If it's Wednesday, a showdown over the rule of law, a federal judge finds the Trump administration willfully disregarded his order to deportation flights, as multiple judges are now weighing contempt proceedings against the White House. Plus, town halls getting testy, angry constituents confronting Republican lawmakers about President Trump's policies like doge cuts and immigration, police even tasing audience members at Marjorie Taylor Greene's event. And markets take a dive as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Warren's tariffs are likely to lead to higher inflation and slower growth, as the trade war with China intensifies, and President Trump meets with Japanese officials trying to strike a deal on trade. Welcome to the press now.
I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where we're following breaking news as the Trump administration seems intent on testing the limits of presidential power in its legal battles with the courts over immigration. Two judges have now publicly opened the door to holding the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders. Today, in the case of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants, a federal judge in Washington said he has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his order, directing officials to halt the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. It comes after a Maryland district judge said yesterday she was weighing contempt proceedings against the Trump administration over it's an action to return Mr.
Abrigo Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador back to the U.S. Despite a Supreme Court order last week that the administration facilitate his return to the U.S., today, Attorney General Pam Bondi once again insisting that would not be happening. He is not coming back to our country. There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country.
None. None. He would have come back had one extra step of paperwork and gone back again, but he's from El Salvador. He's in El Salvador.
And that's where the president plans on keeping him. Attorney General Bondi also continued to push the administration's claim that Mr. Abrigo Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, though his attorney say that is false, and note he's never been convicted of a crime. Democrats meanwhile are demanding Abrigo Garcia be returned to the U.S.
and are highlighting the case as another instance of the president attacking the rule of law. Right now, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen is on the ground in El Salvador where he met with the country's vice president as he continues to push for Abrigo Garcia's release. I want to emphasize that President Trump and our Attorney General Pam Bondi and the vice president of the United States are lying when they say that Abrigo Garcia has been charged with a crime or as part of MS-13. That is a lie.
I said, I'm not asking him to smuggle Mr. Abrigo Garcia in the United States. I'm simply asking him to open the door of C-COT and let this innocent man walk out. I asked him if I came back next week whether I'd be able to see Mr.
Abrigo Garcia. He said he couldn't promise that either. Joining me now is NBC News Senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell and NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. Kelly, let's start with you at the White House with Judge Boseberg who says he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt.
What are your White House sources telling you what's the response in there? Well, the immediate response is that the White House will seek appellate relief from Judge Boseberg's order and this is ratcheting off the tension between the White House and the judicial branch. I sort of further digging in on the White House position that it has conducted things appropriately. Judge Boseberg is really not dealing with the overall questions about who Abrigo Garcia is.
He is focused on the specific things he requested of the government, answers he wanted at a time and place that has been spelled out in the courts and he is not getting that information. He's not satisfied with the responses and he believes based on this ruling that there is a willful disregard for the court's order. So, this is, on some levels, it's about the story of this one man, he has a family that's an American wife and American children, he is El Salvadoran and there's a lot of attention around who he is and what he may or may not have been associated with. And then there's also this other piece of it which is about the mechanics of government and following the rule of law for a case that is involved here but could apply in many other circumstances.
So, the White House wants to push this to the next level to seek relief there and again, probable cause for contempt is certainly ratcheting up from the court's position that they see likely evidence of misconduct by the Trump administration, probable cause for contempt. Yeah, gearing up to be a real showdown, Kelly, Gary, let me turn to you. What happens next in this case? What are you going to be watching for?
So, just say in the Alien Dynamics case here in DC, we're talking about- Yeah, there are a couple of different cases. Yes, thank you for clarifying. With the Alien Dynamics case here in DC, the government really has two options. One, they can do what's called purging their contempt which means obeying the court's order.
To do that, what they would have to do is allow hundreds of people in El Salvador to be put back in their country. All those people that have been as well as in Ccon put back in their custody and go through individualized HBS proceedings. This would take a very long time and be very expensive for the U.S. government.
Their other option is that the Judge Boseberg said today is certain naming names. Who are the people that instructed the planes not to turn around, not to land, and to take off after the judge's order on March 15th? Could those people be held in contempt, Gary? How would that work?
So, that is where contempt proceedings would begin. And that would look like a variety of different options. It's up to Judge Boseberg exactly how he wants to play that out as we're seeing in Maryland. She's going through depositions and through record requests.
And that's how that's playing out there. Not necessarily in-person live on-the-stand interviews, if you will, before court, but closed-door depositions. Kelly, you know, we played some of the kind of public uproar about the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia.
