Imagine yourself in Ottawa surrounded by thousands of vibrant tulips and discovering your new favorite microbrew. Ah. Before cycling along scenic bike paths and wandering through a museum and all. Adventure awaits in Ottawa.
From O to a Plan your gateway at Ottawa Tourism CA this Sunday. Trump's tariffs. President Trump issues tariffs on America's largest trading partners, threatening to drive up prices for American consumers, Mexico and Canada swiftly vowing to retaliate tariffs against Canada will put your jobs at risk. They will raise costs for you.
Is this the start of a global trade war? Plus Searching for answers we are going to conduct a thorough investigation of this entire tragedy. Looking at the facts. As federal investigators hunt for answers.
In a deadly plane crash over the Potomac River, President Trump shifts to blaming diversity policies, air traffic controllers and his political rivals. I put safety first. Obama, Biden and the Democrats put policy first. We can only accept the best and the brightest.
The era of DEI is gone. the Defense Department and Cabinet battles. Senator, I support vaccines. This is a job where it is life and death.
Was Edward Snowden a traitor? My heart is with my commitment to our Constitution. I would never do anything unconstitutional or lawful. President Trump's most controversial nominees face off on Capitol Hill.
But will they all be confirmed? My guest this morning, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Republican Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri, and Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly o', Donnell, NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, Mark Short, former director of legislative affairs for President Trump, and former Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida. 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. After just two weeks in office, President Trump is waging battles across the globe and inside his own government.
Overnight, he imposed tariffs on America's three largest trading partners. They're already hitting back, raising fears of a trade war. The president is also facing the first crisis of his second term in office, the worst aviation disaster in a generation. After an Army Blackhawk helicopter and American Airlines plane crashed above Washington Were no survivors and 67 people died in the crash.
On Thursday, after a moment of silence, President Trump pivoted to politics, suggesting without evidence that diversity and inclusion policies contributed to the crash. The FAA is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiatives spelled out on the agency's website. Can you imagine you have today blame the diversity element, but then told us that you weren't sure that the controllers made any mistake. We then said perhaps the helicopter pilots were the ones who made the mistake.
I understand that. That's why I'm trying to figure out, you can come to the conclusion right now that diversity had something to do with this crash. Because I have common sense, okay? And unfortunately, a lot of people don't.
According to the FAA and other aviation groups, all candidates seeking to become air traffic controllers and pilots have to go through years of rigorous training and testing and meet the same exceedingly high standards. As Washington was responding to the tragedy, President Trump's three most vulnerable Cabinet picks were testifying on Capitol Hill. Now, multiple sources tell NBC News there is growing concern in the White House and among Republicans that Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence could be in serious trouble after her confirmation hearing, in which she didn't directly answer whether Edward Snowden, who leaked government secrets, is a traitor. Was he a traitor at the time when he took America's secrets, released them in public, and then ran to China and became a Russian citizen?
Senator, I'm focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again. Was Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? Senator, I will also repeat my answer. He broke the law.
Yes or no, is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? As someone who has in combat, I understand how critical our national security is. Apparently, you don't. White House officials insist President Trump is standing by Gabbard.
Meanwhile, there have been a dizzying number of actions this week as President Trump halted federal funding and then reversed course amid a legal challenge, fired dozens of career prosecutors inside the Justice Department and forced out FBI senior executives, and officially on Saturday, imposed tariffs on America, America's largest trading partners, Mexico, Canada, and China. Is there anything China, Canada, and Mexico can do tonight to forestall your implementation of tariffs tomorrow? No. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau firing back.
I want to speak directly to Americans, our closest friends. This is a choice that, yes, will harm Canadians, but beyond that, it will have real consequences for you. They will raise costs for you, including food at the grocery store, gas at the pump. They will impede your access to an affordable supply of vital goods crucial for US Security.
All of this comes as the president is ramping up his deportation efforts. And joining me now from the border in W. Texas is Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Secretary Noem, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to be with you today. Kristen, thank you so much for being here. Madam Secretary, we are going to talk about the border, the deportation plan in just a moment.
I do have to start by talking about the breaking news overnight. The president officially announcing those new tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China, saying he wants those countries to do more to crack down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The three countries are all slamming the move. They're vowing retaliatory strikes.
