Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/30/25

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Musk appears to distance himself from the White House

Hey, welcome to the Morning Joe podcast our Friday edition. It's Friday. It is Friday. Thank thank goodness I'm very sad. I love doing four hours a day I would like we have a couple hours tomorrow and Sunday that you know best ofs for the week But man, I'm just waking up at 2 30 in the morning and talking you're gonna get up tomorrow and watch yourself Yeah, well now now now you'll be having me going to get coffee and that's true. You know, carrying your your barbells up to the attic. That's true. But today, let's not talk about tomorrow. Let's talk about today. What we're gonna be talking about today is Elon Musk's farewell and his dizzying

rise and fall as a Washington power player. I gotta say, you've never had anybody that is an unelected official who's amassed so much power So quickly in the history of Washington DC, and then he lost it all three months later really stunning We're gonna be talking about Elon. We're also gonna be talking about the Republicans big beautiful bodacious economically crippling insane Spending bill we got a37 trillion debt, as you know. If this bill passes, our debt will go up an additional $20 trillion over the next decade.

It's simply unsustainable. I've been talking about this my entire life, the deficits, debt. We balanced the budget four years in a row in the 1990s, and it's just skyrocketed since then. And we've now reached a point—it's a tipping point—called Ferguson's Law, where we actually—we are now spending as a nation more money on interest on our federal debt than we spend on America's national defense. That's a tipping point.

We're spending more on our national debt than keeping our streets safe. We're spending more on our national debt than law enforcement. We're spending more on our national debt, servicing our national debt, the interest on our credit card. Then we're spending on vets. Then we're spending on farmers. Then we're spending on education.

It is shameful, and it is shame, just shameless that Republican speaker Mike Johnson, who is shepherding through this legislative nightmare of a bill, that he's attacking the Congressional budget office. Miki, you know what else is shameless? What's that? What Pablo Torrey is going to show everybody on our show. Well, that and also what he shows on his podcast, Pablo Torrey.

That's what I'm saying. Okay. Yeah, I mean, Bill Belichick. Pablo Torrey has used his Harvard education to track down the ring camera that showed what? It's truly shameful. A shirtless Bill Belichick. It's shameful.

Yeah, it's very, very ugly. We'll have that much more straight ahead on the Morning Joe podcast. Thanks so much for listening. Members of the class of 2025 from down the street, across the country and around the world. around the world just as it should be. That was Harvard University's president alluding to the ongoing battle with the Trump administration during a graduation speech yesterday. We'll tell you what came of yesterday's court hearing

on that legal fight. Meanwhile, President Trump's tariffs are back in effect. For now, we'll look at what could happen next in that case. It comes as the Trump administration continues to slam judges who rule against the president's agenda. We'll dig into those comments, and if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

We'll explain why that saying applies to this year's new spelling bee champion. M-E-N-T, official. That is correct. Yay! Aw. I was just wanting to watch him win. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe.

It's Friday, May 30th. Happy Friday. Happy Friday. Are you happy if it's Friday? Well, I'm going to miss not having four more hours tomorrow. I know. We do a couple hours tomorrow. I know who's really, really not happy.

It's Friday. The co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire, he doesn't work enough. He's a contributing writer at the Atlantic covering the White House and national politics and co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Hei. Jonathan, Jonathan Lemire, I want you to spell Brzezinski and Van De Hei. Go. I would be out instantly. I was never very good. Never very good at these spelling bees. But that you know and also I will admit I don't know that

last word that the champion got correct there at the end. That was amazing. Extraordinary stuff. This is one of it is funny. It's both joyous and one of the most nerve wracking events of every year. Yeah. Jim Van De Hei I've gotten such remarkable feedback, not from the Spelling

Bee champion, but I'm sure we will in the next 24 hours, but on your story on AI and the understanding that again, what the IT revolution did, what the information age did to blue collar workers and displacing them and causing this sort of post-industrial rot of the 70s and 80s to actually accelerate, things could actually be even more challenging and difficult when you look at AI and what that's going to do to white collar workers. And it's so crazy hearing all of these stupid things that are being talked about in Washington, D.C., all these stupid things that politicians waste their time on on social media.

When you look at a $36, $37 trillion debt that will explode $20 trillion more over the next decade and really cripple the United States economy and this looming threat of AI that's not, as you said, 10 years away or five years away. We're seeing it happening right now. I just wanted to share this with you, Jim. We have a friend whose child is about to graduate, a master's degree and they have discovered there are no entry level positions out there in her field.

