Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/4/25

Episode Date: February 4, 2025

Trump pauses tariffs on Canada and Mexico; China hits back at U.S. tariffs

Over the weekend, President Trump announced new tariffs on Canada and Mexico that are expected to start a trade war. People are wondering why Trump would start a war with our closest allies. And he was like, I didn't say anything about Russia and North Korea. President Trump is delaying tariffs on Canada and Mexico for at least a month

after speaking with leaders of both countries. But he is moving forward with across-the-board tariffs on Chinese products. We're gonna go through China's overnight response and the economic implications of all of this. Also ahead, we'll dig into Elon Musk's massive influence over the federal government at the moment as the unelected billionaire works to shut down

a key humanitarian agency. And on Capitol Hill today, there will be key votes for two of the president's most controversial cabinet nominees. We'll take a look at where support stands for RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard right now. And good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, February 4th.

Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the co-host of The Fourth Hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's a contributing writer at The Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Cady Kay, the host of Wait Too Early, Ali Vitale, and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas. He's the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack, and former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Radner is here. And Willie, we're just listening to Cady on Way early, talking about how Donald Trump sort of plays

it by ear. The people around him talk about how, you know, he'll go out, he'll say he's going to do something, see how it works out, and then move around. Anybody that's read the first three pages of Art of the Deal know that's what he says he does. He shows up in his office, he sits down, he takes phone calls, and he sees how things are going to shake out. I'm sure he also is looking at the markets yesterday, pre-market trading. So, we get this. Of course, Wall Street Journal talking about how the trade deal is delayed, certainly on Mexico and Canada, our two closest trade allies.

And, of course, with Mexico, we got a positive deal. And Mexico feels like they got a positive deal. Fentanyl, you know, stopped Fentanyl coming to the United States, and the United States does its best to stop high-capacity guns going to Mexico. So sort of this standoff. Both sides can claim victory. The Wall Street Journal, actually, lead editorial, which we're going to talk about in a second, says President Trump blinks. But of course, that's not what his supporters are saying right now. Yeah, and that art of the deal style works in New York real estate or if you're hosting

a reality show, but when you're the president of the United States, it tends to throw the world into a bit of chaos. Now, his side, and he are arguing that that big tariff announcement got him to a place where he wanted to be, which was to push Mexico into a corner and get them to make concessions on the border. Same goes for Canada. But meanwhile, the markets and our international relations suffer for it. And also now we're talking about China because President Trump's 10% tariff on all Chinese

goods now is in effect. And China has retaliated immediately, announcing overnight a series of measures, including its own levies on American products. Beginning on February 10th, China will impose an additional tariff of 15% on coal and liquefied natural gas, and a 10% tariff on other items like crude oil

and agricultural machinery. But Mika, so this is what everyone expected, of course, an escalation from whoever you put the tariffs on, whether it's Mexico or Canada or China. Again, the president's saying this is basically a negotiating tactic, and we'll see if it turns out to be that way in China's case as well. And was the deal that was struck with Canada

a deal that we've seen before? President Trump is backtracking on 25 percent tariffs for Canadian and Mexican goods. Now the move comes after the leaders of Canada and Mexico announced plans to ramp up security at their borders to help combat the transport of drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S. Regarding Canada, Trump posted on social media yesterday the tariffs would be paused for 30 days to see if a final economic deal can be reached with the country. Additionally, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

revealed Canada would implement a $1.3 billion plan to reinforce the border with new technology equipment and nearly 10,000 frontline personnel to coordinate with the U.S. to stop the flow of fentanyl. One interesting note, Trudeau's announcement yesterday was a repeat of the same border plan the Canadian government unveiled in December during the Biden administration. And earlier yesterday Mexico's president announced that her nation would immediately reinforce its northern border with 10,000 National Guard members to address drug trafficking. Trump stated the US will continue negotiations with Mexico over

border security during the 30 day tariff delay. You know what makes an interesting thing to happen yesterday during the president signing ceremony inside the White House? Rupert Murdoch was there. Yeah. And somebody asked what he thought about the Wall Street Journal editorial page

calling this the dumbest, I think the dumbest trade war ever. And he said, sometimes they don't agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Today would be one of those days as well, because, of course, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, like most economists and people that read the Wall Street Journal, have long been opposed to the idea of tariffs. And so in its latest editorial titled Trump Blinks on North

American Tariffs, that editorial board writes in part this, If North American leaders need to cheer about a minor deal so they can all claim victory, that's better for everyone. The need is especially important for Mr. Trump given how much he boasted that tariffs are a foolproof diplomatic weapon against friend or foe. Mr. Trump can't afford to look like the guy who lost. Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum, in particular, seems to recognize this, and so far she's playing her trump cards with skill. None of this means that tariffs are some genius power play, as the Trump media chorus is boosting," writes the Wall Street

Journal editorial page, certainly about other people within their own media conglomerate News Corp. But they go on and write, Mr. Trump's weekend tariff broadsides against a pair of neighbors has opened a new era of economic policy uncertainty that won't calm down until the president does. As he warned many times before Election Day, this is the biggest economic risk of Donald Trump's second term. And that's what as they warned before. And Cady, I thought is very interesting your take again politically on how this was all going to go down. There were people that were close to Donald

Trump who always had said, it's always an opening bid. If he talks about 25 percent tariffs, it's an opening bid. And I spoke to some people at the White House yesterday and also some supporters of his yesterday who laughed and said, we told you so, we told you so. He was never going to impose 25% tariffs on Canada or Mexico, which seems to line up with what you say. He'll talk about it. He'll put it out there. But if things start going south, if the stock stock market drops, he's going to find his way out of there. Yeah. And the timing was interesting, right? We saw the stock market open. We saw it drop in that first half hour or so. It fell by about five, 600 points. It didn't look good.

