Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/28/25

Episode Date: April 28, 2025

'Very bad news' for Trump: Approval sinks, Dems lead on generic midterm ballot

The children aren't deported. The mother chose to take the children with her. When you enter the country illegally and you know you're here illegally and you choose to have your assistant child, that's on you. That's not on this administration. If you choose to put your family in that position, that's on them. But having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-jail-free card.

It doesn't make you immune from our laws. Those Donald Trump supporters are Tom Homan responding to questions about a four-year-old American citizen with cancer who was sent to Honduras on his mother's deportation flight. We're gonna have a lot more on that story, what the administration's saying and also what the family's lawyers are saying ahead. It comes as the president's approval rating is dropping to historic lows after 100 days and office. We're gonna go through several new polls that have been out

this morning and over the weekend. Also, Secretary of State Marco Rubio says this could be critical week for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. A lot to get there to their David Ignatius is gonna be with us. Good morning. Welcome to morning Joe. It's Monday, April 28th. We hope you had a good weekend with us. We've got co-hosts of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's a contributing writer at The Atlantic, covering the White House and national politics.

Also a Liverpool fan, a Celtics fan, and a Boston Red Sox fan. A good weekend for John. Also the host of Pablo Torre finds out, the man who predicted that Sanders would go number one in the draft. MSNBC contributor Pablo Torre, also co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Hei, who's Green Bay host to the whole event, also staff writer for The Atlantic, Ashley Parker, who's going to tell us what kind of hug Jeffrey Goldberg and Donald Trump engaged in when they went into the White House to interview the president. I don't think we're going to hear about a hug.

She's a co-author of the magazine's latest issue out just this morning, which features a new interview with President Trump. Actually, we always talk sports first. We always talk sports first on a Monday morning. But do I understand right that when you went into the White House, Jeffrey was also there with you? Yeah, that's right. It was our second interview actually with the president for this cover story that's out in the Atlantic today. And we were called for the second interview, which was the only one in the Oval Office. At the absolute last minute, the story had actually already gone to press.

Michael and I, Michael Shear and I, who were writing the story were called in, and then an aide to the president said, oh, and by the way, you know, Donald Trump says that if Jeff Goldberg would like to join, he is welcome to. So the three of us went in, and we didn't know what to expect because, of course, the president has attacked

all three of us by name, on social media, reserving a lot of his ire in particular for Jeff, in part most recently because of the Signalgate story. But, yes, we went in. We were promised 20 minutes minutes and we sat and interviewed President Trump for an hour. That sounds about right. So we'll get to the news of it all, but provide us color. What was it like when Jeffrey got into the White House with the President? So you know, as you know, Joe, Donald Trump is someone who

often is trying to win the minute, the hour, the day, the person directly in front of him. And that afternoon, Jeff Goldberg, my boss, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, was one of the people directly in front of him. And the president was the version of himself that can be incredibly front of him. And the president was the version of himself that can be incredibly charismatic and charming. And he was very much oriented, you know, as Jeff, myself, my colleague and co-author, Michael Shearer.

But Donald Trump was very much oriented towards Jeff Goldberg trying to win him over, trying to get him to understand about his presidency, about his plan. And I think, you know, people would be surprised based on everything Donald Trump has said publicly about all of us. But this this particular interaction was a respectful one. Yeah, it's fascinating. But you are so right. You talk to most anybody

in the press that certainly, you know, we all know it here that that you've got what the president will say on X, what the president will say publicly. And then if he's trying to to make points, then it'll be it'll be quite different interaction. We're going to get to all the details and the timing. We're so grateful for you being with us this morning because the timing is going to be fascinating to see what his take is, the president's take is right now, especially with some of the poll numbers

that came out this weekend. And we're gonna get to these poll numbers. They are, Jonathan Lemire, they are low. They are historically low. The White House's opinion is, you know what, we'd prefer good polls to bad polls, but we did a lot in the first 100 days. We secured the border.

We shook up the international trade deal. The next 100 days, we believe we're gonna have, you know, trade deals and budget deals and peace deals and all this will turn around. That's sort of their attitude. So we'll get to these numbers. I find there's so much that's fascinating about these numbers, and it's not really just the president's numbers. It's also numbers on issues, also the Democrats' numbers. I mean, this is bad news for the president, but it's not like any Democrat reading these

polls and what Americans think about Democrats are going to be striking up a verse of happy days are here again for the Democratic Party. And I think you're starting to sense that where you have Governor Pritzker going out lambasting the Democrats this past weekend as do nothing Democrats. So it's a situation where the polling is very bad for the president, very bad on the issues, very bad for Republicans in generic polls, and also not so great for Democrats. Yeah we're starting to see some more energy on the Democratic side. We've noted the Bernie Sanders AOC tour and the big crowds that's gathering but there's still a sense of sort

of internal dissension and a lot of finger pointing post-November. What went wrong then but also more importantly what is our message now and we're seeing no sense of agreement on that. And more and more Democrats. And the brand, and the brand, if you look at these numbers, again, I understand the headline. There's no doubt the headline is Donald Trump's low numbers here, and they are historically low. Again, though, it's fascinating that you see the energy out there, but you look at these

polls and you also see that the it's not just about infighting. The Democratic brand remains pretty low and suggests that they've got a tremendous opportunity to walk through this door that's opening up for them. I'm not sure if they know how to do it yet. Yeah, I talked to a prominent Democrat over the weekend who said to me, I'm not sure what we stand for right now. I'm not sure what this party is. It can't just be opposing Donald Trump. And they've been successful at that. We'll get into that in a moment. But there is an opportunity,

but there's also sort of real dissent here, confusion as to just what should be the message, what should be the message, what should be the brand, what should be their identity going forward. But I think there is a sense of Democrats now, they found their footing in terms of resisting Donald Trump in part because of what Donald Trump has done himself. And we're seeing these poll numbers. Tomorrow marks 100 days for Trump in office.

