Morning Joe - N.J. Governor Blocked From ICE Detention Facility

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

N.J. Governor Blocked From ICE Detention Facility To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The straits have to be open. They're going to be open one way or the other. So they need to be open. What's happening there is unlawful. It's illegal. It's unsustainable for the world. It's unacceptable. I don't know of any country in the world. The Russians are not in favor of the tolling system. The Chinese are not in favor of the tolling system. Except the regime in Iran. So that's not acceptable. That cannot happen. The streets need to be open, unimpeded. Without. All right. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, there making it clear where the United States states. stands on the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before this war started nearly three months ago. We'll bring you the latest on the talks to end the conflict and dig into whether U.S. strikes yesterday.

We'll actually complicate those negotiations or what. Plus, we'll have an update on the developing situation at an ice facility in New Jersey. After Governor, Mikey Sherrill says she was denied access amid a reported hunger strike by detainees in also ahead. After 13 months and $135 million, the Republican primary between Senator John Cornyn of Texas and the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, will come to an end tonight. We will preview that runoff election. And for the first time since 1999, the New York Knicks are in the NBA finals. We'll have the highlights after last night's sweep of the Cleveland. Cavaliers. Good morning and welcome to Morning, Joe. It is Tuesday, May 26, with us. We have the co-host of

our 9 a.m. Our staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, co-host of the rest is politics podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay, columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, David Ignatius, is with us and former White House official under President Biden, retired rear admiral John Kirby. He is now an MS now, National Security analyst. Joe, we have so much to get to. But I think we start with the Knicks. Yeah. Yeah.

I'll allow. I just want to go back to the New Jersey story, though, with Mikey Cheryl. It remains extraordinary that governors of states, that United States senators, that members of Congress who actually find these what many people inside are calling concentration camps, I think that really internment camps certainly do fit, that they can't get in. You're a governor of a state where they have placed one of these internment camps. And the Trump administration does not allow you to go inside there.

You're a United States senator or a United States congressman, congresswoman. And you actually fund these internment sites and they're black holes. They're black holes. And you have people inside there that are being held that shouldn't be held there. We know that. and we know that they'll stay as long as they can stay because the people inside there get paid by the day. In many cases, from the reporting that we've gotten, so the longer they hold people, even if those people are held illegally, well, the more money they make. So, something has to be done here.

Every member of Congress should go to every internment camp in their district. and should demand that they be allowed to be in or are they fund nothing. They absolutely fund. And I will tell you that that happened. That happened when I was in Congress. Everything came to a stop. We said, we're not passing a single bill until you talk to us about how you're going to balance this budget, how you're going to save Medicare, how you're going to save Social Security.

If we can do that about Medicare and Social Security, we can do that about human beings who are being brutalized inside the. internment camps. And it brutalized so much that many leaves saying that they're like concentration camps. Now, how can we verify that? Oh, wait, I'll tell you how we can verify it. You can actually let members of Congress, United States senators, who funded those internment camps to go in and check on a daily basis to see how the people inside of there are being treated. You know, we have enemies in wars that allow the Red Cross to go in check. But we're actually funding, I want to say it again, we're actually funding as taxpayers

through the United States Congress, through the Article I branch, these internment camps where people are being abused, where people are being held when they should be freed. Yeah. And this administration thinks they have a right. an Article 2 branch thinks they have a right to tell an Article 1 branch or a governor who actually is hosting the internment camp in her state that they don't have a right to do that? That's absolutely ridiculous. We're going to talk about that much, much more. It's got to come to an end. There has to be transparency. What is the Trump administration hiding? What is the DHS hiding? What abuses? What serial abuses of human beings are they hiding? And I want to say for everybody who's stupid enough. To say, well, well, they're here illegally. We don't know that. You don't know that.

You're just making that shit up. You don't know who's in there. And you don't know if they're here illegally and not. But Joe, anyone here illegally has rights to do process. And what is going on here is many layers of wrong, many layers. And there are a lot of members of Congress, if they're watching right now, we're saying, we have been. Like Adelaidehika Havah, it's trying to, been trying to get into Dili, been trying to get into these different centers. and they are denied access again and again and again.

Cory Booker, they try and get in to see what is happening to these human beings. Many children being held, families separated, and the reports in there from the, from the putrid water to the way they're being treated to the lack of privacy in America. This is happening. A hundred men jammed into one room, no guards that will actually come in there. They're sharing maybe one or two. filthy backed up toilets. It's unbelievable. But Mika, you, I was getting to the point that you just made, which is a lot of people will say stupidly, oh, they're illegal. They get what they deserve.

First of all, you don't know if they're here illegally. Secondly, the rules keep changing. Now we're going after people applying for green cards and saying now they have to be sent home, people that are in the application process. But I know the Constitution doesn't mean much to you if you are in the cult? I know it doesn't, because you've proven time and again. The United States Constitution and constitutional norms don't matter to you. But none other than Antonin Scalia was asked the question. Who does the United States apply to?

And Scalia said, well, it applies to American citizens living in the United States. It applies to American citizens living all across the world. And Scalia, the godfather of conservative jurors, Prudence said, and it applies to anybody, to anybody that is in the United States of America. They are protected by constitutional rights. Those constitutional rights are being just torn to shreds every single day inside of these internment camps, and it's time that something be done. Now, in slightly different news, we're going to take a hard turn. Yeah.

This is a leap. This is a leap to the NBA finals. John Lemire, I suppose I can continue depressing us by going and talking about something, of course, much less weighty, but much more talked about, the horrid Boston Red Sox series. I mean, the hard Boston Red Sox season, many people saying, many people saying, the worst season since 1907 and yet the Sox's only three and a half games out. It's a long season. I stick by that.

But instead, why don't we talk about something that brings none of us any joy? And that's the New York Knicks going to the finals. Sarah, I admitted it. I said it out loud on a New York show. I said it out loud. The Knicks are going to the Eastern Finals. Tell us about it. They do look dominant.

