Meet the Press NOW – April 7

Welcome to MEET THE press. Now I'm Kelly o'. Donnell. At the end of a historically volatile day of trading on Wall street, it has been a wild ride with huge swings in both directions after stocks plummeted last week.

The Dow alone experienced a 2600 point swing today, its biggest ever, finally ending the day down more than 300 points. The S&P 500 at one point today hit what traders call a bear market, down 20% off recent highs. This is a time lapse of trading today as investors seem to be hanging on every word and every tea leaf from the president and the White House. With tariffs at levels not seen in 100 plus years about to go into effect and conflicting messages about potential off ramps negotiations or even more tariffs, the president today threatening to impose an additional 50% levy on imports from China unless it rescinds its retaliatory tariffs on the U.S.

the president also holding a meeting with his close ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after earlier today touting on social media the possibility of, quote, negotiations with other countries on tariffs. Now, despite some White House officials saying just the opposite moments ago, President Trump told reporters that he is considering, he's not considering a short term pause on the new tariffs, but that he is willing to be engaged in negotiations. We have many, many countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us and they'll be fair deals. And in certain cases, they're paying substantial tariffs.

They'll be fair deals. We have one shot at this and no other president's gonna do. That's what I'm doing. We'll be talking to China, we'll be talking to a lot of different countries.

And I think, you know, if we can make a really fair deal and a good deal for the United States, not a good deal for others, this is America first. It's now America first. We're gonna get fair deals and good deals with every country. And we don't, we've nothing to do with them.

They're not gonna be allowed to participate in the United States. And I'm joined now by Bob Hasani, senior markets correspondent for cnbc, NBC News senior White House correspondent, my good friend Gabe Gutierrez and NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Scheib. I am still buckled up from this wild ride today. And Bob, let me start with you.

We saw a little bit of leveling off, shout to out. Should we see that as a good sign? Yes, we should. As you said, this was an absolutely wild ride.

It's actually a 2,700 points. That's about 7%. That's almost unprecedented on an intraday basis. So the market seems to be trying to figure out where there is a bottom in this endless tariff war that is going on here.

And what it saw today, number one, was the markets was very oversold after days and days of selling. But secondly, some hope that the idea of negotiations to lower the tariffs were still alive. The president's advisors say we're not negotiating, but the president, as you saw in that quote from him, clearly indicated he was open to negotiations. That's what's giving the market some hope here.

Now, other stocks, though, had a tough time. Most tech stocks were up. But Apple, if you notice, was down 4% today. That's because the iPhone is designed in California, manufactured in China, and the tariffs there would massively increase the cost of an iPhone.

So Apple's been under a lot of press for the last several days and again down 4% today, Kelly. And a lot of consumers know a lot about Apple. Now, we saw something interesting happen today. There was a sudden spike in the market about four or five minutes this morning.

And what we learned is there was an incorrect reporting that President Trump was considering a 90 day pause. There was a social media post about that. Does that speak to the volatility we're seeing right now, that something posted on the Internet could cause markets to react so quickly? Yes, well, number one, the markets again oversold.

It was a coiled spring. It was looking for any kind of reason to bounce at this point. And of course, you mentioned that erroneous report here, but it spoke to the heart of what the market wanted to hear and it was erroneous, which is that there is some hope for either a pause or some kind of negotiation. As you saw there, the president clearly indicated that he was open to some kind of negotiations.

While that particular report was erroneous, the general thrust of it where the market wanted to go, which is we want negotiations to keep the tariffs down, down, down to reduce the economic chaos. That hope. So interesting the president saying he doesn't want to put a pause on things, but did give investors and maybe people who are on the edge of retirement maybe a little reason to breathe if he's willing to do some negotiate. We also saw today something called the volatility index and that is reaching a crisis level.

And obviously that makes people worried, especially those who are concerned about do they have time left. So tell us more about what that is and how concerned investors ought to be. The volatility index, we call it the VIX on Wall street, is a measure of short term volatility in the stock market. It looks at what traders think might be happening 30 days out.

How much volatility, how much movement in the stock market are we expecting? And right now the volatility index, the vix, is very, very high. That means the traders are at least short term expecting a lot of movement in the market. I think that will calm down if we get a little more certainty on the tariff situation.

As for what people should be doing, long term investors, it's very, very clear. Most investors, absolutely nothing, have a long term plan, stay invested in the market. This is what the professionals tell you. Remember something, Kelly, it's not a loss until you actually sell.

That's an old saw on Wall Street. It sounds trite, but it's true. Back to you. Well, I'll take that advice as well and ease up a little bit myself.

Let me turn now to Gabe Gutierrez. What can you tell us? We have any more clarity now on what the president is thinking in terms of negotiating? Is he open to that and what are you sensing is his first target?

