Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/13/25

Episode Date: March 13, 2025

Canada hits U.S. with $21B in retaliatory tariffs as global trade war heats up

As you know, we're going to be doing reciprocal tariffs. So whatever they charge us, we're charging them. Nobody can complain about that. Whatever it is, it doesn't even matter what it is. If they charge us 25 or 20 percent or 10 percent or 2 percent or 200 percent, then that's what we're charging them. And so I don't know why people get upset about that because there's nothing more fair than that. I think a lot of the stock market going down was because of

a really bad four years that we had when you look at inflation and all of the other problems that were, I mean wars and inflation and so many other problems, but we're gonna have very good years. Department of Education's maybe more so than any any other place has a lot of people that can be cut. They're, number one, not showing up to work. Number two, they're not doing a good job. We have a dream, and you know what the dream is? We're gonna move the Department of Education,

we're gonna move education into the states so that the states, instead of bureaucrats working in Washington, so that the states can run education. President Trump commenting yesterday in the Oval Office on a wide range of topics. This morning, one of America's top trade partners is imposing more retaliatory tariffs. We're going to go through that move and what could come next. Also, how the gutting of the Department of Education could impact millions of Americans

from students with disabilities to student loans. Plus, the administration is reversing course on major cuts to Social Security services after a scathing report from the Washington Post. And we'll bring you the latest on the funding fight on Capitol Hill, where Senate Democrats are rejecting a short-term funding plan from Republicans, setting up a possible government shutdown this weekend. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, March 13th.

With us, we have the co-host of our fourth hour and contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan LeMire. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. The host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale is with us. And New York Times opinion columnist David French joins us. So let's begin with the latest escalation in President Trump's trade war. Canada's retaliatory tariffs are now in effect.

The country has imposed 25 percent tariffs on 21 billion dollars of U.S. goods. It includes taxes on steel and aluminum, as well as computers, sports equipment, and cast iron products. The new Canadian duties are on top of the 25 percent counter tariffs that were added to $30 billion worth of U.S. goods on March 4. Those were in response to tariffs that President Trump eventually pulled back after a severe stock market sell-off two days later. The European Union has already announced retaliatory measures, set to take effect on April 1st.

President Trump was pressed yesterday on his inconsistent approach to these tariffs. There's been a lot of on and off, some inconsistency. There's no inconsistency, only with NBC, which is one of the worst networks on television, by the way. Let me just tell you the inconsistency. I have the right, I have the right to adjust. And I was called by the automakers, as an example,

General Motors, Ford, etc. The big three, the big four. And they asked me to do them a favor. Could I delay it for a period of four weeks so that they're not driven into a little bit of a disaster for them? They actually love what I'm doing, but they had a problem. And I didn't, I'm not like a block that just, I won't delay. I have, it's called flexibility.

It's not called inconsistency. It's called flexibility. And I think you want me to be flexible too. Is flexibility going to be your ongoing view towards... Sure, I'll always have flexibility. But there will be very little flexibility once we start. April 2nd is going to be a very big day for the United States of America. Hi, Jonathan LeMire. What are you hearing from inside the White House? The president

is saying he has the right to adjust if someone picks up the phone and gives him a call and he does a favor for them. But overall, the concept of these tariffs is extremely unpopular, and many presidents have explained why this is very bad for the US economy this is very bad ultimately for the American consumer who will start feeling the pain of these tariffs in many different ways. Yeah these tariffs are attacks on the American consumer let's just be clear about that and the right word was used there inconsistent we have seen over the last two weeks how Trump has taken some on taking applied tariff taking it off the autoworkers for instance

He's gone back and forth with Canada and Ontario over the electric electricity Just the last couple of days those in the White House though say he is committed to this at least For now they have been mindful of the stock market that President Trump like none of his predecessors before Judges the value of the economy on the stock market now some would say that's not the right way to Now, some would say that's not the right way to do it. Many would say that's not the right way to do it. But that is how he does it. They did get a little bit of a break yesterday. The market rebounded a little.

