Welcome to NBC News Now. We are following some breaking news. A federal grand jury has indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That's the Maryland man mistakenly deported.
It's according to a copy of the indictment. Mr. Abrego Garcia is facing two counts of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gains and the unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gains. Now, according to a copy of the indictment, Attorney General Pam Bondi is about to speak about all of this at the Justice Department.
As we await the Attorney General, I want to go to our NBC News Justice and Intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney. And Ken, what can you tell us about what we're expecting? Good afternoon, Chris. Well, the Justice Department has been mum about what Pam Bondi is about to say, but we do have this very detailed indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which clearly suggests that the federal government has been talking to confidential informants and witnesses.
This is an indictment brought up grand jury in Tennessee. I have to unfortunately interrupt you because here's Attorney General Pam Bondi. 21st, a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned a sealed indictment, charging Abrego Garcia with aliens smuggling and conspiracy to commit aliens smuggling in violation of Title 8 USC 1324. We want to thank President Bouquetlay for agreeing to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.
Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country. We're grateful to President Bouquetlay for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges. This is what American justice looks like. Upon completion of the sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.
The grand jury found that over the past nine years Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. They found this was his full time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over a hundred trips.
The grand jury found smuggling people throughout our country. MS 13 members, violent gang, terrorist organization members throughout our country. Thousands of illegal aliens were smuggled. This is especially disturbing because Abrego Garcia is also alleged with transporting minor children.
The defendant traded the innocence of minor children for profit. There are even more disturbing facts that the grand jury uncovered. It is alleged this defendant is part of the same smuggling ring responsible for the death of more than 50 migrants in 2021 after the tractor trailer overturned in Mexico. This is part of that same ring.
The defendant abused undocumented alien females according to co-conspirators who were under his control while transporting them throughout our country. This defendant trafficked firearms and narcotics throughout our country on multiple occasions. They were using vehicles, SUVs, with added seats in the back, floors that had been ripped out, guns, narcotics, children, women, MS 13 members. That is what the grand jury found.
A co-conspirator alleged that the defendant solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor. A co-conspirator also alleged that the defendant played a role in the murder of a rival gang members' mother. These facts demonstrate Abrego Garcia is a danger to our community. We want to thank the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, our state and local partners, our acting U.S.
Attorney Robert McGuire, and prosecutors from the Joint Task Force, Vulcan. Questions? Attorney General, the traffic stop that we've seen video of from Tennessee, where everybody was first identified by the local authorities. At the time, the Homeland Security Department declined to take custody of them.
What has happened in between that time and in between the time that the government has been arguing that he was not returnable from El Salvador? What has happened since in this investigation that brought you here? Yes, the question was in 2021, there was the traffic stop. And what has changed since then?
What has changed as Donald Trump is now president of the United States and our borders are again secure. And thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued with actually amazing police work. And we were able to track this case and stop this international smuggling ring from continuing. Recently found facts.
Yes, recently found facts. That point, you should explain when this investigation was opened, the investigation in Tennessee. Can you say when that investigation was open? Well, the grand jury indicted on May 21st, this investigation has been ongoing.
The debate that you're in Washington, in your mind, does this resolve that issue in terms of his deportation? And should this be seen in any way as compliant with the judge's order to return up to the U.S. And the Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. government should take control?
There's a big difference between what the state of play was before the indictment and after the indictment. And so the reason why he is back and was returned was because it was an arrest warrant, which was presented to the government in El Salvador. So there's a big difference there. As far as whether it makes the ongoing litigation in Maryland mood, I would think so.
But we don't know that this is, you know, he just landed today. Jake, as you said earlier, that you're intending to prosecute him and keep him in an American prison and he found guilty and then would remove him after his sentences over. Correct. Yes, he will be prosecuted in our country, sentenced in our country, if convicted, and then returned after completion of his sentence.
Sadie, fall three-year-old? Okay. And two, one's on top of one's on top of it. Maybe I misunderstood you, but we're mentioning, you know, that he had some involvement in these in murder, you know, or what was connected to groups that had, you know, involved with this other smuggling ring.
But to be clear, the only charges he's facing right now are the, like, you know, human smuggling charges, just like this, that's the one offense. But the other things that you have talked about are not actually in no co-conspirators allege that. And we were clear to say that he is charged with not only very serious charges of aliens smuggling. And again, there were children involved in that, you know, human trafficking, not only in our country, but in our world is very, very real.
It's very dangerous. And as you saw recently in Virginia, the arrest we made of MS-13 number unrelated to this, we learned at that press conference, that's where they bring young children into our country and they start grooming them at middle school age to become MS-13 full fledged members commit violent crimes throughout our country. It is highly organized. It is very dangerous.
