Meet the Press NOW — April 15

It's here. The Ford it's a big. Not yet. The Ford It's a big deal.

Oh guys, just wait. The Ford It's a big deal Event is on. Really? Now hurry into lease of 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.29% APR for six months with 2995 down, that's like $99 a week.

The Ford is a big deal. Events visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford CA if it's Tuesday, A high stakes court hearing is happening right now on the fate of the Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador as questions loom over what consequences, if any, the Trump administration will face if it defies the courts. Plus, the Trump administration freezes more than $2 billion in research funding for Harvard University after the Ivy League institution rejected the president's demands to overhaul its admissions process and halt its diversity, equity and inclusion programs and tariff turmoil. Trump's trade war with China Royals Main street as US Port cities brace for a steep decline in business that could bring higher prices, fewer jobs and a new era of economic uncertainty.

By the way, welcome to the press now. Ryan Nobles in Washington, where we're following breaking news as a hearing gets underway in the case of a Maryland man the DOJ admitted was mistakenly sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The hearing comes amid an escalating standoff between the White House and the federal courts and growing questions about what happens if the president defies the judiciary in this case or in one of several other immigration related cases. The hearing happened happening right now is for the judge in Maryland to get an update on what steps the government is taking to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US after last week the Supreme Court ordered the administration to, quote, facilitate his return.

The Trump administration has so far not acted on that order and appears ready to defy it as several administration officials claim that it's not up to them whether Mr. Abrego Garcia is returned. Deporting him back to El Salvador was always going to be the end result. There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who's going to live a peaceful life in Maryland.

That's up to El Salvador. If they want to return him, that's not up to us. He's a citizen of El Salvador. So it's very arrogant even for American leaders suggest that we can tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens.

He was illegally in the United States and was returned to this country. That's where he deport people back to their country of origin. White House Secretary Caroline Levitt today insisted that the administration is operating within the confines of the law and is complying with all court orders. Moments ago, Mr.

Garcia's wife spoke outside the courthouse as she continues to fight for the return of her husband. Today is 34 days of after his disappearance. And I stand before you filled with spirit that refuses to bring down. I will not stop fighting until I see my husband alive.

I find myself meeting with the Trump administration and the Buket administration to stop playing political games with the life of Kilmer. Enough is enough. My family can't be robbed from another day without seeing Kilmer. But it's not just the case of Mr.

Abrego Garcia where President Trump appears right to push the powers of his authority as part of his deportation crackdown. While meeting with El Salvador's president yesterday, President Trump also floated the idea of deporting US Citizens, a move experts say is obviously illegal. Meanwhile, NBC News has exclusive reporting on the government's case against Mahmoud Khalil. He's a former Columbia University student, activist and legal permanent resident who's now scheduled to be deported.

NBC News reviewed more than 100 pages of documents submitted by the government, some of which appear to show government lawyers relying on unverified tabloid claims. And in the case of the Tufts University graduate student who was taken into ICE custody last month, arrested by plainclothes officers on a sidewalk, a district court judge questioned yesterday if the Trump administration might trigger a constitutional crisis by not releasing policing Ramese Oz Turk if he determined that her arrest violating the law. Joining me now is our team of reporters to cover all of this, NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly o', Donnell, and NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. So, Julia, Julia, first to you on this hearing, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

It's just getting underway. We did, though, just get a status update from the government moments ago. What can you tell us about that and what can we expect to hear from the government in court today? Yeah, this is fascinating.

We just saw a filing from the government as they were preparing to walk into court to go before this judge who has ordered the government to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return. And they said, sure, we will welcome him back into the United States as soon as he presents himself at a port of entry, after which we will take steps to deport him. So the idea that this man is being held in a superb secured high security prison, El Salvador is going to, on his own volition, get out of there and walk to a port of entry at the Mexico border is a little beyond fathomable at this point.

I think this is their way of trying to show the government how far they're willing to go to define what it means to facilitate, which is exactly what the Supreme Court ordered them to do. This judge, of course, first ordered them to facilitate and effectuate his return. And now they're really going into court quite boldly today saying, this is about as far as we're willing to go to get this man back. And correct me if I'm wrong, you're also saying that they'll just deport him again.

I mean, is it part of the question here whether or not he was in a position to legally be deported? Doesn't that still need to be adjudicated? Yeah, exactly. I mean, they say that they would then just deport him again.

I think the question here, though, would they still deport him under the Alien Enemies act, or would they actually to give him due process? Remember, the Supreme Court has even said, although the President can invoke the Alien Enemies act, they need to be able to give people due process in time to be able to argue that they're not, in fact, part of the class that they're seeking to remove from the United States. In other words, argue that they're not part of MS.13 or the train de Aragua Venezuelan gang. And so the question is, if he came back to the United States, would he get that due process in 2019?

