Morning Joe - U.S. and Ukraine signal peace plan progress

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

U.S. and Ukraine signal peace plan progress 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.

Banana prices are up almost 7%. Coffee prices up nearly 19%. Isn't the fact that you're rolling back tariffs in admission that ultimately they do drive up prices for consumers? Chris, how much does your arm weigh? That I do not know. Exactly. But you know how much you weigh.

You get on the scale every morning. Inflation is a composite number, and we look at everything. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant with another one there for you. Now, the thing is, though, what is he? He's a beet farmer. What is he? Very confusing metaphor. Right?

Yeah. But the metaphor, I guess, was waited to deflect or defend President Trump's terrorists. He did that with John. Yeah. He asked you some question. And I, again, because I was reading Sports Illustrated in Econ 101, I was glad he asked you and not me. Yeah. You had the answer.

Yeah, he liked, this is seemingly his, you know, as any Trump cabinet member does, they like to perform for the president. and his go-to is to put a question back at the interviewer. And I was able to answer his question. And then when he pressed further, I was like, well, sir, you're the Treasury Secretary. You're the one who needs to be the expert on this. It's in the Talmudic tradition that a religious man always answers a question with the question.

It's the way to get you to answer the text. So good to see that. And same with sweeping farmers. I mean, the correct response to that was, well, if I had a ball peen hammer and I hit myself in the head with it and a lump came out, I would know where that lump came from. Okay. But for, if you want to go to Professor Pearson,

torts class, but for the ball-peen hammer, the lump wouldn't be in my head. But for the tariffs, you wouldn't have a spike in prices. It's not really that difficult. Well, it comes amid confusion about the 28-point peace plan. Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed yesterday with Ukrainian officials. We're going to go through all of that. That was a mess, wasn't it? Yeah. It is a mess.

Also ahead. We're going to get to the shocking resignation announcement from Republican Congresswoman. woman, Marjorie Taylor Green, and what could be next for her? That was a mess, wasn't you? Plus, we'll bring you the big moments from a very friendly White House meeting on Friday between President Trump and New York City mayor elect, Zora, and Mom Dani. So good morning. That was not a mess.

And, of course, Jonathan Lemire. I wasn't surprised. Yeah, you weren't surprised. I was not at all. There was a lot to deflect from that day, so it was a perfect opportunity. They also say game. Game respects game. Game respects game.

things can be true. I will say also, he's a New York guy. And when he says, I've always wanted to be mayor of New York City. And he sees a guy that has captured Manhattan captured New York City's attention. He's just going to respect that. And I know everybody wanted to go, oh, he's a winner. It's a loser. That's a loser. You know what? Every once in a while, when something doesn't go horribly, why don't we just go, yay, for today. Yay. You can't even say, well, that was good. Then nobody was screaming and punching and people were, yeah, but tomorrow. Okay, let's just one day at a time, my friends, one day at a time. Right. This does not change the potential threat the president poses to his old hometown. But on that day, it was good to see them get along.

Yeah. At minimum, the mayor-elect, I think, bought New York City some time. It was a tour to force. I admit, watching it through the press pool camera laughed through most of it, because the two men clearly were enjoying each other's company and, you know, and they were able to hit their talking points. Mom Dani played the president pretty well on issues of affordability and alike. And you're right, Joe. I mean, Trump, we all know, can be very charming and private. And in this moment, he was taken with Mom Dani and I think respected the way he built his coalition, the way he used social media, the fact that he won. You know, again, nobody will like this on either side. They're both very charming men. Yeah. Earlier, one-on-one, they're both

very charming men. And so they got together. And yeah, game respect. Charm respects charm. So they probably got in the room, had a great talk. And also, Donald Trump said something that has been forgotten with all the tax cuts for billionaires and multinational corporations and crypto and gold-plated this and gold-plated that. He was very, it brought up a really good point in 2016. A lot of the people that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, Richard, voted for Donald Trump in the primary. And you heard that from Mom Donnie. And also something at AOC said right after the election in 24 while everybody else, you know, was putting on sackcloth and ashes, she goes, a lot of the other voted for me voted for him. And I want to know why.

And so this is actually a positive exercise. I know with all, everybody wants to catastrophize and scream in Yale. I think, I'm not talking about you, Richard. Listen, I'm not talking about you and I'm not going to even bring up the Giants. But anyway, I'm not going to bring up the Giants. It's like a four minutes, John. I'm not going to bring up the Giants. But you know, it's a good thing when people who call each other's fascists and communists can sit down and talk to each other about what's best for New York City? Absolutely. It was a good day for New York City.

