Morning Joe - Trump: ‘I Don’t Care About the Midterms’

Episode Date: May 28, 2026

Trump: ‘I Don’t Care About the Midterms’ 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.

The fact that we have dedicated presidential leadership is really what's made this possible. It speaks to the strength of your leadership. It has never been a better time to be an American. Just a reminder of another war you helped to settle, Mr. President. It's exciting to see your vision. They're leading us to the greatest economy that the world has ever known, and that's why they tell you, to tell me to tell you, Mr. President, thank you, and they love you. Just like you talked about with the reflecting pool,

we didn't do the same old thing the way we'd done it in the past after you know, Iraq and Afghanistan, the way we waged wars. Instead, you said we're going to do this smart. Members of President Trump's administration heaping praise on their boss, as has become custom at his cabinet meetings. Also during that meeting, the president told reporters, he, quote, doesn't care about the midterms while talking about the war with Iran. That comment is perhaps more proof of the messaging problem the White House is facing. We're going to dig into that new reporting this morning. Also ahead, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Telerico of Texas is facing criticism for his past comments on God being non-binary and other transgender issues. We'll show you what he had to say about all of that. Plus, protests continue at an ICE detention center in New Jersey over claims of inhumane conditions inside the facility.

It comes amid a disturbing report on the impact the confinement is having on detainees across the country. And is an invasion of Cuba imminent. Mark Caputo of Axis joins us with his new reporting on that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe on this very busy Thursday, May 28th. With us, we have the co-host of our 9 a.m. Hour, staff writer at the Atlantic. Jonathan Lemire, Politics, be our chief and senior political communists at Politico, And Martin, J. Martz here. And MS Now, National Affairs analyst, John Heilman.

He is partner and chief political columnist at Puck. Good to have you all this morning. Fresh strikes in the Middle East are once again threatening peace talks to end the three-month war and is testing the tenuous truce. A U.S. official tells MS. Now the military carried out new strikes in Iran yesterday, shooting down four Iranian attack drones and targeting a ground control station in a port city along the Strait of Hormuz. The official added both of the drones and ground facility posed a threat to the key waterway, saying, quote, these actions were measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, meanwhile, said early today that it retaliated against the late.

this round of U.S. strikes, claiming to have targeted the American military base from which they were launched, although it did not say where the U.A.S. base was or how it had been targeted. The IRGC also warned its response to future attacks would be, quote, more decisive. At the same time, Kuwait's army said its air defenses were intercepting hostile missile, and drone attacks, although it did not state the origin of the attacks. So a ceasefire, Willie. That's quite active. Yeah, we've got United States attacks retaliation. President Trump threatening Oman and ally. I think continues to work with Iran in these negotiations. A lot going on. So in that cabinet meeting yesterday, President Trump defended his handling of the war,

dismissing concerns about political fallout ahead of the midterms as well. The president also openly threatened, as I said, Oman, a U.S. ally over entering into any agreement with Iran or sharing control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is very much intent. They want very much to make a deal. So far, they haven't gotten there. We're not satisfied with it, but we will be. We will be either that or we'll have to just finish the job. But the Navy has gone, as I've said a thousand times, and Navy is gone. Their Air Force is gone. Everything's gone. And They're negotiating on fumes, but we'll see what happens.

Maybe we have to go back and finish it. Maybe we don't. Their whole economic system is broken down. They thought they were going to outweigh me, you know. We'll outweigh him. He's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night.

That was the prelude to the midterms. People understand it. They know that very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I'm doing that for the world. I'm not doing it just for us. Iran wants control of the straight over moves. Would you accept a short-term deal that allows Iran and Oman to control the straight?

And would they have to open it immediately, or would you be open to that happening over a period of time? No, the street's going to be open to everybody. And who would control it? It's international waters. Nobody's going to control it. We're going to watch over it. We'll watch over it. But nobody's going to control it.

That's part of the negotiation that we have. They would like to control it. Nobody's going to control it. It's international waters. and Oman will behave just like everybody else who will have to blow them up. They understand that. They'll be fine.

President of the United States, they'll have to blow them up, talking about Oman, a longtime U.S. ally, who's the mediator, effectively, in these negotiations between the United States and Iran, hopefully to bring the war to an end.

Jonathan Lemire, it looks like all the fans got an autographed hat at the event yesterday around the cabinet table there. But President Trump, there are a couple pieces of this, the way he's talking about

the prosecution of the war in Iran, saying we'll see, what happens, we'll see what happens, the negotiation, and then the dismissal of the domestic implications of this war saying, I'm not worried about the midterms. I'm doing this so Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Whatever happens back here with my party, with the country, is not really my chief concern. Yeah, more and more Republicans are nodding along, sadly, because it does seem like President Trump doesn't care about the midterms, some of his comments, but also some of his actions making the GOP's job of hanging on to either House of Congress this November that much more difficult.

