Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/22/25

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Two Israeli Embassy staffers shot dead outside D.C.'s Capital Jewish Museum

Welcome to Morning Joe. That's a live picture of Capitol Hills. We come up at 6 o'clock in the morning here on the East Coast. Any moment now, House lawmakers are expected to hold a vote on the Republican Party's sweeping domestic policy bill. This is a live look at the House floor where those lawmakers have been holding an all-night session on the massive spending package. After it passed through the Republican-led Rules Committee

following 21 hours of debate and amendments. Again, we are keeping a close eye on this, expecting a vote perhaps within the hour. We'll bring it to you as it happens. Good morning, welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, May 22nd. With us this morning, the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire,

and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. We'll get to that floor vote in just a moment, but first, some breaking news overnight out of Washington. Two Israeli embassy staff members were shot and killed in Washington, D.C. just after nine o'clock last night. It happened outside the Capitol Jewish Museum where an event was being held. Police say the victims, a man and a woman, were leaving the event when the suspect approached them and opened fire.

That suspect now in custody. Police say he chanted, Free, Free Palestine while he was being detained. Let's bring in NBC's Alice Barr from Washington. Alice, what more are we learning this morning? Willie, with the suspect in custody, investigators do not believe there is an ongoing threat to the community. They're working to pin down whether this was a hate crime

or potentially an act of terrorism. This morning, a tragedy for the Jewish community and the country striking in the heart of the nation's capital, where two Israeli embassy staff members were shot and killed overnight while leaving an event at the capital Jewish Museum the suspect chanted free free Palestine while in custody the suspect 30 year-old Elias Rodriguez remains in custody as investigators look deeper into the motive the suspect was

observed pacing back and forth outside of the museum. He approached a group of four people produced a handgun and open fire. Police say he then went into the museum, was arrested and pointed out where he left the gun. Israel's ambassador to the U. S. Spoke about the victims. A young couple, Sarah Milgram and Yaron Lashinsky. The young man purchased a ring this week with the intention of proposing to his girlfriend next week in Jerusalem. They were a beautiful couple.

The Israeli foreign minister said he'd spoken with Yaron's father. I told him that his son was a warrior on our diplomatic front that felt just like a soldier in the battlefield. President Trump posting these horrible D.C. killings, based obviously on anti-Semitism, must end now. Hatred and radicalism have no place in the USA. The U.S. Attorney General promising justice. We'll be doing everything in our power to keep all citizens safe,

especially tonight, our Jewish community. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the killings and said he'd ordered Israeli missions around the world to increase security. And condolences are pouring in from Capitol Hill across the country, around the world, as the director of the FBI said its Joint Terrorism Task Force has joined in the investigation. Willie?

NBC's Alice Barr in Washington this morning. Alice, thanks so much. Joining us now is former Congressman Ted Deutch. He's the CEO of the American Jewish Committee. That is the group that was hosting the event where those murders took place. Congressman, I'm sorry to be talking to you on such a somber occasion, but can you shed any more light

beyond what we just learned in that report and what police have told us about what exactly happened last night? Yeah, thanks very much, Willie. I'm really sorry to have to join under these circumstances. Last night, AJC hosted a big event for young leaders in our community, young leaders to come together to gather around the topic of humanitarian diplomacy, ways to address the

challenges across the Middle East in through humanitarian assistance in an interfaith way. We brought together so many young people who are committed to standing together as a Jewish community with our allies, with our friends. And what happened after the event last night is really the realization of all of the Jewish community's worst fears. This is this is what the community has been afraid of for all of the rallies and chants and and dangerous rhetoric that we have said time and time again,

anti-Semitism isn't violent until it becomes violent. We don't know exactly what happened here, except that Sarah and Yaron, two incredible young people involved in the community, Sarah deeply involved with AJC are gone. They were murdered. The messages of support that I've received, that we've received from around the world started with the same question over and over and over.

How can this be the reality that we are living in? This is the time for action. Ted, we certainly extend our condolences here. Talk to us a little more about the worry that has existed in the Jewish community, you know, in some ways ever present, particularly since October 7th, 2023, the reaction we see the war in Gaza, how that's fueled such anger and unrest across the world and here in the United States as well, how that's manifested itself, where I know Jewish friends say that this is as afraid as they have been to just walk the street in a very long time.

