Morning Joe - Trump Approval Near Record Low in Fox Poll

Episode Date: May 21, 2026

Trump Approval Near Record Low in Fox Poll 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.

We're going to introduce a bill. We're trying to get our arms around what jurisdiction we have. So we need to unpack the source of the funding. And that's our question to tie Blanche is, where is his money coming from? Where is it being pulled from? Because we need to tie it back to an appropriation that passes House and Senate and figure out what belt and suspenders we had around it and what they can and can't do with it.

So that's going to be the first question. You know, ultimately this will be followed up with legislation once we get to the root cause of where, what the source of the funds is. Republican Congressman Ryan Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, pushing back against the Trump administration attempting to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund without congressional approval, but will enough Republicans actually stand up to the president and block it from happening? We'll dig into that.

Plus, we'll go through new reporting on a disagreement between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the next steps in the war with Iran. And we continue to follow the Trump administration's aggressive deportation tactics, including the story of a mother who was sent to Venezuela arrested during a routine immigration appointment, leaving her children without her in Texas. And there's more to that. We'll have it ahead. Good morning. And welcome to morning, Joe. It's Thursday, May 21st, with a little bit of. we have the co-host of our 9 a.m. hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire,

and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. We'll get to the funding bill in just a moment. But first, we want to show you some new polling from Fox News showing President Trump's approval rating near a record low. We keep reporting on these lows. At this point, look at these numbers. His overall job performance is at 39 percent, down three points in last month and 10 points since his second term started. It's only one point above his lowest ever, which came in October of 2017 during his first term. However, his 61% disapproval rate is a record high. Meanwhile, voters are upset with his handling of the economy. 71% disapprove of the job he is doing on that key issue. That is five. points higher than just last month and 15 points higher than a year ago. The increase since last

month includes a seven point rise in disapproval among, and here's the key point here, Republicans. As for the war with Iran, two-thirds think the United States is winning, but 60 percent opposed the military action, which is an increase of five points since last month. That's a whole conversation within itself in terms of messaging. Jonathan Lemire, though, the numbers, especially among Republicans, you would think the White House might take note. Yeah, they have yet to issue any sort of course correction, though. And there's a Quinnipiac poll out this week as well, similar numbers, even has it 34% approval,

34%. That's an extraordinary. Drop four points since last month. In that poll, his approval among independents, just 26%. And that is what's setting off alarm bells for Republicans, of course, head. into this falls, into this falls midterms. But we're seeing the toll of the Iran war and the resulting economic impact. We have seen numbers, a number of surveys this week suggesting how unhappy Americans are

about inflation, about rising prices, some of which connected to this war. And we are seeing it, we'll get into it as the show goes on, about Republicans in small measures distancing themselves to the president, pushing back, particularly on the ballroom in that funding. Because there's a sense that Trump's priorities are simply not aligned with what Americans care about. He's not making their lives better. I mean, Willie, this number on the economy, 71% disapprove of the job he's doing on that key issue.

Meanwhile, as you're about to report our top top story, it appears the administration is interested, and the president is interested in helping themselves, himself. Yeah, the American people have been screaming in poll after poll after poll at this president, this administration, help us on the economy. Now he's down in a Fox News poll in the two. 20s, as you point, dipping among his own supporters in the Republican Party. Americans want this president to focus on their day-to-day lives, gas, groceries. We talk about it every day. And he simply is not, does not, has said again this week, frankly, I'm not that worried about people's

financial situations. He clearly isn't. And the American public is taking notice. What he is doing, though, is creating these funds, these money for people that he believes were wronged by the previous administration. Trump administration's newly announced $1.776 billion, so-called anti-weaponization discretionary fund, is getting pushback now from Republican lawmakers. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania telling reporters yesterday, he's going to try to, quote, kill it. Congressman, what do you make in this $1.7 billion fund for, you know, partners? We're going to try to kill it. You're going to try and kill it? Wow. Okay. And how?

