Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/26/25

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

Trump downplays national security adviser sharing military plans with journalist on group chat

What it was, we believe, is somebody that was on the line with permission, somebody that was with Mike Waltz, worked for Mike Waltz at a lower level, had, I guess Goldberg's number were called through the app. And somehow this guy ended up on the call. Now, it wasn't classified, as I understand it. There was no classified information. There was no problem, and the attack was a tremendous success. President Trump blaming a national security staffer for adding a journalist to a group

chat where military plans were shared. We'll have the latest on that major story as the president and top officials try to minimize the seriousness of this security breach. Also ahead, we're going to go through a hearing on Capitol Hill that went a bit under the radar yesterday, President Trump's nominee to oversee the Social Security Administration, grilled by lawmakers about the future of the program amid massive cuts by Elon Musk and the federal government. Why, what, was it the guy, Jonathan, who said he was going to shut down the Social

Security Administration because he didn't like it? Judges ruling on Doge? That is the one. Yeah, OK. Then you don't want to do that. Just listen. I'm not good at this politics thing. Politics 101.

Don't threaten to shut down Social Security. It's a problem. Bad move. Also, had we had an update on the ceasefire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine after three days of intense talks with U.S. officials in Saudi Arabia. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, March 26th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer

at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, president Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haase, he's author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack, and Roger's chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University, historian John Meacham, he's an MSNBC political analyst. I mean, we have a lot of things coming up right now, of course, Willie, Major League Baseball. Tomorrow.

Starts tomorrow. The home and away, Substack Letter, of course, out two days, three days from now. John Meacham does his annual military reenactment. Oh, he does. The French and Indian War. There's a lot going on there. It touched on the example of Tennessee.

Yeah. That's a tip. Closet full of costumes. Fort Necessity. The view from Fort Necessity. how it touched on the in New York, the Giants. We've got Jameis Winston and Russell Wilson. Very exciting. Lurking. Question is what happens in the draft. See Mike lurking. Yeah. Just walk across, Mike. Mike, you walk across.

They know who you are. Just go. OK, he's lurking. Maybe cross-camera. Thank you, Senator. All right. Power the people right on. He's already complaining.

We're going to get into this ongoing mess with Signal. Yeah I've seen this time and time again at the White House over 30 years. Administrations come and go and you know I usually have the same advice for them. Republicans, Democrats alike, you know they come in cocky, they think they're the first people that have like figured this out. And I mean, every single one and now Richard will tell you that. And every time I say, do you not think the last administration, I remember telling somebody in the Obama administration, you know, I think the Bush administration, when they walked

through those gates the first time, thought that they were like masters of the universe. It's like, head down, do your job, serve your country, you'll be fine. But if that's the goal. Yeah, but it's just, it's just, again, and then comparing the Trump administration to any past administration, I'm just saying there's just a degree of arrogance in this administration top to bottom. You see in a lot of administrations, maybe not to this level, when something like this happens you go, yeah, we effed up. Well, you know what? We screwed up.

We shouldn't have done it on signal. It was a mistake. We're not going to do it again. Lessons learned. They just can't do it. And the thing is, it doesn't serve them well. They may think this serves them well, even their own base knows. I mean, we can read from the Wall Street Journal, we can read from the National Review, you can look at

even some people on Fox News, you can look at Brit Hume going, for God's sake, just admit you screwed up. But this whole thing about like, it's the journalists' fault that we added on our top secret national... That would be the wrong journalist to do that. That blame or saying it's not classified. When you're talking about targets, you're apparently there's CIA personnel listed in there, you're talking

about the timing of an attack, this is classified material in every sense of the word. Just say, these guys messed up, we have confidence in them, these are the reforms we're going to do to make sure it's not going to happen again in the future, are the reforms we're going to do to make sure it's like not going to happen again in the future and we're right now we're undergoing investigation make sure there were no more incidences like this just to make sure American Intel is safe. Just just do it. It helps the administration that does that but they just can't do it. They can't do it, and of course it comes from the top. Donald Trump's guiding philosophy is no retreat, no apology, of course no humility about anything whatsoever.