The question, to follow your question with a question, how are we supposed to feel now? How is the Jewish community supposed to feel now? We've been saying that when people chant slogans about murder, when they take the side of terrorists, when they march in the street calling for violence, that this is the outcome, that this is what we face. This is unfortunately, this horrific night is unfortunately as shocking as it is, it's not surprising.

This is the moment where the entire community, not just the Jewish community, the entire community across the United States and around the world has to stand up and say, enough, we can't tolerate this. We can't tolerate this kind of violence. We can't tolerate this kind of hatred. Yes, the Jewish community since in so many instances since October 7th, AJC's data has proved this. Jewish community has changed behavior. Where to go, what to say, how to appear in public out of fear of antisemitism. And we've told people this. And the question is always, go, what to say, how to appear in public out of fear of antisemitism. And we've told people this.

And the question is always, well, what is it that you're ultimately worried about? Well, last night we saw what the worry was, why it was valid. Yaron and Sarah, an Israeli Jew and an American Jew, were gunned down. And at this moment, the only option that we have is to come together across the country and across the world and just demand that we can't accept this. We can't accept this. Richard Haass, a young couple reports say engaged to be married to that beautiful couple we see right there just walking out of an event there at the Jewish Museum in Washington. This is, as Congressman Deutsch says, this is the next step from the rhetoric that too

many people in our country and around the world have dismissed as just rhetoric, as just talk, as free speech, which it often is, of course, but this is the next manifestation of that to violence. It is. And you create a context, and any then Jewish event, be it a religious event, a social event, a political event, becomes a potential target. Someone walking down the street wearing a yarmulke or someone who's obviously Jewish by their appearance suddenly

becomes again a potential target and you've got a, suddenly vulnerability becomes a way of life. So my question for Ted, for the congressman in his position as head of the AJC is what more can the government do, can authorities do? I understand there's a limit to what you might call local security, what you could put on at your events, what every synagogue can do outside. There's things that can and should be done, but ultimately there's limits. What more would you like to see from federal government, state, city in the United States?

Well, actually, thanks Richard. It's a question about the government, but it's really a question about society as a whole. The government's response last night is very powerful. The Trump administration, Mayor Bowser's administration, there's been a prompt response. Look, there are nonprofit security grants that need to get funded so that Jewish community institutions are safe and other nonprofits are safe. And there are steps that can be taken to harden assets.

But it's more than thinking about how to actually protect buildings. And the question is, how do we make it so that Jews don't have to fear being together in one place and representing a target? And that's not just government, that's whole of society. This is what AJC has been advocating for years around the world. It requires everyone to stand up and say, we're not going to tolerate anti-Semitism. When someone marches, someone has a sign, orders a sign that says F the Jews in Philadelphia, that there aren't others in the bar who chuckle and applaud and laugh.

Or when a video is made called Heil Hitler and it's posted on a social media site and it's not just one person making a video, but a dance crew and producers and all the action that went into doing that. When anti-Semitism is normalized, that's where we start to see the real danger that results in the violence that we saw last night. And everyone has a role to play in making sure that that doesn't happen, that we never tolerate the kinds of anti-Semitism

that can lead to this. Yeah, and Congressman, as you point out, yes, things have been exacerbated since October 7th, but this is an old generation, centuries, millennia old problem. I remember talking to my kids years ago about why two doors down from our apartment building where there's a synagogue that during the weekend there were New York City police officers in tactical gear outside a synagogue. They couldn't understand why that is. And that was a hard conversation, but an important one.

So in this moment, in this time, given the news last night in Washington, what is your message to all of our Jewish brothers and sisters in the country here? Willie, I appreciate that. The message is clear. The Jewish community, the Jewish people is resilient throughout our history, time and time again, facing persecution, being

chased out of countries, facing violence. Ultimately, in the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate the entire Jewish people, time and time again, we've gotten up, we've become stronger and we've made positive, we've become stronger, and we've made positive contributions to every community in which we have lived throughout history. The Jewish community is strong and will remain strong everywhere around the world. It's a message I don't need to give to the Jewish community

because we understand that it's who we are. It's a message that our friends and allies need to hear. The messages of support and condolences, they're very, very deeply appreciated. But more than that, we need friends and allies to stand with us to push back against this evil hatred that, as you point out, has played the Jewish community and the world for millennia. Frankly, we can't accept it. We should never accept it. Our entire framework of our government, our democracy, the kind of world we live in, is

better when we come together to fight to eradicate anti-Semitism. And certainly our thoughts this morning with the families and friends of those two young people taken far too soon in this terrible act of violence. CEO of the American Jewish Committee, Ted Deut-Ted, thank you for joining us this morning on Our Condolences Again. Thanks so much. So, Richard, I mean, this is an ancient hatred, one that has accelerated, if you will, ignited in a new way because of the events of the aftermath of October 2023.

