Morning Joe - New details about suspect in murder of Charlie Kirk

Episode Date: September 16, 2025

New details about suspect in murder of Charlie Kirk Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, September 16th. We have a lot to get to this morning, including new reporting on the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk. And what he said online after the political activist was murdered, it comes as the suspect is set to make his first court appearance today. We'll learn a lot more about him for sure. FBI director Cash Patel will face lawmakers on Capitol Hill later this morning will preview what to expect from that hearing. Plus, we'll dig into President Trump's latest lawsuit against

the media. This time he is accusing the New York Times of defamation and libel. And we'll look ahead to President Trump's second state visit in the UK as he and the First Lady are expected to arrive tonight at Windsor Castle. With us, we have New York Times opinion columnist David French and former White House Director of Publications to President Obama, Jennifer Palmieri. Good to have you both with us this morning. We'll dive right in. The suspect in the murder of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk is set to make his first appearance in court later today. The 22-year-old suspect will likely be indicted on first-degree murder charges in Utah, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who also said the Department of Justice is looking into federal

charges as well. This comes as the Washington Post reports that the suspect appeared to confess to the shooting in an online group chat, writing, hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I'm sorry for all of this. That according to two people familiar with the message, along with screenshots obtained by the post. FBI director Cash Patel also provided new details about the alleged shooter yesterday on Fox News. And what we learned was there was evidence, DNA evidence that could be collected and had been collected,

including a screwdriver that was found on the rooftop. Also, we went over to the scene in the wooded area where the firearm was discarded and the firearm had a towel wrapped around it. I can report today that the DNA, hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody. I will say what was found in terms of information, a text message exchange where the suspect

specifically stated that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and he was going to do that and when he was asked why he said some hatred cannot be negotiated with. In order to properly adjudicate this matter and let law enforcement hand off information into evidence for a court of law for prosecution. We have to go out and get search warrants. We have to go out and get search warrants of the identifiers that were then built off of the prior search warrants. And we are doing that.

And we are going to be interviewing scores of people on not just these chats on Discord, but any communications that this individual have. We've seized multiple electronic devices from the home of the suspect and his romantic partner. We've got computers. We've got laptops. We've got gaming systems.

We've got cell phones. For more on the suspect, let's bring into NBC News Justice Reporter. Ryan Riley. Ryan, good morning. So obviously everything that Director Patel said right there is hinting at or suggesting a motive, at least trying to get to a specific motive. We obviously have the explicit anti-fascist message on some of the bullet casings. No political affiliation, no party ID in terms of being a registered voter. But what else do we know about this alleged shooter now a few days on? Yeah, I mean, the information is still coming in. I think the question is how

Patel's public comments are going to affect this prosecution down the line. Yesterday, I spoke with the individual who was the foremost expert on domestic terrorism at the Justice Department. He was he was domestic terrorism counsel for DOJ and said that this was, in fact, based on the public information, we have an act of domestic terrorism. But there is no statute on the federal level for domestic terrorism. So most likely this is this case will probably unfold in state court. There's not right now a clear federal nexus for how this case would proceed on the federal level. And these public comments that Cash Patel has been making on Fox News could complicate matters down the line in addition to the fact that, you know, he was obviously a close friend of Charlie Kirk,

and that's just going to sort of give material, I think, for the defense attorneys to look at down the line. And so, you know, now that this individual is in custody, the most important thing, And usually the focus of law enforcement is on securing a conviction in court rather than necessarily in the media. And we've seen just a departure from that process with these public comments and sort of updating on every sort of step of the process as we go along. Normally, these sort of things unfold in court and are not announced by the director of the FBI in such a public matter. But obviously, Kattele is facing intense criticism over not only his handling of this matter, but overall his handling of the FBI at this critical moment in American history, really. And as we said, the alleged shooter expected to be indicted on first-degree murder today.