Is the United States now in a trade war? You know, these countries have an opportunity to get on board with the president of the United States and to partner with us to deal with illegal immigration, to take back other individuals that have been in our country illegally. We want to repatriate them home and they can be partners. So economically, yes, they will.
They will feel pain. They will feel what this consequences are and will be able to continue to go forward with a president who's strong. This putting America first. You know, let me just stress that point that I made, which is the president cites stopping the flow of fentanyl and undocumented migrants for reasons for these tariffs.
And yet, Madam Secretary, Canada is not a major source of fentanyl coming into the United States. It's frankly minuscule compared to what it sees at the southern border. Why is the United States punishing Canada, one of its closest allies, more than China, where fentanyl originates? Canada has some work to do as far as helping us secure our northern border.
So we still know we're extremely vulnerable across that northern border, that we have people coming into our country from China, from foreign countries. We have people on the terrorist watch list that come in over our northern border. And in fact, what we have sent a message this week on is that we're not just going to enforce our southern border, we're going to put extra resources, resources at that northern border as well. So Canada needs to come to the table.
They need to work with us to make sure that not only can we be good neighbors, but that we can help each other's economies by getting in line and making sure that our immigration policies are followed and that those that are dangerous criminals face consequences. The president has been very clear from the beginning that there's a new sheriff of town, that he's going to make sure he putting Americans first and that Canada can help us or they can get in the way and they will face the consequences of it. As you know, Madam Secretary, economists all across the board are warning that ultimately tariffs lead to higher prices for consumers and that these tariffs in particular could see prices increase on food, electronics and Cars. The president himself acknowledging this morning these tariffs could cause, quote, some pain.
How is this move helping President Trump fulfill his campaign promise to lower prices? You know, you've seen the president take action already this week with Colombia, and you saw Colombia react in a very positive way. That was good for everyone involved. Canada, Mexico, other countries have the opportunity to do exactly the same.
So we have a strong leader. He has laid down exactly what he is going to do, what the consequences are. I encourage their leadership teams to get on board and to make sure that they're not pushing up prices. If prices go up, it's because of other people's reactions to America's laws.
And that's what President Trump is doing. He is making sure that we're not picking and choosing winners and losers, that the law applies equally to everybody, American citizens. It applies to those who are here illegally and are world leaders across the country and across the world. They can help us or they're gonna face some consequences.
Okay, so notable, you are acknowledging it is possible that prices could at least initially go up. Secretary, let me shift now to the southern border where you are. Let's talk about the administration's mass deportation plans. There are a lot of questions about the announcement this week that Guantanamo Bay will be used as a detention facility for migrants.
Will people held at Guantanamo have the same due process rights and access to attorneys that they have here in the United States? Yes, due process will be followed, and having facilities at Guantanamo Bay will be an asset to us. And the fact that we'll have the capacity to continue to do there what we've always done. We've always had a presence of illegal immigrants there that have been detained.
We're just building out some capacity. So we appreciate the partnership of the DoD in getting that up to the level that it needs to get to in order to facilitate this repatriation of people back to their country. So remember that Guantanamo Bay, clearly, by this president, has said that it will hold the worst of the worst, that we are going after those bad actors. This last week, I was in New York City.
We were going after people that had warrants out for their arrest on murders and rapes, assaults, gun purchases, drug trafficking. In fact, we had a member of TDA that was one of the ringleaders that we picked up that that week had been trying to buy grenades. These are the types of individuals that we are targeting. We're removing from communities, and that could end up having a say at Guantanamo Bay before they are returned home to their countries to deal with.
Is it Possible, Madam Secretary, that people could be held at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. That is not the plan. The plan is to have a process that we follow that's laid out in law and make sure that we're dealing with these individuals appropriately according to what the state and the national lawsuit law directs. So we will work with Congress to make sure that we're addressing our legal immigration laws and using Guantanamo Bay appropriately.
But it is an asset that we have that we fully intend to utilize. Could women, children and families be held there at Guantanamo? You know, if you look at what we are doing today is targeting the worst of the worst. We've been very clear on that.
