Meet the Press NOW — March 14

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. As we're following breaking news here in Washington and on Wall Street that really showcases the chaotic and turbulent state of our government, our politics, and our economy. The president speaking right now from the Justice Department a rare venue for a president.

This address so far has largely been an attack on the state of the Justice Department under the last administration with the president falsely claiming, quote, they tried to turn America into a corrupt communist third world country. More on those remarks in a moment as we continue to keep a close ear on what the president is saying, as the White House is lashing out against federal judges who are pushing back against its agenda. A pair of court orders demanding the White House reinstate thousands of federal workers who are fired as part of dojans sweeping cuts. Meanwhile, at the Capitol, the Senate is about to vote with Democrats more divided and angry than they've ever been since the election.

As leader Chuck Schumer and a group of his Senate colleagues are expected to help Republicans advance a Trump-backed funding bill to avoid a government shutdown at midnight tonight. On top of all of that, a roller coaster week on Wall Street has just come to a close. I mean, a week of tariff uncertainty with markets rallying today, but heading into the close, the Dow was on pace for its worst week in two years. We will delve into all the breaking news this hour, but we do want to begin with the president speaking at the DOJ.

And with that, I want to bring in our team of NBC News reporters, senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, who's outside the White House and also with as NBC News Justice reporter Ryan Riley. So, Ryan, how extraordinary does he, President Trump, there at the Justice Department, of course, as a candidate, he was facing multiple indictments. They have now been dropped. He says he's launching a far-reaching investigation into what he referred to as wrongdoing at the Justice Department under the previous administration.

Talk about what your key takeaways were. Yeah, as you mentioned up top, you know, speeches of the president's at the Justice Department are very rare. It's not often that they speak from that great hall. The only time in my 15 years covering DOJ that I can remember, I was president of Michigan.

And that was a much different kind of speech. Obviously, what you have here is someone who was a criminal defendant just a few months ago. So, we're taking a victory lap against sort of the agency and the prosecutors that went after him and saying, you know, that those days were no longer going to come back. He made a little bit of news there talking about rebuilding the FBI at its current location along Pennsylvania Avenue.

It had been thought to have maybe been going after the suburbs, but now he's saying it's going to be there. But also talking about, you know, how many people are going to be working at FBI headquarters? You know, the idea is that they're going to shrink headquarters, send people out into the field. And that's something that's happening at the Justice Department as well.

You know, for those of him that make those direct attacks on Jack Smith, the former special counsel, of course, and talk about the raid in Mar-a-Lago, as well as the other cases against him, while you have a Justice Department, you know, that is led in part by one of his former criminal defense attorneys at the deputy attorney general level, was really, I think, quite a remarkable site there. And it speaks to sort of a lot of the optics. You know, they're just these normal things that you see as a Justice Department reporter that might not register for the average viewer. But the first time we saw that was Pam Bond, either way that she handled her first press conference.

Today, we sort of have these sort of props, right, on the stage there. This was seized by the DEA, of DEA evidence sitting out there. It's just not typically how we've seen the Justice Department handle these things before. And of course, normally there would be the, you know, the discouragement of directly political, this sort of political speech within the Justice Department.

But you know, there's parts of this that have really seemed like a campaign rally, you know, sort of calling out people in the audience and telling stories that we've heard when he actually has been on the campaign trail before. So it is definitely a remarkable moment, I think, in American history, and certainly for the FBI, the speech that President Trump is giving in the Great Hall today, Kristen. Ryan, great distillation of what we just heard. Let's head to Kelly O'Donnell at the White House.

Ryan, stand by for us. Kelly, what were your key takeaways? Again, it's very rare to have a president speak at the Justice Department, and we know that President Trump has this extraordinary history with the Justice Department, given that he was the subject of multiple indictments that have now been dropped effectively since he is the current Commander-in-Chief. It is striking, and it's important to point out how this is a real departure from what has been Washington's tradition, certainly in our lifetime, and going back really to the Watergate era where the Attorney General was indicted and went to prison for crimes associated with President Richard Nixon's efforts with Watergate.

And since that time, having separation where a president would often seldom even speak to his Attorney General and certainly would not be going to the building with the exception of perhaps some courtesy visit, but not a showpiece like today's event is for President Trump, where he is openly setting a new course for the kind of crime fighting that he believes is part of the electoral win that put him into office with going after drugs and international cartels and those kinds of things, but threaded throughout what we've heard, and what is typically lengthy address for the president, is again going after those who he perceives as his political enemies, those who he believes did him some harm, talking about rooting out bad actors. There have already been a number of dismissals at the Department of Justice for people who were doing their jobs to prosecute either the January 6 cases, those were voluminous, and Ryan had been really out front on a lot of that reporting, as well as those associated with the special counsel, Jack Smith, and the indictments against the president himself. So while it might be typical for a president to go to another part of the executive branch and to speak to those who are there, again, doing that at the Department of Justice is unusual and the president knows that and is embracing the fact that he is casting his shadow very first permanently over the DOJ and embracing the people he installed there in order to reshape the vision of a smaller leaner and, in some ways, one that reflects his personal views. And at times that's been at odds with the law, at odds with the law because we've seen how a number of the president's executive actions and some of the firing that's going on at various departments has been challenged in the court.

