Morning Joe - Trump calls for prosecution of rivals, flanked by DOJ and FBI chiefs

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Trump calls for prosecution of rivals, flanked by DOJ and FBI chiefs Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you at all concerned about the new January 6th committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th? Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The President didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist? The American people want to know. We still have questions. Thank you. That's actually Nancy Pelosi had the question. The American people want to know. What? The American people know.

We want to know. The American people know why the American people want to know why so many people are too stupid to know the truth. That's what the American people want to know. Like they're fed disinformation by Wendell network and by all these other right wing networks. Like this lie, like that it was, January 6th, Nancy Pelosi refused to get national. No, that's a lie. But it's amazing how these lies become truth in part. they become truth because more Democrats don't do what Nancy Pelosi just did right there.

The lies are everywhere on the far right and they're all around January 6th. The lies continue. They try to do investigations where there are lies. We're going to see the president talking about investigating the investigators again after they spent years with John Durham doing the same thing, spending millions and millions of taxpayers. Again, pursuing lies. Pursuing lies. And yet, this is the American people. No, the American people know there are a group of people

who intentionally want to believe lies on the MAGA right. You know, it's like Jesus said, you know, there are people who, like, could go into the light, but they choose the darkness instead. That's a spiritual side. We're talking politics here. far less significant, of course, but people can know the truth that they don't like the truth. So they keep spouting lies to Nancy Pelosi and other people about January 6th when they know the truth.

They've even tried to erase that attempt to throw out a presidential election from their minds. And now they want to go on and now they want to prosecute other people who they think, Oh, Joe Biden's sick on Donald Trump. My God, we're going to show a clip, Mika, coming up. It's unbelievable. We're going to show a clip of the president inside the White House with his attorney general, FBI director, and other people standing behind,

just sitting there shuffling their feet, while Donald Trump, President of the United States says, this person should be arrested, this person should be arrested. Could you imagine what Lindel TV, can you imagine what the foreright, what the MAGA right would have done? if Joe Biden had held a press conference in the Oval Office saying, I want these four or five, you know, Republicans arrested.

They would have gone crazy. And the question is, when are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee going to say something? When are the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee going to say something? When are the far right-wing podcasters going to say something saying, you know, this is really dangerous because they're going to come after us next? If this is the new normal in Washington, D.C., we might be next. No, no, no. This has to stop.

And here is a president, I've said it before, I'll say it again. Here's a president that had a historic breakthrough in Middle East peace. And two days later, he's just completely stepping on every good headline by talking about continuing to pursue political enemies. it makes no political sense for him it's bad for republicans it's bad for democrats it's bad for everybody and yet it continues republicans need to speak up and for god's sake when is the united states supreme court going to stop all the ambiguity so americans can stop being like like thrown to the ground and beaten up and arrested only be to be released later on by by by by you by law enforcement officials, like, going after illegal immigrants?

Like, when? When? Like, the pace is quickening, and it's quickening every day. And if Republicans don't speak out, and if the Supreme Court doesn't do its damn job, then what we're looking at is the new normal. And that's a new normal that doesn't just hurt Democrats now. It hurts Republicans later. It hurts independence.

It hurts all of us. It weakens the Constitution. It weakens political norms. It makes this democracy a much, much more dangerous place to live, a more dangerous place to speak your first. I mean, we're talking about now an attorney general that's calling people that are peacefully marching like terrorists saying they're as dangerous as MS-13. You know, we had a million-man march when I was in Congress. We had mostly Republicans come and march in Washington, D.C. There were no Democratic Attorney Generals calling us terrorists or calling for our arrests.

None. Is that what Republicans on Capitol Hill and sitting in the Supreme Court? And yes, they are Republicans. Sorry, Chief Justice Roberts. We'll stop calling them Republicans when they stop acting Republicans. where they stop acting like Republicans. But that's what they're doing. They're sitting back and they're letting this be the new normal.

And it has to stop for everybody's sake. Damn, this is not hard. Put up guardrails, institutional guardrails at James Madison. Put up that political leaders of both. parties have put up over the past 240 years and let's talk about Middle East peace again because you know that's kind of nice when you have something that everybody can like talk about in a positive way when a president's doing something to make the world a better safer place that's what we want that's what every American wants okay let's not like get peace

abroad, the Middle East where it's never been, and keep churning up a political, political fight at home. Who wants that? Maybe 33% of Americans want that. But most Americans want their government working. They want it open. They want Republicans and Democrats working together. And right now, Mika, just the opposite is happening. Well, Joe, as you mentioned, Speaking at an event in the Oval Office yesterday, while flanked by the country's top law enforcement officials, President Trump once again called for the prosecutions of his perceived political foes. Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal. And I noticed his interviewer was, I think that was Weissman. And I hope they're going to look into Weissman, too.

Weissman's a bad guy. And he had somebody in Lisa, who was his puppet, worked in the, the office really is the top person. And I think that she should be looked at very strongly. I hope they're looking at shifty shift. I hope they're looking at all these people. And I'm allowed to find out. I'm allowed to, you know, I'm in theory, the chief law enforcement officer.

