have definitive answers here for quite some time. It's certainly a very very sad story. Jean Hackman one of Hollywood's's greatest actors and this couple had been together for decades.

Yeah, it is a sad story. We're gonna have more details as we get them. We'll bring them to you. For now though, we wanna turn back to Washington where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet this morning with President Trump at the White House. The leader's expected to sign a deal

given the United States ownership of some rare earth minerals in Ukraine, although the specific details have not yet been disclosed. The talks follow a tense back and forth with Zelensky rejecting Trump's earlier proposal that the U.S. take $500 billion worth of minerals without offering security guarantees. While Trump has downplayed security commitments, he claimed yesterday American involvement alone provides some level of protection. President Zelensky is coming to see me on Friday, Friday morning.

And we're going to be signing really a very important agreement for both sides because it's really going to get us into that country. We'll be working there. We'll have a lot of people work in there. And so in that sense, it's very good. It's a backstop, you could say. I don't think anybody's going to play around if we're there with a lot of workers and having to do with rare earths and other things which we need for our country. And we appreciate it very much. And I look forward to

seeing him. So Joe, that offer there is not going to provide a lot of comfort to President Zelensky, the people of Ukraine or to Europe, by the Joe, that offer there is not going to provide a lot of comfort to President Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, or to Europe, by the way, that just by virtue of us being there, the United States having a presence in Ukraine, nobody's going to mess with us. It's clear that Zelensky cannot leave Washington with at least some security guarantees if he's going to give up all these rare earth minerals in his country. Well we always hear that the first thing that Donald Trump says is an opening bid.

I don't know. If it is an opening bid and what we've been hearing over the past two weeks, it's an opening bid that just doesn't make any sense and nobody would take. First of all, he starts at a $500 billion number. Congress appropriated about $ eighty million, I believe. Tops Europe did more than that, by the way, just for all the disinformation that's out there saying otherwise. Second thing is that even though Congress has appropriated that much money, some reports are that we haven't even given them a hundred billion dollars

yet. I said, even. I mean, that's a lot of money, but that's not $500 billion. So you're talking about $100 billion that we've already sent their way. Of course, so much of that was sent in the forms of weapons that were built here in the United States of America and created American jobs, was good for America. Just like the EU relationship jobs was good for America.

Just like the EU relationship has been good for America, the trade has been good for America. Our economy has dominated the world and is the envy of the world. The international system post-World War II set up pretty well for the United States of America to thrive. And that's one of the — John Meacham, that's one of the enduring mysteries for me, that Republicans, people who call themselves Republicans, don't understand that this post-World War II international order has benefited the United States of America in an extraordinary way. And I also, I've got to say, I'm curious what your thoughts are about a proposed $500 billion

dollar, I don't know exactly what you would call it, pay, payoff from Ukraine to the United States of America. It seems to me like we're getting into Treaty of Versailles material there. First of all, it doesn't line up with how much the United States has loaned Ukraine. And secondly, it would be crippling to an economy that has to get rebuilt after this war finally ends. Yeah. In more ways than one, it's a pre-1914 maneuver. It's a kind of imperialism. Basically Zelensky's renting us, or we're renting ourselves to them for a certain amount

of money and asset. The thing that I go back to again and again, and I have never heard a very good answer, and so we'll just frame the question one more time, is how did the party of the Reagan-Republican Cold War tear down this wall, George H.W. Bush, this aggression will not stand. This ethos of protecting the interests of democracies against autocracies. When did that just suddenly change? Not when, but why? Why did that suddenly change?

And to me, it's one of the central questions of the era, because the reorientation of American foreign policy from a particularly on the center right and over from, we will stand for freedom, not universally, not saying we were somehow perfect before 2017, and now we're not. But what is it in the Trump canon that has put us more on the side of aggressors as opposed to those who ordinarily, for decades decades would receive our support and our sympathy. It's fascinating. It really is. I mean, I think everyone on this panel right now would tell you when they talk privately to Republicans, they say, of course, Putin is the aggressor. Of course, Zelensky is not a dictator. Of course, that Ukraine is the victim here, but then won't go out and say it publicly

because of one man, the president. President Trump hosted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House yesterday during a joint press conference. Starmer addressed Trump's efforts to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, stressing the importance of ensuring that any agreement is handled correctly. Meanwhile, earlier in the day, President Trump commented on whether he believes Russia's Vladimir Putin would abide by the terms of a ceasefire if, in fact, it is reached.