The priority of this president is to go after criminal aliens, are making our streets more dangerous. After that, we have final removal orders on many individuals in this country. They are the next priority. And we'll continue to work through people that are breaking the law, that are in danger to these communities and use the detention centers that we have set up in order to facilitate this in an orderly way.
But I guess, Madam Secretary, my question. Would you rule out that women, that children, that families could be helicope? Do you rule that out? You know, because we're going to use the facilities that we have, and I think you're well aware we have other detention facilities other places in the country.
So we will utilize what we have according to what's appropriate for the individuals that we have gone out on these targeted operations with local law enforcement and task forces to make sure that they're being brought in, they're not paroled anymore, onto our streets, that we're keeping America safe, and that we're following the process for what happens when they break the law and how they are returned to their countries. I'm extremely grateful for Secretary of State Marco Rubio's work with these countries to negotiate and use diplomacy to ensure that they are going to be taking individuals back, not just from their country, but surrounding countries, so that we can immediately take action to return them far from the United States, which dramatically increases the likelihood that they're not going to come back. Let me ask you, I've been talking to people who are here legally and they have expressed concerns. They say they are carrying, in some cases their documents around with them.
Some of them are afraid to go to churches because ICE agents are now going into churches and schools to carry out these deportation operations. Do people who are here legally need to be carrying around paperwork, and can you guarantee that people who are here legally won't be wrongfully detained? First, I would say that If I heard that expressed by people that are legal citizens of the United States, it's because the media has perpetuated that fear. The media has said that that's a possibility.
There's nothing from this administration, from President Trump, or from any other law enforcement individuals in these communities that has said that they need to walk around and be concerned about that at all. The citizens of the United States are confident that finally, after four long years of having a president in the White House that ignored federal law and endangered their communities, that there's a different man in charge now. There's a man in charge who loves this country, is going to help make their communities safer. And these citizens that live here are thrilled.
In fact, when I was in New York City earlier this week and in several cities since then, the people walking by us on the streets were thanking our officers, they were thanking these investigators and those that were taking these dangerous criminals out for being there, for making sure that they could walk their kids to school with a new confidence that they could get there safely and that they could do business and have their community back. Secretary, let me ask you about the news that you made over at idhs, officially making the decision to end temporary protective status for audience. That means, class, about half a million Venezuelans, they no longer have protection from deportation. These are people who were welcomed here.
They did everything by the books. Why should they be subject to deportation just very quickly? Well, the TPP program has been abused and it doesn't have integrity right now. And folks from Venezuela that come to this country are members of tda.
And remember, Venezuela purposely emptied out their prisons, emptied out their mental health facilities and sent them to the United States of America. So we are ending that extension of that program, adding some integrity back into it. And this administration's evaluating all of our programs to make sure they truly are something that's to the benefit of the United States. So they're not to the benefit of criminals.
Homeland Security Secretary CHRISTINE thank you so much. I know it's been a busy weekend. You've also been very engaged in the investigation of the horrific crash here. We appreciate you're joining us.
Thank you so much. Thank you so much. We're praying for their families. Absolutely.
Thank you. Madam Secretary, when we come back, Republican Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri joins me next. Welcome back. And join me now is Republican Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri.
Senator Schmidt, welcome back to MEET THE press. It's great to be with you, Kristen. Well, it is great to have you back. I do have to start on a somber note.
I Want to start by talking about this horrific plane crash here in the nation's capital. It claimed 67 lives. I know that you have been paying close attention to this investigation. President Trump, for his part, came out, he held a news conference, started with a moment of silence, quickly shifted to politics, including leaning diversity programs for the crash.
Do you believe that President Trump runs the risk of getting ahead of the facts by drawing conclusions that he himself says he has no evidence that diversity programs play a role? Well, the first thing I want to say is that our thoughts and prayers are with the families. This is gonna be a long road for them. As everyone knows.
This is a nightmare. You know, you take a loved one to the airport, you never expect this to happen in the last time you ever see that person. And so I don't want to, we'll talk about all that. But the human tragedy here, you know, it's something that's gut wrenching to those families.