But I have a very good, talented group. Nope. Okay. I will check on that. The president made those comments while standing alongside FBI director, Cash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her top deputy, Todd Blanche, this call for action against a list of rivals follows recent indictments of two others that he singled out for prosecution, former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. As the New York Times puts it,

yesterday's event was, quote, a diorama of the administration's lopsided power dynamic between a president bent on controlling federal enforcement and appointees unwilling or unable to fight for the historic independence of their institutions. Trump, the Times, goes on to write, has, quote, established a cadre of political surrogates and lockstep messengers willing to cast aside core departmental norms to serve his political agenda. And Willie will cap this off where we began with that question from Pillow Guy TV reporter asking, why didn't Nancy Pelosi call on the National Guard? That was about a bunch of rioters who stormed. They're pardoned. So as people are being called terrorists on the streets of Portland or whatever, the January 6 rioters parted out of jail.

Convicted criminals. Who went before a jury, which decided that they had committed those crimes. Let's not forget. Put them in jail, and then the President of the United States opened those jails upon his second inauguration. Let's bring in the co-host of our fourth hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political columnist at Politico, Jonathan Martin. Jonathan Lemire, start with you, just watching the President of the United States, say what he said yesterday, again, with the FBI director and the Attorney General behind him.

You get the sense he really does believe he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. he's not. That's the attorney general standing behind him. But he believes he is the one calling the shots and for them to stand behind him and nod along as he says these things. Put that together with the Wall Street Journal report. We're going to talk about this morning about the IRS, him installing someone at the top of the IRS who then can investigate Soros and other perceived enemies and boogeymen of the right over the years. He is forming a group of people around him who effectively don't recognize the limits of our government and the separation of the powers put in the Constitution that he is directing everything from the top.

It's not just that there aren't guardrails anymore. He's being emboldened to do this. And there was a moment we played that clip where he said, I hope someone looks into them. And he actually literally could see his eyes shift to his right where Cash Patel was standing. I mean, it's so clear. Whether it's a direct order like he gave in that true social post that was meant to be a DM to Pamp Bonding and ended up being sent wide for all to see. Or this, where he creates an atmosphere where he makes it very clear

who his political enemies are and therefore he wants them to be investigated. We've never been here before. I know that's a phrase we say a lot, but this time it is really warranted and it is really dangerous. This is the President of the United States just simply saying,

I don't like person X, person Y, person Z, with no evidence, supplying no accusations of a crime. He's never said what Jack Smith allegedly did. A couple weeks ago where he called for the arrest of the Illinois governor and Chicago mayor, there was no suggestion as to what law they broke because there aren't any. And at minimum, and Willie, as you said, we'll get into that IRS reporting in a moment. At minimum, they harass someone. They make their life expensive and aggravating. When the federal government looks into you, that is an all-consuming expensive proposition. But there could also be criminal charges attached. And who knows how that plays out,

we have seen arraignments already of two of his foes in Letitia James and James Comey. And I wrote this last week for the Atlantic. Retribution is here. He promised this during the campaign. The White House aides would tell us in the first few months of this term, oh, we're too busy. We're not getting to that. Well, here we are. It is October of his first term in office.

We have three odd years to go. The campaign has begun and clearly accelerating already. And you can't find a Republican who will give a full-throated condemnation of what we're hearing here. Jonathan Martin, also Joe. mentioned this at the top where there are going to be these no kings protests. This weekend, millions of people protesting this administration and all the things we've just described. You had the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, suggesting that those are anti-America protests, that they'll be populated with members of Antifa and pro-Hamas supporters, as he put it. Marxists

will be among them. Speaker Johnson calling them the hate America rallies. These are peaceful protests of this administration, and you have the Speaker of the House suggesting that they are effectively terrorists, some of them. Yeah, I actually happened to be in New York, Willie, during the first No King's protest. It was more of an NPR tote bag crowd than it was a sort of Antifa vibe. Those are the kind of folks showing up for those protests. But this is the project now that you see stretching from Johnson to the White House, which is portray the opposition. as not, you know, grandma's carrying NPR dopeags, but portray them as radicals who are bent on violence. And obviously that does not reflect the vast, vast majority of the opposition.

I'm reminded of something that Joe said on the show a couple of weeks ago, guys, which is the scandal is in the open now. You don't have to go to a, you know, garage in Rosalind to meet deep throat to get the scoop on what Trump is doing. He's literally doing every day calling some kind of a press conference or signing an EO in the Oval Office, going off script. And yesterday, for example, demanding investigations and the people whose names he can't even recall, he says Lisa without her last name, wise woman, without his first name. But the folks standing behind him, sure as heck know who that is. And they're now made to act. It's all in plain view. It's all in plain view. And I think that does reduce the shock value some because it is out in the open every

damn day. All right. Well, and also, Jonathan, you have, Jonathan, yeah, yeah, you have in Pam Bondi, the New York Times talking about how she has compared some of the people who are protesting the ice raids, who again, if you look at the actual ice facility cam that the Oregon ABC, if you're affiliate has put up, there are literally grandmas and granddad's sitting in lawn chairs with tote bags and holding signs and say, don't take debate, which is basically saying stay peaceful. She is comparing all those people. She said to an organized crime.

They're part of an organized crime syndicate. You have one of the top Republicans, Tom members, saying that people that go to these no king's rallies, again, a lot of. lot of NPR tote bag types going to these rallies, calling them terrorists, said the word terrorists, like trying to, are they trying to churn up political violence? Or what are they trying to do? Are they trying to get these people beaten up? Like, what are they trying to do?

