AI is moving fast across the enterprise. Without visibility, it's just chaos. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower.
You see all your AI in one place. To put AI to work for people, visit ServiceNow.com Drop off in a new Hyundai launcher today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 spring drive bonus and lease the 2026 day laundry essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by a Launcher's best in class 5 year new car warranty.
Now that's the Hyundai Advantage. Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local deal.
Welcome to press now. I'm Kristen Welker. You are looking at the closing bell as Wall street struggled once again with uncertainty out of Washington, with the president threatening new tariffs on U.S. trading partners and redoubling his rhetoric about annexing new territory.
Stocks just end of the day lower across the board with the Dow falling more than 500 points and the S&P 500 entering what's known as a correction, falling 10 from its recent highs last month. The Nasdaq has been in correction territory since last week. The Dow is close, but not there yet. It comes after President Trump put US Allies on notice today, militarily, diplomatically and economically, offering little in the way of certainty for the economy and global allies.
While sitting beside the NATO chief, President Trump talked about annexing Canada, a NATO ally, as well as Greenland. To be honest with you, Canada only works as a state. It doesn't. We don't need anything they have as a state.
It would be one of the great states anyway. This would be the most incredible country visually. Greenland. What is your vision for the potential annexation of Greenland and getting the potential.
Well, I think it'll happen. President Trump also railed against US Trading partners, saying he will not budge on his plans for sweeping new tariffs, while also conceding there could be some disruptions as a result of his policies. We've been ripped off for years. We're not going to be ripped off anymore.
I'm not going to bend their own aluminum or steel or cars. We're not going to bend now. There'll be a little disruption, but it won't be very long. But they need us.
We really don't need them. And we have to do this. I'm sorry, we have to do this now. It comes after this morning the president threatened to impose new 200% tariffs on champagne and wine from Europe in response to the EU's plan to tariff US whiskey.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defended the new tariffs, saying the president was furious with the retaliation against the U.S. the president was totally annoyed that the Europeans did this. And so you're going to hear back from someone who emotionally cares about America. He cares about America and he wants to take care of Americans.
Are you saying this is an emotional response? It's disrespectful. Are you saying it's emotional response? What will we see?
Right now Secretary Lutnick is meeting with Canadian officials right here in Washington, including the country's finance minister and the premier of Ontario, about de escalation and the potential for new trade agreements. Joining me now is our team reporters. CNBC economics reporter Steve Liesman is covering the markets and latest tariff turmoil. Kelly o', Donnell, senior White House correspond, is at the White House for us.
Steve, let me start with you. We saw the markets tumble again today. You saw where they closed. What do you make of where things stand?
I think it's pretty obvious. You started off the show with a bunch of headlines that are really scaring people. I mean, the idea of you're going to be annexing Greenland, tariffs on champagne and wine and retaliatory tariffs. And then there's another headline question that I believe is crossing confirmed here.
Howard Lutnick just said that if Trump's policies are worth it, even if it means a recession, and that is really the underlying fear of this market, that this administration is willing to allow the economy to fall in recession and won't change course because it feels so strongly about where it is they think the economy or how the economy ought to be reordered or rearranged, that they're willing to risk recession. We had the treasury secretary on. He said there's no Trump put in other words, no underlying safety measures that the president will apply to the market. Essentially he's saying, look, we are not going to change course because of where the market is.
Right now the market is saying, I'm hearing you say you're not going to change course. Even if the economy was intercession, it is extraordinary. The president on down dug in on this strategy, which as you have been reporting has also been quite confusing. I want to play something Treasury Secretary Bessant said today on cnbc.
Take a look. I know that you guys have brushed this off, but I do wonder if you're starting to get concerned now that these losses are picking up. Look, Sarah, what we're focused on is we're focused on the real economy. Can we create an environment where there are long term gains in the market and long term gains for the American people?
We are focused over the medium long term and I can't tell you that market's going to go up today, tomorrow, next week. But I can tell you that if we put proper policies in place, that's going to lay the groundwork for a both real income gains and job gains and asset continued asset gains. So focused on the quote unquote real economy. What do you make of that message?
Well, it's great if it ends up being true. The trouble is, Kristen, the market is supposed to be forecasting where the economy is going to be six months to a year down the road. And that ostensibly includes their, their addition of these changes and good things that the Treasury Secretary is talking about. And it's not really in the market.
They are not buying this idea of short term gain, short term pain for some kind of gain later on. I think about another level, Christian, having followed Treasury Secretary, I think I've interviewed everyone going back to Lloyd Benson, which probably dates you as well. There's always a sense of calm that comes from the Treasury Secretary. The treasury always has the ability to really calm the market.
We're not getting that, not from Whatnik and not from the Treasury Secretary and not certainly from President. So that's really a concern. Who can come out and stop this crazy thing, see everything that you're saying. What is the current economic outlook given this uncertainty?
