Morning Joe - U.S. GDP grew at slowed pace in second quarter at 1.5%

Episode Date: July 31, 2026

July 31, 2026: 8am — U.S. GDP grew at slowed pace in second quarter at 1.5% 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.

Todd Blanche is negotiating in good faith, but it's clear that the approval to get this done is above his pay grade, and we just need to get to that pay grade. I don't believe it's the president. Who is it, though? Well, I don't operate that way. Right now, I hope you'll never know who it is. But we don't get it solved, you know who else. I mean, we've heard from them. It's just that they refuse to commit to writing what he testified to under oath. and it's not a big ass. We're trying to help them get this solved, but they refused it, except our help.

The two Republican senators who are holding up Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General continue to stand firm on their demands from the Department of Justice. Good morning and welcome to morning, Joe. It is Friday, July 31st. We begin with President Trump, now suggesting, that he may temporarily withdraw Blanche's nomination. The president posting on social media that he's essentially willing to wait until Republican senators John Cornyn and Tom Tillis are out of office next year.

Cornyn and Tillis have said they will not vote to advance Blanche's nomination over the president's lawsuit, settlement with the IRS giving Trump and his family tax audit immunity, as well as the 1.770. $6 billion. That's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, Jonathan Lemire. Donald Trump is saying, I will throw my attorney general nominee overboard.

If my family and I can't get immunity from the IRS, the likes of which nobody else in America has. So what he's saying is, we want to live. The Trump family wants. wants to live by separate rules regarding the IRS than any other family in America, any other family on the planet. And he's willing to not have an acting attorney general, active attorney general, to do that. I mean, this is something, by the way, that's not just unpopular with Democrats, this is unpopular with Republicans.

Yeah. And when this deal was first announced some weeks back, it was the well, weaponization fund that got most of the attention. And look, that's outrageous too, the fact that January 6 felons may benefit from this. But it's interesting in recent weeks on the hill anyway, Republicans are more upset about this IRS component of it, because for exactly what you just said, it's an Trump exceptionalism. And no one else would benefit from this. This is an unprecedented fashion. And look, Trump is is obviously upset. It's very clear. He's made clear what his priorities are. He prioritizes the fund and the IRS protections over installing Todd Blanche as permanent attorney general. Now, yes, look, Blanche can stay in the acting role for a while.

So maybe in the short term, it's not that big of a deal. Trump floating there that he could just renominate Blanche after January when Cornyn and Tillis are no longer there. But the problem with that plan, of course, is we have no idea what the Senate's going to look like come January. The Republicans may have a smaller margin or perhaps be in the minority. and also reporting I've done on the Hill and others as well, the objections to this deal are not just Cornyn and Tillis. There are other Republican senators who are very anxious about it, too. There's no guarantee that as long as Blanche doesn't put this in writing,

as long as he doesn't officially memorialize, this will never happen. There's no guarantee he'll get voted in his attorney general. But right now, of course, the focus is on Tilling and Cornyn. MS. Now's Allie Vitale, the host of Wait Too Early, caught up with Cornyn yesterday on Capitol Hill. Have you talked to the president? No. Would a call from him help? Yeah, he could fix this in a minute. But I don't know whether who he's listening to or whether he's motivated to do that.

This is about making sure that even if you're the President of the United States, you don't get favorable terms from the government in a settlement of a lawsuit that ordinary citizens would not get, like protection from audits by the IRS. into the foreseeable future. And David Road, Cornyn himself said that the objections run much deeper in the Republican Party. It's not just limited to Cornyn and Tillis. In fact, there's his tweet right there. POTUS is mistaken,

if he believes concerns on divisions in his tax lawsuit settlement are limited to me and Senator Tillis. There have not been many moments where Republicans are willing to defy President Trump in this term, but they've drawn a line on this one. And you see a shift,

and it's self-healing, it's corruption, but it's just basic competence. Again, the president chose to back Ken Paxson, Texas, alienating coronin. He turned on Tom Tillis, and now they're using their constitutional right to push back from what's unquestionably another corrupt deal. So on so many fronts, the president and his team think they can do whatever they want and they're going to do it better than anyone has in the past. But on all, we'll talk about the war later and other things, his plans and efforts are just failing. Yeah, Mark Caputo. I mean, this is, as I've said, this is self-deal. this is corruption.

