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. 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.
If it's Friday, President Trump says he's now giving Eli Mosk and his team at Doge the authority to go into the Pentagon as the President plows ahead with sweeping cuts to federal agencies and Republicans try to keep up with his sweeping legislative agenda. Plus, the legal challenges facing the White House are piling up and threatening to stall some of the administration's top priorities as the government buyout program, the end of birthright citizenship, and Elon Musk's authority all face legal peril. And NBC News sits down with the President of Guatemala as Central American nations brace for the fallout of President Trump's immigration crackdowns and deportations. Welcome to me, the President now in Kristin Welker in Washington where President Trump is forging ahead with sweeping changes to the federal government and as his allies in Congress are struggling to keep up with his demands.
This afternoon, the President answered questions from reporters after meeting with Japan's Prime Minister, acknowledging that he's allowing tech billionaire Elon Musk and his team at Doge to look at nearly every federal agency and department, including, he now says, the Pentagon. He directed Elon Musk to review Pentagon spending given it's the biggest discretionary thing in the federal government. Yes, I have Pentagon education. Just about everything.
We're going to go through everything. I've instructed him to go check out education, to check out the Pentagon, which is the military, and you know, sadly, you'll find some things that are pretty bad. But I don't think proportionally you're going to see anything like we just saw. Now, my NBC News colleague, Garrett Hake, later, press the President on Musk's unprecedented access inside the federal government.
Is there anything you've told Elon Musk he cannot touch? Well, we haven't discussed that much. I'll tell him to go here, go there. He does it.
He's got a very capable group of people, very, very, very capable. They know what they're doing, but I will pick out a target, and I say go in. There could be areas that we won't, but I think everything's sort of, you know, we're a government. We have to be open.
And as an open government, I don't know, I guess you could say maybe some high intelligence or something, and I'll do that myself if I have to. It comes as President Trump and Mr. Musk are moving forward with drastic cuts to federal agencies, dismantling the U.S. agency for international development, which has seen its staff reduced about 5,000 foreign service officers to less than 300 workers.
Other agencies have been put on notice of potentially drastic cuts as well. President Trump's moves come as he seeks cooperation from congressional Republicans on his sweeping legislative agenda, which is running up against a deadline to fund the government and prevent a shutdown next month. After a marathon, five-hour meeting at the White House yesterday, it is clear that major divisions remain inside the House Republican Conference, as President Trump pushes for trillions of dollars in tax cuts and hard-line Republicans push for trillions of dollars in government spending cuts. House Speaker Mike Johnson provided this update to reporters earlier today.
If you put this on a short-time table and you do this quickly and aggressively, as you're planning to do, we can accomplish the entire agenda in one big, beautiful building. Do you expect to be working through the Super Bowl? Yes, sadly. With the President this week, and this will be one of the big topics in discussion.
So we need to keep the President and to see, you know, fully a prize on development, so we have been up to this point. There'll be a few more developments today, so I'll be addressing it with him, but I know where we are. Are you shooting at the package that's in neutral? That's our commitment that we're going to achieve, yes.
M.E.C. News Senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell joins me now, also with M.E.E.C. News Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, along with me Peter Baker, Chief White House of the New York Times, and an NBC News contributor. Kelly, let me start with you here at the desk.
Let's talk broadly speaking about what we just heard at that press conference. President Trump saying that, yes, he is giving Elon Musk the green light to go into the pentagon. What were your key takeaways from what you heard today? Notably, the Vice President is sitting in the front row, but there was all the talk about Elon Musk and what his portfolio is in this government, and it seems quite expansive.
The President, at the same time, he said he didn't really talk about him with him that much, but seems to have given him wide berth to look at departments that, in fact, could present conflicts. At the Department of Defense, Elon Musk and his company have contracts with the Department of Defense, so could he possibly be accessing competitive information there? He's also given them the charge of looking at the Education Department, and the President repeatedly is talking in very accusatory terms about corruption in government. There is certainly a question about how you debate spending and whether spending might be belowed in places.
Corruption is a much different thing, but he talks about that quite freely and wants to root it out, even though a lot of what we're talking about has been approved by Congress. What is so notable is that he is doing all of this unilaterally without Congress, and that is the legal challenge that we are seeing to so many of these actions. What we're seeing to this government attempts to slash government spending is that, well, Congress approved this. Do you anticipate we're going to see this pace continue, this unilateral sledgehammer approach to slashing government spending?
It is his view of the presidency. He seems to be disregarding Article I of the Constitution, which gives all that power to Congress, and Democrats are talking about it, but Republicans are really not. And so the courts seem to be the only lever at this point to put speed bumps in front of the President on these matters to say, is it lawful? Does there need to be a pause if all the equity has been considered?
And when it comes to some of this, the President is saying they're identifying a lot, and he talked about transparency. Well, there's not much transparency with the doge effort. We don't know who the players are. We don't know what they're rooting out.
We don't know what they're identifying. And so if the President is talking transparency, the American people typically like that, but we have not really seen it yet. Yeah. We're going to talk to Ryan about this, but let me start with you, Kell, which is the President's legislative agenda, which is robust.
He wants funding for his mass deportation plan. He wants massive tax cuts. He wants to extend the 2017 Trump era tax cuts. Are you getting any clarity about what the pathway looks like there?