A better than expected inflation report helped that. But again, that's backward looking. That doesn't really take into effect everything we're seeing right now. And yesterday, I mean, it is traditional that the Taoiseach of Ireland, the Prime Minister of Ireland comes right around St. Patrick's Day, and it's usually one of the more jovial foreign leader accounters of any American president's year. That wasn't really the case yesterday. Yes, there were certainly pledges of American and Irish friendship, but right there,

sitting next to him, next to Taoiseach, the president made clear that these tariffs will be taken, and with EU retaliating, that would cause the US to escalate further. So, Mika, this is not going away anytime soon, despite business leaders registering opposition, and despite, as we're seeing and about to read here, these tariffs being felt by all Americans, including so many who voted for Donald Trump. And, Jonathan, just on the politics of this,

there's been a lot in the first few weeks of the presidency of Joe Biden's name being brought up, a way of sort of blaming anything from plane crashes to whatever on Biden's horrific economy, which many would argue was a very strong economy that he left for President Trump to work with. But these tariffs, these sit squarely on President Trump. This is a Trump-branded policy. And I think, isn't it clear at this point, most Americans know that Trump became president, and he came to town with these tariffs? Yeah, the tariffs are branded Donald Trump. This has nothing to do with President Biden. And to your point, let's be clear.

He did inherit, by most metrics, a strong economy. Yes, prices were high. Yes, prices were high. Inflation, cooling, but still higher than people would like. But for the most part, the fundamentals of the American economy were strong. The market was roaring. These were most Americans, not all, but most Americans

were feeling benefits. And Trump, during the campaign, made the argument that they weren't. These were these were most Americans not all but most Americans were feeling benefits and Trump during the campaign made the argument that they weren't he were convinced enough Americans that he was right to earn their votes But now what we've seen since the destabilization of the American economy that is on Donald Trump No matter what he might claim others tend to agree the Wall Street Journal editorial board has been sounding the alarm for weeks tend to agree. The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been sounding the alarm for weeks. They write in part this, GOP House leaders are no doubt trying to protect members in swing districts where Mr. Trump's tariffs are unpopular. But most Americans understand that tariffs are a tax on consumers and businesses. Beyond the MAGA echo chamber, Mr. Trump's tariffs are unpopular. But businesses don't want to challenge them in court because they're afraid of retaliation.

Nor do Democratic state attorneys general. While House Republicans can run from a vote, they can't hide from voters in 2026 who may not find Mr. Trump's tariffs. Beautiful, Mika. Well, and then there's this from the New York Times in his latest column entitled, Democracy Dies in Dumbness. Brett Stevens writes in part, It used to be common knowledge that tariffs are a terrible idea.

Americans broadly understood how much tariffs in the 1930s, along with other protectionists and isolationist measures did to turn a global economic crisis into another world war. Thirteen successive presidents all but vowed never to repeat those mistakes. Until Donald Trump. Until him, no U.S. president had been so ignorant of the lessons of history until him. No U.S. president had been so incompetent in putting his own ideas into practice. This won't end well, especially in a no guardrails administration,

staffed by a how high team of enablers and toadies. Trump's critics are always quick to see the sinister side of his actions and declarations. An even greater danger may lie in the shambolic nature of his policymaking. Democracy may die in darkness. It may die in despotism. Under Trump, it's just as liable to die in dumbness. David French, there is a concern these tariffs are basically going to tank the economy, and it seems like everybody is sounding the alarm now.

A lot of folks in the business community, I'm not sure where their heads were because Donald Trump has been talking about tariffs for decades. Donald Trump planned these tariffs. He talked about them long before he became president again. And I do point to business leaders who voted for him, who thought, eh, he won't do it. I just wonder where that mindset comes from in this political world that we are living in. Well, you know, I think the mindset comes from they had very selective memory.

They were looking back at Trump's first term and often thinking about 2017, 2018, when the administration was staffed with an awful lot of Republican establishment figures who did Republican establishment things. It's almost like they took 2020 and just erased it from their minds. 2020, which really did show us Trump's true nature and Trump's true character. It was if they thought, well, the first two years of his first term, that's what Trumpism really is. No, no, no.

By 2020, we knew what Trumpism was. And the point that Brett makes about competence is so important. One of the things that you're seeing is Trump is supplementing his malice with his incompetence. And his team is supplementing their malice with their incompetence. And I agree with Brett that that incompetence may well be the thing even more than malice that undermines this administration, because it is very hard, very hard to avoid the effects of incompetence. Right. So, Richard Haass, I'm quoting, obviously, the critics here calling these tariffs dumb.

