'What I'd like to hear is a plan': Rep. Khanna on Trump's address on Iran

[0:00] both for being here. So just moments ago, President Trump posted on Truth Social that [0:04] in his words, Iran's new regime has asked the U.S. for a ceasefire, something Trump says he [0:11] would only consider when the Hormuz Strait is open, free and clear. Until then, we are blasting [0:18] Iran into oblivion or the Stone Age, he adds. It's unclear what the new regime president, [0:25] who that person is. Later this evening, President Trump would deliver a primetime address to update [0:31] the country on the Iran war. Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. [0:37] He's a member of both the Oversight Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Congressman, [0:41] good morning. Thank you for being here. A number of topics we'd like to get to you with, but first, [0:47] let's the war in Iran. We're not quite sure what to make of this new post. There has not been, [0:53] to the best of reported as of this morning, any direct contact between U.S. and Iran and who that [1:00] new regime even would be. [1:01] There's been some indirect talks with Pakistan in the middle there. The Strait of Hormuz, even then, [1:07] the president now prioritizing that it should be reopened, when yesterday he seemed to suggest he [1:11] was going to leave it into the hands of our allies. So it seems to be a lot of just mixed [1:16] messaging from the Oval Office. I never thought I'd live in a world where American ships and our [1:21] ally ships are being turned down in the Strait of Hormuz and Chinese ships, Indian ships are going [1:27] through. The president has made a mess of this. We have replaced Khamenei with Khamenei, [1:32] Jr., who is actually more radical. And if you were to replace him, you would get the IRGC, [1:37] which is even more hardline. We need to end the war. The president can claim that he degraded [1:43] the Navy, the airplane. We need to end it now, tell Israel to end it, end Iran's bombing, [1:50] and then have a ceasefire that Macron and other European leaders have been calling for. [1:54] One final point. Rubio is the one who led in the Senate the bill that says the president can [2:00] unilaterally withdraw from NATO. [2:02] Rubio's bill with Tim Kaine. He has no ability to do that without the Senate and the House. [2:08] Yeah, the president in a new interview out this morning suggesting he might try to pull out of [2:12] NATO. You're right. It's actually, he's not able to do that, or at least not without significant [2:15] legal challenges. But as we discussed earlier in the show, there would be ways for him to weaken [2:19] NATO, pulling out troops from Europe and the like, even if he doesn't officially try to exit it. [2:24] You sit on the Armed Services Committee. I assume that you guys have not received a sort of briefing [2:30] as to what the president will be saying to the United States. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not [2:32] sure. We've already had a few [3:01] two Filmhacks in two minutes. [3:02] into attacking the Iranian export oil. And this has been part of the problem. There's no [3:09] clear strategy. There's no clear mission. Some folks are saying we need regime change. [3:14] Others are saying, no, it was just about degrading the Iranian military. Others are saying, no, [3:19] no, they need to get the nuclear weapons. But we have not understood. The nuclear weapons are [3:23] buried underground. How are you going to get them? You can't get them through airstrikes. [3:27] So what the president should lay out today is actually what is the objective? Have we met the [3:32] objective? And when are the troops coming home? Yes, Sam Stein, it would be unfathomable. It [3:37] would seem to leave the area while the Strait of Hormuz was still in Iranian control, since that [3:42] would have such negative economic impact on the U.S. and the whole globe. But to the congressman's [3:48] point, you know, the president, even some Republicans were frustrated with how he did [3:53] not really make a public case to the American people before the war saying, hey, this is why [3:58] we're doing this. Perhaps he's got a chance to do that tonight. I don't know why. I mean, yes, [4:05] it would be unfathomable. I agree that except I could see Trump doing it. I mean, it's not [4:12] totally out of the realm for me to see Trump doing it. Right. He's very impulsive, obviously. [4:17] At several points in this past couple of weeks, he said he's just going to abandon the Strait and [4:23] let the Europeans deal with it. He seems pretty convinced that we have enough domestic energy here [4:29] to handle all our energy needs, not really understanding that the global energy market [4:33] is dependent on global energy and is affected by it. So, yeah, I understand why in normal [4:39] circumstances that would seem unfathomable, but these are normal circumstances. And for the [4:44] congressman, you know, look, we have this address tonight. Everyone's been waiting for this version [4:51] of this. Let's put it that way, because, frankly, the White House has not done this. They haven't [4:56] really explained the purposes and the objectives of the war. [4:59] But there's got to be a pretty big delta, I suppose, between what you would hope to hear [5:04] from Trump tonight and what you expect to hear from Trump tonight. And I'm wondering if you could [5:09] talk a bit about both. Well, so first, you're absolutely right about the economics of energy [5:17] and the price of oil. The American people don't need to be economists to understand that when the [5:21] Strait of Hormuz is closed, then it makes gas prices go up here. And for the life of me, I don't [5:30] know how much of a question I have on the oil we have here to actually help American prices. [5:35] What I'd like to hear is a plan. When are we coming out of Iran? How do we end this war? And [5:42] how do we engage in the difficult diplomacy to make sure that the Strait of Hormuz is open and [5:48] that there is some agreement to get the enriched uranium that is underground? The president has [5:54] failed to lay out a rationale, and he's failed to lay out what we're achieving. And at the cost of [6:00] 13 American service members, over 1,000 Iranian civilians killed, and gas prices skyrocketing [6:06] here at home and around the world. Congressman, meanwhile, as Jonathan pointed out, we have 7,000 [6:14] troops in the area. And it does suggest