MS NOW Highlights - April 19

[0:00] Literally ten, five seconds ago, Jackie just got off the phone with President Trump. [0:05] She called during the break. [0:06] Tell us. [0:07] Well, you guys heard, too. [0:08] You start. [0:09] You start. [0:09] Let me fix my hair. [0:11] So Jackie did what a reporter does and what Jackie does. [0:15] She dialed the president of the United States. [0:16] He answered the phone. [0:18] And Jackie peppered him with a series of incredible questions about Iran and the negotiations. [0:25] And he broke some news. [0:26] We didn't know who was going to the negotiating table, but he told you it would be Steve Whitcoff, Jared Kushner. [0:32] You asked him if the vice president were going. [0:34] He said, no, the vice president is not going because of security reasons. [0:38] Jackie. [0:39] Yeah, the president said that Secret Service, essentially, I feel like the takeaway was they don't have enough time to sort of set up. [0:44] Because of the speed. [0:45] For the vice president to go and lead those negotiations again like he did last week. [0:50] And we asked him sort of about the major sticking points here. [0:53] And he claims, and he has been claiming this for the last few days now, that Iran has agreed to never have a nuclear weapon. [1:03] He said forever. [1:04] The time limit would be forever. [1:06] Yeah. [1:06] We asked him about that period of time, right? [1:08] Because the U.S. during negotiations, is that already just last weekend? [1:12] Yeah, last weekend. [1:12] Had initially said that they made a 20-year offer. [1:15] Iran countered with a three-year offer, according to our reporting. [1:18] That got some blowback from hardliners in the U.S. who say not even 20 years is sufficient. [1:24] They want an indefinite suspension. [1:26] The president now saying that that is what Iran is promising. [1:29] But when we followed up for some of the specifics about the concessions that the U.S. is making in return, he said essentially he wasn't going to negotiate with us. [1:38] You also asked him about China, the fact that China is playing a part in this. [1:43] And what did he say? [1:44] Yeah, the China issue has been something that I've really been interested in because, as we were going through it last weekend, the one national security advisor that was also on the list, in addition to Andy Baker, was a China specialist, someone, a Southeast Asia specialist. [1:59] And this week, that was something that the president talked about extensively during his interview with Maria Bartiromo, where he said that he had sent President Xi a letter asking him to stop supplying Iran with weapons. [2:10] There were reports, although MS did not verify those, that China has been replenishing Iran's military capabilities, and that has potentially allowed them to be able to stay in this fight longer than anybody anticipated. [2:23] It was also reported that China was one of the players that actually kind of nudged Iran to get to the table. [2:29] They get a third of their crude oil from the region through the Strait of Hormuz. [2:32] So they have a vested interest in this. [2:34] And he said that China is behaving very well. [2:37] Yeah. [2:37] One of the things I found really interesting while we were listening to Jackie's call with the president of the United States just now, he wasn't as blustery as usual. [2:44] Even while he was talking to you and saying, you know, that China has been very well, that the Iranians are doing everything that the administration wants them to do, which obviously it doesn't bear out in the facts and the way they're actually operating, there felt like there was less bluster. [3:00] It does not match the message that was in that tweet. [3:03] Like, he did not talk about the bridges. [3:05] He did not talk about the power plants in any way, shape, or form. [3:08] That was the one thing I regret not quickly asking him about, sort of the strategy behind his tweets, some of the threats, the bridges, as Jonathan brought up, the potential war crimes that he has been threatening. [3:19] And what he thought of this Wall Street Journal reporting about sort of the strategy of appearing unstable and whether he feels like it's been effective and whether it's productive. [3:29] I mean, you mentioned that he didn't sound blustery. [3:32] There weren't the threats during the phone call, as he just put out on social media. [3:38] But the thing that struck me was just the confidence he had in talking about this. [3:46] He sounded more self-assured than I thought he would have, just given the behavior that we have seen in public, from social media posts to his calls all over the place to other members of the media. [4:01] And part of me wonders, it's like, does he, I don't know, does he really believe that he has all the cards? [4:11] Yeah. [4:11] And I don't, that I don't know. [4:13] Yeah. [4:14] I mean, typically with Donald Trump, and Jackie, you know this as well, is like, he has this, like, positive thinking thing. [4:21] And he always has, right? [4:22] Jonathan Swan did that amazing interview during the first term, where he just, like, the, the, if you think positively about something, you can kind of manifest it into being. [4:30] And that has been true of a lot of parts of his life. [4:33] War is often very different in times of war and peace. [4:36] But that it seems to be where the president is at. [4:38] Moments ago, we heard from President Trump on the phone that the American negotiators will be U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner. [4:47] Vice President J.D. Vance will not be traveling to participate in the talks. [4:51] Let's bring in MS Now's White House reporter, Akayla Gardner. [4:56] Hey, Akayla, how are you? [4:58] Good, how are you? [5:00] We are good. [5:01] Okay, give us an update on what you're hearing and how you think this week is going to play out. [5:08] I mean, that news you just broke is so huge, because