So you get Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, going on Fox News and talking about the journalists, talking about Jeffrey Goldberg, saying he's scum and he's a loser and how dare he do this. He didn't do anything except be added by you guys to a signal chat in which according to Jeffrey Goldberg, they discussed as you said, operational details of an attack. He's sitting in his Atlantic office doing what Jeffrey does all day in his Atlantic office,

you know, drinking vodka and playing Parcheese. And all of a sudden this comes across. Yeah. I don't know where the Parcheese comes from, but you'll explain that later. He gets sloppy when he plays it. He does. He's pretty good. Is he pretty good?

Yeah, pretty good at Parcheese. Even after a couple of stiff drinks. No, but seriously, he's sitting there, he's doing nothing, and they're adding. And they're calling him scum? Okay. Come on. I mean, Jeffrey, I'm sure, would get into a skiff with some members of the Intel committee and, you know, let them perhaps see what exactly it is that they—I mean,

he's being pushed now, defamed. He's going to be given no choice. Obviously, he wants to be responsible. Can I say he actually did more to protect classified information than any of the people on the judge? Exactly. It's that simple. Then, so first of all, there is the public. There's what we hear in the public from the administration, which is again, no retreat,

no surrender, straight out of a Bruce Springsteen song. Talk to us, go behind the doors in the White House. I mean, you're reporting some people not happy inside the White House at all. Yeah, no, first of all, it's just a real throwback also to the first Trump term, which was so chaotic and sloppy and messy. And they really tried this time around to pride themselves on being more professional.

They're getting more things done. So for some in the West Wing, it was an unfortunate reminder of how things were. But there is some unhappiness here. The president himself, as I report today, doesn't like a lot of the media coverage that's surrounded about this. Yes, it's a familiar playbook, though. Attack the messenger. Go after the Jeffrey Goldberg.

Go after the reporter, the outlet. He called Jeffrey a sleazebag yesterday repeatedly in a White House meeting. Well, by the way, there's history there. That goes back to Jeffrey reporting from people who worked for Donald Trump about what he said about the people. Suckers and losers. Yeah. Yeah.

And so that's deeply personal for him, which of course doesn't explain why he's attacking the messenger, the guy who actually protected national security secrets better than his own national security team. Yeah, there's long held animosity there from Trump to Jeffrey. But this is something where he has expressed some unhappiness. He has told people he wants to see how this plays out next few days, but his instinct is to support waltz and as you say, to never apologize, to always just attack, attack, attack. But there's also a bit of a dare here. waltz and as you say to never apologize to always just attack attack attack but

there's also a bit of a dare here we heard this from the press secretary yesterday others the administration over and over and over saying there's nothing classified there's nothing untoward about this text well what that's doing is to Richard's point Jeffrey to this point has withheld a lot of information saying look this is this could compromise individuals this is classified this isn't our place to put out in the public. Well, either you could A, go public with it because you've just been told it's not classified,

so you can do that, or B, cooperate with members of Congress and show them what's in the material. Again, what's so crazy is, Jeffrey is being responsible about the classified information he has. Even when they're saying it's not classified, they know it's classified. they know it's classified.

Yes. Jeffrey knows it's classified. So Jeffrey's not going to release it. It is interesting, isn't it? I heard Ali talking about this at the end of way too early, that it was the national security adviser whose staffer allegedly accidentally put this number on. And yet it does seem to be Pete Hegseth

who's getting more of the blowback on this. I don't hear a lot of people going after Walz, saying, you know, Walz must be fired. Actually, in that meeting yesterday at the table, Donald Trump, the president, turned repeatedly to National Security Advisor Walz and said, why don't you take this one, Mike? So he was sort of putting him out there

to defend himself and answer those questions. And he did go out and talk on Fox News last night to Laura Ingraham, as I said, blaming the messenger. Here's Mike Waltz last night. Embarrassing, yes. We're going to get to the bottom of it. We have, I just talked to Elon on the way here. We've got the best technical minds looking at how this happened.

But I can tell you, I could tell you for 100%, I don't know this guy. I know him by his horrible reputation and he really is a bottom scum of journalists. And I know him in the sense that he hates the president, but I don't text him. He wasn't on my phone and we're gonna figure out how this happened. So you don't know what staffer is responsible for this right now? Well look, a staffer wasn't responsible. And look, I take full responsibility. I built the group. My job is to make sure everything's coordinated.

But how did the number... I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number get into that? Have you ever had somebody's contact that shows their name, and then you have somebody else's number there? Oh, I never make those mistakes. Right? You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact. So of course I didn't see this loser in the group.

