Morning Joe - ‘The Late Show’ Ends After 33 Years on CBS

Episode Date: May 22, 2026

‘The Late Show’ Ends After 33 Years on CBS 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.

I think it's stupid on stilts. Why? Because it will invariably put us in a position where your taxpayer dollars and my taxpayer dollars could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned, and now we're going to pay them for that? That's absurd. The American people are going to reject this out of hand. When you take money from me to give to a purpose that I've,

vehemently disagree with, that's tyranny and that's what that account is. Republican Senator Tom Tillis, with a blunt assessment of the Trump administration's attempt to create the so-called anti-weaponization fund with taxpayer money. We'll go inside the rebellion from some of his Republican colleagues. That was only part of the drama on Capitol Hill yesterday with House Republicans saving face by scrapping a vote to limit President Trump's war. powers. Also ahead, we'll try to clear up the confusion on the Strait of Hormuz as an American ally appears to be talking to Iran in hopes of profiting off the waterways closure. Plus, Democrats

finally released the report on the failed 2024 presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will dig into what went wrong, what they found. Good morning and welcome to morning, Joe. It is Friday, May 22nd. Anyone feel like it's been a long week? It has been a long week? Yeah. Willie? Aren't they all? Aren't they all, Mika?

Maybe this one especially. With us, we have the co-host of our 9 a.m. Hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, contributing writer to the Atlantic, Eugene Robinson on set in New York with us, and presidential historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author John Meacham. We're going to get to all of those stories. But first, Willie, Stephen Colbert, had his final show last night, and what a show it was. It was. A busy, busy morning, Meekab. Let's start with this. It happened overnight while a lot of people were asleep. Stephen Colbert closed out his 11-year run on The Late Show and the show's run of nearly 33 years on CBS. Last night's final episode featured a number of celebrity cameos, including the late night host, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, who both aired reruns last night as a tribute to Colbert. Here is a bit of Stephen's opening monologue. If you're just tuning into the late show, you missed a lot.

Tonight is our final broadcast from the Ed Sullivan Theater where, no, no, we were lucky enough to be here for the last 11 years. All right? That was, you can't take this for granted. I'll miss doing first drafts where I show the final draft of a greening card and then show the playfully wrong first draft. So we made one for tonight. But this one's pretty nice. This isn't goodbye. It's see you later.

Yes. But the first draft said, this isn't goodbye. How do you start an only fan? So you may have heard there was some speculation that the Pope might be Colbert's final guest, Stephen, a devout Catholic, of course. Well, they got as close as they could to the Pope last night at the Ed Sullivan Theater. And now for my final interview, my guest tonight is not just perfect. He is, in fact, infallible.

Please welcome all the way from Vatican. Stephen, Stephen. What? Waltine, what are you doing? I'm trying to introduce the Pope. Yeah, that's the thing. The Pope won't come out of his dressing room. What?

Why not? Well, we didn't read his whole writer, and evidently we got him the wrong snacks. He's pretty mad. He asked for hot dogs. We got him hot dogs. Let me talk to him. Put him up. Put him up. Your holiness, please come out.

Leo, Leo, please. We got a show. No way, Colbert. You call that a Chicago dog? Pope don't play like that. Leo out. Oh, no. The Pope, who was definitely my guest tonight,

has canceled. And do we already send the other stars away? Yeah, I think... Oh, we already sent the other stars away. This is terrible. Well, who's going to be my last guest now? Hey, see, what about me? Paul, you'd be my perfect last guest.

What are you doing here, Paul? Well, I was just in the area. I was doing some errands. Oh, yeah? And, yeah, actually, I brought something for you. You brought something for me? Something for you. Is this?

Yeah. There is a... They told me there'd be... I thought the Pope was bringing this. I'm sorry about it. What is, I honestly, I have never seen this. Come on. Is that here?

That's here. Right here. Wow. To Stephen, you're better than the Beatles. Paul McCartney. No, it doesn't see. It does. That's what I read.

It doesn't say that. When my editors are done, that's what's going to say, Paul. Paul McCarty, giving Colbert a sign photo from the Beatles. iconic performance back in 1964, the poetry of that. The Beatles coming to America in February of 64, playing the Ed Sullivan Theater, and then closing it down for Colbert last night. McCartney ended the show with a classic Beatles song with Stephen. You know, John Meacham, I know you know Stephen Colbert very well over the years, and there had been speculation, of course, that the Pope might be there. Colbert having fun with that, but the real hope, I think, from a lot of people was that maybe, just maybe.

maybe Paul McCartney would show up and bookend the Beatles' 1964 Ed Sullivan Theater performances by closing things out for Stephen last night. And there he was. Just extraordinary. Yeah. You know, Stephen is an architect of the culture. And on reflection, of course, the theater itself is that. The 64 arrival and Ed Sullivan changed global culture. in 1964.

In some ways, it's a hinge in the cultural life of the country and of the West. And what Colbert has done, beginning with his character, Stephen Colbert, and his attack on truthiness and really kind of the prescient ability he had to see where so much of our public life was going back in his comedy. Central days. And then he brought that to this enormous audience, what passes certainly for an enormous audience in this atomized world. That's another thing to think about is think of how many people had to tune in to Ed Sullivan in 1964 because there weren't that many other options. And here Colbert was as the capstone. And one of the few things that could bring a lot of people together in this media climate.

And I think we're going to miss him, miss his insight. And for those who say, oh, he was too political, too partisan, you know, always worry when they come for the comedians. Yeah. Yeah. That's for sure. Eugene Robinson. Your thoughts.