But yeah, we're seeing this impasse. And yes, a flurry of strikes in the last couple of days here, though it's a ceasefire that seems remarkably durable because President Trump does not want to resume full-on hostilities. He is looking for a way out of this. I wrote a piece for the Atlantic that posted yesterday on exactly this, this conundrum that he is in and how frustrated he is that he's not able to intimidate or cajole Iran to making a deal. How many times have we been there now where there's been breathless reporting that the deal

we're on the doorstep of a deal and then it doesn't happen? There are still some significant impasses with the Strait of Hormuz, and most particularly with the future of Iran's uranium, when that will get dealt with in how, that still has to be to be sorted out. And the president is worried that if he does retaliate again, first of all, there is concerns about American munition supplies, because they might be running, they're running low and can't be used elsewhere,

but also that Iran might strike back just like that. And these initial last 24 hours or so, those strikes pretty small, But if they were to target, let's say, other Gulf states, and particularly the energy infrastructure, as they did earlier in the war, then the fuel crisis the globe was already in would only get worse. So I look at this through the lens of how people are feeling across the country, gas prices and other things that are being impacted because of this war. And you hear the president saying he doesn't care about the midterms and all it cares about is the nuclear weapon. First of all, we're three months in to something he said would be short, right? Everything is two weeks in his mind. We're three months in, and all experts estimate that Iran is not, Iran is not the enemy that you think it is, Mr. President, and that you're stuck, and that most presidencies get stuck, get stymied, get caught in long-term situations when they're dealing with Iran.

So, I mean, unless there's some miraculous way out, there doesn't seem to be a short-term future to this war. So then you think about that cabinet meeting. And I believe it was one cabinet member who said it's never a better time to be an American. I'm not talking about love of country. I'm talking about economic stability. Is it really a great time to be an American for most people, J. Mart? And when they're looking at the midterms, can they afford their groceries? Can they afford their health care?

Can they get to their health care? Can they access life-saving health care that they need? I mean, the list goes on and on and on. It is impossible to get by on most average salaries right now because of the price of everything. Right. If you're in micron stock, you're doing pretty well. I think the rest of the country, which is pulling up to the gas station and seeing a five as the first number is in a much different place. I'm sorry for not bringing in the hats here today, guys.

I apologize about that. I know Willey was hoping for a next sort of display. Yeah, like the Politico Road Check. Yeah, but next time. I'll sign them all before I come. You know, what was so striking about that clip is that you pointed out to make it number three months in. February 28th was the start of this war. Even Trump seems fatigued by his own spin.

Like he just, he's trying to sell it and we may have to blow them up. He doesn't even believe that. He knows that we know that he's not going to restart this war. And he's dealing the threats again. But there's now this sort of rinse-wash repeat system or sort of patterns. to what he's saying, and he knows that nobody's buying it anymore. And he's even struggling to sell it now, because it's the same spin as ever, which is, well, we're about to do a deal, but if we don't, we're going to have to attack them again. And guess what? We don't do a deal, and we don't attack them

again. And Iran knows that, too, by the way. Of course. Which is why they have all their social media from all over their, their emphasis on all of the world, trolling Trump every day because they know he doesn't want to restart hostilities in any serious way, because that would inflame gas prices. And, you know, at the same time, when he's close to a deal, and I think he does want to get a deal, we know what happens, right? The Lindsey Graham's Mike Pompeo's and now Ted Cruz's of the world say, you're going to be Obama. And once he hears the O word, the big O, he does not want to sign that deal and he walks back. Go ahead, John.

Yeah, no, and to that very point, the idea that, as I wrote in the piece, he's pretty impervious to criticism from Republicans this time around. And Trump 1.0, you remember, you know, sometimes a Republican would go. go on Fox News. I remember the 2018 budget deal and they'd rail against it and suddenly he'd have to respond and he'd pull back. This time he doesn't largely care what Republicans think, but I'm told this was an exception over the weekend. He was struck by just how fierce the pushback was from so many in the party who were normally very loyal to him, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, and the like. And that is factoring into his thinking here. He does, I mean, there's hard to spin this as anything other than a disaster for the administration right now, but he is still deeply concerned about being perceived

his weak or being perceived as Obama-esque. The second, all those hawks say this deal is no different from what Obama did, it's just he hears that and he does not want to sign the deal. So it's the same pattern.

And by the way, the hawks know this because they've been dealing with Trump for 10 years. They understand the account at this point. They understand what they're dealing with. They know how to get him off from a deal and they understand, okay, you know, guys like, you know, Kushner and Wetkoff are about to get this deal done.

Trump's almost there. All right, we just got to drop the Obama bomb and we'll get them back to the ledge. So John Halman, bring me back to the politics of this and the midterms and the president saying, look, look what happened the other night. I'm not worried about the midterms. Is that the case? Does he still have great strength with his base and Republicans? And why wouldn't he care about the midterms?

