Morning Joe - Trump and Netanyahu united on the future of Gaza

Episode Date: December 30, 2025

Trump and Netanyahu united on the future of Gaza 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.

Well, we talked about Hamas and we talked about disarmament, and they're going to be given a very short period of time to disarm. And we'll see how that works out. If they don't disarm, as they agreed to do, they agreed to it, and then they'll be held to pay for them. And we don't want that. We're not looking for that. But they have to disarm within a fairly short period of time.

President Donald Trump, with that warning to Hamas during a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday. It came amid discussions about how to advance a ceasefire deal in Gaza. That comes as tensions between the United States and Venezuela dramatically escalate with the Trump administration conducting its first known land attack on that country. Plus, a major winter warning for millions of Americans as a powerful storm barrels across the Midwest and the Great Lakes to the eastern point. part of the country. The question, how much snow, ice, and rain could we all see?

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe on this Tuesday, December 30th, the penultimate day of the year 2025. I'm John Fulner. Thanks for, it's been a long year. As you can see, the co-host of the rest is Politics Podcast. The BBC's Caddy Kay is with us as well. We're in for Joe Meika and Willie. Thank you so much for starting your day with us. We've got a great group to get going. MS Now senior Washington reporter and the co-host of the weekend, Eugene Daniels, who just saw him on wait too early. Eugene's here, as well as senior national security reporter for MS Now, David Road. Good morning to you both. We have a lot of news to get to this morning, so we're going to dive right in. We will begin with President Trump hosting Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-Lago Country Club yesterday for a discussion on the future of Gaza and other key Middle East conflicts. The pair, after they emerged from that meeting, seemed perfectly in lockstep, complimenting each other with little sign of at least any outward disagreements. Both Netanyahu and Trump deemed the meeting productive, though they did not provide any substantive details about their discussion. And while they did not reveal much in the way of substance about their meeting, they were united on continuing the partnership between the two nations.

Well, I'm not concerned about anything that Israel's doing. I'm concerned about what other people are doing or maybe aren't doing. But I'm not concerned. They've lived up to the plan. They're strong. They're solid. But no, Israel's lived up to the plan 100%. We've never had a friend, even close, a friend as President Trump in the White House.

I think he's been extraordinary in his friendship and his support for Israel. This was a very, very productive meeting. And may I say, a very good lunch. Thank you. When asked about reports that Iran could be rebuilding its nuclear arsenal, President Trump issued a stark warning to that country. Let's watch. I hope they're not trying to build up again because if they are,

we're going to have no choice but very quickly to eradicate that buildup. So I hope Iran is not trying to build up, as I've been reading, that they're building up weapons and other things. I hope they're not doing it because we don't want to waste the fuel on a B2. It's a 37-hour trip both ways. I don't want to waste a lot of fuel. So, Katty, as we noted, that certainly outward appearances, all as well between Trump and Netanyahu, Netanyahu even almost fawning at times over the American president, who is so key to his. domestic political survival. But there are some thorny issues that are out there. Iran, to be sure,

with some rumblings that it is trying to rebuild its arsenal. And, of course, the Gaza ceasefire. We talked about it yesterday as we previewed this meeting. You know, certainly a significant accomplishment that ceasefire for hostage deal of a few months ago. But the subsequent phases, including, you know, Hamas disarming, what sort of peacekeeping force might be there. This is tough stuff that hasn't been worked out yet. Yeah, I feel a little bit. Like we had very good mood music yesterday when we spoke about the meeting with Zelensky on Ukraine. Good music today when we speak about the meeting with Netanyahu as well down in Mar-a-Lago. But actually, in terms of substance and progress on both days, it's not clear to me how much of that has been made.

So David Rode, when you listen to what President Trump was saying with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, let's leave Iran for a second, but let's start with the Gaza deal. clearly things have stalled. We've had a successful phase one, but phase two is not moving very fast. Did you get a sense that yesterday's meeting between the two leaders pushed that phase any further forward? I did not. And I see the first phase in the initial agreement back in November as thus signature foreign policy achievement of President Trump's first year back in office. It reduced the killings. 400 Palestinians have died since then, but the death rate has dropped. The hostages were brought home. There's one, the remains of one policeman who was

killed that has been returned. But it was a huge step forward. And I agree, it's slowed since then. It stalled. There was no details about the creation of a stabilization force. That was envisioned to be up to 10,000 troops. It was hoped that it would come, was forces from Egypt and Turkey and other Muslim majority countries. But none of that has come to fruition. And the key issue here is, is how will Hamas be disarmed? How will it? Some of talked about politically, how will Hamas be marginalized? And the fact is that the Palestinian authority has very little role in this plan so far.

