Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/6/25

Episode Date: June 6, 2025

Trump and Musk feud explodes online and turns personal

I've always liked Elon and it's always very surprised. You saw the words he had for me, the words of, and he hasn't said anything about me that's bad. I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill because the bill is incredible. He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody. And he never had a problem until right after he left. Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we're well anymore. I was surprised because you were here. Everybody in this room practically was here as we had a wonderful sendoff. He said wonderful things about me. You couldn't have nicer said the best thing. President Trump in the Oval Office yesterday as Elon Musk was escalating his

feud with the president online, leading to a complete meltdown on social media. We will dig into their full back and forth. It is extraordinary. Also ahead, the latest from Ukraine after a series of Russian missile and drone strikes on Kyiv overnight. It comes as President Trump suggested both countries might need to quote fight for a little while.

Meanwhile, President Trump and President Xi of China have agreed to an in-person meeting on trade talks. We'll look at whether an actual deal might come out of that sit down. And game one of the NBA finals did not disappoint. If you went to bed thinking it was a blowout, the thunder, maybe we're going to sweep the series. Here's what happened late last night. Halliburton driving, pulls off, jump shot. It's gone! It's gone! With three tenths of a second remaining! Time out! Jonathan Lemire.

Jonathan Lemire. Tyrese Halliburton. Tyrese Halliburton. This guy, if you're having flashbacks as a Knicks fan, it's because this is exactly what happened in game one of the Eastern Conference Finals. You got a game at home, you think you're going to win. The Thunder were up 15 points in the fourth quarter

they were terrible the Pacers in the first half I confess I'd missed the second half turning the ball over suffocating defense from the thunder SGA was great with thirty eight points but the Pacers staged this comeback and Halliburton hits the jumper now they steal game one of the NBA finals on the road the Pacers had one lead all night, right there. 111 to 110 with 0.3 seconds to go.

I also, I think most of America flipped this game off at halftime. The Pacers played terribly to start and finished with a total of 25 turnovers, just seven for Oklahoma City. The Thunder go into this series, as we've talked about it, Willie, that's sort of like the secret juggernaut. They've had one of the best

seasons any NBA team ever has. They're almost unbeatable at home. A lot of predictions thought this would be a very short series but the Pacers keep coming. Haliburton didn't even play that well on the hole last night but he got the big shot at the end and hey we've got a series now. 1-0 Indiana. Yeah he did it against the Knicks, got a series now. One, nothing Indiana. Yeah, he did it against the Knicks, hit a big shot against Cleveland, hit a big shot in Milwaukee.

There's been months of this now for this Tyrese Halliburton, who is now maybe Mr. Big Shot of the NBA. We'll have full highlights coming up later, but we do begin with the relationship between billionaire Elon Musk, the world's richest man, and President Trump devolving into a very public feud yesterday. NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake has all the details. The stunning public breakup.

Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if it worked well anymore. I was surprised. Just days after that lavish Oval Office sendoff. He's done a fantastic job. I expect to remain a friend and an advisor. President Trump and his once top ally, Elon Musk, now in a nasty public feud. I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.

All starting when the president was asked about the former Doge leader's criticism of his so-called Big Beautiful bill, which extends the Trump 2017 tax cuts and eliminates taxes on tips and overtime. Musk slamming it, saying it spends too much. Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. The president, who recently showed off his Tesla at the White House, saying Musk's opposition began because the bill eliminates electric vehicle tax credits, which hurts Musk's business. He had no problem with it.

All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're gonna have to cut the EV mandate. Musk responding in real time on X. False, this bill was never shown to me even once. Moments later writing, whatever, keep the EV solar incentive cuts in the bill, but ditch the mountain of disgusting pork.

I pressed Trump about Musk's criticism. And this is the guy you put the mountain of disgusting pork. I pressed Trump about Musk's criticism. And this is the guy you put in charge of cutting spending. Should people not take him seriously about spending an hour? Are you saying this is all sour grapes? No, no, he worked hard and he did a good job. And I'll be honest, I think he misses the place. People leave my administration and they love us. And then at some point, they miss it so badly and some

of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Put the signs up, put the hat on. Let's go. All of it a sudden shift for Musk who enthusiastically campaigned for Trump. The president suggesting he would have won in 2024 without the support of the world's richest man.

