Morning Joe - Morning Joe: ‘The clock is ticking’: Senate Republicans rush to save budget bill after blow to Medicaid cuts

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Republicans suffered a blow Thursday after the Senate referee ruled that a series of health care cuts and savings in their sweeping domestic policy bill are ineligible for the party-line path they're using to get around the chamber's 60-vote threshold. The president on Thursday also delivered remarks from the East Room on the bill.

I'm not going to talk about anything from the briefing. I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program. The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. It is certain that there is still significant capability and significant equipment that remain. That's Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut offering a sobering assessment of America's strike on Iran after he had a briefing with Trump administration officials.

We'll dig into those comments as the House is set to have a meeting on the matter later today. Plus, several provisions in the president's massive spending bill have been disqualified in the Senate. We'll take a closer look at that and the divisions it's causing within the Republican Party. Plus, business leaders are hedging their bets in the race for mayor of New York City,

becoming so desperate to box out the presumptive Democrat in the race, Zoran Mamdami, that they are now willing to support scandal-scarred Eric Adams for another term. We'll dig into that and what it could mean for the party nationally. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe on this Friday, June 27th.

I'm John Flamir, thanks for being here. I'm joined by the BBC's Katty Kay, who is host of the rest of Politics Podcast. Joe, Mika and Willie have the day off. With us we have managing editor at the Bullark, Sam Stein, and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson. Great group to start off a busy news morning. And we will dive right in, beginning with Republicans now facing a major setback after a Senate official ruled against a series of health care cuts and savings in their sweeping domestic policy bill. The nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough disqualified several provisions, including one that prohibits federal funding of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program

for adults or kids whose immigration status cannot be immediately verified, as well as changes in how states can tax Medicaid providers. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called the setback a, quote, speed, and senators, have been called to the Senate to be the majority of the Senate's senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators

and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators and senators call for her to be overruled, which can happen by a civil majority. But Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri threw some cold water on that idea. Senator, do you think that the parliamentarian should remain in her job? Should you guys try to overrule the parliamentarian? Oh, I just can't imagine that you'd get people to overrule her.

I mean, I just don't think you'd get the votes for that. So I just don't. I mean, I think Thoan himself has said he wouldn't vote for that. So I just don't. I mean, I think Thorn himself has said he wouldn't vote for that. So I don't see that happening. Well, President Trump has urged all congressional Republicans to get behind the so-called one big, beautiful bill, warning any members of the GOP from voting against it. During an event at the White House yesterday,

Trump said Americans would benefit from the tax cuts in the measure and that the bill would create millions of jobs and grow the economy while also falsely stating it includes no taxes on Social Security benefits. This is the ultimate codification of our agenda to very simply a phrase that's been used pretty well by me over the last 10 years, but maybe even before that, make America great again. Very simple. Make America great again. We don't want to have grandstanders where one or two peoples raised

their vote. We are. We vote no. And they do it to grandstand. That's all. Not not good people. They know who I am. Oh, I'm talking about. I call them out. But we don't need grandstanders. We have to get our country back and bring it back strong. And our country is going to be stronger, bigger, better than ever before.

Stronger, bigger, better. One person that I've spoken to, Democrats and Republicans, about this bill, Gene, who was saying to me, well, one thing that they do think is that the Democrats' chances in the midterms are stronger, bigger and better if this bill passes as it is Absolutely, it's not a popular bill I mean, it's not there are provisions in this bill For you know various groups to hate for everybody to hate there's something in there and Make a bill that big

Literally more than a kitchen sink bill everything Everything is in there. The entire legislative agenda of this Trump administration is in this one bill. And so, of course, there are members of the House and members of the Senate who don't like various provisions of this bill, even if and when they corral all the Republicans into supporting some version of this bill with this script and that script, I think they have a real problem going into the midterms. I really do.

I can't get over a couple things here. One is the process, which is they haven't finished writing this thing. They're going to vote tomorrow. The couple's teaching guys. But they're still going gonna vote on it tomorrow? It's crazy to me that there's not been a single hearing in the Senate, they don't have a budget analysis, they don't have

an analysis of how many people will be impacted by the Medicaid cuts, they don't actually know what's in the bill, they have to rewrite the bill and they're still gonna vote on it tomorrow. I mean it's madness, let's just call it what it is. It's total madness, we've never seen anything like this happen before. What does that mean?