He was given the ability to stay here legally on a temporary basis. It was a water club with holding a removal. That's actually a higher bar than asylum, even because the judge said it was too dangerous for him to go back to El Salvador. The government can move to remove that protection, but they would have to do it through a legal process.

That's what his lawyer has argued that they could do all along, and they sidestep that process. So the question is, if he got back here and they did decide to deport him, would they give him that due process? But all of these are big hypothetical rhymes because I don't even know how he would get to the US Border in the first place. Right.

We have to get to that stage anyway. But let's go back out of that meeting yesterday in the Oval Office between President Trump and President Kayleigh. Does that alum over this hearing in Maryland today, will the judge take any of that into account? Yeah, it's absolutely looming.

For all of us who are wondering how the government's going to respond today. Previously, Druinstein is the same lawyer who spoke, spoken in multiple cases before multiple federal judges to defend the administration's policy when it comes to this El Salvador prison. He will go again before the judge today. And previously he hadn't given much information.

He's really said that there's not a lot he can give. Well, it's hard for him to do that after Trump yesterday, a lot of information, the fact that he's directing Bukele to build more prisons, to expand his policy. But when it comes just to the case of which is what is at hand today, Trump has said that, look, we can't go into El Salvador and get this man back. And Bukele said, you know, we can't smuggle him into the United States.

Both countries are pointing at the other, saying that it's in violation of the other sovereignty should they make a move to remove this man and bring him back to the United States. So I think that inside will have a harder time to argue today that he simply is being cut to the dark when the American public has been given this information now that really these two sides are as close as they are, as much as they're talking, that they're really not doing anything to effectuate his return. They were literally in the same room together. They could have come up with a plan without too much trouble at all.

Okay, Julia, thank you for that. Let's go now to the White House where Kelly o' Donnell standing by. We should point out that Julia is continuing to watch this hearing and she'll update us if there are any new developments. Kelly, has the White House given any indication of whether or not he's going to abide by whatever today's ruling is in Maryland?

And is the administration concerned about being held in contempt? Well, certainly the administration publicly says that it is the president's intention to abide by court orders and to follow the law. But then there's plenty of room for interpretation because they insist they have done so thus far. And certainly there are.

Part of the hearing today is to try to figure out what has happened. So there are open questions about that. But clearly what we know is the Trump administration is taking a very aggressive approach to this case, even though in the court record it was acknowledged that this was an administrative error, there was a mistake in transporting this individual to El Salvador and then imprisoning him. He's got no criminal record in either country, and they've not been able to provide more information.

But they just say Publicly that they have determined that he is. Today, he was called a foreign terrorist by Caroline Levitt and an ongoing threat. So they say they are following the law. The question will be, do the courts agree with that, and is there a way for a process to take place to guarantee the sort of the overall overarching commitment to the rule of law that goes beyond this one person?

In fact, the part of that aggressive stance is the White House is saying that people should be more concerned about victims of crime than this particular individual. So they want to very clearly say that this is a done deal, that he will not be back in the United States. At the same time, they're saying that they're following the rule of law makes it very difficult. And they worked very hard to interpret the Supreme Court and its position about using the word facilitate and how they're trying to really determine the meaning of that word would dictate what they do.

So this will be an ongoing fight, and its bigger impact is what it could mean for other cases and other individuals who are part of either deportations or student visas being revoked or other things like that. It could go even further. Right, Kelly, because the president flew the idea yesterday of actually sending American citizens to El Salvador, not permanent legal residents, not green card holders, American citizens. How seriously is the White House about this idea, and are they ready for the legal fight that it'll spark?

Well, Caroline Levitt, speaking on behalf of the President today, fully embraced the fact that this is something the president is interested in, and he wants to find out if there's a legal way to do it. So they're acknowledging that there are laws that affect U.S. citizens, and that typically U.S. citizens cannot be deported.

And there are all kinds of constitutional protections. They go for US Citizens, whether natural born or naturalized, and yet they're keeping open this door. And the President has repeatedly said it in conversations publicly and in conversations that he had with the El Salvadoran president. Some of that was in the Oval Office, but captured and then later published by the El Salvadoran government through video, where the president's very clearly saying homegrown threats, homegrown criminals.

He would like to find a way, if El Salvador could build more prisons, that they could be sent there. So lots of questions, lots of constitutional issues. But what the White House is not doing is backing off that assertion, even just framing it as a question now, and clearly showing the president's intent that he wants to have a very muscular approach to fighting crime. Okay, Keller, Donald, thank you for that.

Let's turn out Ken Lannan Zansta here with me and Kenya for reporting on Mahmutmu Khalil. He, of course, a Columbia University student activist. He's a legal permanent resident who right now is being detained. What do we know about the govern government's case against him and what happens next?