My prayers, my family's prayers with them. I know the country wants to wrap their arms around them too. They deserve a full investigation. I think we've learned a few things already.
But he's relates specifically to the president's comments. This is nothing new, Kristin. This idea of emphasizing DEI across the federal government has real ramifications. I think the president said, and as you just mentioned, not related specifically.
We don't know the investigation. We'll find out. But broadly speaking, dei's poison. It's hurt recruiting, it's hurt hiring, it's hurt retention.
The hours spent on these struggle sessions during TR is hours you don't spend on safety. And that's just a fact. And it's evidenced by the fact that a thousand people sued the air traffic control for not being hired because of the race. It's evidenced by the fact that you have also people who are fired from air traffic controls and pilots for not taking the COVID shot.
And then, you know, the government then of course makes it a priority to hire 87,000 IRS agents to roam across the country and harass Americans. So this has become an obsession. And in the Commerce Committee, if you paid any attention that I've had, other members have had to put these policies exactly what they've done. And they try to score political points by doing it.
But it has real ramifications on the workforce. Just very quickly, we have to point out that the FAA, aviation groups say that every pilot, every air traffic controller has to pass the same rigorous test they have to meet exceedingly high standards. But bottom line, Senator, but I'm asking you do you have any evidence whatsoever that diversity programs play a role in this crash? Because the president said he doesn't.
Well, no one said that. But I do think if you want to find a solution, you have to be honest about the problem. And the truth is merit has taken a backseat to quotas. We don't know that's a problem in this case.
Kristen. We can distinguish what the investigation in this case versus writ large. It's also true in our military. Pete Hack said it's going to get rid of DI military to the tur recruiting.
The same is true across the government. People don't want to sit through these struggle sessions with this racist. And by the way, the federal government is being sued for discriminating against certain employees because of the race. So this is a fact in there.
It's true. And the one thing people care about is they want to get from here to there safely. I don't care. And Americans don't care the race of the pilot or somebody in the tower or their religion or their gender.
They just want the best people. And that is what we have to get back to in this country. All right, let's as you say, your thoughts and prayers are the families right now. I think that certainly is something that everyone can agree with.
I do want to move on to tariffs. This breaking news overnight. President Trump, as you know, won in part on a vow to bring down prices. He's now imposing tariffs on the country's three biggest trading partners, Mexico, Canada and China.
Can you guarantee, Senator, that these tariffs won't drive up prices? All we have to do is look at President Trump's first four years re institute tariffs. We didn't see inflation. In fact, we saw record wage growth.
We saw $200 billion plus go into the treasury from those tariffs, tariffs and helped even the playing field with countries who've been ripping us off, quite frankly, for generations. A China specific. I think American people are tired of being ripped off. They're tired of seeing their jobs go overseas.
But I think this, these pairs specifically, Kristen, are meant to bring Canada and Mexico to the table for the fentanyl that is streaming into our communities. It's also worth noting in the last four years that the trade imbalance on our trade deficit has gone up 200 plus percent with Canada and up 52% with Mexico. The fact is these countries are taking advantage of us all along the while. We've got fentanyl streaming in our country.
So Mexico has a choice. They can choose to trade with the United States or continue to Cozy up with cartel. It's pre simple. But you talk about President Trump's first term.
It's worth noting that during his first term, a number of prices did go up on various goods from washing machines and tires. You mentioned Canada. Very little fentanyl is coming across the border from Canada. Why do you think, why is the President punishing Canada more than China, the country's adversary?
Do you think that's right? Well, that number is growing, though, Chris. I think it's important, especially minuscule right now. It's minuscule right now, but it's growing.
It's growing. And when they have a poor support order and they don't seem very concerned at all. And by the way, I heard the clip earlier, Justin Trudeau sort of lecturing Americans. My advice to him is he probably ought to talk to the Canadian people who were about to throw him out of office because he's been a total disaster.
So I think we've got a president that wants to put America first and protect people. We have. We have 100,000 people a year, Kristen, dying from fentanyl. He ran about this, ran on this.
This is not a surprise. He talked about getting operational control over border. He talked about tariffs and improving our standing in the world. He's doing all those things and look no further.
