Morning Joe - U.S. and Iran send conflicting signals ahead of possible peace talks

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

U.S. and Iran send conflicting signals ahead of possible peace talks 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.

Dude, that's a good one. Oh, I want it. Do you that Joe? You think Biden can do that? It's a good thing, what he did. And this is not political. I don't mean this as political, but it was weird as shit the way he signed that. It was like, it was weird as shit.

Like, I'm looking at that signature right now. Does that even say Donald Trump? Last name is longer than his first name. It doesn't look like, it looks like, it looks. looks like it says Leonard Skinnerd. It doesn't even... The Daily Show breaking down President Trump's enthusiastic bill signing from Saturday morning. We have a lot to cover this morning, including the uncertainty surrounding a second round of talks between the United States and Iran, as Tehran is demanding a specific person from the Trump

administration be involved. We'll tell you who that is and talk about why. It comes as another round of in-person talks between officials from Israel and Lebanon are set for this week in Washington. We'll look at what could come from those negotiations. Meanwhile, another cabinet member is leaving the Trump administration amid multiple misconduct allegations. We'll tell you who it is and go through the details of that departure. And on Capitol Hill, the president's pick to be the next Federal Reserve Chair. We'll have his confirmation hearing today. But will it even matter, given the promise by Republican Senator Tom Tillis to block any nominations while the Trump administration investigates current

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. And good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, April 21st. With us, we have the co-host of Vernon Am hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, is with us this morning. Good to have you. So once again, our top story this morning, Willie, Yeah, two sides telling very different stories of what's going on right now. The United States and Iran continue to send conflicting signals ahead of possible peace talks as the ceasefire deadline looms. There are some signs of progress this morning. A foreign diplomat inside Tehran close to the talks tells MS now,

an Iranian delegation led by the country's parliamentary speaker and foreign minister will travel to Islamabad today for negotiations with the U.S., but only if Vice President J.D. Vance is. there. Two U.S. officials, meanwhile, tell the New York Times, Vance is expected to leave Washington for Islamabad today. Pakistan also actively preparing for a second round of talks, deploying thousands of additional security personnel across the area. Both parties, however, ramping up their rhetoric ahead of a potential meeting, Iran's parliamentary speaker posted to social media yesterday, writing, we do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, adding Iran is, quote, prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield.

President Trump, meanwhile, told Bloomberg, he is highly unlikely to extend the ceasefire if a deal is not reached before tomorrow night. That's Wednesday night, Eastern Time. When asked by PBS News, what happens? If the truce does expire, the president said, quote, then lots of bombs start going off. So Richard Haas, you are a resident diplomat.

Help. I'm not saying much right here. I mean, we can catalog and we have all the contradictory. statements that have come from the White House and from Iran, but particularly from President Trump, about how things are going, when the war is going to end, when these talks will happen, when they'll wrap up, when there will be peace in our time. What should someone sitting at home watching this make of what you're hearing right now? I would stop listening to those comments. Quite honestly, he's devalued the currency of presidential statement and all these threats.

I don't think I'm pressing the Iranians. What have we hit 13,000 targets or something? So if we hit 500 more, it's almost so what? They've shown. that they can take a punch. They've shown their resilience, and many times, also, as you all know, he backs away. So I don't think that's helping. And by putting pressure on Iran, it actually makes it slightly more difficult for them to be forthcoming at the negotiating table. A big part of the Iranian approach to negotiations is one of what you might call of dignity. I've negotiated with them myself several times in the past. One of the reasons they want the vice president there is a sign of respect and of level of the talks. They also, shall we say, have some issues with Messrs. Kushner

in Whitkoff, given that the last two times they led talks, it was in some ways a cover for the launching of military attacks. I think the other big problem, Willie, besides the gap on the issues, the substance, is the Iranian delegation. This, you know, one of the things no one seems to have thought of in this long-shot hope for regime change is that by killing so many people, we have totally disrupted the hierarchy of decision-making in Iran. You've had more radical people coming to the floor. So what you have is an erratic U.S. side, an Israeli side that's essentially uninterested in peace, and an Iranian side that's more radical and divided. It's not clear who has the authority to make peace. That is not, shall we say, a great context for peace talks to take

place. Yeah, the attempt to kill their way and the United States side out of this problem. Kill the regime has only made it more extreme. So what is on the table? Let's say these peace talks do happen in Islamabad. Let's say Vice President Vance does arrive. Iran says, okay, great. the vice presidents here, let's talk. What is even on the table? What's between those 40-yard lawns that they might agree on to put an end to this war? There's two principal issues, and then there's any number of other things. Two principal issues are the straight, getting into the blockade, getting the Iranians to back off their, quote-unquote, control of the straight, one thing.