Well, certainly the President has indicated that he is willing to give a little room for the mechanics of Congress, recognizing that there are ways to package some of these programs that might be better in one or two bills and those kinds of things. And I think he is willing to see the little ground when Thune and Speaker Johnson tell him about kind of the procedures. But in terms of what he wants, you're right. He wants all the money required for deportations.
He wants those to go forward. And those tax cuts, which were a big part of his first term, he wants extended and expanded, including some of the things he campaigned on, like no tax on Social Security, no tax on tips and so forth. All of that typically needs a way to pay for it. Yeah.
And it costs about $9 trillion. If you're talking about the entire tax package, Ryan Nables, let me bring you into this. There was that five hour meeting at the White House on Thursday. Did anything come of it?
I was told it was productive, but they still haven't presented specific piece of legislation to start moving forward. Am I right about that? Yeah. I mean, I guess they made progress.
I mean, everything they're talking about right now is behind closed doors, but the speaker indicated today that he felt confident that they would have some sort of a budget resolution as early as Monday. That it could include the debt ceiling. It could include a whole host of other things. But it's clear that the Senate is not as patient as the house would like them to be.
You know, normally this process begins in the house and then the Senate takes whatever the house provides them and picks them apart. The Senate doesn't want to wait anymore and we saw Lindsey Graham produce his own budget resolution today to begin that process on the Senate side. So there's going to be competing documents here that the two sides are going to have to work from and, you know, it may be up to Donald Trump to pick which one he likes the most and how this process plays itself out. But they can't even really begin this conversation until they talk about exactly how much money they want to spend and how much money they want to cut.
And that process doesn't begin until we see a document. Yeah. It's a great point, Ryan. As I was just discussing with Kelly, one of the big takeaways and headlines from the President's conference today is that he's now directing Elon Musk to go into the Pentagon to find cuts there.
What has the reaction on Capitol Hill been so far to that? Well, every Republican that you ask about Elon Musk, they welcome it with open arms. They have no problem with it. They want him to look at every single aspect of government and they are not at all concerned about the level of authority that Donald Trump is affording him at this point.
Every single Democrat you talk to views akin to the end of the democracy. They believe that it is borderline illegal. They believe that he has massive conflicts of interest that specifically would be crystallized if he were to look into the Pentagon's budget because of the massive contracts that the company he owns hold, many of which are directly tied to the Department of Defense. So, you know, there is not very much that Republicans and Democrats agree upon on Capitol Hill, but there is probably no issue that they are more polarized on than the role that Elon Musk is playing in this early days of the Trump administration.
Republicans are fully embracing it and Democrats are fully rejecting it. And Ryan, you know, this all comes, of course, as the potential government shutdown is looming large. It's just over a month away. We saw back in December the government nearly shut down.
How is that adding urgency to all of this? And frankly, how does this play into whatever timeline we might see in terms of the agenda on the Hill? Well, Kristin, there's probably some shock you to find out, but one of the things that has always vexed me in the time that I've covered Congress is how little urgency there is when we approach a spending deadline. A month out, you'd think that they have four years to solve this crisis.
Nobody seems to be freaking out about the fact that we are closing in on a budget deadline and that we're closing in on one at such a precarious time where the parties are so far apart and there would need to be bipartisan support to get something over the finish line. You know, Chip Roy, who is, of course, the budget hop from Texas, who feels emboldened by the election results and wants there to be real significant change, actually floated the idea of a continuing resolution today. He hates continuing resolutions, but he suggested to me that these continuing resolutions essentially adopt some of the budget cuts that Elon Musk is already attempting to employ. For instance, a continuing resolution that zeros out the USAID budget.
There's no universe in which you get a single Democratic vote for something like that, even if it means that the government is going to shut down. So, you know, at this point, I'd not see how they get to an agreement by that deadline that is bipartisan enough because it would still be 60 votes in the Senate. It would not be reconciliation to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open. And Republicans are not just going to rubber stamp the budget as it currently exists, and Democrats are not going to go for a single budget cut, even if it's for a temporary period of time so that the appropriate agents' process can play itself out.
So, I think this is a much bigger problem than everyone up here seems to think it, at least at this point. Well, you underscore just how complicated, how uphill the road may be to a vertical government shutdown. Ryan, thanks for that. Kelly, let me go back to you.
My pleasure is up after that. I know about yours, but that's very daunting. I was going to be that hard. Kelly, before I go to Peter Baker for the bigger picture look, there was also some news on the foreign policy front today.
President Trump floating that he might meet with President Zelensky at the White House next week. That's significant. He has promised as a candidate he was going to end the war in Ukraine. What are you hearing about that?
And he's got some other leader meetings next week too. And I've pressed him on conversations with Putin in the Oval Office as the pool reporter, and he has been very reluctant to give details, which for him is unusual. And so, he's been saying there have been conversations ongoing. So, I think what I gleaned from that is that he would like to get some resolution, and certainly it is harder than it looks.
And he would like to see if one option is if you kind of constrain the U.S. support for Ukraine, perhaps it hastens a result. He also again talked about Kim Jong Un in North Korea being a friend he wants to see again. Fascinating.
