Meet the Press NOW – March 19

If it's Wednesday, President Trump and his allies ramp up their attacks on the courts, doubling down on calls for judges who rule against the administration to be impeached and demanding that the chief justice of the Supreme Court take action. Plus, President Trump speaks with Ukrainian President Zelensky today and floats U.S. ownership of Ukraine's power grid the day after securing an agreement from Russian President Putin to pause attacks on key infrastructure. And new signs of economic uncertainty ahead in the Trump administration as the Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady and racist for an unpredictable future amid new tariff threats, government cuts and market volatility.

Welcome to the press. Now, I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where the White House is escalating its attacks on the judicial branch as it faces new law, legal setbacks in a number of cases, and a strong review from the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This afternoon, press Secretary Caroline Levitt blasted judges who rule against the White House, maligning them as activists who are trying to usurp presidential authority and derailed the president's sweeping agenda. Listen, the judges in this country are acting erroneously.

We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration's agenda, and it's unacceptable. As the president said last night, we will continue to comply with these court orders.

We will continue to fight these battles in courts. But it's incredibly apparent that there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop, to pick judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president's agenda. We will not allow that to happen. And not only are they usurping the will of the president and the chief executive of our country, but they are undermining the will of the American public.

Love its comments come as more Trump allies lash out against judges who've ruled against the administration, including Elon Musk, who this morning called for those judges to be impeached. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a rare statement through Chief Justice John Roberts stating that impeachment, quote, is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning judicial decision. When asked about that statement, President Trump noted that Justice Roberts did not mention him by name and doubled down on his criticism of the judge who blocked his use of a rarely invoked wartime authority to deport alleged gang members without due process, while also mischaracterizing the judge's ruling. But many people have called for his the impeachment of this judge, and he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country.

Well, that's a presidential job. That's not for a local judge to be making that determination. And I thought it was terrible. I had judges who identify a court order.

I never identify a court order. And you wouldn't in the future? No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges.

We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge. The judge that we're talking about, he's look at his other rulings.

Now, Judge Boseberg had initially given the government until today to respond to additional questions he had about whether the administration had complied with his orders. He's extended that deadline now until tomorrow. The White House, meanwhile, has faced a number of legal setbacks and other challenges to its actions. Yesterday alone, a judge blocked the Trump administration from banning transgender people from the military.

A separate judge ordered Doge to reinstate computer and email systems to the U.S. agency for International Development. And a third judge blocks the EPA from terminating billions of dollars in climate grants. NBC News White House corporate Aaron Gilkers joins me now.

Also with me as NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. Thanks to both of you for starting us off. Aaron. So the courts have been the only real pushback that we've seen against this administration.

Does the White House see these rulings as a nuisance or a major roadblock? What do you think? What are your sources telling you? I think nuisance would be more, more accurate of a description of what we've been getting from the White House in terms of how it's reacting to some of these actions that are happening in court.

You remember that there have been dozens of challenges to some of the executive orders and memos and actions that President Trump has taken. Some of the things that Doge Elon Musk and his team have done across agen the federal government. In each instance, we're seeing this pushback, the DOJ going to court and fighting the challenges to these orders. As we talked to officials at the White House and President Trump himself, they indicated they believe that they are operating within the authority of the executive branch, within the authority of the president of the United States.

At the same time, we are continuing to see these little efforts sort of pop up that the administration is trying to fight back on. We are seeing instances, for example, of employees who've been fired. We think back to those probationary employees who were fired across the government in so many cases. And now we see particularly at the Congress Department where they've had to reinstate some probationary employees.

You think about folks that work for the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, under the Commerce Department, reinstated but not given their jobs back in terms of showing up for work again. They've been placed on paid leave. And so this is the way that the administration is pushing back on some of these challenges, following some of the court orders, the letter of the law, if you will, but still moving forward with what President Trump ultimately wants to do, cut budgets, downsize the federal government. We know this reduction in force effort is something that is starting to rev up.

We've seen that in some agencies perspective. And ultimately that will be the administration will be able to use that reduction in force following the regulations that dictate how that happens to make sure that they are able to downsize the government. Well, it is a really complicated process that's playing out. Let me ask you, because we saw this extraordinary review by the Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday.

How is the Trump administration responding to that? Do you get the sense of that that's having an impact? They've been very careful not to lash out at Chief Justice John Roberts. You heard President Trump in an interview last night say that the statement that we got from the Supreme Court didn't directly address President Trump.