Second of all, the nuclear issue, how to deal with the nuclear material, how to deal with the future of the Iranian nuclear program, and the president yesterday putting out a post, essentially suggesting that, we're prepared to negotiate and accept limits that, shall we say, look a little bit like some of the previous limits. Then there's issues like the relaxation of sanctions, return of frozen assets, questions of Iranian conventional military forces, ballistic missile programs, which was the biggest Israeli concern before this war, drone programs, things like that. Their support for proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and so far.

So you've got the two principal issues, again, the nuclear industry, then you've got a host of additional issues that actually may complicate things. If we are actually, big question, if they are to be resolved as part of this process. Jonathan Lemire, what are you hearing from the White House? I mean, this seems at this point that this has gone longer than President Trump would desire. Has the White House sort of misinterpreted how much control they would have over the situation? Oh, significantly so. President Trump was initially of the belief this was going to be a conflict that would be over a matter of days, a couple weeks at most, similar to what we saw in Venezuela and that they would be able to prop up a more conciliatory leader

there. That, of course, not the case. And to what Richard just said, even harder line, you know, leaders are now in place in Tehran, at least for the moment. And it's unclear. There's also a split there and their leadership and how much of there is an appetite for them to want negotiations. And the Strait of Ormousse is certainly the key. And it's just unclear what Iran would do to give up the leverage they have. That seems like, seems a pretty firm line for them. There willing to open it, but they want to collect a toll. And therefore, the White House, at least for now, is saying that's unacceptable, which would mean they'd leave the war at the end of the war with more control than they had it at the start, which would certainly be a loss for Washington. And then there's

the political angle of this. And for that, let's bring in politics, Bureau of Chief and Senior Political Columnist at Politico, Jonathan Martin, now with us. Jay Mark, good to see you. Hey, John. The vice president here is an unlikely figure at the center of this. But I think that may be why, in fact, the Iranians want to talk to him. To Richard's point, he is, you know, the second most powerful person in the government. So that is a sign of respect. But he's also someone who, frankly, had real reservations about this conflict in its early days. And his team made clear that we all heard about those reservations in the conflict in its early days. So there's a sense here that he might be a more reasonable voice, you know, to get to a deal to end the war.

But it's also, you know, look, yes, there's 2028-ish in the, looming over the horizon as well. Talk to us, if you will, about the Vance role here and, frankly, the pressure that he has. Well, yeah, for one, the Iranians do think that they're getting prestige and they're getting proximity, right? Somebody who does have the ear of the president and someone who's got a big title. Secondly, yeah, as you pointed out, they believe that they're getting the biggest dove in the room, which is to say the person in the West Wing who is the most eager for diplomacy, who, who is, the most eager for diplomacy, who was less enthusiastic about combat. So there are those two things.

What's striking is that everybody here domestically in the States is looking at this as a classic VP assignment, John, which is to say not the best gig in the world. Because typically the VP gets the hardest job. And that gets to the heart of what you're asking, which is, boy, if Vance can't deliver here or if Vance delivers a bum steer, this is, this is, not going to help his, you know, frankly, already, already difficult straits looking at trying to run in 2028 in the wake of Donald Trump. It's always hard for a VP to run in his own right. As you guys know, only George H.W. Bush, and 88 has pulled it off immediately after the president they served. So it's

already difficult. You're trying to solve this Rubik's Cube. It is really difficult. And I think Trump wants to find any way to declare victory. But you and I know. that in two years, Trump's version of declaring victory could look a little less, well, shall we say, victorious in hindsight. Let's bring in the conversation defense editor at the economist Shashank Joshi. His latest work in the war is titled, Which Iran is America dealing with? It's great to have you with us. Take us inside, if you will, the perspective of the Iranian regime right now.