So right now the good news is we've had a couple of good inflation reports. We've had a couple of the sentiment numbers have come down, including importantly some of the business sentiment numbers. They were very optimistic about this president and his policies after the election and they remain optimistic. But some of that has come off.
The economic numbers are not bad. It's all in the Senate. What we're waiting to see is whether or not the sentiment numbers, the chaos coming out of the White House and the concern out there and the fear among both business and consumers causes them to hold back. We have a lot of document, a lot of economic research has been done on the economic cost of uncertainty.
And every single uncertainty index that we have is through the roof much higher than the first administration, even the small business optimism index. And this is a very kind of Republican leaning group that shot up when President Trump was elected. It's now the uncertainty index is now as high as it's ever been. Steven, it's so informative to hear your analysis and that explanation of what uncertainty means in real terms and dollars and sense.
Steve Lisbon, thank you so much for joining us on a very big day. Really appreciate it. Let me head over to Kelly o' Donnell at the White House. Kelly, President Trump was defiant again today about his tariff strategy.
You had a chance to press him repeatedly yesterday about his tariffs. What are your key takeaways at this point? Is he showing any signs of retreat? He isn't.
And after just hearing Steve and his analysis of what he has seen over time and what these important market indications and other types of streams of information mean to the business community, it stands out even more because part of the questioning that I know there's done here in the press corps is trying to get at sort of a threshold moment of what conditions would need to take place for the president to alter his course or what kinds of should the public have about potential short term harm. The president has really grabbed onto little disturbance, which is not necessarily how the public or the markets feel about it. And an insistence that his tariffs plans should go forward and doesn't really explain how certainly the goal of having more American manufacturing could be widely embraced by the business community, the markets and others. But that is not an overnight flip of a switch.
And so that would take time. And also, of course, deals with all the existing treaties and trade agreements that already exist. So the message from the president seems to be that he is a bit prickly, if you will, when challenged about this, insisting this is what needs to happen and he's going to go forward with it and believes that the United States will ultimately benefit. What we don't yet have is a sense of at what point would the president make some adjustments other than a kind of personalized conversations, big automakers, a little bit of delay for neighbors like Canada and Mexico at times.
We've seen that. Now the president says that's done and his plan to push forward with tariffs is as he has outlined it. And it is very, it is combative. And there's a certain tune that the markets might be wanting that the president has about his, his views.
And that was certainly playing out in the give and take President eager to talk about it, but also very much again. Yeah, that is for sure, Kelly. And you know, take us inside some of your conversations there at the White House. What are officials saying to you?
Are they equally confident about this strategy or do some administration officials and some of the president's allies have some concerns? Well, certainly questions are coming in from allies politically and the business community. And people are wanting to weigh into the White House with their views on how this is playing out in real time and what the cost could be. The administration, of course, there is tremendous unanim in the voice of the administration.
You see that from the officials. That was very notable when Steve talked about how he looked to a Treasury secretary to be that calm and that in Steve's judgment and others in the market, they're not finding that sort of source of calm. We know the president's political brand and style is to be more bombastic, is to be more pugilistic. We get that.
That's part of his political identity. But those looking for something that might be more measured, that hasn't really developed yet. And so what we do hear is people who are saying the president's ideas are what he talked about and what he's going to pursue. All right, Kelly o', Donnell, as always, thank you for your great reporting from the White House.
We appreciate it. As you mentioned, President Trump met with the NATO Secretary General today as his administration tries to secure a 30 day cease fire between Russia and Ukraine. Russian President Putin signaled today that he was open to the proposal, but also said there are issues that need to be discussed and suggested that Ukraine would need to accept further conditions. Speaking from the Oval Office, where just two his meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky devolved into a shouting match, President Trump spoke about the importance of ending the fight in Ukraine, saying he hopes Russia will, quote, do the right thing discussing concepts of land because you don't want to waste time with a ceasefire if it's not going to be anything.
So we say, look, this is what you can get. This is what you can't get. They discuss NATO and being a NATO and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They know that answer for 40 years, in all fairness.
So a lot of the details of the final agreement have actually been discussed. Now we're going to see whether or not Russia's there and if they're not, it'll be a very disappointing moment for the world. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engle joins me now from Ukraine. Richard, thank you so much for joining us.
You were in Ukraine several weeks ago to mark the third anniversary of the war. You are back there reporting. What are you seeing and hearing on the ground against the backdrop of this back and forth between Washington, Russia and Ukraine. So this all has to do with President Trump.
People here in Ukraine believe that President Trump is not a reliable ally and they are nervous about him. They are. The government is clearly scared. Soldiers are scared.
I was out with several Ukrainian Soldiers. Earlier today, when I started asking them about Trump, they looked at each other and they didn't want to answer. They don't want to get in trouble again because they saw President Zelensky hauled into the Oval Office. A meeting that started out friendly suddenly turned very heated and acrimonious.