Right. Important mention. He's married to a U.S. citizen.

They're expecting a child who will be a U.S. citizen. And he was removed from the country on the ground that the secretary of state deemed him problematic for U.S. foreign policy.

And they've accused him of being anti Semitic and being pro Hamas. And as you mentioned at the top, our colleague Goyakin reviewed more than 100 pages of documents and found that the case for that is quite shaky and relies on, in some cases, New York Post stories. So but they don't have to make that case. It's done.

A judge has ruled that he is deportable. Now, he's appealing that ruling and has until mid April to file that paperwork. And he'll remain here while that's getting sorted out. But unless he wins the appeal, he will be deported.

And when it comes to these court orders, what mechanisms do the judges have to enforce them? So that's an interesting question and one we haven't had to grapple with very often in our history. Judges can hold litigants in contempt, and the ultimate power is they can jail them under civil contempt procedures. But the people that enforce that normally are U.S.

marshals. Well, they work for the attorney general. So you can see where we're going here. Now, there's been some interesting scholarship that suggests that maybe courts could appoint separate people, not marshals, but say local sheriffs, to enforce their orders.

But, you know, that sets up a kind of a set of problems that we don't really want to grapple with here. But the funny fact is even this case you're talking about, the Gregory Garcia case, people believe that Donald Trump is violating that order, that he has not even asked for the release of that man when the Supreme Court has said he should facilitate that release. This is a place we've not been in American history grappling with yet, but we have to in the very near future. Ken Lanyan, thank you for that.

And joining me now to talk about all this is Robert Tsai. He's a professor of constitutional law at Boston University School of Law. So much to dig into with you, Professor. But let's first start with the case of Kamara Obrego Garcia.

The Trump administration really doesn't appear to be taking steps to facilitate his return, despite what they've said in their court filings, and that's despite what the Supreme Court explicitly told them that they have to do. What happens now? What can this district judge in Maryland do to try and find a path to getting him home? Great to show you.

I think it's incredibly important now in the hearing that's going on and any subsequent proceedings for the district court judge to make a very clear record of this defiance. I think she's off to a good start in requiring these daily status reports. And it's quite clear in those status reports that the government is absolutely refusing to take any steps to bring this individual home. And instead we get this last minute report today saying that if he somehow shows up at a port in the United States, we don't know how that would happen.

They're going to take him and send him to a different country. So there's no question here. I think that while the government is trying to minimally follow these kinds of requirements, they're not at all following the letter or the spirit of the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion. They're not doing anything to comply with what the court called the proper order to facilitate his return.

They are playing the aims in the smart. So what should be done next? I think in developing that record, what will be very important is to identify who is involved, who is dealing with the government's lawyers and making these decisions because those are going to be the people who are held in contempt first. And then secondly, that will allow the judge to work her way up the food chain to higher ranking officials and also to escalate the sanctions if the early ones don't work.

So I think those will be the important next steps. It's a break it down for us. It wouldn't be that she would necessarily hold Donald Trump in contempt right out of the gate. It would be more these court officials, these lawyers that are specifically working on the case today.

What sort of penalty could there be associated with in a contempt charge of one of these lawyers is working on the case? Well, the judge is supposed to start at a lower point of pain. So fines, she could increase the size of fines. She could make the fines every day.

And then she can, if there's more recalcitrants, expand the number of people who are being fined. You know, any kind of a criminal sanction or threat of jail is supposed to be a last resort. So this is why the record is so important. So that's it would build to a point before someone would actually be put in jail as A result of contempt.

But how long can this process play itself out for? I understand your point here that she's building a record that you're starting here to demonstrate just how much the administration is defying the court. How long could this process play itself out? Well, it could be a matter of weeks.

It could be longer. I think that the judge has indicated that she doesn't want to be toyed with. I think this is the right attitude. The Supreme Court acted fairly quickly on the government's previous appeal.

And I think that, you know, the Supreme Court's initial mistake was to treat the Trump administration here as if they're acting in good faith and to give them kind of the presumption of regularity. But by now, I think what we're seeing is that they really have no desire to comply with this order unless they're directly told by the Supreme Court itself that this man has to be returned and that existing legal protocols have to be followed. The ones that were already identified in the conversation earlier are all available to the government. They just simply don't want to do anything other than to proceed on the basis of, you know, one person's word against him has not yet been tested in the court of law.

So does the Supreme Court even be more clear what they're looking for, not give them any wiggle room with their language and the rulings that they hand down? I think 100%. I mean, in a way, what we've seen historically is they sort of are following what the Supreme Court in an earlier period did with the desegregation cases and to sort of give defendants opportunities to sort of comply and give a lot of flexibility. But here I think it's a mistake given what the Trump officials have indicated to everybody, including in their filings.