I know you say there's some signs of fraying there, but as they approach these negotiations, They've withstood eight weeks of war here. They've found this new leverage point in the Strait of Hormuz. How are they viewing these negotiations? Well, good morning. And yeah, thank you for having me. My colleagues have done some excellent reporting from inside Iran. And the picture we get is a cacophony.

You know, it depends which Iran are you talking to. If you look at the last delegation that the Iranian sent to Islamabad, it had 80 Iranians. About 30 of them were billed as decision makers. You had some very pragmatic diplomats who had worked on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that deal signed by Barack Obama's administration back in 2018. And you had effectively nationalist firebrands who derided America, sneered at the idea of a deal. And what we've reported is that, you know, these intra-Iranian disputes were so fractious that the Pakistani mediators at times had to spend as much time arbitrating amongst the Iranians

as they did between the Iranians and the Americans. So you can see these huge splits, even within Iran, over how to proceed? And how do they view President Trump right now? Perhaps they've, obviously, they felt the brunt of the United States military, but in terms of his rhetoric and that he says, we're close to a deal. The war is near the end. If we don't meet the deal by the end of the ceasefire, the bombs will start to fall again. He talked about wiping out an entire civilization. Do they view, that all as bluster or how are they reading President Trump in Iran? I think here again it depends on which Iranians we're looking at, but by and large, I share the assessment that Richard Haas made earlier that the president has devalued the currency of

these threats because we have seen so many over the years, not just the months, over the years, which ultimately turn out to be completely baseless. And here I would just take a moment to remind people that back in 2020, I think it was, in President Trump's first term, he also threatened to bomb Iranian cultural sites, a threat that, of course, was met with at the time considerable disquiet within the Pentagon and many other departments because of the illegality that would involve. But of course, he didn't follow through on it. You may recall he backed down from bombing Iran on that occasion when they had downed an American drone. and now, with so many deadlines passed, ignored, dismissed,

I think the Iranians will recognize, for all the reasons we've been identifying, they will feel they have more staying power in this than the American side. And Richard Haas, sort of playing on Shawshank's headline, the question also could be asked which America is Iran dealing with, meaning an America that goes to war and then threatens war crimes if they don't get their way in the initial attack, I believe, wiped out a girl school, but now literally threatening to decimate civilizations. People say, oh, he's just kidding.

Although I don't think that's the kind of kidding that you do in war, especially after the initial attack and what the repercussions were. But what does world support look like for this America? International support. It's thin on a generous assessment, in large part because we haven't consulted. Either about the war or about the blockade, you know, The old line in diplomacy, if you want people involved in the landings, you've got to bring them in on the takeoffs. We've not done that.

They're uncomfortable with the policy. They also feel that they're the ones most affected by it. We have a much stronger energy position they do. So they look at this and they go, well, you Americans are somewhat insulated from this, yet you've put in motion a chain of events, which are cratering our economy. Can I ask one question of Mr. Joshi? Because the economist has done such good reporting on this, which is when people look at Iran, the big weakness seems to be the economy. If you're looking, even before the war, it was the Achilles Seal of Iran.

Currency was plummeting through the floor. The war is in many ways exacerbated. To what extent does this give the United States a degree of leverage? Because then on top of that, you've obviously got the blockade. To what extent are there those on the Iranian side who's saying, even though we don't like the idea of compromising, in some ways, if we're going to preserve the 1979 revolution, we had better cut a deal because we're in trouble.

What are you hearing about that? What's your take on that? I think you're completely right because, look, when we saw those mass protests earlier this year, they were not initially motivated by political or explicitly political circumstances. They were triggered by a sense of profound economic dysfunction and malaise, a sense that the currency was falling, a sense that purchasing power was declining, that Iranian jobs were far between. And this is an incredibly talented country, right?