Well, we're considering legislative options. We're going to write a letter to the AG to start, but we're considering a legislative option. We're trying to unpack exactly what the legal machinations are, but can't do that. You can't do that, says the congressman. He sent acting attorney general Todd Blanche this letter yesterday demanding more information on the fund. The letter reads in part a massive discretionary fund with no oversight or approving. from Congress represents a dangerous backsliding in the transparency of our institutions and our commitment to the American taxpayer. A number of Republican lawmakers in the Senate also now

speaking out against the move, the fund would give the president the power to gift taxpayer dollars to allies who claim they were victims of an allegedly weaponized Justice Department under President Biden. The top issue lawmakers have with the idea is who exactly will be compensated. The acting attorney general was asked yesterday, if January 6 insurrectionists who attacked police officers and were charged by the DOJ would be able to apply. The acting attorney general did not rule that out. Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time. There's a process where if you believe you have your rights violated, you can apply for funds, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court.

In some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal, government settles those cases. It's abhorrent to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why any time anybody does that and it's a federal officer will prosecute them. But that's a completely different question with whether an individual is allowed to apply for a claim. Whether they'll get a claim, who depends? I can't, it's not, it would not be appropriate for me to talk about absolutes, like absolutely not under no circumstances. I mean, we can talk about hypotheticals so we're blue in the face. But, but, um, But that really wouldn't be fruitful.

Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill yesterday that would block the fund entirely after his motion to subpoena, the acting attorney general failed. So Jonathan Lemire, it is abhorrent that people attack cops, and yet the President of the United States and his Justice Department last year let most of those people out of prison, just gave them pardons, commuted their sentences, and let them go free. The concern here, obviously, is that the acting attorney general is the president's personal attorney has been in the past working on his behalf, and that, of course, he may tilt in favor of people who support the president of the United States, though he said in that hearing in the Senate a couple of days ago, no, everyone would be eligible for this. Maybe James Comey or Mark Kelly, or we can go down the line. I think it's a safe bet that James Comey and Mark Kelly and the like are not going to benefit for.

from this particular fund. Yeah, the Senator Van Hollen and acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, actually had a memorable exchange earlier this week where the senator pointed out, indeed, as you just did, Willie, that Blanche used to work directly for the president as his personal lawyer and now is clearly trying to get the acting removed from his title and just become attorney general and is doing Trump's bidding. But there's a lot of pushback to this. And even yesterday, let's remember President Trump issued those January 6th pardons on his first day in office.

He was only president again for a few hours, and he sat in the Oval Office and took care of it. Against some of his advisors, you know, counsel who said, look, you don't do widespread pardons. Make sure you exempt those who committed violent crimes. He went, nah, we're going to do them all. And yesterday, there were a few people who had been convicted for January 6-related crimes, taking the social media saying they're going to seek millions of dollars. I saw one guy say he was going to seek $30 million from this fund. Now, I had no idea if that's going to happen, but that shows you the door that's been.

opened here that people see this as an opportunity. And again, you know, Mika, it is a moment where there are Republicans who are willing to say, ah, we're not really sure we're for this. But to the, I think the theme that's really emerging right now is that even some in the GOP are seeing, the Trump is putting his own interests ahead of the parties. Now, that's probably always been the case, but this is the most extreme we've ever seen it, where he's doing nothing to help them ahead of November trying to turn around the economy, which most voters are going to judge them on. And instead, he's taking care of himself. his family, and those who've committed violent acts in his name.

The IRS reportedly urged the Justice Department to fight President Trump's lawsuit over leaked tax records, but the administration settled the case anyway. And according to the New York Times, IRS lawyers drafted a 25-page memo arguing Trump's lawsuit had major flaws and should be dismissed. But Justice Department lawyers never challenged the case in court. Instead, the administration struck a deal, creating that nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. The Justice Department has not explained why it chose to settle. So Richard Haas, just kind of a big picture about, number one, the importance of American exceptionalism.