And he is ringing that in with some very low marks. Let's go through some of them. Starting with a new ABC News Washington Post poll, which finds just that 39% of Americans approve of the way Trump is doing his job. That's compared to 55% who disapprove. Back in February, mind you, those numbers were 45% positive and 53% negative. Trump's approval rating in this poll is lower than any past president at the 100-day mark of their first or second term.

So this is historically low for President Trump. According to the Washington Post, Trump has seen a decline of 10 points among white people without a college degree, who of course are a key part of his political coalition. Trump's also down 13 points among adults who are under the age of 30. The Post also notes that Trump is underwater among independents, a group that he just narrowly lost back in November. Among that voting block, 33% approve of his job handling, while 58% disapprove. Let's dive into the issues now.

Some of the top ones. More than three out of four voters oppose reducing federal funding for medical research. Seven in 10 oppose the administration's efforts to increase the government's role in how private universities operate. Two thirds of voters oppose Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

And more than six in 10 oppose shutting down the education department, cutting back environmental regulations, and freezing foreign aid that provides food and healthcare to poor countries. Those are all, of course, we've seen major parts of the first hundred days. But overall, voters said they trust Trump more than Democrats in Congress when it comes to handling the country's main problems. When it comes to the economy, Trump's approval stands at 39% who approve versus 61% who disapprove. Just two months ago, before announcing his sweeping tariff policy, 45% approved, while 53% disapproved. It's worth noting that President Biden's economic approval rating was 37% about a year ago.

Another poll finds that President Trump is underwater as he approaches his 100th day in office. According to the latest New York Times Siena College poll, 42% of voters approve of the job Trump is doing while 54% disapprove. Those numbers are even more troubling among independents, just 29% approve while 66 disapprove. Looking at specific issues in this poll, the president's pursuit of widespread tariffs

as opposed to 55% of voters and 63% of independents. Trump's also underwater on the issues of immigration, managing the federal government, the economy, trade, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And if the 2026 midterms were held today, voters would back the Democrat over the Republican candidate in their district by seven points. According to a new Fox News poll of registered voters, Democrats led Republicans 49% to 42% on the congressional generic ballot. Those results are similar to April 2017, which of course during Trump's first term in office,

and are the largest lead for Democrats since October of 2018. Democrats are mostly ahead due to being preferred by voters under the age of 30, 60% to 33% and by independents by a 2 to 1 margin, 40% to 18%. Joe, we also, there's a series of polls that came out this week and one from Reuters had Trump's approval rating down to just 37%. But it is a, taken together, it is a snapshot here at the 100day mark a hundred-day mark that the Trump administration we've talked to senior officials who thought they really started strong they were getting out there right getting their agenda done they liked where they were and they've seen here particularly in the last month to six weeks on issues issues that are

supposed to be his strengths immigration and then namely the economy he's taken real hits and now he's historically underwater. Well, and you've talked about this in your reporting in the White House. You've talked about the fact that they felt like everything was going their way, that signal gate was really sort of a switch and then got hit by a series of things that have just cumulatively added up. Of course, the stock market that's gone down, they will say, well, it's up to $40,000 now. NASDAQ's had a better April. But again, a lot of things that have been

hitting over the past couple of weeks. Jim Vanke, these numbers, there are not outliers. You have the Washington Post, he's at 39 percent. The AP, the president's at 39 percent. Pew, the president's at 40 percent. Reuters, he's down to 37 percent. So very bad news for the president. You also look at the generic ballot test from Fox News. Looks like that's very bad news for Republicans. And then, Jim, then though, the same poll that shows Democrats are up in the generic ballot test shows that Democrats, the brand is as low as ever as far as approval

ratings. And then on the economy, where Donald Trump is doing worse than he's ever done before, John just read that the Democrats are minus seven against Donald Trump on who Americans trust more on the economy. So there's a lot to sort through there for Donald Trump, for Republicans and the Democrats. What stands out to you? Well, first off, if it's one poll, you can say it's anomaly. You cited about six of them.

So you can assume that the general direction is correct. The fact that Democrats are a hot mess, I don't think is new. They are a hot mess. They will be a hot mess until they have some levers of power. They don't have the House, they don't have the Senate, they don't have the White House. They don't have a lot of support among CEOs right now. And that's usually the reality of a team that's been wiped out in an election. So I'd sort of put that on one side.

If I'm Trump and I'm President Trump, I'd be really worried, right, that if in a short period of time on the issues where you were strongest, the economy and immigration, you're seeing a massive dip. And what should be even more troubling is that directionally, if you really dig into those polls, the American people support what he's trying to do on immigration and in theory support what he's trying to do on trade, they don't like the chaos. They don't like the absence of due process. And so I don't think it was actually Signalgate that sort of turned things internally.