The market wasn't happy. And quite quickly, we got an announcement following that from Mexico that there had been a resolution. Immediately, the market bounced back up again. That's what the White House would like to see. Now, maybe the president was gambling that if he announced this on Friday, by Monday, the markets would be happy with this. There is still the question of what happens in 30 days. And there's the longer-term question of if you are now Canada or Mexico, who, by the way, have not really given up very much to get this pause.

I mean, I think Canada is sending a border czar. That's it. The rest of their program they'd already announced, same with Mexico. Then do you then, has to some extent the damage been done, even by the announcement of this? Is there a feeling that if you can, you're going to diversify your relationships, your trade relationships to the extent that it is possible. Make those more friction-free, because you don't know whether in 30 days, actually, Donald Trump will decide he is going to impose these tariffs. And the EU, who have already been put on notice by Donald Trump over the weekend, even to

some extent the UK, they're now going to have to go through this same process as well. So whether or not this leads to an immediate tariff war right now, there is an eroding of relationships that have benefited the United States. I feel like I know I'm preaching to the converted here, Joe, and I don't need to tell you this. These relationships and these trading relationships have benefited the United States enormously for the past 30, 40, 50 years. Do other countries with Donald Trump in power for the next four years start thinking, OK, we do need to try to do something to weaken our reliance on the United States and look

elsewhere? Right. Yeah, Jonathan, let me just say, though, this is a powerful, potent political issue for Donald Trump. And I can say firsthand, when I was running in 1994, I was shocked. At one point, I went over to the rural part of my district in the Funiak Springs, and I was talking about tax cuts and balanced budgets and a strong national defense and a rising China and what the United States needed to do.

Every question was about NAFTA, NAFTA, NAFTA, National Assembly, NAFTA. It was NAFTA. If I could think back to 94, and this is a world we still live in, if you look at Donald Trump's face, it was about NAFTA, it was about Gap, it was about the World Trade Organization. And anybody in the media that looked at what Donald Trump was saying yesterday in the White House, in the Oval Office, and didn't think that was connecting with the rank and file base saying, you know, we need to push them harder here, we need to push them harder there.

He talked about Germany. He said, hey, we've got a lot of BMWs and Mercedes that are going around, driving around in the United States. You don't see any Chev's in Berlin do you that sort of talk you know dick Gephardt used it in the Democratic Party you you have populace in both parties using it I'm just saying we all we all understand what the Wall Street Journal editorial page says what Steve Ratner is about to say, but Democrats need to understand this is a powerful, potent issue

when you talk about economic nationalism. Yeah, there's no doubt Trump for a long time now has had his finger on the pulse of economic nationalism, economic populism, and he believes the tariffs are a way to do that. Now, as Cady said, there's a risk, there's a downside here. These are to the United States' closest allies allies and there's some real hard feelings we heard Prime Minister Trudeau talk over the weekend a real sense of betrayal that

the United States would do this considering how Canada has come to the US's aid time and time again in times of need so we will see what that relationship looks like going forward even as this crisis briefly passes as someone put it to me yesterday close to President at the end of the day, it is showbiz. Like this is something he is going to make a show, he's going to claim some sort of win, even if there aren't really significant changes. It's a mounties at the border up north, and we should note the 10,000 troops the Mexican government has agreed to place at the southern border of the United States, it's exactly the same deal that gave president Joe Biden back in

2021 so that that also familiar not breaking new ground but listen to short term Joe Meeker and economic and economic win the issue will be as that same person close to president put to me yesterday how much risk is Trump going to willing to take with the markets we saw them open up badly yesterday, you know this was just a one day trade war, you know, if you will, Trump reaching those agreements with Mexico and Canada, both before the closing bell, the markets recovered some right. But is he going to want to do

that again in 30 days or 30 days after that or 30 days after that, when such he stakes his popularity and success to Wall Street? Yeah. And I will say, even after we backed down on Canada and Mexico as a nation, as the Wall Street Journal Business and Finance page say, steelmakers are hiking prices ahead of tariffs right now. And Willie, again, it reminds me a lot of the campaign where I sat here, I won't talk about everybody else, I sat here talking about how the United States economy was the envy of the world, how jobless rates were at record lows over a period of time, how the dollar was, all of these positive things were going out there, Americans weren't feeling it.

They weren't feeling it because of inflation, because of rising gas prices, grocery prices up 20, 25% over the past four years. That's when I talk about this economic nationalism that is a strong sell in middle America. We all know, we can all talk about tariffs and especially against Canada and Mexico, how bad that would be for us, how bad that would be for consumers. But for a lot of Americans, they see economic wreckage since NAFTA was implemented back in 1994. So this is, again, it's a challenge for Democrats. It's a challenge for free trade Republicans.