It looked like someone else. Now whether he did it deliberately, or it happened in some other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out. So your staffer did not put his contact information. No, no, no. But how did it end up in your phone? Of course not, that's what we're trying to figure out.

Okay, but that's a pretty big problem. That is what we've got the best technical minds, right? That's disturbing. And that's where, I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where it was said one person and then a different phone number. But you've never talked to him before, so how's the number on your phone? I mean, I'm not an expert on any of this, but it's just curious. How's the number on your phone? Well, if you have somebody else's contact and then somehow it gets sucked in. Oh, someone sent you that contact. Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that wasn't on the chat that you thought was on the chat? So the person that I thought was on there was never on there.

It was this guy. Who was that person? Well, I'm not. Look, Laura, I take responsibility. I built the group. Okay. I'm not. Look, Laura, I take responsibility. I built the group. Okay. So, that's...

But look, that's the part that we have to figure out. I mean, there's so much wrong there. Where to begin? I mean, first of all, you know, feeling the need to call a guy a scum and bottom feeder and all this other stuff. I mean, again, it just actually speaks to the culture. Yeah. Just the sad culture there. Number one.

Also, Laura, by the way, pushed. Kept pushing him. Wait a second. You know, he's saying, we've got the best technical minds. We're going to get Elon Musk. Why are you on Signal? We're going to get Elon Musk. You don't need Elon Musk.

You added it. I need to not be on Signal. And then it's like, OK, well, the staff is not the staff's fault. It's my fault. We don't know how he got there. Maybe he put himself. No, he didn't put staff is not the staff's fault, it's my fault. We don't know how he got there. Maybe he put himself... No, he didn't put himself on there. That's not how it works.

He added him or somebody in his office added him. But even there, as makes it, well, you're on signal, number one. Number two, I'm sorry, but I think if I were on a national security chain like that, I would be looking at every single number and say, okay, who do we have on here? I mean, I do that. Like I said, we're just a cable news show. But if I get a list of numbers, I'm like, all right, who's on here? Identify yourself.

This is basic stuff, even when American lives aren't on the line. But again, identify yourself. This is basic stuff even when American lives aren't on the line, but again that attitude, you know what would have been great, you know what Americans would have loved, you know what Fox News viewers would have loved, you know everybody would love, we made a mistake. It won't happen again. We have used Signal because we were told that Signal was secure, now we understand it's not secure and we're not going to use it again. Made a mistake. It'll never happen again. People actually, I can say this is a formal politician.

People love that. I screwed up. I don't know. I messed up. But I'll tell you what, it'll never happen again. That's not the strategy. When Donald Trump is the boss, you learn from the master and he's telling you, attack the source, attack the source. We've built this distrust in the media. Go after Jeffrey Goldberg. Make it his fault. So there are two things here. Number one, Richard, with your experience, talking about classified information on Signal, you could make the case.

Sometimes we get together and talk about unclassified things on Signal. It's encrypted, but we would never talk about classified. We screwed up here. And is there any doubt in your mind, based on what Jeffrey Goldberg has described, he saw with his eyes and actually has, but has not made public, that talking about the operational details, timing, and targets of a military attack is somehow not classified? Not only is it classified, it's highly classified. Parts of it were probably compartmented as well.

So that's not even an issue. And to deny that it was classified is preposterous, unsustainable. Bigger issue was why did this take place on Signal? God invented something called the Situation Room. And the Situation Room is a secure facility in the basement of the White House where you have meetings. It's an old-fashioned word. And the idea is you have serious conversations around the table, because that's when you

discuss big national security... If you're talking about military attacks halfway around the world. 100%. Should you do it? How do you do it? What's the likely responses of the Houthis? What would be the response of the Iranians, who do you have to tell in advance, how do you coordinate with the Israelis, do you give heads-ups to others and so forth.

And people like Vance, the vice president, who had doubts about the wisdom of doing it. Now, that's when you have that conversation. You don't do it in a group chat with emojis, for God's sakes. This is serious stuff. So the most important thing these guys could do is not just get off signal, they could run a serious national security process where you have meetings with agendas,

you think about who needs to be in, why was the Secretary of the Treasury in the room? Why was someone like Steve Witkoff in the room from Moscow? It's not just security questions, there's the question of how do you run a serious policy process? From Moscow. The whole thing was wrong.

