Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/18/25

Episode Date: March 18, 2025

Legal showdown over Trump's deportation flights

It doesn't look like you're getting support from the Democrats on this. You're going against the judges now. What's next? Another flight. Another flight every day. The teams are going to be out there every day. Every day the men and women of ICE are going to be in the neighborhoods of this nation arresting criminal, illegal, alien, public, state, and national security threats.

Lawrence, you're not going to stop us. I'm proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming. A defiant message. That's Tom Homan, the border czar in the Trump administration, after deporting migrants

to El Salvador without full due process. We'll bring the latest on the legal fight over those flights, which a judge ordered to return to the United States before they reach their destination. So far the Trump administration ignoring that. We'll also get a live report from Tel Aviv on the new Israeli strikes across Gaza, the deadliest attack since the ceasefire agreement with Hamas was signed a couple of months ago. Good morning, welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, March 18th with us, the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire.

He is a contributing writer at the Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. Also with us the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, and U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. Good morning to you all. Joe, there's a lot of heavy news to get to this morning, but I have some good news for you. What's that? The Major League Baseball season is underway.

The Cubs and Dodgers in Tokyo, it's happening. It's happening. America's real game right now in Tokyo. Baseball, Apple Pie, and the Tokyo Dome. Look, starting right now, baby. How exciting. Now, this is so exciting that the baseball season is underway. We're thrilled about it around our household.

Hope always brings eternal. And really, though, what a great game to start off with. I would have preferred it been a little closer to home, but still a great, great game. sort of and we need some good news, you know, why Willie we just saw a member of the Trump administration saying he doesn't care why judges think I am News flash from James Madison. You don't really have that choice. You know, the thing is I I Hear a lot of people being shocked about how could a federal judge do this? Why Donald Trump won by one and a half percent? How could...

Well, for bloggers, I'll say this slowly. This is what happens in Madisonian democracy. happens in Madisonian democracy. Federal judges do have the power to question the authority of a presidential action. And then, as some Republican senators, I think John Kennedy from Louisiana said, you know, that's why God created the appellate courts. But just again, for our blogging friends, do people still blog, Willie? I really don't know. Do people blog?

I think so, yeah, with the typewriter. I had this sushi last night. So for our, I gotta talk a little more slowly than usual so they'll understand it. This happens under America's constitution. It happened to Barack Obama, a guy who won a massive landslide, biggest landslide win I think that we've seen since Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama's ADAPA program was actually stopped by a single federal judge in Texas.

He appealed it and it went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the Obama administration. You also had Joe Biden's vaccine mandates also being stopped in 2021 by a single federal judge, guess where, in the state of Texas. You also had Barack Obama's gender policy stopped by a single federal judge in the state of Texas. And they got appealed. And you had George W. Bush's NSA warrantless wiretap program getting stopped by a single federal judge back in 2007. And now what happened after that? What happens under our Constitution?

They get appealed. And sometimes the judges follow the lower federal court judges, and sometimes they don't. But every time I hear somebody go, oh my god, Donald Trump got elected by 1 and 1.5 percentage points. How in the world could anybody stop a president got elected by one and a half percentage points. How in the world could anybody stop a president that got elected by everybody? Well, when he got elected,

he was elected to lead one of three parts of our government, three separate and equal co-branches. So this is just what happens just I I mean Willie this would be like people blogging I am shocked it every March they get over 60 basketball teams and throw them together to play to know this happens every year and the fact that people in the Trump administration and the fact that supporters are acting shocked that a federal judge could do this just means they either don't know history or they're ignoring history. And no, administration officials don't have the choice to say, I'm not going to listen to what judges say. Yeah, those officials ignoring history and ignoring the Constitution, all these things

that we take for granted that we understand this is the way our system works, we're having to say out loud again, as you just explained very well, which is that there are appellate courts and it could go all the way to the Supreme Court and you don't get to just ignore those decisions. So let's explain what we're talking about here. The Justice Department has until noon Eastern today to answer key questions about the deportation of migrants to El Salvador without due process. The judge set that deadline during a tense hearing yesterday after he pressed a DOJ lawyer