And in large part they did a little research. It's because companies are already preparing for the AI future now. For sure. And again I heard what you did like a lot of great feedback

from the federal government. I had hoped I'd hear from other AI companies saying that we were being alarmist with that story. A lot of people were calling saying, ah, it could actually be a little worse than what you guys outlined, so that wasn't that reassuring. The way I look at artificial intelligence, it's both like it could be a threat for sure, and it could be a massive opportunity. What I don't understand is when I walk around the city or you talk to lawmakers,

why people aren't obsessed with this. It is going to reorder society over the next decade and almost any person who's studied it at any level has come to that exact same conclusion. I sometimes joke to Mikey and others that I feel like I'm living in a simulation where you see so clearly where the world's going over the next five years and yet Washington pays very little attention to it. And I think with the segment we did on your show earlier this week, I think what you're saying, what we're saying is just pay attention. Get way more familiar with this technology.

If you are about to be a graduate, figure out are you in the right field? If you are in the right field, how would you utilize this technology for it to be a force multiplier of the work that you do? How can you help it 10x, 2x, whatever the number field, how would you utilize this technology for it to be a force multiplier of the work that you do? How can you help it 10x, 2x, whatever the number is, your productivity so that you can do really creative, interesting things? And I think if society prepares for it, if the companies prepare for it, it doesn't have to be a massive upheaval. But the reason we wrote the piece and the reason that you shined a bright light on it

was we're all concerned that nobody's paying attention to it. CEOs aren't being honest with their workers. The government's not paying ample attention to it and parents are worried, students are worried. I got a lot of emails similar to the one you got. Yeah, well, you know, and you have, by the way, Jim and Mike have a follow-up column on the merger of Silicon Valley and Washington, and we can talk about that later, behind the curtain, the great fusing. But, you know, Mika, it seems to me all politicians want to do is talk about the after effects,

and we're starting to talk about young men being left behind. We're starting to talk about working men being left behind. We're starting to talk about working class voters being left behind. Well, that's happening because, again, the post-industrial reality where somebody can't go to college, graduate, get married, and they take care of their families and their kids do better than they do. That's from what started to happen 20, 30 years ago. What's happening with AIs is going to be even a greater challenge. And yet, people in Washington, again, the idiocy of the debates, the idiocy,

the distractions that have nothing to do with the greatest challenges that are facing this country. I will say, AI is a little more complicated, a lot more complicated, but you look at the budget deficit. We're going to be talking about that today in this so-called big, beautiful bill and the fact that $20 trillion are added to the debt. $20 trillion over the next decade. This country, it's very simple. This country cannot endure $20 trillion added to $37 trillion. I mean, and so what are they talking about?

They're just big, beautiful bill, and President Trump is always right, and you own the libs and whatever. No, like, where are the conservatives to say, we want to support the president? We want to support conservative principles, but there's nothing conservative about adding $20 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Crippling. They would not think that is beautiful, real conservatives. So we were talking about the fusion, or Jim Van De Hei is, of Silicon Valley and Washington.

We also mark today a separation. Today is Elon Musk's last official day in the White House. To mark the occasion, President Trump says he will hold what he is calling a press conference with the Tesla CEO in the Oval Office this afternoon. He posted about it on Truth Social, writing, quote, this will be Elon's last day, but not really, because he will always be with us helping all the way. This comes as Musk has criticized the president's

sweeping domestic policy bill, telling CBS News the legislation will add to the national deficit, as you pointed out, Joe, and undermines the work his Doge team is doing. Musk also appeared to distance himself from the White House when he spoke about the challenges he faces in expressing his opinions within the Trump administration. You know, it's not like I agree with everything the administration does. You know, it's not like I agree with everything the administration does. So it's like, there's, I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion.

You know, there's things that I don't entirely agree with. But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention. So then I'm a little stuck in a bind where I'm like, well, I don't want to speak out against the administration, but I don't want to also don't want to take responsibility for everything the administration's doing.

You know, John Lemire, I think you know this. I am a simple country lawyer. Early in 2003, I was on the back of a turnip truck. And I fell off of that turnip truck somewhere in Saquacus. Bounced. Had my knapsack. And I made my way to, made my way to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, But it's clearly as he can to separate himself from the work that he did over the past four or five months that savaged his reputation in the business world and has hurt Tesla.

You can see it there. Oh, I'm not going to get specific. But, but I don't agree with everything they're doing. Not not wink wink, wink. Yeah, and what's he gonna get instead because of that? He's gonna get a news conference in the Oval Office where Donald Trump is going to make him grab with both arms a lot of what he did in the administration.