So they have to be much more pointed, direct about what they want to happen and how quickly that must happen. You know, if there's any positive evidence. We really haven't had a president defy a direct opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States in the hand on case. When the court rejected, utilized tribunals, the court, excuse me, the president back down and turn to Congress to create this.

So hopefully we get something similar here. Okay, I guess the optimum word here is hope. Professor Tsai, we have a long way to go in this case. Thank you for breaking it down for us.

So we appreciate it. Coming up, new threats from the White House in an escalating fight with Harvard University after the administration said it would freeze billions of dollars in grants because the university won't comply with the government's demands on DEI and more. Plus, how the administration's tariff war with China is roiling some of America's busiest ports. A live report from the Los Angeles community already feeling the economic toll.

That's straight ahead. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back. President Trump is escalating his standoff with Harvard, threatening on social media today to revolt the college's tax exempt status.

That comes a day after the White House announced that it was freezing more than $2 billion in grants to Harvard after the school refused to accept the Trump administration's demands, which included reforming its admissions process. Attorneys representing Harvard sent a statement that, quote, the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Ram Ellis has covered education extensively from ABC News.

She joins me now from Harvard's campus. Rahel, what does the White House demand from Harvard? The most recent demand, according to Harvard and how it has responded seemed to go too far in terms of what the administration was demanding. I want to show you a full screen of what some of those demands are and that is they want Harvard to reduce the power of students and faculty in university affairs, implement merit based admissions and hiring practices.

And some have said Harvard already has some of the highest standards in order to to work and to go to school here. They want an elimination of dei, diversity, equity and inclusion. And they want the school to report foreign students who are hostile to American values and institutions. When that was seen by the president of Harvard University, it seemed that that went too far.

And as you point out in the statement that read just before you came to me, Ryan, they said that this would redefine with the whole principle of what Harvard University was founded on and what it stands for today, being the oldest university in the country. They said it wasn't ready to change its principles. We're talking about $2 billion in grants right now that the federal government could withhold. How do they use this money?

Well, part of the money is used for operations here, but also it's for funding and grants and for research. This university is renowned for inspiring critical think and critical thinking as well as some advancements in technology and medicine is renowned for that. But that comes with the help of money from the federal government and grants that students are using that they can do research on and further opportunities that benefit not just people in the United States actually, but all around the world. So research money really is very important not just to Harvard University but to universities all across the country.

Ryan and what has the reaction been on campus? How are students and members of the faculty responding to this on campus? It's been, it's almost like a lifting of a cloud, the fact that Harvard University's president has pushed back on the Trump demands. There are those who have written in the Harvard Princeton University newspaper that they think that this is exactly what the university needs to be doing.

We heard from students who said that the morale here has been lifted as a result of how the university president had responded because they thought that it was too much to ask and because Harvard University earlier last month did give in to some of Trump administration demands in much of saying that they would change the policies of how protests would occur on campus. They also adopted a definition of anti Semitism that favored what the Trump administration wanted. So they are pleased for the most part with what has happened here in terms of the Harvard University president responding and pushing back on the Trump administration demands. Ryan A little bit different than how some of these other institutions have handled the situation.

Thank you for being there. We appreciate that. Reporting turning down the Trump administration's trade war and White House press secretary Caroline Levitt today telling reporters that the president is open to a deal with China, but insisting it's China that needs the deal, not the U.S. the Trump administration has imposed 145% tariffs on China, although announced several exemptions to those measures over the weekend.

Concerns over those tariffs are particularly high at the ports of Los Angeles and Long beach, where workers worry the measures will lead to higher prices for consumers and less business for longshoremen, whose livelihoods depend on Chinese imports. NBC News Corporate Steve Patterson joins me now from San Pedro, California. Steve, the UAW supports the tariffs on imported vehicles, but what about the union that represents the longshoremen? Yeah, right.

I just got off the phone with the union head for this particular region, and I'm not going to give you an exact quote, but essentially he says that this union is dominated by workers who like to keep their heads down. They don't necessarily take a political stance in this fashion. However, anything that interferes with business coming into this port, you can imagine is frowned upon. That's because, as you said, that business directly translate into the livelihood of the workers, the people, especially the longshoremen, who do the actual work of getting that cargo off the docks.

If less cargo comes in, they have less work. Less work means less on the paycheck, and that may mean less jobs. About half of the cargo that comes in here. This is an Estimate in the Long beach and the Port of Los Angeles is business that is either imported or exported from China.

So this is a direct impact on their lives. And a lot of them I think are so called seasick. They're sort of worried and always watching as these updates to what's going to happen with the terror situation changes almost hour by hour, day by day. It's a very turbulent situation.