Can I say one other thing? What also came through the content, the loathing of this administration for anything European, it is a pathology. It goes way beyond anything. And it just shows that it has been the largest pool of allies and partners this country has had for 80 years to help us not just in Europe, but around the world and the loathing for them is quite stunning. It is really stunning.

Again, when you look at our military might, you look at combined with Europe, you look at our financial might, I've said it time and again, $26 trillion GDP, Europe, $26 trillion GDP. You put those two together, you completely dominate the world, and yet we're dividing for a country in Russia that has a $1.4 trillion GDP, smaller than the size of Texas. John Heilman, you have a theory on why Pete Hegseth may be more of a target than Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe. Tell us about it. Well, I think that you could see yesterday, you know, there was a lot of very heated exchanges that went on in that Intel

committee hearing, but one of the things that came through was that both Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard testified after some angling around here that they said that there was no classified intelligence material included in this signal chat. What that leaves out is the question of whether there was classified defense material. I think this is what Richard's talking about. This gets to the war plan thing, right? And that's sort of why I think a lot of people are looking at Hegseth, because the suggestion here is that although Waltz may have made a mistake by putting Jeff Goldberg on the

group chat, again, the implication here is that the person who may have put classified material into that chat is Pete Hegseth by sharing the operational plans of the attack on the Houthis in Yemen. So I think that's, you're starting to get this picture from a lot of senior intelligence officials in the Trump administration who are all kind of quietly or not so quietly pointing in Pete Hegseth's direction. And Joe, I'll just say, as you know, there's no one I know who worried more about Pete Hegs's lack of basic competence and qualifications for this job. If it turns out that he did, in fact, put classified material on this Signal group chat,

it would be the first time that America potentially has paid a price for that lack of experience and lack of competence. Well, I mean, there's been a lot of sloppiness there. I mean, again, there's been negotiating against ourselves with several things that he said publicly. And, Miki, you'll remember time and again when we were going over Pete Hegseth and the possibility of him being there at DOD, what we repeatedly said was,

it's not in our troops' best interest. It's not in America's best interest, but also said time and again, it's not in Donald Trump's best interest. It's not in Donald Trump's best interest because he doesn't have the experience to do this. He's going to bumble around, he's going to make mistakes. This was a very vivid, this was the sort of thing that I was concerned about and a lot of people were concerned about. I mean, imagine, because you can't imagine.

Imagine Bob Gates doing this. Oh my God. Imagine because you can't imagine Leon Panetta doing this. You just can't, you cannot imagine it. Well, there's a lot of things happening here in the response, John Meacham. First of all, the muddling, the attacking, actually the reporter himself, all these crisscrossing excuses, I think takes away from the first problem which Richard pointed out, which was this was handled on a completely inappropriate app, let alone including the editor of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.

And I'm trying to think if there's any precedent for managing a scandal or an embarrassment or whatever you would call this, a major breach, in a way, I guess it's effective because they do this, this, this, look here, look there, look there, and people forget what the real problem is? Is that what's happening here? Well, you know, I was, as I was listening to the conversation, I was thinking, okay, what clever thing can I say? This is as if Abraham Lincoln had told Matthew Brady what we were going to do at Antietam,

right? Or whatever. You know, that's what I was thinking. I was about to say it. However, however, what this really is and the reaction to it and the clip you showed is

a clear case study. It's a symptom of the deeper condition, which is that basically the 49.9% of people who thought this was a good idea to do again Really have enabled an organization a culture as Willie pointed out That has no capacity apparently for shame

And if you have no capacity for shame, then you don't have any incentive to learn, to go to what Joe was saying. For them, it's a genuine autocracy. And what matters to them is that they are right and they are powerful. And I would love to think that this is somehow going to shift a dynamic. I fear it won't. And here's one further sign of what President Trump has done to the political culture within 60 seconds of reading Jeffrey's remarkable essay, I started thinking, this is how they're going to attack him. And I was 90% right in my head.

