If it's Wednesday, the White House faces signs of public frustration with the president's economic agenda as new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect. And Canada and Europe retaliate with tariffs of their own. Plus, with just days to go before government shutdown, Senate Democrats are facing a major dilemma. Will they reject Republicans funded bill and for the shutdown or support it and risk a backlash from their base?
And the Department of Education begins a drastic reduction in its workforce as it moves to cut half its staff, firing roughly 1300 career employees with the ultimate goal of shuttering the entire agency. Welcome to the press now. I'm Kristen Welker. Washington we're escalating trade wars and mixed messaging from the White House continue to raise concerns about the fate of the US Economy.
The markets just ended today's session with the Dow relatively flat. The other major indices slightly up after a key inflation report came in cooler than expected, which was welcome news for the White house as new 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports took effect today, putting new price pressure on US Consumers. Also today, more tariff retaliation from top trading partners including Canada, which announced tariffs on $21 billion in US goods and the European Union which announced tariffs on $28 billion in goods as well. Here's Canada's foreign minister earlier today.
This is much more than about our economy. It is about the future of our country. Canadian sovereignty and identity are non negotiable. Canadians have had enough and we are a strong country.
In an effort to cool some of the tensions between the US And Canada, a Canadian delegation is coming to Washington tomorrow to meet with top Trump administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick has been one of the most ardent proponents of tariffs, but has notably shifted his outlook on what effect those tariffs may have on the US Economy. Here's what he said on the press on Sunday and then last night. Should Americans brace for a recession?
Absolutely not. Anybody who bets against Donald Trump, it's like the same people who thought Donald Trump wasn't a winner a year ago. Donald Trump is a winner. He's going to win for the American people.
That's just the way it's going to be. There's going to be no recession in America. Will these policies be worth it if they lead to a recession, even a short term recession? These policies are the most important thing America has ever had.
So it is worth it. It is worth it. The message hasn't been much clearer from the president, who has seemingly shifted his position about both the economic outlook and the reason for tariffs. Are you expecting recession this year?
I hate to predict things like that. There is a period of transition because what we're doing is very big. We're bringing wealth back to America. That's a big thing.
And there are always periods of it takes a little time. It takes a little time. I'll tell you what. Of course you hesitate.
All I know is this. We're going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs and we're going to become so rich you're not going to know where to spend all that money. I don't see it at all. I think this country is going to boom.
Business leaders and investors, meanwhile, have urged the administration to provide more clarity on its tariff strategy, as the president has simultaneously threatened, pulled back and doubled down on various tariffs in his first two weeks in office. NBC TELLY o' Donnell pressed President Trump on this issue as his answer question as he answered questions from reporters in the Oval Office today. Take a look. There's been a lot of on and off, some inconsistency.
There's very consistency only with NBC, which is one of the worst networks on television, by the way. Let me just tell you the inconsistency. I have the right. I have the right to adjust.
And I'm not like a block that just I won't belong. I have it's called flexibility. It's not called inconsistency. It's called flexibility.
And I think you want me to be flexible, too. Is flexibility going to be your ongoing view towards you? Sure, I'll always have flexibility, but there will be very little flexibility once we start. Joining me now is our team for reporters, Erin Gilchrist at the White House, Gabe Gutierrez is on the ground in Canada and Brian Chung has the latest on the economy.
And with the onset is Elise Lavish, Edward R. Murrow, press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Cosmopolitics on Substack. Aaron, let me start with you. Let's talk about what the conversations are inside the West Wing.
How much concern is there about a potential recession? I was able to interview the Commerce Secretary, Howard Ludnick, on Sunday. He said there will be no recession in America, but he's obviously shifted his tone a little bit. Yeah, but I do think the question that the messaging from this White House, without regard to the change in policy, the message seems to be fairly consistent that they intend to stay the course.
We should not expect to see that the president or his team might pull back on some of the things they're doing as it relates to our domestic economy and as it relates to trade policy with other countries, although, as you know, there are going to be negotiations with the Canadians. We just heard that national economic advisor giving interview where he said that he anticipates GDP will be growing for the first quarter between two and two and a half percent. We heard Caroline Levitt, the president's press secretary, talking to reporters a little earlier today and saying that the economy is in a good place, the economy will continue down the road, that it's going in the right direction. She said she pointed out inflation, that the CPI numbers that came out today.
And she pointed to the fact that there are businesses that are continuing to invest in The United States, GE Aerospace, you know, is investing a billion, $1 billion and is creating more jobs here. And so I think that's the message that seems to be coming from the White House, that it's not wildly concerned about a terrible recession coming in the near future, that's trying to stay on message and on task of instituting these economic policies that it believes will ultimately bear fruit for the US Economy. Kristen, and we see how dug in the president is, but what about those around him? Is there any dissent, any debate, debate about how robustly they should move forward?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of dissent. I think there is some debate. The president himself has indicated that he surrounds himself with people who have differences of opinion sometimes and that they may bump heads. But at the end of the day, we have heard repeatedly from the commerce secretary, from the treasury secretary, from the national economic advisors and others in this administration that they are executing on the plan that President Trump wants them to execute on.
