Morning Joe - Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina dies unexpectedly at the age of 71

Episode Date: July 13, 2026

July 13, 2026 - 6am: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina dies unexpectedly at the age of 71 U.S., Iran trade strikes over Strait of Hormuz closure The New York Times says several of its journalists were issued subpoenas after they reported on security concerns involving President Trump's new Qatari-donated Air Force One New White House task force appears to be part of a series of efforts by Trump and his allies to question the results of the 2020 election and decrease public trust in the November midterms New video raises more questions in Houston ICE shooting FIFA World Cup latest 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.

He called me last night. He just got back from Ukraine. And he had a great trip. He was telling me about the trip. He was full of them and vigor. He was tired. He said, I'm tired because it's a long trip. But other than that, he was fine. And he called me, I guess, just moments before because he called me like 6.30 or something. And the medical people got there a little bit later right after that. President Trump yesterday talking about his phone call with Senator Lindsay Graham on Saturday shortly before the lawmaker died. We'll have much more on the Senator's sudden death and what he was working on in his final hours.

Meanwhile, the president's war with Iran continues to escalate across the Middle East as U.S. and Iranian forces fight for control over the Strait of Hormuz. We'll bring you the latest on that. Plus, there is new video out of Houston that disputes the federal government's version of events in the shooting death of an undocumented immigrant. We'll also go through the Trump administration's latest attack on the freedom of the press. This time, issuing subpoenas to journalists after the New York Times reported on the president's Qatari-gifted jet. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, July 13th, a lot to key. get to this morning. With us, we have the co-host of our 8am hour staff writer at the Atlantic,

Jonathan Lemire, co-host of the rest is politics podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay, CEO and co-founder of Axis, Jim Vandahyde joins us this morning, as well as MS Now, Senior National Security Reporter, David Road. And this morning, we are learning more about Saturday's death of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at the age of 71. In a statement shared on social media, his office confirmed the senator passed away from a brief and sudden illness and his family is asking for privacy during this incredibly difficult period. According to a preliminary examination by D.C.'s medical examiner, his death was caused by a heart issue. Graham served in the House of Representatives for

eight years before winning his Senate seat back in 2002. He was chair of the Senate Budget Committee and was a hawk when it came to foreign policy on Iraq, Iran, and Russia's war with Ukraine. He had just returned from a trip to Ukraine where he met with President Zelensky. Axis reported that several hours before his death, Senator Graham complained of feeling unwell and said, I can't die now. I still need to do the Russian. Russia sanctions, get Iran sorted out, and do Israeli Saudi normalization. He passed away a short time later. Graham's death creates an unexpected vacancy in the middle of his campaign for a fifth

Senate term. South Carolina governor Henry McMaster says he will appoint a temporary replacement to Graham's seat until January 27th, as Republicans hold a primary to choose a new nominee to face Democrat Annie Andrews. And we'll start right there. Joe, you worked with Senator Graham, with Lindsay, as you put it. Your thoughts this morning on his passing? Well, I mean, I came in with Lindsay the same day. We were both elected in the 94 class and came in with him. And, you know, Lindsay was always, he's always laughing. He was always joking. I know in 1998, Steve Large at Lindsay and myself. We went around the country and campaigned together. And in that one election,

Lindsay gave me enough one-liners and jokes to hold me through speeches for the next 20 years or so. One of the things I remembered him, I think he was in South Carolina when he was joking about it. Lindsay was telling people how hard it was to redistrict in his district because half of the homes were on wheels. But he was, it was constant joking. And, you know, as far as his legacy goes, as John Meacham said recently at the passing of his father-in-law, he contained multitudes. I will let everybody else here and history judge Lindsay on his house face, his John McCain face. I will just say, we've said some tough things about Lindsay. I've said some tough things about Lindsay.

He said a few tough things back over time, but we saw him on the 30th anniversary, the 1994 class's reunion. And just wonderful together, like not a day had passed. We were laughing and he was joking, very kind to the family. And that's the way Lindsay usually was. Most senators will tell you, they'd get into pretty hard fights with him

and end up walking away with their arms around him. It was never personal. It was always very political. It was, of course, it's policy positions, very personal to a lot of people. I'm just talking about for those that are debating and fighting and moving forward on policy, Lindsay never seemed to make it personal. I will say Jim Van de Haid, one thing that you know very well. We've joked about it time and time again is when about 10, 11, 12 votes, Lindsey and Steve Largent and, you know, a lot of other people, people, John Chattig and others would get together, we would talk about the possibility of overthrowing

Newt Gingrich. And so we would have all of these private meetings, Matt Salmon, always there. And, you know, we would Tom Coburn, of course, and we would show up. And usually it went pretty well and would have all these secret meetings. but every time Lindsay said, let's have it in my office, would go to his office. And as we walked down the hall, there would be a gauntlet of reporters. And every time we get there, we said, Lindsay,

if we're going to have secret meetings to overthrow the speaker of the house, you can't send out a press release. And the joke went around inside of there that, you know, Lindsay's a great guy, but you'd never want him garden the Pentagon. But he was a trip, and you knew him just like me, from the first day he got into Congress in early January 1995. Talk about your memories of Lindsey Graham. Yeah, he was a shapeshifter for better and worse.

He got into Congress. He, like you said, there's a group of you tried to, he was anti-establishment, wanted to overthrow the speaker, then ultimately aligns himself with John McCain, becomes kind of a, you know, like the McCain-like Republican, very establishment, was very anti-Trump, warned the country about the dangers of Donald Trump, and then became Donald Trump's best friend.