I think I would have won. Suzy would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway. Minutes later, Musk firing back, writing, without me, Trump would have lost the election. Such ingratitude. The war of words escalating even further. President Trump posting, Elon was wearing thin. I asked him to leave.

I took away his EV mandate. And he just went crazy. And that the easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts. Musk then writing, time to drop the really big bomb.

Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they've not been made public. Musk offered no evidence to back up his accusation, and nothing made public has implicated Trump, who's denied any involvement in Epstein's criminal behavior. The White House responding to Musk's claim, saying it's a quote, unfortunate episode from Elon. The president posting, I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago.

This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress. Across the board, Tesla Stoxx. Meanwhile, as all of this unfolded, Tesla Stoxx plummeted, losing over 14% of its value. Garrett Haake reporting for us there. So, Jonathan Lemire, as you know, yesterday, this was so explosive, this back and forth, it actually made a lot of people put X back onto their phones if they had deleted it some many months ago.

But it's worth remembering it was one week ago today, last Friday they had that very nice send-off from the Oval Office, thank you for your service Elon Musk, you did a great job, you and your Doge team, now you get back and run your businesses, smiled for the cameras, and now six days later this thing just kept escalating from the policy, talking about the big, beautiful bill and Elon Musk criticism of it, to the deeply, deeply personal. Yeah, for one day anyway, Elon made Twitter great again. This was both inevitable, but also stunning.

The speed of this was so stunning. Just how quickly it escalated yesterday. Now, these are two billionaires with giant egos who, to this point, sort of surprised a lot of observers by how well they did get along. Musk was Trump's biggest campaign donor. Then Randos was even borderline co-president there for a while, even though his influence certainly

had waned in recent weeks. And this clash was several weeks in the making. Yes, it's about the bill to a degree. It's about the EV mandate. It's about Trump snubbing Musk's pick to run NASA. There were some real personality conflicts there that emerged at the end. Musk and a lot of Trump senior staff didn't get along. Trump as well as some of Trump's cabinet members didn't get along.

And then just the stunning speed how quickly this devolved yesterday. Trump's comments there in the Oval, disappointed, but didn't take a blowtorch to Musk either. Musk then really ramped things up on social media. And look, you can hurl insults at Donald Trump. One thing you can't do, as one of his advisors put to me yesterday, you can't claim credit for his victories. And that was the thing that really angered Trump yesterday.

And then of course, as noted, Musk only went further, suggesting at one point agreeing with a tweet that suggested that Trump be impeached, and then that Jeffrey Epstein claim as well. So there was some efforts late last night to cool things off. White House officials saying they're trying to broker a call with Musk later today.

Musk tweeted that he would like to smooth things over with Trump. We'll see. But Ali Vitale, the host of Way Too Early, joins us now. I mean, this is seismic. It is. Musk, we've never seen one person have the influence that Musk did, both as a campaign donor and then as a member of Trump's administration here. And the clout, his fortune gave Trump that sort of, that threat, don't challenge me. I have this guy's deep pockets supporting me in the background. And yet here it goes, it blows up, it doesn't just blow up, it blows up spectacularly.

But that's always how it was going to go, right? I mean, I know you and I talk to people close to the administration on Capitol Hill, and many of them were forecasting that this was not a question of if the breakup would happen. It was when, and of course, now we see that we're at that moment. The idea that it's so public,

that it's literally playing out on their dueling social media platforms, it almost feels like if you wrote it, it would be too cute, but that's exactly how it's going. And I think one person asked me yesterday, as I was texting my sources, what could get worse than this? And I think

we know that there's always a deeper floor here. I don't think that we've hit rock bottom, though certainly the allegations that are being cast about are absolutely jaw dropping and stunning. But at the same time, there's also an open question legislatively here of what does this mean for a massive bill that is going to have big impacts on Americans. So we're talking about healthcare, we're talking about food assistance programs,

and so as much as this is entertaining, and it very much is, and the internet understood the assignment yesterday, they came up in the clutch. At the same time, I think it's also important to remember a lot of people's lives are at stake here from a government policy perspective, and these are guys that are quarreling over electric vehicle mandates.

And yeah, look, I mean, I finally get a chance to do what you guys always do. I hate my ex. I mean, this is the headline of the New York Post. I mean, you're holding a paper that has just a similar one. This is entertainment. But these are two very powerful people who can have big impacts on people's lives. And I think it's important we keep that focus there, too. And John, Elon Musk did come back to the bill.