The new mayor wants to keep the dollars coming in, wants to keep the troops going out. Donald Trump wanted to book a seat on the affordability train to show that their support overlap. They're both in some ways populist outsiders. So I thought it was actually a really good day for a city that needs all the good days that can get. Along with Richard Has, also with the senior national security report, reporter for MS now, David Road.

Let me tell you about David. David, David is like the character week. He's a Yale thing. He's like the character in Carly Simon-Shirsovane. He's everywhere he should be all the time. And I find out this weekend, where are you? Halifax, Nova Scotia. Now, listen, who would say I'm going to spend the weekend in Nova Scotia?

In November. And, of course, that's where the world's eyes were diplomatically after the shocking confession came out that this was a Russian document and you were up there. I was and then to, this is our happy hour here. Yeah. It's our dinner party. And it was due to congressional

oversight. Right. Bipartisan work by senators. So I'm there for the Halifax Security Forum and something started by John McCain. Big thing, Europeans come in. A lot of Ukrainians were there. Canadians this year the Trump administration sent no one. We gather for the press conference

and Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, comes up to the microphone and announces that the president's 28-point peace plan he had just been informed by Secretary of State Rubio is, in fact, a Russian 28-point wish list. Just a slight complication on the road to be. Wow. Yeah, we'll get to more of that. No one saw that coming.

No. All right, also with us, columnist, an associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius is with us as well, and it's great to have you. So let's get to our top story this morning. The U.S. government is ramping up pressure to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. A lot is happening, so let's run through these big developments. Things kicked off late last week when the Trump administration rolled out a 28-point plan that would force Keeve to make substantial concessions, including capping, the size of its military,

abandoning any hope of joining NATO and giving up significant land in the east. What does this sound like? Ukraine wasn't having it, and neither were members of Congress who say the framework rewards Vladimir Putin and sets a terrible precedent on the world stage. It wasn't even clear at first. Who wrote the opening proposal? The United States or Moscow? President Trump last shout at the pushback, calling Ukraine ungrateful.

and demanding a final decision by Thanksgiving. President Zelensky worked to tamp things down publicly thanking President Trump while stopping short of endorsing his plan. Since then, American and Ukrainian negotiators have been hard at work, and there are signs the two sides are closing the gap. We arrived here today with one goal, and the goal was to take, you know, what, you know, 28 points or 26 points, depending on which version as it continue to evolve. and try to narrow the ones that were open items. And we have achieved that today in a very substantial way. I think the report today is that I think today was worthwhile. It was very, very, very, it is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue,

maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time. But work remains, and because this continues to be a working process, I don't want to declare victory or finality here. There's still some work to be done. much further ahead today at this time than we were when we began this morning and where we were a week ago for certain. Okay. Okay. So, well, I don't know. I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't know about the internal dynamics. I don't, I don't know about the internal dynamics about Whitkoff versus Vance versus Rubio, but I do, Marco Rubio. It was like the Calvary

riding in to save the day. Obviously, he's a guy, David Ignatius, Marco Rubio, has always been a hardliner against Russia. He's always been a hardliner against China. He's always been a hardliner, obviously, against other communist governments. And so what I find so fascinating, first of all, everybody's tearing their hair out about this. Like, every day, there's another reason to. It's a messy process. But there are checks and bad. and what I love about America, and I love the checks and balances, and it's not always clean and neat, but you have the checks and balances of, let's say, Republican senators saying, no, this isn't going to work. You have the checks and balances of Rupert Murdoch's

New York Post, and they just clearly say this is a giveaway to a dictator. They say, Stand up for Ukraine. This is the New York Post. Stand up for Ukraine. Also, let's go to the cover of the New York Post, David. And disaster piece. So here you have a lot of checks and balances. You have Marco Rubio there. Again, a longtime hawk. And then we get the positive news yesterday that this is moving in, Marco Rubio says, a fairly positive direction. You know what? going on. Give us, give us, give us, give us your rundown and where you think we are this Monday morning. So, Joe, to claim I know what is going on would be a wild overstatement on this stuff. But I do know a little bit about how we got to today. On Saturday, when the Trump administration was getting hammered for what was clearly a pro-Russian initial draft of these 28 points. I did talk with a couple of the people who were close to the drafting of this agreement. And they said a couple of things Saturday on their way to Geneva that have ended up

