Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/29/25

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

Elon Musk officially leaves the Trump administration

Hey, welcome to Morning Joe's podcast. As always, we really thank you for listening. Today, we're going to be talking about Donald Trump's patience wearing thin with Putin, Netanyahu, and a court that many of us have never heard of before this morning. Also, we're going to be talking about Trump's showdown with Harvard and Elon Musk rocketing out of the White House, Washington, and politics in general. Musk is officially out of Donald Trump's inner circle. I mean, the guy was like left standing in a receiving line on a recent trip and shook hands with him, just like the teeming masses in that receiving line. He's also privately blasted Donald Trump's tariffs and has publicly attacked the Republicans'

big, beautiful reconciliation bill. Musk is rightfully worried, as am I, as are I think just about anybody who knows what's going on with Washington's budget, worried about the $37 trillion debt America now has and how this big, beautiful Republican bill that Donald Trump is pushing will explode the debt by more than $20 trillion over the next decade. That would cripple our economy. It would cause a catastrophic financial meltdown, and that would be difficult even for the United States' mighty economy to recover from. We're going to be talking about this and much, much more straight ahead on Morning Joe's podcast as always thanks so much for listening now let's get to the show I can say this I can say this that I'm very disappointed at what happened a couple of nights now where people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation.

I'm very disappointed by that. Very, very disappointed. All right. President Trump referencing the bombs. Vladimir Putin continues to drop on Ukraine. As U.S. officials try to negotiate a peace deal, it comes as the president explains why he's against any new sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile, President Trump says he has warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

to hold off on striking Iran to give the U.S. more time to negotiate a nuclear deal. And we'll be talking to David Ignatius about this, but this is, this is, file this one under what is old is new. This these two people Netanyahu and Putin every single day, Joe Biden's presidency was was was dealing with these two people trying to move both towards a peace deal. People said it was easy. Donald Trump, the campaign, said it was not easy.

In fact, it's proving to be almost impossible, especially in Israel right now. And we'll get to that with David Ignatius, an extraordinary column in the Washington Post yesterday about how Benjamin Netanyahu has just isolated himself from his closest allies in the world, from Israel's closest allies in the world, and on Russia. I mean, Vladimir Putin has made fools of one president after another.

We've gone through it. George W. Bush looking into his eyes, seeing his soul. Barack Obama talking about the reset, being able to do more things after the 2012 election, whispering that to Medvedev, who's now threatening nuclear war. Donald Trump certainly saw that after Helsinki. And he's actually seeing it again. And it sounds like he doesn't want to go down the path of all these other presidents trusting. Ronald Reagan said trust but verify. With Vladimir Putin, it's don't trust and verify.

We'll dig in more also ahead. We'll get expert legal analysis on Trump's fight with Harvard ahead of a key hearing later this morning. And we'll go through the president's latest round of pardons as he floats clemency for a group of men convicted in a kidnapping plot. Good morning and welcome to morning Joe.

It is Thursday, May 29th. Good to have you all. Yeah, a couple things go over. Let's talk sports and then news. Willie, because we always try to do things in order on what's most important. Let's talk sports first. Oklahoma City man. They, uh, they, they're just a meat grinder. They're incredible. Oklahoma City Thunder won last night by 30 points. They're up by 30 something in the first half over the Timberwolves,

winning the Western Conference finals easily four games to one at home cruising now toward the NBA finals with a nice break in front of him the Knicks and the Pacers play again tonight at the garden if the Knicks win tonight they go back to Indiana so that series goes on and on. While this really underrated incredible Oklahoma City Thunder team finally is getting the attention I think of the world of the country which is their regular season record of 68 and 14. Far and away the best record in the NBA far and away the best record in the West puts them in a class with some of those Michael Jordan Bulls teams in terms of winning percentage not the great one that went 72 and 10 better record than some of the Steph Curry Golden State Warriors teams that won a couple of titles. This is a

great great basketball team that looks like it's on a march toward an NBA title and maybe because they play in a smaller market they don't get quite the attention they deserve but I think finally now nobody can ignore how good this team is what a great player Shay Gilder's Alexander is as the league's MVP. They are really really perhaps historically good Joe. Well yeah and I think I think you just said it. They're they're in the central time zone. They're in the middle of the country. They're about as far away. I mean literally as far away as you can be from

media centers on the East Coast and on the West Coast. No doubt if this was an LA team or a New York team. Yeah. Everybody would be talking about him being and on the West Coast. No doubt if this was an L.A. team or a New York team, everybody would be talking about him being one of the great teams. Secondly, I saw something in the New York Times today. Elon Musk and my gosh, things are changing very quickly for Elon Musk. And there were some quotes in the Times where, of course, he talked about the big beautiful bill, the deficit that was coming, of course, he talked about the big, beautiful bill, the deficit that was coming, of course, things that we've been talking about for quite some time, a

bill that will crush America in the coming years. If you just look at the deficit side of it, $20 trillion added over the next 10 years or a $37 trillion debt, we don't have that money. We can't sustain that this one. But also he said getting things done in Washington DC is not easy again something that we say all the time here Washington always wins. What does that mean? That means that if you're playing basketball in the NBA you can't get the ball and say I'm just going to get the ball and run it up the court and not dribble