the president had been suggesting for days that perhaps Vice President Vance would not reprise this role. [5:17] And part of me thought maybe it's because that he would go to Pakistan himself, but now it sounds like he's not. [5:22] He's sending his two main men, Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner, back to Pakistan to reprise their roles in the second round of peace talks. [5:30] And it's just so unusual, because Vice President Vance had just played such a high-profile role, really, even before the talks last weekend, [5:38] because Iranian officials had been expressing this deep distrust in both Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner, [5:45] because, of course, those were the two men that they were speaking with before this war started, before that these were just nuclear talks. [5:52] And, of course, the war started just two days before they were scheduled to meet again. [5:56] So it is quite interesting that Vice President Vance is not going to be returning in that role. [6:00] He has, of course, been a skeptic of foreign interventions. [6:04] President Trump has openly said that he has been a little bit less enthusiastic about this conflict compared to other aides. [6:11] So it's very surprising that he will not be returning, and it will just be Steve Whitcoff, Jared Kushner, and not President Trump. [6:18] Okay, I want to stay on this and have you help us square a circle here. [6:22] We just heard the president, literally around this table, say that J.D. Vance will not be going because of security. [6:28] Mike Walls, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told John Call over at ABC today that J.D. Vance will lead the American delegation to Islamabad for talks with Iran. [6:40] I know you didn't—I assume you didn't talk to Mike Walls, but what it feels like is even in these high-stakes moments, decisions are not being coordinated between folks that would usually have this information coordinated, too. [6:56] It's a great question. [6:58] I'm not sure exactly why there's this confusion. [7:01] Of course, there were security concerns. [7:03] There was security concerns last week as well. [7:05] The vice president still went. [7:07] I think it just brings a really complicated moment for Vance because he is somebody who will almost certainly run for president, and this is a moment that many people will look back on it about how he played a role in this conflict. [7:20] And if you see a deal this weekend without him, I think it will be certainly glaring and something that he'll have to talk about later. [7:27] Joining me now, we have Seth Jones, Center for Strategic and International Studies president of the Defense and Security Department. [7:34] And Vera Bergen-Gruin, national security reporter at The Wall Street Journal, welcome to you both. [7:39] I'll start with that last point I was making to Inzim on with you, Seth. [7:43] I mean, there's a lot of heads-spinning new information on both the Strait of Hormuz, the expected resumed talks with Iran. [7:50] I mean, on the talks piece, Trump says the delegation is headed to Pakistan. [7:54] Iran seems to be balking to some degree. [7:56] Can you even venture a guess what is true, what's not true, what's likely, what's unlikely, and whether the vice president is going or not? [8:06] Yeah, well, I mean, I think the negotiations do look like they're happening. [8:10] Everything we're seeing at the Serena Hotel and the advanced team of security that has landed in Pakistan indicates that negotiations are going forward. [8:19] I mean, the administration has to negotiate now, because I think what we've seen is the military option is not able to find a solution right now. [8:29] It does look like all the indications are that the vice president probably will go, will be going as the lead part of that delegation. [8:38] But, again, we're going to have to wait and see, once he lands, whether it's going to be him or not. [8:44] OK, another thing, we have Iran saying, Seth, that it closed the strait. [8:49] President Trump says that the U.S. closed it first. [8:52] What is your read, and is this a standoff, or is it posturing? [8:57] And what concrete points can both sides agree on in this next round of talks? [9:03] Well, look, I mean, there is posturing on both sides. [9:06] But I think the reality right now is, when we look at the data, is that Iran still has about 40 percent of its arsenal of attack drones and upwards now about 60 percent of its missile launchers that it can use to fire anti-ship cruise missiles at boats coming through the Strait of Hormuz, [9:30] in addition to mines and the fast attack boats that the Iranians have. [9:36] So the reality, regardless of the rhetoric we're hearing on both sides, is the Iranians, front and center, continue to have capabilities to strike targets in the Strait of Hormuz. [9:49] And that is an important card that Iran still has. [9:53] Absolutely. [9:54] All right. [9:54] So to you now, Vera, because, again, back to this whole back and forth, Vance goes, doesn't go. [9:59] This morning, the president told our own MSNOW's Jackie Alimany that Vance would not be going to Pakistan this week. [10:07] Then you have two senior U.S. officials later telling MSNOW Vance is, in fact, leading the U.S. delegation. [10:12] And then there's the new report in your paper today, Vera, on the fears that may be behind Trump's public bravado on the war, [10:20] citing the White House officials who say that top aides urged Trump to limit interviews with reporters [10:26] because he's only convincing the public that he's sending contradictory messages. [10:31] So let's look at what he's done today alone, right? [10:33] He's done phone interviews, MSNOW, ABC News, New York Post, Fox. [10:38] What is the biggest concern among White House officials? [10:42] I think what they're concerned about, again, is that depending on who the president is trying to reach, [10:49] it