This is also something I've never seen in my life. This is one politician saying, my family and I are going to get protected status, are going to get immunity from IRS audits now and in the future, just because we want them. And along with that was also the fund where they were going to pay people who beat the shit out of cops on January the 6th.

good luck getting that through as well. But taken together, this is just another example of one of these things that are just so toxic politically for Republicans that they can't even believe they're having to deal with this a couple of months before a midterm. Right. And what they're seeing, what you're really hearing out of the Republican Senate, is that the president and what you're hearing out of the White House is they have just sort of a broken relationship, setting this aside, which is sort of a major issue, right? The president just keeps insisting that the Senate scrapped the filibuster. They won't do it, and that makes him angry. He insists they passed this Save Act concerning voter fraud and

voter ID, and they won't do that, and that makes him more angry. And the Senate and Congress, more generally, wanted the government to release all the Epstein files, and it now appears that There are a number of documents that the administration has not released and won't release, and there's now a lawsuit over that. The president won't do that, and that makes it more. You say a number of documents, Mark, isn't that like in the thousands? Thousands of thousands of thousands. How many docks?

Yeah, thousands and thousands of Epstein documents that the White House continues to cover up. Thousands and thousands of Epstein documents that if you read regime change, actually Todd Blanche was at the center of that cover up. in that situation room meeting, I'm trying to actually, I would say, break the law that Congress passed to stop from having to release a statement. So how does, maybe you can explain this to me, because I'm just a simple country lawyer. How is it that Congress passes a law that says the Justice Department has to release all the Epstein files, and they just completely stop releasing the Epstein files? It's an interesting conversation that we have with DOJ and senior officials there.

they, when you ask that very basic question, their answer is, well, we don't have to release these. And they say that they're shielded from privilege. And when you point out, the law actually specifically exempts that. Congress passed the law. Right. When you point that out to them, they then just sort of repeat, well, we don't have to release it. So, I mean, taken to its extreme, what you see generally in Trump's mind is his belief that, as he's told in New York Times, a number of months ago, that the only check on him is his own morality. I mean, constitutionally speaking, the check on any president is the impeachment and removal process. A Trump, having been subject to that twice in his

first term, understands that takes 67 votes in the Senate and it's not going to happen to be removed. So there are times where he's just going to draw a line in the sand and just say, well, make me, enforce me. And so you're seeing that in a number of these cases. One of the questions that they do have in both the White House and in Congress is as the continuing resolution to fund the government starts to come up and as the United States government needs to pay its bills, is the president going to go along with that and help the process? Or is he going to say, well, you're not going to pass the Save Act, which I want, or do these other things that I want, and I'm going to basically hold this hostage and essentially have the government shut down. This is during an election

year where his party is really sort of on the ropes, as we're about to discuss this polling in Texas, for instance. And the president so far and his advisors don't really know what he's going to do. And it creates an incredibly challenging situation. Coming up live reporting from Chicago, where the Democratic Socialist Summit kicks off this morning. We'll go over what's on the agenda as the left-wing movement drives concern among the party establishment ahead of the midterms. I wonder if they're going to give speeches and say, yes, we want to abolish the Senate. Yes, we want to abolish the presidency.

Yes, we want to abolish the Supreme Court. Yes, we want to do what the Trump administration is doing and take over private businesses. We'll see if they do that. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Can we talk about Taylor for a second? Of course, always.

You watching her do her thing and continue to move and move and move and work. Is that certainly helped you think through this process of like, do I still want to go? I'm getting older body doing that? Do you think that is kind of waiting? Without a doubt. Yeah? Without a doubt.