So there's a lot of tension points here, and today really stands out. It sure does, Kelly, and you really take me to my next question, Ryan, let me go back to you. Kelly talks about the fact that in his 50 days in office so far, we have seen President Trump take some actions against some of those who are perceived to be his political rivals. Throughout the course of the campaign, he talked about this word retribution.

He was pressed repeatedly. What did he mean by it? He said his success would be his retribution. I pressed him when I interviewed him just before he was sworn into office.

Would he direct his attorney general? Would he direct his FBI director to target specific political enemies? He said he would not do that. How do you see this playing out now that we are approaching 50 days in office?

Yeah. I mean, you know, one of the key names there is Ed Martin, who is the interim U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia, and in that position, he's overseen, first of all, that entire capital siege unit, which was working on these hundreds of January six cases that instantly went away with a stroke of the pen on Donald Trump's first day in office. That section has been entirely disbanded.

They fired all of the attorneys that they, the prosecutors there, that they could, who were still under the first two years where they were probationary employees at first. You know, I watched them. I got to go back into the Justice Department or rather into the U.S. Attorney's office and get all of their things and bring them out.

You know, and that culture has really continued, right? You had demotions of those individuals who went after January six cases. One of them actually just wrote a letter that I attained this week. He was resigning from the department and was writing that he was going to be proud to tell this history, you know, make sure that history knew the story of what happened on January six.

Something he's going to be proud to tell his son, who he's expecting in a couple of months here. But there's really this culture within the Justice Department right now of real fear about what this is going to mean going forward. People are just very concerned for their jobs because the civil service protections are sort of fading away, right? There's a lot of worry that just basically someone could destroy your career very quickly.

In fact, you know, we saw that just the other week where someone liked a LinkedIn post and then we're suddenly walked out of the Justice Department. So there's been a lot of really concerning measures out within the agenda. Incredibly insightful. Appreciate your saying on top of all of those twists and turns for us.

Ryan Riley, Kelly O'Donnell, let me go back to you. This speech caps a week in which we have seen volatility on Wall Street, jitters on Main Street, as well as quite frankly, inside the administration over the president's economic policy, the fact that he has imposed a number of different tariffs against the United States, largest trading partners, biggest allies. What is your sense, Kelly, because you've had a chance to question him throughout the week. He has struck a note of defiance with you, certainly no indication he's planning to back down on any of this, right?

He has a very high tolerance for the chaotic effects of his decision making. When I say chaotic effects, he will very much defend that he can deploy tariffs that he can fire federal workers, that he can call out federal workers for not coming into the office. He can challenge leaders like President Zelensky of Ukraine and try to somehow woo Putin to the negotiating table. You can do all of these different things with a lot of kind of rebound effects that affect the markets, affect allies and relationships, affect how American citizens are trying to figure out what this will mean for their budgets and their pocketbooks.

So his high tolerance for those chaotic effects and the shock and awe, which is a term that the administration embraced coming in. They wanted a lot of activity. They wanted a lot of people in order to swiftly remake the administration and the federal government. So the president pushes back hard when challenged about tariffs or policies.

Acknowledges recession is a possibility. It does not believe that the markets are a reflection as he did in the first term of an immediate snapshot of how he is doing. He says markets go up and go down now. So there is a certainly a determined kind of approach the president is using, even as criticism, questions and fears bubble up as a result.

Yeah, and we should note, we are going to have a new NBC News while coming out on Sunday on Meet the Press. Steve Krennaki will be with us to break down all of the results. What is the president's overall approval rating? What is his approval rating as it relates to the economy?

Kelly O'Donnell, Ryan Riley, thank you so much, really appreciate it. We turn it now to the breaking news on Capitol Hill, a lot of breaking news today, folks. We're all signed, point two, in a verdict government shutdown and in angry and divided Democratic Party. The Senate will soon vote on breaking cloture on the House passed Trump back six month stock gap funding bill with several Democrats expected to join their leader, Chuck Schumer, in advancing it to the floor.

Here is Senator Schumer explaining his logic behind his decision earlier this morning. The CR is a bad bill. But as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option. A shutdown would allow those to shift into overdrive.

Now, Schumer's decision is not sitting well with most Democrats on Capitol Hill, dozens of House Democrats signed a letter urging the Senate to reject the continuing resolution, saying it would only serve to enable President Trump and Elon Musk. We also heard more pushback from leadership in the House. Take a listen to the chilly response Chuck Schumer got from his fellow New Yorker, Hucking Jeffries. Has Senator Schumer in your mind acquiesced to Trump?

Next question that is best addressed by the Senate. The vote hasn't taken place yet, and the House Democratic position is very clear. Does it time for new leadership in the Senate? Next question.

Senator Chuck Schumer is from your state. He has a different view of this in you. He is not saying let's go back to the voting table. He's saying let's take this vote.

So, have you lost confidence in him? In fact, you guys see this so differently. Next question. Okay.