Hi there, Kelly. Well, we have been talking about for several days now this mixed messaging coming out of the White House. You mentioned that several White House aides had said that this was not a negotiation as you've been discussing. Whereas the president, he was asked about that actually just a short time ago here in the Oval Office during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He said both could be true, essentially trying to have it both ways, saying that it is his plan to have countries come to the United States and negotiate, however, that these tariffs will be permanent. This is something he's been discussing for decades, even before he became a politician. And it seems like Kelly that he does want to keep that baseline, a 10% baseline that all countries have been slapped with his tariff. But there may be some negotiation in some of the more stringent tariffs.

Now hearing from the European Union, for example, today is talking about potentially slashing tariffs on American made cars and industrial products. President seems to suggest that that was a step in the right direction, but they'll have to do more. So President Trump really doubling down on that idea of negotiating for better deal. They call this a one shot deal for the country.

Do you get a sense that the White House is looking for a long term way to sell these tariffs to the public? Well, at this point they are just, they view this as a promise kept, as a campaign promise and they really are trying to hit that message that this will be for the good of the country long term. The president keeps using that metaph that this was a sick patient and that there was an operation and now that the operation is over. Trying to extend that metaphor over the last several days, even as he was in Florida at his golf club.

But, Kelly, this, the White House really thinks that once these tariffs are in place and once the stock market or the stock market rebounds, that he will essentially be proven right. Of course, that remains to be seen. So much volatility today, even. There is a lot of back and forth today here at the White House because we're expecting a full press conference from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump that was scrapped in favor of a meeting inside the Oval Office where he just wrapping up, taking questions.

So a lot of changes here at the White House as we continue to watch these markets. And you and I both know a press conference has a different sort of level of stature than sitting with a friendly ally and taking questions and optics play into a lot of this. And we were looking also at not just what's happening in the stage graph of the White House, but how the president spent part of his weekend. He was playing golf and many Americans were worried about their finances.

Do you get a sense that the White House has any concerns about that comparison? No. At least not yet, Kelly. I've been speaking with White House officials today.

They stress, as they have often before, the president can be at his golf club, can be playing golf, and he's still speaking with world leaders. That's something that they insist upon. And really, they don't seem to be defiant in the face of criticism. Over the weekend, it was the president's own account on his true social platform that posted that video of him taking his golf swing.

The White House itself told the press pool that he had won his round and was on his way to the championship. And even yesterday, the president, speaking with reporters, brought up again that he had done well in his golf game this week. And so the White House is again defiant. And they feel that once these tariffs are in place and, you know, once they see that the economists try to prove the economy is wrong, they feel that the American public will stick with them.

Leaning into that gloss flame for sure. Thank you, Gabe. Good to be with you. I'm going to turn now to Brian.

And President Trump is threatening an additional 50% tariff on China. So when you think of all the goods that come from China in the United States are consumer culture, what do you think the impact of those tariffs would be if they do in fact, go into effect as early as later this week. Yeah, well, I mean that would be wide ranging and cover basically all the types of products that we're used to buying on a daily basis. When you consider things like clothes, when you consider things like electronics that we in most cases, in some cases with those industries, we import almost entirely from China.

So one example would be laptops, computers, smartphones. Consumer Technology association warning that specifically rationing up rates on China to the degree of the 54, 60% that you know, we had heard on the campaign train trainer actually being put into effective Wednesday could raise the cost of those items. I just mentioned 300 per unit. But I want to point out that the ratcheting up even further from here based off of that true social post that we had seen earlier today where the president said that unless China were to cancel their 34 retaliatory tariff they proposed last week, then they would raise it by another 50%.

Our Catherine Doyle here at NBC News confirmed that that would stack on top of what was already the original plan, which would take the effective tariff rate from 54 to 104%. Hadn't even seen projections of what that would do to consumer prices. But it would only go up. You couldn't imagine a scenario where prices would go down.

I'm gonna need my calculator now, Brian, after all of that. We've been following closely what different officials are saying. And one of the people that we look to with great interest is the Treasury Secretary SAP ESSENCE told Kristen yesterday and the press that a recession is not avoidable. Let's look at that.

I reject that. The assumption there doesn't have to be a recession. Who knows how the market is going to react in a day, in a week. What we are looking at is building the long term economic fundamentals for prosperity that I think the previous administration had put us on course toward financial calamity.

This is an adjustment process we saw with President Reagan when he brought down the great inflation and we got past the Carter malaise that there was some choppiness at that time, but he held the course and we're going to hold the course. And this has been years in the building, years in the making. Obviously he is defending his boss, but what's your reaction to the substance of what he had to say? Yeah, let's start off with the back part of that bite that we just heard from about this being adjustment process, that this is years in the making and it will be years in the making.

