Morning Joe - Trump hosts Zelenskyy for talks in Florida

Episode Date: December 29, 2025

Trump hosts Zelenskyy for talks in Florida To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Well, I think we're, I look, you know, you can say 95%, but I don't like to say percentages. I just think we're doing very well. We're very, we could be very close. There are one or two very thorny issues, very tough issues, but I think we're doing very well. President Donald Trump with a tone of some optimism about ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Those comments came following a meeting at Marilago with President Volodemir Zelensky, which came, as now seems to be custom, following a call that Trump had with Vladimir Putin.

We'll dig into whether the sides are actually any closer to seeing peace in Ukraine and the one comment by Trump that has many concern. Now Trump's Florida resort is also seeing more diplomatic action today with a scheduled visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We'll discuss what's at stake with that meeting as well. Plus, we're learning new details about the man suspected of placing pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC headquarters the night before the January 6th Capitol attack. We'll explain what he told investigators after his arrest.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe on this Monday, December 29th. We hope you're all enjoying your holiday season, catching up on some rest and time with loved ones. I'm Jonathan Lemire. Thank you for being with us. I'm joined by the co-host of The Rest is Politics Podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay. we're in for Joe, Mika, and Willie. We have a great group with us on this busy news morning, including retired CIA officer Mark Palmeropoulos.

He is an MS Now National Security and Intelligence Analyst. MS now, senior Washington reporter and co-host of the weekend, just filled in there on way too early, Eugene Daniels, as well as senior writer at the dispatch and a columnist at Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. A great group to start us off on this Monday morning. Let's dive right in, beginning with that meeting yesterday in Palm Beach. President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Marlago yesterday for talks on

potentially finding a way to end the war in Russia. Similar to recent meetings, Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of his talks with Zelensky. However, after the meeting, Trump and the Ukrainian president sounded hopeful in their joint press conference. We had a terrific meeting. We discussed a lot of things. As you know, I had an excellent phone call with President Putin that lasted for over two hours. We discussed a lot of points, and I do think we're getting a lot closer, maybe very close. The four people on this one are doing, I don't think anybody could do it. We'll see if it gets done, but it's very close.

Certainly nobody would even have a chance of getting it to where it is right now. Nobody would have thought that was possible. So I just want to say we've done very well. We've had discussions on just about every subject. And that includes with President Putin before. And we went into great detail, and we likewise went into great detail today. We have great achievements, 20 point peace plan, 90% agreed, and U.S.-Ukraine security guarantees 100. percent agreed. U.S. Europe, Ukraine's security guarantees almost agreed. Military dimension,

100 percent agreed. Prosperity plan being finalized, and we also discussed the sequencing of the following actions. And we agree that security guarantees is a key milestone in achieving lasting peace. The U.S. Ukraine security guarantees. What number are we at right now? Well, I think we're, look, you know, you can say 95 percent, but I don't like to say percentage. I just think we're doing very well. We're very, we could be very close. There are one or two very thorny issues, very tough issues, but I think we're doing very well. We've made a lot of progress today, but really we've made it over the last month. This is not a one-day process deal. This is very complicated stuff. But I think when the president says 95, I think, you know,

could be close to 95%. Very few details known yet about what exactly those security guarantees might be. That's really important. Also, clearly some disagreement still about the land that Ukraine may have to give up. There's also, well, there was this notable moment that came towards the end of the presser when President Trump was asked about Russia's potential involvement in Ukraine's reconstruction. Your conversation with President Putin, did you discuss what responsibility Russia will have for any kind of reconstruction of Ukraine post an agreement? I did.

They're going to be helping. Russia is going to be helping. Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. It sounds a little strange, but I was explaining to the president. President of Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity, and other things at very low prices. So a lot of good things came out of that call today. All right, Katty.

certainly, let's say a couple things here. First, the vibes, if you will, out of this meeting, better than other Trump-Solensky meetings. The Oval Office blow up in February, most notably, but there was also one a few months ago, another meeting that Putin undercut with a phone call with Trump just before he met with Zelensky. That one pretty tense as well,

though the fights took place behind closed doors. This one better. Let's be clear. However, two things. First, and we'll dig into it in a moment. there's still some very thorny issues that need to be resolved. But secondly, let's just take that comment there from President Trump. No, I don't think Russian President Vladimir Putin is invested in Ukraine's success.