It's a challenge for people in the Wall Street Journal editorial page to make these arguments and explain to Americans who are economic nationalists what their view is and why tariffs against Mexico and Canada would be so short-sighted. Yeah, despite what we know from economists, and we'll talk to Steve in a second here, about what tariffs do to cost to consumers in the United States, these moves were cheered during the campaign,

and then when he proposed them a couple of days ago by his supporters. One other note, as John mentioned, that the Biden administration had struck a deal with Canada. This deal that Canada announced yesterday in a response to the tariffs about what they're gonna do at the border, 10,000 troops stopped fentanyl,

more than a billion dollars was already put in place, negotiated with the Biden administration in December, and they sort of re-announced it yesterday to placate Donald Trump. So just fascinating management of the president here. Let's get to Steve Ratner and some of his charts. Steve, we talk about how tariffs disrupt the markets, how they raise prices for consumers. Show us what it

means in charts. Sure Willie. Well first of all let's take a look at what both Caddy and Jonathan alluded to yesterday, which was the performance of the stock market since all this began. It was sort of pre-announced on Friday, and the market started down on Friday, and then over the weekend, on Saturday, when he actually announced the tariffs,

you can see there that the market just plunged, and then it came partway back. So why only partway back? Because the market is now scared and worried about where Trump is actually going, what does this all amount to. It's not even really clear exactly what Trump wants. He talks about fentanyl, he talks about immigration, but he also talks about cars coming in from

China and why aren't we making these cars here? So who knows where he's going. To the point that a couple of people have referred to already, these three countries are our three biggest trading partners. We import $1.3 trillion a year of stuff from them. And as you can see on the chart on the right, that has just been going up and up and up and up. And so it's not just China,

Mexico and Canada really are critical to our economy. And so the stock market is saying, we're not sure this is over. We're glad it's been on pause, but now we've got a very volatile president. It's a little hard to know where this is going next. So, President Trump, yesterday, of course, and throughout the rhetoric surrounding these tariffs and needing tougher border, is talking about fentanyl and migration.

But these are already starting to ease, are they not? They are, actually. And that's part of what you guys were referring to, that steps have been taken by Mexico and Canada in the past to deal with it. Well, first of all, let's start with Canada. There is no issue in Canada with immigrants or with fentanyl. Something like 1.9 kilos of fentanyl crossed the Canadian border last year. You could put that in my coffee cup, basically.

I wouldn't recommend that, though. No, I wouldn't drink it, but you could put it there. And we have no noticeable immigration across the northern border. So all of this is complete hocus pocus just to somehow play Kate Trump. On the Mexican side, there are issues, and we have been trying to deal with them. If you look at the fentanyl situation on the left chart, you can see fentanyl use actually peaked a couple of years ago. It actually went up a lot during COVID.

COVID was a big driver of overdoses and opioids and things like that's been coming down. And the amount crossing the border has also been coming down a bit. AMLO, the previous Mexican president, frankly wasn't that great about the border and fentanyl. But the new president, Scheinbaum, has been focused on already, again, before Trump showed up. If you look at the right side, you can see on immigration, yes, it went up a heck of a lot under Biden. But interestingly enough, people crossing the border between legal ports of entry, between

official government posts, is now lower than it was when Trump left office. The rest of the people are coming in here, effectively legally. They're going to a customs official, they're saying I want to come here, and they're asking for asylum. And so there's more we can certainly do on the border, but this is a bit of a problem and a solution in search of a problem. All right, so much going on. We haven't even gotten to Trump's attempt to shut down the US.S. agency for international development. We will talk to Richard Haass about that. Also coming up on Morning Joe,

a showdown in the Senate today with a key vote on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination to be Health and Human Services Secretary, and it could be a key test for at least one Republican senator. We'll talk about that and where some of President Trump's other controversial nominees stand this morning.

Plus, the single most important battle Democrats must wage. The Washington Post reports. Eugene Robinson joins us to explain that. We're back in 90 seconds. [♪techno music playing -♪.] It's 21 past the hour. The Senate Finance Committee will vote today on whether to advance the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary. The fate of Kennedy's bid could fall upon Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Senator Cassidy, a medical doctor, is a member of the Finance Committee and chairman of the

HELP Committee, the other panel that held a hearing for RFK Jr. He has openly struggled with Kennedy's nomination. Meanwhile, another of Trump's cabinet picks just picked up a key endorsement ahead of her committee vote later today. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine has announced she will vote in favor of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence. She explained her decision to reporters yesterday. After extensive consideration, conversations with her in my office, attending the hearing, questioning her there, and listening to her in the closed session, I decided to vote,

that I will vote for her. I believe she's committed to strengthening our national security. And I questioned her extensively about her views on Edward Snowden, and I am now satisfied that she will not seek in any way to have him pardoned, which was a question that I answered in open session You know, there's an old saying in soccer in in English football It's the hope that kills you. Yeah, I

Suspect they have a similar saying in Maine about Susan Collins. It's a hope that can be shared. I wonder, Richard, if she was assured by the way Tulsi Gabbard handled her relationship with a butcher of Syria, Assad, responsible for the murder of 500,000 Syrians also who used chemical weapons against his own people, or again, Edward Snowden, where she refused to condemn Snowden in one question after another, question after another question. Susan Collins, supposedly a traditional Republican, there

is no way she would ever vote for Tulsi Gabbard except for political expediency and fear. Is there, Richard? I'll put that in question form. Thank you for that rhetorical question, Joe. No, what comes to mind, Joe, is remember Abed Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, and he once famously said about Palestinians, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? Well, Susan Collins never misses an opportunity to disappoint. She's a serial disappointer. And Tulsi Gabbard rarely misses an opportunity to get it wrong.