Well, while most Democrats are up in arms and uncertain about how this move will impact their standing at home and their ability to push back on the Trump administration in the future, the rank and file senators we spoke to said they are sticking by leader Schumer. I think Senator Schumer has made this decision that I can be the vote leader. Do you cover new leadership? No.

Are you disappointed in the leadership decision to support this government funding bill? No. What I'm disappointed in is people focusing on which Democrats should have voted which way rather than on the Republican Kamal that set the scheme up. The choices that were put in front of the United States Senate by House Republicans were both horrible.

They're both bad. You're not asked by support. Chuck Schumer. I support Chuck Schumer.

And I announce how people you know, and right now that's where I understand. Do you want me to now? Bill Hill has seen her national politics reporter, Sahil Kapoor, who's been all over this story. So, Sahil, take us inside the Capitol right now.

What is the very latest on the potential vote? Yeah, Chris. And this is a staggering display of Democratic disunity. Everything you just showed right now.

I've never seen the Senate Democratic leader, the House Democratic leader, this divided, and this openly at odds about such an important issue, especially something like government funding where Democrats are almost always on the same page. Now, all of that aside, the situation in the Senate right now is this bill was supposed to get a procedural vote some time ago. It has been paused. And the reason, the reason for the pause have been some subject of speculation up here.

The fact is, we cannot officially count to the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster on this. It needs at least eight Democrats with grandpa being a no. And we can only count to three Senate Democrats who were definitively said that they will vote to advance this six-month funding bill that passed the House. Now, it is certainly possible that it gets to that 60 votes because we can count to eight other Democrats who have not weighed in yet, and many of them are close to allies of Schumer.

So they may be holding their cards close to the best and if they're votes are necessary, they could put one on the board for the team, or rather for Schumer, and let this thing move forward. The other factor here is that their negotiations happening about amendments. If and when this does get the 60 votes to move forward, Democrats have wanted amendments, most likely that 30-day government funding bill that stopped that bill, that Patty Murray and a bunch of other Democrats in the House, including the Team Jeffries, want that gives Democrats a chance to say, no, we did not vote to shut down the government, they eventually opposed this bill, that they had a different approach in terms of how to move forward. And then Senator Rand Paul is demanding an amendment as well, that would cut about $16 billion from foreign aid that Republican leaders are also trying to navigate.

So it's certainly possible that this vote could happen the moment they wrap up negotiations on the amendments, and they could do all these votes in rapid succession, and they could be out of here frequently. So Sahel, let's talk about the dynamics between House and Senate Democrats right now. A couple of things that are fascinating. One, you have Leader Jeffrey saying next question when he's asked whether he has confidence in Leader Schumer, his counterpart on the Senate side.

You also have the likes of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's been incredibly critical of Chuck Schumer for effectively moving forward and voting for this Republican-Trump-backed funding bill. And you have Democrats writing a letter to Senate Democrats saying, now is the time to stand up, if not now, when? Talk about these dynamics, Sahel, and could there be enough pressure to get Leader Schumer to change yours? Well, of course, I think it's very fair to say that Chuck Schumer is vastly outnumbered within his phone party on this issue of whether to move forward with this government funding bill.

It is striking a notable to see Congresswoman AOC call this A, A, B, trail, and her-sharp criticisms. Not nearly as surprising, however, as the minority leader, King Jeffries, refusing to say whether he has confidence in Chuck Schumer's leadership in the Senate. Again, these two are close allies. They're both from Brooklyn.

They've been joined at the hip on every one of these major decisions so far, and beyond that, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting out a statement earlier today, essentially asking Senate Democrats to defy Chuck Schumer. These two work together for years as the top Democrat in the House and the top Democrat in the Senate, including in the previous Trump administration, there was never a decision quite like this. So she's taking the King Jeffries aside, asking senators to side with him, as well as the two Democratic appropriators, Patty Murray and Rosie Valorro, to move forward. So what does this all mean for Schumer's leadership?

I think that's still a question mark. It's safe to say that he's never faced the kind of turmoil and the kind of income and the attacks that he's gotten before, but whether this ultimately leads to pressure on him depends on how Democrats perceive this. Are there going to be enough senators who see this as a, you know, Schumer taking one for the team as a heat shield? Do many of them secretly also want to avoid a government shutdown, even though they're not not willing to vote for this government funding bill?

The questions we're going to be chasing in the coming, in the near future. I think you're absolutely right. On top of all of this, of course, President Trump praising Chuck Schumer. And you have Democrats saying, well, if President Trump is praising you, then we are not on the right side of this issue.

We will have to see how this dramatic moment on Capitol Hill plays out. It's not Hill. There's anything breaking. Rush right back to the camera.

We'll get your update. Thank you so much for your great reporting as always. Thanks, I will talk to the House Democrat who bucked his party and voted in favor of Republicans government funding bill as Democrats struggle to find a message and a plan for combating President Trump, plus another federal judge reverses the Trump administration's mass layoffs, including employees across 21 federal agencies to be reinstated. We have the details of what it could mean for the thousands of federal workers.

