Hey Ontario. Come on down to BETMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price Is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show only at BetMGM.
Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Cliffhanger and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BETMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the prices right Fortune Pick Pull up a seat and experience the prices right Fortune Pick only available at BETMGM Casino. BETMGM and games remind you to play responsibly 19 plus to wager Ontario only Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.
BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with High Gaming Ontario. If it's Monday, President Trump, Vice President Vance and Elon Musk all take aim at the judicial branch as federal judges intervene to slow down the administration's crusade to slash federal workers and federal funds without Congress, plus manufacturers, workers and investors all brace for the president's next move on tariffs as he vows to impose sweeping new penalties on steel and aluminum coming into the United States. And Democrats begin to name their price as the party looks to maximize its leverage at a pair of crucial spending fights to fund the government and avoid a catastrophic government default. Hi there.
Welcome to Meet the Press. Now my nobles in Washington, where the Trump administration is pressing forward with its swift and dramatic overhaul of the federal government despite pushback from the courts and warning of a pending constitutional crisis from some Democrats. Today, a federal judge determined that the Trump administration is violating the court's order to lift the blanket spending freeze on federal grant programs. In his order, the judge says that the administration must immediately come into compliance with his order.
It comes as the Trump administration has grown increasingly angry with the courts after federal judges halted some of the administration's most sweeping and controversial agenda items, including its efforts to end birthright citizenship, its attempt to dismantle usaid, its proposed buyout offers for federal workers, and Elon Musk and Doge's access to a vital treasury system. President Trump this weekend defended Musk's work and criticized judges who ruled against him. We have to find all of the fraud that's going on. We have tremendous fraud, tremendous waste and tremendous abuse and theft, by the way.
And the day you're not allowed to look for theft and fraud, etc. Then we don't have much of a country. So no judge should be, no judge should frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision. It's a disgrace.
Musk, meanwhile, is now calling for the impeachment of the judge who ruled against him. And Vice President J.D. vance is suggesting the administration may not comply with court orders curtailing their authority, tweeting yesterday, quote, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. We're also keeping an eye on a federal courthouse in Boston where judge held a hearing this afternoon on a challenge to whether the Trump administration's buyout plan for federal workers can move forward. The hearing is joined without a decision, but the judge says the temporary restraining order remains in place. A ruling could come at any time.
For more now, I'm joined by NBC News White House correspondent Aaron Gilbrace, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delegian, and Robert Tsai, professor at Boston University School of Law. He's also a constitutional law scholar. Errol Sar, with the view there from outside the White House, what's been the reaction right now from the administration to the judges ruling that they are not in compliance or in violation of that funding freeze by a court order? And it's the Trump administration planning to plow forward with it regardless of any of these judges rulings.
So no explicit direct reaction to that judge's order at this point. We've also reached out to the doj, who's been arguing these cases for the Trump administration. We know now that there have been at least a couple dozen challenges to some of these orders and actions taken by President Trump in the three weeks or so since he took office. It seems as though this effort is going to continue.
The overall effort, we've been told from the White House, is to shrink government spending, to reduce the federal workforce at the same time and to make sure that there is not fraud, wasted abuse happening in government agencies. That is something that we understand is going to continue to happen as we've been watching different agencies receive directions from the Office of Personnel Management and other places to change how they're functioning or to pause their functioning, as was the case with the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the weekend. And so it seems as though at this point, Ryan, the administration fully intends to move Forward, despite the statement that you've read about, read from X, from Vice President Vance, there's been no explicit expression or statement from the White House that intends to ignore any of the court orders that may result from the challenges that it's dealing with right now. So, Columbia, on this, what are the consequences here if they decide that, that they just don't want to comply with this order?
Who's going to stop them? That is a great practical question. Legally, the consequences could be criminal contempt. The judge began his order by quoting a Supreme Court case.
I just want to read what he put in the order. It says persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt, even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. What does criminal contempt mean? It can mean that a judge can throw somebody in jail.
Who's this judge throw in jail? Some hapless DOJ lawyer that's standing in his courtroom. Not Donald Trump. He's got orderly marshals to go and arrest some OMB executive.
We're really in uncharted waters here. So, Aaron, let's now go to another topic here. And this is the White House attempting to essentially dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And what's the agency saying about that agency right now?
What's the administration, I should say, saying about the future of that agency? Yeah, I was going to say the agency isn't saying anything. One of the directives that it got over the weekend was that not make public statements. And so we know at this point that the Russell Vote vote, the head of the Office of Management and Budget has taken control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has effectively stopped its functions.
It's told the employees that work at headquarters here in D.C. not to come into the building that will be closed this week. And at the same time, we now know that there are at least two lawsuits that have been filed against him. Russell Volt, the director of omb, saying that his directives are not legal in effect and that the folks on Elon Musk team should not be given access to employee records and systems at the cfpb.
This is an agency that was stood up during the Obama administration to make sure that consumers are being treated fairly by banks and lenders. It has said that his website, they secured $21 billion in relief for consumers. The White House, though, put out an email earlier today that said that that's an agency that's been weaponized. It has used a WOKE ideology and that it's been targeting industries that it simply doesn't like.