It was very much the tariff fight, because the entire public dialogue has been about companies that are now confused, thinking about not hiring people, some sporadic layoffs, and a lot of predictions that we are in a recession or headed into a recession, and that inflation could come along with that. That's always what troubles voters the most. And if he can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and somehow, with all those companies that he's imposed tariffs on, strike deals relatively quickly in a pretty orderly process, it's going to be really, really hard to reverse the economic effect of that.

There's not a single company that anybody is talking to that is not talking about pausing jobs, cutting jobs, and dealing with mass uncertainty throughout the year. That's a bad mood for corporate America to be in because these decisions take a long time to put in motion and a long time To reverse and so they know they've got to get these tariffs deals, right? And there's a lot of concern internally a lot more than than is let out into the public about how they've handled this They know this was a problem of their own making there was a different way to handle the tariffs a different way to handle China and now they're having to scramble to do a bunch of deals, and they don't have great infrastructure in place to do multiple deals simultaneously. Now, Ashley, what did you learn in your interview

with the president regarding tariffs, the economy, and also, as Jim pointed to, the view among many Americans that it's chaotic inside the White House. So on tariffs in particular, we asked the president about this idea on Wall Street of a so-called put-put, which is a sense that there is basically a red line that the president cannot stomach the economy falling below. And that could be a number of things. That could be the devaluation of the dollar. That could be markets plummeting. That could be the threat of a recession or a recession.

That could be the bond market. And the idea is that if something like this happens or is about to happen, the president will pull back on what he plans to do with tariffs. And this idea is sort of reassuring to Wall Street because they believe that it shows like what happened last time will happen again when this 90-day pause is up, that he won't actually crater the economy in his effort for tariffs. And what the president said essentially was, no, there is no red line for me there is no certain number I pay a little bit of attention to that but he said you know this is something tariffs the idea and you've heard him talk about it

that America is getting a bad deal that America is getting taken advantage of this is something I have believed in my gut for 35 to 40 years. And there is no sort of you know clear thing where if it happens I will pull back now again this is what he said to us in the interview this doesn't actually mean that this is what he will do if there is a threat of a recession or if prices are going up because of his tariffs but in this moment

when we put it to him quite clearly, this is what he said. Yeah. And I mean, you're exactly right. He's believed this for 3540 years. It has been one of the driving is driving beliefs and the economy that we're constantly getting ripped off. So let's keep digging into these polls and bring in right now the president of the progressive public opinion research firm Impact Research, Molly Murphy. Molly, thank you so much for being with us. We've talked about, obviously, you poll for Democrats, so feel free to jump in and talk about Democrats and how they still are upside down regardless of the bad news for Donald Trump. But I wanted to start by talking about, you know, we talked about democracy, we talked to all these things during the campaign, we talked about these general concepts, we talked

about other issues. And afterwards, I'm speaking just for us in the media, we were lectured. You guys, you didn't understand it was the price of butter. It was the price of eggs. So we're sitting here talking about all of these things that are driving the president's poll numbers down, including Rayo Garcia. He's upside down significantly on that issue.

He's upside down on so many other issues. But I wonder how much is it, I mean, the economy, the same thing that at the end drove Joe Biden's numbers out and may have prevented Kamala Harris from winning the election. I think it is, it starts with the economy, other issues then can pile onto it, but it really is the economy. Voters'

approval of the economy has not improved a single tick since he took office. And that alone is not enough to necessarily drive down his approval ratings on the issue. Voters are aware that it takes time, that these problems were deep. A lot of the voters who especially took a chance on him hadn't supported him in the past they were really focused on this they're willing to give new presidents a chance here but the problem with what is driving down Donald Trump's numbers right now are the things he owns in this economy. So some of the numbers that you haven't run through that were in part of

these polls to me is the why of why did these numbers go down especially on the economy, especially on dealing with trade you did show 55% of Americans oppose the tariffs 72% of Americans think we are headed towards a recession but the end of that sentence is significant here due to Trump's policies so it's ownership of that it is not something that he is happens to be in the White House if it happens it is because of his policies 50% of Americans say that they are worse off because

of Trump's economic policies right now and so if this was just the economy he inherited I would suspect that his numbers might have a little bit more resilience instead of seeing this rapid decline that we've seen now the other things you pointed out certainly are not helpful to him in this, but I look at things like bypassing Congress, ignoring the courts, the way he's handling the tumult and chaos as almost like a secondary offense. It's a seatbelt law.

If everything else is going really well, people are going to forgive some of the process of how it happens. But if they are not happy with that core, the price of butter, the price of eggs, what they think the future holds for them, all of a, those things serve as a bit of a pylon. Yeah. And you know, Jonathan, that is such a great point. These issues that whether you talk about the rule of law, the president appearing to be defiant to courts, you look at Abrego Garcia, you look at a lot of other things that have happened over the

first 100 days, and that's showing up in polls as well. Americans very concerned about the rule of law, very concerned about judges' orders being followed. But as Molly said, that is sort of a pile on to the underlying it's the economy stupid approach that you know we've heard about since James Carville. Right these are inherently American values and beliefs and we're seeing these polls suggest that there's some anger that they're being violated but that perhaps that would have taken a backseat were the economy humming along. It's such a cliche, but it's true.