Mr. President, I welcome your deep and personal commitment to bring peace and to stop the killing. You've created a moment of tremendous opportunity to reach a historic peace deal. A deal that I think would be celebrated in Ukraine and around the world. That is the prize. But we have to get it right. It can't be peace that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like

Iran. We agree history must be on the side of the peacemaker, not the invader. So the stakes, they couldn't be higher. Mr President, what would you be willing to do if Vladimir Putin did not stick to the terms of any deal on Ukraine? If he not what? If he did not stick to the terms of any deal on Ukraine? Because he's angry of not sticking to his word when it comes to international agreements.

I think he'll keep his word. I think he's — I've spoken to him. I've known him for a long time now. You know, we had to go through the Russian hoax together. That was not a good thing. It's not fair. That was a rigged deal and had nothing to do with Russia. It was a rigged deal with inside the country. And they had to put up with that, too.

They put up with a lot. It wasn't just us. They had to put up with it with a phony story that was made up. I've known him for a long time now and I think he will, I don't believe he's going to violate his word. I don't think he'll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold. Joe, before we get on and talk about Ukraine, we have to just pause right there. That statement was extraordinary. The president of the United States saying, he and Vladimir Putin went through the Russia hoax together. They were in this thing together, that people were out to get them when it was

well documented, whether you think the Trump campaign in 2016 sought the help or welcomed the help or not. It's not disputed that Russia put its thumb on the scale in that election. But he sees a partner in that fight and a fellow victim. Every single one of Donald Trump's intelligence leaders that he selected, agency heads that he selected, believed. And it was the position of our government that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Now, do you want to jump to collusion on that? That's where the huge debate goes, and that's when you start hearing about Russia hoax, but there is no hoax behind

the central fact that Russia interfered in the election for the benefit of Donald Trump. Whether he sought that help or not, again, that's been a raging debate since 2017. But even Marco Rubio, when he was running the Senate Intelligence Committee, Marco Rubio and Republicans said that Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and actors in it caused a direct counterintelligence threat to the United States of America's security. That's what Marco Rubio, that's what the Republican Senate Intel Committee said. And again, not to belabor this point, but you know, there are just some things that stop the presses, and this is one of them. Again, our own intelligence agencies under Donald Trump, Susan Page, said that Russia

interfered in the 2016 election. That's just—you could go into any courtroom in America and get judicial notice of that. It is such—it's common and it's an established fact. And it's not really even the fundamental origin of President Trump's admiration and alignment with Vladimir Putin. It is—though he cited it yesterday as kind of a formative experience, we know that Donald Trump has been attracted to strongmen, been willing to trust Vladimir Putin's assurances over those of his own intelligence agencies. I mean, it's one of the fundamental shifts we've seen in our foreign policy. And the other is the

transactional nature of it. I mean, that's one thing that's so striking about the meeting with Zelensky today. You know, when U.S. troops helped expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, we didn't then demand that Kuwait provide us with some exchange to make up for the money we had spent there. This is a new endeavor on the part of the United States in modern times and a very different sort of foreign policy. You know, it's very interesting, Sam Stein. Let's pull back and look at the meeting with Keir Starmer yesterday. Also look earlier in the week at the meeting with Macron.

And you look at how these two Western European leaders interacted with Donald Trump. Somewhat different than the first term, where more grimaced handshakes. Of course, Macron and Donald Trump still have the handshaking contest. I wonder how long that's going to last. That's just a thing. Maybe they get Dana White in there next time to officiateated. But you notice, though, it was personally, they all tried to express warmth. And you had them gently chiding the president on Ukraine, basically doing the sort of

corrections that we do when other people on the show about whether it's alone or, or whatever. But you saw yesterday, actually, Keir Stormer and Donald Trump get along much better than most people thought, even with the British prime minister delivering a note from King Charles, requesting a state dinner, I guess, at Buckingham Palace. Is it abnormal to shake someone's hand

for 14 seconds in a grimace? I obviously do. Every time they meet, it's crazy. I got you. I think the memo's gone out. And rightfully so, that the way to deal with Trump is to use flattery. And it's not that complicated.