And there's no sort of alternative in terms of governing, a Palestinian role governing Gaza that's emerged. So that's the key issue. There was no, that I heard progress on that. Lots of positive talk, I think, that helps them both. politically, domestically, but no progress on that key issue. And Eugene, there are domestic politics here in the U.S. as well. Certainly, you know, poll after poll suggests that the majority of, you know, many Americans did not approve of the way Israel conducted the war in Gaza.

There are fractures. We've talked a lot in recent weeks about the sort of new splintering we're seeing in the MAGA coalition. You know, Israel is one of those issues, you know, for some. You know, but President Trump, I mean, certainly he revels in the stature that Prime Minister Netanyahu affords him. Trump, obviously, revels in the idea of being a peacemaker. And at least for now, these two men have a, you know, symbiotic relationship. They're helpful to each other.

Yeah. One of the things that's really interesting about Trump is that peace, the people that deserve peace are people who are like nice to him, right? And so as we're watching him do these conversations, whether it is, with Zelensky, whether it is with Netanyahu, it's all based on his personal relationships. As you know, and they've written about in books and otherwise, Jonathan, that is how Donald Trump has operated his entire career. And he hasn't changed as president. He also exaggerates a lot. And so when the American people are watching him next to these folks, these leaders, it is very clear that one, he isn't maybe telling the truth. And two, I think, being, um, there's a

no substance. Either he doesn't know it or there isn't anything to actually share. And so that is something that I watch every single time there's one of these meetings is, did the ball actually move? And if it had, they would announce those in these press conferences. And it's interesting to watch these leaders do the exact same thing because they don't want to get out of line with Donald Trump. So they also kind of start to exaggerate a little bit, leave out the specifics and kind of hope at the end of the day that Donald Trump will continue to be their first. France. We have to continue to wait, as David said, on what the action is on both of these kind of peace agreements that are happening. But at the end of the day, President Trump and his

exaggeration makes it very hard to understand where this country is going on foreign policy. So worth pointing out that exaggeration, what it actually means and what it doesn't mean and how other leaders respond to them by exaggerating themselves. It's been an interesting dynamic to watch. Okay, we talked about Ukraine yesterday. There's been more developments there. Ukraine has denied that it launched drones targeting a residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, something that Russia has accused Keev of doing in recent days without providing evidence. Ukraine says the Russian claims are nothing more than an attempt to derail the peace talks. President Trump was asked about this yesterday.

Yeah, I don't like it. It's not good. I heard about it this morning. You know, told me about it? President Putin told me about it. Early in the morning, he said he was attacked. It's no good. It's no good. Don't forget, you know, the Tomahawks, I stopped the Tomahawks, I didn't want that.

Because we're talking about, you know, it's a delicate period of time. This is not the right time. It's one thing to be offensive, because they're offensive. It's another thing to attack his house. It's not the right time to do any of that and can't do it. And I learned about it from President Putin today. I was very angry about it. Okay, joining us from Paris, MS now international reporter, Inista La Quatera.

Inneszlensky's denied Putin's accusation. Do we know anything more about this alleged drone attack and what happened and who's behind it? Yeah, so Ukrainian President Zelensky says this is really just another round of Russian lies. He denies Ukraine is behind the attack. But when it comes to the specifics of the attack, I will say we don't actually know a whole lot about it. There were no photos or videos that came out of the attack. President Trump was asked if there was any U.S. intelligence regarding the attack. He said, we'll find out.

