Morning Joe - 'Real panic in the White House': Trump's base fractures over handling of Epstein files

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

Attendees of Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit erupted in boos over the Trump administration’s handling of files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, the president over weekend publicly defended AG Pam Bondi's handling of the Epstein case.

That Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal. Please do not let that story go. Who has Jeffrey Epstein's black book? Black book. FBI. But who? That is that I mean, there's that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. What the hell are the House Republicans doing?

They have the majority. You can't get the list? Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are. Would you declassify the Epstein files? Yeah, yeah, I would. All right. I guess I would. I think that less so because you know, you don't know it. You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would. This isn't about Epstein or 9-11 or JFK or RFK. It is, but it isn't. It's about a bigger thing.

If you're lying about that, you're lying about everything. Who's on the Epstein tapes, folks? Who's on those tapes? Who's in those black books? Why have they been hiding it? And this is something Donald Trump has talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. Everything's going to come out to the public. The public has a right to know. Americans have

a right to know. President have a right to know. President Trump and members of his administration for years building up the Jeffrey Epstein case and promising that everything will come to light. That's not what Trump's Department of Justice is delivering. And now that has become a major issue for the president's base. We'll explain why his supporters are upset and how the president responded over the weekend. Plus, a judge's ruling is now limiting how immigration officers can operate in the field.

We'll explain that legal decision. It comes as new polling shows support for the Trump administration's immigration crackdowns appears to be slipping. Also ahead, the president has teased a major announcement today on the war in Ukraine. We'll go through that new reporting. And on that front on Ukraine, we're also going to be having David Ignatius coming to talk about a weapons systems, defensive weapons systems that the president's talking about

sending into Ukraine. Correct. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, July 14th. Good to be with you. With us, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and managing editor at The Bullwork, Sam Stein, is with us this morning. And we begin with President Trump's mega base and the growing turmoil over the administration's

handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case files. The controversy began more than a week ago when the Justice Department and FBI announced they had found no evidence that Epstein kept a client list, contradicting Attorney General Pam Bondi's past suggestion that such a list from the convicted sex offender existed and was even on her desk. Conservative influencers began to criticize both Bondi and FBI Director Cash Patel for their findings, which came months after Bondi pledged to reveal major revelations about Epstein, including a lot of names and a lot of flight logs. Soon after, Semaphore reported Deputy FBI Director Dan Boggino was weighing his future with the Bureau after clashing with Attorney General Blondie over the Epstein case files.

Over the weekend in Florida, attendees of the conservative, turning point USA's student action summit erupted in booze over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case. And top MAGA leaders questioned and even criticized the White House from both the stage and on their social media accounts. Who have you seen? Pam Bondi. She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way.

Try to lead you to believe that she's got it. It's on her desk. It's coming tomorrow. You're going to see something on Epstein. And it was a tease. So you either believe that Pam Bondi was telling the truth then, or that she's telling the truth now. But both cannot be true.

She was either lying when she went on Fox News all those times saying, I've got it, I've got it, we're looking at it, wait until you see it, it's horrible. Or she's lying in her two-page memo that they released on a Sunday night at the tail end of a holiday weekend to Axios as if Axios is where we all go for our news? Hell no. She went to someone she knew would not kick the tires on the story and without signing the memo dropped it in the dead of night and said that's it take it take the crumbs and be happy. Make some noise if you care about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Raise your hand if it matters a lot to you. Raise your hand.

So every hand of 7,000 people. Everybody cares. A lot. I said a lot. Every hand. There is a lot, and we're not going to like everything. There's a lot that's kind of bubbling under the surface, and I know you know what I'm talking about.

So I'm going to ask a few questions to all of you. How many of you are satisfied you can clap, satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation? Clap. Okay, I told you to clap. You guys aren't listening. I'm not going to grade you on a curve. So I was going to get to that.

How many of you are not satisfied with the results of the investigation? It looks like it's going to be, and now this is like the who's going to be off the island first, right? This is like who's going to be voted off the island first? I don't know what to believe on that. I would strongly recommend in that, because I've argued for this from the beginning, that in that arc of looking at how the deep state has tried to stop Trump in the MAGA movement, you can easily fit in the Epstein situation, right? If you want

the full release of documents, the special prosecutor gets it, and here's why. Epstein is a key that picks the lock on so many things, not just individuals, but also institutions, intelligence institutions, foreign governments, and who's working with him on our intelligence apparatus and in our government. This is why it's a time for choosing now. Meanwhile, President Trump is publicly defending Attorney General Pam Bondi's handling of the Epstein case. The president took to social media calling on his MAGA base to end its obsession with Epstein writing in part, quote, They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a fantastic job.

