Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/28/25

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

Rhetoric escalates between Trump and Putin

King Charles was in Canada today to show his support for the Commonwealth during this difficult time. The King delivered an uncharacteristically fiery speech this morning in front of the Canadian Parliament. I should be in those 70s. Won't someone please come lick the royal thumb? Next I want to see him try to open a Capri Sun. That would be the best. Alright, a rough start for King Charles there, but he did show serious support for Canada yesterday. It's good to see the King out.

Yes, it is. As President Trump continues to float statehood for the country. Meanwhile, the president's escalating his rhetoric with Russia for stonewalling ceasefire negotiations. We'll get to that and Russia's response in just a moment. We'll also go through new reporting from The Guardian on a Pentagon leak investigation that revealed an illegal warrantless wiretap. Also ahead, the controversial presidential pardon for a man whose mother attended a million dollar dinner at Mar-a-Lago. And we'll dig into a dire new warning about AI

and the amount of jobs it could eliminate in the next five years. You know, it is going to be a white-collar bloodbath. I mean, and it's something Jim Van De Heijn, Mike Allen are reporting about, and it's extraordinarily important. We're going to be talking about that in so much more, but, Willie, let's start with the bad news for New York fans, and then I'll provide the bad news for Boston fans. You go first.

Yeah, New York Knicks lost last night. If I look a little tired this morning, because I was up late hoping for another one of those comebacks that we've seen so often in the playoffs. It's the back page this morning of the New York Post. The Knicks losing 130 to 121, I think, was the final score last night in a game that they hung around but the Pacers really were in control of the entire time.

That guy Tyrese Halliburton was unbelievable in assist there. He had 32 points, he had 15 assists, he had 12 rebounds, a triple double with zero turnovers. For the point guard, the guy who handles the ball on every possession had no turnovers. A brilliant performance by Halliburton. Pacers win at home. They're up 3-1. We do come back to Madison Square Garden tomorrow night. The Garden will be rocking again.

You hope you win at home. Go steal one in Indiana in game six and then a game seven back at the Garden. But the odds are against the Knicks right now. They flashed that stat after the game last night that it's something like 94% of teams that lead a series three games to one in NBA playoff history have gone on to win that series. Nick just didn't quite have it last night they weren't hitting open shots down the stretch Pacers were good give him credit they're got a really good team. But we've learned this year Joe not to give up on the Knicks they have a way of coming back.

No. We'll see what happens tomorrow night at the Garden. I mean you and I in a lot of sports have seen teams come back from 3-1 deficit to win. I think if I'm not mistaken my Cleveland friends tell me that's exactly what the Cavs did in 2016 when they came back to win their one championship. It happens and it and I think that was if I'm if I'm not mistaken, against the great Golden State team. So you just have to do it one game at a time if they can win at Madison Square Garden.

Then it all comes down to them putting the pressure on the Pacers and winning back in Indiana and then anything's possible in that game seven. Nothing, though, possible right now for our Boston Red Sox. By ours, I mean, collective Red Sox Nation. It's just been, you know, it's one of these things where they've got a good team, they underperform, our guys keep getting hurt running to first base. I mean, we-

What happened? You know, you look at our yeah, there's a grand slam thanks you can take that down now Alex I don't know why you even played it. But you look at our 3, 4, and I don't want to see that again. You look at our 3 of the you start the season with a 3, 4, and 5 hitters and you have 2 of those hitters out. five hitters and you have two of those hitters out and a run to first base that went horribly wrong with Bregman of course rounding first base. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how we hurt himself doing that and then Casas

also. So Red Sox right now struggling a little bit, but TJ thank you so much for not showing Willie. There we go because when I you went when when me because just there Willie it's like I'm talking to myself here in a mind is elsewhere I'm going to get yes, the Russia the red the Red Sox yes, the bullpen hasn't been great. They had some strange injuries that's a tough run Joe Joe those 90 feet to first base can

be very challenging. Yankees meanwhile we talked about how kind of mediocre that the A.L. East has been for the beginning of this season Yankees though putting some distance. They won again last night out in California. They've got a seven

game lead now over the Rays eight on the Jays and eight and a half on the Red Sox. But Max Fried the pitcher has been great as the ace of the staff while Cole is out. Of course, Judge is having a good year and Goldschmidt has been a pleasant surprise having a great season for us.

He really has. We'll see, you know, it's a long season as we say every year at this time, Joe. It's a long season, injuries come, streaks come and go. So we'll see what happens. I always say it's a long, long season but but you start falling 8.5 behind in May, okay, maybe you can start panicking a little bit. Maybe.