A lot of people are afraid right now. Right. And of course you're hearing from the longshoremen themselves. But also these tariffs are having an impact on the small businesses operating in and around the port.

What did you learn there? As I mentioned, everybody is worried. The longshoremen are about 15,000 strong. They represent about 55% of them live within a five mile circumference.

It's 75 if you go to 10 miles. So you can imagine went to a pizza shop. 70% of their business is longshoreman, went to a coffee shop where not only are the beans, they're important, more expensive. So they're charging more for a cup of coffee, but less of the longshore.

And 80% of that business are coming in to buy it. We spoke to the coffee shop owner of a place called Sirens, which is like the cheers of San Pedro. Here's what you told me about the current situation. Listen, our coffee just want a dollar a pound.

That's a lot. When we go through 600 pounds of coffee, that's a lot. Huge. Yeah.

And you're talking, you know, a week or two weeks. So it does impact us on our bottom line. And then we have to figure out how do we work that with our customer base. Do we add $5 for cup of coffee?

I want to do that because majority people that come in here just want a decent cup of coffee and we don't want gather they can gouge it everywhere else. This is, this is a safe zone. She doesn't want to raise prices. She says this is a safe zone.

That's every business we spoke to. They don't want to raise prices. They want to laugh people. But again, they are beholden.

It is entirely dependent on what happens with these markets. Thank you for that. We appreciate it. Up next, former President Biden returns to the spotlight.

He said to give his first major speech since leaving office in the next hour as the Democratic Party tries to chart a new path forward without him. You're watching Beat the Press now. Welcome back. Just a few minutes from now, former President Joe Biden has to deliver his first major speech since leaving the White House.

He'll be taking the stage in Chicago at conference supporting Social Security. At the same time, his former running mate may also be playing some post presidency moves. Of all, former Vice President Kamala Harris is reportedly considering a 2026 run for California governor. Clinical reports Harris will make a decision on candidacy by the end of the summer.

Harris would be the first vice president to try to return to state level politics after leaving Washington. And it's not always a success story. NBC News's Steve Karaki is at the big board now with a look at what could lie in store for Vice President Harris. Steve?

Yeah, you know, look, she's one office in California before. There's not a ton of polling on this for 2026, but certainly there's warm feelings towards Harris among Democratic voters in California. But there could be some hiccups if she does decide to go forward. This first of all, take a look.

You're seeing some potential candidates, some announced candidates who Harris would jump in this race should be facing. You have Javier Becerra, the former Biden cabinet official. He's in. Katie Porter, former congresswoman, she run for the Senate.

She's in Antonio Villaragosa, a former mayor of Los Angeles. So there's potential threats certainly for Harris politically when it comes just to the loyal of Democratic voters, not just liking her but choosing her over some other potential big name Democrats and other Democrats who might break through as the campaign unfolds. So that would be a hurdle for her, obviously. The second is the system in California.

The top two systems, everybody Democrat, Republican, any party runs the same primary ball. The top two advanced the fall. Meaning if Harris were to run, she could potentially face a Democrat in the general election. You look at somebody like Rick Caruso, he's a businessman, he used to be a Republican.

He ran for Mary Valley a couple years ago, emphasized the public safety, emphasize quality of life. That kind of candidate. Potentially with potential bipartisan appeal, he got to a general election that could be unique to California, threat to somebody like Kamala Harris. But we don't know if she's going to run.

If she does, this would be the track record here of former VPs who lost the presidency, then tried to make come back to the state level history. It was Richard Dixon who lost the presidency in 60 to JFK. He raised for California governor two years later in 62, started out the big favorite over the Democrat Pat Brown. He lost Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's BP.

He lost the 68 election to Richard Nixon. Two years later, Minnesota Senate race, he won that seat. Humphrey was very popular in Minnesota, he won easily his Walter Mondale 2008 as well into his 70s. There was that tragedy.

There were Paul Wilson, the Democratics that her dad, he replaced Wellesley for the final week of that campaign and lost. But when you see Nixon and Humphrey, remember they were both interested in these races because they wanted to run for president again. That was well known the time they both did end up running for president again. Is that ultimately whatever she decides here, where Harris wants to go, if it is, she's certainly thinking of this.

These are the three modern vice presidents here who've made it on their own. The presidency eventually again took Nixon a while after being vice president, took Biden a while they were hit and run in 2016, waited until 2020. And then there was George Bush Sr. Who was elected to replace Reagan at the end of Reagan's term.

All right, Steve Karnaki at the big board, thanks. Breaking that down for us. Speaking of well known figures in California politics, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been representing her San Francisco district since the Reagan administration. But now she's getting a primary challenge from some of this experience, being the underdog and winning some long shot races.