The only good news is this is not the most critical job in the U.S. government. The office of the director of national intelligence has a, I'm not saying it's insignificant, but there's more important jobs, secretary of defense, the head of the CIA and so forth. But that said, she's not qualified to the job. She's been, shall we say, consistently wrong in her judgments. And the idea that she might be confirmed for this is another disappointment, and it's a head shaker. Yeah.

She also has endorsed the Russian view of the war in Ukraine, among many other things that people are concerned about, but it appears she now has Senator Collins' vote. Meanwhile, there's RFK Jr. in his latest editorial titled, RFK's Hearings Remove All Doubt. He is Not Fit to Lead a Key Federal Health Agency. The New York Post editorial board writes this this morning, quote, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s two-day Senate confirmation hearing should remove all doubt. He is absolutely unfit to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Look, it's never wrong to ask questions, even about settled science. But Kennedy has spent a near lifetime promoting a dangerous outright lie about vaccines, even in the face of hard proof that they work. That might have dissuaded many people from getting them and then later contracting illnesses they could have prevented. Oh, and by coincidence, his anti-Big Pharma claims just so happen to supply ammunition for fellow lawyers suing those companies. Most of all, Kennedy lacks basic skills to run a large federal agency, particularly one

where following the science is actually vital. Senators need to block RFK Jr.'s nomination and keep America healthy again, the New York Post editorial board. Ali Vitale, so are there Republican senators willing to block RFK Jr.'s nomination in a way that they have not been willing to for any other nominee so far? Maybe. We watched the public struggle for one of the key Republican senators here, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.

He, of course, chairs the HELP committee, but he's also on the Finance committee. So we'll get a little bit of instruction later this morning about if the struggle actually ends up yielding anything in terms of saying no to RFK's nomination. Now the initial test is going to be in the Finance committee later this morning. They're gonna vote RFK Jr. out of that committee.

They can either recommend him favorably or unfavorably. So if Cassidy decides that's where he wants to show his cards, that's where he wants to say no, then we'll see it be reported unfavorably, but it doesn't really do anything. That nomination still goes to the floor. And then of course, there's the question of if Cassidy would keep that kind of a no vote on the floor. And all of this is really theoretical because Cassidy has told reporters time and again

in the halls of Congress that he doesn't want to talk about this. But the thing that has the common thread for all of the people that we talk about during these confirmation battles, whether it's Joni Ernst with Pete Hegseth, Tom Tillis with Pete Hegseth, Bill Cassidy for RFK Jr., Susan Collins for Tulsi Gabbard. The common threat is all of these people are going to be on a ballot in 2026. Some of them have already received primary challenges, but that threat is something that comes up in every conversation that I have with my sources on the Hill about this. The politics looms so large over everything.

Elon Musk and the millions that he could throw into a primary challenge, others who can ignite the MAGA base online and direct their ire at some of these senators, all of that is factored in. And it really is a sign of how palpable the politics of a primary is in this MAGA era. And frankly, as much as we talk about Trump and Elon's relationship and its potential to fray or fracture, this is actually one of the things that continues to work in Elon Musk's favor within the Trump administration

is that he, in addition to the work that he's trying to do in government, is also the guard dog of the MAGA agenda because he can leverage millions at primary challenges. And all of that is in the mix here on Capitol Hill. I mean it's the same catch 22 though that Republicans have faced for some time people like Susan Collins. Susan Collins is going to be carrying Tulsi Gabbard around on her shoulder if she gets through a primary in Maine and then runs in the general election. She's

gonna have to justify that vote. She's gonna have to justify a lot of other votes. The same with Tom Tillis who's going to have to justify a vote for Pete Hegseth and Cady K. The question is, we talked about the doctor, Bill Cassidy, down in Louisiana, but every Republican is going to have to justify a vote for RFK Jr., who again has been what appears to be anti-science, and just on the working knowledge appears not to know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. He couldn't even answer that question

when asked about the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Yeah, and remember, Tulsi Gabbard and Kennedy are both Democrats. You'd think that they might be easier for senators to vote against with their own constituents saying that, you know, we disagree on principle or ideology. The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating TikTok of the 24 hours that it took for Tom Tillis to go from a no on Pete Hegseth to a yes on Pete Hegseth and the amount of pressure that was put on him.