you have to play by the rules. You have to play within the confines of the rules that are given to you. And in this constitutional republic, again, you've got 435 members in the House, 100 members in the Senate. You've got judges. You've got three different branches. It was set up specifically not to be easy. And Elon Musk has discovered that in pretty rapid succession. It looks like he's really starting to sound and think again like a business man who wants

to get out of Washington and turn his back on politics. Yeah, he effectively announced yesterday his time in Washington is over a little bit earlier than was planned or expected, but that he's done, that this time as a temporary employee of the government, a special government employee is over. He's walking away. He thanked President Trump. The White House claims they still have a good relationship, the two of them. That perhaps is true, perhaps is not true.

But to your point, Joe, there's a quote he was interviewed by the Washington Post, Elon Musk was in this morning's paper. And he says, quote, the federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least. Learning the lesson that many, many businessmen have learned as they've come to Washington and tried to impose the way they do business, which is to sit at the head of a table and tell people what's going to happen to a federal government, to a federal bureaucracy.

So he came in with the chainsaw. He leaves a little bit humbled, perhaps. I mean, you mentioned it. He did that interview with CBS News. We saw a clip of it yesterday and he sounded more like the pre-politics Elon Musk, which is to say talking about engineering and business and all the things that he has become rich and famous for and less about wielding that chainsaw

to cut around the margins of our federal budget. Again, it's not supposed to be easy. The whole idea of Madison and Hamilton's constitution was you've got to actually work with other people to get things done. That's why as we look at all these, and we're gonna be talking about this tariff ruling, you look at all these emergency orders

that are put out there when, arguably, there aren't emergencies. You look at all the presidential orders that are put out there when arguably there aren't emergencies. You look at all the presidential orders that are put out there. Those make great headlines. They may move the ball a little bit for a month, two, three months. But man, if you want a lasting legacy, you have to pass legislation. Passing legislation, as Joe Biden learned in his term, extraordinarily difficult to do. It took him about two years, but at the end of two years,

he passed a historic number of bills that became law where he had Republicans and Democrats working together. Those bills will last. Those laws will last, just like Obamacare, still the law of the land, but these presidential orders, these presidential directives will not. And so, hopefully, for the sake of the country, we're going to have the president and Congress starting to work together to pass bipartisan legislation that will have a lasting impact. Yeah, we'll see. I'm just gonna say Joe, it remains true that we spend too much, that the federal

debt and deficit are out of control. Elon Musk is right about that. The big problem though is attacking that debt and deficit in the way that he did, which is trimming around the edges and cutting off USAID to children around the world rather than actually looking at the sources of our debt and deficit, which is a much more difficult and complicated thing to do. Absolutely. Let's get to our top story, which is perfect given what we've been talking about here.

A federal trade court has blocked most of President Trump's trade tariffs. A three-judge panel on the International Court of Trade yesterday ruled that the president did not have the authority to impose the sweeping tariffs. The judges found that Trump's use of the decades-old International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not, quote, delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the president and that Trump's tariffs lacked quote any identifiable limits lawyers for the Trump administration have already said that they will appeal a little more background on the Court of International Trade it was established under article

three of the Constitution according to its government website, the court has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the customs and international trade laws of the United States. Now, stock futures rose sharply in response. Wall Street obviously liked this. Yeah, to the ruling with the Dow gaining more than 500 points while the tech-heavy Nasdaq added over 400 points so Willie an interesting reaction to this ruling Yeah, Wall Street does not like tariffs so they like this ruling Let's bring in the co-host of our fourth hour contributing writer at the Atlantic Jonathan Lamir and columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post

David Ignatius guys good morning John I think people perhaps last night or this morning just learned that there is a U.S. court of international trade and what jurisdiction it has. But saying very clearly, these tariffs as imposed through executive orders are both invalid and contrary to law. The White House, we can expect now to push back hard. Yeah, we're learning about two new things. This court, but also the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is what Donald Trump and the Trump administration cited to impose these tariffs in the first place.

A 1977 law that suggests that a national emergency gives a president certain powers over the economy. What the White House did was put forth the argument that these trade deficits counted as a national emergency or the flow of fentanyl over the borders. Various justifications. The court yesterday made it clear that's not the case, that this was something the president had overstepped his bounds,

that tariffs should, in purview of Congress, and they were cut out of this process entirely, and that though the president is permitted to continue some tariffs on specific items like steel and cars and the like. But he cannot do these broad based national tariffs that we've seen against China, Mexico and the like. Now, let's be clear.

