LEADER JEFFRIES ON MORNING JOE: "WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED AT 11:30 TODAY TO DEMAND AN END TO THE HOSTILITIES IMMEDIATELY"
Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on MS NOW's Morning Joe, where he emphasized that Democrats will continue pushing for a War Powers Resolution, including at 11:30 a.m. today, to end the Trump administration's reckless war in Iran that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars and raising the already high cost of living.
KATTY KAY: Let's bring in House Minority Leader, Democratic Congressman of New York. Leader Jeffries, thank you very much for joining us. So House Democrats are going to demand the passage of a War Powers Resolution at 11:30 a.m this morning. It doesn't have really very much chance of passing at all, so is this just performative on your part?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, good morning. We're going to make sure that we provide our Republican colleagues with every single opportunity to do the right thing on behalf of the American people, which means bringing an immediate end to Donald Trump's reckless and costly failed war of choice against Iran. So we're going to proceed at 11:30 today through what's called the pro forma session and demand that the legislation that has been previously introduced by Representative Greg Meeks that would end the hostilities immediately in the Middle East in the absence of course of congressional authorization which was never obtained and we'll see what happens later on today. If that is not successful today, we're back in session next week and upon our return, it's our expectation again to continue the effort to advance a War Powers Resolution to put an end to the madness that Donald Trump has created over in the Middle East.
KATTY KAY: But the truth is there really isn't very much you can do, is there? Because these resolutions are not passing, they're not going to pass, even if you introduce them every day they're going to not pass because you're not gonna get the Republican votes to have them pass. So what else?
LEADER JEFFRIES: I disagree with that. I disagree with that. We've seen repeatedly Democratic efforts in the House be successful. We've successfully [passed an extension of] the Affordable Care Act tax credits. We've successfully advanced Epstein legislation in order to force transparency, so far the disclosure of three million documents. We're working on the other three million. We've successfully passed legislation to overturn the Trump tariffs as it relates to Canada. And we're going to successfully move a War Powers Resolution. All we need are a handful of Republicans. Two have already joined us. We just need one or two more. And if we get that, when we get that, we're going to be able to successfully move this in the House. Simultaneously, we know that Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats are advancing a War Powers Resolution in the Senate. And the American people are with us. They don't want to see billions of dollars being spent dropping bombs in Iran from an administration that's not willing to spend a dime to actually make life more affordable for the American people. So we have to continue to press our case. Public sentiment is on our side and one way or the other, we're going to prevail.
KATTY KAY: I'm sure you have conversations with your Republican colleagues. Have you heard anything from them behind closed doors, a nod and a wink, anything to suggest disquiet amongst your Republican colleagues about the Tweets that the President sent out on Easter Sunday and then again on Tuesday morning threatening a whole civilization with destruction?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, unfortunately, what we've seen from Republicans in the House is that instead of functioning like a separate and coequal branch of government and standing up to a President and an administration that's completely and totally out of control—and, of course, over the last few days that's been on full display—they continue to behave like a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda. A handful of them will suggest from time to time, privately, that they know the President is out of pocket as it relates to some of the things that he says or does. But we haven't seen significantly and overwhelmingly a willingness to push back against him publicly.
MIKE BARNICLE: You know, Congressman, I'd like to follow up on what she just asked you, and it is this. Everything you do and everything you say, including right now, is sort of a definition of who you are. Your behavior defines who you are. So the Sunday morning Tweet that the President of the United States issued on Easter Sunday, what kind of a definition of him did you think that was?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Unhinged, unpresidential and an unconscionable action from a President on Easter Sunday morning of all days. And then, of course, to follow that up with this statement threatening to eradicate an entire civilization. But Mike, this is not a behavior that is inconsistent with who this President has shown us who he is for the last 10 years. And I think the American people clearly have had enough. That will be reflected in the midterm elections. We're going to have to do everything we can to end this national nightmare, but it's the moment that we're in.
MIKE BARNICLE: So do you think he's stable?
LEADER JEFFRIES: No, I don't think he's stable. I don't think he has been stable for 10 years. And we've seen repeated evidence of that on full display in the way in which he conducted himself. Listen, I think—he's lied regularly to the American people on things that matter to the American people. This is a President who promised that he was going to lower costs on day one. Costs haven't gone down. Costs have gone up as a direct result of his behavior. The Trump tariffs have increased costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year. He lied about what he was going to do for the American people. Their unwillingness to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits has increased health insurance costs on more than tens of millions of Americans. And now, of course, because of this reckless, costly war of choice in the Middle East, gas prices are skyrocketing. So that's just one of many examples of this President being willing to say one thing directly to the American people and do the exact opposite.