Yeah, no one more surprised than Knicks fans. But yes, they are. The New York Knicks making their first finals appearance since 1999. They, of course, have not won a championship since the early 70s. It's been more than 50 years. this wasn't even close. They've now won 11 straight playoff games, including consecutive sweeps,

and they've done so at historic margins. Their margin of victory over those 11 games, not just a record for the playoffs, but a record for any 11 game win streak ever in the history of the NBA, regular season included. And yes, they've caught some breaks along the way. Some top seeds went out early,

so therefore they were able to have home court throughout the east, even as a three seed. The competition will get much tougher in the finals. But right now, first of all, today, Knicks fans just going to celebrate this because there's been such a long time coming. But the path is there.

The Spurs and Thunder, perceived by many as better teams in the Knicks, but they're locked in what's going to be a long series, physical series, both teams beat up suffering injuries. Nicks are going to get a week off here. They have a chance. And Nix fans who have been suffered for a very long time are daring to dream.

And it is something I will say, I mean, I take no pleasure in it, Joe. But when the Knicks are good, when the Knicks go on a run, it unites New York in a way that no other team does. And there's a certain energy in the city right now that's undeniable. Yeah, no, I've got to actually say, I've got to admit, this is all very exciting. And I have to do very well and go all the way. I mean, you know, this is, you know, when I was very young,

Clyde the Glyde-Frasier, Dollar Bill Bradley. I mean, it was an incredible Knicks teams that won the championship two years. It would be great to see another championship title come to Madison Square Garden. I want to – we're going to read news, Mika, in a second. But David, David Ignatius, before we start, and some of this may be repetitive when we do read the news. But before this starts, just let's talk about where we are right now, because it seems to be all that talk about a great deal on Friday. It's certainly starting to sound like every other BS piece. steel. And I say that. I know they're talking, they think they're close, but you have the Iranians

saying, no, we're never going to give up our nukes. We're going to continue putting tolls on the straight. And then you have Donald Trump yesterday, basically holding a weak hand, actually going all in saying, okay, Saudi Arabia, all, okay, Turkey, all right, all these other countries that are never going to join the Abraham Accords. The only way this is going to work is if all of you joined the Abraham Accords, and the Saudis have already said, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do it without a Palestinian state. So tell us where we are this morning at 610 East Coast time in the United States. Is there a peace still? Are they really moving forward to one? Or is this just more of the same? So, Joe, it is, as your comments suggest, a very

confusing and disheartening situation. It's obvious to me that, President Trump badly wants out of this war. He's looking for an exit ramp as hard as he can. He feels that another round of kinetic strikes will be difficult for the U.S., for the U.S. military, is unlikely to easily achieve his goals. Will lead inevitably to some kind of ground invasion of Iran, which is the last thing that I think he wants. And so he has come up with a peace proposal that is so far short of the war aims that he had when he started.

Back then, he was talking about unconditional surrender. What he's got now is a memorandum of understanding to defer negotiation about the hardest issues involving the Iranian nuclear program to a 60-day period, hopefully opening the Strait of Hormuz right away, which again, that's his primary goal, get the oil flowing, get gas prices down, get it the political problems off of his back. What we saw over the weekend was the White House getting just, you know, a few inches from outright announcing this deal. And enemies of the deal beginning to make that difficult, if not impossible. It's clear that IRGC forces in the Gulf, we're preparing to start. to strike U.S. forces, two aircraft carrier task forces that we have in the region.

And CENTCOM inevitably appropriately took action yesterday to strike those Iranian bases. Meanwhile, Israel's prime minister, Nanyahu says, you know, I'm not taking my foot off the pedal. I don't plan to end my war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There have been roughly 70 Israeli strikes in the last days to show that Israel's serious about continuing that war. And meanwhile, Moshehah Khomeini, the new Supreme Leader in Iran, issued a statement. He doesn't speak much. Slots of be hiding so far underground. But he issued a statement yesterday worth paying attention.

I'll just breathe it. He said, the hands of time do not turn backward. and the lands of the region will no longer serve as shields for the American basis. He said that today. And I was haunted by the beginning of that. The hands of time do not turn backward. And Joe, we've been talking now for months about this war, about the mistakes, about the difficulties. And the truth is, we are where we are.

Trump wants an ex-agrant ramp, as I said, but he's running out of road. you didn't have much left. Right. And you can't turn back the hands of time. Well, and whether you're talking about Bob Kagan, saying that this is one of the most significant losses in U.S. military history, are so many other people who actually do follow this, even Republicans, that follow this, who are hawks against Iran,

have just said clearly that this deal is a loss. The Wall Street Journal editorial page will be reading it later, saying, are you kidding me? Is this it? Is this really why Donald Trump took us to war? Because this is a disaster. The president keeps talking about how we're going to end Iran's nuclear program, Mika. This deal, as people recognize, does not do that. And if you punt the ball, the Iranians will never do a deal. So suddenly, Donald Trump, if he did this deal, would find himself in a position far weaker than Barack Obama ever was. That's just, that's data. That's not opinion. That's data.

And if somebody says fake news to that, well, that person's lying and they reveal themselves as a liar because we're talking about data. We're talking about numbers. We're talking about the fact that we're in a worse position if we make this deal than we were before the war on nukes. And we're in a worse position on this deal on the straight. And just very quickly, again, I'm not saying that. Lindsey Graham, who was the chief proponent, the chief cheerleader for this one.

is saying that. Ted Cruz is saying that. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker is saying that. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is saying that. And yes, in a very ominous sign, the hardliners on the far right in Iran

who have taken over the government are saying that as well. This is a deal that would be a complete, and total surrender for the United States of America. And again, I've been said, I've always said, Iran can't have nukes. I have always said that. The president has said that. And seven United States presidents have said that.

Iran cannot have nukes. This still will allow them to keep nukes. And it will allow them, according to them, to continue making money off the straits and be in a better position economically and politically after the war than they were before the war. That seems like a losing proposition. And Democrats and Republicans, other than poor Mike Johnson, my God, how sad. What is sad a political existence to have to go along with the president on every single bad thing that's done.