about Saturday's flights. He wanted to know how many there were and how many were in the air at the time of his ruling, which the lawyer refused to answer, citing national security concerns. The judge appeared puzzled, according to the Washington Post, noting that he reviews classified information all the time. He summarized the administration's position as, quote, We don't care. We'll do what we want. Meanwhile, we're learning more about the timeline of Saturday's events with those flights. According to the Post, two of the three flights had already left Texas before the judges ruling

in court at 647 Eastern Time. That decision was entered into the docket at 726, ten minutes before the third plane took off. Officials in Honduras confirmed to the New York Times, all three planes spent several hours at an air base there before taking off for El Salvador. The paper reports the planes landed in El Salvador after midnight. The White House yesterday confirmed 137 of the 261 immigrants sent to El Salvador were expelled from the United States using the Alien Enemies Act, Joe, an old law that Donald

Trump and the administration is invoking to get rid of, they say, from our country, gang members, the vetting process of people to determine who is in a gang and who's not, and due process in general remains up in the air this morning. Well, I mean, you know, the thing is, again, chances are very good that the higher courts, just looking at past presidents, will probably give them the power to be able to do what they want to do on immigration policies, but they can't just go ahead and do it and ignore federal judge's orders. Let's bring it right now. They're talking more about the senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstin. Josh, again, there's so many things that are surprising about this. But to see White House officials

and supporters of Donald Trump shocked, oh, my God. A single federal judge can't stop the president of the United States when George W. Bush's NSA wiretapping program was stopped by a single judge. Joe Biden's vaccine mandates were stopped by a single judge. Joe Biden's vaccine mandates were stopped by a single judge. Barack Obama's immigration program for the parents of DACA participants stopped by a single federal court. So again, they have to know, the lawyers inside have to know,

this happens to every administration. This is nothing new under the sun. Yeah, you're quite right about the history, Joe. I mean, it really took off under the last few years of the Obama administration. We started to see more and more of these nationwide injunctions. And look, it has been controversial

within the legal community. You've had some scholars speak out and say, is this the right way to do this? Supporting this argument that maybe a single federal judge shouldn't have this power, but at least in recent years, they have had this power and the proposals for legislative reforms to this have really not gotten off the ground.

And so it is not a terribly new phenomenon. It's one that the federal government under presidents of both parties have been struggling to deal with for at least the last decade and a half, I would say. Yeah, and again, John Lemire, this goes all the way back, George W. Bush, 2007, in the middle of his war on terror had his NSA warrantless wireless wiretapping program

stopped by a single federal judge. And again, yeah, no president likes this. Every president says the same thing. Like, you know, single judge, it's frustrating that single judge has to stop it and then you have to go through the appeals process. I will say though, in a lot of cases, the lower district court judge's decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. So again, it's whether they like it or not, no president, whether it was Barack Obama who had it done to him time and time again, Joe Biden or George W. Bush, no president has the right to say, I'm just going to, or his administration, because the president

hasn't said, I'm going to ignore federal judges, that I don't think, but administration officials can't say, we're just going to ignore the judges. Yeah, being frustrated by lone federal judges is a bipartisan experience. And certainly, President Biden, in his term, covering that extensively, repeatedly would be frustrated, particularly on student loan issues, where a judge would knock things down. So, Josh, let's talk a little more specifically about what happened yesterday in that hearing about these deportation flights. So clearly a very frustrated federal judge. So take us inside the room there and what this means potentially going forward, especially

in light of pretty bellicose threats there from members of the Trump administration, including Tom Holman saying, look, we will defy federal court orders in order to carry out our deportation plans. Well, the judge handling that is James Boasberg. He's the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington. And you know, this was a fairly tense hearing. He's a very mild-mannered guy there. It's hard to rile him up, but you could tell during this hearing he was beginning to get

riled up. He was irritated by a couple of the things that the government lawyers said in In addition to sort of stonewalling him on the facts of the situation, you know, there were questions raised by the Justice Department there where they said, well, we don't have to follow your orders once these planes leave U.S. territory or leave U.S. waters. The judge found that to be very dubious. Courts regularly order relief for people who are overseas when it comes to U.S. agencies and the actions of the U.S. government. So the notion that they have no authority beyond U.S. territorial waters over the executive branch is just one that is very dubious. And, you know, there were other arguments that the judge raised against—I'm sorry, that the administration raised against his orders that he just found, you know, I think

