Morning Joe - UK Prime Minister Starmer resigns, U.S.-Iran wrap up negotiations in Switzerland

Episode Date: June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026 - 6am: Negotiations in Switzerland to end the war in Iran wrapped up with Iran and the United States agreeing to create a “de-confliction cell” to address the fighting in Lebanon Iran brags that VP JD Vance was snubbed by negotiators during the talks in Switzerland UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces resignation The U.S. Supreme Court expected to release some major decisions this week  A year-long investigation by the Washington Post contends that President Trump's former DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, may have been far more loyal to the leader of a religious group she belongs to than she was to the president. 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.

Every decision I've taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party. I have spoken to His Majesty the King this morning to inform him of my decision. I will ask the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to set out a timetable with nominations opening on the 9th of July and completed by the summer recess. U.K. Prime Minister Kier Starmar just moments ago

announcing his resignation and that he will step down as leader of the Labor Party. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, June 22nd. With us, we have the co-host of our 8 a.m. hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire. Co-host of the Rest Is Politics Podcast. The BBC is Katty K.

Comness and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, and editor at the insider Michael Weiss is with us. We're going to be getting right into the Iran sword. But before we do, Caddy, let's talk about Kier Stommer's resignation. Here's a man who came in with a historic landslide, but just never seemed to have a theory of the case, never seemed to have a plan on where he wanted to move Britain.

Yeah, he came in and it was seen Joe as the kind of antidote to the charisma politics of Boris. Johnson. Here was somebody who'd been a public prosecutor, much more serious, pretty centrist in the scheme of labor politicians, but just didn't manage to attack the central issue that Britons needed him to attack, which was economic growth. And then he had a whole load of scandals around Jeffrey Epstein with his ambassador to the US, of course, having to famously resign and people were unhappy like that. But really, he just got squeezed from the populist left, the Green Party, which is promising

greater spending and higher taxes, and the populist right, reform and Nigel Farage, promising to really attack the issue of immigration. And he has gone the way of centrist politicians in Europe more broadly when they can't withstand these forces and this guy who came in as we thought,

we want a correction. We want a correction to populism, to the antics of Boris Johnson, to the show of Boris Johnson. We want somebody who is, serious and centrist and mild spoken. And actually, maybe in this era of political communication, we don't want that. We think we want it, but we don't want that. And particularly when he couldn't deliver economic growth. Well, the biggest problem was, I mean, he was seen as an

anecdote because most people I talked to believed in and around the government that he was going to be a technocrat who would know where to take the country. He was no technocrat. He certainly wasn't charismatic. And I will say, and we'll talk about this war later, Meek, but this isn't like something that just popped up after the elections last year. Even, my God, in December of 24 or 25, you had people very concerned about the fact that he just didn't have a path forward. Well, we're going to have much more on this straight ahead, including a live report from 10 Downing Street. Also ahead, we'll talk some World Cup as the U.S. national team is in a good position to potentially make a deep run. And Cape Verde, what a game. And Iran, we're going to be

talking about their game against Belgium yesterday. Pretty incredible. We're going to break down Wyndham Clark's big win at the U.S. Open, battling his own game and the fans. But we've got a lot of news happening right now. Negotiations in Switzerland to end the war in Iran wrapped up last night with Iran and the United States agreeing to create a deconfliction cell, a deconfliction cell to address the fighting in Lebanon. Attacks in that country are a major sticking point for these talks. Iran's military on Saturday said it was closing the Strait of Ormuse over Israeli strikes in Lebanon. But Vice President J.D. Vance and U.S. Central Command both insisted this weekend, the straight is open.

President is leading the talks in Switzerland, meeting yesterday with Iran's parliamentary speaker, as well as mediators from Pakistan and Qatar. But the negotiations were almost derailed by President Trump, who threatened new attacks and also the lives of Tehran's top negotiators in response to Iran's renewed threat to close the strait. The president spoke to Fox News yesterday, claiming he told Iranian officials, quote, you close it and you won't have a country. You won't even make it back to your effing country. A source inside the room when the talks were taking place told MS now,

the Iranians were frustrated by Trump's comments, causing the first round of talks to end earlier than expected. But the Iranians would come back later for more discussions, leading to the so-called deconfliction cell. A statement from mediators said the cell, include the Lebanese government and would ensure the adherence of the termination of military operations in Lebanon. Well, we'll see what happens here.