We're on one team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a perfect administration. The talk of the world and selfish people are trying to hurt it all over a guy who never dies. Jeffrey Epstein. His post was met with widespread backlash among his own followers and also prompted this response from

tech billionaire and former Doge leader Elon Musk. Quote seriously, he said, Epstein, half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein, just release the files, as promised. At the same time, two sources familiar with President Trump's thinking tell NBC News he has not lost confidence in anyone involved

and has full confidence in his team. One source added this time, there is no expectation for any changes to the leadership. So Jonathan O'Meara, obviously this is a story that has riled MAGA world over the past three, four days. And a couple of things I i don't understand maybe you have a better understanding of it one is that we heard that uh... dan uh... was considering quitting

on june o dan bungee no was considering quitting and we earlier we can heard the cash but hell was but he he clarified that. What I don't understand is it seems that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino said the same thing a couple of weeks ago that Pam Bondi said last week, which started this entire eruption. I mean, it seems to be fairly consistent there. So I don't know why there's this divide between the DOJ and the FBI.

Maybe you can help me there. Secondly, there seems to be an argument coming out of the White House that these files don't exist. And at the same time, the White House is saying, this is all a setup. These files were all setups by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Two things can't... Those two things can't... We often say two things can be true at one time. Those two things cannot be true at one time.

You cannot have files that do not exist that were set up by Barack Obama when in fact all of this happened years after Barack Obama as far as the Justice Department launching the investigation happened a few years after Barack Obama was like already golfing and wind sailing and going on cruise ships. There is so there are so many so does so decipher this for us if you. There are so many inconsistencies here a little let's let's start with with the idea this is a myth of Epstein is one that has been created largely on the Maga right not

to say that there are some of the left to have interest in it as well but we have as you guys just played at the top of the hour there's for years not less Trump himself but certainly people around Trump have been talking about this list and that it was going to implicate powerful people powerful institutions largely on the left the Clintons perhaps the obamas others and they would all go down for it. And now we have seen, since President Trump took office again, backing away from that.

You meant there was a statement a month back or so from the FBI, you mentioned it, and now from the Department of Justice and Pam Bonney, the attorney general, this past week, saying, well, there's no list. Even though we have heard from her earlier this term, there was a list. We've heard from Cash Patel. We've heard from Don Bongino. There was a list. They'd be accessed to it.

They'd release it. There was that much Ballyhooed stunt earlier this year where they gave a bunch of MAGA influencers some Epstein documents. And that turned out to be sort of a bust all just publicly available material. And that kicked up some backlash on the right and now a real fury here in the last few days and this is what's interesting about this do we know what the actual Epstein list is or even if

there is a list no we do not but what we do know is this is a rare moment a very rare moment where there is a real fracture in the president's base and some of his most ardent supporters. We just played some of them at the turning point conference, but there are other social media influencers like Benny Johnson and the like who took to Twitter X over the weekend really trashing President Trump, which we never see before, accusing him of hiding things, accusing him of not being honest about this list.

And Trump's efforts to try to quell this storm, his Truth Social post, nearly a thousand words over the weekend, did exactly the opposite. I mean, Truth Social, let's remember, this is a Donald Trump created and owned platform. This is the first time I've ever seen him be ratioed, meaning he got more comments, in this case almost overwhelmingly negative comments, than he got likes and approval, stamps of approval for that post. There's real, real anger here. As you noted, Joe, his post had so many suggesting that there was no list, but yet it was written

by the Democrats. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I'm told, back to you guys here, there's some real panic in the White House right now. A lot of people have gone quiet. A lot of people have gone dark. But they recognize, those that are talking recognize right now this is a problem. It's the first time they've had a problem like this, and they don't think it's going to go away anytime soon.

So let's bring in politics reporter for Semaphore, Dave Weigel, and NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. Good to have you both. Thank you. Thank you guys so much for being with us. Dave, let me begin with you. You talk about why MAGA can't move on from Jeffrey Epstein. I will say there have been a lot of questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. We started asking questions on the show in 2017, 2018, saying, wait, wait, why is this

guy walking around Palm Beach? Why did he get a sweetheart deal from a guy who eventually became Secretary of Labor? What's going on here? Because none of it made sense back before they filed charges against him again, and a lot of depositions never taken. So this isn't just something that has just now come up, and it's not like a lot of MAGA influencers have been crazy for asking these questions for the past several years. That being said, now that the very same people that said that Biden and Merrick Garland were covering things up are now saying that it is Donald Trump and Pam Bondi that are covering

things up. Talk about why this issue is so important. And David French wrote a little bit about this over the weekend. Why is this issue so important to the MAGA base? Steve Bannon explained it pretty well in the clip that you showed from the Turning Point Conference. And this was a theme.