Even if, let's say for example, companies are convinced that with these tariff policies in Effect, especially if they believe that these tariffs are for real and will be in place for years to come. That okay, we'll reshore some of the same factory, open up a factory in Omaha, Nebraska and then try to find laborers to build that factory and then produce T shirts or smartphones here in the United States. Well, the problem is that first off you need the billions of dollars to do that. Then you might need years, in some cases even decades to make that process happen.

Now, the first part of it is whether or not we go into recession. The Secretary is suggesting that doesn't have to be the case. But you have these projections that as soon as this year there's a likelihood that the United States could go into a recession. Now coming from JP Morgan, well then you do wonder that's the trade off in the short term recession if it means the onshoring of those businesses over the long term.

But again, that's a real big gamble I think most business leaders probably not want to take. And Brian, we will count on you to keep us up to date on all of this. Thank you so for your time. I appreciate it.

And now I'm joined by Diane Swung, chief economist for kpmg. And good to have you with us today. I know you've been tracking all of this closely. What is your concern this afternoon as we sit here?

We've heard new things from the President. We see how the market has been reacting when you're considering tariffs, inflation, recession or even stagflation. What stands out to you today, we're still on a course to endure some bout of stagflation. And barring a major pullback on the tariffs that were announced on April 2, we will likely go into recession.

And the hard part about it for the Federal Reserve, and this is something the term of the Fed has already made very clear, is that in a stagflationary scenario, that's when inflation is picking up along with unemployment. The Fed has to be very careful about not cutting too quickly. They remember the lessons of the 1970s. And not to correct the Treasury Secretary, but in fact it was the Volcker recessions that brought down inflation in the early 1980s.

And it was in part some interference by the Nixon administration that caused the stagflation of the 1970s. So I think it's very important the Fed has learned those lessons. They know from that period that if you with the embers of inflation still smoldering, if you cut rates too soon, you could get a more pernicious bout of inflation. So that's not what they're ready to do.

That said, we know that the size of tariffs, even if they're scaled back a bit, these are extremely high tariffs. And it's both, you know, going to force layoffs and some pass through onto consumers. That's the very definition of stag question and the historical note you made there about the Nixon year. And of course, we see the president now has been putting some public pressure on the Fed to act.

Do you see a point where these tariffs could cause real long term economic damage either here in the US or globally? Absolutely. I mean, one of the issues is that once you get into trade war, they're very hard to de escalate. We still have a window to de escalate now and pull back.

But once you start to get into a trade wars, you already heard the president saying, listen, we're going to double down on China for retaliating on us. That is the kind of thing that you see. Now the worst case of that, of course, was the smooth holiday tariffs of 1930, which were invoked well into the Great Depression. And that caused a trade war.

It was tariffs against 20,000 products in 25 countries, a trade war, hot war with them, 10 countries that seep sowed the seeds of World War II. Do you see de escalation and negotiation in the same sentence? It would be hopeful, but that would then undermine what the president said their other goals are. And that is to incentivize on shoring, to eliminate the trade deficit and to generate revenues to offset the expansions and extremes, extensions to tax cuts that they'd like to do for 2026.

And so, you know, it can't be all those things at once. And this is being used as a silver bullet when it's little more than a blunt tool. Well, thank you for keeping us straight on that. It's so helpful.

And your expertise is really needed in a moment like that. So thank you so much, Diane. Thank you. And coming up, we're sticking with this breaking economic story and the escalating political fallout as President Trump faces scrutiny for spending much of his weekend golfing as global markets tumble.

Plus, President Trump says the U.S. is holding, quote, direct talks with Iran. That is very notable. And that moment in war takeaways from his Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

That's straight ahead. You're watching MEET the Press now. Welcome back. After the markets took a major hit late last week, President Trump went ahead with his scheduled trip to Florida.

Now all presidents can take some downtime. Mr. Trump did not choose to use his time to explain further his plans for tariffs or to try to reassure the American people. But instead, he went to hit the links.

The president took part in the senior club championship at one of his Florida ball forces, and he tells reporters that he won. One of no effective reporters had heard that he won. The president even posted an undated video of himself teeing off. And that was on his social media account checking out that swing there.

And here's what Democratic Senator Adam Shif of California, Sid Kristen Welker, this weekend, I need the press about the president's weekend plans. I think people have seen their retirement savings on fire. And there he is out on the golf course. That may end up being the most enduring image of the Trump presidency.

That is the president out on a golf cart while people's retirement is in flames. And joining me now to discuss all of this on set is Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the New York Times. He's also an NBC News political analyst. Former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards, also part of our contributor team here, and Rob Bowie, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal.

So glad to have all of you here. Peter, let me start with you. And I both know we've covered lots of presidents and having these sort of optics questions always comes up. They need break.

They need to have some time to themselves. They are always working. What is your sense about why the president chose to make golf as visible as it was this weekend? Yeah, I'm toxic president because they never get a minute off.

