Morning Joe - Trump says 'it's time to go after' Obama in wild treason rant

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

Trump suggests DOJ 'go after' Obama as DNI Tulsi Gabbard fuels 2016 Russian election interference probe

Of course whenever Trump is backed into a corner He needs to change the subject and throw red meat to the carnivorous base and their favorite cut is filet of Obama Here's Trump earlier today being asked about the ongoing Epstein scandal. Yeah, I don't know about it. I don't really follow that too much It's it's Sort of a witch hunt just a continuation of the hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold. Now we found absolute, this isn't like evidence, this is like proof, irrefutable proof

that Obama was sedacious. Wow. Wow. I mean it takes extraordinary confidence to call a former president sedacious, because that is not a word. Stephen Colbert's take last night. President Trump's latest allegation against former president Barack Obama unfounded will dig into the claim, which elicited a rare response from the former

president. This comes as the Justice Department now is in talks with Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, who is in a federal prison for sex trafficking. We'll bring you the latest, including a possible subpoena from House Republicans. We'll also get an update on peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ahead of a meeting today in Turkey. And we will look back at the life and career of rock legend, heavy metal legend Ozzy Osborne, who died yesterday at the age of 76. Good morning, welcome to Morning Joe.

It is Wednesday, July 23rd. I'm Willie Geist with us, the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, and the host of Way Too Early, Ali Fatali. Let's get right in here. Former President Barack Obama pushing back on the Trump administration's claim, he withheld information about the Russian election interference probe in 2016 in an effort to undermine Donald Trump's victory. The spokesperson for President Obama called the allegations outrageous and bizarre, saying

they are, quote, a weak attempt at distraction. The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, made the claims last week after declassifying emails from the Obama administration. She alleges officials withheld an assessment that found Russia did not interfere in the election because of guidance from President Obama.

Gabbard claims President Obama ordered his team to conduct a new review that would find Russia did meddle in the election, ultimately contradicting other assessments. Gabbard since has submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department, saying those officials engaged in a treasonous conspiracy. She also told Newsmax last night she plans to release more documents today. We will note, in December of 2016, President Obama said publicly there is no evidence of Russia tampering with electoral votes. They weren't in the machines.

Then in 2020, during President Trump's first term in office, the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio, found Russia posed a, quote, grave counter intelligence threat to the 2016 presidential election. Bipartisan, signed by Republicans, including then Senator Rubio. In a statement about that report, Rubio wrote, we found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling, written by Marco Rubio. According to the New York Times, quote, Ms. Gabbard's report conflated two different intelligence findings. Intelligence officials had concluded that Russia had not engaged in any major effort

to hack election systems and change votes, but they also believed Russia had tried to influence the election in various ways by releasing hack documents to harm Mrs. Clinton and sow dissent. Still, President Trump suggested yesterday the DOJ now go directly after former President Obama. Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly. So people say, oh, you know, a group. It's not a group. It's Obama. His orders are on the paper. Look, he's guilty. It's not a question.

I like to say, let's give it time. It's there. He's guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.

In a statement refuting President Trump's claims, a spokesperson for former President Obama writes this, nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election, but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee led by then chairman Marco Rubio. So Jonathan, we can start with the president's clause yesterday, whether it's right or wrong, and then he goes on to explain we should go after President Obama.

This is again, and people can look it up if they so choose, Senate Intelligence Report in 2020, bipartisan, chaired by then Senator Marco Rubio, now of course the Secretary of State, that found Russia wasn't inside the machines hacking and changing votes, but irrefutably, in his words, Marco Rubio's words, put its thumb on the scale in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I mean, we should underscore just how dangerous that rhetoric is.

Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. That if they follow through, that realizes the fears of so many when President Trump returned to office on a promise of retribution. That's what that would look like. And it's a rare rebuke from President President Obama who very rarely comments on events now by his successor Donald Trump You know, he will hear from him a campaign season, but very little on official matters So that shows you the seriousness of this but you're right

There's nothing new here that the DNI who is doing President Trump's bidding It would appear Trying to also get back in his good graces after had a falling out over the strike in Iran, and she was sort of left on the outside of that, is now carrying water here of these unfounded conspiracy theories about what role Obama and his team did in 2016. Trump claims they lied about Russia's influence

in the election. That's not true. We know that Russia manipulated with social media. We know Russia was part of the hack into Hillary Clinton's emails in that campaign. We know Russia did lots of things to try to influence the vote. They didn't actually go in and change the tally in the electronic ballot boxes.

And that's what Trump's referring to here. But it's widely included and signed by Marco Rubio, who, Michael, let's remember, is the secretary of state under President Trump. He also has three other interim jobs at Thanks. So that shows you this was a bipartisan conclusion. And what was happening here, it must be said, this is President Trump trying to distract. We have seen for four days an effort, a flailing effort, to try to turn the conflict of conversation away from the Jeffrey Epstein matter.