NBC's David Noriega has the story. With 19 months to go until the midterms, it's a little early to be running for Congress. My name is, by the way, what's her name? Sho Chakrabarti knows he has an uphill battle.

The message is clear enough for most Americans. You know, wages haven't stagnated for decades. Chakrabarti is a populace in the style of Bernie Sanders. The challenge is getting people to know his name because pretty much everyone knows his opponent's name.

Nancy Pelosi. The House will be in order. After close to four decades of a legendary career in Congress, Pelosi is widely seen in her San Francisco district as a trailblazer, a hero. But she's also turning 86 next year.

And she's an emblem of a party facing growing unrest over what many Democrats see as a tepid response to Donald Trump. Pelosi hasn't announced yet whether she's retiring before the midterms, but she did file paperwork required to run again. People here in San Francisco are very loyal to Nancy Pelosi. She's been in institution here for decades.

At the same time, a lot of people think it's time for a change. I believe that she's really out of touch. I think with the amount of time that she's in office and the benefits that she's had you got to give up to younger people. I think she's very wealthy and I think she's very old and I think her time is gone.

Chakrabarti hopes that's where he comes in. Is there some symbolism to dethroning this massive powerful figure in Democratic Party for you? I think there would be. Not just for me, but I think for a lot of people.

You know, I've got a lot of respect for Nancy Pelosi's career, but I do think she's operating in a different era of politics. What do you say Democrats should be doing differently now? I mean, honestly, they just gotta be fighting way harder than they. Pelosi's office didn't respond to our requests for comment, but those close to Pelosi say that she fights Trump harder than anyone and the challenges to her barely register.

It's an endeavor actually most people regret because they get beat pretty bad. Do you think Pelosi is worried about Chakrabarti's campaign? I don't think the speaker is aware of his campaign, but Chakrabarti has some experience with scrappy long shot campaigns. A former tech entrepreneur and founding engineer with the multi billion dollar payment processing company Stripe, Chakrabarti left Silicon Valley to work for Senator Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016.

I wasn't born to a wealthy or powerful family. In 2018, he ran the campaign for then unknown Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Hey everyone, my name is Chuck Chakrabardia. His strategy involves bypassing big endorsements and going straight to voters.

Both parties have been ignoring kind of the biggest problems facing most people. What did you learn from Hopkins? Get AOC elected. You know, main thing I learned is that when there are these moments of change, you know, everything that's seen like it was impossible, something becomes possible.

Chakrabarti's platform is wildly ambitious. The reality is there's $100 trillion global green transition happening with or without us. It involves remaking the entire American economy for workers and the environment. We've done this many attacks in general.

We did it with the space race. It's a playbook we invented. In fact, there's a sense that there's been pretty widespread in the general public repudiation of the left wokeism. How do you navigate that?

You know, I just don't believe that voters are actually in this left versus right dynamic. Political beliefs are, but I think voters are about change of status quo action versus inaction. We'll have to see. Thanks to David Norrigan for that report.

Up next, breaking news in the ongoing hearing about whether the Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious prison in El Salvador will be coming home. But first, on this day in 1947, Jackie Robinson made his day debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers, breaking the color barrier and becoming the first African American to play major league baseball. Here he is on meet the press 10 years after that historic day, talking about the growing civil rights movement and responding to criticism that the NAACP was moving too fast. Take a listen.

I think that if we go back and check our record, the Negro has proven beyond a doubt that we have been more than patient in seeking our rights as as American citizens. Be patient. I was told as a kid. I keep hearing that today.

Let's be patient. Let's take our time. Things will come. Seems to me that the civil war has been over about 93 years.

If that isn't patience, I don't know what is. Welcome back in. We are now going to check in on the breaking news we've been covering the court hearing in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador moments ago. That hearing just wrapped up and the judge appears to be once expressing her frustration with DOJ lawyers as she's continuing to press the government for answers of what steps have been taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

Back with me, I was NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. She's been following the developments in court today. So, Julie, what are your main takeaways from the hearing? Did the judge in any way appear satisfied with the government's answers regarding Mr.

Abrego Garcia? Short answer? No. Right.

I'm getting a minute by minute update from our incredible producer Gary Grabback, who's been in court today in Maryland. And what this came down to, of course, is the dispute over the word facilitate. Again, where Drew and Sign are arguing for the Justice Department saying, look, you can see the signs. Look at what we've done to facilitate.

You heard the discussion in the Oval Office yesterday where President Bukele of El Salvador was saying that he wasn't keen on trying to smuggle a terrorist into the United States. And you saw our most recent statement that they filed a declaration right now before they went into court saying that if this man is Herberto Garcia showed up at UFO of entry, they would welcome him in. And inside made the argument that that in itself was facilitation and Judge Zenas was not having that. She said that it's not her definition of facilitation and that if he were going to use that Oval Office exchange as evidence that he's following her order.

