Morning Joe - Trump posting about everything BUT Epstein

Episode Date: July 22, 2025

Morning Joe highlights Trump’s deflection from the Epstein scandal: ‘Throwing everything at the wall’

I'll tell you what, I know exactly what happened in that debate. He flew around the world, flew around the world basically in the mileage that he could have flown around the world three times. He's 81 years old. He's tired as ****. They give him ambient to be able to sleep. He gets up on the stage and he looks like he's a deer in the headlights. And it feeds into every **** story that anybody wants to tell.

And Jake Tapper with literally how many anonymous sources. If this was a conspiracy, Andrew, you know this, somehow the entirety of a White House in which you literally living on top of each other has kept their mouth shut about, you know, like what? And what's the conspiracy? Yeah. Did Joe Biden got old? Yeah, he got old.

He got old before our eyes. Now in the weeks before the debate, Biden went to France to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day, then returned to the U.S. He then traveled to Italy for the G7 summit, came back to the U.S. and attended a fundraiser in Los Angeles

all 12 days before the debate. Joe Scarborough, want to bring you in here as we get to the top of the hour and start morning. Joe, what do you make of the fact that Hunter is coming out now and sort of reigniting this at the year mark? With guns blazing. I mean, yeah, I mean, he went down the laundry list of everything that he thought went wrong.

And you can obviously tell through Hunter that the Biden family is still very unhappy with a lot of people in the Democratic Party, the Democratic establishment, with members of the media. It is going to make for a fascinating four hours. Thank goodness we have four hours between that and all the things that are coming out of the White House. I think, Ali, we're going to be very, very busy. Thank you so much. And we will be talking to you soon.

Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, July 22nd. With us we have co-host of The Fourth Hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic. Also our specialist on Ambien and its side effects, Jonathan Lemire. Also U.S. special correspondent for BBC News and host of the rest of politics podcast, Cady K. never taken Ambien in our life, I'm sure. Senior writer for the Dispatch David Drucker, also a

columnist for Bloomberg opinion. He eats Ambien for breakfast and keeps chugging straight through and also president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's politics nation, the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is, of course, a man of the cloth and doesn't even know what Ambien is. Let's talk. First of all, we had so much to talk about this morning between Hunter Biden and Donald Trump's social media platform and all the other things that are going around. Jonathan Lemire, it seems like one is trying to laser focus on how the Democratic Party did his father wrong.

And by the way, I got a lot of calls from Democrats who are like, eh, you got a lot of that right. I'm not hearing from a ton of Democrats who are angry at what Hunter Biden said. And you can, of course, discuss Ambien Gate. But also, of course, the New York Times reporting will be going through this for a good bit this morning. The New York Times reporting this morning pretty much what everybody in Washington and New York, anybody that followed politics, have concluded, and that is Donald Trump is throwing everything at the wall. Now, you can say he's doing it to distract from Epstein. You can say he's doing it to distract from whatever. But there is no doubt he's throwing everything at the wall from football names to Barack Obama to you name it.

Yeah, it's only a matter of time probably before President Trump weighs in on that Hunter Biden interview because it seems like there's not a topic out of his reach at the moment. First on Hunter. Yes, I heard from some Democrats who felt like this wasn't helpful. There's certainly an element, a wing of the party that is desperate just to put the last year's election behind them, to stop relitigating what went wrong when so many things did go wrong. But you saw there, you know, a son angry at how his father has been treated by some in the media, but also by members of his own party. We know President Biden, he was sick, he was exhausted, you know, and he was old.

This is the first time we've heard about the ambient element of this, but we do know his travel schedule was brutal. There were some in his camp who were second guessing that at the time thinking he was doing too much, shuttling back and forth between Europe events and the states. He had to go out to the West Coast for a high profile fundraiser. We know the litany of things. And certainly, Hunter Biden angry about how his father has been treated. Some agree that there's been a lot of finger pointing among Democrats

at the Biden campaign and how it was run at the time. Others also are just eager for him to move on and the party to move on. But Joe you're also right about about President Trump. We haven't it's been it's been a rare stretch here. He has not taken a question from the media in a number of days and look for all of the criticisms one can level at President Trump. He's extremely accessible to the press. He is. But he has not taken a single question from the press since the Wall Street Journal broke the story about the birthday letter he allegedly sent Jeffrey Epstein. That came out Thursday night.

We haven't seen him since, but we've heard from him quite a bit on Truth Social. And it does say, I'm told from aides that he has been angry about some of the coverage. He is trying to change the subject. We do expect that he'll have some public events today. He'll probably take some questions. We'll see where the story goes from here. And we'll, of course, be talking about how the Wall Street Journal reporter has been pulled from the press pool for his overseas trip. But yeah, a lot of things going on.

In fact, the lead in the Times today, Trump's deflections, he's base's fury over Epstein to Caddy. This is the lead in the Times today, Trump's deflections, E's base's fury over Epstein to Caddy. This is the lead story. And man, they're doing everything from releasing records from Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination against the family's best wishes, to spinning oldies but goldies, the political equivalent of Blueberry Hill.