I didn't think of the thing about somehow your number isn't your number. But I was thinking, oh, here's what they'll say. They'll say he should have identified himself immediately. And he is a globalist who was endangering national security. And it just shifted around. And what worried me about myself, since we're going to have a little therapy this morning,

is instead of focusing on whether this could have cost American lives in a military operation, I was already thinking about the tactics that were going to be used to make everybody move on. And I just think this is make everybody move on. And I just think this is what we've chosen to do, what a dispositive plurality of Americans chose to do. And the most important thing we can do, it seems to me, is we can choose not to. And it begins with everyone who wakes up this morning and thinks about, if you had a son or a daughter in the United States military and they were part of a projected force around the world and their safety was in question, their lives were endangered by processes that are, as

Richard was saying, are, we can't even, to call them woefully inadequate is an insult to everything that's woefully inadequate. I would be deeply, deeply outraged. And I suspect that those folks won't particularly be. But the hope we have here, the hope we have here is that enough of us say, ah, it's not what we need, not what we want. And that's the one we know about. You know, I mean, the thing is, and it is what we know about.

I mean, again, Wall Street Journal editorial page talking about how, again, the fact that this signal messaging was with Witkoff in Moscow, said it was security malpractice, suggesting once again that this is their words, that he's out of his depth in dealing with world crisis. Had another op-ed columnist very loyal to the Trump administration saying for the Wall Street Journal saying you know maybe this will it didn't quite use the words humble them but maybe this will make them slow down and stop being so

focused on breaking stuff the National Review coming in again demanding accountability for this and I I take and I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Richard touched on it, one of the greatest problems with this terrible security breach is the security breach itself. But beyond that, the message, the lasting, the message and the lasting damage that it does for our European allies to see, as Richard said, behind the scenes, the contempt that they have for allies that stood shoulder to shoulder with us to defeat Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It's pretty stunning.

There will be lasting damage from this. And again, I just, I understand what everybody's saying about what the Trump administration is doing. This is not good for them politically. In a case like this, there are people who voted for Donald Trump, who have children in the Trump, who have children in the military, who have loved ones in the military, who understand what a mistake this

was and trying to blame a reporter that you put in on the group chat is not going to get it done. And you sort of saw that from Laura Ingraham last night in the interview there. It's not going to get it done. And you sort of saw that from Laura Ingraham last night in the interview there. It's not gonna get it done. And by the way, when you have things like this piling up, you start getting election results like we saw last night in a Senate race in Pennsylvania that's a plus 15 Trump district

that McCormick won the Senate race by by 22 percentage points that the incumbent Republican didn't even have a challenger two years ago are in 22 and he loses the election. He loses the election. Democrats win in a deep red part of Pennsylvania in Lancaster County. Why? Because of these unforced errors. Sean Meacham, thank you very much for coming on this morning and coming up. President Trump's nominee to oversee the Social Security Administration

faced tough questions from lawmakers yesterday. We'll take a look at what happened during that confirmation hearing. Plus, in Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians take part in a rare anti-Hamas protest that will have the latest from the region. Also ahead, top Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Congressman Jim Himes and Senator Mark Warner, join us with their reaction to the Trump administration's signal chat fallout. Morning Joe is back in 90 seconds.

Just about half past the hour. Time now to take a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Hundreds of Gazans took to the streets yesterday to demonstrate against the terror group Hamas, which has ruled over the territory and its people since 2007. The rare public demonstration comes hours after Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for firing rockets into Israel from northern Gaza. Last week, Israel resumed its offensive against Hamas after a weeks-long ceasefire brought home multiple hostages taken captive by Hamas in 2023.

And Richard, very telling. I mean, this is, Hamas is a terrorist group and also an autocracy that would kill any opponents of their regime. Very interesting that now, very unpopular among Palestinians in Gaza, very interesting now they're finally feeling like they can go out, protest against Hamas without being shot in the back of the head or pushed off a building. Great to see. It'll be interesting to see whether this catches, whether this builds a kind of momentum.

Also, you swish some of the people out there protesting this country would remember the fact that Hamas ran Gaza for close to two decades. And what do they have to show for it? A dictatorship. Exactly. They ran the place into the ground. And that is what we're beginning to see. It's some of the pent- the ground. And that is what we're beginning to see. It's some of the pent up frustration.

All right. The Washington, D.C. Health Department is warning about the potential exposure of measles after a person infected with the virus traveled within the district while they were contagious. The individual rode an Amtrak train on March 19th and walked through the concourse at Union Station. Health officials say the Capitol has high vaccination rates for measles, so the chance of an outbreak is very low. John, we talked about this the other day. We had been gooped on. The question is, what's

Bobby Kennedy Jr. saying about this? Is he like saying, get pixie dust and like run through daffodils and roll down a hill three times? Or is he actually saying, get the vaccine? He has largely- By the way, for the record, for those of you that don't know, we eliminated measles by the turn of the century. This nonsense has brought it back. The anti-vax nonsense has brought measles back. Is Bobby Kennedy Jr. saying, get the vaccine?