Mike Johnson, I think, is one of the few Republicans saying, this is a good idea. It is not, according to Republicans, Democrats, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, And I got to say also, Netanyahu, who continues to level Lebanon. The war against Lebanon and everybody in the region goes on unabated and he's putting his foot on the gas, which means he's going to kill more civilians. There's already been 3,600 civilians killed in this short blitz to Lebanon, 3,600 people. It's going to continue. He says it's going to get tougher because this.

This man on the left, and we have said it here every day because it's true, whether you can deal with the truth or not, it's the truth. Benjamin Netanyahu will continue fighting wars because if he stops fighting wars, he will have to face justice at home. And that will not be pretty. And he then at some point will have to answer for it. Look at, look, this is a guy right here that was responsible for Hamas being funded. in a way that allowed them to kill Israelis on October 7th. He went to Qatar. He sent his massage agents to Qatar, three weeks before the attacks. And Qatar said, do you want us to continue funding Hamas? They go, of course we do.

Of course we do. So he funded Hamas through Qatar, which, again, a group that he said is a terrorist group, his entire political life. and then when they attacked, no response from Israel. In some cases, for 10, 11, 12, 13 hours. And he's going to have to answer that. Why am I bringing that up now? I'm bringing that up now because we've been saying for years

that he will continue fighting wars and continue killing people as long as he can. Because when the killing stops, the justice begins for Benjamin Netanyahu, and he does not want that to happen. So you've laid out a lot of dynamics here as to how and why this war in Iran is happening and how it's going. And even what Roger Wicker and Lindsey Graham and a lot of Republican lawmakers are now saying or what concerns they might have. And hardworking Americans may not have time to follow every detail like that. But this weekend, they saw it at the gas pump, filling up their cars, paying sometimes over $100. to fill up their trucks, like they can't afford this war from their perspective.

This war is costing hard work in Americans, a lot of money. And there's not a lot of understanding as to, number one, how it's going. And number two, the why, given the outcome. And David Ignatius, given the outcome right now, it seems very, the one thing that's very consistent is that Iran is proving itself to be what, anybody who has any knowledge in this field would have predicted, an enemy, unlike anything Donald Trump has dealt with before, an enemy that has a mind of its own and doesn't care about what Donald Trump says they should do.

You know, Nika, Trump was convinced in the early hours, days of this war, but Iran would capitulate. He hit them with overwhelming force. He was coming off a quick, easy victory. Venezuela and he thought these guys will cave. This won't take long. United States is so powerful, and they have resisted. They have taken a beating. Nobody should be confused about how much damage has been done to the Iranian military

and to parts of its nuclear weapons program. But they're still standing, and Trump doesn't have a good answer for how to deal with that. He's got an idea that in a kind of, you know, romantic way almost is attractive. He says to Iran, let's help you become a more modern country. Let's help you move out of this era of revolution and confrontation. He even was saying over the weekend, let's have you join the Abraham Accords and be with Israel, which was, you know, it's wonderful to think about that, but it's so unrealistic.

It just is completely separate from the reality of this conflict right now. So as I said earlier, Trump is really at a dead end. He's in a military morass. He's at a strategic dead end. His effort to get out of this for the moment, and let's wait and see what today's events bring, has not brought the memorandum of understanding. He's got the top negotiators in Doha, in gutter, from Iran, so it's possible. that by the end of the day we'll see something different.

But this is a measure of just how badly the strategy that the White House and Israel planned has gone. We've just really laid out here and wasn't planned, but what I talked about, about how Donald Trump has said, and every other president said Iran can't have nukes. So you have that reality here that Donald Trump is moving towards that he wants to move towards. but this deal won't do that. This deal will kick the can down the road and nothing will ever happen. Iran will not give up their nukes. And then you talked about gas prices.

And so the president really is in this catch-22. Does he end the war and help Americans on gas prices? Or does he leave in Iran that still has nooks, that has more power of the strait than before the war, and that will be more ominous, more dangerous, and more of a threat to the Gulf allies that told the president not to get into this war at the beginning. So it is a catch-22. And the question is whether Americans are going to have to put up with that short-term gain for the president to figure out what he's going to have to do to make sure the Iranians will never have a nuclear weapon that they can threaten the United States with. And right now, he's stuck in the middle of the United States.

that and the Iranians are not giving him an off-ram. I think it was supposed to be short, right? They were, that was two weeks or something like that. And here's the thing. I just, I've got to say this, Mika, you know, idiots have been knocking idiots and they're just idiots. Mm-hmm. Have been going around talking about pointy-headed bureaucrats and maybe that's George

Wallace, but they sure sounded like it during the Trump campaign. Talking about experts, experts, everybody saying experts aren't, oh, you know, the whole whole, so much of the MAGA movement is fueled by hatred of experts. Well, let me tell what experts told everybody about Iran. Don't go. Don't go into Iran, because if you go into Iran, they'll cut off the straight immediately. Your father said it 15 years ago. People have been saying it since the early 1980s. You can't do it because they'll cut off the straight. And yet they did it anyway. So the so-called. called experts for warning him. David Ignatius, every day on this show, every day on this show

leading up to the war. What did he say? Mr. President, with all due respect, sir, Iran is not Venezuela. No. I mean, I told him on the phone. Iran is not Venezuela. Don't listen to Lindsey Graham. Don't do it. Iran is not Venezuela. But he thought it was, experts told him. Experts told him he wasn't. If you talked to anybody on the Iran desk and the CIA, they would have said, no, this is a nightmare. You will get entangled in a quagmire there. Don't go. And so, so, so yeah, you know, experts, sometimes actually, you need to pick up the phone and call one or two of them, because they will stop you from getting involved in what Bob Kagan, an expert, says, could be one of the greatest military defeats in the past century.