All right, let's get to the news now. No panicking yet. It's pretty early, right? It's early. We begin our news with the escalating rhetoric between President Trump and Russian officials with no signs of a ceasefire in Ukraine and tensions only rising. Just before noon yesterday, the president posted on social media that if it wasn't for him, quote, lots of really bad things would have

already happened to Russia. Trump goes on to add that Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing with fire. Hours later, the former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, responded to Trump's post directly writing, quote, I only know of one really bad thing. World War Three. I hope Trump understands this. The Russian state media outlet RT also responded to Trump's post outright mocking him, writing, quote, Trump's message leaves little room for misinterpretation until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning. Well, I mean, no, Willie, I mean, obviously this is Donald Trump is experiencing what Joe Biden and what Barack Obama

and what George W. Bush have experienced before him. Vladimir Putin plays by his own rules on his own timeline, and he spends as much time as he can trying to sucker American presidents, and he's done it now for the past 20 years. Looks like Donald Trump understands that right now that's what's starting to happen. He's starting to understand that. And you also see in the Senate very interesting Republicans now finally starting to step up and saying enough's enough. I mean, the consequences, Wall Street Journal talks about it today.

Us bowing down to Russia, Donald Trump allowing Russia to keep doing this to Ukraine sends a very clear, non-mistakable message to China, which is invade Taiwan and the White House won't do anything about it. And it will be open season on Taiwan, open season on Ukraine, then open season on Poland. You go down the list. It is Trump's foreign policy crossroads right now. We all remember Joe Biden not listening to his generals,

not listening to his admirals, and pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan. His approval rating was at 54% when he did that. A week later, it was below 50%. He never got over 50% again. This is truly a crossroads, and it looks, at least for now, like Donald Trump is pushing back hard, along with the Republicans in the Senate,

finally pushing back hard, along with the Republicans in the Senate, finally pushing back hard on Vladimir Putin. Well, it's fascinating that the Republican senators now have gone so hard against Putin calling for more sanctions led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, now that it feels safe to, because there looks to be an opening as President Trump has voiced now publicly his frustration with Vladimir Putin. As Russian media said yesterday, we'll see how long this lasts for Donald Trump if he

can be flattered again into giving Vladimir Putin what he wants. That remains to be seen. But it's very interesting that Russia, for a decade now and longer before he was president, has used flattery to get into the good graces of Donald Trump. And it has worked by and large. And now they're sort of mocking him a little bit. They're saying he's become emotional, that they say he'll change his mind tomorrow. Don't worry about what he says.

Only further enraging President Trump. And we'll see now if he listens to those Republican senators. Let's turn to NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who of course has been covering the war in Ukraine since its beginning. Richard, what do you make of this back and forth between the Kremlin and President Trump? So I think we're seeing a new strategy, a new media strategy, a new Donald Trump approach strategy from Vladimir Putin and from Russia. Many countries from Europe to Ukraine to recently saw the South African president,

have been struggling to deal with Donald Trump. They don't want to be publicly embarrassed with him. I know certain countries, I've spoken to governments, they're reluctant to send their leaders to the White House because they don't want one of these embarrassing moments where they're forced to kind of sit on their hands and look awkwardly and apologize and be obsequious to President Trump. It happened to the King of Jordan.

It's happened several times. And now we're seeing Russia take the opposite approach, where Vladimir Putin is now openly being rude to President Trump, the state media in Russia saying, well, President Trump says this until he flip flops, until he changes his mind the next day. Dmitry Peskov said that what Trump is doing now is because of his, quote, emotional reaction and emotional overload.

So they're trying to goad him a little bit, trying to see what kind of reaction. And the question is, for what purpose? Do they assume that sanctions are coming either way? So if they're coming, you may as well earn them? Or are they trying to frustrate him? And analysts that I'm speaking to believe that they're trying to frustrate him. That it is ultimately in Russia's interest,

in Vladimir Putin's interest, if President Trump, as he says he's going to do, just lifts up his hands and walks away, say, these people don't want peace. I don't want to deal with this. I have other things to worry about. He could be busy fighting with American universities or fighting with immigration at home. That he ignores Russia, ignores this peace portfolio, which he said was going to be so

easy. And that analysts believe that if he does do that, that it would favor Vladimir Putin because he would have more room to operate, more room to carry out his war in Ukraine, which is obviously ongoing. So it's a different approach. Instead of trying to appeal to his ego, maybe frustrate him enough into giving up interest on the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Richard, as this public back and forth plays out in front of the world, Vladimir Putin is marching on with his aims inside Ukraine, escalating, attacking civilian targets,

drone strikes, missiles inside of Ukraine, the largest aerial assault a few days ago since this war began. What is the strategy there that during ostensible ceasefire talks, ostensible peace talks, he's escalating his war? Well, there are no real ceasefire talks at this stage. And there's a lot of ceasefire theater. You saw President Zelensky of Ukraine go to Turkey, where there was some talk that maybe Putin himself would show up. And instead, there were these images of Zelensky, the peacemaker, there alone, Trump expressing

frustration that this isn't going anywhere. And then President Trump saying that he's surprised. He's surprised at the way Vladimir Putin is angry. Why is he behaving like this? He's not behaving as if he wants to have a peace deal because he's still attacking Kiev. He's still sending rockets. He's still sending drones.