So what we do know is coming from the Russian side, from the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Labrov. He says this was an attack on Putin's Novgorod region. So that's one of Putin's official residences. He says this was a drone attack, that 91 drones were used, that all 91 drones were intercepted and destroyed, that there were no reports of casualties or of any damage. But again, this is all coming from the Russian side. there is no U.S. or Ukrainian intelligence to give us more details on that attack. And the Ukrainians are saying that this is really just an effort to derail peace talks

and specifically derail progress that was made over the weekend in Florida. Okay. So Trump, of course, sounded pretty optimistic about those peace talks when he met with Zelensky in Florida of the weekend. Do you think that this accusation could slow negotiations as Russia is now threatening retaliatory action? Yeah. So, I mean, they're threatening. retaliatory action. They say they've already identified targets. So the Ukrainians say this is the Russians really just using this as an excuse to continue striking Ukraine. There are fears inside Ukraine that the Russians could be striking Ukrainian government buildings next. And the Russians

have also said they would be revising their position when it comes to these negotiations. They say they're going to continue engaging with the U.S. They're not going to fully withdraw from negotiations, but that they will be reviewing their stance. But you're right. Yeah, this came as pretty much all sides sounded quite optimistic as of, you know, yesterday morning, you had President Trump, you had the Ukrainians saying that they were 90% of the way there on the peace plan. Even the Russians were kind of agreeing with President Trump's assessment that a peace plan was within reach. There are still major sticking points, of course, so this issue of territory with the Ukrainians acknowledging that the future of the Dombas region

remains up in the air. The Russians were calling for Ukrainian troops to withdraw from Donetsk as of yesterday. And then, of course, the security guarantees is the other big part of this. The big headline there, of course, over the weekend was the U.S. agreeing to provide Ukraine with 15 years of security guarantees. Ukraine would like to see longer security guarantees. So they'd like to see maybe 30, 40, 50 years of security guarantees. And of course, still unclear what those security guarantees would be. We know that the Ukrainians have been pushing for an international peacekeeping force. But the U.S. seems reluctant to commit to that. one Ukrainian specialist said to me it's an odd hill for Zelensky to die on because, of course,

those security guarantees could just be renegotiated after the 15 years. Why not take that as a win at the moment? MS now international reporter, Inest Aliquiterra, live from Paris. Thank you so much for joining us, Ines. Jonathan, this is a little bit of a mystery, this attack on Putin's residence, because if you look at Zelensky's social media feed, he's been adamant that this was not the Ukrainians. We don't have the evidence whether it was or whether it wasn't. But clearly, President Trump, again, seems to be siding with Vladimir Putin.

That's interesting to watch that he says, Putin told me, and therefore he seems to accept that that's the truth. Yeah, yet again, this is President Trump, simply taking Putin's word for it. I mean, most famously, of course, he did that at their Helsinki summit back in 2018 when he sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies when it came to the matter of the 2016 election interference. But time and time again, he's deferential to what the Russian. a leader says. And Putin has been, to this point, pretty successful at manipulating Trump and

keeping him closer to Moscow's worldview. And David Rode, I mean, this is something that, you know, first of all, once more, we realize just how far we actually are from any kind of peace deal in the war between Russia and Ukraine, mostly because Russia doesn't seem interested in it. we also know Russia, you know, even the pretext to their invasion of Ukraine a few years ago was built someone on false flag operations. Who's to say this isn't another one at Putin's residence? And my question to you is that even if at some point a deal is struck, you know, how possibly can the Americans, can Europe, can anyone involved in enforcing the ceasefire believe Russia were Russia to claim at some point, hey, Ukraine violated our deal?

therefore, we're going to attack again because simply Russia untrustworthy, but yet our American president tends to give them benefit of the doubt. This is a microcosm of dynamic that's occurred over and over again, and we talked about it earlier. I was in, earlier this month, I was in Brussels and met with European officials, and one just described to me about sitting in meetings with senior officials in the Trump administration and hearing them repeat Russian talking points. To be fair, maybe some Russian talking points are legitimate, but President Putin sort of pulling this out of a hat,

I would think that the American intelligence community would have some indication of whether such a thing occurred if it was 91 drones that entered Russian airspace and carried out such an attack. They would see where it was coming from. So we should hear more from that end. But it's just this is not the view of any modern American president. You know, Ronald Reagan trust but verify in terms of arm agreement. agreements with the Soviets. So this is President Trump's approach. As Eugene talked about, the praising of him is the approach foreign leaders and European leaders have adopted. People were very nervous to say the things they said to me. But this is the reality of Donald

Trump's second term foreign policy. Yeah. And that can't be said enough. Just how we've never had a president treat Moscow the way this one does. Elsewhere overseas, President Trump It says the United States has carried out its first known operation inside Venezuela, marking an escalation in the administration's pressure campaign that, until now, has targeted alleged drugboats at sea. The president offered these details when asked about the attack yesterday by reporters. There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. They load the boats up with drugs.