I think this is sort of the through line through all of this, which is one of the reasons Trump is agitating towards ending the war in favorable terms for Russia. I think frankly that he just has more admiration for Putin than Zelensky. He likes Putin more. And really it's transactional, as Susan said, but it's also quite personal. Stammer, Macron, they both know that if they want to extract anything from Trump vis-à-vis

concessions for the fight for Ukraine, they have to flatter him. And so you have these situations where Stommer is up there saying, oh, thank you, Mr. President, you've delivered this historic opportunity for peace, as if he isn't aware that Trump would have gladly handed over Ukraine to Russia the moment Russia invaded. And that's just the price of admission for dealing with Trump on the foreign stage. And I think this is a sort of distinction, I guess, between the first term, where a lot of world leaders want to rightfully show bravado and stand up to Trump and lecture him on the ways of the world, and it didn't really get them anywhere.

This time around, they know that they have much more success, I suppose, with carrots than with sticks. Yeah, I suppose so. And you look, though, Jonathan Lemire, again, at what Western European leaders are having to do to try to get Donald Trump to stay supportive of Ukraine. And it is. It seems like it is this back and forth, this back and forth. It's going to be curious to see how today's meeting goes. What are you expecting with President Zelensky? Yeah, first you're right about flattery.

And also Trump is known to have a soft spot for the British royal family. So I'm told that he repeatedly spent much of last evening talking about how wonderful this invitation was. It would be his second state dinner. I believe he'd be the first president to receive a second state dinner in the UK. And he had took to Truth Social as well to post about what an honor that was.

The relationship with Zelensky, though, very different. We've seen Zelensky try to flatter him a little bit, too, particularly during the transition here. transition here, you know, in Zelensky's accounting of some of their phone calls, Zelensky goes back and forth. At times he can't hide his frustration. He knows that Trump is endangering the very, his country's very existence by siding with Russia,

but other times Zelensky does seem like he's trying to get on Trump's good side. And now there's this Minerals Deal, details to be worked out, though many have deemed sort of extortion for Ukraine, but it's more favorable for Ukraine today than it was a week or so ago when the Treasury Secretary just shoved the paper at Zelensky and said, you need to sign this. This seems a little more reasonable now. But Trump continues to side with Putin in this arrangement.

And Mike Axios has a new piece up this morning titled, Trump's New World Order, Strongmen Make the Rules. Obviously, Putin fits the definition. Tell us what you guys are all looking at there. Yeah, thank you, Jonathan. This pulls back the camera piece by Zachary Basu, looking at the Trump world order and we've all been saying that Trump is disrupting the world order since 1945. Leave it to Monsignor Meacham to pull that back even further. Three decades going back to 1914,

a hundred and eleven years. However you date it, this is a complete change and what's changing? Trump has contempt for the alliances and the institutions that the world, as we know it, has grown up in. He sees opportunity in a world that's dominated by strongmen and deal-making. What's in their head? What's behind this? Axios always tried to show you how Trump thinks. And Zach isolated a key quote by Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing. He said that that global post-war order since 1945 is not just inhibiting the

United States, but actually is being used as a weapon against it now. So what we see playing out is the scorn that so many of the Trump people have for Europe, for its trade, for its defense, for its culture, for its speech, like all those things about Europe that they see as icky is all playing out here. But today we're seeing Trump the dealmaker. And another great

piece up on Axios at this moment from Barack, Ravid, points out that day by day we have seen Trump's tone about Zelensky softening. So after two weeks of attack he's getting ready to play the host. All right, everybody stay with us. Lots more to talk about this morning. Still ahead, the Trump administration's sweeping effort to shrink the size of the federal workforce hits a new roadblock. We'll dig into a new ruling by a federal judge as firings continue to take place. But first, as we mentioned, President Trump repeatedly has made false claims about the amount of aid the United States has given to Ukraine. Steve Ratner

is standing by with a fact check. Morning Joe, back in 90 seconds. The deal together, probably in front of the media, and we're going to be having a good conversation. No, we want to work with him, President Zelensky, she said before. We want to work with him and we will work with him. I think the president and I actually have had a very good relationship. It maybe got a little bit testy because we wanted to have a little bit of what the European nations had. You know, they get their