He went after Mike Johnson again yesterday, Speaker Johnson saying, this is so irresponsible. Where's the Mike Johnson of 2023, who was a fiscal hawk? Speaker Johnson responded in his own way, saying, I'm still a fiscal hawk. I think the question on a lot of people's mind is you both just said, I don't think anyone was surprised that this relationship blew up.

This did seem inevitable at some point, but why so fast? Because it felt like it was about much more than an EV mandate or a policy element of this big, beautiful bill that has Elon Musk worried about his business interests, perhaps. This did feel deeply personal. So the question a lot of people are asking is, why did Elon Musk suddenly go to 11 so quickly? Yeah, well there are a few things at play here. Let's start with the obvious, which is money. Not only are there things in this bill,

like the EV mandate that Musk wanted, he's also been opposed to a lot of the tariffs that President Trump has put forth because that would hurt his businesses. And also let's just think about, as someone close to Musk said yesterday to me, think about the money that Musk has put forth because that would hurt his businesses. And also let's just think about as someone close to Musk said yesterday to me, think about the money that Musk has put into this, not just the couple hundred million in the campaign, but as he looks at it, the money he's lost since going into the Trump administration

because Tesla and other businesses have taken such a hit. And that's why one of his responses yesterday, you know, certainly a petulant angry one, was to maybe suggest he would scrap the space dragon rocket ship that working with NASA, which would potentially really cripple the American space program. He seemed to back off that late last night. But the first of all, there's the money part of this, but there's also is the personality side. Musk wanted, Musk had a few of his top lieutenants, including the administrator for NASA, get rejected from top administration posts. There were

these clashes, as I mentioned a few moments ago, with White House staff and cabinet members. Trump and Musk, surprisingly, and I say surprisingly, from senior Trump aides, they got along for the most part. Like the two men actually, despite the egos, despite their insecurities, despite their volatile natures, they did get along. But we'll see, Trump still largely stayed above the fray. He was mad at Musk, but didn't go after him personally. We'll see if that changes.

Some White House aides though, Willie, we should just note, pointed to that New York Times story that came out a week or so ago back that detailed some of Musk's drug use, suggesting this was an unstable personality. You know and must certainly lashed out in a significant way after the point that just made some of his allies we will see where things are this morning there is going to be a phone

call to try to smooth things over. I wouldn't hold your breath maybe we'll get a ceasefire, but certainly this relationship it's forever changed it's not going to be the partnership that we saw to this point. Or with the 2 of them maybe just goes right back to where it was. We'll see yeah, let's bring in Rogers chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University historian

John Meacham John good morning always great to see you thinking about the busts of Lincoln and Churchill in the Oval Office and those portraits of Washington and Lincoln and others staring down at the President of the United States yesterday as he answered questions about tweets posted by the richest men in the world in this very public feud, what they must have been thinking. What were you thinking as a historian as you watched this yesterday? That we're, you know, Emerson was right. what they must have been thinking. What were you thinking as a historian as you watched this yesterday?

That we're, you know, Emerson was right. There is properly no history, only biography. You know, personalities here matter enormously. And President Trump has always been an exaggerated example of how one person's character, one person's vices and the view of his admirers, his virtues, affect all of us. And there is, as Ali was just saying, this is an enormously important piece of legislation. It could set certainly the next three years, perhaps beyond that, which is an enormous amount of time when you're talking about the power and scope

of what the federal government does in people's lives. And the nature of that now is somewhat in the hands, somewhat in play because of this kind of billionaires, non-Brokeback Mountain moment. And so what we're, I think what we're looking at is legislatively a really, really interesting political question, which is, will Republican members of Congress find some courage

in this, find some margin to oppose the president to keep pushing on certain elements, because they now have someone else to be afraid of, right? Ordinarily, they're just afraid of the president and his remarkable connection to the MAGA base. But now you're looking at a situation where you have someone who has the capacity to put a lot of money behind a primary opponent. And there is no more fearsome verb in Washington than to be primaried. It's hard to conjugate that verb, but that is the central term. And if Elon Musk wants to roll that threat out, he can do it. He's shown he can do it. And so you're looking at a moment here at a particularly crisis hour for this big bill