A lot unclear, though. But David, it's interesting. What we have so far are talks where the Iranians are willing to talk about unfreezing assets. The Iranians are willing to talk about all the money they're going to get. They still aren't talking about nuclear issues and say, oh, we'll just push that off till later. And I'm just struck. And what's through this weekend?

And we're right now, we're reading through Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's book. And they're talking, of course, about negotiations stretching back before the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. You could have literally taken the words from this weekend, superimposed them over those negotiations. And we're where we've been with Iran for 15 years. And I would like to know how it's going to change. Enrichment of uranium is Iran's red line. They're not going to move from that. Let me say it again.

They're not going to move from that unless there is new leadership. Our red line is the stopping of the enrichment of uranium. And this deal seems to suggest the status quo is going to remain in place, and we're going to give the Iranians half a trillion dollars. But this weekend, Donald Trump's acting shocked, saying, quote, they better shut their mouth about enrichment being the red line. It's always been the red line. It is the red line. It will be the red line as long as this is the government. So what are we doing in Switzerland right now? So, Joe, Trump is in a box, as you suggest. The terms that we know about

are not significantly different from what could have been achieved before the war began on February 28 and certainly not significantly different from the deal that was negotiated back in 2015. Enrichment is an example where we just don't know yet what the terms that Trump and the Iranian counterparts have discussed or think that they're heading toward. We have promises to negotiate these issues, but nothing like a guarantee of the outcome. I think the meetings, the district took place. in Switzerland are best seen as an interim point. This whole agreement is an interim point.

It's not a final agreement about anything. And so from where we are now, you either branch into some increasing success. I'll talk a minute about this deconfliction mechanism, or you cascade into failure and a return to conflict in one way or another. But again, we're in the middle. We're not at the end of anything. The deconfliction mechanism is interesting because the last time Iran and Israel ended a conflict,

it was a ceasefire in Lebanon. I was there in Beirut just before it ended. There was a similar pledge to deconflict that conflict that's been going on now for 40 years off and on, and it proved completely unable to contain the violence on either side. if there's a way that the Iranians can be pushed, convinced, threatened into putting limits on Hezbollah so that the situation changes, then we could talk about deconfliction. That's the core problem. And similarly, if the U.S. leans on Israel and says, give the Lebanese government finally a chance to put this country back together, then we can have deconfliction. But now we're at an interim

point, and Trump is holding pretty much a big basket of nothing to. put her frankly. Well, and here, even when you talk about, Michael Weiss, when you talk about Lebanon, then you talk about Benjamin Netanyahu, who is about to lose an election. Because, I mean, the entire country has turned against him because now he's seen as weak on Hezbollah. So you have that when you're talking about deconfliction. And when you're talking about this MOU, I just, I just want to keep going back to it.

The Iranians said a year ago that enrichment was a red line, that they would never cross. A year, a year and a half ago, they were extraordinarily frustrated that Whitkoff would be negotiating with them. They would agree to a deal. Then Donald Trump would see that Whitkoff and the deal, the outlines of the deal was being attacked on Fox News or in the Wall Street Journal. And then he would change everything. And he would say, okay, no, no, no enrichment of uranium. So then to go back to the Iranians who then would say, well, wait a second, we've been working for months on this deal. And now, and here we are again. You have this MOU, but the right, Murdoch's papers, I mean, the New York Post is scathing editorial this weekend toward this deal.

