Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/6/25

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

White House clarifies Trump's plan to 'take over' Gaza

Is there an inconsistency by Republicans on one hand where we've heard for years now, oh we want to not have unelected bureaucrats in charge of things downtown and yet ceding Article 1 powers to the executive branch under Elon Musk. Is there not an inconsistency about calling for the elimination of the Department of Education and yet we've heard from some of your colleagues here this morning, you know, we don't want women to be playing sports with men. And aren't you ceding back that power then as it pertains to education if you eliminate the Department of Education?

No, look, I got to challenge the premise of the question, Chad. You know me, I'm a fierce advocate and defender of Article 1. I mean, look, we are the legislative branch. There's a reason the founding fathers put the Congress, the legislative branch as the first article in the Constitution, and we're going to vigorously defend that. But what's happening right now, I think there's a gross overreaction in the media to what is happening. The executive branch of government in our system has the right to evaluate how executive branch agencies are operating and to ensure that not only the intent of Congress in funding

mechanisms but also the stewardship of precious American taxpayer dollars is being handled well. That's what they're doing by putting a pause on some of these agencies and by evaluating them, by doing these internal audits. That is a long overdue, much welcome development. That's what the American people demand and deserve. And that's what's happening. So we don't see this as a threat to Article 1 at all.

We see this as an active, engaged, committed executive branch authority doing what the executive branch should do. That's interesting. That's not a threat to Article 1? Listen, I'm a small government conservative, Willie. I'm all for audits. I'm all for going through things and see, yeah, use best practices. See how you can save as much of the taxpayers' dollars as you can save it and running it efficiently. But he went on X and basically decided he was going to shut down USAID, shutting down an entire department that was founded and authorized by the United States Congress. So this is a violation

of Article 1 powers and as a member of the House of Representatives, that's the one thing we always understood. We didn't have a lot of power if the Senate wanted to run over us on other matters or if the White House did. But we had the power of the purse. And when you're holding the money and nothing can get authorized without the House of Representatives, that's all the power you need to level the playing field. Now, when they let an unelected bureaucrat shut down an entire agency because he doesn't like it and he goes on midnight rants on X, that's one of the grossest retreats, one of the most outrageous retreats from Article 1 power that I've seen in Washington in a very long time.

Yeah, plainly so, too. I mean, Mike Johnson is a constitutional lawyer. He knows this. He knows better. But again, they won't cross Donald Trump. He wanted this. He wanted Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire, to just freelance through the United States government to shut down, as you said, entire departments to offer buyout packages for people to leave agencies like the CIA.

This is Elon Musk at the right hand of Donald Trump, just doing whatever he wants to do and making those announcements on Twitter. And Speaker Johnson knows that. By the way, that was a Fox News reporter yesterday pressing Mike Johnson on Elon Musk, increased power within the federal government growing by the day, it seems. We'll talk much more about Musk, USAID, and other agencies being treated and targeted by that Doge team in just a moment. Also ahead, we'll bring the latest on the legal fight over the Trump administration's effort to limit birthright citizenship with another federal judge now blocking that attempt. Plus the Justice Department offers clarification on FBI agents who worked on January 6 cases amid concerns there will be a purge at the Bureau. But some of the

day one orders from new Attorney General Pam Bondi undercut the DOJ's efforts to ease those fears. She promised to look forward but immediately now looking back to January 6. We'll get expert legal analysis on all of that. With us this morning, the co-host of our 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 K., the host of Way Too Early, Ali Battali, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, and former Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo of Florida. He is an MSNBC analyst.

Joe, a lot to talk about this morning. A lot to talk about this morning. And again, you have the judge. This birthright citizenship ban, like it's being killed as many times as Dracula in a bad horror movie. One federal judge after another federal judge after another federal judge after another federal judge. And we're going to see that. We had a guest on a couple of days ago that said, just hold on. Just wait. The Article III courts are going to stop a lot of this

unlawful, unconstitutional stuff that's being signed in by executive orders that were signed more for political impact. I heard this even from inside the administration than they were to withstand judicial challenges. I guess my question is, I've got two questions this morning. Question number one, when are we going to finally see the lawsuits move on USAID and actually an injunction that stops that all of those actions right now that are literally unless the reports are exaggerated, literally killing people across the globe right now, this morning, this instant. When does that injunction come? Because the richest dude in the world,

just because he wants to, doesn't have the right to shut down a federal agency. Mike Johnson knows that. Everybody knows that, except maybe the guy who's doing it. That's question number one. Question number two, Jonathan Elmire,