money back by giving money. We don't get the money back. Biden made a deal. He put in $350 billion and I thought it was a very unfair situation. We're not getting all of ours. I mean, quite a bit of ours was was was gifted. It was given. Um, there were some lens, quite a bit of ours was gifted. It was given. There were some links, but mainly it was gifted, actually. That was British Prime Minister Keir Starmer correcting President Trump's claim that European countries providing aid

are gonna get their money back. That was almost an exact mirror of Emmanuel Macron, who also corrected the president when he said a similar statement during the French president's visit earlier this week. We're going to get to Steve Ratner in a minute. He'll go through all the numbers for you. But I also just got to say that $350 billion, and Steve will, I'm sure, show this, it's just a number grabbed out of thin air. We didn't do it. Again, Steve's going to go through these numbers, but it's just wildly off.

And the negotiations, that's obviously getting those numbers right, obviously going to be important. And the Ukrainians and everybody else is going to know what the real number is. It's not close to $350 billion. John Meacham, you had taken us back talking about, you know, it's moving further back than the post-World War II order. You talked about this being pre-1914. I am curious. There are a lot of things that are happening in Washington that have been happening over the past couple years where there really aren't a lot of parallels.

I suspect, though, this view of the world, what is old is new again, this view of the world that Donald Trump is bringing in to the White House and sort of smashing this post-war order that has seen the United States dominate the world economically and militarily and every other way, culturally, you name it, we've dominated since end of World War II. But he's trying to bring about this new order. Take us back. Is this more like a Teddy Roosevelt imperialist approach? Is this William McKinley? Who does this remind you of, his worldview, when it comes to power politics? It's older than that even. It's almost medieval and renaissance, right? This is a royal house with a kingdom who bases relations on personal connection, personal feeling to go to something Susan said a moment ago, and basically the transfer of assets.

It's a very autocratic, very straightforward. I mean, let's be honest, it's kind of, I don't want to say refreshing, but the president is being very clear here. So one of the things that I think is really important here is to remember that we are now living, to shift from a historical metaphor to a cultural one, we're now living in the Sopranos, And we're now living in the Sopranos, right? This is a protection racket. Basically, President Zelensky is being asked to come to Washington to pay for our protection. And one of the most revealing moments, I think, of the last couple of weeks was in some comments the president made.

It was about the Associated Press situation in the White House. And I believe I have this almost exactly right, but it's certainly the essence of it. The AP doesn't do me any favors, so I'm not going to do them any favors. That's the way the world works. That's the way the world works. That's the way the world works. That's where we are. And it's a, there's not a lot of diplomatic thought here. You know, there's not going to be a foreign affairs piece about this doctrine.

That's the way the world works. Yeah, I mean, it's, by the way, your metaphor with the Sopranos is one that's been used by members of Congress. Jim Himes, ranking member, a Democrat from Connecticut, said the same thing. It's a protection racket, except, as we've been pointing out so far, no protection, just the racket. So that's why Zelensky will be at the White House today seeking a little bit of that protection. If I'm giving up my minerals, you got to make sure that they're not going to invade.

Presidential historian John Meacham again, walking us from medieval times all the way up to the late 20th century New Jersey with the Sopranos. Well done, John. Thank you. Joining us now, former treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner with charts on Ukrainian aid. So Steve, this is something that we've been focused on for the last several days. Donald Trump throwing around that number of 350 billion dollars. What do the numbers really look like? Yeah he talks about 350 billion dollars. You guys correct him every morning and then he goes back the next day and says the same thing. So I don't know. We'll try some charts and see

if that helps. But before I get to that, let me just say something underscoring what I heard earlier at the top of the show. The idea that we are effectively asking our ally, who was attacked, to pay the equivalent of the reparations that we asked Germany to pay in World War I is kind of mind-boggling. We're here to help these people not get money back, and as the British Prime Minister said, it is not correct to say all of the European money is loans.

There may be some loans in there, but most of it, just like us, is aid. But in any event, here are the numbers. Once and for all, maybe Donald Trump will pay attention today. He claims $350 billion. The actual number from the Kiel Institute impartial observer is $120 billion. He talks about how Europe only spent $100 billion. Actual number $138 billion. These are the numbers once and for all as we sit here today.