that at least in a rational world, and granted, [6:22] we're not in a rational world, and we're not dealing with a rational administration, but [6:26] if you send all that readiness, all those troops, [6:31] into a theater, you're probably going to use them. What is your level of concern or feeling that [6:39] there might, in fact, be a ground operation, despite all this talk of what we're pulling [6:45] out in two weeks? And what would that ground operation be able to do? [6:50] Well, a week ago, before they adjourned Congress, it was very high. I mean, Thomas Massey and I led [6:56] the War Powers Resolution. We came up a few votes short. And I was calling that let's have a vote, [7:02] again. My sense is that the president has heard from others on his team that this would risk [7:08] significant American casualties. This is not like the Madero operation in Venezuela. This would [7:14] further hurt the markets, further hurt gas prices. And I think he's genuinely undecided. I don't [7:20] think they know exactly what their plan is. I mean, some are talking about going into [7:24] Karag Island and hitting Iran's export oil terminal. Well, that would just lead to [7:32] further escalation. Other folks are saying, well, we need to have a ground operation to get the [7:38] buried, enriched uranium. Yeah, you probably need to put ground troops there, but that's going to [7:43] be weeks, and it's putting our troops really at risk. And then the question that's most unanswered [7:48] is regime change. I think the president went in, he thought we would get a pliant new leader who [7:53] would basically listen to him in Iran and give us leverage over China. Instead, he has been [8:02] able to do that. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's [8:08] done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. And he's done it. [8:13] So it's unclear what the objective would be. I hope he just declares victory and gets out. [8:20] So, Congressman Conner, let's turn now to some other topics, including your new opinion piece [8:25] that's online now for MSNOW. It's titled, The Epstein Class Thinks It Runs America. [8:31] No King's Prey. [8:33] Protesters had a message for it. So, Congressman, tell us, what was that message? [8:39] The message is that we have one system of justice in America, that just because you're rich [8:43] and powerful doesn't mean you can disregard the law. And what we saw with Epstein, [8:49] this entire network of folks who were abusing young girls, the worst thing, [8:53] or trafficking in young girls, or keeping quiet while that was taking place, they thought the [8:58] rules didn't apply to them. And that has angered Americans. They've seen an elite that has sent us [9:03] into wars that have been wronged. They've seen an elite that caused the Great Recession and home [9:08] foreclosures. They see an elite that is raping or abusing young girls, but no consequence. That [9:13] needs to end. [9:14] So, as your piece comes, you also wrote a letter to King Charles, pressing him to meet with Epstein [9:19] survivors when he and Queen Camilla make a state visit to the U.S. later this month, a visit [9:25] confirmed by the president yesterday. And, Congressman, frankly, you've been prolific, [9:28] because you also have a new opinion piece for The Washington Post, headlined Progressive Capitalism, [9:34] for the post-Trump era. So, that progressive capitalism is a people familiar with those [9:41] words, independently, not necessarily together. Explain what that vision looks like. [9:45] Look, I represent Silicon Valley. We've got $20 trillion in my district. About a third of the [9:51] nation's wealth originates there. There are 19 billionaires who have 10% of the economy, [9:57] $3 trillion. Here's my view. If you do good in America, you should do good for America. There [10:04] is no inequality. We need to have a vision, a Marshall Plan for America, an economic [10:08] redevelopment. That means investments in 1,000 new trade schools, so people can get good jobs. [10:14] It means having tech institutes, so people can have some of the new technology jobs. It means [10:19] investments in child care and elder care, so people can have good jobs in those areas. And [10:24] it means national health insurance and child care to reduce costs, and we can afford it by having [10:29] the billionaires pay a little bit more in tax. So, as you say, you represent some of the wealthiest [10:34] individuals in America. Do you think there's any sort of, I mean, it can be done by legislation, [10:38] of course, but do you think there's an appetite there, an understanding by any of those tech [10:42] entrepreneurs that actually, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats, we should be doing this? [10:47] Yes, because of the anger. You know, we have three times the wealth concentration of the [10:52] Gilded Age, and they understand the anger against this incredible wealth inequality. You can't have [10:58] all the wealth piled up in Silicon Valley or New York and have other folks worry about the cost of [11:03] trade school, the cost of college. You can't have all the wealth piled up in Silicon Valley or New [11:04] York and have other folks worry about the cost of child care and health care. And what I've said to [11:06] them is help join us, be economic patriots, help invest in this country and people left behind, [11:13] or you're going to see greater divide, greater anger, and greater anger, frankly, at the people [11:18] as the tech billionaires. I don't think everyone gets it. Certainly Peter Thiel or Elon Musk don't. [11:23] But you have people like Jensen Wang, who I'm going to be in conversation with at Stanford, [11:27] as CEO of NVIDIA, and others who say, yeah, I understand. We can't live in a nation that is [11:33] tearing apart on an economic level. And I think that's a great point. And I think that's a great [11:34] point. And I think that's a great point. And I think that's a great point. And I think that's a great [11:34] Democratic member of both the arms services and oversight committees, as well as prolific author [11:40] Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Congressman, thank you so much. [11:44] Thank you. [11:44] Coming up next on Morning Joe, at the top of the hour, the Supreme Court will hear [11:48] oral arguments in the Trump administration's challenge to birthright citizenship. [11:55] President Trump says he's going to attend. We'll dig into what's...