And that's not even the Joni Ernst stylestyle online pressure that could or could not be orchestrated by Elon Musk. If he chose to, some members of Congress that I've spoken to said, listen, it's not just the primering that we have to worry about. It's actually our own personal safety that we now have to worry about. I have to worry about the safety of my spouse, the safety of my children if I defy Donald Trump. And when you've got Don Jr. coming out very forcefully and saying, we want all of

these to be a yes, there is no exception for Tulsi Gabba. There is no exception for Bobby Kennedy. He is speaking for the MAGA base. And literally, I've had members of Congress say, look, you know, you do have to worry in this day and age, you have to worry about your own safety as well. It's not just the primary factor. Yeah. And guys, I was on the Hill last Thursday during that day where they had hearings all you have to worry about your own safety as well. It's not just the primary factor. Yeah, and guys, I was on the Hill last Thursday

during that day where they had hearings all happening at once for Kennedy and Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. And they were talking to congressional aides. The thing is, it's about the math. What's so hard for these Republican senators is being that one vote who can be blamed. It's hard to be that fourth vote vote if you are assuming that Collins and

Murkowski and McConnell who showed a willingness to defy Trump are going to be 3 now tells the Gabbard's case is constant even get there that we know there are there some other Republican senators who have real concerns about her we're watching Todd Young from Indiana as well. But the issue is it's so hard to do with 4 and these aides were saying what they would really need would be a bunch of senators to come together to say no so therefore it could be five six seven or eight and therefore that one person doesn't get all the blame and potentially that Elon

must back primary challenge. Well and let's let's again underline what Katie just said. Members of Congress are telling her that they're not only afraid of primary challenges, they're afraid of violence. They're afraid of violence if they vote against people who are unqualified to run the most important agencies in America. That's definitely not how it's supposed to work. Now let's turn to the latest efforts by the Trump administration to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said yesterday he is now the acting director of USAID.

He has appointed Pete Morocco, a State Department official, to review all of the work done by the agency. Morocco held several national security positions during the first Trump administration, including at USAID, where his attempts to consolidate power and slash funding drove officials to write a dissent memo that ultimately pushed him out of office, according to multiple sources who spoke with NBC News. Morocco was also among those who stormed the Capitol the day of the January 6th insurrection. People familiar with the agency's operations say Morocco has largely directed the recent downsizing of the agency from afar.

Yesterday staffers were told to stay out of the agency's Washington headquarters after Elon Musk said President Trump supported closing the agency. Democratic lawmakers protested the closure. You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers. That is not how the American system of government works. They're shuttering agencies and sending employees home in order to create the illusion that

they're saving money in order to do what? Pass a giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations. We talked about Trump wanting to be a dictator on day one, and here we are. This is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like. When you gut the Constitution, and you install yourself as the sole power, that is how dictators are made. So dictators also, though, don't have to deal with federal judges in the D.C. circuit, which,

you know, Richard, this will obviously go there because this is an organization, this is a bureaucracy that was founded by Congress. These programs are funded by Congress. You can't write that away with a pen. You can certainly go through the actions and again, you can make that appearance, but who knows, maybe the courts will buckle. They certainly haven't shown that over the past month or so, but there will be legal challenges starting this week, I'm sure.

And I'm curious, though, Richard. Yesterday, I brought up Harry Truman's meeting with Herbert Hoover after World War II ended. And of course, Herbert Hoover was the butt of every Democrats' joke for 15 years before that meeting. Democrats blaming Herbert Hoover for everything. But Harry Truman understood that the United States had to get aid to those left destitute and starving after World War II, or as Herbert Hoover said to Harry Truman in the Oval Office that day, he said basically, starving Europeans equal Europeans that become communists. You can say the same thing in Africa, whether you're talking about Al Qaeda, whether you're

talking about ISIS, whether you're talking about China's influence on the continent, whether you're talking about Russia's influence on the continent, and all across the global South. Take us through the importance of these programs, these aid programs, and let's just leave the humanitarian part of this to the side, because I know there are a lot of people that want to destroy this agency that don't care about that. Let's talk about the security. Let's talk about how these programs help us get Intel on al-qaeda

Whether it's an Ivory Coast or across the global south help us get Intel on Isis help us get Intel on what the Chinese are doing and where the Chinese are moving for a pittance as As got he said for a pittance of our budget A pittance, as Gatti said, for a pittance of our budget. It is a pittance. We're talking about one half of one cent on the dollar for the budget. One half of one cent. When you look at this in this humanitarian and developmental aid, we'll put aside the humanitarian though.

I will say there are hundreds of millions of people arguably alive around the world because of what the United States has done over the decades. And by the way, some of the people who are alive are Americans. One of the things we have to think about is outbreaks of various diseases. We lost a million Americans over COVID. One of the lessons we ought to have derived is these two things we call oceans are not motes and disease, viruses, bacteria and so forth, can reach the United States.

If you have disease outbreaks, we could have one with avian flu coming up soon, the United States is vulnerable. So that's one of the areas of narrow self-interest. Joe, you were pointing to the strategic. What we're doing in many cases strengthens weak states. Weak states, weak countries are grounds where terrorists, pirates, other such groups take control. And again, we are incredibly vulnerable to countries where the governments cannot police

their own territory, cannot make sure that their territory is not used for attacks against us as we learn the hard way on 9-11. Let me say one other thing here, since I'm talking for a second. It's easy to go through any budget, including the USAID budget, and find what William Proxmire used to call, if you remember, Joe, the Golden Fleece Award type things, or the Pentagon budget. You have the $800 screwdriver. So, sure, like the White House spokesperson did the other day, you can find two or three or four things in the AID budget that should not have been funded.