Most voters, it's kitchen table issues first and foremost, and then we go from there. And that's where Trump, who was elected, let's remind everyone, elected to deal with that. And he's falling short, at least for these first hundred days. So Molly, let's flip this a little bit here and talk about where the Democrats are. The polling suggests that though that generic ballot, yes, they'd be favored over Republicans in a midterm election, but there's still not a lot of positivity around the brand right now about its identity coming off of the election defeat in November and the search for what they stand for now.

What are you seeing as you look over these numbers? Yeah. I mean, I see the same warning signs for Democrats. And I do think Jim's point is well taken and we've seen it after any losing election. The party that has lost does sort of have the, in the wilderness period as voters, as the party, as, you know, sort of everyone takes a beat and considers the implications of what's just happened.

So to some degree, I think that there is a normalcy to this low point. you know, sort of everyone takes a beat and considers the implications of what's just happened. So to some degree, I think that there is a normalcy to this low point. And some of the numbers are also driven by Democrats themselves being critical of the party, which you do see happen after a loss. But some of the pieces underneath it that I think are important to be mindful of is that seven point deficit, despite the president's overall weakened approval rating on the economy, in handling the most important issues facing the country. 69% of Americans also don't believe that Democrats are in touch with the issues facing their

lives. And really, the brand right now is one that stands in opposition to Donald Trump, but not necessarily why. If you want to stand against the president, if you want to stand against the opposition party, you should have a fairly clear vision statement for why are these things bad and what comes next? What do you get if you, in the generic context, if you in the midterms put your faith in Democrats? Now, I think this is also, it's hard to rebrand an entire party.

You've got different individual Democrats out there who are kind of staking this out. And I think in the time you're going to see more and more, you know, sort of galvanizing behind some of these leaders coming through. All right, President of Impact Research, Molly Murphy, thank you so much for being with us. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you. All right. And still ahead, President Trump meets with Ukrainian President Zelensky during the funeral for Pope Francis and later threatens Vladimir Putin with new sanctions.

We're going to get expert analysis on the effort to end the war in Ukraine. Coming up next with David Ignatius, we're back in 90 seconds. Hey, welcome back to Morning Joe. Hope you're having a good Monday morning. Get ready for the new week. Let's bring Ashley back in. Ashley, you had two discussions with the president, along with Michael, back in March. And the second one, as you've said, if people are just waking up, second one,

were you and Michael and also Jeffrey Goldberg went in to the White House to talk to the president. Now this was obviously post-Signalgate. I'm curious, what did the president have to say about Pete Hegseth and whether his confidence had been shaken at all by the events of the last month. Sure. And I should just say it was two conversations and actually one late night, 1.28 a.m. butt dial from the president.

But two times we spoke with him. And on Hegseth, that was interesting. We asked, right, this is the moment where Hegseth has rotated out his chief of staff. He's fired three top advisors. There's news reports of his wife, who is not a defense department official, joining him in official meetings. You know, a story that he had installed a makeup room in the Pentagon. And what the president said was, look, I had to talk with him.

It was a, I did it in a positive way, but I had to talk with him and I think he's going to get his act together All right Pablo, yeah, yeah Joe and Ashley I I've been trying to find a through line through the poll numbers and also Ashley's reporting and It seems to me that the thing the Democrats might want to point out is that America feels like the Cleveland Browns right now. There are a lot of the hallmarks, a lot of the hallmarks of how an abysmal franchise operates. One of them is, of course, the win-loss record, which would be the economy. That obviously still to come how bad those numbers can get. But the other hallmark of a dysfunctional franchise in any industry, of course, is how the number one guy doesn't want to take ownership for the decisions of the people that

work directly for him. That is another big warning sign. And historically, of course, this administration, you wonder, okay, how long is the tolerance going to be when you're playing defense around your own offense? And so, Ashley, just how does he talk about whether it's the courts, whether it's certainly signal gate, but the courts in particular, can you describe the gap that he's trying to put himself in that's separate and apart actually from the people directly working for him when it comes to the judiciary? So the courts was actually fascinating because in both conversations, we asked him, you know,

would, because he and his vice president have sort of hinted at this, would you defy a judicial ruling? And both times the president was adamant that you have to listen to the Supreme Court. You cannot defy the Supreme Court. And he sort of, in the first conversation, almost as a digression, not only did he say that,

but then he said, and you know what what even those justices appointed by Democrats actually I like them they're good people I see them at the state of the union and other things I do and I really have a lot of respect for them. But some of this came in the context of his experience with the courts and this is what he said to us he said look I went on appeal so he he has confidence right now that a lot of these court cases, if and when they get kicked up to the Supreme Court, will rule in his favor. And my sort of question, which is unknowable,

is will he still have such respect for the court and for the justices, and particularly the justices who he did not appoint, who were appointed by Democratic presidents, if there comes a moment where they offer their final word against President Trump and his administration. Right, but you say, Ashley, and he certainly said it inside the White House several times, that when asked,

