Morning Joe - Suspect in White House Correspondents’ dinner shooting wrote of targeting Trump administration

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

Suspect in White House Correspondents’ dinner shooting wrote of targeting Trump administration 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.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Monday, April 27th. We are following a number of stories this morning, including what could be a significant development in the war with Iran. Iran is reportedly offering a new proposal to the U.S. to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but one that tables the nuclear issue. We'll see how the Trump administration responds to that, especially given Defense Secretary Pete Hexas firmly stating this past Friday that. Iran will not have nuclear weapons at the end of the conflict. With us, we have the co-host of our 9-A.m. Hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and presidential historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, John Meacham. We will get to the developments with Iran in just a moment, but first this morning, the alleged gunman who stormed a security checkpoint at a Washington. Hotel where the White House Correspondents Association dinner was being held is scheduled to appear in federal court. Officials say the suspect identified as 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California,

was carrying multiple firearms and knives when he was subdued by authorities. It happened on the floor above where the dinner was taking place. President Trump confirmed that a Secret Service agent was injured in the shooting, but a bulletproof vest protected him. That agent has since been released from the hospital. U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., Janine Piro said the suspect would be charged with two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence and a second crime of assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon. She added more charges were expected. And acting attorney general Todd Blanche said yesterday the gunman appears to have been targeting members of the Trump administration. Cole Allen has been described as a highly educated, part-time teacher and tutor, a former engineering student, and an amateur video game developer.

D.C.'s interim police chief tells the Washington Post he had no immediately identifiable criminal history and was not previously. known to law enforcement. He had not indicated a party affiliation in his Los Angeles County voter registration records, but had previously donated $25 to Act Blue, the Democratic PAC supporting Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign. Let's bring in MS now Justice and Intelligence reporter Ken Delanyan. You know, Ken, obviously, because the way things broke, We got a lot of bad information initially out of people that were inside the room, suggesting that the shooter was dead, suggesting that the shooter had broken through the outer perimeter and had gotten past. But again, we just didn't know because everything was moving so quickly.

You were there. You saw it firsthand. It seems, obviously, after just the absolute horrific job by the Secret Service in Butler, Pennsylvania, people were casting a wary eye on the Secret Service this time. But a couple of things. First of all, he didn't get through the perimeter, did he? Like, the Secret Service did their job there, number one. But then, number two, reports from the Washington Post yesterday that for some reason there were less Secret Service.

there than there would normally be at an event like this. What can you tell us? Well, Joe, first of all, you're right. I was there and I was sitting in the back of the room close to the door. And so I knew right away, as did everyone else at our MS Now table, that those were gunshots. It was very obvious. And it sounded like they were right behind us. And when I went to interview people who were even closer, people did tell me that they saw, they believed that the gunman was shot and killed. And that's why a lot of people were reporting that at the time. Many witnesses believed that they saw him on the ground, perhaps. And so, yeah, that was the source of that misinformation. But you're right. Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General,

and others have made very clear the Secret Service director that as far as they're concerned, the Secret Service did its job, the system work. He did not breach the defenses, the perimeter. I mean, you can see on that video, he sprinted through an initial tranche of D.C. police officers who were milling around. But as soon as he got past them, they all drew their guns. Eventually, he was tackled. There was no way he was going to make it into the ballroom because there were other Secret Service agents armed outside the doors.

So in that sense, the system worked. But the larger question around this entire event is the way it's always been structured for decades, which is that it's in the Washington Hilton, known as the Hinkley Hilton, because it's where Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. That is a working hotel. They don't close the hotel during the event. And so the members of the public can go in and out of the lobby and the ballrooms before they get to this ballroom where the dinner takes place, which is down two floors, essentially in the basement, in the bowels of the building. And there are lots of members of the cabinet.

There were Trump administration officials going to pre-parties. There was no security for that. So if this gunman had decided that instead of doing what he did, he wanted to walk into the Fox News pre-party and start shooting, that would have been an absolute disaster. And that's why this whole thing is being reexamined because does it really make sense to have an open hotel with a dinner like this, which is essentially a state of the union level gathering of the president, the vice president, members of the cabinet, prominent members of the media, business executives. That's where people are saying. And that's not the secret services fault, obviously. There's a whole larger question of how do we secure this event, what decisions need to be made, Joe. Yeah.