Now let's look at how we're doing compared to other countries and it's kind of interesting because you do have three countries, small countries. They happen to also be close to Moscow, that's not a coincidence, spending over 2% of their GDP on aid to Ukraine. Then you get to a whole bunch of other countries that are kind of in the rough zone of about half a percentage point of their GDP, Germany a little bit higher than the US, France, UK, Italy and so on. So we are right in the middle of the GDP, Germany a little bit higher than the US, France, UK, Italy, and so on. So we are right in the middle of the pack.

We are actually number 17. I didn't list all the countries. We are number 17 among the countries providing aid when you measure against our gross domestic product. And these are also the numbers. So we're not doing anything extraordinary. Yeah. You know, that's fascinating, Steve.

Especially you look obviously, Europe, the Balkan states doing so much better, giving so much more. And as you said, for good reason, I'm surprised that Germany is even above us because the German government has been criticized for quite some time for not doing more, but there they are. I want you to tell us, walk us through another part of this that is so important. When we talk about the $120 billion that we have given Ukraine, a lot of that has gone to U.S. factories, U.S. workers, U.S. and the U.S. economy, because a lot of the work

supports American businesses. Yeah, exactly, Joe. So let's take a look over here at two points. The first, the one that you're referring to, it's been estimated, excuse me, that as much as 70% of our aid has actually been spent in the United States. So that is money that is here. It's not even necessarily in the form of aid. We've just literally sent them equipment, sent them ammunition that we have then replaced using our money from U.S. factories, U.S. workers. I want to make one other point about this, and then I'll get back to that, which is that we have committed only another $5 billion at this moment of aid.

And you remember, and it was shown on the other chart, how up and down our aid commitments have been. It's been a fight with the Senate every time a president has tried to get it. The EU has promised another $121 billion of aid. So if they actually do this, their aid will be vastly greater than ours. Back to the question of where the money is spent, here's a map of the United States. All these dots represent amounts of money spent in different congressional districts.

There are nine congressional districts up here in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and so forth, where over a billion dollars has been spent in each of these nine districts. Six of them happen to be held by Republicans, by Democrats, excuse me. Three of them held by Republicans. And then you have the slightly lighter color, and those are 500 to a billion. And I do, Joe, you might be interested in this, want to point out one specific district,

which is Florida One right here, which is getting 500 million to a billion dollars of this money back into their districts. So Steve, let's turn to a different topic now. We had New York Governor Kathy Hochul on the show yesterday making a passion defense of New York City's new congestion pricing plan. We know though that President Trump and the Trump administration have looked to kill it. It's now going to be in the courts.

The governor has not abided by what the White House wants to this point. So tell us here, who's right? Is congestion pricing working? Well, first, let's frame this on a slightly broader context because here you have a Republican government which says that they believe in local control and states' rights. The federal government should not interfere locally.

In fact, HUD, just the other day, is repealing some regulations from the Biden administration aimed at influencing zoning in communities. And now they're turning around and diving into the New York congestion pricing. What this has to do with Washington, I have no idea. But more importantly, as the governor said, and we'll show you the numbers, it is in fact working.

So it's only been a month or so, but what have we seen? We've seen a drop of eight to 12% in the number of vehicles entering this zone below 60th Street in Manhattan. We've seen a drop of 8 to 12 percent in the number of vehicles entering this zone below 60th Street in Manhattan. We've seen a drop in half of traffic injuries. We've seen transit ridership on the MTA and Metro North rise by 7 to 10 percent. We've still seen people coming into the zone, so it's not like Broadway was very worried about people not coming.