And yes, I have to relax. But there are moments when it seems politically maybe not the most optimistic time to do it. In this case, you know, President Donald Trump, who when he wasn't in office used to go after, of course, Barack Obama when he was in office saying how they spend so much time golfing. If I were president, I would never golf because I would too busy working for the air.

He did say he would never golf. He did say that. Obviously he does like the golf. But you're right, I think it's it sent the message that he probably, I don't know, he wanted to send her, not maybe he wanted to send a business usual don't worry, everything's gonna be okay message.

But I don't know that it rang that way to a lot of people. And as we understand, the press pool was with him near the golf course, so they were readily available. He wanted to make a brief statement. He opted not to.

And that's the choice that we're analyzing here. Do you get a sense that, that this would have happened in his first term. Donna, is this the kind of thing he would have been under? Do you sense that because he is in the second non consecutive term and we think there is not a third term to come, that he might feel some more freedom?

I do think that the president believes that he's in the right place on this and he wants to pretend that everything is normal and that Americans should just go about their lives. The problem with that is that seniors, pension holders, teachers, firefighters saw what happened on Thursday, on Friday, and they were getting a preview of what would happen today. And that you cannot fight the optics of people losing their savings. So even if he was trying to project the policy set, it's going to work.

I'm able to go golfing. You're saying that the anxiety that was out there needed tending as well? Well, it did. And part of the problem for the president is that he's now digging in so deeply that it's hard to imagine how he's going to come off of that mark and save face at the same time.

And meanwhile, ordinary Americans are looking at what is happening and they're seeing all of their savings wiped out since the pandemic where they've had to rebuild and now they're back in that dead zone again. And Rob, I wonder if you heard this clip from Senator Ted Cruz's podcast from recently where he talked about this and where Republicans ought to be in this. Let's take a listen to that first and then we can talk about if we're In a scenario 30 days from now, 60 days from now, 90 days from now, with massive American tariffs and massive tariffs on American goods in every other country on earth. That is a terrible outcome.

If we go into a recession, particularly a bad recession, 20, 26, in all likelihood, politically would be a bloodbath. You would face a Democrat House and you might even face a Democrat Senate. A warning from Houston, we have a problem. Ted Cruz is usually pretty in line with the president, but here he did not hold back.

He was critical. Do you think he's on the right, Mark there? Well, Ted Cruz has also said that, Terry, he was terrorists of taxes. And so, I mean, he has to stick out of position, I think, as a free market conservative in what he truly believes.

And I think it's a warning that Republicans in the House and Senate need to get their act together and pass this budget reconciliation bill. And what you have in that budget reconciliation bill is the tax relief that President Trump wants to extend. Now, I would have preferred that happen first prior to tariffs being imposed, because I think the public have settled the markets a little bit, Kelly but ultimately it's incumbent upon John Thune and Mike Johnson to get both their caucuses together and get this done before I even know he's wanted to lock in that tax extension since for years and go back to 2017. I think one of the reasons why Republicans did poorly in the 2018 midterms is they waited so long to pass those tax cuts.

It wasn't until December of that year. And the effects of those task cuts and the economic outcome that we started to see didn't really materialize until it was too late and they didn't benefit politically from it. Of course, it's not a surprise that Republicans are waiting because they haven't figured out how to pay for it. And the reality is that you can't do that at this stage without digging deeply into things like Medicare, Medicaid.

I mean, those things will be on the line if they want to pay for these tax cuts. So at the same time, you see a market sliding, people losing their savings and the threat of these potential other cuts. I just don't know how Republicans are going to swallow that going into 2020. I want to go to another of our clips.

This one I think is interesting, too. And Donna, I want to pose this to you. So the Commerce secretary, Lutnick, he said yesterday that Democrats should message that he talked about this and basically gave us a picture of Americans doing some work that we haven't seen a lot of in this country in a while. Let's play that clip and I want to get your sense of how Democrats respond to it.

Trillions of dollars of factories are going to be built in America. That's huge gdp. The factories being built in America are huge. That takes years.

And you said the robots are going to fill those jobs. So those aren't jobs. It's automated factories, automated factories. But the key is who's going to build the factories?

Who's going to operate the factories? Who's going to make them work? Great American workers, the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little, little screws to make I that kind of thing is going to come to America. It's going to be automated and great Americans.

The tradecraft of America is going to fix them. It's going to work on them. That's what I want to get to that screwing in the, you know, I'm going to need my reader glasses to do that. But how do Democrats hear the commerce secretary describe that picture and it would take time to bring that kind of manufacturing back to the United States.

And do we have workers here that are really ready to do that work? You know, the global globalization has resulted in Americans doing better as consumers and doing better as investors, fueling the greatest economy in the world. I don't know what Lutnick is talking about. I mean, I'm with Dave Chappelle.