And so I think that's what we should expect to see going forward. The president indicated on more than one occasion that he thought that there could be some bumps in the road. Little disturbances, I think was the phrasing that he used. But that doesn't seem to have deterred him from the tariffs that we've seen put in place on Mexico and Canada, from the steel and aluminum tariffs that we saw going place today around the world.
And we can't Forget that come April 2, this administration still fully intends to institute reciprocal tariffs on countries all around the globe, the trade war intensifying. Aaron Gilchrist, thank you so much. From outside the White House, I want to head out to Gabe Coutieras, who is in Canada. Gabe, thank you so much for joining us.
Take us inside the conversations that you're having there. What has the reaction been to this trade war? Hi there, Chris. Good afternoon.
From a very frigid Charlevoix, probably a metaphor for the frosting relations that we're seeing here between the US And Canada. And look, I've been speaking with people over the last day or so here in the Quebec region, and they are so furious that what's going on. We heard from Canadian officials earlier today. You mentioned that the Canadian delegation heading to Washington tomorrow to speak with Commerce Secretary Lutnick and to try and come to some sort of agreement to roll back these terrorists.
But there's incredible frustration here in Drummondville, which is a few hours from here. We spoke with an official with the city, as well as a metal processing company that has 150 employees is worried about potentially losing jobs in that town alone. So 3,000 jobs are at risk. And we spoke to that official from the mayor's office.
Listen to more what he told us about what's at stake here in the city. It's nearly 3,000 jobs at risk with these tariffs across the board, nearly 100,000 across Quebec. And I think it's, I can't stress it enough that it's not benefiting anybody. Everybody's losing, and especially Americans because Indian tariffs, who are going to pay for tariffs.
It's not President Trump. It's not Prime Minister Trudeau or Prime Minister Carney. Now, it's American consumers and Canadian consumers. So nobody's winning this.
There's also incredible frustration here, Chris, about the idea that President Trump keeps repeating annexing Canada, making it the 51st state. There's a lot of anger here, a lot of outrage from these Canadians, which are typically so polite. But there's just so many questions about where they go from here and a sense of betrayal as well that their biggest trading partner is doing this to that person. And again, let me just follow up with you, because Secretary of State Marco Rubio, of course, just landed in Canada, had a meeting there, the G7 foreign ministers.
What did he say about this meeting before arriving in Canada? Yeah, and Secretary Rubio will be here for this G7 foreign ministers meeting throughout the rest of the week. And this terrorist issue will be top of mind. He was asked about it earlier today as he was traveling here.
He spoke with reporters. And look, he said this wasn't going to be a meeting about taking over Canada. He was asked about the annexation issue, but certainly Canadian officials here say that they will bring up the issue of these tariffs. And Secretary Rubio defended the Trump administration's position that, look, this is something that the United States needs to do because of Deindustrialization over the past few decades.
And it is in the country's national security security interests to impose these tariffs. But certainly he's expected again here for here at this meeting later on this week. Yeah. And I know we'll be watching that very closely.
All right, Gutierrez, thank you so much, Ryan. John, let me head over to you. You and I spent all of last week talking about the uncertainty that the president's tariff policy was creating from Wall street to Main Street. Big picture.
How is the market feeling this week about what we are seeing with this ongoing trade war? Well, we did get a little bit of bounce back today. The S&P 500 coming back. Dow did close marginally in the red, $2.10 of a percent.
But that fails in comparison to losses that we saw earlier this week, especially when we rewind to Monday. We had the steepest losses, the worst day on Wall street of 2025 for all the three major indexes. But what's happening to Wall street is very much the concern that's happening on Main street as well, which is just uncertainty about these tariffs. I mean, if you put yourself in the position of a small business, you do not have any more yesterday than you did last week, than you did the month prior in terms of how much it's going to cost you to bring in the toys that you might sell in your store or the raw ingredients that you need to bring in to make candy or the steel that you need to import from Canada to then make small appliances that you might sell in the United States.
So because of that uncertainty, you have a lot of companies that are now guiding lower and you look at the likes of Delta Airlines, American Airlines, slashing their outlook for the first quarter this year because they're worried about some of this leading over into consumer confidence and maybe not longing to travel. Same thing with Kohl's, the retailer that also lower their guidance. So this is happening in many sectors of the economy and that uncertainty hasn't gotten any clear as of late. Yeah, Brian, you mentioned the inflation report.
Take us inside the numbers. What's your biggest takeaway? Yeah, this was largely a big catalyst for some of the downside that we saw in markets today. As you mentioned at the top here, 2.8%.
