This Sunday, pressing pause. President Trump reverses some of his most punishing tariff plans for 90 days after growing uncertainty and days of market meltdowns. You have to be able to show a little flexibility. This is chaos.
This is government by chaos. I know what the hell I'm doing. This was his strategy all along. What happens next in this escalating trade war?
My exclusive guest this morning, President Trump's top trade advisor, Peter Navarro, Ray Dalio, founder and chief investment officer for the world's largest hedge fund and Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, plus deported by mistake. After the Supreme Court orders the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador, is the Trump administration now defying a judge's order? And Oval Office optics. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer finds herself in an uncomfortable spot when she visits the Trump White House.
Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, Jonathan Martin of Politico, Republican strategist Matt Gorman, and Kimberly Atkins's senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington.
The longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. As the President's trade war enters a new week, the uncertainty and disruption to the global economic order is growing.
Just hours after President Trump's tariffs took effect this week, he made a stunning reversal and pressed pause for 90 days. Well, I quote that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy, you know? They were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid. After asking Americans to hang tough and be cool, President Trump made his about face in a social media post, and it came after claiming a pause would not happen.
Would you be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiations? Well, we're not looking at that. Almost all foreign countries still face a 10% tariff. China's tariffs have now increased to 145%.
But late Friday, President Trump decided to exclude electronic imports, including smartphones, laptops, flat screens, and computer chips from the new tariffs, adding to the confusion, more than 70% of all smartphones sold at the U.S. are made in China. It was a roller coaster week on Wall Street as the administration urged Americans to remain patient. There'll be a transition cost and transition problems, but in the end it's going to be a beautiful thing.
We will end up in a place of great certainty over the next 90 days on tariffs. The administration insists this was the plan all along, but the abrupt pause in those initial tariffs came after the Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary raised serious concerns over the bond market. President Trump also said he was watching Jamie Dimon, the leader of the country's largest bank on television. Do you personally expect a recession?
I am going to defer to my comments at this point, and I think probably that's a likely outcome. Fears of a recession are driving consumer sentiment to plunge with inflation worries rising. Calls from allies to reverse course had been growing in the days before President Trump's change in plans. Elon Musk publicly broke with Trump on the issue calling for a zero tariff situation, attacking the White House's top trade advisor, Peter Navarro, as a quote moron and dumber than a sack of bricks, the White House downplayed the public spat.
These are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs. Boys will be boys and we will let their public sparring continue. Joining me now is White House trade advisor, Peter Navarro. Mr.
Navarro, welcome back to Meet the Press. Great to be with you. The digs here are pretty plushy. Well, we'll get to your back and forth with Elon Musk in just a bit, but I want to start off the policy, the important thing here.
President Trump, as we just laid out, did hit the pause button on his tariffs, he lowered them to 10% for most countries. And just yesterday, the White House announced new exclusions for smartphones and other electronics. Mr. Navarro, how can consumers and businesses make decisions when it seems as though the President's trade policies are shifting at a moment's notice?
So this is unfolding exactly like we thought it would in a dominant scenario. What's going on here is you start with the observation. I don't think you would disagree with me at all. The world cheats us.
They've been cheating us for decades. They cheat us with tariffs, higher tariffs. More importantly, they cheat us with the so-called non-tariff barriers. It's the VAT taxes, the dumping, the currency manipulation, the technical barriers that keep our autos out of Japan, the agricultural barriers that keep our pork out of Australia or Europe.
They're doing that to the tune of $1.2 trillion of wealth a year that we transfer now abroad and $18 trillion of wealth since we started running deficits. You know how much $18 trillion of America that could buy? So that's the problem we're grappling with. So we have a strategy here where the President says, we're going to charge them where they charge us.
And the analytical issue is it's easy to calculate the tariff potential, but the non-tariff barriers are so much higher. So that's what we set. Knowing full wealth, knowing full wealth at a lot of countries, we come right to us and want to bargain. We've got 90 deals and 90 days possibly pending here.
And it was par for the course, actually it was a birdie for President Trump, to do exactly what he did, which was par for 90 days. And we're going to get this done for the American people. I want to talk about the status of those potential pending deals. But first, look, you're talking about the fact that the White House has a strategy.
