Morning Joe - ‘We’re not Russia; we honor our fallen heroes’: Joe slams Hegseth’s media criticism

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

‘We’re not Russia; we honor our fallen heroes’: Joe slams Hegseth’s media criticism 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.

But you didn't wait for the investigation, did you? You didn't wait for the evidence. You proclaimed that they were domestic terrorists at the time. Why did you do that? And you didn't wait to attack our law enforcement. Why did you do that? We're going into a dangerous situation. Why did you call them domestic terrorists?

Is our ICE officers and our HSI officers that day risked their lives to protect that scene? So evidence could be reclaimed. So it could be used in the investigation because those violent rioters that were- So you're proud of the fact that you called them domestic terrorists? Is that what you're telling America? HSI officers put their lives on the line to protect that scene, so evidence so we could have. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. But you told a lie about them. You said that they were domestic terrorists. Do you regret that? I offer my condolences to those families. Based on what you know today, were Renee Good and Alex Breddy domestic terrorists?

There's ongoing investigations. Why can't she just say it? Homeland. Why can't she just say it? They've been lying from the start of this. Yeah, well, I mean, just openly lying. Some sick stuff. And it, and it just. And it just. It just keeps continue. It just continues. Yeah, that was Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noem, in a heated exchange with the House Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Congressman Jimmy Raskin. The secretary was also pressed on major questions surrounding a DHS marketing campaign. We're going to dig into that, a very expensive one. We're also following a surprise move by the House Oversight Committee, voting to subpoena,

Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files. We'll get reporting on how the Attorney General is likely to respond. And the latest developments with the Texas Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Incompan, John Cornyn, and Attorney General Ken Paxson are headed for a runoff. Neither pictured here. He headed for a runoff in May. And President Trump now says he will endorse one of the men, quote, soon. I got to say, I was looking to the right.

And I said, man, okay, Steve Deng's leaving too soon. because people still don't know who he is, because that looks like in Paxton to me. Yeah. Willie, how are you today? Doing great. Doing great. I think you just saw in that clip from Christy Knoem

why Punch Bulls reporting this morning that President Trump is calling around on Capitol Hill and asking, should I get rid of Christy Knoam at the top of DHS? Like what? I mean, you have to ask that question. Question answers itself. Yeah, the question answers itself.

Like months ago. Yeah, and you know, there's also, I've just got to say off, well, first of all, before we get serious, really serious, I remember Willie when I was campaigning in 1994, you know, there were some people that were, you know, we were all for the Second Amendment, but there were some that, like, that was their issue. And at one point, we were in Baker, Florida, and one of these candidates, a right-in candidate, says, if you're not my guns, you're going to have to come prime from my cold dead hands. I turned to him. I go, okay, well, he's kind of intense. Very good. I will not try to get his guns.

But the Boston version of that, we are starting to see. It's unful. Why don't you just try to tax them for their tea and put it on ships? They're going after their Dunkin. They're going after their Dunkin' Donuts. We're talking about an area code 617. And I just saw that tweet. come and take it. And I'm thinking, you know, for people in Northwest Florida, you got your guns. And, you know, for people in Boston and surrounding areas for Southies, you got Dunkin, man. They better not try to take their Dunkin. Look at that. You know, the mind meld here, Joe, is extraordinary. Jonathan Lemire as Ali Vitale read that story at the end of the show, looked at it and said, from my cold, dead hands. Will you take my large iced coffee? I mean, you can't, I mean, not that Republicans were going to win Massachusetts,

but I think we officially can take it off the board forever after that from RFK Jr. Yeah, take it off the board. I do want to get serious here before we get into news. It's very serious. I know Willie, like me, you were really concerned by what happened yesterday in the briefing. Pete Hagseth, when our fallen warriors were brought up. And the Secretary of Defense and the spokesperson for the White House yesterday acted like even mentioning these fallen hero's names was like a slur against the president.