That's the number that we got in terms of how much prices increased between February of this year and February of last year. That's good news on two fronts. One, because economists were expecting 2.9%. So this is lower than that, of course, inflation.
And it's also lower than the 3% rate that we had recorded in the month of January. And what's even more encouraging, you look at this report, is that we break it out by these major categories. We saw a slowing. These are monthly rates that we're looking at now in the rate of inflation for these three major categories.
Food, energy and shelter, all getting a little bit slower in terms of the rate of price increases. Now, of course, some people might be saying, yeah, but I've seen the price of eggs. And yes, indeed, the government data does verify that the average price of a dozen has increased by almost a double. It's crazy even.
Remember, we were paying $3 a dozen at one point last year. Milk prices have gone sideways. One silver lining here is that gasoline prices have gone down by 10 cents. One other thread that people might be thinking about for support.
Oh, wait, I thought these tariffs were going to make everything more expensive. This covers the month of February before we saw many of these tariffs. So here are the categories I'm going to be looking for in the future reports. Appliances and new vehicles because of these steel and aluminum imports.
Again, 25% more expensive. Now, these are the monthly changes between January and February. Nothing really crazy here. I'm also watching computers.
This increase by 0.7%. This is because of the Chinese tariffs. So you can't forget about that as part of the conversation as well. 20% now being led by anything coming in from China that could get ratcheted up in the future as well as the President had promised on the campaign trail, these prices could go up in the months of conversation.
All right, Brian Chong, bring down all of the numbers for us. Thank you so much. My greatest you as always. Elise Labet here with me on set.
Thank you for coming back, Elise. We appreciate it. It's great to have you back. Let's start off by talking about what we're seeing, which is this really aggressive approach toward Canada, this trade war that is escalating.
What are your takeaways at this very moment? Well, there's two things really, right? There's the tariffs and the economic impact. And then, you know, as Aaron was saying earlier, it's also the whole idea of this ally abandoning us.
And if you look at Canada, who's, you know, Canadians are really usually mild mannered. You see protests, you see them, you know, really doubling down, nationalism really taking root, taking American products off the shelves. Kentucky bourbon producers forever were. Mitch McCon, you know, it's his state now.
They're made in Canada by Canadian. So it's really having the opposite effect. And then there's the idea that this is so haphazard, right? The, you know, start, stop, you know, kind of riding the brake on the tariffs is creating so much uncertainty, not just in Canada, but here.
And you see consumer confidence really in that uncertainty affecting markets here. You know, we didn't know how seriously to take President Trump initially when he started talking about making Canada a 51st state. He's increasingly talked about it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that these tariffs are all about basically tanking the Canadian economy so that he can annex Canada.
How seriously are officials taking this threat in Canada? Canada, look, on the face of it, it's kind of ridiculous, right? Like, what would happen if obviously this is United States is a huge country, but if Mexico said, what do you think of becoming, you know, Mexican? I mean, you know, Canadians are like, it's not for sale.
And so you see this and, you know, you hear on NBC, watch Saturday Night Live, and you saw Mike Myers with the elbows up is a hockey term in Canada. Canadians have their elbows up and they're ready to fight back. And it's just offensive. And you've heard, you know, the Canadian foreign minister, you heard foreign former minister, Prime Minister Trudeau to say, look, you know, this is offensive.
We're not for sale. We want good relations. But, you know, stop it. And what's notable about this moment here, we have, you know, new to President Trump in terms of his dealing with the new Mexican president and then also the new prime minister of Canada.
How do you anticipate he's going to navigate these relationships? Well, I think you can consider what he's doing right now, this bully tactic. But if it continues to hurt American consumers, you know, just like we've seen, he may change his mind. I think also in Europe as a bloc, it's a very large trade block.
Germany is one of the, you know, U.S. s largest exporters. Of course, you know, this is really going to have a global effect. And I'm also concerned about some of the talk, the wider talk about kind of issuing American economic leadership around the world.
We've heard about this Mar A Lago accord, this paper that's floating around about weakening the dollar and maybe not, you know, the whole idea that should global currency be pegged to the dollar? I mean, he's really trying to Kristen up and the whole economic, global economic system. What are economists saying about what that would actually look like if you were able to upend the entire economic system globally? If the dollar were to be devalued, you know, the White House.
President Trump may say, well, that ultimately in the long run emboldens America, but it's very risky. Well, you know, and it has unintended consequences just like economists are saying, you know, these tariffs could have unintended consequences that could last decades. Right. Bush's steel ge, Bush's steel tariffs.
Like we felt that for years. And it can have these unintended consequences. Yes, it might help America in the short term. Economists don't think so.
But then, you know, other countries may seek alternatives. The Chinese are waiting in the wings. So this isn't just about like, you know, the price of eggs. And look, there is something to be said for trying to have some more equilibrium market.