And Jonathan Lemire, I've got to say, and we've said it before. and I have talked about this before, Meek and I certainly said it for years. It just seems extraordinarily stupid to use an open hotel and get state of the union type, a concentration of power in the United States, especially at a time of war against a country that's been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979, and have them walking around going in and out of parties, standing to get their pictures taken before they go in. It's never made sense to me. It's never made sense to Mika.

We haven't been in, I don't know, maybe a decade. I can't remember the last time. But it seems like such an unsecure place. And by the way, this whole idea and, you know, of course, how crazy that like everybody's Magosphere all, like within three seconds, started posting the same post, right? That was so coordinated about the ballroom. This event, as Sam Stein and others said, will never be held in the White House, because it is not about the White House. It is about correspondence. All that being said, it seemed, all these coordinated, it's remarkable how quickly they came right after they must have received

an email from the White House or from the press operation. But I just can't think of a dumber, dumber place to have this than at the Washington Hilton. I know it's history, but history be damned when you're putting your Secretary of Defense, you're putting your FBI director, you're putting the Secretary of Treasury, putting the Vice President, you're putting the President. Well, I would say that's still on the Trump administration, the White House, whatever White House is in power, to make that decision to have that concentration of power in one place at a time of war. five weeks after we decapitated Iran's government.

Right. And it's always been that way. But just because it's always been that way, it doesn't mean it needs to be that way ever again. Anybody that has been there understands, you aren't securing the entire hotel. You're not chucking people's bags. You're not doing the basic things that it would be done like at the State of the Union address. So I don't know. There's so much to go here. But what is a verdict right now based on the Washington Post story and everything? else about the security at this event. Again, especially in light of how heinous, heinous the security was in Butler, Pennsylvania. Yeah, that's going to be one of the questions these next few days, is should there have been more security there? Especially this is the first year President Trump has decided to attend this event. We know there have been attempts on his life

previously. Obviously, we're a nation at a time of war. I did not go to the event this year either. I spoke on Friday. I thought it was fraught and misguided this year in particular. for the correspondence, the administration, to be together. But I have been in the past, and Ken had hit on a really important point here. The hotel remains open. Like, you walk in through the main doors, and, like, hotel guests often are lingering in the lobby or at the bar because they want to get a look at some of the, you know, reporters or dignitaries who walk in or not.

That part's still open. And the gunman had free access there, reporting that he stayed at the hotel. But the gunman was nowhere near where the president was. The Trump himself was never in danger here. There were several layers of security between him and where the president was sitting. Certainly, you're right, Joe, to highlight the immediate call for the ballroom. Trump himself has said so. He said in his news conference later that night.

He said again on truth social yesterday, this event would never have been in the ballroom. I know they've talked about rescheduling it in the next month or so. I'm not sure that's the best idea because I think the site needs to be re-evaluated. I think this can be skipped. And I wonder about the future of the event. together. But Ken, you know, this is still a very obviously scary moment for everyone in there who did not know that there were still layers of security, as you just said. Those gunshots were loud. I know so many people in that room who were terrified. And credit to the journalist,

by the way, who continue to do their jobs in that room, credit to security personnel who did so well to get people to safety. The security service and the police deserve an extraordinary amount of credit for what happened. But Ken, tell us what we know about the suspect here. the person that Mika just identified, the police have in custody, what may have motivated him, you know, what has he said or written? Well, can you tell us about why he did this? Jonathan, it's really extraordinary. This is a person who attended one of the most prestigious STEM universities in the country,

the California Institute of Technology, Caltech, got an engineering undergrad degree, got a master's in computer science, and was working, as Mika said early on, he was working as a part-time teacher, but he described himself as a game developer. You can find video online of him touting a wheelchair invention that allowed wheelchairs to be more stable. This was an accomplished articulate person with a loving family, apparently, who went down a path of radicalization. And the reason we know that is he's written a thousand-word document where he describes exactly why he did this. And he describes President Trump as a pedophile and a rapist. He doesn't explicitly say he was targeting Donald Trump,

but he says he was targeting Trump administration officials. He apologizes to his family in this post. There's some evidence that he attended or was associated with a no-king's protest. So it really fits the pattern of what we've seen with Luigi Mangione, accused of killing the United Healthcare CEO, or Tyler Robinson accused of killing Charlie Kirk, of the sort of people on the far left fringes who have become radicalized, who are living in a world of understanding.