We'll have to see how that piece of his foreign policy plays out. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much. Great to see you here. In person, Peter Baker, let me turn to you.
Let's look at the big picture here. President Trump saying he's given Elon Musk and those permissions to look at the Pentagon. When Garrett pressed him, are there any limits? He didn't really suggest that there were any.
What do you make of this relationship right now, Peter? Well, it's an extraordinary one. One, it was captured on the cover of the latest issue of Time Magazine, where you see an image of Elon Musk sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. That's not an image that is designed to appeal to Donald Trump.
It doesn't like it. What other people steal his thunder. And it typically didn't like the idea that Elon Musk is portrayed as sort of the quasi-president or prime minister. Remember, eight years ago, when Steve Bannon was put on the cover of Time Magazine and basically portrayed as the power behind the throne.
It definitely soured the relationship that he had with Trump. And by August of that year, he was out. So, you know, there's been a lot of people watching to see whether that same dynamic might play out. Here you've got two very big egos, two billionaires, two men with strong views about things.
How long can that team work in an atmosphere where Trump doesn't always appreciate, you know, strong wills that don't subordinate themselves? And so far, Elon Musk just put on social media just today. How amazing he thinks Donald Trump is. The reason obviously he would do something like that is to stroke the ego of the president.
So he wouldn't be upset about the Time Magazine cover or wouldn't be upset about all the coverage about how Elon Musk is the one really running the government right now. But that's a very fraught and complicated dynamic here. And remember, they were not friends until just a few months ago. So, it's not a long history here.
You know, it's so fascinating to remember with you, Peter. That turning point of when Steve Bannon was on the cover of Time Magazine. And, of course, now Steve Bannon is an ally to President Trump. He's outside the White House.
He's been very critical of Elon Musk. And I think he sort of represents the fact that there is this growing frustration inside some quarters of Trump's orbit where they do feel frustrated that Musk is starting to wear out his welcome. What do you make of that? Is anyone going to say that directly to President Trump?
That's a really good question. I don't know what you're right. There are some people who think he's worn out as well. But remember, a lot of people who have been around Trump now for a number of years.
I'm going back eight, ten years. And now suddenly Elon Musk has been since July of last year, made himself out to be the number one surrogate. Not everybody likes it. I've heard senior Trump people say, I'm the best friend actually.
Not Elon Musk. So, there's a jealousy factor there among other people in that orbit. But they all defer to Trump. Nobody's going to try to push Trump when Trump's not ready to be pushed.
When they sense that Trump is losing his own patience, you can bet. There are at least some people around him who will be happy to stick the knife in. Peter, let me ask you before I let you go about what Ryan and I were discussing this uphill battle in Congress to try to get the President's agenda passed. If you just take the funding for the President's mass deportation plan, the Republican Party can only afford to lose one vote right now in the House to act on any piece of Trump's agenda.
If they don't have Democrats support, how do you see this playing out on the Hill? It's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. You actually want to kind of see for the life of the Democrats going along with any final budget spending plan.
It does anything near what Trump is talking about doing. It would be politically unthinkable for them to support tax cuts that would go primarily to the rich. If that's the way they see the final package going, it would be hard to imagine, as Ryan said, for any of them supporting zeroing out of the U.S. agency for national development, giving Trump the power to do some of the things he's already doing in terms of paring down the federal workforce.
All of this is an affluent Democrats. I think they're perfectly happy to let the Republicans own it. They want to do it fine. Let them pass it.
But you're right, the margins are so narrow, so narrow, in fact, that at least define it. Who had been tapped by President Trump to be his UN ambassador can't be confirmed right now, because they still need her votes in the House. You can't afford to lose that vote. That's a great data point to keep in mind.
Peter Baker, as always, thank you for your perspective. Really appreciate it. Great to see you on this Friday. Coming up, inside the mounting number of legal challenges that threaten to throw a wrench into the Trump administration's sweeping government overhaul.
Plus, the doge is pushed to dramatically slash the size of the federal workforce impacting the economy. We have the key takeaways from the first jobs report since Donald Trump took office. We'll delve into all of the numbers you're watching at the press now, stay with us. Stay informed with the NBC News app.
Breaking News is just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows.
Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.
A judge in Massachusetts has pushed the deadline for federal government employees to accept a buyout offer. And right now, a judge in Washington, D.C., is hearing a case on whether the president has the authority to dismantle USAID. Joining me now is M.E.C. News justice and intelligence force, Monica Andelanian, and criminal defense attorney, and an NBC News legal analyst, Danny Zavala.
Thanks so much to both of you for being here. Ken, let me start with you. What is the very latest out of that hearing happening right now in D.C., challenging the president's dismantling of USAID? Kristen, we're waiting to see whether this federal judge will grant the request by the unions representing foreign service officers and government employees to implement a temporary restraining order, essentially a pause on this plan to dramatically downsize USAID, which would go into effect midnight tonight if the judge does not act.
So we're waiting to see whether that would happen. Obviously, the unions are arguing that this is illegal, that the Trump administration cannot do this. This agency was created by an act of Congress. And so, again, we'll just have to see what the judge does.
Yeah, we'll have to see what the judge does and how quickly we might get a decision. Danny, how quickly do you think we could get a decision there? It's very difficult to say because we're dealing with issues that courts have really never dealt with before. And that's such a common theme with all things Trump administration, whether it was 2017 or now.