The Commerce Secretary, the Treasury Secretary, the President himself said there would not be exclusions, and yet just yesterday there were exclusions. So is there, in fact, a plan or is the President making this up as he goes away? So the policy is no exemptions, no exclusions, the policy is in effect. There were not exclusions.
Let me explain. This is really good for the American people to understand. There's like different ways to go about getting fairness for the American people. We started with the fentanyl border tariffs.
That's an AIPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And we had a crisis at the border. We continued to see people die. By the time the show was over, another couple of Americans would be dead from fentanyl, just a short period of time.
We did that. So the AIPA is also used for the trade deficit, but there's also a really important thing, Kristin. This deals with the chips issue you're talking about. That's what we call the Section 232 issue, which is when we have a flood of imports being dumped into certain key strategic sectors, steel, aluminum, chips, pharmaceuticals as we learned during COVID, we have to take specific actions.
So what we're doing with chips, the problem interestingly for chips, because it's really complex stuff, is that we don't buy a lot of chips like in bags. We buy them in products. So what Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnik is going to do, is doing it as we speak, is an investigation of the chip supply chain, the goal is stability and resilience. And you will see actions taken based on those investigations on copper.
We've already have steel and aluminum. We already have autos. There will be pharmaceuticals. And there will be chips.
And the important thing is, there's three kinds. So there's the high end chips, which is the AI future. Okay, we've got to get control of that. And then there's everything else that fuels our autos and arm down.
Fair enough. I hear what you're saying on investigation. But there is currently an exclusion for some of those products. You want to call it exclusion, potatoes, potatoes.
What it is. Well, but let's say, let's just, here's, I think another thing is really important. When people talk about the chaos or lack of straight, whatever. You just go back to day one.
I was there when the president signed it. It was the second to last order he signed, it was in the old, that night. And it was the America first trade policy, which laid out every single thing we're doing. And it would be remiss for anybody in the media, not to review that carefully and see that there's rhyme to our reason and rhythm to what we're doing.
But now the administration is actually on its website saying that they're offering refunds for some of these products. But let's talk about day one. Okay, because on the campaign trail, President Trump promised to bring down prices on day one. Now he's telling Americans there's going to be a transition cause.
I don't have to tell you this people are worried about everything from their retirement savings to the prices they're going to pay at the grocery store, whether shelves will be stocked. I think the big question is how long will Americans have to wait? How long will this transition of uncertainty last? Let's talk about both recession and inflation, because there was some really big news this last week.
And I'm going to answer your question. Trust me on that. So we had really good news on the inflation front, both the producer price index and wholesale prices consumer price index had the lowest print since fall of 2023. Really good news.
And nobody expected that. And the reason why that kind of thing's happening is because the Trump policies on other fronts boils down to $61 a barrel. Okay, so, but the other thing, and this is like, should have been in that little package you had at the beginning, the Congress passed the resolution, the budget resolution, which lays the groundwork for having the biggest, broadest tax cut in American history before August. Now, what does that mean?
What does it mean for both recession and inflation? It means that we're going to have a debt neutral tax cut financed by tariff revenues that's going to stimulate growth. It could be worth as much of a point and a half in terms of GDP growth. At the same time, it's deflationary, non-inflation.
It's unlike the Biden fiscal measures, which were just pure debt driven. So it's really good news here. And I predicted 50,000 on the Dow. I predicted a broad-based S&P rally.
I don't know if you know this person, but it was seven AI stocks that pulled up. The S&P 500 during the Biden years. That's not gross. And yet, Mr.
Navar, look, after the President's policies were announced, we did see the markets drop. The bond market was smooth. Consumer confidence has plummeted. And inflation fears are at the highest level since 1981.
Let me just ask you. But we did have the greatest rally in stock market history for many, many decades this last week. They're down from when the President announced his policies overall. Let me ask you so that we can get this information to folks.
Give me the top line number. How many countries is the administration currently negotiating with to get a trade deal? Let me see how many I can do. And remember, Christine, we talked offline about this.
We started doing this long before we announced the pause in the reciprocal tariffs in anticipation of this. So we've got the U.K., we've got the EU, we've got India, we've got Japan, we've got North Korea, we've got Indonesia, we've got Israel, and they're just lining up outside the door of Jamison Greer, the trade rep of Howard Letnik is part of the South Korea. Okay, I just want to make sure there. The only I could say about North Korea is it's quiet.