underwhelming. And he got a sense that, you know, the administration had rushed the departure of some of these planes in order to avoid his jurisdiction and his authority. And you could tell that he was irked by that and trying to consider what his next options were. One thing I would point out though, Willie and Joe, is that the tone that the lawyers took in the courtroom was somewhat different than you heard from Tom Homan and we heard even from Attorney General Pam Bondi. They did say that they would not defy the judge's order going

forward. They insisted they somehow had not broken it already. But they said they would withhold these sorts of flights under the Alien Enemies Act authority going forward. So there was sort of a concession here by the administration in court that you're not hearing in those statements from Tom Homan and Pam Bondi. Yeah, which is you say is directly at odds with what we just heard Tom Homan say, so there are going to be more flights today.

So we'll see how that shakes out. Senior Legal Affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein, walking us through all this. Josh, thanks so much. In its latest editorial, entitled Trump Deportations and the Law, the Wall Street Journal editorial board this morning is writing this, quote, It's troubling to see U.S. officials appear to disdain the law in the name of upholding it. Are we already arriving at a constitutional impasse when the administration thinks it can ignore court orders? The administration can appeal whatever ruling Judge Boasberg hands down,

and the case will go up the appellate chain, perhaps as far as the Supreme Court. What the administration cannot do is defy a court order without being lawless itself. Mr. Trump won the election on a promise to deport illegal migrants. His voters will be happy he is fulfilling that promise, but he has to do it within the bounds of American law or he will take the country down a dangerous road that echoes the way the Biden administration abused the justice system.

Mr. Trump was elected to stop that, not imitate it, writes the Wall Street Journal this morning. Gene Robinson, the journal again making the case as it has in these first couple of months against a lot of what this administration is doing, whether it's tariffs or now the use of the Enemies Act and everything they're doing to try to get these flights of illegal immigrants out of the country. What is your sense, though, of what happens next? I mean, if you have lawyers in court saying, okay, we're sorry, we won't do these flights anymore, and the president and the borders are, Tom Homan saying, oh yeah, there are going to be more flights today, we're just going to put our head down and plow through. What gives?

Well, you know, I don't know what happens today, but I know what happened over the weekend, and they defied a court order. I mean, you know, they may be saying in court, they may have said in court yesterday that, oh, well, we won't defy a court order. We won't, you know, we'll listen to the court. But in fact, they did not. They defied a court order. The judge't, you know, we'll listen to the court. But in fact, they did not. They defied a court order. The judge said, don't do this.

Turn those planes around if they're in the air. And they flat out refused to follow the court order. And so I don't know about this sort of approaching a constitutional impasse trope because we are there. You know, it's not just what Tom Homan said, which is outrageous, but it's what the administration did that I find not concerning but alarming because, again, this is not what James Madison envisioned. This is not the way our government is supposed to work.

And it is a serious breach of the constitutional order. And it leads nowhere good. More on this in just a moment. We want to pause and get to Tel Aviv. Israeli forces have launched a new wave of attacks across Gaza. Last night, Israeli officials announced they've started to conduct extensive strikes on Hamas targets. This, as ceasefire talks have stalled, the prime minister's office claims the goal is

to secure the release of all hostages, saying, quote, From now on, Israel will act against Hamas with increasing military force. According to Palestinian officials, more than 300 people have died from the strikes. The Hamas-run government in Gaza does not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths. This is the first major attack on the territory since that ceasefire began about two months ago, ending what had been a period of relative calm during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Let's bring in NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley, who joins us live from Tel Aviv. So Matt, what more do we know about these strikes today?

Yeah, Willie, well this was striking across the entire enclave. And as you mentioned, it looks like more than 350 people were killed this, according to the Palestinian health officials in Hamas-ruled Gaza. And those numbers are really likely to go up because it looks as though this renewed attack, these assaults across the Gaza Strip are going to be unrelenting and they're not gonna stop here.

Now we've been hearing talk about this for the past several weeks. This hostage deal, this peace treaty, I shouldn't say peace treaty, this treaty was inked with help from the US. I mean, the US was taking the lead and negotiating this for the better part of the past year and a half, two months ago in late January. Ever since then, it has been a very tenuous truce.