We go overseas, we try to go to the dirty free because, you know, foreign products are so expensive. But you know, when it upends the whole economic system, economists are warning of a global financial crisis. It's not just a little bully tactics. It has larger kind of economic ripple effects.
Well, I know you're watching every single twist and turn and these ripple effects. Thank you for joining us here. Insights Elise, good to be back. Great to have you.
Coming up, the pressure is on Senate Democrats as party lawmakers behind me behind closed doors the hash out a plan with the government shut down approaching. Plus, we're headed to House Peter Johnson's home district of Louisiana to hear from his constituents about how sweeping cuts programs could impact them. Stay with us. You're watching the PRESS now.
Welcome back. Turning out of Capitol Hill where all eyes are on Senate Democrats after House Republicans muscled through a six month stop gap bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown at the end of the week. House Republicans didn't need Democrats support to pass that bill. But it's a much different story in the Senate where Democrats can filibuster the legislation if they want to, which would lead to a shutdown.
Democrats huddled today at the Capitol divided about what to do. Some fear that allowing the bill to pass would anger their base while enabling the president to continue mass firings of federal workers. Others worry that blocking the bill and shutting down the government would backfire politically while hurting the same federal workers they're trying to protect. Moments ago, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer took the floor and proposed a third option and even shorter continuing resolution.
Even though Republicans have said that option is on the table, said Republicans don't have the votes to proceed without them. Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House cr our caucus is unified on a clean 4-11-cr that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass. We should vote on that. I hope.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown on Friday. And Ethan is chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles is on the Hill with the very latest. So the big question on our minds as we head toward Friday, what will Senate Democrats do? Leader Chuck Schumer out with some pretty strong language there, Ryan.
Yeah, but Chris, I don't know if it's a realistic path for Senate Democrats at this point. I think that they are hoping that Republicans take the bait for the short term CR and perhaps extend out the period of time which they can negotiate and still avoid a shutdown. But Republicans feel emboldened. They never thought a million years.
The Senate Democrats should stay there for a million years and Mike Johnson would be able to muscle through a continuing resolution with basically only Republican votes. That was a bet that the Democrats made and lost. And now this is a situation where Senate Democrats really bear the responsibility as to whether or not this bill passes and whether or not a shutdown is avoided. And all of these Senate Democrats are united in this idea that they do need to stand up to the Trump administration.
Where the divide exists is whether or not using this particular opportunity, the leverage that they have in terms of government shutdown is the path that they should take to stand up to the Trump administration. And there's one Senate Democrat in particular, Senator John Ferman of Pennsylvania, who does not believe that that's the path to go forward. And I believe we have some sound from what he told me about that just a few minutes ago. Are you still going?
Yes, I'm C.R. yes. I'm going to vote yes for that. And my, my concern is, as a choice is like withholding your vote, you know, vote no and shut down the government.
If we don't have the votes for our culture, I mean, it's basic. Shut the government down or stay it open with a flaw, with a deeply flawed cr. That's the choice. And some of them, many of them maybe are Americans.
They want to vote no. But for me, I can't vote for shutting the government down. And Fetterman is right that almost every Democrat does believe this is a deeply flawed bill. They do not view it as a clean CR1 a Democrat, Raphael Warnock described to me as a very dirty cr but they are in a position here where they don't have many other options.
If they vote no, the government will shut down. And there's no doubt that Republicans will blame them for it. It is a political dilemma. I know you will watch to see how it plays out.
Ryan, bring that to us. Let me ask you about some big news today out of the Senate. New Hampshire. Jean Shanin saying she will not run for re election.
That makes three Democrats in key battleground states saying they're not going to run for re election. What's the broader takeaway here? Yeah, I'm sure this was not welcome news to Senator Chuck Schumer, who's doing everything he possibly can to win back the majority in 2026, perhaps thinks that Democrats have to win at their backs given the early moves by the Trump administration. But listen, is 78 years old.
She doesn't want the being the United States Senate to dominate the rest of her life. She didn't think about this long and hard. She said that she's still gonna be part of the fight, but she just does not want to be in the United States Senate. This is gonna be a real problem for Democrats.
New Hampshire is no doubt a swing state, is a state where Republicans absolutely have an opportunity to pick up a seat. They have the right now a bench of potentially two very strong candidates in former Senator Scott Brown, who was, of course, the former senator for Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and then also Chris Sununu, who was recently governor of New Hampshire, who said for a long time that he wasn't even interested in being in the Senate, but now feels differently about it because he likes the way that Donald Trump is reducing the size of the federal government. So stay tuned. This is gonna be a hot race in 2026 for sure.
It sure is. All right, Ryan Nobles, thank you so much for bringing all that to us. We really appreciate it. While the continuing resolution will keep the government open, the big goal for President Trump and congressional Republicans is slashing trillions from the federal budget.
The president has repeatedly vowed that entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid will not be touched. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, to make the cut Republicans want. The math just doesn't add up without touching entitlement programs. As members of Congress are absolutely aware, those programs are essential to tens of millions of Americas.