You're watching me press now stay with us. Welcome back. As we mentioned, tempers inside the Democratic Party have boiled over as Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer faces intraparty blowback for his decision to join Senate Republicans in advancing a Trump-back bill to a verdict government shutdown. Joining me now is Maine's Democratic Congressman Jared Goldman.

He was the only House Democrat to vote in favor of the six-month stop-gap bill. And we should know Congressman debate on the bill is now underway as we are having this conversation. Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Good to be here with you. I want to start with the statement that House Democratic leadership put out last night gets your reaction. It reads, quote, Donald Trump and Republicans are crashing the economy. We remain strongly opposed to the partisan spending bill under consideration in the Senate.

What do you make of that statement of the opposition by everyone else except you in the House? You know, there's a proverb out there that warns leaders that how you catch them is how you must lead them. And the thing that I would point out is a lot of the talking points being put out by my colleagues is trying to conflate the CR with the Republican reconciliation budget that we all opposed. That would slash Medicaid.

It would give tax breaks to the rich. It would greatly, you know, do damage to our nation's fiscal well-being with deficit and a more deficit funding. That's all bad and Democrats are opposed to that. None of that is in the CR.

There's no Medicaid cuts. No matter what, some of my colleagues are saying, there's no tax cuts in it for the rich. There in fact, in some ways, actually helpful to Medicaid. So, you know, on the merits, this CR, while there are some anomalies with it, some problems, it's mostly a continuation of Biden-era government funding and a lot of Republicans are disappointed with that, even though at the end of the day they voted for it to avoid a shutdown.

Well, a number of your colleagues argue the other thing that is in it, guardrails, to prevent or at least try to slow down President Trump and Elon Musk from trying to slash the federal government spending and federal employees. How do you respond to that piece of the argument? Are you concerned that there are no guardrails? Well, I would say that anything that the president and his team has been doing or is doing today, that's illegal, will remain illegal after the passage of the CR.

And as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and others are warning, the opposite would be what would come out of the shutdown, expanded authority in the hands of the president and his allies, like Elon Musk, to go ahead and furlough the federal government, send workers home without pay, and start to dissemble government services for the American people. You know, Congress, and there's a really extraordinary moment when Leader Jeffries was asked if he had confidence in Leader Schumer, and he said, next question, effectively, what do you make of that response? Yeah, I'm not going to get into their personal New York politics or the back and forth between House and Senate here. Obviously, I think that Senate Dems are about to make the right choice for the country as difficult as it may be.

And I think they're taking a responsible path here. So do you have confidence? Do you have faith in Leader Schumer? Well, look, I'm not going to agree with him all the time.

We represent a much different constituency. But in this case, I think he's making a hard choice, and I think he's being honest and truthful with the American people, that this is the best path forward for the country at this moment. I want to play you what your colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said last night, take a look. I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal, and this is not just about progressive Democrats.

This is across the board the entire party. There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people, in order to defend Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, just to see some of Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk. I think it is a huge spark in the face. What about that argument, Congressman, that largely House Democrats, as Congressman Ocasio-Cortez argues, walks the plank, and she calls this betrayal that Senate Democrats aren't walking it with them?

This gets back to what I said earlier. How you catch them is how you must lead them. I think one of the votes of the caucus claiming, forming them to go ahead and tell the American people that this was about fighting to protect them from Medicaid cuts, they have to continue on with those talking points, despite the fact that it is easily dissembled and proven that there are no Medicaid cuts in this bill. That's called walking the plank.

Personally, I chose not to do that. I think the Senate Dems are pretty much in the same posture that I was a couple of nights ago. We're going to vote for the CR, keep the government open on the merits of how harmful, argument of how harmful a shutdown would be. When it comes to protecting Medicaid, standing up against those tax cuts for the rich, the expense of our constituents, that's where we're going to get to level with the American people and have an honest fight that we can win.

Congressman, something else that we're hearing from your Democratic colleagues who oppose this CR is, if not now when, will there ever be a moment when Democrats have this level of leverage, you know, acknowledging the fact that obviously Democrats are in the minority in the House, in the Senate, Republicans control the White House, I don't have to tell you that. But will there be another moment when Democrats have this type of leverage? Yes, sure. I mean, you've got to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

And the fact of the matter is, there was no leverage here. You don't think so. You don't think Democrats had any leverage to say, if you want us to sign on to this, make a deal with us, get a better deal. If Republicans needed the votes, then we would have had leverage.

The fact of the matter is they didn't. And what they know and what Leader Schumer understands is, in fact, if a shutdown began, we would have even less leverage in that situation and be in a perilous political position. We would likely have to offer even greater concessions just to get the government open again. I want to put up some numbers from last month's CNN poll, 73% of Democrats and Democratic winning independents say congressional Democrats are doing too little to oppose President Trump.

Do voters want you to work with President Trump right now, do you think, or do they want you to block him? I think that my voters want me to work with the president when I perceive that's in their best interest. And I want, I think that they want me to go ahead and fight him as hard as I can when they think it's not in their best interest. So Medicaid cuts, they're not for that.

In fact, a third of my constituents depend on it. And I'm going to fight that. I'm not going to support it. But there are ways that we can work together.