He's the one who invaded it in the first place. He's the one still with aims to conquer it. And I don't know if we have the footage or not, but there is, Katty, as Trump was saying that, there was a cutaway shot of Zelensky's reaction and he almost burst out laughing. He just couldn't believe what he was here. I mean, Vladimir Zelensky went in this trying very hard to be the kind of diplomat, but also trying to make the case, and I think we heard it in the clip earlier, that he's not the obstacle to the piece.

And I thought it was interesting that he came out in the press conference and said, look, we're very close on the land issues, we're very close on the security guarantees. He doesn't want to be the problem here. He wants to make it clear, as do the Europeans, to President Trump and those around President Trump, that the problem is not Ukraine, the problem is Russia. And so he had an agenda, and I think he was laying that out. President Trump, I don't know what he means when he says that Russia is very, you know, keen for Ukraine to succeed unless Russia is keen for Ukraine to succeed under Russia's control,

which is the way that Vladimir Putin would clearly like it to be. But Mark Polymeropolis, way in here, I thought it was interesting that despite the fact John's right, that the atmospherics were better, I didn't see anything coming out of that press conference that makes me think we're on the doorstep of peace or anything really that takes us much closer to peace following this summit, does it? No, Katty, I think you're right. You know, there was no breakthroughs. That was pretty clear. But let's just, you know, talk about the notion of there was no disaster either. And so the Ukrainian Zelensky made it through this okay. You know, nobody can forget that February press conference, which was absolutely a diplomatic embarrassment for, I think, everybody involved.

And so at the end of the day, Zelensky comes to Washington. He, what his goal was to try to look reasonable for Trump. So it looks like he made some compromises in terms of territory. He said he would actually pull back some of his forces in the Donbass, if, of course, and only if Russia did the same. And there would be a ceasefire, and all of this then has to go to a referendum. him. And so he's putting things in place, which I think the position, the Ukrainian position on sovereignty will remain intact, but he wants to look reasonable towards President Trump. Look, that comment that Trump made about Putin wanting to see, you know, Ukraine succeed is

preposterous. It's insulting. Zelensky has incredible patience to kind of sit through this. Again, Putin is a war criminal who's committed mass murder in Ukraine. But I think it just shows that the U.S. policy is morally inverted. I mean, Ukraine is supposed to be our ally. We gave over $100 billion in the previous administration. This is a David and Goliath story. This is for the future of Europe. And Trump, at best, is neutral. And it, at worst, tilts towards Moscow.

And so I think you walk away from this, seeing there was no breakthroughs, but it wasn't a debacle for the Ukrainians. And in some ways, that's a good thing. Yeah, Mark, certainly you're right. I mean, Zelensky is trying to stay on Trump's good side here, bending over backwards to do that. But, like, this is the end of the day. Trump continues to ask Ukraine to make sacrifices.

not Russia. He revealed that Putin in that phone call they had before the Marlago meeting with the Ukrainian leader doesn't want to ceasefire. That's still not going to happen. We don't know yet about what territory might be sacrificed. There's a nuclear power plant whose fate it hangs in the balance, which is a big deal here as well. And Mark, talk to us what we know about these security guarantees, because, you know, there's certainly an idea of Article 5 like, but that like is doing a lot of work there. We don't really know. The Ukrainians, it'd be hard for them to count on the U.S., frankly, at least under this administration, to come to their aid if Russia comes, you know, invading again down the road.