Bobby Kennedy Jr. has been largely MIA. He's been a pretty invisible member of this cabinet at this point, but when he has spoken, no, he has not said that. Measles had eradicated, now has come back. We're seeing this outbreak in Texas, a few other states now. Looks like at least one case in Washington, D.C.

And he has, Kennedy has supported these alternative theories with no science behind them. And he, for years, of course, has been so skeptical of vaccinations and that theory has taken hold, and so many on the right were seeing those vaccination rates drop, infections rise.

He talks about nutrition, live a good life, get outside, eat well, and he won't get measles. Also, by the way, the Washington Post has new reporting this morning that the federal government is putting in charge now, they've deputized someone to look at, again, the connection between autism and vaccines, which has long been disproved over

decades of medical science that comes from the top from Bobby Kennedy, a skeptic. Okay and one more news story here. YouTube took the number one spot last month when it comes to where most people are watching TV. The service accounted for 11.6% of all TV use in the country. That's an all-time high for YouTube and the second time it has topped the list of distributors. Is Highland still with us? And Barnacles here. Highland, you remember, you remember, of course, the extraordinarily famous line in Time magazine,

I've seen the future of rock and roll, and it is Bruce Springsteen. I think we can say that about YouTube and media. I mean, YouTube and media just continues to explode, and the numbers people are getting are off the charts. Off the charts, Joe, and, you know, there's this, the unraveling of the old world of media has been, you know been a striking thing over the last 20 years. And the question has kind of been what's going to rise up in its place because obviously

there are still lots of people consuming a lot of media and consuming a lot of video. And these numbers that YouTube continues to generate on behalf of small organizations and the individual creator economy, it's got a kind of parallel in the sub-stack world in terms of print, in terms of text. It's an astonishing thing. It's obviously giving people access to all the world's video clips was a big first step, but it turns out that YouTube has a second

and even bigger life potentially as a platform for, as a viable economic platform for a new structure for the business. For live events, and you're certainly seeing some crazy numbers out of London. Piers Morgan is actually using this, and I think he's leaving traditional television. He's doing these YouTube events where he'll have Douglas Murray and Mehdi Hasan debate Middle East issues and they will just go at it and the numbers are driving up there.

I would say something else that's actually moved me, I say I'm not on social media, but you know, acts, threads, a lot of these things, just so angry. I'm just not going to wait into it. Sometimes even Instagram, you know, show a picture of a baby. He goes, oh yeah, well, why did you? How do you vote in 1972? It's your... You know, it's like, okay, whatever. That's one of the great things and I think YouTube is benefiting from just the rage and the anger on so many other social media platforms. Ah, come on, man.

I wanna look at some videos. Especially X. I mean, I don't, I have an account, but I don't use it anymore. Instagram's much better. I advise you not to read the comments. That's always good advice. But as you know very well,

I'm a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old. My son just watches YouTube. I mean, that's, I honestly don't think my children know where the clicker for the cable is. Their instinct is they just go on and they go to whatever the streaming service of choice is. If we're watching the NCAA tournament, you find CBS and TVS and all those.

So sports. I'll say something else we don't talk about that much also is like Reddit. We don't talk about it much here is like Reddit. We don't talk about it much here, but Instagram and Reddit, we'll be watching a game and I'll be getting a, you know, there'll be a 15 and out pass route and, you know, Jack was saying, yeah, you know, they say that. I'm like, where are you getting this? And it's Reddit and it's just, it's pretty, that's fascinating. Social media platform.

But again, away from just the absolute hatred of some of the social media platforms. You know, absolutely fascinated about all of this. And this is so on top of it all. Who's that? Mike Barnacle. Space Age Whiz Kid. Actually, I am. I know a couple of younger people. Yeah, very well versed in social media.