why did it take so long. For the New York Mets to nail down the polar bear. You have hit on that the burning topic this morning. It's part of your IP to Lanzo resize the Mets fan favorites he'd been a free agent pretty contentious contract negotiations. Alonzo wanted. 4, 5, 6 year deal initially ends up settling for just 2 for 54 million total in fact you can opt out after after one it was

striking talk to a few people in the game and in last week or 2 to the Mets really drew a hard line with him almost sort of daring him to leave they were saying look we think you're worth this we're not going to go beyond it which is a bit of a a head scratcher for an organization that of course just spent almost three quarters of a billion dollars on one Soto and

is has the richest owner in the sport by far in Steve Cohen but the general manager Willie David Stearns formerly with the Brewers is someone who uses analytics uses save metrics to save metrics to decide a player's value.

They drew a line on Alonzo. They wanted him to take a sort of a more team friendly deal. And turns out he did. He's of course had the big hit in last year's playoffs that helped them defeat the Brewers and move on to the second round.

And he will be back now for a team that has improved but still plays in a very tough division with the Braves and Phillies most notably. Yeah, I mean two years fifty four million dollars is nice walking around money but certainly not in the league of Juan Soto and Otani and those other superstars. As you said he is a fan favorite over the last five years.

He's hit more home runs than anyone in Major League Baseball outside of Aaron Judge. So great player, fan favorite. But they were for a while there. It looked like they were ready to walk away from him. But he will be a Met and playing in that lineup with Juan Sotom. That's looking good coming up here. Pictures and catchers just a couple of weeks away. So that's some good news.

Let's get back to Washington. The White House is attempting this morning to clarify President Trump's proposal for the United States to take over Gaza. On Tuesday, the president announced the U.S. should own the enclave, redevelop it, and reallocate, relocate two million Palestinians who live there to either Egypt or Jordan. Those two countries have said they are not willing to do that. He also suggested American troops could be deployed to Gaza to carry out that plan. Comments, of course, sparked international backlash, especially from Arab countries. Now, the White House appears to be walking back part of the president's proposal while

defending his idea. President has not committed to putting boots on the ground in Gaza. He has also said that the United States is not going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza. He has also said that the United States is not going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza. His administration is going to work with our partners in the region to reconstruct this region. And let me just take a step back, Garrett, because this is an out of the box idea. That's who President Trump is. That's why the American people elected him. And his goal is lasting peace in the Middle East for all people in the region. What President Trump announced yesterday is the offer, the willingness of the United States

to become responsible for the reconstruction of that area. It was not meant as a hostile move. It was meant as a, I think, a very generous move, the offer to rebuild and to be in charge of the rebuilding of a place, many parts of which right now, even if people move back, they would have nowhere to live safely because there are still unexploded munitions and debris and rubble. The definition of insanity is attempting to do the same thing over and over and over again. As the President and Prime Minister pointed out,

last night, the President is willing to think outside the box, look for new and unique dynamic ways to solve problems that have felt like they're intractable. Joe, interesting to hear from Defense Secretary Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio there because it's reported this morning in the New York Times that President Trump did not consult either the Department of Defense or the Department of State before making this announcement in an open press availability with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

So again, what we're seeing is Donald Trump throwing out a radical idea, his staff scrambling in behind him, and really the whole of the American government scrambling behind him to make sense of it or to explain it away. Well, you know, and that really is, and I've been saying this for months now, I've been talking about the need to separate the signal from the ground noise. And when he said this, so many people sort of laughed, rolled their eyes, and now he's just saying it maybe sometimes he does that to distract from something else that's going on. Maybe it's Elon Musk ripping through the federal government and trying to get access to things he doesn't

have the legal right to get access to. Or maybe it is, just as we've said about the tariffs from the beginning, maybe it is the opening bit of something, present something so shocking that other countries have to reset in the way they negotiate. And that is the way he works, David Ignatius. And even though many of our allies and fewer of our enemies understand that, I know I spoke with people in the region

over the past couple of days, and even if it was an opening bid, even if a day after, everybody's saying, okay, well, they seem to be backing off. Talk about your reporting and how our allies were deeply shaken by this. Our enemies were thrilled by this because what propaganda for Iran,

what propaganda for Hamas, what propaganda for our enemies that the imperialist America now wants to come over? But talk about it, because when we say Arab countries were upset, that used to be our enemies are upset. Now those Arab countries, those Sunni Arab countries, our close allies, they were deeply shaken by this. And even the DHS had to send out, as you reported, a chilling warning about the possibility of terror strikes as a result of this change in posture. So Joe, like Trump's tariff policies, what was shocking about this was that it was an assault on our closest friends and allies,