Situation in Gaza remains perilous. It's a humanitarian crisis. Anger has not abated around the globe as to what's happened, has happened, and is happening there. So how do people, Jewish people, day in and day out, how do they face this? How do they live with this? It's what Jews have lived with forever.

It's gotten more acute right now. And so yeah, you take precautions, you're aware of it. But I think what Ted Deuchet is really important. Ultimately, the solution is not what Jews can do to protect themselves, it's changing the conversation in the society, it's education. It is what non-Jews essentially signal to one another about what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and what are the limits of criticism?

Where does at one point criticism of Israeli policy spill over into anti-Semitism that then creates a context for this kind of violence? And that's the conversation. It's got to ultimately be an American conversation or a global conversation, so to speak, rather than just a Jewish conversation. So these are two employees of the Israeli embassy in the United States. Their names are Yaron Lashinsky and Sarah Milgram, shot leaving an event last night. There's a picture of them killed by a man who, when he was detained by police, shouted, free Palestine, free Palestine. More on this story ahead. Also, another live look at this moment. The House floor, lawmakers expected to vote on the Republican party's sweeping domestic policy bill at any moment now.

Ali Vitale joins us with her latest reporting, and Steve Ratner has charts on how this legislation could impact the US national deficit. We're back in 90 seconds. the U.S. national deficit. We're back in 90 seconds. It's a live picture. It's 10 in the morning. Speaker Mike Johnson on the House floor,

ahead of a vote on the Republican Party's massive spending package. That legislation passed through the House Rules Committee late last night after 21 hours of debate and amendments. Dozens of last- minute changes were made, including increases to the state and local tax deduction cap that's known as SALT, also speeding up the timeline for new Medicaid work requirements.

Let's bring in the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Ali, good morning. So let's talk about first what's actually in the bill after all this back and forth. Yeah, you've got 1,100 pages of bill text and then another 40 or so in that much anticipated manager's amendment, which has most of the compromises that Republicans made with leadership in it. There's a lot to parse through, but some of the top lines here, the first piece of this,

the top line spending number around $4 trillion, about $2 trillion in cuts. But the actual debt increase is the piece of this that we've heard a lot about from hardline conservatives. According to the Joint Committee on Tax, a nonpartisan group that works with the Congressional Budget Office, $3.8 trillion increase to the debt because of this bill. In large part, that's because of the tax changes

that are made here. Extending the 2017 Trump-set tax rates was a key priority. It's also one of the biggest things that adds to spending in this package. But another big point of contention was this salt deduction cap. Now they've negotiated it that the cap will be $40,000. That's up from the $10,000 that was initially

negotiated in 2017. That's a big win for people in blue states, people like Mike Lawler and others. So that was a key compromise point. Then also raising the child tax credit, no tax on tips. That was a big promise from President Trump during the campaign. Reforming IRS tax rules on US hostages, personal privilege on this one,

because I brought you this story back in January. It basically means that if you are taken hostage or wrongfully detained, you're not gonna get hit with some IRS fees on the back end of that detention because of course you couldn't have paid your taxes during that time. On energy and tech, terminating Biden era clean energy credits, this was another point of contention. It now sounds like according to the manager's amendment, this is going to happen sooner rather than later. That might placate some Republican members who were initially unhappy.