So we hit all the boats and now we hit them. the area, it's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around. And there's some new reporting this morning that sheds additional light on the apparent attack. The New York Times signs people briefed on the operation who say that the CIA conducted a drone strike on a dock, which U.S. officials believe was used for shipping narcotics. The newspaper adds that no one was on the dock at the time, and therefore no one was killed. Both the White House and CIA declined to comment to the Times, and MS now has not independently

confirmed the strike or this report. Meanwhile, the U.S. military continues to target suspected drugboats off the coast of Venezuela. U.S. Southern Command says two people were killed in a strike yesterday in the eastern Pacific. That brings the death toll to at least 107 across a string of 30 strikes, all carried without the Trump administration providing evidence of its time. claims about the boats or their passengers. So David wrote, President Trump for weeks now has blustered that the military operation may move towards land. It apparently has done so, if just barely, a dock here. There's a suggestion, though, he has hinted that we could

ramp up further. But it's still not clear what next steps may be. Nancy Yusuf, my colleague at the Atlantic, was on way too early this morning, noting the military assets in the region, saying that it's too many naval boats there, American vessels there for drugs, but not enough for regime change. So not clear what the goal might be. You know, we know, thanks to Susie Wiles in that revealing interview with Vanity Fair, that regime change, that they hope Maduro were to leave on his own accord. It doesn't, you know, we don't know that the U.S. will send boots on the ground to force him out. So, you know, just talk to us about how precarious situation is and the number of directions it could go.

So the goal is clearly regime change, and this new drone strike, I reached out to the CIA as well and no confirmation from them, but is to pressure Maduro to leave. It's part of, you know, a Cyops campaign, if you will, to get him to step down. You know, experts in the region say that he's unlikely to do that. This is a step forward. But I think this strike is going to going to result in more pressure from Congress, obviously Democrats, but some Republicans about what is happening here. More than 100 people have been killed in drone strikes. You've now got a strike on Venezuela itself. There were congressional authorizations for the war on terror for the drone strikes that were carried out very widely in Afghanistan and Yemen and many other

countries and in Pakistan. That doesn't exist for this. So it's an incredibly broad Trump foreign policy, speaking about what's happening in so many countries. You had drone strikes as well in Somalia and Nigeria just days ago as well. So it's an amazingly broad effort. And the real breakthrough, whether we're talking about Gaza, Ukraine, is sort of focus on attention, long determined efforts at diplomacy, pressuring people with sanctions and things like that. just the breadth of what President Trump is doing right now, overtly and covertly, is extraordinary. Yeah, and as if that were not all enough, there is more foreign news as well this morning. Taiwan's forces are today on high alert as China continues its large-scale military drills around the island.

When asked yesterday about China's exercises, President Trump says he's not worried about it. I have a great relationship with President Xi, and he has a great relationship with President Xi, and he hasn't told me anything about it I certainly have seen it but he hasn't told me anything about it and I don't believe he's going to be doing it no nothing worries me nothing

where there's smoke there's fire right so if you're in circle if you're doing naval exercises and air exercises doing naval exercises for 20 years in that area now people take it a little bit differently but in fact larger than they're doing right now. So we'll see. But they've been they've been doing that for 20, 25 years.

I don't know whether to ask you, Eugene, whether to ask you about Taiwan or to ask about the fact that nothing worries the president. That's a pretty striking comment to start with. But it's interesting how he's down, you know, he's clearly irritated by the strikes on the Russian president's residence. He's irritated by the strikes on Kiev. He's irritated by the fact that Gaza is not disarming, but he's not bothered by these military drills around Taiwan. Yeah, he's taking the Russian president's word for it, but when, you know, other, we're actually seeing what's happening in Taiwan with these military drills, he doesn't have any issues with it or any concern. That's a very good point. I also thought what was really interesting and revealing is that everything, like I said earlier, is about his personal relationships.