That's a state charge. Attorney General Bondi has suggested, as you mentioned, bringing up federal charges as well. Let's talk about that hearing today. Just a couple of hours from now, Senate Judiciary Committee, Director Patel, will be in front of that bipartisan committee. committee. What do you expect to hear in that room? I think there's going to be a lot of criticism and questions for Patel, you know, just on the day that this was, that that horrific murder took place. And then you had a lawsuit that was filed by these three individuals who were fired by the FBI, apparently at the behest of the White House. And with comments of Patel allegedly saying

that he had to carry out these personnel actions in order to keep his own job because of all of the pressure that he was facing from the White House. And you've just seen this massive overturn within the Bureau since the beginning of the second Trump presidency that has really been a brain drain on the organization and taken some of the foremost experts on these matters off the playing field. Then normally, when you have an event like this, when you have what appears to be an act of domestic terrorism like this, you would be able to rely on that wealth of experience that you have from within the Bureau. But people with the most experience in domestic terrorism, i.e. the attack on the Capitol on January 6th are now either no longer at the Bureau or have been pushed down to other positions or are just feeling this immense pressure. The FBI took a massive retreat from domestic terrorism since the beginning of the administration because they thought there was too much focus on the radical right. And now you're in a position where all these resources have been surged towards immigration or other priorities of the president and not necessarily the traditional focus of the FBI,

Willie. And you hear explicitly yesterday. We'll get into this in a minute. From the top of the administration, they are now going to go after. would they view as left-leaning groups as well? NBC's Ryan Riley. Ryan, thanks so much. Mika.

President Trump ramped up his rhetoric against what he calls the radical left yesterday when he was asked if the alleged shooter worked alone. I don't know. I mean, I can tell you he didn't work alone on the Internet because it seems that he became radicalized on the Internet. That's just by watching what the same things that you're watching and hearing. it looks like he became radicalized over the internet

and it seems like his wonderful parents brought in a wonderful neighborhood smart guy great boards, great marks, great student and then something happened to him over a fairly short period of time it looks like he was radicalized over the internet and it's radicalized on the left he's a left

a lot of problems with the left and they get protected and they shouldn't be protected Meanwhile, Vice President J.D. Vance, guest hosted a special episode of the Charlie Kirk show yesterday. The vice president was joined by a lineup of high-ranking Trump administration officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Vance argued that the left was largely to blame for political violence while Miller vowed vengeance in the wake of Kirk's murder. People on the left are much likelier to defend and sell. political violence. This is not a both sides problem. If both sides have a problem, one side has a much

bigger and malignant problem, and that is the truth we must be told. And while our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical fact that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left. We can thank God that most Democrats don't share these attitudes and I do while acknowledging that something has gone very wrong with a lunatic fringe, a minority, but a growing and powerful minority on the far left. So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out in hell, call their employer. We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.

We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks. They organized docks and campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people's addresses,

combining that with messaging this design to trigger incite violence, and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the... violence. It is a vast domestic terror movement. And with God is my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name.

More on this in just a moment. President Trump has also asked yesterday about the appearance of a double standard on lowering flags after political violence. Here is that exchange. In retrospect, given all of the moving ways that this White House has betrayed to Charlie Kirk, do you think it would have been fitting to lower the flags to have staff when Melissa Hornman, the Minnesota House Speaker, was gunned down by an assassin as well? I'm not familiar. The Minnesota House Speaker, a Democrat, was assassinated this summer. Well, if the governor had asked me to do that, I would have done that. But the governor,

of Minnesota didn't ask me. I didn't, I wouldn't have thought of that, but I would have, if somebody had asked me, people make requests for the lowering of flag. And oftentimes you have to say no, because it would be a lot of lowering. The flag would never be up. Had the governor of Minnesota asked me to do that, I would have done that gladly. Actually, days after the president said he wouldn't even call the governor of Minnesota. So why would he call Tim Walts? I really don't know where to begin. I really don't know where to begin. Charlie Kirk's savage murder is violence not only against Charlie Kirk,

against his wife, against their beautiful children. There's also violence against the First Amendment, against free speech, and against American democracy. those who would use that tragic event to try to stifle free speech, which we will get to later, talking about stifling free speech and going after people they consider to be political enemies, certainly didn't hear much of what Charlie Kirk had to say when he said, we have to allow all kinds of speech. And I must say, I have been baffled over the past several days by people like Stephen Miller talking about this being a one-sided issue.