Those are all good questions, Mika. Let's start with the top. Does he have great power with his base? absolutely enormous power, as we've seen over the course of these past few weeks. Every race that Trump has weighed in on has been a victory for him. He's been able with his endorsements to exact the kind of retribution that he's wanted to exact, whether it's been in Indiana or in Louisiana or in Texas, where it seems less to be a bit about retribution with John Cornyn more than it's been about the thing that you just mentioned, which is that he doesn't seem to

really care about the midterms, because there's a lot of it's. It's not a sane Republican who didn't tell him over the course of the past six weeks, eight weeks since the first round of the primary in Texas, that John Cornyn was a stronger candidate against James Talleyco and that Ken Paxton was really the only candidate, potentially that James Palo Rico could beat in Texas, but he didn't care. He wanted to reward his ally, Ken Paxton, and he did. And he's not responsible for that. Victory, Paxton's margin was huge, but did Trump add some points on the board there?

I'm sure he did. And so, A, great power with the base. No doubt about it. Is he focused on the larger politics of these matters? I mean, I think him in his word, he does not seem to care about the midterms. In every one of those instances, he's done something that is politically disadvantageous to Republicans winning, holding on to control of the Senate and the House in the fall. He has acted over and over again. And J. Martin has written about this.

LeMere's written about this. He is purely in self-satisfaction mode when it comes to exercising his political muscle. His political muscle is enormous in the Republican Party. But on this Iran deal and on every other front, he is acting in ways that do not serve the interests. His longer-term political interest, if he cares at all about holding on to the Senate in the House. He's not acting in his own interests. And if you ask me why that is, that. Mika, is an enormous mystery.

I'm not sure that anybody can really get their head around why it is the Trump who must know what the consequences of Democrats taking control of one or both House of Congress are, why he does not seem to care, or why his care about that does not translate into more strategic, political action. So let's bring him to the, go ahead, Mika. If past his prologue, I think there's some hypotheses some could have about that. Go ahead. All right. MS now White House reporter, Jake Trailer joins the conference.

conversation with new reporting this morning at the White House struggle to keep President Trump on message. Jake, good morning. So there are the things that Americans care about, the war in Iran and its implications for gas prices, oil prices, food prices, everything that's happening in this country right now. Those are top of mind. And there are the things that President Trump wants to talk about, like reflecting pools and giving $1.8 billion to January 6 convicted felons. So how is the White House behind the scenes internally managing those two tracks. Yeah, Willie, it's a great question. In short, not very well. This new reporting that me and my colleagues, Surin, have essentially illuminates how the White House is struggling right now to keep

President Trump on messaging. And you just laid it out there and talked about it at the top of the show. There's a really clear juxtaposition here between what President Trump is saying and then maybe what the Republican Party is trying to push in terms of messaging on affordability. Trump is focused on this anti-weaponization fund. He's focused on purging unloyal Republicans in its party. He's focused on the ballroom project, the reflecting pool, the arc, the construction projects in D.C. kind of go on. But I was just in Texas yesterday talking with voters.

What do they care about? Of course, affordability, gas prices, inflation, the gas pump. There's a new mandate from inside the White House from Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, a wildhouse official told me, which is essentially the president is going to go down whatever track he's going to. We are not going to try and control his messaging here. He is his own messenger. We've heard this before.

Instead, the issue falls to the cabinet officials within the administration. This White House official told me that Susie Wiles has told cabinet officials in multiple meetings. The plan is for you guys to be the ones to stick to the script. Stick to affordability. President Trump's going to go and do his own thing. And the problem with that, as you can imagine, is we're seeing what we're seeing, where the president in real time is saying he doesn't care about midterms while the White House is trying to say they are the party of affordability. We spoke with a couple of former White House officials and political advisors to Trump.

And these are people that don't hate Donald Trump. These are not people that used to work for him and now despise him. And these are people still MAGA aligned that are saying the strategy right now is not working. I want to read a couple of these quotes. One former White House official said to me, while beautifying our nation's capital is surely important and appreciated, if you don't live, work or visit D.C., you don't really reap the benefits of the president's passion projects. And they went on to say that what people are feeling right now is $4.50 for gas. That's conservative.

And that's the real passion point for Americans. Another former political advisor to Trump said that I think it's a failure on the part of his staff. They're not focused on the issues that Americans are focused on, which is obviously affordability. So this is clearly something that's not working for the White House right now. I ask that current White House official, is there anything inside that's going to change? There are internal strategy conversations about a way to rein the president in, get him back on message. This is what a White House official said to me. There is no new approach.

You can't do that with Trump. Well, that's the answer. It might just be an exercise in futility trying to keep this president on message. Remember, they tried to have events about affordability over the last several months. He would get up on stage from a crowd and mock the very idea of affordability as a Democratic hoax. The new reporting available online MS Now's Jake Trailer. thank you very much. Remember Susie Wiles

was supposed to be the adult in the room in this and she's the whisperer and she's going to keep him in line and keep him on message. Is there anyone, J. Mart, who's in that room able to do that for her? Is there a single person who can say, Mr. President, you're off here?