Also investing in USAI infrastructure is another piece in the energy and tech sector. On health care, and this is what we've heard Democrats talk about a lot, even some Republicans concerned about this, in large part because by bolstering Medicaid work requirements and increasing eligibility checks, it means that people are going to fall off of health care coverage potentially and creates a lot of red tape here. Also barring Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender affirming

care for minors, a continued attack on the LGBTQ plus community in this bill. Also blocking Medicaid money from nonprofit reproductive health providers. When you hear people talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, that's this provision, and it actually costs Republicans $300 million to do that. So it's not a cost-saver in the end at all, though it does complete a policy priority Republicans have been pushing

for for a while there. And all in all, this means that 8.6 million Americans, according to the Congressional Budget Office, again, a nonpartisan group that scores or predicts what the impact of the legislation is, 8.6 million Americans will be without health insurance. The fact that these Medicaid

work requirements now phase in in 2026 earlier than they initially had been written, that placates some Republicans. But it also means that this is now squarely an election issue as if it wasn't already. On food assistance, it's a similar story. It cuts $260 billion to SNAP, that's the food stamp program, requiring states to share SNAP costs by 2028. That's basically a big overhaul to the basic funding of this system. It also tightens work requirements for SNAP recipients,

similar to what we see them doing on Medicaid eligibility. And on this front, it means 3.3 million Americans at least will lose access to their food assistance programs, something else we're likely to hear from Democratic members. And on immigration, this is one of the key spending mechanisms outside of extending the tax cuts. $110 billion through the Judiciary Committee and immigration enforcement spending, $81 billion of that to DHS, DOJ, HHS, all for processing immigrants at the southern border. It also imposes fees on various immigrant actions.

For example, a $1,000 fee on immigrants who are trying to claim asylum. It's one of the ways that they're trying to pay for this influx of cash into the immigration system. And we've also seen this, the fact that the top 10% of earners here, again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be the ones that ultimately benefit,

the bottom 10% of earners, the ones to ultimately lose out here. Again, a talking point, and then we come to the margins, the fact that Johnson can only afford to lose three Republicans. It was one going into it last night, Willie, but now we also see that Warren Davidson of Ohio, just in the last two minutes, has put out on X

that he is a no on this for deficit concerns. So if they have one more, maybe two more, that's where we could get into problems, but we'll be watching closely during this vote. Well, you led me to my next question, Allie, which is, does Speaker Johnson have the votes? It sounds like even if he has this vote in the next hour, so it remains up in the air, is that fair to say he has this vote in the next hour or so, it remains up in the air.

Is that fair to say? It remains up in the air. But, Willie, I got to imagine that the speaker, while he has been willing to be caught trying and failing before on the floor, he thinks it applies some pressure to his members to get on board. Ultimately, I don't think they're doing this vote if they don't have the votes. And so the only other person we're watching here is potentially Chip Roy. He's been critical of the bill, but he never tells us how he's gonna vote in

advance but still you could lose three and still be fine. We know that Johnson has had the president's backing on this the whole way. All right we'll keep a close eye on it. Ali stay with us let's turn now to former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. He's got charts on the potential impact of this huge legislation. Steve good morning. So let's talk about the deficit and what this House bill, if it does make its way through. If the Senate, which has said it's not going to vote many Republicans for this, it's just too big. But if it does go through, what would it do to the deficit? Yeah, as you can imagine, given what Ali just went through and all the lists of things that they're doing,

the impact on the deficit is pretty significant. Let's just put some numbers on some of the cuts first. The extension of the personal income tax reductions that were made during the 2017 bill and are set to expire at the end of this year, $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Raising the standard deduction, $1.3 trillion. The child tax credit, $800 billion. And then you get into Trump's campaign promises, no tax on overtime, 1.3 trillion, the child tax credit 800 billion. And then you get into Trump's campaign promises,

no tax on overtime, Carl Lone's interest in tips, 200 billion, increasing defense spending. This is his attempt to take social security taxes away from seniors so they don't have to pay them by giving them a special deduction. And then you get into the cuts, the student loan changes, the climate funds, and Medicaid, $700 billion dollars of Medicaid cuts so what does that do to the deficit here is the baseline deficit so even without this tax bill the

deficit was essentially going to keep going up over the next 10 years maybe come down a little bit at the very end but essentially up then you add in the tax bill that we just talked about, including the fact that they've played the same gimmick they played in 2017, setting up some of these things to expire, and that would make the deficit impact higher, but not as high as if you made all this stuff permanent. The record of Congress stuff almost always gets made permanent. And so somewhere along in here, they will make this permanent and will end up on this line and this line is something like 25 trillion dollars of additional debt. Now I do want to say that the other thing that happened yesterday not as visible and consequential as these house votes is

the fact that the Treasury yields went up very very sharply yesterday. The Treasury sold some 20-year debt, it didn't go well, the 30-year Treasury bond is now above 5%. What does that mean? That means higher rates for mortgage originators and things like that. But what it also means is potentially the bond market's starting to say 25, potentially $25 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years is more than we can absorb comfortably. Yeah, Steve, it can't be overstated the importance of the bond market potentially weighing in here.