Thinking of Ronald Reagan's 1989 farewell speech, a shining city on the hill. tall, proud city with reports that hummed with commerce and creativity and doors open to anyone who will get there. We're going to get to some ICE and immigration stories a little later in the show. But to this, as some would say, corruption, what do we look like

as opposed to the way Ronald Reagan saw this country and the way other presidents tried to create for an example to the world? Well, the one word answer, Mika, would be unrecognizable. What we're seeing is the personalization of American government. There used to be clear lines, and the lines don't exist anymore. So whether it's using the Justice Department to weaponize or using the Justice Department to incentivize and reward, and the idea that it's discretionary, whatever happened to

oversight, whatever happened to checks and balances, we're also seeing the president's total domination of his party. So we've never had this degree of concentrated power. You know, you could say FDR had a lot of power, but there were two things going on then, a depression and World War II. Right. The idea that you have this concentration of power in quote unquote relatively normal times is truly, truly unprecedented. So here's the end of the great irony. So you have Hungary after 16 years of Orban's rule, you see democracy reclaiming itself. And here we're becoming in a liberal democracy. devolving. And be really interesting to see if these Republicans, I'm skeptical, let's be blunt, if they decide,

is there anything any time that's too much? And the idea that you'd have this fund without congressional oversight, essentially it would give the entire appropriation and authorization process to the president. He would become Article 1 and Article 2 altogether. Is this something that will finally get them to say, enough's enough? I don't know. And there's a fear that this fund could be used, not just to reimburse those who are, you know, victims of weaponization, but it could be a green light to say, hey, do something in the future,

we'll take care of you, that this could lead to further violence, further crimes, further, you know, terrible acts committed. And I do think, you mentioned Orban. A couple of Democrats in last few days have pointed out that a winning issue there in Hungary to defeat Orban was the corruption. That the issue of corruption really sort of resonated with voters. And Democrats are starting to think that, yes, economy is always going to be first and foremost. But the idea of corruption could be a winning issue here as well, Willie. This, this, November, that this could be something that they're able to run on and say, look, you know, not only is he not helping you, the American people, he's doing so at your expense as he

enriches himself, his family, and his friends. Yeah, and these stories really are breaking through. We talk meek all the time about this fire hose, which is done on purpose, it's strategic, just put so much out there that there's no way for the public to possibly digest it all, be outraged about it, understand it in some cases. But this story really has broken through. and you're talking about a deal that looks corrupt to most people where the former personal attorney to the President of the United States is now the acting attorney general cuts this deal where they drop a lawsuit, hand him effectively a slush fund of nearly $2 billion

to pay out people that the American public watched on January 6, 2021, attack the capital, beat up cops, deface the capital, go into people's offices and ransack them. Everyone watched that. So if you're asking those people to give their time, taxpayer dollars potentially to those people to somehow compensate them for what, even though they've already been let out of prison, oftentimes when they shouldn't have been. This has broken through with the American people in a very real way. So Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm

has dramatically increased its assets over the past year in the latest example of how companies with ties to President Trump's family are benefiting from his policies. The financial Times is reporting the firm, 1789 capital has grown from $200 million to $3.5 billion. That's a 17-fold increase. It's due in large part to dealmaking with many privately held artificial intelligence companies. Hmm, I feel safe. One partner described the fund as being the first to commit, quote, patriotic capitalism. Their portfolio, including, Elon Musk's XAI and SpaceX, as well as defense startups like Vulcan elements and prediction market platform, Polymarket. This all comes after recently released filings,

showed President Trump made thousands of stock trades on many companies whose profits have been impacted by his policies. The president insists his stocks are managed by his company, the Trump Organization, which says his trades are overseen by third-party financial institutions. And still ahead on Morning Show. We'll get to the latest on the war in Iran, including an apparent disagreement between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, what it means for future negotiations to end the conflict.

Plus, as we approach Memorial Day, retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling will join us to discuss the sacrifices made by those. who serve. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this Thursday morning from Acqueweather's Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, noticeably cooler today. Your exclusive ACUther forecast, clouds, breaks of sun in Portland, Boston. Just rained Philadelphia, New York City, Washington, D.C., some sunning

cooler from Chicago towards St. Louis. No sign of any cooling across the southeast with spotty thunderstorm, Charlotte, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, some drenching thunderstorms around Houston and Dallas today. Do expect some delays, New York City, Philadelphia, D.C., Miami, and Atlanta. To help you make the best decisions would be more in the know. Download the Ackyweather app today. We're going to end that war very quickly. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen fast.

Is it? Because this is what you said at the beginning of March. Are you thinking this week it will be over? No, but soon. I think so. Okay, and with respect to... Very soon. It's going to be finished pretty quickly.