We share the same love for what we do. And we've had this, you know, fortunately, we've had this desire since we were kids in our, in our selective professions. And it's just, it's amazing to see her keep going to the table, keep finding new things to write about, keep finding, you know, new melodies and things like that. And on top of that, still seeing her have that love and joy in what she does. And yeah, of course, that's motivating for anybody to see. That was NFL star, Travis Kelsey, earlier this year, talking about his now wife, Taylor Swift, and how her drive and success motivate him. Swift is also a rare example of a woman who out-earns her husband.

One reason the couple is featured in the new analysis in the economist, which examines why female breadwinners remain the exception. The economist found that among dual-income heterosexual couples, just 30% of wives earn more than their own. husbands. It also found that when women become the primary breadwinners, men are one and a half times more likely to report serious psychological distress. So why has the male breadwinner model proved so difficult to break? Here to answer is executive editor and New York Times Bureau Chief, for the economist Charlotte Howard. Also here for the conversation, MS now contributor, Huma Abedine, who is vice chair of the Forbes and Know Your Value 30-50 Summit.

So Charlotte of The Economist, let's dive into this new research. Women now make up three-fifths of American university graduates. So why are 70% of wives still earning less than their husbands? Well, there's a lot of things I found about this article that were very interesting. But one of the things that I found most fascinating is that the state, The stated preference of Americans is that Americans are very comfortable with women earning more than their husbands. And Americans now, women are more likely to have a college degree. They make a majority of people in the workforce with the university education.

And yet, that figure remains that you have just 30% of women out earning their husbands. And so I think what that represents is this gap between America's stated preference, women's acquired skills. and the reality of how women exist at home and in the workplace. You know, one of the things aside from the statistic that Mika just mentioned, that men whose wives or female partners earn one and a half percent, earn more of the primary breadwinners, are one and a half percent reporting that they have serious psychological distress. That actually goes up,

that when women earn 70 percent of more of the household income, They're even more stressed and that the findings haven't changed that from 2001 to 2011 and then 2013 to 2020, 23, it's about the same. So why do you think this is still happening? I think there are a number of hypotheses I can put forward. But the main thing, and I'd love to know your review of this, is that gender roles are just very, very sticky. You know, people can go to college at our higher rate. We can have all these mentorship programs to keep women in. in the workplace. But some of these norms are generational. You know, people look at the,

the model that their parents had, and it's a big shift to go from, you know, if you think about a millennial now in the workplace, how their baby boomer parents existed in the home, it's very, very different to see a totally different gender dynamic play out. And you have this self-reinforcing dynamic, I think, that when you have a woman who is earning less, they will take on more household responsibilities. Even women who earn more, they have a disproportionate share of household responsibilities. And then that has this effect of perpetuating the idea that women, you know, are consistently earning less because they're taking on more responsibility at home. They can't invest the time that they would if they didn't have those responsibilities at home. So it's just a

very, very sticky cycle. You know, you mentioned mentorship. You mentioned the generational shifts, which I completely agree with. I mean, I take myself as an example. that when I was a primary breadwinner in my household, if I didn't have a male partner at home taking on the majority of the household and child care work, I couldn't have done it. And what this research is showing is exactly what you're underscoring, which is that even when women are the primary breadwinners, they're responsible for the majority of work at home.

What do you think it's going to take? Like, what is the view, what was found in this research that it will take for it to become more acceptable for women's economic power to match the new expectations at home? I think it's, you know, a combination of things, both wonky and cultural. You know, on the wonky side, you could list a whole number of policies that would make it easier for people to have more support at home and exist in the way they want to in the workplace as well. I also think candidly that having men talk about the pride that they take in their women's work and having that be something that is macho rather than undermine their masculinity is really powerful. And so, you know, I'll credit to Travis Kelsey for saying that it's motivating to him. I think that there are more role models that you probably need to see across different sectors that don't just have to do with your wife being a pop star where men take real, you know, active pride in their wise work.