That's what we're seeing here a little bit. I mean, now I'm told that Musk and Trump, there is personal fondness there. There has not been the falling out that so many people expected. The two men do get along. But you're right. Elon Musk is going into with Doge. First, he has been frustrated with

he couldn't get as much done as he would like. Now, of course, we have plenty of critics who say, well, he went too fast, he broke a lot of things, he did a lot of damage to the federal government, he may have even hurt a lot of American voters with stripping services and certainly laid off a lot of damage to the federal government. He may have even hurt a lot of American voters with stripping services and certainly laid off a lot of federal workers. But he and his telling thought he could do more than what he did. So that's number one. But secondly, though frustrated there, he now sees the

aftermath and the impact of what it's done on his businesses. And we've chronicled quite a bit on this show how Tesla has really taken a hit and how Musk is reputation has really taken a nosedive in a lot of quarters around the country and frankly planet right now the way that his companies have suffered in Europe and other places so yes he is trying he's been trying to be subtle but he is trying his best to separate himself but that's just drawn some ire from the Trump people Stephen Miller went after him on Twitter this week. Speaker Johnson's been critical. And I suspect today we will hear President Trump really try to lash Musk to everything they've been doing

in D.C. over the last couple of months. Well, you know, Jim, you have Elon saying, and I find it quite humorous, actually, this was a lot harder than I expected. This was, like everybody was saying, people like you and me that have seen how hard it is to get things done in Washington over our 30 or so years on the Hill and across Washington together, knew it wasn't going to be easy.

You know, there's the old expression and also that great book on the AOL Time Warner merger, Fools rush in. Well, he rushed in and he found out very quickly. It is extraordinarily difficult and is one of his lieutenants said and then got fired for saying it. Hey, you know what? They're not all bad. Some of these people in Washington actually know what they're doing. I mean, the bureaucracy is undefeated, for sure, and it defeated Musk in this task. That said, you've got to understand, Elon, in that he takes the long view. And certainly in the short term, he didn't accomplish what he wanted to.

But remember what his companies do, and remember his relationship with the president, and remember how much data they're able to suck up when they went into all these different agencies to better understand how the federal government works. And now watch, does he start to sell rockets, satellites, autonomous technology, all of the products that his five or six companies are producing, does the government end up being a massive purchaser of it because of the expertise that he has, the inside knowledge that he now possesses, and the relationship

with Trump that I think will endure? And that is when I think about the fusing. I think people aren't paying enough attention to how much Silicon Valley and Washington that were really separate for most of our lifetimes have really fused into one kind of superstructure. And it's very, very codependent. These big companies, it's not just Musk companies, it's Microsoft, it's Google, it's OpenAI, it's Anthropic.

All these big companies need the federal government to help them get more energy, more chips, more precious minerals, all the ingredients of creating artificial intelligence. And where the money is going to be made is moving us into space, moving us into satellites, moving us into these new energy categories, creating these massive technologies that could be worth literally trillions of dollars to the people that are building them. And so to me, that is like the thing that when you take the long view, you've got to keep your eye on that price. Well, I mean, and I think that this movement is actually ever been termed as a populist movement. When you

have Silicon Valley billionaires, when you have monopolists from these Silicon Valley monopolies, again, working with the administration. What is populist about everything that's going on here that Jim's talking about, the fusion of the richest people in the world with the White House? And didn't Musk go on many of these trips to the Middle East, to other places? So there was a lot of connections being made for contracts, not just with the government here. Maybe so. Maybe.

Maybe so. House Speaker Mike Johnson is responding after, as we said, Elon Musk expressed his disappointment in the sweeping domestic policy bill passed by House Republicans last week. Here's more of what Musk told CBS News, followed by Speaker Johnson's new comments. So, you know, I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it, and it reminds the work that the Doge team is doing. I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along,

I mean, like, everything he's done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year. I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion. I sent my good friend, Elon, a long text message last night explaining that it can be both big and beautiful, okay? So what I wanted to make sure that he understands is that the projection that he's referring to in others is from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office.

They are historically totally unreliable. It's run by Democrats. 84% of the number crunchers over there are donors to big Democrats. They don't have our best interest in mind and they've always been off. Okay, let me just say this. Mike Johnson has been there while the deficit has exploded at record rates. These Republicans, Jonathan Lemire and I'll bring Mike and I'll bring Jim in as well because Jim was around when he saw us fight day in and day out and it was ugly but he saw us fight day in

and day out we balanced the budget four years in a row and let me tell you as Lisa Simpson once said of Bart praying before an exam prayer is the last refuge of the truly desperate I disagree disagree with that, of course. But attacking the CBO is always the last refuge of the big spending Republican. They all do it because they don't like facing the truth. And the truth is that under Republicans, from 2017 to 2021, the budgets were bigger than they had ever been, the deficits bigger than they had ever been, federal debt. We're talking about the federal debt

from 2017 to 2021. The budgets were bigger than they had ever been. The deficit is bigger than they had ever been the debt bigger than they'd ever been. And here we're not talking about rounding errors. Jonathan Lemire. We are talking

about 20 trillion dollars that that these Republicans are going to vote on to add to the federal debt. Twenty trillion. We can't afford it. There's nothing ideological about this. There's nothing ideological about those numbers. There's nothing ideological about not balancing the budget. I know I was there. We did it four years in a row. The only time that's happened in the past century.