Name one. No, because job preservation means that you don't say that. Right. You think that somebody's going to take him aside and say, Mr. Trump, you're dragging down the party. Your message is a disaster. We need you to go out there and actually read the script and stop doing your riffs. And by the way, lose the gold.

No, of course not. That's never going to happen because they want to let Trump be Trump because that lets them keep their jobs. But for the Republican Party, that's not getting the job done. And I think, guys, it's important to drill down for 10 seconds on this gap between the primary electorate and the larger general election voters. It's never been this fast, right? I mean, Trump is so focused on his own. primary, but if he has no appetite to expand his appeal or his party's appeal beyond the primary, and he looks at results like Texas and thinks, well, shoot, I'm doing great.

That Paxton wanted to walk. And that's true. But that is a fraction of the larger universe of the American voter, but that's all he thinks about. And he's always been a candidate who lives in a primary forever. He's never tried to expand his appeal. And that works when Democrats are on their heels and he can attack Democrats. It doesn't work when you're the one in charge. All right.

We're still ahead on morning, Joe, we're digging into a new investigation into the growing number of deaths inside immigration detention centers across the country. This as DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen appears to dismiss concerns about one facility in New Jersey, plus how the Trump administration is accelerating its squeeze on Cuba. White House reporter for Axis, Mark Caputo, joins us straight ahead with that new report. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travel. forecast this morning from Accuweathers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, it is a cooler Thursday. Boston, only in the 60s today, spotty shower afternoon thunderstorm in Albany.

But your exclusive ACUther forecast, Sunshine Chamber of Commerce weather today. New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago with low humidity. But we do have spotty showers and thunderstorms from Texas toward Florida once again. And there can be some travel delays. Your exclusive ACUACU. travel forecast, we'll look for those delays in Atlanta in Miami. They help you make the best decisions and be more in the know. Download the Accuether app today.

Cuba's next, by the way, but pretend I didn't say that, please. Pretend I did. Please, please, please. Where is Cuba next? It depends on what your definition of military action is. Cuba is calling us. They need help. I am very prone toward the Cuban Americans.

They have family members in Cuba. They've been treated very, very badly. They've been treated extremely badly. And we're going to get that self. That's not going to be hard for us to solve. Cuba's in a lot of trouble because, unfortunately, for them, it's run by a bunch of incompetent communists. And being communist is bad.

Being an incompetent communist is like the worst. So we'll be talking to them. We'll be working on it. We want something good for the Cuban people. And hopefully there'll be a good outcome there for them. There needs to be. It's 90 miles from our shores. And having a failed state,

90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio yesterday and before that, President Trump, from over the past few weeks, both previewing the potential for U.S. intervention in Cuba. Those comments come as new reports from Axis reveal the White House is preparing for the possible collapse of Cuba's regime as early as this summer. Joining us now, the author of that piece, White House reporter, from Axis Mark Caputo. So, Mark, do we have a sense of, I mean, this seems to be gaining on us in terms of timing of when they might make a move? Yeah, there's a amount of pressure that's being applied that no one's ever seen before from the United States toward Cuba. And recently,

last month, the Southcom, Southern Command that oversees military operations in the Caribbean held what's called a joint agency or interagency task force or tabletop exercise. where they war-gamed out different scenarios. And in those discussions, they talked about, among other things, two things, one of which we'd reported before, the potential drone threat from Cuba, as Cuba has acquired drones, and the possibility of an incident and problem occurring in the summer. Understand that the United States has essentially taken over trade toward Cuba. It has restricted fuel or oil does not come into Cuba anymore, in part because Cuba has

money. And therefore, there's barely any electricity. People can't keep cool. They can't keep food cool. There's no refrigeration. And in South Florida and then south of me here in Miami, in Havana, in June, it starts to get really hot. In July, it starts to get really hot. And in July 11th of 2022, there were massive protests in the heat against the regime because people felt that it wasn't meeting their needs. The economy was in collapse. It was post-COVID as well. And the regime brutally repressed the protesters, the demonstrators, and jailed a lot of people. This time, some of these exercises that the U.S. military has begun to examine is what would happen if the U.S. intervened in the case that the president decided to go in and protect people who are being repressed from the regime.

And that's where the possibility, again, it's the possibility, not the probability, of U.S. military intervention starts to really come to the fore and is something that they've examined. So, Mark, with the indictment of Castro last week, a lot of people saw a pattern that we saw in Venezuela, indict Maduro, get them out, you know, for past crimes, get them out of the country, install new leadership, America controls the new leadership. But you say in the piece that Cuba, despite this indictment of Castro, is a little bit of a different story. How are they different? There's three major differences between Cuba and Venezuela. To begin with, in Venezuela, when the operation was beginning in the summer of 2025,

the Trump administration's advisors started to cultivate, for lack of a better term, Delci Rodriguez, the vice president for Maduro at the time, who's now the leader of Venezuela, and start to kind of figure out, okay, who would take over if Maduro were removed and removed either that he left or that he was killed or that he was snatched? Obviously, he went up being snatched on January 3rd.