I mean, they are actually going to vote on it tomorrow. It could go to the president's desk. As of now. They're going to start the first vote tomorrow as of now. I don't know. Maybe not. But the idea is to get to the president's desk by July 4. That's seven days.

Again, it's crazy. And if it were to happen in the reverse direction, Republicans would rightfully bemoan how absurd this legislative process is. The second thing, which is maybe more substantive, but I also can't get over, is that the cuts to this bill on the Medicaid side, specifically, the people that are gonna be harmed are actually Republicans

and Trump voters in the majority. Now, it's obviously not exclusive of them. But because of the political realignments, The people that are going to be harmed are actually Republicans and Trump voters in the majority. Now, it's obviously not exclusive of them. But because of the political realignments, we're talking about rural hospitals. We're talking about maga types who depend on Medicaid. Republicans are going to make a huge hit to their own coalition, to their own interests. And you're starting to see some kind of realize this. I mean, Tom Tillis, for instance, the senator from North Carolina who's up this cycle,

he's been like, I can't do this until I recognize how bad the hit is going to be in my state on Medicaid because his people, his voters, his coalition will take the brunt of this. I don't think I've ever really witnessed a party self-sabotage in this type of fashion as the Republicans are doing right now, all because they're extremely worried about offending Donald Trump. Yeah, I was talking, John, to a former Republican senator just this week who was saying, yeah, but health care is never up there in voting issues. You never see it ranking. It's not an issue.

And actually, the argument that the Democrats with him were making is, yeah, but this is not health care. This is an affordability issue. And affordability is the issue of the moment. That is what everyone is talking about. And of course, actually, really, health care is just affordability under another guise. Do you think it gets to the president's desk by July 4th? Are we taking bets this morning?

I'll take bets. Hey, look, no one else is here, so we may as well have some fun. I want the underarm. We may as well pay for money. I don't see it. Sam has the DraftKings app for legislative measures as well. I'm a polymarket guy. Come on. I mean, the president wants it.

July 4th is a week from today. So that seems, the clock is indeed ticking. But we're going to see a lot of pressure. It's really begun in the last day or so from President Trump to try to push this through by hell or high water. And of pressure. It's really begun in the last day or so from President Trump to try to push this through by hell or high water. And it is. It's a test.

Will Republicans ever stand up to him? And we know if passed this prologue, very few ever will. But we're seeing a little bit of dissent right now, at least on the edges. And for more on that, let's bring in NBC News senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen. John, good to see you this morning. It is striking that Josh Hawley, who is about as MAGA as it comes first of all

Spoke out a few months back about the Medicaid cuts and then yesterday take a you know Somewhat reasonable tone about the Senate parliamentarian like maybe he doesn't like the ruling But he's like well we have to live with this that's part of the institution. We don't have the votes to overturn it. So what is your read here in terms of the willingness for Republicans to defy Trump? What other recourse do they have after this being dealt a significant blow yesterday? Well, I think the point that Sam makes is the right one, which is that nobody's read the bill yet. And as a result of that, the reason that I say that is that

this is now the time for them to fight. You know, eventually this thing will come to the floor. The odds are that it will pass. Historically, when presidents have their own party in power in the House and Senate, they get the one big thing that they want done passed. So you would have to expect that that's going to happen. So they're fighting about it right now. But you mentioned Josh Hawley, and look, Josh Hawley understands what Tom Tillis from North

Carolina understands, which is that MAGA populism isn't taking away, or at least it shouldn't in theory be taking away health insurance from poor rural people in order to fund tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. And so Trump is trying to get this bill through. There are a lot of different interests. This has been the idea of slashing Medicaid by, you know, as much as a trillion dollars in budgets has been something that has been a hobby horse of Russ Vogt, the Office of Management and Budget Director, for at least the last 20 years.

And so, this is an ideological push going on from the White House, hitting right into a real politic or practical politics of senators like Hawley and Tillis who don't want to take benefits away from their own constituents. One thing that President Trump can do, John Allen, is read polls. And the polls are really bad on this. We've seen a wave of them. And first of all, most Americans, frankly, like legislators, don't know what's in the bill just yet.