We heard the White House press secretary say today that President Trump has a lot of respect for Chief Justice Roberts. Stephen Miller, one of the president's advisors, said the same thing just a few minutes ago out on the White House north lawn. At the same time, we've heard the administration, as you noted earlier, talk about these other judges, these federal district judges who've been issuing restraining orders and pausing actions by the administration, referring to them as partisan activists, saying that they're undermining the will of the people and suggesting that the legal administration is that it is willing to fight all these cases if necessary, up to the Supreme Court. But they believe the Supreme Court should take some action to rein in these activist judges, Kristen.

And so I think that's the narrative that we'll continue to hear from this White House. It will be interesting to watch how it plays if and when some of these issues, maybe not all the cases, but some of these issues make it to the Supreme Court. And then the highest court of land has to make a ruling. If a ruling goes against the White House or what the administration is trying to do.

How then might that play out? It'll be interesting to watch. It sure will be. Eric, thank you so much for your great reporting as always.

Gary Rock, let me turn to you. I know you've been watching the Justice Department. The reaction they issued a statement in response to Judge Boseberg's request for more answers about the Alien Enemies act, writing, continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the executive branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case. Talk a little bit about what's behind that statement and what the DOJ is hoping to accomplish there.

So you'll remember just yesterday they weren't actually answered questions that just Postburg wanted them to answer several questions about how many people were involved, how many members of the gang are still in what times things happened. So today the judge is asking five new questions and now the government is very upset with that. Say they feel like it's gone too far. They call it, quote, electromagment of immaterial fact finding.

But these questions are not terribly difficult questions to ask. The questions like what time did the plane take off? What time did it leave US Airspace? What time did it get into El Salvadorian airspace?

Right. This is not classified information on its fix. And so this is something that's going to be played out now in the courts before Judge Pillsburg if they asked for a stay of his own ruler. And you've had a busy day because there have been some other machinations within the court.

Talk a little bit about what you're following, including a lawsuit filed against the White House by the United States Institute of Peace. Yes, I've actually just over there, the court of hearing is still ongoing as we speak. It's an emergency temporary restraining order hearing. They're going on four church holes.

This Institute of Peace is a completely independent organization. It's created by Congress, not part of any agency or department across federal government. And that's really important here. The Institute of Peace is saying that DOGE unlawfully broke into their building, physically got into their building, and three different police agencies helped them do that because they are part of the federal government.

There's a big fight in this case over who is exactly managing the Institute of Peace. Is it the Doge, the person from DOGE was now taken over, or is it the person who was in charge just a week ago and there were a number of legal actions taken Yesterday, including blocking the administration's attempts to ban transgender Americans from serving in the military. Talk about the status of that. So that has been banned by this judge, but it's also been stayed by this judge, which means.

Pause. So that order is not currently in effect until Friday. This judge knows the government is going to appeal this case, but she was saying this is an equal protections clause issue. It's an absolute classification issue.

In fact, I'm sure we will see this open. The Supreme Court. Okay, well, I know you will watch it every step of the way. Gary Robot, thank you so much.

Really appreciate it. I'm joined now by Ty Cobb, who serves as White House attorney and President Trump' first administration. Ty, it's always great to have you. Thank you for joining me.

Really appreciate it. Let's dive right into this. The administration clearly seems to be testing the boundaries of its authorities with this Alien Enemies Act. I'm curious, in your legal opinion, do you believe the White House is acting within its authority?

No. I mean, the White House and the Justice Department clearly are trying desperately to hide the facts that demonstrate compellingly that they defied the court order and ignored it. You know, as Tom Holman said, we don't care what the judges say. As Vance said, we don't care about the courts because they don't have an army.

You know, this is a. This is a totally lawless administration with no respect for the courts or the rule of law. Well, you have said that you do not take President Trump at his word when he says he won't defy a court order. Well, and so the question is, what recourse is there within the system to stop it?

What happens? That's an excellent question. I mean, in order to pursue criminal contempt, you would need the assistance of the Justice Department and presumably the FBI or the Marshal Service. There are civil remedies, though, not civil contempt remedies.

And, you know, ammunition available to Judge Boseberg should he. Should he decide that sanctions are necessary. But, yes, the, you know, never before in history as a president to fight court in the way that. Or disrespected court the way that this administration does.