Individual visits by people in the zone is actually up. School bus arrivals are down. And equally importantly, it has generated $50 million in just a month for transit improvements in the city of New York. And so that obviously over the course of a year could be as much as say $600 million each year. And then you look at travel times. I don't know, some gremlin put these green arrows and ignore those, but basically if you look

at all the ways into New York, Holland Tunnel from New Jersey down by more than half, Williamsburg Bridge from Brooklyn down by about 30%, Queensburg Bridge from Queens down by about a half, Lincoln Tunnel more than a half and so on. And I can tell you I've noticed the two is a significant drop in traffic in New York, which means less pollution, it means fewer cars. It is one of the best things that's happened in New York in a long time. The governor deserves a big shout out

for putting this in place in face of a lot of opposition from commuters in New Jersey and all kinds of people, but she did the right thing, and why the administration feels that this is somehow worthy of their attention at all, let alone to fight it, is beyond me. Yeah, and Governor Hoco, as John said, was here yesterday describing her meeting a week ago today

at the White House with President Trump. She had those very charts almost, Steve, to make the case for congestion pricing. And you're right, just anecdotally, talking to people who drive cabs and Ubers, people who commute in from New Jersey or Long Island they say it is improved the traffic is vastly improved they don't like paying the toll who would but it's doing its job so far morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner with some important numbers this morning Steve thanks so much coming up

we will break down a federal judge's ruling on the Trump administration's mass firings of government workers. Plus what Senate Republicans are asking of Elon Musk as his department of government efficiency goes after even more federal agencies. Morning Joe's coming right back. Washington Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, of course, announced a major shift in the paper's opinion section in a social media post. Of course, you all saw this, the tech mogul outlined dramatic changes that focus on personal

liberties and free markets. Still not sure exactly what personal liberties is defined by in his mind and won't publish anything that opposes those ideas. A billionaire also revealed he offered the section's editor, David Shipley, a chance to continue in this new chapter, but Shipley decided to step away. He's been running the section since 2022. Let's bring in, talk about this and much more, Poland's surprise-winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. Jean, let's just, I'm curious what your thought is. You

have been connected with the Washington Post Pulitzer Prize winner. We've had Pulitzer Prize winners leave the post over the past several months and it continues. I'm just curious what your thought is about this directive coming down for a newspaper whose tough questions literally redefined modern journalism in America over the past half century. Well, it's a very good question. First of all, Joe, you know as much about this as I do in terms of what this, you know, what exactly Jeff means.

It's not as if we publish a whole lot of pieces, or in fact, any pieces that oppose free markets and personal liberties. We don't, I cannot recall us ever publishing a piece with the headline, The Joy of Socialism. That's not us. So what does this mean? Because he describes it as a significant shift. You know, what was intolerable to David Shipley

and is intolerable to David Shipley and is intolerable to a lot of us, frankly, is this idea that we're going to be channeled, that there will be some views, who knows what they are, that will no longer be published in the Washington Post's opinion pages, that are off limits. And that is not the way we've ever functioned.

That is not the tradition of the page under David Shipley, under his predecessors Fred Hyatt, and Mac Greenfield, going back the entire time I've been at the Washington Post. And I just, to be very frank, I mean, for many of us, this is, as to quote Elon Musk, this is a fork in the road moment, because these kinds of strictures, whatever they turn out to be, are not what we thought we had signed up for. This is not the way we have worked to produce what is, I believe, objectively the best opinion

section in American journalism. And I would defend that. And I think it's a mistake journalistically. I think it's a mistake as a business proposition. But it leaves us with choices and decisions to make about our futures. You know, and what's so surprising to me, Gene, is again, we're trying to sort through, everybody's trying to sort through exactly

what that statement means. I'm shocked that you, as a columnist on that page, a Pulitzer Prize winner, doesn't sound like you have any more insight into what those limitations, or potential limitations might be. You're right, I have absolutely no more insight into that. the the the

the the the the the the the the

the the at 9 a.m. We staff had a meeting with David Chipoli but he was, you know, I'm not going to discuss a private meeting with staff but I will say that I was not further enlightened as to exactly what this means and nor have we heard anything more from our publisher, Will Lewis, who also issued a statement to the staff, essentially saying, you know, yeah, what Jeff said, this is what we're doing, but we don't know what is. What that means.