But let's not kid ourselves. Most of what they're doing is good. Most of what they're doing saves lives, and most of what they're doing is not just good for them, it's good for us in the way of influence pushing back China strengthening these these countries So talk about something that's penny wise and pound foolish if these people were serious about approving our aid But policy they'd let it go and they would they would reform but not shut down They would improve but not destroy and this is really short-sighted and dangerous Yeah to that point Richard the White House put out a memo yesterday itemizing some of

those things like $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru as justification for shuttering the entire agency. And Steve, as we talk about how much America actually pays in foreign aid as a percentage of the budget compared to other G7 nations. What do you see in your chart? Yeah, look, I think to put this in perspective as both as Richard and Cotty said, this is a very small part of our budget. There's been a negative attitude toward foreign aid for a long time and Joe made a reference to Harry Truman and Herbert Hoover. If you go all the way back to the end of World War II, when we rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan, we were spending about 2% of our GDP on foreign aid.

That as you can see on the chart dropped precipitously, and in 1980 it was about 0.5%. Now it's about 0.2% of our GDP that we're spending on foreign aid. And to put that in perspective, look at the chart on the right and compare what we're spending on foreign aid compared to what the G7, the six other major countries that try to run the world, basically, spend. And you can see we're all the way at the bottom, below Italy, and well below the average of about 0.45% or thereabouts of GDP. So this negative feeling, and I'll tell you one interesting fact, actually. And this is, there have been polls done where people have been asked, Americans have been thereabouts of GDP. So this negative feeling, and I'll tell you one interesting fact, actually.

There have been polls done where people have been asked, Americans have been asked, how much do we spend on foreign aid out of our budget? And they come up with numbers like 20%. You've got this visceral negative view of foreign aid that is really disappointing to most of us, all of us here, who understand, as Richard said so clearly, the good it does around the world. All right.

Steve Ratner, Richard Haas, thank you both very much for your insights this morning. We appreciate it. All right. Coming up on Morning Joe, we'll dig into the legality of some of President Trump's executive orders. As one of our next guests argues, the law is not fully Trump's yet. Plus we're just days away from the Super Bowl. We're going to dig into the cost of this year's ads and show you some of the ones that have

already been released. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Forty-five past the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. American intelligence believes Iran is exploring a faster, cruder approach to developing a nuclear weapon, looking for a shortcut that would enable scientists to turn nuclear fuel into a workable weapon. That is according to reporting in the New York Times. The Biden administration shared that intel with the Trump team during last month's transition. U.S. officials believe Iran has not yet made a decision to develop a weapon, but the country remains on the threshold.

California is on watch for flooding and mudslides with heavy rain in the forecast over the coming days. It poses a significant threat to areas decimated by the recent wildfires around Los Angeles. Officials are urging people to secure their property with sandpacks and stay informed about the incoming storm. And prices are dropping. For tickets to the Super Bowl, the average price to see the game in person is about $6,800. That's down more than 28% in the past few days and well below the cost of a ticket last year.

Experts say the larger seating capacity at Caesars Superdome is pushing prices lower, while others point to a possible sense of fatigue as the Chiefs play for their third consecutive title. A little fatigue, Willie. I don't know, $6,800 sounds like a lot to me. That's unreal. Yeah. We're also learning about the cost to run a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl.

The price tag about $1 million more than they cost last year. CNBC is reporting more than 10 Super Bowl commercials have sold for $8 million apiece. Fox, which will broadcast the game, says it's sold out of ad time for the Super Bowl in November, citing record pricing for the space. And we're getting a look at some of those ads before the big game. Duncan released this new spot starring Ben Affleck and his brother Casey, a few of his famous Boston friends. Jeremy is a method actor.

What is that? Coming out to his ready. The acting method from the book. There's a book? He's preparing. He's doing his research. I never did no research on nothing. Look where I'm at.

Exactly. What big time now. You ruined it. Do I ruin it or do you have a breakfast named after you? Oh. Hey. What are you doing in there? We're doing a Dunkin Donuts commercial, right?

Right. I'm just trying to find the character. I think I found a way in. You're from Boston, I'm from Boston. Dunkin' is Boston. Boston is Paul Revere. One if by land, two if by sea. Redcoats are coming.

You're an artist, and I know what that's like, but how long is it gonna take for the Bean Method? I mean, I'll be ready in like three hours. You should have paid for Matt. I told you that. Hey, the Bean Method. Ramir, you're a Boston guy. I mean, last year's was fantastic.

But I love the tagline, we should have paid for Matt. We should have paid for Matt. Matt Damon, of course, was in the ad last year with Ben Affleck. We also had Tom Brady in a J lo guest appearance and guessing she won't be around this year. But that's Jeremy strong famously intense with his preparations for each role and they're hinting at that there but these are great and I will

say those track suits that they wear in the ads those went on sale last year after the civil and sold out instantly you couldn't get your hands on them not that I tried I swear. All right here's one from Hellman's the mayonnaise company they reunited Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan with an homage to their classic scene from the 1989 film when Harry met Sally. I can't believe it us back in this place.

All right, you good? No. Oh. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. There we go. Oh my gosh. So good! Ugh. It is so...

This one's real. Ugh. Ugh. Whew. And that is a sandwich. Oh, good! Oh, it is so. This one's real. Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! And that is a sandwich. I'll have what she's having. Wait.

So good, Cady K. I love that. I love the younger woman at the end. That wasn't in the original script. Apparently that line, I'll have what she's having, wasn't even in the original script. The woman just ad-libbed it. The actress just ad-libbed it.