And I would say even more so in 2017 because that had a feel of people just hurrying out these executive orders and not thinking about them too much. And that appears to be the Trump approach. Why spend all the time on the front end vetting these executive orders legally when you can just throw them out in the ether and let a court prune them like a bonsai tree and then whatever you're left with, great. And if it doesn't work, then back to the drawing board and try again.
But I expect the courts will put a priority on this and get to them as soon as possible because we're dealing with stays, administrative stays and other stays because people need to know what their rights are in the immediate future. And can the judge seems inclined to pause the USAID actions? What would that specifically look like? Well, it would be a temporary restraining order while each side marshaled their arguments and then they would have another hearing on the merits.
But it would not start happening at midnight. So it would give people a temporary reprieve. And it's not just employees, Chris, and there are huge contractors who are owed millions of dollars by USAID who have people all around the world implementing American foreign aid programs and they are waiting to see what happens here as well. So let me ask you about a slightly different topic in his press conference today.
The president said he might fire some FBI agents who were involved in the January 6 investigations. We had seen reporting on this earlier in the week. What's the very latest here? What does he have the authority to actually do?
Yeah, so that was a big deal. He said that he believed that some of these agents were corrupt and that they would be fired quickly and surgically. So this is the culmination of a week of drama at the FBI. It started with the acting director last Friday, Brian Driscoll.
Our reporting is that he staved off an effort to do a mass firing of some of these agents. And then he was demanded by the Justice Department to turn over a list of names of everybody that worked on January 6 cases. He resisted. He turned over only employee numbers.
But then last night we saw a memo from him saying that he'd been ordered by the Justice Department to turn over the actual names. And of course, there's a court battle going on. The agents are suing the Justice Department. And today they got an agreement that the Justice Department would not release those names publicly.
That was one of their big worries. But their bigger worry is that they will actually start firing some of these people without good cause because look, there's no evidence that any of them committed misconduct or acted corruptly. Most of these cases resulted in convictions until Donald Trump pardoned everybody. So here's the president saying he will fire some of these agents, which sort of creates another wave of turmoil in the FBI because these are people who many of whom were ordered to participate in these cases.
They didn't do it voluntarily. And they felt like they acted lawfully and ethically. And now, Kristen, they're job service. Yeah, Danny, let me go back to you because I've been talking to Democrats throughout the course of the week.
And they say they're only real recourse to counter these actions, some of which they believe are not constitutional is in the courts. But they also acknowledge the courts only move so quickly. So talk a little bit about the pace of what happens in court versus what we're actually seeing in the White House from President Trump and Elon Musk. The courts are the proper way to challenge these actions.
And I don't think there's too much to be concerned about in terms of speed. Consider, for example, the challenge to the federal buyout. The judge delayed that hearing and issued a kind of a stay, but I mean a stay for a matter of days from Friday, essentially, to Monday. So you can see federal district courts can move with really impressive speed when they want to.
And that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. You'll recall way back Bush v. Gore. They were able to resolve that in a matter of days and a huge matter of constitutional imports.
So the short version is that when federal courts want to move quickly, they can. And these are incredibly important issues, which is why we're seeing all these stays. That's what the stay was designed to do. Put a pause on everything and preserve the status quo until we can find out or get to the issue on the merits.
But in the meantime, people don't lose rights. They become accustomed to things like birthright citizenship or your federal employment. Things that are definitely things you could take people over lying on. So the courts are going to move relatively quickly compared to other cases.
Those will go on the back burner, the humdrum, everyday, criminal appeals, things like that. This stuff will be handled immediately. Let me just ask you because the Trump administration has been very clear. The president has been very clear.
He's prepared to fight these battles all the way to the Supreme Court. Is it your expectation that most of these legal fights will in fact find their way to the Supreme Court? They can. And the reason for that is we're talking about almost purely issues of constitutional or statutory interpretation.
The facts are pretty much undisputed. So for that reason, it could advance to the court. These are issues really many of them of first impression. You don't even have a circuit split because this hasn't even come up before.
So I expect these will get to the Supreme Court. They'll get to the Supreme Court relatively quickly. It's just a question of how far the Trump administration wants to push it. Because in the past, they backed off an executive order, redrafted it, gone back to the drawing board.
But if they decide to fight all the way and everybody's interested in taking this all the way to the Supreme Court, then I think that's where these issues are going to end up because they really represent in many cases constitutional issues, either a first impression or something that courts have never even addressed before or yet. Well, there are questions about the constitutionality of Elon Musk's role. His title is special government employee. When it comes to his doge commission, he doesn't seem to have any authority in the constitution.
How does his position complicate any legal challenge? Is there a gray area there? There is a gray area and you can already see the different sides of the argument. The administration is going to argue that he's no more than just some outside side advisor whispering in the ear of the administration.
He has no official role. We don't have to listen to him. He's got no actual power because we're the decision makers, no matter who we're listening to, whether it's our constituency or a super rich guy who's not even from the country, originally, but has lots of opinions on how to run it. So it really is that is the way they're going to approach it.
Of course, the argument, the other side of that is that no, no, he is part of the government, whether it's unofficial or official. All right, Danny and Ken, thank you both so much. I really appreciate your being here coming up next. Welcome back.