they actually tried to make the death of American troops about Donald Trump. It was one of the most childish. It was just so childish. Proved once again, Pete Higgseth's not, he's nowhere near prepared to be Secretary of Defense. He's emotionally not there. He's not there in every other way. But these are our fallen heroes. and the suggestion that we should be like Vladimir Putin and just ignore when American heroes

die in uniform while serving this country. This is not, keep those pictures up of those American heroes. This is not about Donald Trump. This is about these heroes and the families and the friends. and the loved ones who mourned them. Willie, just to Joe's point, in that briefing yesterday, which Jonathan Lemire and I covered, yes, we need to talk about Pete Heggseth and the president,

but when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan came, took to the podium, it is the first thing he talked about. Of course. It is the first thing he talked about. And he talked about grief and gratitude and dedication to this country, which is how you start one of those. Because one of those briefings. And I remember thinking, watching Pete Hegseth going, how childish is this, is this language he's using? And this sort of brocentric, tough guy,

we sunk their battleship. It was pathetic, but also embarrassing. Well, and General Kane came out, and he understands. These are fallen warriors. They have given their life in defending this country. And that's that they're not suckers. We don't believe they're suckers. So only somebody who would believe that their suckers, like the Atlantic reported, would, would treat fallen warriors, the mere mention of their names or the fact that they, they died in service of this country as something dirty or something aimed at Donald Trump. Not about Donald Trump. It's about their sacrifice, Willie.

Something you, you've been in that community, something you have seen. up close. Yeah, well, General Kane, as you say, understands. He understands that it's about honor and dignity and gratitude for the lives of those men. Pete Hagseth, on the other hand, views this as a political problem or a PR problem, saying the fake news is just trying to make Donald Trump look bad, making him look bad by putting the names and pictures of fallen American service members on the front page of newspapers or talking about them on shows like this. That was an extraordinary moment from a man in Pete Higgins, who has served, presumably gets it, but now is so captured by politics, so captured by his loyalty to Donald Trump, that he thinks

job one is to be the spokesperson and apologists for Donald Trump and to attack the news media, to attack any critic of Donald Trump. That is not your job as Secretary of Defense. Conduct the war alongside more experienced people, thank goodness, like General Kane, but he views himself as the spokesperson. He's not that different from Caroline Levitt in the White House press secretary's podium yesterday, where she was challenged guys on these questions as well, saying, what are you talking about that it's more trying to make the president look bad?

We are reporting the deaths of U.S. service members. And President Trump, by the way, has said there will be more. And we will report those two. Well, and again, we're not Russia. We don't just throw people at the front lines when they die, pretend they didn't die. we honor our fallen heroes. And we think and we pray for the families of Cody and Nicole, Noah, the clan, and Declan. And the other two who gave their service.

The ultimate sacrifice. Yeah. And the ultimate sacrifice to this country. Dana Prino said, I think last night on the five, she said, hey, guys, just stop. Stop with your obsession on the media. covering this pretty much down the middle. Yeah. And let's remember, again, the fallen. And let's honor them and let's pray for their families.

There's nothing wrong with that, Pete. Yeah. Nothing. That's what we have been doing as a country for 250 years. We're not going to stop now because Donald Trump's president. So stop. Stop. Act like a man. Act like a man. And honor fallen heroes instead of trying to make it about Donald Trump. So as we continue to cover the story, also with us President Emeritus of the Council in Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, co-host of the Restis Politics podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay, and co-host of the weekend and a Washington reporter for MS now, Jackie Alamini.

Before we dive in, Joe, you have been talking with administration officials and also leaders in the Gulf region about the latest with the situation in Iran. What did you find about? Well, I can tell you, especially in the Gulf region, the attitude far different today. than it was even three, four, five days ago. And the reason why is something that we talked about yesterday with David Ignatius, the number of missiles coming into the area are going down, not only because Iran's using a lot of their missiles and much of their weaponry, but also because Israel and the United States have been very effective at targeting the launchers. So now they're starting to listen, it's chaotic here. We don't love how this started.

But at the same time, a lot of people have been talking about going after Iran, who has been, you know, the region's enemy since 1979. And Donald Trump did it. So we're, we're okay with that. And I said, does that mean you think this is going to land in a safe place? And he said, nobody knows that. Nobody knows that right now. We're hopeful, but very, you know, very cautious because we saw what happened in Iraq. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. We saw what happened. We saw what happened. And in Libya, we saw what's happened across the Middle East, whether you're talking about Beirut in 83. This is not going to be easy, but they believe it's headed in the right direction. Okay, so the U.S. and Israel continue to hammer sides across Iran with a new wave of strikes reported in the capital city of Tehran.