You know, I've looked at trade issues relative to Canada up here in Northern Maine. And I can tell you we have a different picture than a lot of other folks around the country. Let me ask you a big picture about the state of the Democratic Party right now, obviously on its heels in the wake of its losses in 2024. Do you believe that now 50 days into President Trump's second term, your party, the Democratic Party, is any closer to finding a cohesive message and strategy for this moment?

No, in fact, after the election, when a lot of people like yourself were asking me to come on shows and talk about how the party would find a new direction, a stronger message. I warned that I thought come inauguration day, a lot of people would move on, shift into full resistance, and stop focusing on what we're getting wrong. What do we have to offer the American people? And where do we go forward from here so that we're not in this situation after the next election?

I think it's very important that Democrats not forget the focusing on ourselves, why the American people voted not just for President Trump, but for a Republican-led Congress in both the Senate and the House. And we better figure out how to make the case to the American people that they want us there after the 2026 election with the House majority to offer a check on that uncontrolled Republican power that we're seeing in action today. All right, Congressman Golden, thank you so very much for joining us. Please come back again soon.

Bring us your perspective. We really appreciate it. Thank you. And we do have some breaking news out of the district court here in Washington where the judge just ruled on two separate cases related to the Trump administration's use of Guantanamo Bay to house migrants.

The judge denied the request for a temporary restraining order related to access of migrants at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the request for an emergency stay for the 10 detained migrants currently in the U.S., joining us immediately outside the courthouse. So we just got the ruling, take us inside what the judge said exactly. Yeah, Christian, this was surprising. The judge knuckles not only ruled on both these cases so quickly, but that he ruled to block not to do a temporary restraining order.

What was being asked here by the plaintiffs representing 10 migrants that stood the chance of being sent to Guantanamo was to get legal access for those said so that they could contact lawyers and to stop the transfer of migrants to Guantanamo Bay. What the judge said is that because Guantanamo Bay is empty right now, he was not going to issue a ruling because he couldn't show that there was harm being done. As we reported here, it had been seen as earlier this week. All of the immigrants who were in Guantanamo Bay are now gone, they've either been deported or sent back to U.S.

detention centers. Of course, the timing of that is strange. We understand it's because they couldn't get a lot of these facilities up to code. But because of that, that gave the government very much of a, that had started coming into the discussions here today, the oral arguments because there was no one left in Guantanamo Bay for the judge to protect through a temporary restraining order.

Another thing that we heard talked about today, Christian, is this idea of looking at the law and seeing if the executive branch has the power to detain immigrants outside of the United States. One of the arguments we heard from the Justice Department was that by that standing, if they couldn't take any immigrants outside of the United States for detention, they couldn't fly anyone over international water. Say from Hawaii to the continental U.S. or from Miami to El Paso, and so therefore that argument doesn't hold and they should be able to send anyone to Guantanamo Bay.

But lawyers from the ACLU representing the migrants themselves said that absolutely that does not stand. Not only does Guantanamo have this history, but they would oppose detaining immigrants for the purpose of deportation anywhere outside the United States, including say an air force base in Iceland. That was one of the hypotheticals that judged through out. So right now he's not issuing a temporary restraining order, but what we expect to see next is for the judge to ask the government to notify him if and when they do decide to send more migrants to Guantanamo Bay.

The picture here, Kristin, this is a win for the administration at least temporarily, but they still have a lot of hurdles to go if they want to continue to use Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention. Not only potential legal challenges, but because Trump said he wanted 30,000 migrants to be held there, and so far they haven't been able to get this space in the migrant operation center, to hold more than 50, and the tents that they've tried haven't been able to suffice. Another thing we heard about was the conditions. We understand from the plaintiff's attorneys they're holding people in solitary confinement, something called confinement chairs, and in camp six in Guantanamo Bay, that high security prison, and they say that is not up to the bystanders and it is causing irreparable harm to those sit there that is worse standards in the way the migrants will be held in ICE detention in the United States today.

Wow. Well, a lot to cover there. Julia, thank you for being on top of that breaking news for us and bringing it to us so quickly. We really appreciate it.

Good to see you. Coming up next, what is next in the legal fight over President Trump's mass firing at the federal government after two federal judges ordered the administration to reinstate thousands of workers? We'll take a look at that. You're watching The Press Now.

Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the dark today at workouts and meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off at annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more.

XFINITY, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. All the rents may 20th, 26th, prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash XFINITY for full on returns and details.

As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's a Scoop, a new podcast for NBC News with me, your host, Gazzam Dazoogey. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative for you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. On the front page, the Zeitgeist.

Here's a scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago.

Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows. Plus, deeper access and exclusive content.

Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back.

As we noted at the top of the show, President Trump is making a rare appearance at the Justice Department today, outlining his vision for a department charged with enforcing the law. It comes as two federal judges just ruled that the Trump administration broke the law when it fired thousands of probationary federal workers. Late yesterday, a judge in Maryland ordered thousands of those workers from more than a dozen departments and agencies to be reinstated. Earlier in the day, California judge also ruled against the Trump administration's mass layoffs, calling the White House's claim that the firings were based on performance, a quote, sham and a lie.