And House Speaker Mike Johnson's district in Louisiana, nearly a quarter of adults under 65 have Medicaid or similar coverage as their only health insurance. That's according to analysis by our NBC Political unit. And almost 20% of households in his district receive SNAP benefits or food stamps, another program that could find itself cut in these budget talks. Join me now on the ground in Speaker Johnson's district is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zenona.
Melanie, great to have you out on the road. There you are in Speaker Johnson's district where roughly one in four are enrolled in Medicaid. What are folks saying to you about this, this reconciliation package that calls for deep cuts? Well, Kristen, there's a lot of fear here in this community about the potential cuts to both Medicaid and food stamps.
I talked to a number of folks yesterday who were at a local food bank. People were lined up around the block to get their baskets of food and they said they are struggling right now to pay for groceries. They're struggling to find jobs. Some of them lost their homes in a hurricane a few years ago.
And so they had really come to rely on government assistance and said if they didn't have that extra help, they wouldn't be able to survive. Take a listen. I'd be devastation for a lot of people, for a lot of families. Yeah, there was a way that we weren't able to do this.
It would be devastating to the community. So how important is it to have these additional resources to help you take care of it? I really don't. It's been, it's been tough.
What is your message to the speaker in the rest of Congress when it comes to Medicaid? And yeah, get your act together. That's my message because people can't do without it. And I'm in the downtown area of Vinton, Louisiana right now.
Behind me, a number of businesses are closed down. So it's not hard to see why people are struggling to find employment and struggling to make ends meet. Great interviews. Now let me ask you, because President Trump has repeatedly said Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security won't be touched.
But again, it's going to be difficult to find these new cuts without extracting something from these programs. What are the forces at play here as you're watching this play out? Yeah. So Speaker MC Johnson has also said they are not going to cut Medicaid benefits.
He says they want to root out waste, fraud and abuse and take other potential forms of the program such as instituting work requirements for able bodied adults. But there is deep skepticism right now that Congress will be able to achieve the level of cuts and savings that they are trying to do without significantly cutting or restructuring Medicaid, Medicaid and food stamps. And if they aren't able to meet that level of savings, that's gonna be a huge problem for hardline conservatives who have been demanding cuts, including two Medicaid and food stamps. So this could all create huge problems for President Trump's agenda in Congress.
He's trying to pass the sweeping domestic policy agenda and all that could really be in jeopardy. They can't find any here. There's no doubt about that. All right.
Melanie's not great to have those interviews there from the speaker's district. We really appreciate it. Coming up next, we're live outside the Department of Education where more than a thousand employees are set to be fired as President Trump tries to do what he can to shutter the agency. You're watching Eat THE PRESS now.
Welcome back. Department of Education workers were ordered to stay home today as President Trump's efforts to slash the federal workforce now turn to that department. More than 1300 workers at the Department of Ed are expected to be terminated. Between those terminations of hundreds of employ who accepted buyouts and dozens of probationary workers were terminated in February, the agency's workforce has been effectively cut in half.
President Trump has expressed his desire to dismantle the Department of Education altogether, something he cannot do without Congress. New will office today. Macy's Kelly o' Donnell pressed the president about the cuts to the department. I feel very badly and, but many of them don't work at all.
Many of them never showed up to work. Many of them, many of them never showed up to work. We want to cut, but we want to cut the people that aren't working or not doing a good job. We're keeping the best people.
Joining now from outside the Department of Education is NBC News correspondent Julia Ainsley. Julia, thanks for joining us this afternoon. So what specifically are you learning about the cuts? Well, look, it's closed here today, Kristen.
As you said, they asked workers to stay Home. About 60 of the employees left this building yesterday without their jobs anymore. And of course, it doesn't just affect Washington. There are also 17 Department of Federal offices across the country.
And what they're saying is that they're going to keep going with things like federal student loans, being able to get grants to schools in underprivileged, underserved areas, as well as the students with special needs. But the question yet to be answered is how do you do that with half of the staff? And so there were some rallies here yesterday saying that there would be impacts felt across the country. Of course, we should say about 10% of funding for public schools across the country actually comes through Washington.
Most of that is handled at the same federal level. But some of the people who have been here, sales passerbys we've talked to today and said that they're really deeply worried about what will happen to some of the basic functions of this agency when they're operating with half that staff. Well, you take me to my next question. I mean, what could this mean for those basic functions and also more specialized functions, for example, helping kids with special needs in schools throughout the country.
Yeah, that's right, Kristen. We're learning, or I'm at least learning more about all the functions of the part of education today, including their where they study education. I mean, there were hundreds of workers who keep tabs on the way us American students are progressing through school so that a child raised in one state can be compared to a child raised another state. So we can see literacy rates across the country, how students are excelling at math, STEM areas.