Republicans in the House and Senate are never going to agree on a deal that allows the Iranians to continue enrichment and get. Guess what? The Iranians are never, this government is never going to back off enriching uranium. So the question Michael is, what are we doing here? Why are we giving them half a trillion dollars when we're not going to move them off of enrichment? Well, it's kind of extraordinary. Donald Trump last week said two very shocking things. Number one, he said, oh, well, maybe Iran should retain its ballistic missile program because the Saudis have ballistic missiles. should get some too. Unheard of from American president, especially when one of the operational objectives of this war was to destroy the Iranian missile program. The other thing he said was, well, you know, let's not worry about the nuclear dust, as he calls it, the highly enriched uranium that's buried underground in Iran. He said, we might not need to get it. It's not very valuable.

It's worth half a million dollars or something like that. Basically dismissing, you know, the primary objective of the war, which was to eliminate the nuclear program once and for all. He even then said, maybe we'll allow them to enrich, you know, to have a civilian nuclear capability, right? Going back to this point, though, of deconfliction, which is another very important issue here, you know, what was one of the other operational objectives of this war? Eliminate Iran's patronage and financing and support for terrorist proxies around the region, including and especially Lebanese Hezbollah. What is the United States now doing by entering into this agreement with Iran?

It is certifying Iranian control of Hezbollah. it is counting on Iran to continue to reign in its proxy in Lebanon. And it is arrogating to itself, this is the more extraordinary part, it arrogating to itself the same role that Iran has vis-a-vis Israel. So in other words, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are saying, we will reign in the Israelis in Lebanon if you reign in Hezbollah. Moral equivalence between Israel and Hisbalah. Yeah, and Michael, for Americans who don't understand exactly what's going on here,

and yes, it's very easy to be, I'm just speaking, for myself to be a support of Israel and absolutely deeply offended by Netanyahu's policies over the past decade. But if you're an Israeli and you see the Americans saying, hey, listen, if Iran attacks you, it's cool, don't respond back. If Hezbollah continues to do what they've been doing for the past 20 years, firing rockets into Israel, don't worry about it. it. Just ignore that. I mean, that's how this all looks to the Israelis. I know nobody wants to think about how the Israelis actually are looking at this deal right now, because, again, because of Netanyahu's horrific policies. But right now you have an American administration saying, if you get attacked by

Israel, or if you get attacked by Hezbollah, which they do all the time, they fire rockets into Israel. Don't do anything. Somebody fired a rocket into, like, Texas would be in Mexico. city by nightfall. So that's how the Israelis are thinking when they hear us saying, don't worry about it. Right. They have, the Israeli opinion is, I mean, I think something like 11% of Israelis think they won this war. I mean, a catastrophic failure for Netanyahu. But now the real problem is, by going in with the United States, not once but twice, they thought that would be it. We would deliver the coup de grace to Iran. We would cut the head off the snake for them, as they put at one of their euphemisms. Instead, what we've done is place.

a pair of handcuffs on the Israelis. We have, they have, they feel like they have forfeited their sovereignty and their strategic autonomy, which for them is, is the greatest danger, right? The United States should not be able to dictate terms of how Israel can respond to national security threats. And that's exactly what we're doing now. And Donald Trump is very outspoken. I mean, he's called Netanyahu an eff an idiot. He said that, you know, I call the shots. I'm the guy in charge. Strategic disaster, Joe, is the phrase I keep hearing from Israeli national security. and hawks, nobody is under any illusions that this war has not only not gone the way they wanted, but has possibly put Israel in an impossible bind right now.

So Joe just mentioned the latest piece from the editorial board of the New York Post. It's with Strait of Hormuz held hostage, Trump's Iran deal is worse than Obama's. And in it, the editorial board blast Trump for allowing Iran to be able to dictate the terms of the straight, writing in part this, why would opening the door for administration of a previously free international waterway even be part of this agreement? How is this in any way the unconditional surrender Trump described? The Post argues, quote, the rest of the 14-point plan is almost entirely about what Iran gets, immediate sanctions relief on exported oil, protection of Hezbollah from Israeli attack, and the possibility of a $300 billion reconstruction fund if all goes well with the next

round of talks. No mention of Iran reigning in its terror proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, no restriction on conventional weapons, no mechanism to surrender the enriched uranium it has already created. The Post-Editorial board then writes, the president hasn't just moved the goalposts. He's changed the sport, the venue, and the rules simply to declare a win. And Katty, we see even over this weekend what Iran's control this trade of Formos, you know, whether they closed it or not, they certainly are projecting the ability to do so or to menace ships at minimum coming through there.