And this is what you said at the beginning of April. We're going to finish it very fast. I view it as very close to over. And this is what you said at the beginning of May. You have a lion, a bear, an alligator, and a... What's another good? A squirrel. Okay?

Which is the squirrel? I think the squirrel is the one presently in control of the street of Homoos. Trump. Stephen Colbert, whose last show ever is tonight, and we are told there is a massive surprise in story. You won't want to miss that. More on that coming up a little bit later. But as negotiations continue with Iran, there is new reporting about how both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu view the future of the war. Axios is citing three sources who say the two leaders discussed a new effort to reach a deal with Iran in a tense call on Tuesday.

MS now has confirmed that call took place. Sources telling Axios, it comes as a revised peace memo was drafted by Qatar and Pakistan with input from the other regional mediators to try to bridge gaps between the United States and Iran. Axios goes on to report that Trump and Netanyahu, however, were in disagreement about the way forward. That's according to two Israeli sources.

The outlet notes, Netanyahu is highly skeptical about these negotiations. They're not alone in that. And wants to resume the war to first, degrade Iran's military capabilities and weaken the regime by destroying its critical infrastructure. While President Trump continues to say he does think a deal can be reached, but that he's ready to resume the war if it isn't. Iran is reportedly reviewing the American response for its proposal for a deal. Here is some of what the president had to say to reporters about all this yesterday.

What have you said to Prime Minister Netanyahu about Iran and how long to hold off on strike? He's fine. He'll do whatever I want him to do. He's very, very, very, very, very, good man. He'll do whatever I want him to do. And he's a, he's a great guy. To me, he's a great guy. Don't forget, he was a wartime prime minister. And he's not treated right in Israel, in my opinion. I'm right now at 99% in Israel. I could run for prime ministers. So maybe after I do this, I'll go to Israel, run for prime minister. Richard, we can put that last bit to the side, but let's focus on what's important here. President Trump suggesting that he can tell Netanyahu to do whatever he wants to do.

Many believe that is exactly 180 degrees opposite that Prime Minister Netanyahu kind of led President Trump into this war and is trying to get him back into the fighting again. A lot to unpack there. I actually think Donald Trump can pretty much tell Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, what he needs to do. Bibi Netanyahu faces an election in the next few months. His strongest argument is that he has a great relationship with Donald. Donald Trump in the United States.

So the idea that Netanyahu would pick a fight with the president or allow it to be depicted that way, I don't see how that strengthens his political hand. But there will, I think the bigger story is there are profound differences and divergences that have evolved between the United States and Israel. Donald Trump wants a deal. Quite rightly, even if reluctantly, has come to the conclusion that more military force doesn't buy us a lot, plus it risks Iran attacking the energy infrastructure. of all the neighbors.

So President Trump wants a deal on the nuclear issue, on the strait, and will compromise. Bibi Natchiahu wants open-ended war, wants to continue to pound away to keep Iran on its back foot, plus is really worried not only that Donald Trump may accept some details on the nuclear that allow Iran's some nuclear program, but also that the agreement probably won't include Iran's ballistic missile force or its drone force or its support for. groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, that it will tie Israel's hand because there'll be a ceasefire. So that's the great irony here. Bibi Netanyahu came to Washington, persuaded Donald Trump in no small part to go to war.

This is a war that might open up deep differences between the United States and Israel down the road. Richard, do you have any real sense or the people you talk to in the foreign policy community about where these negotiations such that they are for peace or some kind of a deal, where they are because President Trump continues for six or seven times. I had my finger on the trigger. We were about to resume the war, and I was convinced to back off to allow space for these negotiations. Are we really talking to the Iranians in a meaningful way? Well, again, I don't think the president is comfortable restarting the war.

It's not clear to me what you'd accomplish militarily or politically. And again, it risks Iranian retaliation. As bad as this crisis is, Willie, if you saw the destruction of the region's energy infrastructure in Gutter in the United Arab Emirates in Saudi, you would turn this into a global depression. So let's just be honest about that. Look, there's been a big gap between the two sides, between the U.S. and Iran, both sides have been staking out maximal positions. My senses both see some of the weaknesses there. Iran is feeling the pressure. The United States is clearly feeling the pressure of higher prices. We began the show with the polls. So my senses were narrowing the differences.