Well, Jonathan, the security guarantees are absolutely critical for Ukraine. After all, they do feel vulnerable. And so, you know, what would these entail? Well, first of all, it has to be some form of troop presence on the ground. Now, President Trump has made it clear the U.S. will not be supplying those troops. So it will be the Europeans then. And so we have to see, you know, what kind of robust force. It can't also be in Western Ukraine. It's got to be close to the front lines. This has to be really serious. And then what will the U.S. provide? Is it going to be intelligence support? And then finally, will this be something that the U.S. Senate has to ratify? Will it be treaty-like? And so a lot of details remain. But,

you know, the Ukrainians should be skeptical. The U.S. is a very unreliable at best ally right now. And don't forget when Ukraine back in 1994 in the Budapest memorandum gave up their nuclear weapons, that was based on, quote, assurances, not a guarantee, but assurances in terms of their territorial integrity. And of course, the U.S. never came to their aid when Russia took Crimea in 2014 and then the Donbos in the east as well. And so Ukrainians are right to be very serious about this. And we have to really see the details to see if, you know, ultimately there is some substance to this. And of course, Jonathan, Putin's going to reject all of this. So the real question is, what will Trump do when inevitably Russia says no to this? Will we ever use the leverage

that we do have over, over Russia? And to date, you know, Trump has never done this. Yes. Yeah, and that's just it, Katty. That seems to be those who I talked to last night who are close to the process or following it carefully, you know, do believe that's where Zelensky's trying to get this, is to sort of basically say yes to as much as he possibly can. Yeah, a lot of concessions. But to get to the point where ultimately the Ukraine and the U.S. will come to a deal, or at least very close to one. And then that idea, that deal is taken to the Russians. And the odds are Putin will reject it. that's the key moment, that sort of best final offer, if you will, from Trump to Putin. When Putin says no, as he inevitably will, what does Trump do then? That will be the moment where does he finally, for once, stand up to Russian's president? Or does he sort of suggest, well, okay, we have to go back to the drawing board. If that's the case, I think Ukraine gets the sign loud and clear. They're on their own.

But that's where we go to this, is putting the pressure, putting the onus on Putin to make the final call. Yeah, which is why it's in Vladimir Zelensky's interest, as we saw him down in Mar-a-Lago, to try to be as accommodating as possible to the American president and will America do what everybody seems to recognize needs to be done, which is put the right amount of pressure on Russia to get them to actually make concessions as well, which up until now, President Trump hasn't seemed to be willing to do. Okay, but it's busy down in Mar-A-Lago at the moment on the foreign policy fund, because Mr. Trump will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Net. Netanyahu, today, Amarago, actually had a moment where the planes were crossing down there at West Palm Beach. The high stakes meeting will reportedly center around the fragile ceasefire plan in Gaza. All parties agreed to a White House-produced deal back in October, you'll remember, which would have required Israel to withdraw from Gaza and Hamas to give up its weapons in any future role in governing. Both Hamas and Israel have been accused of purposefully breaching that agreement. Hamas has not disarmed and still has the remains of the law. last hostage. Israeli troops, meanwhile, are still active in at least half of the enclave,

and the country has threatened to restart military actions. The clock is ticking on finding a resolution. Reuters reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that Washington wants the transition administration envisioned in Trump's plan to be in place ahead of the deployment of the International Security Force that was mandated by a November 17th UN Security Council resolution. I mean, David Drucko, when this was all announced in October, many of us said this could end up being a hostage for prisoner swap, which is what we've had so far. Phase one, done, that's over. But phase two, we are still waiting for. And I remember when we talked about it, you and I talked about, in fact, on this program. And you said time is of the essence.

This has to move quickly in order to carry on the momentum in order to keep Donald Trump's engagement in the process. Is President Trump has engaged and committed as he today, as he was back in November, is there as much pressure from the Americans on the Israeli side on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do what needs to be done to get phase two moving? Yeah, so there seems to be an incredible amount of pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu from the Trump White House and from his cabinet. I think the question here is how sort of engaged in the intricacies of diplomacy is the president willing to be? The president, likes headlines, and the president likes any result that fits the headline that he wants.