I mean, this is amidst a backdrop that is a little bit depressing for members of the media and people who believe in free speech. Yeah, it's, you know, I mean, nothing less forever, but Stephen Colbert was such an amazing and such, he is such a talented man. I was on his comedy central show once, and we had a lovely conversation in the green room before, and at the end, he said, now when we go out there, I'm not me, I'm that character, and we got on the show, and he was just perfect as the, as the, you know, with all his truthiness. What a bookend, though, to have McCartney. Anyone my age or older remembers that night in 1964 on that very stage when, indeed, the Beatles and, you know, Paul McCartney right there, did change the culture.

And it's a very different world now. There's something comforting about that. to me, actually. It's a touchstone in our cultural life. Pretty ideal closer last night. And Colbert didn't mention Trump by name, but of course the Trump and the pressure on CBS and Paramount was noted throughout the week, Springsteen explicitly so a few days prior. But as a, you know, Colbert, it's not, he's extraordinarily talented, extraordinarily smart, a very decent man with a big heart. And then that heart really filled last night, but the entire run of the late show. And I also think it is a safe bet, though this chapter closed. This is not the last we have seen of Stephen

Colbert. Yes, it'll be interesting. He will do many brilliant things going. It'll be interesting to see what he does with this. Our next guest says Stephen Colbert's final show marks, quote, the beginning of the end for Late Night TV. Let's bring in founding partner of Puck, Matthew Bellany. He's the author of Puck's Flagshick newsletter, what I'm hearing, and the host of the podcast, The Town. He's also the former editor of the Hollywood reporter. So let's exercise our free speech and talk about what really is going on here, why he's leaving, what this is the backdrop of, what's coming in its place, and what this does mean for late night television.

Matthew. Well, that's a lot there. And the fact of the matter is that the late show was losing money. I mean, according to my reporting, it was tens of millions of dollars that the show was losing each year. And yet, there is this kind of stink of politics that has been around this cancellation. The move was made by the former owner of CBS. However, it was right as the sale to the Ellison family was going on. And obviously, the Trump administration was very involved in that. They had been saying that they don't like the content on CBS, particularly Trump has gone after late night and Colbert.

in general. So the speculation is that while maybe there was some, the financial motivations were real, the politics of the situation had to at least play into the minds of the decision makers. And yet they gave them a year. They gave them an entire season of the show to go out on this run and to have people like Springsteen on the show to essentially bash the ownership on their own network. And I think that says something about the owners that they, yes, maybe they were doing this to appease Trump, but at least they kind of let him go out saying what he wanted to say. And remind people of the timeline, they announced in July that Stephen's show had been canceled, and one week later to the day that deal was approved for Paramount Skydance. So Matthew,

your piece, you say this is the beginning of the end of late night TV. Obviously, Jimmy Kimmel has come under withering fire almost weekly, it seems, from President Trump. He's been suspended and come back to his job. There were calls a couple of weeks ago after the correspondence dinner for him to be fired. He has not been. So where do you see late night comedy going from here? It's been an institution going back to, you know, Jack Parr in this country. Yeah, I think that these current hosts, both Kimmel and Fallon and Myers at CBS or NBC, I think

they will be the last to host these shows. The economics of late night TV are just not there. The audience is not tuning in. They are on streaming platforms. They are on their phones. The habit of watching these late night shows after the local news

is not there. And at least at CBS, they had not figured out the model to make money on the clips and the YouTube shows. They were making some. And Kimmel and Fallon make a lot more money on the application of those shows than CBS did. So I think that saves them for a little bit longer,

especially now with Kimmel that Trump has gone after him explicitly. Disney, which owns ABC, has now decided to fight the FCC on this. And this is a big deal because they could have just bowed to Trump and said, okay, we'll take Kimmel off the air. And they're not doing that. They suspended him in the fall for a couple nights around that Charlie Kirk joke that he made. But ultimately, the backlash was so swift, they brought him back and they figured out a way to deal with the station groups that air the show. But I do think that given the economics of late night, these hosts will be the last late night hosts. Founding partner of Puck, Matthew Bellany, thank you. We know it is an extremely early morning for you out on the West Coast.

Thank you so much for waking up for us. And still ahead on morning, Joe. We have a lot more news to get to taking a more serious turn. We're going to go inside the contentious meeting between the Senate Republicans and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over the Trump administration's so-called anti-weaponization fund, senior congressional reporter for Punch Bowl News.

Andrew DeSadario joins us with his new reporting on that. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers Fork, this morning from Acqueweathers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Miko, we have a damp and chilly weather pattern, mid-Atlantic and northeast, right into the holiday weekend. Your exclusive ACU of the forecast, though. Today's from some Boston, mostly cloudy New York City, Philadelphia,

rain and drizzle, washing in D.C. Temperatures only in the 50s. Steamy from Florida toward Texas to be battling some thunderstorms right through the weekend here. and if you're doing any traveling, some delays in Atlanta, not in Boston, New York City, in Philadelphia, but certainly in Washington, D.C. They help you make the best decisions and be more in the note. Download the ACU weather app today.

Senate Republicans are rejecting the DOJ's $1.8 billion, so-called anti-weaponization fund. GOP lawmakers met with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche yesterday for a contentious two-hour meeting to discuss the money. Sources described the talk to semaphore as a quote, S-show. What does that mean, Jonathan Lemire? I've never heard it before. S-show? Yeah.

I'll have to look it up. If Joe was here, he'd say it. He would say it, yeah. So following the S-show meeting, several Senate Republicans spoke publicly against the fund. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said the White House dropped a bomb with the plan former majority leader Mitch McConnell, called it utterly stupid, morally,

wrong in a statement to Punch Bull News. And you know what they say, Lamere, when you've lost Ron Johnson. It takes a lot to lose Ron Johnson. When you've lost Ron Johnson, you might have lost the room, right? You might have lost the room. I'm thinking. So Senator Ron Johnson called the fund, quote, a galactic blunder. The discontent with the fund was so strong among Republicans that some signaled they would be willing to cross the aisle to support Democratic amendments aimed at blocking it. That possibility derailed the day's entire schedule, forcing Republican leadership to scrap all planned votes on their reconciliation package and send lawmakers home early ahead of the Memorial Day weekend. Well, good for them.