A lot of these trade deals haven't been finished yet. So this is unclear how this is going to upend those negotiations. Trump administration reacted with nothing short of fury last night. Stephen Miller tweeted, the judicial coup is out of control. I heard, I have several messages here from Trump administration officials

saying things along those lines, suggesting this is another plot by the deep state to stop this president. One here, they'll stop at nothing to blunt his agenda and the like. They think this is the courts, along with bureaucracy, trying to undermine

what is his signature economic agenda. Well, Joe, the deep state in this case is a three judge panel. This international court of trade composed of a Reagan appointee, an Obama appointee and a Trump appointee. I'm not really good at math, but this appears to be a court that has two-thirds of its members that ruled on this being Republican-appointed and one of those being a Donald Trump appointee. David Ignatius, all this talk about the deep state, all this talk about a judicial coup, again, of course it's reckless, but also it just flies in the face of history. Barack Obama faced this, Joe Biden faced this, of course Donald Trump faced it. Donald Trump's facing it more than others because Donald Trump deliberately is pushing the boundaries of Article 2 powers, which is perfectly fine and

legitimate to test those boundaries. But don't be shocked when you step over the line and the court pulls you back. And I want to circle back to this use of emergency powers, just so people understand what's going on here. Donald Trump did that, I think, in the first term. I believe it was to build the wall. It got snapped back by the courts there because it wasn't an emergency. And he's declared two different emergencies now

that really, if you just look historically, don't line up with the definition of emergencies as compared to the statute. So when the White House officials are saying the sort of things that they're saying, first of all, they're ignoring the clear letter of the law, number one. And number two, they're just ignoring history. Ask Joe Biden about student loan forgiveness.

The Supreme Court over, you know, brushed aside his executive order. He had to figure out a way to get a lot less than he wanted. That's as Earth, Wind and Fire would sing, that's the way of the world. If you're in Washington, D.C., it happens to every president. And so I hope they'll tone down the really reckless rhetoric towards these judges who are simply reading the law,

reading the Constitution, and a lot of Trump-appointed judges going, okay, no, that's just not what the law says. So governing by emergency orders is what dictatorships do. They live in a permanent state of emergency, which basically gives the executive carte blanche to make changes. Donald Trump's hardly the first president to be frustrated by the courts. basically gives the executive carte blanche to make changes. Donald Trump's hardly the first president

to be frustrated by the courts. Remember Franklin Roosevelt as he was trying to enact his sweeping new deal legislation. Got so furious at the Supreme Court, he wanted to expand the numbers so he'd have a majority he could count on to get legal permission to do all the things he wanted. Thank goodness he was stopped in that.

I do think looking at this trade issue, I would have thought that a president did have pretty wide powers to tariff. And the constraint on that power has been the financial markets. It's the reaction of the stock and bond markets that turned Donald Trump around, not court action. He'd already decided to pull back from his 145 percent tariff on China. He

pulled back from his tariffs on the EU, not because some judge told him to, but because the financial markets said, thou shalt not. This is unwise economic action. So we'll see how this works out. In the broader sense, Joe and Mika, we have a big Supreme Court case coming that will test what are the executive powers of the president? How are they limited? What among the many things Trump has done is legal and what is not? And that case is ahead of us. It's hard to know how this court will rule, but I'd be surprised if they embraced the idea of this extraordinary, universal, wheeled-at-chainsaw executive power that Trump, Musk, others in this MAGA group have tried to claim.

As we mentioned a minute ago, the markets love this news. Let's bring in the anchor of CNBC's Worldwide Exchange, Frank Holland. Frank, good morning. It looks like the Dow futures are way up on this news from the International Court of Trade. Yeah, good morning to you. You know, futures higher across the board. Investors, they're clearly hopeful that this court ruling could lead to a permanent shift

in U.S. trade policy. We're seeing the S&P and the NASDAQ higher, along with transports and also the small caps before the opening bell. Now, that's important because these are really domestically focused areas, transports, trucking and rail and also small caps, generally smaller, more domestic companies. And those are areas that move higher on expectations of economic strength. Again, that's coming on the back of this court ruling. I want to go back to that court ruling, get a bit more granular. Goldman out with a note this morning saying the ruling will reduce terrorists by just under 7% but then also noting that the president has a lot of other methods to impose tariffs and some of the tariffs including tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos. Those are imposed on a different set of power. So those are going to remain unchanged. So some more to watch out there to see if the administration tries to impose tariffs under a different section. That's what it's called. We also cannot forget.

It's hard to believe that we're not talking about that right off the bat. Nvidia, the chip maker had its earnings yesterday, beating expectations for revenue and profit and also issuing a positive outlook going forward. That's moving mega cap tech names like an Amazon and Apple higher, both of them more than 2% higher. I just checked a short time ago. Those so-called stocks that make up the magnificent seven, they make up about a third of the S&P 500. So there's two big factors moving the markets higher this morning. So beyond the market the big question is what does this all mean for the general economy? We have the chief economist of Apollo Global on my show earlier, really respected voice on the economy. He says well what we know today, the risk of stagflation, that's slowing growth and higher

inflation, it's reduced pretty significantly. And then also less inflation, that theoretically increases the chances of the Federal Reserve cutting rates. And you mentioned that some people may be learning about the Court of International Trade for the first time today, but we've all heard about the Supreme Court. The administration plans to appeal this ruling. This case could go all the way to the highest court of the land. So there could be more shifts when it comes to trade policy, also just more developments

for the market. So a sigh of relief today, but certainly the book is not closed on this story. Frank, thank you so much. And Joe Meeker, to his point, the Trump administration also saying that this is far from over. They've already, just part of justice has already sent notice they're going to appeal. There is a sense this could end up in the Supreme Court. And I am told that there is no rethinking of strategy, at least not yet from the president. I know there was some speculation last night,

some wishful thinking perhaps from some other Republicans I heard from, that this may be an off-ramp for President Trump, that you could blame the courts, but then actually back away from some of the tariffs because of the impact on the markets, because of the impact potentially down the road on the economy if these deals don't go through and we start seeing supply chain issues and the like.