This is, you know, this is coming from the top. It's coming from the president. It's what we just showed. It's coming from the speaker. And I would just say, you like me, we've been around Washington a long time, don't these Republicans that are staying silent on Capitol understand what goes around comes around. These are horrible presidents that are being set and their voices need to be heard. They need to speak out because if it ever turns against them, they need to be on the

the record, and they need to encourage Democrats to fight back to protect them down the road. And Joe, the one moment of any outcry that we've seen, at least in the last month, from the Senate GOP, was precisely Ted Cruz saying just that about the FCC's intervention on Jimmy Kimmel, which was, this is not just about Kimmel, it's about us. Five years from now, 10 years from now, when Democrats control the FCC, they're going to come back at us. So, I mean, if you don't do this from a principle standpoint, Joe, to your point, at least do it from a raw political

standpoint, which is to say if we okay this now, boy, it's going to be just as bad when the other guy's in charge, you would think they would have the self-interest at least to recognize that what comes around goes around, but we ain't seeing it so far. So here's the new

report that Will I mentioned from the Wall Street Journal, which says the Trump administration is paving the way to make it easier for the IRS to criminally investigate left-leaning groups, including major Democratic donors. According to the journal, quote, the undertaking aims to install allies of President Trump at the IRS, criminal investigative division, to exert firmer control over the unit and to weaken the involvement of IRS lawyers.

The paper adds, quote, the proposed changes could open the door to politically motivated probes. The effort is being driven by a top advisor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is also serving as acting IRS commissioner. Among the potential targets are billionaire donor George Soros and his affiliated groups. Joining us now, the president and CEO of Voto Latino, Maria Teresa Kumar. Good to have you on the show this morning. What do you make of this new reporting from the journal. So this is something, Mika, first of all, that a lot of the nonprofits have been tracking because this is what is coming to fruition is what we were absolutely concerned with, because if folks remember when he was on the campaign trail, he promised that he was going to

go after his political enemies. One of the first things that he did as executive order was trying to basically say to the American people that if you were against him, he was going to go after you. And he has done that. Trump is someone that I have from the very beginning, the moment he descended those escalators in his first presidential campaign calling the majority of Latinos and rapists, I took him out his word. And so I took him out his word that this is what he was going to happen. But I think what folks need to remember is that civil society and active civil society, whether we're talking about protests, whether we're talking about activating individuals to sign a petition or to hold our community, you know, our elect is accountable. That is a fundamental

core to democracy. I appreciate Joe what you've been saying all morning about that. This is something that's gone or rot. This idea that they are trying to really, you know, tamper down on dissent is not only dangerous for the American people, but there's no ability then for us to actually fight back when you see a gracious abuse of power. And one of the things that, one of the things that we're very clear in, you know, in the nonprofit sector is that as we prepare for the midterms, we have to make sure that the American people are very clear what the stakes are, because this is not just about policy, it's about the very core values of who we are as Americans. Can you protest peacefully? Are you going to be afraid at night

because all of a sudden you have to walk around with a passport because all of a sudden someone says you may be undocumented? We don't know. What's happening right now in Chicago is abysmal. This idea that we're using black hawk helicopters and agents are. repelling from buildings to go into apartment buildings and basically figuring out who is black and who is brown and settling them off in the middle of the night in two different sets of vans while zip-tying five-year-olds? Joe, this is at a core value of who we are. And they're literally trying to use law enforcement against us so that they can go ahead, the administration can go head and pillage our coffers. And I think it's very clear that what they're doing is they're taking

a, you know, a sheet out of what Oregon did in Hungary. If anybody wants to know what's happening right now, I encourage you to read Ann Applebaum's latest book that really really details every single thing that they've done in Hungary. This administration has read it and they're applying it here. Well, Ann Applebaum's going to be here at 7 o'clock. And of course, you look at these pictures. You also, you look at everything that's going on. You know, I've been a big defender of the Supreme Court for years, big, big defender of federal judges for years as people who have served to be the leveling wind, whether they are conservative, members of federalist societies, whether they are liberals, whether they are left wing, federal courts have been the leveling wind. That's not happening

right now. You have a Supreme Court that has pushed back down. refused to rule as unconstitutional, federal law enforcement authorities using the color of somebody's skin as an opportunity to detain them, to stop them, to ask questions of them, possibly even to arrest them. And Jaymart, you have time and time again, you have American citizens, you have people who are here legally who are getting beaten up, thrown to the ground, detained, we have cuffs put on them, and then we hear, you know, have the WGN reporter, and then we hear a couple of hours later, oh, they were released, no charges, I guess they made a mistake after being beaten up handgun. And now we're hearing, oh, you better carry

your papers around. And then again, you have, you know, people calling the no, no Kings rally, NPR tote bag types, calling them terrorists. You have Pam Bondi comparing people who are protesting these immigration raids, comparing them to gang outfits, MS-13. Again, I want us to project forward. What happens when a pro-life rally? What happens when a pro-life march in 2029 is tweeted in a similar way when pro-life organizations suddenly have the IRS chasing after them and they're being called terrorists, being called terrorists by the Attorney General. What happens when you have the president, whether it's an independent billionaire or whether it's a Democrat calling pro-life organizations terrorists are comparing them.

to MS-13. That is something that we do not want. Just like we don't want these groups being attacked because they're practicing the First Amendment rights. But again, I ask, where is the chairman of the judiciary committee in the Senate, in the House? Where are Republican members in the Senate? In the House?

