Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/3/25

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture

You're not in a good position. You don't have the cards right now. With us you start having cards. Right now you're playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III. It certainly does establish that this country whose president was being told at the White House that he didn't have any cards to play, that he apparently has quite a few cards to play, including this daring attack, which if the Ukrainians can be believed wiped out about 30 to 40 percent of Russia's strategic bombing force, that's a major setback for Russia. It is an embarrassing intelligence failure and an embarrassing defense failure. And who knows what else the Ukrainians, who have proved pretty ingenious, may have

up their sleeves. Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume pointing out last night that President Trump was apparently wrong about Volodymyr Zelensky following the Ukrainian drone attack against Russia. We're going to go through yesterday's peace talks and whether Operation Spiderweb impacted those negotiations. Also ahead, we have the latest from Capitol Hill where Republican senators are starting to hash out their differences on President Trump's

sweeping tax and spending bill. Plus, it appears there are consequences for cutting deals with President Trump as law firms that appease the president are now losing some high-profile clients. And a concerning headline out of Washington, the acting head of FEMA telling staff he wasn't aware the United States has a hurricane season. We'll show you how the Trump administration is responding. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe.

It is Tuesday, June 3rd. So good to have you all. Despite Doge's vow to make the federal government more efficient, a new Washington Post report reveals the department's new procedures and requirements are doing just the opposite. According to interviews conducted by The Post, federal staffers throughout the government are being hit with new layers of red tape, and employees say they are spending hours justifying the most basic purchases. At NASA, for example, employees tell The Post they recently wrote several detailed paragraphs

across multiple rounds of emails to win approval to buy simple fastening bolts. And that the Food and Drug Administration once routine tests on food were delayed because of a requirement to get department-level approval for expenses like lab supplies. Employees say the new rules mandating a review and approval by political appointees are leading to thousands of contracts and projects being held up for months. And large-scale firing spearheaded by Doge have cut support offices that assisted federal workers with issues ranging from glitching computers to broken desk chairs. I've got to tell you, Willie, it is it's actually a scene out of a comedy, except, of course,

the consequences are very real. They're very significant. But again, this is what happens when you go in to a government organization thinking you can wield a chainsaw and change things in two, three, four weeks. And again, the result, again, not a great deal of cost savings. In fact, many people will believe the consequences of the cuts will end up costing more than the proposed cuts themselves, the ones that are actually real. But in this case, who would believe it? Doge creates a new layer of bureaucracy. Yeah, the whole idea here was to streamline the bureaucracy, to make government more nimble,

to make it like a startup, like a Silicon Valley company. Instead, these stories that are coming out one after another are of a government and a bureaucracy mired in wastes of time, like trying to find out if you're holding an event at the State Department, if one of the vendors, the caterer or something, supports DEI so you can't just get those things done. All these little pinpricks that slow down the government that Mika just laid out to go along with the big stuff like eliminating tons of jobs at the VA or the things that affect our veterans or our health care system, all of those. And as you say, Joe, don't add up to the promised big savings because as we've said a million times and

people are probably sick of us saying it, the big savings are in places where Doge and Elon Musk are not looking. Let's bring it right now. NBC News, National Affairs Analyst and Partner in Chief, Political columnist at Puck, John John, these are all things that we all predicted before. When Donald Trump reportedly turns and says, was this all just BS, the saving of a trillion? Yes, it was. Yes, it was BS. We told everybody it was BS. I said time and again when they said, oh, they may save up to $2 trillion.

That's what I heard in December. Then they may save up to a trillion dollars. I kept saying, no, no, maybe you'll find 100 billion. Maybe you'll find 150 billion. You're not gonna find 2 trillion. There's not 2 trillion there. You're not gonna find 1 trillion. There's not 1 trillion there.

Instead, what they do is they do all these random cuts that end up hurting so many people. And I'm not talking about the federal employees who, yes, they're Americans too, many of whom have dedicated their entire life to being public servants thrown out for random reasons, but they actually end up hurting the constituents that they're supposed to be representing. And here we find now that after Elon Musk leaves, you've got a bureaucracy that's even less efficient because of the new bureaucratic snafus that he's laid out there for a reduced workforce.