All of that has to be centralized in one place. And that has historically been, at least since 1979 here in the Department of Education. So there are lots of concerns about how to keep track of students, how the country is doing as a whole, and what to do about students who are either falling behind or, as you said, have special needs, need extra help in school. And those schools that depend on federal grants that are approved right here.
And of course, Julie, the president said he wants to dismantle the Department of Education altogether, which he can't do by law. That would require congressional approval. So could we see some executive orders aimed at trying to dismantle it piece by piece? Yeah, it's interesting because he has not yet signed an executive order to do that.
And this seems to be a piecemeal dismantling, starting with laying off. So many of these workers, as well as those were previously laid off and were on probationary status. And Linda McMahon said herself on Fox News last night that this is the beginning of the end. They want to dismantle it.
But it's true. Trump has not yet signed that executive order. And in order to actually shut down this department because it's appropriated to be run, the Congress appropriates that. Congress would have to get a more than 60 vote when a 60 majority vote in order to bypass the 1100 actually be able to close this department.
But the question is could they just gut it from within so that it's really a shell of what it needs to be. All right. Well, great reporting there, Julia. Continue.
Follow this developing. Really appreciate it. Coming up, after the breaking polls on President Trump's political standing and how the administration's economic agenda is playing with voters. That data and the panel is next.
You're watching MEET THE Press now. Welcome Back, we've got some brand new poll numbers that shed light on how Americans are reacting to President Trump's roughly first 50 days in office. The president's job approval sits at 45. According to CNN SSRS poll, which is exactly where it was at this point in his first term back in 2017, 44% approve of his handling of the economy.
That's tied for the worst number he's ever had as president. Digging a little bit more deeply into these numbers, nearly 9 in 10 Republicans approve the job President Trump is doing in the economy, with just over a third of independents feeling the same way. Joining now and said is NBC News senior national political reporter Sadha Kapoor, former Michigan Democratic Congressman Annie Levin. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the center for American Progress.
And Sarah Chamberlain, President and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thanks to all of you for being here. So we got new poll numbers out. Sahil, let's start to break them down.
The ones that are interesting to you, obviously, the overall proving proven rating, but also the fact that he's underwater when it comes to sailing the economy. Yeah. So firstly, overall approval for presidents around this point in the first 100 days tends to be the high water mark. They usually only get worse from here, not better.
That's what happened in the president's first term. Big question, does it stay the same? Does it get worse? It would be very unusual if it gets better.
But the economy approval really jumped out to me, Kristen, 44% approval. That's tied for the lowest he's ever had in this poll, 56% disapproval. It's higher than he ever had. He never hit 50% in his first term.
Before COVID when the economy was good, he didn't even hit 50% disapproval. After Covid, when he still got high marks for the economy was one of the reasons he overperformed in 2020, one of the reasons he came back in 2024, because of this nostalgia for the Trump economy before COVID hit that people wanted to go back to. If these economic disapproval numbers get worse, he loses the single greatest political asset. Still a big if.
Sarah, how are Republicans viewing these numbers and this moment where there is a lot of uncertainty around the president's tariff policy. So the members of Republican Partnership do live in the swing states. So we do keep control of the House and the Senate. Right now, they're not that concerned.
There's a lot being thrown at the American people and they just think the American people are a little overwhelmed. If these polls are still like this in June or July, we will have a different discussion. But right now, they're really just that concerned. What do you see in these polls?
Just wait till the inflation numbers reflect current reality of all these tariffs of prices going up. The price of eggs are out of control, the prices at the supermarket more generally. I think the poll numbers are likely to get worse because we're headed towards a Trump slump. I think you think they get worse by June, which is what they're saying is I expect to get worse because this is, Look, I'm from Michigan and we know in Michigan, both because of not just cars, cars and agriculture, we're a huge farm state.
And all this, these chaos of tariffs. Yes, no, this country, that country, all our best friends, it makes no sense. And people are really afraid about what it means for the economy, their jobs, their basket at the supermarket. Let's look at what people are saying about the tariffs, because we have numbers on that, too.
In terms of President Trump's tariff policy, 39% approve, 6% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans, 80% of Republicans approve. I mean, it shows the fact that this is still very much Trump's party. What he's doing is controversial. There's not certainty in it.
And yet those numbers suggest Republicans are squarely behind him. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there is a division among Republicans in Congress. Some of them secretly don't like them, but they want to stand with the President.
They might at least give him a chance. Some of them, like Senator Tim Shihea, MT west, spoke a few days ago, say they're willing to give a shot, that they believe there might be some temporary disruptions, but the long term growth will be worth the while. And there are others, like Senator Rand Paul, who are very vocal critics of terrorists. They all harm Kentucky in innumerable ways.
And if that 80% number falls, then I think we could see a lot of Republicans more vocal against Trump. I think that's the single most valuable asset he has in keeping GOP members of Congress on his side. I want to play a little bit more of what we heard from President Trump today in the Oval Office, get everyone's reaction on the other side. Take a look.