And then they saw President Trump pull the plug on intelligence sharing, which this country depends on, weapons supplies, which this country absolutely depends on. And now they are trying to do everything they can to stay in President Trump's good graces. President Zelensky unconditionally accepted this 30 day ceasefire. And now we.
President Putin did his first reaction today, not unconditionally accepting it, saying that he favors the idea, but he has many conditions. He has many conditions in regards to the military activity. He thinks, according to what he said, his troops are making advances. And in some parts, on some front lines, they are making advances, particularly in the Russian Kursk Province, where Ukrainian troops are nearly surrounded.
They've been almost completely defeated in that area. Vladimir Putin was just there the other day wearing a uniform, saying that Russian troops must push on to victory. So he's clearly not ready to stop immediately and let the guns fall silent and then move on to final status negotiations. President Putin said that very clearly today he supports a diplomatic solution.
He supports the president's initiative, but he wants more details. And you saw in those comments that you played earlier, President Trump seems to understand that. He said, well, some of the final status arrangements have already come out, but that was not the same deal presented to Ukraine. When President Zelensky started questioning the framework, started saying that he needed security guarantees, he was immediately shouted down.
He was immediately told he was being disrespectful. So people here in Ukraine feel that President Trump has this whole thing mixed up, that the victims of Russia's assault three years ago, the invasion, are the ones being blamed and the ones who are being asked to provide concessions and make sacrifices while the aggressor, Vladimir Putin, is being treated with understanding and kid gloves. That's the view primarily from here, although the government's enemy soldiers are too afraid to say it's. And it's, of course, so fascinating reporting, Richard, because President Trump has threatened the possibility of more sanctions against Russia.
That was not raised today, as Russia, as you say, has not yet made a final decision about whether or how to move forward. And of course, we know that President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is in Russia today meeting with Vladimir Putin. How do you see those talks unfolding? How significant is that?
It's quite significant. What we saw from President Putin today was President Putin saying, okay, we'll consider it. And he left that press conference where he was meeting with the speaking alongside with the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, and then he went into that meeting with Steve Wyckoff. And President Trump has scheduled or seems to be willing to have a phone call.
Not scheduled yet, but President Trump said he will have a phone call with President Putin. President Putin said he wants to have a phone call with Trump. So it could be that the Russian president remarks today were holding a kind of statement saying, yes, we're interested, but we're not going to give you a full answer now. I'm not going to say anything until a, I make more advances on the battlefront, particularly in the Kursk province and he gets a chance to speak directly with President Trump.
Ukrainian President Zelensky has just responded to all of this, saying that President Putin wants to extend the war, that his intentions are clear, but that he's too afraid to reject the deal out of hand to President Trump. So he's just going along with it or playing to go along with it while he continues his attacks on Ukraine. And by the way, just in the last several hours, there have been more attacks launched from Russia against Ukraine. More drones here, more drones in the city of Kharkiv.
Air raid sirens a short time ago. So Russia is certainly not taking any action to indicate that they are interested in immediate ceasefire. Yeah, well, just an incredibly dramatic situation there, Richard, that you are covering as we wait to see what happens with these talks that are getting underway slowly and in uncertain terms. Richard Engel, thank you so much for your reporting.
Really appreciate it. Coming up, Washington braces for a government shutdown and Senate Democrats rail against the president's agenda. I'll speak with the Senate Democrat who says he's ready to fight and vote down the House's stopgap funding bill. And the federal judge overturns the Trump administration's firings of thousands of federal workers, ordering them to be immediately reinstatement even as the White House plans more sweeping cuts to the government's workforce.
Stay with us. You're watching me, the press now. Welcome back to Capitol Hill. And momentum building toward a potential government shutdown with funding expiring at midnight tomorrow night.
Fire. Capitol Hill teams count nearly 20. 20 Senate Democrats say they will oppose the six month stopgap bill passed by House Republicans earlier this week if a handful of Senate Democrats don't join with Republicans to break the filibuster. All signs point to a shutdown.
Join me now. The very latest on Capitol Hill is my ABC News Kylee Alex Sahil Corsohil the Democrats just wrapped up a meeting. What is the very latest what came from that meeting? Hey Kristen.
Well the shutdown standoff is persisting because more and more Democrats are digging in against this House past six month bill to keep the government open. And it's not just progressives, not just the usual suspect. There are a number of moderate Democrats and swing state senators who in the last 24 hours or so since you and I talk have come out firmly against this bill that include Mark Warner, John Hickenlooper, Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego. These are the types of senators who generally need to part of any viable path to get the 60 votes in the Senate.
The reasons they say are a mix of things. The first is they had no input in the House bill. They want to rubber stamp a bill that you know Speaker Mike Johnson wrote with the White House without negotiating with Democrats. The second is their domestic spending cuts in this bill, billions of dollars worth of them.