Yeah. I mean, nothing bad to say about that. The Senate will now have a week-long recess, Willie, before coming back to Washington. Yeah, if you can't clear this hurdle, then you should really look in the mirror. And at least some Republicans have done that. Mika, even Tommy Tuberville. Tommy Tuberville, the senator from Alabama called it a curveball. Not necessarily critical, but he didn't necessarily like seeing what he said.

It's a curve ball. Let's bring in senior congressional reporter for Punch Bowl News. Andrew Desiderio, he's out with new reporting this morning on Senate Republicans, Trump breaking point, as he puts it. Andrew, good morning. You've been all over this story, taking us inside this meeting yesterday. Some of the quotes we just read there were from your reporting. So I can't remember. We were struggling this morning to remember the last time we heard of 25 Republicans crossing Donald Trump on anything. So why was this the red line for so many of them? Not just 25 crossing him, but actually doing so in one of these private meetings. I mean,

usually when Senate Republicans have their lunch meetings, it's like six or eight members who will speak up, sometimes give a pitch about something they're working on. But this was sort of 25 members, half the conference, just giving uniform opposition to this proposal, this fund. And not only saying to Todd Blanche that he needs to understand the political side of this, in addition to the legal side, but also work with them on suggesting ways that they can use this reconciliation bill to curtail or restrict somehow this fund, whether it's, for example, one of the proposals that was pitched inside the room

was to make the five commissioners who are the ones who are in charge of judging the payouts make them sort of subject to congressional approval or develop some guidelines for who these people have to be, in other words, to make them more independent. Another thing they discussed in the room was limiting the ability of these payouts to go to those who are convicted of assaulting police officers on January 6th, for example. And so, look, this was a moment where Senate Republicans feel like,

you know, combined with Donald Trump's really low approval ratings right now and the fact that he seems to be engaging in a campaign of self-sabotage against his own majorities on Capitol Hill, where they feel like they need to flash some independence from him and, you know, use some muscle and push back. And it's one of those very rare moments. We don't see it very often, obviously. And they're finding it difficult to do so. And I think part of the reason why is because the president is so emboldened with some of his victories lately in these primaries. For example, he toppled Senator Bill Cassidy. He toppled Congressman Thomas Massey. And he's about to probably topple Senator John Corny in the next Tuesday's runoff against Ken Paxton. And it really was just a thumb in the nose of Senate

Republican leaders, especially John Thune, who's been pushing Donald Trump, by the way, for over a year to endorse John Cornyn, and his super PAC, John Thun's super PAC, has spent $90 million to prop up John Cornyn. I mean, that money was just lit on fire, and they are livid at Donald Trump, because now that's money that they could have used in other races across the country. So, Andrew, I mean, part of the problem with this slush fund is it's just so nakedly, transparently, terrible. And the American people see that.

I'll read the full quote from Mitch McConnell. He says this. So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops. Utterly stupid, morally wrong. Take your pick. That's from Mitch McConnell. So what happens now with this idea of what they're calling an anti-weaponization fund,

but really is a slush fund? Does it have a future? it going forward? Well, look, there aren't the votes in the Senate right now to proceed to the reconciliation package, which, by the way, is all about ICE funding and Border Patrol funding, right? This is something Republicans want to be talking about because it's something that unifies them. And what Senator Lisa Murkowski told me, for example, was that the White House dropped this bomb on them this week, just as this reconciliation package appeared to be on a glide path. And by the way, Republicans had already bucked Trump as it relates to this package

on the ballroom security funding request. They were prepared, and they still will, take it out of this legislation before it hits the floor. But the reality is they don't have 50 votes to proceed. And actually, there are 60 votes for an amendment that would really restrict this fund. And that's why Senate Republican leadership decided that they needed to get ahead of it so that Democrats don't put an amendment on the floor during the voterama and force their vulnerable members to have to vote for it, essentially, and handing the keys of the Senate over to the Democrats and letting them decide how this fund is being restricted. Now, I think there's a lot of bipartisan agreement, so I don't know that Democrats and Republicans would necessarily write this a different

way. But what John Thune told me yesterday was that the administration needs to help them on this, right? In other words, you got us into this mess. You need to help help us get out of it. So John Meacham, we know better than to think that Donald Trump has lost his power over the Republican Party. We just saw in the last few days, took down Bill Cassidy, he took down Thomas Massey, took down the lawmakers in Indiana who defied him. However, it is noteworthy that at least in the Senate, Republicans are saying no to a few things, to the ballroom, to the slush fund. What do we make of this?

Is this the beginning of something? Or is this just another blip and Trump will soon regain total control? Well, the latter certainly is what experience would lead us to say. You know, they've gotten a little religion, somewhat reminiscent. There's a great line in Tom Sawyer, where Tom Sawyer says an evangelist came to town who was so good that even Huck Finn was saved until Tuesday. So they might be saved until Tuesday. But I think what Mika said a moment ago is really important, which is we all act on incentive. Lincoln was very clear about that.

And so I don't want to, you know, I don't want to bang on my high chair and say, you know, oh, this was too little, too late, all of that. If they get to the right place, we should be, you know, that's something to note. I was going to say we should be appreciative. Appreciation isn't quite the word for people just following the oath that they took to the Constitution, which gives them an extraordinary amount of power and, more importantly, responsibility. And so what we have here is Article 1 recognizing and actually exercising the judgment that the constitutional framers gave them. And so is this the beginning of a new era? Probably not. But it is also true. And I can't think of what it was called. Willie might remember. Remember that game that you sort of put a steel ball on it and it rolls down the two little rods and you try to drop it in? So every day that goes by.