Do you get the sense based on your conversations there that the White House is feeling pressure to in any way? I mean, you heard the defiance of Pam Bondi at the top of the show. Is there any sense that they're changing course at this point? Well, certainly the president has publicly committed in the past that he would abide by judicial orders and would do what the Supreme Court says when it raises to that level on any of these matters.
They also have a very strong position that they believe is supported by voters and a strong belief in their position that the president's views on an aggressive approach to immigration and deportations is part of what brought him into office. They believe that is their mission and they want the focus to be on that piece, sort of the policy side of these matters, and less focused on the details of each individual case. There are many questions we don't have answers for on the specifics of any evidence or allegations or specific proof that could be offered about the specific involvement of Abrego Garcia in anything illegal that would be on being in the country without citizenship, although he had temporary ability to be in the US. Any of those kinds of specifics is where there's a lot of resistance.
On the big themes, they believe politically it is in their favor, but what is notable is what you are seeing at some of the town hall meetings, especially in places that are more typically read states, certainly in Iowa when Chuck Grassley, the one of the deans of the Senate, addresses members of his community and they ask about due process, there may be a shift in some of the public perception, again, not about the biography or the story of one individual, but about the process that could be repeated in many different circumstances much more broadly. There are many questions about due process, rule of law, adhering the courts, all of those things appear to be bubbling up more in public discourse, and not sure yet how the White House will respond to that except using each lever that they can through the courts. Well, and Gary, let's play a little bit of what we are hearing from the White House and the Trump administration broadly as it relates to Abrego Garcia and why they believe right now you should be held in El Salvador. Take a listen.
Abrego Garcia was a foreign terrorist. He is an MS-13 gang member. He was engaged in human trafficking. He illegally came into our country.
He is an illegal alien who has been living illegally in our country from El Salvador. Ice testified, an immigration judge ruled, he was a member of MS-13, an appellate judge ruled. He was a member of MS-13. And yet Gary, his attorney insists that he's not a member of MS-13.
Has there been any real evidence put forward to prove that he is? No, and so much of what we just heard is either factually incorrect or that we just don't have that evidence. We have no evidence he was involved in human smuggling or human trafficking, absolutely no evidence of that. If the White House provides that evidence, we can go from there.
We have no evidence he's a foreign terrorist. He's never been charged with a crime here in the U.S. or El Salvador, that we do know. And as it relates to MS-13, the only evidence we have that he's perhaps engaged and related to MS-13 is a confidential human source that spoke to in an immigration proceeding in 2019.
We don't have information about what that confidential human source actually said, only that there was one that said he was a member of MS-13. It's attorneys denied, his wife denies it. Yeah, and his wife speaking out in incredibly emotional ways. Gary, thank you so much, Kelly O'Donnell.
Thank you. We really appreciate it. We do want to turn out to the economy. The stock market today fell sharply after Federal Reserve Chairman issued a new warning about the economic impacts of President Trump's tariffs.
The markets ended the day in the red, with the Dow falling close to 700 points. Chairman Powell today warning that tariffs will have wide-ranging economic effects, including a rise in inflation. The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects. Unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows, and all likelihood and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way, and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public.
Now that came just a few hours after President Trump announced on social media this morning that he would be joining two of his top economic advisers today in tariff talks, with the Japanese writing that he hopes, quote, something can be worked out with Japan. Joining me now is NBC News Business and Data correspondent Brian and Sean Bryant. Thanks so much for joining us to sort through the very latest. So we heard from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who warned of a number of economic effects due to the tariffs.
What's the market reaction been, and what are the potential implications for the Fed? Yeah, I mean, the market reactions were not positive to that, and that's because we did see a sell-off on Wall Street with the S&P 500 falling about two and a quarter of a percent. The Dow Jones losing about 1.7%, but the tech heavy Nasdaq slipping by about 3% today. That was in part due to the one that we got from NVIDIA.
That's a big chit maker that said, actually, US export controls have restricted their ability to sell to China. So that's kind of still part of the overall tariff story. But what we heard from the Fed chairman and the reason why we pay attention to him is because he's really the steward of the US economy, leveraging interest rates to make sure that we have maximum employment as well as stable prices here in this country. He offered a pretty stark warning of what the economy looks like in that clip that we just played.