He's not behaving like someone who's looking for a peace deal. So perhaps it's just dawned on President Trump that Putin doesn't want a peace deal, but wants a peace of Ukraine, if not all of the country. And if that is in fact the case, then the best thing that could happen for Vladimir Putin was that the US, which is not just a peace broker here, but is the main guarantor of Ukraine's stability, the main supplier of intelligence and weapons, that if the U.S. just walks away, it benefits the public. So, Richard, then there's this. Here's what the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes in a piece entitled Trump's Foreign

Policy Crossroads. Quote, President Trump's foreign policy has been coasting so far on his verbal threats and public cajoling, but he'll soon face moments of decision on U.S. adversaries that will echo throughout his second term and could determine his legacy. Mr. Trump has mused about leaving Russia and Ukraine to fight it out, but walking away won't insulate America from the consequences. If Ukraine succumbs, Mr. Putin will advance his forces closer to more of the NATO border. As important, Mr. Trump will send a message to Chinese President Xi Jinping that the U.S. can't sustain support for an ally under siege.

Beijing will conclude that its support for Russia's war carried little cost and that its alliance with Russia has paid off. The message will be that if China moves on Taiwan, Mr. Trump is unlikely to respond with more than verbal protests or toothless sanctions. Instead of restoring US deterrence, Mr. Trump would further undermine it. And Richard, this is something that Republican senators have been warning Donald Trump about. Walking away is what Joe Biden did in Afghanistan. Walking away is what remains the turning point in his presidency where his poll numbers went

below 50 percent and never went above there. And as Lindsey Graham says, if you think Afghanistan was bad, walking away from Ukraine would make that look like a spring picnic. Talk about that side of things, what the consequences of America just, quote, walking away, how badly things become. And also the fears and concerns that you've heard from foreign policy leaders, world leaders, diplomats, about the message it would send to Xi on Taiwan if Donald Trump and Americans were to walk away from Ukraine now?

So if the U.S. walked away from Ukraine, it would be considered an enormous betrayal for Ukraine. It would be America breaking its promise. There have been many, many agreements. So it's not just verbal agreements. There have been many written agreements between the United States and Ukraine to provide weapons, to provide logistics, to provide logistics, to provide arms, to provide intelligence, to support the Ukrainian economy.

The U.S. has emerged as Ukraine's main backer in this. So does walking away and allowing the two sides to fight it out as President Trump has threatened, does that mean that the U.S., that President Trump would no longer just be this active peace broker, that he would stop making the phone calls? Or would it be, as I think Russia hopes it means, walking away, meaning we're done with this, this is Europe's problem, we have no interest in Ukraine and hoping that it just stays a European conflict? So the US reputational damage would be enormous. The Ukrainians would feel abandoned. I think Europe would be very frightened that it has to handle security for itself on every

level and that is probably a long-term positive thing. Many Europeans believe that this wake-up call is a necessary wake-up call, but it can't happen that rapidly because they're not in a position to take care of their own security for several more years. They're in a situation where they're dependent on not just data, but on American cooperation. So if the US leaves the biggest security challenge in Europe right now, it effectively leaves the European security framework. It will be destabilizing for Europe, it would be devastating for Ukraine, and of

course it clearly sends a message to China that if the US is walking away from a security challenge in Europe, why wouldn't it walk away from another security challenge in China. So the repercussions of simply walking away and what walking away means could be one of the most important decisions taken by President Trump in terms of foreign policy. You mentioned President Biden thinking he could just walk away from Afghanistan. Afghanistan at the end of the day is a small landlocked Central Asian country that the US had been there for 20 years. Walking away from that had consequences. It was the betrayal of a generation of young people in Afghanistan. Walking away from Europe's biggest security challenge in modern times would not go unnoticed by China and would have a much broader impact than walking away from Afghanistan, without a doubt.

Exactly. It certainly gives a little perspective there. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel live from Lisbon. Thank you so much for coming on this morning. So as we mentioned, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who's leading a bipartisan push on a sanctions bill against Russia, sent a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal suggesting the Senate will act if President Trump is unable to broker a ceasefire.

Graham's letter comes a day after Republican Senator Chuck Grassley also publicly called on President Trump to take action against Putin. Let's bring in right now the co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van Dyke. Jim, we always talk about the two tracks on Russia that Republicans took in Donald Trump's first term. You had Donald Trump saying and doing things with Vladimir Putin and Helsinki and other places that horrified hardliners.