And that's the reason that they're taking a look at it and potentially looking, Ryan, to shut it down. And Aaron, even though the administration has faced a number of legal setbacks as they attempt this kind of massive reshaping of government, they don't seem to be slowing down. Right now, we're being told the DOGE is looking at the State Department. What do we know about their actions at Foggy Bottom?
Yeah. So our understanding of the State Department is that they there are now DOGE members, people who work with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, who now have workspace and staff at the State Department, as they do at several other agencies around the government now tasked with reviewing their systems and reviewing their spending. That's part of what we've been told is the job that Elon Musk and his team are doing. The State Department Race to Part is not commenting on potentially the presence of DOGE members inside the State Department.
But Ryan, as we've been talking about, they've shown up at treasury, they've shown up in other places. The president has told us point blank they intend for them to look at the Department of Education, that he intends for them to take a look at the Department of Defense as well. And so I think it's fair to expect that we're going to see, before this is all said and done, some members from that team in every agency that is under the executive branch. Let me bring you back in.
And the question here is, obviously the judge can tell them that they can't do something. How can the judge make sure that they're not doing what he tells them not to do? For instance, he said they can't be in the treasury system anymore. Do they have to prove that they've pulled access away?
Where's the checks and balance here in this process? Well, in this case, the checks and balances, the lawyers for the other side coming to him, if they have evidence that the order is not being valid, they present that evidence. But you're right, it's limited because they don't have access to the treasury systems. They're not inside there, although they may represent employees who may be able to get information.
But you're getting to the heart of what is, we're using this term a lot, a constitutional crisis. This really is a huge deal, a president defying the orders of a federal court. We have not been in this situation before. I mean, law in our country is a check on government power.
The government has a right to kill people, to cage people the government has the guns and the courts are the check on an abuse of that authority and the president starts to defy the orders of a federal court, we are in big trouble. And it's interesting too, Ken, because would it indicate that they don't take these rulings very seriously if they've been told to stop in one agency, but then yet they continue doing it in other agencies like as Aaron's reporting at the State Department and other places? Yeah, I don't want to go too far with this. Look, government agencies and litigants play games with federal courts all the time.
They sort of try to get around compliance, they over lawyer things. But at some point, we get a very stark refusal to comply. And particularly, I think the stakes are going to be raised if it goes to the appellate court level and if it goes to the Supreme Court level, if the Supreme Court says, look, he can't do this, and then Donald Trump defies that, that would be unimaginable. Then let's talk more about specific cases.
This is the court hearing, Boston. This is the challenge to Trump's administration's federal buyout plan. They adjourned about a decision tonight. What happens next?
So as I understand it, he left the temporary restraining order in place, so that program is now suspended. And then we'll have to wait and see what this judge does. But it does kind of put all the people who've already accepted this main limbo because they thought they were getting a deal where they're being paid for eight months not to work, essentially. It really does put a question mark over that program.
Okay. All right, Ken, Lenny, Aaron Gilbert, thank you for that. A lot. To start with as we kick off this broadcast, let's now turn to Robert Sahi's constitutional expert here.
Professor, every day it seems to be that we're reporting on Doge inside a different federal agency or department. At some point, can we expect a legal challenge to DOGE itself and its actual authority? I think so. You know, eventually people are going to understand that there's a kind of broader plan here.
The logic behind these moves so far has been that you've got a handful of people basically deconstructing aspects of the state that have been disliked by number of conservatives, but also corporations and billionaires. And they're basically daring Congress first to do something about it. And so far, what we've seen is Congress has not yet been able to assert its own powers and protect them. If anything, by putting VOT into omb, knowing exactly what is going on, the GOP has basically endorsed this plan at the moment.
The question is, now, you know, what's going to happen with the judiciary? Is the crisis going to spread? Is judicial involvement going to make things better and turn down the temperature? But I think there's this deeper constitutional theory about the power of the presidency that underlies all of moves that eventually will have to be addressed.
So I do expect that eventually, when the escalating measures to try to get compliance with the TROs, eventually the preliminary injunctions don't work, you're going to see more efforts to basically challenge the handing over of the keys of public functions to private actors like Elon Musk. Well, I'm sure your conversation with Ken and Aaron, are there any mechanisms to address what happens if the executive branch just ignores these orders from a judge? Well, the good news is that we've seen portions of this and versions of this in the past. And so we do have protocols in place.
Right. We start the judge starts with escalating fines, and they start with people who are at the low levels of the governance say, who they bring in. And if those don't work, then we start to ratchet up the consequences. So we do have some measures in place.
And most of the time that works. And also most of the time what happens is government lawyers decide that they no longer want to articulate outlandish constitutional theories that judges aren't buying, and so they stop making those kinds of arguments. So eventually we start to see, I think, forms of compliance. But whether that actually moves the line significantly in the direction that this particular person would like anyway would be the deeper question.