Yes, all true, Joe. And you know, you could play the tape back and hear everyone on the show, led by you and with Willie and Mika and me all chiming in saying this is all unrealistic. But I think if you haven't even added in yet the costs of all the legal stuff that's gone on around this, all of the court the, all of the court challenges, all of the things that were halted that had to be restarted, all of the various critical agencies that got shut down or where people got fired, then they had to be rehired. And what the costs of firing and rehiring people who worked for nuclear regulatory agency

and stuff like that. I think when the whole thing is said and done, it's going to net out not only that the savings have been minuscule, in fact, they're not going to be savings. They're, in fact, going to end up having cost the taxpayer a ton of money. I haven't gone through this exercise. But the most interesting thing is the thing you said about Donald Trump, because all I'm focused on now is what happens between now and next November. There is no doubt that Elon Musk and Dozier

are gonna be at the center of the Democratic attempts to retake the House. Are Elon Musk and Donald Trump gonna stay together or are we seeing the signs of an increasingly growing split? That question, was he always just full of BS? That's the first stage of not just a separation but a divorce, I think, between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. and when these two turn on each other God knows what's gonna happen to the politics for the Republican Party. Yeah we'll be following this it's hard

to see exactly what Elon Musk did in terms of efficiency and waste rather than just come to Washington and hurt a lot of people around the world well and in the United States and then leave. It doesn't work that way. It just doesn't work that way. There are rules and people think that, you know, there's a column this morning talking about, I think it's in the Wall Street Journal, the rule of physics, the rule of economics. There are rules and there are rules in Washington. There's a way to do things.

There's a way not to do things. And if you do things wrong and you think you can change 240 years of history of tradition of the way Washington works in a blink of an eye, you're going to do things that end up making the situation even worse. That's exactly what happened. And again, anybody that's been around for more than five minutes could have told you that that's what's so frustrating here again. They're sitting here.

How in the world can somebody as smart as Elon Musk come to Washington DC, look at the budget with all the people around and say, hey, I'm gonna cut $2 trillion. Just go on to AI ask, hey, can you cut $2 trillion from these agencies? No, no, you'd be laughed, you'd be laughed off your phone by a chat GBT.

Yeah. It's just, it's ridiculous they ever thought this was going to happen. So they ended up not saving money, not substantially at all, and again creating another layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency, the last thing government needed. Yeah. All right, we're gonna revisit this, but moving onfficiency, the last thing government needed. Yeah. All right, we're going to revisit this, but moving on now, the Supreme Court has declined to hear a major Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law that bans assault-style weapons. The move over the objections of conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas means the state's ban will stand.

According to New York Times, in a 10 to 5 ruling in August, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, said the Maryland law satisfied a history-based test, which was set out in the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. The law's ban on what critics call assault weapons ban did not violate the Second Amendment because rapid firing

long guns are military style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. "'We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments, which have become primary instruments in mass killings and terrorist attacks in the United States, are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes, Judge Wilkinson added. The Supreme Court's decision holds off on the Second Amendment challenge for now.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could become the fourth justice to accept a similar case, said he believes the courts will rule on this issue, quote, in the next term or two. We'll see. You know, this Maryland law was passed after Sandy Hook. Right. And, you know, you have people going around basically saying the Second Amendment is what I say the Second Amendment is. No,

the Second Amendment is what the Second Amendment says it is, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And time and time again, whether you look at the Connecticut law that was passed after Sandy Hook, whether you look at this Maryland law, if you look at other laws that in states ban military-style weapons, the Supreme Court's decided time and again not to take those cases, allowing those state laws to remain intact and suggesting, really, not suggesting actually, saying that what Harvey Wilkinson said, we are not going to keep military style weapons beyond the reach of the democratic process. We are not going to allow the courts to be held in front of the voters.

If the people of Maryland want to ban AR-15s, they have that right. If people of Alabama don't, they have that right. And that's the way it's always been. So when somebody says, oh, I have a constitutional right for this, for that, for other, you know what? Check and see what the Supreme Court's done. Because if the Supreme Court hasn't protected it and hasn't held it under the Second Amendment, it's not a

Second Amendment right as defined by the Constitution. And that's what Judge Wilkinson said last night. Yeah, Judge Wilkinson saying basically that these are military-style weapons, and they also this law banned magazines more than 10 rounds saying you don't need that gun and multiple, multiple rounds beyond 10 to defend yourself. This is not a question of self-defense, argued that. Judge, it's not a question of the Second Amendment. We heard from Justice Kavanaugh who said, we want the lower courts to hash this out

a little more. It'll probably come back to us down the road. On the other hand, Justice Thomas saying, the Supreme Court needs to step in and answer this question about whether law-abiding citizens can own a semi-automatic rifle under the Second Amendment. So we'll see how that plays out. Another story this morning, at least 11 big companies no longer are working with law firms

that struck deals with President Trump. That's according to the Wall Street Journal. General counsels at those businesses and people familiar with the decisions tell the journal companies are giving more work to law firms that are actively fighting the Trump administration's executive orders. The journal reports the corporations include Oracle, Morgan Stanley, a major airline, and a pharmaceutical company. According to the journal, general counsels have raised

concerns about how they can trust these law firms to fight for them in court if they're not willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. Since taking office, President Trump has issued several executive orders going after law firms claiming they represent his political enemies and weaponize the legal system. The orders remove the firm's security clearances and their clients' government contracts. Four firms are currently challenging those orders in court, with judges so far siding with them. Eight other law firms have signed deals with the White House agreeing to provide President