At the same time, you had him signing sanction bills going through the United States Senate that were the harshest sanctions that had then been imposed on Vladimir Putin. I'm wondering if we're getting to that place again now. We certainly could be. I think there's no issue where there's a bigger gap between Trump and especially Senate Republicans than Russia.

Like, senators aren't going to say it on the record, but they think that Putin is a psychopathic dictator who murders people and who is an untrustworthy thug. That's their view of him. And they think it's crazy that the president continues to have such a friendly relationship with Putin and that he continues to say that Ukraine could be on its own. I think the confluence of their views being what they are in reality, plus Putin continuing to reject every overture from Trump, could change that. Like, we'll see.

The president's been very, very, very unpredictable on this topic and really does want to wash his hands of it, but we'll see. I thought that provocative tweet, the idea he'll tweet one thing one day and say the opposite the next, that's pretty provocative. That's like in your face, like taunting of a world leader.

You don't see that too often from others. You see it from Trump. No, and they have had a history of it. I mean, of openly mocking him, mocking his wife, state media. And they're doing this again in a way again as Richard said seems openly provocative hoping that he'll do with Ukraine what Joe Biden did with Afghanistan and just wash his hands of it. So we'll see what happens, but Jim stay with us. Oh, yeah, Jim and Mike Allen put together an explosive report talking about the frightening impact of AI and how it's going to gut white collar workers the same way that the tech revolution

gutted blue collar workers. We'll get to that. And still ahead on Morning Jail, we'll have the very latest on that horrific parade crash in England. What police are now saying about the man accused of driving a minivan into a crowd of soccer fans. Plus we'll take a look at some of President Trump's recent controversial pardons including one for a reality TV couple convicted of fraud and tax evasion and a pardon for a man whose

mother attended a million dollar per person fundraising dinner for President Trump last month. And a quick reminder for you, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. We'll be right back. 27 past the hour. Live look at the White House foggy morning in Washington, D.C. A federal judge yesterday struck down the Trump administration's executive order targeting

the top law firm Wilmer Hale as unconstitutional. Wilmer Hale is one of the firms fighting the president's order that penalizes the company for working for his political opponents. District Court Judge Richard Leon struck down the entire order in a strong 73 page ruling yesterday. The Bush appointed judge barely hid his shock at the case, peppering his order with exclamation points and even calling an argument from President Trump quote absurd. I mean, Willie, you go through this and again, there are dozens of exclamation points, obviously. He has some strong feelings about it. He didn't take to heart F Scott Fitzgerald's, and we know if you watch Ted, what the F in that stands for.

But F Scott Fitzgerald's point that putting exclamation points is like laughing at your own joke. Well, he was laughing at a lot of his own jokes yesterday. But a very important, obviously, a very important decision that really is in line with several other decisions, just saying the president cannot go after law firms because of who they represent. Right. And this strategy has worked, by the way, for President Trump.

He's extracted money from these law firms and gotten them to represent causes that he wants them to represent pro bono. So some of them have caved to him, but now the court's stepping in saying, no, this isn't how this works. Let's bring in co-host of our fourth hour contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth Bue Miller. So John, we can start with that story right there, which is the idea that the courts are taking on sort of one by one many of these executive orders. The president trying to sideline Congress, do things through executive order, and it is the other branch, the judicial branch, saying, slow down.

Yeah. And for many, the targeting of the law firms is among the most egregious sort of overstepping of the bounds here for the president. We know coming in the door here that he wanted to expand the use of executive power to a degree we have never seen before. Part of that was his campaign, openly, of retribution, trying to exact a price, a penalty from those he believed opposed him in his first term and then in the second campaign. But we have seen now the courts hold a number of cases, a lot of the immigration cases.

We've seen even some conservative judges, even some Bush-appointed judges, even some Trump-appointed judges have said, this goes too far. And now we're seeing this is his third significant loss in terms of his targets of the law firms. And I know that there are some who believe that, you know, he's also with Harvard University. You know, he took another defeat there. There's some thought that more could be coming as well. So the White House is not budging. They feel like this is still, this is something they believe in.

They want to wield power. As just noted, they extracted some real concessions. They got some wins early on this. So this is not something I think they will stop. But you're right. At a moment where Congress has largely washed its hands and said, do whatever you want on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the courts, at least for now, holding more firm. You know though, Elizabeth, it's a New York Times story this morning noted that sometimes

even when you win in these cases, you end up losing. You have clients that are fleeing these law firms. You look at the situation that Harvard's in. Michael Schmidt has reported repeatedly that while Harvard may be winning in court, they understand they're on an unsustainable course right now, that their grants that have fueled so much R&D across this country over the past 20, 30, 40 years, they're still in grave danger even when they win court cases. That's correct. I mean, in Harvard's case, that $53 billion endowment, most of that is

earmarked. You can't just spend that. Harvard's been looking for major donors to come in and take up some of the slack. But I would say that on the other side, on the other side of Harvard, we have a story this morning just saying that what this has done at Harvard has unified for the first time in a long time the campus. So pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israel students and Jewish students are marching in lockstep denouncing the president's executive order trying to stop Harvard from enrolling international students. I would also say in the case of the law firms, it has not gone so well for the law firms who have capitulated to Donald Trump.