You saw the conference split between people who work for Trump or running for office who didn't talk about this, and every other influencer who did. And the Bannon perspective, which is widely shared, is that there is a deep state that if you could cover this up, can cover up who knows how many crimes against Donald Trump, crimes against the American people. There must be something hidden in the Epstein record that would Embarrass much like the Church Commission 40 years ago 50 years ago, I should say embarrass the security state

There must be that material in the Epstein files TBD unproven so far the other part of it is that from the people who were booing in that audience is a real belief that There are people walking you were talking about Pepsi one come Palm, people like that walking free right now who committed terrible crimes that have not been exposed and based on what happened here would never be exposed. And so I would say the anger is being redirected by these influencers a little bit away from Trump towards Pam Bondi. You saw it in that Megyn Kelly clip. A theme there in our reporting, Shelby Talcott reporting Axios, back this up, is

that Ben Pongino and to a lesser extent, Patel are seen as the people who were pushing from the outside even more than Trump was for four years that this need to be released, that Bondi can't be trusted because she's a glory hog, the way that Kelly was putting it. But it comes from these two fears. One, that there are real crimes people got away with. Two, is that if you expose are real crimes people got away with. Two, is that if you expose those real crimes, think of the temples that can crumble

in front of Donald Trump. Why don't they want to do that? That's the question the base has. So the Wall Street Journal editorial board has a piece on this entitled, Now Trump Says Forget Jeffrey Epstein. And it reads in part, quote, Donald Trump has traded in conspiracy stories for years.

Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Ted Cruz's father had a link to JFK's killer. The 2020 election was stolen. Migrants are barbecuing people's pets. He seems to think this is good show business with appeal and certain niches of fragmented culture. Yet now he's upset that the Jeffrey Epstein theories he fanned are proving hard to tamp down.

Mr. Trump lamented online Saturday that his administration is taking heat over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it's Epstein over and over again. His advisors are suggesting this was a snipe hunt. But the MAGA base is in furious disbelief since the same people pledged to catch some snipe. Maybe podcast provocateurs think it's fun to spin joking, not joking yarns about Taylor Swift rigging the Super Bowl to help President Biden.

What about the truth? By the way, Mr. Trump now says the Epstein Führer can't distract Ms. Bondi from the real conspiracy. The 2020 election was rigged and stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024. That's what she is looking into as a G and much more. So Sam Stein, obviously the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Rupert Murdoch's newspaper following along sort of a mainstream version of what we heard this past weekend.

Live by the sword, die by the sword as far as conspiracy theories go. Yeah. And there's something kind of delicious about this, I guess, if you put aside the horrific crimes, right? Which is that this is the chief conspiracist, and now he's being eaten alive by the conspiracy world that he helped fan. And then, of course, to get out of this,

people are just creating even grander conspiracies. So Dave's right. One of the things that my colleague Will Summer's been noticing is that on the right, the new conspiracies at the deep state, a ring of well-connected pedophiles is now even more powerful than Donald Trump, and therefore he's the victim of this. And it's just you keep anting up the conspiracy

until it eventually just overtakes you. And so you sit back and you watch this. And I guess for Ken, the question for you, though, is there are real world players here, not just conspiracists. In this case, there's Jan Bongino, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi. And all of them have, to a degree, fanned this conspiracy. So all of them are, of course, now dealing with the fallout from it. But now there's this kind of turf warfare that's happening.

And Joe hit on the question that I have, which is, what is it about, actually? Because they all, in theory, work under Bondi, and they all work under Trump. The actual letter that was put out to Axios, which spurred all this stuff, was directed from both the DOJ and the FBI. They're all saying the same thing in reality.

So what is the actual turf war here about? Is it, as Megyn Kelly said, that Pam Bondi's just on TV too much? Because certainly Pam Bondi's made promises, but so have Cash Patel and Dan Bongino. Yeah, that's right, Sam. Good morning. You asked a very fundamental question here. Here's my understanding from talking to people behind the scenes that everyone, Bongino, Patel, Bondi, and Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, were all on the same page in crafting that statement. It was based on the fruits of a Justice Department review of the files.

And to answer your question, Joe, there are lots of files. There is no client list. And by the way, we've been reporting that for years. People who have covered this investigation, Tom Winter in New York, has been told that by investigators. What's in the files are a lot of pictures of victims, a lot of grand jury information, a lot of unfounded allegations that career prosecutors and FBI agents cannot in good conscience recommend be released. And they convinced all these people who have been engaged in these conspiracy theories for years to do that, which was remarkable when you think about it. But then, after a few days after that statement was issued last week, Bongino started to see this horrible reaction from his base.

These are the people that made him rich as a podcaster. And apparently he had moments of doubt. Now you're hearing different things, whether he is upset with Bondi because she stoked the conspiracy theories as he did, or whether it's that he just has decided he can't stand by this story anymore. It's not clear.