The Rocket Man is quiet again. We're getting, by the way, this is really important for peace in our time because we had prosperity in peace. The President is working hard with people like Steve Wyckoff on peace Gaza in Ukraine with Iran as we speak. There's actually going on there.
Do you know what that will mean for oil prices and for everything else? Very quickly. Are you talking to China? Is the administration talking to China right now?
We have opened up our invitation to them. Look, the President has a really good relationship with President Xi and we're going through a period where we hope that we'll be able to get to the other side of that. But here, let me say this about China. I think this is really important.
China has killed over a million people with their fentanyl. We lost around 60,000 people in the Vietnam War. China has killed over a million people. China has taken over 60,000 of our factories, over 5 million manufacturing jobs.
As we speak, every American is subject to hacking by the Chinese trying to get their money or their data, and the conflict we're having with them cannot be understated. And we have to be clear-eyed about that. Having said that, it would be nice if China did what they should do, which is move to a more domestic consumption-driven economy and stop being the predator of the world. A couple more questions for you almost out of time.
I want to let you respond to this back and forth with Elon Musk. Elon Musk was publicly advocating for a zero tariff trade deal. That goes against what you believe in, what President Trump believes, and presumably. But did Elon Musk win here, given these pauses and exclusives?
So first of all, Elon and I are great. It's not an issue. We called you a moron and dumber than a sack of waste. Everything is fine with Elon.
And look, Elon is doing a very good job with his team with waste fraud and abuse. That's a tremendous contribution to America. And no man doing that kind of thing should be subject to having his cars firebombed by crazies. And that is like being there.
So nobody should have to come into this government and have that happen or have to go to jail. Like I did. What is what Elon is saying? Does he disagree with the President's policy from Mr.
Navarro? So let's talk about the zero tariff issue. This is really kind of interesting. We had Vietnam come to us first and then the EU.
Zero tariffs get the American people virtually nowhere, particularly with a country like Vietnam, which sells as $15 for one dollar we sell. Does it doesn't work? The big problem we have are the non-tariff barriers, the currency manipulation, the dumping, the vat taxes, all of that stuff that we have no defense against other than tariffs right now. Very quickly because we are out of time.
And of course we are out of time. And of course we are out of time. To the reports that you've been sidelined. To the reports that you've been sidelined.
To the reports that you've been sidelined Mr. Navarro. Is that true? Have you been sidelined?
So yes or no because we're out of time. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here.
I'm here. I'll meet the press. I think you like to think this is the top show on Sunday. I think so.
I'm here. Thank you very much. We hope you do. You have that invitation.
Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much. Appreciate that.
When we come back Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Associates, the world's largest hedge fund, joins me next. Welcome back. And joining me now is Ray Dalio, the founder of the world's largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates. He is also the author of the new book, How Countries Go Broke.
It's out in June. Mr. Dalio, welcome to meet the press. Thank you.
Good to be here. Just call me Ray. Okay. Well, Ray, I'll take you up on that.
Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate your perspective. As I just said, you did found the world's largest hedge fund. You have been in this field for more than 50 years.
It's worth pointing out to our viewers, I think it's important to note you consider yourself to be apolitical. And you say that the tariff problem is a symptom of a much greater problem. What do you mean by that? There's a financial problem.
There's an imbalance problem. There are basically five big forces through history that drive everything. First, there's the money, credit, debt, economic cycle in which there's a building up of debt in a cyclical way that becomes too large. And we're going to have problems.
We're going to have a government debt problem and maybe we can get into this. The second big force through time is the internal conflict force. The left and the right differences in wealth and values causing a conflict that we're seeing changing our political order. So the first is changing our monetary order.
The second is changing our political order internally. And then the third is the great world order, how countries deal with each other. When there's a rising power, challenging existing power, and now we are going from multilateralism, which is largely an American world order type of thing, to a unilateral world order in which there's great conflict. And the other two factors all through history have been acts of nature, droughts, floods, and pandemics.