All right. We're going to get back to this and sneak in a quick break right now on the other side. We'll read from the Wall Street Journal editorial that Joe mentioned on the potential for President Trump to bail out on Iran, Admiral Kirby and Caddy Kaye. Weighing on that also ahead, early voting getting underway in South Carolina today, even as state lawmakers work to redraw congressional lines. We'll talk about that ongoing effort. and what it could mean for the midterms.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers' Forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Meek, it's a great day across the northeast of mid-Atlantic, exclusive ACU with a forecast, 80 in Portland, 82, Boston, 80 in New York City. Watch this area, though Washington, D.C. Charleston toward Louisville. There will be a shower and thunderstorm around today. Similarly, the southeast, it's warm, achievements, thunderstorms scattered about. That's going to produce some travel delays your exclusive ACUther travel forecast in Atlanta. But many locations along the East Coast will be A-O-K.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. Hey, welcome back to the morning. Joe, it's about 6.30 on the East Coast. Just look at the White House, apparently a county fair with a tilt-a-whirl is coming in. One of those slingshot things, maybe those two cranes are for slingshot that they're going. No, wait a second, Mika, that's UFC. There are some reason going to do a 250th anniversary celebration in the backyard of the White House. If you got them, smoke them, I guess. If that floats your boat, baby, it's garish to say the least, but why should that surprise us?

I mean, I'd like to continue to be surprised. You're speechless. I am. I am. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is writing about the negotiations in Iran and asking whether Trump will bail out the regime that peace reads in part. A pledge not to build a nuclear weapon means nothing because the regime has always said that while doing that the opposite. The regime only has to wait out the Trump administration to gain a freer hand. Iran's history is to drag out negotiations and this preliminary deal is. is no doubt part of that strategy.

Reopening the strait will reduce oil prices, but in the president's reluctance to do so by force, he has signal that Iran holds the Trump card, even if successful. The deal would leave that card intact and looming. And Admiral Kirby, if you could talk a little bit about negotiating with a country like Iran, past experience would give us some information.

about how that's going to go and what a deal really looks like, and quite frankly, is a deal really a deal? It took us two years to negotiate the JCPOA with John Kerry under the Obama administration, and it took that long for two reasons. One, the Iranians are tough negotiators, Mika, they don't give an inch without an awful lot of discussion and back and forth. And number two, when you're talking about a nuclear weapons program or a potential nuclear weapons program, You're talking about a lot of science, a lot of engineering, a lot of technical details. And it took a team back to Joe's point about experts. It took a team of experts to back up John Kerry, including our energy secretary who had expertise in this, to work through the nitty-gritty of those details.

You can't just wish it away in 60 days and say, okay, it's over and they're not going to pursue that or be able to pursue a nuclear weapons program in the future. takes a lot of dogged determination and scientific expertise. The Iranians are very good at that. I hope that whoever we bring to the table is going to be good at that too. Well, but they won't be. Because, I mean, you look at what the Iranians did during those negotiations, what they did with John Kerry and Wendy Sherman

and other people on the other side. They brought nuclear experts. They brought engineers. They brought scientists who are at the top of their field to negotiate this. They don't wing it. It's not like firing a couple of missiles and then telling Delci Rodriguez intimidating her and saying, we're going to take your oil. Run the country.

We don't kill you. You just give us your oil. I mean, that's never going to happen in Iran and Jonathan Lemire. Even this talk about, first of all, they will never do a deal on nukes voluntarily. They will never do a deal on nukes voluntarily unless something radically bizarre shifts. and we have a, and we could have, and this is what I keep hoping for, a Soviet-style collapse. Could happen. You never know. We, nobody knew in 89, early 89, that that was going to happen by the fall. But most likely, the Nukes deal, like the Wall Street Journal editorial page said,

the Nukes deal won't ever happen if you push this off, because that's what the Iranians do. But then let's talk about the other shoot, the Strait. We keep hearing the United States, the president keeps saying, oh, the straits wide open. Marco and other straits wide open, the Iranians go, no, it's not. We're still going to assess tolls. We'll call them environmental fees. But no, we haven't agreed to that. So as the Wall Street Journal editorial page says, the Iranians are strengthened.

They understand that they are holding a card that can shut down the Trump card, as the Wall Street Journal editorial said, that can shut down the world's economy. they are not going to let Donald Trump get off cheap. They're just not going to do it. So there are only two ways forward. You can have the abject surrender, the Wall Street Journal and Bob Kagan and Roger Wicker and Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are talking about. Or you can continue fighting this war and do what it takes to get the nukes. Both options are horrible.

And President Trump is. so clearly desperate for a deal that he and White House AIDS over the weekend, particularly Friday and Saturday, saying this is 95% done. Well, the 5% that was left was straight to Hormuz and the Iran's Iranian, the biggest stuff. And that's why we don't have a deal yet. And we may not get there unless, as you say, Joe, Trump takes a really bad deal. And there is a sense in Washington, he might be willing to do that, though that would be humbling. He feels like he can sell it anyway that he can claim it's better than what the Obama team got. And as our friend John Howman always says with Trump, it's either confession or projection.

It was noteworthy over the weekend. He kept ripping the Obama negotiating team as in his words, rank amateurs. Where, as we just discussed, they were experts. Maybe they got a good deal. Maybe they didn't. But they were experts. What the Trump team now has are rank amateurs. And they have not been able to get a deal at all.