When just a few months ago, the most powerful Democrat in the state of Minnesota, was gunned down in her family's home. And after she was shot to death, in her family's home, this June, her husband was gunned down and killed in their family home. Melissa was an elected leader and the leader of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Caucus, and the Minnesota House. she taught Sunday school she and her husband left two young children

gunned down in their own home so who is Melissa Hortman that's who Melissa Hortman was and it's again baffling to me that the same people who are calling for civil war were the same people who said absolutely nothing when she was shot. Or maybe we should talk that same night about the madman who had a hit list of 42 Democrats on it, who then went over and shot nine times the state senator that Melissa

Hortman worked with. John Hoffman took nine shots to his body. His wife, a vet, took eight shots to her body inside their family home. And then the gunman escaped with, again, a hit list with 42 other Democratic names on it, including Tammy Baldwin's, the state senator or the United States Senator from Wisconsin. This followed Josh Shapiro. having his home, an attempted arson, trying to burn down his home with his wife and his children, sleeping inside of it.

His goal, he admitted, was to burn the house down, find the Democratic governor of the state of Pennsylvania, and then beat him to death with a hammer. This, of course, reminds us of the madman that broke into NAM. Pelosi's home, screaming, where's Nancy? A chant eerily reminiscent of what we heard on January 6th, the day that everyone who is talking about civil war would like you to forget forever. But that madman goes in and critically wounds Paul Polaro. Paul I believe an 82-year-old man who will never be the same, who just barely survived death. And these same people who are saying, J.D. Van saying, oh, our side doesn't celebrate this. Our side doesn't celebrate that. Well, first of all, let me just say anybody who celebrates political violence is sick. They are sick.

sick. Those who tried to brush aside political violence when it's the other side that gets shot or gets beaten or gets burned out of their family homes, they're sick. What did we hear after Paul Pelosi, an 82-year-old man, get brutalized and, and, and and hit in the headwind. What did we hear? We heard laughter. We heard jokes repeatedly from the president of the United States.

I remember watching him speak to the California Republican Party. And they died laughing. They thought it was hysterical that an 82-year-old man was almost beaten to death in his own home by a hammer. Now, I know you, like me, were horrified when we heard that happen. I know you, like me, were horrified when you heard that Steve Scalise and others were gunned down while they were practicing baseball for the congressional baseball. And by a left-wing freak, a left-wing madman. I know that.

Just like, you froze when you heard that a, you were. right-wing madman, gunned down, Melissa Hortman. Who is Melissa Hortman? That's who Melissa Hortman was. And how you can sit back sanctimoniously and say that this is a civil war, and it's all one side. When we see the pain and the agony visited upon families and children of Charlie Kirk, of the Hortmans, of the Pelosi's, oh, no, no, no, no, don't do that.

Don't do that. You're saying, oh, they deserved it. Some of you were saying, oh, they deserved it. They're Democrats. Don't do that. Don't do that. They're all Americans. They're all Americans.

They're all precious in God's eyes. And the attack against them must be condemned as strongly as possible. What we did here when it happened to Charlie, what we did here when it happened to Melissa, what we did here when it happened to Paul, what we did when it happened to Steve, what we will do if violence continues and let us pray, it does not continue. But to use Charlie Kirk's death, or if you're not, If Democrats tried to use Melissa Hortman's death, leaders. I'm talking about elected leaders, not freaks on the outer fringes of social media.

It's just despicable. It's just absolutely despicable. I don't know who you think you're lying to. But we know there's a problem on both sides. We have to come together. Or this will continue. And Willie, there's even talk about going after, quote, hate speech, I love, I love for hate speech to be muted. I'd love, I'd love for people to speak more civilly.