Yeah. And what do they tell you they claim that in the snap of a finger a lot of TV programs that were used to watching on yeah things like MSNBC CBS whatever it's all gonna be on YouTube it's all gonna be a new game you're point Willie the Barnacle boys are right yeah no all right I don't know you know oh I Oh, I totally think so. Television is the new television, as they say. And it'll be on YouTube. We'll see. Yeah, could be. Television is television on YouTube.

That's where it's going. Why would you want to deal with the cord and the boxes and the bills and no? Where are we? Jeez, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we are, we I do? Well, I mean, we met at the beginning of your chat. She's on her own. Oh, I realize now the problem. I completely disagree with her. I completely disagree with her. Well said, well said. Well, I will say, the reason why you need the box,

the reason why you need it. Two things. And we all know this, and I'm not the only one who said this. Sports news. Yes. It's like, that is what still you talk to anybody in the media, things and we all know this and I'm not the one who said this sports or news is like that's what that is what still you talk to anybody in the in media and they say people people keep it because they need news and I need sports yes yeah that's when I was sports are moving in the streaming direction yeah yeah it's

all but I don't want to go to Ruby or Tubi or whatever to watch Pardon the Interrupt. I'm going to ESPI. Sorry. Okay. He's trying to save me here. Anyhow, coming up, people agree with me. It's really, really hard.

We'll turn back the fallout over the Trump administration's signal group chat and the national security threat this poses. A retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General will join us to discuss his key takeaways ahead. Hey! group chat and the national security threat this poses a retired US Army Lieutenant General will join us to discuss his key takeaways ahead. Hey! Look, it's coming! Mika's gonna get kicked out of her penthouse today. 43. Past the hour live, look at the White House as the sun has yet to come up over Washington.

New reporting from the Washington Post reveals the strain the Social Security Administration is feeling under cuts led by Elon Musk. The agency delivers $1.5 trillion a year in earned benefits to 73 million Americans. According to The Post, poor customer service, website crashes, and long phone wait times have now become commonplace after the agency pushed out more than 12 percent of its staff. Doge's mission is to find benefits. Fraud has also reportedly become a top priority.

Despite evidence, the problem is overstated. Meanwhile, President Trump's nominee to lead the Social Security Administration faced questions about Doge's work during his confirmation hearing yesterday. Take a look. I think common sense would suggest that when it's bad now, you don't lay off half your staff. Would you agree with me?

I believe that we can drive efficiency for the rest of our life. I also understand that it takes 20 plus minutes to answer the phone. On a good day. Right. Well that's the average published, right? It's not how I would report the numbers because I think. All right, but all I'm asking, when you have a system that is not working now, do you think it's a great idea to lay off half of the employees? I don't know if, do I think it's a great idea to lay off half of the employees when I don't know if, do I think it's a great idea to lay off half of the employees when a system doesn't work?

I think the answer is probably no. Do you believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? I believe it's a promise to pay. It's an 89-year institution so far. It will continue. Yes or no, do you think it's a Ponzi scheme? It's a promise to pay. If you are confirmed in this job, Will you commit to reversing these cuts?

So that seniors get the money that the law says they are entitled to What I will commit to is that I will run the agency and I will be in charge of the agency And I will look at every item you want me to look at. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you just answered the previous questions by saying you would follow the law. The law is to deliver the benefits that people are legally entitled to. If you don't have the staff, if you don't answer the phones, if you don't fix the mistakes, people don't get what they're legally entitled to.

So I want to know, are you willing to commit right now that you will put enough people back to work so they can do the job of delivering the benefits that Americans earned? Yes or no? I will commit to have the right staffing to get their job done. To get their job done, meaning delivering the benefits people are entitled to? Yes. I'm going to hold you to that. So, John Heilman, there's so much I don't understand here.

Simple country lawyer and all that stuff, but even I understand that social security is the third rail of American politics, touch it and die, and yet, you keep hearing about cuts, by the taking away of phone service. I'm already hearing complaints when people are having trouble with Social Security on a personal level, not being able to get through to anybody.

They're talking about shutting down centers. You've got the billionaire head of the Commerce Department saying that any senior that doesn't get their Social Security checks are fraudsters, basically just suck it up like his mother does. He's a billionaire. And then you've got Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, calling it a Ponzi scheme while they're talking about slashing Social Security administration. Again, this makes no political sense.