Let's turn to your second chart with the headline simple but stark and telling. Tax cuts for the wealthy, spending cuts for the poor. Yeah, Ali alluded to this as well, but let's put some numbers on this. If you're in the top 20% of Americans, you're going to get roughly a 3.7% increase in your after-tax income, really all from these tax cuts. But if you go all the way to the bottom and everything in between essentially leads you to the bottom, if you're in the bottom 20%, you actually lose $800. Why do you lose eight hundred dollars? You get a very small tax cut and you get a very large cut in Medicaid and these other benefits that we were just talking about that affects the 20%

disproportionately. So this is a highly regressive bill that essentially favors the wealthy, doesn't do much for the middle class and hurts the poor. And then if you want to see this in stark comparison, if we simply eliminated the tax cuts for people making over $500,000 a year, which is roughly what President Biden was proposing, it would save $1.1 trillion. That happens to be just slightly more than the Medicaid cuts and the food stamps or SNAP cuts, if you will,

put together. So if we simply eliminated these tax cuts, we could eliminate these budget cuts on these poor people and end up, from a budget point of view, in the same place. And Steve, let's turn to your third chart there. Tell us about the impact that this bill would leave on those with insurance? Yeah, so again, as Ali alluded to, the budget cuts Medicaid in a variety of different ways. Some of it gets complicated. I'm not gonna get into all the details, but the biggest piece of it is the work requirements,

requiring people to, I think, perform 80 hours, work 80 hours or perform 80 hours of community service at least a month. Things like Ali mentioned also, checking Medicaid eligibility more frequently is making it more difficult for the states to get the Medicaid funds they're getting now. And then some Biden era rules that made it easier

to sign up for Medicaid, repealing those. So it becomes harder to sign up for Medicaid. So what does that mean? As Ali said, the estimates are 8.6 million Americans losing their health insurance. And what's interesting about this chart is if you go back over here, before Obamacare went into effect,

when we had over 45 million uninsured Americans, it went down, down, down, down, down. In here was Trump 1.0 with his first effort to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients. So some people became uninsured. Down down down again. And now we're looking at taking it back up here and essentially reversing something like 10 years of progress in having fewer and fewer Americans without medical coverage.

And that group of conservatives deciding their votes right now, many of them have decided them may vote, as Steve just points out, for a bill that adds trillions of dollars to the deficit and the debt. Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. Steve, thanks as always. Coming up next, we'll take a closer look at the contentious Oval Office meeting. Yes, another one. This time with the leader of South Africa, President Trump, making baseless

claims about a white genocide. Morning Joe's coming right back. Halliburton. He'll take it. He'll backpedal a three for the win. And... Goal! He's got it! I can't believe I had to wake up and relive that. Tyrese Halliburton completing the Pacers comeback

from 17 points down in the fourth quarter with that tying jumper at the buzzer. Looked for a minute like it was the game winner but his toe was on the line that tied the game and sent it to overtime. Halliburton with that choke gesture channeling Pacers Hall of Famer Reggie Miller after he thought that had been the winning basket. Miller was calling the game on the sideline he looked at him but replay showed Halliburton's toe was just over the three point lounge. So two goes to overtime. Halliburton made the big shot, but with the New York Knicks leading by 14 points with less than three minutes to go

in regulation, it was a flurry of three-pointers from Vanderbilt alumnus Aaron Neesmith that brought Indiana back. He's now the first player in NBA history to make six threes in the fourth quarter of a playoff game. He was unconscious, as you can see there. Pacers hold off the fourth quarter of a playoff game. He was unconscious as you can see there. Pacers hold off the Knicks in a back and forth overtime session and steal game one of the Eastern

Conference Finals 138 to 135 game two tomorrow night at Madison Square Garden. Jonathan Lemire Halliburton was great. 31 points 11 assists. Neesmith was incredible in the fourth quarter. I mean, Brunson scored 43. Townes had 35 and 12. They scored 135 points. They were up 14 points with two minutes and 45 seconds left. And somehow they lost that game.