MARA GAY: Congressman, do you see the President's rhetoric on ending a civilization in Iran and also his actions in the Middle East as impeachable? And also, do you think that they are worthy of invoking the 25th Amendment?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, in terms of, you know, impeachment and things of that matter, we've said we've ruled nothing out and we've rule nothing in, but we're going to deal with what's in front of us. And so, what's been in front of us is we've successfully run out of town some of his Cabinet Secretaries, and the overwhelming majority of them are woefully unqualified, in fact dangerous. So now we're in a situation where Kristi Noem is gone, Pam Bondi is gone. And I believe Pete Hegseth is next, and we're going to keep our foot on the gas pedal to push this guy out, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in American history. Now tomorrow, under the leadership of Jamie Raskin, Judiciary Committee Democrats are going to brief the entire Caucus about the different accountability mechanisms that are available to us, including, or available to the country I should say, including, but not limited to, the 25th Amendment.
KATTY KAY: Okay, let's broaden this out. President Trump, meanwhile, is criticizing NATO following a private meeting with the Secretary General of the Alliance, Mark Rutte. The White House confirmed yesterday that the President has been considering a possible U.S. exit from the Alliance and that he planned to raise the issue during that sit-down. Rutte called their conversation very frank as the President long criticized NATO allies for defense spending and support, warning that their commitment is lacking. After the meeting, Trump posted only renewed complaints on Truth Social, writing, 'NATO wasn't there when we needed them and they won't be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland.' Meanwhile, officials in the Trump administration say the President is also considering repositioning U.S. troops in Europe, potentially punishing members he says failed to support the U.S. and Israel during the Iran war. This according to the Wall Street Journal. While it stopped short of actually withdrawing from NATO, the move still in early stages reflects growing tensions between Trump and key European partners. Officials say the proposal would shift forces out of countries like Spain and Germany and into more so-called cooperative nations in Eastern Europe, including Poland and Romania. The U.S. currently has about 84,000 troops stationed across Europe, many in strategic hubs critical to global operations. Ari, I mean actually I think NATO might be quite happy if there were more troops up against the Russian border. I'm not sure the Russians would love it, but anyway that would be a weird strategic move. But the President can't actually pull America out of NATO because of a law that Marco Rubio helped get passed. But he can defang NATO, can't he? I mean, he can be—it can be a de facto exit of the Alliance, and you might argue that's kind of already happened.
ARI MELBER: Well, he's certainly the most anti-NATO President we've ever had since the history of the organization and he certainly has fixated on what most people see as tertiary issues like the funding and the other questions and not whether we have an alliance to deal with Russia and other threats. NATO was there for the United States after 9-11, so his claims aren't really true when you think about the big ones. And it, you know, Leader Jeffries, it sort of speaks to how so much of our foreign policy is upside down. You've been very clear, and your party's been pretty clear, with the American public behind you against this war. The harder part, even if it is true that it is the President's fault is, what do you think is acceptable for leaving now? Is it acceptable for the United States to leave with Iran in the position it's in, with the Strait in the position it's in right now? Certainly it's not the level of status quo or control that the President's suggested. Knowing that you're against the war, what do you look at as the conditions to get out of this?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, we have to restore the situation in the Strait, of course, and we can do it through aggressive diplomacy, which will have to involve NATO and our allies all across the world so that there is access through the Strait that brings down gas prices for the American people and folks all across the world. In other words, Donald Trump has gotten us into this reckless war of choice and made life more expensive. And clearly, the administration failed to anticipate the types of countermeasures that Iran was going to take. Presumably, he just thought that the Iranian regime was going to collapse. And of course, that hasn't happened. Now, in terms of NATO, this is the most successful military and diplomatic alliance in the history of the world. And the President, in real time, is trying to dismantle it. It was put together in the aftermath of World War II to help keep the world safe and free of the type of global conflicts that devastated tens of millions of people in both World War I and World War II. In fact, we know, as it relates to NATO, that the only time the collective defense provision, Article 5, was activated was in defense of the United States of America. And over a thousand NATO allied troops lost their lives or were seriously injured fighting for us in Afghanistan. So once again, of course, President Donald Trump has zero idea what he's talking about or he's just chosen to lie to the American people.