the president said that he would follow the ruling of the Supreme Court. Yeah, absolutely. He was very clear on that in two separate conversations, separated by about a month. So Jim Van De Hei, I'm curious, what insights do you gain out of the president's interview with the Atlantic, sitting down with Ashley and Jeffrey and Michael and some of the things that you've heard here. Again, there's what the president does as far as policy goes. There's what we've heard over the past couple weeks that the president may be adjusting a bit. I wonder any indication on whether this may be the first of many sort of different tacks

towards the media? I don't think the president really ever adjusts. There's always these stories over eight years that he's kind of shifting. He's always a man in full. Like he is who he is. He's not, he's probably one of the least introspective people you're gonna talk to. He's like in his mind, a man of action. And I think the man of action thing

like gets a lot of people in his base fired up. It also can create a hell of a lot of confusion internally and externally, which he's dealing with now. I mean, listen to his credit, like he does sit down with a lot of reporters. And I think every reporter who's ever sat down with him has had the same experience that Ashley does, which is, like, he will engage. All the mean tweets and all the crap that you see on acts or social media, you see very

little of that in private. He actually will engage you. Unlike a lot of presidents, he'll ask you questions. His love language is a little bit of confrontation, so he's happy to have it. He really believes what he's doing. And I actually think the most interesting quote was that quote about Hegson saying he better get his act together. For him even to admit that his act needs to get together is something he usually doesn't

do. And he is aware that the Defense Department right now is a mess and that is a problem for him and that's ultimately when you lose a job around Trump if you start to make him look bad and he can do it on his terms and doesn't feel like he's capitulating to the press he'll make a move and I think Hexeth is clearly on a clear warning that if you don't get your act together you're're out, which probably should be the way you do it if you're losing all of your staff

and you have a lot of controversy at what is kind of an important department, the Department of Defense, kind of keeps us safe. And so you do want sane, smart leadership there. A little important, yeah. That's kind of important. That's that Midwest understatement by Jim Vandau. Yeah, you look at the quote again, That's that Midwest understatement by Jim Vande.

You look at the quote again where he's talking about that we just put up where he's talking about his conversation with Pete Hegseth because I think he's going to get it together. I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him. Yeah, it doesn't take a whole lot to read between the lines There he expects him to get his act together and soon the Atlantic's Ashley Parker. Thank you so much Her new wide-ranging interview with President Trump is now available to read Online and Jim van de Huy of Axios. Thanks for being with us. How did the Packers do? That's great, man. How cool is it to see that at Lambeau? It was really

awesome. It really was awesome. My gosh, I know. That was very, very cool. One of these days, you're gonna invite me up to Lambeau. We'll have to go to a game together. Joe, we tried to do that last year. I'd love to get you there. Lambeau wouldn't welcome it with open arms. You invite me in February, man. Like, let's do like, like when the season's over, let's go in September or early October, all right? Game on. I'm a Florida guy.

All right, game on. I'll see you there. Lambo, I mean, it is, there's nothing like it. Coming up, The Washington Post David Ignatius joins us for what could be a critical week for the war in Ukraine. Plus, look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning, including the sharp criticism of its parent company that we heard last night from CBS's 60 Minutes. Morning, Joe.

We'll be right back. What is the timeline? Are you talking weeks or months? How long are you willing to give them to reach a peace agreement? Well, I always think it's silly to set a specific date or whatever, but I can just tell you that almost 100 days into this presidency, the president has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy to this. And we think we brought the sides closer than they've been in a very long time, but we're not there yet, and it needs to start happening. We need to start—I think this is going to be a very critical week. This week is going to be a really important week in which we have to make a determination

about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in or if it's time to sort of focus on some other issues that are equally if not more important in some cases. But we want to see it happen. There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic, of course, as well. We're close, but we're not close enough. That was Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Meet the Press yesterday, weighing in on peace talks concerning the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, while in the Vatican for the Pope's funeral over the weekend, President Trump

sat down for a private meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky. In a statement, Zelensky called it, quote, a very symbolic meeting that has the potential to become historic. The talk lasted for just 15 minutes, but seemed to have a big impact on the president's view of the war. Specific details of the discussion were not made public, but just a few hours after, the president posted to Truth Social, questioning President Vladimir Putin's actions. He wrote in part this, quote, There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas,

cities and towns over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war. He's just tapping me along. President Trump continued to question Putin's motives back in the United States. I was very disappointed that missiles were flying by Russia, but that missiles were flying very disappointing. We'll see how it goes. Do you trust President Putin?

Say it again. Do you trust President Putin? I'll let you know in about two weeks. With us now, let's bring in the columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, I always remind people, and I know you've written about it before too, even in the first term the president would say glowing things about Vladimir Putin, but then go along with Republicans in Congress with some of the toughest sanctions ever against Russia.

It's fascinating. I'm wondering what you're reading in these statements that the president made over the weekend after meeting with Zelensky and where he and Ukraine go from here. So Joe, I sense that President Trump is frustrated. We saw in Rome that dramatic photograph of him and President Zelensky at the Vatican, that being a peacemediator is the biggest stage there is for a president. There's nothing quite like it.