The best evidence of this, last week, Colombia came to the table after that threat and agreed to take criminals back in their country and legal immigrants. So the fact of the matter, it works. It worked the first time it was in office. We didn't see inflation, we saw wage growth and we saw more onshoring jobs back here in the United States.
I have to ask you about the confirmation hearings. Of course. Last time you were here in November, you told me you were. Yes.
On President Trump's Cabinet nominations, some of your Republican colleagues this week expressing concern in the wake of Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation hearing. She's been tapped to be Director of National Intelligence. Of course, she was pressed on whether Edward Snowden is a traitor. Would not answer that directly.
Senator, are you still yes on Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation? I am 100%. I think she's very well qualified. No one's disputing that.
She served our country honorably in the military. She's been a member of Congress. And I think she strikes a really important balance for a key position of civil liberties, protecting civil liberties of United States citizens and also national security. So I still think she's gonna get confirmed.
That's what this confirmation process is all about for people to ask tough questions. I think she's gonna do just fine. And sweet Senator, very quickly to you, how would you answer that same question? Is Edward Snowden a traitor?
Look, I think it's so interesting that this lexicon that gets manipulated. Now, there are certain words you need to say during COVID or certain words that you needed to say. Now, the fact of the matter is the people who are most concerned and most pushing this narrative are the same ones who had no issues whatsoever with the intelligence community spying on a presidential candidate happened to be President Trump suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story when he was running again, and then, of course, the lawfare, that included. So I think people are tired of these games of this sort of gotcha stuff.
Look, if he's been indicted, if he comes back United States, he's gonna have a trial. But this idea of you trying to disqualify people by using these terms is ridiculous. Well, what I'm doing, really, I mean, these are questions that were asked by your Republican colleagues, including Senator Langford, who asked, is he a traitor? Government contractor who leaked government secrets?
It's a very simple question. Yes or no? We're almost out of time, though. Is he a traitor?
I think she was pretty clear. I think she's pretty clear. What do you think? She served this country honorably.
And I think it's totally ridiculous to try to smear people who are trying to serve this country because again, it's sort of gotcha. And I would also point out a lot of people that are asking this don't like her because she's gonna bring reform and she's gonna curb the excesses and the worst instincts of the intelligence community at times that has gone after presidential candidates. All right, Senator Eric Schmidt, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.
Great to be with you. When we come back, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona joins me next. Welcome back. And join me now is Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.
Senator Kelly, welcome back to MEET the press. Good morning, Kristen. It's great to have you back. I do have to start again on this tragic news about this plane crash here in the nation's capital.
You, of course, have flown combat missions as a Navy pilot. You just heard my conversation with Senator Schmidt, responding to what we heard from President Trump this week, that diversity programs, according to the president, may have played a role. The president acknowledging he does not have proof of that. What is your take on what we know and what you've heard?
Well, Chris, at first it's a tragic and sad accident. I really feel for the families I'm playing on the helicopter. It's, you know, you know, these accidents are often very complicated, a set of things that happen sequentially. It's often not one thing that causes a major aviation accident like this.
I've been involved in accident investigations, particularly like with the, with space shuttle Columbia, you know, as an example, that we lost in 2003. And to say that it has to do with the person's color of their skin or their gender, I think that's just poor leadership. And especially a time where any president is supposed to be the consoler in chief and not the person that's going to try to divide us as a country, especially when you don't have the appropriate information. And he clearly does not have the information in this case.
This is too early in the investigation. The NTSB is really good at this. They'll do a thorough investigation and we'll eventually see what the cause of this accident was. And they are still investigating, that is for sure.
Let's shift to the other big news of this morning, the president's announcement on tariffs on the country's three biggest trading partners. You heard Senator Schmidt defending the plan. You heard Secretary Yong defending the plan as well, saying ultimately this will be good for the economy, rejecting the idea that it could drive up prices. Do you think, as President Trump has argued, that tariffs ultimately will be good at stemming the flow of illegal immigration and fentanyl?
Kristen, we're talking about two different things here. Border security is important. I represent Arizona. We're a border state.
There are things that we can do to strengthen the border. You know, we demonstrated that Democrats and Republicans can work together to come up with real policy solutions. What the president has proposed here, raising tariffs on Canada and Mexico, it's going to just do one thing. You say it may raise prices.