And this is what he settled on. It's 2016 all over again. You know, we sit here each and every morning, and we witness this clearly multiple attempts at distraction, as you just pointed out, to get the people's minds and eyes off of newspapers and TV programs talking about Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. But what we just saw a clip of is the sitting president of the United States of America talking about one of his predecessors Barack Obama and using the word treason. That is so far beyond the pale that unfortunately in the shocking tornado-like events that happen each and every day

in the news business, people might be immune to it. It might go over their heads. But a sitting president of the United States using the word treason, treason, look up the definition about another president of the United States is beyond shocking. Look up the definition and the possible punishments for treason in this country. We talk a lot about not getting distracted when President Trump finds himself in trouble. Don't chase the shiny object.

But in this case, it is a distraction. But also, he's accusing a former president of the United States of treason. Let's bring in NBC News reporter Ryan Riley. He covers the Justice Department and federal law enforcement. Ryan, good morning. You're writing about this this morning. What else did you find? And how seriously is DOJ going to pursue this? Well, you know, remembering that this all goes back to 2016 is I think the key thing here. So if you're talking about statute of limitations, I think is the first thing that comes to my mind when you're talking about all of this, even if there were any validity to any of

the allegations that were being made. But I think you're right to highlight the president's words there and how extremely out of line they are in terms of the normal procedures for the Justice Department and for the White House. Normally, there is more of that break between the White House and the Justice Department. And what we've seen during this administration is sort of a shattering of those norms and them sort of working extremely closely together and Pam Bonney sort of taking direct directions directly from President Trump.

So that's just a very unusual circumstance, uh, that we're in here. But you know, this is, I think, one of the, having that response from Obama is certainly, uh, is certainly something that, you know, sticks out here because he has been quiet in the past, but I think it speaks to just how unusual, uh, some of these statements are coming. Remember, during, when Donald Trump was actually being prosecuted for two separate federal crimes, which were ultimately, of course, those cases were dismissed after he was elected president, giving long-standing precedent. That the White House under Joe Biden was very careful about what they

were saying about that ongoing case and for a president to come out and declare someone guilty of a crime which they haven't even been charged with is really, I think, sort of really outside of the normal, way outside of the normal procedures that we would see here. And President Trump calling all these questions about Jeffrey Epstein and the president's relationship with him at witch hunt and then quickly pivoting and saying the witch hunt you should be following and then making these accusations against former President Obama. The Justice Department now intends to interview Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in

Florida for sex trafficking. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch announced plans to meet with Maxwell in the coming days, saying, quote, if she has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and DOJ will hear what she has to say. Maxwell's attorney confirmed discussions with the government are underway, adding, quote, Gellane will always testify truthfully. President Trump was asked about the outreach to Maxwell at the White House yesterday. Do you support the Justice Department seeking an interview with Gellane Maxwell? Do you

urge the Attorney General to seek one? I don't know anything about it. They're going to what? Meet her? They're going to — your Deputy Attorney General has reached out to Galeen Maxwell's attorney, asking for a new interview. Yeah, I don't know about it, but I think it's something that would be — sounds appropriate to do, yeah. Do you have any concern that your Deputy Attorney General

as your former attorney would be conducting the interview, given — No, I have no concern. He's very — he's a very talented person. He's very smart. I didn't know that they were going to do it. No, I have no concern. He's a very talented person. He's very smart. I didn't know that they were going to do it. I don't really follow that too much.

It's sort of a witch hunt, just a continuation of the witch hunt. But there it is. Let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent, former litigator Lisa Rubin. Lisa, good morning. What would you expect the deputy attorney general to be asking Galaine Maxwell at that federal prison in Florida? First of all, the existence of a meeting

between the deputy attorney general and any person who's incarcerated is remarkable. And so when Todd Blanch wrote in his ex-post yesterday, no administration has ever done this as if it were a good thing. I just want to take a step back and recognize why it's so atypical that a political appointee would go to see a convicted felon. It's because Glene Maxwell was prosecuted some time ago. She had an opportunity to testify in her own defense at her criminal trial. She didn't take it. But presumably the conversation

between Todd Blanch and Glene Maxwell is going to be, what didn't you say that you're willing to say now in exchange for some form of leniency? And the reason I think that there's a deal to be had is where Glene Maxwell is in her criminal conviction journey, so to speak. Her conviction has been upheld by the Second Circuit, that's the Federal Court of Appeals, last November. She is in the middle of briefing a petition to the Supreme Court to review her conviction. And the sole question for review by the Supreme Court, if Galaine Maxwell gets her way, is,

am I entitled to the rights and privileges that Jeffrey Epstein negotiated when he negotiated that sweetheart deal with Trump's first labor secretary, Alex Acosta? If so, I should have never been prosecuted by the Southern District of New York. But of course, getting the Supreme Court to review that conviction is an uphill battle to begin with and then winning is also an uphill battle. So, Galeen Maxwell very much wants to get out of prison. She has contended that she was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted. She may be willing to say certain things or tell certain truths in order for some leniency from this administration. And Lisa, that's what I wanted to zero in on, because Maxwell herself has said she has

nothing new to say. I had it in court papers ahead of her trial. Last time she said everything is old, it's out there, witnesses aren't reliable. She has already said that she doesn't have any new information to provide. DOJ has also accused her of lying repeatedly to prosecutors, so therefore she's not exactly a trustworthy individual here. And to your last point, there were howls among some of the legal communities saying this is ripe for corruption here that Maxwell, they fear, could say something that would

be pleasing to Donald Trump to verify his version of events in order to get perhaps even a pardon. Well, people are looking for names. Let's talk about what the Magosphere wants here. They believe that there was a sex trafficking ring that not only gratified Jeffrey Epstein, but also was to the benefit of many other individuals. If you look at the publicly available records

from the cases, Jonathan, you can see some of those names flatly in the public domain. I won't repeat them here. They're ripe for the taking. But presumably, one of the things they want Ghislaine Maxwell to do is elaborate on that. Who else participated in the sex trafficking ring for which she and Jeffrey Epstein were prosecuted?

I will tell you, one of the most prominent victims' lawyers, a man by the name of Brad Edwards who represented upwards of almost 200 victims, has said, Epstein was both the pimp and the John. If you are looking for evidence of a widespread sex trafficking ring through which Jeffrey Epstein was paid so that other people could have access to young women, that's by and large not what you're gonna find. At the margins where there are a handful of people who also participated in sex acts with the people that Jeffrey Epstein lured to his orbit, yes, but is there some widespread pedophilic ring here?

No. And that's from the perspective of somebody who has seen multiple deposition transcripts, who sat in on the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein multiple times, who sat in on depositions of a Ghislaine Maxwell in civil cases that had to do with defamation, right? Nobody believes that there is more out there except except for the MAGA sphere, that this DOJ is somehow trying to appease. And as you said, that is ripe for corruption from the same administration who brought us the smells like corruption, Eric Adam Steele.

So pulling on that thread a bit more, how unusual is it Lisa for the deputy attorney general of the United States of America to be taking a trip to prison to a prison in Florida to talk to a witness of a crime alleged to have committed several years in the past? It's beyond unusual. Todd Blanch will tell you as much. He said no administration has ever done anything like this and he he's choosing his words carefully, Mike. He's not saying no career prosecutor has ever talked to somebody who's already incarcerated. No career prosecutor has ever offered to talk with somebody who's under

investigation or prosecution. He's saying no administration has ever done this. What he's referring to there is the political leadership of the Department of Justice. The idea that the Deputy Attorney General is going to walk into federal correctional institution Tallahassee where Ghislaine Maxwell is now serving her sentence and take a private meeting with her, that takes my breath away in terms of its impropriety and susceptibility to corruption.

Why? Why does it take your breath away? Well, because first of all, the career prosecutors at the Department of Justice are the ones who dealt with this case. More importantly, it takes my breath away because on July 14th, John Sauer, another former personal criminal defense attorney of Donald Trump, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in which they said this conviction should stand. And yet now, less than two weeks later, Todd Blanch, the deputy attorney general, wants

to talk to Glene Maxwell about what more information she can provide. Wouldn't the time have been much sooner to have done this? This is an administration that itself began the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Glene Maxwell. And yet now, six years later, they want to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell about what additional information she could provide. This just reeks of something untoward, particularly given that Ghislaine Maxwell will perhaps do anything, say anything to reduce her prison sentence or to get a pardon or

a commutation. Or exonerate someone powerful who might be implicated in all of this, perhaps someone in the White House, the House Oversight Committee plans to subpoena Maxwell as expeditiously as possible in its words. That's according to a committee spokesperson without any opposition yesterday. An oversight subcommittee approved a motion directing committee chair James Comer to issue a subpoena for Maxwell, Kentucky Republican, telling reporters the subpoena will be issued within the next few days. I think if we talk to Maxwell,

she wants to tell us who all is going to Epstein Island, I think that would be interesting and you can go from there. We don't know all the facts, but everything that we know from what we've seen in the media reports is really bad. So I don't think she should be granted a pardon or immunity or anything like that. If she wants to talk to members of Congress, then we'll give her that opportunity.

Ali, as you know, covering Capitol Hill every day, this has consumed congressional Republicans, this Epstein story for weeks and weeks and weeks now. They're getting phone calls into their offices constantly. They're hearing about it from powerful media figures that they need to dig deeper on this. Interesting that Speaker Johnson cut short votes and getting everybody out of town quickly today to begin the summer recess early before they could vote on releasing the Epstein files or whatever else is left among the Epstein files. So how is this playing right now in Capitol Hill and how anxious are they to get out of town? Clearly very anxious because you saw the speaker there truncate the schedule even further send lawmakers home now after today

starting summer recess early and I think the hope among leadership is that over the course of August this story will dissipate maybe the DOJ will be able to make some hay out of Todd Blanch's meeting with Galen Maxwell. Maybe it'll have the appearance that they're trying to do more in getting these grand jury records unsealed through the courts. I think that's what leadership is banking on. At the same time, though, one of the central reasons that they're leaving town early is because of this petition in bipartisan fashion from Thomas Massie on the Republican side and Ro Khanna on the Democratic side,

that actually would probably have the votes to pass right now that would compel DOJ to release the Epstein files in a transparent fashion. Because that resolution has the votes, that's why Johnson isn't bringing it to the floor. It's why the Rules Committee is halted. But that is also now a petition that's a discharge petition. And that just needs time in order to ripen or become ready for people to sign it,

get the requisite number of signatures, and then compel leadership to bring it to the floor. Massey is actually banking that the August recess allows people, Ryan, the ability to go home, hear from their

constituents. And you even heard Comer there saying, the constituents wanna see transparency here. And so if we know that an August recess is gonna end with the potential for Galeon Maxwell coming before the Oversight Committee, does that really help this story go away?

It doesn't seem like time is the antidote here. No, I think it gives them a little bit of a delay tactic here, but I think really, this is about somehow pivoting to something else or moving the base away from this issue, which is very difficult because of the years that it's been spent being built up. By these members. Exactly, right, crucially.

And I think that, you know, if you were to make a comparison, it was though Donald Trump all of a sudden said, oh, actually, I did lose the 2020 election, right? This is like for years that they've been building this idea up and suddenly, oh, never mind that, you know, never mind, never mind, never mind. I think even people who are really, you know, sort of down these rabbit holes say, hey, what's happening here? You know, maybe they don't think it's associated necessarily with Trump, but it, you know,

they wonder if it's maybe he's protecting someone else. I think that's some reasonable questions that come up if you've been fed this idea for so long that there's going to be this secret list and eventually now you're being told, no, never mind, never mind, never mind by everyone in power. It's sort of, you know, if you're already sort of susceptible to some of those conspiracy theories about these high-ranking, powerful people, maybe, you know, you start to apply that to the current situation. Yeah. So, Willie, President Trump is usually very good at getting

to try to distract people, try to change the topic of conversation, and particularly to get Republicans to fall in line. And we've seen him really hit the limits of that over this last week or so because of the Epstein files. He is throwing things against the wall very dangerously, the Obama accusation we talked about at the top of the show, but also things like the Washington football team, the Cleveland Guardians even weighing in on a murder case

in Idaho, you know, just whatever it is to try to talk about something else. And what's so striking here is, yes, he was able to redirect some of the mega influencers' anger to the Wall Street Journal itself last week. Hey, they published this story. It's the mainstream media biased against your favorite president, etc, etc. But they're not letting go of the story, the you know, both those who host podcasts, but also those in Congress. And it's not just Thomas Massey. It's not just the one Republican who seems to defy Trump over and over and over. Yes, he's at the tip of the spear here. But there are a lot of other Republicans who also say this needs to happen. And there's suggestions

yesterday, even as Speaker Johnson said, hey, we're gonna go home early. And then Ryan's, Ali's point is right. They're gonna go home and potentially hold town halls and face a lot of angry questions about both the one big beautiful bill and its Medicaid cuts, but also potentially covering up the accusations from Jeffrey Epstein, about Jeffrey Epstein.

But you know, they have said that if we come back in September and we don't have the material we need, then we will go forward with this petition. So this is not done. And it's a rare sense of real, I'm told, real panic in the inner circle of the Trump orbit because this is a story they simply can't control. Yeah, I mean, if you think getting out of Washington

represents some kind of an escape as a Republican Congress, you're going home to these angry voters, constituents who want answers on all this. Ryan, to pick up on John's point, what's your sense inside and around the White House of how concerned they are that they really, in a rare moment, haven't been able to control this narrative within their own party? The party these days usually just goes along with whatever the president says, but not so much in this case. And are they concerned about all these new images that are coming out that shows not

necessarily criminal wrongdoing, but there was a friendship, there was a close relationship between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? Yeah, we definitely did see this effort to sort of put forward a bunch of different other stories or these distractions as we've seen. But you know, the Justice Department and the White House, I think, had been sort of working in tangent there as they have this very close relationship. But more recently, those announcements yesterday sort of pivot that in another direction, I think, give the story a new leg.

So I'd be curious if that's causing more tension between the White House and the Justice Department, because from NBC News' reporting, Donald Trump has been very clear that he wants to sort of pass this on to DOJ. This is their sort of mess to figure out and was in some way fueled by Pam Bondi's, I guess, inaccurate claim that the files are sitting on her desk. She said she had misspoken and was referring sort of

to the issue more broadly was sitting on her desk. So I think that that's something that they're gonna that the White House at least wants the Justice Department and Pam body to be to be cleaning up here because that's I think they think it's sort of their mess that they created. We will see this is not going away. NBC News justice reporter Ryan Riley. Thank you very much. Lisa, one more story for you. Kind of dramatic scene at the U. S. Attorney's office in New Jersey yesterday as the attorney general stepped in at the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey yesterday as the attorney general stepped in after interim U.S. attorney Alina Habba was replaced there in New Jersey.

Habba, former personal lawyer for the president, was removed from her post by a panel of New Jersey federal judges. But then the Trump administration intervened. So Lisa, this was an interim position of I think 120 days. Exactly right. It's time for it to be over and her to go away and that's the case the judge has made here. But now the attorney general of the United States stepping in to try to get her job back.

What's going on here? That's exactly what happened. So first of all, she wasn't removed upon the expiration of that 120 days. Either the position becomes filled by somebody who's the first assistant United States attorney by statute, or the judges can appoint someone to serve as a U.S. attorney until the president nominates someone and the Senate confirms someone. That is, in the usual course, how this is supposed to work. For the avoidance of doubt, yesterday the chief judge of the District of New Jersey issued an order saying that that same first assistant I was still referring to would become

the U.S. attorney, Pam Bondi, and an ex-post last night called the judges rogue for exercising their statutory prerogative, then fired the first assistant, claiming Alina Haba's 120 days weren't get up. And here we're getting into a semantic dispute about the meaning of the word appointment. President Trump announced that Alina Haba would be serving as the acting U.S. attorney on March 24th. If you take that as the date, her 120 days was up yesterday. But she was sworn in by Pam Bondi on March 28th. And if that's the operative date, she wasn't yet done.

According to Pam Bondi, Desiree Grace, who was the appointee, was still acting as the first assistant as a career prosecutor. They fired her. Who becomes the U.S. attorney now is unclear, but according to the Justice Department, they're going to find a way to have Alina Habas serve again, perhaps like John Sarkone in the Northern District of New York. Similar thing went down there, and instead the attorney general appointed him as a special

assistant U.S. attorney, put him in the first assistant U.S. attorney spot so that he could, by statute, be elevated to the acting spot. Once again, this is a lot of granular mechanics for a position that really should be taken more seriously than this one. So let's take the swearing-in date as, let's say that's the date. So four days later, let's say Saturday, then you could say her term would have been up. You don't get the sense that the president or the attorney general would have even conceded that point if they'd gotten the date right.

They want Alina Jaba in that job, right? Yes. And they were looking for a predicate to say that Alina Jaba was wrongfully removed. But again, the way that the order worked yesterday, they didn't remove Alina Habba. They basically said Alina Habba's 120 days are up and therefore on the earlier of July 22nd or at that expiration of 120 days, here's who becomes a United States attorney pursuant to our authority

under this particular statutory provision. To say that it's a removal is maybe the semantics that the White House and the Justice Department like, but this is a group of judges who did nothing rogue. All they did was consult the statute, read the book, and do what they're entitled to. But if you cross the wrong people, you're labeled rogue, even when you're not.

Lisa Rubin, we're always glad you're here to explain these things to us. Thanks so much, we appreciate it. You can check out Lisa's show, Can They Do That? on MSNBC's YouTube channel. Thanks Lisa. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll bring the latest on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel continues its war against Hamas. Plus, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will join us to discuss a new trade deal with Japan, President Trump announced yesterday. We'll get into those details. And a reminder, the Morning Joe Morning Joe podcast available every day featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can

listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 108 and humanitarian rights groups are demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, warning mass starvation is now spreading across the enclave. In a joint statement, organizations including the Mercy Corps and the Norwegian Refugee Council say Israeli restrictions are blocking life-saving aid, despite supplies piling up at Gaza's border. Palestinian health officials say at least 101 people, 80 of whom are children, have

died of hunger, with doctors reporting 15 starvation deaths just in the past day. President Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Wittkopf is traveling to Europe this week for meetings with officials there. A State Department official says NBC tells NBC News Gaza will be one of the topics discussed as Woodcoff continues to work toward a ceasefire deal. Joining us now, columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius. His latest piece is titled, In Gaza, a War with No End Game Leads to a Humanitarian Collapse. David, good morning. You're well soursourced on this story.

What are you hearing about what's really taking place on the ground inside Gaza? So, Willie, the tragedy here is that the war continues, despite the best efforts of the U.S., to bring another ceasefire and an end to the war. It's so far been an unsuccessful resistance from both Hamas and Israel. And there simply isn't a coherent way to feed the hundreds of thousands, more than a million Gazans, who were desperately hungry after nearly two years of war. And as these Gazans have sought food from the designated food distribution centers, understandably there have been riots of people, just a melee on the ground as people scramble toward the food centers.

And there has been such inadequate crowd control that people have been killed by live fire to back them away from the centers. It's just a nightmare. I wrote in that column that you referenced, you have to ask yourself, what if it was me on the ground? What if it was my family seeking food? So it's a situation that's just intolerable. But I spoke last night with one of the mediators and was told that for the moment there just isn't any progress.

The gap between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and Hamas is wide. The U.S. and its partners, Egypt and Qatar, have not been able to come up with new ways to bridge it. The kinds of issues they're discussing now are how big a buffer zone Israel should have on this war ends. Should it be five kilometers or seven kilometers? And so they're focusing on those issues while people are tragically getting shot and starving even every day in this terrible situation of a war that simply seems unable to stop.

David, we are coming up on two years in this war. It consumes two presidencies, the Biden administration and now the Trump administration. And there has been one constant through it all, a man named Bibi Netanyahu. So my question to you is, from your sources and your vast knowledge of this region and this particular war, is there any way that an American president can influence Bibi Netanyahu? Well, Mike, that's a painful question. I think that President Trump, perhaps oddly, has had more leverage over Netanyahu than certainly than his predecessor, than any recent president.

President Trump made clear that he wanted to try to negotiate with Iran for a new nuclear deal. Netanyahu was sitting next to him in the Oval Office, clearly uncomfortable. But Trump went ahead and did it. I'm told one of the problems in getting the ceasefire talks going back in the right direction is that there's really some distance between Netanyahu and Trump, uneasiness. Trump wants to get a win here. He wants to make peace.

He said from the day he took office, he wants this war to end, and it continues, and he's frustrated. So I think, in theory, Trump ought to have leverage to bring this to a conclusion. But in practice, from everything I hear from people involved in the negotiations, they just keep hitting roadblocks, and they can't get through them. Yeah, and David, certainly President Trump of the White House, frustrated with some of Nenyar's recent moves, including strikes in Syria, but has yet to exert full pressure on the prime minister to try to bring this to a deal. So with that as the backdrop, let's talk about Israel's neighbors in the Gulf.

You know, obviously have, you know, sometimes mixed relations, mixed feelings about what to do with the Palestinians, though they insist upon a two-state solution. Is there any growing unease, unrest there? We know Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been dangling this idea of joining the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations with Israel. Is there any sense that someone else, someone in the neighborhood, might try to apply pressure to change this dynamic, which truly must be declared a crisis growing worth by the day. So John part of this tragedy to me is that the possibility of true normalization in the Middle East which would mean Israeli relations open

across the board with Saudi Arabia maybe the leading Arab state, that's so close. And what it would take is some Israeli commitment to a future political role for the Palestinians. It could be defined in various ways, probably short of a Palestinian state at first. But that's been something that Netanyahu's right-wing coalition has been absolutely unwilling to consider. So that offer is, in effect, on the table from Saudi Arabia. Saudis, I think, would like it for their own security. But they're getting increasingly frustrated.

They say to the Israelis, all you have to do is use some language that shows a pathway towards resolving this problem. But again, so far they've been unable to move Israel. So as Mike said earlier, nearly two years into this war with the level of suffering that we've seen, it's still blocked. And I think there's a growing sense of despair in the U.S. from the Trump administration people and in Europe and in Israel itself, I must say, about the inability to bring this to an end, get the hostages who survive back with their families. This just as I wrote this morning, it's tragedy upon tragedy.

Tragedy upon tragedy, that crisis still at a standstill. But then you turn to another conflict that Trump has said he wants to see peace in, and that's, of course, between Russia and Ukraine. We're going to see parties from both of those countries meet again in Turkey. But both of them, including Zelensky, are not focusing on a high prospect for peace there. Instead, they're talking yet again about hostage swaps. We've seen those come to fruition before.

But what does that tell you about how close or not, rather, this conflict is? So this, the Turkish channel that's being reactivated is one that's produced results in terms of exchanging prisoners, other humanitarian issues between the two. It's been the only channel that's really worked between Russia and Ukraine. So I'm encouraged that it's starting up again because it could lead to broader meaningful discussions. This is a war in which each side still thinks it can gain more on the battlefield than it can in negotiations at a peace settlement.

When you have that, it's very hard to get a truce. Ukraine's getting pounded. I mean, the level of violence every night that the people living in Kiev and the other cities are experiencing is terrible. And one new wild card that just got thrown in was moved by President Zelensky to go after the anti-corruption organizations in Kiev that are trying to make this a more modern and European country.

This is a war about whether Ukraine can be European. And to see President Zelensky attack these anti-corruption organizations was disappointing to many Ukrainians. And I think it's going to be something he'll have to undo if he wants to get people out of the streets where they were last night protesting. Yes, protests there, too. David, obviously we've heard tougher rhetoric from President Trump against President Putin in the last couple of weeks as he's watched these drones

as you say buzz across Kiev almost every night. Is there any confidence in Kiev, is there any confidence inside Ukraine that he will follow through on the rhetoric? Obviously more weapons shipments and all that, but that Donald Trump will in fact have Ukraine's back. So I think, Willie, there is more confidence that the supply of American weapons and perhaps more important American intelligence about what the Russians are doing will continue. There was a cutoff of both and that's now

ended and President Trump seems angry enough to keep the weapon supply going to Kiev. And as long as the will to fight persists among Ukrainians, who were so outnumbered in this fight, we'll see fighting through the summer. Earlier fears that the Ukrainian lines might break this summer with a big Russian advance seem to be less now than they were. But that nightly pounding that just takes so much out of people.

Down in those shelters, it's just sleepless night after sleepless night is something I've seen people experience, and it's tough for a country to operate that way week after week. And that's where Ukraine is now. And a Ukrainian spokesman just this morning pouring a little bit of cold water on these negotiations saying effectively don't expect a miracle out of these talks but at least it's something. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you. David's latest piece for the paper is online now.

Coming up here we'll go through the new trade agreements announced yesterday by President Trump and get insight on those deals from Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. Morning Joe is coming right back. They say the biggest deal ever made, biggest deal ever made. And we have Europe coming in tomorrow and the next day. We have some other ones coming in. We're doing things that have never been done in this country before. Our country is becoming very rich again, and that's the way it should be. They're not taking advantage of us, and it's very good. Biggest deal ever made. Wow. That was President Trump touting his new trade deal with Japan,

one of America's largest trading partners. The agreement sets the tariff rate at 15%, which is lower than the 24% rate the president first sought to impose in April in the 25% rate he threatened earlier this month. President Trump announced the deal on social media yesterday, adding Japan also has agreed to invest $550 billion in the United States. He claims America to invest $550 billion in the United States. He claims America will receive 90 percent of the profits and that this will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. While the new trade deal with Japan may be welcome news for Japanese automakers, the president's tariffs are having a different impact on American car manufacturers. NBC News senior business correspondent Christine Romance has more. Following an Oval Office meeting with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

We'll probably agree to something. President Trump announcing via social media a trade deal in which the Philippines will pay a 19% tariff on its exports to the U.S. and the U.S. zero tariffs on exports to the Philippines. President Trump also saying the countries will work together militarily. The Philippines has yet to confirm any details of the deal. The announcement comes ahead of the August 1st tariff deadline for U.S. trade partners,

and as the impact of tariffs already in place becomes more clear. Tariffs are obviously a big story for us. General Motors said the price tag for President Trump's tariffs was $1.1 billion in the second quarter. We don't expect any specific price increases related to tariffs. GM so far eating the tariff cost, trying to offset some of it through cost cuts and investments

in the U.S. Many of the manufacturing announcements that we made earlier in the quarter about onshore and production here into the U. S. With $4 billion of capital initiatives are going to have an effect as we get 18 to 24 months down the road. But the current 25% auto tariffs hard to avoid. GM says they will cost the company 4 to $5 billion this year. Other automakers feeling it too. Jeep and Chrysler maker Stellantis says due in part to tariffs it expects a 2.7 billion dollar loss in the first half of the year. Christine Romans reporting there. Let's bring in former Treasury official

and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. Steve good morning. We'll talk big picture about the tariffs but let's put on your cars are hat and the Obama administration first. Clearly something has to give if you have a 25% tariff in your American auto manufacturer. We saw that some of the companies saying they'll lose between $2.5 and $5 billion. But when do consumers start to feel this? You know, the irony of this, of course, is that a good part of why Trump was in favor of tariffs, his legitimacy for tariffs, was to help the auto industry and to bring car manufacturing back here. And I suspect some viewers, anyway, scratched their heads during was to help the auto industry and to bring car manufacturing back here.

And I suspect some viewers, anyway, scratched their heads during this process when the auto companies kept saying, you know, we don't want these tariffs, we don't want these tariffs. Why do they not want these tariffs? Because they actually import a lot of their cars, GM and Chrysler, from Mexico and from other places where manufacturing is less expensive. So now you have the tariffs. And what is happening so far is the companies are absorbing most of it. So contrary to what Trump says, that the Mexicans are going to pay the tariffs or the Canadians

are going to pay the tariffs, right now it's been the car companies that are paying the tariffs and it's cutting, as your correspondent just said, very substantially into their profits. So that's the irony of all this, that it's actually being paid by the very people that Trump is trying to help. Which is what they said all along, and now here we are, and it's happening. Let's go back to the Japanese trade deal announced yesterday, 15 percent tariffs. He says that Japan's going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to great profit of the United States.

Help us sift through what's real in that deal and what's sort of fantasy about it. By the way, I didn't answer all your question. In terms of American consumers, the companies are saying that pretty soon they're going to have to start raising prices. They can't keep absorbing it. But back to your other question. So look, first of all, it's classic Trump sort of negotiating style. You threaten something high. This isn't as high as some of the things he's classic Trump sort of negotiating style. You threaten something high.

This isn't as high as some of the things he's threatened, but 24 percent. Then you do a deal at a lower percentage, and everybody says, oh, that's great. He backed off a bit, and we got something more reasonable. But the $500 billion, or $550 billion, I've seen different numbers, of investment in the U.S., I don't understand that at all. Maybe there'll be some investment. But the idea that we, America, are somehow gonna get 90% of the profits

is a concept in business I have never heard. And so, who knows what he's talking about. But the Japanese are certainly happy. The stock market was up 3.5% overnight. Toyota stock was way up overnight. This does help them and we've been fighting this fight as you know because Trump himself was involved for 40 years over Japanese car imports and now it's landed in a place that both sides seem to be able to deal with.

So Steve let's take a step back. We didn't get the 90 trade deals in 90 days that the administration promised but after some delay we're getting some progress now. Japan, yes. Also, he met with the leader of the Philippines yesterday, announced a deal coming there as well. Recently said there's one from Vietnam, although the Vietnamese government hasn't signed off on apparently all of it.

Just give us your big picture take right now, the progress that the administration is or is not making on these deals, and what sort of impact will that have for the consumers here? It's a little hard to know exactly what progress because he announces deals and then like the Vietnamese deal it turns out there really isn't a complete deal done. Normally it takes a year or two to negotiate any single trade deal. They can sometimes run hundreds of pages of documents over every little piece of it. He's faced with a self-imposed deadline that it'll be interesting to see how he wriggles

around which is that all these tariffs that have been suspended have to go into effect on August 1st if these other, rest of these 90 deals aren't made, and they're obviously not going to be made in a week. So we're going to have to see what he does about that. So far the impact on consumers has been fairly muted, one has to say. The companies have been, all these companies, not just auto companies, have been absorbing a lot of these costs. Most of the tariffs have been suspended now while we go through this process.

And so once August 1st hits, if he actually does what he says he's going to do, which of course you never know if that's what's going to happen, you could start to see prices go up reasonably meaningful. So, Steve, on that point, say there's a ship out there somewhere carrying a bunch of Toyotas from Japan to the United States to Long Beach, California. August 1st rolls around, 15 percent tariff down from 25 percent to 15 percent. That kicks in. What's that going to cost the American consumer?

Because the car companies, as you indicated, they're not going to cover it for very long. What's going to happen to the American consumer in purchasing a car? You're going to see prices go up. I mean, if you take a very rough rule of thumb about products in general, probably something like half the cost of retail costs for product is the cost of actually the product coming into our country, the rest of sales and distribution and all the other things that go on. So if there's a 15 percent tariff, you could imagine prices going up 7.5 percent. But remember, one of the points of tariffs is that they go up not just on what's being imported, they also go up on domestic goods, the same goods, because once the imported

price goes up 7.5 percent or 15 percent or whatever it goes up a domestic manufacturer and this is part of the really the point of tariffs or one of the points domestic manufacturers so I don't need to price my goods at seven and a half percent less than Toyota so I'm going to raise my price of seven and a half percent and prices go up for every everybody who makes that particular good and this is you know what we've been arguing about now for a couple of years, who's really paying these tariffs. And your correspondent, with all due respect, talked about the countries paying the tariffs,

the exporting countries. They don't pay the tariffs. We're paying the tariffs. Whether it's our companies and lower profits or our consumers, this is coming out of the pockets for the most part at the end of the day of Americans. Which again is what people like you and economists across the world warned as these were thrown out there and floated. We're going to continue this conversation by the way with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

coming up in our next hour. Morning Joe, economic analyst Steve Ratner. Steve, always good to have you. Thank you. Still ahead, we will remember heavy metal icon Ozzy Osbourne, the prince of darkness, died yesterday just weeks after his final show with Black Sabbath. Morning Joe's coming right back.