The Pentagon has struck nearly 2,000 targets across the country, and Secretary Pete Hegsseth says things are just getting started. Iranian missile launchers, government buildings, and regime leaders themselves are all in the crosshairs. But the fighting is hardly contained to that country as the conflict spreads from Turkey and Lebanon and to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman. So far this morning, Iran claims to have targeted Kurdish groups in northern Iraq as air raid sirens blare across Israel. Saudi Arabia said it destroyed a drone along the border with. Jordan, and there's been a new Iranian attack off the coast of Kuwait. Qatar is evacuating the area near the U.S. embassy in Doha, while fighter jets buzz overheard

in neighboring Dubai. Azerbaijan says two people were injured by a falling drone. And dozens of Iranian sailors were confirmed, killed in a U.S. torpedo strike off the coast of Sri Lanka. So, Richard, it appears, again, from my, the calls I made yesterday, that they are very close to controlling the skies over Iran and are getting most of the targets along the coastline and are starting to move to the interior. I'm curious your thoughts here. If, let's just say things go, and this is a big if, I understand when you're talking about

the Middle East, and especially Iran, let's say we finish phase. one, successfully uprooting a good part of Iran's military capabilities that built up since 1979. What do we need in place politically when phase two starts? That phase, as we learned all too well in Iraq, is the most difficult phase. The invasion actually was the easiest phase in Iraq, according to the troops who were there. It was what happened after that caused. the real chaos? Joe, I think that's the question that we need to start asking. And, you know, a lot of people who have doubts, including me, about how we got to where

we are, well, we are where we are. So the question at some point, and I think it's now, has to begin to pivot towards what we call war termination. What is the criteria for when we would stop or send signals both to Israel and to Iran that the time has come to wrap this up? What is it we require to happen? Because there's arguments for not having this, just to be clear, continue indefinitely. When the Secretary of Defense says we're just getting started, well, I don't know.

I think we were discovering enormous shortfalls in American weapons and so forth, particularly in air defense systems. A lot of countries in the region are extraordinarily vulnerable. Their energy installations, their water facilities and the, like, it's depleting our stocks, which we need among other things, for Taiwan and Ukraine. So the idea that we, you know, I would tell me to sort of posit that we don't want this to continue. We're at some point we hit diminishing returns against Iran. And I think we're going to have to think about our definition for success. Do we walk back this idea of a profound regime change? Are we prepared to live within Iran that still has a security clerical leadership?

What are we prepared to accept in the nuclear file? And a funny sort of Joe, and I never thought we'd get to this, but this is where we are. we may have to reopen precisely those negotiations and considerations that preceded the war. What are we prepared to live with in the nuclear sense? Are we prepared at any point and if so how to relieve any of the economic sanctions? Iran is not going to disappear as a country. It's not going to disappear as a problem. So the question is when do we transition from a war to essentially a new post-war status quo?

Yeah, and the question really is, what does that? look like. It'd be very easy to say we're going to sweep aside everybody that worked in the previous administration for Iran. But that's what we did in Iraq with debathification, and it led to chaos and years and years of war with Americans caught in the middle of that. So again, leaders in the region are hoping that they can find elements, just like you've heard Donald Trump talk about this, that are inside this regime. can take control of it and still figure out how to be good neighbors. Well, yeah, I guess the problem with that is the leading candidate to succeed the Supreme

Leader now is his son, reportedly. So that doesn't sound a lot like regime change, but we'll see. Jonathan Amir, as we look at the shifting rationales and justifications for the war yesterday, President Trump said, quote, if we didn't hit within two weeks, they, Iran, would have had a nuclear weapon. That's a new revelation, that within two weeks, Iran would have had a nuclear weapon. Most intelligence officials and experts don't believe that to be true at all. But Donald Trump seems every day or Secretary Rubio seems every day or Secretary Hegsus seems every day to offer something new to justify the action. Yeah, I've lost track of how many versions they've offered here, explanations as to why we went into conflict. And we should be clear.