The Democrats never signed off on a new ball. There's a boost in military funding. So Democrats see that as kind of a one sided approach. And the last thing is they viewed this, they worried about any guardrails here.
This would essentially green light the approach that Elon Musk is taking with Doge to unilaterally dismantle parts of the government. So what do Democrats want? One of the things that they insisted on is a 30 day cr, a short term bill at status quo level so they can negotiate a full appropriations deal. They demanded amendment on this and Senator Tim Kaine indicated to our colleague Ryan Nobles this may be part of some sort of endgame here take this.
Nobody's said I think there's going to be, there's likely to be a vote on this 30 acr proposal that that was a part of the discussion that we had. Although at the time we walked out it still wasn't completely locked in. There's likely to be that vote which is good. There should be a vote.
Everybody should have to declare on their vote. Is that enough for you then to allow a culture vote? And no, unless I know it's going to pass I'm not going to take a step that will facilitate the passage of the House cr. Now the last part of what Senator Kaine said there is important Kristen because Senator John Th the majority leader has made clear that a 30 day CR is not it's a non starter with Republicans and Kaine indicated that he's not necessarily provided the votes for closure that Democrats may not do that if this thing goes down.
So still stealing. Wow. Sahil. Okay.
Busy 24 hours coming up for you, my friend. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
We are going to speak to Democratic Senator Jeff Berkley in just a moment. But first, we're following breaking news on multiple legal fronts. First, major legal set after President Trump's effort to lay off thousands of federal employees today, a federal judge ordered six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary workers who had been fired. Plus, we learned late this afternoon that the Trump administration is taking part of its plan to end birthright citizenship all the way to the Supreme Court.
NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach joins me now. Gary, thank you so much for being here. So let's start with the employees. What is the judge saying today about what needs to happen with the employees who've been laid off?
So there are three ways to fire a federal employee. That's a probationary employee. You could be fired if you lie in your application. They found out the first few months of their employment.
Be fired if you have poor performance. And there's documented examples of that poor performance. And then you'd be fired. You're part of a legal reduction in force.
It actually happens the legal way. The government's saying that some of these employees had poor performance and that's the reason they're being fired. Plaintiffs are saying that's simply not the case and they have evidence to show there's actually blowing reviews of some of these employees, especially in the Northern California case that relates to the OPM memo, which the Office of Personnel Management memo that came out in late January and was rescinded in February, saying that the OPM has to fire the probationary employees. Gary, I think the big question is what happens now with these probationary employees.
And just for folks who are watching home, probationary employees basically means employees who are newly hired. So it applies to thousands of people through plenty of thousands of people across every agency, across every department. Really listen to the State Department because they have a specific situation over there. But everyone else applied to in this case in Northern California, six different departments now have to reinstate their probationary employees because of judges order today.
And you're tracking a case in Maryland, too. Talk to us about that case and where that stands. So, yeah, two different cases of 115 cases we're tracking here, two different cases there. The one in Maryland has to do with the state's impact, the impact on the states because of these firings of probationary employees, where there's now unemployment that have to go out.
There's agencies that have to now pick up job fairs and do that kind of stuff. A lot of money that states have to spend that they didn't think they're going to have to include tax reform. And so is the White House expects to appeal, Gary. So absolutely, the White House has been doing now that the Trump administration has been doing nothing but appealing these rulings.
We have more than 20 rulings that have been appealed. They're in the appeal stage or even up to the Supreme Court at this point. And they're certainly doing that. The White House even said a federal district court judge will elect to reserve executive powers.
They can try and run for president. They don't believe this is something to judge how they do. And then there's this other case where the White House is asking, asking the Supreme Court to take up part of its executive order to end birthright citizenship, which basically says, as you're born here, you're a citizen. Talk to us about that and where you expect that to go.
So of the 115 cases that are watching, three of them did have to do with birthright citizenship, one in Maryland, one in Washington state and one in New Jersey. They're all being combined in a consolidated case for the Supreme Court. What the Trump administration wants is if the courts agreed, the Supreme Court agrees with what the district court and what the appeals court said, which was that the birthplace citizenship should continue. They want to only continue in specific states of which the cases were brought.
So that's Maryland, Washington and New Jersey. They don't want to see an issue like that. All right. Well, I know you're going to watch all of those more than 100 cases very closely.
Thank you for being here and helping us to understand that. Really appreciate it. Coming up after the break, top Democrats hit the Midwest with a new messaging campaign in Republican district. What it means for the party as it looks to win back key voters.
The hills ahead. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back. As Democrats in Washington's struggle with life and minority, a few big names in the party are now focusing their energy and messaging beyond the Beltway.
Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, has drawn massive crowds at rallies across the Midwest with Congressman Alexandra Casio Cortez set to join him and former VP candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walls, who's announced his intentions to speak to voters in Iowa. Listen, I'm headed to Iowa. I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go do it.
I've been asked by these folks if it works. I'm gonna go use the platform that I have and hand them the megaphone to talk about this. This is us going out and talking to people, making the case that people are absolutely clear that both parties are not the same. One stands with Elon Musk, the billionaires and disman as we know it, and one that's going to be there for their families.
And if we're not out there, Donald Trump, all the podcasts, all the money will fill that void. Turning now instead of Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, Democratic strategist and former Obama campaign advisor Misha Cross and Republican strategist Rick Tyler. Susan, let's start with this travel that we are seeing to the Midwest and Democrats broadly, really trying to find their message and their strategy. But different messages, different strategies.
We do not see a coherent Democratic strategy. It's been interesting to see these huge crowds at Bernie Sanders is getting a sign that there is a progressive wing of the party that's anxious to take on Trump, more friendly. But you don't really see that as a unified strategy here in Washington. You see Democrats here really divided about whether to take a more moderate centrifuges course, whether to go rile up their progressive base or what.
Yeah, I mean, you lead me to my question, Amisha, for you, two very different approaches by, for example, Governor J.B. pritzker and Governor Gavin Newsom, who has gotten a lot of attention. He has this podcast, he's been talking to folks on the far right, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, who had on the podcast that got a lot of backlash from some progressives in the Democratic Party. What do you make of these two?
And this is words are more than two, but these very different strategies playing. I think that at the state level we recognize that, Lisa, two members of judges in 10 are people who want to be on the presidential ballot 2028. So they are trying to shore up as leaders. Even though many people believe that, you know, Democrats at the national level have quite frankly advocated their role, it is much as they believe the Republican Party has as well.
I think that what we're seeing with Gavin Newsom is somebody who is trying to take lessons from what was reported all time after time after Kamala Harris lost, it was you aren't a part of these right wing podcasts. You weren't listening to these people. This part of America was left out. He's doing a lot of that.
He's also trying to shake off the ultra liberal Leftist west coast ring to be able to be a little bit more moderate going into a 20 election cycle. And what we see from J.D. pritzker is actually a deeper dive into progressivism at a time where people are questioning what that trend can be, especially again, looking at what just happened in 24. Yeah, Rick, the strategy by Newsom is so fascinating.
I mean, do you think he can actually be effective at winning over, if not conservatives, some of those more independent voters? Yeah, I think what Trump was able to do is gather a large segment of the labor vote and the liberal brings everybody. It brings African Americans, Hispanics. It just brought them all in.
And the problem, the Democratic Party having to be crass, is when a party is more concerned about your pronouns and your paycheck, then you've got a problem. And that is what happened last time. And now they're arguing over whether the national party, Democratic Party is saying they're doubling down, saying we had the right message all along. They're wrong.
They do have to moderate their messages. It doesn't mean they have to be like the Republicans, but they have to find a zone that works. And there are a lot of them because people are concerned about the paycheck, particularly now. I mean, what did Trump promise?
He promised to lower inflation, he promised to raise wages, and quite the opposite. Yeah, I just spoke to a Democrat today who said, we're talking about the economy. We are winning. For talking about anything else, we're getting distracted.
I'm gonna ask you guys just to be patient for a moment. We do have Senator Merkeley here to join us to talk about this looming potential government shutdown. Senator Merkley of Oregon, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
Well, I know you have publicly said that you're gonna vote against the House past six month stopgap spending bill. I know there was a meeting today. Democratic senators came together. What came out of that meeting?
What is the strategy moving forward? Yeah, Chris, I'm definitely in the hell no category. This was written by Republicans in order to hand more power to Trump. You don't stop a bully by handing over your lunch.
You don't stop a tyranny by handing over more power. What we know from history is that authoritarians grow and grow in their power and you need to stop them early. You need to have the fight early. And that's why I think we should use our leverage right now to insist on a bipartisan continuing resolution, not this partisan one.
Realize how much damage it does. It gives Trump a massive slush fund where he can reward all of the red states and damage all of the blue states. It proceeds to give fail to give parity to defense and non defense. It proceeds to wipe out all the community initiated projects.
There's 100 of them in Oregon. It does things like reduce the funding for housing vouchers. So there's a lot of bad in this. And for us to say yes to this and more power to Trump is an enormous mistake.
Senator, I want to get your gut check because you just came from this meeting. Our Hill team is reporting momentum is building toward a government shutdown. Do you think the government is going to shut down? Well, right now, if the decision is something that our minority leader, Chuck Schumer is considering, he's going to go to the floor and share his vision.
You know, there is a group in my caucus that has a different vision in mind. And there is a legitimate argument that a shutdown could handle a lot of power to Trump. So I gave you a robust defense of why I think this continuing resolution is wrong and why we should use our leverage to negotiate a much better one. But there are many members who are concerned that if the Republicans don't negotiate and this produces a shutdown, that and not because of us, because the Republicans voting against our 30 day plan keep it open.