And Katty Kay, you know, the straight-of-form moves, is not open. And Iran, even if they do agree to something in the coming days or weeks, has shown they can close it at any time. So that's why there are some on the right. And Trump 2.0, he's usually pretty impervious to Republican criticism. In his first term, when he hears senators go on Fox News, sometimes that would make him budge. This time he hasn't. But he's also never faced a chorus this loud before from his own party saying, don't take a bad deal. Yeah, and despite some of the profanity issued by some of the White House spokespeople over the course of the weekend, Stephen Chung, thinking of you, it does seem that the president backed away from announcing a deal over

the weekend because of the criticism that came from Republican voices. But at the moment, we're just negotiating how much pain America is prepared to tolerate. When you look at all of the key issues, It's how many missiles will Iran be able to keep? How much frozen money will Iran get in assets and sanctions relief? How much uranium will Iran get to be able to keep at whatever degree of enrichment? How much control will Iran get to keep of the Strait of Hormuz, whether it's through some environmental cost that they impose on people or whether it's through an outright toll that they took? And how much proxies will Iran get to carry on funding with all of the money that it's making? I mean, Admiral Kirby, it's very hard to see if you're looking at the position, that America is in now, and the realistic things that it might be able to get from Iran that Iran would agree to, given how desperate Donald Trump is to have some kind of a deal, any kind of a deal, I mean, these look more like terms of surrender, of America's surrender, than they do a kind of deal that would actually constitute something that you might have understood as a deal. Yeah, that's true. And I think it certainly is a big contrast to what they said they were going. going into the war at the beginning to accomplish. None of those things have been accomplished, except maybe destroying the Iranian Navy, but it leaves Iran, as you rightly said, in a stronger position from a geopolitical perspective, both in terms of the strait and their nuclear ambitions

and regime survival. Remember, that's what these guys really want. They want survival. The IRGC is firmly in command. They don't want to go anywhere. And they've got the nuclear program, and they've got the straight-of-hor moves now is their Trump cards, to put it bluntly, and they're going to use those. And I think, you know, to your other point about pain, Caddy, don't underestimate the degree to which the IRGC is willing to sustain a lot of pain. I mean, it's not just about the economic pressure. This is a regime that doesn't really care that much about the economic pressure, except to the degree that they can fund their terrorist activities going forward. They They don't care about the economic pain to the Iranian people.

And so they can withstand an awful lot of pressure in that regard and drag this out for as long as possible, which is why I think they're going to do. MS now national security analyst retired rear admiral John Kirby. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. And coming up, voters in Texas return to the polls today to decide the closely watched GOP's Senate primary runoff. We'll discuss where things to do.

stand in the race following President Trump's endorsement and what the outcome could mean for November as Democrats hope to win big in the state. Morning, Joe. We'll be right back. You know, I really don't think it was about me. I think it's very different from the Cassidy and Massey situation because I've been a Trump ally, as you point out. I think he got frustrated with the Senate not able to get what he wanted when he wanted it. And as you know, the president, president can be a pretty impatient guy. And I certainly understand that. He's a, he's a chief executive guy. He's not a legislative guy. And so I think he just got frustrated and he wanted to send a message. That was Senator John Cornyn of Texas. I know. No, that's not it, Senator. Senator,

that's not it. You see, Senator, your problem is you have not been indicted like Kenny Boy. and you also have not deserved impeachment like Kinney Boy. You haven't shown the level how far you would go to be perhaps fraudulent. You just aren't as sleazy as Kenny Boy. And so, you know, president doesn't like you. He thinks you're boring. You mean, he's frustrated with that. You should have had more indictments, I guess, if you wanted the president's endorsement.

But, you know, some things aren't worth the president's endorsement. We'll get a second. First week, I want to talk about a birthday boy, David. Ignatius. David, do I understand it's your birthday today? Oh, my God. You got that right. You know, what do you do on your birthday? You get up at five in the morning, and you come into Morning Joe, and you

hang around with your friends. There you go. Yes, this is my birthday. That's a good birthday. Let me tell you something, David. Let me tell you something, David. A lot of people when they turn 49 are very worried about the 50s, turning 50s. I'm going to assure you, the 50s are the best. They really are. I'm not just saying it. You're going to be good. You're going to be at Pete powers there, baby.

The peak power, so David, you don't worry about a thing on this 49th birthday. The next two years ahead are going to be great for you. Happy birthday. That's my, the nicest birthday wish I've had is that you have a great 49th birthday. Thank you very much, Joe. Have a great 49th birthday. David, I want to ask you really quickly before we move on to Kenny Boy, Ken Paxson and John corner, I want to just as we close out our first hour of discussion,

on Iran, breakdown, because you hear the president, and again, it is, it's actually confession here where the president is just obsessed, trying to convince people that Obama got a worse deal than he got. You know, you and I talked about this a long time. I didn't like the deal because I said you just can't trust the Iranians under any circumstance. And in real time, you said it is an existential gamble. You said you supported the deal, but you understood. It was an existential gamble. It's a conversation we had over months. And I think if you look at the numbers, you were right and I was wrong.

But I want you to just give the numbers of how the Obama deal was so much better than where we are now since the president got rid of the Obama deal in 2018 and has started this war that actually may put her on in really in strongest position in the very. very long time. So, Joe, the Obama deal had had strict limits on enrichment, and they were verified and enforced by a very intrusive inspection by the IEA. Iran was really under international control in this period. And there was no evidence that the Iranians were cheating. Trump's decision to blow that deal up, as I look back, was just a fundamental mistake. And we've been careening around ever since, trying to get back to limits that are similar to the JCPOA limits. I mean, this war is going to end. And I, you know, Trump's efforts to do that, any reasonable person would say, good luck, Mr.

President. But if they end with the United States and Israel more vulnerable to an Iranian, the rebirth of an Iranian nuclear program, or this war just starting up again for another round. We'll look back and just shake our heads that, you know, what a terrible mistake. So it's a moment to really, you know, think clearly. How should this war end? Be strong, Mr. President. Be sensible.

Try to end it, but not on terms that make everybody weaker. Okay. We've got a lot of other news to get to, including the efforts by New Jersey's governor, to get into a detention center where there is a hunger strike playing out. But first, let's talk. Texas, joining us now former White House Communications Director to President Obama. Jen Palmary joins us. Good to have you on the set back with us this morning, Jen.

What's at stake in what's going to be happening tonight in Texas and all the dynamics playing out, including Donald Trump's endorsement of not John Cornyn? Yeah. And it does, you know, I don't know, looks like Ken Pexton's going to win. And when you see the Texas is Texas, it's very difficult. I think a lot of Democrats might think it's Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Very difficult. It's like Tyler.