reality bombarded by conspiracy theories who decide that they have to take violent action. And it's contributing to a climate of political violence in this country that we have not seen since the 1960s. So more questions will be asked. And, you know, the FBI is pouring over this man's writings and his social media. They serve a search warrant on it. They were at his house in Torrance, California yesterday. So a lot more investigation still being done.

But that, that thousand-word document that's being, that's been widely public. and Donald Trump commented on it last night on 60 minutes. That says a lot about, and explains a lot about what appear to be the motives here, guys. MS now, Justice and Intelligence reporter, Kandelan, will be following this with you. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. Okay, so Axis is reporting this morning that Iran has proposed a deal to reopen the straight and end the war with nuclear negotiations postponed for a later. stage. That is, according to U.S. officials and two sources with knowledge who spoke to the outlet.

This comes as another round of talks in Pakistan over the weekend between the United States and Iran did not take place. Envoy, Steve Whitkoff, and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were supposed to meet with Iran's foreign minister in Islamabad before their trip was canceled. Iran's foreign minister arrived in Pakistan on Friday night. Soon afterward, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said there would be no face-to-face meetings with the American side and that messages would be conveyed through intermediaries. On Saturday afternoon, President Trump posted on social media that he had called off the meeting, saying it was too much time wasted on traveling and too much work. Trump told reporters on Air Force One Saturday that within minutes of the trip's cancellation, Iran sent a much better proposal. So, David Ignatius, obviously, the Secretary of Defense said at the end of last week in a press conference said there would be no nuclear Iran. That's why they started the war. Iran could not have nuclear weapons. Donald Trump said at the beginning of the war.

Seven other presidents have failed, but I will not fail. There will be no nuclear Iran. It seems like this Iran plan to open the straits, but worry about the nukes later would be a non-starter with Donald Trump. My guess, Joe, is that that's right. This two-tier plan from Iran is a clever way to bypass what is their real problem, which is that they're not yet ready to offer the kind of concessions that the Trump administration would accept as justifying its war. This also tells me that the Iranians are hurting. We forget that although the talks are suspended, the U.S., and there's a ceasefire anomaly, the U.S. is continuing to blockade the strait. It's meant to be a chokehold on the Iranian economy and choke out the regime.

And there has been a question of how long they can last. And this, to me, is a sign that they're getting pretty desperate. They want to reopen the strait as much for themselves as to, as to, as to help the U.S. There's an argument within the administration. Let's just keep the pressure on, keep choking them until finally they have no course other than to make a more reasonable offer. But we'll see what the response is.

I think this administration would like to get the war over with for political and economic reasons. They've been waiting for a more forthcoming offer from Tehran. Iran on nuclear issues. This provides a 15 to 20-day window in which to negotiate those nuclear details, which are complicated. It took the old JCPOA negotiators months and months back in 2015 to reach a deal, so it may take more time. But fundamentally, I think we need to understand this is Iran reacting to the chokehold that the U.S. has on the straight and on the delivery of anything into Iran. You know, John Meacham, I was reminded, and so too, was Carter administration official Chris Matthews this past weekend about how Iran has always used the bait and switch against American negotiators.

We saw that as Whitkoff and Kushner were about to fly out, the foreign minister left Islamabad. And Chris Matthews just reminded me that throughout the hostage crisis. The Iranians would make an offer, you'd go right up to the line, and then they would change the rules. Matthews saying most famously or infamously for the Carter White House and for Dr. Brzynski, who was obviously involved in all of that. In the final lead-up to Carter's election with Ronald Reagan, the Iranians let hope sort of fester in the White House that the hostages may be freed. and then at the last minute, they changed the conditions again. And Jimmy Carter knew that he was not going to have the hostage release before the elections. I'm just curious.