It expired the first phase just a couple of weeks ago on March 1st. Ever since then, both sides have refused to engage in any really worthwhile negotiations that would either see an extension to the first phase of that treaty or to move on to the second phase of that treaty. So why? The Israelis said they wanted to see an extension of the first phase. They wanted to see hostages released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, more of the same that we saw for the first six weeks starting in late January.

Hamas said they want to stick to the rule, the letter of that starting in late January. Hamas said they want to stick to the rule, the letter of that treaty from late January. They want to see negotiations moving on to the second phase of the treaty, which would see ideally for Hamas, a full withdrawal of the Israeli troops and some sort of permanent troops in the Gaza Strip. Neither side seemed to be able to meet the gap

or cross the gap in their demands. And so it looks as though the Israelis eventually got fed up and decided late last night, seemed to be able to meet the gap or cross the gap in their demands. And so it looks as though the Israelis eventually got fed up and decided late last night, overnight, at about 2 a.m. local time here, to renew their assault on the Gaza Strip. Now, we heard that Hamas said that this is a violation of the peace of the treaty from late January, but this is something that is probably going to get worse and worse. We're going to continue to see attacks by the Israelis.

As you said, we've been hearing extremely bellicose language, including from the Minister of Defense, Israel Katz, saying that they're going to rain hell on Hamas. This really just goes to show there's a big change here. We've seen the Israelis cutting off aid several weeks ago to the Gaza Strip, which saw a huge spike in prices for food in the Gaza Strip, which was already suffering from famine-like conditions before that treaty in late January. Then we saw them cutting off electricity, which all but shut down a desalination plant that so many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had relied on for fresh water, leading a lot

of them to resort to drinking brackish water. And the United Nations warned that nine out of 10 people in Gaza didn't have access to safe clean water. Well, now the situation is about to get much, much worse. We haven't heard much about ground operations yet, but we can expect to hear a lot more. The Israelis had said that they're specifically targeting mid-level Hamas commanders. So it looks as though they had some time to think about who to strike, hone their targets. And we had heard this last week from several media sources saying that they have a kill

list, that they've expanded the Israelis, and they know exactly who they're going after. So it looks as though, according to Israeli and foreign media, that they had a plan for the past several weeks about how to reenter this fight. And it looks like we're seeing that plan being activated in the Gaza Strip. NBC's Matt Bradley live for us in Tel Aviv. Matt, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Ali, and we should point out the White House saying yesterday that President Trump was

consulted, that the administration was consulted by the Israeli government about these strikes, about these targets inside of Gaza. White House press secretary saying, this is Donald Trump reminding terrorist groups, as he did with the Houthis a couple of days ago, that you will pay a price for terrorism. Here it is standing shoulder to shoulder with the Israelis. Yeah, exactly right. And not surprising given the posture that this White House and the president himself have taken a long time friendship that he has with the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu Now on full display against the backdrop of this continued tumultuous landscape there in the Middle East

We had seen at loose in this initial month or two of the Trump administration That tenuous ceasefire deal holding, the exchange of hostages happening, of course, once that phase two broke down and negotiations along with it, we now see on the ground a resurgence in the fighting. Do you think that this continues to get worse? It seems to me that it only echoes the aggressive language that we've heard, as Matt referenced there,

from the Israelis. But that echoes what we hear from the president himself, this idea of there will be hell to pay or hell raining down. We've heard, as Matt referenced there, from the Israelis. But that echoes what we hear from the president himself, this idea of there will be hell to pay or hell raining down. All of that language now seems to be matching with action again. Unfortunately, it does. And it's not just about the Gaza Strip or Yemen.

It's about Iran too, because the president most recently yesterday says that they will suffer the consequences if there are any for the Iranians if there are any further Houthi attacks So I don't think that however much criticism Joe Biden Received for not doing enough to restrain net now whose government the he's nothing compared to Trump Who's actually egging them on and inciting them? And we've got no As far as I can tell plans for Steve Witkoff, his Middle Eastern envoy, to go to Israel and to go to the region to try and talk this down.

There is no talking down from this administration. It's all very, very extreme language. I should note, though, that Trump's base, or at least some of those who claim to speak for it, like Tucker Carlson or Ann Coulter, I try not to pay attention to them too much, but they're extremely opposed to any Middle Eastern military action by this administration. So Trump does have that sort of, if you can call that a constraint, he does have that sort of whisper over his left ear.