A lot of people with extremely well-educated backgrounds, higher education in good shape. This is why they can have such a flourishing nuclear program, for instance. Now, this is directly related to that split within the regime because you have people like Abbasaragchi, the foreign minister, and even Gullibath, the effective leader of this negotiating team, who is in some ways a hardliner, but says, look, we have to talk to the Americans. we have to seek sanctions relief, we have to seek the release of frozen assets, because this is the way we stabilize the regime in the longer run. But then you also have, of course, those in the Revolutionary Guards, Richard, who, as you know, in many ways, have benefited from Iran's siege economy. They have benefited from control over smuggling routes, control over state enterprises.

So I think that dispute over a mild glassnoss, you could call it, or perestroika, I guess, an Iranian peristroika. and between a siege economy, very comfortable with relying on a more autarkic Iran, that dispute is playing out today. But I'm not convinced that the forces of openness are enough to give America leverage, at least not on the time frame that is relevant to this administration before the midterms become uncomfortably close. Defense editor at the economist, Shashank Joshi, thank you so much for your insights this morning. Then one more angle to this, another round of in-person talks between officials from Israel and Lebanon are set to take place Thursday at the State Department.

That is according to the Times of Israel, citing in Israeli and U.S. official familiar with the matter. Israel's ambassador to the United States is expected to attend. Lebanon is reportedly sending its former ambassador to the United States after its current ambassador attended the first round of talks early last week. talks resulted in the ongoing 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Thursday's meeting would come days before that agreement is set to expire. We should note that Israel has continued attacks in South Lebanon, where it maintains a large military presence despite the truth, Richard. The truth. Exactly. Yeah. You're missing one of the principal parties called Hezbollah. So Israel and Lebanon can talk till the cows come home.

But like you've had a state within a state for decades, and the state within a state is called Isbola. They're not directly part of that. And if the Israelis had such confidence in a peace with Lebanon, why would they be occupying such a big swath of their territory? So, you know, no one's going to sit here and argue against peace talks, but no one should argue or suggest that these are really significant. Quite honestly, they're not. And they're a reminder, one of the big issues that's against the backdrop of all this is Iranian-Sin. support for proxy groups. And it's not clear how you bring those into the negotiations. So what this sets up, quite interestingly, is the United States and Iran, imagine they can overcome their

differences on the nuclear issue on the street. Then you have a whole set of issues that can't be resolved, which sets up all sorts of friction between the United States and Israel. Because Israel's going to want to continue the war to go after the proxies, and the United States is going to say, no, we want to have a ceasefire. We have the straight open. We've got an acceptable outcome on the nuclear. So I would just say watch that space. It's an irony, given Israel's role, shall we say, and helping to bring this war about, and it could end in ways that lead Bibi Netanyahu and the Israelis extremely uncomfortable. That's a super fascinating point in all of this.

Just to go back into the negotiations one more time on the Strait of Hormuz, which you just mentioned, an outsider watching this realizes that Iran has discovered, perhaps woken up to the fact that it has this leverage point, and it can, in fact, impact the world economy. So in this negotiation, it's what they've got. Why, if you're an Iranian negotiator, why would you ever give up that leverage? Well, the main reason is the blockade, which is the reason that people like me proposed it in the first place, because Iran can't benefit from the ability to export. So that creates a kind of equilibrium there.

And I think that gives them the incentive. It's also the reason, though, that I think it's probably impossible, Willie, to walk things back to exactly where they were seven weeks ago. So we may have to think of some kind of a clever political scheme where we create a new governing table for the street. Iran sits at the table, so do all the other countries, the Saudis, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and so forth. And they come up with some new mechanism. It's a little bit of a cover story. It's a little, but it's a facade. But if that's what allows the Iranians, if you will, to open the strait and say they got something for it, it might be worth it.

But the main thing is the economic pressure on them. the whole idea of open for all or close to all. Well, if it's close to all, their economy feels enormous pressures. That's their incentive to go along. All right. Before we go to break, we want to take a moment to remember Madison Warner, the daughter of Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who has died at the age of 36 after a decades-long battle

with juvenile diabetes and other health issues. In a statement, Warner and his wife, right, we are heartbroken beyond words. She filled our lives with love and laughter and her absence leaves an immeasurable void. Condolences poured in from across the political spectrum, including from Vice President J.D. Vance and Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger.