Where are the courts? Where is the Supreme Court? They, right now, they're missing. action, the Constitution, constitutional norms, the First Amendment, I mean, the separation between a president and the just by all being shredded right now, and they're remaining silent thinking that their allies are always going to be in the White House. They're not. They need to start worrying about themselves. Like you said, they need to be selfish if they don't care about America. right if they don't care about the first amendment be selfish care about yourself yeah the politics of

this aren't going to be pretty because you're going to have a lot of democratic base voters who say what do you mean you want to practice lincoln second inaugural with malice toward none screw that we're going to get even we're going to do to them what they did to us and boy if you're a democratic president democratic member of congress in 2029 it's going to be really hard to tell your base that you're not going to do that kind of stuff. Joe, you know this. So much of what happens in Washington with the governance of this country is not based upon laws, not based upon the Constitution.

It's based upon precedent norms traditions. There's a way that presidents act. There's a way that lawmakers lead. And what they do, what they do and what they don't do is crucial because it is how the next generation conducts themselves. And this is not how Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton conducted themselves. And it's a real break from that tradition that I fear is going to be followed by the next generation to come. Okay. President and CEO of Voto Latino, Maria Theresa Kumar, thank you so much for coming on the show this morning.

And still ahead on morning, Joe. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins us to discuss the ongoing government shutdown. Plus MSNBC Senior Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitale brings us the Republican perspective. She joins us on the heels of her exclusive sit-down interview with Senate Majority Leader John Thune. And you can take the Pope out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the Pope. We'll show you how Pope Leo responded to a little bit of trolling from a Cubs fan. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back.

First, turned in their press credentials at the Pentagon yesterday after most news organizations, including MSNBC, refused to sign a new Pentagon press policy. Those new rules would restrict press access to large portions of the Pentagon without an escort. Also states, Defense Secretary Pete Heggzeth can revoke access to reporters who ask anyone in the DOD for information, classified or not, that has not been approved for release. Many of the reporters waited to leave together at 4 p.m. yesterday, the deadline set by the Defense Department to leave the building. In a statement, the Pentagon Press Association, which represents over 50 outlets, said the DOD confiscated their media credentials,

quote, because reporters would not sign onto a new media policy over its implicit threat of criminalizing national security reporting and exposing those who sign it to potential prosecution. The Association said members are still committed to reporting on the U.S. military and mark the moment, that's what they call, a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency and governance to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all. Earlier this week, Secretary Higgs has said the press access to the Pentagon is a privilege, not a right. Far right-wing cable channel, one America news network appears to be the only outlet that's publicly stated. it has signed the Pentagon policy. So, Jonathan, an act of solidarity yesterday.

You had Fox News and MSNBC and Newsmax and CNN all together walking out in protests of a policy which explicitly says you can only report what we tell you you can report. Yeah, and that was good to see, that solidarity from a variety of media outlets. And to be clear, these reporters, these places are still going to do their jobs. They can do their jobs from outside of the building. But there are now new obstacles to face here. And there are a couple things at play. First of all, yes, this is depending on trying to, like, drive home its talking points,

trying to spoon feed information to a reporter saying you can only report what we tell you to do. No reporter, of course, is going to abide by that. It's also a very thin-skinned Secretary of Defense who had a rough go of it in his confirmation hearings, who had rough media coverage because his role in the Signalgate scandal, and he is afraid of being embarrassed in front of the President of the United States. He is someone who still is thought of well by the president, but very few others in the White House, I am told, Joe, and he's being very protective of his image and reputation.

But this is a dangerous escalation trying to curtail press freedoms. The president has mused about doing something similar at the White House. Perhaps Capitol Hill will be next. It is deeply worrisome. And another example of this administration trying to deliver an assault against the freedom of the press, freedom of speech. Jay Mart. It's deeply worrisome. and it's incredibly stupid.

I was on a plane one time with Alan Simpson. And he was like, hey boy, you knew here? And I go, yes, sir, I am. You have any advice? He goes, yeah. He goes, when somebody in the media calls you, son, even if they're sons of bitches, you call them back that day, you know? And I took it to heart.

When I got on the House floor, I wouldn't go sit with Republicans because they thought like me, I'd go sit first on the Democratic side to see if there were, you know, any bridges to build there. And then I'd go out and I sat the Speaker's lobby, man. I sat in the middle of reporters and stayed there like in between votes. If the votes were going on for hours, I would sit in the Speaker's lobby. They thought I was all a right-wing nut, right? I wanted them to know me. I wanted to know them. And a remarkable thing happened.

Here you are. I got really good press. And you're the press. Yeah, and now I am the press. Right. So when Pete Hegseth says, I don't like, I mean, you can tell he's a rookie. I don't like, but they're writing about me. Instead of being like Alan Simpson and saying, always call him back, talk to him,

even if you don't like them, even if they're too tough, even if they're unfair, stay engaged with them. Totally. It makes all the difference in the world. I have told that to presidents, to vice presidents. Like, through over 30 years, when people are like, seem like they're stuck in their office. I'm like, calling the press, sit down, talk to the people, and start with the people you think are treating you the most unfairly. sit down and don't try to berate them. Right.

Just talk to them. Tell them what you're trying to do. Let them see around the corners. It makes such a huge difference. And so Pete Hagseth now is further isolating himself. So yes, if I could set my hair on fire if I wanted to, actually at the end of the day, and I mean this, and you know this, the person hurt the most by this is. Because, fill in the blank, Pete Hegseth. Of course.

And by the way, it contradicts Trump's whole worldview to. Exactly. Trump is of by and for the press, has been his entire public life. He wants press coverage every day. Hegsteth isn't getting the hint from Trump. But Joe, the problem, and by the way, I see it in both parties today. A new generation of people coming in view the press as a risk to be avoided rather than an opportunity to be seized. And that's a fundamental mistake.