But what they've heard, they don't like. And they particularly worry about these cuts, cuts to services, cuts to Medicaid. And so many of them will disproportionately hurt Trump voters. And then President Trump is usually pretty protective of his base. But in this case, he really seems to be favoring the rich who are going to benefit from the tax cuts that are part of this, as opposed to these sort of rank-and-file Trump voters. So many of them live in red districts or rural districts. Are you surprised by it?

And are Republicans in the building behind you aware that they're staring at a deeply unpopular bill and therefore potentially facing a real blowback at the midterms next year? Yeah, I think they are. But we've seen this movie before, Jonathan, where there is a president in their first two years of their term who is pushing unpopular legislation

and they're asking the members of Congress in their own party to walk the plank on it and to basically asking the members of Congress in their own party to walk the plank on it and to basically put the the party goal ahead of their own goal of reelection. Easy to remember the 2010 elections after after Obamacare passed and the and the sort of public backlash to that with the Tea Party. So you know I think that this is a dynamic that's well settled but yes the people in the building behind me are acutely aware that they are risking certainly their House majority, risking some Senate seats by moving forward with this bill.

And at the same time, the vast majority, because of redistricting, because of the way our politics are polarized, the vast majority of people in the building behind me are not actually on the line themselves, which makes it a lot easier to vote for the thing that the president wants. Yeah, good point there, just about how there are so few competitive seats these days. But we know of a couple senators who are worried. NBC News senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen. John, thank you so much.

We turn now to the latest out of Iran. And this morning, the House of Representatives is set to receive a classified briefing on last weekend's military operations there after senators received their own version yesterday. It followed a contentious press briefing at the Pentagon held by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hegseth spent the first half of the media mostly criticize, first half of the briefing, I should say, mostly criticizing the media

before Kaelin stepped up, told some stories, and offered some operational details. The president offered rave reviews, calling it the most professional and most confirming news conference he'd ever seen. He then called for reporters from some outlets to be fired. He repeated that position again later in the day, calling journalists bad people with evil intentions, threatening to sue the media outlets.

New York Times in particular said, go ahead, we stand by our reporting. See none of the same. Meanwhile, NBC News reports that the majority of senators who left yesterday's classified briefing on those strikes in Iran felt as though Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other top officials who led the briefing did a good job relaying the information. However, when speaking to reporters after the briefing, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut offered a sobering assessment. Listen, to me it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.

There's no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason. So obviously I can't share any details from this briefing but I just do not think the president was selling the truth when he said this program was obliterated. They were certainly damaged under the program but there is significant there's still significant remaining capability.

And that right there, Kadhi, is the heart of the matter. And just taking a step back to remind viewers, after the strikes, the first assessment we heard, again, was preliminary assessment, one even delivered with low confidence, but from the DIA, which suggested that this strike may have only set back Iran's program a couple of months. Since then, that triggered the real anger of President Trump. We've heard from other agencies, the CIA and the like, and some international assessments, suggesting that perhaps more damage was done.

But no one is going as far as the president in terms of saying it's been completely obliterated. Iran will never start this program again. And we also, the fate of that enriched uranium, very much a mystery. Yeah. I mean, generally for leaders, the best plan of action in this sort of circumstances is to get all of the intelligence, wait for the intelligence and analyze the intelligence and then give your assessment of the intelligence. When you give a pre-assessment of the intelligence that hasn't come in yet, you slightly prejudice

people's perception of what that intelligence is. So in fact, I don't think Donald Trump did himself very many favors by coming out straight away and saying it had been obliterated because then you set the standard so high for what people expect that anything that falls short of that is slightly a political disappointment. As to that enriched uranium, I thought it was interesting in the press conference yesterday, we really got very little in the way of information about that gene. I mean, that seems to be the outstanding issue.

And I've heard from people in the national security world, senior people in the national security world, that it's actually very easy to move this. You can get a two kilogram gallon, you can move this stuff around. It could have been those trucks we saw beforehand, but it could have been moved almost in anything. I wouldn't like to be the driver of those trucks. No, but in the truck of a car you can move one of these boxes of uranium.