Yeah, this has become the postseason of big late blown leads. My Celtics did it a few times. The Knicks joined the club. Here's an incredible stat. Since 1996, teams that have trailed by seven or more in the final minute of fourth quarter overtime are four wins, 1,702 losses, four in 1702. The Pacers have three of them this year forever three

the Pacers this year they did it against Milwaukee a couple times Cleveland and now and now the Knicks and Richard Haas this is this is there's no there's no sugarcoating it this is a brutal loss it is just game one long way to go to be sure we knew that this Pacers team was really good not afraid of MSG they won a game seven there last year. So how are you feeling this morning as a Knicks fan? Do you think this team has showed a lot of heart this year? Can they pick themselves off the mat and get back in this?

Well, first of all, Willie was complaining about waking up to this news. The only thing worse than that, Willie, was watching the end of the game and not being able to get to sleep because of this. It was a long, painful night. It's a real test of the Knicks resilience. They were in control of the game. That's what they should take from this. They are, to say, competitive and then some. Or, you know, seven games serious the last I checked.

Yeah, they can still win it, but the real question is what they took from that. And, yeah, look, that never should have happened, though it wasn't just the Indiana played well. But also the Knicks, they missed some easy foul shots, a couple of turnovers. Towards the end, they got sloppy. Yeah, Willie, the Knicks certainly executed so well at the end of those games against Boston last round. Not the case last night. And suddenly, tomorrow night, it becomes a must-win. You can't fall behind 0 O2 going to Indy where they have a very good home court advantage. Yeah, it's amazing in how this whole series

shifted in the last, as you put it, two and a half minutes. Yeah, I mean, there was glee in New York. There was glee in the Garden. There was glee among fans watching, up 17 points. They were looking great, Brunson on his way to another 40 point game. Cat was playing great and then all of a sudden in three minutes devastation you got to give credit to Halliburton and Neesmith they were

awesome last night game two though back tomorrow night can we just talk about something else that's the last subject here Richard's written all over our faces this morning that we are up watching that game. So here we are. All right, we'll get back to the news. How about that? NBC's Morgan Radford just ahead joins us with a look at the state of the Democratic Party right now amid an effort to push out some incumbents and elect younger politicians.

Morning Joe's coming right back. Well, I pictured the White House on a gloomy Thursday morning. What began as a friendly first meeting between President Donald Trump and the president of South Africa at the White House yesterday quickly devolved into a public clash after a reporter asked about the American decision to admit white South Africans as refugees. NBC News Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander has more. Another extraordinary Oval Office meeting. President Trump hosting the leader of South Africa kicking it off with this unusual introduction. President Ramaphosa and usual introduction.

President Ramaphosa and he is a man who is certainly in some circles really respected the circles little bit less respected like all of us in all fairness like all we all like that. The meeting quickly turning into a tense confrontation president Trump accusing South Africa's black majority government of not doing enough to protect white minority

farmers from racial persecution. There white farmers and they feel that they're going to die. And after amplifying unsubstantiated claims of genocide. The president was asked if he believes it's happening. I haven't made up my mind to see it. From the same point of South Africa.

The Trump administration this month fast-tracked 59 white africana refugees to become American citizens despite effectively banning others, including Afghans many of whom had risked their lives to help us forces I press president Trump why it's appropriate to welcome white Afrikaners when other refugees have had their protected status revoked. Tremendous complaints about about Africa about other countries to from people. They say there's a lot of bad

things going on in Africa and that's what we're going to be discussing today. When you say we don't take others you have to do is take a look at the southern border. The president was that asked what it would take to convince him there was no white genocide Ramaphosa jumping in. It will take President Trump listing to the voices of South Africa, some of whom is good friends. Then in an unprecedented move president Trump directed an aid

to play a video for the visiting president. She's returned the lights down turn the lights down showing South African opposition leaders calling for violence against white farmers. You are cutting the throat of whatness. And alleged burial sites. I'd like to know where that is because this I've never seen. Okay.