You've got to project confidence, know who you are, and embrace having the media. I think about it. Hey, Jonathan, I want to follow up on that. You know, two things. First of all, Donald Trump runs in 2015 and 16. You know, he comes on our show a lot. Why do you have Donald Trump on the show? I said, because we invite everybody on the show.

Sure. And so he walks through that door. Lindsay Graham, you know, would call a couple of times as well. We continued that. Like in future campaigns, you know, we had. a couple of people call this once in a while, but you go back in the 2024 campaign. And I just want you to underline this point again, that the press is not something that you're scared of, something you got to either, if you can't deal with it, don't run for office.

Right. Kamala Harris's hours being interviewed versus Donald Trump's hours being interviewed over the course of the campaign, not even a close call. And there were times where you would listen to Donald Trump talking to somebody. Didn't know what he was saying, but guess what? He was there. Part of the wallpaper, man. He was talking to the audience, whether it was Joe Rogan or somebody else, that's the key.

And these politicians, now one in the Pentagon, doesn't understand it. Well, especially in an era of this, the phone, you've got to be everywhere. You can't discriminate who you're doing here and not to pick your spots because guess what? You've got to flood the zone because that's where people are nowadays. And I'm glad that you mentioned Lindsey Graham joke because every Republican out there should take him as a model. Your classmate in 1994. Here is somebody who's always looked at the press as an opportunity. He's not running in the Senate hallways from the press like some of his colleagues in the Senate when they get a hard question.

He's going to embrace the questions, talk, constantly work it. Is he going to drive folks crazy sometimes? Absolutely. But he's going to be available for comment. Or is Ed Koch once said unavoidable for comment? But that's part of the job. And if you don't want to do that, engage with the press, then why are you running for Congress in the first place? So that you can go on Twitter and sort of do a 30-second video with no scrutiny, no accountability.

That's not how this works. All right. You know, Miki, you know who else seems to get it? Who? Mom Dami, who was on Fox News yesterday. Looked right to the camera, talked to the president, which I guarantee. the president respected. And then you had Andrew Cuomo, who during the primary, you know, couldn't even find the guy while Mamdami was everywhere. It matters. So you look at the Pentagon and you're

actually pushing out all of these reporters. It's the worst thing to do, the worst thing to do, unless you are so incompetent and inept, you don't want people to catch you. Senior political columnist at Politico, Jonathan Martin, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. And coming up on Morning Joe. I honestly think, and I've said this, and I've had this conversation with Democrats in the Senate, that the solution to this isn't going to come through their leadership. It's going to come through their rank and file.

And I think it's going to be a number of Democrats who are willing to figure out a way to be comfortable with what the path forward is on some of these issues, to be able to vote to open the government. I think that was just part of Alive Vitelli's exclusive conversation with Senate Majority Leader John Thune. We'll have much more of that sit-down interview straight ahead on Morning Joe. Be very aggressive where we can be in shudering the bureaucracy,

not just the funding, but the bureaucracy, that we now have an opportunity to do that. And that's where we're going to be looking for our opportunities. So you're saying there's been a snapshot of 4,000 jobs cut. Correct. Is there a special, but it could grow much higher? I think we'll probably end up being north of 10,000. OMB director, Russ, votes, saying he expects the job cuts during this shutdown will probably end up being north of 10,000. Those comments came yesterday before a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order

blocking the Trump administration from laying off federal workers during the government shutdown. Two unions sued the administration last month after the White House signaled plans to lay off federal workers through reductions in force. The judge granted the union's motion to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the cuts and ruled the layoffs are likely illegal. saying the Trump administration had, quote, taken advantage of the lapse in government spending to act as if the laws don't apply. As for the shutdown itself, MSNBC's senior Capitol Hill correspondent,

Ali Vitale sat down yesterday for an interview with Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Here is that exclusive conversation. Leader Thune, I'm so thankful that you came and sat down with us your first time on MSNBC as leader. so we're thankful that you've given us the time. I spoke with your colleague Mike Johnson about two weeks ago, and the first thing that I asked him was Americans are starting their open enrollment process in October and November.

At the time, he maintained that these negotiations could wait because that date was pretty far off, but we're two weeks deeper in now to the calendar. So I'll ask you the same question. For folks who are making their open enrollment decisions now, shouldn't they have the ability to know what they're dealing with And shouldn't you do negotiations on Affordable Care Act subsidies? Right. And if we could just open up the government, we could do that.

And I think that's really the order, Allie, that it needs to happen in. I mean, I don't think taking the federal government hostage to try and get this negotiation started is the right approach. I mean, honestly, I think we have made it very plain. We want to fund the government. We want to have a normal appropriations process. And yes, we are happy to sit down and talk about a solution on the ACA tax credits. that needs to happen in a separate context, you know, away from having the government open out. But how can you tell families that they might be paying more without knowing what they're

signing up for at this point? Well, and I think when the enrollment period starts, which is November the 1st, yeah, people are going to have to start looking. And the insurance companies are putting rates out there, quotes out there, and they're going to have to make some decisions about that. I don't think you can do a, if you do a straight up extension of the ACA tax credits, premium tax credits. They are enhanced subsidies. So they are over and above the base Obamacare program, which was available to people up to 400% of poverty. What the Democrats did a

couple of years ago is they took the income cap off. So now you've got people that are making $500,000 or $600,000 a year that are eligible for, qualifying for, and getting subsidies under this program. You also got insurance companies that are benefiting enormously because they get, they're incentivized to sign people up because the federal government is making direct payments to the insurance companies. They go out auto-enroll people. There are tons of people out there who have these policies who don't even know they're covered. So this is a program that's desperately in need of reform. But can you guarantee that you guys will work to reform? Well, and that's what I'm saying. I mean, I think that there's an interest in the White House.