We've seen business experts use a different word, insanity, literally insanity. I'm just wondering if you could explain how this could pour over into our foreign policy, specifically our national security? It's pretty straightforward, Meek. If you think about it, one of the things that makes a friend of the United States a friend is, among other things, we trade with them. So most of our trade is not with our enemies. We have export controls and so forth that limit it or sanctions.

So we do most of our trade with friends. So when the United States unilaterally introduces tariffs, it penalizes our friends. In this case, Canada, Mexico, the EU, and others. And foreign policy is not how would I put it? You can't compartmentalize it. You can't say we're going to introduce tariffs against you on a Thursday.

And by the way, we're going to cooperate with you in other areas on Friday, it doesn't work that way. So it's part also of a larger phenomenon, whether it's with Ukraine or with the European members of NATO, that what we're seeing is essentially the United States distancing itself from its friends, to some extent, cozying up with its adversaries in Russia. So if you add up the economic warfare, and this is what this is, quite honestly, particularly against Canada, this is an economic war of choice this president has initiated.

Let's just call it what it is. And the idea this is not going to have knock-on effects to the overall relationship, of course it will. I mean, yes, and there are tariffs on China, but so many of them are aimed at our allies, the EU and, of course, Canada, where we have the longest border, debilitarized border in the world. And now we have Canadians. This is the bad blood from Canada.

It cannot be overstated. It's not just about booing the national anthem at a hockey game. I mean, we know that there's real concern about Trump's continued rhetoric about the 51st state. Canadians really upset and alarmed by that. So Ali, the first editorial we read was about House Republicans, about how they were trying to sort of direct dodge this issue, knowing the negative impact it has on their consumers. You cover the capital so well. What are you hearing? How are Republicans, we know they're not having

town halls anymore, how are they justifying or hiding from these policies which are proving poll after poll to be unpopular and are doing the exact opposite of his campaign pledge to bring down prices for his own voters? Yeah, it's such an excellent point you make. And I'm glad that you highlighted the fact that although the stated reason is bringing down the amount of fentanyl coming into the United States, the White House press secretary was asked earlier in the week about the plight that Canada is now facing

economically because of these tariffs and she reiterated the president's hope for them to become the 51st state. You're right to point out how stunned the Canadians are at that, how aggressively they are rebuffing that notion, but that's one of the reasons that Republicans are going to have to try to take back to their districts and explain whether they're holding town halls or not unless they're going into hiding they are going to have to try to take back to their districts and explain whether they're holding town halls or not, unless they're going into hiding, they're going to see their constituents and they're going to have to explain the stated reason why American consumers are going to have to endure the pain of this economic move and what goal the administration is trying to get to.

I'm not sure that MAGA voters are going to be on board with the idea of facing higher costs at their grocery store, the very reason that many of them voted for Trump in the first place, in the name of adding another state to the United States. And so there's that piece of this, the explaining it piece, but then also the fact that for a lot of these Republicans, the midterms are far away, but they are ever looming. And so for Democrats who I would put in sort of the find out camp, the elections have consequences, and they say that with a side eye to voters, these Democrats are eager to see these ramifications

play out because they do think that it leaves them an opening on the economy. It's something that Pramila Jayapal and others were saying to me just yesterday that as much as the Trump administration is really harming American consumers, Democrats will seek to take advantage of that in the midterms. Yes, they're being advised to play possum and let it play out, although it is playing out. You know, Richard Haass, in so many different ways,

the balance of power around the world. John and Lameer was talking about Canada. There's new leaders in Canada, the UK, the EU rising up to fill the void that America seems to be creating. And talk, if you could, a little bit about what the EU is doing. Ursula von der Leyen, facing right now, wars on multiple fronts to protect Europe, to be the defense of Europe, whether it be from Russia or these trade wars?

Yeah, this is creating or stimulating a greater degree of European integration. We'll see what actually comes of it, particularly in the defense space. It's very hard for Europe to go from where it is to where it needs to get to. It's not really doing a lot together in security areas, too much national efforts that aren't well integrated, doesn't have much in the way of a defense industry. But this will stimulate, I think the most interesting person may be the soon to be Chancellor of Germany. He is beginning to mark out a very different trajectory for Germany and he's center-right. So I would keep an eye on that space. But look, let's take a step back.