Administration officials, citing intelligence have told not just reporters, but Congress in the last few days. That's simply not the case. Iran was not going to have a weapon, the ability to have a weapon in two weeks. And the president simply not telling the truth there, as they still sort of scrambled to justify this war. And to a larger point, it's also muddled that the rationale for going in is muddled. And certainly what happens next is muddled. There's no clear plan. I mean, the war, Joe's right. I've heard similar reporting about the number of missiles launched from Iran, at least for the time being, has dwindled. There is some thought. There may be some stockpiles they haven't used yet, so perhaps they'll accelerate again. But that is noteworthy

and relief for some of the Gulf neighbors there. Still, the war is expanding. We had a missile shot down and go heading into Turkey. NATO defenses did that. We had the submarine that was a submarine attack yesterday. It blew up an Iranian warship. So this is a conflict that is showing no signs of abating. And you're right, Willie, there is a chance that what could come next could be worse. There's simply no clear what the next day is. And Caddy, part of this is so tied up with the president and his own personal views. And I think that's why Secretary Hankseth yesterday went on that. I mean, let's be clear, disgraceful attack there. You know, of course the media is going to report the deaths and honor the lives of those who have been lost. And there will be,

there will be more. But everything is perceived as a personal insult against President Trump. And that is why in some ways this war has been so surprising because he's so inclined to do the one-off strikes, not the longer commitments, not the idea of boots on the ground. And there was reporting yesterday that some Kurdish groups may be armed and head to the region, although there's been a lot of pushback on that as well. So, Caddy, the question is, what kind of off-ramp can Trump live with as he is clearly in legacy-building mode, believing this is an entry for the history books? Yeah, and we heard Caroline Levitt, who was sort of vying with Pete Hed. there to defend the president and attack the media at any possible moment. I think the off-ramp depends exactly on what President Trump wants it to be. And if this is moving in the direction that Joe is hearing, that you're hearing that the reports from the press about the number of

missiles being launched from Iran might seem to suggest the diminution of the number of those, then if there is some kind of a victory, have no doubt that Donald Trump will claim it as exactly that, even if this falls far short of regime change, the losers. The losers, in all of this may be the Iranian public. But I think Donald Trump will be able to say, look, we have a regime that was threatening the world, much diminished militarily, angry perhaps, at the position that it's in. There doesn't seem to be any indication within Iran that we're moving from hardliners to moderates quite yet. But I think it'll all depend on whether this has some sort of a resolution militarily quickly and whether Donald Trump can then turn

around and say, look, I did what no other president was able to do. In six months, in a year's time, in two years' time, the situation in Iran may look very different and may not be so U.S.-friendly. I think we're not going back. We're going from a hot war, potentially back to the cold war we've had for decades with Iran. And once they've rebuilt their weapon systems, then again, they become a threat they were. But this president thinks short-term. Well, and the question is, again, that's what is face. to look like and what regime gets in there and is it a regime that, let's be very honest, that both the United States and Israel will allow to be there. Because Israel, obviously,

has had the intel and we've had the firepower. And it's not going to be easy for any hostile regime to get in there at this point. So the question is, there were reports that Iranian intelligence officers were trying to make contact. through third parties with the CIA to talk about the possibility of some sort of transition and some sort of deal. But we're a long way off from that. But those, you know, they have done the outrage. And then there's Congress, Jackie Alamani, the shifting reasons for immediate threat seemed to come every day. And yet, the effort to get the War Powers Resolution Act through failed in round one yesterday, what's next?

Yeah, Mika, this is about to come to the House floor for a vote this resolution now between, that was introduced by Thomas Massey and Rokane. But before we get to that, I do want to address something that Jonathan said because I've had this reporting that just came to me. But the personal nature of Trump's position on Iran. I have a source who had lunch with Trump at Mar-a-Lago a month and a half ago, who said essentially that Trump was itching to strike Iran. And I think it does really get to this

idea that so little of this is based on actual substance and primarily on settling a score against Iran, wanting to legacy build, and again, a lack of a real justification here. And there are lots of members of Congress in a bipartisan manner who are taking issue with this, although not enough for this to pass in the Senate and likely to fail in the House today. This proposed resolution has been controversial amongst some Democrats, some who believe that this is not, they're viewing this through the lens of not necessarily a check on executive power, but as a potential to, you know, not support Israel with, in terms of the U.S. Israeli special relationship, people like Josh Gotheimer, Greg Lansman, Henry Quayar, Jared Golden, these are people who are expected to vote against the resolution today.