I think the House, the Senate, there's an interest in making the health care that people buy in this country through the exchanges or in any other place, for that matter, more affordable. And one of the ways you have to do that is you've got to change that incentive structure that's currently baked into these enhanced COVID credits, which, by the way, the Democrats created the expiration date when they did this. They could have done this permanently, and they didn't. I hear that. But at the same time, when you see estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, that says, on average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 would see yearly premiums in 2025 rise by over $22,000. Are you sympathetic to families like that who say, okay, I hear the policy,

but I actually just don't want to pay more for health care next year? Can you guarantee that? And I would say, and again, I don't want to see anybody's premiums go up about that amount, then that's not going to be attributable exclusively to these enhanced credits. The insurance companies are raising rates everywhere, every year anyway. And part of the reason for that is the basic program is flawed. People ought to be able to buy the insurance that they want. And, you know, they are in the exchanges, and every year these premiums keep going up. And that's not the way this ought to work.

I mean, these premiums are going up a little bit because of if the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits. And people hearing it doubling don't feel that it's a little bit. No, but I'm just saying, but only a small part of that is attributable to the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits. A lot of it is the base program doesn't work for the reasons I mentioned. So then what assurances can you offer Democrats that they will get a negotiation on this? Well, I mean, I think, yeah, well, I've told them. I said, and I've said we are willing to have the conversation. I've said if you need a vote, we can guarantee you get a vote by.

a date certain. At some point, Democrats have to take yes for an answer. But I agree totally. We are all about getting health insurance down, making it affordable to more people. Premium shouldn't be going up by that amount. And one of the reasons they are is because there is waste, fraud, and abuse in this program, and the incentive is skewed to the insurance companies. So the insurance companies have no incentive to lower cost. All they go out is auto-enroll people, and they're making bank doing it. So I hear you saying about the program that needs reforms, it sounds like you're guaranteeing that there will be a negotiation on this? Well, what I'm saying is there is a, there's a path forward, I believe. But yes or not. But it has to include, it has to include reforms.

And, you know, can I guarantee an outcome? No. I mean, and that's what people want to say. And guarantee us that this is going to pass. I can't guarantee it's going to pass. I can guarantee you that there will be a process and you will get a vote. So if Democrats came to you and said, okay, let's do a one-year extension at $35 billion for that one year, would you personally vote for that? would you say yes? Well, I think you'd have to do something to reform it. I think it's really hard to with reforms or with reforms. With reforms. And if you did reforms, it probably doesn't cost you $35 billion a year. So you'd say yes to that. Well, I think you'd have to, if you, if you structured in a way that did away with, you know, took, at least put some income cap in there like

the program used to have prior to these enhanced. And these, these were COVID subsidies. You know, this was in response to COVID. COVID is no longer with us. And so the program, the people who are designed to take advantage of this program where people that are 400% of poverty and under, now you've got people making half a million, 600 grand a year that are benefiting from the subsidy. So I'm saying that it's a program that needs to be reformed and give us, you know, get the government open again and let's have that conversation about how to fix it. What I'm hearing is an assurance that it's not a question of if this is going to be a negotiation, but more a question of when, which I do feel like is a shift in the conversation.

I think the other piece of this when you're talking about guaranteeing negotiations is speaking to the trust deficit that exists on Capitol Hill. I want to read to you what one of your members, Lisa Murkowski said yesterday. She said, if you're a Democrat, you're looking at this situation and you say, why are you going to try to be helpful if Russ vote is just going to do a backdoor move and rescind what we've been working on? Is she wrong? Well, I don't think the premium tax credit issue wouldn't be as all.

That's not an appropriation's issue. I mean, arguably... But it's all, I think, part and parcel right now. Well, I mean, but he's not going to be able to rescind. If we agreed a plan, that's something that's going to originate the finance. committee. It's a tax jurisdiction issue. And so that's a, that is a different conversation. I think maybe what she's referring to is the appropriations process where he has the authority and constitutionally the president does to try and rescind different programs. There's a question

about pocket rescissions, which is going to be settled, I think, by the courts. But the rescission power is something that constitutionally the president has. The question of whether they use it or not, yeah, I mean, that's obviously something I think that they would need to talk to the White House about. But I think if we get it back to doing the appropriations process, which we can do once we open the government up, and in the traditional way, which is having a transparent open process where the committees function, Democrats and Republicans weigh in. And then we put it on the floor. We have an open amendment process, fund the government the old-fashioned way. I don't think you need rescissions. And I think there's- And that's the argument I would make to the

White House. I think there's an appetite for that. Have you said to them that maybe don't do another recisions package? It feels like it's poisoned to the well. Have you asked them not to be used. I've had conversations on that subject with the White House. And I do think that it's in everybody's best interests, including the White House, to have a normal appropriations process where people are bought in. So it sounds like you'd like them to stop. Well, look, I mean, I, like I said, I want a normal appropriations process. I've made that very clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think they both want that. And I think we can accomplish that. And I promised it. And that is something, frankly, that we didn't do last year when the Democrats had the majority.