Karpla. Trump's, President Trump's interests and the interests of Republicans who are going to be on a ballot again. get a little farther apart. And I have a feeling, and this is sort of a glass half-empty reaction to what happened this week, I have an feeling that the last two years are going to be even wilder, because I don't think President Trump's going to understand a world where he's not the central figure. And I worry about that. What Senator Thune did, what these senators did, I thought Senator McConnell's statement was great.

Again, is it too little too late? Perhaps, but it's something. And I think, let's hope it's predictive. It's never too late. It's never too late. And I'm going to be positive. I believe this is more than no. I believe this is more than no.

I think this is coming, Eugene, with Trump's numbers, plummeting. People are unhappy with how this presidency is going. People are unhappy. with the economy. People are seeing it in their lives and to think that they would make a fund that would ultimately give them free-willing use of this money and potentially even payback January 6 rioters. I mean, it seems to me, I don't know, was it Tillis, Senator Tillis, calling this stupid on stilts and kind of explained exactly how this money would be used. It's

ludicrous. It is ludicrous. But that's not the only one. The only thing that's ludicrous about to remember the codicil to the settlement that gives Donald Trump immunity essentially from tax audits. Yeah, it's crazy. For past tax evasion, for potentially present tax evasion, I mean, it, which is incredible. Yeah. There's hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah.

Directly going to the president. The president gets to keep illicitly from having cheated on his taxes. And, you know, I don't understand how Congress can just say okay to that. And, you know, I'm curious as to whether that was also mentioned in the media yesterday. I'm not sure. The other thing I'm curious about is that as the primary season winds down, and Trump has done what he may, what he will, with the incumbents who buck him, Does that change the mood in the Senate as well and in the House?

Does that give some courage to these Republicans once they're past the point where Trump can really hurt them? That's always been the question is post-primaries, do they start to separate themselves from Trump? Right. These rulings in the 30s is we had a general election. And the game that John Meechin was talking about, Kerplunk. Kerk. Kruplunk. Yeah, approval ratings.

Kierplunk. Thank you for your reporting coming up. Democratic Congressman Tom Swazzy and Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick will join us to talk about their bipartisan bill. To stop the DOJ's so-called anti-weaponization fund, plus we'll dig into new reporting on the growing standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, where a controversial new plan could charge ships to pass through the critical waterway. Who's going to win in that financially? morning Joe, we'll be right back. You have to be defending your son's budding this weekend, by the way? He'd like me to go, but it's going to be just a small little private affair, and I'm going to try and make it.

I'm in the midst. I said, you know, this is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things. That's one I can't win on. If I do attend, I get killed. If I don't attend, I get killed. By the fake news, of course, I'm talking about. No.

He's got a very person who I've known for a long time, and hopefully they're going to have a great marriage. I'm, okay, yep, he's not going to his son's wedding. Mm-hmm. Big surprise. But why did they, it's all these crotches and belly buttons around the president. Like, that was gross. From the belly buttons at that.

I can't even, I'm distracted and I can't even, I, why? Why? Why? Stop. Oh, my God. Make it go away. When I wrote earlier this week about this story about how, look, Donald Trump is aging as well, and there's some scrutiny coming to changes his behavior.

One of the data points I mentioned is it for these events in the Oval Office, they have him seated now. Well, can't he stand up? They don't have him standing in front of podiums. And when you sit at the desk, that's the risk you run, is that might be your backdrop. Can someone say, Mr. President, you look so much more commanding when you're standing. So we don't have to look at belly buttons sticking out of big stomachs and crotches. Yeah, but that may not work that well anymore. I mean, it may not be a good look for him.

And I'll say, Willie, that, you know, also the president calling to question whether he'll attend his own son's wedding, raise some eyebrows yesterday, because the excuse he gave was that, well, there's a war going on in Iran and I'm really busy. Let's note the President Trump goes golfing every single weekend since this war began. But I would go to Don's wedding. And actually their schedule has, but the schedule, at least for now, the White House schedule hasn't heading to Bedminster, New Jersey, this weekend, not perhaps. is something. You know, it takes it

as long to play a round of golf as to go to a wedding. But anyhow, well, there's a war going on, Willie. The wedding's in the Bahamas, the president's scheduled to be in New Jersey this weekend, so I think we maybe have the answer to the question. By the way, no one, not a single person in the media or elsewhere would

begrudge him going to his wedding. I think he's in his own head a little bit about what people would say about it. So he was this close, John, to making that a sir story. Well, he'd like me to go. He came to me and said, sir, please come to my wedding. He wanted to do it. He didn't cross tears to that. Don here are tears in his eyes.

I'm still distracted. Right, sir. Well, we wish Don Jr. and his bride to be a happy weekend for sure. All right. As for that thing called Iran, as the president put it, there is new reporting this morning about the ongoing stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz. The New York Times reports Oman, an American ally,

is discussing with Iran a system to charge fees for vessels passing through that key waterway. Two people familiar with the talks tell the paper. Iran was not planning a toll system, which would charge simply for transit. Instead, the talks with Oman have explored a proposal to charge vessels fees for services. To Iranian officials, familiar with the talks, but not authorized to speak publicly, add that Oman initially had rejected a joint partnership with Iran on the strait, but is now in discussion over a share of those revenues. The official said, Oman told the Iranians that it was willing to use its influence with neighbors across the Gulf and yes with the United States to push that plan,

having realized the potential economic benefits of a fee system. Iran and Oman appear to be emphasizing the proposed system would again involve fees, not toll, says international law prohibits simply charging ships to pass through the waterway, but charging fees for actual services rendered to vessels is allowed under certain circumstances. They didn't specify exactly what those services would be,

but they'd come up with something. The Trump administration has rejected the idea of Iranian tolls in the strait. Let's bring in decorated combat veteran and former commander of U.S. Army Europe, retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling. He is now an MS now military analyst general. Great to have you back with us this morning. So it sounds like a bit of a semantic fee there between tolls and fees. But the bottom line here is over the last couple of months.