There may be one or two Republicans that vote in support of it, who again have teed this up as a check on Trump's executive power. Those Democrats that are taking issue with today's vote have come up with a resolution to try to put a check on Trump with another vote on this in 30 days if the military entanglement with Iran continues. news up to 30 days, but that's unlikely to come to the House floor, at least in the foreseeable future. But this is something that has become a lightning rod between both parties in the upper and the lower chamber right now. Yeah, and that's reflected. Your first reporting there, Jackie, and what Pete Hagseth was saying yesterday about they tried to get them twice and POTUS got the last laugh. My God, is there no plan? I mean, is this just about, I think that kind of thing.

There were a lot of people who thought that George W. Bush went after Saddam Hussein because of reports of assassinations, attempts against his father, George H.W. Bush. I think in this case, Pete Higseth said that was the reason. Yeah, well, they've said there are a lot of reasons. I think it's very important as we look at the different things that I'll just say, childish people say around the administration. I think it's important to stay fixed on the understanding that this has been the epicenter. This country has been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979.

And no, I'm not saying, I'm not saying that this was well thought out. I'm just saying, if you want to understand why in Congress, a War Powers Resolution Act may not pass like it did against Iraq. Iran's been the epicenter of terror since 1979. They killed 240 American Marines in Beirut. They killed countless Americans in Iraq. So this goes far beyond an assassination attempt. This is something, again, as leaders in the region are now saying, could fundamentally change the region for decades to come in a positive sense if it's done right.

Yeah. But that requires planning. That requires forethought. That also requires talking to your allies and figuring out how to do this in the best way. things can be true at the same time. Coming up on morning, Joe, the House Oversight Committee votes to subpoena, Attorney General Pam Bondi, as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. We'll be joined by a Democratic member of that committee ahead. Plus, in the Texas Senate primary fight, President Trump is promising to endorse either John Cornyn or Ken Paxton,

but says the candidate he doesn't choose should drop out. We'll take a look at where things stand in that runoff race. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Accuethers, Bernie Raino. Bernie, how's it looking? From Boston to Philadelphia today, I think the weather word, Mika, is murky, rain and drizzle. Rain and drizzle arrives in Boston this afternoon anytime in New York City, Philadelphia. Take a look at Washington, D.C., morning clouds, fog, a shower, then it's springtime in the afternoon with clouds breaking. How about plenty of warmth across the south, watch out for some thunderstorms, though, late in the day, in Dallas, into the Southern Plains.

They could be severe. Your Accuether Travel Forecast delays today, Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. I can't win. It's not 100% clear to me, General, and that's not to suggest that I don't support 100% what is happening, nor that I 100% offer my support. I just think I want to ask a couple of critical questions, and I hope you know how much respect I have for your service. And I think it goes

without saying to anybody watching how much respect I have for the men making's decision. You don't have to patronize me. Just ask the question. Just when you thought it couldn't get more embarrassing. Wow, what a wind up to that question. A lot of throat clearing there. Well, after more than four years ofwithstanding the onslaught of drones launched

by Russia into Ukrainian territory, President Vladimir Zelenskyy posted on social media yesterday, Keeve is prepared to help allied countries in their defense against Iran's drone warfare. In the middle of his own war, the majority of drones launched by Russia and Ukraine over the past few years are of Iranian design. President Zelensky wrote, the military will find ways to help when and where possible without compromising its own

defensive efforts against Russia. Richard Haas, this is extraordinary, given the reluctance of the United States to help Ukraine in the way it needs to be helped, that in the middle of a war of defense against Vladimir Putin, Zelensky is saying, we've actually developed some technology over these four years to help defend against these drones. We will share it with American allies, by the way, in their defense. Well, it's smart on the part of Ukraine, obviously. It's a reminder that they're not just, if you will, a cost to the United States of the West. They're also a benefit. It's also, though, a real reminder about, one, the revolution in drones, how this war is qualitatively different. And also how the exchange ratio is what's called

battlefield math. Right now, we are using million-dollar systems. to defend against drones that might cost $10,000 or $20,000. I may not be a mathematical genius. That is an unsustainable trajectory. Yeah, that's a great point. And in fact, there's been some reporting on that. Even as we're looking at logistics, we're looking at munitions supplies, and the U.S. certainly can outdo what Iran has,

but that the math doesn't really work. They're using these very cheap Russian-made drones. And in fact, some people I was talked to in Kyiv were saying, well, if the U.S. had given us permission to hit some of these Russian drone factories early on in the war. Back then we didn't, they perhaps would not be able to help Iran supply with these. And it also just goes to show, like the different approach here between the administration hand. Richard, you were saying off air. So make this point now. The way this administration has handled the Russian negotiations versus these of Iran. It's fascinating. It's the same two individuals,

Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner. With Russia, shall we say, we have endless tolerance, endless patience. They are not serious about negotiations. They're not serious about peace. yet we continue them. And if anything, we lean on Ukraine out of frustration. Here, what? We have a couple of rounds with the Iranians, and suddenly Witkoff and Kushner get impatient. They say negotiations, negotiations, diplomacy can achieve nothing. It's all a ruse. Let's go to war. So the contrast, if you will, between endless patients with Russia, extremely limited patients with Iran. And by the way, there's a lot of us who think that the negotiations with Iran could have worked. Could we have eliminated every Iranian capability? No. But could we have gotten something better than the old, negotiated agreement? Could we have gotten something, shall we say, better than war, quite possibly. Indeed, that's what makes this a war of choice. You had alternative policies to use. You could have to use negotiations. You had sanctions. We didn't have to use military force now. And it puts the administration in a bind because they then have to defend why we had to do it now in this way. And that's what makes it a war of choice. And it puts them on the defensive. And again,

it's just hard not to be struck by the inconsistency in our diplomacy between Russia, and Duran. Katty, let's talk about Keir Simmons for a second. Starmourner. Kier Starmer?

Well, I'd love to talk about Kear Simmons. I would love to talk to Kier Smiths. He is the best and the best. Oh, my God. Who's better? But Kier's amazing. But we'll talk about

Kier Starmer instead and then talk about Kier Simmons offline. But he has managed somehow, Kier Starmer. to both offend the White House and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Not an easy thing to do, but he's done it proving yet again that he, I don't want to say he's not up to the job, but I've heard so many people in labor tell me over the course of the year they've been so deeply disappointed in his leadership.

I'm curious what's the attitude toward Kirstarmer right now with the White House. angry at him and Iranians shooting at British bases in the region. Yeah, now he has the Cypriot government as well, angry at him saying, hold on a second, why didn't you tell us more and help us defend ourselves against those Iranian attacks on Cyprus? He has managed to irritate everybody. He's got that very public rebuke from the president during that meeting with the German Chancellor.

He's been criticized across the front pages of the British papers. he was already, as we've spoken about before, in a precarious position. And I think he tried to draw the line saying, we don't want to be involved in the Iran War. We're not going to initially let the Americans use our bases. And then he had to backtrack on that as British assets in the region got attacked, and he had to be seen to being allowed to the Americans to defend British assets in the region as well. And he's really in a no-win situation.

But I think it gets to also this. idea that we've been talking about for the last six months of Europe needing to be united, over the last few days, Joe, we've seen Europe in total disarray over this. We've seen the Spanish saying, no, get out. We don't want anything to do with this war. We've seen the German Chancellor arrive and not criticise Donald Trump at all and say, look, actually, thank you, you're doing something we couldn't do. We've seen Kirstama kind of caught in the middle. We've seen the French now having to send their aircraft when initially they didn't want to have any part of this. I mean, the lesson of the last year has been that Europe needs to be united and

needs to have a united defense and foreign policy. And this last week has shown the huge amount of problems that Europe has being united on something as fundamental as attacks on Iran. And Kirstama's called in the middle of it. I don't, I don't understand. They've seen this coming, Angler and Merkel warned them, I think, in 2018, 2019, we can no longer look to the United States. We have to come together. That's six, seven years ago. It seems to me their inability to coordinate actually reinforces what I hear from the Trump administration all the time that Europe can't get their act together.