The White House was already vowed to appeal that Maryland judge's ruling with the White House condemning yesterday's decision. Those district court rulings about all the fired probationary workers use the same language you're just now in the same about fighting back against that ruling. Do you mean appealing or something else and does the administration plan to comply with those orders? Does it mean time?

Fighting back by appealing, fighting back by using the full weight of the White House Council's office and our lawyers and federal government who believe that this injunction is entirely unconstitutional and it is for anybody who has a basic understanding of the law. You cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the President of the United States. That is completely absurd. Joining me now to discuss this is NBC News legal analyst Danny Savallo.

Danny, thanks so much for being here. So walk us through these rulings and where things stand right now. If you're a probationary worker, what does all of this mean for you? Well, let's start over in the northern district of California where the judge there determined that the firings were not right because the office of personnel management or OPM directed them and it wasn't the agencies themselves.

Now, looking at the ruling, you might think that all that means is that it wasn't done procedurally correctly. So the Trump administration may go back to the drawing board and simply try to do it another way. But meanwhile, the case in Maryland is actually very interesting because the plaintiffs there are not individual workers who have been harmed. Instead, it's the states and the argument is that these massive layoffs under federal law violated law and regulations because the states were unprepared.

When these mass firings happen or layoffs, the states have to step in with aid in the form of services and other things for these people who are no longer employed. And therefore, they, the states are the ones harmed. And that in the Maryland case, the judge determined that this firing, this mass firing wasn't done properly. Notice was not given.

And the idea that they were terminated for cause in mass with no explanation doesn't really make a lot of sense because there's no real cause articulated. And of course, the White House vowing to appeal these rulings. What would the grounds be for those appeals, Danny? Well, they'll certainly appeal.

That's been their strategy the entire time. There are any number of different grounds. They may argue that the states don't have standing. That is always a great approach with judges because then the case is pretty much over without even any review.

And you already got a preview. They're really going to argue that in both cases, the lower district courts overstepped their authority and basically misapplied the breadth of the executive power. By the way, that is the common theme that runs through all of these cases, is that the administration is claiming an expansive view of their executive power. And they are basically their approaches.

Let's try these things out by executive order, executive action, and we'll see what the courts do. If they reel us in, then we'll just take it to a higher court. The strategy here is clear. So when we're talking about TROs, restraining orders, injunctive relief, all those words really mean to be continued.

And to be continued means when the case either ends at a circuit court of appeal or at the Supreme Court. Well, we know you will track it all the way there. If it goes to the Supreme Court, Danny Zavala, thank you so much. Appreciate your joining us.

Vice President JD Vance is the latest administration official who will not totally rule out a possible recession as a result of President Trump's trade policies. Take a listen to some of what he had to say in an interview on Fox News just last night. Can you rule out a recession, even a temporary one? Well, look, you can never can predict the future, but I think the economy, the fundamentals, the economy are actually quite strong right now.

And we'll see how this unfolds. Today, the vice president visited a plastic manufacturer in Michigan where he touted President Trump's vision for American jobs and American workers and defended the president's tariff strategy. Shouldn't be now to discuss this, NBC News, the national politics reporter Henry Gomez, who just spoke with the vice president on board Air Force to Henry Hughes. Huge congratulations.

It is a great get. You got a number of headlines, including the vice president, making some news on Elon Musk. We're just talking about the doge cuts. What have you say to you about this?

So, Kristen, we talked to the vice president about the cuts that Elon Musk has orchestrated and overseen at doge. And what the vice president acknowledged to us was there were mistakes, you know, that Elon Musk himself has acknowledged mistakes and the mistakes are okay as long as you correct them. He also acknowledged a gentler tone we've heard from the president and from Elon Musk himself that not all federal workers are bad, that there are many federal workers out there who are hard workers, who are good workers, who probably don't deserve to lose their jobs. He also said that there are some that are just collecting a check, meaning they're just taking a paycheck without actually having earned it.

So there's a little bit of a shift there between him and Elon Musk, and the hard charging so much about Elon Musk tone, whereas do you even see the knowledge of hate mistakes were made, we have to correct them and we have to acknowledge that not all federal employees are lazy or fraudsters, which is the word that Elon Musk used to often describe them. Really fascinating. And he gave you some news also about TikTok. A lot of interest in this.

I mean, what do you have to say about TikTok? So the president has tasked G.D. Vance with helping to broker a TikTok deal by April. Vance told me that he is very confident that the framework of a deal will be in place by April 5th, which is the deadline for this.

Now, there's a talk about possibly being another extension to get this done. Vance feels that the framework of a deal will be in place, something that will transfer TikTok to a U.S. based company that will keep U.S. interests and secure national security in mind.

He did mention that there may still need to be some ice to be done and he doesn't know it will merit an extension to finalize all that. He's very confident that come April 5th, we are going to have the parameters of a deal in place that the administration will be happy with. Well, it's right around the corner. So that's pretty significant.

Let's talk about 2028, if we dare. Not around the corner. A couple of years still till 2028. But what did you did ask him about this?

What did he say to you? You know, I asked him because the question is like, does Trump view him as his natural successor? And I said, I flipped it a bit. And I said, do you view yourself?