I mean it's in South Africa this week. We need to find out. These are people that are officials and they're saying that killed a white farmer and take their land. Ramaphosa saying he strongly rejects the messages in the video. Our government policy is completely completely against what

he was saying acknowledging violence, including in rural areas, but saying most crime victims are black. There is good in our country. People who do get to unfortunately through criminal activity. I don't know the white people majority of them are black people. And this is Peter Alexander reporting there from the White House joining us now president National Action Network, the host of MSNBC's Politics

Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton, and former Undersecretary of State for Public Policy and Public Affairs, Richard Stengel. In the 1990s, Richard collaborated with South African President Nelson Mandela on his best-selling autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom. And the many hours of recorded interviews from that time were the basis of Stengel's 10-part award-winning audio book, Mandela, The Lost Tapes. Gentlemen, good morning to you both. Richard, I want to go to you first, your deep understanding and relationship with South

Africa. This is a bug that Elon Musk put in Donald Trump's ear about this alleged white genocide, which cheapens the term genocide. We can put that to the side for a moment. But what is, for people who don't have any idea what he's talking about here, what is he referring to and what is the truth about what's happening in South Africa? Yeah, thanks, Willie. It's a kind of a conspiracy theory that is beloved by people on the right and white supremacists.

The Afrikaners came to South Africa in the 16th century and helped develop it. And then many, many years later, 1948, when the rest of the world was rejecting colonialism, they created something called apartheid, which means separateness in Afrikaans, about having the racists live apart. It was a diabolical system of human suppression, social engineering, and in fact the irony of this idea that African farmers are taking land from blacks is quite the reverse. There's something called the Group Areas Act in 1950 which said blacks had to live in the countryside in this in terrible land. They took land away from when were they living in cities called forced removals.

And today, if you look at it, even now, when the country is whole, whites are 7% of the population and own 80% of the land. So what I thought Cyril Ramaphosa did a very good job of explaining, and he kept his poise, was this is crime. This is not a kind of a racist, black on white entity. It's about discrepancy in income, very poor people and wealthy people. And these Afrikaners, you know, they're not personally responsible for apartheid. They're probably good people.

But they're people who own a majority of the land, even though they're a very, very tiny part of the population. This is something that came on Donald Trump's radar screen soon after Elon Musk kind of joined his team last year. He's something he has talked about quite a bit, not backed up by the facts to be clear. But talk to us, if you will, about the impact of the President of the United States giving a voice to this conspiracy theory. What does that mean? Well, it's just so sad.

I mean, we're not that many miles from the Statue of Liberty. We've had a policy of taking refugees from all around the world, the people who are the most discriminated against. And these people have problems, but they're not discriminated against the way the kinds of people that we used to take. In Trump's first term, he radically reduced the number of refugees that we used to take. In Trump's first term, he radically reduced the number of refugees that were taken in. And now, the only refugees he's taken in so far

are these 59 white Afrikaner farmers. Yeah, and Rev, I mean, when those farmers came in, we should note, they were met at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington and met it with US officials. It was almost sort of like a ceremony. And it just stands in such stark contrast to the anti-refugee policies he's put in place for everybody else. Well, I think, first of all, we must understand that the whole allegation is basis.

And clearly, there's a crime problem. I've been to South Africa a dozen times. There is a crime problem. It's not race-based. Secondly, there are different been to South Africa a dozen times. There is a crime problem. It's not race-based. Secondly, there are different views in South Africa. So to use the tape of one extremist and act like that's the government or even the main population of South Africa is duplicitous, in my opinion. I was an election observer in 1994, the first Democratic election in South Africa where the ANC and Nelson Mandela won.

There was PAC and others that were more radical than that they ran against. Ramaphosa comes out of the Mandela School of Thought and the ANC. They repudiate killing anybody and they certainly repudiate the whole question of going after white farmers. It was that party that went for reconciliation and faced criticism for it. So this is something that wouldn't take a lot of research for Trump to understand. He's lecturing a man that forgave people, that put them in jail for being in their own country and that said, let us have harmony. Nelson Mandela going to soccer games.

I mean, this is the exact opposite of what it was. So this bogus confrontation yesterday plays to the worst elements. If the president is concerned about people being killed, and he should be based on whatever, he doesn't have to go to Africa, go right below Florida to Haiti, where we're seeing everyday people being killed by gangs. Those people don't matter, give refugee status to Haitians. Give refugee status to people right that are clearly being victims.