being borne out by what happened. They said, this plan doesn't go far enough to assure Ukraine's sovereignty, that it doesn't go far enough on security guarantees for Ukraine. They mentioned two possible ways it could be amended. First, the initial proposal for a cap on the size of the Ukrainian army at 600,000 could be removed or significantly raised. And then secondly, intriguingly, this still hasn't come out in the public discussions. Maybe Ukraine could be given Tomahawk missiles, which once now, after an agreement is reached as a deterrent. So if Russia violates the terms of the armistice, Ukraine would have these missiles that could reach all the way to Moscow and would have the kind of deterrent we know from the nuclear age. So there was a little bit more give as they

headed toward Geneva than the comments might have implied. And then what we saw on Sunday was, in fact, what seems to be have been some real bargaining. There was a joint U.S.-Ukrainian statement after the discussions yesterday in which they said the initial draft had been revised and upgraded, I think, is the term they used. And the Ukrainians seemed happy or happier with the draft that they had. The last thing I'd say, Joe and Mika, this is the nightmare decision of Lodomir Zelensky's presidency. He is weak in Kiev, his army, has been buckling at the front in Donetsk. He's facing a political scandal.

It's really worse than anything he's faced that I know of. since becoming president. So he's at a moment of vulnerability. I think that's part of why Trump and company decided to push because they felt this was a more pliable leader because it was troubles. But we'll see what decision Zelensky facing a nightmare winner decides to make about what's best for Ukraine. Well, and let's also talk about it. I mean, David, his population has gone from being in the 40 million, you know, over 40 million to possibly being below 30 million. The average age of the fighter is getting into the upper 40s, lower 50s. They're staying in this war right now, and obviously drone warfare is playing a key pivotal role to it, but

they're facing a lot of really tough decisions. So I will say also, David, and I just want to clear this up for everybody. You know, I've been reading over the weekend, if Ukraine gives up one inch of ground that was taken through the invasion, this will be catastrophic for the West and catastrophic. David, the Biden administration, as you know, was saying two years ago, any peace deal is going to, Ukrainians are going to have to give up land that they don't want to give up, and the Americans are going to have to give security guarantees that Putin may not want them to give. I mean, that's been, I mean, I would just say it, Mark Millie told me that two and a half years ago.

This is obvious. And so people that are sitting there writing and saying, oh, they cannot give any ground or a, sorry, it's going to be an ugly decision, as you said. But I will say also, what I've been hearing in newspapers over the past four days and on cable news, like you, completely different than what I've been hearing from people very close to these negotiations,

who led with the Article 5 type guarantees. If there's not an Article 5 type guarantee, then this will be no better than the Budapest memorandum. This will be nothing. Go ahead. Well, I have a draft of the security guarantees in front of me, and I can just read from what I was given by one of the people close to negotiations. they are seeking a security assurance modeled on the principles of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

In other words, Article 5, and that kind of American guarantee has been part of this package from the beginning. As has the idea of territorial compromise that Ukraine would have to give up some territory that's occupied by Russia, and indeed some territory that Russia hasn't yet conquered as part of this deal. The only reason that Ukraine would conceivably do something like this, and still not clear that Ukraine will, is that if it feels that behind this armistice line that might be created, it will be able with security to finally become part of Europe, which has been its dream since 2014. That's what this war is about. Can Ukraine be European? And if they decide that their assurance is sufficient that most of Ukraine, Ukraine moves toward Europe, retains its sovereignty, then conceivably Zelensky will say, this is something I think I can sell. Tough sell to Ukraine. As they're angry. But that would be the package you'd talk about. It is a tough sell. But anything short of that, anything short of a rock

solid Article 5 guarantee. As I said before, it's Budapest all over again. It also, you could also, So if you want to be dramatic, you can talk about Munich in 1938. Again, let's look at the history here. In 2008, Putin was able to invade Georgia. George W. Bush did nothing. A weakened, George W. Bush did nothing. 2014, he invades Ukraine and Crimea. Barack Obama does not.

So everybody that said, oh, he's a madman for going into Ukraine a couple of years ago. actually had it wrong. It was actually a very logical thing. America never stood up to him. So it's very logical for him if he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet Union for a dictator. Like, logical in this sense. Well, the Americans aren't going to stand up to me. They've never stood up to me before. Why should they stand up to me now? So the only thing that makes this work is a rock solid, Article 5 type guarantee. And by the way, telling Ukraine how many troops it can have, $600,000, sorry, Charlie, that doesn't work. You're not going to do that. So if you want to go from $800 to $750, fine. But $600 is not going to work. And again, this is what the New York Post

is saying. Richard, would usually go to you because you're the Grand Puba foreign policy. but I want David's reporting first, and then we'll talk about the Giants. Give me your reporting. Again, Halifax, the center of the diplomatic world. Where were you, Richard? We're watching the Giants. He is working. Life's about choices, John.