And we're just not hearing much from the administration. Right. I mean, you know, it's a bit frustrating because this is kind of an argument about assumptions in a lot of ways. I mean, everybody's making assumptions, including the intelligence analysts at this point, about what damage was done, you know, at Forto and Isfahan and the Tons, and about that enriched uranium specifically, right? And it makes sense that the Iranians would have moved it and dispersed it. And in fact, the IAEA says they intended to do that. So when guesses they

probably did. But again, we're making assumptions when there is better intelligence and I think there will be at some point, we'll have a better idea of the state of Iran's nuclear program. So the range of possibility is the whole range, right? I mean, it could have been wiped out. They could have gotten the uranium. It could be years before they could get back to where they were. Or they could still have the 60% uranium, enough for nine bombs. They could have centrifuges hidden away someplace else to further enrich it. They're certainly probably working on

weaponizing that material. I think if you were the Ayatollah, you would be. So again, we need more information before this argument actually makes sense. And all of this big picture is why it's kind of too early to say whether these strikes have made the region safer or less safe. Oh yeah.

Because we don't know yet. The White House, meanwhile, however, to try and limit leaks is planning to limit its intelligence sharing with members of Congress. A senior White House official tells NBC News the Trump administration plans to post less information on the system used to share classified material with lawmakers. The decision was made after an early assessment of the damage caused by America's strike on Iran was leaked to the press. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer objected to the move telling NBC News quote, the administration should immediately undo this decision. They seem not to want to see the facts get out, just Trump's version of the facts, which we know is often false.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson is now suggesting the leaked Iran report came from Capitol Hill. Though Democrats, they're disagreeing. There was a leak and we're trying to get down to the bottom of that. It's dangerous and ridiculous that that happened, but we're going to solve that problem and we'll keep the coordination. Do you think the leak came from Congress, sir? That's my suspicion.

I don't think it came from Congress. The leaks were specific enough, and let me say leaks are not okay, but the leaks were so specific that it implied that somebody who actually had the document was talking to somebody and typically members of Congress get to read something and then they walk out. So I'm not at all convinced that it was anybody in the Congress. Sam, there's so little goodwill between Republicans and Democrats in the House at the moment. At a time when even over an issue of national security, traditionally, in the good old days of American politics, they would have found a way to come together, even if temporarily

and even if pro forma. But they're just not doing that now. And I think in the end, that squeezes Democrats further out of the equation, doesn't it? For sure. Just a technical note, the original report on that DIA assessment was not from a congressional reporter. Take that however you want.

You mean it was not given the report of it? The reporter was not a congressional correspondent. I just want to note that. But to your larger point, the profound level of distrust is remarkable. And Jim Himes, who we saw in that clip, I think a member of the Gang of Eight, he passed until a ranking member

on the Intelligence Committee. He was not told in advance of the operation. He told me he was sitting on his couch on a Saturday night following it on Twitter. Wasn't he having a beer? He was having a beer, yes. In the original story, Sam, he was having a beer. I didn't want to be repetitive, but yes, he was having a beer.

And I think there are serious long-term consequences to doing things like not sharing your memory of Congress. And by that, it's not just what we're talking about here of distrust. People need to have confidence in the intelligence, right? And if you can't get bipartisan by, and if you're not sharing with Congress, if in Trump's case you're saying your own DNI,

Tulsi Gabbard, has it wrong, then increasingly foreign governments, nonpartisan observers, people who rely on Intel will not be able to rely on your intelligence. And I think that has pretty profound national security consequences where you wanna be able to have a trusted Intel come from your intelligence. And I think that has pretty profound national security consequences where you want to be able to have a trusted intel come from your administration. I just don't see if it keeps going in this direction, how people would ever trust the

intelligence produced by this administration, especially when Trump's running out there to say, oh, we obliterated the whole thing. We got it done. Congratulations. I get the Nobel Prize. To that point, it's the administration potentially limiting the intel it's sharing. That's worrisome and also potentially pressuring government agencies, including the intel community, to create intel or material that is politically favorable to the president.