and are willing to do more at home, too. This has been a long struggle. You can read more about this phenomenon at theeconomist.com, executive editor and New York Bureau Chief at the economist, Charlotte Howard. Thank you so much for sharing this with us this morning, and whom Aberdeen, as always, thank you as well. And coming up on Morning Joe, we'll have a closer look at how the war with Iran is impacting Americans here at home,

including the small businesses, now being hit hard by the rising cost of fuel. Morning Joe will be right back. Welcome, Bo. Welcome back. The Washington Post has new reporting on the daughter of Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, filing a new restraining order against her ex-husband, Republican Congressman Max Miller, whom she has accused of domestic violence. Emily Moreno alleges that Miller grabbed one of her attorneys during a hearing. hearing on Tuesday and used a profane slur to insult the attorney's fiance as they were leaving the courtroom. She claims he then continued to goad on the confrontation yelling, come at me to the attorney.

So Miller and Moreno have been engaged in a bitter custody fight and already have restraining orders against one another. Morano accused Miller in court filings of throwing hot water on her from a pan of eggs he had just cooked in June 24 on the day she said she planned to leave him. She said it caused her to fall to the floor and Miller afterwards sprayed her with the sink hose. Moreno has also accused Miller of physically abusing their two-year-old daughter who in February suffered a fractured collarbone with, quote, a bruise that accompanies the injury that appears to be in a handprint and appears to have been inflicted, according to a police report. In the same report, Moreno told police that Miller allegedly once held a gun to her head

and was physically abusive to her in front of their daughter. Miller has denied all allegations of physical abuse against Moreno and the child and suggested that his ex-wife was fabricating them because she was mentally ill. Now, Senator Bernie Moreno has yet to publicly comment on his daughter's allegations against her ex-husband. Moreno's office released a statement yesterday saying that the senator's top priority, is the safety and well-being of his daughter and granddaughter. It continues. While he does not litigate these matters in the media

or respond to baseless public attacks, he will do whatever it takes to ensure a just outcome for his family. We'll see if he has more to say in the days ahead. Up next, we're going to bring you a closer look at rising inflation across the nation. Plus, how the impact from rising gas prices due to the war in Iran are hurting the broader economy. The economy. Morning, Jill. We'll be right back with that and more. Look for the second quarter of 2026 to be amazing as all this money comes back into the economy from this big, beautiful bill, which really takes care of Americans.

Finally, the president has the power to take care of Americans. Someone actually in the White House cares about the real people. Mr. Secretary, I got that one wrong. Despite that prediction from Commerce Secretary Howard Lovick on Fox News last December, the U.S. economy actually slowed in the second quarter amid continued concern over inflation. The country's gross domestic product, a broad measure of goods and services, increased by just 1.5% in the second quarter. That's down from economists' prediction of 1.8% and it's down from what we saw in the first quarter when it grew at 2.1%. The ongoing war in Iran also continues to impact gas prices, that's according to AAA. Drivers will have to pay an average of $4.11.1 per gallon today. That's up nearly a dollar from a year ago. And as disruptions to oil shipments increase with the Strait of Hormuz impasse, it's impacting how a number of small businesses operate.

MS Now reporter. Ariel Hickson joins us now with that part of the story. Ariel, what did you find out? Well, John, the average cost of diesel fuel has almost doubled from January of January of. of this year and those skyrocketing costs are starting to affect fishermen along the Chesapeake Bay. So I went to a small charter boat community on Kent Island, Maryland to speak to fishermen who say that those fuel expenses are so high, they're starting to put those boats away. On the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, fishing is more than a sport. It's a key source of income. Rising diesel prices from the war overseas have made it difficult for charter fishermen like

Brian Hardman to stay in business. It's depressing sometimes because it's out of our control. As much as you want to run a good business, show everybody a great time, go out and catch fish, have a good operation, clean facilities for everybody, then things are out of our control that affects our business. We can't do anything to combat that right now. Brian is the head of the Maryland Charterboat Association. He says he sees the harsh effects of fluctuating oil prices from uncertainty over the

street of Hermuse. here in this marina. There was 450 charter boats in the Charterboat Association two and a half years ago, and since that time period there's been 64 boats that's been listed for sale or sold. When their business falls down, they just decide to sell out. They hang on as long as they can, but if it's costing you business, it costs you money to run your business, or you're breaking even, then it's just turned into a hobby.