I got lucky. As you know, they said at the end of the last crusade, you chose poorly. But go ahead. So, and just again, I'm going to make this a happy morning, a positive morning. No, you can be negative. That's fine. Before this disclosure, there was a big Senate delegation, eight senators for Republicans. Tom Tillis condemned this 28-point peace plan, which at that point, this was in the morning,

was President Trump's police plan. And Tillis said, Vladimir Putin is a murderer, a rapist, and an assassin. And then Roger Wecker, who was not there, the Mississippi Republican, Chair of the Armed Services Committee. And Roger's been great on Ukraine from the beginning. More vocal, maybe post-Stepan Republicans. He said this agreement, this proposal of the president, rewards Putin, who's one of the world's most flagrant criminals. We have the press conference. This whole disclosure comes out that it's a 28-point Russian whistless.

So I sat down with Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat of Delaware, and he explained to me how this came about, how these senators discovered that this, in fact, was a Russian proposal. Jeez. Okay. Are we going to tape? He had some audio. Well, T.J, when he says that and he looks to camera and he pauses, you do that. With a European delegation that I suspect speaks better Russian than either Senator Rounds or me, that the language of the proposal seemed to have been translated from Russian to English.

There were a number of awkward phrases or unexpected uses of terminology. That's where I first heard that concept. No, this is a process that can only be described as haphazard. sloppy, even reckless. And so this proposal, which is tantamount to capitulation, and the reported threats against Ukraine to try and coerce them into accepting this terrible deal, if true, would be the sign of some very bad negotiating. I think it's time for Republicans to speak out publicly and to not just privately express their concern and their support for Ukraine. And what we heard, David, time and again over the weekend was that there were,

were phrases it didn't translate into English smoothly. Yes, it was a European who noticed this, and that caused Senator Angus King to call former Senator Rubio, Secretary of State. They knew each other from the Intel Committee. But then the CODA here is that this all is announced in Halifax, and about a couple hours later, a deputy, State Department spokesperson says, this is all blatant lies. No, this isn't American plan. This isn't just the Russian whistlets.

and then Rubio vaguely kind of adopts that line as well. But Rubio, again, there this morning, and they're talking about making progress with the Ukrainians. So I think things are changing a bit dramatically. Okay. So tell me, Richard, I know you're upset coming off the weekend with the Giants. I'm not going to bring it up. But you take a four different view of this.

Yeah, I do. Essentially, this is an agreement that, ask Ukraine to put its use of security. Well, wait, what agree? Are you talking about the agreement that you read last week? The Russian agreement? Are you talking about where they are right now? The original agreement I was talking about, but, okay, let's talk about the original agreement. Then we'll talk about where we are. But we're already past the original agreement. Well, we're not. We're not in a couple important ways. Okay. One is the fact that you had the original agreement

and then you have the president posting what he did yesterday about Ukraine being ungrateful in the rest. What that says, Joe, is there's no such thing as a rock-solid American security guarantee. This is an administration that tariffs its friends. Right. You've seen aid cut off. So it's actually an oxymoron to speak about a rock solid security guarantee from this administration. Well, does that mean you're going to have to take it up in the Senate? There's going to have to be a treaty or something that the Senate's going to have to agree to. So it's not just the president's word? One. Two, you're going to have to change some very big details. For example, the original agreement precludes any NATO stationing of forces.

in Ukraine's territory. The European counterdraft doesn't preclude presence or exercising. You're going to have to give Ukraine. There's nothing in any of these agreements. Let me finish the sentence. There's nothing in any of the agreements about arms supply of Ukraine. So you mentioned the Tomahawk thing. What about the flow of arms? I think that's all a real question for Ukraine, whether they can put their faith in this. Last but not least, the fact that we're going to end up negotiating agreement ultimately with Ukraine in Europe that they're going to be more comfortable with. I thought the European response was quite ingenious.

Yeah, it was great. No way you're going to end up with. Russia's going to reject it. We're going to end up with... Exactly. This is where we're going. Make no mistake of it. No, make no mistake of it. After Murdoch's New York Post,

after Republicans in the Senate, after Europeans, after Marco, after they all come together and come up with a workable plan that doesn't have the limits, then yes, what will happen is it will go back to Vladimir Putin, who will reject it. But we will have gone through this process. Putin will have been further exposed, and Donald Trump at that point will then give a more fulsome, I think, support to the Ukrainians.