We heard that he described the tariff impact on inflation as significant, in fact, more significant than they had originally seen. So for the top policy maker on the economic side to be saying and offering these warnings that is a reason why Wall Street is concerned and extending these concerns on the volatility that we had seen in the prior weeks, he quoted interestingly Ferris Bueller in this speech by saying life moves pretty fast, suggesting that these tariff policies are really quite unpredictable, which of course we know as well, Kristin, but it's difficult as a policy maker to try to map out how to navigate the next few weeks, let alone even days. Yeah, really underscoring that with that notable quote there you mentioned, Brian. We have seen a number of retaliatory actions from China, which is really one of the biggest pieces in this trade war right now, slapping 125% tariffs on all US-made goods in response to the US slapping 145% tariffs on Chinese goods.
What could the impact be on American businesses? And you can see that list ahead of you, right? Like limiting distribution of Hollywood films to China, export controls on critical minerals, in addition of six US companies, the unreliable entity list, and not even on this list is the order to stop new Boeing orders in China, so that could be pretty big for their aviation industry as well. That's going to impact American businesses that in many cases rely on China as a major source of their business.
We've been talking so much about the US tariffs on Chinese-made products that come over here, and yes, that could raise prices on consumers as we've talked about at length, but what we also don't talk about is that when China imposes retaliatory tariffs on the United States, that could curb major business lines and revenue streams for some of the largest American companies like Boeing, for example. Think about all the Hollywood studios that are not wondering how am I supposed to model out what the ticket sales are going to be for some of these movies that in many cases prior to this tariff war, had prioritized China as a major export market. So this decoupling that we're seeing as a result of this tariff policy is going to be really significant as a reminder, China and the United States are the two largest economies in the world, Kristen. All right.
Really important contextual reminder there. Brian Shullen. Thank you so much. As always, if you're a great analysis, we appreciate it.
Coming up, frustrated voters voicing their anger with the president's policies at town halls all across the country as Democrats try to find a message for this moment. Plus, HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s latest claims on autism contradicting both experts and the CDC's new report showing a rise in autism diagnoses. Those remarks are the reality check on Kennedy's claims straight ahead. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Welcome back. And not very many Republican lawmakers are holding in-person town halls while Congress is in recess. But some of those who are seem to be getting an earful from their constituents. Just yesterday, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, Florida Congressman Brian Mast, and Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene were all met with anger and frustration at town hall events.
At Greene's event, protesters repeatedly interrupted her, with police arresting three people, doing two of them with tasers. Here's some of what we saw at these town halls. You guys bring that guy back from El Salvador? If you want to shout and chant, we will have you removed just like that man was thrown out.
We were not tired. This is funded. The Democrats have been writing. They are the party of violence.
They are the party that go. Go. Go. You're letting people who aren't even sworn into the government go in and wreak havoc on the streets.
Do you encounter my 100% support for those to continue today? NBC News Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles has the very latest. So Ryan, we just heard some of the frustration and anger that people are voicing at those town halls yesterday. What can you tell us and what has been the reaction from Republican lawmakers?
Well, of course, I think it's most remarkable what we saw play out over the past 24 hours is that we know that Republicans have gone to great lengths to limit the amount of town halls that they're doing across the country. They've been told by their leadership to either do virtual town halls or telephone town halls as opposed to these in-person town halls where we can see exactly what's played out here where protesters come and make their voices heard about their displeasure with the trajectory of the Trump administration. But what Republicans have attempted to do was at least try and control these crowds. For instance, at Marjorie Taylor Greene's event and her deep red district in Georgia, they actually required every participant to show photo ID to demonstrate that they lived in an address inside her district before they were allowed in the event.
And despite that, she still received quite a bit of protest and quite a bit of pushback from some of the Trump policies. Now, despite the fact that we're over and over seeing this very vocal opposition for many of these members of Congress and many of these town halls, it really hasn't changed the Republican party's trajectory at all. In many ways, they're defiant. You saw Brian Mass in his town hall being specifically pushed about Elon Musk and Doge and basically doubling down on his support of it.
So Republicans are by and large downplaying this. Is any sort of real sense or pulse of where the country is headed right now, instead just saying that these are Democratic activists who aren't really the makeup, the base of their party, or will have any impact on the elections going forward? You know, Chris, I've covered a lot of these town hall events that have happened over the years when they start to bubble up, it usually kind of serves as an indicator of where things are headed. It's not necessarily the end-all be-all, but in the past when politicians have ignored this type of energy, it's spent at their own peril.
Yeah, and we saw this during the rise of the Tea Party. Let me ask you, Brian, because we know that Democrats are holding town halls as well, some in Republican districts. Are they being welcomed? What's the response been?