What's going on? Well, Joe, you know, the same question, I would say, could have been asked and was asked back at the beginning of George W. Bush's second term when a lot of people in 2005 said that, hey, you know, talking about partial privatization of Social Security is going to backfire on your administration. And yet a bunch of smart people in the Bush administration decided to go forward with that. And that was, as you will recall, the beginning of the unraveling of George W. Bush's second

term, of his presidency, really. It is nuts to think that, to not understand the political equities in play here. But I do think that of all the things that you just rattled off there, the central thing is that is... And I will say, Donald Trump, one thing that has been consistent with Donald Trump from the time he entered political life has always been seemingly to understand this. He's consistently always said, never touch the social security, never going to go there, never, never, never, never, never.

Only now the guy who he's vested so much power in, Elon Musk, has sort of given the game away. And by saying the things he said, not just, I mean, most flagrantly when he called it a posse scheme, but all of his discussion of it seems to be exhibited total ignorance about what the program means to people, what its history has been, and how politically freighted it is to try to tinker with it or mess with it or even miss a single... You're talking about these micro examples of making it harder for someone to get their checks, someone missing an individual check. These are the kinds of things that bring down political careers and I think it's just

one of the most glaring signs of how politically ill-adept Elon Musk is and does not seem to have been chastised at all by the experience so far. So I think we have to wonder what the long-term game here is and if it is to try to undermine the system in the way that rhetorically Trump has done in that speech to Congress and so on, that could be pointing the direction towards real political disaster for Donald Trump's second term in office. Like one in five Americans get Social Security. 20% of people living in this country get Social Security.

A lot of people believe this man we saw yesterday who was a CEO of Pfizer, a financial services company, is seeking in some manner to privatize it. Social Security is a goal of some people in this country for a long time. But this gets at a philosophical debate, which is that this administration believes bringing in people from the private sector, Elon Musk, the most prominent of them, who know how to shake things up, who know how to trim fat, who know how to streamline and make more efficient these programs, coming in and applying to a small-ish company, not a small company but relative to the size of the federal government, a company and see what they can do with Social Security, what they

can do with USAID, you can go down the list. Willie, I can guarantee you that Elon Musk has absolutely zero sense of what a Social Security check for $375 means to an elderly couple living largely off of Social Security. None, zero. And the other aspect of Elon Musk involved in this is he's fooling around with Social Security.

Bernie Sanders introduced this segment. He comes from a rural state. He's been there forever. He knows more about that state and the people in that state than I think most United States senators know about the people they represent. And he knows that when they close a Social Security office in Burlington, Vermont or whatever, you're going to get two old people in a car driving 60 miles another hour to find another Social Security

office that might be open. Phones, forget it. You can't get anybody in the phone. This is an item that is going to hemorrhage in terms of Trump's weakness. It's going to hemorrhage. Yeah. Richard? Let's make another point.

People in business live in a world where if you get one big thing right, it can offset getting nine smaller things wrong, and you still have a net profit. Government works the opposite way. You can get most things right, but if you get certain things wrong, it can come back to really bite you and hound you. Say the phone system at Social Security. So the people who are basically trying to shake up Social Security to increase its efficiency, in the process they're going to make massive mistakes and the political system has no tolerance

for those. This will not work. Richard Haas, John Hellman. And veterans benefits. Absolutely. Very different culture. The VA, yeah. People depend on it.

Thank you both very much for being on this morning and still ahead on Morning Jow. There was no classified material that was shared in that signal check. So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee. You can't have it both ways. These are important jobs. This is our national security. Was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system? I don't recall specific weapons systems being named.

Democratic senators, Mark Kelly and Mark Warner with tough questions yesterday. Actually, not so tough. For Intel chiefs, Tulsi Gabbard and John Radcliffe. Both senators will be our guest this morning. We'll also speak with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Ranking Member of the House Intel Committee, Congressman Jim Himes. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Isn't Trump decided to send JD Vance's wife, Usha, to Greenland to meet with their realtor,

I guess? I don't know why, but when they asked about it during a cabinet meeting yesterday, it didn't seem like Trump could quite remember her name. Greenland is confused about the second lady in the National Security Advisor visiting this week. I thought it would be great. I have great respect for the wife of our first,

of our great vice president. I think she's doing a, she's a brilliant woman. She's a very nice woman. And she loves the concept of Greenland. Yeah, well, you know, who doesn't? She loves the concept of Greenland. I've always said that about her. Whatever her name is, she loves the concept of Greenland.