I just looking at that history, looking at where we are right now, it doesn't seem that what we saw in 79 were seeing yet again. I think the analogy is probably more perilous than illuminating, if only because that was a clear case of, and Ignatius can check me on this, that was a clear case of an American national interest. There were, I think it was 55, right? There were American hostages. They had been taken during the revolution. It was an act against American citizens, against American sovereignty. And there was very clear, not to be fancy,

I go, quid pro quo. It's let them go. This, and this may be slightly unfair to the administration, but I don't think so. It is still largely fuzzy to a lot of us what exactly the president wants on this. We know he doesn't want a nuclear Iran, except for Iran, I don't think anyone does. But to me, the inability of the administration to articulate exactly what is on the table and what's off the table has created a level of uncertainty here that I continue to be surprised it hasn't affected the global markets more, which are supposed to hate uncertainty. But it certainly seemed not to be – the energy prices are going to be complicated. But it seems to me that what the administration needs to do is tell us the American people what this is all about.

And we still need a clear explanation of what's unfolding. Well, and the conditions for a settlement have changed repeatedly. At first we heard about regime changed and we heard about no nuclear Iran. And now, of course, the straits being over. open, but make no mistake of it. From the very start, even with last year's bombing attack of Iran, it all centered around a nuclear-free Iran. So talks from the Iranians suggesting that we'll open the straits and then let's talk about the nukes later. Again, that based on what we can grasp of what the administration's goals are in Iran, that should be a non-starter, especially

if you listen to what Pete Hanks had said last week. Right, exactly. So still ahead on Morning, Joe. We're going to talk about what to expect as Britain's King Charles prepares to meet with President Trump today at the White House. Ed Luce of the Financial Times joins us next to weigh in on that. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning

from Ackyweathers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Unfortunately, Mika, we have a severe weather outbreak this afternoon tonight across the Midwest, the worst of which will be south of Chicago, St. Louis, Davenport, Iowa, toward Paducah, Kentucky. Enjoy the sunshine along the eastern seaboard. Acuether says, though, it's cool in Boston, beautiful in New York City, Philadelphia, generally dry across the south, although spotty thunderstorms across Florida. If you're doing any traveling, we don't see many delays today, just a spotty shower in Miami.

Watch Chicago, though. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, Download the ACUWether app today. 25 past the hour, Iran's foreign minister is in Russia today as part of an intensive diplomatic shuttle after he stopped in Amman following his trip to Pakistan. Russian state media reports he will meet with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, just days after President Trump called off the negotiations that were supposed to take place on Saturday. We'll follow that. The Iran-Russia meeting comes following a gathering of EU leaders in Cyprus last week to discuss the conflict in the Middle East as well as Ukraine. The European Union approved a $105 billion loan for Ukraine as Russia's full-scale war continues.

On the sidelines of the gathering Ukrainian president for Lotomayr Zelensky discussed the importance of producing anti-ballistic, missiles domestically. We will try to build our Ukrainian and a system of anti-ballistic system. We need it. And of course we will share with all the partners

without any questions and because we need all of us, we need it. And not only to create the system, to create such capabilities which can produce more. Now you know that the United States produces about 60, maybe

65 missiles per month. Pacti anti-ballistic missiles. It's nothing during the first day of attack on Middle East, you know, that they used the volume of two years' production of such a cell during 24 hours. So we need our European independent, strong system, and we will build it. David Ignatius, the world is changing.