And I think one of the things about Lindsay is he was always relevant. He was always in the middle of the action. And I think that was his drug. That was his addiction. He wanted to be in the middle. He wanted to be making a difference. And at the very end, as you guys talked about at the top of the show, he was talking to our reporters, talking to other people daily because he was trying to do three things.

You know, his father had died young. His mother had died young. I think he felt this sense of timing. He wanted to figure out Ukraine, wanted to. to help figure out Iran and was working really hard to his final hours on trying to get a deal between Israel and the Saudis. And in his mind, he would rationalize a relationship with Trump that he could move Trump on the margins in different directions on topics that he cared about.

He was very much an internationalist. He was very much about using U.S. military might to try to shape the world in our image and in a pro-democracy image. And he felt like he was having success doing. with Donald Trump. Very fair critique that how the hell do you go from saying this guy is a threat to humanity to he's one of the greatest presidents ever. And I think that will be a big part of his legacy. But he was never boring and never outside of the loop. And by the way, he was wickedly smart, as you put there. If you go back and look at some of the congressional hearings that he's

had, he was often the one senator or back then the House member who could just crystallize something or just deliver a real poignant moment. He had. had such a litigator, such a prosecutor's mind, and it really helped at different times, including getting a lot of these Supreme Court justices on the bench. Yeah, he was, he was John Lemer, a real shape-shifter. I mean, you know, a lot of people talk about him going from McCain to Trump, and what a massive movement that was. I will say, going from being with the gang of 11 or 12 of us who were trying to overthrow

new gingress. establishment, including John McCain, who was a maverick, but none of those senators looked upon us with any, you know, anything positive to say. So when we saw him moving from sort of these outsiders who were trying to overthrow Gingrich, balance the budget quickly, push back against the establishment, go after the appropriators, go after corporate welfare, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, it was very funny to see Lindsay become a senator, then suddenly, sidle up to power with a guy who was going to be the next presidential nominee for the Republican Party. But he did. He was able to move back and forth. And I will say that relationship with John McCain, I read a lot of stuff over the weekend. McCain hated. McCain was angry. McCain was this one. I will say my last private meeting with John McCain before he passed, I didn't sense that John McCain was angry at Lindsay. He was more sad, disappointed. He's sighed. He rolled his eyes and he goes, man, it seems like an awfully high price to pay to go golfing

with the president of the United States. But even that was just between him and me in that room. There was an anger. It was more like, come on, Lindsay. So I think it was like, you know, sort of like a prodigal son that he still loved, but was sad that, again, Lindsay had once again shake shifted. Yeah. And Graham himself said relevance was what he was after to back up. what Jim Vanda High just said. And he at times was willing to, you know, he had remarkable relationships across the aisle, too. Let's not forget, he worked a lot with Joe Biden,

when Joe Biden was a senator. In fact, Biden delivered a very emotional remembrance of him yesterday. He worked with John Kerry on climate change issues. So he was willing to be unconventional in that way. He was, of course, as noted, a shapeshifter. Who could forget in 2015, 2016, he was such a sharp critic of Donald Trump. He's tweeted that if we nominate, meaning Republicans, Trump, you know, will be crushed. I'm paraphrasing only slightly.

And we'll deserve it. You know, he was Trump retaliated by handing out Lindsey Graham's cell phone number. He read it aloud at a rally. And yet, so it's remarkable how the two of them were bitter foes for a while. And Graham worked his way into the relationship. Yes, for relevance. Yes, to say he played golf with the president, which he did a lot. But also because he was trying to move Trump around the edges.

And for all of his sort of inconsistencies, going to. from McCain to Trump. I mean, that's quite a journey. The things he did believe in was being an internationalist to try to be a hawk on Iran, a hawk on Russia. And I will say in Kiev, there's a sense of warning here. That is where, you know, Graham spent his last days. You know, he continued to insist that he was going to move Trump on these Russian sanctions. Trump has yet to do so. But Kiev feels like they lost an ally here at a moment when it does seem like they have some momentum, not only in the war, but in Washington. The Trump seems a little warmer to their caused than he had been before.

And the timing here was sudden. And the president himself was emotional yesterday talking about Graham tweeting about it. And to have Graham die at this moment where one of his real hopes was Joe Mika was the United States would take it to the Islamic Republic of Rilan and to have to pass away during that conflict. Just obviously sort of ironic timing, I suppose. We'll have more on this throughout the morning. other major news stories to get to as well. The United States and Iran traded strikes throughout the weekend

in another volatile flare-up of attacks with ramifications stretching across the wider Middle East. The hostilities were set off Saturday when Iran fired at a container ship in the Strait of Hormuz and declared the key waterway closed. The U.S. military responded with a series of strikes, hitting 140 Iranian military targets on Saturday and dozens more on Sunday. According to U.S. Central Command, Tehran responded with attacks on U.S. allies, American military bases, and other targets across the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Oman. Missile alerts sounded in Bahrain, which is home to the U.S. Navy's fifth fleet, as Kuwait said, it was intercepting hostile fire, and Jordan's military said it shot down four Iranian missiles.

Qatar, a key mediator in talks between the U.S. and Iran, said two adults and a child were injured by falling debris as the country defended itself against Iranian attacks. The IRGC also said it fired on a commercial port in southern Oman. And Oman reported a drone attack near the Strait of Hormuz. as Iran continues to seek control over the key waterway. President Trump claims the strait is open. Caddy, the strait's not open. Obviously, there's no insurance company that's going to insure any of those ships going through the strait while we're having these attacks.