But this editorial is going to land very hard at the White House. First of all, we know that President Trump cares deeply, but the New York Post thinks, and Rupert Murdoch's editorial board. He also cares very deeply about the Obama comparison. I have reported others as well in recent weeks. A lot of this, what we've seen play out in this stage of the war, is him being fueled by a belief to get a better deal than Obama.

And now, even his own allies are saying he took one that's worse. Yeah, the criticism of Obama derangement syndrome falls hard for Donald Trump. And it's, yeah, it is interesting to see the New York Post being this blunt. The Wall Street Journal, of course, has been pushing for a much harder line from the White House for a more interventionist end to this war, wanting them to go further than they have done from the Pentagon. and now we hear the New York Post. Maybe they're thinking, look, the Wall Street Journal hasn't managed to get the message through. Perhaps the New York Post will get the message through.

It was very interesting, David, listening to Cream Sajapur over the course of the weekend, saying what this memorandum of understanding is effectively doing is Jared Kushner and Steve Wickoff thinking, well, we couldn't bomb them, so we're going to bribe them. And there's just this fundamental misunderstanding of the regime and its intentions. And they would see foreign capital, $300 billion investment, the offer of shiny new condos or whatever it's going to go to, is kind of a Trojan horse that opens up their country and opens up their population, which is precisely what they don't want, because they stay in power when the country

and the population is under the heel of their boot. Kareem Sajapur, who you mentioned said in the same article in the Atlantic, that Trump was like a poker player who believed his own bluffs. And there's some truth to that. through these negotiations making these thunderous threats to Iran, and pretty soon people realized that they were empty. I think there's something in Karim's comparison of these negotiations to the North Korea negotiations, where Trump said, you know, we'll build your new hotels, there'll be great beaches, it'll be beautiful.

And Kim Jong-un seemed to go along with it for a while, but in the end there was nothing there because he wasn't fundamentally prepared to change his regime. The difference here I've seen with my own eyes is the Iranian people. The Iranian people hunger for change. Don't forget there were tens of thousands in the streets risking their lives to protest this regime. The idea that there's permanent stability going forward after this deal, I think, is mistaken. The Iranian people still want something different. But the specific negotiating issues right now are ones that I just don't see that Trump,

team yet prepared to deal with. They need to focus on the technical details. They need something that actually will stabilize Lebanon so that you can begin to have real de-escalation. That's in everybody's interest. It may infringe Israeli freedom of maneuver, but the situation is not a good one for Israel. Israel is getting caught again, as it did in the 1980s, in an endless and from Israel's standpoint, a ruinous war in Lebanon. So the idea of working on that problem isn't crazy. It's just that we haven't seen yet anything beyond declarations. And what the hell is a deconfliction mechanism, to be honest? Who knows? But, but, but, but, so we need to move. I was going to ask. We need to move somehow to, to something real that people can describe,

that Lebanese on the ground feel is real. It may be that President Trump is now drawn a red line of his own and said, and said to Iran, if you continue to support Hezbollah, and, and, Lebanon after this deal that we're trying to put together in Geneva, I'll consider that a violation of the agreement and all bets are off and the sanctions go back on. If he did that, then you'd think there might be some teeth in this. So we'll have to see. That was one of his tweets over the weekend and a significant one. Well, I mean, there's so many tweets. And as the Iranians have learned, as we've all learned, his positions change by the day. I just, it's important to to remember, and this is something that David told us all. First of all, he said, Iran's not

Venezuela. He said it repeatedly. Don't go into Iran. Iran's not Venezuela. The second thing he said is the Iranian government is teetering right now on the brink. Do not give them a second life with an American invasion. That's exactly what's happened here. And the idea that, you know, Caddy and David were talking about the idea that maybe we could bribe them, we have to remember what, again, we're Americans, so maybe we only remember what happened yesterday with the U.S. Open or the World Cup. It's pretty exciting games, weren't they? But what did the Iranians remember?