That's what he was able to get out of phase one, and everything went well. It was inevitable that the other points in this plan were going to require a lot of negotiation that the parties weren't going to move along as easily and smoothly as the plan envisioned. You know, you go from point A to point B to point C. It just never works that way diplomatically, especially considering the fact that, number one, Hamas has no interest in disarming and recognizing whether de facto or for real Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And Israel, particularly after October 7, 2023, is concerned that any move it makes toward peace will result in future attacks. I mean, they've just been burned so many times. I think people forget Israel under Ariel Sharon pulls out of the Gaza Strip unilaterally,

pulls out Israeli settlers that did not want to leave using the Israeli military, and where do we end up all these years later right here? And what this usually requires is very, I mean, it's almost just given we're in football season where you're re-recruiting your college football players every year because of the transfer portal. It's like you're trying to keep in. in place these points and the movement on these points every single day, even though it's all theoretically been agreed to. It's like you've got to get people to agree to it all over again every single day. I think the president has some people around him that are willing to do the

work. The question is whether he has the patience to exert his own will here and not get exasperated by it again because he likes the headline and he wants any result that can fit the headline that's often more important to him than the substance. That's always been the question whether Trump will have the focus and follow through here. He's certainly been exasperated with Netanyahu quite a bit, even in recent weeks, because of some of the Israeli military strikes in the region. We will see what sort of pressure he places on him later today at Marlago. We, of course, will be following that. But we have another major headline here.

The president says the U.S. knocked out a major facility, his words, major facility last week in its campaign against drug trafficking, he says, linked to Venezuela. officials confirmed that Trump was referring to a drug site but gave no details. The White House, military, and CIA declined to comment, and Venezuela has not reported any attack. If Trump's right, the strike would mark the first known U.S. land operation in Venezuela, part of a broader campaign that has targeted suspected drug-carrying boats in the Caribbean. That operation has killed over 100 people. Eugene Daniels so much strange about this, President Trump kind of just mentioned it in a radio interview he did in recent days. There's been some reporting that the White House officials saying, well, this is what he meant, but we don't know where it was.

We don't exactly even know when it was. But if indeed it was a strike on a drug facility on land in Venezuela, that is a marked market and notable escalation in this operation. We've all been waiting for that moment. We know the boat strikes, which is a dubious legality, but the thought was, well, it would be that much of a further bridge. were they to start striking on land in Venezuela, particularly with no congressional approval, as part of this pressure campaign, it seems, to get Maduro to head out.

What's the latest you're hearing here? And how do you think Washington will respond to this notion that, well, actually, maybe the escalation has already begun? Yeah, no details is kind of the name of the game as it's been with President Trump and these proposed, as he puts in these drug boats. We still have not seen any evidence from the administration. on that. We haven't seen any evidence of this new bombing, this new attack. And if he's right,

if he's telling the truth, which, you know, sometimes he doesn't, at the end of the day, this is going to piss off a lot of Republicans and Democrats here behind me in Capitol Hill. Because at the end of the day, when you talk to them, they were kind of okay with the drugboats, but they were concerned about striking inside of a country. And, you know, in that Vanity Fair article that got a lot of attention. Susie Wiles in that said that they would have to go to Congress for approval of this kind of action. It does not seem that they have that. I haven't heard that from anyone at all at the end of the day. And I think the thing that is getting really, really interesting when you talk to Republicans. Again, they talk a lot behind closed doors and don't say much in front of the cameras,

is that they, the shifting explanations for the Trump administration on Venezuela are really getting to them because they want to help defend the White House. They want to defend the president. They see that as part of their job, even though that's not really part of the job as a co-eco branch of government, but they're not able to because this is an administration that doesn't even share information with them. We'll see if more comes out of this. But one thing that's really interesting, and I've talked to out of like military experts, people who have spent a lot of time either in or working with autocratic leaders. And sometimes when you want to put pressure on the autocrat. You can squeeze too much. And at the end of the day, that will bring the people closer

to the autocrat. So here, it's possible that Nicholas Maduro might become more popular in his own country, thus making it harder for us to push him out if that's the case. That's something that is very interesting that folks should be watching. Yeah, that is such a good point, because I've heard the same thing from Venezuelan friends, an economist who I've spoken to, who are opposed to the Maduro regime, but a little bit wary of what the approach is from the administration. Mark, you speak to people in the intelligence world all the time, specifically when it comes to Venezuela and objectives. What are you hearing?