And they are living throughout our country, but no more, because they are being arrested, they are being prosecuted, and being convicted, and deported when appropriate. That's all for today. Thank you. You're listening to Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing that Kamara Regal Garcia, the Maryland man who had been deported to El Salvador, who the Supreme Court had said that the US government had to facilitate bringing back his now coming home, because he is facing indictments, allegations, charges that for nine years he was a part of a smuggling ring, which included bringing not only adults, but children, human trafficking for the past nine years.
He also, you also heard the Attorney General allege that Albrago Garcia engaged in other activity that was criminal in nature. But so far, as of right now, he faces charges for smuggling adults, children, throughout this country, from other countries. Back with me now is NBC News Justice and Intelligence correspondent, Kendalaney, and joining us also is from the US Attorney Carol Lamb. Ken, let me start with you, your reaction to what we just heard from the Attorney General.
Well, Chris, I think you made a very important distinction there and you broke it down. Well, this is a very detailed indictment that does allege very serious charges. And the legislature, for example, he made more than 100 trips to smuggle undocumented immigrants, but it also makes allegations that aren't charged. So he's charged with two counts of violating laws regarding smuggling undocumented immigrants.
But the indictment repeats allegations from what they call co-conspirators that are very serious, but have not resulted in criminal charges. That's curious. And you don't usually see that in these kinds of indictments. So for example, you heard the Attorney General say one co-conspirator alleged that he may have been involved in a murder.
And another said that he was abusing some of the female detainees that he was transporting. Again, he's not charged with that conduct. So it's very important to state that. At the same time, this indictment clearly changes the picture that a lot of people had of this man, who was portrayed by his lawyer and his wife as an innocent contractor in Maryland.
The federal government here, after it appears to be a pretty substantial criminal investigation, talking to a lot of different people gathering up cell phone records and other evidence, is making some very serious allegations accusing him of serious crimes. And it also solves a problem for the Trump administration, Chris. And because they're bringing him back when judges have ordered them to do that. And there's been some question about whether they were violating that corridor.
As Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, said there, that may all be moot now because he's coming back to face these charges. And Pam Bondi said that if he was convicted, he would serve a sentence here and then be deported elsewhere. She didn't say what would happen if he was acquitted of these charges. But presumably the Trump administration would try to deport him in that event, Kristen.
Let me just remind our viewers, Caroline, I'm going to go to you next a little bit of the history of Kilmar Bregow Garcia before he was deported. He came to the United States cross the border illegally in 2012 makes his way to Maryland. In 2019, he was assessed to be a member of MS-13 by Prince George's County Police Gang Unit. He then requested withholding from removal.
And he was actually approved for that in 2019, April of 2019, a judge granted that in March of 2025, he was arrested by ICE and detained in Baltimore and Louisiana. And in 2025, March 17, Senator Chris Van Holland actually went to go visit him to be able to obtain proof of life effectively in the wake of what became a national outcry after it was determined that he was deported, an administration official telling a judge that he was deported by mistake. And that was really the crux of what these court cases were. But Carol Lam, this is a lot of new information.
And the question, the fact that the administration didn't have or at least make this information public at the time that they deported him, what do you make of that? And what do you make of what we just heard from the Attorney General? Right. Well, Kristen, looking at the date that the Attorney General said the indictment was actually returned on a sealed basis, meaning that the public didn't have access to it.
I think she said May 21st. So, so the indictment is only about a week old. And looking at the indictment, this is what I discerned from it. He is charged only with alien smuggling.
This is a very common charge. Along the Southwest border, and I was a US Attorney here in San Diego, so Southwest border, this charges used very commonly, and it can be anything from, you know, a person in the car who's not illegal, who's crossing the border to the kind of alien smuggling that you often think of with people being hidden in the trunk or or something like that. But in this case, he is the only defendant in this indictment. And this is what we would call it a historical investigation.
So in other words, these are acts that appear to have happened way in the past. And you'll see that there are co-conspirators who apparently gave the government information, but they are not charged in the indictment. So he is the only defendant he has not charged as part of a conspiracy. And what that tells me is that these folks who are unnamed co-conspirators have probably cut a deal with the government and have given the government so-called historical information.
So we really don't know the facts here. On a standalone basis of 1324, alien smuggling charge is candidly not that serious. It can be serious, but it's very difficult to discern what the government is going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to simply the finding a probable cause that the grand jury found this indictment. You know, Carol, it's interesting, the Attorney General Todd Blanche there pressed on, are you complying with the Supreme Court ordered, which is to return, Mr.
Regovarsia, to facilitate his return? What did you make of the response that we heard there? Yeah, I think it was sort of a well, we don't really know, maybe the judge will find that the whole issue is moot. And certainly that's what the government is hoping they're going to be able to say, okay, we've returned him as a court wanted us to do.
And as the Supreme Court kind of said, they had to facilitate his return. But they're saving face by saying, you see, actually, he is a bad guy. And therefore, don't look over there at the fact that we didn't comply with the court's order for quite a few weeks. But I see he really is a bad guy.