And number four is technology, technology changing. And how they are coming together are the main forces behind this. For example, there can't be imbalances anymore in that environment. Do you think that President Trump's tariffs are exacerbating what you are describing, this complicated mix of challenges that the world is facing?
I think it's just a function of how well they're handled. It's a reality that it's a desire to bring in tax revenue from that. It's a reality that we would like to build manufacturing and jobs here. This is a reality that's how that's done, whether that's done in a practical way, whether that's done in a stable way, whether that's done with quality negotiations, in which that's a mutual problem, or whether that's done in a chaotic and disruptive way that produces great conflict makes all the difference in the world.
Based on what you're seeing right now, do you think that these tariffs are being carried out in a practical way or a chaotic way? I think we'll see. So far, very disruptive. So far, very disruptive, right?
And so we don't know what the numbers are. But that can be part of a process, right? It depends where we are at the end of the 90 days. Because what was put there is like throwing rocks into the production system.
And those impacts would be enormous in terms of the efficiency of the whole world. Great cost. I want to ask you about something that's on a lot of people's minds. Your predictions for the future.
And I want to start with the R word. I know you think this is just a piece of it. Of course, I'm talking about a recession. Do you think it is likely that the United States will dip into a recession?
Because of President Trump's tariffs. I think that right now we are at a decision making point and very close to a recession. And I'm worried about something worse than a recession if this isn't handled well. A recession is two negative quarters of GDP and whether it goes slightly there, we always have those things.
We have something that's much more profound. We have a breaking down of the monetary order. We are going to change the monetary order because we cannot spend the amounts of money. So we have that problem.
And when we talk about the dollar and we talk about tariffs, we have that. We are having profound changes in our domestic order. How ruling is existing. And we are having profound changes in the world order.
Such times are very much like the 1930s. I've studied history and this repeats over and over again. So if you take tariffs, if you take debt, if you take the rising power, challenging existing power, if you take those factors and look at the factors, those changes in the orders, the systems are very, very disruptive. How that's handled could produce something that is much worse than a recession or it could be handled well.
Let's take the debt situation. I'm sorry, go ahead. Very quickly because I want to be very specific about what you mean. You're saying worse than recession.
You're saying this is reminiscent of the 1930s. We should tell our viewers you correctly predicted the 2008 financial crisis. What is your prediction for where the country is headed right now? Right now, we're at a juncture.
Let's take the budget. If the budget deficit can be reduced to 3% of GDP, it will be about 7% if things are not changed. If it could be reduced to about 3% of GDP and these trade deficits and so on are managed in the right way, this could all be managed very well. I believe that members of Congress should take the pledge, what I call the 3% pledge, that in one way or another that they will get that budget deficit down to that number.
We're going to have a supply demand problem for debt at the same time as we have these other problems and the results of that will be worse than a normal recession. Just to follow up on that point, worse than a recession, you're talking about the 1930s. What specifically are you warning of? Are you saying that it could be as bad as a depression?
What's your biggest fear? The value of money. What is a storehold of wealth? That is a bond.
In other words, one man's debt is another man's assets, bond holders. We're going to be in a situation where if that storehold of wealth is in jeopardy because there's too much supply and demand and so on and we have a monetary inflation, we will have great disruptions and that could be like the breakdown of monetary system 71. It could be like 2008. It's going to be very severe.
I think it could be more severe than those if these other matters simultaneously occur. Imagine if we have a downturn politically and an international conflict. What's worst case scenario that you're warning of to be very specific? To be very specific, the value of money, internal conflict, that is not the normal democracy as we know it.
An international conflict in a way that is highly disruptive to the world economy and could even be a military conflict just as these breakdowns have occurred before. We have a new order that began in 1945, a new monetary order and a new geopolitical order. These go in cycles that can be measured and I worry about the breakdown of that kind of order particularly since it doesn't need to happen because there are certain things that could be done in which this is better, a better restructuring of these debts than I should say. So that takes me to my next question.
You have this book. How countries go broke the big cycle? What is the solution here? Well, there are a series of solutions but let's take the most important.
And we have one minute. One minute. Okay. 3% of GDP.
Bring that deficit down. It can be done in a bipartisan way. The way it was done between 1991 and 98. I explain how that could be done doing things together for the greater good.