From your mouth to God's era, that that is the one thing that's missing here is open-ended American support for Ukraine. I do want to say this, though. And again, for people at home, just because this is the Trump administration doing this, we've been given a couple of false choices. One, people are saying if they give an inch, then they are betraying the Ukrainians and da-da-da-da-da. Well, you know, again, even the Biden administration knew that Ukraine was going to have to give up land for security guarantees. That's number one. Number two, this idea of NATO, Dr. Brzezinski, even Dr. Brzezinski, even Dr. Brzezinski,

said all along. Again, and Edelous proves it, one of the preeminent hawks, and the Soviets still think he was in large part responsible for their downfall, always said, you can't put a dagger in Russia's heart. And he understood that Ukraine could never have NATO membership, but there could be this quasi-agreement. So again, the person I talked to said, Article 5 agreement, EU membership, American contractors working in Ukraine, one tripwire after another tripwire

to guarantee that if the Russians went in, it would in fact be a war against the West. One technical detail. In the past, people talked about the territorial elements of this. It wasn't to see legal title. There's a difference between a ceasefire in place where you de facto recognize

the Russia's sitting and transferring title. This agreement that's circulating now, talks about giving Russia control, ownership of that, which is something, again, Ukraine, I do not believe can or should accept. Well, if this is the new reality, if it comes with an Article 5 guarantee, again, that, that, again, doesn't just depend on the word of this president or any president, then the Ukrainians will have to make a decision on whether that's worthwhile or not. We are 25 after the hour.

And we haven't even gone to our White House expert, Jonathan O'Meer, who has been sitting here patiently talking, waiting to talk about the Patriots. We will get to him on the other side as well as David Ignatian. Stick around. We have a lot to talk about today. Still ahead on morning, Joe. President Trump is doubling down on his criticism of Democratic lawmakers who urged U.S. troops to simply refuse illegal orders.

We'll show you his latest comments about what he calls sedition. Plus, she was one of the president's staunchest defenders. And now Republican Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Green, is resigning from Congress. We'll talk about that surprising decision. And, by the way, we're playing David Rhodes theme song. He's always where he should be. It's true. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers Forecast this morning.

Yes, Accuethers. Bernie Rayno is here. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, it's a tranquil Monday across the northeast, your Ackyweather exclusive forecast. Some sun in Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., the raino foghorn around St. Louis, Nashville, also the Florida Peninsula this morning. Fundstorms will cause delays in and out of Dallas today. Acuether says, though, flying along the East Coast, we're looking good today. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the accurate weather app today. All right. Live look at the White House as a beautiful sunrise. It's about to come up over Washington, D.C. Did Washington not place? It's just past half a hour. Mercifully, they were on by.

They were on by. Okay. Okay. Good. So, all right. So let's continue on. President, can I do the news? Are you going to continue to talk about Ukraine? Well, there was the plan to hear from John PIN about that. We promised the kids who the parents all shook him, say, hey, Johnny, before you go to the bus stop, Jonathan O'Neer's about to talk about what's going on inside the White House and the angling there. John, what's going on inside? The dials are asserting. Yeah, there's a behind-the-scenes drama here as well where there's some jockeying for a position between the J.D. Vance, more isolationist view of American foreign policy.

And we know he's been not a friend to Ukraine throughout much of this process versus Marco Rubio, who, as you said, is traditionally much more of a Russian hawk. A believer in NATO wants to be more involved. And by the way, phase one looked more like Vance. Phase two, looks like Marco Rubio stepped in and assertive. Certainly, yes, it has changed. Rubio is playing much more of a role now. He did, as David said earlier, sort of give a tacit blessing to the original plan, which we know originated a Steve Witkoff, you know, Russian...

Yeah, exactly. And now it is more along the lines of where Rubio would want to be, but not there yet. And I think you've correctly circled the idea of security guarantees. We don't know what they are yet. Right. And the United States has not firmly committed to something that Ukraine could sign off on. Right. When it's made, making a lot of demands of Ukraine in terms of the military force,

you know, not being allowed, at least in this original plan, to have European peacekeepers in the country, the list goes on and on. Right. In addition to giving up land, it currently owns. Right. So we will see what happens next. But there's, but the Dan Dischroles, the Army secretary, has been the point person, had been the point person, for the Ukraine negotiations. He's very close with Vance. Now we see Rubio play a bigger role himself.

He was in Geneva over the weekend. Right. And then, of course, the biggest wallet card is the President of the United States, who a number of times now has inched closer to supporting Ukraine and then swings back, including the Truth Social post over the weekend in which he blasted Ukraine and had no harsh words at all for Russia. This morning, he's already back on Truth Social after, I should note, posting about the New York Giants. That was first. After he posted about the Giants, he then wanted to talk about Ukraine, saying he believes progress is made.