really depends what audience he's speaking with, and it just depends on the day, depends on the hour. [10:54] So, you know, if he's trying to speak, you know, we've seen him make these really maximalist, unprecedented threats, [11:00] you know, threatening to wipe out an entire civilization, I'm going to bomb civilian infrastructure. [11:05] That's clearly a message to the Iranians. [11:07] It's meant, you know, we're told that it's, you know, he tells them this is meant to scare them. [11:11] If I seem almost, you know, unpredictable and unstable in some ways, [11:15] if I make these really maximalist threats, it might, you know, force them to come to the table. [11:20] If he's actually speaking to try to calm markets or to a domestic audience that hasn't really, [11:24] you know, that's pretty skeptical of this war, he sounds completely different. [11:28] And again, same president, different audiences, and then we are left to kind of figure out, [11:32] you know, does he mean what he's saying? [11:34] Is he trying to send a message to a different public? [11:37] And I think that's kind of what we're seeing today with the prelude to these talks. [11:40] The challenges of interpreting an erratic president, I mean, it's really very difficult. [11:46] Let's go to you, Seth, with Iran's parliamentary speaker who led talks with Vance last weekend [11:51] and said that Iran was, quote, victorious in the field and is far from a final deal. [11:56] So given the past interactions between Iran and the Trump administration, [12:01] would Iran even get in the room if Vance is not leading the U.S. side? [12:07] Yeah, I think it's possible. [12:09] I mean, it would depend on who is there. [12:11] I mean, certainly if Steve Witkoff and if the president's son-in-law are there, [12:17] I think those are still very serious negotiators and people with the ear of the president. [12:24] I mean, I do think at the end of the day, Iran's economy is in shambles right now. [12:30] There are a range of incentives for the Iranians to start to wind this war up. [12:35] The 10-point plan outlines some of them. [12:38] It wants money, it wants the removal of sanctions, and it wants an end to the regional conflict, [12:43] including the one in Lebanon right now. [12:46] It's probably not going to get—it isn't going to get everything that it wants. [12:49] But I think there are incentives for Iran to not have this drag out, again, [12:57] because its economy and its military, for that matter, have been degraded pretty seriously. [13:03] Mm-hmm. [13:04] Vera, so that fascinating report by your colleagues that I just cited, [13:08] it also says that the president is veering between belligerent and conciliatory approaches [13:14] and grappling behind the scenes with just how badly things could go wrong. [13:18] It also offers some details about Easter weekend when that American fighter jet was shot down over Iran [13:23] and the search was on for the missing airman. [13:25] A senior administration official told the journal Trump screamed at aides for hours, [13:30] and aides kept him out of the room as they got minute-by-minute updates [13:33] because they believed his impatience wouldn't be helpful. [13:37] What more have you learned about that? [13:41] Again, I mean, I think it does show that even though he projects all of this bravado in public, [13:45] you know, on Truth Social, we see him put out all these statements. [13:49] And again, I think it's important to remember, [13:51] this is a president who declared victory two days or one day basically into the war. [13:56] You know, weeks and weeks ago, he said, we've already won. [13:59] We've done everything we set out to do. [14:01] And he's kept saying that week by week as the U.S., you know, continues this war and as the war drags on. [14:07] So I think, you know, these statements and this confidence that he's projecting in public, [14:12] what my colleagues really illuminated there is how behind the scenes, [14:16] obviously he's really worried about the domestic fallout. [14:19] You know, it's a midterm year. [14:20] He's worried about, you know, the economic fallout. [14:23] He's worried about what's going on with allies. [14:25] So, you know, despite all these, you know, very confident statements that we keep seeing, [14:30] and more importantly, the fact that he keeps approaching these negotiations from a position of victory, [14:35] he thinks Iran is coming from a position of surrender. [14:38] And that's obviously not how the Iranians are seeing it. [14:40] So I think kind of peeling back that curtain is quite useful to show that he is aware of some of those risks [14:46] and, you know, the balance he has to strike here. [14:49] And to that end, Seth, that point she's making, [14:51] plus given the belligerent and conciliatory swings with Trump, [14:55] do you think a deal can be realistically made tomorrow, or will this go on for maybe months? [15:01] Well, I don't see both sides being that close right now to resolving some of the key issues on sanctions removal [15:11] and ending regional conflict, particularly Lebanon, which the Israelis have pushed back on pretty hard. [15:19] So I don't see a deal emerging that will likely stay in place, at least within the next day or two. [15:26] I think we're going to need some more time for negotiations. [15:29] And again, you know, just coming back to his Iranian capabilities, [15:35] there are a number of U.S. officials who have said the Iranians don't hold any cards. [15:39] That's just not true right now with the weapons systems that Iran still has available. [15:45] Again, 40 percent of its arsenal of attack drones and roughly 60 percent of its missile launchers still intact. [15:51] That's a lot of capabilities and leverage they still have in the Strait of Hormuz. [15:56] So if you don't think there's a diplomatic resolution imminent, Seth, does that mean, what, three days left in this ceasefire? [16:05] The