And that remains to be seen. It, as I said, remains to be seen what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And Ken takes me to my next question, what will you be watching for next? What are the next steps here?
Well, now we go through the long process that results in a federal trial. There's gonna be a long lead up to that. They'll be discovery. But Carol's exactly right.
This indictment sketches out a skeleton. We want to see what what need is on those bones, because there's a lot of allegations in here that aren't necessarily supported by evidence. I'll be I'll be looking for what the evidence is on that is attorney, before the before the indictment was made public said in the statement that he was accusing the Trump administration of essentially abusing his client's rights and saying he'd be taken back to the original immigration judge. But clearly, there are some new facts on the table here.
I mean, clearly, investigators, I don't think it was with the FBI. I think it might have been with DHS Homeland Security agents have done some serious digging and found some information that the government did not know when they detained him at that traffic stop in Tennessee. And even when they deported him, according to the timeline that we're seeing. And so it really does again change the picture of this case, how significantly it changes it remains to be secret.
Yeah, they deported or they detained him at that traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022. We are just getting a statement from Senator Chris Van Hollen. And again, he is the Maryland Senator who went to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia. Let me read you part of this statement.
He writes for months, the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution. Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with the court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States. As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man. It's about the constitutional rights and the rights of all.
The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along Carol Lam. The argument of Senator Chris Van Hollen and frankly others who supported his decision to go to El Salvador was that this was not about whether Abrego Garcia had broken the law. It was about whether he had been afforded due process. Now he is on his way home and he will in fact face a judge and will have that due process that Senator Van Hollen was calling for.
Is that how you see this? Well, of course, that was always a point. The point was that he was sort of hustled away before he had a chance to make any of his arguments in court. And whether or not he is someone who is violated the law in some other way, is not really not relevant to the analysis here.
Because the next person down the line who's hustled out of the country without due process may not have any criminal liability or any other kind of liability. The problem as the Senator points out is that we simply don't know we just without due process and look, the law moves in a very deliberate, slow way process takes time and due process means you get the time that's proportional to the action that's being taken against you. You can't have the government moving people out of the country before they've had a chance to address whatever the allegation is. Personally, I'm very glad that the government has in this case, at least avoided what they're what everyone has been afraid of, which is a constitutional crisis, where the courts have required one thing and the government simply refuses to comply, at least in this case, that has been avoided.
All right, Ken and Carol, thank you so much for being here to help us unpack this breaking news. I know that you all we will continue to track these developments in the coming days and weeks. Thank you both so much. Well, we want to turn out to the latest fallout from what you could call one big not so beautiful breakup between President Trump and Elon Musk after Mr.
Musk criticized the price tag of the president's agenda in Congress, leading to an explosive and very public feud that quickly devolved into a brawl over power and influence and threats of government and political retaliation. Despite some rumblings that you would get on the phone to patch things up today, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles tells me there are no plans for that today. And the senior White House official tells me, my colleague Jonathan Allen, that the president is not interested in a call with Mr. Musk.
The situation escalated in the Oval Office yesterday for President Trump responded to Mr. Musk's criticism of his bill in Congress, accusing the world's richest man of being blinded by his bottom line and saying their relationship may in fact be over. Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles. And you know, they haven't a hard time to electric vehicles.
Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know what well anymore. We believe my administration. And they love us.
And then at some point, they miss it so badly. And some of them embrace it. And some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is.
It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. I guess they go and say the most beautiful things about me. And he hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm very disappointed anyone.
I've helped Elon a lot. And Mr. Musk responded in both using his social media platform to attack the president and Republican leaders to accuse President Trump of being ungrateful for his 2024 support floating impeachment and highlighting the president's past association with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on his own social media platform. The president said Mr Musk quote just went crazy and threatened to suspend all government contracts with Musk who sprawling technological empires intertwined with the US government and military.
It is a stunning fallout just one week after President Trump presented Mr Musk with a golden key to the Oval Office. Today, sources tell NBC News, the president is considering selling that red Tesla he purchased at a White House event earlier this year. The feud has put Republicans in a bind as the Senate is expected to make changes to the president's megabill that will need to be approved by both chambers. Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise insisting today that must opposition will not have an impact on the bill's support in his conference.
We're more united than we ever have been behind President Trump's agenda. Get it done on his desk by July court. So free country, it's free speech. But at the end of the day, we're going to pass this bill and he's going to be proven wrong because he's made statements about a bill that just are not accurate.
Joining me now with the very latest on this feud and what it means is NBC News Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake also with us on Capitol Hill is NBC News Senior National Reporters at Hill Kapoor and Lee Fager senior politics editor at Wired where she has been covering Elon Musk's foray into Washington Garrett. I have to start with you take me behind the scenes there at the White House. What are sources telling you about the state of this feud? Well, Kristen, AIDS were scrambling all day long yesterday to come up with a strategy which was put in place today and seems to be to deprive this feud of any additional oxygen.