Yeah, Mike Allen, certainly it seems bizarre to many observers, especially people who have worked for the Washington Post and who love it so much. Your partner Jim Van De Hei said yesterday that he's been confused by five years of decisions that have been made at the Washington Post. And it has been seemingly going in circles while losing readership. Pull back and tell us how this gives us a better light on the entire media landscape, especially when you have conglomerates, when you have multinational corporations who decide to pick up a newspaper as a bit of a rounding error. We played a clip out of Network, that famous, iconic Ned Beatty scene where he was the head

of a conglomeration lecturing an anchor who didn't take the lecturing very well. Where are we right now, especially with these conglomerates that have media outlets that are institutions, but are basically a rounding error on their balance sheet? No, Joe, that's exactly right. And lots of your viewers run things. So your viewers run teams, run organizations, run companies, run nations. And if you run something, a superpower is clarity, knowing what your thing is, knowing what

your mission is, knowing what your higher purpose is. And that's what seems to be totally missing from the Washington Post and is missing across so much of the media landscape. Jim and I have written about the shards of glass that the media ecosystem basically fractured and now you have so many of these different shards all of them unconnected disconnected and so these legacy organizations that are trying to find their way in that new universe seem totally lost. And this is why Jim said yesterday on the show of the many things we don't understand about what's going on at the Washington Post. And I'm a proud alumnus. I started on the Metro desk covering the

Alexandria City Council. I'm a customer. I get it at my door in Arlington, Virginia to this day. We don't understand how they're communicating with their staff, with their readership. And this is a big message about communication for all your viewers, that when the communication is unclear and foggy, confusing, that's often downstream from an unclear, foggy strategy thinking. Gene, can I just ask you a practical question? We were talking to Marty Barron about this yesterday, which is for you and for your colleagues

in the opinion section, what does this mean for you when you sit down to write a column? Today, for example, you're writing about Elon Musk and a rebellion that he has created within the Trump administration already among some cabinet officials. Does that fit into personal liberties and free markets? In other words, is your job changing?

Look, I wrote that column earlier this week before this dropped. So I have literally no idea. I don't know who's going to be running the section section after today today is David Shipley's last day as Of last night as of the last time I checked my phone. We had not been informed What any sort of interim arrangement is for running the opinion section? So I have no idea and let me put one other thing out there, because we like to keep it real on Morning Joe. I mean, many readers are taking this move by Jeff

as another step in a process of trying to get on the right side of Donald Trump, of essentially shifting our page to the right side of Donald Trump, of essentially shifting our page to the right in order to carry favor with Trump. I believe Jeff would deny that that is the case. And I don't have a talk with him, so, but I'm confident he would deny that as a case. But I will, I should say that there are many readers who are taking it that way. Well, let me just pick up the baton there

because any sober-minded observer would know that he's trying to get in with Donald Trump. He showed up at his inauguration. He gave a million dollars to it. Reports now that he was pitching Trump privately on Doug Burgum as a VP choice, a publisher of a newspaper. Back channeling to a presidential candidate pitching a VP choice is a look.

And I would just say, again, I love the institution of the Post. I think you guys are doing incredible work under incredibly difficult circumstances. He's doing you no favors. But I would just say that it is harming the reputation. And I wonder if as you talk to your colleagues, not just on the opinion side, but on the news side,

do they feel like their publisher has hurt them professionally in their capacity to go about and present the best work product, which they are doing to this day. They are doing some of the best reporting out there on the federal workforce, on the Trump administration, regardless of what Bezos has done.

But do they feel like their publisher has harmed them in their professional pursuits? Well, yes and no. Yes in that, look, recently you know what an exodus we've had of some of our best reporters. That in and of itself diminishes capacity. It hurts our ability to cover the news. It's not something you can't over time recover from but that that hurts us

You step back for 10 years. He's on the Jeffers own the paper for more than 11 years for 10 years He was a model newspaper owner what I would consider a model newspaper owner he invested Not just money but ideas and technology in the paper. He let us grow. He let us really survive. Before he bought the paper, I mean, we were on a decline, a gradual decline. He ended that and sent us on a different path. Now this is a turn and

this is not a positive turn. And like I said, for a lot of people, the paper is a fork in the road. Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, we will be reading you and the indispensable reporting of your newspaper. We appreciate you being here this morning, Jean. Thanks so much. Also co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen, and managing editor at the Bulwark, Sam Stein. Thank you both as well. Still ahead this morning, just hours from now,

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with President Trump in Washington to sign a minerals deal between the two countries. We'll speak with Democratic Senator Adam Schiff about that. Also ahead, Golden Globe nominated actor Jason Isaacs will be live in our studio to discuss season three of the hit show, The White Lotus. Morning Joe's coming right back.