We killed their leaders. We killed over 150 little girls at a girl's school. That's what they remember. They remember family members being tortured throughout the 60s and the 70s. under the Shah of Iran, U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, they remember 1953 in Mosch, the United States, going in and overthrowing a government to put the Shah in power. That's what they remember. I'm not saying that to say America's terrible.

America's bad. I'm just saying, you may not remember that, and the Trump administration may not remember that, and members of Congress may not remember that. But the Iranians, they're never going to forget that. Imagine if all of America's leaders were killed, you know, at the beginning of March. Would we go, yeah, give us a lot of money. We'll build condos and we'll change our ways. The idea that we can bribe the Iranians from being what the Iranians have been since 1979,

from what the Iranians would say the United States made them, from 1953 through 1979, the idea that we can bribe them, bribe the very people that I've called the leaders of a country that's been the epicenter of terrorism across the planet since 1979, they're going to change.

If we give them enough money, they're not in it for the money. And again, they don't want wealth. They don't want an open society. Like Putin, they want more money to build their terror state, both internally and externally, like she, to build a terror state internally to keep people down. This is one thing, Mika, that your father always talked about. I remember we had a Pulitzer Prize winner coming on saying, oh, it's so terrible what America is doing in the right? Iraq war, what do the Pakistanis think of us? And he goes, you fool. You fool a Pulitzer Prize winner.

You remember. And your dad said, this, we have got to get past this notion that everybody wants to be like us. A lot of countries do, but a lot of countries do. And I guarantee you the majority of citizens. The majority of citizens in Iran want to be like us. The people running that government, the people we're negotiating with, want to keep the country exactly where it's been since 1979. Everybody's stay still ahead on Morning Joe. We'll bring you a live report from 10 Downing Street following the resignation of Keir Starmor as Britain will now have its seventh prime minister in the past 10 years. Plus, we'll dig into the incredible reporting from the Washington Post on the former director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. And her deep ties.

to a religious leader who may have shaped her political career. And as we go to break, a quick quote. The word May does a lot in that sentence. A quick look at the travelers forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, it's a wet stormy day in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Exclusive Ackyweather forecast. Rain heavier times this afternoon, New York City toward Boston, some strong thunderstorms,

gusty winds from Philadelphia, toward Washington, D.C., Clouds will break for some sunshine in Chicago and Detroit, steaming across the southeast with spotty thunderstorms. And some thunderstorms this evening will have some very heavy rain in Dallas. If you're doing any traveling this afternoon, all I can say is pack your patience. To help you make the best decisions to be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. I will remain in Post as Prime Minister until the contest is complete. and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power. I will also give my successor my full and unequivocal support,

knowing that they will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead and better able to ensure the Labour Party secures a second term in office. That was Kier Starmor this morning in London as he announced his resignation as Britain's prime minister. Members of Starrmer's own Labor Party had been calling for new leadership for months, with speculation over his resignation growing last week after the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham won a special election for Parliament. Burnham is reportedly eyeing the top job and what will be Britain's,

Seventh Prime Minister in a decade. He's scheduled to be sworn into the House of Commons today and to speak with Starmor this week. Katty, even though there have been calls for this for months, what's the reaction to the resignation? Everybody could see this coming over the course of the last few days. I have spoken to one British official who said to me, we can't just think that by changing the person at the top,

we can change the fundamental problems that Britain has. And now the joke is in the UK. We're trying to be Italy. and that was the country that was constantly changing leadership and Britain was meant to be known for stability. That certainly doesn't look to be the case and whether Andy Burnham can make a better better the British economy than Kier Stama did

just by being more charismatic. I think most people would say that remains to be seen. So let's go right live to London and bring in MS now international reporter, Inista La Quatera, who joins us from 10 Downing Street. So Innes, what has the reaction been there in London, Not totally unexpected. This had been signalled for a few days,

but it is still Britain going through this process again of thinking we can change the person in 10 Downing Street just behind you and somehow change the direction of the country and the way the political system works. Hey, good morning, yeah. So, I mean, we did see Kier Starrmer this morning coming out here outside of 10 Downing Street to announce he was stepping down as Prime Minister

and as leader of the Labor Party. I will say he was quite emotional. He was saying how everything he's done He's done out of love for his country. He thanked his wife, his children. He said he would support whoever the next leader is, but that he doesn't feel he is the best person to lead labor into the next election. Now, you guys mentioned it, but this all comes after that special election was held in Makerfield.