And isn't there a question as to whether or not we are dealing in normal times here? Does past precedents apply to the situation that we're dealing with right now? Well, certainly from the standpoint of judges in courts, they always take a long view. And precedents don't suddenly lose their power simply because someone claims to be in extraordinary moments.
But I will say that more broadly, we are in an unusual moment. We are both in the age of populism, especially right wing populism, and we see that there are lots of people trying to exploit the discontent that we are facing. So you have a lot of people who are applauding President Trump's extremely aggressive and unprecedented actions and justifying people who are horrified by what's going on. I do want to return to one thing, which is the judges order in Rhode island, which I think represents what I call normal order.
To the extent that judges are trying to enforce normal order, what that judge said was as far as he was concerned. He'd already said that the administration's actions represented a broad, categorical and sweeping freeze that was unlike that, was likely to be unconstitutional. And everything he's seen so far is still pointing him in that direction. So the question will be whether the rest of the country sees it that way and then, of course, whether the administration will adjust its behavior.
I wonder if you can track any of this back to the Supreme Court decision last year when they were dealing with Donald Trump in his immunity claim during his criminal trial and the fact that the court ruled that the president has sweeping authority under that directive. Do you think that any of that decision can be interpreted to include some of the actions that we're seeing from this administration? Well, certainly that opinion about presidential immunity, which many of us thought was broadening the scope of immunity beyond what the historical evidence and the text of the Constitution permitted, would embolden someone like Donald Trump. Lots of people warned that this would happen.
And I think that it's the kind of opinion that especially for someone who lacks that kind of civic virtue, it doesn't matter to such a leader who gets thrown into the hopper and gets sort of chewed up and spit out. So there might may be people who get dragged into court for whom attorneys fees will go way up. But I think that's the scenario at the moment that we're facing is you have more people dragged into court and we'll see. Okay.
Robert Tsai, thank you for trying to make sense of all this for us, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for being here. My pleasure.
Coming up, a fragile ceasefire on the brink. Hamas says it is delaying the next scheduled hostage release as Israel prepares for potential military action. And President Trump now says Palestinians should be removed from Gaza for good. Plus, a new bill aims to ban special government employees like Elon Musk from getting federal contracts.
Congressman Mark Ock joins me to talk about his legislation and the brewing battle over government funding. That's next. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back.
Government funding expires on March 14, and congressional Democrats appear to be gearing opt to use that deadline as leverage to fight back against President Trump's agenda. In a letter today, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Republicans to go get serious about that legislation, reminding them it will require support from Democrats to get to the president's desk. That comes after multiple Senate Democrats told NBC's Welker in recent days that they would not support a bill from the government if the Trump administration was Just going to continue dismantling it. Would you vote against a bill to keep the government open out of protest for what you're seeing unfolding?
If the bill is going forward in order to let Trump continue this unconstitutional process, then absolutely, I would vote against it. I cannot support efforts that will continue this lawlessness that we're seeing when it comes to this administration's actions. And for us to be able to support government funding that way, only for that to turn around to dismantle the government, that is not something that should be allowed. And joining me on set to discuss this, Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Mark Pokan.
Congressman, you heard Senator Merkley there. Your former House colleague Andy came from New Jersey saying that Republicans shouldn't count on Democrats to vote over a government shutdown without rolling back some of these early moves by the Trump administration. Can you support that position? Well, right now, we're not in charge of the House or the Senate.
So, first of all, the Republicans have to figure this out. So far, they haven't. But what we do know is two deals we had in the last session, one with Mike Johnson, one with Kevin McCarthy, that they broke the deal after we made it. So I don't think there's anyone waiting for the football to be held out, and we're just gonna kick at it.
Right? Anything we get has to be verifiable and has to be substantial as we're moving forward. But if it's just what they're doing right now, which is a bunch of lawlessness and cutting the programs, I think they're gonna have a very difficult time getting any Democratic support. And they can't even get Republicans, at least in the House anyway, to prove anything.
And that's their problem. Do you think that's a leverage point in these conversations? Because I wonder, I mean, there may be more than a couple Republican colleagues that wouldn't be all that bothered by government shutdown. No, definitely.
That's part of the problem is their caucus makes Adams family look like an 1850s quintessential American family. Right. There's Cousin Morticia, Uncle Fester. They can't all agree on something.
And until they do, they're going to have the problems that they're having. But we're getting closer and closer to March 14, and they just keep doing this, you know, completely allowing the president to run everything, giving up all congressional authority. I don't see how at this point, you don't have a shutdown. I just don't think they have the competence to get it done in time.
Okay, there's another level in the summer and that's the debt ceiling. I want to play it for you, Rokhano. Another one of your colleagues said on MSNBC yesterday, Hakeem Jeffries is a fighter. And here's where we're going to make the fight.
The debt ceiling and the funding government. They're going to need Democratic votes. Chip Roy is not going to go vote for the debt ceiling. And Akeem Jeffries and the Democratic Caucus are going to be unified.