And President Macron was right. I mean, you know, far a bit from a Brit to say the French were right. But anyway, it does seem that the Macron was right all along when he said, look, we need to have more coordinated European defenses and security, and we need to actually spend more money on it. And he was sort of poo-poohed around Europe for having said that as being pie in the sky and being grandiose, as being self-aggrandizing because he was pointing out something. But it gets back, and we've spoken about this before, it gets back to the problem. If you have 27 countries with 27 different.

And if you put Britain in there too, as part of the continent of Europe, 28 countries, with individual politics, there's not much. Nobody in Britain likes Donald Trump very much at the moment. There are very few supporters and they don't want to be seen to be helping Donald Trump. And every leader has that issue with their domestic public, and then they have issues with their international public. Are they closer to Russia? Are they further from Russia? Do they want to support Ukraine? Is Ukraine not such a priority? And I think that's the reality of that's the problem Europe has. And something urgent is going to have to push them. We thought we saw it in Davos. We thought they'd realized over Greenland. But then this happens and it exposes all of the floors and the cracks within Europe. Yeah. So we'll continue this conversation. President Emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations,

Richard Haas, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And coming up on Morning Joe, after being pushed by President Trump, the Justice Department's investigation into former President Biden falls flat. We'll explain why the DOJ is dropping its auto pen case. Because it was stupid as hell. And what it means for future investigations into Trump's perceived enemies. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Fog has settled in over Washington, live picture of the White House at 6.45 in the morning. President Trump's demand that the Justice Department investigate whether former President Joe Biden and his aides unlawfully used an autopent to sign presidential documents reportedly has hit a wall. Federal prosecutors are dropping the criminal probe because they were not able to move forward with the case against Joe Biden. That's according to three people briefed on the matter speaking to the New York Times.

Times. The Times reports the investigation, which was run by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington under Janine Piro, ultimately found no viable criminal case and now has been quietly abandoned. The Autopin case focused on Trump's claim the pardons Biden made in his final month of office were not valid because Biden supposedly lacked mental capacity and had to rely on AIDS using the auto pen. Biden has called those claims completely false, saying he personally made all clemency decisions. Join us now, the co-author of that piece, investigative reporter for the New York Times, Michael Schmidt. Mike, good morning. Great to see you. We'll remind our viewers that the auto pen is used routinely by all presidents, including President Donald Trump. So this, I think,

is not terribly surprising to people who first heard about this case that it wasn't going anywhere, but how did it fall apart? They couldn't find a lot, you know, to hang this thing on. Well, that hurts. Look, this is a story about the inability to bring the case against Biden, but this is also a story about how the Trump Justice Department continues to fail to do what Donald Trump wants it to do. He wanted the Justice Department to seek retribution and vengeance against those people who he didn't like. He wanted them indicted and put in jail. And in most cases, so far, we have seen them struggle to do that.

They struggled on the six who Trump accused of sedition. They've struggled on Comey and James. they struggled here again. And it's in the larger story of retribution, the arc of retribution, where Trump comes out of the gate with such momentum, by the time he gets to December and they really start to zero in on putting these people in jail, they have run into roadblock after roadblock. Sometimes those roadblocks have been at the grand jury on the six who accused of sedition. In this case, it was with the prosecutors who never even went to the grand jury to, actually try and bring the indictment. They've run into judges, but this is where his power has

been checked in different ways. They haven't given up on this. There's, you know, nothing in this Justice Department is dead by any means. We saw the other day that the Justice Department had gone out and put a filing, you know, to the federal court saying we are walking away from trying to defend the executive orders against the law firms only for the walk away to be reversed. just hours, you know, less than a day later. So who knows? But for now, these cases have run into different roadblocks, and this one being the latest.