where there's a countervailing force not coming from the left but coming from the Republic of Musk. Well, it's been interesting to watch that exact question even before this really blew up yesterday over the last couple of days, John, of as the criticism from Elon Musk came in for this so-called big, beautiful bill, where would Speaker Johnson's side, where were these members of Congress,

some of whom, by the way, had their reelection campaigns bankrolled by Elon Musk, where would they come down on this? It seems, and Ali can talk about this too, for the most part, they're staying with Donald Trump, that the forces of MAGA are stronger than, I guess, the money and the primary threat that Elon Musk can bring. He's a relative newcomer to the MAGA movement. Just last year, kind of latching onto this is because he thought Donald Trump was going

to become president. He was right about that. So what's your suspicion about where Republicans, Speaker Johnson has been pushing back hard against Elon Musk? Which way they fall? They stay with the president or do they follow Elon Musk? Well, I'm almost always wrong about the future. Not that, you know, I'm trying not to be wrong about the past, but I'm going to get some

of that wrong too. My suspicion is that MAGA prevails over money in this particular battle. But for the first time, there've been two moments, right? Where the people, Republicans who might not actually believe in what President Trump wants to do. There've been two factors that I think have given them some pause, maybe three. Two, one would be falling poll numbers, right? The president's approval rating not being as high as it might room. Then there's, now there's Musk. And then there's simply the calendar, which is three and a half years is three and a half

years. And these folks, their calendar runs on their election cycle. The best way to tell where anyone is going to be, and this is not cynical, it's simply, as Abraham Lincoln said, all people act on incentive. The best way to know where someone's going to land on this bill or anything else President Trump wants to do is show us your primary electorate. Show us the demography of your state. Show us how the funding of your opponents might be. And we can probably nine times out

of 10, 9.8 times out of 10, find out where you're going to land because of that. I like the dichotomy that you set up there, this idea of Musk over money or MAGA over money. I think that might be the way Republicans on Capitol Hill are thinking about it. But I think by and large, yesterday, what we saw when they were asked about it was a lot of attempts to put some distance there I don't know that they're ready to pick sides in the divorce and quite frankly

I wouldn't want to if I were them because you do still have three and a half years of the Trump presidency You're watching all of these fissures within the MAGA movement whether it's Steve Bannon now teeing off against Elon Musk We know that they had had disagreements on things like H1B visas and other parts of the immigration program that the Trump administration was putting together. Obviously, electric vehicles and government subsidies towards that are another sticking point that is that are coming to a real head right here. So there's that. But then on the money piece of it, I think you're right. And I also don't know how to conjugate the primary. But the idea that you're going to get primaries has always been and Lemire, you said this, the idea that Musk always had that in his back pocket,

that he was the enforcer to the Trump agenda on Capitol Hill, that was always the extra oomph. And I think the extra insulation that Musk always had in the president's orbit is whether he was in government or not, he was always the guy that would put some money towards their side, keep people in line legislatively. That's a big power on Capitol Hill, maybe not to people like Thomas Massey, who sort of have their own permission structure

in their own states, but to other members, the threat of a primary challenge really did help them bend towards the president's will. And so now without that enforcement mechanism and even without it and even with it

potentially working against them, that's going to be an interesting ecosystem for Republicans to play in. And it's why you're watching them, that's going to be an interesting ecosystem for Republicans to play in. And it's why you're watching them kind of try to shy away from taking sides. Yeah. Mike Johnson literally ran away from cameras yesterday. Others did as well.

A very cute baby. He did. There was sort of as a shield, I think. Yeah. And Musk was certainly really very scattershot on Twitter yesterday, to say the least. But one thing he did say was that he would fund challenges to anyone who votes for this bill, like suggesting he would set up his own political party.

We'll see about the follow through there, but it's a reminder about the sort of weapon that he has. And to Ali's point though, there is a schism. I mean, Steve Bannon went so far as to say, not only should the US scuttle all government contracts with Musk, an idea that I will say Trump also floated, Bannon went so far as to say Musk should be deported. I'm not sure that's going to happen.

But there is certainly here a potential for a real fracture that's going to reshape the Republican Party. Or... Or not. We'll be onto something else tomorrow. I mean, that's just how fast yesterday went. I think we're all going to be glued to our phones again today for latest developments. You're right.