Well, that, that could get Trump power as well. My feeling is that is not the way it would work. But others disagree. So Senator, to that and let me try one more time.
I know you don't have a crystal ball, but you are in the room. You are having these meetings with your fellow Democratic senators. If you had to make a call right now. Do you anticipate the government's going to shut down?
I sure as hell I'm going to keep fighting for the position that we not allow to shut down, that we insist Republicans vote on our 30 day plan, keep it open. If they shut it down, that will be on them. I can't tell you what the Republicans are going to do. I know what we can do.
We can force a vote on a motion to proceed to Patty Murray's 30 day plan. That 30 day plan allows us to put forward the bipartisan spending bills that pass most of them unanimously out of the spending committee. And that's the direction we should be going. Let me put up a statement you made in 2023.
You said, quote, a government shutdown will have the worst impact on those least able to weather it. This disaster will put families in Oregon and across the country at risk. A risk they simply shouldn't have to face given that statement, Senator, can you risk voting against the CR if that's what is before you and potentially, as you said before, hurting Oregonians? Because I will be voting for keeping the government open for the 30 days.
It will be Republicans shutting down the government and doing that damage. And the result was, well, America will say that's terrible. They will come back and we will get a much better deal for the people. I understand what you're saying, but what if that's not an option?
What if the only option for you is what the Republican controlled House passed, which is the longer term extension, but it's not the only option before us. We can, we have rule 14, the 30 day plan. We can do proceed to go to that plan. We can force a debate on it.
And that's what I hope we do. All right, let me, President Trump commented on this earlier today and said there will be political pain for Democrats if the government shuts down. Let me tell you a little bit of what you have to say and get your reaction on the other side. We have the continuing resolution and the Republicans have approved it and now the Democrats have to approve it.
And I hope they will. And I think a lot of them, I can tell you that they want to. I've spoken to some of them. They really want to.
Their leadership may not want them to. And if it closes, it's purely on the Democrats. How do you respond to that? I understand you're saying it's a Republican shutdown, but is it a risky strategy?
It is absolutely Trump trying to avoid the outcome of a shutdown because he knows it will fall on Republicans. He's blustering. He's a bully. If they vote against the 30 day plan to keep the government open and they control every branch of government that is a Republican shutdown, all that pain he's talking about will come on his head.
He knows it. That's why he's asking folks to vote for giving him this more power by passing the House plan. And think of, think about this, Kristen. He was lobbying the R's in the House to pass this because he said under a shutdown, DOGE can't do its work.
So there's a vice president and the president saying whatever you do, vote for this plan because it gives me more power and Doge more power. We should not be acquiescing in authoritarian force like Trump. Let me tell you something that your Democratic colleague John Fetterman had to say. He believes the Democrats should support the House passed cr.
Take a look. 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 not going to take long to vote.
No. No. But for me, I can't vote for shutting the government down. Do you disagree with him?
I would say to John, vote for the 30 day plan, keep it open and advocate for it. Even though that's not at this point in time something that's been proven for. Well, we have the ability to put that off with a motion to proceed. It's been Rule 14 on the calendar.
That's the point I'm making. We have the option to fight for Patty Murray's 30 day plan. It's on the calendar. We make a motion, proceed to it, Republicans block it, that's on them.
But Senator, you know, the House is not here, so how would that moving forward with something they haven't passed, keep the government open? The only real option to keep the government open is to act on what they've passed. Right. The moment, the moment that we pass a 30 day plan, they're going to be on the jets and the next day we're going to be open.
So. So are you considering the government may shut down for at least a short period of time if the Republicans choose to make that happen? That's right. If they vote against 30 day plan, they shut it down.
Last month I had the opportunity to interview you and you told me that O Director Russ vote was quote, dangerous, radical in a government shutdown. He would obviously have a lot of power to decide what agencies have contingency plans. Are you worried about what would happen if there were to be a government shutdown if Russ were to have that extended power? You know, there is a lot of concern about the possibility that we'll see exceptional things in terms of identifying what is essential and a lot of concern that somehow that all the bad things that happen won't produce pressure on Republic Republicans.
I do not think that would be the case, but absolutely there is a legitimate risk. We never get in the place of a shutdown with a Russell vote with a Donald Trump. So in many ways you had two difficult choices. I'm making a robust argument that Patty Murray's 30 day plan is the right plan.
We have bipartisan bills. We have the ability to make a motion, proceed to go to them. Let's do it. Let's carry the fight.
Let's not hand over power and watch what Russell is doing now. Continue the next six months because we gave him the power to do It. Senator, very quickly I have two more quick questions before I move on to a different topic. But do you think there are enough Democratic votes, and I know yours will not be one of them to pass the long term extension that was passed by the House right now.