Trump a combined total of about $1 billion worth of pro bono work. So John, a little pushback here from corporate America? Yeah, and I would say, Willie, entirely predictable pushback from corporate America. The law firms, overwhelmingly in big law, these big prestigious firms, you've seen people moving to settle with Trump, capitulating because of their fear, primarily, if they are in law firms that deal primarily financially with transactions, with mergers and acquisitions and other corporate matters, they were afraid of what you might call regulatory retribution, that Trump could not only, by hurting them with the executive order directly, that the administration could also block deals

that the law firms were going to profit handsomely from. So they made this deal. They found out very quickly that Trump suddenly not only wanted pro bono work but started talking about putting those law firms to work on other matters, not just on pro bono work to fight anti-Semitism or whatever, but he was talking about engaging these law firms and trying to get free work from them on a variety of government business. But of course it was the case that no serious defendant or no serious corporation that was going to get involved, who needed a legal representation on high stakes and high value litigation or a complex deal, was going to want to work with a law firm that wouldn't stand up for

itself in the face of a clearly, clearly illegal executive order. And you know, the firms that have challenged Trump have won uniformly in court. Everyone knew that the executive order was illegal. And if those firms had just decided that there was strength in numbers and if all the law firms had banded together and pushed back, they would almost certainly have won those cases and be in a much better position now to continue to have the faith in their clients who want aggressive legal representation in everything that they do. All right.

Now, let's get to the very latest in Ukraine. Delegations from Ukraine and Russia met in Turkey yesterday for the second time in a month to discuss peace negotiations but left without a major breakthrough. Their meeting lasted barely an hour. Citing Russian media, Reuters reports that Moscow put forward terms that would see Ukraine surrender large chunks of its territory and accept restrictions on the size of its army in the future.

Kyiv has repeatedly said those terms are unacceptable. Ukraine's defense minister, who led his country's delegations, said he believes only a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin can effectively settle the major areas of dispute. Russia and Ukraine did agree to another prisoner swap, however, which will focus on the youngest and most severely injured soldiers. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently hosted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of

Connecticut for talks in Kyiv. The meeting happened just days before Ukraine launched that series of drone attacks targeting Russian warplanes. And Senator Blumenthal joins us now. He's a member of the Homeland Security, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees. Also with us, the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Good to have you. So, Senator, tell us what your takeaway was from your trip, especially given the fact that it was just before this massive drone attack and the status of the talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Thanks for having me, Mika. Always uplifting and inspiring to spend time with Volodymyr Zelensky, my seventh trip to Ukraine, most of them with Senator Graham. But I've met with him on numerous other occasions. And sadly, one of my main takeaways was that peace, even a ceasefire, are nowhere in sight. Obviously Putin is launching, even as we speak, a major offensive, mobilizing forces in the east, Donetsk and Luhansk and other territories. But the Istanbul proposal that he made yesterday shows how unserious he is about peace talks.

He's mocking Trump, playing him. And my visit to Ukraine confirmed for me that that country is in it for the long run. They're planning for the future. They've pioneered and championed the revolution of ground warfare through the use of drones. They're ahead of the United States, which produced a hundred thousand last year. Ukraine will produce 4.5 million of these small drones. I've visited the plants where they do make them. But I also had a chance to see the sites in Ukraine that have been bombed.

Putin has escalated his attack on civilians to a border of magnitude that is just brutal beyond words, whole neighborhoods destroyed. And so he's going to retaliate probably again in response to this attack on his airfields. But the combination of the attacks in the east, the offensive there and the attacks on civilian populations are in no way deterring the people of Ukraine or Zelensky. They are absolutely determined and Trump may have told them they have no cards but they beg to differ. They have cards and they're long-term cards.