I mean, talking about Barack Obama and quote, Russiagate, which of course takes you back to the first months of Donald Trump's first administration. Yeah, I mean, far be it for many of us to suggest that Tulsi Gabbard may do something that is not directly in line with intelligence but might be political, but this does look like another political attempt to try and change the conversation. So here's what's going on.

The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is threatening to prosecute members of the Obama administration over their handling of the 2016 Russian election interference probe. On Friday, Gabbard declassified a series of emails claiming officials manipulated and withheld key information from the public in an effort to undermine President Trump's entire first term in office and beyond. She says on December the 8th of 2016, officials prepared an assessment that found Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, but they pulled that information before it reached President Obama.

Gabbard then alleges that Obama directed his staff to create a new assessment on Russia, even though it would contradict other reports. We'll note that just a week later, on December 16, President Obama also publicly said there was no credible evidence of voting totals being manipulated. I can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was a concern and will continue to be a concern going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted, they were counted appropriately. We have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with. So that assurance I can provide. OK. So, I mean, it's worth remembering that Hillary Clinton had just lost the election at that

point, but there is Barack Obama still saying this was not tampered with. It's also worth noting that in 2020, during President Trump's first term in office, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found Russia posed, quote, a grave counterintelligence threat to that 2016 presidential election. That report was signed off by the panel's acting chairman, Senator Marco Rubio, who is now, of course, President Trump's secretary of state. Gabbard's report names former DNI James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. Gabbard says she will provide the documents to the Justice Department, the DOJ. They've declined to comment. President

Trump has praised the report's findings on Truth Social, calling it, quote, the crime of the century. House Speaker Mike Johnson also called for more accountability, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network he's ready to subpoena former President Obama to get more answers. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy criticized Gabbard's claims, calling them frivolous. In an op-ed for the National Review, McCarthy writes in part, quote, no new light is shed on this episode by Gabbard's email disclosures last Friday, which unsurprisingly were accompanied by an overwrought and misleading press release rather than an analytical report.

I mean, Joe, the thing is, they're actually saying kind of the same thing Barack Obama said. We have seen the evidence from the intelligence community that there was Russian meddling, but as President Obama said, they didn't actually tamper with the machines. But look at this. It's eight after, right? It's 608. And when you have one administration going after a former administration, you should report on it. But here we are, seven, eight, nine years later, going back over ground that's already been covered repeatedly. And again, it goes to the bigger question again, that the Times is asking, Cady, you know, what's he distracting his base from? I mean, we're not talking about Jeffrey

Epstein right now. We're not talking about his low approval ratings when it comes to immigration, how the CBS, you got a poll showed he's really upside down on immigration when you look at his detention policies. We're not talking right now off the top of the show about any of that, which David Drucker means that perhaps this is part of a plan, especially when you hear the names Clapper and Comey and all these others, again, ground that we've covered before. But why don't you take us through it and tell us what your reporting shows you

about not only this story, but talking about the need for calling the Washington football team, the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians, and we could go down the laundry list of things that the president's thrown against the wall over the past couple of days. Here we go on Joe Biden, President Obama, Adam Schiff, Martin Luther King Jr., Hillary, the former USAID administrator, Harvard, immigration, Rosie O'Donnell, tariffs, NPR, PBS, and then of course,

Idaho student murders and sports teams. What's your take, David? What does your reporting tell you? Well, listen, Joe, I mean, the circus is back in town. I mean, we've been doing this now for a decade plus. Yeah, we've been doing this for a decade plus. I think the president is most comfortable in this situation. In this case, it actually seems to be planned, but, you know, my favorite example of how

the president of the United States operates, you know, just go back to the opening days of his first term. There's so much skepticism of him. His polls are upside down from the get, which is unusual for presidents initially. Even the president this time around looked better in the first few months. He delivers a State of the Union address, a message to the joint session,

and because of the low expectations, everybody's like, hey, he's presidential. This is amazing. Look at that, not so bad. Two days later, he goes on Twitter and he complains about President Obama spying on him. He can't live in a good moment anyway. And obviously, right now, they're

trying to get the one big, beautiful bill act, that reconciliation package, from upside down to right side up. He's having certain issues with his immigration strategy in terms of how it's being received in the public. And so it really does look like he's reaching. But the difference this time around is he has a staff around him, high-ranking officials, who instead of trying to push him off of stuff like this, are embracing it and furthering

it. And so I just think this is what the next, you know, three plus years is going to look like. I don't think any of us should be surprised this is the way the man functions. I mean, the question is, have voters largely become numb to all of this or do they really, after a while, say,

I wanted a secure border and a better economy and you're giving me chaos and I'm tired of it? Yeah, I mean, that really is a political question. I think, Jonathan O'Meara, David's suggestion, and I completely agree with it. I think most voters are just completely, at this point, not numb to it, but most just shrug their shoulders and say, hey, that's who he is.

That's what he does. Again, pushing the reality TV show analogy out there. I mean, the one thing Donald Trump can't stand is a boring TV show. And so he does keep it churning in good times and bad times. In this case, though, I'm wondering if all of this lines up with what you and Ashley Parker reported a couple of days ago, which was really a great insight, which is anything the staff suggested to the president on Epstein. And some of them were genuinely bad ideas.