We didn't put a single appropriations bill on the floor. We passed three. There's a a bunch more I want to do. I've filed on defense. That'll, that'll ripen for a vote tomorrow. Yep. Do you expect to do that vote tomorrow? Well, there'll be a vote. It'll be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. Sure. And it's at 60. So we're going to need some Democrats to help us. But if we get on that bill, then I'd like to add other, you know, appropriations bills to it that have passed the committee. If you get on that, if you get on that bill and pass it, it might mean that the House should come back to town. The Speaker has kept them out for the past month. Do you

agree with that strategy? Well, I mean, if the, I think there isn't anything right now. They did the job. They passed the bill. But optics-wise, does it look very bad for the government to be shut down and for Republican congressmen to be gone? We're here. We have to be here. We need to vote. And we have voted tomorrow. Well, let's see, today will be the 10th vote to open up the government. And hopefully eventually we'll get enough Democrats who come to their senses and think the right thing is to open up the government, have a normal appropriations process, and then have a conversation about health care and tax credits and any other things that they want to discuss. Should Johnson keep members out of town until the government is reopened in the Senate?

That's a judgment call he has to make. But I think for him, at least, the House has acted. The game is now in the Senate. That's where the action is. And we need to do our part of this. But if we start, if we can get on the defense appropriations bill tomorrow, if the Democrats allow us, if they give us the 60 votes that are necessary to do that, we will try and add other bills to it. And if we can actually get a bill, a package of bills through the Senate, yeah, the House will have to come back to vote on it.

But it doesn't sound like listening to you here and listening to Democrats as we do now every day on Capitol Hill. Everyone's given their press conferences. It doesn't sound like either side is changing their position. So how long do you think this goes on? Is this something that lasts through Thanksgiving, as some of your own members have suggested? Well, I hope it doesn't last through Thanksgiving because that's going to be a lot of harm the American people. Hope is not guaranteed. And a lot of harm to federal workers.

There is a bill sitting at the desk right now that opens up the government. You all know that. The president would sign it today. government opens up. It's simply a function of five Democrats joining the three Democrats who are already voting to open up the government. And I think that's the quickest way to end this. And I think there is a, as I've said, there's a path forward on these other issues. But at some point, reasonable Democrats are going to have to come to the conclusion that this doesn't benefit anybody. I don't believe government shutdowns benefit anybody. And that used to be a position that was held

by the Democrat leadership. I think right now they are very beholden to. And there's this big rally this weekend with all these left-wing groups that are going to be in town. And I think it's very hard for them to agree to something prior to that rally happening. But I'm hoping that once that's, you know, in the rearview mirror, that we'll be able to sit down. I honestly think, and I've said this, and I've had this conversation with Democrats in the Senate, that the solution of this isn't going to come through their leadership. It's going to come through their rank and file. And I think it's going to be a number of Democrats who are willing to, you know, figure out a way to be comfortable with what the path forward is on some of these issues, to be able to vote

to open the government. I think some of the members in your caucus who are having those conversations with other Democrats are people who might be leaving Washington. I'm thinking about Tom Tillis. I'm thinking about Joni Ernst. You've also got Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins coming up for re-election. We'll see how their bids ultimately fair. But those are some of the names that we end up talking about the most because they are willing

to at least sometimes question this White House. is what your party is driving towards the potential for a party of no dissent. And is that a healthy party? No, and I don't think that's true. I mean, I would argue, and I've dissented a number of times, just in the last few weeks. For example, on what? Well, on Tylenol, for example. Okay. FCC. I mean, there are, you go back and check the record. Do you feel the way RFK Jr. is talking about that is dangerous? Well, I've said that I think that if I were, if I were a woman, I'd be talking to my doctor and not taking, you know, advice from RFK or any other government.

bureaucrat for that matter. But I just think that there are subjects and issues on which we have differences of opinion. I typically litigate those privately rather than publicly, but I think there are plenty of examples, and there are lots of times I could point out to you where we have differences of opinion. And I make my voice clear, and in some cases it results in a change, and sometimes it doesn't. But I think that's our job is to try and present that check and balance, and we are a co-equal, independent branch, the government. I have been here long enough to see presidents from both political parties and senates from both political parties and the interaction between the two, and it's always a fight. And every executive branch, every president

pushes the edge of the envelope as far as they can. And I could give you a half a dozen examples of where the Biden administration did that and operated in what I would say are extra, not only extra judicial, but extra legislative ways. To that end is one of the examples of the Trump administration potentially overreaching or not bringing in Congress on these strikes that are being done in Venezuela, the bombing of alleged drug cartel boats. Do you wish that they would bring you in on them? Well, I think that they have, under the Commander-in-Chief Authority, a lot of authority. Now, there are, there is some expectation, I think, if this were to be a sustained thing, that they would, yes, there are war powers, you know, requirements that at some

point they have to comply with. But, you know, we had Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, up last week and kind of walk our members through what they're doing, why they're doing it. And if you listen to the explanation, a lot of it makes sense. I've got two very last questions for you because I can tell they're getting antsy and I don't want them to get mad. Do you think we are going to see a vote on the Russian sanctions package this week? It's just kind of been sitting there and I'm not sure why. Right.