It's equally possible they'll hold a rally together tonight somewhere in the country. We shall see. All right, John Meacham, stay with us. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the latest from Ukraine is Russia now targets Kiev with a deadly missile and drone attack overnight, less than a week after that audacious drone attack by the Ukrainians. Plus, we're learning President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have agreed to meet in person. We'll talk about what this could mean for the escalating trade tensions between Washington

and Beijing. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available every weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Morning Joe, back in just 90 seconds. So what do you consider to put more sanctions on Russia because this discussion is going on now for weeks and months and you tweeted about it once but then nothing happens. When I see the moment when we're not going to make a deal when this thing won't stop, in that moment, yeah, it's in my brain, the deadline.

When I see the moment where it's not going to stop, and I'm sure you're going to do the same thing, it will be very, very tough. And it could be on both countries, to be honest. It takes two to tango. But we're going to be very tough, whether it's Russia or anybody else, we're going to be very tough. President Trump speaking from the Oval Office yesterday, suggesting the United States could impose sanctions on Russia, but also on Ukraine, unless a peace deal is reached between those

two countries. Meanwhile, four people were killed and 20 others were injured by a series of Russian missiles and drone strikes on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv overnight. The city's mayor reports 16 of the injured people were taken to the hospital for treatment. Reuters reports in addition to the strikes on Kyiv, one of which slammed into an apartment building, Russia launched attacks in the western part of the country as well, according to local officials. These assaults followed President Trump's phone call with Vladimir Putin just on Wednesday, in which Putin claimed Moscow would have to respond to Ukraine's recent drone strikes that targeted Russian military airfields.

Let's bring in columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, good morning. Your latest column for the Washington Post titled Ukraine's Dirty War is just getting started. In it, David writes this, with Trump stepping back as a peacemaker, at least for now, Ukraine will depend more than ever on its intelligence services, which have shown an ability to strike Russian forces deep inside their home country and around the world. The front line inside Ukraine will remain a hellscape of drones and artillery, but covert

operations could expand into a dirty war beyond the front with more targeted killing, sabotage and strikes on countries that supply arms to Ukraine and Russia respectively. So, David, obviously that drone attack of less than a week ago was just stunning in its sophistication and its planning of 18 months or so when they ship them in on trucks, the top of the trucks open and the drones attack more than 40 aircraft on military installations across Russia. But what you're suggesting here is that without Donald Trump putting a line in the sand for

Vladimir Putin, it leaves the war open ended. He said just the other day, these two countries might have to fight for a while, that this war will change and take on a new shape in these covert operations. So, Willie, the attack Sunday on the airfields across the breadth of Russia was just stunning. I think the whole world saw Ukraine's skill in mounting these covert actions using drones. People hope that it might be a knockout punch against Vladimir Putin and Russia. But it's clear now that it really is a prelude to a new phase of this war. And I do worry that this next phase could be even bloodier than what we've seen. As President Trump says again and again, the killing field in Iran has led to a kind of violence we haven't seen since the Second World War.

He was very graphic yesterday in describing what satellite intelligence shows of the bodies, what it looks like when you have close-up images, as he does as president, of what the battlefield carnage looks like when you have close-up images as he does as president of what the battlefield carnage looks like. President Trump's, to me, sadly, has now stepped back from this conflict. There was a lot of hope when he became president that he would be the peacemaker. He'd find a way to put enough pressure on Russia to get Russia and Ukraine to terms that might lead to a stable settlement. We saw this week with the meeting between the two negotiators in Istanbul that there's

so far apart that a negotiated settlement isn't possible. And Trump is now characterizing this as a fight between kids on a playground, in effect. You've got to let them keep fighting. That's bad news for Ukraine because as the president stands back we've been the crucial ally for Ukraine. It was very interesting to see the German Chancellor sitting next to Trump trying to make Trump understand the importance of working together to support Ukraine. I didn't see that he was making any real progress. So it's now up to Europe to see if it can provide Ukraine with the weapons, the intelligence,

the support it will need to hold its ground against what's going to be an increasing Russian assault. And, Des, take a look at what David just said, moment yesterday from the Oval Office, Trump talking about children on the playground. Sometimes, and this is me speaking, maybe in a negative sense, but sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy. They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park.