And they're adding 20 trillion dollars to the debt with this bill, John Lemire. the only time that's happened in the past century. And they're adding $20 trillion to the debt with this bill, John Lemire, and he's blaming the Congressional Budget Office. I mean, that's not even shooting the messenger. That's even worse than that. He can't. He can't believe that.

He knows that this bill cripples America's economy over the next decade. Yeah, there are a few things more true than the observation that Republicans only care about deficits and debts when they're out of power. And we are seeing it here. We saw it in the first Trump term. We're seeing it again now,

this absolute explosion in spending. And in this bill, a priority on tax cuts cuts for the wealthy over doing taking steps that would even even make a dent into these things that have worried you I know Joe for so long and it is just a genuine and you're right that CBO with nonpartisan organization and do do Republicans and Democrats alike rumble at it at times of course but some of the but Jim Van Hi the bad faith attacks here from Speaker Johnson have taken this to sort of a new level to try to write this these office as as deep state bureaucrats, as opposed to people who are simply doing the job, people who are simply focusing on the math when he doesn't want to. want to. Yeah, I mean, the viewers should know you're being duped. You've been duped by both parties for 20 years. Everyone comes in and says they care about deficits. They care about the financial stability of the country, and then they spend money and they spend a hell of a lot more than they say that they're going to spend. We're talking about

so much debt now. And why it should matter to you at home is, listen, when we have huge amounts of debt, you end up spending more on the interest on that debt than you do on our national defense. That means less money for education, health care, programs for the poor, safer neighborhoods. And at some point, you become so unstable as a capitalistic democracy that the bond markets and other people start to see us as a riskier asset, which is what you see kind of happening in the atmosphere right now. At some point, we're going to pay the piper, right? But so far, Democrats, Republicans, all they do is spend money because they think it makes you feel better and like them more. They don't want to take it away. That's one of the reasons, you know, I would fault Elon's

approach, but the spirit of trying to reduce the size of the federal government, like we do need that mentality. I don't think you do it haphazardly. I don't think you do it cruelly. But someone has to come in and get the place in order. And as Joe said, it's not since Clinton and that Republican Congress back in the 90s that people took this seriously. And it shows that it could be done, right? It shows that it is possible that you can run

a flourishing economy, a really powerful country, a massive national defense system, and still spend the amount of money that we're taking in, which is, by the way, what everyone expects all of us to do at home. And you know, for people that say it can't be done, I know it's horrible. I know the numbers are terrible right now. It may take a decade to get it done. Right.

But government needs to move towards a balanced budget, not toward $20 trillion more in debt. And I will say, when I first was running, everybody mocked and ridiculed those of us who said we could balance the budget. They said it was the unbalanceable budget. I can show you clippings that said it was impossible to do. We said it was the unbalanceable budget. I could show you clippings that said it was impossible to do. We did it. We did it four years in a row. And then guess what? Guess what? Republicans got back into the White House in 2001, and suddenly Republicans stopped caring about the deficits. Only time Republicans care about the deficits are when Democrats are in the office, in the

White House. That's got to change or we're in big trouble. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, a judge hands Harvard University a temporary win as the Trump administration tries to revoke the school's ability to enroll international students. We'll bring in a reporter who was in the courtroom for yesterday's hearing. And as we mentioned at the top of the show,

a 13-year-old who was runner-up during last year's Scripps National Spelling Bee takes home the top prize this time around. We'll show you his winning final word. Also ahead. Was it Zbigniew Brzezinski? It was not Zbigniew Brzezinski, but I wish you luck on spelling that. Also ahead. It was not Zbigniew Brzezinski but I wish you luck on

spelling that. Also ahead there's apparently a new dream job for young men and it's not actor, pro athlete or musician. We'll tell you what it is and a quick reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. We're back in 90 seconds. Welcome back.