I mean, having, you know, creepy Caroline Levitt, you know, trying to talk about this judge is somehow, you know, leftist, Democratic judge when he was originally appointed by George Bush and when he, you know, when he was the judge who ordered the release of 14,000 Hillary Clinton emails that had been secreted by the State Department and were being unlawfully withheld, when he chastised the FBI for misrepresenting and Deceiving the FISA court in connection with the initial Russian investigation under Comey and McCabe. This is a judge who plays straight down the middle. He's ruled very decisively for, you know, Republican leaning positions and very decisively for Democratic leaning position, making it claim that, you know, he is not an ideologue. This is somebody who follows the law and he's done some with great character and great success, rarely reversed.

Well, you talk about Carolyn Levitt. I want to play a little bit of her sound. And of course, we had President Trump raise the issue that he thinks Boseberg should be impeached. Chief Justice John Roberts said no one should be raising the issue of impeachment.

Let's take a little bit of a listen what Caroline Loved had to say. President has made it clear that he believes this judge in this case should be impeached. And he has also made it clear that he has great respect for the Chief Justice, John Roberts. And it's incumbent upon the Supreme Court to rein in these activist judges, these partisan activists are undermining the judicial branch by doing so.

We have co equal branches of government for a reason. The president feels very strong about that. Ty you make the important point that he was obviously appointed by a Republican president. What's the impact of having the press secretary come out and make those types of allegations and charges?

Well, this is part of a well orchestrated plan by the administration to denigrate judges that rule against them and resist them at all. But keep in mind that Article 3 is there is a balance to Article 2 authority for presidents. The Article 3 courts are obligated to apply the rule of law and make sure that the President and the executive branch complies with it. That's what's being done here.

There's a lot of misdirection, a lot of misdirection. For example, the attempted narrative that the White House has put out through the president and others, including Carolyn Lovett, is that Trump is somehow preventing the deportation of murderers and thugs who have no business in the country. Well, that may be. There are statutes that apply to that, including arguably the Alien Enemies act, although there are significant reasons why it doesn't apply.

Primarily. A, we're not at war and B, they're not, they aren't a country. This is not. We haven't been invaded by a country which is required under that.

There are other, there are other laws that also apply, including the Alien Terrorist Removal Court who could easily, you know, act on the administration's desire to rid the country of these people. There's a legal process. But what the White House is complaining about is they can't do what they want at the speed that they want because, oh, I know there are laws. And she also complained that, you know, Trump is the object of 67% of the injunctions that ever are.

Yeah, injunctions that have ever been issued against the president. Well, 100% of murderers that have been have got to death penalty. You know, the reason they got it was they were guilty. The reason Trump loses is he plays out of bounds.

He's out of bounds today. He's out of bounds with Judge Boseberg. He'll be out of bounds in other matters. This is, this is a battle that is going to go on until it's corrected at the battle box or through impeachment.

Well, let me. You speak about, you know, the ballot box and you take me to my next question, which is that there has been a lot of discussion and the president himself has joked about the possibility of a third term, and some of his allies seem to be very serious about it. I want to play you an exchange with Steve Bannon, one of his former advisors who's now an outside ally, and I want to get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.

You have anything to do with putting your name in that list because you have no financial ambitions? No, no. And President Trump? I am a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028.

So I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky. We've got him now. He's on fire, and I'm huge supporter.

I want to see him again in 2028. You're a smart guy. Oh, you know, he's term limited. How do you think he gets another term?

We're working on it. I think we'll have. I think we have a couple of alternatives. Let's say that.

We'll see, we'll see, we'll see what the definition of term limit is. So putting aside Steve Bannon, I know you have your differences with him. Just speak to the legality of what he said, Ty. He says we're working on it.

They're going to look at the definition of what a term limit is. What do you mean with that? So I think, you know, I think it's. This is one of the real difficulties in reporting on these events.

I mean, we've got, you know, we've got clearly unqualified people in a variety of positions in the government now, for the first time in history you know, the Cash Patels and Pete Hex says to the world and taking advice, constitutional advice, particularly from twice convicted fellow like Steve Bannon, once pardoned, twice convicted, currently on probation. I think that sort of shows how sad things are in this country. Steve Bannon is clearly wrong. The Constitution prohibits more than two terms.

They undoubtedly will try because they have no respect for the Constitution to do what they can to prop Trump up for a third term. And we'll hear about this constantly for the next four years. But that's not going to happen and the courts will prevent that. On the other hand, Trump proceeds as though there are no restraints.

Trump believes and is certainly attempting to prove that he can do whatever he wants. And that's where the real urgency is for the Article 3 judges to do their job, which I believe they will. You know, sadly, you know, there are three, they're three, there are three pieces to the government, the Congress, the courts and the presidency. Congress is neutered by cowardice.