And then internationally on all of these issues to use American strain but to negotiate well, to lay out ways in which bad conflict and inefficient policies don't create great disruptions but get us through this in an orderly way. All right. Right, Alio. Thank you so much.
Your book, How Countries Go Broke The Big Cycle. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
When we come back, Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey joins me next. It's here. The Ford is a big deal. Not yet.
The Ford is a big deal. Oh, guys. Just wait. The Ford is a big deal.
Event is on. Really? It's a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at $5.29 for 60 months with $29.95 down. That's like $99 a week.
The Ford is a big deal of events. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. Well, the back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.
Senator Booker, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you for having me again. Well, thank you so much for being here. Let's dive right in.
Let's start with the tariffs. You have actually long emphasized the need for fair trade deals to protect American workers to prevent jobs from going overseas. If President Trump's tariffs do in fact lead to better trade deals in the long run, even if there is some short-term economic pain, would that justify President Trump's tariffs? We're not seeing any likelihood of that.
I mean, right away off the bat, we're seeing him break his promise. He said on day one, he would lower prices. This is going to increase the average family in America's prices from $4,000 to $5,000 or more expenses to the American family. We're seeing real decisions being made from Stellantis to Cleveland Cliffs, a steel manufacturer laying off thousands of people.
And in addition to that, President Trump now has a crisis and credibility. We're hearing from around the world. People just don't know if they can trust him. His sense of honor and decency actually has real consequences globally and is forcing countries who've made deals with him in the past, like Canada and Mexico, which then he upends really forcing countries to think about other options.
And it is a real national security issue when you see Japan and South Korea, two key allies meeting with China to talk to them about how to deal with what they perceive as a threat of a chaotic and unpredictable president to the world global economy. Well, let me talk about how some of your Democratic colleagues are responding to this moment. A few have actually stopped short of condemning President Trump's tariffs outright, really trying to walk a fine line. Take a look.
Tariffs are a powerful tool. They can be used strategically or they can be misused. Tariffs are a very important tool in our economic toolbox, but they have to be used in a way that is targeted. I understand the motivation behind the tariffs.
And I can tell you, here's where President Trump and I do agree, we do need to make more stuff in America. Now, as you know, even former President Biden kept some of President Trump's tariffs in place from the first term, are those Democrats taking the right approach, Senator? Listen, I just want to, for myself, tell you a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation of the Trump tariffs. There's no wisdom in this, the chaotic way he's doing it, the challenges he's putting on American families in terms of costs, rising costs and jobs.
This has no strategy. It has no sense. He's being attacked by people on the left and the right, and the markets, devastating people's retirement security to the global chaos right now and unpredictability. There's no equivocation here.
His tariff strategy is wrong. The way he's putting it out there, no thoughtfulness, no slow increase of tariffs, it is all just wrong. It should be condemned, and it should be stopped the way it's happening right now because it's hurting American people. You know, some of your Democratic colleagues are actually calling for an investigation into whether or not there was insider training, the President's saying it's a good time to buy and then, of course, hitting the pause button on some of those tariffs.
Do you believe that Democrats have any real evidence that anyone in the administration profited off of the President's policies and announcements, or is this just a fishing expedition? You know, here's the problem with Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. It is our whole system was designed to have checks and balances. Now, Trump has designed an administration like none we've ever seen before.
He is attacking the very agencies. They're supposed to have independent oversight of these kind of actions. So we see him hiring people based upon their loyalty, not based upon their expertise. The real group that should be holding investigations and accountability, and even this oversight is Congress.
But is there any evidence? Do you think there's any evidence that anyone profited off of these tariffs? There is enough of an offense here. There's enough smoke here that should demand congressional hearings.
We are a separate and equal branch of government. The Constitution lays out very clearly that Congress is not supposed to be spineless and submissive. It is supposed to hold up oversight over the President. These are real legitimate, justifiable questions and not to have hearings, not to do any kind of oversight undermines the faith we have in our government undermines the trust we need in our nation right now.
And so from the signal gate all the way to this kind of symbols or signs of corruption, Congress should be doing its job. Senator, a couple more to get to here. And we're almost out of time. The Supreme Court, as you know, ordered the Trump administration to quote, facilitate and effectuate the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador.