We don't know Bondi's motivations here, but there was a meeting last week where he had a confrontation with Pam Bondi, where Bondi and Blanche accused him of leaking a story that tried to make them look bad over this. And he blew up and he didn't show up to work on Friday. Now, over the weekend, what we saw is efforts by people in MAGA world to try to mend these fences, including Julie Kelly, you guys mentioned, and a guy named Mike Davis, who's sort of kind of an operator behind the scenes, very close to the Justice Department and advises the White House.

And he is trying to be the voice of reason here. He's got detailed threads on X explaining what's in these files and why they can't be released. It's just so incredible for me to see this. These are people who spent years telling their base that senior officials who swore to uphold the Constitution are routinely lying to them and can't be trusted. And now those same people are turning on the folks in power, Donald Trump and the people around him, guys.

So I want to, Ken, I want to underline something that you said just to make sure that, because there's a lot of stuff coming at us here, but I want to underline something that you said, that you say both your reporting, Tom Winter's reporting, and other people's reporting at NBC News has confirmed over the years. And you're saying that your reporting, NBC's reporting is that actually the administration now is correct. That there is no client list,

there is no smoking gun out there. Is that what you're telling us? Yeah, that's right, Joe. And I know it's hard for a lot of people to believe, and obviously there have been huge questions about this case from the beginning. And you mentioned it. The origins of this in Florida suggested that initially Epstein used his power and influence to get away with it, essentially. But after there was a lot of good journalism by the Miami Herald and others, the federal government came in and did a comprehensive investigation. And look, I mean, obviously,

there are issues with the evidence here. So I'm not saying that there aren't photos of other people potentially exploiting children. That may exist, but everybody who was prosecutable in this case was prosecuted. That's our understanding. And there may be unfounded allegations in those files where somebody called the FBI and said a celebrity, you know, engaged in sexual misconduct. They can't release that without evidence. That would ruin that person's life. So the

idea that you could just unleash this raw file information on a child exploitation case to the public just never was realistic but to your point that's not what Pam Bondi initially told the public that's not what Dan Bongino said that's not what Cash Patel said and now they're reaping the whirlwind. All right NBC's Ken Delaney and thank you so much. Dave Weigel where do you think this goes next? I do think the focus is going to be on Bondi because of the high-profile role she has taken not just in describing these documents, but as AG. And this is another point Kelly was making over the weekend, Megan Kelly.

How often have you seen AG go on TV this much to advance not this administration's line, but to promise something that's on the way? They were alerting the reason you don't usually do that, because sometimes you cannot declassify what you think you're going to be able to declassify or what you said during the campaign you could. So I think the attention is going to be more on her. It's been coming up in this panel, but the story is already being rewritten on the fly to absolve Trump and say that this is not his fault. Even though that Fox clip you played earlier, that's one during the campaign that was cut down a bit to make his answer on the original Fox broadcast look more definitive that he

was going to release these Epstein files. It would be impossible for the Republican base to be told Donald Trump was not telling the truth about what he was going to do with these files when he got elected. Much easier to say Pam Bondi, a character who showed up at the beginning of the season, is the problem here. -"Simple Force," Dave Weigel, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. And Jonathan O'Meara, you covered the White House, obviously. I'm curious your thoughts about what happens next,

and if we're not watching Pam Bondi being set up, as the Grateful Dead would say, like a bowling pin and knocked down, I mean, is she going to be the scapegoat here for years and years of conspiracy theories that ended up not bearing fruit? It's possible. Now, I'm told by some AIDS White House edge of the weekend that president Trump and his post ins on

social media Saturday night didn't really try to defend bond. So at least so far he has her back but that could change if this story doesn't go away it is possible that she would be the one to be set up to fall. Now, we need to see if Don Bongino shows up to work today. He didn't on Friday. He stayed silent over the weekend. We did hear from Cash Patel distancing because there were rumors that both men were going to resign over this.

Patel posted on his personal account saying, no, that's not the case. I'm here. We'll see what else he might have to say today. Bongino quiet over the weekend. We'll see what else he might have to say today. But you know quiet over the weekend we'll see what he has to say. I think I'm also told by the White House they're just eager to just try to change the subject of conversation. They're gonna try to talk about something else, anything else. We'll get to it in a minute. There might be some Ukraine-Russia news today. You know there'll be other topics of conversation that I think this White House is gonna

try to push forward to move past this. But if the weekends any any evidence, I think there's going to be at least some parts of the MAGA base that are not going to so easily let go of something they've been promised for years. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to go through the new reporting on the announcement expected today from President Trump on the war in Ukraine. It comes as the NATO secretary general is set to meet with the president at the White House.

And a reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Almost 30 past the hour, President Trump is cracking down on anti-immigration enforcement protests authorizing ICE agents to arrest potential violent attackers using, quote, whatever means is necessary.