These people are sick. There's something wrong with them. There was no standing for anybody. The only thing they liked is when they heard about the death taking place with Ukraine.
That way they were happy about that. The Democrats have to get their act together. And if they don't vote, then what you're going to do is you're going to have taxes that are going to go through the roof. You're going to have a very bad time.
You're going to have some very bad things happen and people are going to blame the Democrats. And Schumer is a Palestinian. As far as I'm concerned, he's become a Palestinian. He used to be Jewish.
He's not Jewish anymore. He's a Palestinian. Okay, Sarah, Wow. I mean, is that the type of messaging that resonates?
And you know, again, you're talking about wanting the poll numbers not to go down by June. Does that really aggressive language of Democrats concerns you at all? I would have articulated a different way, of course, but he's not wrong. I mean, the Democrats do not have a message.
They do not have a messenger. I mean, they're kind of all over the place. There's a potential. They're actually going to shut the government down come this week.
So I agree with him on that. The Democrats have no message. Okay, I gotta let you respond to that. First of all, Kristen, as a Jewish person in America, it's disgusting for the president to say that a prominent Jewish person isn't even a Jew, you know, and that the fact that a Jewish person might empathize with our most difficult other.
That is our. That's Jewish right there, you know, so that's horrifying. And look, if the government shuts down, it's Trump and the Republicans in Congress. They control the presidency, the state Senate, the House.
When we had tiny Majorities in the 117th Congress under President Biden, we passed sweeping legislation. He's not even talking about any real legislation. He just came to keep the government open with majorities in both chambers. Can I just fact check one thing he said about the budget?
He said, Democrats don't vote for this. Tax is going to go up. He's doing this entirely on a quarterly line basis. This is the reconciliation process.
Government fund is one thing. They do need Democrats in the Senate, but there's a 64 threshold. And we might be going to shut down on Friday if there isn't some kind of deal there. But the reconciliation bill, that is Republicans only if there's a tax hike.
If he doesn't know what he wants there, he's got only his own party blame. That's an important fact check. Thank you for that. Talking about this government shutdown, you had Leader Schumer come out and say, no, we're not going to vote for this.
You can make a deal with us. You need our votes, so make a deal with us. Let's hit something that we can sign off on a shorter term measure. How do you see this coming together?
Do you think the government's head of Twitter shutdown? It's very much open question right now. The problem Democrats have is they weren't at the table at all. So they worry all of the things about the president that would set if House Republicans can write a bill and negotiate it with the president and the Freedom Caucus and just throw it over the Senate and they expect not only Senate Republicans to swallow it, but also send Democrats.
That's not something they want to saddest upcoming government funding fight. So unless they find a way around that now, it's possible that Democrats can say give us some votes on amendments and we'll let the chips follow where they may. They might still vote by Friday, keep the government open. But right now this is very much up in the air.
Sarah, how do you see this playing out and this argument that Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House and ultimately if they want to keep the government open, get a deal done with Democrats that they can sign off on. Well, since we do control all three branches, I think with Chuck Schumer's comments, they're gonna lay this on the Senate Democrats and the Senate Democrats. We did our job in the House, which is very close. We did get one Democratic vote for it.
But this is gonna be laid down on the senator and the Democratic Party. I think we don't have our job. Congressman, how do you see this playing out? Yeah, well, that's what they'll say, but it's not true.
You know, as Sahil said, they didn't involve Democrats in writing this at all. And the Republicans are already dismantling the government. Numerous courts have found different parts that are unconstitutional, illegal in terms of contradicting statutes. So they're already shutting the government down.
And why Democrats should give them a blank check to go ahead, it mystifies me. I think they should stand up and be counted to create a real opposition. I would actually argue that if the Democrats do shut the government down, they're giving President Trump even more power because there'll be no checks at all on him because who knows when it would get reopened. I think that's a huge issue.
And more pain, more pain. Now Republicans are coming on that pain going to Democrats if the Senate Democrats block it. But another problem that the Democrats have about this is the DOE situation. This is their only piece of leverage all year, the government funding bill to see Bill Threshold to stop, at least try to stop Yanox and Dojo doing grasses for guardrail language to prohibit agencies from being dismantled unilaterally.
They think the power of the purse of constitutional issue, but they're not getting that. Well, and there is a theory that a government shutdown would only embolden Elon Musk for that very reason because effectively it would make it easier for him to say, look at all these workers. We don't need them, we're going to cut them off as well. I mean, how much are we hearing about that on the hillside?
Oh, it's a very real concern. That's why Senate Democrats took all the way to Wednesday. Whenever, you know, about a week that this is where things are going to speak out. Even going into this meeting, we talked to multiple senators, our capital Hinda, who are divided.