Great question. That's Trump's natural successor. And he told me the story about an election night, how when it finally sunk in that he'd been elected vice president, he felt, you know what, I could do this. I could do a good job as VP and nothing else.

And it would be enough for me. So he's dodging the question, clever and creative ways as always. But he kept talking about how, for him, as long as he focuses on the job for the next few years, the rest of it will take care of itself. If he does a good job, it'll take care of him politically, it'll take care of the country, the way that he and Trump want to take care of the country.

So he's not rolling anything out, but he's also not breaking any news. It's clearly thinks about these things. Of course he does. He's a human being.

But he's trying to say that he's focused on the job because that more than anything will determine whether or not he's a viable presidential candidate. Well, it sounds like a great conversation. I look forward to reading the entire thing. Henry Gomez, thank you so much.

Congratulations again on a great get coming up next. The latest from Capitol Hill is that key Senate vote on avoiding a government shutdown is happening right now. We're going to go back to Capitol Hill watching the press now. Breaking news, we are following that vote on the Senate floor right now to advance the House pass bill to fund the government and avoid a shutdown at midnight.

Right now, the Senate is still voting. That's expected. We've seen a handful of Democrats join leader Schumer in voting to advance the bill. We are likely going to see a series of rapid fire votes on amendments to this legislation before the Senate votes on its final passage.

So there's still a couple of steps here, folks. So I hope the poor is back with us from Capitol Hill where he's watching this vote happen in real time. So I'll just break this down. What are we seeing and what do we have left to go?

Hey, Kristin. Well, I think we have some important news to be able to report because we can now count to eight Senate Democrats who are voting in favor of breaking the filibuster and moving forward with the House pass Republican six month funding bill. This is the key vote that you're watching on the screen right now. This needs 60 to move forward after this.

It's likely going to be a glide path to passage. And if there are no surprises, we expect 52 Republicans to support cloture on this. Every one of them except Rand Paul, that means eight Democrats are necessary to move forward. And so far, there are seven who have already voted yes, Catherine Cortez Masto, senators Durbin, Federman, Hasen, King, shots, and Schumer.

And Senator Gary Peters just put out a statement on Twitter saying he's going to vote yes on moving forward with the bill. That is eight. So it looks like they've gotten there. It looks like just enough Democrats are standing behind Chuck Schumer to move this forward.

After that, what we're going to see is, as you mentioned, a rapid fire series of amendments, four of them in particular, three by Democrats, one by Senator Rand Paul, again, the loner Republican against this bill, and then final passage, and will be done. This bill goes for President Trump's desk. It will be signed into law. The government will say open through the end of September on terms of House Republicans in conjunction with the White House.

As I was just very quickly, when, based on what we're witnessing right now, might we see that final vote? And it's certainly significant news that you're breaking here on our area right now. Yeah, Chris, and well, Senator Thune wants these to be 10 minute votes. But these, you know, that kind of a request in the Senate is always easier said than done.

I would say when we're looking at four votes, then final passage, probably at least an hour, it's going to take to get it all done. But at this moment, unless there are any surprises, unless somebody votes, unlike the way we expect them to, or the way we know now they've already voted, unless someone switches, in other words, this bill does appear to have the 60 votes, it needs to break a filibuster. All right. But the big breaking news that looks like this bill does have enough votes to move forward, as you say, on a glide path to move forward and to a government shutdown.

Saha, thanks so much for your great reporting. Joining me now on this very busy day is the panel. Kevin Fry, Washington correspondent for Spectrum News, New York once, among Sanders Townsend, former chief spokesperson to Vice President Harris and co-host of the weekend on MSNBC. And Matt Gorman, former senior advisor to Tim Scott's presidential campaign.

Kevin, I have to start with you a lot of drama on Capitol Hill, Saha Hill saying that it's not going to shut down. Really? To state the obvious, Saha Hill saying it seems like the government is not going to shut down. But boy, Leader Schumer has certainly sparked a big outcry from within his own part.

We really haven't seen anything like that. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with all of this. I mean, it's been a raucous 24 or 48 hours for the leader. And it's kind of worth noting that we got here in kind of the circuitous way that I think there was some belief that the House wouldn't be able to pass this to begin with.

And then it landed in Senator Schumer's lap because, and I should say, there was belief that there would be Republican in fighting and the Democrats would have to ride in to save the day. And thus, they would have to be concessions and then Democrats could get some wins. And that didn't happen. Republicans stuck together.

As Jeffries told me in the hallway the other day, it seems the whip operation is run out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So with Trump pushing along landed in Schumer's lap and Schumer seemed to be somewhat caught off guard by this. And now here we are seeing this likely had a delight. This is a critical point you're making before we move on.

You're basically saying Democrats miscalculated. This moment they didn't think that the House Speaker was going to be able to get this over the finish line. But a big assist from the president. That seems to be part of the problem for them.

Now, Jeffries, when I pressed him on this yesterday, I asked if he was surprised. He insisted that the Republicans would walk the plank for, in his words, Trump. But nonetheless, I mean, it seems this was the moment and it was by all calculations, the moment that Democrats would have leverage. Everyone believed that going into this year.