There's some reporting that President Trump saw you discussing your piece on this show about the law firms and was surprised to learn that they were backing away and asked that to get fired up again. So in this case, on the autopen, this was part of a narrative, as we were just discussing, that Donald Trump had put out there during the campaign and carried over in his second term here, which is that Joe Biden was incapacitated and they had to use a machine to sign documents. Did the people in charge, did Ed Martin, even Janine Piro, did they understand that this was nonsense that Donald Trump had used that himself and they pursued it anyway? Or did they have convictions that there might be some kind of a case here?

I don't know if Ed Martin did. I think Jeanine Piro seems to have a larger understanding of maybe how the world works than Ed Martin. I think that Janine Piro is trying to straddle that line between being Donald Trump's, you know, U.S. attorney in a really important office while trying to, you know, keep things on the track. I think that's really difficult of watch people try and do that now for, you know, two different terms. And usually it doesn't end well. This, again, is not an issue where, like, you know, many people say one thing on one side. did legal beagle say another thing on another? This was pretty clear. There was an OLC, DOJ memo that said this was okay. The use of the auto pen, how Joe Biden made decisions, I would say pretty interesting.

You know, those are really important, interesting things. What's interesting and maybe controversial is not criminal. And what, you know, when you talk to people in the FBI or the Justice Department or anywhere else in federal law enforcement who are confronting this, these attempts by Trump to use the criminal justice system to jail his enemies, what they say is that there's just a lot of things Donald Trump doesn't like that aren't criminal. And this is probably a good example of that. Yeah, and certainly, as you point out, a lot of these efforts at retribution have failed, but there's still, we shouldn't gloss over the idea that there were people in the Department

of Justice who were willing to at least try to do President Trump's bidding to carry out his wishes here. I want to ask you, though, relatedly, we talked to the top of the show, with President Trump calling around sort of unhappy with the job performance of Secretary Christine Nome. How safe is Pam Bondi in her job? Because there does seem to be that you've heard some growing frustration that she has been unable to execute some of President Trump's wishes. Yeah, look, I think to the public, Pam Bondi looks like, you know, a Trump lackey and political ally who will do what he wants, one of his former personal lawyers.

But Bondi's department has not followed through on what Trump wanted. go back to the truth social post from September where he tells Bondi, you know, to follow through on these indictments of these different individuals. Some of those individuals were indicted. They were able to get those indictments, but they weren't able to get them to stick. Some of the other names of the people that Trump put in that truth social posts, I believe have not been indicted. So the larger retribution campaign, while having a big impact on the law firms, having a big impact on higher education, I'm not diminishing what has had. happen to these individuals who have been indicted and those people who have faced criminal scrutiny from the department, but it has not been the clean kill, certainly, that Trump thought it would be in terms of being able to do onto others what was done onto him. Right, right, right,

right. So while we're on Pam Bondi, the House Oversight Committee has voted to subpoena the Attorney General to appear for a closed-door deposition as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, Jackie Alamani, what are you hearing about this? And will we see pictures and video as we did with Hillary Clinton? Mika, that's a very good question. It's really unclear, but there are around 50,000 documents that the Wall Street reported yesterday that are missing from the dump of the Epstein files, which is why, in part, why you saw Nancy Mace introduce the move to subpoena and call in Pam Bondi yesterday. There were a number of Republicans who voted with Democrats. it's on this, Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, Tim Bertitt, Michael Cloud, Scott Perry. These are these are hardcore MAGA Trump supporters who feel that Pam Bondi's response has been wholly inadequate. It's unclear whether or not she's actually going to appear behind closed doors for a closed door deposition. But if she doesn't, Congress has already signaled

members on that committee that they're willing to pursue inherent contempt charges against Pam Bondi. Of course, that often relies on a referral to the the Justice Department for criminal contempt that falls under Pam Bondi's jurisdiction. It's unlikely that she's actually going to be arrested and put in the House the congressional jail. But needless to say, this is a very big and powerful statement coming from House members who want accountability here primarily with regards to unverified allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump that has not been included in these. files that a lot of survivors who feel like there are other documents about co-conspirators and their experiences that are missing so far.

Absolutely. And there are not just survivors and Democrats who want answers on this Jeffrey Epstein massive scandal, but some Republicans as well. MSNAS, Jackie Ellum, any thank you very much. Investigative reporter at the New York Times, Michael Schmidt. Thank you as well. His new piece is available online right now.