It is 24 past the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Parts of Canada are under a state of emergency as dozens of wildfires are burning out of control. Thousands of residents have been evacuated in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, two provinces that border the U.S. As the New York Times reports, the forecast showed no signs of much needed rain while

warm overnight temperatures and expected high winds could accelerate the flames. Blowing smoke into America's Midwest. Tesla is reportedly set to begin its robo taxi service in Austin Texas on June 12th. CEO Elon Musk says his company could roll out a fleet of 10 self driving robobo-taxis before expanding to a thousand vehicles later this year. The driverless vehicles are required to have cameras and insurance and be able to follow traffic laws. The city of Austin does not currently regulate self-driving vehicles. I'd be too scared. The Wall Street Journal reports on the new dream job for young

men. It is Stay at Home Son. The paper delves into the lives of unemployed young men who live at home with their parents who are embracing the labels as ironic as an ironic badge of honor. The movement even has a hero. Jeopardy champion Brendan Liao is unemployed and lives with his parents. At his request, Jeopardy host Ken Jennings introduces him at the beginning of each episode as a recent graduate and stay at home son. By the way, we have a nice tie in here. We're going to be welcoming to our show in just a few minutes. Pablo Tori. Oh, right. Our own stay at home son. He's our own stay at home son. And a 13 year old. Pablo. There he is. Pablo, your last podcast. I'm growing

a beard, guys. I need to talk to you about your last podcast. It was awesome. The rain cam. The Belichick rain cam. Yeah. Oh my. Yeah, there's a lot. There's a lot of adult, dare I say adult content in that one. You know. You went all out on that.

That was good. Okay. I'll end with Paul. One more everybody. A 13 year old boy from Texas is the new champion of the Scripps National Spelling Bee. After nailing the final word in the 21st round of the final. E-C-L-A-I-R-C-I-S-S-E-M-E-N-T.

That is correct. E-N-T, official. That is correct. Yeah! Éclairizement. Is that like being of, having the substance of an éclair? What is that? Éclairizement, it's like a French word.

Éclairizement. What an amazing, amazing accomplishment. Faison Zaki was competing in his fourth appearance of the contest, fourth. He was runner up last year after losing in a spell off tie breaker. The seventh grader now says he might tackle a different kind of competition, the math olympiad. Are you kidding?

I mean, fourth time trying and as we say to our stay at home, work son Pablo Torre, if at first you don't succeed, try and try again. Maybe get out of the house once in a while. Might be good for you. Let's bring in P-A-B-L-O-T-O-R-R-E. So tell us about that Belichick ring can thing you did. It was... Wait a minute, that was crazy. That was crazy. Yeah, yeah. I am the Robert Caro of Bill Belichick at this point and I'm not so That I don't feel questions from my mom breathing down my neck about Didn't you like get nominated for a Peabody Award and stuff and now you're doing this and the answer to that is yeah

Absolutely. I am so This internet artifact guys this video Tom Brady had gone on to Netflix during his roast live And he made a joke in which he said you know when I get asked what's your favorite ring? I usually say the next one now I say it's that camera that captured a shirtless bill Belichick walking out of that poor girl's home And so there's this question of like what is this? We don't have to do that. I mean, Zofte is a word that comes to mind, I believe that they used to describe such

a scene. John is, finds nothing wrong with this, I think. Looks good. Yeah, it looks good. A mysterious porch shirtless. Just after dawn. The hero's always let you down, don't they? Lemur, but go ahead. In the long lineage of the Patriots and camera related scandals, this somehow is a new high and a new low.

And so the question was always what is this? Where is it from? Did NFL teams really think about this when they decided not to hire Bill Belichick when he went for jobs after leaving the Patriots? And so I I assembled. I mean, when I tell you the lengths that I went through, this when they decided not to hire Bill Belichick when he went for jobs after leaving the Patriots. And so I assembled, I mean, when I tell you the lengths that I went to to solve the mystery of what is this video, where is it from, I will tell you that it led me after consulting

with the roster of eight geoguessers to an Airbnb in Winthrop, Massachusetts to that same porch. It's like a follow-up. Did you rent it? I rented it. You left your shirt on thankfully. I did keep my shirt on. Thank God you left your shirt on. Journalistically speaking, I am quite professional, but this is the Ring Cam. This is the Airbnb. It was a remarkable thing to stay there. Five stars by the way. Good water pressure. a lovely home overall. Winthrop's. But they had rented an Airbnb guys. Jordan Hudson, his young girlfriend,

had rented an Airbnb 20 minutes outside of Boston and they didn't necessarily know that they, you know, were walking into a place that was clearly being security filmed, John. So, you know. Okay, thanks for that. That was so, that- Your mom has to be proud of you, first of all. Secondly- That was a waste of so much time.

If their parents, no it wasn't. If their parents out there, they're saying, why should we go through all that is required and sacrifice as much as we sacrifice to send our children to Harvard. Yeah, to get to get out to really pay for it. Pablo just gave you the answer. Harvard graduate Pablo Torre just showed you the things that they can do.