If it's the first Friday of the month, it's a jobs day. This morning's report marking the first of the Trump administration and revealing a steady job market so far. The unemployment rate for January was just about on par with what economists expected, ticking down slightly to 4%. 143,000 jobs were added, which was slightly short of estimates, but still a decent gain.
The report comes as uncertainty grows among the big chunk of the American workforce employment employers. We now with insight into what these numbers mean is NBC News Business and data correspondent Brian Chung. Brian, thanks so much for joining me on this Friday, Jobs Report Friday. So break down the jobs numbers for us.
What do you think the key takeaways are for the economy? Yeah, I like that. It's the first Friday. It is Jobs Friday.
Yes, we did get numbers from the earlier statistics showing us what the economy looks like in America as of January 24. I want to point out that this jobs report, the survey period was done the week before inauguration, so there's really no impact at the current administration for what we saw. But we did see unemployment rate tick down to 4%. That is certainly good news when you consider that.
There's this concern that the unemployment rate had been kind of creeping up. Although I want to point out 4% is still historically low, all things considered. But when we talk about the industry changes in terms of where the job gains were, take a look at healthcare adding over 40,000 jobs in the month, retail jobs. These are jobs at the mall, for example, adding over 30,000 jobs, and social assistance.
Interestingly, this implies nonprofits actually grew during the month of January adding 20 over 20,000 jobs in the month. But I want to point out leisure and hospitality. These are the bars and restaurants, which by the way drove a lot of the post-pandemic gains. That contracted by about 3,000.
We'll have to watch that as well as the black unemployment rate, which by the way did rise as well. So threats will have to watch as we go through 2025 as well. Yeah, for sure, Brian, and we know that we also got numbers for the revised numbers. I should say for this report, explain exactly what that means.
Yeah, this is a bit of nuance here, but every February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics goes back and takes a look at the different numbers. So again, what we're talking about here is again, how many jobs were added per month in this country? Here are the monthly breakdowns. But again, these numbers were revised after that print today.
I want to show you an overlay of what the original numbers look like. So when you take a look at, for example, January of 2024, the original number as reported was over 250,000. They revised it as part of the yearly process that they did today. It's now only just above 100,000 for the month of January.
So you can see a lot of the months the majority of them actually had downward revisions. And in total, it was almost 600,000 fewer jobs than were originally reported. I don't want to point out this is standard. The average kind of change that we usually see is only about 0.1%.
It was 0.4%. It was 0.4% in this case. Okay, so let me ask you about one other component that I know you've been watching closely, which is the administration's efforts to cut federal employees, this buyout program that we're seeing. What impact could that have on the economy?
We know that about 60,000 people have taken the government up on that. That's actually short of what they were aiming for. Yeah, and that's a threat we'll have to see in the next report. Because again, this report doesn't give you that number because it was surveyed before the presidential kind of rains were passed over.
But for right now, here's the status. 2.4 million federal employees excluding the Postal Service. That's only 1.5% in terms of share of the overall workforce. But the Trump administration and Elon Musk want to see both of these numbers go down.
But you mentioned, even if it is indeed the case that we have 60,000 buyouts, if that is reflected in the next report, 60,000 as a percentage of 2.4 million really isn't all that much. But could it affect the headline number in terms of monthly job gains? Certainly. That's going to be something we look for in the next report.
Well, I know you will watch all of it very closely. Brian Chan, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. As always, we want to turn out immigration secretary of State Marco Rubio met with leaders in Central America this week as the Trump administration continues its mass deportation efforts.
Speaking at a news conference alongside Secretary Rubio and Guatemala City Wednesday, Guatemala President Bernardo Arevelo announced that his country would accept more migrant flights, including ones carrying migrants from other countries. Our NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julie Ainsley sat down exclusively with the president to discuss the deal. Take a listen. We came to very good agreements on the different issues.
We agreed on the issue of migration that we're going to be accepting 40% increase in the number of flights of deportees. Are there any parameters to how this would work? The understanding is that we are not discussing about big numbers of people from other countries that are going to be coming here, because there are arrangements being made with other countries, with Mexico, with El Salvador, with Honduras, with Panama and with Costa Rica. And Julie Ainsley has more reporting on that interview.
That's right. I got to speak yesterday with Guatemalan President Arevelo, who said that after his meeting with Secretary of State Rubio, he left with the impression that the people that would be coming to Guatemala, those non- Guatemalan deportees from the United States, would be there temporarily on their way back to their home country. It's not clear, though, when that will start, how many people they'll take, or really how long they'll be staying in Guatemala, and whether Guatemala will have the help of the United States to try to support those people while they're in their country, or help them get on to their home countries from there. I asked him about why he would agree to that.
Here's what he said. Why would you agree to take back migrants who aren't from Guatemala? Because they are not staying in Guatemala. Because they are going, this is part of their oppression to other countries.
And how will you be sure that they'll go to other countries? Will the U.S. help with that? Yes, because we discussed that, the United States is going to be helping us in this process.