There's been a big back and forth between the administration and the courts over this overnight. President Trump putting out a post saying that ultimately this is the decision of the El Salvador president who's going to be visiting the White House on Monday. Do you think the Trump administration is defying a court order? It certainly appears that they are and they're trying to play too cute with parsing words.
The court has ordered the return of this person and that the Trump administration should do it. They're paying an authoritarian leader in El Salvador to hold people in the worst imaginable types of prisons that he has sent there without any due process. And this isn't just about Mr. Garcia.
This is about every American understanding that this president is making an assault on the due process rights that are afforded to people in our country. Everybody from Anton Scalia to other conservative think tanks have said very clearly you cannot disappear people off American streets. We are a nation of rules and due process is clearly one of them. And to erode the due process rights of anyone is a threat to the due process rights of everyone.
This is a democratic slippage and we all should be speaking out against it. Senator, let's talk about the future of the party. Apparently, Vice President Harris is still weighing a presidential run in 2028. Do you think Vice President Harris should run again?
You know, I know Vice President Harris. I don't think she's concerning herself with 2028. I think she's concerning herself like most Americans right now is why do I have a president that's attacking two processes? Do you think she should run again?
Do you want to see her run again? Senator, you supported her. Do you want to see her run again? I am literally getting thousands and thousands of phone calls.
People stopping me on the streets in crisis right now. They're losing jobs. They're seeing their costs go up. They're worried about their housing.
Honestly, I don't care about 2028. I care about stopping the hurting of American people right now. And if Democrats in general, we should not be concerned about the party's future. We should be concerned about people's presence.
And that's where I'm focused. Thirty seconds left. Very quickly. What should the message from Democrats be right now, Senator?
We should be focusing on the American people. This is not about party. It's not about left or right. It's about right or wrong.
We are in a moral moment right now in our country with a tax on Medicaid in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country. This is not who we are. We need to fight, defend American jobs, American costs and economic security in American health care. We are in a real crisis with a bill that the Republicans are pushing and the assaults on the integrity of this country and the constitutional principles.
It's time to stand up and fight back against what's happening. This is not just for Democrats, for Republicans in Congress, that whisper to me privately. They're concerned about what the president's doing. This is a moral moment.
It's time for more and more people to stand up. Senator, yes or no? Are you considering a run in 2028? I'm focused on today and my reelection in 26.
I've already announced to the people of New Jersey, I'm hoping they'll allow me to be their senator for another 60 years. And let's be clear. I'm proud of the work that we've done over the last 60 years. It's been no senator that has had a better record of bringing resources back to the state of New Jersey.
So I'm focused on the now working to defend folks and God willing of being reelected in 2026. I don't hear you really get out. Senator Booker, thank you so much for joining me. He'll go come back soon with that answer.
When we come back, history on ice army, the press minute is next. Welcome back. The Stanley Cup playoffs kick off on Saturday and this year, Washington Capitol star, Alex Ovechkin wraps the season as the new top goal scorer in NHL history, surpassing Wayne Gretzky's record of 894 goals. The Stanley Cup itself was a guest on Meet the Press in 1998 when our own Tim Russell introduced the iconic trophy on the broadcast with a little help from a very special person.
This is it. The Stanley Cup, 105 years old. This is the real thing, the most recognizable trophy in all professional sports. It weighs 35 pounds, it's about three feet tall.
And right here is where the next Stanley Cup champions name will go right here. They can grave all the players, the coaches, the managers, all the helpers. My beloved Buffalo Sabers couldn't make it. So now this cup is in Washington.
And we believe it's going to stay in Washington. Aid Pollen, the owner of the Capitals, built the MCI arena. His chance to win the Stanley Cup, he certainly deserved it. I've been going around talking to viewers all across the country.
Here's one here. Here's an objective viewer who's going to win the Stanley Cup. What happens? No brainer.
No brainer. Now can you put this cup over your head? No. Why?
Because I haven't won it. That's right. Only those who win the cup can put it over their head. But you can serve.
Give it a hug. Thank you, my assistant, Mr. Luke Russell. What a great moment on this show when we come back.
What happens next in President Trump's trade war? The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here.
Kelly O'Donnell, senior White House correspondent for NBC News. Jonathan Martin, politics bureau chief and senior political columnist for Politico. Kimberly Atkins, senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. Thanks to all of you for being here after a very busy week.