But as conservatives brought up last night, it was Charlie Kirk who said, we have to let, everybody speak and we have to debate it out and it's going to get rough it's going to be a rough and tumbled politics but my God the fact that

these people are pretending that this is just a problem of the freaks on the left and not the freaks on the right it's disgusting and it's disgusting because we're going after George Soros oh we're going to have to George Soros

oh we're going to go after a left-wing organizations. Really? Well, what right-wing organizations do they go after when Melissa and her husband were shot to death and their two children were left

as orphans? I didn't hear it then. It's just this is the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's an unspeakable tragedy. That's

rocked so many people in this country. But I would say this is not the time to try to use that death. They gain political points. And that's what I've been seeing from four or too many people on cable news channels and out of politicians in Washington, D.C. Yeah. And it's not just media personalities. As you say, the vice president of the United States yesterday, the sad reality of our political culture now is the minute this awful tragedy happened, last Wednesday that turned our stomachs the minute we heard the news and God, after we saw the video, made it even worse for most decent Americans, not the freaks on the margins that some celebrated. But the sad reality is that people waited to hear about the shooter and in some

circles, we're hoping it was someone from the other side so they could advance a political argument about why this happened. And now we're seeing that right now. You mentioned the question of free speech. The Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, said yesterday the government will crack down now on comments it considers to be hate speech. This is what she said on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller, who was married to Trump's top deputy Stephen Miller. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law and going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people. So we show them

that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle. Many conservatives criticizing those comments yesterday, Eric Erickson wrote bluntly, our attorney general is apparently a moron. There's free speech and then there is hate speech. No ma'am. That is a not the law. Tim Carney wrote, Bondi needs to correct herself and reaffirm her department's dedication to free speech. Others pointed to comments by Charlie Kirk himself, who tweeted last year, hate speech does not exist legally in America.

There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free. I was wondering if you could talk about where you draw the line with free speech, hate speech and slander. It's a terrific question. My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be

protected. So David French, that is what so many people who didn't know Charlie Kirk have learned in the last week about the way he conducted those forums, which is to allow anyone step up to a microphone, challenge him, ask him those questions. They may not have liked everything he said. We may not have liked everything he said. But that is the way he conducted. his events, a conversation. So what would be your message this morning to Attorney General Bondi and others who are saying, now we are going to decide what constitutes hate speech within the outside of the First Amendment, apparently, and go after people who commit that? You know, look, I think Joe said it very well just a moment ago. It is two things are true at once.

What happened to Charlie Kirk was pure evil. It was horrific. It was tragic. It was also not just an attack on him that shattered a family by shooting him in the middle of a debate, a debate on college campus. It was an attack on the American experiment. You can say all of those things, but then turn around and also say, you do not diminish the First Amendment in response. You do not diminish constitutional protections of your political enemies in response to that evil act. And look, it's absolutely clear. This is not an ambiguous area of constitutional law. law. There is no sort of carve out from the First Amendment for so-called hate speech. And the reason for that's pretty obvious. We don't want to delegate to the government, the responsibility or the

authority to declare how far is too far in political debate. Because guess what? The government's always going to be biased in that endeavor. The government's always going to be shutting down speech that's critical of powerful people. Charlie Kirk understood that. He said that very clearly on more than one occasion. That was a frequent theme of his. And so now, but now we're seeing in some quarters of MAGA, including all the way in the Attorney General's office, what's really a statement's directly defiant of decades and decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. And so there's, it is an evil act, evil, horrible. It is not a reason to diminish the First Amendment. Well, and Jen, you've worked on presidential campaigns.

sadly, a lot of times the best people don't run for president because you know you're going to be targeted by hate speech. You know that's going to be part of your day every single day. But can you imagine how stifled political debate would be in this country if years ago attorney generals decided they were going, according to that podcast, they're going to put handcuffs on people whose speech they decided was hateful. Yeah, if a Democratic Attorney General had done that during Joe Biden's term, you know, and how that would have affected a presidential, how that would affect a presidential campaign. But to hear the vice president of the United States use his office to talk like that and to take, you know,

it feels like the country sort of figured out how to live with a division around Trump. Some people like them, some people don't like them. And now they're trying to force this whole other level of division on us that I think most people just don't feel, right? I mean, most Americans are just horrified

by what happened to Charlie Kirk. Most Americans think, they understand, unfortunately, this happens in America with people who are very online. That's been sort of in the last few mass shootings. It's gone back to something like that. Can I ask you a question?