The president posted his directive Friday on Truth Social. Meanwhile, a federal judge in Southern California ruled against the administration, the immigration enforcement practice of stopping and detaining people solely because of their race or spoken language. In the Friday ruling, the judge issued a temporary restraining order in favor of three men who say they were detained while waiting for work at a bus stop in Southern California. Two of the men were stopped by ICE and questioned even after saying they are U.S. citizens. NBC News reports the judge's order says agents may not base that suspicion solely

on a person's apparent race or ethnicity, the fact that they are speaking Spanish or English with an accent, their presence at a particular location like a bus stop or a day laborer pick-up site, or the type of work one does. The judge called the questions in the case simple and non-controversial. The Trump administration did not see it that way. In a press conference over the weekend, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem slammed the decision and promised to appeal.

Yeah, he's an idiot. I mean, he's frankly an idiot. We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we're gonna do Yeah, he's an idiot. I mean, he's frankly an idiot. We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we're going to do. So none of our operations are going to change. He made claims that were absolutely false. We are building cases.

We are going in on doing our operations and planning them against individuals that we know are dangerous, that are violent, that have criminal activity that they they've been involved in, and that's how we're building our cases. So he's making up garbage, filing decisions, and we're going to appeal it, and we're going to win. Wow. The he... That she's talking about there. That she's talking about there is a she.

The words of Aerosmith, dude looks like a lady. And so the judge is actually, we hear a woman. And just this talk of judges being idiots and people saying, let's just ignore federal judges. There is such a toxic, toxic impact of that, and it's long lasting. And as many people have said, and some allies of the administration have said, that sort of talk actually works against the administration. Because when you have administration officials talking about federal judges that way, making a ruling, but says you just can't

stop people because of how they look, well that ends up hurting the administration in future cases. So maybe that helps them with a small portion of their base. But Mika, what we're finding is it causes a backlash, not only among federal judges, but also with the rest of the country. Yeah, they tend to stick together. Joining us now, NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez with more on this. Gabe, what can you tell us?

Hi there, Mika and Joe. Well, that was quite a press conference over the weekend from Secretary Kristi Noem, but it reflects this broader feeling within the administration that they don't see the judiciary as really a co-equal branch of government, it seems. This is something that they plan to push back quite a bit on many of these rulings. This is another in a long list of rulings that have gone against the administration.

And as he pointed out, the president late last week said that he believed that ICE agents should use whatever means necessary to push back against protesters. Now this came after there were clashes between protesters and ICE agents at the two cannabis farms that were raided late last week and also a shooting at a detention facility in Texas as well. And you'll remember Joe and Mika, this is something that the president has said before going back to his theme of law and order, something that he campaigned on over

and over again and during the unrest following the murder of George Floyd back in 2020, he came out with mentioning that when the looting starts, the shooting starts. So we're told that the president watched these images coming out of California late last week. He was very upset at what he saw as ICE agents being attacked, and he wanted to come down hard against them, hence that social media post. But you heard there over the weekend the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem saying that the administration would fight against this ruling, not surprising given the administration's stance over the last couple of months when it comes to immigration enforcement. Jordan, you can. All right.

NBC's Gabe Gutierrez. Thank you so much. Greatly appreciate your reporting from the White House. When I see law enforcement officers attacked, I get upset. I'm very upset. There's never an excuse to attack law enforcement officers, but any means necessary, shooting people in the legs, which was said last term, not the way to do it, you just, all legal means would be a better way.

To say it just to say that so but you know again there's there is a frustration out there even among people who support the president's view on immigration that we we want a strong secure border is something I've said on this show for 15 years we need to have a strong secure border is something I've said on this show for 15 years. We need to have a strong secure border. Without that strong secure border, we don't have a nation. But you're seeing a lot of these things, like the press conference. When Stephen Miller goes on TV and says inflammatory things about judges or about immigrants or about people in Los Angeles, it causes a

backlash that actually hurts the administration in the end. Well, and I think these people are taking videos of some of these ICE agent taking people in and they don't like what they're seeing. Support for immigration is reaching new highs. That is, according to a new Gallup survey, the data shows more Americans with a positive view of immigration in the data shows more Americans with a positive view of immigration in the U.S. with a record high believing it is good for the nation. According to Gallup, 79% of Americans surveyed last month said immigration is a good thing for the country.

The results shows shifting attitudes on immigration following President Trump's mass deportation efforts across the country since starting his second term in office. shifting attitudes on immigration, following President Trump's mass deportation efforts across the country since starting his second term in office. The number of Americans who want to see immigration decrease has dropped by nearly half compared to last year, going from 55 to 30 percent. And the data shows a major shift with immigration among the GOP compared to last year. Only 48 percent of Republicans surveyed want to see a decrease in immigration. That is compared to 88 percent in 2024. Again, reflecting sort of what we were just talking about. I don't think

they completely love what they're seeing here, how it's being done. Well, there's that, but Sam, there's another part of it too. And I remember back when people were talking about criminal justice reform, I said, you know what, let's not do criminal justice reform when we're at 50-year lows for crime. Let's see if we have a more measured criminal justice reform plan when crime is up. And then people aren't going to think, oh, well, we're going to be spending the next 50 years with low levels of crime, which we found out very quickly that wasn't the case post-COVID.