When he said, she didn't say anything to me about it. Why would she need to say anything to you about it? We have the smartest intel in the world. People beg for us to, used to, beg for us to give them. information. And so if the American intelligence community is saying this happened, it happened. And I, and, you know, the idea that someone like Xi who's been thinking about Taiwan for a very long time and thinking about how to take it back and get it back into China's hands is going to only operate if Donald Trump allows it is not true at all. These are people, these

leaders are going to have been around before Donald Trump. And in their eyes, because of them a dictators, they think they're going to be there after Donald Trump. And I think it's really important for the American people to ask questions. And for us as reporters to keep asking questions of the president of, sir, these things are happening. And America is supposed to do something if China and Taiwan actually go to war, if China invades Taiwan. And when you talk to experts, and David would know this better than I will. But the folks that I talk to say they have looked at, China has looked at what Russia has done in Ukraine. And that has has made them feel even more emboldened than they have in the past, especially as this president

has started to backtrack and not be as cozy with Ukraine as the previous administration. Yeah. I mean, there's increasingly less ambiguity in the president's position when it comes to Taiwan. He doesn't seem to be that interested in the prospect of defending it. Jonathan, I think the takeaway from all of this is, as Eugene says, how incredibly personal all of this politics is when it comes to international affairs for Donald Trump. It really is about his relationship with that leader, not about the structures that are in place within America that should be feeding information into him. He seems to take the word of leaders he likes over all of his own networks that he has as his resources in the White House. Yeah, I mean, personal relationships

have always mattered for presidents when it comes to international diplomacy, but never to this degree, where Trump makes, you know, previously they'd be, you know, whether a leader got along with his counterpart would still, that would matter, but within the framework of American foreign policy and established protocol and long-held beliefs, that's just simply not the case anymore. It's this president's whims seem to decide what America cares about in dozen. And David Rode, yeah, to picking up that conversation,

it doesn't seem like Trump is particularly interested in Taiwan. And to Eugene's point, you know, people have made that, I think, very smart observation that Beijing has watched how the U.S. has responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and at least under the Trump administration feels like, well, if we were to make a move on Taiwan, might be able to pull it off. That's the European message. They said that loud and clear to me earlier this month.

China is watching Ukraine. If the West blinks on Ukraine, China will see it as a sign of weakness and that it can then move on Taiwan. And just quickly, the last thing, a separate story I did with colleagues from MS now. Diplomats all over the world are struggling to figure. out how to communicate with this administration. There's no NSC staff to talk to. There's very few people in any power in the State Department except for Secretary Rubio. And they're trying to reach the president through Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner. And it just baffles them. They haven't seen anything like this again in decades. And that's just another challenge that we face in terms of

foreign relations. And this comes just after the president ousted a couple dozen ambassadors from countries around the world. And you're right, it is striking just how very small the circle is of people who are actually making decisions in this administration. The president, vice president, Secretary Rubio, Wiccoff, Stephen Miller. It's a few others, not many. And it has baffled many of our longtime allies. MS now, senior national security reporter, David Rode, David covered a lot of ground for us this morning. David, thank you, as always. We appreciate it. Still ahead here on Morning, Joe. We'll bring you the latest on the administration's immigration cracked down as ice officials get access to the personal data of the country's 79 million

Medicaid recipients. Plus, we'll bring you a conversation about the good, the bad, and the ugly of 2025. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Acqueweather's Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Jonathan, it is windy and cold across northeast today. The acuether exclusive forecast showing slippery travel as well near the lakes. Gusty winds in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia, a little bit of snow and slippery travel this afternoon from Chicago toward Detroit. It's cold but dry across the southeast, even Miami, high temperature of 72 degrees today. Your acuether travel forecast, the wind's going to cause havoc today at the airports in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Acu Weather today. I'm doing a magnificent, big, beautiful ballroom that the country has wanted. The White House has wanted for 150 years. It's a massive job, and it's a tiny fraction of that number. And we're under budget and ahead of schedule. Now, it's bigger than I told you. It's, you know, after realizing we're going to do the inauguration in that building,

it's got all bulletproof glass. It's got all drone, they call it drone-free roof. Drones won't touch it. It's a big, it's a big, beautiful, safe building. President Trump yesterday, defending his new ballroom. But former Bush advisor Carl Rove has a new column in the Wall Street Journal that recaps the good, the bad, and the ugly of 2025. And it reads in part this way.