And I think we're going to probably end up with a deal after a few more weeks or a month or so where the straight reopens. Iran has more influence over it than it had before the war. On the nuclear, yeah, we'll probably have some agreement where we get this enriched uranium out. My guess is Iran will agree to some type of a several-year moratorium on no enrichment. But at some point it'll be able to enrich again. It's not going to zero out their nuclear program. It's going to put a ceiling on it again. And if it looks a little bit like the deal that Barack Obama negotiated and Donald Trump ripped up in his first term,

it's because it will look a little bit like that deal. That's going to be the real criticism here. We went to war. We ended up with a straight that's less open. We ended up with a nuclear agreement, kind of like the one we had before. And Iran has much more influenced than it ever had before. That's going to be Donald Trump's burden to carry. We will see.

And as we enter this Memorial Day weekend, President Trump yesterday was talking about. talking about some of the costs of the war, specifically about the number of U.S. service members lost in the war in Iran. You lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers in these various wars. In two wars, Venezuela, but we lost nobody. And here, we lost 13 people. Now, 13 people is 13 too much, but we lost 13 people. In other wars, you lost hundreds of thousands of people.

So people don't like it when you say, oh, do you know you've lost 13? We've lost in two major wars. We took over Venezuela. We essentially took over Iran, and we've lost so far 13 people. Some other, somebody else would have lost 100,000 people. Okay. But I get a kick when I look at somebody on television. He's lost 13 people.

I lost 13 people. They lost 13 people leaving an airport. President Trump talking about the 13 American service members killed in this war so far. Let's bring in decorated combat veteran, former commander of U.S. Army, Europe, retired Army Lieutenant General, Mark Hurdling. He is an MS now military analyst general. Always good to see you. Obviously, President Trump is comparing this war to massive years-long ground wars in Europe,

in Asia and around the world. But I'm curious, just first of all, before we start talking about Memorial Day, and I really want to get your thoughts about that, just about the state of this war and what you hope is the best possible outcome of a negotiation here. Well, you know, it was interesting listening to Admiral Cooper testify the other day because he repeatedly talked about the potential for new military operations during his congressional testimony. In each one of the cases where he was asked about how do we end this, he said, well, we've got different courses of action. We're prepared to do whatever the president wants us to do in the Gulf. We had military courses of action. But when he was pressed on exactly the question you asked me, Willie, he was hesitant to answer.

He said, well, those are policy decisions. I don't get into policy. I just get into military action. And truthfully, he's right on target to a degree. But you also have to understand as a military commander, you have to care. continue to think about the end state. What are we trying to achieve? What course of action will get you there? And as you just, as Richard Hofstra said, there is the potential for both sides walking away from their maximalist demands, which are at the very opposite ends of the spectrum.

But it's going to be very difficult, and it's going to take a lot of diplomatic pressure. Effectiveness and efficiency in war, especially with the U.S. military machine, can happen very quickly. Wars can start easily. They can consume a lot of resources and equipment and a lot of manpower. They can do the things the president wants them to do very fast. But in this case, we're talking about an end to the war. And no matter how quickly you start a war, wars take a long time to end. And what we're talking about now is diplomatic actions, like Richard just said. those could take months or years. And they're not going to come together just because of an intimidation campaign or continued threats to use more military force. We haven't seen that work so far.

There have been some certainly deterioration of Iran's military, but that's not enough, and it's only hardened them to stand up longer to us. Yeah, and Mika, I'm told by senior advisors, the president has not ruled out. resuming hostilities, but it's very clear. He doesn't want to do that. And now he's going to have to try to come to some sort of deal that he can spin as a win. Now let's be clear, he will say anything he gets will be a win. That's what he does. But if he ends up settling for something that really resembles what the Obama administration had agreed to a decade ago, that is going to be a hard one for him to live with. And I do think, to Richard's point, at this point, it is inevitable that Iran will

have more control, either explicit or implicit, over the straight-of-form moves. and first of all, it'll be months before energy prices return to where they were before the war. And Iran may benefit from this. They may profit off of control of the strait. And at minimum, they now know at any time they want to close it, they can. And they can inflict real economic pain on the rest of the world. So it is hard to see an end to this war, which President Trump is desperate to achieve, that leaves us in a better place than where it began.