And we do have just, Willie, as to button this up, the Iran wrote a letter to the UN denying any involvement and they put it to stabilizing activities in the region after Trump accused them of supporting the Houthis after those strikes. And a statement from the National Security Council from the Trump White House saying Hamas could have released hostages to extend the ceasefire but instead chose refusal and war. So clearly the White House is suggesting that Hamas is responsible for this breakdown in the ceasefire and the talks and the resumption of Israeli attacks. And Israel saying explicitly these attacks are only going to increase from here.

Still ahead this morning on Morning Joe, President Trump says he will discuss dividing up certain assets in his words between Russia and Ukraine in a phone call with Vladimir Putin this morning, one of the latest on the administration's efforts to end that war and where it might leave Ukraine. Plus, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has postponed several events to promote his new book this week because of security concerns. We will dig into the backlash he's been facing after he and other Democrats helped to pass a Republican-led government funding

bill. You're watching Morning Joe, we're back in 90 seconds. The other story is making headlines today. The Pentagon has removed a webpage celebrating the image of private first class Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian who was one of the six Marines photographed raising an American flag at Iwo Jima in 1945. That iconic photograph. According to the Washington Post, pages celebrating Navajo code talkers and other minority service

members also were erased. This comes amid the Trump administration's wide-ranging crackdown on what it calls DEI efforts in the federal government, taking down information about the famous Ira Hayes. Stocks climbed for a second straight day with the Dow jumping more than 300 points that follows a four-week losing streak on Wall Street as the markets responded

to President Trump's chaotic tariff policies. Tesla, however, started off another week deep in the red after falling for eight straight weeks. The carmaker now has lost 50% of its value in just the past three months. And Canada's new leader is looking to shore up support among European allies. Prime Minister Mark Carney met British and French leaders

on his first overseas visit amid tensions with the Trump administration over Canada's sovereignty and its economy. Canada's Liberal Party appeared poised for a historic defeat in the upcoming elections before Donald Trump's tariff policies went into place. Now that party could come out on top. The Kremlin has confirmed Russian President Vladimir Putin will speak with President Trump this morning at 9 o'clock Eastern time as part of the White House push to end the war in Ukraine. The president previewed his conversation with Putin earlier this week, saying the two leaders

will discuss land and, quote, dividing up certain assets. Notably, no Ukrainian official will be on the call this morning. President Trump is looking to win Putin's approval on a 30-day ceasefire deal already supported by Ukraine. According to Semaphore, as a gesture of good faith, the White House is considering formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. New York Times reports the president will, in essence, be negotiating over how large a reward Russia will receive for its 11 years

of open aggression against Ukraine, starting with its seizure of Crimea in 2014 and extending through the full-scale war Putin started three years ago. President Trump told reporters yesterday Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk region of Russia are in dire straits and need a big deal. They're surrounded by Russian soldiers. And I believe if it wasn't for me, they wouldn't be here any longer. I was able to get them not to do anything at this moment. But it's a bad situation in Russia. And it's a bad situation in Ukraine.

What's happening in Ukraine is not good. But we're going to see if we can work a peace agreement, a ceasefire and peace, and I think we'll be able to do it. So Joe, obviously the Ukrainian fear and the fear of the West, frankly, is what Donald Trump is going to give away on that phone call a couple of hours from now with Vladimir Putin. Right. And just a note for interested viewers, it's also bad in Russia.

Estimates that Russians have lost up to 800,000 soldiers in this war. Their economy is shattered, inflation continuing to skyrocket. This is a deal that Vladimir Putin needs badly as well. So I'd lose, the question has never really been whether Ukraine is going to give up land. I mean, the Biden administration two years ago was admitting the inevitable. I mean, Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was admitting the inevitable two,

three years ago or two years ago that any peace deal, any ceasefire deal would include Ukraine giving up land, but giving up land in exchange for security guarantees. That's the real question here, isn't it? If the land is given up, does Ukraine get security guarantees in exchange for that? And so far, we've heard nothing to suggest that they do. Nothing and of course even if Ukraine is going to give up land in exchange for whatever that security undertaking might or might not be this is not the kind of

thing that you can seed in advance of talks. The fact is from Pete Hegseth if you remember his visit to Europe a month ago, more than a month ago, where he announced all these concessions Ukraine would make, none that Russia would make, that this has been very much the administration's template all along. Don't believe it when Donald Trump says we will put sanctions on Putin. He has no, that's pure sort of verbiage. He has a very clear game plan here, which is as quickly as possible to force Ukraine into submission to a deal that it doesn't want, but which it cannot afford to turn down.