They didn't have it. Yeah. Simone, pick up on that point because I've been talking to so many Democrats. You say, if we're not going to stand up now when we're never going to have them, we're not going to have another.

Do you see it that way or is there another moment? No, there's not another moment. But look, Schumer says there's going to be another moment. With all due respect, I think that the senator is wrong.

There's a, I think that Senate Democrats at this point, they want to be the thermometer and instead, or the thermostat when we need them to be a thermometer, they need to take the temperature of where the, their voters are, but also read the room on what's happening. There's another moment because this is the one thing that Republicans and the Congress needed Democrats to help do. In the Senate, you cannot, given the filibuster, okay, they can't, they need 60 votes. They're not 60 Republicans.

Therefore, they need the Democrats to go along. I reject this notion that shut down would just give all of these free things to the Trump administration. Yes, then shut down, the government decides what isn't, it's not essential. But the people who are furloughed or not fired, they're furloughed and as long as they're not a federal contractor, they are paid when the government reopens.

Schumer said last night that, well, they're, they're raiding the government right now anyway. So why are you talking about? I just, it's just not coherent. I would just say it's not very hard on Democrats.

House Democrats, kudos to them for sticking together. It seems as though Senator Schumer did not have a plan and now we're seeing a request of that. Mac Gordon, let me read you something that Semaphores Dave Weigel wrote today. The Democrats Tea Party was born on Thursday night when Chuck Schumer took the Senate floor to announce his grudging vote for a Republican spending bill in the Capitol.

Senators from states far better than Schumer's announced that they would not follow their leader 40 miles away at their retreat in the DC excerpts, House Democrats who had overwhelmingly opposed the bill vented about Schumer's weakness. Does that go too far? I call this the Tea Party moment for the Democrats? No, not at all.

Like, hoping it's on strategy and what their strategy was, hoping that Johnson fumbled the mat. He didn't. And you're absolutely right with Pelosi gone, Biden gone. The old guard is no longer there.

The top down leadership, as we've seen the House last 15 years on our side of the aisle, is the top down leadership of the Democratic side is no longer, right? Folks in the House and in the Senate are not just willing, I would say, sometimes eager to take on leaders in their party. We're seeing that and certainly you're not as advanced as us on our side, but you know, this is I think the first salvo. That's not exactly.

That's the first salvo, right? It's the first salvo. I want to play something that AOC said, get everyone's reaction on the other side. Take a look.

Just to see some Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think it is a huge slap in the face. And I think that there's a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned. The point that Senator Schumer has kind of made is, you know, the CR is bad, but a shutdown is worse. So how do you respond to that point?

That is, I cannot understate, I cannot underscore enough how incorrect that is. Adding fuel to all of this. Here's what President Trump tweeted at Leader Schumer, congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing to guts and courage, Kevin. What is this political moment that we are in?

I don't even, these two moments, these are kind of predictable responses. Trump turning the next person in the night, AOC is annoyed. I thought the more remarkable thing was today when we saw Leader Jeffrey not jumping up to defend his fellow Brooklynite, who lives probably less than a mile. I don't know the exact geography here from Senator Schumer, basically unwilling to go to bat for him.

When he was asked, do you no longer have faith in him? Do you think there should be a leadership change? To both of those questions, he responded, next question, and when I asked if he believed that he had acquiesced to President Trump, he basically said, that's a question you're going to have to ask Senator Schumer in the dissent. It was an absolutely extraordinary moment, Simone, what do you make of it and how big, frankly, is this rift?

What does it mean for the current leadership? Democrats and Republicans who are elected to the United States Congress should go to New Town Hall. And if you're a Democrat or a Republican and you're going to hear from the voters in your district, and what Democrats are hearing from their voters specifically is we want somebody to fight for us. We don't feel like y'all are fighting.

These are Democrats in some group places and Democrats in some purple places, even Democrats in districts to Donald Trump won. So the fact, I didn't expect Leader Jeffrey to defend Schumer today because he had, he whipped his members together to stand firm only for sure to just literally leave him out here hanging. And I was talking to an agent today, I mean, to underscore that is this is not just like the progressives that are annoyed. It is widespread, even in those frontline districts that are going to be critical for Democrats trying to keep the house down.

I'm enjoying this. I'm enjoying this. But Matt, you know, it sure makes the point. Let's get back to talking about the economy, which boy, it was a rollicking wall street and on Main Street, quite frankly, in the wake of the Trump tariffs.

But look, I think they have positive point to gas prices, inflation, egg prices all down, right? The stock market, they need to tell a better story on, and I think, you know, I'm curious what best it will say on Sunday. We'll see. Thank you for that.

Great channel. We will have you back. We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it is Meet the Press on your local NBC News station.

As you just heard Matt Zail have exclusive interviews with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessin and Senator Chris Murphy will also have a brand new NBC News poll. Steve Krenaki will be here to break it all down. You don't want to miss it. The news continues with Yasmin Vesuvian in for Hallie Jackson right now.

He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died and then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn.

I'm Josh Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.