There was a real sense of drama in that photograph. Trump does want to wrap up the deal. He's used soft carrots with Putin. He's used soft sticks with Zelensky, sometimes harder sticks. Now it's time, time clearly to reverse that. His job is to bring Russia into a ceasefire that Ukraine has already basically embraced. The Russians continue to be resistant, truculent. If you watched the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on CBS face the nation yesterday, he was

snarling in response to the moderator's questions. And as Trump and Rubio said, the next several weeks are going to show whether Russia really is prepared to enter into a process that will lead to a ceasefire. Trump thinks he's lined up the basic terms. Europeans that I talked to generally are supportive of the way the US has set up the framework. The problem is you now have to push the rest of the way. And there's no confidence yet that that push will be forthcoming. Trump can talk about putting sanctions on Russia, to push Russia the last distance towards the ceasefire.

But until we actually see that, we can't be certain it will happen. And David, let's dive deeper on that very point. There have been moments in the past where there's been a brief spasm of tough rhetoric from Trump about Putin, and it almost instantly evaporates. This is from his first term, and certainly we've heard from him in recent years, including about this war, including the Stop It Vladimir post from a few days ago. So if past is prologue, these are just words that this won't lead to anything. So let's say, what could the levers, if Trump actually does decide to follow through with

this, what are some levers he could be pulling to actually ratchet up the pressure on Russia? And please answer that in the framework of, because at least to this point, the United States has asked Russia to give up very little in these negotiations. The concessions all seem to be coming from Ukraine. So here are some examples. Trump said this past week, dramatically, after a horrific Russian missile attack on Kiev and other cities, please, Vladimir, stop. Well, suppose he does it again suppose. There's continued

Missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities as there are reports that there have been The next thing you say after you say please stop and somebody doesn't stop is you give him a whack So the president's talked about about sanctions you impose secondary sanctions countries that deal with Russia will be penalized by the United States. That I think would get Putin's attention. Maybe you announce a change in what had been the formula for US dealing with the parameters of this. There have been suggestions in the documents that have leaked that the United States would

be prepared to accept Russian de jure legal sovereignty over Crimea. Maybe you back off that and say, we're not sure we're supporting that anymore. But the next time Russia does something that's disruptive to this peace process, if the answer is silence, Trump might as well walk away because it's a sign that he's not serious about pushing the sides toward a ceasefire and an actual end of the war. Well, you know, David, you go back to what he said in 2007, the invasion of Georgia in 2008, what happened in 2014 in Crimea.

I mean, you go all the way through this invasion, this war, and you almost get a sense that Vladimir Putin has had this plan since he was burning papers in the East German embassy when the wall was falling down. I mean, do you see any evidence that he's given up any any hopes of reuniting the old Russian Empire by taking Kiv and and and and expanding westward I think For the moment the best I could say is that there's a tactical retreat from those goals

right now given the correlation of forces, Russia's not going to take Kiev, but I don't think that Putin has given up that idea. In his interview yesterday with CBS's Margaret Brennan, Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, kept coming back to root causes. He said, you're not dealing with root causes. And what I think he means by root causes is a Ukraine that's moving west toward Europe. And that's fundamentally threatening to Russia.

And you know what? That's what this war is about. And until Russia accepts the fact that Ukraine, virtually all of Ukraine, wants to be part of Europe and that Europe and the United States support that till I finally accept that I think that we're going to be stuck here. I think that's a central issue of the negotiations. So as as Trump and Rubio have said, next two weeks really will

matter in terms of whether the US is serious about putting the pressure on Putin that's necessary to make a deal. All right, The Washington Post, David Ignatius. As always, thank you so much. The U.S. is serious about putting the pressure on Putin that's necessary to make a deal. All right, The Washington Post, David Ignatius, as always, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. All right, coming up, Canadians are set to elect a new prime minister today. Politico's Jonathan Martin is writing about that and how President Trump's tariffs are playing a role in that race just to fascinate, just a remarkable turn in that race

since Mark Carney's gotten in there. He's gonna, not Mark Carney, but Jonathan Martin, even better, Jonathan's gonna join us ahead on Morning Joe. And we're gonna talk about what happened to the NFL Draft next on Morning Joe? Welcome back. A beautiful shot of Midtown Manhattan coming up on seven o'clock in the East Coast. And it is the time of the show. We start talking about sports and yes, we'll begin with a lot to get to. We're going to start with the NFL draft and it says the league is saying it's reviewing the role of the Atlanta Falcons defensive

coordinator and anything role he may have played in his son's prank call to Shador Sanders. Jeff Ulbricht's 21 year old son Jax called Sanders on the second night of the NFL draft on a phone number that only NFL teams had. The Falcons released a statement yesterday explaining that Ulbrich's son came across the phone number on his father's open iPad while visiting his parents, adding that the defensive coordinator was not aware of the situation until after it happened. Jax Ulbrich posted an apology yesterday on social media, writing that he had made

a tremendous mistake and thanked Jador Sanders for accepting his call of apology. Sanders had been one of the most high profile prospects heading into the draft, but he ended up sliding all the way to the third day, eventually going to the Cleveland Browns in the fifth round at pick 144 overall. And Joe, let's just underscore here underscore here we dive into some of the other picks in a moment, but the Sanders incident is the story of the draft this is someone who yeah a few weeks ago was thought to be a top 3 pick now to be clear that sort

of conventional wisdom around the league in the last week or so that he was going to fall out of the top 3 that he you know maybe made to late first round maybe some teams were even saying early second like that sort of work town evaluators were saying he'd still go in the first 30 to 35 picks so that was the sense and instead all the way to the fifth round it launched a series of of controversies of heated debate as to why that happened and then of course this also really unfortunate prank phone call. Yeah I mean that by the way that happened to Caleb Williams last year as

well and the kids kids took took it and showed it and Caleb Williams is very cool about it Sanders also very cool about it. I think they they need to put those numbers a whole lot better that is a horrible thing to do to somebody when with their future their life is is And what where they're gonna be going so in line, but anyway, let's push that side I want so Pablo we we have you here because you know you can tell us the story behind this way I want to know what I was watching this past week Yeah, on ESPN and I'll tell you why Mel Kuyper's heads exploding