And the president took some phone calls this morning from reporters in which he continued to disparage Musk a little bit saying that he had lost it or that, you know, he essentially felt bad for for Musk in some capacity. But beyond that, he was pretty quiet about this today. He used his own social media platform to talk about the economy to talk about his plans to build a ballroom here on the White House campus. And then of course, there was this massive announcement this afternoon from the Justice Department, all of which pushed the Musk moves down.
The president had three events on his calendar today, which he could have chosen to speak to reporters, two of them remain closed press on the third, his walk to the helicopter a short time ago, he simply turned in wave. I think their hope is that by depriving this of attention for the moment, they might be able to patch things up behind the scenes and at least try to move on without this bill in particular being suitably damaged. You know, Garrett, one of the notable aspects of this explosive online feud were the threats that both of these men lobbed at each other, including President Trump saying he might pull government contracts from Elon Musk's companies. Of course, close ally to the president Steve Bannon calling for actual investigations into Elon Musk.
Do you get the sense that any of those steps are going to be taken? Or is that just Lester right now, Garrett? Well, we're certainly not there yet. Musk today was more conciliatory on social media.
He chose not to escalate. I mean, how many times, Chris, and we heard President Trump talk about himself as a counter puncher. There was nothing to counter punch at today. And so I think as long as that remains the case, it probably won't go that far on the idea of pulling government contracts.
So talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. SpaceX for all attempts and purposes is the United States space program right now. And the Starlink internet service is integrated all across the country. It's integrated in airlines, it was intended to be integrated into the air traffic control system.
And it's global now in a way that if the US wants to get out of business with Starlink, that might hurt the US as much as it hurts Elon Musk. And so I don't think we're at that kind of mutually assured destruction stage of the game yet. But you know, it's what day two of this just getting going, right, Garrett? So let me head over to you on Capitol Hill.
Look, I think the big question that everyone has and quite frankly, the question that impacts everyone across the country is could this complicate the passage of President Trump's what he has dubbed the so called big, beautiful bill? Do you get the sense that he could bring down that legislation with his opposition? Complicate. Yes, Chris, then bring down the bill.
I have my doubts. This piece of legislation has 99 problems. And Elon Musk is just one of them. What he's doing is calling out the double speaker Republicans who say that debt is the priority.
We must bring down the debt. Here's the bill that adds more than $2 trillion to the debt. Most Republicans, including party leaders have said, let's use this alternate scoring mechanism that treats the tax cuts as being permanent in the out years and not count that as adding to the debt. And Elon Musk says, essentially, that's a bunch of hogwash.
And Republicans are failing to meet their own standards to make good on their own promises. Now, all of this is energizing the far right conservatives want cut deeper into the budget. We're not going to be on Musk and saying, Hey, we support this bill. But he has a point and it's driving the energy further in the direction of shrinking spending.
On the flip side, they're politically vulnerable house Republicans who are getting nervous about the existing cuts in the bill, including the clean energy funding, including the electric vehicle tax credits, which by the way, Elon Musk insists he's all in favor of appealing regardless of what it would do to Tesla. Now, all of that said, person at least one hard right Republican is saying, why can't these two men just figure out a way to get along? Take a listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene. I don't think lashing out on the Internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other cell phones.
So I hope this gets worked out. But I will tell you right now that people are going to be focused on making sure that we get the agenda that we voted for. And that's President Trump's agenda. That's a little glimpse person into whether Republican Party is saying Marjorie Taylor Greene stepping up to be the voice of reason pleading with the president of the United States on the world's richest man to get offline to try to sort out their problems like adults.
It is an extraordinary state of play right now, Sahil, that's for surely a let me go to you, your Elon Musk whisperer. He sent out so many posts yesterday. And what struck me is that he got personal pretty quickly. How far do you think he's willing to go here?
You know, it's really tough to say at this point. It doesn't appear that he has a lot to lose, at least in his point of view, he has a lot of government contracts. Like Garrett said, he's his SpaceX is such a massive part of government infrastructure at the moment, Starlink as well. But the messages that he was sending out yesterday were of someone who doesn't really seem to care.
So the fact that he's been a little bit quieter today, maybe that means that things might be changing. But it's I think it might be a bit of an interesting weekend to the extent that you can only take us inside Elon Musk's thinking, do you think he perceives in this moment? He has something to lose. We, of course, also what happened to Tesla stock yesterday, it dropped 14%.
It's up again today. But that was pretty significant. It did. It definitely did.