So good. They're still so good. One of my favorite movies ever. Dan Casablanca, still so good. And Sydney Sweeney, I mean, to have her in that sort of cameo role at the end, Ali, perfect. So good, absolutely. I think everyone's like oh Sydney

sweeties here too, but I was so pumped for this reunion when they teased it online and someone said to me it's going to be a super bowl that you know that right now is like yeah, but honestly I don't care I just love the back on screen together. And you know really what was so fantastic about the original movie was the woman that delivered the line was Rob Reiner's mom. Just yeah, yeah that story is fresh in my mind because I just

had Billy on the Sunday show and he was telling the story he was with Meg when they were going through the script and she's Meg Ryan said I should just have one in the restaurant and he said really OK good and then he's said, I'll have what she's having. So Billy sort of wrote that on the fly. And then the woman who delivered it so perfectly was, in fact, Rob Reiter, the director's real life mother sitting at that table and now recreated by Sidney Sweeney.

Yeah. So good. Unbelievable. A lot of fun. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll speak with House Agriculture Committee ranking member Democratic Congresswoman Angie Craig about President Trump's pausing of tariffs on Canada

and Mexico and what constituents in her state are bracing for. Plus, save the last dance, 10 Things I Hate About You and The Bourne Identity. These are just some of the iconic movies Emmy nominated actress, Julia Stiles has starred in. And now she's stepping behind the camera in her directorial debut. We'll talk about her new project straight ahead on Morning Joe. A few minutes before the top of the hour, a beautiful shot of the Capitol.

We'll take a look now at this morning's Must Read Opinion pages. For that, we bring in Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. And Gene, you've got a piece that, Ali Vitale, I'll let you take it to Gene, but it's really looking at all the fear there is to go around of Trump and how to push back within that, Ali. Yeah, this really fascinating piece make for the Washington Post title the single most

important battle Democrats must wage and Eugene you write in part this constant barrage of executive actions and outrageous rhetoric coming from the White House is meant to overwhelm intimidate and distract don't let it distinguish the signal

from the noise and focus on stopping a power grab that would fundamentally change the nature of our democracy. Unlike during his first presidency, when mature adults quote unquote tempered President Trump's instincts, this time no one has stopped him from making a claim that plainly violates Article One of the Constitution. He insists that he, not Congress, has the right to decide how the federal government spends the people's money.

This is the most important battle that Democrats must wage. Republicans ought to join them in the fight, but they're too frightened of Trump to make a peep. So if that's the case, what can Democrats do? Well, we still have Congress, you know, and it is under Republican control, but it boggles the mind why Republicans aren't up in arms over this. Because if Congress doesn't have the power of the purse,

then Congress is useless. I mean, you show me your priorities and your policies. I won't believe you until I look at your budget. Because that's how we make decisions, it's what we're gonna spend money on. And that specifically is reserved for Congress. And Donald Trump is, I mean, he's making just a very frank effort to take that away.

He always pushes to see how far he can get. And he might get there this time. I mean, you know, I'm not going to fund this. I'm canceling all grants. I'm going to do away with AID. And somebody try to stop me. Well, somebody had better. Although they aren't at the moment.

My impression from Democrats' gene is that they are putting what resources they can into the midterm election. So they've already, the House Majority PAC has already designated quite early on 50 million or something to advertise in 10 or 12 congressional districts where Republicans might be vulnerable. So they are actually organizing in some ways,

but they seem to have made a strategic decision that trying to defend anything to do with Washington, the institutions, the federal employees, the aid budget is actually a losing wicket for them? Yeah. And maybe that's, I kind of agree in that that's probably not the way they should look at it as we're defending Washington. It's not a very popular stance to take. Or even defending democracy. I mean, it didn't work for them last time around. And there is a school of thought that says, great, you Republicans, you got the House, defending Washington, it's a very popular stance to take. Or even defending democracy. I mean, it didn't work for them last time around. Right. And there is a school of thought that says, great, you Republicans, you got the House,

you got the Senate, you got the White House, and you got a friendly Supreme Court. Let's see how you do, right? And that in a couple of years, everyone will have soured on this sort of Republican rule, and Democrats will have an opening. And that may be true, but in the meantime, right, you know, we talk about norms and norms are not popular, but this is more than a norm. This is the way the Constitution works.

And to cede to presidents, basically the ability to just like cancel spending and order spending and essentially run our budget in addition to faithfully executing the laws. That's something that we as a nation will regret. Republicans will certainly regret it the next time a Democrats president. So a perfect time to bring in Professor of Constitutional Law at Princeton University and Director of the Princeton University Program in Law and Public Policy, Debra Pearlstein. And Debra, you have a guest essay for The New York Times entitled, The Law is Not Fully Trump's Yet.

And you write in part this, Mr. Trump is hardly the first president to claim broad executive power. The difference this time is not only the enormity of his claims, a level of authoritarian aspiration that far exceeds any other in the modern American age, it's that the administration hardly even bothers to try to craft legal justifications for its actions.

Presidents have enormous power under the law. Part of what Mr. Trump is doing is just invoking the breadth of that authority. For those worried about the fate of our democracy, it would be foolish to rely on the rule of law alone, but it would also be wrong to simply write it off as a meaningless check on presidential authority. That kind of pessimism becomes our self-fulfilling fate. The new president may be aiming for authoritarian control, but the law is not fully his yet. Deborah, thanks so much for being with us. There are several things that you wrote in here that really jumped out at me.