Madison kept a low public profile, though her father had spoken about the challenges of type 1 diabetes and the need for affordable insulin. And Senator, we just want to say here at Morning Joe, we're with you and your family and we're sending our deepest condolences and prayers. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to get to the latest shake-up within President Trump's cabinet as the Labor Secretary steps down. Plus, we're digging into new reporting about some Republicans hoping for an October surprise from the Supreme Court that could help GOP lawmakers keep their majority in the upcoming midterms. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers' Forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking?

Mika, burr, is it cold this morning? But Accuethers says, a better afternoon than yesterday, but still chilly. Long Eastern Seaboard, 45 in Boston, 52, New York City. How about 67 in Pittsburgh, where they're getting ready for the NFL draft that begins Thursday night, spotty thunderstorm around Chicago, bone drying to southeast. It's wet, though. in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, where there can be some flight delays there this afternoon, but along the East Coast, we have some wind in Miami, but no delays.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the note, download the ACUweather app today. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-Daremer has resigned after a tenure marked by allegations of misconduct. The White House Communications Director posting on social media, Chavez-Durremer was moving to a job in the private sector, praising her for work in the administration. Deputy Secretary Keith Sunderling will serve as acting secretary. The New York Times reported back in January, Chavez-Durimer was under investigation after she was accused of having a romantic relationship with a member of her security detail.

The New York Post also reported that month Chavez-Durimer had been accused in an internal complaint of having her staff make up official taxpayer-funded trips to destinations so she could spend time with family or friends. Both the White House and Chavez-Durrimer have denied the accusations. Meanwhile, in February, Chavez-Durimer's husband was barred from the Labor Department's headquarters after two women accused him of sexually assaulting them. He denies that. An investigation into those allegations was closed after police found no evidence of a crime.

Her dad accused of sending creepy text messages to staff. It was a real big mess in there, Jay Mart. This is just the latest in a parade to the exits at Pam Bondi, of course. and Christy Noem to the list. It appears there are some others who may be in the hot seat as well right now. Yeah, look, Bondi Noem and Chavez Dreamer lasted, I think, between the three of them, each for less than 14 months. Trump, who was so averse to turn over the first year of his second administration,

you know, finally is responding in the way that Trump always does, which is who generates bad coverage. And those who do have to go happens to be the three weeks. women he named. This example, though, well, it goes to the heart of sort of a careless way he picked some of these cabinet members. You know, he didn't know her at all. She didn't serve in the Congress that long. She was seemingly a pro-labor type figure that one of the Teamsters leaders mentioned to Trump, and he basically said, okay, let's do that. And you know from the criminology that he wasn't that invested in her, because he didn't do the tweet, Willie,

yesterday he had Stephen Chung do it, which tells you about her standing in the West Wing. The two big names that you hear in Washington are, the Commerce Secretary Howard Ludnik and, of course, Pete Hague, at the Pentagon. Those are the ones who everybody is talking about backstage. Those closer to Trump are really, you know, focused on Lutnik. He's not made a lot of friends in and around the West Wing. His sort of style is fairly abrasive. He said a couple of days ago, the Canadians suck, which in my experience with diplomacy isn't the best way to approach your neighbor. And then, you know, obviously, Hengstaff, there's a lot of people in and around the kind of larger defense community who view him as a rolling embarrassment, and they would love to ease him out.

And there has been more chatter in recent days about that. My understanding is that President Trump himself is still holding fast to Pete, and unless Trump himself, be convinced that Pete has to go. Pete still got some level of security, but you have heard more about Hagseth in recent days here in Washington having to go at some points. To J-Mart's point, there was a point of pride in that first year to not have turnover. It was no scalp's rule because President Trump in his first term, there was so much upheaval people being fired with some frequency that outside of Mike Walls being demoted after Signalgate, the first year he didn't really do anything. That has now changed. And it has become sort of the Beltway guessing game as to who could be next. And we're seeing

frankly, some cabinet members try to defend themselves. I'd argue, Howard Lutnik is saying Canadians suck. That might be appealing to President Trump. But we have seen, you know, Pete Higseth be out there at these briefings, you know, with over-the-top praise of the president. We have seen Cash Patel do the same and also filing lawsuits to defend his name against media figures. Trump likes that fight.