I'm this a comedian. I can't imagine which American they are going to find screwing in those little screws. And in the meantime, Americans are going to be faced with paying another $300 for their iPhones. I don't really see it happening.

It's a complete mis reading of what the global economy has wreaked for American workers and American consumers. And one of the challenges we had, Peter, is how to read the differing views coming from very single people who are in the room with the president a lot and are a part of his rollout of his economic policy. So when you hear some differing signals from top officials, what should we make of that? Well, you heard from the president himself this afternoon.

He was in the Oval Office with the meeting night. Now that these royal ministries ask, are these tariffs meant to be a negotiation tactic or are they going to be current? He said basically they can be both. Well, that's a hard thing to reconcile.

So he himself is sending this contradictory message. Is it the means or is it the ends? Do we want to rebuild the economy by keeping barriers up there for a long time, as Ted Cruz is talking about, with potential consequences, or are they something that he's going to negotiate way more to get better deals from Germany, France, Germany, Japan and so forth? You know, nobody could see the same cool.

And Japan is underway. Bassett said that he's starting those negotiations. Do you think they've given us a number of as many as 50 countries that want to negotiate? How does that even happen?

Are there enough senior officials who have the presidency or an authority to even carry out those negotiations? I hope so, Kelly, because I think it would be ultimately, at the end of the day, it would be better for all Americans, whether you're a Republican or Democrat or Independent, to have fewer barriers. So we need to level the playing field. I think the lower tariffs on the part of the United States and foreign countries is a good thing for everybody at the end of the day.

And you get a sense that there is a patience in the public right now. Or is it fear? Can both exist? What do you think?

I think it's in fear. I think it's uncertainty I think he's got a little bit wrong because people do attribute to Trump, you know, a skilled economy. Right. Me wrongly.

They see him as being strong in the economy. I think his base at least is going to be patient for a little while. But I think Cruz's point is right. Depends on how long it goes.

If this is going on 30, 60, 90 days, then it begins to have more of a sustain and people begin to see it in the grocery stores, at the car dealerships. They see it in the 401ks on not just a week long tunnel because that can happen. But the sea is more of a sustained problem. And that's why I think politically becomes dangerous.

And over the weekend we saw in cities around the country protests where people were voicing concerns about the Trump administration on a number of topics. But is that one of the ways that the public has a chance to speak out? And do you see it having much of a, of an influence on the White House? Well, I think one of the interesting things was that these protests were rolling out in all 50 states, in small towns and big cities all across the country.

And that will have an impact. It'll have an impact on individual members of Congress who are very sensitive about what's going to happen in 2026. I mean, it's near and dear to their hearts what happens with re election. So I do think that there can be a long term ripple effect of that kind of activity in the states.

And apart from that, I just think, you know, it's a bad look for Americans when they don't support tariffs. They voted for Trump because they wanted lower prices and lower inflation. They didn't bargain for this. And I think that's going to start to play out in public opin.

At the same time, I will say that Trump has been talking about terrorists for what, 35 years. So this is not a surprise necessarily. It feels different for people. It is.

I thank you all great insights. Really appreciate your spending time with us today and helping us find our way through this. Please stay with us. Up next, breaking news as the Supreme Court gives the Trump administration the emergency relief it was seeking in the case of mistaken deportation of a Maryland father.

That man's lawyer joins us next with his first reaction to the news you're watching. Read the press. Now let's kick start your wellness journey with the doctor. A workouts, meal plans.

It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity number celebration, members to get an exclusive 50% off the annual subscription head to xfinity.com membership to learn more Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65.99/tax and fees until cancel all brands May 20, 2026. Price is subject to CH. Visit today.comxfinity for full on preserved details.

As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast for NBC News. With your host Gas in the Studio, we'll take a deep dive into today's top stories of NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. But Paige the Zeitgeist here's the Scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on SiriusXM. Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.

Welcome back. We are glad you're here. We have breaking news in the case that been watched a lot in recent days of a Maryland man who the government concedes it mistakenly deported to El Salvador and has since been detained in the country's notorious mega prism. Moments ago, the Supreme Court issued a stay, pausing a judge's order requiring the government to return the man to the US by midnight tonight.

In his filing to the Supreme Court, the administration argued the courts did not have the authority to order his returning, adding that that deadline tonight was, quote, arbitrary and impossible. They left. So while that case continues to get tied up in the courts over the weekend, the Department of Justice made what many consider a stunning decision to place the attorney who represented the administration in this case on leave for failing to, quote, zealously advocate on behalf of the government. Here's what Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday on day one, I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on behalf of the United States.

Our client in this matter was Homeland Security. Is Homeland Security. He did not argue. He should have taken the case.