Jordan and Egypt, which are the two countries that matter most in terms of the security of Israel. When the proposal was made, the reaction in the Arab world was immediate. People were on the phone. I'm told that Mahmoud bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was talking yesterday to King Abdullah in Jordan, offering him assurance that Donald Trump is not going to roll us into supporting this proposal. By midday, the reaction was so strong that you could see Trump through the White House

spokesman backing away from some details of the plan. This had been announced as a takeover. We're going to take Gaza. We're going to take it with troops. But by midday, no, no boots on the ground. The reality is that this is a crazy proposal. The idea that the United States would take over property in the most explosive, war-prone part of the world,

and that a president who said, I'm gonna end Middle East wars would be championing it. It just makes your head spin. It's likely that this isn't going anywhere. Is it the opening bid? The opening bid to what? The truth is, a solution for Gaza. The president's right.

Gaza looks like a demolition zone. I've seen it with my own eyes. Every building you see in every direction has been destroyed. What's going to be done? If Trump's idea is a bad one, what's a good one? And there are lots of ideas out there. The Israelis have been resisting many of the ones the US has proposed. If this is the opening of a real discussion about how you rebuild Gaza, so much the better. But Trump's initial version of this was so disorienting for the region that it got a big pushback and I do think is going to be a fodder for terror groups that would like to inspire radical action in the United States.

I did quote this morning a memo that was sent out in the early hours of yesterday morning by DHS noting the likelihood that there would be protest demonstrations around the country and that if they turn violent, people would have to deal with that. So I think already there's a sense that this may be triggering precisely the kind of threat within the homeland that we shouldn't be running. So, David, let me ask you, if this was an attempt to just throw everybody off balance and set up an opening bid for something different, because as the Wall Street Journal editorial page said, going back to the status quo with Hamas in charge certainly is not an option. That was this morning's Wall Street Journal editorial, lead editorial.

So what is this an opening bid for? Is this an opening, perhaps the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Jordanians, other people in the region coming in with an Arab peacekeeping force? What could this be an opening bid to? Do you have any reporting on what Donald Trump was trying to get to? So Donald Trump's vision and this does go back many months and maybe even years. I had one senior official say this is the deal of the century coming back. We're going back to Trump's first term and let's just turn over everything and start again with American leadership.

Maybe there are echoes of that. Certainly, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, was talking a year ago. You can see him on tape at a Harvard seminar talking about the need to turn Gaza into a wonderful waterfront. He was talking about moving people out into the Negev Desert, which is in Israel, not to Egypt and Jordan. So this is an idea that's been cooking for Trump, but he does have a sort of real estate developer sense of, here's opportunity, here's a demolition zone, let's figure out a way to rebuild it. In terms of what would be a sane alternative. The Biden administration, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor both, have

been pushing the idea that you need a day after in Gaza in which you gradually give the Palestinian authority more and more responsibility so that you have Palestinians who are vetted by Israel, who have shown that they can handle security duties being responsible there. I don't see a better way than that. So that's not something Trump is sympathetic to but he better start looking at because I don't see another way. Yeah David, clearly bringing a developer's mindset to the most fragile and fragmented foreign policy threat and debacle in the world.

Carlos, this was seemingly the one thing that Republicans knee-jerk reaction was to say, this is crazy, insane, deranged. Those were actual quotes that we heard from Republicans and Democrats alike. Why is this the issue that they're willing to go to bat on against the administration? Is it because it just seems so out there that they feel like there's not a political tax? Well, number one, it's pretty obvious, right? And I think easy to dismiss.

It is a radical idea to be fair, not more radical than having terrorists run Gaza, but still a radical idea. And at the same time, it's inconsistent with what Trump has been telling congressional Republicans and the country for so long, right? That we should be investing in our own country, that we should withdraw from conflict zones, that we shouldn't put our men and women in harm's way. Well, putting people in Gaza seems pretty dangerous to me. So I think a lot of people on the Hill, I was up there yesterday were just kind of surprised that he would propose something that is so distant from the persona that he's created

from this idea that he's promoted that the United States should actually withdraw from the world stage. So domestically, there's growing concern about a Trump administration purge within the FBI, loyalty tests and the like, but the Justice Department is now saying it will not target bureau employees who simply followed orders. Acting Deputy Attorney General, Emile Boves, sent a memo to the FBI's workforce

yesterday explaining that employees who carried out their duties in an ethical manner in regards to January 6 criminal cases won't be at risk of termination or other penalties. We'll see who gets to decide what an ethical manner looks like. He wrote this, quote, The only individuals who should be concerned are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from department leadership,

or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI. Meanwhile, Pam Bondi was sworn in as the new U.S. Attorney General yesterday in an Oval Office ceremony attended by President Trump and administered by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. It was the first cabinet swearing-in ceremony the president has attended. Trump praised Bondi's record as a prosecutor and said she will restore, quote, impartial justice at the department. I think she's going to be as impartial as you can possibly be.