Because I think that's part of the disquiet on Capitol Hill as well, is what's the end game here? Why is America doing what is doing? What are you hearing from people in the intelligence world? Well, Katie, first and foremost, I think what happened recently is that President Trump, inadvertently, and I assume it is inadvertently, revealed covert action. And that's when the United States decides to take certain actions. Things blow up, but it's non-attributable, except when the president then attributes it to us. And this is something that I think, you know, many of us in

the intelligence business thought would occur, that the U.S. intelligence community has some type of assets on the ground, whether it's actual, you know, Americans or more likely, you know, indigenous groups, who could try to destabilize the Maduro regime? And just let me add one thing, is that Congress would have been briefed on this. You know, the gang of eight, that's the congressional leadership in the House and the Senate, and then the heads of the intelligence committees, if there was covert action, they would know right now. So let's kind of, you know, note that for the future, because I think this will eventually come out. But your question's a good one, you know, what is the end game here? And I just think we don't exactly know. Was it the

counter-narcotics mission? Or was it regime change? And if it is, regime change, that's a pretty big deal because, you know, is the old Colin Powell expression, you break it, you own it. And so, you know, if we go down that road, you know, what comes next after Maduro? And of course, what if he does not kind of bend to some of these things, such as strikes on boats or if this is covert action? And then does the U.S. military then have to go in? So we're going down a slippery slope. And, you know, look, President Trump hasn't even addressed the American people on this. There's so much that should happen in terms of Congress and even telling the American people, what is the end state? And actually, I don't know. And I think a lot of my old colleagues

in the intelligence business, they're not sure as well. Yeah, it's something we'll be watching closely as the U.S. puts more and more military assets in the region. The question is, what happens next? Retired, CIA officer, Mark, Paul Moropoulos, Mark, thank you so much for your insight this morning. We appreciate you joining us. And still ahead here on Morning, Joe. Lots more to get to, including the Justice Department releasing new information about interviews with The man suspected of planting pipe bombs outside of the RNC and DNC back in January 2021. We'll go over what he told investigators. Plus, what former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying about the state of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms

and why she's hopeful about her party's chances. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Acqueweathers Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's looking out there? Jonathan, some travel headaches here this morning. We have rained Boston, New York City, Philadelphia. Look at the cold across the Midwest, windy in Chicago with snow this morning. Here comes the cold air into the southeast. Your acuether exclusive forecast, 52 in Atlanta, still 82 degrees and warm in Miami.

Your acuether travel forecast, some delays due to wind this afternoon in Atlanta, delays all day in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Accuether app today. So if the Democrats win the House back. No, no, no, when the Democrats win the House back, then the will. So how does the next Democratic Speaker of the House deal with Donald Trump? What would be your advice? Be yourself.

Just do your own thing. Just be yourself. Hakeem Jeffries is ready. He's eloquent. He's respected by the members. that is unifier and he will have no doubt it will be Hakeem Jeffreys.

None. Right now, the Republicans and the Congress have abolished the Congress. They just do what the president insists that they do. That will be over. So that is as soon as you have a Democrat. That ends as soon as we have the gavel.

Speaker Amerino Nancy Pelosi speaking with ABC's Jonathan Carl there and Katty was struck by her confidence when the Democrats take back the house. And I'm sure that makes a lot of Democrats anxious because they don't necessarily, they don't want to get ahead of their selves here. But I think it's reflective of how the party remarkably, how the party feels now compared to even just a few months ago when not only did it roll through November's elections in the election since, but just they feel like they found

their footing. They got the better of Trump in terms of the government shutdown. We're talking about the issues the Democrats want to talk about health care, affordability, really dogging Trump. And the president simply hasn't been able to adjust or, as you're about to get into, get out ahead of some of these stories that continue to dog him. Yeah, we have a little screen just under our desk. And I was trying to get a close up look at Nancy Pelosi because my God, she looks both confident. She looks in great shape. She looks well rested. She, I think she's, you know, retiring at the right moment. This is somebody actually is not tying in office who's saying, okay, it's time for me to get out and to pass on the baton. And she's doing it in a way that