But in this case, these numbers, yes, I think there's a big reaction to when Stephen Miller goes on and says things that may churn up a small portion of the base. He offends more mainstream Republicans, Democrats, and dependents. But there's also another reality, and that is three or four years ago, we were watching illegal immigrants by the thousands cross the border every day. The border is pretty much shut down now. So again, we have the luxury as a nation of saying, we want more immigration.

But nobody would be saying that if you're having four or five, 10,000 migrants coming across the southern border illegally every day. So there are two things happening here. I think there's one, people are responding to the overreaction that some may see from the Trump administration. And also the other thing is the Trump administration may be victims of their own success on the southern border, where you basically have the lowest border crossings in 50, 60, 70 years. Yeah, I totally agree with all that.

Some of this is obviously thermostatic, right? When you have someone in power and they're going really hard on immigration policy deportations, detentions, there's going to be a negative reaction to it. And I do think, I think people didn't quite grasp what the Trump administration was promising when they came into power, right? They were sort of deluding themselves to think, well, they'd have a surgical approach

to detention and deportations, they're just gonna go after people who are hardened criminals, those who are parts of the community, who've been here for decades, they won't be touched. In reality, Trump and Stephen Miller mainly were saying, no, we're going to get them all. And so then you have all these images of workplace sites raided, home depots where ICE agents are waiting out, small businesses where their own workforce is taken away.

And they're like, wait a second, this is not exactly what we wanted. I also think people sort of recoil at the kind of glorification of the detention apparatus, right? I mean, you saw this alligator Alcatraz spectacle. And I do think people look at that and say, what are we doing here? We're putting humans in this alligator-guarded detention facility where it floods all the time. That doesn't feel right.

Then, to your point, there is also the case where the border crossings have basically become negligible, and people don't view immigration as a huge problem anymore, like they did two or three years ago. And that is feeding this as well. So they are victims of their own success. But I do want to believe, and I do think it's true, because this also happened, and remember, in 2017, 2018, when the images of kids in cages, that there is a negative backlash, a thermostatic

backlash to Trump. I think there is a backlash to the policy, some of the harsher policies, I will say. The president had said before going into office that he wanted to avoid some of those images that hurt him in the first term. That certainly hasn't happened. In fact, it seems, Jonathan O'Me Jonathan, some of those images are actually even more extreme than some of the things we saw in the first term. And I think we may be seeing a reaction to that as well. It's very interesting when you talk to the administration and you

talk about things that are possible as far as bipartisan legislation. What you often hear, what I've heard at least from people in the administration is the possibility of a deal on immigration reform. And I find that fascinating that that's what they go to given all the things that are happening right now. It's almost like on immigration, the dog has caught the car, right? The idea was we're going to implement all of these things that are going to discourage migrants from flooding into America illegally, and that will stop them from doing it and will shut down the border.

Well, they've done that. And it's almost like, OK, well, what do we do now if we stop these gestures, which again, I think the majority of Americans find horrifying, then their base will think, ah, they're selling out. So they do find themselves in an interesting situation. They've achieved the goal of stopping a mass migration across the southern border. And so the question is, now what do they do? Can they pull back?

Can they strike a deal on immigration reform since they've met that goal? And right now, they seem to be in a bit of a quandary. Yeah, no, you're right. Victim of their own success at the border. But they're also a victim of the way they frame this, this sort of zero sum win versus loss. Like we, the White House, Republicans have to win on immigration with all these deportations, when now actually might be the time to strike a compromise,

to make a deal. Democrats will say, hey, we've been here waiting for one for a while, but there hasn't been any real outreach yet. And there's no question that those slickly produced, almost Hollywood style videos of that hellish prison in El Salvador that backfire with most of the country and I think yeah to say it's point to Sam's point alligator Alcatraz doing the same in Florida and then Trump going there like just

a day or 2 after an open and really glorifying the sort of gruesome spectacle, I think really rub people the wrong way outside of that small sliver of his base which delights in these sort of things. And that's the base that Stephen Miller is talking to. And he's made these promises about these, the huge numbers of million people being deported. The only way to do that is indeed to go to the Home Depot, to go into the communities, to go into the schools and deport people who have been members of the community for a long time. And that's what we're seeing Americans saying, no.

The majority of Americans say, no, that's too much. Immigration, yes, there was a problem at the border. Well, that's been solved. Let's tone this down. And Joe, we'll have to see if that actually creates an opening for a deal. So far, the White House hasn't taken it. So interesting. All right, coming up, David Ignatius is going to join us.