Right. We should know more this week. And lastly, there was allegedly a Thanksgiving deadline to get this all done, which is really putting the pressure on the U. the U.S. has now said that can slip. Lifting it up. And again, what does Donald Trump want more than anything else? A deal. He wants a deal, right?

So if he thinks pressuring the Ukrainians with their backs against the wall, you know, and doing a false deadline on Thanksgiving Day does it, he'll do that. If he sees he's not going to get a deal, David Ignatius, without Marco Rubio when they're working on this, then Marco Rubio is going to sit down with the Ukrainians and they're going to come up with something that's more palatable. but let's talk about Marco Rubio for a second, because it's not just J.D. Vance versus Marco Rubio or Whitkoff versus Marco Rubio. The President of the United States has to understand, and I'm sure he does understand by now, that the deal is going to go through. I'm sure Jared Kushner will play a part of it. He's around there. But it'll also go through Marco Rubio. Why? Because Marco Rubio, unlike Jade

advance marco rubio built up extraordinary contacts on the intel committee through the years in the senate and those senators trust him when it comes to ukraine well joe you're right trump needs rubio after this eruption of republican protest uh over the weekend about what they saw as a giveaway to putin and to moscow and so rubio hopefully can make changes that will that will make it less of a giveaway. In the end, it's going to come down to the substance of what's in this agreement. I was told by people close to the negotiations that they were prepared to make those changes Saturday as they headed to Geneva.

And it seems that they actually did that, whether that's Rubio's doing or was part of the understanding all along. I just can't say. Hey, David, can I stop you right there for a second? Because there is an ambiguity here. I want you to clear up. and I don't want to just talk about what I've been hearing. I'm going to ask you what you've been hearing.

So you've been talking to people close to this process. And yes, there have been changes over the weekend, but the, quote, changes from that 28-point plan to where we are now, to me, sounds a lot more of like what I heard last week. And it sounds like it's what you heard early on in this process as well. Is that correct? So, Joe, what I heard was that the initial plan, which did come out of discussions between Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and the Russian representative, Kirol Demetrieff, needed to be amended. That was described to me as aspirational, but subject to change.

And it needed to be amended in particular in guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in a more convincing way because otherwise there was no chance the Ukrainians were going to buy it. So those changes are being made. One thing I didn't mention in my earlier summary of these conversations, Joe, is that I was told that there was a 100% U.S. commitment to continuing to supply U.S. intelligence to Ukraine in this period of negotiation and after. And there's no single factor that could do more to reassure the Ukrainians that their security is going to get some real U.S. protection than that. The intelligence is crucial. Ukraine on its own, Europe on its own, can't see over the horizon and know what's coming at it from Russia. So that's a sign that they were willing to lean further. But, you know, with Trump on top of this process, so hard to predict, you know, one day, one hour, which was.

way he's going to learn. And I think that's, that's frustrating for the people who are working for him. And again, John, he wants a deal. If he thinks he can get a deal by intimidating the Ukrainians, he'll do that. If he thinks he can get a deal by having the senators stand up to Putin, he'll do that. And right now, that's where the deal is moved. Two very quick points. First, David, there about intelligence sharing. There had been some talk Friday when there was momentum building around the Russian plan, and let's just call it that, that the U.S. might threaten to cut off intel sharing or selling you arms to Europe to then pass on Ukraine. which is what they've been doing.

That seems to not be the case. The U.S. is backed off. The U.S. is backed off that. So that's number one. But number two, as I wrote over the weekend, and again, the original plan even had like a DMZ proposal that Russians were going to control, and Zelensky had made clear that wasn't going to be okay.

As I wrote over the weekend, the president simply hasn't really engaged on this just yet. When he does, and that's probably coming soon, per truth, social, that'll be the moment where we see where this breaks. All right, let's get to some of our other top stories this morning. President Trump continues to lash out against the Democratic. lawmakers who posted a video last week, simply reminding members of the military that they do not have to obey illegal orders. The president... Well, it's actually, they can't obey illegal orders. It's against the others. Part of their training to know that. The president took to social

media over the weekend to double down on his accusation that their message, which is actually consistent with the military oath of enlistment, qualifies as, quote, sedition at the high level. He also shared a series of posts from other truth, social users, slamming the lawmakers and calling for them to be punished. It's dangerous. In a interview on Friday, the president insisted he wasn't threatening members of Congress when he said their behavior was, quote, punishable by death. I don't know about the modern day things because, you know, modern day is a lot softer. But in the old days, if you said a thing like that, that was punishable by death. Yeah, but you're not saying, you're not threatening them. A lot of people are interpreting

there's a threat and their security. I'm not threatening them, but I think they're in serious trouble. I would say they're in serious trouble. I'm not threatening death, but I think they're in serious trouble. In the old days, it was dead. I believe they broke the law very strongly. I think it's a very, I think it's a very serious violation of the lawyer. I know Todd Blanche seems to be looking into it, your assistant, uh, your assistant, uh, your assistant deputy or your deputy attorney. Well, I think Pete Hicksheth is looking into it too. I know they're looking into it. I don't know for a fact, but I think the military is looking into it, the military courts. And that's Brian Kilmead, on the Zambooney cleaning up behind the president.