Well, I think that the Democrat town halls that we've seen, there is a similar level of angst that's not as though they're always being welcomed with open arms by their constituents, but for different reasons. In many of these Democratic town halls, their constituents are imploring them to do more to push back at the Trump administration, that they're fearful that they're not doing enough to say no to what Donald Trump has done in the early days of his administration. And then separately, these town halls where they're traveling to districts outside of their own, like for instance, the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallies, they're drawing massive crowds and being received very well in places that he wouldn't expect, like Bakersfield, California, which I'm sure you know, Kristin is the home of one Kevin McCarthy, the former Speaker of the House. Indeed, and as you're talking, we're looking at video of Bernie Sanders and Missoula Montana holding a rally packed behind him.
Ryan Nobles, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Joining me now is Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Angie Craig. She has a busy recess plan with four in-person town halls scheduled in districts held by Minnesota Republicans.
Congresswoman Craig, thank you so much for joining me, really appreciate it. Thank you. So let's start with these town halls. As you know, some of your Republican colleagues are actually criticizing you for doing this.
They are accusing you of campaigning as you contemplate the possibility of running for higher office. How do you respond to that? What is your goal in holding these town halls? Well, every constituent, every person in Minnesota deserves to have a member of Congress, particularly in today's day and time, show up and answer questions for them.
And I've said, if my Republican colleagues won't hold in-person town halls in their own congressional districts, then I'll do it for them. And if they want to announce this week that they're going to do town halls in person in their own districts, I'll be happy to stay in the second district. Let me put up something that you wrote in op-ed in the Minnesota Star Tribune and kind of get your thoughts on the other side. You write, instead of standing up for their constituents against these reckless tariffs and workforce cuts, House Republicans seem hell-bent on advancing the president's agenda and screwing over middle-class Minnesotans in the process.
It is worth noting, President Trump did run on implementing tariffs, cutting the government, these very issues that we are announcing him carry out. What do you say to Republicans who say, this is what we voted for? Well, he also campaigned on lowering costs for everyday Americans. And I don't think that this is what a number of people who voted for Donald Trump voted for.
And I think the impression was, which I wouldn't have disagreed with, that we work with our allies to take on China, perhaps strategic tariffs, but that's not what we're getting. And I don't think this is what people thought we were going to get. We're getting across the board tariffs leading to a trade war, a global trade war like we've never seen, which is going to drive up costs. And in the context of all of this, they're trying to pass a budget plan that is also going to cost people more money and certainly going to be offset by the additional cost of everyday goods.
So, I mean, I don't think this is what a lot of his voters voted for and how it's playing out is very reckless to the American economy. As you know, and I was just discussing this with Ryan, a lot of Democrats want their leaders, want all of you in elected office to have a more forceful unified message and strategy. We know what Democrats are against against Medicaid and Social Security against Elon Musk's doge cuts. But can you whittle this down?
What is the main message from Democrats right now? What is it that you all are for? Well, I think we ought to be for fighting for the middle class. The middle class has got to call the shots in this country again.
Our message has got to be around the economy. The most expensive thing in someone's life today is it's housing, it's health care, it's child care costs. At the end of the day, how can we put more money in people's pockets and lower costs in our country? This is what the president ran on and, of course, this isn't what he's doing at all.
I think we need an economic message. I introduced a bill this week, in fact, that on Tax Day, that would stop seniors paying taxes on their federal Social Security income. That's what it looks like to support a tax bill that puts more money in people's pockets. Well, you know, you take me to my next question, Congressman, because you are saying the economy should be front and center, as you know, one of the big issues in focus right now is the issue of the case of Mr.
Abrego Garcia with Democrat Chris Van Halen in El Salvador looking for information about him, other Democrats saying they plan to travel there. Here's what one House Democrat told Axios. House Democrats who spoke anonymously, a centrist called the deportation issue, quote, a soup desure, arguing Trump is setting a trap for the Democrats, and like usual, we are falling for it. Do you agree with that sentiment?
Well, look, I think that this particular case and the idea of everyone who's in this country should receive due process, that that's part of what it is to be in America. I think it is important, just from a process perspective, and of course, everyone deserves due process, including Mr. Garcia. That is a fundamental American way of thinking, and at the end of the day, we can walk into them at the same time.
If I spend 80% of my time talking about economic issues, whether my family farmers or receiving retaliatory tariffs, whether or not the middle class is getting screwed in this country, and I can also, at the same time, say, we have to have due process in this country. You know, last month, you talked about the importance of the border to your constituents. If you do look at the data, border crossings are down. They're just a fraction of what they were so far in 2025 compared to 2024.
Is that something that you give the Trump administration credit for? How do you see that? Well, look, I've said for years now that we have to have a secure border, but we also have to have a humane immigration system where we are processing these cases much more quickly. And so I do think that we had to secure the southern border, but we also need to work together to make sure that there is a big gate on the southern border so that we can have legal immigration to our country.
I met today with the Minneapolis Fed Chair President, Neil Cascari, and we had a long conversation about the fact that we need immigrants in our country if our economy is going to grow. We certainly ought to know who's coming across the southern border, but we're America. We can do both. We shouldn't have to choose.
I want to ask you about your political future, Congresswoman. You have said you will make a decision by the end of the month about whether you plan to run for Senate. We're almost there. So have you made your decision?
Are you planning to run for the Senate? Well, what I've said in the last few days is I will make an announcement by the end of the vote. More to come, but I look forward to talking to the people of Minnesota about my plans for 2026 really soon. So have you made your decision?
I'll announce my decision once I make it before the end of the month. Good job. Thank you. I had to try, Congressman.
I had to try. I really appreciate it. Thank you for joining us when you make your decision. Come on back and join us again.
We really appreciate it. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you.
Congressman Angie Craig. I really appreciate it. Coming up next, see you in court. That's what the governor of Maine told President Trump earlier this year.
Well, that's where a dispute between the Justice Department and the state of Maine over transgender policies appears to be headed. Well, looks way next. You're watching. Meet the press now.
Welcome back. One in 31 children in the US are now diagnosed with autism by their eighth birthday, according to a new report from the CDC. In that report, scientists point to increased awareness and improved detection as factors for the rise in autism diagnoses. But in a speech this morning, HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy, junior, contradicted those findings.
Listen. One of the things that I think that we need to move away from today is this ideology that the autism diagnosis, that the autism prevalence increases, the relentless increases, are simply artifacts of better diagnoses, better recognition, or changing diagnostic criteria. RFK Junior has repeatedly and consistently made false and unproven claims about autism, including claiming the vaccines cause of disorder, which has been disproven over time, joining me now as NBC News Medical and health reporter, Berkeley Lovelace. Thanks so much for being here, Berkeley.
So what did we hear from the HHS Secretary and how did it contradict with the CDC findings? Yeah. So RFK Junior and the CDC agreed that autism rates are rising, but things diverged from there. He said environmental exposures, things like our food, water, medicines are contributing to a rising rate of autism.
He also said autism is a preventable disease, which is a term experts really disagree with. He also pushed back on a claim that genetics play a role or don't play a role in this disease, which is also something that experts are talking about as well, that genetics do play a factor in this disease. And so a lot of this contradicts what experts are saying, that really this rate, this rising rate is due to better surveillance, reduced stigma, and just better awareness right now for the disease. And just to remind folks, Berkeley, what has the HHS Secretary said in the past in terms of making those false claims about a link between autism and vaccines, and what's the reality based on what we've seen in science?
Yeah. So Kennedy has repeatedly claimed that vaccines are linked to autism, specifically the measles vaccine. And so decades of research from across multiple continents have also discovered that this has been debunked. It's another's no link.
And so there's concern right now that he could use these studies to then once again propose a possible link between vaccines and autism. So there's a lot of way right now about whether or not what they'll find in these, what he'll find in these studies by September. I want to play a little bit more of what he said to get to reaction on the other side. This is a preventable disease.
We know it's an environmental exposure. It has to be genes do not cause epidemics. They can provide a vulnerability. You need an environmental toxin.
And you did mention this, but delve a little bit more deeply. Why are scientists, health experts, saying that that's just not the case? Yeah. So not every case of autism is linked to genetics.
Most experts agree that genetics do play a role, and there also may be some environmental factors such as air pollution that causes autism. But the indication that all of this is caused by environmental exposures is what they're pushing back on right now, which is what Kennedy has been complaining. And we're getting these really staggering numbers as it relates to the measles, of course, an illness that had been eradicated, more than 700 cases estimated. And yet health experts saying it may be even larger, right?
Yeah. So we've heard it's actually probably in the thousands, and it could actually last up to a year right now. So I spoke with the FDA's former vaccine chief, Dr. Peter Marks, and he said that he's really afraid right now that we're going to lose our measles elimination status.
So we've had this since the 2000, and basically from a public health standpoint, it's really embarrassing because we've had this vaccine that's able to prevent this disease. And so there's concerns about that. Since then, RFK Jr. has endorsed the vaccine, but he's also been pushing some unproven treatments as well, such as vitamin A for measles.
And so there's some concern right now whether that could hurt that outbreak. The numbers are just unbelievable. Berkeley, lovely. Thank you so much for being here.
We really appreciate it. Well, Attorney General Pambondi announced that the Trump administration will be suing the state of Maine over its refusal to enforce a ban on transgender athletes and girl sports. The White House is accusing the state of violating Title IX, the federal law that bars sex-based discrimination in schools and of ignoring a February executive order titled Keeping Men Out of Women Sports. Today, the Department of Justice is announcing a civil lawsuit against the Maine Department of Education.
The state of Maine is discriminating against women by failing to protect women in women's sports. Pretty basic stuff. This is a violation of Title IX. The Department of Justice will not sit by when women are discriminated against in sports.
Maine officials argue the ban discriminates against transgender students and goes against both state law and a broader interpretation of Title IX, protecting gender identity. Maine's governor calling the White House directive unjust and unconstitutional. Joining me now to delve more deeply into this is NBC News Justice reporter Ryan Riley. Ryan, thanks so much for being here.
So, take us through what the government's argument is. What are they saying in this case? Yeah, so Title IX, of course, is back in 1972 and it really led to this huge explosion for women's sports. That was really important for women gaining traction in education as well as in particular sports to this boost.
But what they're saying here is that because of that executive order that Trump issued, that they are, that Maine is disobeying what the federal policy has been set by. But what really has happened here over the years has been a real pendulum swing back and forth. This is a lawsuit that was brought through the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, which always has these giant pendulum swings from changes in administration. But you had previously another administration going forward and trying to protect the rights of transgender students and then you have this administration going in that sort of completely opposite direction.
A lot of this just isn't settled law right now and it isn't clear about how that policy is actually going to, you know, to play out. So this is, I think, the beginning of a long road for this litigation because it's just really not settled by the courtship. And we all remember that moment when the governor of Maine was at the White House and had that very public back and forth with President Trump over this issue and she said, I'll see you in court and he said, okay, I'll see you in court and so here they now are. How are Maine officials responding?
Yeah, so they issued a statement today saying that after being targeted by the Trump administration for months, today's announcement is no surprise. Ultimately, this matters about the protections affected by Title IX and the Maine Human Rights Act. We are confident that Maine is acting in accordance with those laws. So they're standing by this and you know, that was the ceiling court, that was sort of another phrase that Pam Bondi repeated again today, but I think this is going to be a slow process as this sort of plays out.
But you know, what Maine officials say also is that this is a very narrow category of individuals and this is something that, you know, the federal government with all its resources is focusing on this very kind of narrow issue that only impacts a marginal number of students per year. Thank you, Ryan Riley. Really appreciate it. Great information.
I know you'll stay on top of this process as long as it takes Ryan. Thank you. After the break. The former president goes after the current president in his first time profile speech since leaving office.
The panels next are watching with the press now. Welcome back. Democrats are ramping up their messaging targeting the Trump administration over its handling of social security and the latest big name Democrat to add his voice to the course is former President Joe Biden. Here's what we had to say last night in his first major speech since leaving the White House.
Fewer than 100 days, this new administration has made so much damage and so much destruction. It's kind of breathtaking. It could happen that soon. They've taken a hand to the Social Security Administration pushing just a 7,000 employees, 10,000 out the door in that time.
They're shooting first and aiming later. As a result, there's always a lot of needless pain in sleepless nights. Showing you now on set is Jasmine Reich, politics reporter at Notis, NBC News political analyst Juanita Tolliver and Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Thanks to all of you for being here.
I really appreciate it. Jasmine, let me start with you. Look, former President Biden has been out of office for three months. Typically, we do not hear from past presidents for a while.
What is behind this decision to speak out now? Yeah, well, I actually think this was kind of a long time coming, even though it's only been three months. If you talk to people still in President Biden's orbit, it's very clear that the former president wanted to get his voice back into the national conversation. I think the question was always when and how and now we know the answer.
But I think that one thing we don't know is whether or not, even though we heard those remarks from Biden, which were, I would say, tap it at best. He didn't name Donald Trump. That's what we just talked about. Very Joe Biden of him.
But the question is whether or not the Democratic electorate wants to hear from him. You take my question, then I was going to ask Juanita. Does the Democrat electorate want to invite you to be speaking out? Full disclosure, I don't speak for everyone.
But the first thing in my mind was, why is he talking? Does the Democrat is not identified as a newer, fresher, younger visionary class of leaders that they want to put forward, especially on an issue like this. That is a slam dunk for Democrats. 85% of the country doesn't want cuts to Social Security, including 80% of Republicans.
So push someone out there into the national spotlight who is not someone from the past, like Joe Biden. It's a really fascinating point. Kevin, how are Republicans watching this? You do have Joe Biden speaking out.
You also do have some younger voices like Alexandria Acasio-Cortez. She's touring the country with Senator Bernie Sanders. They're drawing big crowds. What are you hearing inside Republican circles?
Totally. Let's talk about the other big issue right now that has the focus of Democrats and Republicans. This is the issue of the Maryland father who has been deported to El Salvador, that prison. Kevin, I want to read a statement that the White House press office put out today entitled Where's Chris Van Hollen?
Of course he is visiting El Salvador trying to reach this man. Where's Chris Van Hollen's concern for Americans brutalized by illegal immigrant crime? Does this basically underscore that the White House, we don't see them backing down from what the courts are telling them to do, but do they see this as a winning policy issue as well? Two things.
One on politics and one on the great legal substance of your question, Chris, and the first is politically this is a winner. That's not why the White House is doing it. They're doing it because of a reality. And with all due respect, and I do mean that, he's not a Maryland father.
He's an El Salvador and felon who is a member of MS-13. And Judge Boseper- I don't think you've been charged with any crimes in the U.S. or El Salvador, though. The evidence is very clear that he's a leader in MS-13, and the administration is a leader in the administration.
They haven't put it in the White House. Exactly. The White House hasn't put any evidence forward though. That's because he's an El Salvador.
That's his own country. Fair enough. That's what they're arguing. The courts are saying, give us evidence.
Give us information. Why are we holding this person? I mean, this really comes down to due process that his attorneys, his wife, say that he's being denied. But the key point is this, that all of those questions are in the hands of President Bucalee.
This is an El Salvador national, and he's in prison in El Salvador. This is 100% up to the president of El Salvador and the legal system there because the man is in his home country. That is the argument that we are hearing from the White House, Juanita. It is worth just saying he has not been charged with anything.
But to this point, I mean, how do you respond to what Kevin's saying, that you heard the White House make the same argument yesterday, that ultimately this is going to be up to the El Salvador president, and Kevin says, politically, this is a winner for the White House. But I think politically speaking is one thing, speaking in terms of the functioning of our government and the co-equal branches where the judicial branch has issued an order saying, you must facilitate his release in return. That is not something that the Trump administration can just cross their arms like a petulant toddler and say, no, we're not doing it. And I think that is something that needs to be more in the forefront of this issue because this is not just about where he is right now.
It's about the fact that the courts have ruled, the executive branch is not responding to the courts or respecting the order. What about that? Does he need to follow the court ruling in then, Jasmine? Every presidential administration needs to follow legitimate court rulings.
Judge Boseberg, remember, does not have jurisdiction here, and so the Supreme Court uses the verb facilitate. That's the big debate. That's the case. Facilitate doesn't mean Senator Van Hollen should be down there, grandstanding for political purposes.
So I was also gleeful to hear that the BK administration didn't even let him have a meeting. That's the appropriate response. Yeah. I mean, I think fundamentally, if you take a step back from what the role of the White House is, the Supreme Court could have made it very clear.
They could have said, you need to ask BK to get him back, you need to do more to get him back, and they did it. And so because they did it, because they used a verb like facilitate, because they used to kind of legalize that most people don't really understand, it allows the White House to formulate their own response, which in fact kind of fuels to a lot of people that it's in the middle or that it's not actually doing what people believe they should be doing, but they're allowed to argue that they are. And Jasmine, just a reality check. This will likely go back to the Supreme Court, will it not?
Yeah, I think that's what most people are believing. But I think you really have to think about it in the context of that. Everything that this White House is doing is to preserve and then expand presidential power. And so they do not want to concede that they have to bring this Maryland man back, because in that, how does that mean that they don't have to bring out, bring back other people who are not afforded the same amount of due process?
And so I think that you're going to see them do what they can to make sure that they can preserve their presidential power in this way. And maybe that is taking it back to the Supreme Court, maybe that's taking it back to the Supreme Court. But I certainly, you know, I don't think it's going to rest just with this judge. I want to play what Chuck Schumer said to me a little bit ago about this broader clash between President Trump and the courts.
Take a look. He defies the Supreme Court, then we are in uncharted territory that we haven't been in for a very long time. And our entire democracy, this whole beautiful enterprise of democracy that we've had for over 240 years is at risk. And look, I believe that if Donald Trump should defy the courts, public, the public, will rise up, we will Democrats will fight it in every single way.