And Wired has been reporting that he's already lost billions and billions of dollars in the last 24 hours alone because of this. And it's less, I guess, of what does he have to lose and more of does he care if he loses it? He's really digging down on the big beautiful bill. He's been this massive promoter of his so-called Department of Government efficiency, Doge, over the last couple of months.
And this is, this appears to be a sticking point for him. I do envision him going on Joe Rogan with Donald Trump at some point as a little apology. We're friends again to her. I don't really know if I thinks so right now.
But we'll see. It's just fascinating, particularly given that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles says no plans for these two to speak today. But in talking to folks behind the scenes at the White House, Leah, there is a real sense that they want to de-escalate, that they want to find an off ramp here. Is Elon Musk someone who digs it and fights like this?
Oh, absolutely. And in some ways, the question is almost less what Elon is going to do here, but more about what Republican operatives and those in Trump world will do instead. We've been reporting that that advisors that have been working with Republican candidates have actually been telling their candidates to distance themselves from less for some time. And so I'm very curious how this is going to play out?
Yeah, we all are. Garrett, let me give the final word to you. Any sets of how this plays out? How does this end?
Where is the off ramp? Well, look, the red Tesla is still part just outside the West Wing. And we know that the president has been teasing the idea that he'd get rid of that if things go much further. That's going to be my barometer for how far this goes.
Look, Donald Trump doesn't like to back down on these fights unless he thinks it's on a winning term here. So whether either Musk comes to heel or this bill passes, I think that's the only way this ends with them still friends. But earlier in the second person, you invoke the name Steve Bannon. It wasn't all that long ago that Steve Bannon was, you know, unceremoniously thrown out of the White House in a similarly bruising public falling out.
He still retains the president's ear and counsel so many years later. That's probably where this ends long term. It will be fascinating to see what happens next and all of the twists and turns in between great conversation. Garrett Sahel and Leah, thank you so much.
And we will have more on the fallout of the Trump and Musk feud. Plus, NBC's Juan Hilliard sits down for an exclusive interview with Education Secretary Linda McMahon to discuss the Trump administration's actions against higher education. He'll join me with the biggest headlines and must see moments from their really wide-ranging discussion ahead. Stay with us.
You're watching The Press Now. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's The Scoop, the new podcast for NBC News with me, your host, Gazzam Visugia. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative for you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.
On the front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's The Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. 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. While things have been quieter today between President Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest man is now turning his ire towards former White House adviser Steve Bannon. I spoke with Mr. Bannon yesterday who says he's recommending the President pull every government contract associated with Musk and investigate his immigration status.
On social media today, Musk hit back at Bannon, including several posts using an inappropriate slur and one post on X that simply says, quote, Bannon is a criminal no response to that yet from Bannon. Joining me now is our fantastic Friday panel, the America co-worker of the early brief newsletter at the Washington Post, Cornell Belcher, Democratic strategist and an NBC News political analyst, and Daniel Platt, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an NBC News contributor. Thanks to all of you for being here. I do want to delve into this big beautiful feuds that we are witnessing.
But first, I have to get your take on the breaking news. Dan Kilmar, Brigo, Garcia, the Maryland man who the U.S. government said it mistakenly deported El Salvador laid out a slew of charges today, Attorney General Pam Bondi saying that he was a part of a smuggling ring, smuggling undocumented immigrants into the country for nine years, including children. What do you make of the developments today?
I think all eyes now are on Democrats who really rally around this case who advocated for him to be brought back to the United States with the help of the Supreme Court and other courts that asked for that exact issue to happen. How they respond to this will be very interesting because now he is returning to the United States. But with the DOJ hanging over him, are they going to rally around this case, given what it was announced today? Or are they going to be a little bit more careful than they may have been prior to this announcement?
I think it's a really great point, Colonel. What do you make of this? We heard from Senator Chris Van Holland, of course, the Maryland Democratic Senator who went to El Salvador to make sure that Brigo Garcia was still alive. And he always said this is not about whether or not he broke the law.
It's about his constitutional rights and due process. But to Dan's point, does this put Democrats in a very complicated position politically? Well, if we if we allow it, right? And one of the things that Republicans do really well is the bait and switch.
And to that point, it would be great if this is now a conversation about whether or not he was a criminal, because that's perfectly what Republicans want. But the larger issue is not that whether or not he's a criminal, larger issue is what is our government doing that is actually criminality, right? What is our government doing that's breaking the law, which is ultimately the point, right? I don't care if he's a good or bad guy.
I don't know if he's a good or bad guy. But what I care about is whether or not my government feels free to break the law and do process when they when they get ready. I know that the U.S. has to back up their claims.
Yes, which is where this where this is headed. Yeah, I mean, a grand jury will have a ham sandwich. And I'll break up a break or see it as well. But in response to what we heard from Cornell, I mean, this point about the broader questions that were at play here about due process and the government's responsibility to uphold due process according to the Constitution even for non citizens.