return is to military action? [16:10] It's possible there will be a return to limited military action. [16:14] I mean, the U.S. does have pretty much everything it needs in place in the region, [16:18] from carrier strike groups to forces on the ground that can fire standoff weapons. [16:26] But we've also seen with the U.S. president that we could see another ceasefire and another two-week time period for negotiations to continue. [16:35] That is also a strong possibility. [16:38] Yeah. [16:39] I guess we will have to wait and see. [16:40] Seth Jones, Vera Bergengruen, thank you both so much. [16:42] But first, we're following breaking news on the Iran war. [16:47] President Trump says U.S. negotiators will be in Pakistan tomorrow for talks in Islamabad. [16:54] On Truth Social, he accused Iran of violating the ceasefire agreement by firing on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz [17:00] and threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it does not take the deal the U.S. is offering. [17:07] The president writes, if they don't, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran. [17:16] No more Mr. Nice Guy. [17:19] Joining us now, MSNOW's senior national security reporter, David Rode. [17:24] Jackie, how about you tell David the highlights of your conversation with the president of the United States? [17:31] Yeah, David, thanks for joining us this morning. [17:33] Basically, the top line here from our brief conversation during commercial breaks was that J.D. Vance is not going to be leading the delegation to Islamabad for the talks with the Iranians this week. [17:45] It's just going to be Steve Wyckoff and Jared Kushner. [17:48] The reason the president gave us was that there are security reasons, potentially not enough time for Secret Service to make sure that the vice president is able to travel over there safely. [17:59] I'm wondering if you have any initial reactions to this or whether you think that it's possible that the vice president has been sidelined. [18:10] And if you have any sort of reporting from your diplomatic sources about how they felt the vice president's performance was during the first round of negotiations. [18:21] Not having J.D. Vance there, I think, hurts the chances for an agreement. [18:24] The Iranians wanted J.D. Vance there. [18:27] They felt that he, you know, he's opposed this war. [18:30] He's opposed forever wars, you know, previously. [18:33] He and there's been reporting that he actually told the president he didn't support this war. [18:38] But when the president told him he was going to attack Iran, J.D. Vance said, you know, go big and go fast, meaning hit them fast and make it hard and make it a short war. [18:47] This claim of inadequate security doesn't make any sense. [18:50] I spent years reporting in Islamabad on a close friend of mine who I worked with then from The New York Times. [18:57] He's now an editor of a local paper. [18:59] They locked down the entire city for these negotiations. [19:03] They're the it's the negotiations are held in the Serena Hotel. [19:06] That's where diplomats stay. [19:08] And it's quite safe. [19:10] So I think Steve Whitcoff leading these negotiations is a mistake. [19:17] There were two previous rounds of negotiations that Whitcoff led with Iran. [19:22] Jared Kushner was with him for the last round. [19:25] Those both ended in surprise Israeli and U.S. airstrikes. [19:29] The Iranians do not trust Steve Whitcoff. [19:32] They feel he didn't fully understand the final offer they made in terms of their nuclear program. [19:37] But all that said, it's very good that there will be talks in Pakistan. [19:43] But I just want to explain the dynamics in terms of what the Iranians might be thinking. [19:49] David, one of the things that the president said was that I'm looking at the transcript of the conversation that happened here around the table was that Iran would agree to never again have nuclear ambitions, [20:02] to never again have to put those ambitions to actual work. [20:08] That seems out of place with how the Iranians have been behaving this entire time with really how many countries nowadays would operate, [20:19] allowing a sovereign nation to tell them that they can never do something. [20:24] What are you hearing from your sources? [20:25] Is that square at all with what they are telling you? [20:28] So, again, and I just apologize to you and to viewers, so the president's statements are just inaccurate in that Iran has said dozens of times, [20:39] including before we started attacking them, that they did not intend to make a nuclear weapon. [20:45] If the president was talking about, you know, trying to get all of their enriched uranium, they've got about a thousand pounds of it. [20:52] It's not enriched to bomb level that you can make a nuclear bomb, but they might be able to enrich it if they could rebuild their centrifuges. [21:01] They've been destroyed. [21:02] So this point about promising to never have a nuclear weapon, I don't understand it because the supreme leader, [21:10] the one who has died, the Khamenei, the older one, issued a fatwa that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. [21:17] Many Americans, including the Obama and Biden administration, didn't trust that promise. [21:22] And obviously Israel didn't and shouldn't. [21:25] But I don't understand this sort of condition. [21:28] And then you're right, it is sort of dictating to a sovereign country what they're going to do. [21:33] A compromise is that, look, the United Arab Emirates has nuclear power, but they bring in enriched uranium from other countries, from the U.S., from Russia. [21:42] And this is sort of a point of Iranian pride. [21:45] And I'm not saying we should give in to Iranian pride, but there is a way for them to have a small nuclear program that they can use to generate electricity. [21:53] It's kind of crazy, given that they have oil. [21:55] But the UAE