I know, I'm supposed to say she's gonna be totally impartial with respect to Democrats, and I think she will be as impartial as a person can be. I'm not sure if there's a possibility of totally, but she's gonna be as total as you can get. She's going to end the weaponization of federal law enforcement and restore honesty and integrity at the DOJ and the FBI.

Almost immediately after that swearing-in ceremony, the attorney general got to work. Bondi issued more than a dozen directives aimed at overhauling the Justice Department. In one memo, she created the, quote, weaponization working group to review the cases brought up against President Trump, including the special counsel cases and the Manhattan hush money case. So Jonathan Lemire, she said, Pam Bondi did during her confirmation hearing, she would be looking forward, seemed to say, suggest that she would not be targeting any employees, that she was just going to do the work of the justice system.

But in her first act as attorney general, promising to investigate the investigators of Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, that message is pretty clear, and this is what Donald Trump promised for two years on the campaign trail, that he would attack the so-called weaponization of government, that he would go after the deep state. And we've seen that throughout what he and Elon Musk are doing, rooting out and destroying huge swaths of the federal bureaucracy, or at least trying to. And now in the Department of Justice, this comes, of course, on the heels of those eight FBI directors being fired, and now this chilling investigation

of all those involved in January 6 cases. And yes, you noted the Bureau tried to provide some clarity yesterday, that sort of suggesting that, no, no, it'll just be those who acted unlawfully. But you rightly noted, well, who gets to decide that? What's the discretion there? And certainly, Pam Bondi out of the gates

says this is going to be a major priority. And Joe, we need to just talk about the setting for a second here. It's not just that this is the first swearing-in that President Trump attended. This was done in the Oval Office itself these things do not tend to happen in the Oval Office we have seen other cabinet secretaries even just recent days and certainly the

previous presidents they get sworn in executive chambers I believe Kristi no one was sworn in a Clarence Thomas's house even there's a wide variety of settings the Oval Office is unusual message sent. Yeah, unusual message sent. Cady K, what is so fascinating is how badly the entire investigating, the investigators ruse has gone. We can go back to John Durham, who completely humiliated himself, really destroyed a great reputation by coming

up empty, one bad decision after another, one dismissed case after another. You have that example, and you also have Chairman Comer and his examples of course how badly that went where you ended up having fellow Republicans, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, everybody else going, please just stop. Here's the biggest problem with investigating the investigators. When you investigate the investigators, you've got to bring up the underlying facts of what the investigators were investigating. Donald Trump certainly doesn't want that for January the 6th.

Does he really want to get the testimony that the committee got? Does he really want to go through all that? He doesn't want to bring up the hush money case. I mean, they can do it internally, but to have it spill out publicly, that's just, that's not good for Donald Trump if he's really looking forward, because looking back only digs up a lot of soil that he and his political allies do not want dug up.

Yeah, in some ways for this administration it might be much easier just to get rid of all of the FBI agents who were involved in the prosecution cases of January the 6th rather to actually dig into the details of it. It was interesting that it was announced on day one by Pam Bondi. She clearly knows who her boss is and what he's looking for. Having that ceremony in the Oval Office in the White House, so unusual. But maybe she was trying to send a message. Yes, look, I'm coming straight out of the gate doing exactly what it is that you want

me to do. Let's see how far it actually goes. But, congressman, when you look at what is happening across the federal government at the moment, whether it is in the Justice Department, whether it is in the CIA as well, whether it is in the FBI where buyouts have been offered. What is the concern that in this bid to, I get it, to sort of disrupt the American government, which could do with some disruption, with these buyouts, my experience with buyout offices, the people who are in the best position leave because they can get jobs elsewhere, the people who are less qualified tend to stay.

Are all of these agencies now, including the DOJ, at risk of losing some of their best people? Definitely. And look, in the era of Trump, I think it's tough to sift through and figure out what is essential because there's so much coming at us all the time. This stuff at the Justice Department is essential, right? When we're talking about the rule of law, I mean, it's not just about people's rights,

but it's also just about the economy and business, right? Everything in this country depends on the rule of law, on predictability, on an understanding that you have certain rights that the government is going to protect those rights, not come after you. So I would tell the opposition, the Democrats, who I think have been guilty of a sky-is-falling approach every day, especially during the first Trump administration. I think they've learned a little bit this time.