But that's what the government was challenging in essence. Well, look, again, I think that there were a lot of bad political choices made here. On the question of whether whether we should have 11 million illegal aliens in this country, and they should each one of them get due process in a court of law. I think that's a harder issue than the question of this particular individual.
And I think Chris Van Hollen, who I know, he's my own senator. I think he made a terrible political choices that man who had two protective orders by his wife brought out against him. He is a member or is likely a member of MS13. I've written repeatedly about this young Muslim women in Boston, who was arrested, taken in by ICE, taken to jail in Louisiana, who was an advocate for BDS, but was not a supporter of Hamas.
Why not pick her? Why pick this wife beating gang member? I don't think he's a gang member. I think that's part of the sort of back and forth.
But at any rate, again, I don't want to kind of elude this conversation about whether or not he's a good bad person. Because you know what, I don't want the government taking me into porting me, depending on whether I'm not I'm a good or bad person. That is for the moment. But that is the question.
Not about the question that Democrats are arguing, it's not about this person per se. It's about the next person. If you want to pick a champion, then pick somebody who ought to be a champion. Don't pick somebody who came here as an illegal alien, probably allegedly committed crimes, and is obviously going to be deported if he is not convicted at a court of law this time.
All right. Well, this is one of the most complicated cases. We'll continue to watch it. But Dan, let me ask you about the other big news that we are all tracking.
Just a little tiny thing, this just explosive public feud between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man. What are the implications of what the world witnessed yesterday to use it? I mean, I can't wait for Taylor's version of this break up. I mean, I think there's a number of implications.
I think there are political implications about how Democrats will use this and use what he's saying about this big beautiful bill against Republicans. I think there's also implications for the Trump White House. How he handles this. I mean, you saw it today, the temperature was brought down.
Now, in fairness, I'm not sure it could have risen any higher than it was yesterday. And there was a clear intention to bring that temperature down. But you know, I've heard a lot of people say this was shocking and this was huge, you know, couldn't believe it. But this is kind of a familiar pattern for the president.
I mean, there are a lot of people in his orbit who have been right by his side and then have fallen out of favor of Chris Christie, my parents, even Steve Bannon, as is rise and fall. The takeaway from this is there's one spotlight in Trump's orbit. Elon Musk got to step into that spotlight briefly. But there's a pattern here and I think it's that that spotlight remains trained on from Yeah, it's a great point.
We have seen this play out before what makes this particular feud unique is that the backdrop and really the center of it is this legislation, the president's agenda. Now, some lawmakers are saying it's not going to have any implications on whether the so called big beautiful bill gets passed. But what say you do you think it could have an impact? First of all, I can't believe anybody expressed shock that this happened.
I think we've all had a bingo pool when this was going to happen, not if it was going to happen. Look, I think there are a lot of people who have heartburned about the one big beautiful bill. A lot of people, you know, whether they're conservatives, they're more liberal republicans, democratic state republics, whatever they are, people don't like a lot of the provisions in it. And that, you know, means that Elon Musk has given them some cover, he's given them some political cover to take on the president in ways that I think are probably not great for the immediate passage of the bill.
Let's put it that way. I think that's right. I do think like when when he came out against the bill, it led to headlines, right? It was it was it was pushing on the left and right.
So it was a it was a headline thing. So it does give a permission structure now, think for a lot of, so you were a lot of Republicans here who do have hesitation. So I think it's easier, I think it's easier, easier no vote on the day than it was before it came out. But I got to make a broader point also here is that it's it's it's this tasteful, right?
Have the president of the United States and and someone who who has a questionable and their personal life, who at White House of Black Eyed and a t-shirt now, I know I know I've got trouble for having a tan so we show up at White House and t-shirt being charged up of so many parts of our government and can rifle throughout our data. It's problematic. And on the big stage and I've been watching the European press on this, it does not help us on the big stage and I respect for it. Guys, we're out of time.
Great conversation. Big question. I think how are Democrats going to respond to Elon Musk does try to come to them, support some of their campaigns. A lot to watch a lot.
Thank you so much for a great conversation. Coming up next, Education Secretary, Luther McMahon is press on President Trump's crackdown on higher ed as she sits down with our own NBC's, Volon Hilliard for an exclusive interview that I like to top takeaways coming up next. You don't want to miss it. You're watching the press now.
With the start today at workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you and now during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription and to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more Xfinity. Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled over ends May 20th, 26 prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full on return to details.
Welcome back, turning now to the latest in the administration's fight with Harvard and higher education, NBC News White House correspondent, Volon Hilliard sat down with Education Secretary Linda McMahon for an exclusive interview today, where she defended the administration's tactics against elite universities like Harvard and Columbia. Take a look at part of the interview. Universities, have you seen progress at Columbia? I have seen progress.