Offer it cannot refuse. And I don't think that a call between Putin and Trump, we remember the first 90-minute one that preceded JD Vance's speech in Munich. I don't think that a call between Trump and Putin is a call where Trump is twisting Putin's arm, threatening, cajoling, and saying, you've got to do this to bring peace to the region. He is plotting with Putin, as far as I can tell, as to how best they can both achieve

what they both want, which is Ukraine's submission and for the US-Russia economic relations and deals, deals, deals, whatever it is Trump's got in his sights. And quite possibly, Trump appearing as the honored guest at the May 9th Red Square Parade, the Victory in Europe Parade. I don't think Trump would turn that one down. That's the kind of conversation he'll be having. Let's not pretend this is normal diplomacy. Well, the image of Yalta that we showed while you were talking reminds us that American

presidents have a long, long history of being suckered by Russians. You had, of course, FDR at Yalta trying to charm Stalin, sort of pushing Churchill to the side often, and FDR getting outplayed time and again. As you know, very well, Ed, from your work with writing Dr. Brzezinski's biography, Yalta was always a bad word in the Brzezinski household because of FDR's failures there. You had, of course, JFK being made a fool in the Vienna summit in, I believe it was, 62. And then you have George W. Bush saying that he looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and could read his soul. Putin, of course, then basically declared war on the West a few years later and invaded Georgia.

Then Barack Obama saying to Medvedev, hey, give us a couple of a little bit of space after the election, then we can do more together. That's when Russia, of course, invaded Ukraine, invaded Crimea, began shooting down commercial aircraft, on and on and on. And so here we have it happening yet again, where Vladimir Putin is going to make a sucker out of every president this century, except for Joe Biden, unless Donald Trump stands up to him. Yeah, I mean, you should just sort of, there are so many other things going on, but one

of the Elon Musk cuts was to the Yale unit that has been investigating the abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children into Russia, the kidnapping, the take of forcible removal from their families, thousands of them. And that unit has been closed because apparently it's waste, fraud and abuse. We have Tulsi Gabbard saying last night that Putin and Trump are very good friends. You know, just the mood music coming from this administration is pro-Russia. I mean, I can't think of a better or more blunt way of putting it. It's pro-Russia. So Putin might have hoodwinked

Bush and Obama, and the Russians might have a long record of having done that with their Western counterparts. But in Trump's case, they don't need to hoodwink him. He's working with them. This is new. And it's chilling. It really is. It really is chilling and shameful. Eugene, let's talk about what a ceasefire would look like, what a ceasefire would do. We don't know what the terms would be. We certainly hope they won't be as bad as many suggest they will be. But this war has been going on since 2014. And Vladimir Putin will attack, stop, reload, attack, stop, reload. In 2019, there was a ceasefire deal. He stopped, reloaded, and then invaded like three years later. Like this keeps happening. So any ceasefire deal that doesn't provide security guarantees

would just be the United States saying to Vladimir Putin, we have a ceasefire deal for you. You can rest. You can reload. And then you can invade Ukraine again. And maybe next time, you'll be able to get to Kiev, which again, that's just not a deal that any Republican in the United States Senate or any Republican in the United

States House should stand for. There has to be a security guarantee that stops the next invasion by Vladimir Putin. You're absolutely right, except can you imagine this administration giving that sort of guarantee? I think, frankly, the Trump administration is more likely to give Vladimir Putin formal recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, not de facto recognition, but formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, de facto recognition of the Donbas, the eastern part of Ukraine, as under Russian control.

And I find it hard to imagine Donald Trump giving a security guarantee to Ukraine that has any teeth, that has any muscle behind it, and thus it will fall to the Europeans to figure out what to do and how to do it. And that's, you know, this is such a change in the world order that we have seen for the last 80 years, that has kept the peace for the last 80 years. That to me seems the thing of the past. And again, maybe Trump will prove me wrong. I doubt it. He's clearly heading in this direction.