and other countries do this, but they don't enrich the uranium. [21:59] And that's why there's no concern in the United Arab Emirates that they're somehow going to make a nuclear bomb. [22:05] So anyway, go ahead. [22:06] Go ahead. [22:07] Finish your thought. [22:07] No, finish your thought. [22:08] Finish your thought. [22:08] I just I'm just I'm excited they're going. [22:12] There should be a peace deal. [22:14] It's not going to be easy. [22:15] And I think the broad outlines of a deal are there. [22:18] And I can but we can talk about that in a bit. [22:20] David, one of the things that Jackie asked the president about was China and why he felt that they have been terrific. [22:29] And part of the things he said was they haven't done anything that, you know, they haven't been a factor, which is very nice. [22:35] You know, they haven't been trying to block, you know, the block, the blockade, as we call it. [22:40] They haven't been doing anything. [22:43] They've been great. [22:45] China's been great. [22:46] And I'm trying to understand how does that square with reports that the Chinese have been helping the Iranians in their fight, in this war with the United States? [23:00] An excellent question. [23:02] So there was a Financial Times story that said that the that the Chinese have been providing satellite imagery. [23:08] Russia has been doing this as well. [23:11] And that a U.S. official confirmed to me that story is correct. [23:14] That would be satellite imagery that would help the Iranians target U.S. forces. [23:19] Again, Russia's been doing the same thing. [23:21] And then there was a separate of CNN reporting. [23:23] The New York Times match it to a certain extent. [23:25] And then again, I had a U.S. official confirm it to me that China was preparing to send shoulder fired or some sort of any aircraft system to the Iranians. [23:35] It's not clear they actually sent that. [23:37] In terms of the blockade, I think the president's trying to give China credit. [23:40] And it is a positive thing that when the U.S. blocked, started blocking Chinese, I'm sorry, Iranian tankers, they were largely taking oil from Iran to China. [23:51] The Chinese didn't militarily try to get involved there. [23:54] That could have started a very dangerous broader conflict with China. [23:58] So that is a positive step. [24:00] I see that China, like so many countries, is just eager for a deal here. [24:06] So I'm hoping, again, that these talks in Islamabad go well. [24:11] All right. [24:11] All right. [24:12] MS Now's David Rhodes, thank you very much for coming to the weekend. [24:16] Joining us now, former Indiana senator and former ambassador to the Holy See, Joe Donnelly. [24:22] Ambassador Donnelly, thank you for being here. [24:25] We'd just love to get your reaction to what we've been talking about, Jackie's conversation with President Trump about what's going on with Iran. [24:33] But also, I'd love to get your reaction to what David Rhodes just reported, which is, as the president told Jackie, [24:41] Vice President Vance will not be with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the negotiating table. [24:48] And David Rhodes said that it's unfortunate that Vance is not going because that means less likelihood of a deal since the Iranians want to talk with J.D. [25:00] Vance. [25:01] He was just there a week ago. [25:04] Do you share that same pessimism? [25:07] Yeah, I think one of the things here is that President Trump has such a comfort level with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. [25:15] I don't know that he actually has that comfort level with J.D. Vance. [25:20] And he knows Vice President Vance didn't really agree with him on this at the start. [25:25] The opposite of that is the Iranians do not trust Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, as was mentioned. [25:32] They've negotiated twice and both ended up with their country being bombed. [25:37] And so I think it would have been a plus if the vice president was there. [25:40] I'm glad they're going to negotiate, but I think that the central person that the Iranians trusted will not be there. [25:48] One of the things that has been very, I think, probably interesting is a loaded, should be a loaded term there, as watching these negotiations take place, is on one end, you have Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, J.D. Vance. [26:04] At one point, you won't be going to this round of talks, sitting down with Pakistan, then sitting down with the Iranians and trying to hammer out a deal. [26:12] While you have the president of the United States tweeting out the kinds of things that we've seen today, including saying that he was going to knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran. [26:23] They'll come down fast. [26:24] They'll come down easy. [26:25] And if they don't take the deal, it will be my honor to do what has to be done. [26:29] Can you speak to the difficulty that it creates in that negotiating room when you have the president of the United States tweeting these kinds of threats? [26:39] Or is it actually a benefit for Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to say, if this doesn't happen, you saw what the president of the United States said he's prepared to do? [26:50] Well, I don't think it's a benefit. [26:51] This is the second time he's brought this discussion up about the power plants and the bridges. [26:57] And I think what's beginning to happen is that on the Iranian side, they start to filter that out because they've heard it before. [27:06] They've been attacked twice. [27:08] They want to come to an agreement that makes sense for them. [27:12] The United States wants to come to an agreement that makes sense for us. [27:15] And so these threats are thrown in there, but I don't think they're going to change the discussions one way or the other because it's a pattern of negotiation and it's not actually moving the