KATTY KAY: Yeah, and just remember it was one Senator Rubio who managed to sneak in a provision while Donald Trump was out of office, making it very hard for any American President to unilaterally pull out of NATO. So that's not going to happen immediately. Okay, Speaker Jeffries, while we—Hakeem Jeffries, Congressman Jeffries, Leader Jeffries, while we have you here, we're going to throw another topic at you. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is no longer expected to appear for a deposition with the House Oversight Committee next week as part of the panel's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. According to a spokesperson for the Committee, the Justice Department is arguing Bondi was subpoenaed in her official capacity as Attorney General, a job she no longer has after President Trump fired her last week. But Members of the Committee are still pushing for Bondi's testimony. Democrats stand firm that she is legally bound to testify, regardless of her current title. And Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said in a statement to MS NOW, the subpoena is still valid because it requested Bondi's testimony by name, not by title. She went on to say Americans, quote, 'deserve answers and that the Committee expects her to appear as soon as a new date is set.' Leader Jeffries, are you going to manage to get around what the obstruction is here from the DOJ and get Pam Bondi to testify, even if it's not in an official capacity?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, we're absolutely going to make sure that Pam Bondi testifies. And of course, she'll be testifying as it relates to her official capacity as the former Attorney General and someone who's been in direct defiance of a law that was passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate, led by Democrats, and, of course, signed into law by Donald Trump, requiring the disclosure of the Epstein files so that we can actually bring to life the type of transparency and accountability that the Epstein survivors have so bravely and courageously fought to achieve. And so our view remains the same. In fact, the subpoena is valid until it's officially withdrawn. That can only happen by a vote of the committee. And I'm confident that every single Democrat in the House is going to oppose the withdrawal of that subpoena. And we're going to just have to find a few Republicans like Nancy Mace, who apparently indicates she's willing to be one, to join us and we can successfully get this done. We've repeatedly, on the House Oversight Committee, overcome the objection of James Comer. All of this is being done without his support and so we just have to continue to press the case.
MARA GAY: Ari, can you give us some legal framework here and insight? There is precedent for former officials, of course, testifying before Congress and answering subpoenas even after they leave, including in the case of Bill Clinton. Can you please just help us understand what the Republicans don't want the American people to know in this particular case?
ARI MELBER: Well, it's really striking because a subpoena is a subpoena and there isn't a legal limit on how important the person you subpoena is. The only question usually is tradition. There was a tradition of going to former presidents as a last resort and there might be good reasons for that because on many issues, you could try to haul in a president and so that had been a tradition. Republicans broke down and said no, they want former President Clinton in there and they went in as everyone saw. And so, Bondi losing her job is not a defense to a lawful subpoena, obviously. And I think second, the larger question is why Donald Trump and many of his aides, including Pam Bondi, now a former official, are so hell-bent on avoiding answering questions under oath and telling the truth about Jeffrey Epstein. And we've reported on this channel, on this show and others, there are Epstein ties to people in both parties and people in this country and other parties, in other countries. So, you want to get to the bottom of that period. But the idea that Donald Trump has—this has haunted him this whole second term. It's really striking. And I'm curious what you think about where the Congress lands on accountability because if you guys win the midterms, you will presumably be elected then by your party as Speaker. They've elected you now as Leader. That's a big, powerful job. You have a lot of stuff to work on. You guys have not said what you want to do on impeachment, which is a leadership question, right? There's no handbook. But it's on everyone's mind, as you know Leader Jeffries, because I will just say, legally, the Constitution's reasons for impeachment have been legally met on more than one issue for this President, on questions around corruption and bribery, on obviously the President or the Attorney General breaking the Epstein law. I mean, they literally broke that law as you know for weeks. So, how do you look at Epstein and the other issues as impeachable? Is it something voters should be thinking about that you will have accountability? Is it something you're taking off the table?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, again, we haven't ruled anything in and haven't ruled anything out. So we're certainly not going to take any accountability measures off the table as it relates to this administration or this President. By the way, the most corrupt administration in American history, clearly and definitively. And Donald Trump makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy. Now, at the end of the day, right, we've got to win the majority. In order to do that, of course, we have to convince the American people that we're going to do the types of things that will make their lives better. So, one, we are committed to driving down the high cost of living in an environment where far too many Americans are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck here in New York City, as the Mayor has thoughtfully articulated, and across the country. That's the reality of the situation. And we've got to make life more affordable for the American people in terms of housing and health care and child care and gas prices and food prices and utility bills. So that's the affordability side of the agenda. At the same period of time, we've been very clear that there has to be accountability for all of the corruption, the chaos, the norm-breaking and the law-breaking that has taken place. It's the reason why we've continued to press for consequences even while in the minority. We drove Pam Bondi out of office. We drove Kristi Noem out of office. The President insisted he was going to make no changes, particularly when Democrats started to demand those changes. And we're going to continue to press our case on the accountability side of the equation particularly if the American people give us the honor of governing with the gavels.
MIKE BARNICLE: So, Congressman, last question, we promise. What do you do? What's your play if Pam Bondi takes the Fifth all day long?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, I think, listen, we'll move to hold her in criminal contempt. By the way, as Ari pointed out, the Republicans have already set this precedent. They moved to hold Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in contempt before the negotiation, as it related to their testimony, was even completed. And now you have the Attorney General, former Attorney General, saying that she's not testifying. She's got nothing to say when there's a lawful subpoena, bipartisan, passed. They've set the precedent, we're going to follow it, and we'll press to hold her in criminal contempt if she fails to show up to a lawful congressional subpoena.
KATTY KAY: Okay, we will follow that story. House Minority Leader, Democratic Congressman, Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Thank you so much for joining the program this morning.
LEADER JEFFRIES: Thank you.
Full interview can be watched here.