The extent to which if Ken Paxton win shows Trump's hold. And on the Republican Party, but the fact that Tallulco continues to do well and statewide polling, of course, he's the Democratic nominee. And I think people need to appreciate Texans have been living with Ken Paxton and his shenanigans and his legal troubles for a long time. So it does feel like, in a surprising way even, that people, that Republicans, people who normally vote for Republicans, maybe they're independents, maybe their Republicans are open to voting for, to voting for Tala Rico and, like, giving him a real shot. And you just, it sort of feels not like the tip, you know, we've all been here before with Texas going blue, but a tipping point sort of across the country with Republicans getting tired of. what's going on with I still think it's really hard. For sure. This is the Democrats' best chance probably at Texas, but it's still going to be very difficult. It also might prove to be a one-off. Maybe Texas isn't really in play yet,

but just the circumstances this year does break well for them. But at minimum, if indeed Paxton gets through, which I agree. I think most analysts feel like he will, then suddenly this gets his heart of Republicans across the map because there's a, Taurico is a huge fundraising advantage over Paxton. And the Republicans are going to have. have to spend a ton of money to support him there at the expense of other states where Democrats then be able to win and flip the chamber. Yeah, and that's just, you know, that has its own value. It's the fact that if you get to spend $90 million in Texas or whatever, they might have, like very expensive plates. And then there are other, they're, and in a year like this,

I mean, it's certainly true. Now, I feel like it was true five months ago. If you're a Republican in the Senate, you cannot feel safe, right? If you're Republican candidate in the Senate, you cannot feel safe. You have Ohio as well as Texas, Montana, where there's an independent that is running, Seth Bodner, he was president of the university of Montana, depending on how the Democratic primary plays out there. That could be that, you know, Montana is in play. There's all sorts of, it just makes it a lot more harder for them. Iowa, Alaska, who knows? Iowa looks, Alaska is a really interesting place for people, Democrats, have been doing really smart things and organizing. It's a very dynamic place. There's a lot of,

interesting young leaders there, too. So Texas, just that moneyhole that it becomes for the Republicans at a minimum, but also, you know, nothing changes until it does. Right. Even if it's not blue, they could vote for a Democratic senator. Jen, stay with us. Coming up, what does it mean to be an American? That's something one of our next guests is exploring in a new book that traces the country's

battle over identity. Former Deputy National Security Advisor under President Obama, Ben Roe, Roads joins us straight ahead with that. We're back in just a moment. Let's take a look at the morning papers and the Washington Post President Trump is expected back at Walter Reed Medical Center today. For his third scheduled checkup in 13 months, the White House has repeatedly said the president is in excellent health. Still, as the Post reports, outside physicians say they have persistent questions about the nearly 80-year-olds president's health and fitness. The Washington Times has a new piece on how ICE has become a major headache for the Justice Department.

A growing number of judges are slamming the agency for defying rulings and losing the confidence of the court. As one judge said bluntly, quote, it's very hard to win a case without evidence or legal argument. ICE is facing increased scrutiny for blocking access to its facilities, crowd control efforts, and botched deportation. We'll have more on that, especially one specific case in New Jersey coming up. And in the Palm Beach Post, Democrats see new momentum in Florida. As the paper reports, Democrats have flipped a GOP Senate seat in the Tampa area, won the Miami mayor's race for the first time in nearly three decades, and claimed another mayor's office long held by Republicans in Boca Raton.

The victories have delivered a jolt of energy to a party that had seemed on the verge of extinction. in the Sunshine State, some possible hope for Democrats in Florida, Joe. Yeah, I just want to go about a couple of stories. First of all, the ICE story. Yeah, amateurs, rank amateurs that don't have proper training, they don't have the training that police officers have. Certainly not the training that NYPD officers have or are even priorly hired ICE agents or border control agents.

They're just rank amateurs. shot Americans in the street of this country and killed them. They've shredded constitutional norms the agency has. They're ignoring judges' rulings time and time again. No, it's just, it's been absolutely, absolutely miserable. So I think if Florida has an, if Democrats have an opportunity in Florida, so much of it comes from the radical. And it is radical, the radical overreach by this administration on deportations and on locking people up in what a lot of these people come out calling concentration camps, but locking people up in internment camps and not even letting Americans see what's going on inside there because they're scared. They're scared for Americans to know the truth because they know their poll numbers would plummet even more.

Yeah, and those detention centers, concentration camps are profit machines, which is another angle of the story that is just below. It's disgusting. Well, Mika, you know, there's so many investigations that are moving forward. Now an investigation has started up on how some of these internment camps were actually purchased and purchased just blowing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the internment camps that nobody wants, nobody wants in their communities. Republicans don't want them in their communities. Democrats don't want them in their communities. And they've got this system where they're picking up people who are here legally. They're picking up people here who are legally moving forward to get the green courts. And I'm saying that they're going to have to go.

They throw them in. And I know a very specific instance. And a person has asked not to not to reveal the name, but I know specifically of a person that a court said you have no right to detain him. You have no right to detain this man and throw him out of the country. They detained him. And they kept him in for months and months and months. Why? Because they get paid for, by the day, these contractors get paid by the day for locking people up in internment camps.

And they do not care, whether they're there legally or illegally. They get paid regardless of the number of heads that they have inside those internment camps. I'm telling you, this is just, again, such a scandal that I think lies at the heart of people in Middle America who may have voted for Donald Trump, saying enough, it certainly is destroyed his support among Hispanic voters. Well, we'll continue to cover it, and we'll continue to cover the efforts of members of Congress to get inside. these centers because Americans have a right to see what is going on. And it is their job to go in and observe and report back what is going on. They pay, they fund ICE. They fund all these operations. And it is their job to get inside. Jonathan Lemire, Catee, and Jen Paul Mary are still with us joining the conversation. We have contributing writer to the Atlantic, Eugene Robinson,

and former Deputy National Security Advisor under President Obama, MS now political and National Security analyst, Ben Rhodes. He's the author of the new book out today titled, All We Say, The Battle for American Identity, a History in 15 Speeches, and we'll get to that in just a moment. But first, the United States military cowered out what it called self-defense strikes yesterday in southern Iran, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, says targets included Iranian missile launch. sites and boats attempting to place mines. Sentcom added the strikes were done to, quote, protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces as the military, quote, continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire.