It will be a very, very different Europe in the years to come. Well, let's hope. That's all I suppose we can do right now, because all the signs are pointing to a one-sided deal, Jonathan LaMere. And again, the question is, are Republicans going to sit back and be fine with a ceasefire deal that simply allows Vladimir Putin to reload. And I think one of the things that Republicans are very concerned about, that we've heard about in the media also,

is the fact that this administration just keeps negotiating against itself in public. It sends its Secretary of Defense to the Munich conference and he gives up all these things that the Russians desperately want, desperately want, and gives them up publicly without a negotiating. And now we're hearing talks of handing over Crimea or the Donbas as far as recognition of that. I mean, perhaps we eventually would get to that in any negotiation, but negotiations require that both sides give something. And what the Ukrainians need to stop Vladimir Putin from invading their country again two years from now are security guarantees from Europe,

security guarantees from the United States, security guarantees from NATO. I think it's instructive not just to look at the past when Russian leaders have gotten the better of their American counterparts but just let's look at the more recent president past about how Donald Trump continues to be outplayed by Vladimir Putin and has been nothing but deferential to him. Even in the clip we played a few moments ago there in the parking garage of the Kennedy Center when Trump suggested that there were these Ukrainian soldiers surrounded by Russians. That's not true.

Ukrainian and Western intelligence officials say that's not the case. Now to be clear, Ukraine has largely withdrawn their troops from the Kursk region. They only control a sliver of it now. It is possible that is what Trump is referring to. But those are Kremlin talking points that Trump, again, Trump and his allies seem all too willing to parrot. We know what happened the last time that Trump and Putin spoke, the way he framed the conflict. Hey, Jonathan?

Yeah. I did want to just say really quickly and then continue. Also, he never talks about the fact that the Russians have lost 800,000 to a million people fighting this war. They only lost what, 40,000 in Afghanistan when they had to retreat in shame from Afghanistan, they've lost 800 to a million people. Their military has been decimated. Their economy has been decimated. Inflation is skyrocketing. Like, the quality of life in Russia, in Moscow has gone down decidedly. So talking about how bad things are in Ukraine, tell one half, it tells one half of the story,

and that's Vladimir Putin's half of the story. The fact is his military has been shattered by this, and they need a ceasefire every bit as much as the Ukrainians do. But that's not what, but you're completely right. But Putin certainly doesn't ever say that. And therefore, Trump is not going to acknowledge that part of the equation here.

He has been completely deferential. And it seems like as we go into this call today, and we assume impending negotiations finally between Ukraine and Russia, where the US is landing. It's on the side of Moscow. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, over over the weekend appearing on the Sunday shows, Willie talked quite a bit about the concessions that Ukraine will have to make, never once mentioned what Russia will have to give up, which repeats what we've heard from the defense secretary

and Trump himself in recent weeks. And that's why, yes, a few Republican senators have expressed private concern about where this is going. They didn't love, some of them went on the record saying they didn't love the first call with Putin, but the pushback has been mild to say the least. And there are so many European leaders, and particularly in Kiev, who are deeply worried about what comes out of this call today. That Trump and Putin will have struck some sort of deal that leaves them out of it. Time and time again, the burden has been placed on Ukraine, the victim of this invasion three years ago and really going back 11 years.

US national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce, Ed, thanks so much as always. Coming up here, democratic lawmakers in Arizona are now hearing complaints from their constituents about the Trump administration's policies. We'll dig into those concerns. Plus, what's the latest on those two NASA astronauts who are finally returning home after nine months on the International Space Station, a voyage that was supposed to be

eight days. Morning, Joe. Coming right back. to We need to know how do we prepare for what may come down the hatch. We're trying to shield ourselves before we're wounded and we don't know how. Would you mind telling your colleagues in Washington that when they're burning down this house, there's people still inside. My kid is inside. A resident of Scottsdale, Arizona last night during a joint town hall for Democratic senators

Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego. The senators heard from a number of constituents voicing frustration with the Trump administration's recent moves and were asked how they intend to fight back. That town hall comes as several Republican members of Congress have canceled in-person events due to tough comments from constituents. Here's another voter addressing the senators from Arizona. They've shown us over and over and over again they don't care. They don't care if people die.

They don't care if people suffer. We want you to be straight with us. How do we go to the next level to fight this if that's the case? So call, write letters, show up at places when you can, show up at your local congressman's office. You show up in front of their office. Tell them how pissed off you are and how bad this is for our country and how there are people inside the House that you were trying to burn down.