And this was so widespread. Obviously, over 140 attacks on Iranian positions, but also our allies all across the region getting hammered by the Iranians. What's next? I think we are in for more of this, Joe. I mean, the real risk is speaking to people who kind of cover the security in the Middle East, and are based in the Middle East. What they're concerned about is that we are entering a period of more volatility in the region. You've got these disagreements now emerging between the Emirates,

between the UAE and the Saudis about how to handle Iran. The region certainly seems more volatile than it did. You're right, the strait is not open. The insurers are looking not just at the cost of the tanker, but then of the cost of the tanker being out of action and the risk of that is just too high. So we're already seeing that reflected in the oil prices. President Trump clearly doesn't want to get back into a full stale kinetic war with Iran, but a lot of the economic damage that was caused over the last few weeks can be done by this kind of a skirmish.

We don't have to be back to full-scale war for there to be enormous implications of what was happening just in the Strait of Hormuz. So where do we go from that here? Are we back into some sort of a ceasefire that holds some days and not other days? Is this going to be a ramping up? Have the Iranians used the last few weeks to restock just enough to be able to cause havoc again in the region? And how does the region stay unified when clearly what's happened during the Iran war is to fracture these allies and make the region more precarious? And David, I think that's right. That seems like the future right now is this sort of off and on low-intensity battle where Trump's going to declare the war's not on.

And he might even say the ceasefire is holding. Negotiations will continue. But yet there's going to be this exchange. And we'll see Iran be able to exert its power, both on the Strait of Hormuz, obviously extremely important, but also to reign violence upon its neighbors. It's extraordinary what's happening. We are in essentially a low-intensity war now for who controls the Strait of Hormuz. And if you step back to the launch of this war, the various goals that were met, you know, topple the regime, not happen. We have a harder line regime. You know, Iran's nuclear program. I don't see any credible negotiations about its nuclear program at all now in the future. The 60-day window seems to be gone. And Iran is now gained full or is trying to gain full control of the Strait of Hormuz. And there was a CIA analysis. The Washington Post reported this. This was from May. The estimate at that point was that Iran could, had 2,500 ballistic missiles left and 70% of its launchers and drones already there. And they're able to actually make these drones in smaller buildings that don't look like targets. And in terms of even if the U.S. were to put a blockade in to stop the shipments from coming out of Iran, which isn't even happening right now, they could last for three to four months. So Iran can wage this low-level conflict for months now.

And it just doesn't seem to be, neither side seems to be winning. And if I can jump in, I think if you look at the reporting on the ground, you could argue it's more likely that we're going to end up with a massive escalation than we are with a ceasefire. Two things are happening simultaneously. One, you've got the Israelis, again, in Trump's ear constantly saying they're trying to assassinate you. They're not living up to the spirit or the letter of the MOU that you actually signed with them. And the Iranians, making crystal clear, there's no part of that straight. they're going to allow any ship through. They now feel like that is their nuclear weapon. They feel like they control not just the battle with the U.S. They feel like now we might be the most powerful force

in the Middle East if we can lock down the strait. And so even if they wanted to do a deal, and there's almost no sign whatsoever that they seriously want to do a deal, it's not even clear who you would do a deal with. The way that they've set up the regime and kind of spread out and decentralized power, when you talk to U.S. officials, they're not certain that they're even even dealing with the right people that can make the right call to even live up to the spirit of something that they don't want to live up to in the first place. So I'm surprised that the markets and that political leaders seem to assume that this ceasefire will hold. I think the smart money would be this thing could get a lot worse before it gets better. Well, of course, Iranians are

playing the game. Oh, listen, we're negotiating with you here. We can't control those people that are firing the ballistic missiles at you, which of course is getting people who know a lot about Iran going, wait a second, you've got to stop all negotiations right now and say, find out who's firing missiles that you claim you have no control over and get them under control. So they're playing a game with our negotiators. I'd say fire missiles and say, oh, we don't control them. And so the two things that we're really talking about that's important is getting the straight open again. And as Jim said, they're not going to negotiate on that. And they're very clear.

They're not negotiating on that. And the second thing, their power. Second thing is nuclear. Those, those negotiations are going absolutely nowhere. And as we've said from the very beginning, they're not going to give up on enrichment. Not this government, this government, especially this hardened, more intense, more extreme version of an already intense, hardened, extreme Iranian government. they're not going to back down on nukes or on the straight right now, and that's why we're where we are. All right. Still ahead on morning, Joe, new videos are shedding more light on a deadly ice shooting in Texas. What we're learning about that concerning incident on the growing calls for an independent investigation, plus several journalists with the New York Times have been subpoenaed by the Trump administration.