Cultural, not political. I was talking to a law enforcement officer after this happened. And he has kids. I have kids. We all have kids. And he said, when are we going to do something? About that. About online.

You know, free speech is free speech. But the fact that we continue to give these monies, monopolies in Silicon Valley, a complete free pass because of Section 230, and allow them to pollute our children's minds, allow them to do whatever they want to do, and say, oh, you can never, you can never be sued because you're a monopoly, and we Washington politicians are scared of you. How long are we going to allow that to happen? Yeah, that and, I mean, there's, there's the regulatory problem. It's, I mean, the internet as a whole, right? It's not just, it's not just, it's not just gaming. There's, there's that problem, the problem of what happens on

social media, but then also just young people's addiction to it. And particularly young men in America, you know, alienation and feeling a loss of opportunity, you know, Scott Galloway is way better about that than I am. But there is, I mean, that is a, that is a crisis here. A real and growing crisis. A real, just a, yeah, a real and growing crisis. And that would be a nice thing to hear the Vice President of the United States talk about, right? How are we going to deal with alienation? That would be good. Not using your sitting behind the desk in the official office to use your podium that way. And pretending that Melissa and her husband had not been assassinated in their family

homes and also had two children left. Those two children orphaned. Yeah. Right? And all the other attacks that we've seen on the left and on the right. Oh, sad. And it's okay to say that, because guess what? 80% of Americans say that. 80% of Americans say, what are we going to do? People that come up to you. What are we going to do, Willie?

This is crazy. They voted for Donald Trump. What are we going to do? What are we going to do? Well, they voted for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and Bill Clinton. What are we going to do about this? Good, decent, sane, American. at least 80% of us, everybody I talk to, like, what are we going to do about this?

We have to come together. And you see some people, some politicians in Washington, D.C., and some people on new shows who actually were calling for civil war during the last presidential campaign, trying to do everything they can to divide people and to profit from it. And to pull out the extremes, and they are extremes, and make them representative of the whole, which, as you say, is not what our country is. I don't know anyone. I didn't hear anybody who was celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. Of course, if you go online, if you hear, look at a few tweets and you can find it. It is there. But by and large, people are not celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. And they don't want us to go this way. And it has to be said, if you listen to that clip of Vice President Vance and then. and Attorney General Bondi, all these themes that they've been talking about for years now, the weaponization of government, lawfare, cancel culture, call people's bosses and get them

fired, and free speech. Right. We just heard it all right there. That's exactly what they're doing. They've turned it around. So still ahead on morning, Joe, we're going to bring you the latest from the Middle East. As Israel expands its military offensive in Gaza City, plus Congress is running out of time to pass a new budget.

We'll go through what President Trump wants lawmakers to do. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 37 past the hour. Welcome back to Morning Joe. President Trump says he is suing the New York Times for $15 billion over claims of defamation and libel. He announced the move on social media, writing in part the time. has engaged in a decades-long method of lying about your favorite president, me, my family,

business, the America First Movement, Maga, and our nation as a whole. This comes almost a week after Trump threatened legal action against the paper over a report alleging he had sent a sexually suggestive note to Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday in 2003. The president is a president is also suing Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion after the journal. Similarly, reported Trump had signed a crude birthday card for Epsi. Let's bring her out of the coach for our fourth hour, staff writer of the Atlantic. Jonathan, we were last night, we were at IRE, the 50th anniversary of celebration of investigative reporters and editors. And it was really an inspiring thing.