The former mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was running in that and had suggested that if he won, he would mount a formal leadership challenge. He did win, and so Starmer getting out ahead of that and stepping down. I will say moments ago, we did hear from Burnham that he said, would be running as the next leader of the Labor Party. And this morning, we've been seeing prominent labor officials coming out to throw their support behind Burnham. So he could very well be the next Prime Minister, but we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Starmor, for his part, you know, won in a landslide in 2024. But as you guys mentioned, there had been

growing calls for him to step down in recent weeks and months. There was frustration that labor was losing support to the Green Party, to the anti-immigration reform party as well. Voters frustrated with the economy, with the rising cost of living, but also, but also, you know, Also, you know, we can't ignore the Epstein scandal, and we've talked about it repeatedly, but Starmor was responsible for appointing Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the U.S. at a time when it was known that Mandelson had closed times to Epstein, and so there had been calls for him to step down back then as well. He survived that, but clearly the frustration kept mounting.

And we'll see if we get more reaction from world leaders. We heard from the Australian Prime Minister this morning saying Starmor can be proud of what he's accomplished. We, of course, heard from President Trump over the weekend, saying that Starmor would step down. clear if Trump had been given a heads up or if that was just speculation on his part. He said that Starmour had failed on things like immigration and energy. We know that there had been no love loss there between Trump and Starmor. Trump frustrated with Starmor for not getting involved in Iran.

So we'll see if we get additional reaction from President Trump as the day goes on. Okay. MSNOW international reporter, Inista Lekwatera. Thank you very much reporting live from London there. We've had a very interesting weekend, David, in terms of... of Donald Trump's relationships with European leaders. As Innes was saying, there are no love lost at the end between Kier Stama and Donald Trump. He tried very hard for the first six months to do everything he could. To flatter him, he arrived with that letter for a second state visit from King Charles.

He had a very successful state visit here with King Charles. It wasn't good enough. There was the loyalty didn't seem to go be a two-way street. We also saw the president attacked Georgia Maloney, another person who had been a stalwart European ally of his. If you are Andy Burnham now looking at coming into 10 Downing Street or rather if you were advising Andy Burnham

coming into 10 Downing Street, David, how would you advise him to handle the man in the Oval Office? Be careful of President Trump. Handle with care. Kier Starrmer seemed to have as his principal talent the ability to sweet talk

Trump. The moment you mentioned it when he handed him the letter inviting Trump to dinner with King Charles seemed to be like the perfect setup. The one thing Kirstarmer couldn't do was to really fashion a coherent set of policies, get his motor running as Prime Minister in England to deal with the serious domestic problems. There just wasn't the political energy there. And we'll have to see whether Andy Burnham, the new leader, nothing in the end will impress Donald Trump more

than somebody who seems to have a strong political backing in his country. I think Trump takes that seriously. But here's another European leader trying to be a centrist, trying to make policies in the center work and failing. You see that in Germany. You see that in France with Macron. You see that to some extent in Italy. Across the continents, that's the problem.

Britain is a very visible example, but it's not the only one. Well, in Starmus, Ralph, he just didn't have a theory of a case. If you're going to be a centrist, you better be strong and know where you want to take your country. As for advice for the next prime minister, and I offer this free of charge, I've offered this to incoming speakers. I've offered this to senators. I've offered this to a lot of people. And I can tell you, Donald Trump respects strength. And I guarantee you he's far more likely to re-engage with Georgia Maloney than he would be to ever respect somebody that Kizzi. up to him. It's just the way he is. It's the way he's always been. Michael, that aside, let's talk about Britain and the problem with Britain right now. We move from Italy, talking about

Georgia Maloney in Italy, to the new Italy, and that is, of course, Great Britain. When I was growing up, of course, you would have governments rise and fall every week, it seemed. Now, it's it's Britain. Think about this. From 1979 to 2007, three decades, there were three British prime ministers. Over the past four years, there have been four British prime ministers. What's the problem with Britain? I think you hit the nail on the head. You know, I mean, there is a real revulsion of centrist politicians who make grand promises but but fail to deliver on them you know i think the post-brexit environment in in the uk things have not fundamentally have been you know forever changed i lived in in in in london from about 2010 to 2012 and you could already see on the margins of what was happening

uh the rise of the populist far right a deep groundswell in anti-immigration anti-migrant sentiment. And, you know, one of the problems is that the two leading parties, the conservatives and labor, never really got their hands on the matter. And this allowed the rise of fringe politicians. Nigel Farage was one of them, of course. But now even the far, far right, people to the right of reform, this restore party, which is kind of a successor to the old BNP. I mean, you know, I think that what's happening is the electorate, the social cohesion has completely fractured. And one of the interesting things of, you know, the current state of play is it's not just labor conservative.

You have nationalist parties in Scotland, in Wales. They are chipping away at some of the constituencies that these politicians have typically relied on. And, you know, the new incoming prime minister, Andy Burnham, I mean, this is a guy who is known as a flip-flopper, right? He reinvents himself, depending on which way the wind is blowing. But he's seen to be pro-business. He's seen to be centrist. He's a little more charismatic than Kier-Stormer.

But is he really just a caretaker politician for the decline and fall of mainstream politics? I mean, that's the question I keep asking. My friends in the UK are telling me that's a very, you know, likely scenario. And what can be said for Kier Starmor is he did outlast ahead of lettuce. So that's a point in his column. Good. There is that. For those who aren't familiar with the George Maloney thing, just, you know, this was President Trump out of nowhere this last couple of days,

suggesting that Maloney begged him, his words, for a photograph at the G7 meeting. Maloney has denied that and in fact was insulted by the insinuation. So there was a diplomatic trip that was canceled, lower level. And now Trump has been blasting her day after day on truth social, which is sort of petty and silly, except that it comes at a time when the United States, per Secretary of Defense Pete Higsef, is talking about bringing down troops, U.S. troop presence in Europe again. So this is yet another flashpoint, another point of strain between the United States and Europe at a moment where there are NATO countries fearful of a Russian attack.

And certainly with the Ukraine war continuing and obviously lots of bad feelings, Mika and Joe, around the situation in Iran as well as Trump has just really, really angered people who, you know, countries that have traditionally been right there with the United States when we need them. Oh, you mean countries that helped us win the Cold War, those countries? Yeah. It's so interesting for, it's so interesting that for an administration that blathers on so much about Western values being. attacked, they all attack the very countries, the very allies that live at the heart of Western values. And they especially, there's now reporting of Bessent, just openly insulting Zelensky

in just in just the worst terms. And how interesting, again, that for an administration that talks about Western values all the time, they act like total clods, total nymrods, toward the one man who is doing more to protect Western values and Western civilization, whether you're talking about Poland or the Balkan states or the Czech Republic or Europe, the one man Zelensky who is defending the West against Russian invaders, who is defending the West. Who is defending the West against thugs coming in from the East to do what Stalin wanted to do. Explain that to me. You can't because unfortunately we have an administration that actually may talk about