after reporting on security concerns with President Trump's new Air Force One gifted by Qatar, New York Times reporters and authors of the new book, Regime Change, Maggie Haberman. And Johnson Swan join us ahead to talk about that and much more. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Raynow. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, with the exception of a spotty shower, thunderstorm across New England today, Portland, Burlington, Albany, sunshine for the most part, it's not human. Boston, New York City, Washington, DC, 88 degrees. Boy, look at the heat. Green Bay 96, Chicago 94. Meanwhile, from Texas to Florida and the southeast, drenching thunderstorms will be scattered about over the next couple of days. That's going to cause some travel delays in Atlanta, Miami, but in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, you should be fined. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Accuether app today. Welcome back. The New York Times says several of its

journalists were issued subpoenas on Friday after they reported on security concerns involving President Trump's new Qatari donated Air Force One. The paper reports the subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday. In some cases, the subpoenas were delivered by federal agents who showed up at reporters' homes. The New York Times reported last week that President Trump flew out of Turkey, which borders Iran, on the old Air Force One as a security precaution because the Qatari-gifted plane lacks the same defensive countermeasures, including its advanced anti-missile capabilities. That's according to multiple officials who have been briefed on how the jet was retrofitted. The president denied there

was any security reason for the plane change. As for the subpoenas, the New York Times reports the documents contain few specifics, asking only that the journalists testify in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law. The paper says the subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, who was recently nominated by President Trump to serve as Director of National Intelligence. John Lemire, talk about what an extraordinary breach this is in a president's attempt to intimidate reporters, having subpoenas show up, and agents, federal agents showing up at their house for simply doing their job and reporting on, well, whether a president is actually safe. or not as he travels across the globe? This is unprecedented and it's deeply dangerous. And I'm glad we're spending time on it this morning,

despite everything else that's going on. The President of the United States was embarrassed because he accepted a $400 million jet from the Qataris because he was desperate to have a better plane than the old Air Force one. And in their rush to get this plane, to bring it up to presidential travel standards, you know, they simply don't have the reporting shows

by multiple outlets, not just at times, multiple outlets. It does not have the necessary security equipment, at least not yet. Perhaps it could be added, but it's not there. And Secret Service got antsy about the President of the United States traveling, flying overseas, you know, from Turkey, which borders Iran, as the ceasefire seemed to be breaking down there in the Middle East. As Iran, the United States were suddenly exchanging strikes again in that region, the Secret Service, per reporting, from multiple outlets,

did not want the president flying on that plane. He then obviously was very upset about this. And then it was the Times wrote this story. Cash Patel, FBI director, was summoned to the White House for lengthy meeting. And now we have these subpoenas. And the Times, of course, denounced this. The White House Corresponds Association, other press groups denounce this. This is a deeply dangerous development.

And indeed, an escalation in President Trump's war on the media when he doesn't like their coverage. For more, let's bring in investment. investigative reporter for the New York Times, Michael Schmidt, as well as MS now contributor, Mike Barnacle. Michael Schmidt will, of course, start with you. Give us the latest here as to what transpired and why. Indeed, this is such a chilling development. These are reporters simply doing their jobs.

Yeah, as you were saying, the five reporters for the times that were on the story had federal agents try to serve them or serve them with these subpoenas on Friday evening at their homes. These were not subpoenas that were sent to the Times or the Times General Counsel. These were subpoenas that were taken directly to their homes. These are five of the Times and of our best reporters. Eric Schmidt, one of the best conflict reporters of his generation. Someone has worked to the Times for 40 years, covered every war since 1991. Eric Lipton, who just won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Trump administration and the blurring line between making money and governing.

Tyler Pager, one of our young stars on the White House, Adam Goldman, a national security reporter for us out of London. And Julian Barnes, who has the incredibly difficult job of covering the intelligence community for us. These are five people who are at the front of the Times coverage of the administration. And just knowing them, working with them, I can tell you that these are people who saw these subpoenas, obviously took note of it, sent it to our general counsels and went right back to work. And we'll continue to do that work. And as our executive editor, Joe Kahn, said over the weekend, this is a naked attempt to intimidate us. And it will not stop us as we continue to do accountability reporting of the Trump administration. If there's anything that the new

York Times has shown during Trump's first or second term or while he was out of office is that we will not be intimidated by his attempts to try and stop us from doing our First Amendment protected jobs. So, Mike, basically, the five times reporters were subpoenaed for embarrassing the president in print. That's basically what this is all about. But there's a larger question involved the Washington Press Corps. It's scheduled. for a couple of weeks now for the White House Correspondence Dinner to take place. I'm wondering what your feelings are, and if they're the same as mine, which are they should cancel at dinner and not have it given the war that the President has waged against the press.

What are your feelings about that? Luckily, many years ago, the Times made a decision to not have a table at the White House Correspondence Dinner. That was the decision by our former executive editor, Dean Beck. K. And that sort of took us out of the dinner question. So I've never been to the dinner and many of my colleagues have never been to the dinner. Look, I think if there's anything that the Times has to a fault, it's that we're just going to get back to doing the work and to not being distracted by, you know, whatever Trump throws at us. You know, the Times has a lawsuit against

the Trump administration to gain access to the Pentagon. Trump has a lawsuit against the Times that I was initially a part of and that I'm no longer a party to, you know, in which he's suing the Times reporters for liable. There's an EEOC case the administration is bringing against the Times. These are obviously highly unusual dynamics between an administration and a newspaper, but if anything, it is clarifying to us about what our mission is and what our job is. Marty Barron, the former editor of the Washington Post, used to say, you know, we're not at war. We're at work. And as corny or as much as the cliche as that sounds, that's how we have to approach it on a day-to-day basis.

And I know the five reporters, you know, who I hold in as high regard as possible, who were served with these subpoenas, will do nothing but get back to work. All right. Investigative Reporter for the New York Times, Michael Schmidt. Thank you so much for your work. Katty, I know you've got a question. I just want to underline the fact, though, Katie, that every Republican senator that is going to have Jay Clayton come before them to run the intel community,

they need to understand he is the same person that actually issued these subpoenas to have New York Times reporters subpoenaed at their own home. simply because they wrote a story that talked about the national security of the United States of America and embarrassed the president of the United States. I'm not so sure. In fact, I know that is not the type of person we want running the Intel community. Right.