This guy's the best quarterback I've seen. Since Jesus was born. He's mad as hell and didn't want to take it anymore. That's right. Yeah, but I don't understand. You look at his highlights. Okay, the five and outs on the goal line. Yeah, they were impressive. He's not the best quarterback. He's not the best quarterback in this draft. Like the best, Mel Kuyper's literally saying one of the best I've ever seen in my life. And then all these other ESPN analysts where we can't really say what, you know, how dare somebody say that he had some bad interviews. That's just not fair to this kid. Sanders bragged in April, said, Yeah, I went to NFL teams. I

told him exactly how it was going to be. And a lot of them, they just didn't like it too bad. Right? All right. So I'm a head coach. I'm a general manager. I'm an owner. I go, Okay, well, I get this kid who thinks he's gonna run the place because he's bragged about it in the interviews I'm not sure why people in the ESPN couldn't talk about that instead of attacking people that reported he had bad interviews with NFL teams because he said I had bad interviews with NFL teams that's number one number two I'm not exactly sure why anybody why somebody would want to coach a player that had that attitude number two I'm not sure why a team would want to coach a player that had that attitude. Number two, I'm not sure why a team would want to put up with.

Sanders as a second string quarterback, where we're all talking about him. That's all anybody was talking about during the draft. Imagine what your quarterbacks gonna have to year after every game. Go into the press conference. When are you going to play Sanders? When are you going to play Sanders? When are you going to play Sanders? And then number

three, Deion Sanders says, always ever going to coach NFL teams if he's coaching his own side. So if I'm an owner and the general manager comes to me go, should we get Sanders? I go, is he going to help us win in the next year? No. Okay.

Well, I'm not going to undercut my coach, because Deon's already said he's going to coach the NFL wherever his son's going. So you've got a coach that may not want a kid who thinks he's going to run the team. You've got general managers that don't want to look like they're undermining their coach. And you've got a quarterback who, other than Mel Kuyper,

nobody thinks is going to turn a franchise around. Well, this is- I don't understand why they couldn't say that off the top. Like, there's, oh, we can't say anything. I mean, Reese Davis finally, finally, like, pushed back against Mel Kuyper. I think Reese, who's like the calmest, most mild-mannered guy in the world, after like four days of this, where nobody was telling the truth, I think he who's like the calmest most mild manner guy in the world after like four days of this where nobody was telling the truth. I think he finally had enough. I just this is this is the end of my rant. Finally, this is my Mel Kuyper and finally for anybody watching this and going going.

Oh my gosh, NFL that had something against him because of Sanders or because of this every coach wants to win every general manager wants to win every honor wants to win they don't do anything else they're not interested in making any statements they're not interested making any political statements they're not interested in making any statements other than I'm going to win this is how I'm going to win I This is how I'm going to win. I'm going to put myself in the best position to win. And there were, you know, every team in the NFL through the first three rounds said, I think we can get there in a way that's less disruptive to our team and our clubhouse than picking Sanders. That's the end of my rant. It was very frustrating to watch this this weekend

where they didn't just say it on ESPN. Yeah, I'm keeping track of all the points you made. I'll address them in something like chronological order. I was watching and feeling something similar as you do the red yarn conspiracy board here. Look, this is a yes and kind of a story, Joe. It really is. So is Mel Kuyper right when he says that the NFL historically is terrible at evaluating the most important position that they

spend all of their time scouting in quarterbacks? Yes. And is it also true that Deion Sanders and his son, Shador, and Deion, by the way, not merely his coach, but also his agent, is it also true that they handle the draft process in a way that backfired spectacularly? Yes, and when it comes to what their strategy was, this was a real, you know, acme, loony tunes, oh no, we exploded the TNT right in front of our own face. Their strategy was to recap for those not familiar

with the lore of how this all went, because I've been making calls about this all weekend, by the way, talking to NFL execs about this very question. What they did was they tried to scare away all of the teams they didn't want to go to so they could handpick their desired location. They were trying to flip the power dynamic, right? We're in charge, you're not. And the problem was that that strategy to shrink the market for Shadour Sanders worked too well to the point

where actually nobody was in on it because yes. And to your point, he's just not good enough to do that. And so there was this flying too close to the sun dynamic with an unprecedented combination of former NFL superstar turn college head coach superstar turned agent where they want to control everything and teams were like, that's not how this league works when you're really graded, let's say generously as a second or third round pick. But when it's that guy with that talent level trying to dictate terms,