I mean, it may end with Iran having more leverage. and energy prices up and tens of billions of dollars spent on it, you just wonder how this lends politically. Even with Trump's base, when polls are showing his handling of the economy, people are thumbs down, 71% disapprove of the job he's doing on the economy, five points higher than last month, 15 points higher than a year ago. it'll be interesting to see if his base or Republicans in general are on board with this, which appears to be going in the wrong direction.

General, you reflect on Memorial Day in a new piece for the bulwark titled, The Last Full Measure Quietly Remembered. And you write, quote, I watch as most of America marks the weekend as the unofficial beginning of summer cookouts and baseball games, long weekends, beaches, family gatherings, flags fluttering from porches, and social media posts wishing everyone a happy Memorial Day, and there is nothing wrong with any of that. But for some Americans, especially the veterans who have stood in combat zones, besides those who sacrificed it all and family members who suffered the pain of the knock on a door,

it arrives very differently. for those who have attended memorial ceremonies on dusty airfields in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even still Vietnam, or who escorted transfer cases draped in flags, or who listened to bagpipes while rifles stood inverted beside combat boots and helmets under a fading sunset, Memorial Day is not abstract patriotism. It is deeply personal. Perhaps on this Memorial Day, as Americans from every background gather, we might do something that's becoming rare in our divided age. Come together quietly as one nation and reflect on what courageous sacrifice for one another truly means. Remember them. Honor them. And above all, make it happen. General, maybe add some footnotes to that beautiful piece.

Well, thanks, Nika. This has become a yearly tradition for me to talk on cable news about the soldiers, sailors, and airmen as well as allies that either I served alongside or commanded in multiple combat tours because I have a box full of them. And that was the picture on that first visual that you showed. And the box is right here, by the way. It's on my desk. And it says, make it matter on the top. General Dempsey, General Scabrari and I all have that box. I have 250 cards with photos of soldiers I served alongside who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I watched John Kirby on your show yesterday. A dear friend of mine, we've done a lot of things together. He was in Iraq with me for a short period of time. and he's a hell of a sailor as well as a great national security advisor. And he talked about an individual that he wears a bracelet for. And all of us have those kind of memories of people we serve alongside that were the best of us. They provided the ultimate sacrifice in terms of what they did for the country. That picture you're showing now is from Margarod Cemetery in the Netherlands,

one of my favorite places to visit when I was U.S. commander. in Europe. About 8,000 soldiers rest in peace there from different religions, different backgrounds. And it talks about, it talks to us about what we should do because every single one of those 8,000 plus graves have been adopted by Dutch citizens. They helped the American Battle Monument Commission take care of those braised sites. They're there on special occasions, hundreds of them. And when my wife and I asked one family that was standing above a grave, why do you do this? They said, because these young men and women saved us. They liberated us, not once, but twice. Those individuals from the Netherlands have a better concept of service and

sacrifice, I think, than sometimes many Americans do, and the courage to stand up for it as well, the courage to stand up for what we believe in and our values. So that's what I'm thinking about today. out a couple of cards from my box that were killed in action over 10 years ago, over 15 years ago, actually now, and wondering where each one of them would be today, what their family would be like as opposed to missing them in high school graduations or dinner tables or special occasions. And you see how much they sacrifice, and what we have to do is make it matter for them. We have to earn what we have as a nation. And sometimes we forget that in our current environment of contention and anger and a lack of understanding of listening to other people.

So Memorial Day is certainly a day to remember those who gave their last full measure. But I would suggest it's also a day for the rest of us to think about how we can make it matter for our country today, not just fighting with other people and sharing our opinions versus facts. but really digging deep down and saying, how can we make this country better as opposed to continuing to divide it? The general's important piece is online now for the bulwark. MS now retired military analysts, retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Appreciate it. And coming up earlier this week, we discussed the more than 100,000 children who have reportedly seen their parents taken into ICE detention amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. We'll bring in a reporter who's been following the story, many stories, including one of a mother who experienced major health complications while in custody as her children were forced to remain without her.