Yes, tell them that. Senator Kelly there. So, Ali, you cover Capitol Hill very closely every day. So you've got two things going on there. What we saw there were Democrats, of course, we've been talking for the last several weeks about Republicans hearing it from their voters, who voted for Donald Trump and say, we didn't vote for all this, getting rid of all these jobs and Elon Musk coming in and running the show in some ways.

And they're Republicans, excuse me, they're Democrats, hearing from their voters, you all need a message, you all need to fight back harder than you are. That's exactly right, Willie. And the action in Congress has actually always been at these town halls. For the last few weeks, that's been clear. The true collision of lawmakers and their constituents, constituents not holding back in what they think about what's happening in this administration and what's happening in the halls of Congress.

It was palpable to me a few weeks ago, and I brought you some of the conversations I had when I went out to a Virginia district about an hour from DC. Yes, there was concern with Doge with Musk with Trump with the administration's actions there were a lot of federal workers at that town hall. But Jean there was also a really palpable sense of frustration among Democratic voters that I spoke to and the question I kept asking was is any amount of pushback going to feel like enough and many of them said no in large part because there's so much fear. So if that's now the wind that Democrats backs with people concerned about Doge, but also

the wind coming at their face because they're so worried there's not enough strategic pushback, where does that leave Democrats? Well, it leaves them lost right now because nobody's telling them what to do that seems potentially effective, right? And yes, absolutely. Showing up, writing letters to members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, that does have an impact, but it's not stopping the Trump administration, right? It's not, and it doesn't seem to be effectively

even trying to put roadblocks in the way. So what, you know, senators, what are you gonna do, right? What, you know, what you did last week was approve the continuing resolution. Maybe that was the right thing to do. Maybe it was the wrong thing to do. But to a lot of Democrats, that seemed like you're not fighting. You're not fighting back.

And so there is all this energy out there of people who are alarmed, who are distressed, and who want something to do. And nobody is really telling them. I mean, the most effective voices, I think, at the moment are those of the left of the party you know AOC Bernie Sanders and they're going to continue gathering attention and gathering support if the rest of the party can't get its act together. I don't think that's what the rest of the party wants but let's see it. Let's hear it. Yeah, I mean you have, you are right, you have AOC and Bernie

Sanders out there fighting, Elizabeth Warren's out there doing a good job fighting as well. You also have a sort of more centrist voice. You have Rahm Emanuel who certainly is out there throwing some haymakers and I think framing things really well. But Willie, you know, one of the problems is in Washington, D.C., Democrats are fighting each other. They don't like the hand that they've been dealt and they don't like how Chuck Schumer is playing the cards.

I don't know if I told you, but I was on a train one time and that old buddy tell me that I just met. He said, I had to give him a swig of whiskey. And he said, if you're gonna play the game, son, you gotta learn how to play it right. Yeah, he did. And he said, you got no one to hold them, no one to fold them, no one to walk away, no one to run.

I think that's good advice for the Democrats as well. I think there's another thing that old stranger told me on that ride before he took a drink and died, kind of a strange way to end a song, Kenny. But you don't play your cards into the hands of the other person, right? And I know Chuck Schumer is catching a ton of grief, but I'm a guy as a Republican,

we didn't mind shutting down the government if the Braves lost three or four games we shut down the government. We like shutting down the government because we had a Democratic president that wanted to keep it open so we could negotiate. But when you have a Republican president and you have Elon Musk who want the government to be shut down so

they get the power in deciding what's essential to keep open and what's not essential to keep open, you lose your leverage. So I understand people wanting to shut down the government. I understand people wanting to push back and fight. But I will say right now, I don't know that Chuck Schumer in this position had much of a better option. Fight, yes, fight all you can politically, but don't play in the other person's hands.

Anyway, that's what that old stranger told me on the train that night. You know, on a warm summer's eve on a train bound for nowhere, Joe, you're known for just, you just get out and ride the rails. You don't even know where it's going. If you're lucky, you meet somebody like that fella. Yeah.

Yeah. He gave me some pearls of wisdom that I've kept with me and I even use them on this show all the time, Willie. Democrats would be wise to listen to that old man. Gene Robinson, thank you for enduring us this morning. We appreciate it as always.