She's praising Hakeem Jeffrey, saying that, yep, she thinks that he is going to be the speaker. Nancy Pelosi is always prone to sounding confident. I have never not heard her in personal and in public conversations say that she believes that things are going to work out well for them. But you're right. There's been a real sea change. Since those big elections in New Jersey and Virginia, there's a sense that the party has got its mojo back, that now it's gone on the right footing. President Trump is trying to change the conversation from affordability.

pricing, but hey, that's all about prices still. That's what people are talking about. And that's the kind of area that the Democrats want to play in. And of course, there is still more coming out from those sneaky Epstein files that the president doesn't want necessarily to have on the front pages. So he is urging the Department of Justice to release the name of any Democrats in the Epstein files, calling on the agency to, quote, embarrass them. His calls come after the department announced last week, the federal prosecutor. office in Manhattan had discovered upwards of one million more records potentially related to the Epstein case, saying the newly discovered documents could take, quote, a few more weeks

to comb through. Trump addressed the findings on social media Friday, suggesting the DOJ is spending too much time on the issue, writing in part, quote, the Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein, not the Republicans, release all of their names, embarrass them, and get back to helping our country. The agency has released a trover records over the last week, covering more than 20 years' worth of investigations into Epstein, and highlighting the relationships he had over the years with well-known people, including President Trump, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing. David Drucker, what's your sense from the people who were pushing for the release of the Epstein files so hard for the last year or so, now that we've had two big, two or three big trenches, of these files released? Are they satisfied, not satisfied? Are they still looking for more? Well, I mean, I think it depends on who we're talking about here, right?

I mean, there are some people that want the release of this information because they want they want all of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities to come to light. They're trying to bring the victims closure. They're trying to make sure the victims get their due in public because of what they went through, right? Then you have the conspiracy-minded people. This is people mostly on the right. President Trump helped fan the flames of the, you know, so-called Epstein files that's going to reveal a cabal of powerful people in the shadows who participated with Jeffrey Epstein in his, you know, criminal sexual activity. And I think that's something that is never going to be uncovered. And so they're never going to be satisfied. But as a matter of, you know, domestic

politics here, the president is the one still keeping this alive. by his insistence on commenting about this, by the DOJ's at times appearance of slow walking, the release of this information. Now that legislation was signed a law by the president in order to do this. And of course, you know, Democrats have always understood that there are Democrats that associated with Jeffrey Epstein

and figures who associated with Democrats, who associate with Jeffrey Epstein, you're not going to embarrass them by releasing information that shows Democrats associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And it sort of gives the game away. So I don't really know what the president is trying to accomplish here. If he wanted to tell the DOJ to do anything that would in a sense help him politically, he'd tell them just release it all immediately, get it out there. And we'd all talk about it and some of it should be talked about.

And then he could move on and talk about things if he chose to that voters. actually care about when we're talking about midterm elections and things related to the president's standing. But he finds it very difficult to do because he does not like to be embarrassed. And this entire episode is embarrassing him from his perspective, not necessarily anybody else's, but it's just, it's like a feedback loop now, right? It's a vicious feedback loop. He doesn't allow himself to get out of. Yeah, and it seems every step that the president and his administration takes to make this story go away. He's only made it worse.

And even this, news that there's still a million more documents, perhaps, was met with real unhappiness from Democrats, yes, but also Republicans, some on the right saying, look, the DOJ, do your job. We ask that by law, all of this material should be out. There shouldn't be these delays. You know, there's certainly this remains an issue where Republicans are willing to defy the president. So the story continues to live. Coming up here on Morning Joe, China, holding new military drills around Taiwan,

and issues a warning to external forces. We'll have the latest on those escalating tensions. Plus, we're taking a look back at some of the most controversial moments from the Trump administration this year. That's all straight ahead here on Morning Joe. Welcome back. As we come up on the end of the year, just a couple of days to go, we're looking back at the Trump administration's most controversial moments of 2025. We compiled this list of the top 12, and folks, frankly, it took some doing to narrow it down to just 12.