This is not the first time fire has been exchanged in the region throughout the tenuous truce. Iran did not immediately respond to the attack publicly, but state TV reported blasts around a city on the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's supreme leader said today, the United States will no longer have a safe haven in the Gulf. So ceasefire or not? And who really has the upper hand? It doesn't seem like it's the administration here, Joe. Well, for reasons your father talked about 15 years ago,

the reason that experts, yes, experts have been talking about it for 30 years, Iran will always have the upper hand if you go and invade them because they can just close off the straight. And when they close off the straight, as your father said on Charlie Rose 15 years ago, then the United States, whatever president invades Iran, is setting the world's economy on fire. And that's exactly what's happened. And then it's exactly what David Ignatius warned Donald Trump about.

This is not Venezuela. Jonathan O'Meer, all the warning signs have been there. The president, though, has continued to say, and he has justified continuing this war, even though he hasn't really given a grand speech on television. and he hasn't gone out and really done it day in and day out justification of it. He has stuck to what past presidents would say, which is Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And so he's constantly going back to that refrain. Iran can't have nukes.

I think a lot of Americans, whether they agree or disagree with this war, would agree with that statement, agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately for the president, this deal is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as Bob Kagan, as every other person that knows what they're talking about, this deal won't do that. It allows Iran to kick the can down the road and puts us in a much worse position than we were under President Obama's deal. And then, of course, the strait. The Iranians are still saying, no, no, no, no. But the Americans are telling you about the straits alike. We haven't agreed to that. We're going to continue to toll it. Maybe we'll call it environmental surcharges. Maybe we'll call it

something else. But we're going to make money off the strait, whether the United States likes it or not. It is difficult to dispute the assertion that Iran is going to come out of this war in a stronger position than where they entered it. And that, of course, is an extraordinary failure by the United States. And we've seen President Trump desperate for an off ramp, desperate to save face. And the idea from over the weekend was to, when he has to, when he's faced a setback, his instinct is to go bigger. So suddenly he's trying to expand this into the Abraham Accords. But that seems like a non-starter for many of the nation. he's demanding join that agreement.

And Ben, you know, he obviously has been very critical of the Obama team's handling of Iran. So let's get your thoughts on that. And where you see this right now, where, you know, Tehran seems emboldened. And it seems like President Trump's the goals, maybe not plainly stated for this war, but he has said what they were eventually, were have accomplished next to none of them. No, we haven't. And look, I heard your conversation with David in the last segment. I mean, we said back in 2015 that there were two ways to solve the problem with Iranian nuclear program. One is a war and one is a diplomatic agreement. And that a war is the worst way to do it because of all the costs and uncertainties of a war, but also because unless you have a ground invasion of Iran to literally dismantle its nuclear program on the ground, you're not actually even going to solve the problem with the war. And I think what happened here, is, you know, he pulled out of that deal mainly because of his hostility to Obama. This is something Obama did, so I don't like it.

And then he believed that this war would quickly collapse the Iranian regime and force them to completely capitulate on the nuclear program. And unsurprisingly, because every war game I was ever in, confirmed what Mika's dad said, which is the first thing the Iranians would do, is closed this Strait of Hormuz, paralyzed the global economy, because 20% of the world's fossil fuel rolls through there, and essentially have a deterrent that is not a nuclear weapon, but has almost the same scale in terms of its impact on the global economy.

And so now the regime didn't collapse. In fact, the regime got more hardline, the reigning Revolutionary Guard Corps. They're the ones that close the straight. They're the ones that run that regime right now. And they have the leverage because they know that Trump needs that straight open. He needs the appearance of some victory, but he's not going to get it because they are the ones that are sitting with more of the leverage. All predictable. That's what's so tragic about this.

And the reality is he would be lucky to get something approximating the nuclear deal in which they ship out their stock trial and submit to inspections. But he's not going to get more than that. Gene. So, Ben, what do you think he could get? I mean, how do you think he could end this war? Obviously, he will claim, President Trump will claim victory no matter what when he finally gets an off-ramp. But is there a kind of best, you know, possible? outcome at this point, given all the mistakes that have been made so far?

Yeah, I think the best possible deal, Eugene, that he could get is essentially you've got to get that highly enriched uranium stockpile out of the country. You have to get strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program for a verifiable period of time. And importantly, you need an inspections regime because if the Iranians just say, hey, we won't do certain things for a certain period of time, obviously you're not going to trust that. Under the nuclear deal that he pulled out of, you had the strictest inspections ever negotiated of their nuclear facilities, of their uranium mines and mills so we could literally see where the material that went into their program was coming from and how it was being handled. So that's what he needs. But the reality is he's going to have to

pay for that. And I think this is probably what is holding up in negotiations is the sequencing. The Iranians want revenue, I'm sure, on the front end, revenue from tolling the strait, from sanctions relief. I think Trump probably recognizes how that's going to look, given all the things he said about the revenue they got under the Iran nuclear deal, that he's been blasting for a decade. And so I think where we are is nobody's blinking on who moves first. Trump wants to straight open before that revenue comes in, and I'm sure the Iranians want the revenue coming in first. And I think that's probably what the holdup is in negotiation. Ben, let's talk about your book. It's just absolutely fascinating. And of course,

You are not a historian. You say you're a speech writer. You obviously help President Obama. But I love when you talk about how a speech is history in present tense. And you take us back to some of the most remarkable speeches in American history, whether it's Lincoln's second inaugural, whether it's FDR's Four Freedom speech, whether it's Composite Nation, which, of course, remarkable Frederick Douglass speech,

are Reagan's evil empire speech. Talk about, it had to be very difficult for you to pick these speeches. It took you a year. Talk about the process and what you, as a speechwriter, who wrote history in present tense, learned through this process. Yeah, I wanted to understand, Joe, how we got here, the kind of toxic, dysfunctional moment that we're in, by going back and looking at how Americans have been. debated and argued with one another throughout history.