He shouldn't argue it if that's what he was going to do. He's on administrative leave now. But yes, you have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client. And joining me now is NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley.

Good to have you with us here. So we're processing a Law. And the Supreme Court has just given the government what it asked for, more time. What is your takeaway on that?

Well, I am a little surprised. There was always one scenario where they just wouldn't weigh in, that they wouldn't give this administrator to stay. They'd stay quiet on the issue, wait until they were able to weigh in on the merits of this case and allow the district judge's order to stay, which could have put them in contempt of court territory, which is the same thing happening here in D.C. with a very similar case regarding the authority to deport Those people on March 15th of whichever and not turn the planes around.

The Supreme Court is not weighing on that. Why did they decide to weigh in here? I'm wondering that it could just be a matter of time. We understand that it could be that they were arguing, as you said, it was impossible to get him back and that the Supreme Court.

Right, right, exactly. And of course, we know that the Justice Department lawyer who's out and put on leave didn't necessarily say it was impossible, but it could be that the Supreme Court thought, well, until we can figure out really what authority the US has here in terms of talking to El Salvador, getting this man out of prison and getting him here by midnight tonight, I mean, the judge did not leave more than 3, 4 days to get this in order. Maybe they thought the timeline wasn't achievable. But it is certainly a little bit of a shock here and especially to his family, who may have expected them back in the country tonight.

And there had been an earlier lower court decision about this, I know had made the family more hopeful about wanting to be able to bring him back. And the government has been saying that because they have left the United States and they don't have direct authority over El Salvador, and yet the US Is paying for this detention in El Salvador, has a good relationship with the president there. So it would seem, especially in your reporting, that there are channels to try to do. Of course.

In fact, a lower court judge on Friday pointed out the fact that Secretary of Homeland Security Christy Dummich is inside that prison with US Media walking freely around. It's not as if someone is in the hands of an alien or an enemy nation and that there's no relations to get this person back. And this is a case where the Trump administration, as you know, Kelly, said that they made a mistake here. It was an administrative error.

But in this case, they're saying that they are somehow their hands are tied and they cannot bring him back. I know you've been tracking this closely. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

We also now want to speak with a lawyer who is been representing the man and his family from Maryland. And so I know you've got a lot of insight on this. Simon Sonoval Moschenburg is here with us in the case that centers on Kilnara Brago Garcia. So I'm glad you are here.

We want to get your first reaction to what the Supreme Court has said. How surprised are you and what do you think the next steps are? Yeah, I mean this is a temporary administrative stay. It doesn't say how many days or even hours it's going to last.

But we have every confidence that the Supreme Court is going to resolve this matter as fast as possible. So just a little bit of a pause in your view then, not anything that is changing the direction of your strategy. That's exactly right. It was a one sentence word from the Chief Justice.

You know, the Supreme Court needs a little bit of time to get their hands around this. And do you get a sense that they will speak again through the court or is this going back now to the local. No, there will be a more fulsome opinion that the Supreme Court will issue on the request for a stay. A full stay would essentially say the government, you don't have to obey the order at all while we engage in this protracted litigation.

It's buying us time, which is not the thing you want. I know. Have you been able to speak with Mr. Rodrego Garcia's family since this decision came down?

Very, very briefly. It was just minutes ago. But it's been a real yo yo weekend for his wife. Between the really stirring decision of the 4th Circuit denying a say and denying the administrative state.

Unanimous, all three judges. And then you know, followed by this. It's been a lover. And you've also said that if the government were to begin to act in good faith, as you would see it, you would, you would want to respond in a different way.

And what are you looking for from the government? Absolutely. Look, I don't think there's anyone in this whole country who doesn't recognize the truth of this matter, which is that they could pick up the phone and work this out, you know, with one phone call. Right.

The impossibility defense is not based on any facts that they presented to the court. It's based on essentially their legal contention that they shouldn't have to. But in the end, the district judge started the hearing by saying, I'm only going to rule based on the evidence in the Record. I don't want to hear anything outside of the evidence.

And there was no evidence on impossibility. And the reason that there was no evidence on impossibility is that they haven't tried. They haven't so much just picked up the phone. And do you have any pathways outside of the litigation that you're involved in to try to reach officials in El Salvador directly to try to make a deal on a humanitarian grounds, perhaps?

Is there a way for you to even establish that kind of open. We haven't even established so much contact with Mr. River. The family hired a lawyer in El Salvador to try to arrange a jail visit.

But El Salvador has been under state of emergency for several years. They suspended the rid of habeas corpus and having not. Unfortunately, I think the administration is still narrow right now because the country looks to represent civil human rights. Now, the administration has alleged that your client has an affiliation with the NS13 gang.