And so it's really the courts against the president. And the courts are starting to, you know, make it plain that the law requires Trump to step in line. And the issue is, as you point out, really. We'll see.

All right, Ty Cobb, this will be an ongoing conversation for sure. Thank you so much as always for joining us. We really appreciate it. It's great to see you.

Great to see you. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you. Take care.

Coming up, what voters say about the balance of power in Washington as the Trump administration escalates its attacks on the judicial branch. We have brand new NBC polling straight ahead. Plus, President Trump will cease fire talks with President Zelensky hours after Zelensky accused Russian President Putin of targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure overnight. We're live in Ukraine.

The very latest. Watching the press now while the back. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky spoke by phone this morning in what is thought to be the first time they've spoken since that Oval Office blow up. It comes just one day after President Trump's call with Russian President Putin during which the two leaders struck an agreement for a 30 day partial ceasefire.

Now, according to the White House, President Trump and Zelensky had a fantastic call during which the Lenski also agreed to a partial cease fire. The White House also said President Trump raised the possibility of US Ownership of Ukraine's nuclear facilities. President Trump also discussed Ukraine's electrical supply and nuclear power plants. He said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise.

American ownership of Those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now, President Zelensky is accusing Russia of already violating the partial cease fire agreement by carrying out overnight strikes on a Ukrainian energy facility. The White House, however, pushing back special envoy Steve Witkoff told my colleague Gabe Gutierrez those Russian strikes happened before President Trump's call with President Putin was over. Despite Zelensky's insistence, the attack happened hours later.

Joining me now is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel on the ground in Ukraine. Richard, thank you so much for joining us. You are there, you're on the front lines. What are Ukrainian officials saying about that phone call with President Trump and President Zelensky and is there momentum behind this partial cease fire agreement?

So I'll start with a conversation and then, well, I'll jump ahead to the punchline on the ceasefire. There is no ceasefire here. There was a proposal to start a ceasefire. There was a pledge by Putin to have a ceasefire.

But there were never any specifics. There was never any definition of what would be targeted, what wouldn't be targeted. There was this vague idea that infrastructure or perhaps power structure or the power grid and infrastructure wouldn't be targeted. But there was no specificity, nothing that could be enforced.

It wasn't a real ceasefire. It was a concept of a ceasefire. But in terms of the conversation that happened today, I think the big headline, Kristen, is that both sides are saying that it went so well and everyone's memory in this country is the last Oval Office conversation when Ukrainians felt that President Zelensky was bullied. He was over talked, he was talked down to, he was told that he was an obstacle to peace.

And then this country saw military and intelligence aid cut off by President Trump. That doesn't seem to have happened on this call. Both sides saying that it was constructive, that they look forward to continuing this diplomatic process in Saudi Arabia over the weekend. So a positive call.

And they didn't seem, according to the Riyaut in Ukraine to dwell too much on the fact that there was this broken down peace pledge from President Putin in which he suggested that he would stop attacking infrastructure for 30 days. It was more forward looking that they're going to iron out these details in Saudi Arabia over the weekend. But for now, here in Ukraine, we were just hearing a raid sirens not long ago. We heard an explosion here.

There was certainly no cease fire in place. Just extraordinary to have that reporting, Richard. We know that Russia has also released some Ukrainian prisoners of war. That seems like a somewhat significant step.

And yet the caveat is, as you are saying, there is this issue of trust. President Zelensky made that very clear in the Oval Office. What are the implications of this moment, though? So the, the handover prisoners is certainly a trust building exercise.

It is certainly something that both sides appreciate. But it is also something that both sides regularly engage in. Every few weeks, sometimes there's, there's gaps. Every few months, there are these prisoner exchanges.

But I would not say that we are bridging any kind of trust gap. Ukrainians do not trust this process. The Ukrainian government is putting on its best face and has really no other choice but to go along with this process. When they did go along with it and they had that last meeting in the Oval Office, there were very dire consequences for Ukraine.

But the Ukrainian people that we're talking to, soldiers we're talking to, are skeptical. They don't believe President Putin is interested in peace. They don't believe that President Trump is a capable or unbiased interlocutor. There are deep concerns here that Ukraine is going to be divided up between President Trump and President Putin.

And they are realizing that they're in difficult position. They can rely on themselves. They can rely, they don't know how much on Europe and they're trying to figure out how much they can depend on the United States. And I think they're still trying to figure it out.

The first conversation in the Oval Office went very badly today. Seems to have got gone much better and the process continues and will continue. Weekend in Saudi Arabia. And it is such a fast moving dynamic situation and set of conversations, these urgent talks, Richard, that are unfolding by the day.