She doesn't think that that would stand up in a court of law, especially what she called Bukele's quip about smuggling in Garcia. So she basically said you can't take this kind of comedic back and forth between these two leaders in the Oval Office as evidence that there have been high level conversations to bring him back. That doesn't suffice. So what she just ordered is an expedited discovery where they're going to get to the bottom of this word facilitate and sign saying that there have been other cases where facilitate has been used in a different way.

Zenith is saying facilitate is used specifically to each case. And she says it's very clear what the Supreme Court meant when they ordered the government to facilitate the Garcia to be removed from El Salvador and brought back to the United States. And so she says that the court will be the referee of overseeing whether or not they are indeed doing that facilitation. So she says in a matter of weeks, this should be determined because Ryan, what all this is walking up to is a possible contemporary order.

She said she's not willing to talk about her thoughts on that now and whether or not she's willing to go that route. But if she doesn't get to the bottom of what the government is doing to bring this man back and to follow the order of facilitating his return, she cannot go forward and just check the box and say that they've done all that they could. Okay. Julie Ainsley, thank you so much for keeping on top of that.

Anything else that breaks before we end this broadcast, please come back and tell us. We appreciate it. Still to come, we're showing some live pictures of Congressman Alexandria Ocasio Corte holding a rally with Senator Bernie Sanders in a historically Republican stronghold of California. We're going to dig into the politics of all of it.

The panel's next. You're watching. Stay on top of breaking news and the biggest stories of the day with NBC News Daily. Get in depth reporting from across the country and around the world and ways you can take care of your health and your wallet.

NBC News daily weekdays from 12 to 4 on NBC News now News lifts in the now. Look at this. You can't even see anything. Let's break them.

We know you got to see this news for the generation of now. He's NBC News now. Listen to full episodes of Meet the Press wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back.

And you are about to be looking live at Bakersfield, California, where Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Congressman Alexander Ocasio Cortez are continuing their Fighting Oligarchy tour in front of thousands. This latest swing has seen Sanders and AOC drop big crowds in both red areas and blue areas, including Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and then in last night in Napa, IO Joining me now to talk more about this on Saturday, Francesca Chambers is what I score Spotlight for USA Today. Eugene Robinson, long time columnist and NBC News contributor and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. So, Francesca, Bakersfield, California.

There was a pretty popular politician there by the name Ken McCarthy who represented that area for quite some time. This is not a liberal area by any means. Should we read into the fact that AOC and Bernie Sanders can draw such a big crowd at a place like this? Well, Bernie Sanders has never had a problem drawing a big crowd, someone who covered his presidential campaigns.

But Democrats have been struggling to find a party leader post Biden presidency in Kamala Harris's candidacy. And we've seen in polling that to the extent that they think that there is one, AOC is topping that list right now. But that's only 10% of Democrats. And then after that, you know, you see Paula Harris as well as Bernie Sanders and then other elected party leaders in Washington.

What I'm hearing from Democrats, Ryan, is that the base feels like their elected leaders in Washington are just out of touch, that they don't feel like they're representing them all against Donald Trump. At the same time. Democratic Party insiders feel like in the last election they got beat and that they need to be doing something different in their soul, searching for a new message in a way to expand the party's base. Yeah, it's interesting to say different, Eugene, because Bernie pretty consistently says the same thing all the time.

And I just want to point one thing, that sentence yesterday, that stood out to me. So take a listen to that. I invite the President to come to la, tell the people here why you think it's a great idea to cut Medicaid and nutrition and healthcare so you can get tax breaks, the billionaire. So these are the things he's been saying for a long time.

But is this the moment for that message? You know, look who's drawing crowds, who's creating excitement. Who are we talking about? We're talking about Bernie and aoc.

So they're doing something that the insiders in Washington are not doing. And I kind of thought after the election that I assumed there would be a renaissance and renewal of the Democratic Party because parties do renew themselves after a defeat. And I thought it would happen out in the country. So I would be paying attention to this traveling show that is drawing huge crowds everywhere it goes in Idaho.

You know, that's not a red state. That's not Brooklyn. Well, that from your perspective, that helps ads for Republican candidates. Is AOC good foil for Republicans in this environment?

Absolutely. She has. She has been for a while. She takes that mantle from Nancy Pelosi where we lost kind of effectiveness a little while ago.

But so much of this conversation, especially with Frances was saying reminds me where we were as a party. You could have transposed it in 2013 and 2014. People forget how close we came to not having that Romney. Right.

We owned the Rex and Forum. Warren Garrison in the 2012 primaries. And then the establishment kind of held him back in the 1916. They blew the doors off and he had Trump.