I think we're seeing progress because we are putting these measures in place and we're saying we're putting teeth behind what we're looking at. And you have to sit down with us because they are sitting down and they are because we have stopped their federal funding. And so is it necessary to cut off the foreign student program for the United States of America, effectively for these universities in response? Well, that calls to respond.
So I'm very happy that we're going to continue to scrutinize these students are coming up because first and foremost, we have to protect the students here in the United States. We have to make sure that our students can go to universities and feel safe and get the education that they want and that they deserve. Joining me now is NBC News, Von Hilliard, Von, congratulations on a fantastic exclusive interview with the Education Secretary. We saw there, you pressed her repeatedly, what were your other big takeaways?
The idea that these actions by the White House are ongoing, it's more than the $2 billion freeze, right? It's a proclamation just as we buy the White House that they're seeking to threaten the accreditation of Columbia University. And if they lose accreditation, they lose all of their federal funding. And Columbia University is the one that has essentially agreed to the list of demands presented by the Trump administration.
And yet they're still going so far as to take any steps. And that is where you heard there. We can see that both of these universities have made progress on fighting and combating anti-Semitism, yet they continue to go full steam ahead. And that is where the question is, what about the other 58 universities that they're now investigating for title six civil rights violations?
And Von, could she point to any actual violations? Did she give you examples? Well, this is the part they've done all of this against Harvard University, threatened her taxes exam status, despite the Department of Education, nor the Department of Justice actually completing an investigation into civil rights violations. And so without those findings, Harvard University says, how are we supposed to respond accordingly when they haven't even presented the post violations that we've committed, take a listen to this exchange?
I think part of the issue is that there have been no title six violations that have been specifically found by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, they have not been given any specific findings, and the opportunity to engage with the administration to try to correct those. And so let me interrupt you there. How can you say there are no title six violations when there's been immense coverage of what went on at Columbia with students being barricaded and pounded into that? Well, the Department of Education hasn't provided Harvard with those findings.
Well, clearly, we are fine. I think those findings are clear. And we think that's why they found the lawsuit. Well, and then if the lawsuit is continuing, then we'll see what the courts decide on that.
But I think we're going to prevail on that because I don't think these universities can stand very tall and clear when students are saying we were afraid to go to campus. And there were students pounding outside of a glass and saying death Israel, death to Jews. That's that's hate speech. And that's just wrong.
These are clear title six violations. And it's not just the idea of combating anti-Semitism. She gives numerous other reasons for why they're taking on Harvard. And that is because they contend that they continue to deploy DEI efforts.
They have an endowment that should be taxed. And this is where right on one hand on Garber of Harvard University says we are making progress and rooting out anti-Semitism at the same time as Linda McMahon is acknowledging that they have other reasons as to why they are continuing to target them less. What did she say about foreign students at Harvard? Because that's been such a big focus of the administration's attention.
Right. And that is where I specifically brought up the case of Mesa Ostrick, who was the Tufts University student who the judge ordered her to be released after the only violate and the supposed alleged violation that is a Turkish national here on a foreign visa that the administration brought against her was that she had wrote an op-ed speaking out against the Tufts University administration. And she acknowledged that there are going to be some arrests that shouldn't have taken place. But in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, Harvard, they gave them the names of three students that had allegedly engaged in misconduct.
And yet, when I asked her, is there some great conspiracy here among foreign nationals that would lead to essentially cutting off the international students from studying at Harvard, let alone the $1.1 million across the rest of the country's universities. She said that the form of attention for this administration is ensuring the security of American students, and they are going to take the necessary steps, even if that means cutting off access to foreign nationals. Well, it's really a remarkable discussion, Von Hilliard. Thank you so much for bringing us to this great, great job.
We really appreciate it. Great to see you. Still to come with early voting in New Jersey underway. We'll speak with one of the top contenders in Tuesday's very crowded Democratic gubernatorial primaries.
Same with us watching at the press now. Back early voting is underway in New Jersey, ahead of the states gubernatorial primaries on Tuesday. And all eyes are on the very crowded Democratic field where we will get the very first hard data of what the Democratic electorate wants after their losses at the federal level last November. Joining me now is one of the Democrats vying to be the next governor of New Jersey Congressman Josh Cotheimer.
Thank you so much, Congressman for joining me. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Well, I don't have to tell you this.
This is a crowded field. I had the opportunity to interview Mayor Baraka yesterday. So let me ask you the very same question. What makes you the right person to be the next governor of New Jersey?
Well, first, thanks again for having me. You know, it's been a crazy few days, as you might imagine. Lots of diners, lots of senior centers, seeing a lot of people. And you know, my focus has been when it's been since day one of this campaign about affordability.
And I'm running on the only one with a plan to lower taxes and lower costs for families in Jersey. They need it. Families are feeling squeezed, whether you're a senior who's who's retired, or somebody's just come out of school and look at a stay here, you know, between our rents and our property taxes and utility bills. People are hurting.