It's just that you got that in the morning. But hold on second. And then the meeting with mom don't know what you don't have to like light your hair on fire, but You just have to hold those two things at the same time. But you listen to what he said. Pete Hegseth is looking into what? I know. Pete Hegseth is looking into whether they uphold their oath and don't follow illegal orders? What do they?

There's nothing to look into. And if I have a criticism of what the Democrats have been saying, well, they fumbled the ball this weekend. But from the very beginning, when they say, you don't, you know, it's such a democratic thing to do. You know, you don't have to follow illegal orders. You know what a republic? You can't follow illegal orders. It's against your oath.

And it is against their oath. You can't, let's be very clear here. You cannot follow illegal orders. If the president of the United States tells you he wants you to go to Los Angeles and you're a Marine, that's illegal. The courts have ruled that illegal. It's been illegal since 1878, I think. It's illegal. And when you raise your right hand and you take that oath, this isn't voluntary.

Democrats said, you don't have it. No, no, no, no, no. You cannot. You cannot follow illegal orders or you yourself will be held to account later. You can't follow illegal orders if you're in the military. End of story. Okay. So here's what Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, who was part of the effort, said yesterday

when asked by ABC News to be specific about what illegal orders are being issued by the White House. So let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders? To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are. are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. Okay, wrong answer. I'm sorry, with all due respect, wrong answer.

President of the United States, the commander-in-chief does have Jonathan Lemire, wide latitude, just does. And the Senate can take that up, but he has white latitude on strikes. Ask Barack Obama and drone strikes. ask George W. Bush and drone strikes. But where we know the president has said, I am going to give illegal orders to people in the military is when he was on Air Force One, coming back,

I forget where he was coming back from, but he said, I can send the Marines, I can send the Army, I can send the Air Force, I can send the Coast Guard into any city I want to control crime. and the courts can't do anything about it. That's illegal. It's just illegal. And so Democrats kind of need to,

if the president has already said, I'm going to commit this illegal act, then I'm kind of surprised they don't have the answer when they go on a Sunday show for that. Yeah, and it's also the better politics here, right? I mean, I think Americans are going to care more about the Marines and the armed forces

on the streets of U.S. cities then perhaps they will what's happening in Venezuela. Now, she's not wrong. There are real legal questions about what's happening in Venezuela as well. The president does have broad latitude, but they are going through gymnastics to try to justify this. You're saying politically wrong answer. Yeah, but the... No, what I'm saying is constitutionally, the commander in chief is given... No, there's no butts to it. The commander in chief is given white... I'm just saying politically it's better to talk about the concern about using the military against your own people. Because that's what they're calling him out on.

Constitutionally, the President of the United States would not lose a challenge on strikes in Venezuela. Right. Not with this Supreme Court, not with any Supreme Court. No Supreme Court is going to put themselves in the situation room and make a decision for the Commander-in-Chief, Democratic or Republican. All right, so let's just pretend this is 2008 or 2038. They're just not going to. However, if a president of the United States says, I'm going to send the Marines to New Orleans to take care of crime, I'm going to send the army into Nashville because of crime. A Supreme Court in 2008 or in 2006 is going to say that's illegal. In fact, we had a federal judge in California already say in 2025, that's illegal. And any Supreme Court, that doesn't say that's illegal is corrupt to the core. Right.

And even the conservative movie, I think even Sam Alito will not go that far. If he does, well, that's his legacy and not my worry. Yeah, the troops on the streets of U.S. cities are two things, both politically unpopular and illegal. And that, I mean, and that's the issue, David wrote, I know you've been following this closely. If the president does do this, that more than anything we've seen since January, would put us at the brink of a constitutional crisis. Yes, that violates posse comitatis, which is the U.S. armed forces aren't supposed to be used

unless there's an active, full-blown insurrection to control Americans. The issue in the Caribbean is international law, not American law. That's the difference. But it could have been a clearer answer from Senator Slot. Yeah, yeah. Although I like what they did. I think they should do more of putting out simple videos stating the truth. Well, and they stated the truth and did well,

but then be able to answer the question. And the question, David Ignatians, it seems to me the thing that we hear most people concerned about is that the president is going to militarize American cities. And if that is your concern, it is a legitimate concern based on the law, based on the Constitution. And isn't that the rub here at the end of the day? It is.