We know that you'll continue to stay on top of it and keep us posted throughout the week. Thank you so much. Please continue to stay safe. We really appreciate it.

Coming up next, it's the economy. Jerome Powell just spoke to reporters after key announcements on interest rates. We'll have the very latest. You're WATCHING ME the press.

Welcome back. Well, it was a good day on Wall street with all the major indices closing higher and the Dow closing up nearly 400 points, a welcome reprieve from recent losses. It does come after the Federal Reserve's decision to keep interest rates steady while signaling rate cuts later this year. Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters that uncertainty around the central bank's economic outlook has increased as President Trump's aggressive tariff agenda continues to take shape.

Powell also acknowledged President Trump's tariffs risk, making inflation worse. But caution it's going to be difficult to fully determine their impact on prices Joining Me now is ABC's business and data correspondent, Brian Schoenbright. Thanks so much for joining me. Busy time.

I know that you've been all over this. Just give us the big takeaways from the Fed's decision not to cut rates today. Yeah. And the reason why we pay so much attention to the Federal Reserve is because they're the steward of our economy.

They're independent central bank, they make decisions independent of the White House, but they lever interest rates to make sure that we steer clear of any sort of downside risk in this economy or tilting through a recession, which by the way, we are not in right now. This was the first meeting that we saw in the Federal Reserve since the Trump administration really taken full force. And obviously last few weeks you think about consumer confidence numbers, tilting down the stock market route, all that coinciding with the ratcheting up the tariff policy. So of course the question is how do the risks on terrorists making things more expensive and maybe even tilting us into a downturn weigh on how the Federal Reserve views the economy?

We heard from the Fed chairman, take a listen to what he said. With regards to how policy out of the White House is affecting them today, the Federal Open Market Committee seems to be, seems to be healthy. We understand that that sentiment is quite negative at this time. And that probably has to do with, you know, turmoil at the beginning of the administration.

So quite negative is indeed kind of part of the reason why the Federal Reserve described uncertainty as a bigger factor in this economy than they did the last time they met, which was in January. But that word turbochristom is very interesting as well. Thatcher Powell usually doesn't bite or try to use colorful language with regards to policy coming from the White House. But he seems to be acknowledging that that tariff policy is certainly adding a little bit of confusion and certainly concerned for how this economy could be going through the rest of this year.

Yeah, so many people hanging on his every word. Brian, if you consumer sitting at home watching this, what does this mean for people's pocketbooks, their bottom lines? Are prices going to go up? Yeah.

When it comes to the majority of Americans that don't speak Federal Reserve, which I can understand. Yeah. I mean really what we're talking about here is what the Federal Reserve is doing with interest rates because what the Fed does with interest rates has bearing on your mortgage rates. Those have been trying to get into this housing market for people that have high credit card debt because the credit card interest rates as well as all the one race people that are trying to get a new car.

Now, not only will the actual price tag of those potential things go up as a result of tariffs, think about tariffs on lumber, which can make houses more expensive, or tariffs on steel and aluminum, which can make cars more expensive. Now you also have to worry about interest rates staying high because the Fed did not cut interest rates in this term meeting, which I worked out, everyone expected them not to do. But when it comes to the Fed again, what they're also projecting, which we got in this meeting, is only two interest rate cuts for the rest of this year. That would imply only about half a percent of lower interest rates, which means that we shouldn't expect to see dramatic lowering in those credit, car, mortgage, borrowing rates we see on a daily basis, which might be open news for those that are trying to get back into the market.

All right. Brian Chong, thank you so much as always. Appreciate it. With me now on set is Ambassador Catherine Tai, the former US Trade representative for the Biden administration.

Ambassador Ty, thank you so much for joining us in person. Well, I'm delighted to be here with you. Mr. We really appreciate you being here to bring us your perspective.

I do want to start big picture. We have seen a raft of tariffs imposed by President Trump in these first weeks of his administration. Broadly speaking, what is your reaction and key takeaways to his policy? Well, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about tariffs because there's been so much talk about tariffs and so much activity here.

I think as someone who's been working in trade law and trade policy for a couple decades now, my perspective is to be very sober and rational about all of this. So I think it's important for people to think about tariffs as tools. I'm sometimes asked, are tariffs good or are they bad? And sometimes it's easy to have that good or bad dichotomy in that fight.

But the fact of the matter is tariffs are tools, just like two by fours. And in fact, it may be helpful to think about tariffs as two by fours. So what can you do with two by fours? Well, with a good blueprint and an architect, you can use two by fours to help you build a house, a school, a factory.