Morning Joe will be right back. A new data from the Brookings Institution shows more than 145,000 children with U.S. citizenship. have experienced the detention of at least one of their parents amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. And new reporting from Univision tells the story of Anna Delgado, a mother of two who was deported after being transferred to various U.S. detention centers during her time in ICE custody. She faced health complications after being unable to express breast milk and suffering from mastitis.

She is just one of a reported 363 pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding women who have been detained between June 2025 and March of this year. And joining us now, Univision reporter Lydia Tarazas, who's been tracking these stories. Lydia, I've been following your reporting, and I really appreciate it. We've got to bring these stories home on a very personal level. So first, tell us about this mother and how you found. out about it and what you know about the conditions she faced in detention and then, of course, developing mastitis. Where does this story stand right now? Mika, thanks for having me. Anna Delgado had lived in the United States for over seven years. She has two United States citizen children.

Isaiah is four and Hannah is one. Now, I heard about the story from an organization here in Texas. and they were trying to raise awareness about her situation. She was detained back in April 29th in her home during a routine immigration check-in in front of her two small children. She was still breastfeeding Hannah regularly, almost exclusively. The detention came to her surprise because she actually had a couple of immigration cases pending, including an I-130 because she is also married to a year. United States citizens. So she ended up in the Carnes Detention Center here in Texas where she,

you know, struggled to get a breast pump. She ended up getting a breast pump eventually after practically begging for one, asking for a doctor because she developed mastitis. She had fever. She had chills. She had a lot of pain. She said the breast pump didn't actually work. So she ended up having to find relief in the shower, which is actually something that we've heard from several women who were postpartum, who were nursing, that have been detained in the last few months. And what is the status now? I also had seen you traveling with a husband. I know if it was hers trying to get babies to their mothers to be able to breastfeed. I mean, this is horrendous, especially if breastfeeding is the only way they can feed their children. Financially, it's a huge

toll on the family left behind with the babies. For Anna, she was deported a few days ago. She was transferred to Arizona and quickly deported. That's sort of the system. You know, once there is a transfer specifically to Eloy, Arizona, we can predict that that mother is most likely going to be deported. I do want to mention that, you know, the detention of postpartum women, pregnant women, and nursing women goes against the Department of Homeland Security's own directive that states those detentions shouldn't happen unless there are extreme circumstances. But now these detentions are extremely regular. In terms of the father

that I followed to a detention center in Louisiana, that was actually Paola Kluwak's case. That was one of the first cases of this type that we saw. And it was actually back in July of last year. And he had to take the baby who she was attained when the baby was nine weeks old. So it was extremely important to help this mom not only continue to produce breast milk, but to find some relief because she was also in extreme pain after and during her detention. Tell me about Evelyn Sanchez, who's originally from Honduras, who also had a similar situation. Yes, it's the exact same situation. You know, she had two United States citizen children. One is a baby.

and she was actually detained in Dilley. I do cover the Dilley Detention Center, which is a family detention center. That's what it's considered almost exclusively at this point. And she was detained as she was driving in California. So she was actually, it was a traffic stop. And she ends up being taken to Dilley with her eldest son and separated from her two younger children. one of them, she was breastfeeding. And, you know, she was released a day before Mother's Day.

So she did have the opportunity to be with her children on Mother's Day. But her message was very clear. She said, I am not the only one. And she was actually the beginning of us uncovering sort of a pattern of a growing population, specifically in the Dilley Detention Center, the Family Residential Center here in Texas. of breastfeeding, postpartum, and pregnant women, that it's apparently a population of detainees

that has been growing in the last few weeks. This is according to not only attorneys, but organizations that are familiar with these cases. All right. We'd love to have you back to talk more about all these different cases that are happening there. Univision reporter Lydia Tarazazas, thank you very much. And of course, Willie,

we know lawmakers are trying to get into these detention centers, Dilly among many of them. But obviously these stories that Lydia is covering breastfeeding mothers, definitely not the worst of the worst. This is some sick stuff that's happening here. It is. And this didn't go away just because the Iran war came up or the nation turned its eyes to other matters after Minneapolis. This is going on right now in real time. And thanks to that kind of reporting, we're still hearing about it. Meanwhile, earlier this week, we showed your results of a nationwide New York Times Sienna poll that shows President Trump's approval

at just 20% among Hispanic Americans. As for what that means for the midterms, a new Harris Univision poll shows Latino voters in swing districts still very much up for grabs with 52% of the voting bloc saying they still are undecided or could be persuaded when it comes to candidates in their districts. Let's bring in the CEO of Univision, Daniel Allegra.