There might well be and I know that we'll be hearing from Leader Schumer later this afternoon. All right. After asking about her colleague Senator Jean Shanin announcing that Jean Shaheen announcing that she will not run for re election. Your seat is up in 2026.
Senator, your reaction and have you made a decision? Will you be running for re election in 2026? You know, I, I'm, I am just in pain over for leaving. We came in together.
I love her work leading the Democrats and foreign policy. She's been a smart, sophisticated, steady presence, a wise soul. And we, we hate that we're losing her and, and several other members of our team for retiring. And what about you, Senator?
Are you going to run for reelection in 2026? You know my wife and I always make the decision at some time in the second quarter. We'll make that decision and you'll hear from us in a couple months. Fair enough.
I hope you'll come back and share your decision with us. Senator, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Good to see you as always.
Now the panel is back with me, Susan, Amisha and Rick. Susan, your reaction? I tried. You got in there.
I got him to admit that they very well made likely have enough votes, the eight that Democratic votes in need to pass the Republican version of the continuing resolution. He didn't want to tell you that, but he finally did and I take that as a yes. Yeah, I think you're right, Amisha. That was what stood out to me, that he finally acknowledged there may well be enough votes to afford a shutdown.
Absolutely. And I think that it is a top position to die. And you replayed his previous comments about the effects of a shutdown on his own state. But I think that one of the things we have to pay real close attention to here is what is actually in the Republican package.
We're talking about cuts to health care. We're talking about cuts to housing. We're talking about cuts to food access for individuals across the country. We're talking about limits to small business owners.
A lot of this would be a detriment to everyday workers, specifically those workers who came out just in November and decided to vote for President Trump. So I think that for Americans who are trying to get their lives back together, post pandemic this is a CR that will damage them for years to come. So Democrats should be very willing to shut this thing down, but they have to explain why they are doing it because effectively right now, if we're going to keep it 100, so to speak, the federal government has been shut down since Donald Trump took office. On inauguration I've been talking to Democrats who say, look, Republicans control White House, the House and the Senate.
If the government were to shut down, ultimately they would bear the political pain. What do you make of that argument and of the argument that does not send as Aneesha says this does green light, the Trump must cuts. There is no argument. I've looked through at least 24 different shutdowns.
Susan has looked through them similarly. I remember Newt Gingrich and the Republicans passed the budget. It went to the Senate. There was Republicans said they passed the budget and then Bill Clinton vetoed it.
By virtue of the veto, he shut down the government. Who got blamed? The Republicans because they were perceived to be in charge. Whoever is perceived to be in charge will get blamed.
Donald Trump is and which shut down were Democrats ever blamed for? And there's a reason for that. It's because it's seen Democrats are basically seen as a party of government. They have been seen that way.
And so when the government shuts down the party that's received the anti government which Republicans often get blamed for it, there's no upside for Republicans to shutting down the government. Susan, that is precisely why some Democrats I've been speaking with say this is their best chance to stand up to President Trump and Elon Musk and to make a real statement and to take a real stand and to say we're not going to tolerate and approve these deep cuts that have been done in very quick action. And yet the Republicans have done something incredible which is even though they control every base of power in town, they do have an argument that Democrats shut down the government if in fact this is how it happens by failing to pass this continue resolution. The fact that the Republicans held together so well in the House gives them the standing to say we want to keep the government open.
I think it is dangerous. I think Democrats have no good options. There are big dangerous whatever they do. Did Leader Schumer Amisha miscalculate that essentially Speaker Johnson wouldn't be able to pass big piece of legislation to the point that Susan is getting to?
No one thought he could do it. He did it. President Trump certainly helped him get over the finish line, but he was able to do it and Then Democrats were left for trying to figure out what to do now. Absolutely.
I think it was a very form of speculation, especially considering that right now the White House is being run by Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And at the end of the day, when you have Elon in your back pocket, if he's saying, you vote this way or I'm going to fund primary challenges against you, you're going to be able to get people lined up pretty quickly. So I do think that they're, you know, and I don't get too much credit to the House speaker at this point because it wasn't him himself being able to bring this along as much as it was the power of a sitting president of the United States. More over the power of Elon Musk in his billionaire stats.
Yeah. Even if the government stays open, Rick, I do wonder what the political cost of these cuts in and of himself will be and how you see that playing out, for example, in the gubernatorial races that we'll all be watching for in Virginia, for example. Well, Virginia has a lot of foreigners who live basically in. And so it'll be tougher for Republicans in Virginia just because of that alone.
Look, I'm a conservative who wants smaller government. But when you build an assembly line that requires a thousand people to run it, it requires a thousand people. Firing half the people will not cause the assembly line to run faster. It will shut it down.