And President Arabalo also said that Rubio promised some U.S. investment in infrastructure, and promised to carve out and make sure that the U.S. would continue to provide for funding to combat drug trafficking in Guatemala, and not cut that off in the slew of eight cuts that the Trump administration has made. It is unclear, though, exactly when these will start, and we do know that there's a Guatemalan delegation coming to Washington soon to try to work all that out.
But in the end, really, the reason the Trump administration asked for help from Guatemala is the same reason they asked for help from Guatemala in 2019, when they started sending Honduran nationals back to the country then. They're trying to find another place, another country that can quickly take in more deportees and a quick manner, especially when it comes to people from countries that are reluctant to take back their nationals, like China, which takes back very few of its nationals, like Venezuela, which Trump has just started to agree to accept back their nationals, but we haven't seen any flights there yet. So it could be that there are some people who get sent to Guatemala, a country they know nothing about, and it's unclear how they'll get back to their home countries. This is a space to watch because it's critical to Trump fulfilling that campaign promise of mass deportations, and it's also critical to having the cooperation from those partners in the region should migration surge again, or these people feel like they're getting the raw end of the deal.
Fantastic interview, and our thanks to Julia for that great reporting coming up after the break more than 50 executive orders, tens of thousands of buyouts, and we're not even 20 days into President Trump's historic second term, the panels next, you're watching with the press now. Welcome back for the fourth time Democratic lawmakers tried and failed to gain access to a federal agency being targeted by Elon Musk, today lawmakers demanded entry to the Department of Education after the president signed an executive order abolishing the agency, but they were denied access to the building. This was the scene this morning. Take a look.
We're coming in. We're not coming in. This is not right. This is not right.
So what are you going to do? You've got to beat us up if we go in. I mean, you're going to, you know. We're going to move out of the way.
We're not stealing you. We're not out of the way. This is all exercise. This is all exercise.
This is all exercise. Please stand aside. I'm not standing. Why not?
Because my role is to make sure- What authority can you deny members of Congress that are oversight law? If you don't have the business reason to be here. You don't have the force, sir. Emotions running high throughout Washington and beyond.
Joining me now is the panel Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Joe Crowley, former Democratic Congressman from New York, and Rob Bluey, President and Executive Editor at the Daily Signal. Thanks to all of you for being here. And as we start this conversation, Susan Page, we have some breaking news.
A federal judge in Washington has just ruled to issue a temporary restraining order or a pause on the Trump administration's attempts to essentially gut USAID, for lack of a better word. What do you make of this moment that we are in, given all of the fast-moving changes, the pace with which President Trump and Elon Musk are trying to take a sledgehammer to federal spending? I think we're entering a new phase where the courts are really starting to weigh in. You know, we've had almost three weeks, not quite three weeks since President Trump's inauguration, where he has unleashed an incredible number of changes of orders at firings, all kinds of things.
And so now we see people pushing back through the court system, some injunctions, some efforts to pause some of the things he's done. That is, though, I think a pretty slow process. We know the courts tend to be slow. They can sometimes slow things down but not stop them.
And we continue to have this very compliant Congress. So the checks and balances system that the United States has counted on since its founding has not quite found its footing yet. Certainly seems to be the frustration for many Democrats the fact that the courts can only move. So quickly, I am going to get to both of you, Congressman Crowley and Rob in just a moment, but we do have kind of lenient to break down what this essentially means, this pause calling off the gutting of USAID.
What exactly does it mean, Ken? Well, federal Judge Carl Nichols has agreed to the plaintiff's request to put in this temporary restraining order, this pause. He says, I will be entering tonight, sometime between now and midnight, in limited, very limited. He says TRO that we will be directed at the placement of the 2,200 to 2,700 employees on administrative leave, and then the accelerated removal of people from their countries.
So he's putting on pause the plan to basically remove these people from the government payroll by midnight. Tonight, it's not clear from the information I have in front of me until when this pause will last, but it's designed to allow each side to more fully marshal their arguments and have a hearing on the evidence on the question of whether this move is legal. And then he'll actually have to rule on the merits, and then we'll go from there. I think one of the big questions here, and it's looming all over all of these court fights, is will the Trump administration comply with these judicial rulings?
Because they seem to be moving at a breakneck pace on all the personnel moves and the things that they're doing to disrupt the federal government. So we'll have to wait and see on that question. Before I ask it, just to update folks, Elon Musk has just tweeted out this building, the building of USAID, is now being occupied by CBP, Customs and Border Protection. To some extent, they've already gotten rid of thousands, tens of thousands of employees who work with USAID.
So to some extent, has the damage already been done? Can it be reversed? Well, enormous damage has been done. And this is just about the facts on the ground, right?
The Trump administration can establish facts on the ground almost before the courts can take into account the law. And so it's just like the previous discussion we were having about FBI agents being fired, even if the firearms are illegal, and even if eventually they win their jobs back with back pay. It's too late. They've already been escorted out of the building.
Their badges have been taken away. Their security clearance has been revoked. They're not coming back to the FBI in most cases. And in this case, with USAID employees, you may have a similar situation.
And the reputational damage that has been done in the United States, the national security damage experts say, has already been enormous. Even if everything is remedied and USAID has put back together in a week, this is going to take a long time to recover from, Chris. Ken, really great. Thank you for rushing to it.
Cameron, for us, we really appreciate it. Come here, Carly. Let me go to you now. What do you make of these extraordinary developments that we are witnessing on a daily basis, President Trump, Elon Musk, trying to dismantle these key agencies of the federal government in the name of savings, but getting blocked by the courts, it seems like it every turn.
I don't think there's anything we can even compare this to in our history to make some sense of it. You know, my dad used to say it's easier to tear down a building than to build one. And I think that's what we're talking about here, the damage that's been done. But putting aside the damage that has been done internationally, just for a moment, the American lives that have been disrupted, that have been turned upside down, many women who have dedicated their lives not to become rich and wealthy, but simply to do a good job to promote America overseas, they have been told basically by this administration, by this president, by those, that their work was useless.
Their work was meaningless. The work that their predecessors had done over decades and decades to build up the image of America overseas for democratization, that is always worthless. That's what they're saying. And that's what's so appalling.
I think these are like missionaries, these people. They are not making tons and tons of money. And they're not ripping anyone off. They're getting the poor.
They're feeding hungry, distended bellies in South America and in Asia and in Africa. That's what they're doing. And to be belittled by this administration is like nothing that's ever happened before. Rob, what's your take on this?
Yeah, let's take a step back, though, and not forget that USAID was engaged in some sorts of practices that some of those countries they were acting in did not exactly want them doing those types of things. So yes, there are certain cases where they have been promoting freedom abroad. But if you go back and look at the law in 1961, the executive order of the John F. Kennedy side, I think we've come a far way today in terms of what USAID is doing.
So there needs to be reforms. I agree. I think that they were doing things that some of those countries didn't like, like promoting democracy. They were doing that.
They didn't like that. And LGBTQ and other things. Human rights agenda. The other thing that I point out here is can make use of the word disruptor.
That's what we're seeing here in Washington. I think the American people elected Donald Trump with the understanding that he was going to shake up the status quo question. And that's exactly what he's doing. Susan, what about that argument?
He campaigned. Elon Musk said next to him on the campaign trail. He said we're going to slash government spending. And now they are doing it.
Yes, they are doing it at a pace and with the breadth that I think has surprised even some of the president's closest allies. But what about the argument that he did say this is what he's going to do? This is going to be the test because Americans were not happy with the direction of the country. They were ready for change, greater or lesser.
That was the reason it's so hard to be the incumbent administration running for re-election. So they did vote for disruption. But did they vote for this much disruption? And did they vote for this kind of disruption?
Because believe me, what happened at USAID is not going to be the end of this. You know, President today in his news conference talking about the education. He talked about changes at the Pentagon. So this is, we are in uncharted waters here.
When we talk about the extent of change that we're going to see this year, next this month, next week. That is overseas. We have our diplomats. We have our ambassadors.
We have the CIA. We have other intelligence gatherers. Folks at work at USAID, they were at the grassroots level. They were working with the people.
They were hearing things that diplomats never hear. And we are less secure today as a country because of that. We are losing that. And that is not going to come back easily.
Rob, do you think the country is less secure? And if not, from a national security perspective, is there a risk of seeding ground to China, for example? Well, I think that the country is less secure because the Democrats held over cash but tell us confirmation for a week. And we need an FBI director who can basically be in a position and make sure that our law enforcement is aligned and keeping those threats at bay.
But, you know, I think that we should give Secretary of State Rubio an opportunity to implement the reforms that he's going to do at USAID. And so at the end of the day, we need to keep our eye on China. I agree with you on that point. They are a threat.
And every single day that we're not focused on them, I think it's a day that we pose a risk in the United States. Susan, we have less than a minute. The other big battle is going to play out on Capitol Hill with the Trump agenda. And boy, they had a five-hour meeting at the White House yesterday.
I was told it was productive. And yet there's still no clear path, it seems like, for how they're going to get his border plan passed and his tax plan passed. That's right. They don't have a clear plan.
They have divisions within themselves. And they should not expect help from Democrats. You know, even in the House where they have a majority of one, they're going to need Democratic votes. Not clear to me that Democrats are going to be willing to provide them.
With all this going on, I don't see them playing ball with them at all. All right, guys, great conversation. Thank you so much for being here for the breaking news, really appreciate it. Susan Jo and Rob, we will be right backstate with us.
Welcome back over the next two years of whopping 38 states will hold gubernatorial elections. That could bring big changes to which party controls the states, including presidential battleground states, joining me on Senate and Governor's editor for the Cook Political Report. Jessica, thanks for being here. It's always great to have you here.
Let's start off by talking about the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. These could be real bellwethers. Both governors currently turn one minute. What are you watching for?
Yeah, I mean, Republicans won this seat in 2021 when it was up last. It typically goes to the party that's out of power in the White House. But that certainly bodes well as a pick up for Democrats. We have that one rated toss up.
But New Jersey, Phil Murphy, just narrowly won last time. And, you know, this is a state that only went for Harris by six points, much closer. So big primaries on both sides will know more when we know who the nominees are. That's such a great point to remind folks of that surprise result out of New Jersey, that deep, blue state, where President Trump wound up doing much better than was anticipated.
You're also tracking some potential pickups for Republicans. Where are you looking? So the biggest ones in 2026, Kansas, this is a state that's invested at Republicans for two cycles in a row. Laura Kelly is term limited.
So we have that one as their best pickup on the board for a lean Republican. From there, it's the Open Michigan seat with Gretchen Whitmer term limited. Now, this could be a really interesting three-way race. The Detroit mayor Mike Duggan surprised a lot of people last year when he announced he's actually running as an independent.
So does that, that could give Republicans a better shot at that. Congressman John James seriously looking at that race. Several Democrats in that race right now. Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State.
But now with an Open Michigan Senate, see we're seeing people look at both races. Pete Buttigieg was looking at Governor. Now he's looking more at Senate. Nevada is another place where Democrats are going to be targeting with Joe Lombardo there.
That was the only state in 2022 that flipped from a Democrat to Republican. But Katie Hobbs in Arizona only narrowly won in 2022. She's the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent. Democrats also looking at an open governor seat in Georgia with Brian Kemp term limited there that they're hoping to flip.
And I had an opportunity to interview Mike Duggan. He's adamant now is the time for a third party candidate. We'll have to see how that will be an interesting one to watch. What about Republicans?
So I think Republicans, we don't know yet if Tony Evers is going to run again in Wisconsin. They could have a prime pick up opportunity there if he retires. So Republicans also, you know, there's some seats that Republicans now have in some deep blue areas, even like, you know, Vermont. Phil Scott is fairly ensconced there.
If he decides not to run again, that could be a key pick up opportunity. And then, you know, I'm watching places like New York with Kathy Hokel. She's so embattled, probably going to face a primary challenge. If she wins again, she hobble going into November.
If Mike Lawler, the moderate Republican congressman there, takes her on. So there's a lot of open seats. We're also watching that could just stay in part in either party's hands. But there's just going to be a lot of new faces when it comes to governors.
You know what's so interesting? You're spent the hour talking about the Trump agenda, how it's playing out. The fact that the battle right now is on Capitol Hill. A lot of discussion about should there be one bill?
Should there be two bills to act on his mass deportation plan, his tax plan? How much do you see? What happens in the White House right now? How much the president is able to accomplish impacting some of these races?
I think you have a lot of Democrats, particularly they're sort of frustrated with Democrats in Washington, D.C. So you see JB Pritzker, he could run for a third term, possible 2028 candidate. Someone's actually in a very good position, despite being in a perennial swing state. Is Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania?
The best thing that might have happened to him was not being picked as VP. Republicans, again, they should be targeting the seat, but Shapiro is so popular, they don't have it at the top of their target list right now. And you know what's also interesting is that there's always this big question. Is President Trump going to a North Shore?
Is he not going to a North Shore? I mean, if you look at his polling right now, and I had a source say this to me last night, Elon Musk's polling is pretty, is dropping. Let's put it that way. President Trump's polling right now.
Is that behind me? Right? And it's staying there. You know, we're, as you mentioned, we're not even three weeks into this administration.
We know what history tells us that this midterm should be for Democrats. And so that should bode well for Democrats across the country and the House and in governors. But we're not there yet. We cannot, you know, so these are our initial ratings as they come out.
Follow us with a political report for sort of the incremental changes. And I don't want to get ahead of you, but what are you in the next few weeks? You've got some more data coming out. What can we anticipate?
We'll have you back to break it back. Yeah, so our house ratings just came out this week from my colleagues, Aaron Covey and Matthew Klein. The House is very much in play with such a slim margin Senate coming out next week, though. It's a very difficult map for Democrats, even though they're defending fewer seats than Republicans.
But to try to get the four seats that they need is just going to be a very tough task. And just put this into historical context. If you could, for us, the fact that right now, Jessica, Republicans cannot afford to lose, can only afford to lose one vote. If they want to get legislation passed without Democrats support, we talk about this being an historically narrow margin.
I was on Capitol Hill. You could feel it. Yeah. They were like, this is incredibly challenging.
Talk about how rare it is to have a margin that's that slim. I mean, we haven't seen it in decades, really, that you typically do see one party have more of a cushion. So it's just, it's certainly, yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So just and to follow through that one person said to me, there's no room for error. I mean, it's usually you see a party have a couple of different. I mean, someone being out sick.
Yeah. You can completely say, you know, yes. You can completely say it. Yeah.
Okay. So when you talk about these gubernatorial races, Jessica, what do you think are going to be some of the most hard fought gubernatorial races? I think Michigan Wisconsin is the swing space that we see in Arizona, Nevada and Georgia. Okay.
Jessica Taylor. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Great to see you here.
And before we go, I want to send a big congratulations to my friend, colleague, and mentor, Andrew Mitchell. After 17 incredible years of host of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reports, Andrea signed off for the final time today from the beaches of Alaska to the Munich Security Conference. Andrea has brought her viewers countless scoops and news making interviews. We are just so lucky that even as she steps away from the anchor chair, Andrea will continue to bring us her unparalleled reporting here at NBC News.
And this Sunday, you can catch her on with me on Meet the Press. So be sure to tune in. I'll also have exclusive interviews with Senator Andy Kim, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and American poet, Amanda Gorman. The news continues with Tom Costello and for Hallie Jackson right now.
I'm Craig Malef. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy.
And now, I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenge, their stories are fun, and my candy. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows?
You might just come away with your own glass half full. Search glass half full with Craig Melvin from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.