That is deeply concerning. We certainly, there's a long history of bad decisions being made by White Houses based on faulty Intel or potentially ginned up Intel. That's something to keep an eye on going forward. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, we're going to bring you the latest on the federal case against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. As the Justice Department says, it does plan to deport the Maryland man again. And we're going gonna dig into the decisions that the Supreme Court is expecting

to deliver later today, including a big one on birthright citizenship. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin will join us to break it all down. And of course, a reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Gloomy starts this Friday morning in Washington, D.C. Sun coming up, 623 on the East Coast. We are anticipating a big day in Washington from the Supreme Court, which is set to conclude its current term later this morning with a flurry of rulings. That includes the closely watched case regarding President Trump's attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship.

Specifically, the case focuses on whether federal judges have the power to block Trump's birthright citizenship proposal nationwide while litigation about the issue continues. We're also waiting decisions today on five other cases, including somewhat voting rights, religious rights, and health care. And that comes as Democratic state attorneys general have filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration and are showing no signs of slowing down.

Earlier this week, three state AGs gave testimony on Capitol Hill about their roles in combating the second Trump administration through litigation, giving insight on what they consider constitutional violations. For more, let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator Lisa Rubin. She sat down with those state attorneys general on the latest episode of her podcast, Can They Do That? Check that out. So Lisa, you talked about Trump's order on birthright citizenship with the attorney general

from Illinois. It highlights just a blatant disregard for the Constitution. What I mean by that is the language is so clear in the 14th Amendment that the president would start with disregarding an amendment with such clear language that you are a citizen of the United States if you're born here and subject to its law. So plain in its language. We have a president who said several few weeks ago that he doesn't know whether he has to follow the Constitution.

I think the birthright citizenship case highlights the total disregard for the Constitution that this president has because the language is so plain. So Lisa, busy day at the corporate. Let's indeed begin with birthright citizenship. Remind viewers exactly what's at stake here. And is there any, what can we, are there any hints we could have gleaned from arguments as to where the court might end up? Let's start with what's at stake.

There were three different court orders in three areas of the country, all blocking the president's executive order, barring birthright citizenship to certain people in this country. One of those cases was brought by the three gentlemen with whom I spoke, as well as a number of others. What the administration did, Jonathan, was go to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis and say, we want you to stay or pause the impact of all of those orders or limit them in their application just to the plaintiffs who brought those cases or maybe just to the districts in which they were brought. That would mean if they win either that only that the executive order can apply in other areas of the country but not those

particular districts or the executive order can't apply to a discrete group of individuals, but can apply to everybody else if they get their way. But really what this case is about beyond birthright citizenship is, as you noted, it's the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Three weeks ago at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Josh Hawley brought out this big chart to show how many nationwide injunctions have been issued against President Trump. It numbers in the 60, it dwarfs all other modern presidents. And he basically used that as an example to say, look at these radical leftist judges that are trying to

constrain the president. Kate Shaw, our colleague Chris Hayes' wife and an accomplished law professor very calmly responded, well Senator, there's also a possibility that the increased number of nationwide injunctions against this administration is a reflection of the lawlessness of the policies that they're implementing. And let's be clear, there have been presidents of both parties that have been frustrated by these sorts of injunctions. Just zeroing in on the matter of birthright citizenship itself,

is this going to be, are the decisions today going to be around the edges on the power or is it going to be about the actual, the right that's enshrined in the constitution? It's not clear. I think that at oral argument, you asked me what we could glean from oral argument. You could see that there was widespread discomfort with the notion that nationwide injunctions would be used so frequently. At the very most, even those justices who seem to believe that district courts should

have that power thought it should be used rarely. Justice Kagan in particular, really struggling with the sort of growing pervasiveness of nationwide injunctions. That said, could the justices also talk about the merits of the case? Absolutely. There's no granting a stay without touching on the merits. The reason is in order to grant a pause in any case, the standard for granting that stay has to do with how likely is the party that

wants that stay to prevail on the merits when this litigation plays itself out. So there should be some sort of conversation about that. Could the court sort of conversation about that. Could the court sort of allied the issue of nationwide injunctions entirely and just say this executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional given our precedent that we're not even going to consider the issue of when and where district courts have that power. That's also a possibility and it would be a convenient one for this court, given how much they're struggling with a sort of issue of where to draw the line on nationwide injunction.