And those reporters were actually pointing out things that were not entirely surprising that some people in this town, at least, were already talking about. Jim and you and I were talking during the break about how this seems like overkill from the White House to issue these subpoenas. Is this just because the president was embarrassed about the reporting when we knew that this plane wasn't ready in a defensive capacity? Yeah, I think it's both dumb and dangerous, right? It's dumb in that it was pretty widely known that this aircraft wasn't up to the standards of Air Force One that usually goes to a two-year period of being built and being vetted. And everybody knew that this was gifted by the Qataris. Everyone also knows that the Iranians are trying to actively assassinate the president of the United States.

and he's in the Middle East. And so this idea then that you go after the reporters, and they wrote about it after the fact. The only way you'd actually have a plausible case is if you put the president's life at risk or you really jeopardize national security because you reported it before it happened. They reported it after it happened.

And anybody out there who's like, oh, yeah, but it's the New York Times. I hate the New York Times. Again, you have to always think about, imagine that the other party does this. Anytime that you don't like a story that you send agents of the federal government to their damn home to try to intimidate them because they wrote something that made you feel uncomfortable that was actually authentically

really, really important to the safety of the president of the United States, whether you like them or not, matters profoundly. And so when you start doing these things, you start normalizing these things. And if anybody cheers it, you better cheer it when they come after you, because the next party in power will do the exact same thing. It's why we have laws and why we have precedents. And there's a reason that these laws and precedents are followed often for hundreds of years. And when they're violated once, everybody should wake up and say, whoa, what the hell is going on? Why are we doing this? So this is bad for democracy. It's bad for politics. It's bad for national security. It's bad for America. It's deeply, deeply dangerous. And David Rode, it comes. Let's talk a little more about

about Jay Clayton, the figure at the center of this, is comes at a time when D&I, his office, would be office, has continued to push into the nonsensical, it seems, election probes. You know, and started by Tulsi Gabbard, seems to only be accelerating under Bill Pulte, and then potentially Jay Clayton as we barrel towards a midterm elections. Yeah, what's extraordinary. And what I heard from people that work with Clayton,

he seems like a very nice guy, weak leader. And so the fact that he signed off on these subpoenas is a really concerning thing. And I just want to say, as a journalist, it's not going to work. It is. We're at work. We're not at war. We reported all the same facts. Carol Lenig and Prius Riddhar, our correspondence. And I just think the press isn't going to, I just don't think this will work. It's sort of a ham-handed effort. But in terms of what's going on, in terms of the elections, we have a story that just came out this morning. There's a whole of government effort that's just unprecedented in what's what they're doing. I have a list here I want to. So the acting director of National Intelligence

Pulte, this task force that the president has created, they're going through thousands of pages of intelligence documents, and they're going to start releasing them within weeks. It could be sooner than that. And they will essentially be looking for documents that back the president's conspiracy theories. And this is one element of what we're going to see between now and November, a constant flow of disinformation that tons of people who weren't citizens voted, that there was maybe foreign interference that somehow was against Trump, and that will start. That's part of this process. The acting attorney general is threatening election workers across the country. They sent out letters to all 50 states saying, if an illegal, if a non-citizen votes in your district, we will

federally prosecute you. That almost never happens. And like when it is, it's a one-off. And this is, again, a conspiracy theory. The Secretary of State is holding a conference with world leaders on Thursday about the global threat of Antifa. Again, this sort of over, you know, heated false claim about Antifas everywhere, sort of trying to take over the country and do all these things. The FBI previously under Tulsi Gabbard seized ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. FBI agents or the FBI's involved in these threats against journalists. That's going to testify FEMA grants to improve that we're going to go out to, again,

local election officials. Those have been cut unless they adopt the practices that the president wants in terms of federal elections. And then lastly, we asked a DHS spokesman about ICE agents, that there could be, part of this story is different scenarios that will be carried out. There could be ice operations, not within 100 feet of a polling place. That's federal law. No federal troop or agent can go near one of those polling places, but you could have ice agents out in the streets so you'd have naturalized citizens being afraid to go vote. All of this is extraordinary. Never in American history you have every power agency working to reinforce the president's narrative, intimidate voters,

and in the end, it's going to come down to judges. They held in 2020, and they'll be the difference, I think, in these elections this fall. You're talking about the United States of America. It's sad but true. All right. By the way, the new reporting available to read online now at MS. dot now senior national security reporter David Rode. Thank you very much for that important reporting. We turn now to newly released surveillance footage by bystander video as well as bystander

video, which is shedding more light on last week's fatal ice shooting in Houston of Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Orojo. The mayor of Houston said the city's police chief will meet with FBI agents tomorrow, urging them to share evidence as demands grow for an independent investigation. They just, are they really going to cover this up? Are they going to keep covering up killings on American streets? Are they going to do that in Texas? Are they going to do that in Houston? Are they going to do that in a place where Ken Paxton is going to have to go around the state justifying the killing of people in the streets of taxes. Yeah.

We'll see. Demands are growing for an independent investigation. MS Now reporter Britt Miller has more. Calls for justice and accountability continue this morning after protests spilled into the streets of Houston over the weekend. The community outcry comes days after the deadly shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Arrajo, the father of three killed by an ICE agent. on his way to work Tuesday.