Fishermen along the Chesapeake Bay in both Maryland and Virginia tell me they've had to implement $50 to $70 surcharges just to keep their businesses afloat. And this has driven away customers because many can't afford luxuries in this tough economy. As affordability becomes a top concern for Americans, luxury spending on hobbies like charter fishing are often the first to get cut. I get to go towards needs and going to and from work, family, over something like this. So if I had to pay for this, I wouldn't be out here. Hardman tells MS now fishermen along the Chesapeake Bay are starting to sell their boats,

seeking other forms of employment. It's taken a bite out of our bottom line right now, so as a whole, it's going to affect what our profitability is at the end of the year. Even if it starts going down a month from now. Prices may improve in the near future, but the damage done from the past few months may affect the outlook of the industry and the next generation of fishermen. They'd be crazy to try to come in this business right now because there's no future in it.

So the people that are there are eventually going to start to age out or retire, and there'll be less boats three years from now than it is today. And three years after that, there'll be even less boats. And fishermen tell me that they've also seen a decline in business due to an increase in boat regulations, John? So, Ariel, I mean, what's the overall sense here, like, long-term? Do these fishermen, these boat operators, do they think this is a short-term blip and they can survive it

if gas prices go down whenever this conflict may end? Or is this something they're really concerned about for their future? Well, I've been following a number of small businesses over the past couple months, and I think the concern here is that things are very much up in the air with how the war is determining them long term. As you heard, he said that it's hard to hit his bottom line by the end of the year. And the concern is that if they cannot make up for those expenses this year, it's only going to cascade for more years to come. And it's going to make it much more difficult for younger generations to get into the business. He said, as you heard there, that it's crazy for a young person to potentially even look into this because of the fact that there are so many people who are actually turning away from looking into charter boats as a leisure activity because of the economy. People are focusing on their groceries.

They're focusing on affordability. They're focusing on housing, gas prices. So leisure activities like this are affecting communities for years to come. MSNOW reporter Ariel Hickson. Thank you so much for that interesting report. We're now joined by the Reverend Al Sharpton. I mean, in Rev, obviously, there are the human stories here. People who have had businesses for a long time.

I'm afraid of being able to keep them going. But, of course, we have to look at through the political lens. This cost crisis, this inflation, is happening just a few months for the midterms. And that's why Republicans are so nervous. It's happening a few months before the midterms at a time that you had Lutnik and others, promising that the economy was going to make a huge rebound or growth at least in the second quarter. Well, we're now at the end, the very last day of July.

So that obviously has not happened. In fact, they didn't even reach the expectations. I think it was 1.8% in growth. They're below that. And they were over 2% last reading. So I think that the midterms, and as the Democrats, I would assume, put out a lot. This is what they promised. This is what they predicted from the guy in charge of where the administration is going.

These are the facts. And then translate that into why you're paying higher gas prices and grocery prices and all. It could be very effective for the Democrats and very devastating for the Republican. And so many of these elections, particularly midterms, are in fact determined on those that can, issues. So up next, we're going to go through another poll that's giving Democrats hope down in Texas ahead of the midterms as the party tries to win its first statewide race in the lone star state in more than 30 years. Live shot at Dallas there. Keep it on morning, Joe. We'll come right back. Welcome back. Tomorrow's August 1st, which means we're approaching the stretch run of the midterm

campaigns. And we've got some new polling from Fox News that shows Texas State Representative James Tala riko has a slight lead in the race for that state's U.S. Senate seat. The survey conducted last week finds that Tala RICO's support at 51 percent. That's compared to 48 percent for the Republican candidate, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. That is, within the polls margin of error. Fox News also notes that more voters are concerned that Paxson lacks the character to serve than worry that Tala RICO is too extreme, with Tala RICO holding a 12-point advantage in that comparison. Meanwhile, Talleyco has an 18-point lead over Paxton in support from Hispanic voters in Texas.