Yeah, that's a really good point. So Lisa, let's now hear what Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison had to say about the future of these lawsuits. We talked earlier about this being a constitutional crisis. You're willing now to cross that Rubicon and say we're in it. So let me ask you the question on the other side. How does it end? The American people are coming out more and more every day. More people who've never been to a protest march in their life.

There's a lot of, there's research out there. There's a really awesome scholar by the name of, I think her name is Erica Chinawith and there are others as well who studied like four or five hundred movements where the society has gone from democratic to authoritarian and how people have tried to resist those. And she's found that when about three and a half people three and a half percent of the population says we're not doing this we're going to have democracy then it's extremely

hard for the authoritarian government to do what it's trying to do. So I think, yes, we're going to keep on suing, but I also think it's important for us to continue to communicate with the public and give people hope that we can protect and defend and extend our democracy. And because it really is, at the end of the day, it's about people power. And Eugene Robinson, sort of a theme through a lot of the cases where the court will be making rulings on later today, is this idea of the attempt to expand executive power. Yes, absolutely. And this is a Supreme Court that has been pretty friendly to the idea of what they call

a unitary executive power or whatever, that the president does have a very wide range of powers and is able to act, given that the Constitution vests power in the president himself and not necessarily in other agencies or anybody else. Executive power goes to the president. That's John Roberts' theory, I believe. Lisa, my question, I'm getting back to birthright citizenship. Was there any sense at rural argument, is there any sense that you have from the court about what the justices think about the core issue, about the issue of birthright citizenship.

Is the Constitution as clear as it seems to be? Do you think there are any justices who would rule the other way on that and say, well, maybe not? I think there are at least a couple of votes for entertaining the possibility that there is an alternative interpretation, Jean, but the Supreme Court has a 127-year-old precedent

on this issue of birthright citizenship. The administration's position is, no, that's not actually about being born in this country and just being here. It's about whether your parents are residing here or domiciled here in a meaningful way. I think that's a distinction without a difference. Their tortured interpretation of the constitutional text here, I think, didn't meet with, let's say, happiness from a majority of the court. But then again, it will be interesting to see whether a court that's been overall, as you noted, very receptive to the expansion of executive

powers, whether they're willing to just grant a stay. They've been handing them out like candy lately, right and left to this administration that has filed emergency petition after emergency petition to the court leapfrogging lower appeals courts in order to escalate disputes to the Supreme Court and get their way to be able to implement policies that otherwise would have been put on ice by lower courts. So we'll have to see. There are a lot of directions that today can go.

And I think this is one where if I were a betting person, I still wouldn't bet. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Busy day ahead. We expect to hear from the Supreme Court around 10 a.m. or so. Lisa, thank you. And you can check out her show Can they do that on MSNBC's YouTube channel? Coming up a new Democratic caucus in the house is looking to push back on President Trump's economic policies

the founding members of the lowering costs caucus Congresswoman Hillary Schlatton of Michigan and Congressman Derek Tran of California join us straight ahead here on Morning Joe. our Lowering Costs Caucus, a new caucus focused on a broad coalition in Congress committed to one clear mission, to make life more affordable for the American people. That was Democratic Congresswoman Hillary Sculpton of Michigan launching the, announcing the launch of the new Lowering Costs Caucus yesterday. It's the latest effort by Democrats to reach and reengage with voters after last year's elections, which

saw Republicans take the White House, of course, and both houses of Congress. Not to rub it in to my new guests. The new caucus also aims to combat President Trump's economic policies as Republicans push toward their mega bill. And Congresswoman Scolton joins us now, along with another founding member of the Lowering Costs Caucus,

Democratic Congressman Derek Tran of California. Congresswoman, we have seen an awful lot of talk about affordability. We had Abigail Spanberger, who's running for governor of Virginia on the program yesterday, saying that's the number one issue she hears about from voters.

We saw it in the New York mayoral primary race, but different bits of the party seem to have quite different approaches to how to actually tackle affordability. What is your caucus hoping to do? Well, you know, this caucus is launched by myself, Derek Tran, and several other members of Congress who know this crisis firsthand.