But this stuff is essential, the Justice Department, the CIA, the way these employees are being treated. In terms of the buyouts, look, I think probably people who are going to retire sometime soon might take the buyouts. The reports that I've seen up to now don't show droves of people leaving these agencies, but we do have to watch out for that. But going back to the topic of figuring out what the opposition should focus on, what the media should focus on, I think it's things like this.

We can get distracted easily. We can fall into the trap of, for example, Gaza and focusing on that for days. That's likely not going to happen. That doesn't have any immediate implications. What happens at the Justice Department does. Yeah. Also, you could add to that list the unelected billionaire having access to payments at the Treasury Department.

The list is very long right now. Former Republican Congressman of Florida, Carlos Corbello. Carlos, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Still ahead on Morning Joe, thousands gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to protest the Trump administration's efforts to shut down the country's top international aid agency, but the latest on the plans for a legal pushback.

Plus we're taking a look at the sweeping upheaval Elon Musk has created across Washington as the billionaires team seems to gain unchecked access to multiple federal agencies. We're back in 90 seconds. Beautiful live picture of Washington before the sun comes up near the bottom of the hour here. The White House ordered the CIA to send an unclassified email that lists all employees hired over the past two years to comply with an executive order to trim the federal workforce. A move former officials say is risky because that list could fall, of course, into the wrong hands.

The New York Times reports the list included first names and the first initial of the last name of the new hires who are still on probation, thus easy to dismiss. It included a large crop of young analysts and operatives who were hired specifically to focus on China and whose identities are usually closely guarded because Chinese hackers are constantly seeking to identify them. The paper continues, quote, some former officials said they worried the list could be passed on to a team of newly hired young software experts working with Elon Musk and his government efficiency team. If that happened, the names of the employees might be more easily targeted by China,

Russia, or other foreign intelligence services. David Ignatius, this seems like an obvious one. Don't send an unclassified memo with a list of all the people you've hired at the CIA for the last two years. So what do you see as the problem with this and reaction at Langley. So it's a wildly insecure move. This is the kind of thing that's led in the past to the disclosure of names from government databases that continues to have repercussions for the CI. The CI, as near as I can tell from my reporting, is just reeling, calling veteran former CIA officers. They were receiving half dozen a day calls from colleagues around the world currently working for the agency looking for work.

They had received these buyout notices. They sense that their services are not wanted by the new administration. And so they're thinking, okay, what else am I going to do? The problem for the CIA and the federal government in general, as Katty was saying earlier, let's think about the people who are most valuable, people who speak Chinese, people who speak Russian, people who speak Arabic, skills that take many years to acquire. Those are likely to be the people who are most valuable, who can get jobs most quickly in the private sector,

and who are gonna think about leaving. How do you replace those people? How do you replace the front line? This is a very unstable world right now, and the need to monitor and understand the threats that are coming at the United States has never been greater than this. We've had similar times of crisis.

But this is a time when you need a strong intelligence agency. And right now, they're reeling. They look at John Radcliffe, their director. He's close to Trump, a Trump loyalist. They just installed as his deputy somebody who has very little intelligence experience and, again, whose principal credential is that he is loyal to Donald Trump. and if you're a CIA officer or now

at the National Security Agency you're looking at your buyout offer and you're wondering what's my future maybe I should bail. Two different former National Security officials texted me yesterday a line from the Times story it's worth reading again that these names included a young large crop of young analysts and operatives who were hired specifically to focus on China and whose identities are usually closely guarded because Chinese hackers are constantly trying to identify them. And one of those officials texted me, added the line, we're doing our work for them. This was just

such a mistake here and it shows a lapse in security and it twinned with we're seeing efforts at the FBI we talked about Pam Bonny but Cash Patel if she if he is indeed confirmed he said they'll be shrinking the counterterrorism operations in that bureau you know there are real concerns right now about about this nation's national security coming in and the lax procedures as Trump tries to remake it and in many ways, Willie, sort of shrink our global footprint. And we have also, if Tulsi Gabbard's to be concerned, we know that some of our allies

have already been, have expressed concerns about the intelligence sharing that is such the bedrock of the US agencies and trying to keep nations safe, sort of the Five Eyes program, whether our allies will want to fully cooperate in that because they have real concerns about her qualifications and the Times allegiances. And we know these loyalists, these nominees, and many of them now confirmed, their chief task is to go back

and investigate the investigators. Are any of the people in your agency, are they partisan? Did they work against me over the last eight years or so instead of looking at all the threats that they should be worried about around the world? Protesters gathered on Capitol Hill yesterday to push back on the Trump administration's decision to furlough nearly all USAID employees.