There are signs that the public is tired. of President Trump's hyperbole and insatiable desire for retribution. Increasingly, they may hear only the offensive or cruel things he says. Has the president convinced himself that he doesn't need to sell his policies and actions? It appears that he believes he can simply will people into agreeing with him by claiming his achievements are the biggest, best, and most amazing in American history. He's gone way too far by slapping his name on buildings, like the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and government programs,

the Navy's Trump-class battleship. He might receive a fauna reaction from his MAGA base, but the average American finds such narcissism off-putting. Americans would be much more likely to support Mr. Trump if he explained what he's doing and asked for patience as his administration makes necessary changes, but that isn't his way. Presidents do best when they under-promise and over-deliver. The opposite, over-promising and under-delivering, angers voters. They often take out their anger at the ballot box. And, Caddy, this is becoming like the central theme of this administration over the last month or two. The President Trump seems out of touch, that he's been out of touch with what got him elected a year ago. He's out of touch

with what voters seem to really care about. He's still mostly calling affordability a hoax. Now he's starting to talk about pricing a little bit, you know, he's instead focusing on, okay, some foreign policy, that's fair, but a lot of also business deals that seem to enrich he and his family, things like the Kennedy Center, things like the ballroom, which, you know, he was going on about yesterday. And Carl Rove makes the point that I'm hearing from more and more Republicans, that they just feel like they can't count on Trump right now to talk about what they need him to talk about barreling into a midterms year. Look, there's a bit of a paradox at the end of this year because we've had two weeks of pretty good economic data, right? Growth is doing well,

inflation is coming down. And yet you've also had the last two weeks a couple of polls from the Pew Center and from Harris just yesterday that show that President Trump is losing support, not just with the population in general, but with those key people he needs to keep on side in order to do well in election. And those are the swing voters. His support amongst, for example, Latino voters when it comes to the economy is way down. Amongst young voters, his support is down, particularly on those economic issues. And I do wonder whether things like the Kennedy Center, renaming the Kennedy Center, when you drive past it here in Washington, D.C., all of us who live in Washington, Eugene and me,

you see it all the time, and you see that name, and it's kind of striking to see that. I drove past the United States Institute of Peace the other day. It's now the Donald Trump, United States Institute of Peace. You see all the gold, as we spoke about yesterday, in the Oval Office, around the White House, on the walkways, those plaques. It is that imperial presidency and the trappings of imperial presidency, and those may just be things that are symbolic and perhaps in the long run, they don't matter as much as some of his policies. But Eugene, I wonder whether actually those things rankle with Americans. I mean, you got rid of us for a reason a couple hundred years ago, as far as I remember, you didn't want a king. And so for people who are worried about prices, particularly to see all of this bling and to see his name everywhere and see him putting his name on a class of warship, does it just strike them as discord?

It's not quite what American presidents are meant to be. It strikes me. And it also says to them, you're not focused on me, right? That is something that Joe Biden learned the hard way, which, you know, he was even, it wasn't even doing any of this, even a quarter of what Donald Trump is doing. And he, I got deja vu when you were talking about the, you know, for Trump, some better numbers are coming this, you know, that we've seen at the end of this year. That was a, that was the store of the Biden administration. They had better macro economic numbers. They had the GDP was going up.

The inflation was calming down. And every time we kept talking about that, but voters weren't feeling it. And it is more important than ever for politicians to make voters feel a certain way. And while working on the actual issues, and I think what's really interesting about, Donald Trump and all of the names and the gold and all of that is the sheen of that is something that people in other countries, sometimes dictators do, right, is where they make things look shiny and that makes people feel that things are really good. And this president has convinced himself that he does not have to sell his policies to the American people because

he learned that through entertainment, that he can just say he's the best and eventually people will believe him. Yeah, Trump's been very good at asserting his own reality. We'll see, though, if that superpower is expiring. And Eugene's right. There are some growing parallel between this administration and the Biden presidency, sort of this disconnect about the economy and also increasing questions about the age and health of the chief executive. Coming up here on Morning Joe, we'll talk to a retired federal judge about why she says the Supreme Court is giving ICE so much power. Morning Joe, be right back with that. A live shot there of Washington, D.C.