We're torn on this. They worry about pain of government shut down. They just don't want to put, you know, their federal workers, their constitutions through it. How concerned should Democrats be about that potential impact if the government does shut down, that it could potentially hold an Elon Musk and there could be some political pain to Democrats?
Well, I really agree with Sahil that this is still an open question because Republicans might come to Democrats and say let's negotiate something that works, but if they don't, I think Democrats are, believe me, as you, I think said earlier, they are hearing it from their constituents, their voters that they do not want to give a blank check to Donald Trump and set the precedent, as Sahil said earlier, that they can do whatever they want, write something in the House with a, with a MAGA and Freedom Caucus people and then the Senate's just going to pass with Democratic support. No, I don't think that's going to work. All right. We'll have to see how it plays out.
It's going to be a dramatic few days. Thank you all for joining us to set the stage. Really appreciate it. Still to come, top Trump officials speak out on the controversial arrest and potential deportation of a prominent pro Palestinian activist who looks like you're watching the press now.
Welcome back. A federal judge in New York heard arguments today tied to the arrest and detention of pro Palestinian activists and Columbia University graduate Mohamed Khalil. Khalil, who is currently in ICE detention in Louisiana, did not appear in court today as his legal team argued for his return back to New York to be closer to his family, including his wife, who was a US Citizen and pregnant with their first child. Earlier this week, the judge temporarily blocked Kahlil from being deported, saying he will remain in the US as the court considers challenges to his arrest.
While speaking to reporters while en route to Canada ahead of the G7 ministerial meeting, Secretary Rubio defended his decision to revoke Khalil's green card. This is not about free speech. This is about people who don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa.
No one has a right to a green card, by the way. So when you apply for a student visa or any visa enter the United States, we have a right to deny you for virtually any reason. And just to be clear, it's Mahmoud Khalil. Joining me now is Carol lamp for your U.S.
attorney and an NBC News legal analyst. Thank you so much for joining us, Carol. We really appreciate it. So let's start right there with Secretary Rubio.
Does he actually have the authority to revoke someone's. Yeah. So, Kristen, there's actually a provision in the Immigration and Nationality act that says that the Secretary of State can remove somebody if he has determined that there would be serious adverse consequences to having this person in the United States. But when Secretary of State Rubio says that this is not a First Amendment issue, that's a bit of a misdirection, because this is very much a First Amendment issue because this individual is not applying to be in the United States.
He already is in the United States and he already is a green card holder. And so therefore he has the right to, under the First Amendment that any citizen has in the United States. And, Carol, I'm curious, what type of a precedent does this set? It's an astounding precedent.
And you know what's really amazing about this is how poorly done this whole thing was by the government. The notice to appear that was given to Mr. Mahmoud simply says in a conclusory fashion that you are now subject to removal because the Secretary of State has determined that your presence in your activities may have the potential for serious adverse consequences to our foreign policy. No definitions involved.
There are no definitions in the statute, and there are no definitions in the notice to appear. So what that means is that the Secretary of State has complete discretion to define these terms and to apply it to anybody who wants, regardless of their status as either a student visa or a green card holder. It's an astonishing precedent. And this would the use of this particular statute, this particular provision would not have happened under any other administration in these circumstances.
The safest probable use of this statute would be if there had already been a criminal trial and the person had already been convicted. Then this might be A consequence of that conviction. But there's nothing at this point for this. Secretary Jahan's had on because they haven't stated any facts about what this individual was actually doing.
Well, and just to drill down on you a little bit more on that, you have the free speech argument compared to the government's position, which you were just talking about, that this person presents a, quote, potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence. How does a judge weigh these two? Yeah, I would imagine that the first thing the judge would say is, you have to tell me what underlies that conclusory statement. And there are two possible reasons why the government didn't include those reasons in this notice to appear.
One is that because we didn't want to put down writing that what you were doing was leading a protest and handing out leaflets, you know, these are two cornerstones of the First Amendment. You are allowed to do that. But, you know, another possibility is their challenges the court. And just saying, we don't have to tell you why this is a decision of the Secretary of State.
I'm curious, Carol, as we kind of watch all the twists and turns in this case, do you have any sense of how this might end? And we only have about 30 seconds left. Yeah, I think there's a good possibility that as this goes up through the appeals and you know, she has an immigration hearing scheduled right now for March 27, so she's presumably not going to be spirited out of the country. But my guess is that the issue confronting the federal courts will be whether this provision is constitutional as applied here.
In other words, it could be applied constitutionally, but the way they have applied it in this case is unconstitutional. And that is where the courts may come down. All right, Carolyn, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
We're back tomorrow with more. Read the press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson. Right now, everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co host of the third hour of Stay and Mom, Just Three Wild Boys. I've learned a lot my years as a parent.
Mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, the Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting.
I'm over here just, like, winging it. Hey, I'm trying not to screw my own kid up. I'm gonna give you advice on how to screw yourself. Search parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.