They are now facing demands from veterans across the country to take their cases. Trump is threatening to use them to negotiate trade deals. So they're not in a good situation either. And they're also losing partners who are just appalled that their firms have capitulated. Yeah, they're so embarrassed. By the way, Alex counted, there are 26 exclamation points in that ruling. 26, all right.

I've never seen Elizabeth use one. Well, Elizabeth doesn't need one. She doesn't need one? There are 26 exclamation points in that ruling. 26. All right. I've never seen Elizabeth use one. Well, Elizabeth doesn't need one. She doesn't need one? Everything she says is extremely important and... I'm kidding. All right. I love the text and the emails where there's, you know, people will put one every, like,

third word. I write in all caps. So there you go. All right. I try and reduce my... Yeah. I try to reduce my exclamation points in emails. I try to cut back at them. It's hard. It's hard. Why not? I had somebody say if your words can't provide the emphasis without the exclamation point, then you're not writing

a sentence well enough. Oh boy, I'm going to keep that in mind. Okay, moving on now. A new report from the New York Times reveals details about Donald Trump's pardon of a man convicted of tax fraud just one month after his mother attended a major fundraiser for the president. Former nursing home executive Paul Walzak pleaded guilty to tax crime days after the 2024 election and was ordered to pay more than $4 million in restitution and serve 18 months in prison.

The Times reports a pardon application submitted around the time of Trump's inauguration cited Walzak's mother and her support for Trump, Claiming her political activity motivated the prosecution against him, Trump eventually granted that pardon. It comes as the president announced just yesterday, he will fully pardon reality TV stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley. The couple was found guilty in 2022 of multiple counts of financial fraud and tax evasion.

I mean, built banks, the courts found of over $30 million through the years. Not even a close call, according to the courts. The Chrisleys attorney told the White House they were targeted because of their conservative views. So, Jonathan Elmire, this keeps happening, doesn't it? Donald Trump is using his pardon power in a way that no other presidents used it before and he's using it indiscriminately. Yeah, we usually see presidents issue pardons at the very end of their terms and certainly President

Trump did that as well. A number of his predecessors, Republicans, Democrats, his like did the same, but we're now seeing it happen from day one. Let's remember that it was on the night of January 20th, Inauguration Day, is when Trump pardoned the January 6th convicts, going much further than his staff had advocated. I had reporting at the time that there was most in the senior staff wanted pretty limited measures. And there was a lot of arguments back and forth in the weeks and then days before the inauguration date. It was only about 25 hours before Trump took the oath of office again, we made a decision, everybody, just do them all.

And now we're seeing here again, he feels like whether it's a conservative cause or supporter of his, or someone he can paint as a victim of the weaponization of government, put that in quotes, from the Biden administration, he has shown, Willie, that he can paint as a victim of the weaponization of government, put that in quotes, from the Biden administration. He has shown, Willie, that he is not going to be reluctant. He's very aggressive using the pardons. We've seen some blowback. We've seen some of those January 6 pardons.

Some of those people have been rearrested for other terrible crimes. Some of the pardons have even gained some skepticism from fellow Republicans, but Trump has made no secret that he's going to keep using it. And the people who got these pardons know what world leaders know, what Vladimir Putin knows, flattery gets you everywhere. We love Donald Trump, we'll donate to your cause, get us out of jail and it works. Let's bring in New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel. He's the author behind the Times piece on that pardon of Paul Walsack.

Ken, good to see you this morning. So if you could just a little bit, I think people probably aren't familiar with who he is and what he did. He was headed for prison shortly before this came down. What more can you tell us about his case and how the pardon came? Yeah, he was set to be sentenced and he was actually already sentenced, I'm sorry, he was sentenced just 12 days before the pardon came down and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison and to pay this $4.4 million in restitution. We should stress here, he had pleaded guilty, this wasn't like a contested thing, he pleaded

guilty to two counts of taking, it basically payroll tax fraud. He had taken the taxes, the federal withholding taxes, out of the paychecks of his employees at these nursing homes and then at $10 million worth. And then instead of giving them to the IRS to be used for their social security, Medicare, et cetera, later he spent at least part of that money on his own enrichment.