Eighteen months is what it took to plan this attack on the airfield and they have other measures in the works. Senator, good morning. I'm curious if President Zelensky told you any more about that breathtaking attack where they smuggled all those drones in onto trucks. The tops of the trucks came off and they went and attacked those bombers if you can shed any more light on that and also limit the size of your army Ukraine going forward. How is he viewing these negotiations with Russia? Even before yesterday, there was intelligence about what Putin was going to offer, which is, in essence, more of the same.

Disarm Ukraine, new elections to displace Zelensky, secession of territory, no security guarantee. It's what Putin has called eliminating the root causes of the conflict. And it's just totally mugging the people who think peace is possible with Putin at this point. But he indicated nothing, and I mean not a hint of what was to come. And that is one of, I think, the very noteworthy aspects of that attack that nobody knew about it, despite the very substantial amount of planning and preparation that had to go into it. Zelensky sat in the Oval Office with Donald Trump as the president demeaned him and insulted him by saying he had no cards and kept secret these plans.

I think it will go down with the United States Osama bin Laden raid and the Israeli Pager operation, one of the great special operation maneuvers of all history. And the more we learn about it, the more incredible it seems. But he kept it under wraps from everyone, including many in the Ukrainian government itself. Senator, you got a chance to see what's happening firsthand there on the ground. Now, of course, you're coming back to Washington.

And there are some actions that you are involved in that the Senate might take up, specifically that bipartisan sanctions package there that would make it very costly to do oil and gas business with the Russians. We heard from Leader Thune yesterday that he could see that move this month. What's your

expectation of how that will fare in the Senate, where it has wide-barred partisan support, but then in the House as well? Good question, Ali. It's crunch time in Ukraine, but it's also a pivotal moment here in Washington. And our sanctions bill would make a tremendous difference in stopping the flow of revenue to Putin's war machine. 500% tariffs on any country, buying energy products, oil and gas, from Russia, would target India and China. They buy 70% of it. And the message to China would be, we are choking off the revenue flow. We're putting Putin's economy on a trade island and if you continue to support that war machine you will do no business with the

United States or Europe and the reaction and support in Europe is absolutely astonishing. We spoke to President Macron when we were in Paris and he is 100% on board. Germany is as well, which is significant because you'll remember that Europe used to buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. It has weaned itself away from it, and that support is critical. And of course, President Zelensky believes that these sanctions are a critical source of support, along with more air defense, which he needs desperately to fend off the reign of terror from the skies that Putin is

imposing on his people. And I also want to say, Ali, that while I was there I visited for the first time with some of the kidnapped children and I will tell you my heart was in my throat. There are tears in my eyes now as I think about those children who were abducted, 20,000 of them, 20,000 of them still in Russia taken from their families by Russian soldiers who called them orphans because their parents were either shot or in prison. They became orphans. And I met with two of them about that experience. And the trauma and the pain are gonna be with them, I'm afraid, for their whole lives.

So Senator, let me ask you, Joe Scarborough here, let me ask you, are Republicans going to stand up and defend those children? Are Republicans going to stand up for the people of Ukraine who continue to get indiscriminately killed by Russian missiles? Are Republicans that you're with, when the time comes, will they stand up to Vladimir Putin, do what's right, and pass the sanctions bill that you and Lindsey Graham have put together?

Will they push it to the floor and get a vote on it? Key question, Joe. I'm very encouraged. What's your best guess? My best guess is yes. My best guess is probably 75% yes. And here's the reason. First of all, Speaker Johnson yesterday said he was in favor of sanctions.

Very good sign, because he wouldn't say it if the White House were telling him that it would oppose it, which I think is the critical fact. The White House can stay neutral, it can stay hands- off, and Republicans will stand up to Putin. Also, remember, in the United States Senate, we have 82 co-sponsors, and we will be adding more. Lindsey Graham and I have worked tremendously hard to build this coalition, 41 Democrats, 41 Republicans. And Donald Trump himself has mentioned sanctions as a potential remedy.

The mystery to me is why Donald Trump is taking these insults, the degradation of Putin in effect playing him in this very overt and demeaning way. So I am hopeful that Putin's continued resistance to any kind of serious ceasefire proposals. Zelensky's done everything, literally everything Trump has asked him to do. He's come to the table, he is ready to do a ceasefire, and of course it's in his interest because his people are being murdered by the missiles and drones, but he has come around to do what Trump wants him to do. So I think, yes, Republicans will stand up as long as they're given a chance to vote.

All we need is a vote. We have 82 co-sponsors in the Senate, which is a super veto-proof majority, and I believe they'll stand up. Well, and if Mike Johnson is saying in the House that he supports the sanctions, and that is Donald Trump basically giving him the go ahead because he would never do it unless he did. And that's, of course, most likely his response to Vladimir Putin. Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, always good to see you.