Europe is changing. You look at what? what Ukraine has done in this war, they have revolutionized warfare in a way that is simply extraordinary and has held Russia at bay now for years. But you take that reality, you take the reality that Europe no longer looking to America, a $105 billion loan, and all of this comes at the same time that Vladimir Putin is facing just an absolute exhaustion in Russia from this war. The million plus casualties there, the economy sinking. He seems to be, despite what the administration loves to say, Vladimir Putin seems to be in his weakest position yet. Joe, I just got back

from Ukraine this weekend. I was there last week. And the feeling there was odd. uplifting. This is a place where the good guys are actually winning, or at least holding their own. The Ukrainian mastery of drone technology is extraordinary. And I sat in on many meetings in which they were trying to sell Europeans, their new European partners, on the both offensive and defensive anti-dron systems that they're building. Their innovation cycles are unbelievable. I met people who are who were just back from the front, who make some of this technology, we were heading to their factories to incorporate what they'd just learned in the last week,

to roll over the innovation cycle and get new stuff out. They'll change it again in another month. And the other thing goes to your point, Joe, is Europeans really are over this expectation that they're going to get something from Donald Trump. They've decided facing a threat, threatening Russia. They're going to have to do it themselves. They say that out loud. There was a

palpable anger in Kiev among Europeans at the United States. It's refusal to help Ukraine in the way that it used to. And it's pulling back from NATO at the very time Europeans feel most threatened. So it was a really interesting snapshot, I think, of the world that we're heading into, where you have a much more European NATO. Europeans just kind of say, have a hit. okay, let's just deal with it. That Donald Trump's America is going to be different. We're going to have to do it on our own. Well, I mean, he's openly hostile to Zelensky.

John Meacham, he's been openly hostile. Even statements that he made this past weekend, he talked about how we've helped the Ukrainians too much. It goes on and on. I mean, they're not grateful enough. Time and time again, they have lied about Ukraine. Time and time again, they have lied about Russia's strength. Time and time again, the administration has done.

everything they can seem to do to help Vladimir Putin get a deal that he could never win on the battlefield. So just let's look at the grand historical scope of this. In 1917, the United States goes and fights along with our European allies to win the First World War in 1941. we go in into 41. We go in. And along with Europe, we win the second World War. You look at NATO coming to our defense after 9-11. Only time Article 5 is invoked. We've had an extraordinary relationship with our European allies. Donald Trump seems hell-bent to break off our strong, the strongest alliance in American history. Where does this put us now that Europe and the Ukrainians have finally given up on a president who seems obsessed on being on the right side of Vladimir Putin instead of Western civilization? Well, the anti-NATO push of the last 10 years is a revivification of the Republican, conservative, largely Midwestern, push against. the projection of force at the beginning of the Cold War, Robert Taft of Ohio. Actually, Taft might have been president of the United States in 1952 if he had agreed to a proposal that Dwight Eisenhower made.

Eisenhower was on his way to become the first Supreme Commander. He asked for a meeting with Taft, who's the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Eisenhower says, look, I'm going to issue a Sherman-esque statement. I won't run ever. All you need to do is agree to collective security as a principal. Taft says no. Why was Truman? Why was Eisenhower? Why were they so devoted to this idea of collective security? I think not least because, as you just said, we had just fought a second world war to try to secure the capacities of democratic capitalism to try to secure a world that was going to be less likely to have a World War III. And it worked, remarkably so.

The pushback is this sense, it's an ancient American sense that somehow or another, the oceans are going to save us, right? We're too far away. It's Fortress America. Herbert Hoover said that. We should be a fortress America. We shouldn't be involved in this old world. We always get taken. See if this sounds familiar. We're always getting ripped off. They're always taking advantage of us.

And so we are not going to help these smaller countries that are parasitically taking American wealth and strength. And basically, where we are is. is the most successful alliance, arguably in American history, which is vital for what I think, and Ignatius will check me on this. I think one way of looking at where we are, which links both Iran and Ukraine in our conversation, is we're in this kind of pre-1914 period of great power competition, seeking natural resources, seeking a position in a multipolar world with a nuclear overlay. So it's not a precise analogy to pre-1914, but it is also with the capacity to have massive destruction.

And so it's particularly complicated. Yeah. Yeah. And how fascinating do you bring up Herbert Hoover, the man responsible for the Great Depression because of high tariffs talking about Fortress America and how absolutely extraordinary, Mika, that you would have isolationists, American firsters, even in the early 1950s, wanting to have Fortress America

when you had Stalin, who had his eyes on Central, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and, yes, Western Europe. It's the same thing that's happening now. If Ukraine falls, the Balkans, The Balkans are next. Poland is next. Europeans understand this. Yeah.