I mean, really COVID-like press conferences every day on Jeffery. on Epstein, and some of them were genuinely bad ideas. I mean, really COVID-like press conferences every day on Jeffery. Whoever suggested that to them should like be removed from the White House. It's a stupid idea. But there were other ideas in there, and the president was saying, no, no, no.

And they really didn't have a focus, a strategic attack against some of these Epstein charges from their own base. So who knows, maybe the best defense is an offense that just throws everything at the other side and at the media. And that appears to be what they're doing right now. Yeah, those COVID-style briefings, of course, back in 2020 really brought President Trump's poll numbers down.

So hard to see the upside to that suggestion here, but you're right. And by the way, I'm sorry to interrupt. I wanted to also say, too, I talked about Epstein. I talked about his handling of immigration with the mass detentions and how he's upside down there. But David Drucker also brought up another great point right now. The numbers on the big, bold, beautiful bill or whatever they call it, absolutely in the tank. And I'm wondering if this is not something that Republicans are deeply concerned about, especially with

their new CBO estimates that show a 3.44 trillion addition to the debt, and 10 million Americans over the next decade losing health insurance. Ten million more people will be without health insurance ten years from now than now because of the bill that Mike Johnson passed. Yeah, there's real anxiety from Republicans about this. It's a triumph that they got something passed. It's law. It's their entire agenda.

But here's a sign as to how anxious they are. There are lawmakers who voted for it, who are already trying to undo parts of it. Senator Josh Hawley already trying to put forward, trying to eliminate some of these Medicaid cuts because he knows the impact it's going to have on his constituents in Missouri and those nationwide. So there is real trouble there. Each poll that we see about the so-called one big beautiful bill suggests it is really underwater.

And to your point about the Epstein matter, we haven't heard from President Trump publicly, but he is, as we reported, angry behind the scenes that there have been Republicans who have been willing to defy him, particularly those influencer types, and that the White House is sort of casting about for a strategy. And they think that they have one now. And just in terms of trying to change the subject, they're able to unify their anger against the Wall Street Journal, suggesting that story was part of fake news bias, quote, quote. And now, as

you mentioned at the top of the show, Joe, the White House, which has seized control of the White House press pool, has now banned the Wall Street Journal from the travel pool, from the president's upcoming trip to Scotland this weekend. He's gonna go golfing at some of his golf courses. So there is some real anger there, and they're trying to distract

by throwing so much up against the wall, including more than 200,000 pages of documents related to the assassination and FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Those were declassified and released to the public yesterday. The documents had been under seal by a court since 1977 when they were first handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration. The massive document dump includes DOJ leads into Dr. King's assassination. It's not immediately clear if the files include any new information on Dr. King's life or

murder. The King family was opposed to the public release of the records. They were given advanced access to the documents, but in a lengthy statement, asked anyone from the public also coming through the files to, quote, do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for the family's continuing grief. Bernice King, the daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. posted this picture on social media, the caption that simply reads, now do the Epstein files. And Reverend Sharpton, this one, you know, there have been some promises early in the

administration that eventually they would release files into the MLK assassination. They already released some into the JFK assassination. It was a pretty partial batch, more promise. They might turn to Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. at some point, too. But this is what's striking about this one is the family really didn't want it. They didn't want the wound to be opened again. They didn't want any sort of embarrassing information to come out. They simply were like, we've moved on.

The nation's moved on. And they're flat out saying what a lot of us are suspecting here. This is simply an attempt to change the conversation from the Epstein matter But also other things that are really dragging down the president's approval ratings No, this is clearly a distraction The fact of the matter is they say you're going to release over 200,000 pages goes possibly beyond the assassination and the concern the family has had and and I work closely with Martin III, is that there was a lot in that file,

possibly, by J. Edgar Hoover and others, who clearly were anti-Dr. King, had a bias. It has been well documented that J. Edgar Hoover and others had put out stories that were false about Dr. King. If these are now put out in the documents as truth, because people decades later do not understand what J. Edgar, who was FBI, was alike, what it was trying to do to the civil rights movement

and Dr. King, you could smear a man in your attempt to just distract us from what's going on today. So let me get this right. You can bring files out that's been under seal since 77 that were not even supposed to be released now until a couple of years from now, but you can't bring out files on Epstein. I mean, does he think the American public is that stupid? So you go after so-called Native Americans, you're saying they're not Native Americans. You go after Obama, you go after King,

so you throw all the race stuff, and then the other stuff, anything that you try to distract. And I think that the King family was right to try to protect the name of Dr. King, particularly if these are using some of Hoover's lies. But at the same time, I think Bernice King is right, saying, what about the Epstein files? Don't try to smear my father.