Thank you very much for coming on the on this morning. We appreciate it. All right, still ahead, what we're learning this morning about the man accused of committing an act of terror during an event meant to raise awareness for Israeli hostages in Gaza. Plus, Republican Senator Joni Ernst continues to defend herself after telling constituents at a town hall event, we're all gonna die. That was her response to them being concerned about cuts in health care for their parents and children. We'll show you what she's saying now and a quick reminder at the Morning Joe podcast is available each

weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Morning Joe is back in 90 seconds. Welcome back. It's half past the hour. The man who police say shouted free Palestine and attacked a group of people in Colorado with a makeshift flamethrower has been charged with attempted first degree murder as officials update the number injured from 8 to 12. Mohammed Sabri Suleiman is also facing a slew of other charges, including one count of a hate crime involving actual or perceived race, religion, or national origin. An attorney representing the 45-year-old did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jail records show Suleiman's bail was initially set at $10 million, and officials say the attack is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Solomon is an Egyptian national who entered the U.S. in August of 2022 on a visa that allows temporary visits. But that visa expired in February of 2023. The Department of Homeland Security said he had a pending asylum claim. Meanwhile, investigators say Solomon was planning the attack for a year and carried out his plans on Sunday unleashing Molotov cocktails on the group of people marching in Boulder.

Molotov cocktails on the group of people marching in Boulder. The injured range in age from 52 to 88, with several hospitalized, suffering from burns. They were part of a group that was marching each week to bring attention to the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza by Hamas. Just another horrid example of anti-Semitism which again continues to spread the attacks as we heard yesterday the attacks yesterday continue. Jonathan Greenblatt talking about how anti-Semitism continues on the rise more attacks than ever before and here's just another example of it. It is such a serious problem the United States we're to keep talking about this throughout the show.

Barry Weiss will be on in a few hours. We'll be talking about it as well. President Trump says the U.S. will not allow Iran to enrich uranium as part of a potential nuclear deal. The president posted that statement last night on social media, appearing to respond to reporting from Axios that his envoy Steve Witkoff made a proposal to Iran on Saturday that would allow limited low-level Iranian enrichment on Iranian soil. But it does not appear that Iran is going to accept the deal anyway.

An Iranian diplomat told Reuters yesterday the proposal from the U.S. is a quote, non-starter. Joining us now, the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's a contributing writer at The Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. And U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. He's the author of the new book entitled Zbig, The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet. And a great book. I'll say it. Oh, it's so good. You're gonna have to. I love it so much. So, John, help sort through what's going on with these negotiations with Iran. And I'm curious specifically, and I

know a lot of people on the right are curious as well, what has compelled President Trump to move as far as he's moved on trying to get a deal with Iran? Well, there's a few things at play here. First of all, Steve Whitkoff, the man has a very full portfolio. He's been in tasked with, of course, trying to bring peace there to Gaza. He's working with the Russian side of the Russia- a very full portfolio. He's been in tasked with, of course, trying to bring peace there to Gaza.

He's working with the Russian side of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And now he's really pivoted to an Iran deal. And the administration a few weeks ago, Permire reporting, was feeling pretty hopeful that they were on the brink of something, that they felt like that they were able to come to an agreement that Iran could live with. And their opposition, in fact, was not from Tehran, but rather from Jerusalem, from Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu was the one who felt that this was insufficient, that Iran should

be punished. And we have reported here that there were plans drawn up for attacks from Israel to kind of go after some of Iran's nuclear facilities and the US said, no, we're not going to be involved with that and we don't want you to do it. And those were shelved at least for the time being. So there's a bit of a setback here in the last few days, Iran saying no to that proposal. But interesting that Axios and their well-sourced reporter said yesterday that this was part of the deal.

And then last night on Truth Social, President Trump took great strides to say, no, that's not the case. So we will see what happens next. A bit of a holding pattern. But there are still some in the administration that believe even over Israel's objections, they think they can get to a deal, but they're a little further than they first thought. At least there are a few things that are fascinating here. One of course, well, many things that are fascinating here. One of course, well many things that are fascinating here. One of course is President Trump moving closer to President Obama's position on negotiating

with Iran in a deal that he was greatly critical of. And I was as well. Many people very critical of that deal. But President Trump moving back towards that deal. That's one. But the subplot here continues to be with everything that he does in sort of reordering the Middle East, which his last trip did, is his reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu, more importantly, his lack of reaction to the protests of Benjamin Netanyahu, which we must say continues to fight a war that continues, human suffering continues to escalate. And again, that's something that, you know, whether it's

Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu, you have Donald Trump growing more and more wary of and less and less patient of these people who he thought were going to be pushovers because they were allies in getting them to the peace table. Yeah, I mean, it's very interesting just how much Trump has cold-shouldered Netanyahu, particularly that recent trip to the Gulf, you know, which did not include a stopover in Israel. Same as in his first term, he went to the Gulf first, but in his first term, he did stop in Israel.