Now local leaders say they're preparing for the next steps, including a national vigil, possible legal action, and a congressional hearing. First and foremost, it continues to highlight these militarization and excessive use of force tactics. There's also a unified push for an independent investigation, as the Department of Homeland Security leads the shooting investigation, and the FBI looks into the, quote, potential assault on a federal law enforcement officer. But just hours after the shooting, DHS claimed, without providing evidence, Salgado Arajo weaponized his vehicle trying to run over an ICE officer who then shot in self-defense. A spokesperson

later told MS. Now, ICE officers saw a white van with an individual who looked like their target. They also said that they were actually targeting two other men of Guatemala descent, but all of the men in that truck were actually of Mexican descent, Mexican nationals. A brown man, a Latino man, driving a work truck in a predominantly Latino community. They were casing the community. They were hunting Latinos that morning. Surveillance videos obtained by MS Now show some of what happened in the moments before the shooting. At 646 a.m., you see the white van jump the curb to take a left turn. One ice SUV continues straight while the other follows the van before closely driving alongside it.

Seconds later, the white van does a U-turn, stops briefly, and continues down the street. There was a chase, if you will, just around a couple of blocks, and there was no damage at all to the front of the vehicle, to the side of the vehicle, to the side panels of the vehicle. You could clearly see that it wasn't used to ram anything at all. And we have yet to see video of the actual shooting. In the moments after, a bloodied Salgado Arajo is seen on the ground with agents standing over him. A life was lost and it was unfortunately someone who did not deserve it. Lorenzo's son, Ronaldo Salgado, overwhelmed with emotion, telling MS now his father lived in the U.S. for 35 years and was in the process of getting his work permit.

This is a man who provided for us, who provided for my mom. He promised my mom. You know, that she would never have to work because he got us. So that's how I want the world to remember my dad. And he says right now the family is focused on making funeral arrangements. Meantime, the three other men inside that van were detained by ICE during this incident. One of them was Salgado Arajo's brother. Back to you. Yeah, so they go into his neighborhood in Houston.

and as we heard there, quote, hunting Latinos. And the case of mistaken identity, first of all. And then the DHS, it's just like, do they just have an automatic push key that every time someone has gunned down and killed in the streets of America, do they just push a button? And it just spits out a statement that says they were weaponizing their vehicle. And again, it was a lie with Renee Gug. They were lying through their teeth with Renee Gug.

good. They gunned her down from the side. Look like, I don't know. I don't know that we'll ever have a hearing on whether they murdered or not. But they- Swept up the investigation. So they'll never know. Yeah, they swept up the investigation. So they shot her in cold blood through the side of the window when she posed absolutely no threat. And then they did the lie about weaponizing the vehicle. So idiots on other channels could go, oh, they weaponize the vehicle when she didn't weaponize the vehicle. And they're spreading the same lie here. Weaponizing the-

the vehicle when there was absolutely no evidence that ever happened. And remember, they had to backtrack because they lied about Renee Good. They had to backtrack because they lied about Alex Prattie. And they're going to have to backtrack because they're lying here. That's all they seem to do after they gun down people in the streets of America that have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. And if you don't, don't believe me, read the Constitution, listen to some of the speeches of Justice Scalia and others. It's just, again, again, it's out of control, and it's happening in Texas and Minneapolis, it's happening across America.

Ahead this morning, we'll speak with a member of Congress who represents the Houston area about this specific case. Also coming up, we'll talk to Jim Van de High about his new piece. for the Wall Street Journal, warning about America standing in the global AI race. Plus, the World Cup semifinals are set. Roger Bennett joins us with the preview of this week's matches. Morning Joe will be right back. The World Cup semifinals feature four previous champions, five of the tournament, six top scores and the four top teams in the world for the first time since FIFA introduced its rankings in 1992.

Argentina, Spain, France, and England entered the tournament as the top contenders, and now each are two wins away from being crowned champions once again. The action on soccer's biggest stage kicks off tomorrow afternoon as France plays Spain in Arlington, Texas, before England faces Argentina on Wednesday in Atlanta. I know what you'll be doing. Well, listen, you've got the best four. teams in the world playing the last, you know, in the semi-finals. This is so exciting. And, you know, you can look, especially with England. They want to bring it back home. Oh, my God.

Haven't won since 1966. This is a big chance. Here we are. This is a big chance. And you sent that every person in England, everybody in England. So through, look at this. Is this not the greatest picture that you've ever seen? Look. Oh, my gosh. Everyone's Exciting out. They're so thrilled and catty Kay. Wait a second. Victoria Beckham. Come on, Porsche. You can try harder than that. I know she doesn't like smiling in photos. What's going on? She doesn't. Is going on here? But she could have done like hands over the mouth like, you know, she could have done. She could have made a little effort, you think? A little effort. Yeah. For the lads.

How peculiar is that? Look at her husband. Look at David Beckham there. It's just jumping out of his seat, singing, hey Jude. Well. Yeah, I know. I couldn't speak the next day. I'd been screaming so much. Look, here, I even bought in this view.

That's what I should have worn this morning. Oh, look at all. That's cute. I want that. We've got to have props. Props for you. I am putting this on for the next three days, not taking it off. All right.

Wear it up, morning, please. You should do that. And as I've said to others, if wearing it, brings good luck wear it if burning it brings good luck burn it whatever works let's bring it right now the founder of men in blazers media network roger bennett he's the author of the new book we are the world cup of personal history of the world's greatest sporting event and there was nothing posh about you roger i'm sure you were thrilled as as england came through the way they came through i will say and i said it early on uh in the american run before the president's call messed up this

their ju-ju and screwed everything up. But there was something different about this American team. And I hope everybody can look past just the last match because there was something. They moved together better than they ever had. They looked better than the other American team. I will say the same about as someone who watches Premier Leagues, as you know, on Saturday and Sunday morning, and I cheer for the English. There's something different about this team.