If nothing else, Iran has realized the power it has today and going forward with. with its control of the Strait of Hormuz. Exactly right, Willie. And one other thing, you know, when you talk about these fees versus a toll, as it were, you're talking about the difference between charging for port issues versus affecting freedom of navigation. Watching Admiral Cooper's testimony before Congress a couple of days ago, he mentioned freedom of navigation and how the U.S. Navy is prepared to execute a counter to anyone

affecting freedom of navigation. But certainly a country is capable and authorized to charge more port fees or tolling fees, if you will. And Oman has figured it out. They're across the water on the street from Iran. And what you see is now not only these things, but some of the countries in the Gulf region, cooperating independently with Iran to, first of all, secure their safety, number one, from Iran. from Iranian missiles, but also because I think, truthfully, they don't believe there is any plan to bring nations together to basically solve this issue of freedom of navigation through the

street. House Republicans yesterday abruptly pulled a planned vote on limiting President Trump's war powers in Iran, as it became clear the party lacked the votes needed to defeat it. Majority leader Steve Scalise told reporters the vote was delayed to give members who were absence a chance to vote, punting consideration of the measure until after the Memorial Day recess. But Democrats are calling out the move. Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York, who sponsored the resolution, said Democrats, quote, had the votes without question, and Republicans knew, and as a result, they're playing a political game. They're cheating.

top Democratic leaders called the cancellation cowardly, writing in a statement, quote, even as we prepare to recognize our nation's fallen heroes on Memorial Day, House Republicans refuse to show up and be accountable to the brave service members who have been recklessly put in harm's way. This comes after a similar war powers resolution advance this week in the Senate after a handful of Republicans broke with the party there. Jonathan Lemire. Perhaps another small sign of Republican defiance of President Trump. General Hurtling, let's turn back to the war in Iran. First, I'll just note the services rendered

that Iran could be promising ships through the Strait of Hormuzes, we will not blow up your ship and try to sink it. So it feels sort of like extortion to me, and we'll have to see how the administration responds to this. President Trump himself has at times suggested he'd be okay with a toll system. The administration, though, has made clear they don't want that to happen. I know you've been thinking a lot about what could come next in Iran, and you have significant experience with the war in Iraq, and we're there with General Petraeus. There's a war that most Americans find deep, where you're very unhappy with. But there was success.

The Petraeus surge, I know you've been thinking about, did provide some degree of calm. Now, this is a different situation here. President Trump seems very reluctant to put any sort of ground troops into play. But what are some lessons that could be learned from that other conflict 20 years ago that perhaps could inform how we should think about this one. Yeah, Jonathan, it's a great question because we learn a lot from studying past wars and applying the lessons we've learned. The lessons of Iraq during the surge of 2006 through 2008 are just really fascinating.

First of all, the surge, I'll counter anyone that thinks the surge was all about just increasing forces. It was a combination of evolving conditions, adapting a plan, and out of our own. I'll emphasize that because in warfare, the first force that adapts to changing conditions is usually the force that wins. And then thirdly, it was the rotational units that were coming in. And it was all linked to General Petraeus's commander's understanding of the culture of Iraq at the time. Now, you've got to remember, General Petraeus had been a division commander during the invasion in northern Iraq. Then he came back a few years later and was the trainer of the Iraqi military and police force.

And then he came back one more time for a longer period of time to take charge of the overall operation throughout the country of Iraq. So you had a commander that was very experienced with the culture of the country. He understood the evolving conditions from a complex counterinsurgency, which, by the way, he wrote his doctor. doctoral thesis on into a counterterrorism fight. So this is a general officer who had study countered insurgencies, had been in the country, who understood the culture, who knew that the force that adapts first is going to win. And he applied all those things to different courses of actions within the country. I will admit that I was in the country in Baghdad in 2003 and 2004. I came back under General Petraeus in 2007 and 2008 during the surge. And you saw the difference in terms

of treating the people, not trying to win hearts and minds, which is a favorite expression of many in the media, but trying to win trust and confidence of not only the citizens and the government, but also building the economic system. Now, some may call that nation building. And truthfully, it is to a degree to a society that had been corrupt for over 30 years, sounds familiar in Iran, but also it was replacing a government that had been under Saddam Hussein that had brutalized its people, also sounds familiar, had a standing army, the fourth largest in the world, and who knew that, you know, they could suppress the citizens of the republic, and the economic situation was very bad.

So there are some echoes in this combination between Iran and Iraq. Mietam, John Meecham. General, as we look at the current conflict, how would you suggest that we think about how much we know about whether the nuclear capability in Iran has been degraded? Can you walk us through what the intelligence world looks like as we try to, figure out, have we achieved what was certainly a leading goal of this campaign? Well, John, it's a great point because intelligence drives operations. And if we're talking specifically about the nuclear capabilities of Iran, I'm not sure we know exactly, even though we've had allies offering information, intelligence, we've

have multiple agencies that are looking at anything from on the ground human intelligence, to signals intelligence. What are they talking about on wires and cell phones? The mason intelligence, what's called mizant, the geographical locations of different elements in the ground. And this is a big country, so it requires a whole lot of masonit analysis. But then you also have the potential for space-based intelligence.

And it seems like we're relying on that more than anything else. and also intelligence coming from the kinetic campaign, the bombing campaign that has been happening for the last nine weeks. What are they hitting? What are the Iranians talking about? What are we seeing from space-based satellites? What kind of alliance information are we getting? All of those things come together. And even though we have a whole lot more technology and a whole lot more systems to determine intelligence, I'm going to go back to my friend Clausewitz again in the 1800s that said all intelligence is fleet. It's really difficult in war to determine exactly what is happening on the ground. And I think that's the situation we're in right now.