This time he didn't on that trip. And I think that when Mike Waltz was removed as national security advisor by Trump and sent to be UN ambassador in New York, which of course is the equivalent in his mind of being sent to Siberia, that UN job. One of the strikes against Waltz, he was urging something more aligned with what Netanyahu wants on Iran, a much more aggressive stick approach, not just a carrot approach to Iran. And that clashed with Trump's instincts.

Trump, I think, I mean, highly improbable outcome here, but I think has desires to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the Middle East. He really does want to reorder the Middle East. And to do that, he needs to get sort of Saudi and Iranian to prevent any war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And he needs Saudi-Israel normalization. And the Saudis will require some concessions to the Palestinians, not just in Gaza, as their price for normalizing, all of which clashes with Netanyahu's agenda. So it's a very interesting relationship to watch. their price for normalizing, all of which clashes with Netanyahu's agenda.

So it's a very interesting relationship to watch. And Jonathan Lamer, you've covered Donald Trump for a very long time. Talk about his aversion to war. Of course, people talk all the time about how he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. But you get a sense that—I get a sense, but you actually would know much better because you've been following, reporting on this for a very long time. I get a sense that he sees war as a distraction from making money, that war gets in the way. He's gone to the Middle East.

Like I said, his trip has in significant ways probably reordered the Middle East in a way it has, at least in the short term, in a way that hasn't been reordered in over 50 years. And in large part, it's because he's got business deals with Saudi Arabia, with the UAE, with Qatar that he believes are going to be very good for the United States. Some of his critics will say good for him as well. But there's no doubt the Saudis and other people across the Middle East had to be saying while they were talking about increasing financial ties between the countries, the last thing we need is a war between Iran and Israel and Netanyahu, who just simply does not want the war that he's fighting to come to an end.

Yeah, a few points here. First of all, to what Ed said, President Trump has made very clear he would like a Nobel Peace Prize. Whether it's from the Middle East or for the situation in Europe, this is something he for President Obama got, he feels like he would like to. And that's part of why he doesn't love some of the reporting that he's moving towards the Obama position on Iran, because he's such an aversion to anything Obama. But you're right, that's where they are right now. But Joe, it's a good point. This is something that President Trump, as we talk a lot about, there aren't too many

ideological consistencies here, but this is one. He genuinely abhors the idea of war. Some of this is based out of his upbringing in the 70s and 80s during the Cold War. I am told people close to him. He's very afraid of the idea of a nuclear attack. That's something that keeps him up at night, he has said.

He also can be moved sometimes by images. We know he's a visual. He reacts to pictures, and his briefings are filled with them. And in fact, I reported last week for the Atlantic that partially why he has gotten a little tougher and frustrated with Putin just in this last 10 days or so in that conflict is because he saw and he was shown images of some of these strikes on Ukrainian cities that also included killing children. And that really bothered him.

We saw that in the first term as well when he was given pictures of Syrians and victims of chemical attacks that led him to actually authorize the first military strikes as president back in early 2017 because of those pictures that he saw. And these really bothered him because it came after he believes Putin should have taken his ceasefire deal. So, Ed, that leads me to you here shifting to Ukraine. It is striking to me.

President Trump silenced so far in terms of what in response to what Ukraine did over the weekend, this audacious drone attack into Russia. We've been waiting for Russia's, you know, fulsome response. That still hasn't come just yet. Certainly not much came at the negotiating table there in Istanbul. But President Trump and the administration, deadly, we know they weren't given a heads-up.

They haven't given, they've been deadly silent in response to it. What's your read on that? That's very interesting. I mean, you know, clearly, the reason why the Trump administration wasn't given the heads-up is because, I think, probably on correct grounds Zelensky's team did not trust them not to misuse that information. There are Putin sympathizers in the Trump administration, including Putin himself.

Trump's frustration, I think, with Putin should logically lead to one of one of two actions or both. The first is ratcheting up sanctions on Russia to prevent to cut off its oil revenues as Senator Blumenthal was just saying, which are feeding its war machine. Trump hasn't considered that. And by the way, this was another thing Mike Waltz was suggesting that Trump didn't like. And the other logical thing is, well, if Putin won't come to the negotiating table and won't agree to a ceasefire, then we've got to give Ukraine more patriot defense missiles. We've got to strengthen its defense against incoming Russian missiles. And Trump isn't prepared to do that either.

And so these kinds of operations by Ukraine, which might embarrass Trump and do serious damage to Putin's credibility, are going to happen more and more in one way or another. They're also going to cast doubt on Trump's big initiative, the Golden Dome. The missile defense system, massively expensive, looks like a white elephant already. The age of drone warfare is with us. You know, $600 drones taking out $100 million Russian bombers. That's incredible. That changes everybody's calculations and

Golden Dome looks like a waste of money already. Wow. Ed Luce, thank you so much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. We'll be following you on your book tour. And you know, maybe one of the reasons we haven't heard from the president yet, we'll see. Maybe we hear from him today, but actually the Ukrainians, in his mind, may be moving Vladimir Putin, not immediately, but eventually toward peace talks. Can only hope. Coming up, President Trump is picking a former

far-right podcast host to lead the Office of Special Counsel. We'll dig into that decision and the impact this could have on the Watchdog Agency. Morning, Joe. We'll be right back. It's a beautiful live picture of the White House at 649 on this Tuesday morning. A new opinion piece, MSNBC.com, is highlighting President Trump's recent pick of a vocal January 6th apologist for a key watchdog role. The author of the piece, Barbara McQuade, predicts that decision will not end well.

Barbara writes this, quote, picking Paul Ingrassacia to lead the US Office of Special Council is not like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. It's more like setting fire to the whole farm. His views on the January 6th riot are extreme, even by MAGA standards. In December, Ingracia called for not only pardons of the January 6th defendants, but also for $1 million per family in reparations. He advocated for Trump to expressly name in a public proclamation any judge and prosecutor

involved in the J6 scam, his words, and call on them to resign from their offices and pressure Congress to undertake impeachment proceedings against them if they do not cooperate. Ingratia also urged Congress to make January 6 a national holiday to place the day's events in their proper historical context, he wrote, as a peaceful protest against a great injustice affecting our electoral system. Again, those are all the words of Mr. Ingratia. And Barbara joins us now. She's an MSNBC contributor, former US attorney, her New York Times bestseller,

Attack From Within, How Disinformation is Sabotaging America, a huge hit, now out in paperback. Barbara, great to see you. I wanna talk a little bit more about the book in a minute, but can you tell us more about Paul Ingracia, his experience, who he is, and how he got to the doorstep of this key role?

Well, this is a man who graduated from law school three years ago. He has worked at the Claremont Institute as a research fellow, and he has been a Trump loyalist since the term began. He first started as the White House liaison at the Department of Justice. He ruffled feathers there, even with the very pro-Trump leadership they have there, and moved recently to be the liaison to the Department of Homeland Security. But one of the things that's so disturbing to me about this appointment, you know, certainly there are political loyalists throughout any administration, but the Office of Special

Counsel is the federal agency that is created post-Watergate to ensure that there are not politics in the federal workplace. This is the agency that protects whistleblowers and enforces prohibited personnel practices so that employees are insulated from politics when they work in the federal workforce. It is, in my view, the absolute worst possible kind of match between a person and a professional responsibility. So a 30-year-old, three years out of law school, gets this huge job in the government. What are your specific concerns about what he may or may not do in that role?

So if you have a problem in the federal workforce, a federal employee, you want to be a whistleblower about fraud, waste, or abuse in your agency, this is where you go. If you are an employee and you're concerned that people are engaging in politics on taxpayer dollars, you would complain to the head of the Office of Special Counsel. If you have someone there who is a loyal Trump supporter more than they care about the professional workplace, those complaints are going to fall on deaf ears.

And in fact, I think whistleblowers are going to be concerned that if they raise the issue and it is something that would be opposed to the president's agenda, it will fall on deaf ears or maybe even bring retaliation to them. You probably saw recently that there's this new questionnaire that federal employees have to respond to when onboarding about what's your favorite executive order and why and how are you going to execute it. I worry that our federal workforce which for more than a hundred years has promoted professionalism, people who can do these jobs based on competence, will instead be turned into just one more political arm of the Trump administration. So this appoints you, of course, his background

as a far-right podcast host. And he's not alone in terms of someone who is a purveyor of disinformation, now first on the outside, now occupies a place within the government. This, of course, subject to what you tackled in your book, now out in paperback. So how worried are you here that this disinformation is now coming from inside the House, if you

will? This is from the federal government. And what can be done to combat it? Yeah, so think about some of the narrative that Willie just read about this normalization, not just normalization of January 6th, but a celebration of January 6th. An effort to really rewrite history. And it is all part of this same plan of pardons for the January 6th. An effort to really rewrite history and it is all part of this same plan of pardons for the January 6th defendants and dismissing

all of the cases against them and firing FBI agents or prosecutors who worked on those cases suggesting that they did something wrong. And so I worry that we are going to see that erasure from history. What can we do about it? I think we can do things like we're doing right now, speak up about it. People who have a platform like all of you need to speak about it. But also, all of us, individuals, can talk to our friends and our neighbors and our loved ones about what we believe to be true. You know, we all have maybe that friend, uncle, neighbor who's gone down that rabbit hole

of disinformation. I think we can talk with them respectfully, with grace, with curiosity. Maybe they won't change their mind the first time we have a conversation with them, but if you can just plant a seed asking them what is the source of your information, what is the basis for that information, sharing with them other sources, maybe we can have dialogues where we can get past these kinds of things. I think it's at that interpersonal level where we can reach people perhaps more than at another level where sometimes people are shrill and argumentative. John Hellman's got a question for you, Barb.

Hey Barb, just taking you to a related story here, which is the story of Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, two January, as purveyors of misinformation and defenders of the Capitol rioters, both now kind of running the FBI. There's been some coverage of the fact that they have had to back off some of their claims, including some of the conspiracy theories spread about Jeffrey Epstein when they came

into actual contact with the facts of the case. At the same time, there's a lot of concern about what those guys are doing. I know you're constantly paying attention to the waterfront of related issues. What kind of updates can you give to people who have been concerned all along about what will happen when people like Cash Patel and Dan Bongino

take over the nation's most important law enforcement institution? Yes, so John, it's a really significant concern for me because, you know, for decades we have had an FBI that is professional, that is apolitical, and what I worry about is not so much violating the law, but violating their internal operating procedures. They are governed by something called the DIOG, which stands for Domestic Investigations Operations Guide. That was put forward after abuses at the FBI, called Cointel Pro, where they were investigating

Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. But all of that is just internal policy guidance. If they want to change it with the stroke of a pen, they could, and they could begin investigating people based on political viewpoint, as opposed to actual predication that a crime has been committed or that there's a threat to national security.

That's what I worry about most because I think it would be done very quietly. It would require whistleblowers to come out and tell us about that. And they could use the vast powers of the FBI, wiretap powers, surveillance powers, even knock and talks, in a way to intimidate Americans into changing their political speech. You know, Willie, as John brought up what's so fascinating is that right now the grief that they're receiving actually is from the Magurite because on the Epstein issue, they're saying, hey, this is what happened. He committed suicide.

And we've got tapes. If you have any more information, send it to us. But that has been fascinating to see how that's played out, that you have people that are in the position of authority looking at the information, passing it along, and now they're the ones being attacked by the MAGA base. Yeah. I mean, the Epstein files have been an obsession of many people for a very long time, and the fact that they appear, at least to some in the MAGA movement, to not have delivered, and to say, we've looked at all the evidence.

He killed himself in a jail cell. Sorry to disappoint you. He's not sitting well with some of the supporters. Barb, let me ask you quickly before you go just about the book. Came out just over a year ago and it really resonated with people because I think it's what everyone is dealing with whether you're following the news or a teenager in high school trying to understand what's true and what's not through social media. What are the best ways as you've had all these conversations for a couple of years now about this, to begin to combat this as a society?

Yeah, well, I think there are things we can do through legislative action or regulatory action. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. I think at the state level, we can think about implementing media literacy courses into our schools. But I think what we can do right now is educate ourselves about media literacy. When we see a claim, we need to ask ourselves, what is the source? Are they motivated to tell us what they want to tell us, or are they giving us the objective

truth? What is the evidence to support that claim? And is there more than one source reporting that same thing? That's really important. I think the other thing we can do, Willie, is disinformation is not just false facts, though. It is an effort to persuade people that our tribe is better than your tribe. And I think one of the things we need to do is, even when it serves the interests of our

political tribe, so to speak, we still need to choose truth. And so, in that way, if we're not piling on, you know, engaging in the war of words with other people, but instead trying to use facts to persuade, I think we can be part of the solution and not part of the problem. That's well said. And if it sounds untrue and crazy, I tell my kids, it probably is. Go check it out. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, thank you.

The paperback edition of her New York Times bestselling book, Attack From Within, is out now. Thanks, Barb.