Let's start ticking through some of them numbered at 12. His meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office back in February, the one that ended with shouting matches and Ukrainians sent home without even getting their lunch. Next, we have Trump's rocky rollout of his tariffs. We all remember Liberation Day

back in April in a pretty up and down economy since rising prices. Number 10, accepting a plane from Qatar as a gift to be the new Air Force One that he'll then get to keep for his presidential library afterwards.

The very expensive retrofit of that plane happening now. Trump is at number nine repeatedly called the affordability, a crisis, a hoax, even though polls suggest that was the number one issue for Democrats when they won all those elections this fall. Number eight, ah, yes, the ballroom. Trump initially said that White House wouldn't be damaged. Well, the entire East Wing got knocked down. They're going to put up a ballroom that seems to be bigger than the rest of the White House.

The cost keeps ballooning up to $400 million now and counting. Number seven, dismantling U.S. AID, leading to real, almost unimaginable suffering among poor people around the world as well as reducing American soft power. I think that story is going to be one in the years ahead. We learn was so consequential and damaging to so many. Let's turn now to number six, his pardons, that includes all of the January 6th rioters. He did that on his first day in office, and he's had a series of controversial pardon sense, including in the crypto lane and the former president of Honduras, a legitimate drug kingpin, even as we allegedly are going to war against drugs coming out of Venezuela. Number five, Trump's attempts at political retribution

through indictments. These have only been somewhat successful. We have seen these prosecutions fall apart against FBI director James Comey, New York's Attorney General, Leticia James. But the threat of retribution remains very real, something Trump has said he will continue over the couple of years. Number four, ice raids and deportations. Americans give the president high marks for closing the border much less so for these deportations, masked ice agents, targeting school lines, apartment buildings, a lot done for show, the construction of facilities like Alligator Alcatraz, for even some Trump supporters, the Joe Rogan types. This has gone too far. Number three, we're in our top three now. Number three, Signalgate. This was back to

in March, the Trump administration was seemingly rolling along, and then suddenly the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, looked at his phone. He was added inadvertently to a signal chain releasing attack plans to strike the Houthis in Yemen. He added by then National Career Advisor Walsh, and then it was Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who put all kinds of very sensitive, indeed classified information on that signal chain about these strikes. This has been a serious a real controversy of this administration, they shouldn't have been using a signal in the first place, and they certainly shouldn't have added, Jeffrey Goldberg, who watched this unfold in real time sitting in his car in the parking lot of a Safeway

supermarket in the Washington, D.C. area. Number two, of course, we just talked about it. The Jeffrey Epstein files, as much of the Trump administration would like this to go away. It just won't. Every seemingly new batch of information reveals just how close Trump and Epstein were, yes, the president has not been accused of anything criminal, but certainly deeply embarrassing. It's also given Republicans a chance to really defy him, and we're going to learn more in the weeks ahead. And our number one, that's September 2nd boat strike. As just mentioned, the president and his team launched a series of boat strikes targeting, they say, fentanyl coming out of Venezuela. But first, we know fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. Second,

the administration has never really given any proof as to the identity of these people on the boats, any real proof what they were carrying. And then, of course, September 2nd, we know that first strike left two survivors a full 40 minutes later with these two men clean to the boat trying to just signal for safety. It would appear a second strike killing them, something that even and some Republicans who watched the video say it was hard to justify. So that's, whew, Eugene Daniels, a pretty exhaustive list, but yet it feels like there's so much more we could get into. So give us your take here.