MS now military analyst, retired Army, Lieutenant General Mark Hurling. Thank you once again. Historian John Meacham, thank you as well. And just one more note on Iran, Jane, we were talking off camera about a great American that you were in a conversation with. I ran into Bob Gates, Robert Gates, former secretary. everything. And he was telling me about a meeting long ago. It was a meeting between your dad and the newly installed, newly victorious Iranian revolutionaries, some leaders. And it was a conversation in which he was the note taker. He was the junior guy who was taking notes. And basically,

your father was trying to extend a hand. And to say, look, you know, we have our differences and everything, but we're going to, you know, let's move forward. And the Iranians were just saying, fine, give us the Shah. Thank you. Give us the Shah. We want the Shah. And finally, your dad said, look, we're not going to give you the Shah.

It's a matter of our national honor. We're not going to give you the Shah. And it was three days later when the hostages were taken. Yeah, an incredible moment in history. and you would think that there's so much we can glean from our history of the relationship with Iran and how they think and how they act and what they're willing to do that you perhaps wouldn't take a chance like this. We haven't changed that equation. Hot stokes.

If anything, there's a more hardline regime in charge in Tehran. Absolutely. Brunson and Mitchell. There comes a double team. Brunson looking, finds Clarkson, shot clock at four. back to Brunson. On the drive, throws it up, and Robinson with the flush. Brunson, a distributor last night. No epic comeback needed this time for the New York Knicks. They use an 18-0-0 run in the third quarter, take control of the game in game two of the Eastern Conference semifinals.

Josh Hart. This is the Josh Hart game leading the way, a playoff career high, 26 points. He was great. Brunson 19 points, 14 assists. The Knicks beat the Cavs, 109, 93. to move halfway to their first NBA finals appearance since 1999. The teams now travel to Cleveland for game three tomorrow night. And tonight, San Antonio Spurs at home, hosting the Oklahoma City Thunder in game three of the Western Conference Finals after they did their job and stole one on the road. That series tied at one game each.

John, that's a great series out west. The Knicks now in control up to nothing after that comeback in game one where they looked dead, down 22 points in the fourth quarter. coming back to win. The Cavs did look a little broken last night in game two, but they're going home. They got a great home court. We'll see what happens. Yeah, but I suspect there's a lot of Knicks fans

in the building in Cleveland. They took over the situation in Philadelphia. Cleveland, a little further. You can't just get there by Amtrak, but there'll be plenty. I think that series ended in game one. Cleveland blew their chance. And I think they're collapsed right then and there. And Eugene Robinson, I mean, Willie's a Knicks fan, so he's not going to get

ahead of himself. He shouldn't. But I will just say this. The path is The path is there because right now the Knicks look like they're on track to take care of Cleveland in, you know, four or five, you know, a shorter series. Spurs and Thunder are going to beat each other up. That series probably go on six or seven. Both teams already suffering injuries. Guys are missing time. You know, I think clearly the Thunder and Spurs on paper, those are a better team than the Knicks.

But man, this is continues. This playoffs continue to break in exactly the right way where Knicks fans can dare to dream. You are getting way ahead of yourself. I'm trying to get you. I'm trying to jump. That series doesn't begin until somebody wins in the other team's building. So let's see the Knicks win in Cleveland. Now, look, they clearly had the edge.

Dalton had a look in his eye, you know, and when he gets that look in his eye, the Knicks are really tough. So I would surely favor them in that series. But those Western teams, Oklahoma City is a machine. You know, when Mignon is, the alien. Have you watched that series?

Have you seen some of the things he's doing? He's ever seen it on a basketball court before. Really, it is. He is an alien. He is, we've never seen. He's 7.5 conservatively, and he's doing things that the shot from the logo of the other day was incredible. And there was, again, game two was much more physical.

The Thunder really beat up on Wembe, and I'll be curious to see if the refs allow that in San Antonio. Turnovers. If the San Antonio can get a, control of the turnovers, I would favor them in that series. But we'll see. Great. Good. Go. See. Yeah, I mean, when we were coming up, John and Gene, I mean, a guy like Minute Bowl, Manute Ball, who is the same size as Wemby, they were novelties. It was a, look how tall he is, and now he's standing next to Mugsy Bogs. Isn't that funny? Wembe has guard skills

at 7-5 going through his legs, step back throughs. He is incredible. We've never seen anything like him. That's a fun series. And, Lemire, I want you to know, we're not falling for your Boston jinx putting us in the finals already giving us the pass to the parade. We're taking it one game at a time. As you should. All right. We talked, it is the top of the second hour of morning, Joe, on this Friday morning. And we talked last hour about the Republicans in the Senate, now speaking out publicly against the DOJ's $1.8 billion, so-called anti-weaponization fund following a contentious meeting with acting attorney general Todd Blanche. that includes Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said the White House dropped a bomb with the plan, as well as former majority leader Mitch McConnell,

who called it utterly stupid and morally wrong in a statement to Punchball News. Even Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called the fun, quote, a galactic blunder. What would it be used for? Can you just give an example of why there is this huge reaction, even among Republicans? Well, acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, has not ruled out. He's been asked repeatedly.

Say it. Pointedly not ruled out the idea this fund could be used for those who participated in the January 6th insurrection. And more than that, including some of those who are convicted by a jury of their peers. So they themselves could benefit from this. Yeah. So we all know what happened on January 6th. We all saw these people committing crimes on a mass level at the nation's capital with

American flags and Trump flags, pummeling people, pummeling capital cops, breaking through windows, looking for Nancy Pelosi, claiming to want to kill Mike Pence, hang him, they brought a noose. These were people who committed crimes openly and was seen on camera by the nation. They've been pardoned, many of them, right? All of them. There was a J6 choir, I believe, during the election. I mean, this is some sick stuff. You have to be really, really sick in the head to think that this is the direction we want to be going by using our legal system and taxpayer money, ultimately, to pay these people off. That is some sick. You know what Joe would say.