And you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart. And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday. I said, President, maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot because both sides are suffering before you pull them apart,

before they're able to be pulled apart. A lot of Ukrainians who have lost loved ones in the war will object to that analogy. David, certainly I reported yesterday as well on this that in the White House, as audacious as that Ukrainian drone strike was, they were unhappy with it because in Trump's mind, it simply prolongs the war. That yes, now he feels Russia's going to have to retaliate. They'll be in it and then Ukraine will hit back and there'll just be this domino effect

of escalation. And we heard that from him yesterday as well when he did yet again suggest Well, i'm gonna step away from this So if that's and more than that even in his call with putin Want to change the subject like well, I want to because we know he wants to have better relations with russia Whether it's a trade deal or getting putin's help help with iran relations with Russia, whether it's a trade deal or getting Putin's help with Iran, he seems to be wanting off-ramps where he wishes he's trying to wish this conflict away. It's not going to happen. Do you see if the U.S. doesn't step in, this could be years to go, no? So I fear that there are years

ahead. I just want to give your viewers a sense. Trump talks about this as two kids in a playground, I have an app on my phone for when I'm in Ukraine, every air raid gets a notice. Here's what I hear on my phone. That's the sound of air raid sirens. And if you're in Ukraine, you hear that sound multiple times every night as missiles and drones fly over the city and increasingly go after residential areas. This is not a fight on a playground. It's a fight between a country that was invaded without provocation by Russia, a country with

a much larger army, much greater resources. And they're really going gonna get pounded. And I hope that people have a sense of just how much they stand to lose and how important it is for the United States and Europe to stand with them. Yeah, the attack last night we just reported on was on an apartment building,

a residential apartment building in Kyiv, not on a military installation. The war between Ukraine and Russia, just one of the topics President Trump discussed with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz yesterday at the White House, with Merz urging Trump to increase pressure on Russia. The German Chancellor also invoked D-Day

as an example of another time the United States helped a European ground war, leading to this exchange. And may I remind you that we are having June 6th tomorrow. This is the day anniversary when the Americans once ended war in Europe. And I think this is in your hand in specific, in ours. That was not a pleasant day for you? No, that was not a pleasant. Well, in the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from Nazi

dictatorship. That's true. And we know what we owe you. But this is the reason why I'm saying that America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war. So let's talk about what we can do jointly. John Meacham, today is the 81st anniversary of D-Day. Americans and British and Canadian, Australian troops were on the beaches right now, 81 years ago,

the beginning of the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. And you heard the German Chancellor yesterday effectively saying, Mr. President, you've missed my point entirely with your one-liner there. I'm trying to explain to you why American influence is so critical today as it was 81 years ago on D-Day. This is the hinge of the 20th century. It's in many ways the moment, this operation that created a world that could be a post-war world. I think it is a remarkable thing. I think David can shed more light on this than I can,

but that's a remarkable moment when the head of government of the former combatant nation, Germany, would talk about that in terms of what we owe you for liberating us from Nazi dictatorship. That's a moment where you really should step back just for a second, and it's beyond Musk, and it's beyond tweets, and it's beyond the things that understandably consume us every day. The images you're showing there are of ordinary Americans

who under Franklin Roosevelt projected force across the Atlantic, across the Pacific as well, to stand against autocracy, to stand against totalitarianism in a way that in an era not wholly unlike our own, it's important to remember, as Winston Churchill's alleged to have remarked, that you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing once we've exhausted every other possibility. And World War II is arguably our greatest historical hour, right? It's America using its industrial

might, using its moral might, sending its sons to foreign shores to stand up for the principles that were embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Atlantic Charter. It's a marvelous story. But let's remember that we got into World War II at the last possible moment. It was after Pearl Harbor. We were attacked in the Pacific, and then Franklin Roosevelt didn't send up a declaration of war until Hitler had declared war on us later that week in 1941. And so politics, history, it seems black and white, it seems simpler anyway, it's not.

The men who began to turn the tide of the war to liberate Europe in these hours 81 years ago, were doing something that makes our lives possible. And I think that example should not, it's so overwhelming that it's almost as if it belongs to a different world. But the reason I mentioned the complicated politics of the era is because they were human too. They almost got it wrong and

then they got it right and that gives us I think hope. So John is right. D-Day, which we celebrate today, is a day on which the history of the modern world turned. I thought it was very moving to have a German sitting next to President Trump yesterday. I'm not sure Trump fully absorbed what he was saying. Saying you came to rescue us, to rescue Germany, but to rescue the values of Europe and to allow the creation of a modern Europe. I've sat with Joe and others from Morning Joe at that graveyard in Normandy where the crosses, the grave markers of all those thousands of Americans who died on D-Day are so visible. And you can look at the cliff that they had to climb up to to get to

the German positions that the heroism of the individual American British and other soldiers who on that day liberated Europe. And I think if there's anything that the German Chancellor and other Europeans are trying to say today to President Trump and Americans is don't forget this heritage. You have been the people who came to the rescue when Europe was facing enormous danger from adversaries like Hitler and Europeans would say today like Vladimir Putin. So it's a day to remember what America has done in the past, how grateful people are still for the sacrifices we made.