He bought a $2 million yacht. He made purchases at Cartier, Bergdorf Goodman, Sachs, did a bunch of traveling. And he was aware of this and worked with the IRS for a number of years before he was criminally charged and then ultimately pleaded guilty. It's important to note the timing here. He pleaded guilty 10 days after president Trump was elected in 2024. So his family, which had deep ties to the Trump and had raised a bunch of money, uh, to the Trump family and raised a bunch of money for Donald Trump had reason

to believe, Hey, this is, this is potentially a good time for us, uh, to, uh, to plead guilty because we have someone coming into the white house with access to this part in power, who's going to look at our case sympathetically. And we're looking, as you're talking, Ken, photographs of him posting to social media with the hat on. He's riding a bicycle with a Trump flag, doing all the things, sending all the signals he needed to get the pardon. But let's talk about his mother's role in this.

Who she is, the dinner she attended last month that perhaps led to this pardon. Yeah, she'd been a stalwart fundraiser in South Florida for Republican campaigns and party committees going back to the George W. Bush administration. But it's notable that her strength was really as a fundraiser, that is bringing in checks from other people, including at fundraisers that she hosted at this lavish home that she had in Jupiter, Florida. So she didn't have a record of giving huge checks. And it's interesting that she was invited as she was waiting, as her family was awaiting this word on this part.

And she was invited to a million dollar a ahead candlelight dinner fundraiser with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago. There's really not a lot in her federal election commission record that would suggest that she had the ability to stroke this kind of check. But it was certainly during a period when she and her son and her family wanted something from President Trump. And it's hard to ignore that timing that she receives this invitation to a million dollar fundraiser while they're awaiting the pardon and while the son is facing the prospect of 18 months in prison and $4.4 million in restitution. Gosh. All right.

New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel, thank you very much for your reporting. Thanks for coming on this morning. And coming up on Morning Joe, we're going to take a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning, including last night's failed space X test flight. We'll tell you what went wrong. Plus, we'll dig into new reporting from the Guardian on concerns from the White House over Defense Secretary Pete excess leak investigation that resulted in the firing of three Pentagon aides. Morning Joe will be right back.

Welcome back to Morning Joe. Look at that panoramic view of New York City at 41 past the hour. Thanks, Joe, for the floor. Jim, you co-authored a new piece that just posted on Axios.com moments ago, taking a critical look at the future of artificial intelligence. It's a pretty incredible piece. It's entitled Behind the Curtain, A White-Collar Blood Bath. That could be the result of AI. Well, yeah, and you know, Jim,

people that run AI companies don't wanna talk about it. They wanna pretend it's not going to happen. Silicon Valley wants to pretend it's not gonna happen. Wall Street doesn't really wanna talk about it, but the fact is, as you report, just like the technological revolution, the IT revolution gutted blue collar workers throughout the 90s and beyond,

you're now talking about a bloodbath for white collar workers because of AI. And from what you've seen and what you're reporting on, it is going to be a bloodbath for workers. I mean, that is certainly the warning of Dario Amadei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. And just for your viewers, Anthropic is one of the top creators of this AI,

these large language models in the world. So he has better visibility than probably all, but two or three people in the world into the power of this technology. He'd been telling us in private for a while that this blood bath could be coming, but that lawmakers don't want to talk about it, the federal government doesn't want to talk about it, AI companies don't want to spook people. We finally convinced him to go on the record. And his point is, like, listen, just play with this technology,

not just casually. Like, once you really dive into it, you realize it can do the work already of researchers, of analysts, of a whole host of entry-level white collar jobs. And he put it in the starkest of terms. He said, like, based on their early analysis, over a five-year period, it could wipe out half of white collar entry-level jobs. Unemployment could spike to 10% to 20% in the next five years. And this is a guy who's building the technology, who's boasting about the power of it. And when we push them on, then if you're building it, like, how do

you morally kind of think about it in your own mind? And he said, I have an obligation to build the technology. I also have an obligation to get the federal government, to get lawmakers, to get other AI companies to figure out how do we prepare the American worker and how do we protect the American worker. And so, you know, as someone who runs a company, I run Axios as a CEO, I spend an inordinate amount of time studying AI and how it's going to play out just in my space of media. And I can guarantee you in the next five years, it's going to radically transform the makeup of our company.

Well, every single company in the world is doing this. Every CEO is sitting there saying, should I fill this role? Should I open this role? Will a machine do this better than man in the next couple of years? When you see data out about the difficulty of college grads finding new jobs, this is one of the early telltale signs that this could be coming.

And so I think the column is very much worth a read. I wish lawmakers spent more time thinking about this rather than some of the small ball things that they debate day to day. It's been fascinating to see many of the people who are developing AI technology, Jim, offering warnings about what's coming because of it. And in your interview he effectively says you cannot stop this train. It's coming down the tracks. This is happening. I think the way he puts it in your interview, though, is you can steer it a little bit. What does that look like?