And what would that look like? because it was sort of a vertical power structure where they could do that. And they had a competent person who was able to run it. Here, the United States can't really find that in Cuba. And that brings us to sort of point two. Outside of there being no Delcy, they haven't really identified a Delci yet, or as one of the advisors said, Delcy Lights or people who are Delci-ish, you have the fact that Cuba's power structure is just different.

It doesn't have that vertical structure. And so if you remove Raul Castro, who's 94, it's 94, it's, not really going to do much. And that sets aside the fact that getting him is going to be complicated. And then the third factor is Cuba has and is subject to a U.S. embargo that was codified into U.S. law in 1996. Venezuela didn't have that. It had sanctions that were imposed by the executive branch. So any changes in governance that happened in Cuba and any attempt to lift sanctions or the embargo can't really happen unless Congress signs off on it or three years. very specific rules or benchmarks are met. They have to free political prisoners. They have to have

free elections and they have to guarantee other civil rights. It's a much more complicated nut to crack in Cuba than in Venezuela. The new piece is available to read online right now. White House reporter for Axis, Mark Caputo, thank you. And I'm just curious, Jay Martin, in terms of the politics of this again, if you look at the president's global activity, I'll put it that way, pulling away from NATO, not defending Ukraine. Just that right there. Stop right there. Put quotes around that because that's a bigger story as it is.

Venezuela. Iran, where one would argue that he's lost the plot on the Strait of Hormuz and actually made the situation worse. Now potentially Cuba, this is a wartime president in wars seemingly all of choice, his choice. Is this what his base and his team was campaigning and counting on? No, but the base is largely deferring to whatever Trump wants because the project is personal, not policy oriented. I mean, Trump's political appeal has always been based upon a personal and cultural connection rather than any sort of set of an ideological project or an agenda.

And so they're for the Iran War peace for the Iran War. Now, there are challenges at the margins because there are some people who said, no, no, I actually did believe when you said they didn't want to start forward. wars. But the bulk of his voters are just for him because they're against the left and he's a middle finger against the left. So I don't think he's going to lose his base. I think he's stronger than ever. That's we've seen in the primaries. But it's just not what the vast majority of the country signed up for, which is a series of wars of choice and obviously beating war drums in the Caribbean now because, well, he's getting bored with season one of the Iran War and wants to change the channel to the Western Hemisphere and he wants to sort of enact regime change.

I think the underlying theme here is he wants to be an historic consequential president. He's not interested in legislation. He's not going to sign bills. He doesn't even bother with Congress. So how can you do that? Well, you can do that by trying to reorder the map and using the U.S. military to enact regime change around the world. And that's what I think he's trying to do.

And I think a lot of this goes back, guys, to the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. he spent so much time campaigning for the Peace Prize. He talked about ending those seven wars. It was eight, well, I can't recall. Eight, maybe. Or nine maybe. So many times, and he didn't get it, and he finally realized there's a different way that I can be consequential. All right.

From Cuba to Ukraine, or after a recent escalation in drone and missile attacks from Russia, President Volodymyr Zelensky has written to President Trump and Congress asking for more American-made air defense munitions. The letter, which was obtained by the Associated Press, urges U.S. leaders to supply more patriot missiles, warning that deliveries to Ukraine are falling dangerously short as the war in Iran diverts U.S. stock. Joining us now, U.S. national editor and columnist at the Financial Times, Ed Luce.

And Ed, it's great to have you on. Your piece is titled Putin and Trump Don't Have the Cards. And you write in part this. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Donald Trump hailed the move as genius. In practice, Vladimir Putin's war was our age's costliest great power error until Trump launched Operation Epic Fury three months ago. Both men gambled on a weak adversary and assumed victory was within days. each is burdening their countries with costs that will persist many years after they have lost power. Those on America's hawkish right protests that Iran's regime and Ukraine's are incomparable.

One is a nasty theocracy. The other is a functioning democracy. But strategy is measured in real-world outcomes, not wishfulness. neither men can escape their self-created traps. And Ed is, well, is pulling away from Ukraine, a trap within itself. Yes, it is. I mean, it's interesting Zelensky's appeal to Washington, to the White House and Congress, for more defense batteries, you know, comes because Putin is actually losing on the battlefield, not gaining on the battlefield, and therefore getting more escalatory. We saw a few days over the weekend, Russia fired the Arashnik missiles.

These are nuclear-capable missiles at Kiev, at civilian targets in Ukraine, a real escalation. And because it's nuclear capable, and you don't know until it's landed, whether it's actually carrying nuclear warheads, it contains a signal. You also have countries across Europe, Germany, the Baltic states, Poland, warning that precisely because Putin's not getting anywhere, I mean, he lost 35,000 men last month on the battlefield. Because he isn't getting anywhere, he's going to start lateralizing the wall. There's a real risk that he's been talking about targeting drone-making facilities in the Baltic states and in Poland. He's been alleging falsely, I believe, that Ukraine operates some of these. brilliant drones it's got from Latvia. Latvia then denied it. But these are really troubling

signals. But Putin's sending them precisely because he's in a trap of his own making. He's not, he's not winning this war. And yeah, I'm glad you brought that up about Latvia. Lithuania is another one as well, that there were sirens going off in Lithuanian cities the other day. They thought the Russian drones were on the way. He's threatening other nations now. So what is keeping him afloat, then, Ed, at this point? I know he's emboldened by President Trump, for example, pulling troops out of Germany for always seeming to side with Putin over Zelensky because of some strange personal animus the president and this White House has towards Zelensky. What is the breaking point? Is there a moment where Putin says, yes, this is not gone the way.

I thought it would over the last four and a half years. Let's find some kind of settlement. I mean, it's a very, very good question, Woody. I mean, as you saw the other day after President Trump got back from China, this big visit to Xi Jinping in China. A few days later,

Vladimir Putin follows up, goes straight to China. A measure of his insecurity here because clearly Trump had many conversations with President Xi. I don't know what transpired from Putin's conversation

with Xi, but clearly reassurance that China would continue continue kind of under the radar to support Russia's war machine was part of that conversation. He didn't get, by the way, the big pipeline approved from Russia to China that he wanted approved. Putin does not have many cards. Now, my piece is about neither Putin nor Trump having many cards. We're talking about this because Zelensky, in spite of what Trump said to him in the Oval Office 14 months ago, has cards. Now, nowadays. He has cards. He has reinvented warfare. And the Pentagon wants Ukrainian technology.

So all of a sudden, the Ukrainians have got leverage. And the Russians are beginning to look desperate. So it's a satisfying moment for the Ukrainians to know that Russia is probably never going to win this war. But it's also a very dangerous moment because Putin is getting quite desperate. And Ed, Zelensky has cards, as you say, he's also had a lot of help from Europe. Speak to us, if you will, about how the rest of Europe has bandied together

to help when the U.S. has not, but at a certain point, if this war does continue in this track, even if Putin flailing but escalates, will Zelensky need some assistance from the U.S.? Will Europe fall short in what it can provide?

I mean, you're absolutely right, Jonathan. and Europe is now supplying all the financing. The $105 billion most recently was unblocked by the defeat of Victor Orban in Hungary. He had been vetoing this money. Now Europe's given it Ukraine, $100 billion. It's got a lot of money to keep its head above water and keep fighting. But certain key weapons, including these Patriots, missile battery, defense batteries, can only be produced by the United States.

And as we saw with that Ereshnik missile, I mean, Ukrainians need a missile defense. So if the United States chose to stop selling those batteries or ran out of them, it's selling them right now to Europe, which then gives them to Ukraine. But if the United States said, sorry, we've got no more, then that could be a very, very vulnerable, window. And the one other thing that Trump hasn't withdrawn, because everything else has been

withdrawn since he, from Ukraine since he was inaugurated, the one other thing he hasn't withdrawn, which is also very important and which he could withdraw, is the intelligence sharing with the Ukrainians. That is really key. And that's, you know, Zelensky is not going to want to lose that, because Europe can't completely replace the United States in that regard. All right, Ed Luce of the Financial Times. Thank you very much. Ed's new piece is online right now. And coming up on Morning Joe, we'll take a look at J. Martin's new sit-down interview with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. What he said about his concerns over Americans' lack of trust in the federal government. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back. 15 minutes before the top of the hour,

a live look at Pittsburgh for you as the sun comes up. Jill Biden is talking about her husband's disastrous 2024 debate performance. Here's some of what the former first lady told CBS News in an interview that will air this Sunday. Were you horrified as you saw it unfold? I wasn't horrified. I was frightened because I had never, ever seen Joe like that. Before or since? Never. Or since? Yes.

You've never seen him like that? No. What happened? I don't know what happened. I mean, as I watched it, I thought, oh, my God, he's having a stroke. And it scared me to death. So a little more of that on Sunday. But Dr. Jill Biden said again, she hadn't seen anything since then.

I mean, there are other reports about. concerns about his age, but our president right now is about to turn 80. What do you make of this explanation coming out at this time? Some are saying it took too long to say something. It seems like there's always a criticism. She's got a book out, so that's why she's talking about it now. But, I mean, a lot of people John saw signs before, a lot of people privately. After?