And actually, people with half a brain understand it in America. They understand Putin will not stop with Ukraine. And yet, again, it seems so many out there want to just provide aid in comfort. Yeah. To Putin. And this is happening right now. It's not a what if. Joining us now, U.S. national editor at columnist at the Financial Times, Ed Luce.

I know we're going to be talking about. about your piece on Charles's visit King Charles, but I do want to ask you about this, especially these comments by Volona Mier Zelensky, they're very pointed and open and describing what is a shift in allegiances and alliances and what the consequences not may be, but will be. Yeah, I think David was absolutely bang on in saying that the Ukrainians have understood that, you know, they haven't got a cent of new money from the United States since Donald Trump was re-inoguated a year, 18, 15 months ago, and they're not expecting any money. They still do depend on a lot of things from the United States, intelligence sharing, targeting information.

And until the Iran war, some, you know, patriot defense batteries that have been paid for by the Biden administration. But essentially they know it's done. Their future is Europe. And the fact that Orban was defeated a couple of weeks ago, all back in Hungary, he had been blocking that $105 billion loan, which isn't really a loan, by the way, it's a grant. Ukraine would only repay it if Russia paid reparations to Ukraine for the war. So basically, they've got this 100, because Orban's out the way, they've never been. got this money from Europe that's going to enable them to fight on and to keep innovating in this extraordinary way that David described. They are the world's most innovative military. And to such an extent that the demand for Ukrainian products in the Gulf to help protect the UAE, the gutter and other countries is huge. And they're the only country that can really supply it. So Europe has, I think, digested what Zelensky. is digested, which is they've got to plan as though America is not coming back. Europe has to

build up its own sort of defense autonomy. It's really been a French line for decades, but now everybody, everybody sounds like Charles de Gaulle in Europe nowadays, including the British. And you've got people like Mark Carney of Canada asking if they can join. So this is a major, major shift. It's unfortunate that it's happening. It really is to be regretted, but it is reality, and Europe, I think, is finally woken up

to this reality. So speaking of the British, Ed Luz, the king is coming to town. We know President Trump is a fan of the monarchy, he says so repeatedly, and he says he likes King Charles quite a bit. The King in D.C. It's a four-day visit, including a state

dinner tomorrow. Trump spends a lot of time with him in coming days. The president did acknowledge that U.S. relations with the UK strained at the moment. So what should we expect from Charles, who, you know, is not the head of state per se, but it has some political views, particularly on climate change, where he and Trump do not align. What should we be looking for? Well, so he's going to address the joint houses of Congress tomorrow, which I think is only the second time British monarch has done that.

Queen Elizabeth did it in 1991. Cold War had just ended. The Gulf, first Gulf War had just ended. And I reread, well, I actually read for the first time that address. And it's extraordinary what she stresses, which is things like we are living in increasingly diverse societies where tolerance and cultural and ethnic sort of mixes are the other pattern of the future. We must embrace them and be a model. in this post-Cold War world for other open democracies. It's also a plea for the transatlantic alliance. Charles could kind of give the same speech tomorrow, and it would be just as relevant. He's not got any political power. The speech he gives will be substantially written by the British government. I suspect he'll be going out of his way not to provoke Trump,

but on the other hand, to identify himself as the king of Britain with the American people, 250 years after it fought four and one, well, announced that it was going to win independence from Britain. And that takes some needle threading, which is kind of his job. And I think he's been really surprisingly good at it. So it's a big moment for him. This is how he earns his keep. as a diplomat, as somebody who, you know, he's a king, here to congratulate America on its republic at a time when the no-kings rallies against Donald Trump, you know, is really the motif of opposition to Trump.