It will raise prices for American consumers. We saw this in the first administration here in Arizona. We wound up in a trade war over certain things with China for cotton producers and pecan farmers. They wound up.
It really, really hurt their businesses. But, you know, beyond this, it's going to hurt American families. They're going to see prices go up for food, for energy, for electronics. I think you mentioned that for, for autos.
This is not the way to handle this. I do want to turn to the nomination process. Tulsi Gabbard in the spotlight this week. You were among those asking her a range of different questions during her confirmation hearing.
She is a former Democratic lawmaker. We should let remind folks of that she ran for president in the Democratic Party. Notably, you have supported all but two of Mr. Trump's nominees so far, but you've expressed some real concerns about Tulsi Gabbard.
Based on your conversations, do you think Tulsi Gabbard has the votes to get confirmed? Well, I think anybody who went into that confirmation hearing this week with questions about, you know, her background, her ability to manage 18 intelligence agencies, and also her commitment to guard our secrets as the Director of National Intelligence, she's responsible for a lot. She's got to sort through a massive amount of information every single day, decide what to present to the President. I think if you had questions about her decision making and her judgment when you went into that hearing, I think anybody that sat there like I did or my colleagues on both sides of the aisle probably left with more questions.
I know I did. You played Senator Lankford's exchange with her over whether or not Edward Snowden was a traitor. It's a pretty simple question to ask. He actually thought he was throwing her a softball, something she could easily, you know, admit to.
I mean, the definition of a traitor is pretty simple. I mean, whether or not somebody betrayed our country. And in the case of Edward Snowden, we know he did. He released a lot of classified information, top secret information, over a million documents, and he gave a lot of those to Russia.
He may have given some to China. He meets the definition. I don't see why she couldn't, you know, say that. I'm kind of puzzled by it.
And, you know, I. I don't know why she wouldn't admit that. It's interesting. Like my friend and colleague Eric Schmidt wouldn't either.
I don't, you know, I don't question, you know, his. His judgment on this. I think this is a very political situation. But I think my Republican colleagues, many of them, will still have questions about her nomination.
All right. We'll have to see how it all plays out. It will be, obviously, a dynamic several days as we wait to see what happens with her vote, whether she gets out of committee. Sources or close to her say they do feel confident she will.
I do want to talk about the president's mass deportation plans. You heard from Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem earlier in the broadcast. ICE operations are already being carried out across the country. You have pushed for tougher standards, tougher border policies.
Do you support what you are seeing so far, the deportation plan, as it's been carried out by the President? Yeah, I don't, for a number of reasons. It seems to Be more about intimidation of a big population of people. It's going down the road of mass deportation, which he said he would do, which would rip communities apart.
These are really bad ideas. Trying to send folks back to Colombia, which we do routinely, but sending them on military airplanes, which, by the way, costs a lot more money than putting them on a chartered airline flight, which we've done for decades. It's all about scaring and intimidating people. It's the same thing for Guantanamo Bay, building a facility there, because it just sounds very frightening to a lot of folks.
When you're a criminal, we need to find where you are, we need to take you into custody, and if you're not documented, you should be returned. That makes sense. I'm all about public safety and border security, but we've got to do it in a way in accordance with our values. One more question to you, Senator.
President Trump obviously signed the Late and Riley act into law this week just so folks understand that will allow law enforcement to detain and to deport undocumented immigrants who've been charged with theft related crimes. You voted in support of this bill. I had an opportunity to interview your colleague, Senator Adam Schiff, who opposed it. He told me last week this bill is so broad, the US quote, would be able to deport dreamers for taking a tube of toothpaste.
Can you guarantee this law won't be applied in a way that's overly broad? Well, this law is about public safety representing a border state. This affects Arizona, I think, more than other states just because of numbers. And it's where, you know, folks cross.
Kristen, if you come across the border and you don't have documentation, you've already committed a crime. This is for somebody who then decides to commit a second crime and they're taken into custody, there'll be due process involved. So they could eventually, if they can prove that these are not valid charges, where they go through the court system, they could then be released. I'm not concerned about, you know, what Adam is talking about.