We've all been talking about this or studying this for decades. This is something going on here that is without a precedent in history. Normally, orders in the world, and the United States has built an order for 80 years. Europe's been a central part of it, along with our allies in Asia.

Normally orders come to an end one of two ways. Either somebody rises up to overwhelm it, like, say, Germany and Japan did during the 30s, who doesn't buy into it, or it crumbles from within, the way the Soviet Union crumbled or the way the Ottoman Empire crumbled. This is something without historical precedent. The United States built and maintained an order pretty successfully, including economically the last time, Jack. We're a lot wealthier than we ever were.

We did this for 80 years, and now this order is being dismantled by none other than the United States. We are doing something without historical precedent. We're taking what we built and operated in our own self-interest, all the influence and all the wealth and all that came from it, all the security and stability, and we ourselves are tearing it down brick by brick. There is no other case in history where this has happened. Plus, it's not clear we have anything to put in its place, much less anything to put in its place that's better. And so I'm hoping at some point, take the

tariffs. It would be nice if some people in Congress said, hey, the president's only able to do this because he's saying he has emergency powers. Well, guess what? Congress can assert itself and say the president can't use those emergency powers. It will be interesting to see if at any point some Republicans get uncomfortable with what is going on, if and when they get held accountable. We'll peel back another layer here and bring in this next story.

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily halt some of the penalties it levied on a law firm linked to democratic causes that are unpopular with the president. The firm, Perkins-Cooey, represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and worked with the research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier about Trump and Russia. Last week, President Trump signed an executive order deeming the firm a national security risk. The order also banned the federal government from hiring the firm or using contractors

who work with it. Yesterday, a district judge called the president's executive order an exertion of extraordinary power warning it could damage the integrity of the entire legal profession by intimidating lawyers from taking up cases that may be against the president's interests. The judge said the order, quote, sends little chills down my spine, adding that the retaliatory animus of Trump's order is clear on its face and that many in the legal profession are watching in horror. She compared the president to the queen of hearts in Alice in Wonderland noting that

the rash queen's outbursts off with their heads are entertaining to read about but cannot be the reality we are living under the Constitution. The judge is expected to hold another hearing before issuing a final ruling on the matter. David French, you wrote a recent column on a related topic, how the Trump administration is trying to insert itself into decision-making at a private Christian school. Where is this going, do you think? Where this is going is obvious to everyone. It is Trump's friends get benefits from the Trump administration

and Trump's enemies are punished to the full extent that Trump can punish them. And the Perkins-Cooey order, I've never seen anything like it. I practiced First Amendment law for more than 20 years. I litigated countless cases. And always when you're litigating a retaliation case, the defendant was saying, the government was saying, no, no, no, we're not retaliating. You misunderstand. And we are having to prove retaliation.

Here, they just confessed to it in the very order that initiated sanctions against Perkins Cooey. They said right there, we're doing this because of their political activities. Because of their First Amendment protected expression, they're taking action against a law firm. It was just plain on the face of the document. So nothing about this order surprises me. And it's going to be the first of many if they keep doing this. What happened at Georgetown Law School? They were saying, we don't want you.

A federal prosecutor was saying, you can't teach DEI, whatever that means. Well, I've got news for him. A federal prosecutor does not have jurisdiction over the curriculum of a Catholic school. This is not how that works. And look at the Biden administration was doing this to a conservative Catholic institution. This would be 24-7 in right-wing media. 24-7, an attack on Christians. Here you have the Trump administration taking on a Christian institution directly, up front, blatantly.

And from much of the religious liberty community, it's crickets. It's incredibly sad, incredibly disappointing to see that silence in the face of a direct, direct attack on the First Amendment. David's piece is online now. Read it. Opinion columnist for the New York Times, David French, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning and still ahead on Morning Joe, Russia is working to weaken the U.S. negotiating position on Ukraine

by stoking tensions between the Trump administration and other countries. We'll dig into that new reporting from the Washington Post as Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with foreign ministers in Canada today. Plus, President Trump's erratic trade policy is making for a volatile stock market. But recent inflation and unemployment statistics show the economy appears to be stable. Steve Ratner is standing by with charts. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. And now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. For the first time, wind and solar energy generated more electricity

in the U.S. than coal. Still natural gas remains the largest source of electricity in the country. As the Wall Street Journal reports wind and solar have overtaken coal in 24 states even as the Trump administration doubles down on the mantra to quote, drill baby drill. The former CEO of Google has a new job, Eric Schmidt is the new leader of Relativity Space, a California startup company that aims to build low-cost reusable rockets to compete against

Elon Musk's SpaceX. The company also has a long-term goal of creating a base on Mars. It has raised close to two billion dollars. And speaking of space, millions of people will have a chance to witness a total lunar eclipse in the overnight hours tonight into tomorrow. It will happen as Earth passes between the sun and the moon. The mid-Atlantic states may have the best chance to see the show with few clouds in the forecast.

Back to the economy now, where the stock market remains kind of spooked this morning because of President Trump's erratic economic policy. Even as new data shows, inflation easing more than expected. Joining us now with his charts, former Treasury official and Morning Joe, economic analyst Steve Ratner. So, Steve, inflation numbers in February were slightly better than expected, but still remain stubbornly high. Walk us through what's happening.

Is there any potential good news on inflation coming? Sure, Mika. We did get a little bit of good news yesterday. Inflation came in at 2.8% year over year. It was just slightly better than economists were expecting. And you can see here how inflation has come down. That's this black line right here. And food prices, interestingly, have actually now come down more than other items.

So food is actually behaving very well. We'll get to eggs in a second. But this dotted red line is something we should take note of, because this is what consumers expect inflation to be a year from now. And you can see it was tracking the decline in overall inflation for a long time. Now it has shot up here to over 3%, closer to 4%. And why is that? That is because of the increasing talk about tariffs. Consumers have processed the fact that tariffs are inflation. They've learned the lesson. We've all been trying to teach them for a

long time, and they are now focused on inflation. And this is not good, because this can affect consumer behavior and ultimately prices themselves. Just for interest, let's look at a few of the categories and what their price changes have been year over year. We've all read a heck of a lot about eggs. Now over $5 a dozen, they were almost 60% over a year ago. There are special reasons for that. Some of the other things, it's a bit of a random list. Car insurance up 11%, water trash and so forth, 5%, prescription drugs 4.5%, meat 4%, restaurants

about 3.7%, medical care 3. And then there are things that are going down. The good news is gas prices have come down a lot. They're down 3% year over year at the moment and some other things down there. But they, those things might be affected by tariffs, we shall see. The markets have been something to watch over the past few days. How are they looking moving forward? Yeah, so the good news on inflation is offset by some pretty bad news on the market, and

it's interesting to look at. If you go back to election day, which is when the market essentially processes the fact that we're going to have a new president and reacts to it, you can see some interesting things. If you look at Trump 1.0, you can see here this pink line, what happened. We all remember probably the market took off on election day and it kind of never looked back. And as you get out here 86 days from election day, it was up here.

Interestingly, under Biden, it did even slightly better, but just let's just call it just as well. So Biden, when Biden was elected, the market said, yeah, that's pretty good, too. And it did well. Trump 2.0 is a different picture. It had its first day, little surge here, wandered around as Trump was making statements during the transition. Then he takes office, he starts talking about tariffs,

and this is what happens. The market just essentially goes straight down, and the market today is now 4% below roughly where it was the day he was elected. This is not something he likes. That's part of why you've heard him start to talk about how we may have a transition period.

It may take a little while before my policies go into effect. But for a guy who loves the stock market, this is not good news. Let's just look at what some people are saying about this and why is the stock market behaving like this? I think there are really two reasons. This quote, I think, captures the essence of it. This market is just blatantly sick and tired of the back and forth on trade policy. Markets hate uncertainty,

and they have gotten nothing but uncertainty since the election and certainly since the inauguration. But then on the other side of the coin, there's also some fears about slowing growth. And so here's this quote, right now the concern on growth is impacting the markets more than inflation is helping it is the implication here. So what's going on out there? This is an economy that is still growing. We're not in a recession. Most economists don't think we will be in one

although those chances have gone up a bit. But you have seen as companies have been reporting their fourth quarter earnings more and more in the morning about an economy that's softening. Delta saying outlook lower due to the recent reduction in consumer and corporate confidence. You can call that Trump and trade caused by increased macro uncertainty. The world is a very complicated place. Walmart seeing stress behaviors among budget conscious consumers. And Kohl's essentially saying the same thing, consumers making less than $50,000 are pretty constrained from a discretionary