And those two, both reports of either past substance abuse, real issues, or even current reports of. In these positions that involve unbelievable need for being able to protect classified information. Yeah, both men, of course, deny those allegations, but they're certainly reported and out there. And I'd argue Tulsi Gabbard, who was on extremely thin ice not long ago, has taken upon herself the 2020 election investigation, which most see as a precursor to meddling in 26 or in 28. So there's jockeying here in trying to preserve their positions. the Labor Secretary, not one of the bold-faced names in the Trump cabinet. These allegations have been piling up for a while. This was not a surprise.

So Richard Haas, the cabinet obviously is supposed to advise the president. I'm just curious of this latest regime. Who are the truth-tellers? Who will tell the president everything? First of all, the cabinet, just for people watching, the cabinet as a collective body is irrelevant and pretty much always has been. What matters is individual cabinet. officers. In the side of life that I were

follow, I think the most impressed is probably the head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, comes through as one of the, as you called it, Mika, a truth teller, someone who's informed and in a low-keyed way. I think the Secretary of State has kept some distance from some of these things, but at a cost, he's not, for example, in Islamabad and all that.

No, but it's an incredibly weak system, plus what's also weak, Mika, again, on the farm, is the national security process. I mean, that New York Times article a few weeks ago, the detail of how the decision was made, the lack of serious process, the lack of analysis, the lack of red-teaming, you know, questioning assumptions,

the lack of expertise and experience in the room, the fact that you have two outsiders playing the principal role in these negotiations. This is unlike anything. This is truly unprecedented. And the real question is, it's really a political question. And at some point, none of this is helping the president.

And I know he wants to avoid the first term thing of getting rid of lots of people, but he is not being well served by his own appointments for the most part. So the question is, you know, not simply when does he turn, throw them under the bus? But when does he think about getting a stronger team? Yeah, I think a lot of it just simply when it hits critical mass. We saw that with Secretary Nome most of all, that there were so many complaints about her from fellow Republicans and media coverage, Attorney General Bondi, in a similar fashion,

that Trump just finally said, enough, that's crossed my threshold. That's what we're watching for the other sister. All right. We'll continue the news in a moment. This morning, our thoughts are with a good friend of Morning Joe, Jen Palmerie. After her mother, Nancy, Dana Palmieri, died peacefully last week at the age of 91. Nancy was born and raised in Massachusetts, where she formed lifelong friendships. And later met her husband John, whom she married in 1957, a devoted Navy wife and mother of four daughters.

She balanced a lot of moves and worked in a number of different careers, all while creating a warm and joyful home for her family. Despite the heartbreaking loss of her daughter Dana in 2017, Nancy remained resilient, finding joy in family, traditions, and everyday moments. And she's survived by her husband, three daughters, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and leaves behind a legacy of love, laughter, and enduring devotion. And Jen, we love you. I love you, Jen. Coming up, the balance of power in Washington could be in the hands of voters in Virginia today. We'll go through the redistricting battle

and how some in the state are reacting to the plan before heading to the polls. Morning, Joe, we'll be right back. 20 minutes before the top of the hour put a shot of Capitol Hill as the sun has come up over Washington. It's going to be a beautiful day. Republicans in the Senate

are reportedly hoping for a Supreme Court surprise that, could help save their majority in this November's midterms, the Hill reports some in the Senate GOP are welcoming the retirement of conservative justice Samuel Alito as an October surprise that would then rally Republican-leaning voters to the poll since President Trump would select his replacement. The Hill reveals, quote, GOP senators are being careful not to prod Alito, but privately hope that a retirement announcement is,

in the fall could shift several races in their direction. Jonathan Lemer. Yeah, this is really interesting because right now, by any poll, there's a lot of enthusiasm for Democrats, very little for Republicans heading into these midterms in the wake of higher prices, the war, and the like. But there are Republicans who are hoping for Justice Alito or Justice Thomas.