I think you know very highly of dreamers. You know, dreamers are as American as my own two kids. I think we should be working towards a pathway to citizenship for dreamers. I know some of my Republican colleagues feel the same way.
And we're gonna solve these border issues by working together, Democrats and Republicans, to come up with policy changes on border security and immigration reform. All right, Senator Kelly, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you, Kristen.
And when we come back, a warning about the need for checks and balances in the federal government from a former attorney general. I mean, the president is next. Welcome back. One of the Senate's key checks on the executive branch was back on display this week as senators grilled some of President Trump's more vulnerable cabinet nominees, like Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr. Back in 1961, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. Joined me, the press, with this defense of Congress's role in reining in the administration.
I think it's terribly important to ensure that the executive branch of the government is not corrupt and that they are efficient, that the legislative branch of the government has this ability to check on what we're doing in the executive branch of the government. So in every instance that has been brought to our attention at the Department of Justice so far by various departments of the executive branch where this question has been raised, we have suggested and recommended that they make the information available to Congress. We will continue to do that. I don't say that there might be an instance where executive privilege might have to be used, but I think that it's terribly important that the executive branch of the government, as powerful and strong as it is, that there be some check and balance on it.
And when we come back, will President Trump's controversial cabinet nominees make it through the confirmation process? The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here.
NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly o', Donnell, NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Brian Nobles, former Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida, and Mark Short, former Trump Director of Legislative affairs. Thanks to all of you for being here. Boy, there are a lot of headlines to get to, Kelly. Let's start with the one that broke overnight tariffs.
The president officially moving to impose tariffs against America's three biggest trading partners. You had a very robust exchange with him on Friday in the Oval Office about a range of issues, including this one. You press them repeatedly. Will prices go up?
We had a lot back and forth on this. In part, I was acting as a pool reporter. So I was in the Oval. And what was striking is this is the president's first foreign policy movement.
It is one that goes after our nearest neighbors and one of our biggest global adversaries and competitors in China. And I pressed him, looking for what does he want back? Is it a negotiating point? Is there a concession you're looking for?
And he kept saying no. And if you read the text of it, he talks about the national emergency we have with Canada. Using that power, that authority, he has to declare something that many Americans may not see. I then asked him about, you ran wanting to reduce prices and we know that prices are paid.
The importance pay the tariff and then it's passed down. And he said there could be disruption but people will understand. I said, Mr. President, you said you would reduce everyday costs.
So I think there is a lot more to be understood about the real world impact. It's coming on the fly. It appeared on the fly. He sort of negotiated down from 25 to 10% on energy because we know energy matters to his overall policy.
It matters to Americans who have to fill their gas tax. Well, Ryan, pick up there because for so many constituents of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, this is a, you know, issue that impacts them on a day to day basis. What is the reaction that you're starting to see trickle in to this news that the president is imposing tariffs and by the way, potentially vowing to escalate them if these other countries retaliate, which they say they're going to do? Well, this is going to be a real test to see if Republicans and Congress are going to stand up to the president because they're going to be the first ones to hear directly from their constituents when their constituents prices start to rise.
And what we've seen at least in the first two weeks of this administration is that congressional Republicans are largely out of the loop. They're finding out about these major policy proposals oftentimes when we tell them in the hallways of Congress. And so there's little opportunity for them to react, to respond and to encourage the president to go to a different direction because he's not consulting him on some of these big decisions. As a long laundry list of things I don't want to talk about, Kristen.
So we'll have to see if they're reactionary here. Do they plead with the White House to try and rein this in or refine the policy proposal a little bit? Because there's no doubt they're going to hear from their constituents first and worry a year and change away from the next election. And they're the ones that are going to fill the buns of these decisions first.
Marcus, someone who was in the first Trump administration when tariffs were opposed to against China. There's a difference between these round of tariffs and what we saw during the first Trump administration. I think this is one of the greatest differences between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. In the first administration, the terrorists were largely targeted largely toward China for national security purposes to get concessions.