ball forward at all. [27:29] And, Senator, you I want to pivot to one of your former jobs, the ambassador to the Holy See. [27:40] But before we go in there, I just heard I pinged a bunch of my sources to kind of get their reaction to the decision not to send to the vice president. [27:48] And Steve Bannon just wrote to me to say the cooler has been benched, reinforcing one of the points that you just made about potentially the lack of trust here. [28:00] But let's pivot to the conversation about the pope. [28:02] I guess first, what was your overall reaction? [28:05] And having spent time, I think, potentially working probably with what were you working with Pope Francis at some point? [28:15] And I assume you had interactions with him. [28:17] I worked with Pope Francis on on almost a daily, if not daily, every week basis. [28:22] Absolutely. [28:24] How unusual was it for Pope Leo to sort of engage in this back and forth? [28:30] I mean, it feels like something Pope Francis wouldn't have done. [28:33] And what are sort of the differences that you're seeing so far emerge between the leadership of the two popes? [28:38] Sure. [28:38] Well, I actually think Pope Francis, Pope Leo would have both engaged because what they're doing is preaching the gospel, which is love for your fellow citizens. [28:48] I think that almost as a controlling document, you could imagine Matthew 25, which is whatever you do for the least of us, you do for me. [28:56] And I think Leo feels an obligation to talk about trying to protect those in need, to protect those who are struggling. [29:05] And I think in part, President Trump's problem is, you know, as funny as this may sound, he's kind of jealous of Leo, that Leo is is an American who has extraordinary attention around the world. [29:17] And up till now, there's only been President Trump. [29:21] And now he has to share the stage. [29:22] And joining me now, of course, is our friend of the show, Judge J. Michael Ludig. [29:27] He's a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [29:31] Judge Ludig, you are also and I remind our viewers to whom you are beloved. [29:35] You are a conservative. [29:36] You are a committed conservative and have been all your life. [29:39] This speech offends that part of you. [29:42] It offends your conservative judicial sensibilities. [29:46] It does, Ali. [29:48] And thank you for having me on this morning. [29:50] I believe that this speech could prove to be the single most important speech of political and constitutional philosophy that should never have been given. [30:04] As you say, as a conservative my entire life, Ali, I certainly wish Justice Thomas had not written and given this speech. [30:13] It is a far more unfortunate speech for conservatism than it is even for progressivism. [30:22] The Justice obviously intended this as a conservative manifesto for our times and indeed for all times. [30:32] But what he said is not doctrinal conservatism, it's not political conservatism, and it is manifestly not constitutional conservatism. [30:45] And no one should mistake this for true conservatism or even republicanism, much less constitutional conservatism. [30:55] It's anything but these. [30:58] I have long considered this a bastard strand of conservatism that lingered in the faculty lounges of the academy until it came to fuel Donald Trump's rise to power in 2016. [31:19] The overarching significance of the speech is really that it is the intellectual underpinnings for the current president, his presidency, and his MAGA movement. [31:37] It was, in fact, the underlying justification for and the but-for cause, as we lawyers say, of President Trump's failed effort to cling to power on January 6th. [31:56] However, it is as certainly wrong as it believes it is certainly right. [32:06] It's simply and demonstrably wrong as a matter of historical fact, political fact, and constitutional fact and law. [32:21] It's a shockingly ahistorical characterization, not just of liberals, but also conservatives. [32:31] This is emphatically not what the founders of this nation contemplated or ever intended, Ali. [32:43] This last week, we've seen a move by the Department of Justice to vacate the convictions of 12 people who were convicted of seditious conspiracy as it related to January 6th. [32:52] You are making the argument, I would like you to flesh this out a little more, about the stuff that Justice Thomas said in relation to January 6th, how that is connected to the intellectual underpinnings for what happened on January 6th, 2021. [33:05] Yes, it's actually since January 6th, I have referred to this political and constitutional theory, if you will, as the ugly underbelly of the current conservative MAGA movement in America. [33:32] As I said before, you know, this has been batted around for many, many years. [33:41] And by the way, Justice Thomas believes this to his core. [33:48] He believed this for many years before he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. [33:56] And in fact, you know, he is an apostle and has always been an apostle of so-called natural law. [34:07] For your listeners and your audience, you can equate, they can equate natural law with the Declaration of Independence. [34:17] That is, that the rights in the Declaration of Independence are God-given as a matter of natural law. [34:27] This was the initial problem for Justice Thomas at his confirmation hearing. [34:35] But in his hearing, if I recall correctly, and I do, he rejected natural law as a source for constitutional interpretation as a Supreme Court justice. [34:53] But I want to make the point, Ali, if I may, that perhaps it can be said that Woodrow Wilson rejected the Declaration's preamble, but virtually no progressive or Democrat since Woodrow Wilson has rejected it. [35:12] In fact, every single progressive president since Woodrow Wilson has enthusiastically embraced the preamble, the Declaration