Yeah, and the Chancellor blowing through President Trump's one-liner there to say, no, no, what I'm saying is you have the power, just like you did on June 6, 1944, to rally to help a European nation. You are still the United States of America, and Europe needs you. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, historian John Meacham, so great to have you both here especially on this 81st anniversary of D-Day. Thanks guys. Coming up, senators have started the process of considering President Trump's judicial nominees. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin joins us with a

look at some of the potential judges as well as the latest on the Trump administration's wrongful deportation of a Guatemalan man to Mexico. Morning, Joe, coming right back. ["The Daily Show"] Live picture of Reagan National Airport, Washington, 643 in the morning. Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first judicial nominations hearing of President Trump's second term with testimony from his initial batch of potential judges.

Trump's picks fit into a continuation of his first term, where he applied a conservative slant across the federal branch, as you'd expect. But the judges also are facing questions on their qualifications. In other legal news, the Trump administration returned a Guatemalan man wrongly deported to Mexico, the first instance of compliance where the judges order to facilitate the return of a migrant. Let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator Lisa Rubin. Lisa, good morning.

A lot to talk to you about, including the travel ban. So let's go back to the beginning of what I mentioned there and these potential judges. What do you make of the collection of nominees that have been put forward in terms of their ideology but also their qualification? So Willie, I would tell you that by some measures, most of these people are qualified in the sense that they have the credentials that we would expect judges to have. They have Supreme Court clerkships or they've graduated first in their class from law schools. Where they fall short is according to the traditional measure of what it means to be

qualified. The American Bar Association, for example, typically requires 12 years of legal experience, an actual lawyering experience before they consider somebody qualified. Trump's first appeals court nominee who had her hearing the other day, Whitney Hermendorfer, a nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, has been out of law school for just 10 years. She spent four of those years in judicial clerkship. So her substantive lawyering experience only spans six years.

There were definitely some senators that aired concerns about what they called the brevity of her legal experience necessary to sit in that chair for a lifetime. So Lisa, let's turn to President Trump's new plans for his travel ban. He put it out the other day. It's going to start Monday.

He's citing the attack in Boulder, Colorado. There's an Egyptian national, we should note Egypt, not one of the countries mentioned here. But it's 12, it's a total ban for 12 countries and partially restricting travel from seven others. The travel ban in the first term was overturn of the courts. What do you see here? Does he have more legal standing? I think they've done a better job of trying to justify the travel ban. So for example, the White House put out a fact sheet, Jonathan, that says, here are the stats

on all of these countries and their visa overstay rate. That's a good way to justify an order like this. On the other hand, the rhetoric that has accompanied the order, you mentioned, for example, that he cited the Boulder, Colorado attack, Egypt, not on the list. But also, there were statements about radical Muslim extremists. If you're trying to show that racial animus or ethnic animus is not motivating this travel ban, that's a funny way of doing it. So expect courts to look at whether or not there's sufficient

support here, but also whether or not that support is pretextual. It's kind of reminiscent of some of the citizenship question litigation that we saw in the first Trump term, where there was sort of an effort to paper over why they were asking the question, even though there was also a contemporaneous record showing why they were really asking the question. So the travel ban revival here, an example of the way that the administration is trying to stem the flow of people coming into this country, but there's also been much legal action around the deportations that they've done. We talked a little bit at the beginning of this segment about how they did return a Guatemalan

man who was wrongfully deported. And yet we've seen this larger question of to comply or not to comply. This is seemingly the first instance where they are complying with court orders saying you wrongfully deported this person, you didn't give them due process. What does this mean that they're doing it in one instance, but not, for example, for Kilmar Arbrego-Garcia or others we've talked about? So there are three existing court orders that would ask the administration or direct the administration, I should say, to facilitate the return of migrants. This is one of them.