It's a very interesting position for a visiting king to be in. I think he'll probably do a pretty good job. Yeah, you know, we've seen time and again, Mika, and Ed Luce knows this better than anybody else. We've seen time and time again where Queen Elizabeth II was used to help Great Britain punch above its weight diplomatically at times when it may have been a week. In the early 70s or examples of Queen Elizabeth going to France and doing quite well there. In 76, she came to the United States. Of course, no problems with Gerald Ford, except when Captain O'Hanil saying Muscat, love.

but we'll get into that later. But this is what the monarchy brings to Great Britain, and an ability for Great Britain diplomatically to punch above its weight. I suspect that all happening in here. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, historian John Meacham, and the Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you all very much for helping us start the week this Monday morning. And coming up, the New York Times recently published a bombshell report

on the Supreme Court's internal deliberations from a 2016 case that sparked the now routine, so-called shadow docket rulings on presidential power. We'll bring in the poets of prize-winning journalist and co-author of that piece. Next on Morning Joe. If any of the trains you get on turn out to be heading in the wrong direction, get off the train. Don't be overly afraid of risk, and especially right now, be wary of predicting which fields are going to be the most promising. Those predictions can eliminate all sorts of magic and meaning. Don't go into public service. You'll get death threats.

Medicine leads to burnout, we've been told. Academia? Now? Really? follow this logic to the end and we will have no public servants and no doctors and no professors. That was part of New York Times reporter Jody Cantor's Columbia commencement speech last year. That moment offering wisdom, strategy, and a set of aspirations to new graduates sparked the beginning of the journey to her newest book entitled How to Start, in which she tackles the question. How in this environment is anyone supposed to find and start their life's work? An important and wide-ranging, timely topic. Polis Prize winning journalist Jody Cantor joins us now.

It's good to have you on the show this morning, and congratulations on the book. Yeah, and Jody, we're going to get to the book in a minute. But we want to talk about your article on the shadow docket last week, a remarkable piece of work. and I found 2025 to be in especially vexing, troubling time when the court often seemed to just sort of kick the can down the road or have unsigned opinions, overturn or stay lower court rulings, basically waiting for better part of a year to rule in ways that we knew they would ultimately rule if they ever had a written opinion, saying things, simple things like, no, you can't, you. military troops in American cities for domestic policing. But it took them to the end of the year to do that. But they, how did, explain how they used the shadow docket throughout much of 2025 to just basically turn so much of their power over to the administration.

Well, when we think of a Supreme Court case, we think of something so slow and deliberate and careful that plays out, say over a year. There are oral arguments in public. The justices meet together in person to deliberate and cast their votes. There's a lot of reading. There's a lot of drafting of opinions. And then, of course, there is the opinion or set of opinions that's presented to the public. And that's a vital act because, listen, elected officials get their accountability through elections, right?

judges get authority through opinions by saying, I'm going to show you my work. Even if you disagree with my decision, I am going to explain to you how I was diligent, how I was fair, how I reached that conclusion. The shadow docket opinions that you're talking about and you're talking about some incredibly consequential decisions that handed a lot of power to President Trump, some of them were done on a secretive fast track called the emergency docket or the shadow docket at the Supreme Court. And there were really no opinions. There were these short little orders that had some legal boilerplate, but didn't have any reasoning, which we think of as the bedrock of the law. So the article that Adam and I did and the memos we publish take us back to

the beginning of that practice. They help answer the question. Wait a second. How did the justices of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts disregard centuries of time-tested legal tradition and start making decisions in this faster and far more secretive way? Well, you also pointed out that they used it first in 2016 to stop Barack Obama. And then they've been using it since Donald Trump became president to actually enable Donald Trump. Talk about that.