That's the equivalent of the way government functions today. If in fact government had modernized the way industry modernized, then maybe you could run into some of these departments with fewer people. But just cutting people and not having a plan to rework the government or modernize it, it's just simply not going to work. It's just such a central part of the Trump administration that we continue to follow.
Thank you all for your patience for sitting through the interview and to help analyze it on the other end. Really appreciate a great conversation. Coming up next, I'll show to a former education secretary about the Trump administration's overhaul of the federal government. We're talking about here in its attempt to dismantle the Department of Education.
Do not go anywhere. You're watching press now. Welcome back. Employees of the Department of Education are back at work a day after being ordered to stay home as the Trump administration seeks to cut half of the department's workforce, including layoffs for 1300 employees.
That includes closing six regional offices, cutting half the Office of civil rights and 300 jobs in the federal student aid office, which handles student loans and grants. Union officials say meanwhile, 21 Democratic attorneys general are now suing the White House over it's dismantling the department, calling it, quote, reckless and illegal. I'm joined now by Margaret Sellings. She served as Secretary of Education during the George W.
Bush administration. She's now president and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center. Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.
It's glad to be here. Well, it's wonderful to have you here in studio. I want to start with right off with your reaction. Given your background, you understand the Department of Education so well.
What will these deep cuts mean? Well, I have a lot of questions, as you might imagine, as school districts and universities and governors and attorneys general also have questions. If we eliminate half the workforce for the Office of Civil Rights, for example, what's their case log? I mean, how are they going to get through the work that they're required and Secretary McMahon took an oath to preserve.
And so I think the Hill is going to the Congress is going to have questions about these things. I'm concerned about the accountability and transparency that can be lost. The National Education report card, the NAEP test that drives that. There's just one person left in that department.
So I think we all have a lot of questions about it. And when you talk about the report card, just so people understand, it's how students are doing all across the country as compared to the rest of the country. Right? Exactly.
So we're not doing well at all. And we just got that data just a few weeks ago. And you know, the COVID decline has stuck and we have recovered. And so I really hope that we'll keep the main thing, the main thing, and that is student achievement as opposed to some of these things that I think are going to be quite disruptive.
I want to play you something that Wyoming's superintendent of Public Instruction said about these actions. Get your reaction on the other side. To me, this is all about not really closing the Department of Education, relocating it back to the people who actually educate our kids. So this might provide a lot more flexibility, streamlining those funds to the states and putting us back in charge of our kids.
What do you make of that argument? That it puts states in charge? States and local school districts are in charge. In fact, the Department of Education has expressed prohibitions to mandate curriculum, reading lists, tests, any of it.
So we have a ton of local control in our school systems. Now what the contours of this discussion is is that states right now the title funds, Title one idea, go to school districts directly based on a formula. And I think what we're saying here, here is that those resources will go to governors to block grant around their priorities, their prerogatives, as opposed to the stated purpose of the title programs to serve pouring low income and special ed students in particular. Well, I've heard so much about special ed students that in addition to what you're saying, the accountability and transparency which are key concerns, I've heard a lot of parents say, what will this mean for students who have special needs, who need that extra attention?
Could they potentially risk losing some of that? I think that's certainly possible. If the governors are driving the bus or the state chief school officers like the woman in Wyoming, that would be their prerogative to figure out how they're going to serve special ed students. There are also laws about education, individual education plans and requirements for students.
But one of the things I'm really worried about is that a lot of this distracts us from focusing on students, on special education need students, low income students. You know, we just got this for poor card. We need to be about reading and math. Yeah.
You know, the president talks about cutting waste, fraud and abuse. When you were at the Department of Education, did you think, you know what, there are ways we could make this agency more effective and more efficient. I'm sure that was your goal, being the head of it. But is that a fair argument to make that any of these government agencies do over time become polluted?
Absolutely. And that's why I'm sure he picked able cabinet officers that can go and make those assemblance. I mean, Secretary McMahon is a small businesswoman, ran a public, ran a federal agency, you know, presumably can really do that analysis internally and figure out what is it that I'm being asked to do, how should I staff that function and how am I accountable to the Congress and to the taxpayers of this country? You are president and CEO of Bipartisan Policy Center.
How do you see and what do you see as potential bipartisan solutions to this issue as it relates to efficiency? I think the Congress obviously has a major oversight role. I saw some statements today that the department says, we've got our work done. And I think, you know, time will tell in school districts and states.
Is that in fact happening when people call on the phone, can they get somebody? When the students try to apply for financial aid, are they able to do that? And so time will tell about whether these levels of reductions will actually be effective. But I think time will tell.
Yeah, that's right. Well, we're going to continue to watch it closely. We hope you will come back to join us again as we continue to watch this play out. Really appreciate your insights.
Margaret Spellings, thank you so much. Great to see you and thank you for joining us. We are back tomorrow with more of the press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.
This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.
She talks about recovery, her new marriage and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.