What does steering it look like? In his mind, I think it's sounding the alarm. It's like, listen, we've got to have a national debate that this isn't 10 years from now. It could be six months from now. It could be 12 months from now. Then there has to be a debate about, okay, how do you make sure that workers are prepared to use artificial intelligence to augment their work, not displace their work? That's what we've been doing at Axios.

We give everybody access to the technology. We have a deal with OpenAI. We make sure that every single unit, no matter what your job is, is already playing with this to figure out how are you going to augment your work so you don't get displaced by it. Hell, I told my own staff you're committing career suicide if you're not spending 10% of your day experimenting with the technology. I don't think most people are. I think people are like, whoa, this is too science fiction or it's a really neat search

engine. They're not actually looking at the capabilities. They don't have the time. They have real lives. But I think Dario's point was they might not wake up until it's way too late. And if lawmakers are way too late to it, you could have real issues. You could have unemployment, as he said, 10 to 20 percent, if he's right, which would then lead to obvious political unrest. We have Steve Bannon on the record in there saying

he thinks the exact same thing is going to play out. He said Trump's not talking about it, but he thinks this will be maybe the biggest topic of the 2028 presidential election. I mean, you have Steve Bannon on the right, you have other people on the left very concerned about this. And Jim, you underlined a point that I've actually told my kids, which is if you're going into an interview, if you're going into anything where you are going to be talking and you want to understand a topic, it's just foolish not to go on to a search

engine app, an AI search engine app, and dig in deep to try to understand a company that you're talking to or an issue that you're talking about better. It's it is Elizabeth it is the future the future is now and a lot of the spaces that we work in ten years from now are gonna look completely different because of AI and White-collar workers across the country as Jim said are gonna be deeply impacted Well, so Jim tell me how how how exactly will this affect our business? So will we still have copy editors, reporters, bosses? But what do you say?

For journalism, I don't think that the machines are going to do the journalism per se. But if you play with it at all, you realize it's going to be a really good copy editor, it's going to be a really good marketer, It's going to be a really good marketer. It's going to be really good at doing research. It's going to be really good at doing marketing. It's going to be really good at taking any piece and maybe creating eight different variations to send it out to all the other platforms. And that's what I would encourage people to do is play with it,

assuming that the hallucinations and the errors go away. Because there are times where it is truly magical, truly magical. And if that were to happen with a human level efficacy, anybody running a company, I'm telling you as someone who runs a company, they're always going to choose automation because they're going to believe that over time it's going to make their company more profitable and it's going to create more jobs. And that might be true and that often is true with technology that in the long arc to create more jobs. And that might be true, and that often is true with technology, that in the long arc it creates more jobs.

What's different here is this is a technology that could hit hard in the next six to 18 months, and it's going to hit every single role potentially simultaneously. And something that fast with that kind of breadth could have a much bigger effect than almost any of the topics that they're debating on Capitol Hill. And when you talk to members of Congress, it's alarming how little they know about this topic and how little and how infrequently they talk to their constituents about it. You're doing a disservice to the country if you're not starting to think through what does the world look like in 18 months to three years. Yeah, I mean, let's say you have 40

or 50 people in your company with AI. Most white collar companies, you could hire four or five people that know the right prompts to ask the right prompts of AI, and it would cover so much of that work. And you are right. This is a five alarm fire and Congress is sleeping. Co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van Dyke, thank you so much. Thank you. And Elizabeth, before we let you go, you've got to talk about clubs and the ones that

are popping up all over Washington, D.C., and how it explains just how divided the city is. Well, there's a couple new clubs. The main one people are talking about is called Executive Branch. It's a Trump-aligned club that is set to open very soon next month, sort of in a subterranean space in Georgetown. That's the whole point, to keep it from prying eyes. And this is, Donald Trump Jr. is one of the owners, along with some of his business partners. And the idea is to keep everybody out, except for the people that Trump allies want in. And they're hoping that the president will stop by, since he has lost the Trump hotel.

He sold it after the end of his first administration. And they're hoping he will stop by and that will do business. The other important about executive branch is that it costs $500,000, as much as $500,000 to join. And bear in mind, Donald Trump Jr. is an owner. And so this is a pretty steep price of access to the White House, and it's also very much enriching the Trump family.

And there's another club called Ned's Club, which is a little less expensive, but also Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, hangs out there. A lot of journalists that's over across from the Treasury building. All right. Writer at Large for The New York Times, Elizabeth B. Miller, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to bring you the latest on the Trump administration's efforts to cut federal funding for Harvard and the broader implications it could have on higher education.

Also ahead, we'll show you the surprising admission from a Republican congressman during a contentious town hall. Morning Joe is coming right back. Well, I pictured the United States Capitol five minutes before the top of the hour. Rifts between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's senior advisors now are fueling internal speculation about how long Hegseth will last at the Pentagon. Several former and current officials tell the Washington Post those issues within Hegseth's inner circle are, quote, brought on by unresolved personality conflicts, inexperience, vacancies in key leadership roles, and a steady state

paranoia over what political crisis could emerge next. One of the most fraught relationships, reportedly, is between Eric Gerrasey and Ricky Barría. Barría is functioning as an acting chief of staff. Sources tell The Post, Republicans have tried to appeal that decision, citing Barría's warm relationship with officials in the Biden administration. It is unclear if the Trump administration will appoint someone else to do that job permanently. Meanwhile, new reporting from The Guardian finds the White House is losing confidence in Secretary Hegson's leak investigation at the

Pentagon. Three top aides were fired last month, you'll remember. Amid accusations, they disclosed military plans for retaking the Panama Canal. They have denied any wrongdoing there. Now, four people familiar with the incident tell the Guardian some advisors raised concerns and a legal warrantless national security agency wiretap may have been used to oust them. The advisors later found the claim to be untrue, but complained they were being fed dubious information by Hegs' personal lawyer, who was overseeing the investigation. Joining us now, the reporter behind that piece for The Guardian, Hugo Lowell.

Hugo, good morning. A lot in there, kind of to weave through, characters to remember. So as you reported out this story, what was the bottom line? What did you find here? I think the bottom line is that it's just a totally surreal situation at the Pentagon. And no one really knows where this goes next, I think.

The story really begins when Hegseth fires these three A's to kind of like summarily just ejects them out of the building after the investigation that had kind of been percolating for several weeks, supposedly developed smoking gun evidence that Dan Caldwell, who was one of the senior aides who was fired, supposedly leaked classified information to a reporter using his personal phone. Right, so the White House originally is like, well, okay, we'll take this at face value. Until several weeks later, someone actually follows up and says, well, how could you possibly know what's on someone's personal phone?

At which point, Tim Pallatore, who is Pete Hextad's personal lawyer, effectively tells these Trump advisers, well, you know, I understood that to be because there was a warrantless, illegal NSA wiretap on Dan Caldwell's phone. And this claim kind of stunned everyone it was relay related to, and it went, you know, as far as people around the vice president. And the White House effectively decided that this claim could not possibly be true. And it led to this kind of breakdown in trust and this breakdown in relationship between the White House and the West Wing and the Pentagon.

And we should say, of course, that Tim Pallottori has since denied having any knowledge of NSA wiretap and has told associates that everything he knows in the investigation was briefed to him by other people. And so I think you get a picture of just how convoluted and dysfunctional that front office has become. So Hugo, let's dive in a little bit more on the relationship between Pentagon, Hegseth staff shrinking in a circle there,

and the White House. He largely escaped blame, at least internally, for Signalgate. Mike Walz was a convenient scapegoat there. But I have reported, and others as well, that some in the West Wing staff really are dubious of Hegseth and his ability to do this job. Some have openly speculated that his time may be relatively limited, that Trump's not looking to push him out now, but he's not someone who may be in the Pentagon

for the long haul. The president himself, though, still pretty fond of him. What's the latest you're hearing in terms of Hexeth's future there, whether he's managing Trump well enough to stay in the gig? Yeah, the best way it was described to me was one Trump aide saying, you know, he's one scandal away from being cut loose.

And, you know, let's see how Hexheath fares in the coming weeks and months. You know, there is speculation inside the Pentagon, and I think in the West Wing, that Hexheath might not last beyond the summer. But there's also this idea that if he does, you know, last through the summer, then he can have the job for as long as he wants, because then he would have kind of proven himself, as it were, to the president. You know, I think it's a really tough time for Pete Hexeth, because he is trying to run the Pentagon, which is nearly a trillion-dollar agency, two million troops deployed worldwide,

and he has a staff that is really a skeleton crew. You know, he has six senior advisers on his team right now. You know, we talked about at the start of the segment about, you know, Ricky Buria, who is the acting or the de facto chief of staff. You know, he was the junior military aide to Hegseth all of, what, five months ago. And he basically leapfrogged a bunch of people because people are either getting fired or they quit or they got reassigned. And he's basically the de facto chief of staff, started redecorating the chief of staff's office,

even though he didn't have that position formally. And the White House kind of looked at what was going on at the Pentagon and said, Pete, there's no way we're going to allow Ricky Buria to be the chief of staff. And so I think there is this widening problem that the White House has with how the Pentagon front office is being managed. And I think what you're seeing is the White House has with how the Pentagon front office is being managed.

And I think what you're seeing is the White House step in to try and, you know, carve away any problem areas, any problem children that could lead Pete Hexseth's tenure astray.