but we heard time and time again, including from AG, that the playbook for this administration is to, first of all, constantly harass and lie about the media, create your own set of realities, and then use civil lawsuits to try to drain them of their resources, and here we go. And here we go. The event was certainly inspiring about the need to do our jobs as journalists clear-eyed with no fear or favor to tell it like we see it. And we did hear from a number of speakers last night talking about how the free press is under assault,

how this administration in particular, we've seen trends around the world, but we're now seeing it here at home, as you say. It's trying to intimidate and pressure with the power of the federal government and the power of litigation. And AG last night said, flat out said, without naming this by, specifically,

he said, we will defend our journalism, we will defend our reporters. We have the resources to do it. And that is true. Is it a company like the New York Times, like the Wall Street Journal, can stand up to something like this, because this is going to be a lengthy process, there's going to be legal fees, it's going to be expensive, it's going to be grueling. Now, it works the other way, too. The president, we assume, and people around it would have to submit

to discovery. Like, that could be embarrassing. We'll see how far this actually goes down the line. But at the very least, this is the playbook. You make it very challenging. You intimidate. You try to make meteorizations think twice about doing the kind of work that's so important. Well, and we've seen this. And Willie, we saw it with, I mean, he sued Anne Seltzer because he did. and like her disastrously wrong Iowa poll, right? You're suing a pollster now? And suing CBS for an edit, something that news organizations have been doing as long as there have been news organizations. And he was fortunate in that case that he actually had somebody who was willing to play ball because they wanted a deal to go through.

But now Rupert Murdoch suing Rupert Murdoch for publishing. documents that they had in the Epstein situation and now suing the New York Times once again talking about Epstein. I mean, it's, you know, these cases are I think most likely going to be thrown out. But of course, at what cause? I mean, and I think here it really comes down to this is where the courts need to stop being too clever by half and they need to do their job. And they need to, again, they need to do their job, interpret the law the way it's been interpreted and say the First Amendment is the First Amendment. Stop doing these bogus lawsuits because you don't like what somebody's writing about you.

President said last night he's bringing this lawsuit in the state of Florida, perhaps hoping to get a friendlier audience, I guess, by having it down there. But you're right, this does raise all the questions again about why he's suing. It's Epstein. Is there going to be some discovery? Are they going to have to provide documents? And does he really want to go down that road? Or is he just making this a tactic of intimidation

to chill speech and newsrooms about what they cover and what they write? But David French, here we are again at the First Amendment, this time talking about newspapers, not just the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and a whole host of them that have been reporting on Donald Trump around the Epstein case. The president mentioned the endorsement by the Times last fall of Kamala Harris somehow as illegal or at least worthy of a lawsuit, but also more recently now what this is going to get into is the Jeffrey Epstein story where his name is all over the place.

Yeah, I mean, look, let's just get one thing clear. An endorsement of a political candidate is about as core of First Amendment protected activity is you're going to find an American law. Look, the pattern here is really, really clear. The pattern here is to use lawsuits and leverage government power to target political opponents. And this is happening before the assassination of Charlie Kirk. You're seeing it happening after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is a man, Donald Trump, and a movement that is increasingly hostile to free speech,

that is increasingly hostile to other civil liberties, including most notably due process. So it is absolutely clear what is. is happening here is you're seeing an organized campaign, including the use of lawsuits, including the use of government power, to try to suppress free speech and to try to, even if these lawsuits don't succeed, to try to intimidate people into silence. New York Times opinion calmness, David French. Thank you very much. His latest piece is available to read online right now. And coming up on Morning Joe, President Trump is set to travel to the United Kingdom this morning for a rare second state visit. We'll dig into that

and what this says about America's relationship with the UK. That's ahead on Morning Joe. It is my pleasure to bring from His Majesty the King a letter. He sends his best wishes and his regards, of course. But he also asked me to bear this. letter and bring it to you. So can I present the letter from the king? Thank you very much. This is a letter from His Majesty the King. It's an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. This is unprecedented. And I think that just symbolizes the strength of the relationship between us. That was British Prime Minister Kirstarmer at the White House. In February,

President Trump a letter from King Charles formally inviting him across the pond for an unprecedented second state visit which is set to take place. I'll let's say, hold on, hold on, hold on. Later today. Willie, do we need to have a discussion with our script writers about just across the pond?