Yesterday, we highlighted Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick as the first Republican in the House to speak out against the fund telling reporters on Wednesday. he's going to try and, quote, kill it. Now he's teaming up with his problem-solver caucus co-chair. Democratic Congressman Tom Swazzi to do just that. The bipartisan House lawmakers have submitted the one-page bipartisan transparency for American Taxpayers Act. And they join us now. I guess Tom, we'll start with you. What would this bill do?

What would it be able to prevent? And do you have the support for it? You know, it's a very, very simple law. It's a one-paragraph law that says you can't use the money to fund this anti-weaponization fund. Because I think that Mitch McConnell said it really well. It's either utterly stupid or it's morally wrong. You pick. And that's exactly how a lot of people feel.

And my colleague, Brian Fitzpatrick, has come out as a first Republican in the House and we're hoping others will join. But it shows a lot of guts on his part to just stand up against something that's totally wrong. Yeah. I mean, it's so wrong. It almost seems not hard to stand up, but it's happening and we'll take it. Congressman Fitzpatrick, do you think there is the support for this, which would ultimately solve this problem, right, in one swipe?

Yeah, good morning, Mika. Yes, there is. I'm very confident that we're going to kill this. We have multiple tools at our disposal. Obviously, there's going to be litigation on constitutional grounds. There's no precedent for this, obviously, not the way. we're aware of, certainly. But second, the executive branch does not have any money in its own right. Every dime that resides in the executive branch is appropriated by this institution by Article

1. Never before have we authorized this, presumably, and this is why I asked the acting attorney general these questions, and we expect an answer quickly, you know, what is the source of the funds that he's using for this? What account is it in now? And what account is he removing it from to put it in this newly created fund that he just announced on May 18th. But what our bill said, to Tom's point, is very simple. It says that this fund that was created on May 18th cannot take a dime of appropriated money, presumably from last year's DOJ appropriations bill. That's presumably where they're getting this from. Meeke, now we are in appropriation season now. We are going to be considering DOJ appropriations now. So we also have that tool at our disposal. So bottom line, multiple tools that

we are going to use to make sure that this never comes to fruition. And this is why you have checks and balances. This is the purpose of the system. Sometimes people do stupid or really wrong things, and you need the other branch of government to stand up and say, no, that's wrong. That's stupid. We're going to stop it. That's the purpose of the checks and balances of our system. And you're going to start seeing, I hope, and pray, during this election season, the Congress start to reassert its power to try and stop things that they just know are plain wrong. And that would be welcome for sure. Congressman Fitzpatrick, we saw the damn break on this yesterday over in the Senate reporting is the 25 Republicans spoke out in that meeting against this. You heard all the quotes. Mika just laid them out in public, something we don't see a lot, Republicans criticizing Donald Trump. So what do you think it's going to take on your side over in the House? Speaker Johnson, for his part, has sort of played a little bit naive on this publicly anyway, saying, well, it could compensate anybody. If you're against lawfare, you

should be for this idea. Are you hearing privately, though, that Republicans have concerns about this in the House? Oh, for sure, for sure. And listen, I'm happy to take the lead. You know, a lot of people say things quietly, but when it comes to putting pen to paper and putting their name on this as a co-sponsor, they get a little bit hesitant. I'm working to change that. I'm taking the lead. I'm a lifelong FBI agent and federal prosecutor. I will take the slings and arrows. I'm happy to do it. This is the right thing to do. And hopefully others follow. I think they will. This has been a precedent, by the way. Tom and I, we've led multiple discharge petitions. We succeeded in the Ukraine discharge petition last week, succeeded this week in the Faster Contracts Act, the pro-labor

discharged just in two weeks to discharge petitions. We are not ruling it out for this as well. We will do what it takes to represent our constituents, to protect the American taxpayer, and stop absurd ideas like this. Harrison Fitzpatrick saying with you, we know that President Trump can be very vengeful with Republicans who defy him even this week. He insulted you. He insulted your fiancé, who's a reporter who works for Fox News. We saw him go after Congressman Massey, Senator Cassie, the list goes on and on, and he still has enough support in the Republican Party where he tends to win. Are you concerned as to what he could do next to you?

No, sir. I have a job to do. My bosses are back home in Bucks in Montgomery County, in Pennsylvania. I don't report to any person or any party here in Washington, D.C. And I know that's the perspective. Tom takes to his job. It's a perspective everyone's supposed to take. So, you know, me and Jackie, we're grown-ups. You know, we can take it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this country, but it's not going to change the way I vote. I can tell you that. Well said. Congressman Swazzi, back to you. Just talk to us about, you know, obviously recess approaches here. What happens next? With this matter, but also just in terms of of the relationship between the Congress and the President, one that has seemed really out of whack.

The Article I and Article I'm really in balance. You know, certainly not an original thought here. I think the Speaker Johnson has been happy to abdicate a lot of power to the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you hope that the Congress is finding its footing? Yeah, I think that's obvious. And, you know, you would hope that people would do it because they know it's the right thing to do. It's the morally right thing to do. but again, that's the purpose of our democracy.

The members of Congress, the members of the Senate, they're talking to their constituents. They're looking at poll numbers. They see a November election season coming up, and they realize they've got to be responsible to the people they represent or they're going to pay a price for it. And that's the purpose of our democracy.

That's the purpose of our checks and balances. I would love that everybody just had the guts to stand up and just do the right thing every time. But we know the founders knew that that's not always the case. And that's why you need the system we have, and that's why you need the public involved, to express how they feel about things.