Let's start with you. I think one of the words of this week is uncertainty. There's uncertainty about what's going to happen next in the President's trade war. There's uncertainty about how many countries they're talking to.
You heard me try to get that out of Peter Navarro. He did name some countries. Still not clear exactly how many they're negotiating with. What are you hearing?
Well, the White House wants it to be an expansive list of nearly the whole globe. What I have been told in the last 24 hours is that 20 countries have provided written proposals to the administration saying this is what we would be willing to offer. This is what we would like to achieve. So that certainly moves it forward in terms of a willingness to negotiate.
But so much of what we've seen here is everything's baked into the plan and yet the President seems to be harnessing something new, which is the lightning bolt strategy. Boom, let me just hit the whole system with another shock. And we've seen that. We've seen that with how he arrived at the pause to begin with after saying there wouldn't be a pause, getting comfortable with a pause.
And now going forward, part of what we're hearing is some things are being carved out for national security reasons. There are consumer products that may be hit with tariffs. In the 90-day period, when that elapses, I've been told that those countries that didn't take this seriously will also feel the pain of this because what they're saying is that the President wants people to take this seriously, not only tariffs, but the whole restructuring approach of taxes, regulation, cutting government costs as reordering the economic structure of the U.S. and by extension of the globe.
Yeah. That's a lot of new information. Jonathan, when you hear that, when Republicans on the Hill hear that, they may be breathing a tiny sigh of relief because there's been a fair amount of consternation on the Hill. Publicly, few Republicans speaking out about these tariffs, but we know that they've been picking up the phones calling the White House saying we're concerned.
Yeah, because it's still a free trade party, especially in the Senate. I'm sure that that is the plan today, but who knows what the plan is going to be tomorrow? The great American philosopher Mike Tyson said everybody has a plan until they're punched in the face. And that's what happened this week.
The global economy slugged us in the face and Trump responded. It was a reminder of that great George W. Bush lines on the decider. In fact, the bond market is the decider when it comes to politics.
And that's what I think, Forrest Trump's hand, the value of the dollar is plummeting the bond market flashing red. And Trump respond to that. That is the ultimate veto. It's not Congress.
It's not the courts. It's the markets. And that's what Forrest Trump's hand this one. Yeah.
And boy, did the markets have a rocky ride this week last week, Matt Gorman. And it comes as what I was discussing with Peter Navarro, President Trump campaign on a promise to bring down prices. Now, he's saying there's going to be a transition cost. I mean, how concerning is that based on your conversations to Republicans?
You know, the market is debility. Obscured some positive news. We have the lowest inflation in four years. So there's a story to tell there.
But I think Republicans are breathing a huge sigh of relief because what they're seeing now is a tariff as a negotiating strategy rather than some sort of new world order. And they feel far more comfortable defending that and having input on that. I think having best and out front as the face of this in many respects, also a real sure is them too. And looking forward, the party and the White House far more comfortable taking on China than the broadly, the world's as a whole.
Yeah. Well, and of course, the Fed Chair did say he believes these tariffs could ultimately raise inflation. Kimberly, do you think Democrats? They have an opening here, but are they using it effectively?
I wish more Democrats in the United Way would speak the way that Senator Booker did. You have a lot of Democrats. And I understand the desire to talk about policy and the talk about strategy. None of that is happening here.
We are seeing just during the course of this show, things are changing minute by minute as to what is going on. This isn't a strategy. And it is so dangerous. I mean, I believe Ray D'Alle when he says that we could be heading toward a depression.
And I know Democrats get a lot of heat from Republicans about being too alarmist and talk about democracy being in peril too much. If we are in a position like we were in the 1930s, do you think talking about that too much is a problem? That's the economy is an open door to autocracy and that is what Democrats should be shouting from the mountain tops. Yeah.
He said it could be worse than a recession. Jonathan, there was this extraordinary speaking of the Democrats moment. Yes. When Governor of Michigan came to Washington delivered a speech about tariffs and she wished there could be a more careful approach, then went to the White House to meet with President Trump.