NBC News spoke with several USAID staffers, contractors, implementing partners and supporters at the rally who say they are understandably devastated by what's happening suddenly. Democratic lawmakers joined the protest, the latest amid their resistance-themed news conferences aiming to combat Trump's moves to remake the government through executive power. Sources say USAID employees and contractors are planning legal pushback. Lawsuits based on loss of income could be used to bring up constitutional claims over presidential power. Additionally, lawyers say non-profit groups could argue the government has violated a law

requiring agencies to follow the correct legal procedures, question the legal authority of Elon Musk Doge and allege that the administration is unlawfully withholding funds appropriated by Congress. Join us now in the conversation, MSNBC contributor, our good friend Mike Barnacle. Mike, there's been a lot to digest over the last 34 minutes or so of this show, all that's happening so fast coming at us all at once. But let's pause where we are right now with USAID, which gives soft power and expression and exercise of American soft power around the world,

helping people through programs like PEPFAR put into place by George W. Bush, one of the most successful programs ever that has saved tens of millions of lives now on pause and costing lives according to most experts. What do you see when you look at USAID to begin with, but this full two and a half weeks of the second Trump administration? First of all, Willie, on PEPFAR, it's estimated that it has saved at least a minimum of 20

million lives in Africa. And to be treating it like it's the registry of motor vehicles, let's shut it down and everything like that, and I want a list of employees and get out treated it like it's the registry of motor vehicles. Let's shut it down and everything like that I want a list of employees and get out and everything like that This is total. This is a total attempt at destruction of elements of the United States government Bureau by Bureau department by department I'd like to get back to David Ignatius for a second though in terms of the former conversation David yesterday I was speaking with a now retired former CIA employee who was talking

about the importance of the analytics within the CIA, the analytics that are done every single day by professionals who have long term, long time observations with various countries like China, Russia, Russia Ukraine things like that and to lose any element of that would be a disaster for intelligence for American intelligence operatives So Mike you've got it exactly right. This is expertise that's been built up over a long time. It's a very precious We just don't know what the agenda of John Ratcliffe We just don't know what the agenda of John Ratcliffe or other officials of the government is in regards to intelligence. Do they really think there's a deep state that's somehow subverting the interests of

the people of the United States? I mean, to me, that's a crazy idea. But if they try to carry it out, they're going to seek to purge lots of people. The analysts who they'll argue have been pushing the same line over and over and cause America to... I mean, in truth, the CIA has been the strongest proponent of staying out of wars. I can't think of a war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The CIA analyst didn't warn.

This isn't going to work. This isn't a smart policy. So the analysts are hardly servants of a war machine. But these are fragile institutions. They take a long time to build. They are the essence of America's soft power. Every country—CIA has the strongest intelligence agency in the world, and everybody wants some of its product.

And if that product begins to be degraded America's ability to have leverage with us its friends now is even with its adversaries quickly diminishes also. Cady there is though when it comes to USA ID a private pressure campaign we haven't necessarily seen it in large fashion from lawmakers on the Hill publicly though some of them have questioned exactly what's going on here and the downsides of it. But even Bill Gates told our colleagues Savannah Guthrie last night in an interview that he

spent time at the White House yesterday. He talked for a brief time with Trump, talked for a long while with chief of staff Suzy Wiles and made the case to them in part that what they're doing dismantling USAID has very negative ramifications. I had another former Trump appointee who served in the first administration in the State Department coming on and saying, I've spent my life works at PEPFAR. I've spent my life working within US agencies like this one. This is life or death stakes here when you talk about toying with and potentially ripping

apart USAID. So it's not like the pushback isn't there. But do you think it would work? I think it needs to be sustained. It reminds me a little bit of the kind of 1990s and the war in Bosnia when you had picked at night after night, you had reporters in Sarajevo reporting back what was happened. And finally, Bill Clinton got involved and we had the Dayton Accords and something happened. Now, if you had a pressure campaign, I was watching CBS News actually last night at the risk of naming a competitor, and there was a fantastic report from Sudan with literally starving

children taking food from USAID pouches. The USAID has been fantastic at advertising the fact that it's American. So whenever you see those big sacks, they have USAID written on it for a reason. It is the soft power. Now, I think if there was a campaign, a sustained media campaign, showing these children, I mean, this tiny baby was literally there drinking from a USAID bottle, that child won't survive

if it doesn't get that USAID aid. I don't think Americans are appreciating yet what the impact of this cut will have. But if they start to see that, Americans won't like it. And I think President Trump could be susceptible to that pressure, public pressure campaign. But I look at Elon Musk and the glee with which he is destroying this agency. I'm calling them worms, calling them evil, calling them vicious.