And I think Jude Bellingham has a lot to do with that. This is a different England team. that seems to come through instead of sort of crumbling like a rusty lawn chair at the given times. We will find out if the England team are different. The racer's voice, I've had enough experience like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football that Lucy keeps pulling away to actually believe until it is time to believe. But you've mentioned Jude Bellingham. This is a gentleman, young star of England. We don't embrace our young stars.

destroyed them ourselves before they fail on the field. It's almost a coping mechanism. There's something really remarkable about him. England have actually not been very good at football, but they've relied upon two giants. Jude Bellingham, this young

stud, and Harry Kane, who looks like he's just won the Battle of Britain and jumped out of a spitfire that's still warm on the runway to save them. A bit like the San Antonio Spurs. He used to have Tim Duncan and David Robinson and just two big man delivering.

The thing that's really interesting about Jude Bellingham, Joe, is he has an American mentality. And English people are not that comfortable with the American winning mentality. He's a guy that says, I'm a winner, we're going to win, big games, I'm going to deliver, and he does it over and over again. And English people are not quite sure how they feel about that because you give an English person a choice between their happiness

and your failure. They embrace your failure normally every time. So it's very wild watching this. kid, score six goals, deliver over and over again. Cathy, not everyone is quite clear how they feel about him. Well, I'll tell you what, Jonathan Lemire, he does make a difference on the field, and that does actually sound, as much as you hate to hear this, you may have some English in you, John Lemire, because you'd much rather the Yankees lose than the Red Sox win.

That's true. Despite the fact the Red Sox, really right now, don't know how to do anything else, but when? It's insanity. But let's talk about England and Argentina. Argentina just hasn't looked impressive unless you add, you know, the assists that they've gotten from officials, one match after another match, after another match, after another match. There's no doubt FIFA wants, this isn't a conspiracy. It's not.

It's just not a conspiracy. They want Messi in the final. And the refs time and time again have had some very strange quirky calls that have helped Argentina time and time again. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's just the truth go to tape. So I would usually say that England was going to collapse at some given time. But right now, I think they've got a good shot of getting through and playing France or Spain and just an extraordinary group of teams in the semifinals. What do you think? Oh, it's a magnificent final four. I mean, it's everything you could want. I think you're right about Argentina. You know,

But Messi's magical, no doubt, and he's been great. They've also gotten just about every call. And they also had a pretty easy path to this point. England, by far, will be the best team they have played. So we will see if, and also only a few days off this time between the quarterfinals and semis, you know, Messi's 40 years old. We'll see if he bounces back with only a couple of days to recover. I agree.

I think England's got a real shot to win there. And Roger, but let's talk about the other matchup, which are. Arguably, some people think is the finals. I'm not sure that's the case because I do think either England or Argentina, it's any given Sunday in this case, next Sunday, and they could win. But Spain and France, with two heavyweights, France has looked like the best team all tournament. They have the most skilled players. That said, in recent years, as you well know, Spain has picked them off a couple of times.

What are you looking for? Yeah, this is a blessing. There's one semifinal Argentina, England that is all about the off-the-pitch. That's a true hate. that game makes like the Red Sox Yankees rivalry look like a loving. And Spain, France is the good semi-final. It's almost the best game come too early. It's kind of like Oklahoma City Thunder versus San Antonio Spurs

in the Western Conference finals in the NBA. Spain have conceded just once the entire tournament. They barely allow a shot on goal. They're going up against a French team, which has the greatest cast outside of Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, just at like a lake show in terms of, of the La Lake show, I guess it is, of an attack that have barely been tested at all on this true canter into the semi-final. Those two clashing in Dallas is going to be superlative.

But what Jonathan said about Argentina, England, it is a rivalry that we don't really have in American sports. It's one, you're going to hear a lot in the next couple of days, about a 72-day conflict that occurred in 1982, the Forklunds War in England, Los Malvinas, as they call in Argentina. That's one level. But the football level, these two teams despise each other. Their fan bases despise each other to such a degree.

They can't even play on the field. They've not played since 2005. Messies never played England because the fan bases just try and destroy each other. I'm not quite sure, Joe, that Atlanta knows what it has coming. This has got Maradona, 1986. Any Englishman, if you say,

Argentina, they can recant the years of just deep, deep, deep, trauma in terms of the clashes. This one, this one is a heated rivalry, but not in the good HBO way. It's going to be a classic. Roger, finally, before you go, before the U.S. lost, everybody was talking about how great this tournament was for the United States, and there were a couple of days of moping, and people said, I've got to say, this is one of the best World Cups I've seen. Americans have just gone Gaga over the sport, the beautiful game. And it seems to me that the love has, the love has been returned by people from all over the world who seem to love American culture and have really been embraced by American fans. Talk about it.

It's been truly, truly beautiful. There's someone that's given their life to watching, witnessing, praying for the game that the rest of the world loves to take root and thrive in the United States for the past. But by the end of it, it will be 39 days to see this global eclipse. hold the whole planet and it's thrall emanating from 11 American cities day in, day out, Mexico and Canada too. It's been truly ecstatic

and it's not just been the football as you say, it's been watching the visiting global football fan base fall in love with America in Boston becoming the capital of Scotland with the tartan army taking over.

American's falling in love a global football fan falling in love a waffle house with Buckees one nugget at a time and it's been very heartwarming to feel that love. We really needed it, Joe.