Harvard won a legal victory, at least in a temporary legal victory in its ongoing and escalating battle with President Trump. In a Massachusetts courtroom yesterday, a federal judge extended her block on the Trump administration's bid to prevent the university from enrolling international students. That comes as the president pushes to cancel all federal funds directed at Harvard. Let's bring in senior legal affairs reporter at Politico Josh Gerstein. He was inside the courtroom yesterday for the Harvard Trump hearing. Also with us, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and MSNBC

political analyst Eugene Robinson. Good to have you both this morning. So Josh, take us inside the courtroom and tell us what happened and what Harvard could expect down the road. Well, Joe was a fairly brief hearing up in Boston. I would say it lasted only about 20 minutes. It was in front of Judge Allison Burroughs, who is an Obama appointee who has quite a history at this point of Harvard cases. She handled the Students for Fair Admissions Challenge, the case that eventually brought down affirmative action

at the Supreme Court. She ruled in Harvard's favor, it should be said, in that case. And the Supreme Court obviously came out the other way. So she's got a fair amount of familiarity with Harvard. And the question here was basically she had put in a temporary order a week ago when the Trump administration moved to end foreign student enrollment at Harvard.

Both the return of foreign students who are already there and new students who are trying to enroll, she sort of stopped the administration's move in that direction last week. And at the hearing yesterday, she made clear that she was going to extend that hold. What was kind of interesting was this conciliatory move by the administration. This is an administration that doesn't often, at least publicly, talk about some kind of compromise.

But we did see that. We saw a shift in position from the Trump administration. We saw Trump in the Oval Office, you know, deliver the usual invective, over-the-top inaccurate statements sometimes about Harvard. But then the other day, on Wednesday, he said, I want to make Harvard great again. I'm not sure they're going to be making any hats up with that slogan right away up there in Cambridge. But he said, I don't want to hurt Harvard.

And he seemed to say, let's negotiate about the percentage of foreign students they should have on campus. And then the administration put out a piece of paper saying they were going to initiate a 30-day process to try to hash out this issue about the foreign students, which is interesting because last week, the Homeland Security Secretary said Harvard's status to bring in these foreign students, which is interesting because last week the Homeland Security Secretary

said Harvard's status to bring in these foreign students was being immediately revoked. Obviously, there's some tension between that and starting a 30-day process, presumably back and forth in negotiations. So there was a bit of a blink here, I think, on Trump's side, even though, of course, you'd never get any admission of that from this administration. Yeah, Gene, it did sound like the president a couple of days ago was, in fact, willing to negotiate with Harvard. That said, people inside Harvard, according to a lot of reporting, also Michael Smith

at the New York Times said, they understand. They can win in court and still lose the war, win the battle, lose the war. So it will be interesting to see if these two sides can come together and negotiate something because Harvard again, they've got a $50 billion plus endowment. They can withstand the outside pressure a little bit longer than most, but still, it would be difficult for any university to withstand such ongoing attacks from the White House. Yeah, absolutely. They can't withstand it forever, but they can hold out for a while.

And one of the problems I hear is that Harvard, if they want to sit down and like talk with the administration, what exactly are they going to be talking about? And what can you believe from any administration negotiator that won't be immediately contradicted or somehow twisted by the president, and how could you believe that anything was settled when he keeps coming up with new reasons to go after Harvard? So they're in a unique position among US universities because they have all that money. They actually kind of prepared for this sort of thing.

I think they issued something like $700 million in bonds shortly before all this started. So they've got a big pot of cash that they can use. But it's not just the foreign students. It's the grants and all the money that's being canceled. There's just a lot on the table, and I think they need some more clarity before there can be any sort of real negotiation. Yeah.

So, Pablo, you, of course, you did attend Harvard. Talk to us about what you have seen there the last few days, but also what those international students bring to campus, bring to the intellectual life. We played at the top of the hour. The university president sort of leaned into the idea of students are being from around the world, drew a huge ovation. It's an intrinsic part of that culture.

Yeah, I mean, look, there's so much to criticize about Harvard if you want, and that's a fair conversation. It also embodies for a lot of people around the world. The American dream. I'm a first generation American parents from the Philippines. This was the whole thing about this country. You go and get the best education in the world. You pay through the nose or you get financial aid and it's all worth it. Um, the scene though, and I'm talking people on campus all of the time, the scene on campus right now is fascinating. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is giving speeches at class day and then a couple miles away is

this courtroom where this is happening in which the campus is, you know, it's frankly galvanized. And Harvard, by the way, you know, it's not merely this hotbed of liberalism. As I have told you, John, the most popular class at Harvard is always introduction to economics. And for decades, it was taught by Reagan's chief economist Marty Feldstein, who taught me the principles of economics. The graduates, the international kids. And look what that did to you. I mean, it gets a real, I got radicalized, clearly.