Was there a significant story we missed? And then beyond that, what really of these 12 really stood out to you? Yeah, exhaustive and exhausting for all of us to have gone through that. And it's not even been a full year yet. I think that the list is very good. Shout out to the team that put it together. One thing I would add, maybe number 13, because of the legs it has and the impact on the political world that we all will be living in over the next few years, is Marjorie Taylor

Green and Donald Trump's kind of beef. And the reason is because I think it's a preview of things to come. If not for 2026, definitely for 2028. The Republican Party is going to have to figure out what MAGA actually means. Is it the version that Donald Trump? has kind of tweaked and moved around, or is the leader of that next movement, someone who's more MAGA official, who's someone who's like the purest form of that as they move forward? And I think, you know, at Turning Point USA, their M-Fest that they had last week, you saw that on stage, the beefing between the different factions of the Republican Party. And, you know, David Drucker and I talked about this on our show this weekend on the weekend, because at the end of the day, they have to figure out what to do with all of these different factions.

And I think that's going to be a really interesting story for all of us to cover. I think, honestly, the, when you're looking at the list, the affordability crisis is one of those things that, you know, Donald Trump's now using the word pricing, which doesn't mean anything different. But his team is very happy that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. The American people are saying things are too expensive for us. And then they're watching the ballroom. They're watching these tariffs. They're watching him have parties at Mar-a-Lago. They're watching him tweet and post about, you know, the most.

marble that they're going to use in different ways and the changing of bathrooms in the White House. I think the president is misunderstanding and kind of missing the moment when it comes to this. And he's usually really good at understanding how things are going to land and play, especially with his base. And that aspect of it is probably, I think, one of the bigger stories of this year. Yeah, I mean, the other thing I would say is all the gold. And that sounds as facile and maybe that's the kind of, you know, home decorator and want to be home decorator. Jonathan. But it has been striking how the president has transformed the Oval Office, has transformed the White House. And I think it's partly that it is discordant with the affordability issue,

but it's also that it looks so imperial. I mean, it just, the Trump Kennedy Center, the Trump United States Institutes of Peace, right, David? I mean, I'm wondering whether there is an element of all of these kind of taking on the mantle of kingdom, that just doesn't quite sit well with the American people, and it might be something we don't catch initially, but it's just it's not what presidents have traditionally done, and it's perhaps not how Americans think presidents should traditionally be, just acting so overtly like a monarch.

Do you think that's something that's going to have an impact on people? I think it is in the sense that it's showing where the president's focused versus where they are focused. And in fact, I was going to mention the president slapping his name on the Kennedy Center, On that Institute of Peace, he's put his name now on a new group of battleships that are going to be built. Look, we name things after presidents all the time. We wait until they leave office. Often we wait until they pass away.

And usually there's consensus about the president that they're generally beloved and at the very least not polarizing figures, right? I mean, look at who we name things after generally, from Ronald Reagan to John F. Kennedy to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Gerald Ford has an aircraft carrier named after him, George H.W. Bush, right? I mean, these are people that either because of the passage of time or because of how the American people felt about them when they led. There may have been disagreements. Not everybody voted for them or liked them, but they just simply weren't polarizing figures that divided the nation. but to me you know when you look at everything that was on that list and then some of the things we have discussed it's not simply that the president who in this term is unfettered and unfiltered unlike the first term is doing things that presidents normally don't do it sends a message to the american people that are going to vote next year that he's not focused on what they're focused on and i can't emphasize that enough because voters will often live or accept that a president can't get done what they'd like him to get done. But if they think that he's trying, that he understands how

they feel and he's trying to do everything he can to move things along, they'll give him credit for that and they'll stick with them. And it's just something that we're not seen in any of the data. It's nothing that I've seen in my discussions with voters. And I think that's what all of this really represents, except for maybe one or two items on that list. Yeah, no question. The idea that Trump's in a bubble, a real theme right now and one that worries Republicans. That's a great list. Great work by Alex and the Morning Joe team there. Senior writer at the dispatch, David Drucker and MS now, senior washer reporter and co-host of the weekend, Eugene Daniels, our thanks to you Both. Coming up here on Morning Joe, we'll turn to sports with highlights from week 17 in the NFL.

We'll be joined by Pablo Tori and Pablo Tori's sweater to break down the big moments as we get a better look at the playoff picture. A confused one indeed. Morning Joe will be right back. Oh, look at that. Number one. Go, Pat.