You can see the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument in the distance as the sun begins to come up in our nation's capital. A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration may resume sharing limited Medicaid data with immigration and customs enforcement starting next month. A U.S. district judge said federal law allows the transfer of basic information such as address, dates of birth, and immigration status about undocumented immigrants receiving state-funded health benefits. The decision is definitely a win for Trump's deportation agenda and a setback for California and the 21 other states that sued to block that practice. Meanwhile, ICE agents deployed across the U.S. have been accused in recent months of aggressive, unchecked actions, including detaining people without cause in holding detainees without legal access.

Our next guest says many of their tactics are illegal and violate constitutional protections. Joining us now is former federal judge Nancy Gertner. She is a professor of law at Harvard University and the author of a new piece for the Atlantic with the headline, why the Supreme Court is giving ICE so much power. Thank you so much for being with us. This morning. Let's start right there. That's been a subject of great mystery and frankly, consternation on this show. Joe has really weighed in on this, and he just can't imagine why the Supreme Court is allowing ICE to act the way it does. We've gone over quite a bit about Justice Kavanaugh claiming, well, even if you're a U.S. citizen and you're briefly detained by ICE, it's a minor inconvenience, but yet we have example after example after example when it most certainly is not. So what are some of your theories here? Why is the Supreme Court being so permissive when it comes to ice. Let me set the table a little bit here. Think about this.

Only five years ago, the streets were filled with people that were dealing with police reform. It was after the George Floyd shoot, you know, killing. And we spent a long time talking about police reform. The irony is at this moment, we have checked one police force only to have created another one that seems to act with impugnesty.

How did this happen? Well, back in 1984 and then in 22, Supreme Court issued two decisions. One decision was about whether or not illegally obtained evidence could be introduced into court. If a police officer gets evidence illegally, arrests illegally, searches for house, you know, sweeps and gets stuff that he or she doesn't have a right to get, that material is suppressed in court. The idea is because of that suppression, police officer will, it'll deter him from searching illegally because he wants the case to win. With ICE in 1984 in an O'Connor decision, the court said that the violations only have to be egregious, only have to be egregious, which is an unbelievably high bar, ordinarily illegally obtained evidence can be admitted. And they said this because of a premise that ICE was acting in regular ways, that ICE was following the rules, that violations were not widespread, a premise which is completely false today. In addition, when a police officer searches your house illegally, or beats you up, you can sue the police officer. Again, in 2022, the court determined that you actually can't sue ICE for these kinds of violations. So the structure of enforcement has fallen away.

So Judge Gertner, given these two legal precedents that give ICE a lot of power, and given this Supreme Court and given this White House, it doesn't sound like somebody who is caught up in ICE's net, in a way that is not legal, a citizen, for example, or a lawful permanent resident or somebody who's not committed a crime, it doesn't sound like they have much recourse. They don't have much recourse.

I mean, one of the things that the court said was that, of course, you know, you can file a complaint with ICE internally. That is ridiculous today. Fundamentally ridiculous. There's also another issue here, which is the way that Trump is affecting immigration arrests. We don't even know

where immigrants go. We don't know where they are. And there's a thing called expedited removal, which used to only be at the border. Now the Trump administration sort of said it's in the entire country. So people are not even in a place where they can claim rights, even if they had it. I'm just reminded of something that Kristinov says, well, you know, ICE officers are subject to vulnerable to attacks and are in a dangerous profession. The notion that police who are regulated in this way are not attacked and are not subject to even more danger. It's extraordinary. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner, thank you so much.

Her piece for The Atlantic, available to read online now, in fact, leading the magazine's website. Still ahead, details on the underground ceremony plan for the swearing-in of New York City's next mayor. We'll tell you about that. Plus, Queen B takes out a whole new meaning for Beyonce. We'll explain that. on Morning John.