The first administration had economic advisors and national security advisors who believed in trade for both economic benefit and national security benefit. The team he has run today has a very different viewpoint. It's very mercantile viewpoint that says you should be paying for access to American markets. Regardless of the reality that Americans or the importers paying that tariff in that tax, the belief is that this is a tax that should be, that should be assessed to other people.
I think the bigger question can be if there's a huge market reaction this week, if it begins to impact the economy, then I think undermine a lot of other parts of his agenda. And I'd also say this is just the beginning. The president's current team really believes this is the right economic policy across the board. And there'll be a lot more tariffs coming.
Yeah. Stefi, let's zoom out a little bit. This week really has brought a dizzying number of headlines. It started with the administration basically announcing cuts to all federal aid.
They pulled that back. So big reversal, kind of waiting to see how that plays out. The president, as we talked about on the program, blaming diversity programs for the crash and then on Friday, the announcement that a number of prosecutors, career prosecutors within the FBI and DOJ being fired. What do you make of this broad set of events that we've witnessed?
Well, I think that the Democrats have a real opportunity here if they focus on standing up for the people. And while some of the things that you mentioned are really outrageous, firing people at the Department of Justice, at the FBI, Democrats can't be seen as fighting for power within Washington. They have to be seen fighting for the people. And so highlighting the federal funding freeze, talking about the impact of tariffs on everyday Americans and the cost of their groceries and all of their prices, that's going to be a winning message for Democrats.
It's unfortunate, though, because this president ran and won on lowering costs for Americans and his first sets of policies are going to actually raise costs for Americans. And Democrats are going to hang that around not just Donald Trump, but also Republicans in Congress. We are starting to see them galvanize around this message that you talk about. Stephanie.
And what's so notable about FBI firings, Cash Patel said in his hearing there will not be retribution against anyone at the Fi Ryan. It comes as we have this new reporting that of all the president's nominees, it's Tulsi Gabbard who may be in real trouble, that White House officials were rattled by her inability to say that, yes, Edward Snowden is a traitor. Notably today, Senator Schmidt didn't want to go there. So I think the three most controversial picks, Patel, RK Jr.
And Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard is One that is in the most danger. But I do think that you have to start from a place of them getting confirmed and work your way back. Because what this administration is not going to do is what they did with Matt Gates and pull the nominee back before they get a vote.
They're going to force every single Republican senator to be accountable for this vote and vote yes or no and that includes Tulsi Gabbard. Now, there is a difference though in their approach in terms of how they're encouraging. We're putting pressure on these senators to vote yes or no, which a part of your reporting says, Kristen. And you know, with Pete Hexaf, it was a very clear message to Republican senators, a message sometimes sent by the president himself.
At this point, we're not seeing that same level of pressure with Tulsi Gabbard. Whether or not that leads to enough senators which require four to step out and vote no. That's something we'll probably find out this week. Kelly, you know how this plays out.
Having convert to it is also a test of how the president judges those on camera performances. Robert Kennedy Jr. And Tulsi Gabbard, the performances during the hearings did not meet the same bar that Pete Hex did. And Mark, what do you make of Tulsi Gabbard?
But then this morning Senator Schmidt said I'm not going to touch that. That's a, you know, that's not a real question. And yet it was a question that Republicans were asking her. I think that a lot of Americans don't remember who ever Stone is or Julian Assange.
But I think they have a lot of Trump supporters believe intelligence community hurt him greatly with a fake Russian investigation. But this be in a position where you can say that somebody who sold American secrets that clipped Americans in uniforms lies in danger, is somehow not a traitor. Is an extension that goes far beyond the pale of where I think our party is today. And you can't say the Julian Assange and Edward Stone are actually tricky.
National security is dependent on the ability to collect intelligence and safeguard intelligence. And on both of those counts, Tulsi's hearing showed that she didn't fullheartedly believe in either the key ability to collect the intelligence or the need to safeguard it. And I think that should put some real questions in Senator's minds. We'll have to see how it all plays out.
Great conversation, guys. Thanks so much for being here. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching.
We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. I'm Craig Melt. Cheers. Cheers.
Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. It's really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And so I hope you'll join me each week.
Who knows, you might just come away with your own glass apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig Melford From Today on YouTube and wherever you get a podcast.