Wow. Put you on a porch in winter. But what happens is, what happens is, these graduates, demographically, they go into finance, consulting, and now tech. And so when you talk about the soft power, the through line in all of this, guys, is that this is damaging America from a broad perspective globally and then capitalistically.

My freshman roommate was from Kazakhstan. The kid across the hall from Zimbabwe. These are people who came to this country with the promise that Harvard was the best of an American educational promise. And now all of these kids have to wonder, should we be coming to this country at all? Hey, Josh, it's Van De Heye. I'm curious, as you think about this fight with Harvard,

it's part of a broader fight where you basically have the president of the United States against the courts. And you see this with the battle with law firms. You see it with Harvard. You see it with tariffs. On the tariffs specifically, as you've watched that through the lens of someone who understands how the courts work, is that going to end up in the Supreme Court? Is that going to be the ultimate arbiter of whether or not Trump can enact something he's cared about for 30, 40 years?

Oh yeah, Jim, I think that will end up at the Supreme Court pretty quickly, within a matter of a few weeks. You have rulings coming up from sort of two different threads. This big one that came out of the Court of International Trade, which gets almost no press coverage under normal situations and deals with whether duties were charged incorrectly on some particular product, but here dealing with this sort of momentous issue of the national economy, and then some other cases coming up through other courts.

Yeah, I think it'll reach the Supreme Court, and it's going to be a fascinating test for the conservatives up there because they also have sort of two competing theories of the case. One is, as you know, a lot of them are pro-presidential power, historically pro-executive power. But that tends to be more in the national security, maybe the foreign policy arena. But then on the other side, they tend to be more libertarian and deregulatory on economic issues and actually sometimes against executive power when it's framed as the power of federal agencies to regulate individuals, they tend to lean towards Congress on that issue. And so

it'll be really interesting to see whether those conservative justices view tariffs as primarily an economic issue, which might mean they'll come down against Trump, or do they view them as primarily a national security issue? And I think you should look for the administration to frame the case as one of national security and foreign policy in an effort to win those justices over. national security and foreign policy in an effort to win those justices over.

Josh, let me ask you this really quickly before we go. It seems to me the Roberts Court, and we saw this with the Affordable Care Act, I think one of the more telling things in the Roberts Court, where Roberts wrote, don't ask us to do what you can do with the ballot box. We're not gonna overturn the Affordable Care Act. You don't like it with ballot box. Here, you have the Article I branch deferring to the Article II branch on tariffs. And it just seems to me,

if you're looking what the Roberts Court has done in the past, they would say, don't ask the Article III branch to do what the Article I branch has deferred to the Article II branch. I'm wondering your thoughts about that logic as well. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, you could see the originalists on the court say that, you know, historically this role of setting tariffs has belonged to the Congress.

In fact, the lower court rulings that just put a hold that was then taken off on these Trump tariffs, that's what they basically said. They said, you know, some kind of emergency power to implement embargoes against rogue foreign countries is not a license to impose quote-unquote reciprocal tariffs around the world. So, I think that you could see the Supreme Court come out that way. And another thing that I have to say changes the atmospherics a little bit here with that Supreme Court is this sort of unhinged truth social message we got from President Trump

yesterday attacking Leonard Leo, the conservative legal activist you might say well what does that have to do with tariffs and that's not even an issue that Leo's active on and that's true but Leo is somebody is very close to those justices and we're already seeing signs right that the 3 Trump appointees are not so firmly in Trump's camp as some would have expected. And to have that kind of unhinged attack calling Leonard Leo a sleazebag, is the word the president used. I mean, it's almost incomprehensible.

The last time I saw Leonard Leo was last fall at the Federalist Society Conference, and he was not schmoozing with other wealthy lawyers who were there or other conservative legal activists were there, he was sitting in the lobby of that Hilton Hotel that I know you all are very familiar with, chatting with a Catholic priest and a Catholic nun, okay? So the guy is not a sleazebag, there are many criticisms

you can offer of him and obviously someone who's dispersed billions of dollars in conservative money There are people that will have disagreements and criticisms will say he's anti majoritarian Those are all things that I think one can debate as reasonable Criticism but to calm a sleazebag is just sort of Bizarre lashing out at someone because you didn't get your way. And I don't think that's gonna sit well with his friends on the Supreme Court. Senior Legal Affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein.

Thank you very much for your reporting and analysis this morning. Sure. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll show you some of the rhetoric from Trump officials against judges and the courts. Also ahead, the Inks, unangeared artist, says Beyonce's cowboy car tour has a strong message for the whole nation.

He'll join us to explain the singer's quote, reclamation of America. That's ahead on Morning Joe. As well. Johnson free. He is on target. Shot pocket three. On the move swithering his way Halliburton. Caught by Robinson. Four and a half in the first quarter. I like how Towns got up on that pick and roll. Whoa! That's a good one.

That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one.

That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. That for the first quarter. I count towns got up on that.

He has been a first quarter machine tonight. Jalen Brunson. A scorching hot start from Jalen Brunson helps the New York Knicks keep their NBA title hopes alive in a do or die game five last night of the Eastern Conference final. So Pablo Pablo no real surprise here to me anyway the Knicks won game five they're down three

to one in the series. They come home. Crowd was great. They're tough team prideful team they didn't want to see see the season and they're at the garden now. Game six.

Our night's a very different animal. It's in Indianapolis. The Pacers you know have been have a good home court advantage. The Knicks have gotten one there already the series. But this will be a this

will be a tall task. Yeah. I'm looking at the paper on the screen and looking at the papers on our desk. And John I'm a like you a bit of a New York tabloid ologist. I just note that like some of these additions here I'm just saying

not the early deadline. Maybe they thought this was done. Look rumors of the next demise have been greatly exaggerated even though they happen in the group chats I belong to. Carl Anthony Towns and Jalen Brunson there have only been so

many players in a conference final to have each scored average 20 points. I believe it's these two guys and it's I believe a Shaq and Kobe and I believe like someone from like the 70s Lakers is on there too.

So what I'm saying is right now this has the feeling of what is the best thing in sports which is like an actual regional rivalry between the Pacers and the Knicks. I do think Gene Robinson as I bring you in here I do think that the Pacers in the next. I do think Gene Robinson as I bring you in here I do think

that the Pacers are probably the better team. But if you give me if you give me a game seven at the garden that is my Lord. Game seven at the garden with the NBA finals on the line is going to be an unprecedented

scene I would say in certainly the modern history of sports in this area. Yeah that's what I'm rooting for. I'm rooting for a game seven in the garden that will be huge if it happens. And look I think that you know

in this game tomorrow night it's all on the Pacers. They've got to prove it. I think they look to be the better team when when they're running on all cylinders, running and gunning, they're pretty amazing. And they just run all over the Knicks,

but they gotta finish the deal. They gotta seal the deal, and they obviously haven't yet. And with all the pressure on them back in Indianapolis, it's gonna be a fascinating game tomorrow night. Ken Brunson and Kat, basically by themselves, the dynamic duo, can they stop this Pacers juggernaut? And it should be a good game. Should be a great game.

And they're going to be fighting over the next two games to have really the great honor of going out to Oklahoma City and being absolutely crushed by it is pretty remarkable. How good under pretty. Yeah. They didn't pick the daily news in the early edition of John said is the Oklahoma City Thunder. Probably best story about the season. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So hey Jim speaking of stories again we've been talking about your story yesterday but you've got a great one today about the fusing of Silicon Valley and and I get dominated Washington D.C. What are the implications of that. I think they're massive. I think it's going to be the future of the U.S. economy, right? If you think about what AI needs, more energy, more chips, more data, more precious minerals, you're going to have to build an entire industrial policy around that. You talked yesterday, you made a really important point in passing, which is I think we'll look

back at that trip to the Middle East that Trump did as a really seminal moment in the history of Trump's reign. Because not only did he strike a lot of deals for the country, for himself, but he brought a lot of these tech leaders there and struck deals. You had OpenAI getting a deal. You had Boeing getting a deal. You had all of these tech execs with him trying to get their own deals in the Middle East, which means that these Middle East countries, some of which have funded terrorism against our own allies, against us, now being able to possess key ingredients of this technology.

Well, they're friendly with China. There's ways to backdoor these technologies. And so what we're trying to get at with this piece is just pay attention to that fusing, because when you take, you put it right, these billionaire kind of almost like godlike powers of these tech companies now combining with the Trump White House just gives both sides a considerable power. And I think it's gonna reorder the economy.

And if you just think about where the country's headed, future of space, future of satellites, that's where the action's gonna be. All right. Co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Hei, thank you very much. We'll be talking more about this. And coming up, we're gonna take a closer look at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's national standing amid growing speculation that he may run for president. David Drucker of The Dispatch will join us with his new reporting. Morning Joe, we'll the president's office. The president is not yet officially appointed to the presidential office, demanding amid growing speculation that

he may run for president David Drucker of the dispatch will join us with his new reporting. Morning Joe will be right back.