That is a large shift from 2024 when President Trump edged out Kamala Harris among Hispanic voters by one point. To Georgia now, Republican Senate nominee and current congressman Mike Collins abruptly walked out of a campaign event yesterday after refusing to answer questions about a family members reported ties to white nationalism. The event on health care quickly shifted when reporters began pressing Collins about reports that his son-in-law posted white nationalist and anti-Semitic content, including Nazi imagery and conspiracy theories. Collins first tried to pivot saying, quote, we fully addressed that before then attacking his opponent, incumbent Democratic Senator John Ossoff, about his failure to disavowed Democratic socialists. But when reporters continue to press Collins on his. family issue, he simply walked away. You know, we fully addressed that. But John Ossoff refuses to disavow these Democrat socialist movements in our country.

Could you address his question, please, sir? Yes, I'll give that young lady right there. She has a question. What was going to say? Listen, thank you. I appreciate y'all's time. I appreciate your time. You don't want to talk about your son-in-law?

Thank you very much. At all? You want to embrace it with the family? Not great. Afterward, Collins' campaign released a statement to the Atlanta Journal of Constitution, saying the Congressman, quote, has always condemned all forms of anti-Semitism, including this, and always will, regardless of the source, while then going on to highlight his long record of support for Israel. Collins later told the paper that he only speaks for himself and that neither relatives nor staff define his views.

Senator Ossov, well, he criticized Collins for not answering those reporters' questions. We saw a candidate for the United States Senate, a sitting member of Congress, Mike Collins, run away from a press conference because he was asked some important and straightforward questions. And Congressman Collins is not going to get away with refusing to answer these questions. Congressman Collins needs to come out this afternoon and answer. Does he apologize for his office's documented, links to some of the nation's most notorious white supremacists. Assoff ahead in the polls there. Meanwhile, up in Wisconsin, the Democratic primary battle for governor of that state took a dramatic due turn, just two weeks before the August 11th primary election.

The state's former lieutenant governor, Mandela Barnes, abruptly dropped out of the race yesterday. His decision came as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continued reporting on allegations that he used his position to pursue sexual relationships with young adult women. Wisconsin's Democratic Party reviewed an anonymous letter that detailed the allegations, but according to people familiar with the matter cited by the Washington Post, it concluded the claims were too vague to substantiate and didn't pursue the matter further. MS. Now did not independently review the allegations, and a campaign spokesperson for Barnes denied any misconduct saying this in a statement, there are no allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing against Mandela.

Barnes announced decision to quit the race in the video on social media. He did not formally endorse another candidate, but said it's now clear who the nominee will be. With Barnes out of the race, all implications point to the nominee being state representative Francesca Hong, a Democratic socialist who has been leading in recent polling, and that's part of this. There were, you know, these stories and allegations seemingly prunk to the surface, but also Barnes was trailing pretty significantly in the polls. And speaking of Democratic Socialists, later this morning,

the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA, will kick off its national organizing conference in Chicago. And the Windy City is where we find MS now, senior Washington reporter and co-hosts of the weekend, Eugene Daniels. Eugene, great to see you. Tell us more about this DSA summit. It's certainly a party in the news right now. What are they hoping to accomplish?

There will be about 900 people here. here is what the organizers say. And what's interesting is for folks who are expecting kind of like a DNC convention, it's going to be much more like a rules convention, rules summit that they, that they have a rules meeting where they're sitting around. They're going to be talking about a lot of different organizing capabilities or have a skill set meeting. They have some of these meetings that I'm looking at right here, winning socialism in

the South on Saturday, legislating as socialist and municipal socialism. So it's all about kind of figuring out how to take the ideas, that they spout and turn those into some kind of action. And one of the things that's really interesting here is, I haven't run into anyone this morning, but when I got in at like 12 a.m. last night in the lobby, there were a lot of people. So there is a lot of excitement here.