First of all, just a quick summary. 63 of 63 federal courts rejected in 2020 Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the election. Throughout the first term, Federalist Society judges time and again on all levels pushed back against him. And I just wrote down really briefly the 11th Circuit overturned the District Court judge canon to release the January 6 report. The Supreme Court rejected his immunity claim, made him go to his sentencing hearing, at least by video to be sentenced right before the inauguration.

And of course, the D.C. Circuit has put a freeze on his spending freeze, an injunction on the spending freeze. But Deborah, the line that you wrote that jumped out at me was that part of the belief that our third branch is going to cow-tow to Donald Trump is based on a misunderstanding of the immunity case. And Mika will tell you, I took the entire case out a couple of, about a month ago and re-read it. And you are right, it was oversimplified. It wasn't the Supreme Court cowtowing. There are three silos. I also heartened by Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence. I see some evidence that

the courts just may do their job over the next four years. Talk about why you believe that as well. Well, first, thanks for having me. So on the immunity decision, right, I think the immunity decision was a terrible decision and wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but it was really limited to the question of a former president's individual criminal liability under the law.

Most of the way we enforce constitutional law in this country is not by holding people criminally liable when the Constitution is violated, but by telling government officials they have to stop doing what they're doing. And already what we're seeing in the more than two dozen cases that have already been filed against various actions that the new administration has taken, the first three courts off the bat at the district court level have said, one, with respect to the birthright citizenship executive order, and two, with respect to these attempts to engage in across-the-board spending freezes in the government, you have to stop that.

You can't do that. The courts call them temporary restraining orders. But that's what we're seeing so far at the district court level. Those things have nothing to do with criminal liability for anybody, but they're enormously important in keeping the Constitution on the right track. That is to say, they're enormously important in preserving the separation of power system we have. Congress's power of the purse is its and its alone under the Constitution.

And if it loses that, if it cedes that to the president, then we have a government of whatever the president says goes. That's not a constitutional system. That's an authoritarian system. And that's something that I think not even this Supreme Court is prepared to do. I certainly don't think that the Trump versus United States decision speaks to that issue one way or another. Well, it doesn't.

Also, though, again, I think it's a terrible decision. I do think that it was presented in such a way that people thought, oh, the Supreme Court will, just like you said, the Supreme Court's going to bow down on every single issue. Talk about specifically these funding issues, whether you're talking about USAID, whether you're talking about this general freeze, which the Trump administration is saying, well, we're just doing it temporarily. We're going to take a look at what best practices are, see if we can save some money. Talk about the court challenges that will come forward there and what the D.C. circuit,

what the Supreme Court will most likely do. So, first I should say, a lot of these cases aren't being filed in the first instance in Washington, D.C. One of the injunctions comes out of a federal district court that sits in Rhode Island. One of them does come out of a federal court that sits in D.C. One of the injunctions comes out of a federal district court that sits in Rhode Island. One of them does come out of a federal court that sits in D.C. The first birthright citizenship case to get to the courts is one out of Washington state. So there are federal courts across the country. All of these ultimately funnel into the U.S. Supreme Court. But the spending issue is really quite striking and like the birthrate

citizenship question, one of the unusually clear parts of the Constitution. So what we'll see in these challenges, whether it's USAID or some of these across-the-board spending freezes that still seem to be at least to some degree in effect in some agencies, and the courts are sorting that out. Now, what we'll see are at least two different kinds of challenges. One is just a simple, straightforward constitutional challenge that the spending power is Congress's under Article 1. But more directly, there's also a separate federal statute called the Empowerment Control Act that was passed after Richard Nixon's presidency, when Nixon attempted very similar

techniques to try to pause, or what he called pause, federal spending, but were really cut offs. The same thing that Trump tried in the last administration, when he tried to withhold money that Congress had appropriated for aid to Ukraine. And the issue is, Congress has said very clearly, we mean it when we say, under the Constitution, the power is ours. There are a few very limited circumstances when presidents are permitted to pause spending. But this administration isn't even attempting to invoke that law or those circumstances. They simply don't apply here. And as we're seeing, I think, very quickly from these initial courts to hear these cases,

they're not—they think and they have said that the plaintiffs in these cases, some of them are states of the United States, some of them are NGOs who are affected by the spending cutoffs, they've said, look, the plaintiffs here have an enormously high chance of prevailing on the merits when we get to the question of constitutionality, when we get to the question of legality. So while we sort out all the details of exactly what we're doing, we're putting in place a federal court order that tells you to stop.

And we saw over the weekend the Department of Justice circulate a memorandum inside the administration saying, this federal court order is in place. And while it is in place, you must comply. And we are interpreting these orders very broadly, not just to extend to programs that are identified by the plaintiffs in those particular cases, but to extend to spending pauses,

whether they were put in place by a memorandum or an executive order across the system. So that's where things stand now. As it stands, the administration is precluded by federal court order from extending these spending pauses. Again, over time, we'll see how the courts address this. But at least on these very broad,

the president has the power to wave a wand and take away Congress's power of the purse. I'm not seeing any indication, and I'm not confident that the administration will prevail.