There is potentially major moves happening in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We'll have that after a quick break. We'll be right back. Live look at New York City on this Monday morning at 48 past the hour. Welcome back to Morning Joe. President Trump has said to announce the United States will provide a new arsenal of weapons for Ukraine, including some with primarily offensive capabilities, according to a report from Axios.

The outlet cites two sources familiar with the knowledge of the plans, who said long-range missiles capable of striking as far into Russia as Moscow could be included in this round of weapons. Yesterday, the president was asked about aid in tomorrow. But we basically are going to send them various pieces of very sophisticated military. They're going to pay us 100 percent for them. And that's the way we want it. And we've been trying to get that again. I don't think Biden ever asked for it. I haven't agreed on the number yet, but they're going to have some because they do need protection. But the European Union is paying for it. We're not paying anything for it, but we will send it.

It'll be business for us and we will send them patriots, which they desperately need, because Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening. So there's a little bit of a problem there. I don't like it. Let's bring you around the columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius. You know David, while MAGA conferences may be talking about the Jeffrey Epstein files, there are tens of millions of Europeans that are focused on what Donald Trump is saying there. Yes. That his patience with Vladimir Putin is wearing thin.

He talks nice during the day and he kills people at night with his bombs. And the fact that the president is stepping up, figuring out a way to work with our European allies to get the Ukrainian support, how important is that to the arc of this war? So Joe, we need to remember when we talk about Putin not being nice, on some nights last week more than 700 drones and missiles were over Ukraine, many of them over Kiev. The damage was largely in civilian areas. These were not for the most part, military targets. So yeah, that's not nice. So for six months now, President Trump

has been alternating between making threats about Russia and returning to his initial hope that he could negotiate a peace deal. He finally seems to understand that without more pressure, he's not gonna get anything like a resolution of this conflict, which he often speaks about emotionally. He speaks about the death on the battlefield, hundreds and thousands of people killed. So what this package involves, as he said, is the U.S. selling weapons to our NATO allies

in Europe will then probably give them to Ukraine and they'll include, most importantly, given this barrage on Ukrainian cities, Patriot missiles, which are really the only defense against the big ballistic missiles that Russia has been firing, and a range of other weapons. We don't know yet exactly whether they'll include deep strike weapons. That would be a significant escalation if the US does put Moscow in range. That would be a big change from the limits that the Biden administration had imposed, typically 200 kilometers into Russia, not all the way to Moscow.

So we'll wait and see about the details of the package. There are two issues that I would underline for your viewers. One is whether these new weapons, offensive and defensive, will be enough to change Vladimir Putin's calculus about whether this war is worth continuing. And the second is whether these new weapons and Trump's support for Ukraine is sustainable. Trump on Ukraine, as on so many other issues, has oscillated. One week he's here, another week he's there. And what Ukraine needs, as financial markets need, is reliability and predictability. They're fighting a war.

Morale questions in this war, I think, are increasingly important. The Russians plan to launch an offensive through the summer and gain significant territory. So it's a moment for clear sustained US policy. We'll see today when Trump meets with the NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta, a European Trump likes because he's been a supporter of Trump's defense buildup policies. We'll see exactly what the details are. But again, the question is, can it be sustained and will it actually change Putin's mind? You know, Jonathan Lemire, again, we go back to your reporting on this and please ask David the next question. I want to ask you first though, on the sustainability of this, to talk about the arc, there seems to have been, starting

with your article about that time, the arc of this relationship has changed and it has been moving in one direction and that is the president standing up to Vladimir Putin and saying, yeah, oh, he's, yeah, he talks like a friend and then he kills people at night. So talk about that shift that you suggested might be happening and where we are right now in that relationship. Yeah, I mean, certainly in President Trump's first term, very deferential to Vladimir Putin, you know, virtually on every score. That has changed this time around. Trump, of course, came into office saying he'd get this work done within 24 hours. That came and went. And what we have seen, look, there's some real animosity from Trump to Zelensky, though

those two are on better terms today than they were earlier this year. It's not that Trump has any real fondness for Ukraine per se, but there's no doubt as I've reported and we're seeing play out here, his frustration level with Vladimir Putin has really grown. And that's part of what this is. Is it about defending Ukraine and about strategy there, geopolitical strategy? Yes. But it's also about his personal feelings that he felt that, David, that Putin could be an ally, the two of them could work together to end this war, that frankly, we could normalize relations with Russia, strike business deals. And Putin doesn't seem to be interested.