Right. Or you can take that two by four, swing it around and take it out on the street and threaten to hit people with it. So the issue is not whether tariffs are good or bad, it's how are the tariffs going to be used and what is the plan for those tariffs, what are you trying to build? And what we're seeing right now is a lot of talk about Tariffs, maybe a lot of action related to tariffs.

We are not seeing what the blueprint is and we don't see a house, a school or factory. And so let me drill down with you a little bit, because obviously President Biden kept the tariffs from the first Trump administration in place against China, for example. What makes that policy one that you backed, obviously, and this one, do you think there's a sense of overreach? How do you compare the two?

Because as you say, you know, tariffs can be used differently by different people. That's right. So in the practice of our modern trade laws, tariffs are generally used for enforcement to fight unfair trade. And to that extent, the China tariffs are very useful, either as leverage or as that architecture, as that blueprint for counteracting a fundamentally unbalanced trade relationship between the United States and China driven largely by Chinese non market policies and practices when it comes to subsidies and state direction of the economy.

So that was an instance where the Biden administration did keep nearly all of the China tariffs, but actually increased them in certain places, coupling those increases with areas in the Inflation Reduction act where there were incentives and investments made around clean energy technology, solar panels, electric vehicle batteries. So that reinforces the point that tariffs can be strategically useful, just like a two by four, if you have a plan and you combine the tariffs with other policies like incentives and an industrial plan. You know, to that point, President Trump says that's exactly what he's doing with these tariffs. He says that he's trying to make sure that the United States is treated fairly by Canada, Mexico, China.

What do you make of that argument? And does he have a valid point that there still needs to be some ironing out? I think that the questions we should be asking there are how is the trade relationship with Canada subject to distortion or unfair trade? And I think that this is an area where the articulations I'm hearing are more challenging or require more explanation.

So the increased tariffs on Canada and Mexico were announced at the same time as increased tariffs on China for the purpose of addressing a fentanyl crisis and illegal migration. Now, those are serious challenges that we have as an economy and as a country, and they require policy solutions. It's a bit unclear how tariffs are going to help solve those particular challenges, and it's a bit unclear why. If that's a challenge you are trying to solve, it's solved by a 10% tariff on China and 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

There are a lot of questions and a lot of confusion related because of the way these programs are being rolled out. Finally, I have to ask you about, I think the big question on a lot of people's minds, from Wall street to Main street, the idea of could the United States dip into a recession? The president himself hasn't ruled it out. His treasury secretary hasn't ruled it out.

Where do you stand on this question, Pastor Tsai? So as I understand, a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. I guess what I would say here is there are more dimensions to this conversation, especially as it relates to tariffs. We know that across the board tariffs can have impacts on the consumer experience and cost of living.

But the human being in our economy is more than just a consumer. Every consumer out there is also a worker. We also need to be asking the question, how are these tariffs impacting workers and jobs? And I think that that is another area where the Trump administration has a lot of answers they have yet to give.

All right. Ambassador Ty, thank you so much for being here. Please come join us again soon as we continue to cover the story. Thank you.

Really appreciate your insights. After the break, the fallout from President Trump's sweeping agenda as more Americans now say the executive branch has too much power. We've got a new batch of NBC polling data, folks. Stay with us for that.

You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Amid an escalating battle between the Trump administration and the courts, we've got new NBC News poll numbers showing that more voters now say the executive and judicial branches of the government have amassed too much power. The numbers of voters who say the executive branch has too much power has gone up by seven points and is up nine points for the judicial branch.

Those numbers notably, are being driven by Democratic leaning voters. For example, just 15% of Republicans now say the president and the executive branch has too much power. Compare that to 75% of Democrats. Joining me to break this all down, I'm using National Politics reporter Ben Kamasar to take a deep dive into our new poll numbers.

Ben, thank you so much for being here. It's great to see you. So let's talk about the shift over the last six years of Democratic leading voters. How have they evolved in their views about the judicial barriers and how much power?

Yeah, I think we're putting in context what's happened. Right. So we pulled this in 2019. We pulled this now.

What's happened over then? Well, you've had Democrats really sort of stymied by president and President Trump both times, who really pushed the bounds of presidential power you have on the courts you have Democrats really frustrated with the way that they've sort of seen the shift of the courts, the push to add people to the Supreme Court, the decisions overturn Roe v. Wade. It's really been frustrating for Democrats.