Western values, but really they're far more impressed by Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-un, and other thugs. That's just the way it is. A lot more reporting to come on that. the insider Michael Weiss. Thank you very, very much for coming on this morning. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you as well. David, really quickly, prediction. What comes next? What comes next in the Iran negotiations? I think a period of uncertainty. I think the thing to look for is for Israel really angry at the United States trying to dictate how it will protect

itself in Lebanon taking steps that blow this whole negotiation right. up. I think that's be tough for Lebanon. I'm not sure it serves Israeli security interest. It'll be a reflection as much of their frustration as anything else. We do have elections coming in Israel in the fall. I've got to keep

an eye on that because that's going to be a potential real hinge point for Israel. But again, for the moment, we're in an interim stage in this long process of the United States dealing with Iran. We're talking to them to them directly. It's an unusual thing for the U.S. and Iran. And I just wish we had some more experienced

people with Saitcraft. When we talk about Mika's father and how he would have reacted to some these things, I can hear his voice in my mind. We need more people with that kind of experience because this is a really delicate, important moment, and we need the best. I can hear him too. Still ahead, President Trump says repairs. We'll start immediately at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after a lot of problems emerged following a costly renovation. We're going to dig into new questions surrounding claims of vandalism. Morning Joe will be right back. Live look at the White House at 12 minutes before the top of the hour. A year-long investigation by the Washington Post suggests that President Trump's former director of now. National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard may have been far more loyal to the leader of a religious group. Some people call it a cult. She belongs to than previously known.

The investigation traces Gabbard's decades-long association with 78-year-old Chris Butler, the spiritual leader of an alt-right sect of Hinduism called the Science of Identity Foundation, or SIF. The post John Swain writes, quote, Gabbard grew up in Butler's breakaway Harry Krishna group and that her parents held senior positions in the organization. Swain also writes that some former members

have called the group a cult, a characterization that the group denies. They all do. Swain reports that he reviewed thousands of emails and documents while reporting for his story and that a former member of the religious group provided him with the

internal records, quote, because she felt Gabbard misled voters about Butler's role and his influence on her decision-making. Swain writes, quote, their content was extraordinary. Dozens of attached memos appear to document directives and advice for Gabbard from her time in Congress. Some contained instructions on what legislation she should propose, which policies she should embrace and how she should conduct herself on television. They had an air of authority. Swain continues with post colleague Aaron Schaefer. I compared Gabrid's remarks in 32 TV interviews between 2014 and 2016 with the talking points memos intended for them. On 24 occasions, Gabrid used language in the memo almost verbatim. In the eight other instances, Gabrid used different

words, but promoted some of the same ideas. Butler and his organization declined to comment for Swain's peace. Gabbard's chief of staff sent Swain a statement stating the allegations are, quote, a blatant example of anti-Hindu bigotry. Jonathan Lemire, I mean, nothing to do. It is a Hore Krishna styled group that many people have compared to a cult, people don't suggest that being in a Hore Krishna group is the same as being in a cult. But in this case, when you have something that may be a spinoff of that and a cult-like leader advising members of Congress how to speak, how to put forward legislation, how to how to style their hair? There's a problem here.

Yeah. First of all, let's just encourage people to read the piece. It is extraordinary. The evolution of how the writers discovered this, how they were tipped off to this, and how they went through it. It's really remarkable journalism, and it took a year. But yes, it raises all sorts of questions. The endgame of these instructions is not quite clear, but Tulsi Gabbard's always been sort of a mysterious figure. Her politics have been a shape-shifter. She ran for president as a Democrat, not that long ago. And now, of course, she serves, you know, up until Friday in the Trump administration. And certainly she had fallen out of favor with Trump.

And, you know, we certainly wish her and her family well. Her husband is battling cancer. It was a pretty devastating diagnosis. But we also know from reporting that the Trump administration was looking to move on from her soon anyway. And reading this here, and especially with you mentioned, Mika read the piece about her words being almost verbatim from these instructions, this leader, Butler, and spoke to her really tough language sometimes, like very demeaning sort of rhetoric to her, a member of Congress. Yeah, it raises all sorts of questions as to her background and to what

actually was the goal here, you know, in this relationship. Yeah, very concerning. Still ahead. New York City Mayor Zoran, Mamdani isn't on the ballot, but he is back on the campaign trail ahead of tomorrow's primary elections. We'll dig into Doni's potential impact on some key congressional races. Plus, we'll get a live report from Switzerland following a tense first round of peace talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators. Morning Joe is coming right back.