itself. [35:24] And Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, for goodness sakes, President William Jefferson Clinton began his inauguration at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. [35:39] And from that pilgrimage to Thomas Jefferson at the mountaintop of Monticello, he traveled to Washington, D.C. to be sworn as president of the United States. [35:52] For 250 years, Ali, it's never been the case that either of America's two political parties has been anti-declaration or anti-constitution. [36:06] Why is that so important? [36:07] And I understand that. [36:09] But in plain terms, why should that be as worrisome as it is? [36:13] Why is this such an influential and important speech that, as you said, you wish had never been made? [36:18] Well, our friend Jeffrey Rosen, the foremost scholar in the world of America's founding, has just written the definitive book called The Pursuit of Power, Hamilton versus Jefferson. [36:47] And in that treatise, Jeffrey Rosen rejects every single word of Justice Thomas's speech. [37:05] And, of course, Jeffrey Rosen does it with the scholarship that is unquestionable by anyone, indisputable by anyone in the United States of America or the world. [37:24] What's the consequence of this? [37:26] Why did Justice Thomas do this? [37:27] I get you when you say that he believes this at his core and he believed it long before he became a justice of the Supreme Court. [37:32] Is there something else to doing this in this moment? [37:36] Of course there is. [37:39] This is the singular moment in which to do this, if you are Justice Thomas. [37:48] Why? [37:50] Because America is celebrating this year, on July 4th, the 250th anniversary since the founding of this greatest nation on Earth. [38:06] And during the course of this year, America will be celebrating its story at the same time that the President of the United States has already told America that he will be celebrating a different story of America than what is, in fact, America's story. [38:36] This is the moment for Justice Thomas to have made this particular speech. [38:45] And incidentally, if there is a silver lining to this speech, it is that he has given it, he has explained it, he has analyzed it comprehensively. [39:01] And now it is out there for the world to dispute and to reject. [39:09] And I think that's the important work right now. [39:13] And you're doing it here on this show. [39:15] Do you feel there will be enough or there has been as yet enough of a response to this remarkable speech? [39:24] No, but the speech was just given a few days ago. [39:27] And we all must understand, or I would urge America to understand, this is a speech, a momentous speech of lasting consequence. [39:48] Every single word of this speech should be parsed by every single American this celebratory year. [39:58] Because America, this is America's time of testing, 250 years since the founding. [40:09] Americans must decide today, this year, what it is that they want for America, what it is that they want America to be and not to be in the future. [40:27] And that's an enormous consequence. [40:32] Judge, thanks for being with us this morning. [40:35] We appreciate your analysis. [40:37] Judge J. Michael Ludig is a former federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [40:43] There are some signs tonight that President Trump might not have quite the same level of control over congressional Republicans that he used to. [40:51] And more and more of those Republicans seem willing to buck him than ever, at least when it comes to surveillance. [40:57] Those doubts reemerged this week when the president failed to whip House Republicans to pass an 18-month renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. [41:07] In the end, 20 Republican lawmakers voted against it. [41:10] And Congress ended up extending the law for just 10 days while they hash out what it ultimately will be. [41:17] Joining us now is Alex Shepard. [41:18] He's senior editor at The New Republic. [41:20] So, Alex, I find this to be pretty significant in that 20 Republicans, you know, it's not nothing, especially when you consider the war powers resolution. [41:31] You only had Massey defect and you only had another Republican vote present. [41:34] So, this fight, Donald Trump was famously very against FISA and surveillance powers when he thought it was used against him. [41:45] But now that he's in the executive, he loves it. [41:49] Can you explain just what this battle tells us about the state of the GOP right now? [41:54] Well, I think this is the story of Trump's second term, which is that, you know, he complained about FISA war. [41:59] He claimed that he had been wire hit, his wires tapped in Trump Tower, and that he had been targeted in all these ways. [42:06] And then, of course, as soon as he gets into office, he wants to use these kind of powers that he was criticizing against his own enemies. [42:13] He wants to be able to wield these things. [42:14] It's a system where there is sort of surveillance for thee, but not for me. [42:17] And this is how he's been operating here. [42:19] But I think what we're seeing is that there is a sort of principled opposition to FISA, particularly to Section 702, which emerged after 9-11 and sweeps up American personal data in it. [42:32] So, you know, what we're seeing is that there is actually a bipartisan majority within the House of Representatives that wants warrants attached to FISA requests, which I think is a pretty reasonable thing here. [42:42] But I think what we're seeing, which is far more interesting, is that Trump has always been able to basically get people in line when he wants something. [42:49] And what we're seeing here right now is that, you know, Mike Johnson basically called the kind of 11th, literally an 11th-hour vote, the middle of the night on Friday night, and he couldn't do it. [42:58] You know, it was a huge humiliation for him. [42:59] But what we're also seeing