We are in an affordability crisis. Derek and I are both parents of young children, you know, and the cost of childcare, the cost of groceries is crippling American people, and they want their representatives to do something about it. So this caucus is our answer to Donald Trump, who ran on making prices lower, and he's done anything but since he has been in the White House. His reckless tariff policies is making life actually more expensive for the American people. And we're going to combat that through policy and action.

But, Congressman, you are out of power. So it's nice that you've set up a caucus, but what can you actually do? I mean, people who are paying 6X their income in rent that used to be paying 2X their income in rent. What can you do about that? Yeah, you're absolutely right. And I think, you know, just because we're out of power doesn't mean we can't tune out the noise of Washington, D.C., and focus on what matters to the American people. When I go back in my district to get my hair cut to go grocery shopping with my kids. The hair looks very good by the way. Thank you. Whoever's cussing. Very hip. The single issue and the main talking point is we don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, we want to know what you're doing to help us right now because we need relief at the grocery store We need relief with child care

Let me pick up on that first of all good luck with the kids. I'm in it myself What happened in 2024 why what did it why did it take a wake up like this to get you guys to focus on? Affordability or were you focusing on affordability all along and we just didn't notice affordability or were you focusing on affordability all along and we just didn't notice? I think we were focused on affordability and that's why folks like Derek and I are here. I'm the first Democrat in a century to hold my seat in Congress in Grand Rapids and Derek obviously famously had one of the closest races in the country. And it's because we stuck to issues like that. And I think right now people want to hear what Democrats are going to do, not just complaining about what the other guys are doing wrong.

They want to see what our proactive plan is. And that's exactly why we launched this caucus, so that we can talk about what we are going to do when we're back in power. Let me just pick up on that. Let me just make it quick, because we talked to one of your Michigan colleagues, Alyssa Slotkin, yesterday at the Bullwork, and she said, yeah, the reason I won in Michigan

and Kamala Harris did not is because I kept talking about economics and affordability. Is that your assessment of the top of the ticket as well? Absolutely. I know that I stayed laser focused on the affordability crisis when I was running. And you know, I think we lost the thread a little bit. And you know, the American people need to hear clearly what we're going to do for them,

not just what's wrong with Donald Trump. So that word clearly is doing a lot of work there, Congressman Tran, what are your ideas for affordability and how do you express them in a clear, understandable, and motivating way? The way, frankly, Zora Mamdani did in New York. Now, you can say what you want about his ideas, but people got free buses, it frees the rent. I mean, these are very simple, easy to understand policies that connected with a lot of people. What are the caucuses' policies? Look, you can't get any further from New York

than Southern California, where I come from in my district. And I cannot speak for all Democrats, but I can speak for my constituents in my community. And what I'm hearing and what I'm feeling as well is when we get back to fall and it's time to shop for back to school, whether it's shoes for the kids, clothes, backpack, school supplies, these products are coming from somewhere. It's not here. And these tariffs are going to kill us.

So they are worried about having enough money to be able to provide and get these essential products for their kids. These are the same worries that I have. And that's going to be my focus as I move forward in this caucus. Isn't that the issue to Jean's point about what we heard in New York? I can't imagine for a second that you going around your district, which is a purple district, and saying we're going to make free buses and we're going to freeze rents, that that would fly, right? You're going to lose a whole load of voters if you go around and say that, because they're going to paint you as a socialist—I don't think socialist, actually—in America, but a democratic socialist.

Even that's a bridge too far. So for each of you, I mean, you can try and have a unified message that we're all focused on affordability, but when it actually comes down to the implementation of that message, that's where it gets more complicated and not quite as unifying. Right? Yep. And that's why, you know, over the course of, you know, the next year and a half, but, you know, beginning next month, we're going to start laying out policy by policy that

really connects with the American people that can actually, you know, get things done. And it's not going to be the government's going to pay for everything or we're going to make everything free. Someone has to pay for it, right? But we can tackle healthcare, we can tackle childcare, we can tackle housing through smart and workable policies that bring people together. Derek and I are, we're both deeply bipartisan and we're hoping to bring our Republican colleagues along with us in a lot of these policy ideas as well. Okay.