And what have you seen? You've seen an increase in Democrats saying that these institutions have more power. I mean, it's a 20 percentage point shift among Democrats on the executive branch. So just to put in perspective, you gotta think a little bit about what's been happening.

And then it starts to make a lot of sense that Democrats would be sort of trying to push back against powers of these institutions. When you say that a 20 point shift is significant, right? No, definitely. And this is among Democrats specifically.

Right. You have smaller shifts on the surface because other folks aren't moving nearly as much as Democrats. But Democrats looking at, you know, you've seen the past few months of executive orders that certainly have not been going the way that Democrats would have liked. Donald Trump sort of trying to rebuild the federal government, sidestepping Congress.

And this is kind of the outflow of that. And you're also seeing in these new poll numbers how people are responding to the amount of power that Congress has. What are they saying about that? The interesting thing here is that we've seen a slip in people who think that Congress has more power because Congress hasn't really asserted its power.

Right. You think about things from the War Powers act, you don't really care war anymore. It's not really a congressional piece. There's been a lot of different, you know, a lot of legislation gets led by the president's party and the president and it sort of just delivered for them that way.

People have sort of moved back on the way that they view of the power of Congress, which makes sense in this time where yes, there are political branches of governments, but really we've seen much more of the White House driving the ship and the courts being the sort of next main flash point there. Really fascinating stuff. Ben, thank you so much. I know you'll keep diving into the numbers for us.

Appreciate it. Good to see you. Still come town hall tensions. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle face new low back from constituents over Elon Musk and the administration's sweeping government cuts.

The panel snacks. You're watching Meet the Press now. Well back, both Republican and Democrats are facing the ire of some of their voters this week at town halls. Take a listen to sound from two different events last night.

One Democrat and one Republican. I support Elon Musk and the Department of government tough crowds. Those moments, just the latest in a trend over the last few weeks has led House Speaker Mike Johnson to advise his caucus to avoid in person open town halls in favor of teletown halls. Journey now is Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason, NBC News political analyst and author of A More Perfect Party, Juanita Tolliver and Lonnie Chen, director of domestic policy studies and lecturer at Stanford's Public Policy Program.

He's also an NBC News contributor. Thanks to all of you for being here. Jeff, just put this moment into context. What we are seeing these heated reactions at town halls for Republicans and Democrats, too.

I think it's that last piece that's most interesting. It's happening in both. There is anger for Republicans for not standing up for other court principals for not standing up for people in their districts who are also being hit by these dogecots. Those things are hitting everyone, regardless of whether you voted for Trump or voted for Kamala Harris.

And on the Democratic side, there's this outrage that you saw that town hall from the clip which you just played, for not having a backbone, for showing absolutely no kind of resistance politically, which is what you do when you're in the opposition. So it is widespread and it is bipartisan. And Lonnie, look, let me start with you, because Republicans are the party that's in power of the White House, the Senate and the House, and yet voters say that they are dissatisfied. What is, what do you think the strategy should be to turn this moment around?

Well, first of all, I think the challenge of these town halls is that there's always a question about who's actually at these town halls, Right. So the loudest voices sometimes are the ones that come in the most amount of attention. I think the reality is much more mixed. I think that the American people, they kind of like the idea that government's being right sized.

They may not like the way in which it's being done. They may not like the methods. I think Republicans need to talk about substance and figure out a way to get back on message about the economy. I think the more that they're talking about how they're fixing the economy, the ways in which they're advancing the ball on that.

I think that's what people want to hear. I think the rest of stuff is noise, quite frankly. It's been as consumer confidence goes down and down and down. So I think what it comes back to is the reality that people feel the pain and they have two clear targets, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, what's your response to that they felt the pain for the last five years.

I mean, if you look at inflation between 2002, particularly 2022, excuse me, 2024, people were really feeling some significant pain that we've actually seen some of those measures around prices actually ameliorate since Donald Trump took off. So I think the question will be it doesn't matter what the measures say from the economic perspective. That's how people feel. That really is what it is.

I have one thought on something that you hinted at without coming out and saying it, but you hinted at the suggestion that Democrats are organizing protesters to come into these town halls. I spoke to a Democrat yesterday. We said we can't get our act together. We're definitely not organizing residents.

But it is an important, I think, point that even if some of the people you know there are manufactured, by and large, what you're seeing seems to be real frustration. That's why you have Speaker Johnson saying let's hold tele town halls. Why? There's a big debate in the Democratic Party right now.

Is it a debate? Well, should. There are many debates. Here's one of them.