They've both been rumored to potentially retire as a motivating factor for Republicans to come out. And there are some, both justices have put it out there. They don't plan to. But, J-Mart, Democrats, all sure. are talking about this, and they have said, I've talked to a couple of last week or so, who have said, wait, this talk that Alito and Thomas are going to stay, that's actually a smokescreen, that they are going to return, they're banking on complacency, and then they

are going to come out, they will fulfill that October surprise. So, Jamar, we can do the criminology of this as to what's real or what's not, but what is clear is if one of these two, that's a good official expression, yeah, I like that. I teed him up. If this is real, it would change the stakes this November. Yeah, you and I lived through 2018, otherwise a really good election for Democrats, also Donald Trump's first midterm in a previous life. But guess what happened in 2018? Well, you had the Brad Kavanaugh story, and that had a huge impact on the Senate races. I can think of races like Hikadi Hyde Camp in North Dakota and Claire McCaskill and Missouri, you know, Phil Bredison and who we thought had a shot in Tennessee against Marshall Black.

in that year, I can go on and on. Races that were thought to be competitive Democrats just collapsed in, especially in Red America because of that Supreme Court story. I'm not saying that Calvinal is going to be analogous to whatever happens with the possibility of Alito or Thomas stepping down, but it does present the opportunity to juice the political right at a time when they are demoralized right now because obviously Democrats have enthusiasm and President Trump hasn't given his folks a lot to come out for. So you can see the possibility, but at the same time, as we know, it's really hard to get these folks to step down no matter who they are on the core.

And I think it's still hard to see them walking away just yet. Speaking of this election year today in Virginia, voters head to the polls for a high stakes ballot measure that could reshape the state's congressional map and potentially ship the balance of power in Washington. Several states have undergone redistricting after President Trump urged Republican-led legislatures to maximize GOP gains. This time around, though, Virginia could see the most dramatic shift with his current 6 to 5 Democratic edge in the congressional delegation, potentially expanding to a 10-1 advantage under new district lines. Let's bring an MS now congressional reporter, Kevin Fry. Kevin, good morning. You spoke with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries about this effort in Virginia. what did he tell you? Yeah, I mean, he's doing a little bit of level setting here, arguing that

that Virginia is a purple state. Obviously, they're looking at the polls, which suggests that this could end up being rather tight today. But there's another flip of the coin to this, which is if you look at this all in the bit of the aggregate, Democrats are kind of quite bullish about the fact that at the end of the day, if this goes their way today, they will have essentially fought Republicans to a draw on redistricting. Yes, Texas started things off with their potential five-seat pickup there, though obviously some polling suggests it's not actually going to be five seats. And then California followed through Utah,

North Carolina, the list goes on. Now Virginia could be one of the last final steps in this process. Here's some of what Jeffries told me just the other day. Donald Trump has launched an extraordinary effort to gerrymander the national congressional map in order to try and rig the midterm elections. And who's in charge in the aftermath

of these upcoming midterm elections? should be determined by the American people, not Donald Trump. Republicans may have started this gerrymandering battle. We've made clear from the very beginning that on behalf of the American people, Democrats would finish it. Now, to kind of underscore the point here, Jeffrey's spent last weekend on the trail there with stops at churches, also doing some kickoff events for canvassing for folks going out to knock on doors.

Speaker Mike Johnson has been out and about as well in the state. And there's one other caveat to add here, which is the questions about Florida. They have kicked their special session there until next week where they might wait into this as well. So, Kevin, you talk to some voters who support redistricting. What do they tell you about why they're behind this effort? Yeah, I mean, it comes down to just kind of the political practicality of it all, quite frankly, which is, yes, they may argue that gerrymandering is not a good thing, but in response to the situation they're in right now, this is the only option they really have.

Here's some of what one told me. So why come out here? Why be part of this? So obviously we've seen a lot of big problems that Donald Trump has created. He has explicitly stated to his state legislatures that support him, find me more seats. I want them. And so I think that's a really big problem. And normally we would say like gerrymandering is wrong. But unfortunately, we've been pushed into the positions where two wrongs will make a right.

And it's as Democrats, we simply can't come to a boxing match where the other person brings knife, we're just not going to be able to survive that. And so that's the position we've been forced into. So that's what voters are thinking about. But the other turn of this is also just the moral question. And this is something that I posed to Jeffries, which is, okay, you're now engaging in this tit for tat with the Republicans. Are you losing the moral high ground on redistricting? He at least argues that these, the Democrat options, are temporary, that they're going through ballot referendums, such as in California and Virginia. And so this is in response to not them proactively doing so, but it is the question of is the toothpaste out of the tube going forward now.

Democrat saying let's fight fire with fire here. MS now congressional reporter, Kevin Frye. Thank you. Politico's Jonathan Martin. J. Marte, always great to have me on as well. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Kyle. Look at the point. That's amazing. Yeah. He just winked at the end. Choose the scenery. He just winked. Yeah. I don't know. It's the haircut. Okay. Still, I had a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock of Georgia joins ahead of today's confirmation hearing for the president's Fed Chair nominee.

Morning, Joe, we'll be right back. Such a bad loss, says the Nick fan. McHale Bridge is off the mark there at the buzzer. The New York Knicks fall in Atlanta Hawks in game two at Madison Square Garden. As you heard, they've been up by 14 points. CJ McCollum scored a game high, 32 for Atlanta last night.

really good player, leading a late rally to help the Hawks 107-106 win. Evening that first round series at one game apiece, teams now traveled to Atlanta for game three on Thursday night. Meanwhile, in Cleveland, the Cavs never trailed against the Raptors last night, notching a second straight win at home, 115-105. Their 12th playoff victory in a row against the Raptors, tying the NBA postseason record for consecutive wins against an opponent. The series now shifts to Toronto for game three on Thursday night.

the Western Conference, the Minnesota Timberwolves. Overcame a big early deficit in Denver last night, coming back from a 19-point hole to beat the Nuggets 119, 114, tying that first round series at one game. Each game three, Thursday night in Minneapolis. Impressive win for Ant and the Wolves. Let's go all the way back to the beginning. Jonathan Lemire, you were in the building at the Garden last night.

To be honest with you, I turned it off after the third quarter. We're up 12. Looks like we're cruising. We're the better team. I wake up this morning. We lost the game. What happened? Yeah, this was, first of all, the energy last night was great.

MSG playoffs, it's as good as it gets. It was a really chippy game the whole night. And the Knicks, you know, their frustration, what makes them so frustrating to Knicks fans, and Richard will go to you in a second, I think it was on full display last night. Like, Brunson was good, but he was a little bit sloppy. Kat could get whatever he wanted at the rim and then just stopped. And then at the end of the game, the Hawks just mostly, mostly McCollum, responding to a taunts from the crowd.

They were all over him last night. Rose to the moment. And now look, the Knicks are a better team. I will say that as someone who's not a fan of either of these squads. Nix are a better team. But, Richard, at minimum now, they're going to have to have a long series with Atlanta. You've got to win one of these next two down to Georgia. You can't come back home 3-1.

And suddenly their path to further in the playoffs just got more complicated. Yeah, I mean, the Knicks are not on our lead team. They're one level below that. And last night we saw all the frustration. And actually, the guy who missed a shot at them, Mikhail Bridges, in some ways, is the embodiment of it. The Knicks gave up a lot of their future. What was it? Five draft choices to get him.

And he hasn't quite come through. And the Knicks just don't have a strong enough team. And I think they've also had him figured out how to mix their bench with their starters. So it's just a, it's institutionalized frustration. Just can't lose that game. It's been 50, was it 52 years of rebuilding? Yeah, 73. So 53.

53 years of rebuilding? Come on, we deserve better than that. Yeah. He can do something about the fourth-quarter meeting at home. Yeah, no. But we're not leaving them for dead. We still think they're going to win the series. The good news is the draft this week.

We got the draft on Thursday. For that, we've got the Red Sox Yankees. Very early matchup this year. That's going to go bad. For kind of what's been, let's be honest, kind of a me start. I mean, Yankees are in first place, 13 and 9. They're going to be okay. They're going to get pitching that comes back.

It's a long season. But it doesn't feel, I don't know. I'm not feeling that Yankees'I's Red Sox energy here in mid-April. The Yankees may be mad. The Red Sox are. aspire to meh. We're just bad right now. They did win yesterday on Patriots Day, which is such a great Boston tradition. But I agree. It feels too early. Sox are sort of a mess. We can't hit. Crochet's struggling. Maybe, frankly, the Yankees showing up will wake them up. That's my hope. We shall see.

We'll see. All right, Richard Haas, thank you very much for being on this morning.