Daniel, always great to have you with us. let's walk through some of your polling, but also the larger question of how a president who 18 months ago won 48% of the Latino vote, a huge number for a Republican president, down now at 20%, at least in that New York Times poll. Obviously, Latino voters have the same concerns of all Americans, which is their pocketbook, the economy is not good, but what else do you think is driving that number? Well, Willie, thank you for having me. And, you know, the reporting that Lydia just showed is what we do at Univision. You know, we really fundamentally are the voice of Hispanics

and need to be very, very close to all the issues that matter to Hispanics. This poll that we just released is part of our overall strategy of making sure that what really matters to Hispanics makes it to the forefront. In 2024, what we saw is a fundamental change of how Hispanics view

the big issues that matter to them. Before then, they were, essentially a predominantly democratic vote. And in 24, that shifted to be an issue's vote. You know, what are the issues that really fundamentally matter to them? And at

that time, and it's still the case now, as we saw in the poll that we released just yesterday, it's all about the economy. It's the cost of living, the cost of groceries, the cost of gasoline. And in 24, they voted for that specific reason. And the polling that we released yesterday

shows not only that those are the issues that really matter, but the Hispanic community is really suffering. There's a very interesting number that 73% of Hispanics here in the United States feel that they are just barely surviving. You know, it's not that they're saving or they're thriving, that they are surviving. And 80% of Hispanics lend to other people in their community. So they're really feeling it across the board. And you're seeing that reflected in the numbers that we published yesterday. So Daniel, much has been made of the inroads that President Trump and Republicans made among some Latino voters in 2024. We see poll after poll that support has eroded. But yet, as we're showing on the screen right now, 52% of Latino voters in swing districts

remain undecided. So they haven't necessarily been swayed, it would appear, by what Democrats are offering. Tell us more about what you found. Well, that's exactly the point. It may be surprising to your audience, but Hispanics have yet to decide who they're going to vote for. And this is an issue on both sides of the aisle, both on the Republican and the Democratic side. As I said, Hispanics are feeling the pain as the largest Spanish media company, Univision. We want to make sure that their voice is heard. So we have a very significant get-out-the-vote campaign that we literally just started. In a matter of hours, we were able to...

to register 24,000 Hispanics to vote. And they are very, very animated and very active. You know, another interesting stat between 2020 and 2024, 50% of net new voters in the United States were Hispanic. And if you just see the growth of the Hispanic demographic here in the United States, that's only accelerating. And what they're asking is, you know, we want candidates who understand the issues that matter to us.

We want people who speak directly to us. And a few examples of campaigns who've actually leaned into the Hispanic message, Tala Rico, for instance, in his primary fight in Texas, he fundamentally leaned in, connected with the Hispanic community in Spanish, on Spanish media, and you saw the outcome. Cheryl and Chiteorelli in New Jersey did the same thing. And Ted Cruz, when he was fighting against Allred, did the same thing. if you speak to this community about the issues that matter to them,

in the language that they feel most comfortable in, you'll get Hispanics and you'll get their vote. Richard Haas, have a question for you. To what extent has Venezuela or could Cuba affect the Hispanic vote? Essentially, are these issues that matter to them or not? It's a great question. You know, the Hispanic vote and the Hispanics of the United States, It's not a monolithic one-issue constituents.

You may have a first-to-fifth-generation Cubans. You've got Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans. For all of them, they have different points of views. Our new studios in Miami are in Doral, which is a very, very significant Venezuelan community. And they were very happy about what had happened earlier on in Venezuela. But, you know, it really depends location by location and demographic by demographic and generation by generation how they feel about it. It happens with Cuba.

It happens with Venezuela. It happens with immigration. And what is absolutely key for the candidates, if they want to win this vote, is they have to be completely connected to the local constituents and see what really matters to them and then be able to provide a convincing argument as to why they should win their vote. CEO of Univision, Daniel Allegra, thank you very much. Please come back. We really appreciate the reporting and analysis from Univision. Thank you. Thank you, Meek. Very much.