In Trump's words, Putin tapping him along. Putin even called Trump for his birthday to wish him a happy birthday, but won't commit to a ceasefire or come into the negotiating table. Talk to us a little bit more about this personal animosity and how far do you think this could go? This would be the first time Trump has really stood up

to Putin. I think it lasts. So, Jonathan, once you get into a confrontation, and if Trump indeed provides not simply defensive weapons, but weapons that strike deeper into Russia, it's hard to predict where it goes. That's the whole point about military confrontations. You're uncertain about escalation risk. And I think that's part of what Trump is betting on, that Putin will see that he's facing a

more determined adversary than he expected. I think Putin does have a kind of respect for Trump, as do many leaders around the world, in part because he's so unpredictable. But it will take a significant sustained American effort. What I hope Trump has come to realize is that Putin doesn't want a deal here. Trump came into office thinking the force of his personality, his past relationship with Putin, American power and prestige would be enough to get Putin to the table and do a deal.

And he was prepared to do that. It hasn't happened because Putin doesn't want a deal. He wants a win. This is still fixed in his mind as an essential requirement for the Russia he imagines that regains control over what they call the near abroad. Ukraine is a key part of Putin's vision of future Russian stability. So it's gonna take a lot to slim down Putin's vision of future Russian stability. So it's going to take a lot to slim down Putin's ambitions in this war.

And we'll have to see whether Trump's ready to put that on the table. I just can't get over the whiplash that you referenced. I mean, it was a week ago. Maybe we can have go where we were cutting weapons from Ukraine and Trump was seemingly unaware of it. Let's focus on Trump for a second, because it seems that his prevailing ethos is, I want to craft deals to create peace throughout the world, and I have a unique set of characteristics that allows me to do this diplomatic dance that no one else can do.

Now, he's had some successes. I'm going to give him that. But frankly, he's had some failures, too. The Ukraine war is supposed to be over in 24 hours. We were supposed to have an announcement on Gaza last week. It hasn't happened. Obviously, these are incredibly tough issues. I'm not saying they should be solved with your fingers. But can you talk a little bit about, from your understanding, how much is just this Trump being oriented towards finding some sort of diplomatic solution so he can be labeled the

peacetime president and I guess in his head get the Nobel Peace Prize. So Sam, I think Donald Trump genuinely wants to be a president who stops wars and doesn't get into new ones. He says that again and again and I think he means it. What I've seen in this first six months is that he's a president who starts initiatives toward peace, but has difficulty following through on them. It turns out diplomatic negotiations are complicated. You need a team to work the details.

You need to follow up typically the National Security Council processes to do exactly that. Trump's kind of disdained the old NSC. It's very personal, day to day day-to-day, his own feelings in the White House. But if he's going to make these deals, he has to be more organized, more systematic, more follow through from him and the White House. And you know, the US has a lot of power. We saw that in the B2 raids over Iran. Vladimir Putin knows the US has a lot of power. so if Trump's really serious, he can

accomplish something that will be enormously praiseworthy with to end this terrible war in Ukraine and all the suffering. David, I want to ask you about Gaza because it's something that Sam just brought up with you, and I know that was an enduring frustration for Joe Biden. I'm sure it's a frustration also with Donald Trump too, trying to bring this war to an end, get a ceasefire there. The International Red Cross keeps talking about Gazans being slaughtered as they're going to get food. The International Red Cross talking... This is not the, quote, health officials that many from Israel and Israel supporters have been deriding as basically mouthpieces of Hamas. This is the International Red Cross, who says there continue to be mass casually events in Gaza with children, with

fathers, with mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers going to get food and then showing up in the hospital with gunshot wounds. And we had a member of the International Red Cross on last week, again just completely frustrated, exasperated at the tragedy that keeps unfolding. Do you have any insight into what is happening here in Gaza and why the international Red Cross keeps reporting that these Palestinians, many of whom are, we've heard for some time, on the verge of starvation, why they continue to get killed as they go to these relief centers? So, Joe, the only insight I have from talking to Israeli contacts principally is that Gaza

has become a lawless place. The Israeli military, the IDF, doesn't want to be there anymore. It feels it's accomplished most of its military missions. But Israel doesn't have a coherent plan for transitional stability and security there. So you can put humanitarian assistance, you can put food in. The Israelis have tried different experiments for that. But if there's not order in Gaza, as that food is distributed, as humanitarian supplies come in, you often get these absolutely chaotic situations, and then sometimes Israeli troops open fire.

It's a situation where the lack of clear governance after the war has knocked down Hamas's structures, I think is a problem that Israel just hasn't been able to solve. And many of Israel's Arab friends, led by the United Arab Emirates, are saying, you need to have a more coherent plan. We'll help you do it. But the price of that is that you're going to have to include Palestinian partners. Initially, the Palestinian Authority is centered in the West Bank to help convene the group that

can then stabilize Gaza and get you out of this business where you're constantly facing disorder. And the level of suffering and death continues to be high. Again, as with our discussion of Donald Trump, we'll see whether Bibi Netanyahu is ready to move toward the kind of proposals that his Arab friends are suggesting.