And you know, as we saw in the last election, that's what really the focus is. And I think it's Democrats what we need to to really pay attention to. Let me ask you, we spent the first part of the show talking about Elon Musk's feud with President Trump and his issues with the president's agenda in Congress. Well, New York Congressman Rituras, who is backing your campaign, said of Musk's turn quote, I'm a believer in redemption.
And he is telling the truth about the legislation. But there are Democrats who see his decimation of the federal workforce and the federal government as an unforgivable sin. Do you agree with Torres about potential redemption for Mr Musk? Or do you see his work in the government as an unforgivable sin, as he says?
Well, listen, I'm glad that Elon Musk is calling out what we all know that this bill that they passed out of the house, the extremists is does nothing except gut medicare, Medicaid, hurt Social Security, hurt our families, our kids who were hungry. I mean, it's a disaster of a piece of legislation. I'm glad that Elon Musk is realizing what all of us know and what the damage that it would do to families here in New Jersey. I mean, what he what he's done to the government, you know, in terms of what the VA or those security to me is unacceptable and unforgivable.
And until they clean that up, which, you know, they're trying to do slowly, you know, I have zero patience for Elon Musk, but really I blame Donald Trump. You know, he's the president, the buck stuff with him, and he's made a complete mess in a few months of our economy, of our government prices are up. People's retirement savings are down. That's what people bring up to me here, right?
They're so anxious about their retirements, whether they're going to have enough money because of what he's done. People's people in small businesses, you know, working class people are trying to figure out how they're going to pay their bills because cost keep going up. And every day there's more chaos. Well, let me ask you, because Mr Musk has said, anyone who votes in favor of the bill should be fired, not so subtly suggesting he might support Democrats potentially against Republicans who vote for this legislation.
Do you think Democrats should accept his money? Would you? And I don't think anybody should rely on anything that Elon Musk says, right? And that's kind of the point.
They're all over the place. I think what we need to do as a party is make sure we remind the country what Democrats are about, right? We're about getting people's backs. We care about veterans.
We care about children. We don't cut school breakfast and school lunchroom kids. We don't gut Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. We actually look after people.
We make sure that planes can land because the FAA is staffed, right? And to me, it's that that's what Democrats have. What I'm doing here in New Jersey is reminding people that where the party looks out for people, right? And you know, that's why I'm so focused on getting costs down for families with its child care costs or health care costs of making life more affordable for them.
When we play often to remind people that we're the party that does that, we win. I want to ask you about the state of the Democratic Party, both nationally and in New Jersey. As you know, President Trump made some real gains in Deep Blue, New Jersey. If you go back to November, Kamala Harris won the state by about six points, compare that to Joe Biden in 2020, who won it by 16 points.
Congressman, what happened? Why didn't Democrats turn out in New Jersey for Kamala Harris? I mean, I think this is kind of the point. We've got to get back to the basics and focus on the things.
If families can't afford to feed their kids or put clothes on their back or they don't feel safe at night, everything else quickly becomes secondary. And I think that's the point, right? And we have to make sure that we focus on those basic issues. And you know, I'm the only Democrat in this race that ever beat a sitting Republican.
So you know, and I just won my seat last time in Congress by 12 points and Harris won my seat by one point. November is going to be tough for Democrats. We cannot just think we're going to be in the park, right? So we need somebody who can win.
I'm obviously the one who can win in November. And I think the core issue, which I've always focused on is lower taxes and lower costs and an economic message, because you know, again, at the end of the day, when people wake up in the morning, if they can't be their kids, nothing else really matters. Well, Congressman, we only have about a minute left, but let me ask you this question. I mean, President Trump still has an approval rating of about 40% in your state.
Do you think the next governor should try to reach across the aisle if a Democrat wins and work with President Trump? We've seen that example, for example, with Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Well, you know, I helped start a group called the Problem Solvers Caucus, and I always believe in getting stuff done whenever possible. But only if it's good for Jersey.
So, you know, I'll work with anyone if it's good for Jersey, you mess with Jersey, I'm going to fight you. And when Trump messes with our families or our seniors, I'm going to fight them when he goes after our education in our schools, I'm going to fight them or our seniors, right? When he messes with Medicare and Medicaid. So I think that's how any governor should look at it.
If there's opportunities to work together, that it's good for the state, right? But of course, if you mess with our state, we're coming for you. Alright, Representative Godhammer, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Hope you have a great time. Thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you for being with us this hour.
We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now and if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your level NBC News stations. I'll be sitting down exclusively with Senators James Langford and Cory Booker. Plus, we'll have an exclusive Meet the Moment interview with Olivia Munn. You don't want to miss it.
NBC News now coverage continues with Tom Castello and for Hallie Jackson right now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.
Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Makowitz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.