What? It's sort of a... That was past, say, in like 1972. I never used it. I didn't overdo it. Jillian, do you ever use across the pond? Oh, I'm going across the pond. Not much, but...

You do it once in a while. Is it annoying? What do you say? It does sound like something a bit out of, you know, downtown abbey and, you know, old-style, old-style TV, docudramas and stuff like that. Sounds like me. And that it's a bit like, well, it's also the way that President Trump or frets, isn't it?

Yeah. He's also out of a reality TV. We're right on. I've been doing this for kind of a long time. Yeah, anyway. The president and the first lady leave for the United Kingdom this morning. Let's bring right now the U.S. National Letter at the Financial Times, Headloose. Also, columnist, a member at the editorial board of the Financial Times,

Jillian Ted, is a financial time. This is exciting. It is a famine pink pincea movement. Yes, exactly. Exactly. So I've been fascinated from the very beginning with the president's close relationship with Kirstarmer. You would think these would be two people, a technocrat, a labor technocrat, and a populist nationalist, nationalist president. But they, they seem to get on famously well. Why? Well, it's kind of weird. I agree. Personality-wise, are very different, as Ed would agree. I think it's because President Trump's need to find one ally

who he can be seen to being friendly with, at least one ally. And secondly, Kirstama desperately needs both a domestic political boost and he needs to find a way for Britain to have a place in the world and to boost trade in its economy. And he knows that the single best weapon that Britain has with President Trump is not the economy, it's not all the science stuff they're going to talk about in the next couple of days, like Quantum, it's the royal family. Because we have a president who would like to be a king in many ways, who is just dazzled with the Disneyland tour of Britain's royal

family. Well, you know, there also, as you go across Europe, you also look at the Chancellor of Germany. President has a good relationship there. He and Macron getting along much better than they did in the first time. The handshakes are still... The handshakes are still... But yes, again, it's one of these interesting things with all the sort of battles and skirmishes that are going on and the rough first term with European allies, there is a closer relationship. No question. Personally, President Trump has much closer ties to the leaders of Europe this time around than he did in the first term. The question is, what does that get Europe? Obviously, we have seen the Detroit negotiations and we now have the matter of Ukraine. Now, there's not much official business on the schedule for this trip. It's a pretty quick. 36 hours in and out, a lot of pagerie pomp circumstance for President Trump. But there will

be interesting to see if Kier-Starmor or others use this moment to try to push Trump on Ukraine in particular, a conflict that has really bogged down. Russia has only escalated its attacks. The Anchorage Summit seemed to get Trump next to nothing. And we're seeing over the weekend, the president even asked NATO and the EU to ramp up sanctions against China and against Russia and the like. And for most of the continent, some of that seems like a non-starter. So there'd be interesting to see what sort of developments we get, especially on security guarantees. Right. You know, Ed Luce, I'm sure there's be very popular on MS now, defense of the monarchy, or at least an explanation on why the monarchy works often the way it does.

We just heard there aren't going to be a lot of things on the agenda, on the official agenda. But that's usually where Queen Elizabeth II did her. best. She often would be sent to France when they were when the Brits were having trouble with relations with the French, when they were having trouble with economic situations with the French. And oftentimes that would that would end up helping Britain. She would time and time again politically punched four above her weight. I wonder if we have the same thing here with Kier Storm or thinking it might happen to bring the president over to see King Chorrell's and Queen Kamala.

Yeah, I mean, as you mentioned earlier, this is Trump's second state visit to Britain, and that's never happened before. The first, I think, was Woodrow Wilson. And then since then, most presidents have come over for one state visit. Nixon didn't have any, by the way. Reagan only had one. Trump has two. And the fact that Stama really laid that on thick at that Oval Office meeting in February.

was clearly designed to appeal to Trump's egos. Not only is he going to be staying at Windsor Castle, I think he was at Buckingham Palace last time, but he's going to be twice the guest of the royal family, of the queen last time and the king this time, and that's never happened before. And this really does appeal to Trump, and it is a very sort of obvious tool

that the British can use that maybe the French and the Germans, you know, are unable to use. I call it bringing fruits to the volcano. I mean, you're just sort of massaging the ego. But the bringing fruits to the volcano, you know, it's helpful. I mean, another way of putting it is it's kind of the cover charge to the Trump club. You have to flatter.