Her team says she was surprised when she was ushered into the Oval Office while he was not at EOS. And this happened. She literally, for a moment, covered her face. It's an extraordinary striking moment that speaks to how complicated it is for Democrats right now to figure out.
They want to energize their base, but also reach out to independents, particularly those who are potentially eyeing a run in 2028. And in her case, trying to run a state for two more years that voted for Trump. But look, that picture is instantly iconic. This is Dukakis in the tank for the 21st century.
The difference being, Dukakis could blame his staff. She has no way to blame but herself. I think it was Malladroyd on two levels. First of all, the macro politics of it.
Her assumption to a give a speech she gave talking about working with Trump and then to go to the White House. Her party right now views Trump as akin to air in a water or bond, foreign autocrats. You don't cut deals with someone who's trying to consolidate power in a road in American institutions. That number one is her I thought faulty assumption.
Then there's the micro. Why on earth is she in the White House at all and let herself be brought into the Oval Office? That's not her staff. That's her own instincts and her own politics, culminating in holding up that file for you.
You just don't do that. It's an error for the ages. Well, and Kelly, her team and the governor says, look, I've got to reach across the aisle. I've got to work with President Trump.
If I want to get things done for the state of Michigan, she was there asking for things for Michigan. But we're seeing Democrats and this kind of speaks to Kimberly's point with a range of different responses. Compare what Governor Whitmer's doing to what we heard from Senator Booker to what we're hearing from other governors, Governor Pritzker, Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, what you're seeing out on the trail with AOC and Bernie Sanders who are really taking it to the president. I've been checking in with a number of Democrats, including those supportive of Governor Whitmer.
And what you hear is that nuance is tough and they're trying to make a nuanced argument in the governing piece. The politics is more broad. They don't want to pull away from tariffs too much. They hear, especially in a purple state like Governor Whitmer's, that voters want the executive whether it's the governor and the president to work together, want less division.
Well, doing that came at a terrible political cost for her. They say she's willing to withstand some embarrassment because of that. But as you pointed out, she had very specific asks for Michigan that we're on the agenda. More broadly, if you're a blue state governor, if you're Governor Pritzker or others, the fight, fight, version on the Democrat side is coming to the fore.
But that is difficult. They want to talk about the economy. They also want to talk about democracy and the courts. But I've been told saying that Trump, alleging that President Trump is corrupt is an easier argument than to try to explain the courts, which are so complex.
So when you see the complex issues they're dealing with, of course, the economy is number one, but they also have to govern and withstand the politics that are changing moment by moment. So is there a concern among Democrats about how messaged it? Yes, there is. Do they have to get on the same page?
Does that matter? Is it okay to have these different responses? The point is well taken that Governor Whitner is a governor of a manufacturing state, a border state, international border state. Her posture is different.
In Washington, there's no excuse for that. The Democrats in Washington have to do what they can to be a check on the presidency, including reminding folks that constitutionally the power of levying terrorists is with Congress. We don't even know that. And I suspect that he is not acting within his constitutional authority to even levy these tactics in such a unilateral way.
There's so much fodder for the Washington Democrats to unite around. I don't know why they haven't. Matt, let's get your take. And the fact that, look, President Trump is meeting with Democratic governors.
Look, as President Trump taught everybody, authenticity sells, own who you are, Whitmer should have known walking into the White House. You have to own it, lock, stop and barrel, don't be inauthentic about it. That was the greatest of them all. And that's probably going to haunt her.
Yeah. All right, guys. Well, we will continue to watch it. Thank you so much for being here.
Really appreciated a lot of story lines that we will continue to track. And we still have a few more minutes, actually. There's one more here. 30 seconds, Kelly's final.
Well, this week, of course, there will be two international leaders visiting the White House. Italy is Maloney and President Okele of El Salvador, trade is certainly on the Italy agenda. But the issue of the prisoners in El Salvador could be significant. Okay, we'll definitely watch that story.
Guys, thank you so much. Thank you for that extra little nugget. I appreciate it. That is all for today.
Thank you so much for watching. We want to wish you a very happy Passover. We will be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. Hey, everyone.
I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the Third Hour of Today, and Mom to Three Wild Boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat.
Each week, I sit down with someone new for Anna's conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you a title.
I'm not screwing yourself. Search the Parent Chat on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts.