Meet the Press NOW — April 3

Welcome to the press now. I'm Kristen Welker. As we follow the fallout from today's market route, as the president plunges the U.S. into a global trade war, raising tariffs to their highest levels in more than 100 years.

Markets were rocked as economic forecasters significantly raised their odds of recession while warning of higher costs for consumers. The Dow tumbling more than 1,600 points, a decline of roughly 4%, the S&P fair, and even worse, falling roughly 5%, and the NASDAQ sliding roughly 6%. It was the worst day for the S&P and NASDAQ since March of 2020, when markets were rocked by the pandemic. President Trump was asked about the markets earlier this afternoon as he departed the White House from Orlando, and he said he thinks it's going very well.

The rest of the world wants to see is there any way they can make a deal? They've taken advantage of us for many, many years. For many years, we've been at the wrong side of the ball, and I'll tell you why. I think it's going to be unbelievable.

The thing that people have to talk about, we're up almost to $7 trillion of investment coming into our country, and you'll see how it's going to turn out. Our country's going to boom. It comes as administration officials are doubling down, saying the goal is to essentially reorder the global economy. It's a total shift in the way that we've done economic policy in the United States of America, and it was necessary.

This is the reordering of fair trade. And what happens is people think it's all about tariffs, it's about those non-tariff trade barriers. That's what we are addressing now. I don't think the word exemption is going to be a factor.

I don't think that's such a thing. To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump. The President made it clear yesterday this is not a negotiation, this is a national emergency. Joining me now is NBC News Senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell at the White House.

So, Kelly, President Trump just told reporters he thinks things are going well. He said basically this is one big negotiation, despite which you just heard from the press secretary there. What's the reaction at the White House today broadly speaking to what we've seen on Wall Street? Well, there's been no specific reaction about the plummeting numbers on Wall Street in this initial wave of reaction.

The President was specifically asked about how at that point when he was departing the White House where the market was, with the kind of real reaction that's going on, he did not address that. And instead, you heard the positive promotional tone of the President that he believes in his policy and believes it will take the country to a better place in terms of markets as well as investment and so forth. So, they're not really reacting to the numbers that many people watching their retirement accounts or businesses who are concerned or everyday investors or the big institutional investors are looking at all of this. We knew that tariffs on this scale would bring about a series of reactions.

So, the fact that this initial reaction on the market is as strong as it is, is perhaps not a surprise. The President in its first term often spoke of the market as a referendum, kind of a snapshot of his performance, a very favorable term, so it was noteworthy that he did not address it specifically today. I suspect from Air Force One flying to Florida, he's been watching the markets and that would be my guess. And from the White House, they have said this is not about negotiation, but you heard the President there talking about the world wanting to get involved in this, which to my ear sounded like the potential for fielding calls from world leaders looking at what the reaction would be.

We'll have to see how that plays out. Measuring the words of the President carefully, obviously he just unveiled this, so he is selling it hard today. Kristen? Kelly, in my conversation with President Trump over the weekend, I asked him if there was room for negotiation.

He said if countries can offer something big, there could be, of course, what is the exact definition of that? He also said this to me, Kelly, quote, the market is going to be phenomenal and you're going to see factories starting to open up, you're going to see factories that are at 25% levels being at 100% levels and you're going to see an economy that will end up being the greatest economy in the history of the world just like I had last time. So from your perspective, based on your reporting, Kelly, it's full steam ahead. He's showing no signs of backing down, despite what we saw in Wall Street.

That's the posture they're taking today. Now, the President's referring to existing manufacturing that is not at full capacity, seeing that as a potential for the companies that are involved there to sort of plus up their workforce if there is now an availability to do that. But we've also seen car makers like Stellanta saying they're going to halt some production that's in Canada and Mexico. When you look at the scale of these tariffs, the number of countries involved, the number of sectors of industry, everyone who has their own stake in this has to make a decision about what they think is the next best thing.

That's from the everyday investor to the CEO of a big manufacturing company. So where there might be capacity for additional US-based manufacturing, that would be the fastest route to see additional development within the United States. If it is about retooling or building new factories or moving facilities that are based in other countries, that of course does not happen overnight and it's a long-term play for businesses to do that kind of investment. So that'll be a question.

So the President has, for his whole public life, talked about tariffs, he is now getting the moment where he is doing the tariffs that he has believed in, surrounded by supporters, advisors who very much support this theory. In his first term, there were voices who were close to him as advisors and in the cabinet that sort of modified some of his approach. There definitely is a different approach now. And so they are all in.

It is a big gamble for the President and he's rolled the dice and now we'll see what happens. It sure is a gamble. Callie O'Donnell, thank you so much for that perspective. I really appreciate it.

CNBC's senior economics reporter Steve Leasman joins me now as well as Everett Eisenstadt, who served as Deputy Director of the National Economic Council during President Trump's first administration. Steve, let me get to you first. We know that Wall Street was bracing for yesterday's announcement, but did the President go bigger than even Wall Street was expecting? Is that part of the big sell-off we're seeing today?

Yeah, of course, and it's a huge part of it. People had estimates for what might happen. The President sold this as quote unquote, reciprocal tariffs. It was an idea of reciprocal tariffs as something that economists can put into a spreadsheet and think about and then come up with some numbers and they were bad, but then the President basically went off the reservation on the idea of reciprocal tariffs because these tariffs are specifically not reciprocal.

Basically, they used a formula, as I think you probably know by now, that was made up, that isn't used by any international trade economists, any place anywhere, and they decided that that was the burden or the oneness of tariff barriers that another country puts up based upon trade deficits, which is a measure that, again, nobody uses it. So these ended up being much larger, much more harmful, and hurtful than anybody expected. I'll give you an example. We had somebody from the Non-partisan Tax Foundation, which is happy to, by the way, score tax cuts as positive for growth.

Well, they scored this as nearly a 1% point decline in GDP, and then they said they expect imports to the United States to fall by nearly a third. We have $3 trillion, $3 trillion of imports. They expect that number to come off by $900 billion. Let me tell you, Kristen, I don't think there's an economic model that is able to think about or otherwise to crunch the idea of what happens if U.S.

imports fall by a third. How long, Steve, do you expect this sell-off to continue? I mean, I don't know where the bottom is here. It's going to really depend, I think, on how companies are able to handle this.

Remember, what the market is doing here is not necessarily discounting the U.S. economy. They're discounting or trying to figure out what future earnings are going to be or profits of corporations. That's going to depend on things like, can they pass along the higher tariff cost to consumers or to consumers balk and not buy?

If they do, or they have to lay off people in order to continue and keep their profit margins to remain as profitable as they were previously, can they find alternate sources rather than the tariff sources for some of those goods in the United States? You take every one of those where tens of millions of micro-decisions that are going to be made by businesses and then try to gross that up to, well, what is the stock market going to look like? Six months or a year from now, what we do know is we're going through a massive transformation. One that may be akin to the smoot-holly tariff act in the 30s, it may be akin to the pandemic, but perhaps much longer.

This is a major economic, major historic economic event that will reorder the global trade system. Frankly, nobody's been there and nobody can figure it out. We have a debate going on here. Tune in to CNBC.

If you want to have this debate, it's about, is it time to buy the dip because stocks are cheaper? Or you're going to do what we call catch a falling knife, which is to say, I'm going to grab this, but there's two sides of it and they're sharp and I'm going to get bloody on the other end of it. I will tune in for that debate. That sounds very important and fascinating.

Before I let you go, Steve, of course, there's another big debate about a potential recession, and a number of economists saying overnight that they believe the chances for a recession have now increased. What are the benchmarks you will be watching for as we wait to see if, in fact, the economy does dip into a recession? Let me give you a little background on the debate here. There's a couple aspects of this that are worth thinking about here.

The first aspect is what does the Federal Reserve do? The Fed is really being put in a vice here. It has two mandates. It has to keep unemployment low and it has to keep inflation low.

What happens with these tariffs is you reduce growth, you raise unemployment, and you increase inflation. The Fed doesn't know which side of its mandate to address here. That could freeze the Fed in place and be incapable of addressing the weakness in the economy because it's concerned about the inflation. So the market has to think about the idea, the economy has to think about the idea of the Fed not being able to come to the rescue here if you have a downturn.

The other interesting aspect we're thinking about, we haven't talked about, is doge. In an economic downturn, one of the stable parts of the economy tends to be government. You can have the private sector will let people go, and then the government remains about stagnant because the government doesn't have to lay off people usually in the downturn. In this, if we do have a downturn here, what we're going to be watching for is the private sector letting people go along with the federal government sector.

You don't have that stability from the federal government. So what am I watching? We have the Friday employment report tomorrow. I'll be watching the inflation numbers and of course the growth numbers as to whether or not we do have a precipitous decline.

Look, just because recession probabilities go up doesn't mean we'll have a recession. All they're saying is the chances are higher. Under the Biden administration, we had probabilities of 50 and 60 percent that did not turn into a recession. Right now, I'm hearing a chance of probabilities of like 40 percent.

It doesn't mean we're definitely going to have one. It just means that the hair on the back of the neck of economists are now raised in a way. All right, Steve, listen, thank you so much. As always, on this monumental day for joining us, we really appreciate your reporting and your insights and analysis.

Thank you. I do want to turn out Everett Eisenstadt. Thank you so much for being here in person. Really appreciate it.

Let's start off with what we saw today on Wall Street in response to what President Trump announced. Were you surprised by the size and scope of what the president announced? I was. I thought it was much larger than we anticipated.

We expected there to be a big announcement. What was interesting about it as well as he did just need the reciprocal tariffs, but he also took into account the potential for war tariffs, sectoral tariffs under different statutes. So I don't think we've seen the end of it, but certainly yesterday was a big, big start. And when you see the sell-off on Wall Street, President Trump, I thought it was fascinating.

He said, this is like operating on a patient, a sick patient. There's got to be the operation and then the healing period. So that's the analogy that he's drawing. Does he have a point there or was this a bigger sell-off than you were in tips?

Well, the sell-off, we'll see how the markets continue to react. But I do think as we led up to this, many of his cabinet officials had talked about the potential for disruption. It's something they planted the seed for, I think it was something they were prepared for. And the belief that these tariffs are going to lead to a resurgence of manufacturing and growth in the United States is very real.

So there is a short-term disruption, and they do believe a little bit short-term, because there's other policies they're going to be putting in place as well. It's going to lead to better times, and that's why they're sticking with this. A couple of questions there. How are you defining short-term, six months, a year or two?

This kind of transformation is going to take time. And I think one of the interesting analyses you talked about operating on a patient, in some ways it's true, but oftentimes a patient is not exactly the same as they were when they went first into the operation. Like, we can expect that here. This is a fundamental shift in the global economy.

Other economies are going to react. Business is going to react. And so this will play out for quite some time. There is a potential that some of this may end up, ironically, in tariff liberalization, if a country's kind of the table with, quote, the big deal.

We may see more liberalization come out of this, which would be welcome and could actually create growth in a different way. So you are expecting there to be various negotiations around these tariffs? President Trump's signal is much to be over the weekend. He said as much today, again, is that what you're anticipating?

This is basically an opening gambit. Say, let's make a deal. Yeah, I think we're going to have both. I think we'll have the retaliation.

And I think we'll have economies coming in to negotiate. You look at a country like India, for example, where there's been long, persistent barriers and irritants between our two economies. And here we are in a negotiation with M over trade policy. That would be unimaginable just 10 years ago.

So things are shifting. It's going to be a different economy. And this is just the beginning of the rollout that we'll see over time. I know you're saying that manufacturing can come back.

I've been talking to people in various industries to say the reality is that that takes a long time. That, for example, it takes five to 10 years just to build one manufacturing plant. Is it realistic to have that image that manufacturing can come back in the same way that I think the president ambitions it? Well, I think he understands this takes time.

And he also, as we discussed, putting in other policies, the tax cuts, the deregulation initiatives. And I think he's ancillary policies in conjunction with this tariff policies are going to lead to that kind of mutual and a manufacturing that he's hoping for. But you're right, it takes time and it takes predictability. And that's what I think companies are really looking for, is stability and predictability.

So they can invest with confidence. And just finally, to go back to this debate over the recession, President Trump himself hasn't let out his top economic advisors have not rolled out the possibility of a recession. You heard Steve Gleason in there say that there's more concern that the economy could, in fact, have been to a recession. Based on what you are seeing right now, do you believe it's likely that the economy will dip into a recession?

It's early to say. I don't think so. I think we're actually going to see some resiliency in the economy. I think we're going to see resiliency in the private sector as well.

I mean, we made it through the pandemic. It was one of the most disruptive economic events in many of our lifetime. This is not at that scale. Now, this is a big event.

So let's not discount it. It is going to have impacts and will have effects on the economy. How long they last will be somewhat dependent upon how other countries react and how quickly we can get some of these other parts of the agenda in place. Right.

Well, it's fantastic to have your perspective, Everdise and stat really appreciate it again. Thank you so much for being here in person. My pleasure. Thank you.

Great to have you. Well, despite the shockwaves being felt in global markets after President Trump's terror announcements, Republican senators on Capitol Hill today tried to downplay Wall Street's reaction. Here's some of what they had to say this morning. In the markets, it's special.

But again, again, this is a policy. It's a big policy change, a whole policy change, because in the days of time, the term of the ultimate impact should be out. What about the stock markets down this morning? You think it's about that?

Sure. We're always watching that kind of stuff. You know, that's one part of what the most places have, the one that might be the short term for some of this. The question is, is how long will it now have I had one for responsibility?

We'll see where we are in the end, whether we're still from this trajectory or whether there's a, you know, there's a pivot or a shift. Are we, for now we're going to be surprised by the day these rates were calculated? I was. Capitol Hill taking it all in, joining me now is Silent Hill.

On Capitol Hill, Silent Hill, thank you so much. So take us inside your conversations. What's the mood there on the Hill today as lawmakers begin to digest this massive tariff announcement and sell-off that we all witnessed today? Yeah, it's certainly a mixed bag here on Capitol Hill, Chris, and everyone is reacting to it just because of the enormity of that decision by President Trump.

For the Democrats, that's pretty simple to gauge. They're unified in opposition to what President Trump is doing, Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, just within the last hour, gave a press conference where he called this the one of the dumbest moves ever made in history and said it would cause or rather could cause an avoidable recession. Among Republicans, it's a much more mixed bag. Yes, there is some real angst because economic pain always leads to some level of political pain.

And in this case, there's going to be no doubt which party is to blame this. Persist, among Republicans, we saw some of that materialized yesterday to revoke Trump's tariffs on Canada for Republicans voted with Democrats, and that measure passed. That was a rare review for the president. There are some other Republicans like Tom Tillis who didn't vote for that bill.

He says he's skeptical of what Democrats are trying to do. Thanks for just trying to send a message against Trump and make a political point. There are other Republicans like Senator Mike Brown, who you just played. Again, apprehensive, he told me he wants a more neutral political environment in which Republicans won't be made to go up against the president of their own party.

And then, of course, there are others who say they trust Trump and he's going to make it okay. That includes Jim Justice of West Virginia, who I spoke earlier, has all sorts of concerns, but I believe Trump will ultimately make his constituents whole. Well, you know, it's fascinating because less than 24 hours after the president announced those sweeping tariffs, there's already a bipartisan Senate bill to try to limit the executive's tariff powers. What more can you tell us about that bipartisan piece of legislation?

The timing is certainly no coincidence here. Kristen, the lead Republican on this bill is Senator Chuck Grassley. The Senate president pro-town, he sits third in line to the presidency. He's a staunch ally of Donald Trump, but he is a skeptic of the tariffs.

And he teamed up with Maria Cantwell, the Washington State Democrat, rather, to introduce this bill that would limit the president's power to impose tariffs unilaterally. It would require him to notify Congress within 24 hours of imposition of any tariff to explain the reasoning and offer an analysis of the impact it would have on American businesses and consumers. Then Congress would have to vote to approve that tariff within 60 days, or it would expire after that time. Before that, of course, Congress could revoke at any time.

And the bill would exclude or rather exempt anti-dumping and countervailing duties from any of this. All right, Sahel, as always, thank you. I know it's another busy day on the Hill. We really appreciate it.

Thank you so much. And joining us in Nevada, Democratic Congressman Stephen Horsford, Congressman Horsford, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Kristen, for having me on.

Absolutely. I want to start with a little bit more of what North Dakota Senator Kevin Kramer told us today. Get your reaction on the other side. My own constituents voted for this thing.

That's not how Trump is surprising. Everybody signaled his arm support for tariffs on the game, because exercise didn't pass. And with that, I guess it's 6% about North Dakota. So with this promise, they trusted them.

So yeah, I'm comfortable with where my constituents are about it. Congressman, your state also voted for President Trump in November. What do you think of the rationale from Senator Kramer? Does he have a point?

Well, look, Kristen, no American president has taxed the American people so much, so fast and so recklessly. To be clear, a tariff is a tax, and Donald Trump owns this. This is not what he campaigned on. He, in fact, said that he was going to focus on lowering costs for the American people.

His actions are doing directly the opposite. These taxes are going to inflict tremendous harm, create financial instability, not only to households here in Nevada, but small businesses here and all across the country. In addition, it's going to raise the cost on everything from appliances to groceries, to toys that we want to be able to get for our kids and our family. That is how irresponsible this is, and Donald Trump is going to own it.

Well, you know, as you are well aware, candidate Trump campaigned on a promise to impose more taxes. We saw him impose taxes during his first term, albeit these are more sweeping, I think, than he signaled on the campaign trail. But is this what Americans voted for, Congressman? No, they voted to lower costs.

Here in Nevada, the people are concerned about the cost of rent, the affordability of housing, the access to childcare and health care. None of that is going to be addressed through these Trump taxes. This is going to cause those prices that we depend on, that we buy every single day to go up. Yes, Donald Trump barely won Nevada, but he won by talking about lowering costs.

And that is not what he's doing. His actions are actually doing the opposite. And in addition to that, the focus is just completely off. He wants to talk about focusing on U.S.

manufacturing and jobs. So why is he defunding the Department of Labor? Why is he taking away workforce and education skills programs that will actually help American workers get prepared for the skills of the future? You can't do one thing and then have Elon Musk taking the keys to the country and dismantling essential services that we depend on every day.

Well, as you know, Congress, an article, one of the Constitution actually gives tariff powers to Congress. So Congress could theoretically act here to end President Trump's emergency powers over tariffs. Do you get any sense? Are there any conversations right now about asserting Congress's authority over tariffs, about finding a way to slow this down in any way?

Absolutely. I'm a member of the Ways and Means Committee, under Chairman Ranking Member Richie Neal, as well as our leader in the House, Hocking Jeffries. We are absolutely exploring all efforts of what we can do in Congress, what can be done in the courts, because unfortunately this executive branch and administration continues to exceed their authority and most importantly what we need to do in the communities that we all represent to mobilize the people. I just left a senior center here in my district.

They're worried about their Social Security and their Medicare. They're worried about what these taxes through this tariff policy will mean to them. I just talked to a group of business owners yesterday and those who represent the travel and tourism economy, not only are these tariffs hurting us, but immigration policy that's also hurting our biggest industry here in Nevada, which is travel and tourism. You know, it's worth noting that the Senate did pass a bill to black President Trump's tariffs on Canada.

Do you think there's going to be a petition for a discharge position, just to let people know what a discharge petition is? Essentially, you can go around House leadership to get the bill directly to the House floor. Is that something you would support, Congressman? I would absolutely support it.

We did this week around providing paid leave for members of Congress that have newborn children, but instead of allowing that bill to come up, Speaker Johnson canceled the rest of the actions and canceled our week of session in the House. Over in the Senate, of course, Cory Booker held the floor for 25 hours, trying to bring attention to the need to push back on Donald Trump and his reckless policies. Not only was it a commendable show of force, but more importantly, he talked about the moral moment that we are in, that this is not about left or right, that this is really a choice between right versus wrong. Donald Trump is wrong.

His policies are wrong. It's hurting the American people. Tariffs are taxes and they're hurting the American people. They're going to cause us to have to pay more, not less.

And that's not what he promised. Congressman, I want to ask about the Democratic Party. We have a focus group. This is in partnership with Syracuse University, Engages and Sago.

It's produced with a group of black men in swing states, voted for President Trump. I want to play you some of the things that they said about the Democratic Party. I'll say they pretty much failed at everything. I think lost.

Lost. They're lost. To me, it feels like they more want to scare you into following them, into the going with which your heart really things should be done. So I would say manipulation.

You, of course, the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, what is your reaction to what you just heard? How do you win some of those voters back when you lost? Well, look, there's a lot of voters, Black men and women included, who have every right to feel the way that they feel about both parties. I also know that since the election, there's a whole lot of remorse.

There's a whole lot of introspection. And in fact, that's why the Congressional Black Caucus PAC has launched listening sessions, just like you're doing with these focus groups. We're in Virginia this weekend. We'll be in other cities throughout the country, throughout the summer, because really we need to start and maintain a conversation with all of our constituents, but especially Black America.

I agree with Black men who feel that the system is not working for them, that they have to work twice as hard to get half as far, that all that we want to do is to thrive, not just to survive, that we need policies that lift us up. But here's what's happening right now under Donald Trump. And his administration, they're trying to take away the tools of opportunity, whether that's the opportunity to learn, to have access to capital, to start a business, to own a home, or even to have the right to vote. That ultimately is what this is all about.

And this is not an election time. This is a time for us to lead and to govern. All right, Congressman Horsford. Thank you so much for joining us to join us again soon.

We really appreciate hearing from you. And we will get the view from the other side of the aisle. Went, thank you. And Republican Congressman Mike Waller joins me later this hour.

But first, trumped up Tara Smart at Panic and the question of what's next for the U.S. economy. We have much more to get to the panels next to watch and meet the press now. It's here.

The Ford is a big deal. Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait.

The Ford is a big deal event is on. Really? Now, hurry up to least a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at $5.29 per cent APR for 60 months with $29.95 down. That's like $99 a week.

The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back. President Trump is making good on his campaign promise to implement sweeping tariffs on trading partners, allies, and adversaries alike. Here are just a few of the times he brought it up on the campaign trail.

We're going to have 10 to 20 percent tariffs on foreign countries that have been ripping us off of years. There's another theory is that the tariff you make it so high, so horrible, so obnoxious that they'll come right away. They're building these massive auto plants and they think they're going to make tens of thousands of automobiles and sell them in here. No tax, no nothing.

How this drastic move will impact the broader economy, the everyday consumer, and how the Democratic Party will respond still remains to be seen. Joining me now to discuss all of this. Jasmine Wright, politics reporter at Notice, Maria Theresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino and an NBC News contributor and former Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Grabello. He's also an NBC News political analyst.

Thanks to all of you for being here. Jasmine kick us off here. This is a president who campaigned on tariffs. He's talked about it before he was in office long before he was in office.

And yet what he announced yesterday caught even some of his former advisors off guard in terms of the scope and the sweep of what he announced. Yeah, it's actually really interesting because I've been talking to his former advisors. I've been talking to people within the White House really trying to figure out what they are doing and the purpose for it. And I think a couple of things I talked to Wilbur Ross who had basically said that he thought it'd be between 15 and 25 percent.

He was surprised that some of the countries went over that 25 percent. And I've also talked to the White House who said it shouldn't be a surprise that we've been talking about it for so long. But I also asked them how they are going to message this issue because I think that yes, Americans know that Donald Trump likes tariffs, but they don't exactly know what tariffs do and they don't know how much Donald Trump likes tariffs. And I think what we've seen over these last 24 hours is that he likes them a lot too.

Some countries like 64 percent. And so I think that there potentially is a gap that they're going to come to, particularly when you're hearing all this negativity about the tariffs over the last 24 hours we're hearing the market doing this and that about what they're saying and what the American people are believing. I think your point about the messaging is a good one. I asked President Trump about tariffs back in December when I interviewed him.

I want to play a little bit of that get your reaction on the other side. You are now proposing tariffs against the United States, three biggest trading partners. Economists of all stripes say that ultimately consumers pay the price of tariffs. I don't believe it.

Can you guarantee American families won't pay more? I can't guarantee anything. I can't guarantee tomorrow. I'm a big believer in tariffs.

I think tariffs are the most beautiful word. I think they're beautiful. It's going to make us rich. Carlos Jasmine talks about the messaging.

The messaging kind of start on the campaign trail and interviews like that before he actually took office. Is the White House doing enough? The president doing enough to explain what they are doing to the American. Clearly not, Chris.

And what we saw on Wall Street today, we're seeing something similar on the Hill, a reaction to uncertainty. People don't understand what the plan is, what the strategy is. Is this a negotiation? Is it not?

Is it a permanent policy? Is this going to be the policy for the next four years? So the same way Wall Street reacted in a very drastic way today, there are Republicans on the Hill who are wondering where are we going? And I'll give you an example.

Back in 2017, I was on the Ways and Means Committee. The president communicated clearly that he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. We did that together with Robert Leitheiser. There were tweaks made, changes made that were better for the United States.

And everything was a success. This time, no one knows what's happening. And that's why you see all this consternation. And you're starting to see some cracks in that Republican unity in Congress.

We're trying to pick up on this point because the Democrats have been looking to find their footing when it comes to messaging is, how do you anticipate the Democrats? Well, this is what's really wild. Morely, it's the Democrats. It's the labor who wants tariffs.

And they claim all of this. And the fact that the Democrats are taking a step back and saying, this is going to completely destabilize us, that starts talking about it's almost like a perfect storm. You have massive federal layoffs that are going to impact. You have companies already saying that they are going to lay off employees because they don't know if they're going to be able to be sustained.

They know that all of a sudden, sure, I make a part here, but I have to shift it to Mexico. And then I'm not going to be able to. But let's take a step back. All of a sudden, when you're talking about global trading partners, you have Korea, you have China and Japan creating an agreement without the United States trying to combat it.

Let's really understand. We have been the leaders in negotiating trade agreements. We are the ones that define the rules. We are the ones that set the standards, whether it comes for human rights, whether it comes to environmental standards, whether it comes to prices.

And what he has done, he's lit it on fire. And sure, you can go ahead and say, well, we're really using it as a breaking point to negotiate. But what you're also telling your partners is, I don't know if our partners are going to say, I don't know if we can trust you, America. And trust is one of the fundamental things that you need, even to starting to go.

Carlos, what about that? And how risky is this strategy given to everything that we're going to raise and say? Well, look, don't take it from me. Look at how congressional Republicans are starting to push back, right?

And we know how difficult it is for Republicans to push back against President Trump, because he's so popular with the base. Yet, you have the four Senate Republicans joining Senator Kane in that resolution, condemning the candidate tariffs in the House for the first time. Look, I was really impressed a couple weeks ago when Speaker Johnson ushered through a government funding extension without any Democratic votes. That was impressive.

But this week, he faced his first revolt, had to send the House home, because some nine House Republicans wouldn't follow him on a procedural vote. So you're starting to see some real cracks in a Republican unity. And this is before Republicans have taken up that big, beautiful bill, which will be the most of the president's agenda in Congress. Jasmine, this is a fascinating moment.

Because one of the big questions that's looming over everything is, how long is President Trump going to be willing to watch what's happening on Wall Street? How much pain will he just take? Yeah, and there's been a lot of this messaging. Is he open to negotiation?

I spoke to him this weekend signal that he was willing to negotiate. He signaled that again today when reporters asked him about it. How do you see this playing out? But it's interesting, because when you talk to his aides, they say this is not a negotiation.

This is an emergency. We are not going to be negotiating. So it is kind of just back to our question of messaging, kind of a back and forth. And I think that there are very few people, and maybe this is on purpose, who know actually how it's going to end up to that.

Potentially, if they do start negotiating, which I think a lot of the Republican Party wants them to, they end up with a more lucrative deal. I think fundamentally, though, what we are hearing from this White House isn't basically telling Americans to trust Donald Trump. I went into upper press today, and I said, a lot of presidents have asked the American public to trust them on the economy, and a lot of times the American public does not. So what makes Donald Trump different?

And they told me it's because he's done it before. It's because he did it in the first term. But I don't know if America necessarily buys that, or if they will, should they see their 401Ks be wiped up the next two weeks? Over retreats, the tariffs in the first term were so different.

They were not anywhere close to the size of the scope. They were strategic, and people knew exactly what was happening. The soy farmers were very pleased. But the fact that they basically gave a tariff to an island that is inhabited by penguins.

That's how the edges were completely. Have no idea what they're doing. Creating hands. Just lots of less thought.

That's a good question issue. The two big issues for the president were immigration and inflation in the economy. On immigration, agree with him or not, the White House has been very clear in their communication. They said they were going to aggressively enforce the laws, and they've done that.

Republicans are united behind the White House on that issue. The public remains supportive of the president on the immigration issue. Inflation in the economy, the communication has been bad, inconsistent, and therefore, you're seeing all this division. Well, we'll have to see how it plays out.

Thank you for joining me on a really big day. Jasmine Carlos and Rita Risa really appreciate it. While Republicans in Congress are grappling, as Carlos just said, with exactly how to respond to questions about President Trump's sweeping global tariffs, trying to walk that fine line between supporting the president's policies, while also acknowledging the unease among their constituents. But notably, House members aren't being confronted by reporters on Capitol Hill, because the House is not in session right now.

After Speaker Johnson canceled votes, we just talked about this and sent members home for the week amid party infighting over proxy voting for new parents. Joining me now is one of the co-sponsors of that legislation. Republican from New York Congressman Mike Lawler. Congressman Lawler, thank you so much for joining me, really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me, Kristin. I am going to get to the proxy voting legislation for new parents in just a moment that I do have to start on tariffs that President Trump announced yesterday. I want to read you what Vice President Mike Pence wrote. He wrote, the Trump tariff tax is the largest peacetime tax hike in US history.

These tariffs are nearly 10 times the size of those imposed during the Trump Pence administration, and will cost American families over $3,500 per year. What's your reaction? Do you agree with the former vice president? Look, I think people have to look at tariffs in the context of the entire global economy.

The fact is that the United States has had a far lower tariff rate than almost any country in the world. Some of our largest trade partners have had significantly high tariffs, barriers to entry, price controls. Europe has price controls on American goods all the time, including prescription drugs, which is part of the reason why Americans pay such high prescription drug costs. So there's a lot of things that the President is trying to tackle here.

Obviously, there is a consternation in the market, and that is something that we have to aggressively watch. But I think he's obviously trying to reshape the way that that trade engages around the globe. And from the standpoint of fair trade and free trade, the fact is that when you see how these countries have put high tariffs, high barriers to entry and price controls on US goods, that is not free and fair trade. The fact is we have had a negative trade in balance for years.

And many of my democratic colleagues, you can go back to 2008, you can go back to 2018, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, they supported tariffs. They supported it because, number one, they wanted to see US goods being able to be exported. They also supported because they wanted jobs coming back to the US, including manufacturing jobs. So I think, look, if you look at it in a one day, 24 hour period, of course, people are going to have a negative reaction.

The question is how this plays out in the coming weeks, and what is the overall turnabout? I just saw Kosovo, for instance, come out and say, we are lowering all tariffs against US goods. So the question to me is, is this an effective negotiating tool in the immediate? And I do believe it is a negotiating tool.

I do not believe that these tariffs as they were laid out yesterday will be in effect long term. I do think there can be a agreed upon low tariff rate that applies across the board, which frankly, if that's the ultimate end goal that other countries lower their tariffs on US goods, that's a good thing for America. Congressman, and you're right, the president today and in a phone conversation with me over the weekend did signal he is open to negotiating with countries. If they offer him, he said something big.

And so the question is what exactly is the definition of something big? But let me ask you because as you know, so many people elected this president because he promised to lower prices. Are your constituents going to ultimately spend more on every day goods because of these tariffs? No, you have to look at the policies in totality.

So tariffs right now are one end of it. And by the way, tariffs will bring in revenue to the federal government, which will help reduce overall cost for Americans, which is why we are focused on a tax bill. Part of the reason why I'm focused on lifting the cap on salt to provide immediate tax relief from my constituents. I lived in one of the highest tax dates in America, New York, Democrat controlled.

My district, which includes Westchester and Rockland County, has the highest property taxes in America. So lifting the cap on salt is going to provide immediate tax relief. Increasing domestic production of energy will help reduce the overall costs of goods and services and transportation and construction. And that is critical.

And so when you look at the totality of the policy decisions that are going to be made, that is what is going to bring down the overall cost of living for Americans. It is the top issue. It's the top issue for me. And if you look, inflation is down, consumer price indexes down, we obviously have to focus on bringing overall costs down.

Tariffs are part of the president's economic policy. And so the question is, as this plays out, where does the economy go? I do believe the economy is going to boom. When we get the reconciliation package done, when we get the energy policies in place, and obviously, as the president negotiates on tariffs with our trade partners.

Congressman, and I want to get to proxy voting because I think what's going to be a little bit of breaking news for you. But before I get to that, let me just push you on this because economists of all stripes say, ultimately consumers wind up paying more for tariffs. If these tariffs do go into effect, do you not acknowledge that Americans will ultimately pay more for some goods? We saw that during the first Trump administration when prices went up on a number of different goods from washing machines to tires.

Well, part of what we just did is pass a number of CRAs on some of the Biden administration rules when it comes to things like washer machines to help reduce the actual cost of it. But look, this is, I think if you look at something in isolation, you can sit and nitpick at it. But the question is in totality, what do these policies actually do? And I believe the objective here is grow the economy, reduce the overall cost of living and goods, and really bring about fair trade around the globe.

Our partners have not engaged in fair trade. And that's the objective here. It is a negotiation. And I think the president certainly has been clear on that.

Yeah, let me, I want to ask you about this legislation that you co-sponsored just to let our viewers know, basically, this would allow new parents to vote by proxy. Speaker Johnson tried to quash this. The House is now out as a result. President Trump Congressman was just asked about it.

Let me read you. This is from the pool note. So this is a first draft. But based on this pool note, he says, I will let the speaker choose.

I like the idea of having a baby and being able to call in to vote. I would agree with it. Yeah, I am in favor. Your reaction to that, the significance of that.

Well, look, as the father of a five month old, my colleague, Anna Paulina Luna, who led this effort, the mother of, you know, a baby that is about a year and a half old, you know, this is critically important. This is a pro pro family, pro life measure to make sure that those who do have children, especially on mothers, there's only been 13 in the history of the Congress that have had a baby while serving as a member of the House. The fact is, they should not be precluded from doing their job after they give birth. And so the measure was to allow for a very limited period, three months, to allow a new mother to vote by proxy, to be able to represent their district, do their job while also taking care of their child.

And I think obviously the president supports that. I think there's broad consensus on that. But you know, I respect the speaker on this. I understand his concerns about, you know, constitutionality.

I also understand many people in the conference have concerns about the idea of proxy voting and how it can be abused. I mean, you had members going on vacation and voting from, you know, Caribbean islands. That's not what the intent is here. That's not what I support.

This is about allowing mothers the ability to do their job right after giving birth. And I think that is certainly fair. And that's why I support the initiative. Well, it's another story we'll be watching very closely here in Washington, Congressman Mike Weller.

Thank you so much. And thanks for giving us your reaction to that little bit of breaking news. We appreciate it. And thank you still to come.

We have some breaking news here in Washington. We're a key here and just wrapped up on whether the Trump administration violated a court order when it invoked a wartime authority to deport hundreds of migrants to a super prison in El Salvador who live outside the courthouse. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's The Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Jasmine Vesugian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. On the front page, the Zeitgeist, Here's The Scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Spotify. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the criteria. Workouts, meal plans, it's your fast track to a healthier you. And now, during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription into Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more.

Xfinity, imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. All the rents may 20th, 20th, 26th, prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full on returns and details. Welcome back.

This afternoon, a judge here in Washington heard arguments about whether the Trump administration defied his court order barring it from deporting individuals under the Alien Enemies Act. Remember last month, Judge Boseberg issued a temporary restraining order halting the government from invoking the wartime authority to deport alleged members of the Trent Deragua gang and verbally ordered the planes carrying them to be turned around. Now, despite that, three planes from the U.S. been landed in El Salvador where individuals were then detained and have since been held in the country's notorious megaperson.

Joining me now is NBC News Senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley outside of Courthouse and Julia. What were the key takeaways from court today? Well, it was really contentious. Although it was pretty short, Kristen, we heard from Justice Department lawyer Drew Insign would come before Judge Boseberg and explain why he didn't take his oral order on March 15th and tell it to enough people in the government so that the pilots flying those planes to El Salvador would turn around.

Judge Boseberg started pressing him for names of exactly who he told because Insign said it wasn't up to him to tell the pilots. Now, that list of names could change and of course they're going to come back with more. But Boseberg is basically dropping some breadcrumbs here and teeing up for a potential contempt finding. He even said that if he did find contempt that is going in that direction, would the government want to purge contempt?

That basically means take any measures to try to keep themselves from being found in contempt. That can include bringing those prisoners back to the United States, so it seems to be headed in that direction. Although Boseberg said that he would not be making a decision this week, but that sounds like it could be as early as next week and that could even mean that they moved to a hearing where we actually have people on the stand explaining what they knew and who made this decision. I think that's something we would all like to know we've been covering this is who it was who said yes we've heard this order to turn the planes around but no we're not going to follow it.

Julia just make sure what's the time frame that you're looking at for what happens next steps. Yeah so he did say that he would not make a decision this week but we could get a ruling on a possible contempt finding by next week. Of course this is the sideshow this isn't even about his temporary restraining order on the Alien Enemies Act that will come back before him on April 8th. Alright Julia Ainsley thank you so much really appreciate all of your great reporting as always.

We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.