Are you concerned, is his family concerned, that even if he has returned to the United States as you work this through the courts, that the administration would still have the position that it intends to deport him to a different country? Yeah, we are ready to face those charges on the merits. If they really believe that what they should have done is bring a case against him, immigration court, not just bundle them onto an airplane. You know, they're facing human traffic or all kinds of crazy stuff.

What do we do in this country when we have someone we think has committed crimes against the United States? We file charges and then we extradite them back to the country. Right. Drug dealers from Colombia, cartel leaders from Mexico.

Bring him back here. You want to bring charges against him? We're ready to face that head on. But from the United States.

And what do you make of the Department of Justice putting an attorney representing the government who was involved in this case on leave? It's a striking thing to take place right after your case was argued. How might this complicate the next steps you face? The practical implication of it for us is it means we don't even have a negotiation partner.

Right. I mean, we would be happy. We've been happy all along to work this matter out. Right?

Send me email, pick up a phone, give me call. Let's figure out how to get this done. We're not the ones who made this. This is one guy from Maryland, right.

He's a father, he's a shema worker, that this had to go to the Supreme Court of the United States for prosperous. Right. And it's the government that made that decision on us. Can you give us a sense of how the family is doing?

I mean, they're just really the main concern is, you know, when, when they see generous in background, what condition is he going to be in? Well, we certainly wish you the best and we appreciate the updates on this important case and one that certainly is tied into huge issues in our country right now. Thank you so much for your time. Good to hear.

And we're also learning about another individual who was reported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies act despite having no known criminal record. Andre Hernandez Romero, a gay man who worked as a makeup artist, is now also being held in the notorious mega prison, despite his family and lawyer denying he's affiliated with any gang. Joining me now is NBC News correspondent David Norego, who has been covering this story. And David, I know that you have more insight into Mr.

Hernandez, what the family is saying about his detention in El Salvador. You what did you tell us? Yeah, Kelly, so I spoke to his mother and very close friend of his from childhood and learned more about him as a person and how he wound up in the situation that he's in. So and then the authorities, the evidence that the authorities gave for linking him to the Nagawa, the Venezuelan gang that he has tattoos of crowns on each of his wrists, they say that this is a marker of belonging to this Venezuelan gang.

Now, experts that have spoken to my report on that dye say that is not true, that in fact, this is gang that generally speaking does not use tattoos as markers of membership in the way that some other gangs like MS.13 do. In addition to that, Anandis's family told me that those specific tattoos have a very innocent explanation. Anand is from a small town in Venezuela that is known for having a very sort of elaborate theatrical festival to celebrate Three Kings Day. This is a Christian holiday in January.

When Anandis was growing up, this festival is how he discovered his love for costume design, theater and for what eventually became his career, which is makeup. He would design and sew his own costumes for the parade, would do makeup for the parade, and he had very close personal appreciation for this event. And the crowns on his wrists are referencing, you know, their symbol for the three kings. Ms.

Family says he has absolutely no gang affiliation whatsoever, has no criminal history. Government records, in fact, confirmed that he entered, but he crossed the US Border to seek asylum, indicated that they had no that he had no known criminal record. And Kelly, his family has not been able to hear from him at all. They had no news of him whatsoever for weeks because this night represent in Salvador, who's been deported, does not allow any contact with the people inside.

His friend from childhood told me also that given that Hernandez is gay, she is very concerned for what his sexual orientation might mean with regards to the treatment that he might receive in this pretty infamously tough prison. Kelly, you touched on a couple of questions I have, wanting to know, is there any update on how he is doing and his potential for being even more vulnerable in this setting? You've also been studying Trende Aragua and looking at it more broadly. Why is this such a focus of the administration based on what think you so to answer your first question, they have absolutely no news of Venunes and this is true of every family that has a loved one in that facility at this point.

To answer your second question, Kelly, you know, the gang thing feels a very specific role in the Trump administration. This is a very real gang, very violent gang with a strong presence across Latin America that's tied to the massive exodus of millions of Venezuelans from that country over the last decade or so. And they have been a growing concern for law enforcement, both at the federal and state level in the United States for some years now. However, critics of the Trump administration say that the role the gang plays has more to do with its political use as a sort of opinion than the reality that the gang represents as an actual, you know, criminal structure.

It's something akin to the role that NS13 played in the first Trump administration. The reporting that I ve been on TA shows that they have a sort of modus operandi which involves moving along with traveling with, you know, large waves of Venezuelan migrants. And so when several hundred thousand Venezuelans are around in the U.S. some of them, a very, very small number of them, were found to have been affiliated with tva.

Interestingly, Kelly, their criminal operations, the way that they're structured, by and large, the targets of those criminal operations are other Venezuelan migrants they sort of prey on in this kind of parasitic way. They prey on these migrant flows for their criminal operations, which include everything from sex trafficking to drug trafficking. And I do want to say, Kelly, some very, very violent crimes have been accused of murders, of armed robberies. It's law enforcement definitely considers a very serious problem, a serious force to contend with.