So there are, again, there are technical issues with that that there are being worked out between the White House and Senator Graham, obviously, who's the lead sponsor of the bill. but it does have, I think, on the 85-ish range co-sponsors. When's the last time you saw that? And I think it'd be very useful for us to send that message to the Russians, but we also need to have it amplified by the Europeans. And that's one of the things the administration is working on. It doesn't do any good to have the United States unilaterally going to all these countries

and sanctioning them and then having the Europeans buying energy from them. That undermines the effort entirely. But I think that, you know, this is a, this is a, I'm a. Obviously, one of those issues where I think there's bipartisan support. And I think support for Ukraine in their war against Russia is something you'll hear a lot more about. And the last question I want to ask you is when we spoke back in May of 2023, I was prepping for this interview. Looking back, we were at Tim Scott's announcement for president at that point. And at the time, you told me he was a really positive alternative to Trump.

And you said, it's one, I think, as a party, we've got to turn that page and start appealing to different constituencies and with a message that is winsome and hopeful. What would you say now to 2023 U? Well, I'm still for winsome and hopeful. Is that what we have right now in the Republican Party? Well, look, I mean, I think the Republican Party, the Republican Party won a big election. We have the House, the Senate of the White House, for only the fourth time in 100 years. So the American people saw something that they liked. And my job is to be the best partner I can in trying to achieve an agenda that I think the American people voted for.

So, yeah, I go about my job in a different way. than some elected officials and some people who, you know, run for political office. And I've still, I think I'm an aspirational type politician, and I like to think that politics ought to be about appealing to people's hopes and not preying on their fears. And I try to model that. But my job is to do the best job I can of, you know, finding ways to get things done, getting results, getting solutions for the American people.

And that means you get to work with people who have all different political persuasion, and ways of doing their jobs, it might be different than mine. And Ellie joins us now. She is, of course, the host of way too early. John, I will say just so if you were so a friend for decades. John is firmly holding on to winsome and hopeful, Allie, winsome and hopeful. Also is suggesting, and you picked up on this, and suggesting that Republicans may, regardless of how the shutdowns,

shutdown turns out, may want to have those negotiations on health care rates regardless. Talk about that and what you learned from the majority later. I thought that was actually perhaps the most tangible sign that maybe things are changing. I mean, you know this from being on the hill. Oftentimes we're aware of bipartisan discussions or the potential for a deal behind the scenes. But this was the first time that we've heard from leadership speaking in really clear substantive terms about what could be on the table. Thune effectively saying the ball is now in Democrats' courts because I've told them privately that I'm willing to talk about reforming these ACA subsidies programs and if we can get together on reforms, offering them some kind of a vote on it. What he said there that I think is important that speaks to the larger political dynamics around this is that yes, maybe there is some Republican appetite in the Senate, but he doesn't necessarily think it's enough to reach that 60 vote threshold.

Nevertheless, he said, I'm offering you the vote that you say you want if you reopen the government. so interesting to see the way that Democrats ultimately respond to that. I think the other thing that was interesting is what lends to the trust deficit, which is a huge part of why this shutdown is still ongoing, is the fact that the administration has come in over the top multiple times with recisions or pocket recisions, leaving Democrats in a position of saying, well, if we're negotiating for things to put in the bill and the White House is just going to come make an end run and pull them out, what's the point?

And you can see there that Thune is at least uncomfortable, if not, if unwilling to say that they should stop outright, he's clearly uncomfortable with them going outside of what he calls the normal appropriations process. And so that was kind of a larger theme that I saw there, Joe, was the fact that he was willing to try to show the ways that he is dissenting from the administration, the ways that he's different from them. And I think in this Washington, that's always interesting. Well, there are two interesting points. I thought that he made it. First of all, he said, if we do this, if we made a negotiation, if we went through the finance, committee, then the president would not be able to enact recisions there. Secondly, I thought it was

very interesting. He talked about doing something that Congress hasn't done for a very long time and having it. I know this is in the weeds, but it's actually important, a regular order where you actually go through committees. The subcommittees to committees, they pass the bill. It gets on the Senate floor. It gets on the House floor. You send it to the president. He signs it. It becomes law. as you know, that hasn't happened for a very long time. You usually get three or four leaders on one side, three or four leaders on the other side, and then they throw the bill at the members and say, here it is. It does seem, as he said, if you go through a regular process, which Congress hasn't done for a long time, if you get buy-in through this appropriations

process that's done the correct way, regular order, then there's more buy-in, and it's far more likely that there will not be rescissions. I think that's right. And you and I are Congress nerds, you're right to say that this is important because I think the larger commentary on doing appropriations through regular order is more a commentary on the way that Congress hasn't worked for a while now. And in large part, it's because of the tribalism and the partisanship and the trust deficits. And I think that when we see Thune come here on MSNBC and say, I'm actually behind the scenes offering Democrats a vote on what they say they want, I'm interested to hear the way that that lands on the hill today because, again, those have been private conversations

that are now coming into public focus. And I'm interested to hear if that moves any Senate Democrats. And more importantly, if that's something that's palatable in the House. Because I think what's clear in my conversations with Senate Democrats and Republicans is they know that this is a Senate story right now. Thune says that's where the game is. He's right. But it is going to go back to the House at some point.

And the dynamics there are so much more different. And that's where the role of the president really comes into play. Will Trump back this? Of course, I don't think Thune would be going about this without the backing in some way of the president. but that's an interesting dynamic for us to watch as well. All right, Ali Vitale, thank you so much for bringing us that exclusive interview. We greatly appreciate it.

And Ellie will be with us later this hour when we talk to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.