that's how you get to become a fifth rounder. And so Joe to me, what is this a story about? It's a story about power in the NFL and who gets to exert it. And the religion, as you were alluding to, the religion of sports is, if you are talented enough, you get power. The NFL has always been the most loathe to give it out. But I just point your attention to a guy

that we talk about all of the time on this show, with the most cynical transaction in sports history, Deshaun Watson, right? They don't care about character. They don't care. The team that took Shanduja Sanders is the team that paid everything for a guy with dozens and dozens of sexual misconduct lawsuits

against him. And that's the team that ended up taking him because they got him at a discount. So it's just it's a yes and story and then get to the Browns John the Browns signed for quarterbacks this off season for it to got Dylan Gabriel before should it's just that's what I say like information security. A cabinet full of of incompetence that's where the metaphor gets a

little bit on the nose when it comes to the Browns is a metaphor for lots going on right now. You know, you know, John, Ari Emanuel says it's not about the money. It's about the money. And then the NFL, it's not about winning. It's about winning. That's all it's about. And that's where you have the power.

If if Sanders, if if if these coaches, these general managers, the scouts, if they thought he was, you know, a great quarterback that was going to help them win in year one, everything else is noise. This kid, we're gonna put him on the field, he's gonna make us competitive next year. They would put up with it. They just didn't do it. And everybody's always trying to read into what the NFL is trying to do and try.

So, no, they want to win. Their jobs depend on them winning. Them staying in their jobs, being able to pay their mortgages, keeping their kids in schools in those communities for another year depends on how many wins and losses they have and the general managers and the coaches they're not sitting there scheming going we're really going to give it to Sanders and Mel Kuiper. No they're interested in themselves. It's certainly certainly a tradition in these NFL drafts there's always the one or two highly touted prospects who slide and

we watch them in the green room or at home waiting for their name to get called Aaron Rodgers famously, but we've never had something quite like this not went to the 5th round and you know a kid who I think there were certainly some who who felt bad for Sridhar Sanders the way this played out particularly once we learned about the prank call but to Pablo's point you do hear around the league around the sports world about how they mismanage the situation in the

draft process. The interviews and the like and look that the to your point Joe and all teams are about winning this was considered one of the weaker quarterback classes we've had a draft time so already those Sanders was sort of elevated the top prospect because the competition around him wasn't that good and then right everything that happens over the last couple weeks just shows his stock fell that much more in the league was simply like this guy is not good

enough at least not yet to take a chance on everything that comes with them and look he goes to a time it's a problem split its chaos there Cleveland. Hey if he has a great camper maybe he can win the starting job or be the backup and then eventually win it. He have that opportunity there. Sure.

But certainly that's not how we're going to that's not the first line right now of his legacy. No, I mean, and again, there's a long history. Everybody obviously going to bring up Tom Brady, how low he was and it's same thing with Joe Montana. So many other great quarterbacks did get ranked in the first round Nobody you didn't just say Montana's overrated. Did you know he tried? Clear making clear. Yeah, exactly who the target finally. It's five after and we have to go

I want to talk about Liverpool. I want to talk about the Red Sox. Oh, yeah, then be a better bet No, but but I want to stay on this finally and make one arcane point, mundane point that only 14 people will care about. But Pablo also weak class for quarterbacks, right? Also, I think we saw a shift last year and I think we saw a shift where last year everybody said, oh, the only thing that matters is quarterback. Only thing that matters is quarterback. Pinnix gets picked number 8 by

the Falcons right about 3 rounds to I he's a really good quarterback but again everybody was like overvaluing quarterbacks last year what did we see with Barkley in Philadelphia. Yeah, suddenly people go wait a second maybe it's not all about the quarterback maybe it's about the running back maybe it's about the line maybe it's about. Oh I don't know the other 21 players that are on the team that the other 21 starters that matter. I think that also did not help because I'm not saying that quarterbacks were devalued but there wasn't a great class this year. And what did the NFL learn last year. It doesn't all start and end with your quarterback. Yeah, I mean, look, the Philadelphia Eagles did not win the Super Bowl,

are not currently the most dominant franchise in the league because of their quarterback. It's because they dominate in the trenches. It's because of line play. And if you look at, you know, it's, I didn't expect to praise the New York Giants in our discussion here, but I thought it was fascinating

what they've done this off season. So they take Abdul Carter Joe from the SEC, of course, George, the most talented player in the draft. That is a guy you want in your trenches on defense. And then, of course, I think they looked at the Minnesota Vikings, right? A team that was really good this past season with not their, you know, top 10 pick, J.J. McCarthy, who got hurt, but with Sam Darnold, which is a lesson about what it means

to be a quote-unquote bridge candidate, a bridge quarterback, a middle-class player, so to speak, that isn't a star rookie or a superstar player making max money, but is just good enough when the rest of your team is engineered to actually be good at every other position. And so the Giants, they take Jackson Dart, again, another SEC guy out of Ole Miss.

In the second round, they get their guy in the trenches. They're following a playbook, to me, that is a lot like what the modern NFL is, which is learned lessons about. Wait a minute, what if we get, you know, Brock Purdy, the last pick of the draft, Mr. Orell, what if we get Tom Brady? What if we just get a middle-class guy for now and are just really good at building the

organization otherwise? And that to me is the new, new NFL. I think you're right.