And after, certainly, before and after, but certainly went and said, okay, we don't think. think he should run again. He did the job in 2020. He defeated Donald Trump. That is a historic moment for the country, for the Democratic Party. Time to step aside. A lot of that is revisionist history in 2020 being hindsight. But I think Dr. Biden may have been alone in thinking that no one had seen anything before or since. Yeah, certainly. There were many Democrats who thought if Biden had walked away after the 2022 midterms, if he announced that he was going to not run again, because he had a very successful first two years and Democrats did really well in those midterms. He would have really gone out on a valedictorian note, he did not. And we should note, of course, that after that

debate, it took the president almost three more weeks before he did bow out of the race that they tried to stay in. And John Heilman, this is added to the list of things the Democrats right now don't want to talk about. I mean, we had the DNC autopsy last week come out and sort of again rip off the scab of 2024. Now we have, we have this. I think I heard from a couple of Democrats yesterday who have great goodwill toward the Bidens for in a life of public service, but are just like, you know, the party needs to turn the page right now. Looking back to 2024 only hurts our efforts to turn ahead to 26 and to 28. Yeah, Jonathan, I, you know, look, you can't, on some level, you can't begrudge the First

Lady from writing a book. You know, people are entitled to do that. But I say that in the sense that you can't begrudge her. But it's not none of this. Every time the discussions about the Joe Biden phenomenon come up, it does create this agitatat in the party. And, you know, your point about the autopsy is that, you know, if you want to get a sense of how much this still is an issue within the Democratic Party is you have to look at that

autopsy and realized that, oh, there was all the kind of controversy about, wasn't it going to come out, wasn't it going to come out, what was going to be in it, what was not going to be in it? And the one thing that was not in it was a just candid discussion about the, what a lot of people see is the fundamental problem with Kamala Harris's campaign, which is that it started too late because the party had a hard time moving on from Joe Biden. And so it's kind of like it's the elephant in the room, the party still hasn't really or come to terms with that debate. There's still people out there, including people around Joe Biden, like Mike Donald and who say, it was a mistake. We should have kept him at the top of the ticket. And he would have beaten Donald Trump. And in so many ways, things are going so well for the Democratic Party right now. This is one of the things that continues to haunt it.

And so I say, you don't blame Jill Biden for writing the book. I'm glad she's being candid at least about what she saw in the moment. But is it helpful in the long term to the party moving past? this issue or coming to terms with it, I don't see that you can say that it is helpful because the party still is kind of tied up in knots over Joe Biden and how it dealt with him and his presidency at a moment when it really mattered in 2024. And her reaction is so different in that interview than her reaction in real time. All of us watched two years ago what Jill Biden said the following day after that debate.

He said, Joe, you did so great, you answered all the questions. It was almost like condescending. but she was trying to buck him up and appraised him. And in reality, her reaction, she was horrified like everybody else was. And I understand political spin. But the denialism in the Biden family and the Biden inner circle is on vivid display now. When you have two years later her say, of course it was terrible. I thought it was having a stroke.

Well, that's not what you said, not only in the hours after, in the almost month that it took your husband to come to terms with the fact that this career was over. She couldn't say that in real time. And if he was going to continue to run, she could have done, but you know what she could have done privately? It said it's time. It's it. It's over. And she could have told him that the next day or the next week. It took almost a month from the drop out.

But I think the frustration, Jonathan Lemire, that everybody was stuck in the Biden circle. And I, you know, felt this way, too, that his accomplishments in the presidency were greater in number, positive accomplishments than most presidents in the modern age in terms of what he could. got done. He was an effective president. And I think there was that crux, that sort of friction between all of his accomplishments and the path he was setting the country on. And then obviously the optics of aging in public. I mean, no question. It's a robust set of accomplishments. His Democrats... Compare it to what's going on today. Yeah. Of course. And in aid, there are many Biden AIDS. Biden AIDS very frustrated that they think his four years are now defined by that one moment or by the choice to run it, to run it.

But the choice to run again. That's a fair frustration. Yeah. The choice to run again is something that will obviously, some people very close to Biden regret. Others still say, no, it was the right decision. We should afford for it. We should also just note, President Biden is working on his own book.

Right. About what happened. Release date, unclear if that'll be later this year or sometime next. Yeah. John Hellman, thank you very much. We appreciate it. And Jay Mart, for the latest episode of On the Road, where you eat a lot.

I love this show. Yeah, it's good. It's very unlike me. Usually, I'm not a big eater. Yeah, I'm more of a salad, you know, occasional, occasionally has some tofu. But I've really tried me for... Are you a vegan? Usually, on weekdays I am.

Now weekends, occasionally I'll have a bite of a burger. But no, it's been hard for me to come out of my shell on this show and actually have a real meal. But I've tried to summon the strength. And we've gone to some great spots. We were in Philly last week with Governor South Philly. Oh, man. So this is Josh Shapiro. You talked about Americans law. this loss of trust in the federal government.

Let's take a look. Thank you. We're in a cynical age. 17% of Americans this month were said that they believe the federal government is trying to do the right thing. 17% of the country. I'm actually surprised it's not lower given the leadership of Donald Trump. But we're living through a moment as profoundly cynical. Believe nothing's on the level.

By the way, not just about the government, but every institution in American life. It's not just a political issue. It's a sweeping cultural issue, too. I agree with you. Because you have a president of the United States, even when he wasn't president, really over the last 10 years, who spends every single day attacking institutions. You've got, I'm pointing your phone, you've got social meeting that gives more likes and more attention to people who are looking to tear things down instead of building things up. And so I think that we are culturally in a dangerous place in this country because we are looking to rip things. apart.

Okay. First of all, really serious topic. But I need to pull back a little bit. Usually like, well, hey, when you do your Sunday sit-tons, they're beautiful. And you have these beautiful lighting and really good interviews. And then J-Mart's set up, which if we can get a shot of this. Unfiltered. It's a light thrown up on a pizza.

What were the toppings? Just cheese, baby. You're in a short sleeve shirt. I don't know where you got that. Summer. Yeah, it looks good. I think figured vines, Joe. Are you by a staircase in a basement?

Okay. We were in the second floor walk-up of Angelo's Pizza, a great South Philly cheese steak and pizza joined. I think it was like an apartment back in the day probably post-war. Now it's kind of a storage space for Angelo's, but it was a great conversation with Governor Shapiro. Look, if I put on like a nice fancy suit and tie, we had 17 boom mics and lights and cameras,

like that's just not me. Like, I'm a print guy. I'm not a fancy, you know, Willie Geist TV guy over here. So I am who I am. You're doing amazing. I got an email yesterday, actually, from somebody very, very kind who said, it's fun seeing a print guy. I do this because the questions are, it is who you are. And it's very real.

And I guess the challenge we have is trying to get these folks to be who they are, because the camera is still there. It's not like this set, but the camera's still there. And the challenge is trying to get them to actually go a bit off message. And Josh Shapiro. This is the biggest excuse to be able to go eat and hang out with people and drink things. I mean, I'm on the record, a huge fan of this show. By the way, this summer, we're going to go outdoors.

We're going to do Alfresco. Oh, I can't wait. We're going to do fairs, festivals. Beautiful. I want to do lobster rolls. You know, Iowa State Fair maybe. We've got some really fun stuff playing out. Okay, lack of trust in the government.

All of these men and women that you sat down and had these meals with, maybe not all, many of them would aspire to run for president. And very soon. What is your view of, let's take Governor Shapiro right now? where he sits in that decision, first of all, and where he sits in a potential primary field. He's up for re-election. He's not going to have a very challenging reelection. He's going to have twice blessed with a competition that was not very stiff in the ultimate swing state. So he's going to be a two-term governor of Pennsylvania. He won twice there as AG. He will be a four-time elected

statewide official in what's really the ultimate swing state. So we start there. Democrats got to win Pennsylvania to win the presidency, almost certainly. Do you want to in Pennsylvania, if you do, Shapiro makes a lot of sense. Look, when Kamala vetted him for VP, she asked him directly, you know, can I win Pennsylvania without you? I mean, it is that central of a state. The question is, do Democrats want to fall in love with a candidate? Democrats historically do like falling in love with candidates. I give you, Tala Rico, Platner, you know, fill in the blank, that's the culture as to DNA of the party. I don't think Democrats are ever going to swoon for Josh Shapiro, right? He's the sensible guy next door that you'd, that you'd

Mary, he's going to get a good 30-year mortgage rate. He's not going to be the one you run off to Mexico with, right? He's a sensible choice. Do you want to run off to Mexico with a 30-year mortgage? Yeah, you want somebody solid, don't you're running for a president. Yeah, exactly. I want to be on the table mostly. Yeah, no, exactly. So can Democrats come to terms with somebody who just makes sense head versus heart? And there is a precedent here. And the president is the man that we were just talking about, 2020. We all live through this. There was a massive field in 2020, but you know what, Democrats wanted to do. They just wanted to win.

They wanted to beat Trump. And ultimately, they said, we can't nominate Bernie Sanders. Who else we got? Well, we got Uncle Joe out in the bullpen. We'll call them in. And Biden got the nomination in large part because Democrats just wanted to win. And the question I have in 28 is, what's going to be the ethos? Just win, baby, or is it going to be, find the next JFK, find the next Obama?

That's not always easy. And so I think that's really the friction point for Democrats in 20s. is who's somebody who's going to be pragmatic and can wait, but also someone that they can get passionate about. And that person, frankly, might not exist. Okay, Politico's Jay Mart. You're so inspiring. Thank you so much. I do like. Stay tuned for summer. Mika, I got bad news. There's going to be more eating. Really? In the sweltering hot sun. I'm going to have even shorter shirts on. It's going to be. I'm in. I'm in. We're trying to get Willie in for some good TV tips. You show me how to be a TV guy. I'm still working on it. Don't change the thing.

Okay. I want my authenticity. Be you. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you, Jim Martz. Always good to have you on.