I mean, and saying he sent the agency to the woodchipper. I mean, he's reveling in getting rid of this agency. So Trump is kind of between, is there enough of a public pressure campaign that highlights the good work that USAID does for people but also for Americans against this move of these must all be woke liberals, we have to get rid of them?

There really is something so horrifying about a child starving in Sudan being far more likely to starve to death because the world's richest man is going around calling people that are administering that aid worms. And let me explain this again for those who have ears to hear. David Ignatius, when the United States provides aid, yes, we provide aid because some of us believe, and I will say this on Ronald Reagan's birthday. Some of us believe that America really is, and it should be, a city shining brightly on the hill for all the world to see. That is one of the reasons why we do it.

The other reason goes back to what I've been saying this week when Harry Truman called Herbert Hoover in, two political enemies, two political rivals. But Harry Truman said, you're the person that can organize relief across Europe, across the world, in a world that has been destroyed by World War II. And yes, we're doing this because it's the right thing to do. But we're also doing this because hungry mouths become communist mouths, become communist foot soldiers. We have to win Europe.

We have to win Western Europe. We cannot allow France and Spain and the Netherlands and all the other countries in Western Europe to fall into communist hands. And I know you know this, David, but it is so short-sighted. Elon Musk calling these people worms and this and that and the other. Our aid work in the Ivory Coast, it helps us get intel on Al Qaeda. Our aid work in Sudan, it helps us get intel on ISIS. We can do two things at once, all over Africa, all over the Southern Hemisphere, where people

wish to do America ill, our aid work not only wins hearts and minds but it helps us draw in intelligence on those who would blow up buildings in New York City, in Washington DC, in Charlotte North Carolina, across America. That is what is so extraordinarily short-sighted about this. You're exactly right. The generosity of the United States through programs like USAID is scorned by Donald Trump as a sign of American weakness.

And it's the opposite. It's seen around the world as evidence Trump is a sign of American weakness. And it's the opposite. It's seen around the world as evidence that the United States, for all of its mistakes, still has a heart and still has an ability to deal with the most painful, difficult problems there are. I have been collecting, in the last week and a half, examples of what happens when these clinics close down in Africa, in Asia. People who have been depending on doctors who are funded by USAID suddenly have no place

to go. The doctors are on their way home. They've all received the notices that it's over. And people are looking at each other in these countries wondering what do we do now? And the answer is pretty simple. Now we turn to China. Now somebody else is going to come in and take up this space that the United States and USAID at a tiny fraction of our budget has been filling.

Somebody else will come in and have that we call it soft power, but it's power. And so that's part of what is ahead and that I just don't think Elon Musk or anybody in this administration has thought about how quickly the power of the United States that took so long to build up can begin to unravel. Yeah. Raising the question again, why Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire from South Africa is making these decisions. He has called USAID a criminal organization that needs to die.

We should remind our viewers if this really were about efficiency, he wouldn't be going after USAID. A $40 billion annual budget for USAID represents less than 1% of the federal budget here in the United States. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thanks so much as always. We appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up, senators are questioning whether FBI director nominee Cash Patel had any involvement

in the bureau's decision to fire several top employees. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin joins us with a first look at Patel's answers. Morning Joe's coming right back. Are you any plans or discussions to punish in any way, including termination, FBI agents or personnel associated with Trump investigations? Senator, just to be clear, I did not participate in any of those DOJ decisions. That's a yes or no question. Are you aware of any plans or discussions to punish in any way, including termination,

FBI agents or personnel associated with Trump investigations? I'm not aware. That is President Trump's nominee for FBI Director Cash Patel at his confirmation hearing last month telling senators he had no knowledge of any administration plans of retribution against the FBI agents involved in Trump investigations. Well this morning we have exclusive reporting on Patel's response to follow-up questions

from senators about what's being viewed by many as an ongoing purge at the law enforcement agency. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin who has that new reporting for us. So Lisa we're talking here about written follow-up questions. What did the likely next FBI director have to say? Well Willie these questions and his answers take up 174 pages and certainly they touch on a number of other topics including cash Patel's fundraising for people associated with January 6th. But the part of it that I was really focused on has to do with that exchange that he had with Senator Booker that you

just showed which is was cash Patel aware of any of the plans to fire agents at the FBI to senior officials at the FBI as we saw through our own NBC News's reporting last week of sort of a major purge at the FBI. And what's interesting about his answers to those questions is when Cash Patel is asked, did you direct them? Were you involved in them? His answer is a flat no. But when he has asked the question somewhat differently, and I should say for our viewers and for you, he was asked these questions by a number of different senators, all of whom use slightly different wording.

When asked whether he knew about them in advance, Cash Patel gives a very different answer of not that I recall. That's particularly notable because across these 174 pages, Cash Patel doe not that I can recall all gives it on a handful of

for the most part, his an and they are either length to clarify or explain him are many instances in whic says no or yes to various that I can recall is particularly strange. Given that, when asked a similar question by Senator Booker, he was much more unequivocal in his response.

So Democrats have asked for a second day of questioning for Patel. It's unclear, though, whether Senator Grassley, the chairman, will allow that. So Lisa, let's get your thoughts. Let's take this in tandem with what we talked about a little while ago on the show, which was Pam Bonney being sworn in in the Oval Office, which was a clear symbol sent by this president.

And then her first order of business basically is to investigate the investigators, the so-called weaponization of government. Yeah. And John, one of the things that I saw in that particular memo from Pam Bonney, and there were 14 of them I should note yesterday. But in that particular memo, one of the things she's asking is to investigate what she calls federal cooperation

with two cases brought against President Trump that emanated from this state. They are not even things over which she has jurisdiction. That is the criminal case against President Trump here in Manhattan by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. And then what's called the civil fraud case by New York Attorney General Tish James. That's the case in which Trump, if that case is upheld, would owe hundreds of millions of dollars to the state of New York for over-inflating the value of certain of his assets or under-inflating them, as it were were when it is advantageous to him.

The idea that there was federal cooperation with those cases is itself sort of presuming something that just doesn't happen to be true. Was there an occasion on which the Southern district of New York, that's the department of justice's office here in Manhattan gave information to Manhattan prosecutors who are prosecuting the hush money case? Yes, but I don't think that the evidence will show that it was somehow some cabal against President Trump to like, hey let's give them all this stuff that we didn't use while Trump was still president and we decided not to prosecute him. There were processes followed, there were laws abided.

The idea that the feds were somehow implicated in each of these two state cases is just not true. But of course, they have embedded the idea that it was in the very body of this memo. So Lisa, Cash Patel, back to his testimony, and he's going to be testifying again, I think, again today. The sudden use of not that I recall during the course of his interrogations by the Senate committee have been often forceful in response, combative in response, but not that I recall.

That strikes me as something that counsel probably provided him with an idea to use that instead of a simple yes or no to avoid further litigation down the road perhaps. What do you think? Well, we don't know. I should say two things, Mike. One is there is another business meeting today of the Judiciary Committee. Usually they can't vote on a nominee until two weeks after a hearing like the one Mr.

Patel had last week. He's not expected to be back at the committee today, although his nomination is expected to be discussed in terms of how he arrived at these answers across these a 174 pages that's obviously something that we don't have any insight into but I can tell you that in addition to asking for another day of Patel's testimony senators have also written to the tell himself led by Dick Durbin the ranking Democrat and said to him look we have real concerns about the veracity of your question, the veracity of your answers.

And so we want you to provide to us a litany of your communications with people in the Trump White House, on the transition team, or where it comes to the acting and actual leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We want to know between Election Day and the inauguration, did you in fact discuss these firings with people like Pam Bondi or Todd Blanch, who's been nominated to be the number two at the department, did you talk about them with Driscoll, who is the acting director of the FBI

and his deputy, a man named Kassein? They are asking those questions because on the face of these answers, they're not sure that they're right or true. And so they are trying to get at what actually happened here. It is, it really speaks, I think, to the weaknesses in the Senate confirmation process. I've talked with you guys about that before, where it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct or personal misconduct.

But it's also true where the committee has doubts about the veracity of information that a nominee is providing. They don't really have much at their disposal other than the nominee's goodwill to get at the information that they're really looking for. And as Lisa points out, Patel will not testify again. Chairman Grassley said two days ago that he thought a second round of questioning was unnecessary and that he would not indulge Democrats attempt to malign the Cash Patel. He's ready to move forward on a vote. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin.

Lisa, great reporting there. Thanks so much.