Well, there is a big question about whether the shadow docket kind of enables partisanship on the Supreme Court. Because if, you know, our ideal of the court, of course, is that it is above politics and that these justices are making independent decisions. What the results show and what scholars have found is that when the court, makes decisions on the shadow docket, they seem to come out in a more partisan way. Yeah. Help me out. Just overall, when they're not doing the shadow docket, when they have to write the opinions, when they have to do the big cases and they put their name on it, you get the tariff decision. You get, what I suspect, will be an absolute disregard of what the Trump administration. wants to do on birthright citizenship. You got, as I said before, at the end of the year last

year, the opinion that stopped Donald Trump from using the National Guard and Marines for policing, domestic policing in America. Overall, talk about the difference between where they stand in regard to the president's power, Article 2 power, when they actually have to put their names on a written opinion. And what happens when they just do a speedy shadow docket decision? You know, what I think that the story that Adam Liptack

and I published really revealed is how rushed these shadow docket opinions are. Remember, we put 16 pages of the justice's secret correspondence into the paper. This story allows us to essentially

eavesdrop on the justices as they make these shadow Docket opinions. And what you see is that they are moving so fast. The figure who emerges most strongly from this set of papers is Chief Justice John Roberts. And the court is doing something for the first time in these papers. They are stopping President Obama's big climate initiative, even though the D.C. Circuit is about to weigh in. The shadow docket grew slowly over years, but they're crossing a line in this set of papers. And what's so striking is that Democratic-appointed colleagues

are raising the procedural objections of like, why are we doing this so fast? What is the rush? And the Chief Justice just disregards their procedural objections. And the truth is that none of them, there is not a single memo in the entire conversation that reflects a concern that they may be doing, They may be opening a door to a precarious new way of doing business.

We'll continue to follow this, but want to ask you about your book, how to start. I love the title, especially because in this economy and the void being created by AI, I think there are a lot of job seekers who are truly discouraged and don't know how to do just that, how to start. So tell us about the book and how can discourage, job seekers use it to help themselves get focused and find that elusive craft or work that they're looking for? So I wrote this book because, like, listen, I've covered employment for many years. My colleague Megan Toey and I broke the Harvey Weinstein story. Like I had been a witness and chronicler of employment for a long time, but I wanted to write something that could actually help.

Because, listen, this show, the New York Times, we have all reported that. the negative news about the entry-level job market. It is a really tough environment. But the provocative question to me is, what is a young person actually supposed to do when faced with this situation? What does a productive response look like? And can you actually, amid all the gloom, take steps and follow a process that help you build your life's work and help you become the author of your own life?

So, Jerry, congrats on this indeed. the book, you identify the two things that these young people need, craft and need. Explain to us what you mean by that. Okay, craft is having a special skill that other people don't know how to do, like an expertise that is all your own surgery, obviously a craft. Like if you make the recipes in NYT cooking and they come out really good, it's because my colleagues use the craft of writing recipes that can turn out well even for regular home cooks. Putting together this TV show every day, certainly a craft. The reason you want to look for a craft and not just a job is that craft protects you a little bit from the cruelties of the job market.

I mean, listen, any of us who are employees can be fired at any time, but your craft is your own. It can never be taken away from you. Also, like, at this very kind of dystopian time of work, if you work on your craft for years and years, and this is hard to see when you're 22, you can get to a level of mastery that brings such satisfaction. Like, I've been doing investigative stories for a long time. I took such pride in that Supreme Court reporting that you guys were gracious enough to feature. Like, it feels good for Adam and I to use the skills that we have acquired for 20 years and deploy them for the public good. Okay. So if craft is authority, need is propulsion. We go through these fashions of what you're supposed to study.

When I was young, it was learn Japanese, right? The Japanese are going to take over the world economy, and if you don't speak Japanese, you're going to be a loser. Well, Japanese is great, but, like, the Japanese stock market slumped for 20%. years. It wasn't a sure bet. All the things we've been told, learn genetics, learn Mandarin, you have to learn computer coding. These are fine pursuits, but they are not golden tickets. They are heard thinking. So with need, I want to say to young people, using your eyes and ears, what can you independently identify as the needs that are going to be important over the next 40 or 50 years, and how can you help fulfill them? And the reason why thinking about need is so

helpful right now is that young people are being sent a terrible message by the AI era. They are being told you're superfluous, that, you know, paralegals aren't necessary, that junior analysts aren't necessary. And with need, I want them to make a counterclaim for themselves. I want them to say, I am needed. My contributions, my ideas, my energy, they're going to matter. All right. The new book, How to Start, is available now. Author in New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jody Cantor. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. Thank you.