And as a speechwriter, I kind of had an instinct that we could learn something about ourselves by looking back at the whole sweep of American history through speeches. It took me a year. I start with Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention. He wrote the closing argument speech on behalf of the Constitution. And what's interesting about that speech, Joe, is he doesn't even mention the Constitution itself. It's a speech about the virtue of compromise.

If we're going to live together as people with different interests and different views, we have to start with compromise. That's what made the country possible, but it also set in motion all the conflict and competition we've had since because we compromise about big things. And then what I learned in choosing these speeches is that because we're a country that no matter what J.D. Vance and Donald Trump says, we are an idea. I mean, we were 13 states at the beginning on the East Coast and look at us today. You know, we have transformed ourselves time and again. And speeches are where we have adjudicated American identity, like who we are. What kind of nation do we want to be? If you, you know, I heard you're talking about how Trump is talked about this war.

You know, FDR's for Freedom speech, for instance, which I put in here, that is FDR speaking into being an American identity. This is who we are. This is what we stand for. We're not just going to war because we don't like the fascists. We're not just going to war because of a set of interests. We're going to war because we believe in a set of things. Four freedoms. Freedom of belief, right?

Freedom from fear. Freedom from want, right? FDR is literally telling Americans, here's who we are versus against who they are. And every speech, that's what Reagan was doing too, a moral basis for how we defined ourselves in opposition to communism. So every speech in the book dealt with this question from different perspectives, left, right, and everything in between. about what is American identity. So, Ben, you just mentioned that speech by Reagan. Joe mentioned it to the Evil Empire speech from 1983.

Let's take a quick listen to that and talk about it on the other side. That shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de T. Focqueville put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius. And he said not until I went into the churches of America and heard her populous aflame with righteousness, did I understand the greatness and the genius of America? America is good.

And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Ben, I mean, it's known as the evil empire speech and a rejection, of course, of everything that the USSR represented. There he's talking about American goodness. But what was remarkable about Reagan was that he went into all of his negotiations with the USSR and with Gorbachev saying, actually, there cannot be a loser here. We can't define this as one empire defeating another empire, even if it had been labeled the evil empire in that speech.

It was his understanding of the process of getting there was so much more complex than the name given to that speech might have suggested. Well, first of all, what's interesting. at that speech. In each chapter, I talk about the person and the movement that made the speech possible. And what Reagan represented was a movement over 20 years to join together religious, evangelical Christians in this country, with people who cared about national security. You can hear Reagan speaking into being what was really the Reagan coalition. And that buttressed what his argument was against the Soviet Union. You know, he's representing a certain view of American that believes in goodness that is rooted in Christian values, but also Caddy, what's also really

interesting that Reagan compared to Trump is he was also pragmatic, because while the evil empire created part of the leverage he was building on the Soviet Union, creating a moral contrast, later on when he was able to find a partner in Gorbachev, he pivoted. And when he went to Moscow, he was asked, do you still believe this is an evil empire? And he said, no, that was something I said at a different time. And so one of the things I learned about Reagan is not just that he was willing to speak this coalition into being and kind of knit together different constituency, free market conservatives, national security hawks,

and Christian conservatives. But then he was able to be pragmatic when he saw an opening because he was not as dogmatic as the current occupant of the White House. If he saw the ability to shift course to accomplish something he believed in, he was willing to do that. Jen. I'm so excited. I mean, I'm just like, I'm so into it.

The whole concept. And the fact, I mean, as I've been in a number of, I worked with in the Obama White House and a lot of time speech writers, you less so it would be like, you can't solve all the problems with the speech. Don't keep coming to me. Ask me. You were in the me. Yes. And as it turns out, they really, like, all we say, what we say really does matter. I'm wondering, you know, I know you have Trump speech, at least one Trump speech in there. Is there a speech in sort of real time from Trump's second administration or first administration from a Democrat that you think about America that we are that does,

matter. My Bruce Springsteen be this person? Well, I mean, but serious, you know, seriously, you know. Honestly, like, Jen, one of the things I was struck by, and I did not originally intend to end to Trump. It's sad that you have to, but it's fair. And I think we had to confront it, so I ended with the second inaugural address, which in many ways, look, I found a lot of origins of Trump in American populism and isolationism. I write about America First movement in the 1930s, but Trump is a deviation because he stands up in the second inaugural and says, I will, I one, the debate is over, and it's about me. It's not even about something I built, like what Reagan

did. And I think with the Democrats, one of the problems that we've dealt with as communications people is we're constantly trying to figure out, like, what's the social media strategy, how do we show up and tell a pithy story, how do we package our talking points better? What is the story that we're telling? Because as you know, the story, which is usually a speech, is the best way to get your story right, that becomes the trunk of the tree. And all the other communications are the branches, the interviews, the social media clips. And I think Democrats have lost sight of the fact that maybe the counter-programming of Trump, and this is hard and error of social media, is to get back to storytelling. And now, when I look at the Democrats today, though,

I see some hopeful signs. I see John Ossoff making a very coherent case about corruption and how that's the reason that you're not getting the government you deserve. Or James Tolerico talking about how his faith connects to what he's doing. And so I think it's that ability to stand out authentically and say, here's my motivation. Here's the movement I come out of. Here's where this country is and where it needs to go. I think that's what's missing in politics today. And that's another thing I found in writing the book.

The new book, All We Say, The Battle for American Identity is on sale now. Ben Rhodes, congratulations, and thank you very much for sharing it with us this morning. And former White House Communications Director to President Obama, Jen Paul Mary. Thank you as well. Great to have you on.