But this guy, Ali, I would submit to you is is differently situated than both Quilmar Abrego Garcia and the man known as Cristian. In that, he is a Guatemala national. He was first sent to Mexico, and Mexico sent him on to Guatemala, where he was in hiding. Like Quilmar Abrego Garcia, he had an order that said he couldn't be sent back to Guatemala, his home country, because he

feared persecution there. The issue here was also that in his initial detention proceedings, he said, I don't want to be sent to Mexico either. I was raped and held for ransom there. And the government contested that that ever happened. Ultimately, though, the evidence was strong that it did, and they relented on the eve of a particular deposition. So one of the things I think you see throughout these cases is I won't call it abject lying yet because I don't think we have enough evidence to show that,

but definitely a failure of veracity or maybe just some carelessness that when you're playing with people's lives here and subjecting them to true danger as in the case of this particular gentleman, can't be ignored. Yeah. Betting in due process would be helpful, wouldn't it? MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin covered a lot of ground for us as always this morning. Lisa, thank you. You can check out Lisa's show,

Can They Do That? on MSNBC's YouTube channel. Still ahead this morning, a conversation on working-class voters in America. They've shifted more and more toward Republicans. Talk about what Democrats might be able to do to win them back. Also ahead, Aaron Rodgers finally makes a decision about the future of his NFL career. I'll tell you where he's headed next on Morning Joe. ["Morning Joe"]

A hazy morning in Western PA. Live picture of Pittsburgh, 653 in the morning. And that is where Aaron Rodgers is headed. The future Hall of Famer. Finally has made a decision on his future. He is headed to the Pittsburgh Steelers on a one-year deal ending months of speculation about where or if the 41 year old would play this season. Rodgers is expected to be on the field when minicamp starts on Tuesday. If he starts the season under center he'll be the fifth different week one quarterback in five seasons for the Steelers. So

Jonathan Lemire this was widely expected reported more than a month ago that he was likely headed there. The Steelers, frankly, don't have a starting quarterback. They needed Aaron Rodgers. Unclear what he gives you at 41 years old. He's got that Achilles injury a couple of years ago he's coming off of. But the good news, the Jets didn't have this luxury. It sounds like he actually will be going to the minicamp and not be on an ayahuasca retreat. That is a step in the right direction, I suppose. But Willie, this has been met with pretty mixed reviews, I think, from Steeler fans. Rodgers brings with him a lot of off the field baggage. And also, he just wasn't very good last year. Now, the Steelers are in a win now mode. And I get it.

They were sort of boxed in. They didn't have any other options to quarterback. They play in a really tough division. But Rodgers showed real signs of decline last year with the Jets as well as being a bit of a head case so I it's worthy of rolling the dice but I think expectations should be modest forty one year old quarterbacks with the exception of Tom Brady don't tend to

perform like all stars like they used to be. By the way perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not. Week one, Steelers at the New York Jets in New York City, out at the Metal Lands in Jersey. So we got a big series coming up this week, starts tonight. John, yeah, Red Sox Yankees. Red Sox Yankees, three games set. The Yankees are up five and a half games in the division,

nine and a half on the Red Sox. You know we're sixty one you guys are sixty four games still got a hundred games left in this season but how are you feeling heading in. At the end of the season I circled this weekend it was like this is going to be really fun Red Sox come into the season with their highest expectations in a while. This will be a great series. I'll go to a couple of games. Willie I will not be going to the Bronx this week. Now, a lot of that is because of kids, kids stuff, and other plans. But it's because, I mean, the Red Sox have, sadly,

really disappointed to this point in this season. You're right. Long way to go. But they, you know, they're four games under 500. There's four or five games out of the wild card. The division seems almost out of grasp already and to credit to your Yankees the Aaron judge hitting nearly 400 Max Fried one of the best pitchers in baseball Yankees playing really well I'd say exceeding expectations to

this point after losing Garrett Cole after losing one soda yeah and Fried has really stepped up as the ace of the staff he's even better than I realized he would be. Yeah the Yankees feel a little bit like they've muggled along this season and then you look up and they're tied in the loss column for the best record in baseball with the Tigers and Cubs. So they're getting it done with the win yesterday. Free dealing yesterday. Alright, Yanks Red Sox this weekend and they play at Fenway next weekend.

We'll be watching of course.