Joe, there's one fact we haven't talked about, which is that when Pete Hegseth came in as Secretary of Defense, one of the first things he did was to wipe out the top layer of lawyers in the military, the judge advocates general they're called, who were supposed to advise our commanders about what a legal order is. And suddenly there weren't any more lawyers anymore to give legal advice. And you know, military people, they don't like to try to be lawyers. that's not their job.

And the reason that what the members of Congress, Alyssa Slotkin, Jason Crow, et cetera, the reason that was so important was that knowing that these commanders were cut off without legal advice, they were speaking directly to the commanders and saying, don't follow illegal orders. You know, consult somebody who can give you legal advice.

And I think that they really did a service to commanders who just had been feeling dizzy in these months after the very, very deliberate effort to cut the legal advisory authority away. So commanders were just basically helpless. And the message has to be you cannot. You cannot follow illegal orders or else you will put yourself in danger. You cannot. You have sworn an oath. This is not optional. You sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which means our legal system. You sworn that oath. You don't have a choice. Your point is exactly right. But you need somebody

to tell you what the law means because you're a general. You're not a lawyer. I've got to say some people in the MAGA media sphere, Richard, have made total idiots of themselves this weekend by trying to take the word illegal out of what the Democrats have said. They've made fools of themselves. Like people, I saw one lughead that goes on CNN regularly, said, oh, they clear or trying to take down the chain of command. No, this is, this is, if he knew anything about the military, he would know that when they raise their right hand and swear an oath, they swear an oath to follow the Constitution and not follow illegal orders.

Well, it's the kind of thing we never thought you had to point out, because it was there. If you needed a reflection of the Times were in, is that we're having a debate about how you respond to an illegal order. You know, you have things like Nuremberg and the rest that make clear that a legal order it's on you to basically not follow them. There's no defense if you follow an illegal order. And actually, one other thing on the thing off the coast of Venezuela, the other thing, Joe, that I think the Democrats are missing, the real issue is not going after these small boats. Right. We've got a major American farm policy about to be made.

We've got about, what, a big chunk of our military there. We may be undertaking regime change in Venezuela, incredibly hard to do. incredibly hard to make sure the aftermath. This administration, unless I've missed it, I've been so busy watching football on two days. Yeah, exactly. I don't think they've articulated. You're really taking your eye off the ball.

I don't think they've articulated a rationale for what we're doing. But basically, they are reorienting the American military, away from Europe, away from Asia, away from the Middle East, towards Latin America. It's crazy. This is an enormous thing. It's insanity. We're the Democrats. Where is the conversation about a total shift in our national community?

Well, I mean, he's taking us back to the 1800s. It's outrageous when our risk comes from China mainly. Exactly. We've pivoted away from Asia. We're pivoting to the Western Hemisphere. I want to be very clear, though, while Alyssa Slotkin, who I like very much, respect very much, respect her service in this country very much, even though she fumbled the ball on that, forgive the metaphor, on that question.

And it's very clear what Democrats have to talk about. I can't believe I have to say that. This was a brilliant move. I cannot believe I'm even saying this about. the Democratic Party. This was a brilliant move by Democrats for two reasons. One, they have Republicans actually defending illegal orders. Like these people in the magosphere, this lankhead on CNN, they're so stupid that they're defending illegal orders. So, Bravo Democrats there, like they've played right into your trap. And number two, all weekend, what do you have? You had to. You had

Democrats who served this country in the military, who served this country in the CIA, who served this country, all the, no community organizers here. I love community organizers. I just want everybody out there to know. I respect community organizers. But for the face of the Democratic Party they're trying to put out there, they knew this was going to cause a controversy, and every single person there will have served this country in uniform or in the CIA. And it was a brilliant move. and I've got to say the Republicans, not the Republicans, the most extreme maggot offenders walked right into their trap. I was shocked.

I don't think they even know they're in it. I was shocked they were so stupid, but they actually are right now the one saying that Democrats are bad for saying you can't follow illegal orders. It's kind of brilliant by the Democrats. Do more. Richard Haas, thank you so much. Great to have you and seen your national security reporter for MS now,

David Rode. Thank you very much. His latest reporting is available to read online right now. So, David, where should we be this weekend? I know. Where we go? It's a sketch of one. Back in Halifax. Back in Halifax. I gave it. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you as well. Thank you, David. We're so grateful for you.

His new piece is also online right now.