Kevin, what's your reaction to that broader statement that if President Trump were in fact to defy a Supreme Court order that Chuck Schumer lays out what he believes would have in that? A typical Schumer. I don't accept the hypothetical. And it is hypothetical.
That he would defy a court order. No, it's exactly. The administration has not defied a court order. They have been completely compliant.
But the second thing is the motivation is not the expansion of presidential power. The motivation is the reality that 23 million illegal aliens have come to this country. Over 100,000 of them are felons and they need to be sent back to their country. And if anyone is deserving of criticism about this, it's Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who set up this mess.
One of the judges have said they have in fact defied their orders, have not complied with, I should say. Right. And that's why we're seeing the basis of contempt being considered in both the burglar case as well as the deportations, flights to El Salvador case. Right.
That is the reality of the courts flexing the muscles saying we told you what to do. Somebody within this administration did not comply with this order and we are looking to find them and identify them and potentially prosecute. Jess, what are you watching for next in all of this? This very complicated mix.
I mean, I'm watching to see if the Department of Justice starts complying with the judge that has now signaled that he wants to hold them in contempt or is it at least thinking about it. But I'm also looking to see the White House's messaging on this. Obviously, I think that they're starting to kind of weaponize this idea of due process. If you are for due process for people who could be deported, then you are against not having migrants or illegal migrants in this country.
And so I'm excited or not excited, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how they use that messaging. I think we could hear a little bit about it in this briefing coming up. Yeah, we're watching the briefing at the White House that's set to get underway momentarily. Great conversation, guys.
We need a full hour. Jess, for this conversation. Jasmine, Juanita, and Kevin, thank you all still to come. The very latest on the growing number of Defense Department officials being suspended from their jobs as the Pentagon investigates who's leaking sensitive information.
Plus new details on what really happened to that classified China where the Elon Musk was reportedly going to get from top officials at the Pentagon. Stay with us. You're watching. Meet the press now.
Welcome back. Today, NBC News has learned that a third Pentagon official has been placed on administrative leave as part of an ongoing investigation into internal leaks within the Defense Department. This development comes as the Trump administration's source confirms to NBC News that President Trump canceled a classified China briefing for Elon Musk back in March. Do you know what I mean now?
Is senior national security correspondent, QB Courtney? Thanks so much for being here. What are your sources telling you about those three Pentagon officials who've been suspended as a part of this investigation court? Yeah, and Kristen, these are three political appointees and two of them are very close to Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegsef.
They've worked with him and known him and officials here say not only were they professionally close to, but they were also personally. They were friends with him. So we have Dan Caldwell. He was a special advisor to Secretary of Defense.
Hegsef. He's been here since day one since President Trump was inaugurated back in January. He was walked out of the building, escorted out of the building yesterday as part of an ongoing leak investigation. We also have the Deputy Chief of Staff Darren Selnick, also someone with a long-standing relationship with Secretary Hegsef.
And then we just learned today about another one. This is the Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Steve Feinberg, calling Carol. So that's three political appointees in two days. All that we keep hearing out of Defense officials here is that this is all about this leak investigation that was announced last month by Hegsef's Chief of Staff, Joe Kasper.
Now, the intent, according to this memo that Kasper put out, late on a Friday night, is to find out who has been sharing or leaking sensitive information about the Pentagon. But as of now, we've not really gotten any information besides the fact these three individuals have been identified. And Kristin, what we keep hearing from Defense officials is there are still more names coming. Now, as part of this investigation, Secretary Hegsef is supposed to get some sort of a briefing or review or read out of some part about these leak investigations.
At this point, officials are not clear on whether that has actually even happened. It's just so striking. And it's striking to hear you lay out the history that these people who've now been escorted out of the Pentagon have with Pete Hegsef. Let me ask you about another piece of this because I know we're learning new information about why President Trump actually pulled the plug on that top secret China briefing.
What are you hearing? Yeah. And this story is one of the ones that officials believe spurred this investigation into the leak or the spillage of classified or sensitive information here at the Pentagon. And that was a story that first came up at the New York Times about Elon Musk, who was supposed to be coming to the Pentagon for a classified briefing about China.
Now, officials had told us at the time that Elon Musk actually requested that briefing. Part of it was because he wanted to tell U.S. military officials how we felt. We now know that in fact President Trump was the one when he found out about it from reporting that he was the one who called off that classified briefing system.
All right. Quirk, reporting is always. Thank you. We are back tomorrow with more of the press now, but the news continues with Tyler Johnson 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 Mankowitz, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from daylight. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.