here, too, is that there are factions within the GOP that are starting to awaken, and they're fighting back against him. [43:06] What do you think is waking them up? [43:08] Is it that because everything is so bad and the polling is cratering, that there's just like an opening here? [43:15] He's a lame-duck president, like, so we can start slowly pushing back on certain things that we maybe do have principled stances on? [43:21] Or how do you read it all? [43:22] Yeah, I mean, one thing is that Congress just isn't doing very much right now. [43:26] Like, that's the other. [43:27] This is a historically— [43:29] A lot of vacation. [43:30] Yes. [43:30] And so there's not a lot of priority. [43:32] So if you are someone who cares a great deal, which a handful of Republicans are about things like civil liberties or Section 702 of FISA, [43:39] there is an opportunity to move here, but I also think what we're starting to see is a sense that the MAGA movement will outlast President Trump, [43:48] President Trump who's about to turn 80 years old, but people are trying to jockey to see who's actually going to control it [43:53] and what the priorities of that movement are. [43:56] Meanwhile, with Trump himself, what you're seeing is that it's just a pure cult of personality, right, [44:01] particularly as the 250th anniversary comes up, as the 2026 World Cup. [44:05] He is mostly just interested in doing whatever he wants. [44:08] But, Alex, one of the things you were just talking about from sort of within Congress, [44:12] the thing that's fascinating to me about this MAGA ecosphere sort of, like, shattering is—or at least cracking— [44:20] is with the folks we're seeing from the outside, the tastemakers on the right, if you will, [44:24] the Tucker Carlson's, the Marjorie Taylor Greene's. [44:27] They are now turning on Trump. [44:29] Now, I'm trying to understand what is the common thread there, if you've been able to identify. [44:36] How do you read those tea leaves that you've had some of the most stalwart cornerstones of this movement [44:42] now say, we're not messing with you anymore? [44:45] Well, I think that what you see is—look back to 2016, right? [44:47] The populist right at this point is still a pretty nascent phenomenon. [44:50] It's just starting to form. [44:53] Ten years later now, it is a full-fledged movement. [44:55] It's not strong enough to take over the entire GOP, but it exists. [44:59] And I think that if you are someone who sees yourself as being part of that movement [45:03] and not, say, part of the Republican establishment or the future of the Republican Party, [45:08] what you're seeing is an administration that is, in many ways, [45:11] abandoning the kind of principles, quote-unquote, that Trump espoused in 2016. [45:17] So if you look at something like Iran, right? [45:19] If you're someone who believes that the U.S. should be non-interventionist in terms of its foreign policy, [45:27] then that's a huge betrayal. [45:29] And I think they're also looking at this in a, frankly, opportunistic way, [45:33] that this is a president whose approval rating is dipped below 40 percent. [45:38] You look at the cost of gas, right? [45:40] You look at the situation with the Strait of Hormuz that is both open and closed at the same time. [45:46] And I think that they're seeing that, you know, this is not an administration where things are going to get better. [45:50] So they're starting to make long-term plays, and they can. [45:53] If you're a member of Congress, you're up for election in November. [45:55] You still need Trump, to some extent, to not be tweeting about you all the time like he is with Thomas Massey. [46:00] Who do you think represents the future? [46:03] Is it J.D. Vance? [46:05] He very obviously wants that job. [46:07] Is it Secretary Marco Rubio, who seems to be really actually quite a talented politician lately, [46:13] just as able to avoid every situation you don't want to be in right now, [46:17] like at a UFC fight instead of, you know, in Pakistan trying to negotiate an end to this war conveniently? [46:24] Who do you think is going to inherit all of this? [46:27] I think that, I mean, the question right now, I think the schism or the fight between Rubio and Vance [46:33] is very interesting to me because Rubio, in some ways, represents more of a continuity. [46:38] He obviously was in the Senate before Trump, you know, Trump's political career took off. [46:43] And I think if you're looking for someone who can kind of put a, you know, [46:47] updated sheen on kind of the evolution of the Republican Party, that's Rubio. [46:52] But, you know, if you want to talk about crack-ups within the Republican Party, [46:54] I think that looking at Vance's handling of the Iran War is very interesting. [46:59] Right after that conflict began, you know, almost every news outlet in the country has a story that says, [47:04] oh, J.D. Vance is kind of not all the way in favor of this. [47:08] And I think you're doing that part, maybe Vance's principled, but also I think, you know, [47:12] Vance is looking at the future. He's one of the most opportunistic politicians in the country right now. [47:17] And I think that he was betting that this war would be a disaster. [47:20] It was something that he did not want his fingerprints on, and now they're on it. [47:23] But, you know, looking at this sort of conversation about Tucker Carlson, these other kind of influencers, [47:28] Vance, I think, is more aligned with that. [47:30] I think he is someone who is more likely to say, you know, the Trump administration, you know, [47:34] we kind of didn't get all these things done, and we didn't do it because we abandoned these kind of core MAGA principles [47:40] that I will take up, whereas Rubio, I think, is going to argue more that he's a sort of steward, right, [47:45] a continuity of Donald Trump's legacy. [47:48] Alex Shepard, thank you so much. [47:50] Thank you.