Everybody's been distracted. The president is a master distractor, taking people's eye off the ball. You know, there's a challenge, the fact that we're going back for recess right now. We're not going to all be in Washington, D.C., but it's our job to try and build a consensus among our colleagues to work together

and do the right thing here. And the public is making that easier because they are starting to say the emperor has no clothes, we have to do something about these things that are happening in Washington, D.C. Certainly, the polls are showing that people's opinions on how the economy is going under this administration, those numbers are going downhill. Democratic Congressman Tom Swazi of New York and Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, thank you both very much for working together and joining us this morning.

So let's bring in investigative reporter for the New York Times, Michael Schmidt, your beat has been kind of sort of completely retribution. And what a week it was. Where do we begin? I mean, what I really want to know from the Republicans is that why is this where the line is? I'm always fascinated. Does it matter? Does it matter? I mean, we just will take the line, right? I'm just saying in the Trump story, in every way that he has used power in the ways that he has, you have rarely seen the Republicans do very much to stand up to him.

So why is it that on this issue they're doing it? Is it because of the poll numbers? Is it because of the fact that the president has done so many extraordinary things in the past few months that have hurt himself politically? Or is it truly because they believe that it's immoral to pay convicts who stormed the capital to interrupt the democratic transfer of power? It's personal. I would say it's all of the above. Jonathan Lemarrault, I take the next question. but just to surmise a little bit.

I mean, look at the endorsement of Paxton. I think the Republicans probably took that pretty personally. And, I mean, that was quite an endorsement. And there are a number of examples just like that. Look at the poll numbers, on the economy, on how people feel about the future, on who people blame it on. This is Trump's America now as it stands.

You can't buy a house. You can't afford your health care. You can't get to a hospital because they're gone. we've gutted any type of aid around the world, and that does bounce back here at home on the world stage. We're not for Ukraine. We're for Russia. And we're doing Israel's bidding in Iran, something President Trump, I believe, said he would never do and made fun of other presidents for, I mean, this is nothing makes sense anymore. And on top of it, for these Republicans who are finally taking a stand on this, it is personal when one of their own is, is.

cast aside for someone who's a fraudster. Yeah. So we don't want to overstate the amount of Republican independence here, but it is interesting. It's noteworthy. And I do think, Mickey, you raise a good point. President Trump's poll numbers are terrible. They're terrible. He's not on the ballot this November.

No one likes this. And some of the moves that he's making are actively hurting Republicans' chances this fall. And hurting people. In terms of policies, in terms of his priorities, and indeed, even in terms of this endorsement, as many Republicans think that Cornyn would have had a stronger general election candidate, candidacy than Paxton. Paxton still may win, but at minimum, Republicans, I have spent a lot more money to get in there.

So, Michael, I want to go back to what the DOJ maneuvers here. And it's one thing, the slush fund is one thing. Congress has a say in that because it's money, and they're the power of the purse. But let's talk about the other part, the IRS protections, where President Trump, his family, his businesses, will be shielded from any sort of IRS

investigation or audit, not just now, but forever. Does Congress have a mechanism to stop that as well? What's the future there? That is so off the charts and something we've never seen that I don't even know where to start to say like, oh, does Congress have a hand in that? Like, it's essentially a pre-pardon on everything financial. And I find it very hard to believe that there's any weight to that document beyond being guidance within the current Justice Department. would a Democratic Justice Department or a Justice Department of any other president come in and recognize that and say, okay, because these folks determined that, you know, because they determined that he can't commit a crime in the future, we're not going to go after him anymore. Like, it's a pre-parton on the issue that is the most important to Trump.

And I can't imagine that, let alone the courts, you know, holding that a Justice Department that would ultimately be the decider about whether to bring some sort of action would allow that to stand. So when I saw that, I thought, oh, there's probably, that's more of a press release than it is a legal document, even though it's coming out of the Justice Department, because I can't imagine that anyone would recognize that going forward. Yeah, Willie? So Michael, when you go back to sort of the origins of this story with the slush fund, it started with a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump himself against the IRS for leaking his tax forms a few years ago.

Most people thought that would be thrown out immediately if for nothing else on the statute of limitations. And then in exchange for throwing it out, he gets this $1.8 million slush fund, which is sort of the way it laid out. So, but thinking broadly about that first $10 million lawsuit and the president, trying to enrich himself sometimes with taxpayer money, but also with all the business deals we've talked about as nauseam, him getting wealthier and wealthier, his sons getting wealthier and wealthier, people around him making money off the administration, the phone, the coin, all of it. What are the checks internally? Do they exist anymore on the corruption that many reporters and many experts are watching right now in Washington?

Well, certainly there don't seem to be many in the executive branch. One of the greatest advantages that Trump has had in his second term is the fact that he does not have a Justice Department that appears to be looking at anything related to him or those around him. And every president, including Trump in his first term, has had to deal with some sort of investigation by their own Justice Department into their administration that has weighed them down. And he, this time, by the way, he has defanged the law enforcement community against himself and installed loyalists in the administration, people willing to go along with things like the slush fund, has made it that he doesn't have to contend with a Robert

Mueller special counsel investigation or any other type of investigation that looks critically into his conduct because those types of investigations, as we've seen, can really politically weigh down a president. It essentially weighed the president down for the first two and a half years of his first term. And in this, in this instance, all of those checks in the executive branch are largely gone. We've seen what we've seen from Congress. Congress has, you know, at least until recently, shown nothing but unwillingness to stand up to Trump. And the only thing that has left us with has been the courts. And the only part of the courts has been particularly adversarial to Trump has been the district court levels, the district court judges around the country.

But those judges can only do things if people bring lawsuits against the president of the United States to try and stop him. So the systems of checks, as we have seen, are not there. They're not particularly strong. You're sort of left with the media chronicling different parts of corruption. Some people in Congress making noise about it. And that's about it. Okay. Investigative reporter at the New York Times, Michael Schmidt. Thank you so much for coming in on this Friday morning. We appreciate it.