But this is Joe as you well know somebody the president has believed in for a very long time and at least now I'm told he doesn't plan to alter course. So I'm going to say this slowly. So our billionaire friends on Wall Street and our multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street who trade every day can understand it. You thought that Donald Trump was just talking when he kept campaigning and promising to provide tariffs? He wasn't. He's been saying that since 1987. And I have it on

very good authority that people that are saying Donald Trump is backing down on tariffs and there's an off-ramp, that Donald Trump does not believe there is an off-ramp for tariffs. And people running around saying that he always backs down or he chickens out, why don't you just invite him to put more tariffs on more countries? He's not backing down on tariffs. It is one of the driving forces of his political life and his political being. There is no off-ramp. All right, let me say that again. There is no off-ramp. He is going to continue looking for opportunities to put tariffs on other countries that he believes have an unfair trade advantage on us, whether we believe it,

whether Wall Street traders believe it or not, whether economists believe it or or not there is no off-ramp okay well I just I seriously these are supposed to be the smartest financial minds in the world they're far from I've I've keep miss reading him there's not a same thing there's not an off-ramp on this he believes in tariffs he's going he's going to continue to believe in tariffs and saying that he's chickening out or that there's an off ramp on tariffs, as Jonathan said, it's wishful thinking. I totally agree and I've heard the same people say, I didn't think he'd do it. So we're going to take a quick break and then we've got a lot more to get to, including

the president's ongoing escalating feud with Harvard and ongoing challenges on the world stage with Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. We'll be right back. 23 past the hour, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the top leader of Hamas has been killed during a military operation in Gaza. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel has the latest. After relaunching a punishing military offensive in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed a victory over Hamas, saying Israel confirmed it killed the group's latest leader,

Mohammed Sinwar. He was killed, Israel says, in an airstrike on a hospital. Mohammed Sinwar took over Hamas' leadership from his brother Yechia, whose earlier assassination by Israeli forces was captured on video. Yechia Sinwar was considered the mastermind of the Hamas October 7 massacre, and Hamas is still holding more than 50 hostages in Gaza. Meanwhile, a controversial new U.S. and Israeli-backed operation has begun to distribute a limited amount of food into Gaza.

But Israeli troops firing in the air to disperse hungry crowds exposed the challenges. And a crowd broke into a warehouse storing aid. All while President Trump revealed he cautioned Netanyahu against striking Iran, the major backer of Hamas, while the U.S. and Iran are in the midst of nuclear talks. I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very close to a solution. Now, that could change at any moment.

It could change with a phone call. But right now, I think they want to make a deal. And if we can make a deal, it'll save a lot of lives. Boy, I'll tell you what, David Ignatius, that trip, I mean, if we keep moving in this direction, the trip that the president made to the Middle East, to the Gulf region, especially last week, the week before, I mean, it could be remembered as a week that really sort of moved US foreign policy in that region, shifted it a bit

on its axis. And no better policy in that region, shifted it a bit on its axis. And no better evidence of that than in the opening paragraph of your column that's out this morning. On Wednesday, the 600th day of the Gaza War, Israel faced an astonishing rebuke, not from its enemies, but perhaps its closest Arab friend, the United Arab Emirates, summoned the Israeli ambassador to Abu Dhabi

to protest, quote, deplorable and offensive attacks on Palestinians by extremists in Israel. If it is just up there, David, and again, everybody needs to read this column. It is absolutely fascinating. Benjamin Netanyahu has effectively isolated Israel from its closest allies in the region, its closest Arab allies, from Donald Trump especially, which should be their biggest concern right now, but also from people inside of Israel, from generals, from intel people inside of Israel, from former prime ministers, this is a man who, as you say in this column, continues to fight a war with no specific purpose.

This is not about the degradation of Hamas anymore. As you said, for the most part, militarily, other than parading and looking like idiots going out there inviting strikes against them, this is a war without end, a war with no specific military objective. Talk about the impact that is having on Israel in the region, and may have for a very long time. So, Joe, the painful fact is that Israeli military officials and intelligence security officials have known for a year that the military objectives in the campaign in Gaza have been largely achieved and have been trying to put together a plan to stabilize Gaza under non-Hamas

Palestinian leadership so that this war can be ended, the hostages can be released, and a process of stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza can begin. Netanyahu, for political reasons, has resisted those plans. They continue. The UAE, the best friend Israel has in the Arab world in many ways, was part of that effort to think about a stabilization plan for Gaza. They finally just gave up.