The biggest question is whether or not they see themselves as part of the Democratic Party, like insurgents within the party, or a separate apparatus altogether, because when they run, they run not as DSA. They run as Democrats. So, Rev, I mean, the, The DSA has certainly had some real successes in some rates here in New York. We've had some success in Colorado.

They seem to be on the brink of the Democratic nominee for the governor's race in Wisconsin. Some, though, in the party, other Democrats worry they're too lefty, they're too progressive, and it's too easily, you know, sort of attacked by Republicans trying to paint us all with the same brush. The answer here is, well, the parties should be big enough, potentially big enough for everybody, but it's a real concern. It's a real concern, and there's even concern now that as they rise in popularity, they will rise in scrutiny of who is really running the DSA and how diverse it is. One of the things that, Eugene, I would be interested in youth looking at as they go through this is how diverse is the gathering, because there's a charge now that's coming from many in the civil rights community that there's not a lot of diversity at the top of.

of DSA and that it's a lot of people that are left, but they have not necessarily shown that they put Latinos and blacks in positions of power while they attack those office holders. Are you seeing any early signs of diversity, or can you look at that as you observe this gathering today? Yeah, I definitely will be looking at that because at the end of the day, we both know, and Lamere knows that the Democratic Party. is the foundation of it is black voters and older black voters. And so if you are a group of folks that want to kind of have, make sure your ideas at the forefront

of where the party is, you want to push the party further to the left, you kind of have to look like the party. You can't look like an invading force. And that's one of the things that I have talked to black civil rights leaders, including you over the years, is what does that actually look like? I think one of the things that's really interesting. I talked to Zoranamani, the most famous probably Democratic Socialist, at least in this country. And what he told me earlier this year was that the best way for the for Democratic Socialists to gain more power was to actually win and then deliver.

He feels like he is doing that in New York City. But then also I asked him about the diversity problem. And he said, you can do both. You can both talk about the economic issues and talk about all of the ways in which they're exacerbated by the race, racism in this country. And that's something that, you know, Bernie Sanders was not talking about in 2016 and 2020. And so there is a different way that they want to talk about these things. I will also say if you're expecting the Brad Landers, there's Zohran Mamdani's of the world to be here. They are not Chris Rab out of Pennsylvania's here.

But it is going to be kind of a group, a family conversation, which we are very interested in getting into. Live in Chicago, MS now senior watch reporter Eugene Daniels. Eugene, thank you. We, of course, will be watching the weekend at 7 a.m. Eastern on Saturday. and Sunday, and we'll be right back with more. Morning Joe. Welcome back. Rev. What will you be working on this weekend for Pollux Nation? I'm going to look at the midterm Senator Alsoprooks will be on and what it means what's going on and the Senate right now in terms of the movement around, well, lack of movement,

I should say, around what's going on with the president's choice of an attorney general. And we're going to look at the economic disparities based on race to the National Urban League report. It's going to be a lot of action this weekend on politics. We'll be watching both days to be sure. And you're right. I mean, as we head into the weekend here, storylines to follow. Of course, the fate of Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche. Will Trump indeed follow through on his threat to pull him back, leave him in an acting role because of that Republican rebellion?

We're, of course, we're watching the Middle East. The conflict in Iran seems to be widening there. But we've got news this morning, Joe, with some exclusive reporting here on Morning, Joe, about a possible deal for Gaza that would involve Hamas disarming. We have to see if Israel buys in, but certainly could be on the precipice of a significant development there. You can read more about it there on our website. We appreciate you tuning in this morning and all week long. We, of course, we'll see you Monday at 6 a.m.

But that does it for us this morning. Money, power, politics with Stephanie Rule is up next after a short final break. Have a great weekend, everybody.