Then again, there's a gap between the reality of the gang and the way it's being presented as sort of invading force that requires invoking, for example, the Alina's act. Well, that's very helpful context. David, I appreciate your time today and thank you for reporting your insights on this and after the break, more on the big takeaways from this afternoon's Oval Office meeting and a Q and A session with the president and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and what's next in the war against Hamas. You're watching MEET now.

Welcome back. Now, as we mentioned, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu met today in the Oval Office. And while the focus was largely on the recently announced U.S. tariffs, President Trump also made some news, big news that on any other day would have been a real, real headline.

We're getting to it now because we want you to be up to date on this and that is that the US Is engaged in direct talks with Iran. Joining me now is Von Hillier to the White House and Vaughn, really, on any other day this would be blaring headline. And so give us a sense of what is the timeline of this, what is the focus of the US And Iran in direct negotiations, not using intermediary as we have for many years. Right, Kelly, as the Biden administration did.

Of course, it was back in 2018 when the Trump administration pulled out of the joint nuclear agreement with several European countries and Iran that was ultimate constructed during the Obama administration, an agreement that was made in 2015. And effectively over the last years, the US has been on the outside as Iran has worked to enrich their nuclear capabilities. And what the president in the White House this afternoon indicated is that members of his administration and top officials in Iran will be meeting to have direct talks. Exactly.

Those individuals are not clear to us here at this time. But there this will be a big step for the Trump administration, notably at the time that the proxies of Iran, from Hezbollah to Hamas have taken major hits in recent months here. And so the question is whether Iran is looking to potentially make an agreement with the Trump administration. The president on his part suggested if they don't go the route of a new nuclear deal, the other option would be less desirable.

Indicating, of course, without saying the words that that other option would most likely be a military attack. And if we could be flying on the wall, Benjamin Netanyahu must have some feelings about this. He, of course, has a very aggressive position toward Iran and not wanting them to have nuclear capability. And his friend is now willing to have this direct talks.

You get a sense that with the, the ongoing conflict, the trying to get a ceasefire to resume with Hamas and Israel, that that is going to play into this as well. Right? I think that's a good point that you make there. Of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu has urged the Americans to push back harder.

And in terms of sanctions, Iran may be looking for relief from the US as part of these negotiations. But when we're talking about the cease fire that eventually essentially came to a halt just several weeks ago when Israel began attacking again, saying that they would be resuming their war against Hamas and Gaza, this is a moment where the president said he would like to see an additional cease fire be struck. But he himself suggested that the US Is still interested in taking over Gaza and having some real estate deal in Gaza here. But this for the administration was a hard fought ceasefire agreement early on in this administration.

There are serious questions going forward about what this Israel, Israel, Hamas wars look like going ahead. Peace and future development all on the table today. Thank you so much. Appreciate the reporting.

And still to come, a second unvaccinated child has now died from measles in Texas. We'll have the latest on the outbreak and HHS Secretary Kennedy's visit to the epicenter of that outbreak. You're watching MEET THE Press now. We're glad you're back with us.

And now an update on the measles outbreak. A second child has died in the rapidly spreading outbreak in Texas. The child had been hospitalized with complications from the disease and had not been vaccinated. Two unvaccinated children have died in Texas in recent weeks, the first confirmed fatalities from measles in the United States in a decade.

As Of Friday, nearly 500 cases have been confirmed in Texas since January and more than 600 cases have been confirmed nationwide this year. NBC's Priscilla Thompson reports from the epicenter of this outbreak in Lubbock, Texas. In Lubbock, Texas, sadly, a nightmare scenario continues to unfold on the ground here in West Texas, largely among unvaccinated children. Doctors here confirming that a child died from pulmonary failure related to measles.

This is the second unvaccinated child to die from the virus this year amid a rapid spread. Now, healthy Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Did travel to Texas on Sunday to attend that young girl's funeral, afterwards tweeting out that the MMR vaccine is the most effective way to stop the spread of measles.

That was his most direct statement yet as someone who in the past has been a vaccine skeptic and downplayed the severity of this measles outbreak. Now, we've also spoken to folks here in the community, including the owner of a day daycare where six children have contracted the illness. And she says that she needs more federal support and has been frustrated with the response, saying that sometimes when kids are tested on a Friday, they aren't able to get those results until a Monday or Tuesday. And that is just not good enough.

So a lot of growing concern here on the ground. And the other thing that we're watching is these massive federal funding cuts to local health departments. Just in the last week, dozens of measles clinics in Texas were canceled. But RK Jr has said that he's redeploying CDC teams to this area and working with the state to contain the outbreak.

Back to you. And our thanks to Priscilla for that report. We're back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.

This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.

She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.