standpoint. So, Steve, we have seen data recently about consumer confidence dropping sharply. That is also a part of the health of the economy in terms of how people are feeling, whether they want to make purchases, whether they want to buy homes. How is that looking, especially as it pertains to things that are tangible, like the housing market? Yeah, you are starting to see signs of people pulling back. You've had this decline in spending, first decline since

back here in 2024, largest decline since 2021. I think you have to put that down to confidence. And then the jobs numbers that we got last Friday were still positive. We added 141,000 jobs. Unemployment rates stayed at 4.1%. But if you look at this green line, which is the trend of job additions, you can see a slowing economy. You can see an economy that's getting a little bit long in the tooth in terms of its recovery, and the number of monthly jobs is now below this dotted black line, which is the pre-pandemic average. Morning, Joe. Economic analyst Steve Ratner with charts. Thank you as always very much. And coming up, we're going to take a look at the race for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court

and the issues taking center stage as billionaires pour money into the campaigns for both candidates. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Quebec, Canada this morning for today's meeting of G7 foreign ministers, where the topic of a potential ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia will loom over the proceedings. During a refueling stop in Ruta, Canada yesterday, Rubio said that the United States would be in contact with Russia later in the day.

He also confirmed that presidential envoy Steve Whitkoff will travel to Moscow this week while President Trump said negotiators were already on their way. Meanwhile, Russia appears to be working to weaken U.S. leverage in the Ukraine negotiations by stoking tensions between the Trump administration and other nations. That's according to a Kremlin-linked document obtained by The Washington Post. The February report, which was prepared for Russia's Federal Security Service, rejects peace plans as unrealistic before the year 2026. It rejects any plans of sending in peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, and it demands recognition

of illegally seized Ukrainian territories. It also proposes a buffer zone in northeast Ukraine, a demilitarized zone near Crimea, and the complete dismantling of Ukraine's current government. According to the Post, the document was created by a think tank that works closely with the Kremlin spy service that oversees operations in Ukraine. So Richard, that document anyway doesn't seem like a roadmap to peace. It includes like deposing of the Zelensky government. And we should note just this morning, a short time ago,

Vladimir Putin, dressed in military fatigues, makes a visit to the Kursk region, noting Russia's ability to retake part of that region, which was, of course, part of Russia that Ukrainian had seized. The Ukrainian government has not commented on this. And Putin, in this meeting that we just saw televised a few short moments ago, ordered his military commanders to retake the rest of the Kursk region.

So that would seem to indicate the military operations are going to continue in defiance of the deal that the Trump administration in Ukraine just struck for a 30-day ceasefire. A couple of things, Jonathan. One, I agree with you. And the Russians are counting on they're over, they got greater mass, if you will, make some progress, potentially incur. They see the weakening of the U.S.-Ukraine tie. So at the moment, there's no indication that Russia's serious whatsoever about peace.

They still think time is their friend. The U.S. has to disabuse them of that. The best way to do that is not, by the way, threatening sanctions or trade tariffs against Russia. It's to support Ukraine. So I'm glad that the spigot is back on. I think what's going to happen is Secretary of State Rubio or others, or in this case, Steve Whitgoff is going to come back from Russia and the Russians will say, we're in

favor of peace, but we're going to have 86 conditions. And then it gets really interesting. What is this administration going to do when they have, on one hand, they're going to have Ukraine's approach to peace, pretty much a ceasefire in place for 30 days. Russia has 86 conditions. What are they going to do? To what extent will this administration lean on Russia as opposed to accept what Russia wants and then go back to Ukraine and say, you have to take the Russian approach?

This will be a really defining moment for the foreign policy of this administration. I could not agree more. And we have seen to this point in the conflict since Trump took office, he has sided with Russia each and every step of the way. So in order to change that, he would have to be willing to show push and leverage to actually stand up to Putin, which he personally has never done before. So let's set aside predictions. But let's say he does go down that path. What could he do?

He could support Ukraine with basically put on the spigot of intelligence and military support and say the Russian interest in peace is not serious yet. We're going to support Ukraine until Russia puts on the table a serious proposal for peace. Yeah. And Mika, we simply don't know yet that Donald Trump will ever stand up to Vladimir Putin, but these talks are set to begin with Steve Witkoff heading to Moscow later this week.

And to Richard's point, an inflection point seems to loom here in at least the early going of a possible peace process. For sure, we'll find out. Still ahead, we'll speak to the top member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, about the Trump administration's potential cuts to veterans programs and what he plans to do to try and protect them. Plus House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries will join the conversation following Trump's decision to gut the Department of Education,

which he calls a vicious act. Also ahead, Emmy nominated actress Natasha Rothwell will be live in studio to discuss season three of the hit show, The White Lotus. Morning Joe will be right back. Forty-six past the hour and look at that shot of New York City as if it was a painting. So beautiful. And now, time to wake up and face reality. Let's talk politics. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats will reject the House StopGap funding bill,

raising the odds of a government shutdown ahead of tomorrow's deadline. Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Schumer said Democrats won't support the bill since Republicans did not give them a seat at the negotiating table. Instead, the minority leader is pushing for a clean stop-gap funding bill that will keep the government's lights on until next month so Congress can negotiate a full spending bill. Any legislation will require the vote of 60 senators to pass the upper chamber. As for the whole Democratic caucus, it appears members are stuck between two tough choices. A government shutdown or supporting a bill that includes cuts for Democratic priorities. Quite frankly, both outcomes are bad.

This bill that was passed through the House is a terrible bill. It will hurt people in my state on the ground who are just trying to make their lives work. Additionally, the problem I have with the bill is that I think it advances this project that we're seeing come from the executive branch, this power grab that does not respect the power of the persons with the Congress. Ali Vitale, what are the options that Democrats have here? You're hearing from one there, but Republicans, of course, will say, are saying, well, Democrats want to shut down the government. Democrats want to shut down the government and stop it for people from being paid, and they're creating this chaos.

You can hear it already. You can hear it already, but this is a really politically thorny situation for Democrats right now. And Senator Warnock actually lays out quite well why, because on the one hand, if Democrats allow the government to shut down, then they are in some cases giving some Republicans what they might want. And then in the other case where they avert a government shutdown, they are also sort of giving Republicans what they want. And then there's the pressure that they're facing from some in the grassroots, from others

on the House Democratic side. I heard this from Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal yesterday. Now Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority, is is amplifying that message. This idea that senate democrats need to show some fight and and do exactly what house democrats did, which is put republicans on defense and basically allow them to clean up their own mess. And so there are a lot of thorny issues here politically and that's the backdrop to what we're now seeing Senator Chuck Schumer do, which is say, Democrats want an amendment vote on a 30-day clean continuing resolution.

Basically keep funding levels where they are, kick it till April and allow appropriators some more time to come together on what spending would actually look like for the upcoming fiscal year. Democrats may be aligned on that in large part, but they likely don't have the votes that they would need to actually pass that amendment. And it leads us to the next question, which is, is Schumer bluffing?

Is that amendment vote, even if it fails, enough for Democrats to then get on board and fund the government? Or does this put them in a shutdown posture where most Democrats feel assured that Republicans might face the political repercussions of a shutdown because they are the party in charge. It's a gamble, but they feel pretty confident there. The larger question that I've been hearing from Democrats is, how do you get out of a shutdown because a shutdown would in some ways underscore what Elon Musk and the Trump

administration have been trying to do anyway, which is allow for a pause, allow for further cutting of federal spending. And that could be a tough posture for Democrats to stomach. So there's a lot of different thorny political issues here and the open question of if the government shuts down what happens, but also how serious are Democrats about allowing that? And Ali, your last point there, I feel like is an important one that's growing in intensity right now among Democrats. I'll just read a quick quote from Senator Hickenlooper of Colorado yesterday.

He says, if you shut down the government, the president is the person who decides what is essential. He decides what part of the government stays open, so you're actually giving him more power. You can imagine him saying, Congress has failed, Congress can't help you, it's up to me to save everyone. And then these cuts could continue.

So that's the other part of the calculation here and that is impacting Democrats think around the country including in the heartland. A battle is intensifying between two candidates competing for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Liberal Judge Susan Crawford and Conservative Judge Brad Schimel faced off during a debate last night in Milwaukee

over a number of issues, including reproductive rights and the millions of dollars being spent on the race by high-profile billionaires and outside groups. You know, he is paying good lip service to the principles of impartiality and open-mindedness. But throughout this campaign, he has taken issues on cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, including cases like one involving an 1849 abortion law that if it were in effect would criminalize pretty much all abortions in Wisconsin. My opponent was supported by George Soros.

That man has funded DAs and judges. Fair enough, but I'd like to talk about it. He's funded DAs and judges who Fair enough, but I'd like to talk about it. He's funded DAs and judges who have let dangerous criminals out on the street. He's funded efforts to defund the police in America. He's a dangerous person to have an endorsement from. The election, which is technically nonpartisan, is scheduled for April 1st. Joining us now, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman, Ben Wickliffe.

Ben, good to see you again. You certainly got a rooting interest in this race. But give us your analysis as to what you heard last night and why this race, one race, one state of the country, actually means a lot going forward. Last night, we heard a debate between Susan Crawford who was steadfast in not taking a position on issues that might come before the court and Brad Schimel who's now been funded by 10.2 million dollars from Elon Musk

and you heard him there trying to throw the topic of conversation to something else because he doesn't want to publicly own what he's been saying privately. He says that this race is a chance for his donor base to retake the court. The significance of this nationally is that Wisconsin Supreme Court came within a single vote of overturning the 2020 presidential election. Brad Schimel's support from Elon Musk stems in part from the fact that election challenges, election subversion, voter suppression that affects the whole country, House majority, Senate majority, the White House, could run through the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And he's essentially sold the farm to the richest person in the world who's trying to dismantle the government. On top of that, Dylan Mosk has his own case that'll affect his own bottom line at Tesla lawsuit that will probably reach the state Supreme Court sometime soon as well. Ben, it's Ali Vitale.

You often talk about the way that this has national implications reiterating it there, but it also feels like it could be the first potential test of Elon Musk and if he has any political salience in the minds of voters. Though I do have to wonder if a debate centered on boogeyman billionaires actually serves the voters here. Well, I think it is material that someone who right now is attacking Social Security, the Department of Education, but if he breaks the law could be pardoned by Trump at the federal level, but not the state level. That person, that Elon Musk, has made this his first big fight and investment in politics

after helping Trump by the White House last year. So there is that level. There's also this question of the energy on the ground, as you say. And what we're finding right now, you know, Republicans released a poll saying the race is tied. I think that assumes an even turnout level. And the question we have is, do Democrats have the energy to get up off the mat and fight back? And when we talk to folks on the doors and folks can volunteer at peoplevmusk.org, they can sign up and get involved. What we're finding is that people who are Democrats are furious about what they're seeing. Whereas a lot oforg, they can sign up and get involved. What we're finding is that people who are Democrats are furious about what they're seeing,

whereas a lot of Republicans, they're just kind of, you know, watching this all go by and starting to get nervous about what's happening to their 401Ks and what might happen to their Social Security offices. So Ben, let's get you in now on the topic we were just talking about, the debate within Democratic circles as to what to do

about the looming government shutdown. Walk us through your calculations and your opinion. Well, nobody wants a shutdown of the federal government, although Trump kind of might. But the other side of the coin here is that the fundamental constitution of the United States is under attack. Elon Musk is using, with Trump's blessing blessing the power of empowerment to go after things like cancer research, like the Veterans Administration, like the Social Security Administration, that Congress has mandated and that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to slash. And so Democrats have

leverage in this moment to say, you can't do that. You cannot abrogate the power of Congress by slashing things that the public has, the public's representatives have voted for. And Democrats can drive that line to not cut things that people need in order to hold onto that power. And I think for Democrats to make clear that if the Republicans want Democrats' votes to keep the government open, they need to back away from this assault on things that the whole country relies on. That can send a very powerful message to this administration and the country that Democrats are saying no to Musk's cuts. Right.

I wanted to ask you overall how the Democrats are doing, Ben. What do you think has been the most effective pushback to Trump's policies, politically effective? The most powerful thing is drawing a connection between what Trump and Musk are doing and people's real lives. The more we hear from the families that are waiting for the cancer research that has just been impounded by the government, the more it becomes clear that these are not political games, this is not some Doze website, this is real life on the ground in states like

Wisconsin that affect everybody. Our chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Ben Wickler, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it.