And then the other side, America fully in love with global football. The American agony was just that the US team didn't weave themselves in a positive way into the tapestry of this tournament. But we've been blessed on the field and off it with scenes of ecstasy. And I hope that when the final is done, this doesn't feel like a circus that just comes into town and then leaves and we'll all have happy memories. But part of that love are the world coming here and loving us. and us welcoming with porous boundaries and true joy in our heart will stay with us. And it will be a memory that we can continue to act upon even when the World Cup's over. Founder of the Men in Blazers Media Network, Roger Bennett.

Thank you very much for coming on this morning. Also in major tennis, world number one, Yannick Sinner, successfully defended his title at the All-England Club yesterday, defeating Alexander Zverev in four sets to repeat as Wimbledon champion for the fifth grand slam of his career. It marks sinners' 10th consecutive win over Zverev, who was coming off his first major title at the French Open. On the women's side, whoa, Linda Nuscova outlasted Carolina Mucrova for a three-set victory in an all-check, final, brutal, final Saturday. What?

First Grand Slam trophy. What a women's championship that was. What a match. It was quite a well-deserved win. Jim Van de High before you go, you have a new piece out for the Wall Street Journal, in which you write, in part, America faces one of those rare historic moments

when government, business, schools, and families could be working together to meet a truly generational challenge winning the AI race, and so far, we're blowing it. Starting next year, AI companies in the U.S. will spend roughly the same in one year as the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Moon landings, the interstate highway system, and the Human Genome Project combined, about $1 trillion. That's just the money. The stakes are even bigger.

Who controls space and warfare dominates the world economy and shapes the first technology with superintelligence surpassing our species. Jim, you say we're blowing it. What are we getting wrong? I think we're unfortunately getting probably every part of it wrong. We're looking at it just as a new technology or something that we can debate about in politics. When in fact, if you look at what every business is doing, we're almost every investment dollars going, where all the growth internationally is coming from, it's AI.

And we were there first. And if we had looked at this as a society-wide project that requires some politics, business leadership, leadership at colleges in high schools and in the family, we could crush China and we could really own this technology and it could do a lot of really good things for society if we get it right. But I worry that we're not getting it right and that schools are doing a terrible job teaching about it, that families are just scared of it. Government doesn't really want to seriously think about the smartest way to regulate. it, and I worry we're going to look back a couple years from now and say, man, we had this

golden opportunity, and we didn't take it. And I think about Roger, the way Roger Bennett talked so beautifully about this country and about soccer, and it kind of applies here that when people come here, they don't look at just our politics, they look at our people, they look at our business, they look at our communities, they look at that special something that allowed us to get that early lead on artificial intelligence. And something's happened. It's snapped in us that we don't appreciate that. And we don't find moments where you can get above and beyond politics to do big things. And it's really not since 9-11. After that attack, has this country been united on anything? And if we don't figure out a way to get that magic back, then things like all the

things we talked about in the last hour, they not just get harder. I think they get worse. You know, K. K., when we were, I've told this story repeatedly on this show that probably from 2019 through 23, 24. Every parent that we ever had, any time we would have dinner and friends would come in, and almost every one of them were Democratic because, you know, Meek is cooking. And so all of these Democrats would come in, lifelong Democrats, lifelong liberals, people that never voted for Republicans. And what would they do?

They were talking about their children who would be in some of the best colleges on the planet being afraid to raise their hand because it had gotten so woken there that if they said one thing wrong, they would not only be kicked out of class, basically, but they would be canceled and their lives would be over. We hear that over and over again. And I tried to, you know, I'd come on the show, I'd say, warning you guys, this is a real problem. I can tell you over the past two years, every parent with a child who is now getting out of college or getting out of high school is saying the same thing. No jobs out there. People that are graduating from the best schools in America, their parents are saying, we don't know what we're going.

going to do. This is working class Americans. This is middle class Americans. This is wealthy Americans. They don't have the jobs. I spoke to an attorney at one of the best firms in America who said, we're just not hiring associates. We've got Claude. Why should we even hire associates? So you have people graduating for the best law schools in America that can't find a job. If this is not, this is one of these challenges Jim's talking about, this is also, I guarantee you, something that people are going to be thinking about before they go vote in November. They're going to be looking at their child at home

that graduated from one of the best colleges in America who's living with them because they can't find a job because of the AI revolution that is already upon us. Right. And add all of that anxiety to the antipathy that we've already seen around data centers, farmers now getting upset about data centers being put into more rural states. And it's clear that there needs to be the kind of thinking

that Jim is talking. about because this technology is coming. It's not going to stop coming. If we don't develop it and allow it to flourish, other countries will get ahead of us. So I think there needs to be a serious conversation about how do we deal with the drugs? How do we deal with the security? How do we deal with the anxiety that this causes? And that just isn't happening at the moment. The technology is moving very fast. The conversation around how society adapts to that technology, that's moving a lot more slowly. The new piece for the Wall Street Journal is available to read online right now. Axis co-founder and CEO Jim Vanda High. Thank you very much for bringing it to the table this morning. All right,

still ahead right here on Morning Joe. Democrat Graham Platner has officially dropped out of the U.S. Senate race in Maine. We'll have the latest on the effort to find his replacement. Plus, New York Times reporters and authors of the new book regime change, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan are standing by. We will talk to them about the president's efforts to weaponize the Justice Department and the administration's new subpoenas against several journalists with the Times. Morning Joe. It's coming right back.