Let's deal with today's agenda. You know, Rev, it's very interesting you're talking about Martin Luther King Jr. being smeared. It's already really happened over the past 40, 50 years, where you've had these rumors that have leaked out, and these personal smears against Dr. King that have leaked out when, again, as a lot of legal scholars have been saying for some time and even said to the New York Times yesterday after this news broke, that a lot of these smears are

that a lot of these smears are probably false, and probably false because J. Edgar Hoover despised Martin Luther King. FBI agents were sent, you talk about a witch hunt, sent on a witch hunt to attack him, to put personal things into files, you know, try to prove that he was a communist. So there are a lot of things that have been out there, even in popular culture, for a very long time now,

that are likely untrue and likely untrue, because again, Hoover basically ordered his FBI agents to go out and find dirt on Martin Luther King. No doubt about it. And in fact, they sent tapes. I remember Mrs King telling us how they sent tapes to the house of Dr King to Mrs King, supposedly with all kind of salacious stuff on the tapes, which was false and telling Dr King another letter, you know what to do. It like

suggesting he remove himself from public life. So is these are the things they want released out to the public, so some of our conspiracy theorists on the other side start bringing out things that have been discredited 40, 50 years ago, and bring that kind of pain on the King family. A granddaughter who he never lived to see is just so unfair and outrageous

at this time. Yeah, President Trump finds himself in the unusual position of not being on the right side of the culture wars, not being ahead of it. And he's trying, looks like with all of that great list that you had up just a second ago that we had up of all the things he's posting about, it looks like he is just trying to get back in front of the culture wars into a position he's more familiar with. We'll have more on that, of course, coming up on the program. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll bring you the latest on the legal battle between Harvard

University and the White House as a judge questions the Trump administration's reasoning for stripping the school of billions of dollars in research funding. Plus, what we're learning about the death of Malcolm Jamal Warner, who played the actor who played Theodore Huxtable in the Cosby show. And a reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Malcolm Jamal Warner, who was nominated for an Emmy for his role as Theodore Huxtable on The Cosby Show, has died at the age of 54 after an accidental drowning in Costa Rica.

NBC News Entertainment correspondent Chloe Malas has more on his life and his legacy. Is this my shirt? Is this the shirt I paid $3 for? Malcolm Jamal Warner was just 14 when the Cosby show catapulted him to superstardom. Hey, what's happening, Dad? He became a household name playing Theo Huxtable, the only son of TV parents Bill Cosby and Felicia Rashad. The Cosby show has been a wonderful beginning and a wonderful stepping stone. Now the beloved actor is dead at the age of 54. Investigators in Costa Rica say that the actor drowned Sunday afternoon while swimming in the province of Limon after he was swept away by a powerful ocean current, according to the investigators, who say Warner was rescued

by bystanders and taken to the shore. He was treated by first responders, they added, but pronounced dead at the scene due to asphyxia. Warner leaves behind a wife and daughter. Just a few months ago he posted this video on Instagram with a flower from his daughter tucked

behind his ear. No matter what's going on, there's always a reason to smile. Warner spent eight seasons in his breakout role on the Cosby show. Then went on to build an impressive onscreen career starring in Malcolm and Eddie.

I don't need you to explain. Taking on reoccurring roles in Suits and The Resident. Do you think my behavior is a weakness know. Warner was also an accomplished musician even winning a Grammy in 2015. He recently launched a podcast called not all hood aimed at telling important stories within the black community. The latest episode dropping just days before his death.

The latest episode dropping just days before his death. I loved your take and your reminder that the hood should be as celebrated as the rest of the lanes of black culture. Among those honoring Warner, former co-star Tracy Ellis Ross, who wrote, what an actor and friend you were. Warm, gentle, present, kind, thoughtful, deep, funny, elegant. You made the world a brighter place. I think I've been blessed, but I've also worked hard for it. And it feels good. Too young. Our thoughts are with his family, NBC's Chloe Molasse with that report. Turning to other news now, the Trump administration and Harvard traded jabs yesterday during a pivotal court hearing over the government's threats to cut billions of dollars from the

university's federal research funding. Harvard attorneys accused the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights by freezing the funds, claiming the White House is trying to dictate how the school operates. The Justice Department argued that Harvard violated the Civil Rights Act by failing to address anti-Semitism on campus and claimed the government has the authority to cancel grants after determining the funding did not align with the administration's priorities of combating anti-Semitism. U.S. District Judge Allison Burrows questioned how the administration could make ad hoc decisions to cancel grants

without offering evidence that any of the funded research is antisemitic. The judge called the government's claims mind-boggling, asking how cutting off medical research funding could help fight antisemitism. Trump then lashed out at the judge on social media and slammed Harvard, claiming his administration, quote, will not stop until there is victory. Both Harvard and the government were seeking summary judgments to avoid a trial. It's unclear exactly when Judge Burruss is expected to issue her ruling. I mean, I've spoken to people who are professors at Harvard about this, and they said that whether or not the administration has the right to do this, there has to go through

a process. I mean, it's this due process idea. There is a procedure, and that's what the administration haven't done. They haven't done the full investigation. They haven't followed procedure, and that's why the judge is able to issue this ruling. Right. And also, obviously, First Amendment concerns. Again, cutting off medical research because you don't like how a university is conducting itself in the classrooms, obviously very problematic. Let's bring in right now National Correspondent for the New York Times, Alan Blinder, who wrote about yesterday's hearing and the New York Times piece, and also a former state attorney from Palm Beach County, Florida,

and Harvard grad Dave Ehrenberg, who is here to tell us that, yes, even Harvard graduates believe the university needs to be reformed, if not by the federal government. Alan, I want to start with you. Harvard's attorney seems to have a very receptive audience in the judge, but they called what the Trump administration was doing a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment. It is a constitutional third rail or should be for the government to insist

it can engage in viewpoint discrimination. Explain that if you will to our friends watching right now and also how the rest of the hearing went down. It didn't go especially well for for the government. I mean the DOJ sent exactly one Walker into argue to Judge Burroughs but essentially Harvard's argument rests on two things. It rests on a First Amendment argument that the government can't just you know willy-nilly strike away grants because they don't like what Harvard does and what Harvard refused those demands we saw back in April and then they've got a more technical argument around some of those stuff You were talking with procedures and then that process is not being followed

It's about a two-hour hearing and for most for a good chunk of the time The judge just kind of barraged the justice to run some lawyer of questions and asked essentially How can you do this to Harvard and by way, if you really are looking to make Harvard a real titan of American academia and keep it that way, she wasn't sure that taking away billions in research funding was the way to do it, or at least that's what she suggested. Well, and also, Alan, she pointed out,

as did the lawyers for Harvard, there's just not a tight nexus between taking away, stripping away research funding, whether it's for Alzheimer's or cancer or AI research, and their problem with viewpoint diversity in classrooms. She made that she went off on that. And she said, look, I'm a Jewish woman. I'm an American. She said, I have, I'm not, let's say we're not convinced that Harvard covered itself in glory.

I think was the term she used on anti-Semitism. And then she immediately went into this question of, let's say that's possible. How is this research funding connected to countering anti-Semitism? You're not going after a lab that's been antisemitic. Right. And there wasn't really a clear answer for that. Well, I'm curious, Alan, what impact would it have at the trial court level, especially when they're gathering facts that the president of Harvard is saying, yes, we've made mistakes. We need to be more ideologically diverse.

There were some things we could have done better during the protests after October 7th. How does that play into building the record for Harvard that their president's aggressively saying, we've made mistakes, we're fixing them and would like to work with the government together to fix those problems. That's exactly one of the things Harvard has argued is that they're not condoning anti-Semitism. In fact, the Justice Lawrence lawyer kept holding up a

three ring binder yesterday with Harvard's own report about anti-Semitism when it released a few weeks after the administration really went on the attack against the university. And the judge said this yesterday, she said, no one is saying this is a debate to, if I rule in Harvard's favor, it's not that I am condoning anti-Semitism or anything like that. She said, this is a question of whether you can legally connect research funding and grant funding to anti-Semitism. That's the matter before her. It's not a matter of what Harvard has done or hasn't done. Yeah.

And Dave Ehrenberg, as a Harvard grad, you and I have talked at length about our concerns a couple of years ago that Harvard didn't do enough to protect Jewish students on campus during the protests that sprung up after October the 7th. Talk about, as an attorney, as somebody that studied this, how you see this going and whether you agree that Harvard understands it didn't do enough before and is trying to move in the right direction. Yeah, Joe, you know, I loved Harvard. It was a dream of mine and my parents to

get in there and I became student government president. It was just a transformative experience for me. But I walked away from my support of Harvard after October 7th when 33 student organizations signed a letter that blasted Israel and blamed Israel for October 7th. Not Hamas. They justified the atrocities of October 7th. And the weak administration did almost nothing about it, almost nothing about the encampments, the threats and intimidation and ostracization of Jewish students. So that really turned me and a lot of other alums off.

And I give credit to President Garber. He has tried to do the right thing on this, but antisemitism on Harvard's campus is real. It's not made up by the Trump administration. But at the same time, it does look like that the Trump administration, instead of excising the cancer, is using the shovel and is beating the patient to death.

I mean, why cut cancer funding from Harvard? What does that have to do with anti-Semitism? Why ban all foreign students for the sins of some? And so I do think that Harvard will win at the district court level. This is the same judge, mind you, who ruled for Harvard when it came to the ban And so I do think that Harvard will win at the district court level. This is the same judge, mind you, who ruled for Harvard when it came to the ban

on international students. She's going to rule for Harvard again here. But on appeal, that could be tougher for Harvard. At the Supreme Court, they may buy into the administration's argument that there are strings attached to money, and it's up to the executive branch to make those decisions. So if I were Harvard, I would try to settle this before it ever gets to the Supreme Court. And keep in mind, if you're going to go blame the tyrannical actions of a federal government,

you also have to look within and address the tyranny on your own campus, the lack of free speech and the lack of academic freedom. Dave, on that point, there's also precedents that could be set here, that the Trump administration is trying to exert extraordinarily power over universities across the country, beyond Harvard. So talk to us about, you know, if they're able to do this, if they're able to slash funding,

if they're able to try to, you know, as you just noted, try to restrict the ability to enroll international students. And they have a Supreme Court that seems more apt than not to take their side. Talk to us about the chilling effect that could have on universities around the country. Should they all be looking to cut deals with the federal government that seems to fly in the face of what a lot of these universities are principles they're founded upon. Yes, well, Columbia is trying to do that.

But Harvard has the biggest target on its back because it is Harvard. And Harvard is saying, we're trying to fix these problems. This isn't about anti-Semitism, but rather Trump trying to regulate campus speech, the admissions process, hiring. And this is punishment for having the reputation of being the biggest, most prominent bastion of liberal thought. And so I get that. Plus, as Alan correctly said, there are procedural issues here that the Trump administration

needs to follow certain steps on Title VI and the Administrative Procedures Act, which they didn't. That could be the out here, if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, because you could see Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts saying, okay, administration, you didn't follow the procedural steps, even though substantively you're right, and you can withhold the money.

So maybe that's the way out here, but you're right, Jonathan. This could set a chilling precedent for all universities, and that's why, until the Supreme Court rules, and I don't know if you want them to rule if you're a university because of the way the Supreme Court has ruled lately about executive power,

you may want to settle with the administration. Well, it certainly has allowed, Alan, and I'd be curious, get your take on it. The Supreme Court has certainly allowed the executive branch more latitude in controlling the executive branch. I think that's quite different, though, than engaging in viewpoint discrimination against the university and cutting cancer research, cutting Alzheimer's research, cutting R&D for AI, putting us behind in race against China.

Of course, that's my editorial, of course, not yours as a reporter. I am curious, so where you see this going and lining up the Supreme Court decisions from this past term, where it might fall when you're looking at where Amy Coney Barrett, where Chief Justice Roberts would rule? I mean, I think what's interesting is that Harvard very clearly built its legal team with a long-term

goal in mind. They didn't build this just thinking this was going to go before Judge Burroughs, the lawyer who was arguing for Harvard yesterday as a former Scalia clerk. You've got really some stalwarts at the conservative bar all over that legal team. I mean, Robert Herr, the special counsel in the Biden documents investigation, old Trump U.S. attorney, was in the courtroom for Harvard yesterday. So you've got a group of lawyers who's really expecting this to go to Washington. That said, we do know that Harvard and the Trump administration have been involved in

settlement talks for about a month now. That's what was so surprising about the president's social media posts yesterday. He really went after Harvard, yet just last month he was saying he thought there could be a deal between the university and the administration within a week or so. That obviously didn't come to pass, and the administration just kept pelting Harvard every step of the way. Yeah, a bit like we were talking about early in the program. There is an element of the culture wars in this, too, and the president wanting to stay ahead of those.

National correspondent for The New York Times, Alan Blinder, thank you. And his latest piece on the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration is available. You can read it online now. Former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, as ever, Dave Addenberg, thank you very much for joining us, too.

Coming up, we'll bring you the latest on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza following an attack on a UN convoy that was trying to deliver aid. Morning Jo, we'll be right back in just a moment. Look, the president enjoys a good working relationship with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and stays in frequent communication with him. He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza, which, as you know, I addressed at my briefing last week. And in both accounts, the president quickly called the prime minister to rectify

those situations. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt there telling reporters yesterday that President Trump was caught off guard by Israel's strikes in Syria last week, as well as a strike on a Catholic church in Gaza. Israel has said the strike on the church was caused by stray ammunition, which hit the church by mistake, and that it's opened an investigation into the matter. Meanwhile, Israel is facing criticism after its troops fired on U.N. convoys who were trying to deliver aid on Sunday. Israel says

it fired warning shots to deter threats as the trucks were headed towards areas controlled by Hamas. Critics on both sides blame each other here on their aid systems, while experts on aid distribution say that the real issue is Israel's failure to plan, leaving access in Gaza fractured and civilians caught in the crossfire. Joe, I mean, these pictures that are coming out of Gaza at the moment are just heartbreaking. And again and again we're seeing pictures of civilians and children and families lining up to try and get food and then getting caught by Israeli fire. Well, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and're shot. And of course, it seems so many supporters of Israel tried to put this down as propaganda from Hamas.

But we've had the International Red Cross on twice talking about the numbers of civilians that are being slaughtered while they're going there and trying to get food relief in a region that's been on the precipice of famine now for a year. And you have UN convoys being attacked by Israel trying to bring food in. It really is, it is a despicable, deplorable,

pick the word situation that continues even a year, even a year after so many people in the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence services said, there are no more military aims in Gaza that we can achieve. We need to move to the next phase. And Netanyahu just refuses to do it. Let's bring in right now,

contributing editor for the Financial Times, Kim Gatosh. She is also a contributing writer at the Atlantic. Kim, much to talk to you about. I first, though, want to talk about this story that I just don't think is being picked up enough in the U.S. press. The Times has done a great job over the past two, three days putting on the front page talking about all of the Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas, all of these Palestinian children who are being slaughtered, their families, their grandparents being slaughtered as they try to get enough food to keep their family alive. Since Israel doesn't allow journalists in a lot of these relief areas, what can you tell us about what's

happening on the ground there? Joe, great to be with you on the show. I read a statement yesterday by the Journalist Society of the French news agency, Agence France-Presse, and they were describing what their own journalists were going through in Gaza. They've been reporting on this war now for almost two years, and their colleagues in Paris and around the world can see them withering away, thinning away, because they don't have enough food.

They have the money. They can get the money to them, but there isn't enough for them to buy. They're down to one meal a day, sometimes one meal every two days. And it's really quite a sight seeing some of these journalists also for Al Jazeera or others, because there are journalists in Gaza. They're just Palestinian journalists. And, you know, that has caused some to question their reporting. But they're there on the ground.

They are doing an incredible job. They are the voice of Gaza at the moment. They are giving us all this reporting with their phones, with whatever means they have. And we're watching some of them become thinner and thinner on television. And that's really quite something. And that is, those are people who have the possibility,

who have connections to the outside, who have money. They just can't get the food. And the statement by Agence France-Presse ends with this awful line, which says, since our founding in, I think, 1954, we've had many colleagues die in conflicts, by violence, in accidents. But we've never seen our colleagues die in conflicts, by violence, in accidents, but we've never seen our colleagues

die from hunger. And that just sends a chill down your spine. Yeah. Kim, what's the latest thinking in the region, and you spend so much time in Beirut, about what the Israeli government, what Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan is here. We see him stepping up. Today, I think for the first time in a long time, there are tanks back in Gaza again. We've seen the bombing of new civilian areas that hadn't been bombed until recently. You've written about this. What's the political game plan? Is there just still not one, or is it still just to prolong the war as long as possible?

I think there is no plan beyond prolonging the war. And we I'm not the one saying it. We're watching it unfold. We're hearing it from American officials, from Israeli officials who oppose Mr. Netanyahu's or former officials who oppose Mr. Netanyahu's lack of vision. You had a guest on television yesterday talk about strategic malpractice. There were so many military victories over the last year or so in Lebanon, in Gaza, in maybe in Yemen, not so sure, Iran to be debated, inconclusive. And Israel could have capitalized on those military victories to put forward a diplomatic vision for the region.

But as The New York Times so brilliantly demonstrated in its last report last week, and you had Ronan Bergman on yesterday as well, Benjamin Netanyahu was simply trying to prolong the war until the next election to save his political career. And that has led a lot of people in the Middle East, including people in, you know, officials in Gulf countries, feel like they are hostages now to Benjamin Netanyahu's political career. You know, very often, Arab countries have been told, you know, you're not doing enough to advance your own, you know, reforms, progress, you know, to improve your economies, and you should forget about the Palestinian cause.

We'll deal with that when we can deal with it. Well, now the region is moving forward. Look at Saudi Arabia, incredible progress, despite lack of political freedoms. In Syria, we got rid of Bashar al-Assad. There are problems ahead for sure. Lebanon has decapitated, decimated. But we can't move forward really as a whole, as a region, with Israel, as long as this war continues in Gaza. One, this is a mistake, actually.

There are great things about the Abraham Accords. One of the things I express concerns about from the very beginning is a Middle East peace that doesn't include a solution for the Palestinians is sure to fail. And we've seen it here. This fighting continues. That's the next piece of the Abraham Accords, figuring out a solution to this problem, especially with famine in Gaza, or at least on the verge of hitting Gaza. David Drucker, I'd love to bring you in here and talk about President Trump's relationship, very complicated relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, Carolyn Levitt saying that the president was surprised by the attack on Syria actually says much more than it appears on the surface.

Donald Trump does not want to be surprised by Benjamin Netanyahu attacking a country that he's trying to stabilize. Then you add on top of that the attack of the Catholic Church, the bombing of the Catholic Church that Pope Leo criticized earlier this week, continued Christian persecution in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, violence against Christians on the West Bank. I'm wondering where you see this going and if the president's going to speak up more aggressively against what Netanyahu's doing. Yeah, really good question. And you know, I think it's especially

perplexing for the president because he keeps trying to sort of withdraw the United States from the Middle East, reduce our military and diplomatic commitments there. Not necessarily a good idea regardless, but that's what the president wants to do. I think the more important part

of this discussion as it relates to the United States, Joe, particularly from Israel's perspective, is that we've The more important part of this discussion as it relates to the United States, Joe, particularly from Israel's perspective, is that we've seen a rising hostility to Israel among younger progressives, but not just younger progressives, but younger conservatives. When I talk to Republican operatives in MAGA circles, they talk about the fact, they tell me that younger conservatives do not have the same affinity and sort of love for Israel and support for Israel as rank-and-file Republicans do. And so, as the Netanyahu government and the Israeli government generally figures out how

it wants to operate going forward, it needs to take a couple of things into account. One, there are lots of American voters that have been raised in a different era and look at Israel differently, rightly or wrongly. And number two, I think Israel has to look ahead and prepare for the possibility, number one, that there will be a Democrat in the White House in 2029. And just next year, Republicans could lose control of one or both chambers of Congress. That affects military funding and other support for Israel.

I think Israel often gets blamed and blamed for things that happen in the Middle East because it's easier to go to a democratic ally and ask them to do things differently, even though this entire war in Gaza was the result of Hamas and the October 7th atrocities, right? And Hamas could easily just disband and return the remaining hostages. That would change things on the ground.

But the way domestic politics in the United States works and international politics works is that people look at Israel as a powerful country with agency in a way that they do not with other countries in the region, let alone the Palestinians in the territories. And they expect Israel to function according to standards, which Israel should. But my point here is that Israel has to take all of this into account, and they need to find a way through this and not just assume blanket American support, shielding them from international criticism in perpetuity.

Well, and you're right. And the United States has shielded Israel from international criticism. There have been, over the past few years, there have been important gains strategically by Israel against Hamas, against Hezbollah, against Islamic Jihad, against Iran. I mean, Israel basically wiped out Iran's air defenses with the help of the United States, certainly with the help of the United States intel.

But Jonathan Amir, David, brings up a great point. And the great point is, right now, the assumption that Israel will always blindly have American support is a faulty assumption, especially if you look at younger Americans on both the right and on the left. And I'm saying this as someone who has been a lifelong supporter of Israel. And what we're focusing on here is something, again, that David Ignatius, we had General Hurdling, the other military people who have been supportive of Israel their entire life, saying what the Israeli military has been saying for a year, what intel officials in Israel have been saying for a year.

There is no military objective left in Gaza. They have to go to clean up operations where they start rebuilding, whether that's bringing in a regional peacekeeping force, whatever it is. And that's why I think the New York Times article last week was so important, so relevant, because Benjamin Netanyahu continues to fight this war in Gaza long after that military gains become negligible. And the people are suffering there. If you care about Israel, then you care about the fact that civilians continue to be gunned down. They continue to be bombed.

Catholic churches continue to be bombed. Evangelical Christians continue to be persecuted in the West Bank. None of this is good for Israel. None of this is good for the long-term political health of Israel, especially in the United States, where younger Americans are not like me. They're not reflexively, as they grow up, supporting Israel on all points. That's why this is madness. And it seems to me Donald Trump is would be especially, especially upset again by the attack on Syria without talking to him and also by Netanyahu continuing to flood the zone with these horrible images and these horrible stories where the international Red Cross, the United Nations,

other relief agencies talking about the attacks against civilians who are starving to death. At this point, it is nearly impossible to defend Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza. As guests tell us each and every day on our show, Joe, there are no more military objectives left and that what we're hearing accounts of women and children simply lined up to get food being gunned down. We know there's real fears of famine and starvation. We talked about that a few minutes ago. It is a humanitarian crisis and yes, politically dangerous for Israel to stoke this much anger which as, as the Times reported, seemingly to just keep the political

hopes alive of one man. So Kim, let me go to you then. On that very point, we just discussed, there's certainly some anger from President Trump. We'll see how that effectively changes the relationship, whether he will act upon it or not. But you're a frequent visitor to the region. You're there, living it, talking to people there. What is the mood there, though you've talked to

within Israel, but also regionally, about the patience they might have for Netanyahu? Trump wants his criminal case to go away, Netanyahu still faces some legal peril. What is the mood there in Israel and beyond its borders about just how Netanyahu is conducting his time in office now? So, just a quick point first about, you know, the humanitarian crisis and the military goals. Even if there were military goals that Israel were still trying to achieve. That does not excuse the humanitarian crisis and the lack of food and aid entering Gaza.

You cannot condition—by international humanitarian law, you cannot use aid and food as a weapon. So I think we need to make that clear. Even if there were military goals, you cannot allow people to starve while you're conducting your war. And Israel in particular has a responsibility because it is also the occupying power in a way now back in Gaza, but also in the West Bank. In the rest of the region, I think we have to remember that Benjamin Netanyahu is not only holding the region hostage, but also Israel.

And Israelis have been living in a dark tunnel of fear and war and trauma since October 7th. And they also deserve to be given a vision for how they could live at peace and security in the region. And war, war, war until some unknown victory destination is Really not what I think most Israelis want and we're seeing increasingly that show up in the polls and people are Demonstrating and protesting against Netanyahu in the streets in the rest of the region I think there is you know great frustration and disappointment with Netanyahu's belligerence frustration and disappointment with Netanyahu's belligerence, particularly when it comes to continued strikes in Lebanon, where there is supposed to be a ceasefire since November,

in Syria, where the new governing authority's interim president, Ahmad al-Sharah, has responded zero times to Israeli military strikes and has signaled again and again that he does not want war with Israel and that he wants to engage in talks for security arrangements. And so there is real frustration in Saudi Arabia, in the rest of the region, about Netanyahu's belligerence, but also disappointment in the apparent inability of President Trump to rein in Netanyahu and allow this vision of the Abraham Accords to go forward. I think it's going to be very difficult to get the Saudis on board for this unless there is a clear signal from the Israelis, from Netanyahu, that they're willing to consider,

as the Saudis have said, credible and irreversible steps towards a Palestinian state. But before we get there, let's at least get the aid in and stop the war and get the hostages out. Such an important point. And war doesn't help the Israelis either. Contributing writer at The Atlantic and contributing editor at the Financial Times, King, thank you very much for joining us. And senior writer for The Dispatch, David Drucker.

David, as ever, thank you as well.