Not a single vote unless every dollar of Congress's appropriation authorization legislation is spent. And we have very much clarity that nothing's gonna happen without the congressional branch and we're gonna win that fight. You know, I've talked to a lot of you guys around these fights over debt ceiling and over government funding. And Democrats said that you can't hold these things hostage in these negotiations.
There's too much at stake. Are you willing to hold something like the nation's credit rating hostage in order to get what you're holding out of these negotiations? Here's the problem. The holy grail for Republicans right now is the tax cut for Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and a bunch of other billionaires.
It's gonna cost at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years. So I don't think Democrats are gonna rush to do anything that's gonna help, you know, do a giant transfer of wealth, literally destroying programs within the Department of Education and help people internationally and now helping consumers, justifying money for Elon Musk. So as long as that's the plan, I don't think you're gonna find a lot of people rising to help that tax rate for the wealthiest. So the big picture here, you're no on any bill that doesn't reverse these spending cuts.
Well, you have to see what the bill is going to be. But I can tell you we're not going to enable a giant tax cut, a transfer of wealth from people in my district in the middle class and aspiring to be the middle class to Elon Musk. They're playing rich. And we're not going to just let you know, Donald Trump, again, help the people go to Mar a Lago.
We're going to help people who live in Wisconsin. Okay, let's talk about Elon Musk because you have a new bill out. It would ban special government employees as Elon Musk has been designated for having federal contracts. It's likely not to go anywhere in a Republican controlled House.
So what's your motivation for Putting this out for pure information, you know, I mean, it makes no sense to have someone who's got this already. Not sure if it's legal role that he has of turning on and off the spigots of federal agencies at the same time having at least he's had over $20 billion of federal contracts, about 3 billion right now, plus some undisclosed ones in regard to Ukraine. And as a member of Congress, I can't have a federal contract on the side. As a federal employ, you can't have a federal contract in your related area on the side.
Why are we allowing Elon Musk? I mean, think about any agency if you want survival, oh, I might have a contract for you, Mr. Musk. That's corruption, right?
We've gotten rid of that. That's why we have the laws in place that don't allow us to have federal contracts. But to allow Elon Musk too is really. This is drifting at levels that make Donald Trump look like an elementary schooler.
And Elon Musk is a PhD at ripping people off. But isn't this, wouldn't this be a problem for the government? Because Elon Musk is already pretty entangled with the federal government, right? He's got billions of dollars in contracts with SpaceX and some of his other companies.
Is there any way to undo this? Then he should keep his contracts if they're that important to his business. But then he doesn't get this special position again, that may not even be legal of turning on and off federal funds. But to have both, I mean, it's nothing but right for corruption.
And that's why we have to stand out against it. Now the administration seems to be insistent that there are guardrails or firewalls for Elon Musk when it comes to his access to some of the sensitive material. The National Security Advisor told Kristen that over the weekend if he ends up getting into the Pentagon, that he won't just have broad access across the board. Do you trust the White House when they tell you that Elon Musk's.
His intervention in some of these areas comes with safeguards? Of course not. I mean, look, he just did to usaid, literally, they're dismantling the sign, telling everyone not to come into work. Even after a judge ruled he couldn't do that.
They turned back workers today who went into shelter work like they were supposed to do at usaid. So why would I trust a guy that doesn't follow the federal courts to say that somehow Elon Musk, don't worry, he'll be all right. You know, this is the problem with having a bunch of billionaires into this administration whose main goal in life is to profit. That's not how we do things.
We do things for the public good. And Elon Musk has shown no comprehension of what the public good is. So. So I'm going to challenge a little bit on the public good and what people's perception of the public good is right now, because There's a new CBSUGA poll that has President Trump's approval rating at 53%.
This is after all these controversial moves that his government has put in place here in the first couple weeks of their administration. Is the public not getting the message that you're selling right now, or do they actually like that he's come to Washington and shaking things? I think people are looking, first of all, look at where Elon Musk is at, because I think that's the more pertinent number because he's kind of the fall guy right now doing this. But obviously Donald Trump is allowing him to do this.
But why do you allow the world's richest person to come and literally take funds from the world's poorest people to have this tax cut? That's their holy grail. They want to do this in April. That's why.
Watch everything in how it is in regard to a tax cut for the wealthiest. They promised us they're going to lower cost for the average American. Have we seen that? Not at all.
But what they're doing is finding these dollars. And I think they're going to have some fake money on paper for tariffs as well to try to justify this tax cut they're going to do. But last time they put us trillions of dollars in debt to do it. This time they're trying to do it by actually cutting programs that help real people.
So let me try and pinpoint Donnis. Do you think it's the Republicans aren't aware of that yet? Because 70% of the people in this poll say that he's following through on his campaign promises. If people don't know yet, I mean, you know, like right now, agriculturally in Wisconsin, huge part of our economy.
You know, there are 2600 federal lines. A couple weeks ago, they're going to be cut. And they said they resisted the order and they said not the order. Actually, the OMB memo, You know, Donald Trump, remember the debate when he said he had a concept of a plan for healthcare.
He doesn't have plans for everything. He has concept of plans. And then you watch them unroll as sloppily as they're unrolling. And that's the problem, is the public doesn't know what to understand.
He's flooded the zone. You can't really easily focus on any one thing. But for those of us who do, we're telling you this is a major grifting, a major piece of corruption to be able to take money from programs that help my constituents and instead take it to fund a tax break for Elon Musk. And while he's at it, he might get a few more federal contracts at point.
People really understand it. No one's going to want that. Republicans. All right.
We're going to leave our comments. Thank you much for. Appreciate it. Sure.
Thank you. Coming up, President Trump vows sweeping tariffs on steel and aluminum to critical U.S. imports. What it means economically and politically.
That's next. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back. President Donald Trump is expected to announce 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports today, marking the latest in a series of terrorist tariff announcements and threats by the president.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One last night, the president also signaled that he would be using reciprocal tariffs on other countries. Listen, every country will be reciprocal. It won't affect everybody because they're somewhere. We have similar tariffs.
But the ones that are taking advantage of the United States, we're going to have a reciprocity. Any steel coming into the United States is going to have have a 25% tariff. Aluminum, 25 above the US imports more steel from Canada than any other country. President Trump seemed to indicate those reciprocal tariffs would be on any country that taxes American exports, but it didn't specify when they would go into effect.
Today's tariff news comes as China's retaliatory tariffs on several American products officially go into effect. Joining me now, NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez and NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung. Okay, Trump expected to announce those 25 steel and aluminum tariff sometime today. What do we know about the details of that plan when it could be put into place?
Hi there. Well, a lot of those details are still up in the air. You just heard the president on the Air Force One yesterday saying that it would happen today, but it's now 4:30 or so Eastern time and has yet to happen, although we do expect it to happen at some point today. But a lot of the details, as I mentioned, Ryan, are still up in the air.
I've been speaking with several people, including one business owner who fears that These tariffs since 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum will end up being passed along to the American consumer. Still, U.S. steel workers have come out and said that they support this plan because it'll drive up demand, they think, for American goods. I should point out during the first Trump administration the president did impose 25% tariffs on steel, 10% tariffs on aluminum back then.
But the following year he rolled those back for Mexico, Canada and Australia. Again, we are waiting on more details about what this round of tariffs, what the details to want. Okay, we'll talk more about the other terms potentially happening. But Brian, let me go to you on this.
I mean, what could a 25% steel and aluminum tariff, what kind of impact could that have on the US Economy? Yeah, well, this is an industry specific tariff which in theory applies to imports from any country. But make no mistake about it, this steel and aluminum tariffs target specifically our neighbors to the north and south. Just weeks after we thought we had avoided a tariff war with Mexico and Canada, which had been staved off of for all imports until March 1st at least.
But you have the major importers of aluminum and steel again coming from Canada. So you look at aluminum, Canada is a major import to the United states with over $9 billion in imports coming into the United States. That is far above the next leaders in that space when comes to uae, South Korea and China. Take a look though at imports when it comes to steel.
Canada also number one, $6.6 billion by the way, that accounts for over 20% of all imports into the United States. The second next importer, Mexico, at 3.2 billion, that's over 10%. So whether or not the countries then have to re engage with the United States about perhaps another negotiation to make those tariffs not happen remains to be seen. And we haven't seen the Texas as gauges pointed out, but this could have very real wide ranging effects on American prices because you get things like of course aluminum, the cans that you have a lot of consumer packaged goods, of course, cans of soda that can make that marginally go up in prices.
But when it comes to steel, things like appliances, cars and trucks, heavy machinery, those things can get more expensive as well. And again, the concern here is that those companies that have to front the bill of paying those import taxes might have to pass those on. Answers Right. And then there's obviously the probably direct impact there could be on consumers.
But then there's also the possibility that these countries themselves might spark retaliatory tariffs. Is that concern by the White House about these particular tariffs and the other tariffs that the President is at this point the White House is brushing off any of those concerns. But you're right, places like Australia, they're warning of potential reciprocal retaliatory tariffs. And this all comes as the president really he has made tariffs such a central part of his campaign.
Reciprocal tariffs, for example, is not a technical term, but it's something that the President often said during his campaign that if other countries wanted to slap a high tariff on the US The US Would come right back. So we're still waiting for any details we can on those reciprocal tariffs in addition to the steel and aluminum tariffs we expect today. But the President did say he would hold some sort of news conference either tomorrow or Wednesday when it comes to these reciprocal tariffs. But we're still waiting on any details from the White House and exactly which countries these will apply to.
As Brian suggested, they could be white region. So Brian, what is a reciprocal tariff and could that shake up the US and global economy mirrors the tariffs that other countries impose on the United States? So I'll give you one example. If you look at things like for example, US Car imports, right?
Cars are made in the US we ship it off the European Union, well, let's say the European Union has a 10% tariff on cars coming in from the United states. When the US will put a 10% tariff on any sort of cars that come from the European Union into the United States. Again, it's basically a tiffer tat, eye for an eye type of tariff. But this is the thing is President Trump is planning this for every country.
But this has a lot of questions when it comes to implementation. As the case with a lot of gen items under this administration, how would you do this? For example, for a country that might have a lower tariff rate than what the United States imposes on them, would that mean that your circle tariff would be the United States actually lowering its tariff rates? That's a question that the right leaning Cato Institute, I think tank based in D.C.
has raised. So again, a lot of questions over what this looks like, I imagine which will get some clarity on once there is some sort of tax executive order or executive action, which we still don't have that. Yeah. But earlier this month the Trump administration increased tariffs on Chinese imports by 10%.
That forced probably the Chinese government to place retaliatory, regulatory, reciprocal, pretty much the same thing, tariffs on American goods. What economic fall have we seen from that? Has it already started to occur? Yeah, well, the Chinese counter tariffs, again as you mentioned, in response to the US 10% tariffs they had China that was responding by taxing of between 10 to 15%, mostly US energy.
So coal, oil, natural gas, those only took effect today. So it's, you know, we shouldn't expect to see sort of immediate impact, let's say, for example, the gas pump tomorrow. But again, it's a very big question when it comes to the US now becoming a major exporter of energy around the world. Energy prices are a very complicated market where everything is indexed to one another, potential prices and everything else that for Lindsay will go up.
We'll have to see that reciprocal retaliatory. Now, Brian introduced counter terrorists. We're going to learn everything about tariffs here over the next couple of weeks. Thing we have both of you help guys.
David Ryan, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. After the break, the Trump agenda clashes with reality on Capitol Hill. As the president pushes a divided Congress for trillions in government spending cuts and trillions in tax breaks.
We'll gain out the size and scope of the fallout. Our panelists actually watching the press now. Welcome back. The House Republican plan to drive forward on President Trump's agenda does seem to be stuck in neutral.
Late last week, House Speaker M. Johnson said he would have details on the sweeping reconciliation bill hammered out alongside President Trump by Monday. Well, I look at the calendar, it's Monday, and we still don't have those details. Here's what Johnson said to reporters on the Hill just moments ago.
This is part of the process. Everybody needs to relax. It takes a lot. We're doing probably what is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in decades for Congress.
And it's got a lot of moving parts. It's very complicated. And I gotta give you a lot of opinions on it. We're working through those opinions.
It just takes time. And joining me on set to talk all about this, please welcome our brand new NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent, Melanie Zanona. My new colleague, Mel, congratulations. Welcome to NBC.
Also, Wena Tolbert, she's the author of A More Perfect Party and NBC News political analyst. And Brendan park, former advisors for Republican House Speaker John Bader and Paul Ryan, he's also an NBC News political analyst. So now we've been here before, Speaker Johnson saying they've got a blueprint for reconciliation. We're gonna see it at any moment.
But then the time keeps ticking. We're getting closer to that March 14 deadline. Really, two different conversations. What's the hold up right now?
Yeah, well, we'll get MC has an admittedly very tough hand right now, but these are his own self imposed timelines that he is blowing past right now. And really what the issue right now is is that Republicans are trying to make the math work right. And what I mean by that is that they have this very expensive and costly list of Trump priorities that are trying to fit into this package. But they also have the demand from hardline conservatives to cut as much as 2 to $2.5 trillion in spending cuts.
And meanwhile, they have these reconciliation rules. They have red lines around not touching things like Medicare and Social Security benefits. And then you have your vulnerable Republicans who don't want them to go after Medicaid and food stamps and other anti poverty programs. So that's the delicate balance that they're trying to even out right now.
And it is proving to be incredibly challenging. You mentioned this too about his own self imposed timeline. He just told our reporters this takes time. We're dealing with one of the most consequential bills in American history.
No one told him that he had to have this snag today. Right. Why is he putting stuff in this position? Well, I think one of the factors is that potentially soon, this week or next week, they're about to lose yet another Republican member when Elisa Phonic leaves the Trump administration.
So they're have a one seat margin, essentially zero room for error. But they know that to move quickly, they're trying to capitalize on a timing phase right now in the Republican Party. The longer things drag out, the harder it is to get stuff done, as we know on Capitol Hill. So we'll see if they can.
And you stick. And we're close to this very ambitious timeline. But in the meantime, you have the Senate moving ahead with their own plans. Brendan, as a House Republican veteran yourself, you know about this time honored tradition of House Republicans getting jammed by the Senate.
We see Lindsey Graham, Oreo with their own version of a budget bill. How difficult does that make the situation for Mike Johnson and how much does it put on? I mean, the Senate passing budget doesn't necessarily mean that's the end of the story. Of course, to get this done, both chambers have to pass the same budget.
But it does put a lot of pressure and explains why Mike Johnson is trying to move so quickly. Mike Johnson has presented this idea that you can do tax reform and you can cut trillions of dollars of spending relatively quickly. I can tell you that takes a long time. We did tax return 2017.
We got done in December. That's a long time from now. And I think some people, especially in the Senate, who have been Around a while. Realize this is a long process, and if you wait until maybe even faster than you wait till the fall, and that's the first real big thing that Donald Trump does legislatively.
What are you doing in the meantime? And you can imagine the president's gonna get pretty impatient at that point. So that's what the Senate is doing. They're breaking this in half and saying greater things that we can do faster.
Immigration, defense, energy, let's put the points on the board. Taxes and all that stuff is gonna take a long time. Let's separate them. Johnson seems basically saying, we'll see if you can pull it off, and asserting that confidence they can pull off.
And there may be some rush out to that. Right. Because you obviously. That front part that Lindsey Graham wants to pass a video, that's the easy stuff.
Right. Don't you sometimes need the easy stuff with the hard stuff in order to get over the finish line? I would be nervous if your plan for passing tax reform relies on an immigration suitor. I mean, that means you have pretty big problems on the tax bill itself.
I think they should be more focused on figuring out what do you need to do on the tax bill to make it into law and not just hope that something else can tell you out of it. So mel laid out $2.5 trillion in cuts. Republicans always seem to love a big number like that. But then the problem comes in when they talk about what they actually want to cut.
Right, exactly. So we're talking about potentially Medicaid and other things. New Jersey Republican Jeff Andrew, a former Democrat, told Punchbowl News, Medicaid isn't just something for people who don't want to work or on welfare. 75 million people in this country get their health care for Medicaid right now because we've increased the limits.
If this works, even more difficult for Republicans when they actually put some teeth around what it doesn't want to cut. Right. Because these are highly popular programs that people want and need and value. And so I think it's important for Democrats to emphasize that in their messaging as well as for Democrats to take a stance in this, like, get in this fight.
There have been so many things that we've already seen from the Donald Trump administration that they can push back on through leveraging. The fact that Republicans will only have that one margin vote. Knowing that Republicans will likely turn to them to try to get this over the finish line like they want, will probably have to do for any legislation that comes through the House. And so one thing that I Did see this weekend that was interest was from Democratic senators saying okay, we might toy with this.
We might toy with delaying the process to get any type of budget legislation passed. We might toy with a shutdown even to try to get some demands met and protections for the public. I could see an argument around Medicaid being one of those arguments for protection. And how do you think that resonates with the American people if the government does get shut down, if they do default on their loans because the debt ceiling doesn't get raised, will Democrats be able to make an effective message that was not a Trump's fault and not theirs?
I think they should be able to knowing what's on the cutting block and coming back to the baseline programs, talking about the real people's needs, about the videos that we saw when federal funding freeze from the obm that memo came out and people were like, oh, am I going to be able to put food on this table for my children? Am I going to be able to pay my bills this month without desperately needed federal aid? Make it tangible, make it real and point it all back to Trump and another very kind of zero down reconciliation. But they still need to get government funded on March 14.
They still have to deal with that ceiling. Are they risk alienating Democrats in this process if they continue this kind of hard charge? I mean they clearly already have it's already negotiated budget deal when Democrats aren't sure the things that they want are actually going to be funded? At the end of the day I'm a little skeptical Democrats are going to be willing to shut down the government over that because they've never really been willing to shoot the hostage in that line.
Hold the line. Any party that is seen as at fault for a shutdown or the person forcing a shutdown always loses, always loses. Even Democrats at this one time when I was there shooting, he lost. That's a Republican thing.
So that's a hard play to it. But let's talk about how the publicans are seeing a lot of this now because I think Democrats have this perception that the earth is falling, the sky is falling I should say. But right now the polls don't wear that out. This new CBS poll has Trump's approval rating 53%.
70% of the people say that he's doing what he promised on the campaign. What can Democrats do change his narrative? I don't know. It's really difficult, I think with Trump.
He's never been more popular ever. You know, whichever metric you look at, even feel it culturally, right. And super bowl yesterday, he was getting cheered while Taylor Swift was being booed. I think for Democrats, though, a lot of it is gonna come down to messaging.
They're really looking to the court system as well to try to block Trump. The problem with that, the court system is slow. And Trump and Mitchell Connell really remade the courts in a conservative image. And so if some of these things go to certain court, I think it's an open question what happens.
And Brendan, and why don't you weigh on this, too? Obviously, he's doing all these really big things that people either horrified or they're thrilled with. But he's also doing things like saying, let's get rid of Penny. Do we need that anymore?
And he's saying, let's do it today. Let's not do a study that takes us 15 years to make this decision. Isn't it also effective? What I'm thinking that the best response to this is, look further into that CBS poll, which shows that it is not popular to launch tariffs against Canada.
Mexico, 56% rejected, 62% rejected. It is not popular. The attention that Donald Trump has put on everything except for lowering the cost of goods, pointing that back to the fact that his actions will likely raise them. That's the message.
Pricing, economy, money. I just think there's been a, a demand for a long time for people to see that trying to do something. They're probably really tired of the status quo. Maybe over time, people will find they don't like the change to the status quo, but they're glad to see somebody get caught trying.
I think that's what he's got going for now. He's at least trying to shake up. People hate Washington. He's coming and saying, I'm not just going to, like, criticize.
I'm going to do stuff. They can do stuff, become popular, too, probably. People don't get rewarded for government. I think the other reality is, though, he has a fault guy, Elon Musk, who's actually doing a lot of the doing right now.
While Donald Trump probably doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Well, this is obviously a conversation we'll have to revisit a couple of months once these things actually do start to get implemented. All right, Mel, Juanita, Brandon, terrific conversation. Appreciate you guys being here.
Now, again, welcome to the NBC. Up next, Hamas accuses Israel of violating the ceasefire deal and says it will delay the release of more hostages as President Trump makes a major shift now, saying the Palestinians won't be allowed back into Gaza under his plan. You're watching Youth the Press now. Welcome back.
New developments in the MA Today are calling into question the future of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Hamas today accusing Israel of violating the deal and saying that it is indefinitely postponing the release of Israeli hostages were set to be free from Gaza this Saturday. In response, Israel's defense minister telling NBC News that Israel's prepared, quote, at the highest level of alert for any possible scenario in Gaza. At the same time, President Trump is now saying the Palestinians would not have the right to return to Gaza under his plan to have the US Take over Gaza.
Initially, the president indicated that Palestinians would be temporarily relocated, but here's what he told FOX News in an interview clip earlier release this morning. We'll build safe communities a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is. In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future.
It would be a beautiful piece of land. No, they wouldn't because they're going to have much better housing. Much better. Over the weekend, Hamas released three Israeli hostages who appeared weak and frail in exchange for 183 Palestinian prisoners.
In return, Israeli forces withdrew from a fortified strip of land to fighting Gaza, allowing more displaced Palestinians to return to the north. Joining up from Taliban, Yasmin Vesuvian. Yasmin, what's behind this change in decision from Hamas? So three separate reasons that we're learning.
It's about passage from the north, excuse me, from the south to the north in Gaza. It's about a humanitarian aid or humanitarian aid being provided. It's about shelling and continued shooting inside Gaza. Well, let me explain more.
So when it comes to humanitarian aid, our understanding is they are allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. The issue is when it comes to tents and caravans, they were promised tents and caravans housing. Essentially when it comes to the ceasefire deal, Palestinian officials essentially saying ample tension. Caravans are not necessarily being provided.
There's a net corridor which divides the north and the south of Gaza. Essentially. Now Gazans are able to travel freely from the south all the way back to north after they have evacuated to the south. What Hamas officials are essentially saying is they have delayed the travel of Palestinians from the south north.
And then finally, as they continued shelling and shootings inside of Gaza, Lupin, we lost four separate Palestinians. Three of them were killed by the IDF near Gaza City. One woman was killed near Khan Yunus as well. I will say we also heard from another Hamas official who's essentially calling this a warning shot, saying, listen we're putting this out here five days before Saturday leading up to the next hostage release, hostage exchange, according to the ceasefire, because we want you to get your ducks in a row, essentially provided humanitarian aid, stop the shootings and the shellings, and allow passage of hostages from the south to the north.
There is also a lot, Ryan, of domestic pressure going on here as well, I have to say, especially from the family forum. You know, there have been continued protests here in Tel Aviv, especially throughout the entire war, wanting to bring these hostages home. They worry now that the ceasefire deal will collapse and the rest of the hostages, 76 remaining, will not make it home. And so we have seen continued protests tonight after this announcement from Hamas.
Ryan, you know, I wonder what role, if any, of President Trump's comments on Gaza played into this decision from Hamas. You know, I don't think we really know. I think it's more of a overarching role, I'll put it that way. And I say that because I think that the Palestinians, the Gazans, they have rebuked, obviously, what the president has said, along with all Arab countries for the most part, from Jordan to Egypt saying, denouncing Palestinians leaving Gaza.
I think that is one part of the puzzle. I don't think it is the entire puzzle. We can talk about, for instance, the release of the hostages on Saturday and Prime Minister Benjamin saying he was shocked by the images of the hostages and that something will be done about it. What that something is, we don't know.
I think a part of it is the fact that Gazan officials, that Hamas essentially said repeatedly they need more humanitarian aid, may feel as if that is not coming to them. I think the rhetoric coming out the of Washington, the possibility that this could feasibly collapse because you see an empowered prime minister who honestly two weeks ago, power was in fact seemed to be at least failing a little bit. And so I think it is kind of the icing on the cake of an incredibly tense situation here in the Middle East. Okay, Yasmin Fasugin live from Tel Aviv.
Yasmin, thank you for that great reporting. Stacey, as always. We appreciate you being on. And we are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.
But the news CT news with the happiest person in the world, the biggest Philadelphia Eagles fan in the world, Hallie Jackson, after her team won the super bowl yesterday. It's time now for Hallie Jackson now. Thank you so much for watching. 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 listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.