But once you're in the club, you know, you get charged a bomb for that house soda. I have to know, is this a reference to one of the great underrated Tom Hanks movies, Joe and the Volcano. Remember they had to go up and, I think, I could read soda to the volcanoes. No, it's a great metaphor, but I'd say it's actually also about bringing a royal pageant of horses to the wannabe king. Because what's striking is they're not just doing a second state visit. This is quite vivid to imagery. They're literally creating more horses in the parade than they did with President Macron. And you can guarantee they're going to tell that to President Trump that you get more horses.

And there's actually quite a lively debate going on around Windsor Castle right now about how they're going to stop the horses from bolting when Trump's helicopter arrives. Oh, my. Because there are so many horses and the helicopter is going to come so close. Watch this space. Wow. That is quite something. So, Ed Luce, you know a thing or two about.

about royalty and its impact on political decisions, both in the UK and with allies, what do you think is the best that Britain could hope for right now? I think that the strategy here is not a massive positive agenda. It's really sort of avoiding things getting worse. So, I mean, you've mentioned, you know, Ukraine. that Kirstama, amongst other European leaders, has constantly been trying to sort of pull President Trump back from the ledge on that and holding, you know, linking arms with President Zelensky of Ukraine. This is clearly high up on the British agenda. Another is, you know, to stop any deterioration or unraveling of the trade deal, you remember that the first trade deal after Trump's Liberation Day was UK-US deal. And Britain kind of dodged a bullet there.

It only has 10% tariffs, so preventing that from unraveling is a priority of Stama. I think, though, there's a third one, which is quite important, which is that Trump's best political friend in Britain is Nigel Farage, head of the Reform Party, which is leading in the polls. Farage wants Stama's job. And you had a right-wing rally last Saturday that Elon Musk addressed. really sort of spreading the rhetoric we've had in the wake of Charlie Kirk back to London saying you've got a, essentially, you've got a civil war coming in Britain and violence is coming to you, get ready to use violence. And that kind of rhetoric, you know, is extremely unhelpful and incendiary.

And I think that the extent to which Kirstama may be helped by King Charles can get Trump not to think like that, not to talk like a pyrra, maniac in the context of Britain would also be a goal, a sort of unspoken goal of Trump's state visit. Well, and Elon Musk getting involved. I mean, there you go. He's just cursed Nigel Farage. I mean, his losing streak likely will continue. I mean, Elon Musk convinced himself that he got Donald Trump elected. Donald Trump elected. Nobody gets Donald Trump elected. No, they just don't. Everybody, like, I love these people, they got like Ronald Reagan elected, and all these years, well, you know, I sat and told him, you need it.

Like, no, Reagan got Reagan elected. Obama got Obama elected. And, you know, Trump got Trump elected. And Elon Musk going around spreading hate has freaked out one European country after another European country, after another European country. And I'm sure it's going to freak out people in Britain, too. Absolutely. And remember, of course, you had members of the administration expressing support for the AFD, the German far-right party as well before.

So there's a real movement. But I'll just pick up on what Ed Luce said about Ukraine, because one of the items at the top of the agenda for the next couple of days is indeed Ukraine. I was in Ukraine a few days ago, and the mood there is very desperate in many ways to see some signal of U.S. support. And above all else, to galvanize and support the Europeans. Because remember, we just had Russian drones. going into Polish airspace. Right. And the concern is that Europe is starting to slide into a quasi-hy hybrid cyber war and other types

of war with Russia. And they want to know whether America is going to be supporting NATO for that or not. Good timing for this meeting. Very good timing. Killing and Ted, Ed Luce, both of the Financial Times. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning.