Morning Joe - Trump to CNBC: ‘I Don’t Care’ If Iran Talks Are Over

Episode Date: June 2, 2026

Trump to CNBC: ‘I Don’t Care’ If Iran Talks Are Over To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Trump's slush fund is the textbook definition of self-dealing. Trump sued himself, settled with himself, and then Trump gives himself and his family immunity to evade their taxes, and Trump makes you, the American taxpayer, pay for it all. Now, Trump is claiming that the slush fund is dead for now. But Democrats will not stop until it's well and truly buried and can never see the light of day. That is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday, promising legislation that would permanently block President Trump's so-called anti-weaponization fund, which is on the rocks right now.

Democrats will need help from Republicans to make that happen. We'll look at where support stands on Capitol Hill and why the White House may be backing off from this idea. Also ahead, we'll go through new reporting on President Trump's combative phone call, to put it mildly, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel's aggressive attacks in Lebanon. Plus, we'll break down the big primary races out west today. No clear front runners in the race for California's next governor or to lead its largest city, possibly opening the door for a former reality TV star to become the mayor of Los Angeles. Good morning. Welcome to Morning, Joe. It's Tuesday, June 2nd, with us, co-host of our 9 a.m. hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and MS now contributor, Mike Barnacle.

Mike Barnacle, particularly excited about the idea of Spencer Pratt being the mayor of Los Angeles. You were just totally dialed in on the hills and all that kind of world of MTV reality shows. No one deserves more support than Spencer Pratt. He's got a little help from the President of the United States, so we'll see how he does. But let's dig in to our top story more than three months now into the war with Iran. President Trump says he doesn't care if peace negotiations are over. The president made that comment to CNBC yesterday when asked about, reports, Tehran would suspend talks to end the war over Israel's invasion and bombardment of Lebanon.

Trump said, quote, I don't care if they're over, honestly. I really don't care. I couldn't care less. If they're over, they're over. If they're not, you know, I think they took too much time. He went on to say, quote, frankly, I thought they started to get very boring. They were giving us what we needed, but I think they handled the negotiations poorly. It took too long. Later yesterday, President Trump posted on social media. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and indirectly with Hezbollah. Both sides agreed to dial back the fighting for now that had threatened those negotiations. Netanyahu, however, said in a statement, he told Trump, Israel would strike targets in Beirut if Hezbollah's attacks continue,

adding, the Israeli military will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon, where deadly strikes have continued this morning. Hezbollah did not comment, but Lebanon's government, which does not control the group, said it received confirmation. Hezbollah had agreed to the U.S. proposal for a ceasefire. Let's pause there for just one second, Jonathan Lemire. President Trump, as he often does, saying out loud what so many have known for many weeks now, that he's flat out bored with the war in Iran, wants any way out, wants to turn the page and start thinking about other things. Yesterday, he just said it. I'm bored and I don't care. Yeah, about nearly a month ago, I wrote a piece and interviewed a close-out

side advisor who used that exact word. President Trump was bored with the process there in Iran. It ended up being our headline. Here a month later, President Trump confirms that reporting. And it just reflects how desperate he is to move on. He knows this is a political loser. He can say, and he has said repeatedly, he doesn't care about the midterms. He does, he's obviously taking steps or actively hurting Republicans, it would seem, this November. But he knows this is hurting their political standing and his own political standing. He's bogged down there, prices are high, and he doesn't see a way out. He's deeply frustrated that he can't get this deal over the finish line.

He's really concerned, Willie, that the deal he might end up taking is going to be one that is perceived as really weak and far worse than the Obama nuclear deal of a decade ago. And that's part of why there have been these last-minute snags as he keeps kind of going back to AIDS saying how is this going to be perceived, can we get a little more? But he knows inherently the best they're going to get is a bad agreement. and Iran look stronger now than it was at the start of the war. And BB Netanyahu here is the wildcard, Mike, where, you know, yes, we're the president. We're going to get into that conversation in a moment.

But just even with Willie just said, it shows the limits of Trump's control over Netanyahu, or his influence over Netanyahu, I should say. Yes, Netanyahu is saying, we'll dial down strikes on Beirut, maybe. But operations in southern Lebanon are going to continue. And for Iran, that right there, a deal breaker. They won't come to the table. So in terms of getting this war resolved, in terms of getting an agreement, according to your sources, do you know anyone around the president of the United States with the credibility to go to him and say, stop talking? No, and no one does and no one tries to. I mean, this is by design. The president has surrounded himself with, you know, true believers, with yes men and women this time.

The first term, there were people around him who would at least try. He wouldn't always listen, but they would try. to rein him in. This time there's none of that. It is Trump unfiltered, and we are seeing him seeking these outlets on truth social, frankly, where we're seeing these barrages of posts more last night, because that is one place, Willie, where he feels like he can just talk and he's, you know, and there's no pushback. And talk about anything other than the war because this is hard, it's complicated. He thought he could bomb Iran into submission in the early days of the war has not turned out that way. Axios has some new. reporting on that call between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The president reportedly lashing out at Netanyahu during expletive-laden conversation. That's according to U.S. officials. And a third source briefed on the call. According to one U.S. official, Trump told Netanyahu he was effing crazy and that the prime minister would be in prison if it were not for Trump, likely referring to the Israeli leader's years-long corruption trial, the president adding, quote, everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.

That's the President of the United States. A second source briefed on the call said Trump was, quote, pissed and at one point yelled at Netanyahu, quote, what the F are you doing? One of the U.S. officials told Axios that Trump felt in recent days Netanyahu was escalating in a disproportionate way. Another U.S. official said Trump also was concerned by the fact that Israel had killed so many civilians in Lebanon and objected to the Israelis knocking down buildings to take out a single Hezbollah commander. Let's bring in one of the authors of that report. White House reporter for

Axios, Mark Caputo. Mark, take us inside that call a little deeper, if you would, and perhaps just explain a little of President Trump's frustration that the Israeli prime minister's military campaign, particularly in Lebanon, is threatening and perhaps preventing a negotiation that might bring this war to an end. Well, leading up to this over the weekend, my colleague, Barack Ravid, and I, had written a story about Trump sending back an edit, an addition to a peace deal with Iran, and they were hoping to get an answer in a few days. And in the course of reporting that out, we were told by the administration, by administration officials, that Israel, that Netanyahu wanted a component concerning Lebanon in there,

and that Trump had rebuffed him, thinking that that was just sort of an added feature that would have sort of bogged down the talks. And then the next day, this massive bombing campaign erupts. And from what we're told in Trump's mind, he figured he felt, they felt, that this was Netanyahu sort of saying, well, I'm not going to get my way. I'm sort of going to bomb my way to your attention. And it really, really bothered President Trump, were told. And yesterday in the early afternoon, Trump got him on the horn, Prime Minister of Netanyahu,

and just lit into him and sort of let him know that this is unacceptable in Trump's you. Now, let's be clear. The president keeps thinking that there's going to be a deal with Iran and it hasn't happened yet, but in the administration, there has long been the sense of, okay, Netanyahu is our partner in this process, but a lot of the things that Netanyahu has said and done haven't been as conducive to getting the outcome they desire, and in some cases, has managed to bog the conflict and conflicts down in more conflict. So, Mark, yesterday Iran said they're going to cease any sort of talks with the U.S., direct or indirect, because of what's happening in Lebanon. So take us inside the administration as best you can with your colleague's sources.

Where does the Trump team now view those negotiations? Where could they go from here? What sort of, not concession per se, but how do they get them back on track? How do they even get Iran to the table? They claim, and President Trump had set on true social yesterday, and again, it's a claim. We don't have an ability to verify these things, that the talks are still going on, that things are still happening. And perhaps one of the reasons they made sure that the story got out there is they wanted to broadcast to Iran that they're serious about the deal. The bigger

problem that the United States has in striking this agreement are the details, as I say, the devil's in the details. And bottom line is that Iran wants money. And President Trump doesn't want the appearance of giving Iran money, of paying them money. So we had described in a story a few months ago about sort of a cash for uranium deal, and the president sort of overrode his advisors who were talking about that at the time to say, well, sort of no money is going to change hands in any way, shape, or form. Now we understand that behind the scenes that is happening. Part of this, therefore, is going to be President Trump deciding at what point does he allow Iran to have access to some sort of money. There are frozen accounts, billions of dollars.

to begin this process and to free it up. Until then, though, it looks like we're just in this Cold War cycle of going back on agreements, not having a true peace deal, and having a hot war or conflict occasionally flare up. Because until Iran gets its money from what we're told, it doesn't really want to make a deal because it wants security and it wants some sort of recompense for the damage. and there was a lot of damage that was inflicted on Iran by the United States. And the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning suggesting that Iran is playing Donald Trump here using Hezbollah to keep Israel in the war and therefore prevent these negotiations or at least give them an excuse not to negotiate.

Mark, you've been very busy overnight and this morning. Some of you're reporting as well on President Trump now planning to scrap that $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. that's what they're calling it anyway. It was intended to compensate people who claim they were victims of unfair prosecution by the government. That's according to a senior White House official speaking to MS now. Since its announcement, the fund has received bipartisan backlash with critics describing it as a scheme to reward Trump's political allies with public benefits, perhaps including people who attack police officers on January 6th. Two people familiar with the matter tell the New York Times, President Trump had been leaning toward backing off the fund for days. The move comes after the Justice Department stated yesterday it would abide by a federal judge's temporary order not to proceed with any steps to launch that fund until at least June 12th.

That is when a hearing on the matter is scheduled. But one issue remains unclear whether getting rid of the fund will affect another part of the legal settlement in the case, namely if it provides Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity from current and pending IRS audits. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats. will push a bill this week to ban the fund permanently, arguing Trump's verbal assurances mean nothing. Mark, you reported this yesterday. MS now matched your reporting on the story. This is obviously a deeply unpopular idea, and one of the few times we've seen, at least members of the Senate in the Republican Party, push back pretty loudly on an idea of President Trump's. They say in politics, when you're explaining you're losing, and it's almost impossible to explain this $1.8 billion fund,

just the details of it, which was the president would be able to appoint five members. There would be no say from Congress and how this money is essentially appropriated and expended, and there were no clear details as to what the process was for doling out the money or who qualified. So, yeah, it's a very difficult thing. Also, in the administration itself, there's just been a lack of understanding of just how this came about. The president's personal lawyers, including a man named Boris Epstein, who's a longtime close advisor, and the attorney general, Todd Blanche's office, wasn't Blanche himself, have a close relationship. Blanche used to not only be the private attorney for President Trump, before President Trump was reelected,

but also for Boris himself. So the DOJ and Epstein had come up with this deal and the particulars of it. Some members of the White House in the West Wing say they were in close. others said they weren't. So there were some people saying they were completely blindsided by that. So not only did you have the Congress against the White House, you had portions of the White House just saying we didn't know anything about this and they weren't able to get any clear answers. Not a great way to get anything done. And the result was finally President Trump, from what we understand, was told, look, I just can't go forward with this anymore. He's got a lot of things

on this plate. We just discussed a huge one. And in the end, this just wanted to be just a big distraction. Now, let's be clear, in our story, the sources we talk to said that this is dead for now. I think for now is an important word because President Trump does believe that government was weaponized against a number of people. And some of those people are very close friends of his. And they do want some sort of remuneration or recompense. And so I wouldn't be surprised if some form or some measure like this or some sort of fund came back, but it'll probably have to be more in the sunshine, so you'd have less opposition. So, Mark, what's your sense from your reporting?

There was a lot of dissatisfying among some members of the United States Senate towards the fund. John Thune in particular said something that indicated he was not in favor of it. But do you think that this is a start to opposing Trump being able to stand up and say out loud, I don't like this, or is this a one-off? I can't say either way. I mean, the Congress, Republicans and Congress have looked at the prior primary results where President Trump has taken out sitting members of both the Senate and of the House in Republican primaries. He's very popular. He has a big stick. He walks loudly and wields a big stick. And so they are scared of it. There are certain things that they just can't eat, and this was one of them. So I think it's on a case-by-case basis. President Trump's decision to endorse Ken Paxton over John Cornyn, the sitting senator from Texas, really rank a lot of Republican senators in the wrong way. So there were a number of factors that are involved here in this opposition that you're seeing rise up from the Senate.

And then, of course, overlaying all this unpopular war in Iran, $5 gasoline, it makes the political environment really challenging, to say the least. And, Willie, just to underline what Mark said about this fund is gone for now, there are some Democrats in the Senate yesterday, though heartened by this news, that Trump is abandoning this at the moment, but said that there were some, some, the DOJ language around it had some wiggle room, that this could be revisited, that yes, DOJ was walking away from this idea for the moment, but they do have concerns that it could come back in the months ahead. President Trump does not, like, to concede defeat. So we'll see if you find some way back to this. White House reporter for Axios, Mark Caputo, with reporting on two of the top stories of the morning, Mark. Thanks so much. We appreciate it. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we are previewing the high-stakes primary elections in California today where some key races still don't have a clear frontrunner. Plus, former First Lady Jill Biden joins us to discuss her new memoir reflecting on her husband's presidency,

how it impacted her family and much, much more. And as we go to break, a look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Acqueweather's Bernie Rayno. Bernie has a looking out there. Well, it's a fantastic Tuesday. In fact, it's time for the bill bottoms and the platform. shoes. What am I talking about? We're in the 70s today. I love the music from the 70s. Sunshine for the most part, your exclusive vacuum with a forecast, 74, Boston, 77 in New York City,

maybe a shower in Charleston. Now, frontal boundary coming across southeast, couple of spotty. Thunderstorms here around Atlanta, Jackson, and New Orleans. The heat continues in Dallas. Your exclusive ACU with a travel forecast, two areas to watch Atlanta and Miami this afternoon for some minor delays. They help you make the best decisions to be more. in the know, download the ACU weather up today. Voters in California head to the polls today to choose the final candidates for two of the state's biggest elections of the year. The primary races for Los Angeles mayor and California governor still toss-ups, according to

the polls, both featuring crowded fields with no clear frontrunner. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass looking to win re-election, she faces two main competitors from both sides of the political spectrum, including former reality television star, Republicans Spencer Pratt. If no one wins a majority of the vote today, it will move to a runoff in November. The governor's race, meanwhile, has more than 50-50-0 candidates from both parties. California puts all of them on one ballot with the top two finishers moving on to the general election regardless of party. That's what they call the jungle primary. The leading Democrats in that race, former Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Bissera, and billionaire Tom Steyer. The Republican side

includes former Fox News hosts Steve Hilton. After the 2024 presidential election, CEO of the Messina Group and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to President Obama, Jim Messina, began traveling the country to talk with Democratic candidates, organizers, and strategists. Through those conversations, he says he learned Democrats are too comfortable running conventional campaigns using outdated rules and complacency in what led to a Republican sweep in his last installment.

of the three-part series, myth-busting before the midterms. Jim is breaking down four more myths that impacted Democrats throughout the last presidential election cycle, ones he worries are, again, seeping into the party's collective thinking for the years ahead. And Jim Messina joins us now. He also, of course, ran President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. Jim, you are up very, very early out west. We appreciate you doing that, but for good reason.

A busy day in California. Before we get into your reporting there and what you gathered about the Democratic Party and strategy looking ahead to the midterms, let's take a look at those races today. If you can kind of handicap them for our viewers who maybe haven't been following that closely, both the mayor's race and the governor's race. What are you looking for tonight? Well, the governor's race, Willie, is a race that no one seems to want to be governor in California. Everyone thought Kamala Harris was going to run.

Then everyone thought that Senator Alex Padilla was going to run. and then everyone thought that AG Rob Bonta was going to run. All of them declined. And instead, you have this wide open race with historic amount of spending. And I'm really looking at it. The question is, can Democrats get both two seats in advance to the jungle primary? It doesn't look likely, but there's a shot. Tom Steyer has been rising.

It looks like Xavier Bucera has the votes to get to the next round. And the question is, does Steyer go or does former Fox News host Steve Hilton go? It'll be really interesting tonight. It looks very, very close. And once again, as every race you've been covering, Willie, this is about affordability. This is about people out there saying everything is too expensive and we want someone to come in and fix it. And in the fourth largest economy in the world, California is a really important barometer. In the mayor's race in L.A., you have a bunch of very angry Los Angeles voters, especially voters in the Palisades and other places affected by the fire.

They're very critical of the incumbent mayor looking at two challengers, one from the very left and one from the very right. The question is who's going to get in that. In that jungle primary runoff in November, it is really unusual in California that we have races this close. Usually the party is decided by now, but it shows you the kind of anger of American voters, and that's no exception in the great state of California. Yeah. And Jim, in the mayor's race, Mayor Karen Bass, looking to be reelected, obviously has been justifiably criticized for handling of the Palisades Fire last year. And chiefly by Spencer Pratt, who's a name people may know and a face they might recognize from reality TV. How serious a contender do you believe he is? And how worried should Karen Bass be?

Well, she should be very worried, no matter who's in the runoff right now. There are people very angry. She's acknowledged those mistakes. She's got to prove to people that this election is about the future, not the past. When I run campaigns, I say to people all the time, it's, these voters want to know where you're going to take them, not where you've been. And she's having a lot of problems with that. I know a lot of people watching this morning are a little freaked out about another reality star rising in American politics. But if you look at Spencer Pratt's social media, really, it's the best I've ever seen. I'm not saying he would be a good man. I'm not saying he's a great candidate, but he's really taken over this race with some really

inventive AI outreach that I think all campaigns on both sides of the aisle can learn from. We'll find out tonight if it's enough to get him to the runoff. All right. So that actually swings nicely into your new report, this idea that you've been traveling the country since the 2024 election, since President Trump swept back into office. And lessons you learn Democrats need to learn them pretty quickly here with the midterms, about five months away. In your latest reporting, you talk about these myths.

One, Democrats say that demographics will save us in the long run. That's myth number one. Why is that a myth? That's a myth because we all thought that the ascendant coalition of Barack Obama was going to save the party. We're going to have more and more young people, African Americans, Latinos, voting, and we were going to win the national fight because of it until the 2024 election, Willie, you all have reported on this ad nauseum. You know, Donald Trump did much better and

got to almost parody with Latino voters, doubled his support with African-American voters, did historically well with young male voters. And yet the Democrats sort of ignored the 72% of voters who are white voters and decided it was all about this ascendant coalition. The truth is Barack Obama won two elections because he did both. He excited his base. He excited his base. but he also talked to swing voters and turn them out in big numbers. We have to treat these what we think are base groups, Latinos, African Americans, young voters. We have to treat them like persuasion targets, not turnout targets. We've got to make our case to them.

We didn't in the last election. And if we don't do that in this midterm, Willie, we'll lose again. So, Jim, your second myth is that what works in the midterm will work in a presidential. And you say that Democrats who did very well in 2022, drew. some wrong, incorrect lessons for 2024, but it also can work the other way where a presidential, as we head into a midterm year, may not be that instructive. Yeah, it's really true, Jonathan. In 2022, we won an election on abortion, and that was great and it was a big upset. But in 2024, we thought it was the same election, and yet abortion

was the seventh most popular issue, and we lost the economic argument, which was the number one issue by 12 points. We can't do that. However, when you look at the demographics in midterm elections in 2026, it shapes up much better for Democrats. It is older voters. It is more women voters, especially upper educated voters, where Democrats are doing historically well. So if we can continue to learn the lessons from 2024 and have a midterm election turnout, we could do very, very well. We've just again got to do both things, turn our base out, and talk to these persuadable voters. So, Jim, let's go to myth number three. Money, money, money. There's so much money around now. You know, what are we going to do with it? What a candidate is going to do with it? It leads me to

ask you in terms of absence of money or a lot of money, Spencer Pratt, is his combination of anger and grievance more important than money in terms of reaching voters? Yes, yes. And Barnacle, I only got up this early for you because you and I really understand these things. And when you look at it, grievance and anger is bigger in American politics than money. But part of what I wanted to say is it's not just about these big national races. People's money goes much further in the races in the House and the Governor's races. House races are 16 times more effective if you give in these congressional races because they're not as well funded. And so money is really important in some of these down-ballot races that Barnacle and I stay up until, you know, the wee hours of the night following. And especially in governors or mayor's races. When you look at tonight in L.A., Pratt has really made his own luck and he did it using social media and not a lot of money. And it is proof that a little anger still drives American politics.

Jim, if Barnacle's telling you, he stays up late to watch. watch down-ballot races he's lying to you. He's watching the A's Mariners in extra innings. That's why he's up late. Let's move to myth number four, Jim. And I think this is a really important one. You're pushing back against some of the pessimism, even fatalism you hear among Democrats, which is that the Trump administration, Republicans now play so dirty. They're going to rig the election or steal the election or perhaps cancel the election in some places with some of the moves they've made. How do you fight against that thinking? Yeah, it's a big one in the Democratic party after our second glass of Chardonnay, a whole bunch of Democrats want to say, oh, he's just

going to steal it. And the fact is that's not true. We're looking to make sure this 2026 and 28 are tamper-proof elections. And the way you do it is go back to Barnacle's local races. You win the Supreme Court races. You win the attorney general's races. You make sure that the people who actually run the elections, and it's not federal, it is state elections. It is state people who run these elections, you make sure that they're going to run fair elections. And so I'm part of this democracy defenders pack with a super lawyer Norm Eisen. We're doing really good work across the country to make sure that the people that are actually running these elections are going to run them fair. And we're winning all over the place. So I do think we're going to have fair elections,

even though Donald Trump's going to do everything he can to stop that. So Jim, with all this in mind, we've run through these four myths that you're trying to bust. Give our viewers, if you would, know it's five months out, but just your view because you have such good insight on this stuff of what November might look like. There's obviously huge optimism given the state of the economy and some other tailwinds for Democrats that they'll win the House. I think at this point they'd be disappointed if they didn't. Some hopes, though more difficult for the Senate as well. How do you see it going as we sit here this morning? Well, look, I think a couple things. I do think we're the favorites to win the House. It is harder because of the redistricting stuff. You know, right now we have an

eight-point lead in the generic ballot. That's about where we were in 2018. In 2018, we picked up 40 seats. That same map with this eight-point lead, Willie would give us a 12-seat majority, so I think it's going to be closer than people think. I do think there's a shot, if an outside shot in the Senate. But what's really interesting is in the states, especially the governor's races, which are incredibly important to the presidential and for who runs this country. I think Democrats are going to have historically good night and win governors' races all over the country. It's a little bit easier for swing voters to vote both parties in non-federal races and is in federal races. So I think it is shaping up to be a very good night. But Democrats just have to learn the

lessons of the past. We're super good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We proved that in 2024. And so we just got to double down and do whatever we can to make sure that we start to take some of these levers of power away from Donald Trump. It is the most important thing you could do as Democrats to win the House of Representatives. Always listen to Jim Messina, a wise man, Jim. Thanks so much again for getting up so early for us this morning. Jim's new piece, available to read on Substack. Coming up, as a growing number of Americans expressed concern about the future of the country,

our next guest says it should be up to CEOs to reinstate optimism. Co-founders of Axios, Mike Allen and Jim Van de Hyde joins us. We'll explain that next. Morning Joe's coming right back. The CEOs aren't used to commentate in every single policy that comes out there. But I do agree with you, and this is a major point to me. We, business, made a mistake by not getting more involved earlier. I do not believe that the problems of society will be fixed by politicians alone.

That's non-insulted politicians. Most of the really good ones. they want help to figure things out. And we business kind of step back. That's what happened in Europe where, you know, the political leadership class became a permanent political leadership class. And I think it ended up being a mistake. So I do agree with that point that we should step forward and do things that are good for the

country. Like John F. Kennedy said, you know, don't ask what the country could do for you. Ask what you could do for the country. And we've got to have a little bit more of that spirit. That's J.P. Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Diamond, weighing in on the responsibility business leaders hold in today's society. Our next guests argue employers do play a big role in helping to fill an urgent leadership void in America. Joining us now, co-founders of Axios, Mike Allen, and Jim Van de Haid. Guys, welcome back. I have to tell you, your original piece on this, talking about the theory of the

American moment, the rattled generation, was being rocketed all over the place yesterday. I got it from a few different people, sentences people, as well. So talk a little bit, Jim, first here, about how you see CEOs kind of filling this moment, because I think most people think, I don't know, are they part of the problem? They're the rich guys and the rich women and people are struggling to pay for their gas. So how do CEOs help to lead us out of the place we're in right now? Yeah, Willie, you have a lot of viewers who like to email. I got a ton of emails yesterday from that segment. But the segment was about this idea that people are just rattled. They're looking for leadership. They're hungry for leadership. You see it, I'm sure, with your younger employees,

we see it when we're speaking at college campuses. And when you're, you look at the polls, nobody trusts anybody. It might be the biggest problem facing America right now. Nobody trusts anybody in positions of power, except for their employer. Almost 80% of people, they have faith in their leaders, in their CEO. And most CEOs just want to run their business, and usually that's fine. But I think you have a leadership void out there that if it's not filled by someone, and I think CEOs are the ones to fill it right now as employers, we're going to be in trouble. People need to see moral leadership model. They need to get guidance to this AI transformation. They need to understand the principles that have made great people great throughout time, which is just

working hard, putting a cause above yourself, like doing the right thing, even when people aren't looking. And if you're not going to church, if you're not getting that at home, you're sure as hell not getting it on social media. And a lot of people feel like they're not getting it anywhere. And Willie, what's super important here for your viewers is CEO. here is a proxy for any leader. You can be a little league coach. You can be leading two people. Or like Jamie Diamond saw, we saw leading 300,000 people. But if you have people in your life, and if you're watching Morning Joe, you are a leader. You're someone that people in your circle, even your friend group turn to. You have an obligation. People are hungry to lead. And here's

something that is true across American life. And that is take the local close to home. We don't like Congress, but we often like our member. We don't like education, but we like our school. Poll after poll shows that people will listen to their employer. So what can you do? And Jim, we've got a few here. No, I think there's a bunch of things that, no, no, go, please, Jonathan. No, I was just going to say on this, what would you say to the pushback that would be that CEOs, A lot of Americans watching this might feel like your CEOs are out of touch. They don't care about some of the smaller employees. We see the rising compensation packages as a symbol of the remarkable income stratification we've seen.

That's a lot of Americans are really angry at that. The haves, the have-nots, that's only accelerated. So what's the risk then of this class, the CEO class, being looked to lead when already so many people are suspicious of them? Listen, there's no doubt there's a wealth gap. And it's a huge problem. And I think every company, you have a moral responsibility to make sure you take care of your people and that you compensate people fairly. If you do that, people perform a hell of a lot better.

And most of the CEOs you see on TV, like, they're not representative of the literally tens or hundreds of thousands of CEOs out there. Most companies are small businesses. And like Mike said, a teacher is a leader. It's what do people in a position of power over anyone. It could be two people. It could be a parent. It could be anyone. If you think about the things that trouble you right now about what's happening in society,

it's this lack of just of values, this lack of trying to figure out, hey, how do we work together to solve a problem? The lack of putting competence over loudmouth. If you think about the fundamental problem with politics right now, it's like all the people we hear about, it's just this nasty language as all this fighting. That's not most people. Most people are like, oh, my God, I'm living my life. I'm trying to solve a problem. And by the way, I think most people running businesses do that.

To be honest, I think they're scared. They're so scared to speak out now because they worry about revolts internally or externally. I'd say, get over it. You're blessed to be in a position of power. You have an obligation, and you might as well figure out ways to lead people, especially in the next couple of years. People are scared as hell of artificial intelligence, and it could go good or it could go bad. And if you want to know whether it's going to go in a good direction or a bad direction,

the thing that will determine that is good leadership, good governmental leadership, good business leadership, good academic leadership. If you don't have those ingredients, this technology, like the last technology, and like anything, it will go off the rails. So, Mike, based upon what Jim was just talking about, based upon the concept of the Rattle Generation, you could work for the strongest company in the United States of America and feel very comfortable at work, very comfortable with your CEO.

What do you do and what can be done about dealing with the thing called anxiety? among employers, anxiety about today, anxiety about AI, anxiety about their children's schools. I mean, that's a huge, huge issue I would think that's out there. For sure, Mike, and you have young people in your life. And a point that we made in our rattled generation column was it's not their fault. It's very understandable given what the younger generation has lived through. So what can you do? One, the first thing that we suggest here is leveling with the people that you lead.

Truth builds trust. And we know that people are hungry to lead. We're reminding you here that if you have a couple people in your life, you have an obligation to lead. And that leveling with them makes a big difference, including on AI. In every workplace in America, this is the conversation. And if we as leaders understand it, are skilled in it. can show people that it's opportunity, can show people how to enhance their superpower.

Like that's going to make a big difference. One more quickly is rewarding competence, showing people that you're going to be demanding and tough, but you're going to be fair. And Jim talked earlier, modeling moral leadership. This is being preachy. This is showing grace.

This is showing humility. This is showing courage, strength. The new piece in this series has got a lot of people talking available online now. Co-founders of Axios, Mike Allen, Jim Bandai. Guys, great to see you both. Thanks, guys. Still ahead as President Trump reportedly abandons the so-called anti-weaponization fund.

Our next guest says it ended under a shadow of corruption. Bestselling author, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid joins us next with a look at her new book titled The Fix, Saving America, from the Corruption of a Mob-style government. We'll be right back. We told you earlier the Trump administration appears, at least, to be backing off of its so-called anti-weaponization fund, the one sought by the president to compensate alleged victims of prosecutorial misconduct. Something our next guest says should instead be named the Grifter Fund and stems from a lawsuit that, quote, ended under the shadow of corruption. Join us now, former U.S. Attorney MS. Now legal analyst, our friend Barbara McQuaid. She's out today with a new book titled The Fix, Saving America from the Corruption of, a mob-style government. Barbara, congratulations on the book. It's always great to see,

especially when you're here with us. Let's talk about anti-weaponization first. That's what they're calling it anyway. Even Republicans raise the red flags on this one, which is a rare moment in Washington these days when President Trump has an idea and said, this is a bridge too far. Can you remind our viewers how this slush fund, if some people have called it, or you call it the Grifter Fund, even came about from this flimsy lawsuit against the IRS? Yeah, you know, It's hard to believe because it's stranger than fiction. So Donald Trump files a lawsuit against his own IRS and Treasury Department as president. It's based on a leak of his tax returns and those of his sons and his business in 2019, which was wrong.

And that person who was a contractor was not only dismissed from his job, but he was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to prison. Now Donald Trump wants damages, money back, asking for $10 billion, even though he wasn't able to trace. any losses whatsoever to that. And so he decides to not only file a lawsuit, but to settle that lawsuit. And it only came after a judge began asking some very hard questions, and briefs were due two days later when the Trump administration decided to settle the case. The judge was asking questions about whether this was a genuine case or controversy over which a court has jurisdiction, which requires adversity between the parties. And since, President Trump controls the IRS and the Treasury Department, that adversity appeared to be lacking.

And so instead, a settlement was negotiated. He dismissed the case, allowing this $1.776 billion to be set aside, not for him, but for people who claim to have been harmed by the so-called weaponization of the Justice Department during the Biden administration. And the kicker allowing him to be free of any audits from the IRS. Forever. That was the key to him. That part of it. Yes. And that part seems to be staying. Yeah, that's right. Let's talk about the title of the book, The Fix, Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-style government. I love to have you describe the ways in which this feels like a mob-style government, but also I was just saying to you, we've heard a lot about how bad things are in the country right now, and it's true. We report on it every day. But you offer solutions in this book for regular people, what they can do besides yelling at their TVs every day. Yeah, we've done enough of that. Yeah. Well, the idea of the fix is sort of a, you know, a double entendre, if you will,

talking about, based on my experience as a federal prosecutor, seeing how corruption is done, how extortion is done, how fraud is done, and comparing it to the tactics of this administration, inflicting pain on other sources of power to coerce them to come to the table to negotiate their own punishment. We've seen President Trump do this with law firms, universities, the media, even foreign allies when tariffs were in effect. But we don't have to accept this as the status quo. There are many things we can do from a formal perspective with enactment of guardrails

to improve the way our government operates, codifying some of the norms into laws, but also, as you mentioned, things we as citizens can do right now. Engaging in peaceful protest, for example, is incredibly powerful. Political scientist Erica Chenoweth at Harvard, says that based on her research of hundreds of regimes, if only 3.5% of the population engages in peaceful protest, they can affect regime change. So lots of things we ourselves can do

to take back the power of our democracy. So Barbara, as a former U.S. attorney, what's your reaction to the fact that today, there are several U.S. attorneys around the country who don't believe the government lawyer in front of them in cases? Yeah, I think it's a real shame. It's a Justice Department. In fact, it caused me a lot of pain as somebody who worked at the Justice Department for almost 20 years. We always enjoyed what was known as the presumption of regularity. I remember being told and then telling other younger lawyers that when you walk into court, you enjoy a credibility that you did not earn. You get to say your name appearing on behalf of the United States, and the judge will instantly believe everything you say. Don't blow it. You've built

up, this reservoir of trust is there that's been built up over generations of Department of Justice lawyers and you carry that responsibility with you. But for a good reason, I think we are seeing judges say, I don't have that presumption of regularity with you anymore because we have seen too many examples of DOJ lawyers misleading courts or covering up things that are happening in the courts. And that is just not the way Justice Department lawyers are supposed to operate. We were always told Justice Department lawyer's job is not to win cases, but to see that justice is done. So Barbara, one of the lessons of the Trump era this past decade is so much of what the American government is based on are actually sort of norms and good faith agreements rather than things that are codified into law. In your book here, you suggest a few structural changes that could tighten things to prevent this from happening again.

Give us a couple examples. Yeah, well, I think one thing that we could do is have Congress enact some standards for the people who occupy some of the cabinet positions. These were all created by acts of Congress. We already have some of these laws codified. For example, the Attorney General must be someone learned in the law. We could put some real requirements in cabinet official positions, and the president would have to choose somebody who meets those things. For example, if you're going to run the Department of Health and Human Services,

maybe you ought to be a doctor, or at least somebody with knowledge in public health. If you're going to run the Defense Department, maybe you should have achieved certain levels of management experience in the Defense Department. Department before you get a job like that. Over at the Justice Department, there are currently policies called the principles of federal prosecution that prohibit partisan politics from infecting case decisions. There's something called the FBI Domestic Operations Guide that tells the FBI they may not begin an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity. We could codify that through the Federal Register in the Code of Federal Regulations so that

those can't be dismissed with a wave of a hand as simple policy, there would have to be a notice and comment, period, to change those rules. Barbara, one of the things Joe talks about a lot on this show is that the day will come for a lot of the people who are either behaving in a corrupt fashion or a criminal fashion during this administration. They feel like they have effective immunity with President Trump at the top of the government right now. Are you confident that our justice system will hold people to account not today or tomorrow, but down the road for some of the things we're seeing and some of the things you describe in this book? I do. And I think accountability is really important. You know, I look at some of the lessons of

history. One is Nuremberg. Those trials were essential for helping the public understand what really happened in Nazi Germany. In contrast, I think Watergate was an example of hearings that educated the public, but a failure to hold a president accountable in a way that maybe open the floodgates for what we're seeing today. Now, it may be that President Trump gives pardons to everybody on their way out the door, but there are other ways of holding people accountable. Certainly state governments have some options in bringing criminal cases, and there's no ability to pardon them from those kinds of cases. And also with respect to the people who are lawyers, there are bar grievances that could take away their license to practice law, their livelihood. And I think that is a way of holding

people accountable. There's a lot in here. Come back and talk more about it. We always love having to hear. The new book is The Fix, Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-style government. Barb McQaid, Barb, thanks so much. Thanks really.