But what is happening in South Africa, crime is wrong, crime is killing, but it's not race-based, and to make them the only refugees you're giving at this time in and of itself is suspect and biased. So Richard Haass, after President Trump ambushed President Ramaphosa with that video, President Ramaphosa came out and sort of delicately said, well, we do have a multiparty system. There are extremists in our government, just like there are in any democracy in the United States. There are some too, Mr. President. That is not the

policy of the government. Have there have been murders? Yes. Have there been murders of black people? Yes. Many, many more actually. But I'm just curious as someone who's sort of spent your life in foreign affairs and diplomacy, what you make of this sort of, well, a trend now where you invite a world leader to sit with you in the Oval Office and then turn it into a spectacle and a confrontation? Yeah, Willie, I'm struck by it. When I worked at the White House for President Bush the father, getting an Oval Office meeting was something that ambassadors and others really worked hard to get.

It was a big breakthrough and something that was highly sought. What we've seen first with President Zelensky of Ukraine, and now this is it can really turn on you. It can be dangerous. And I expect there are foreign leaders around the world who are saying, well, maybe I don't want to come to Washington, or to really script out the meeting in a way that it doesn't turn on you. And also, like the press is usually there for the first 30 seconds

for a quick photo op. This is kind of performative diplomacy, which turns out to be counterproductive diplomacy. There's serious issues in South Africa. You do have a high crime rate, a lot of poor people. The ANC has not been terribly successful in governing since the end of apartheid. Cutting off USAID, by the way, has not helped.

I mean, what we really should be doing, I would argue, is be more involved. Because internal governance is a big challenge there. And if we want, this is one of the two, take one step back. This is one of the two most important countries on the continent of Africa, along with Nigeria. And as South Africa and Nigeria go, so will a lot of Africa.

So rather than distancing the United States, I actually think we ought to be more involved. But the kind of spectacle we saw yesterday, the so-called ambush, that is not the way to get from where we are to where we need to be. And Elon Musk actually was in the room. He was in the Oval Office yesterday, the man who took that chainsaw to programs like USAID. Some other news this morning, the Pentagon now officially has accepted that luxury jet from Qatar to use as President Trump's new Air Force One. According to a spokesperson, the Air Force is now tasked with upgrading the Boeing jetliner that's been called a flying palace, valued between 200 and 400 million dollars. It will need to be retrofitted

as Air Force One with security modifications necessary for an American president. Experts say that could cost as much as a billion dollars of taxpayer money. On Capitol Hill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to pass a bill yesterday prohibiting the use of any foreign plane as Air Force One, but it was blocked on the Senate floor. So Richard Stengel, here comes the plane. as I pointed out, could cost a billion dollars. And as some experts have said, could take years. It may never actually be Air Force One if it's not finished before the end of President Trump's term. But we can put that to the side for a moment and just talk about the ethics of accepting a $400 million plane from a foreign country. Well, Willie, it's clearly unconstitutional, a violation of the Emoluments Clause. I mean, the founders

more than 200 years ago realized that the head of the country shouldn't be accepting gifts, another word for that is bribes, from princes and leaders of other countries. But by the way, it's also just not practical, Willie, as you even mentioned in your, what you just said. They have to spend billions of dollars to make the plane up to date in terms of communications.

The Air Force One has very sophisticated systems to avoid missiles. And in fact, it would be a real security problem for the president of the United States to fly in a plane that didn't have those security precautions. Yeah, and Richard Haass, I mean, it is, there's no one who thinks this is a good idea outside of President Trump. Even a lot of Republicans, it's not just private whispering. They felt like this is an issue they can publicly say, this isn't good, including leaders in both the House and Senate.

We've heard even from really modest extremists like Laura Loomer say, this is a terrible idea. But yet Donald Trump has decided he wants this. He is, as we've reported, sort of embarrassed by the current Air Force One. He thinks it's not up to snuff to the other airlines, the heads of state fly. He's just gonna forge forward. You know what, Jonathan,

sometimes conventional wisdom is right. Sometimes there's wisdom in crowds and the crowds is telling the president this is not a good thing for the United States. It's not a good look for him, but he's marching on and this is going to happen. This is an own goal. This is an unforced error. All right, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Richard Stengel. Rick, great to have you on this morning.

Appreciate your perspective on South Africa and everything else. Coming up, we're continuing to follow that House vote on President Trump's legislative agenda. The final vote is taking place right now. Morning Joe is coming back in just a moment with the final tally.