He actually won. I feel like we're in that point where the establishment really was able to obviously have Harris community. We said circumstances, but 2028, something like NAOC, that they're not gonna be held back anymore by the establishment. To your point, may that not be a bad thing for Democrats.

Donald Trump as a candidate. History work for us is very unique. We didn't expect most of us 2016, but who knows what happened in 2028. Let's look at an election that's even closer in 2026.

The Democrats I'm talking to Washington D.C. say that they're not concerned yet that there's no clear consensus around a party leader. Because you'll start to see these Democrats who are thinking about running in 2028 start hitting the trail in the midterms for the candidates who are on the ballot. You'll start to get a sense more what their message is and someone will maybe start to emerge then as potential leaders.

The one caveat to that is that AOC is out there now and that makes a difference. We have grocer more Ruben filed her face and you know, fall asleep. She's interesting and that's a trait she shares by graduation with Trump. She's charismatic.

So to Frances this point though, maybe there's not a clear leader yet. But we do see Democrats maybe starting to hone in a bit on a message. We saw two Democratic cats come out today for people that are running. Mishy Sharp running for New Jersey governor this year and then of course the DSCC running against Thom Tillis.

Listen to both of these ads and we'll about talk to come. I'm running for governor to defend the State, we love to drive down cost for housing, health care, utilities, to protect everything from your Social Security to our fundamental freedoms, to stand up to Trump and must with all like that. So we're seeing Elon Musk be used quite a bit by these Democratic candidates. We also your Social Security.

Is this effective a message if you're Republican? Are you nervous about this message? Well, I would say it's a little bit apples, oranges. The DSC has its own thing.

But you know, Charlotte, very competitive primary. Josh, who's a more moderate Democrat, very well funded. I think we actually know it more than anything else was kind of the rock music and more importantly, the army jacket. I think he's turning a contract in the consultant out of New York City.

And Josh gottheimer. So that's what I took out at first. But look, we'll see where these things come at. Obviously, Musk works in a little bit in Wisconsin, but it doesn't always work.

Elon Musk comes off as a Bond villain. He is the perfect. I mean, if Republicans leave him out there, if he's out there as one of the faces of the party, then Democrats are gonna have a lot of fun with that. Yeah, but does he serve as a heat shield for Donald Trump, though?

To some extent, Francesca. He doesn't have a high favorability rating. And there's a way that you're seeing them thread the needle here to say even if you're an independent who voted for Donald Trump in the last election, but perhaps you don't like Elon Musk as independents do, not in that polling, then, you know, here's my message for you. Americans are saying in these polls that they think that the things that even if they thought that they wanted Trump to take on these things are Musk.

They don't like the way with which they're approaching them and they're skeptical that they're doing it with, I guess, all the efficiency that they would incur. So let's change gears. I want to talk about Ste. Bannon, always a great topic at this table, but he was taking questions alongside Congressman Nancy Mace last night.

He made some comments about an unconstitutional third Trump term. Take a listen to what he said. I haven't said we're going to amend the Constitution. We're working on five or six different alternatives that President Trump could run again and be president.

And quite frankly, I think four or five of them are going to work. And I continue to say, as I told Bill Maher on the afternoon of January 20th of 2029, Donald Trump's going to be president for his third term. This keeps popping up. I know people are annoyed that we talk about it, but, Matt, there's one person that can handle the speculation today and he refuses to do that, and that's Donald Trump.

Why doesn't you send it, say, I can't do this, and there's no point in talking about it. Donald Trump not relishing Donald Trump. That's the bottom line, why people talk about it. They know it's bait for a lot of this.

Right now, I think that's the really only reason why it keeps coming up. How do we play this out? Joking about things and then all of a sudden they become real. How it becomes real is actually, there's really no way.

That doesn't mean that there couldn't be chaos as a result. Right. There was no way for him to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but that led to a riot at the Capitol. I mean, how dangerous could this talk potentially depends on how far he would actually want to take it.

And. But in the end, it seems to me it leads nowhere. So if he wants chaos, if he wants, you know, a vehicle for more chaos, he can, I guess, pretend, try, who knows? But it's not going to work.

I mean, it's one of the clearest parts of the Constitution. So we've less than 30 years in the White House. Is this something they're taking seriously or in a sideshow? I mean, after Kristen Muller asked him about this, they kind of tried to downplay at the White House and President Trump did.

Other people are saying that I should do this. They have ideas for how to do it. But as you mentioned, the details, no one spelled those out what those would be. Even then, is it a fact that the band keeps talking about it?

They like to go away. I mean, honestly, I've not asked them that question in the last couple days because they have clearly in the past. This isn't something that he's not. They said in the past that he's not talking about.

This is something that he. They are not the. I'll just keep talking about it again. Thank you all for being here.

We're back tomorrow with more the press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.

Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from day one Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.