And what we saw this week with the UAE summoning the Israeli ambassador to protest the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and Jerusalem is the latest example of a frustration that stretches across Europe, across the Arab world. I think Netanyahu really is running out of time and the patience of his partners, his allies to solve this Gaza war. I think the impatience is felt deeply by President Trump himself. He thinks this war is dragged on far too long. Steve Witkoff, his emissary, says yesterday that we're on the precipice of a new deal with Hamas that might lead to

release of hostages. I hope that that's so. There's no conflict in the world that you'd like to see end more than this one, which has brought so much bloodshed. But it's extraordinary to see how Netanyahu really has lost partner after partner as people become more frustrated with his refusal to bring the war to an end. Well, it is really hard not to draw a line between what happened on October 7th and just the absolute horror, the savagery, the terrorism, unspeakable actions, the rapes, the brutalizing of women, the killing of grandmothers, the shooting of parents in front of children, the shooting of children in front of parents. It's just so hard not to draw a line from that and where we are now with 9-11 and where we were as a country after we went into Iraq.

And, and, and, and, and, and really losing, uh, in, in a significant way, uh, the, the positive will of the world. And Willie, in this case, we're not talking about left-wing governments in the United Nations or across Europe that are striking out against Netanyahu and Israel. We're talking about their closest allies in the region. We're talking about Donald Trump.

We're talking about people inside of Israel's military, inside of military's intelligence communities who wanted this war to end a year ago because they understand the price that it is exasperating, not only the unspeakable humanitarian toll on the people of Gaza, but also on Israel itself. Yeah. And you've got leaders across Europe, as you say, talking about the conditions right now that humanitarian aid cannot get in or out and what that is causing inside of Gaza,

exacerbating things there. President Trump talked about Prime Minister Netanyahu. He talked about Israel and Gaza. He also, in that White House session yesterday, was asked about Russia and Vladimir Putin and asked why he has not greenlit further sanctions on Russia. What stopped you from imposing new sanctions on Russia? Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up

by doing that. Let me tell you, I'm a lot tougher than the people you're talking about, but you have to know when to use that. If I think it's going to hurt a deal, this isn't my war. This is Biden's war, Zelensky's war, and Putin's war. This isn't Trump's war. I'm only here for one thing, to see if I can end it, to save 5,000 lives a week. Do you believe the Russians are being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin

are simply an emotional response? And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war? I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks, within two weeks. We're going to find out very soon. We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently, but it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks. We have Mr. Witkoff is here, who's doing a phenomenal job, is dealing with them very strongly right now. They seem to want to do something,

but until the document is signed, I can't tell you. Nobody can. David Ignatius, the president went on to say that he is, quote, very, very disappointed in Vladimir Putin for the recent attacks on civilian targets in the middle of this negotiation. But I guess the larger question is, is there really a ceasefire negotiation? Is there really a plan to end this war, or is it just talk, and in fact, is Vladimir Putin just stringing the president along? Really, from everything that I can see, the simple answer to President Trump's question

is no, Vladimir Putin does not want to end the war. He wants to win the war. He has not given up on his basic desire to bring Ukraine under Russian tutelage to destroy its ability to be an independent part of Europe, certainly to stop it from ever becoming a part of NATO. He hasn't given up on any of that. If President Trump thinks that he's still considering that kind of acceptance of U.S. demands, I think it's delusional. Putin shows no sign of that kind of compromise.

In fact, the one demand that President Trump has made, which is that there be a ceasefire so that there can then be negotiations in a calmer environment, is the one that Putin has refused. He wants to have talks before there's a ceasefire. He wants to keep throwing missiles, you know, multiple ballistic missiles a day are landing on Kiev, and Putin wants to keep that up.

He wants to negotiate under the pressure of that kind of extreme force, and I just, I don't think Trump gets it. Wait two weeks for what? I don't think Trump gets it. Wait two weeks for what? I don't understand it. Well, we will see. You know, Mika, there were times, there had been times in the past

where you actually have negotiations or the talk of negotiations going on. I think we did this in Vietnam where we would increase bombing to try to put ourselves in a stronger position when negotiating. You know, perhaps the Trump administration is looking at it that way, that Vladimir Putin is trying to put himself into a better position to negotiate. The mocking of Donald Trump repeatedly by the Kremlin, I don't know exactly how that

helps him in the negotiations, but we will see. The president has talked about two weeks before he makes any decisions on sanctions. Obviously, if you're in the middle of negotiations, good faith negotiations, which these do not appear to be, you don't slap sanctions on anybody in the middle of negotiations.

So understand that. But I will say that members of Congress, the rest of the world looking on, they're going to expect sanctions. They're going to expect a tougher hand with Vladimir Putin if he just keeps killing Ukrainian citizens the way he's been doing over the past week while Donald Trump has been pressuring him to move toward a ceasefire. All right. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you very much for coming on this morning.

We appreciate it. Thank you, David. And coming up, President Trump commutes the sentence of a former gang leader after a campaign by Kanye West. We'll dig into that decision and the other controversial pardons the president has issued so far. the president has issued. So far, it's all next on Morning Joe. You have to understand, the last thing I want to do is hurt them. They're hurting themselves, they're fighting.

You know, Colombia has been really, they were very, very bad what they've done. Very anti-Semitic and lots of other things. But they're working with us on finding a solution. And you know, they're taking off that hot seat. But Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are. And they're getting their ass kicked. President Trump yesterday continuing his criticism of Harvard and its international student enrollment. As graduation ceremonies get underway at the university today, the school will also face off against the administration in a Boston courtroom. The hearing comes after the White House ended Harvard's ability to enroll international students, a move that jeopardizes the legal status of more than a quarter of the students

on campus. Last week, a federal judge granted Harvard a temporary restraining order, which effectively blocked the policy. Today, both sides will argue over whether that judge's order should be extended. Let's bring in former U.S. attorney, MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuade. NBC News, national affairs analyst and a partner in chief political columnist at PUC, John Heilman and co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Hei, back with us. Good to have you all. Barbara McQuade, what do we expect out of this hearing today? Well, today, Mika, is the hearing for a preliminary injunction. As you reported, on Friday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order.

That's an order that's given ex parte without giving the defendant an opportunity to respond based on the pleading itself. And the judge there found that there was a substantial likelihood that Harvard would succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims, its Fifth Amendment claims, and that there would be irreparable harm to individuals here, students who lose their status. And so, HALTED blocked that order on Friday. Today is the opportunity for the defense to be heard, to decide whether this injunction should stay in place for a more permanent basis. A temporary restraining order, by its terms, is only good for 14 days, and it contemplates that there would be shortly thereafter a hearing, like the one that we'll see today, that would

leave that stay in place while the case works its way through the courts. So I don't imagine the defense has much more to say that is not already publicly known, but the judge will hear from the defendant and decide whether to lift this day or keep it in place while the litigation ensues. You know, Jim VandeHei, this lawsuit, this fight between Donald Trump and Harvard University, really, I mean, it really defines the polarized world we live in right now,

because both sides are winning politically on this. It's obviously extraordinarily difficult for Harvard. That faces some real challenges, real concerns about R&D. But at the same time, The New York Times has a story today talking about how this fight with Donald Trump has actually healed a fractured campus and everybody's coming together on Harvard. At the same time, Donald Trump obviously doing well with his base when he talks about anti semitism on Harvard, political biases on Harvard, left of the left wing getting more powerful there. Sword through this politically for us, if you will.

I mean, I think you got the got it right in terms of you know what the base likes about the fight. What doesn't make sense and there's just so many contradictions with the policies of this White House is if you just step way back the biggest two topics are can we defeat China over the next 10 to 20 years or keep them from becoming a superpower with greater reach than the U.S.? And can we win this sort of race around AI, which we talked about yesterday? To do both of those, you need the best and brightest people coming to the United States and helping build these technologies, help strengthen the U.S. economy, help make these academic institutions

better and brighter. We just have a lot fewer people than China. So when you start to ban, not just at Harvard, there's talk of doing this with Chinese students across the board, talk about doing this at other universities. This is a flip for Trump himself, who a year ago said, hey, we want the best and brightest. Maybe if you come here and you have a certain talent set, you should be instantly made a US citizen. So it's even a shift for him. And I think that gets lost in all of this. And I think there's this danger for Trump right now.

It's really interesting. We've been monitoring MAGA media very closely. And there's obviously still a ton of loyalty, but there's starting to be a break. We saw it last night over AI. You saw Steve Bannon, you saw Charlie Kirk and some others saying, hey, we agree with what Axios wrote, what the morning Joe talked about yesterday, that there could be this job apocalypse that the administration is not paying enough attention to.

That's a little bit of a break. You've seen Ben Shapiro on his show say, whoa, all of these deals that seem to be helping out the Trump family and helping Trump, but aren't doing anything to help the working class, that could be really problematic for the Republican Party in 2026 and 2028. And so I think these fights that he's picking, while they might feel good and they might satisfy some kind of itch that a part of the bases had, are starting to unnerve even parts of his base. And I would keep a close eye on that.

I don't think that Meg is going to split from Trump, but there's real signs that there's a deep unease that this could hurt the party, all of this in totality, running into 2026. And for Trump, God forbid, if he has Democrats running the House, it's going to be investigation, investigation, subpoena, subpoena for two years. And he's giving them a lot to work with. Well, and you also have Mark Levin very concerned about Qatar, very concerned about Saudi Arabia, very concerned especially about a deal with Iran. So you're right, there is some with Iran. So you're right. There is some discontent that's rising in the MAG world. Jonathan Lemire, though, I will tell you, for people who are not political, who are just looking at America's standing in the world, deep concerns and real hopes that this

crisis between the White House and the Harvard gets resolved quickly because, as Jim Van De Hei said, in our fight against China to stay ahead on AI, to stay ahead on technology, to stay ahead on weapons technology, you name it. You talk about our medical research, whether you're talking about breakthroughs in Parkinson's, breakthroughs in Alzheimer's, breakthroughs in cancer, in breast cancer, you name it. That is damaged when funding is taken away from the best and the brightest. And when we tell the best and the brightest in the world, don't come here, we're closed for business, stay in China, help China beat

America, go to the EU, help European countries get a leg up on America in the coming years. This is not stagnant. It's always moving. The United States is always—we're either moving ahead or we're falling behind. We've been moving ahead for, you know, since World War II because of R&D from our best and brightest universities. This is the real concern for people who are looking at it as far as national security issues go. They want this resolved. Yeah, and it's been a one-two punch from the Trump administration first slashing federal funding

for research and grants, both in government elsewhere, and now telling these institutions they can't draw the students, the very researchers who would do the work with that money. So there is a lot of concern and growing rapidly about this. And John Heilman, I think it's a twin issue. It's the high level, like Joe just outlined. But also, as Jim said, the fact that there is now a sense among some in the MAGA world,

like, well, why is your focus on getting a jet from Qatar and not lowering prices? Like, what actually have you done here? And then they look at this piece of legislation that's passed the House, that's Trump's signature item, and it's something that again with a Careful inspection seems to really help the rich and not a lot of the people who actually put Donald Trump back in office Right right Jonathan and I you know, there's an additional

Irony or an inconsistency on the Harvard thing to the one that Jim was talking about, which is that the new, relatively new president of Harvard, Alan Garber, is someone who actually agrees with many conservative critics of elite institutions that they had let themselves be overrun by anti-Semitism. He was someone who was a reformer and had come in explicitly saying, yeah, this troubles me. We need to change our culture at Harvard. And because the Trump administration, driven by President Trump, has been so extreme in how it's dealt with Harvard and made demands that no university could ever accept, that it kind of put someone who would potentially have been a partner of the Trump administration

back on its heels and pushed into a corner. And you have a lot of people who even people who have been very critical of Harvard who look at this and go, hey, I think this is going a little bit too far. And I think that that gets at this larger thing. Maggie Haberman has very good piece in the New York Times about how this is an illustration of a thematic in this new administration, which is that Donald Trump, his sense of grievance and the way in which he sees conflict as a zero-sum game drives a lot of self-defeating and politically problematic course of action.

This is one of them, the attacks on the law firms, right? If you fight back against Trump, he will fight you until there's no more fight to fight. He goes all the way to the extreme. He has done this across the board. Essentially, whether it's Miles Taylor or Chris Krebs or anybody else, if they push back against Trump, it is their fault, and he will then punish them and will say what he said about Harvard yesterday, which is, I want to help these guys. They're just creating this problem for themselves.

And of course, that's not true, but it's also, as I say, and as Jim was pointing out, it can be politically self-defeating because it takes his eye off the ball on what is really the political calculus that got him back into the White House, which is prices, economy, turning all that stuff around. Trump seems really distracted

by a lot of personal vendettas here and not focused on what his base and what all American and all Republican voters really want. And meanwhile the president continues to issue these controversial pardons and commutation. The list includes a former New York congressman who pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion, a former Connecticut governor found guilty of obstructing justice, a rapper known as NBA Youngboy who pleaded guilty to possessing weapons

as a felon and former Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover. Hoover, considered one of the most notorious criminals in Illinois history, has been serving multiple life sentences since the 1970s. The move is not expected, though, to set him free. He has more than a hundred years left to serve on state murder charges in Illinois that presidential clemency cannot erase. Let's bring in NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter. Tom, good morning. So much to talk about, so many names here. But let's start with Larry Hoover. He's been doing some reporting on this. Part of a campaign by Kanye West, in part to get him out of jail, also from Chicago, to get Larry

Hoover out of jail. Why the focus on this guy and just for the benefit of our viewers, who he is and why he is so notorious? Well, I think, you know, just the fact that you mentioned that he's been referred to in federal court is one of the most notorious criminals in Illinois history. I am duty bound to remind you that Al Capone once ran the Chicago outfit. So that's the level of criminality that we've seen in Illinois over the years. This individual has been called by federal prosecutors, the leader of the gangster disciples. He's referred to as the chairman of the board as the king.

And he's somebody who led this gang, which they have alleged and have convicted on the fact that they ran the drug trade in Chicago from the early 19 seventies until his indictment in federal court in 1995, making $100 million of profit per year. Most of that went to him and his family. They say, by the way, he ran a significant portion of this time period when he was running this gang was while he was in state prison on that murder charge that you just referenced there, the same one that he's going to go back to state prison now. They said he's the heralded leader still of the gangster disciples while he's been in a federal jail known as Florence 80 X.

That's the most secure jail facility in the United States, if not the world. That's where the U.S. sends Johar Sarnayev, Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, El Chapo is there. Just to give you a sense of the security measures that take place, and yet he's still somebody who they say remains the heralded leader of this community. And so what's going to happen now when he goes back to state prison, this name, St. Prison, where they say he ran the drug trade. Now, he might not do anything criminal, but they do note that according to the Bureau of Prison's

Intelligence, he has not renounced his ties to the gang. He has not renounced his gang affiliation. And that's something that they typically look for when considering these types of things, as far as, you know, is this somebody who's given up that life, given up that code? And they're saying, and they're filing federal prosecutors, that that's not the case.

There's an impact here, Willie, right? And so there's an impact obviously on Hoover, but there's an impact on the victims of these crimes. And they're not alleged crimes, they were convicted by a jury in court. So what does this mean to the black community? Justice Department is currently trying to charge Eugene Henley, big U out of Los Angeles

on a 43 count RICO indictment. Murder is alleged there. All sorts of racketeering is alleged there. We know from the indictment from our own reporting that there are very high profile members of the hip hop and athletic community, the NBA community specifically in that case that were victims of his crime. Those individuals we have tried to talk to for the last several months, I never do this, I never talk about the type of reporting that we're doing before we actually are ready with it,

they are scared to talk. So when you look at the Hoover case, what type of message is that sending when you're saying this is somebody who led this criminal gang for approximately 25 years, made all this money, charged with all these crimes, going back to state prison for murder, and yet he gets a look from the White House, and they're paying attention

to Kanye West, who first started talking about this in that infamous Oval Office appearance in 2018. So let's remember, this president in this term began by emptying the jails of January 6th convicts, letting them out. But that was because he believed they were out there defending him on January 6. What is the benefit to the president to let Larry Hoover have his sentence commuted? Again, he'll still be in jail. But why? Why would the president do this? the influence that he's had, the fact that he came out speaking on behalf of Trump. Is this something that he has some sort of sway? Is this part of a larger thing in the hip hop community? There was a benefit concert that was held for Larry Hoover

involving Drake, J Prince, James Prince, the founder of Rap-A-Lot Records out of Houston, Texas. Again, another big time individual, not somebody who's been charged federally, but somebody who in that community is quite well known. And so what are the involvement of all of these hip hop stars for somebody who has such a documented history? We're not talking about somebody who's grabbed jumping

over a turnstile with a small bag of drugs. We're not talking about a low level offender. This is somebody who, again, they've called the quote, chairman of the board. That's how he's referenced in a gang that's still very much as active in federal prisons. the question is will this continue in just overall the message that you're sending to the victims in this community? In some ways I'm just gonna get to give you this sound bite John and then you

can take it to Barbara. Also the president talking yesterday about governor Gretchen Whitmer and the men who are convicted of attempting to kidnap her floating the idea that he might grant them pardons too. I'm gonna look at it I will take a look at it it's been brought to my attention I did watch the trial it looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job I'll be honest with you it looked to me like some people said some stupid things you know they were drinking and I think they said stupid things. But I'll take a look at that. And a lot of people are asking me that question from both sides, actually.

A lot of people think they got railroaded. A lot of people think they got railroaded. So, Barbara McQuade, we see now a pattern, of course, from President Trump that he's inclined to use the pardon or commutation powers for those who have been supportive and helpful to him. That includes former Congressman Michael Grim here in New York. And now we have this moment in your home state in Michigan where these men were threatened to tie up, kidnap the governor of Michigan, the sitting governor.

And Trump is now suggesting that people on both sides of the aisle, I think we can cast some doubt on that, are suggesting that this was unfair and this was a miscarriage of justice, you know, akin to, someone said to me yesterday, some of the January 6 rioters, who again, also were committing acts of violence in Trump's name. What is your reaction to him floating this possibility that using his powers to help those who convicted of trying to kidnap the governor of the state of Michigan? Yeah I think it's an appalling effort to normalize political violence. Some things to know about that comment. Number one he said he watched

the trial. He most certainly didn't watch the trial because federal court trials are not televised. So perhaps he watched some coverage of the trial. Some additional facts, he said that they said some stupid things. Maybe so. But in addition, there was evidence presented in that case that they created a fake shoot house that they trained on extricating the governor from her shoot house and separating her from her security detail. And they surveilled the underside of a bridge

that connects her home with the police department in an effort to avoid capture. So those additional facts were not known. The other thing that I think is important to remember here is the reason, the motive that these men had that was presented at trial was that they wanted to retaliate against her for her COVID shutdown orders. During that time, you may recall, Governor Whitmer was in a very public feud with

President Trump, who posted online, liberate Michigan. And so these men, like those January 6 defendants, were acting in support of Donald Trump's political cause. And so the idea that they would be pardoned or have their sentences commuted really is a part with the January 6th defendants and seems like another effort to normalize political violence so long as you are on the side of President Trump. And again, with one of the few Democratic leaders who has stood beside

President Trump at public ceremonies. Certainly would be, again, not only disturbing for legal reasons, but for political reasons, very curious. Former US attorney Barbara McQuade, thank you very much. By the way, the paperback edition of her book, Attack From Within, is out next week, and she'll be back with us to talk about that. Thank you, Barbara. and NBC's Tom Winter.

Thank you for your reporting this morning. NBC News National Affairs Analyst John Halman, co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Heide. Thank you both as well. Great to have you and still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll be joined by the Attorneys General from Arizona and Oregon whose lawsuit led to a federal trade court blocking most of President Trump's tariffs. And we'll bring you an update on the ongoing legal battles involving the Venezuelan migrants who were deported to a prison in El Salvador.

We're back in one minute.