What should the strategy be? Let Trump implode, which is something that James Carplay said will happen, or fight, fight, fight. I mean, what, what do you think should be the strategy in this moment when Democrats approval ratings really in our latest poll, it's lowest it's ever been. Lowest that it's ever been.

And honestly, I hope they listen and pay attention to the people because the people are saying push them, pull them, do something. Don't just stand there and clear the Runway for him, which is what we saw with the vote last week, which is why a number of people are upset. Well, calling for structure. Just take us behind some of the conversations that are happening.

I mean, you now have Democratic congressman coming forward, Glenn Ivey. Let me read some of this saying. I respect Chuck Schumer. I think he's had a great, long standing career.

He's done a lot of great things. But I'm afraid that it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership. As we move forward, there seems to be a growing call for him to set aside emphasis on the word but and move forward. It's like saying someone needs to go or someone's leaving to go spend more time with their family.

Like there's there is a EMP there on needing to have a new leader, needing to have a fresh face and needing to have new ideas. And that seems to be what some Democrats, at least on the left hand side of the party and maybe among younger Democrats, too, that's what they're dissatisfied with. And yet, Juanita, Leo Schumer's been defiant. We've seen these interviews that he's been doing.

He's not going anywhere. It's quite clearly he thinks he's the best person for these women. He's the best person to lead the Senate. He says.

Kristen, all I'm having is flashbacks to last summer when Joe Biden refused to step out the race. I'm also having concerns about passing this moment off and not standing it and Democrats ability looking forward to the midterms in particular and their ability to look at voters and say we're fighting for you. What evidence are you going to point to as you look at someone like Chuck Schumer who allowed this vote to move forward, allow this government shut down to be reverted? Lonnie, it's so interesting.

I spoke to one senator who said, look, look, we didn't have the leverage this time, but Republicans will know there's no way we're fold next time. We'll have more leverage. Do you see a scenario where Republicans feel like in their next fight they don't have to have more leverage? No.

I mean, I think part of the challenge that you have, first of all, there's no clear leadership in the Democratic Party. It's not clear even Chuck Schumer step aside like who actually steps in and is more of a forceful figure than Schumer is. And then the reality is Republicans do hold all the cards and Democrats have done very little to degrade Republicans position in that regard. Whether it's negotiating leverage, whether Trump's doing we're seeing on the House and Senate, I just don't necessarily see Democrats.

I don't think it's coming out differently. For the next time, I want to play a little bit of the sound a little bit more. We saw some of it. We don't have sound from.

Okay, well, we saw some of the sound from Representative Flood's town hall. And I know you're saying some of these events maybe manufactured, but there is a sense among some of the people I'm talking to that this is starting to take on the feel of the Tea Party. Yeah. And that there does seem to be this growing frustration and outrage with, as you say, some people do support the government cuts, but it's the manner with which they're being carried out.

I think the big difference is with the Tea Party, there was a single animating factor which was the size of government, anger about the size of government. The question is, what is the animating factor in the anger here? Is it really just they don't like Donald Trump, is that there's a specific policy thing they don't like? I think until there's a little bit more of a single animating force, it's gonna be hard for me to really think it's a great comparison.

Back to 29 and 10. Jeff, finally, we talked earlier in the broadcast about Steve Bannon talking last night about potential third term for Donald Trump. Press on the fact constitutionally he can't do it. Steve Bannon says we're working on it.

Should people take these conversations seriously about a third term? I think if there's anything we've learned from the two months is that you have to take everything seriously. So if Steve Bannon says it out loud, if President Trump jokes about it, it is not a joke. It is real.

It's something at least considering. And the fact that Bannon, who has been spending a long time, obviously of President Trump is saying they're planning for it, I would take him out of court. Lenny, what are you hearing inside Democratic circles? I think especially on a post January 6th world, in reality, you can't take it lightly.

I do think that Democrats are going to try to push back on this. But please don't talk about the 22nd. People don't know what that is. Talk about your positive alternative vision to Donald Trump trying to make himself a king.

Lonnie, we only have about 10 seconds left. What's your take? I mean, I don't take it seriously. I think it's.

No, look, I think it's an opportunity for people to stir things up and cause interesting conversation. But I don't, I don't think so. Okay. We'll watch and wait and see what happens.

Great conversation, guys. Thank you. Jeff, Juanita and Lonnie really appreciate it. We will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press.

Now the news continues with Hallie Jackson. Right now, I'm Greg Knelt. Cheers. Cheers.

Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. It's really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are fun and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week.

Who knows, you might just come along with your own Glass apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig Melford From Today on YouTube. Wherever you get your podcast.