Democratic congressman Hillary Skelton of Michigan and Democratic congressman Derek Tran of California, thank you very much for coming in. Good luck with the caucus and good luck with bringing some Republicans on board, Will. If you manage to, come back and tell us. Exactly. Bring them with you. Yeah, absolutely. Still ahead,

we'll turn back to the damage assessment of America's strikes on Iran's nuclear program. Some Democrats offer a different view than the Trump administration. And as we were just discussing, we'll take a closer look at how the race for New York City's mayor is shaping up as Democratic candidate Zoram Mamdani is set to face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Beginning with a large wildfire that broke out in southern Greece, prompting evacuations as temperatures there approached 104 degrees. Water dropping planes and helicopters battled the blaze, which broke out in a populated area about 25 miles south of Athens. Fanned

by strong winds, at least 20 homes have been destroyed so far. Cady. There's fires everywhere now. Private jets polluted more than the total of all commercial flights departing from London's Heathrow Airport. That's what a new study finds. Private air travel generates between five and 14 times more greenhouse emissions per passenger than commercial flights.

Private jets from the U.S. account for 65% of all global private flights and 55% of gas emissions which is the only reason that Sam Stein doesn't fly private. By contract any story that involves a mention of Heathrow Airport, Catey gets, that's how this works. Also a majority of cinema owners and film professionals believe that the traditional cinema experience has less than 20 years remaining as a viable business model. That's according to a new poll. In addition, nearly 90% of film executives said their revenue has not yet recovered to pre-COVID levels. A mysterious fiery object lit up the southern skies and prompting hundreds of calls to authorities in multiple states NBC News correspondent Jesse kush has the

details. Out of nowhere South Carolina sunny blue skies got even brighter a fireball shooting across the southeastern us spotted around midday from the Carolinas to Florida. It's a huge ball of fire just literally fell out of the sky. Did y'all see it? The fireball that just fell like from the sky. Garrett Thrift was driving with his daughter when he saw the bright flash. It sounds like when you see this

go across the sky, there is part of you that's worried what's going on. Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, that's definitely not something you see every day. In Georgia, officials say someone reported that a rock fell through their ceiling as people thought they were experiencing an earthquake. So what are we looking at? The National Weather Service says this appears to be a meteor or space junk, which even showed up on satellite-based lightning detection. The American Meteor Society says it's received around 150 reports.

So many people felt it. Their windows rattled, their doors rattled, they heard a rumble, and that's what around 150 reports. So many people felt it. Their windows rattled, their doors rattled. They heard a rumble. And that's what generates this interest. Just trying to see the cars. Boom. Bright, bright flash. And whatever it was, the surprise offering

a potential bright spot on an already sunny day. It's an extraordinary video there of whatever that. Amazing how many people saw it. Yeah, whatever that was. And then last story here, a little closer to home. Anna Wintour stepping down as the head of the American edition of the fashion magazine Vogue. The legendary Wintour served as editor-in-chief for 37 years, running the publication's day-to-day operations.

She is, without a doubt, widely considered one of the most influential people in the industry and made the Met Gala one of fashion's most high profile events. The 75-year-old says she will now serve as global editorial director of Vogue as well as global chief content officer of Condi Nast. The magazine is now searching for a new editor-in-chief. So Cady, it seems like she'll still be involved less, but this would mark, really, the end of an era. Yeah, end of an era, not just at Vogue,

but in fashion generally. There was really Anna Wintour and pretty much nobody else when it came to defining what was good taste, defining what was gonna be fashionable that year. Of course, there was the iconic movie, Devil Wears Prada, which was based on Anna Wintour, which Merritt Street played her. I don't know that the characters are identical, but she does have this reputation for being fearsome, which I think you have to be if you're at the top of the fashion industry for 40 years.

She'll be much missed, I'm sure, at Vogue. And Vogue's going to have to struggle now to keep its kind of cutting edge because she was the one that really defined it. Coming up, we'll break down the growing debate among Senate Republicans over President Trump's domestic policy bill as the Senate parliamentarian rejects a key provision on Medicaid. Morning Joe will be right back. You go to your closet and you select, I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue.

It's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar de la Renta did a collection of Cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent, wasn't it, who showed Cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then Cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. I'm going to filter down through the department stores and then trickle on down into some tragic casual corner where you no doubt fished it out of some clearance bin. However that blue

represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when in fact you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.