Beatboxing actually has hidden health benefits. It can help strengthen and protect your voice from injury. See Healthy Living Differently with Manulife. Visit manulife.ca slash health.
Drive off in a new Hyundai Elantra today with zero dollars down during the Hyundai Advantage Sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 Spring Drive bonus and lease the 2026 Elantra Essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by Elantra's best-in-class five-year new car warranty. Now that's the Hyundai Advantage.
Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details. If it's Thursday, an appeals court just paused a ruling that would have required the White House to end most of its sweeping tariffs in 10 days after the Trump administration raged against the courts for ruling the tariffs are unconstitutional.
Plus, Harvard secures a legal win for now in its fight against the Trump administration as a federal judge extends her order blocking the White House from revoking the university's ability to enroll or keep international students. And Elon Musk officially exits the Trump administration, ending a turbulent tenure marked by controversies and cuts to the government that fell well below his own expectations. Welcome to Meet the Press. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington with breaking news and new developments in the White House's legal fight over its sweeping tariff agenda.
Moments ago, a federal appeals court gave the administration the emergency relief it was looking for temporarily pausing a ruling that was handed down last night by a federal trade court, which said that most of the president's tariffs on U.S. trading partners were unconstitutional and giving the White House just 10 days to unwind them all. The ruling this afternoon from the appeals court effectively reinstates those tariffs for now. Here's White House trade advisor Peter Navarro just moments after that appeals court decision.
The tariffs remain in place. The court told us they didn't all that tell us. They told us, go do it another way so you can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way. And I can assure you, the American people, that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth into foreign hands.
You are working on a plan B. Of course, there's no plan B. It's plan A. Now it comes after the White House earlier today lashed out at the judicial branch over a series of rulings against its tariff authority, with Press Secretary Caroline Levitt maligning the courts and trying to undermine their legitimacy as a check on the president's power.
Three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade disagreed and brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him. The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process.
America cannot function if President Trump or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. Now, much of that ire from the White House was directed at the federal trade court for last night's ruling from a three judge panel that the president exceeded his authority and unconstitutionally bypassed Congress when he put in place those so-called liberation day tariffs last month and the fentanyl tariffs that he imposed on China. The administration then threatened to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court if it didn't get immediate relief, arguing that allowing the ruling to stand would cause immediate irreparable harm to the nation. Amid all this back and forth with the courts and the overall trade policy confusion on Wall Street, stocks ended the day slightly up.
It comes amid another major development today that the president summoned Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to an in-person meeting at the White House today, urging Powell to lower interest rates. The meeting prompting the Federal Reserve to put out a statement assuring the public that Chairman Powell told the president he would not bend to political pressure from the White House. I'm joined now by NBC News White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung, and Tim Brightbill, an attorney who specializes in international trade law and policy. Thanks to all of you for starting us off.
Gabe, it's another day of breakneck developments from the courts to the stock market in Washington and beyond. We've played a little bit of Peter Navarro's reaction, of course, to this latest court ruling on the Trump tariffs. But what else are your sources telling you from inside the administration about this tariff policy? Kristen, as you described, it's certainly tariff whiplash here over the past hour or so we've been trying to get reaction from the administration just there from Peter Navarro.
And look, this is the White House is moving full speed ahead with these tariffs and they view this temporary stay as another step in the process. Caroline Levitt earlier today suggesting that this fight could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. So this is another step in the process.
We've just got a statement from the plaintiff's attorney in this case stressing that this is just a temporary stay. But Peter Navarro was asked about what should small businesses take from this, all this uncertainty, all this back and forth. And he basically stressed that this is worth the pain, that the uncertainty is worth it to realign global trade. But certainly a lot of whiplash once again here at the White House.
And, you know, it's only four o'clock. It's a good point game. You know, the administration, of course, has been in the middle of trade talks with several countries. Peter Navarro had said 90 deals in 90 days.
What's the status of those negotiations? And Gabe, could this, in fact, limit the White House's leverage in those negotiations? Well, some analysts are saying that, but I put that question specifically to Caroline Levitt, the press secretary, earlier today in the White House briefing. And she said no, that all of this, that the ruling yesterday would not affect trade negotiations because the administration feels that it will win.
And they are stressing that, you know, they think that the countries around the world see that, of course. Critics of the administration are skeptical of that. And by the way, Kristen, one thing I did mention, you spoke about earlier about how the White House was calling this three-judge panel rogue judges. Well, President Trump, during his first term, appointed one of those judges.
And there was another of the three appointed by President Reagan. Yeah, a really important point to point out there. Gabe, let me ask you about another major development at the White House today. We learned that President Trump met with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
We know for months now the president has been urging the Fed chair to lower interest rates, something that he has not done in the wake of these tariffs going into effect. What exactly is the White House saying about that meeting? What are we hearing from the Fed chair himself, Gabe? Well, Kristen, the president has been kind of backing off a little bit of his threat to fire Jerome Powell, essentially saying he'll just wait till his term expires next year.
But he has been railing on the Fed chairman for not lowering interest rates. And you'd read part of his statement a little earlier. I found it interesting that in that statement from the Federal Reserve, it mentioned that Chair Powell did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy with the president today here at the White House. Caroline Levitt, though, was asked about her readout and the administration's readout of the meeting.
Listen to that. I can share with you that we saw the president and I both saw the statement that the Fed put out after the meeting. That statement is correct. However, the president did say that he believes the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering interest rates, which is putting us at an economic disadvantage to China and other countries.
And the president's been very vocal about that, both publicly and now I can reveal privately as well. The person what stuck out to me about that soundbite is notice she said that the Fed chairman's statement was correct. However, basically, you know, getting it in there that they have sharp disagreements even still after this meeting. Yeah, and as she said that those disagreements have not exactly been a secret.
Gabe Gutierrez, as always, thank you for your great reporting from the White House. Brian, let me head over to you. Let's look at and talk about the market reactions actually ended the day a bit up in the wake of all of this tariff whiplash of the courts. What do you make of that?
Yeah, if you look at the Dow action today, it wasn't anything particularly remarkable, even though the headline was a bit splashy that there would be this potential stay of these worldwide tariffs at 10 percent. You see that the Dow Jones only ended the day about three tenths positive. And obviously there have been a number of earnings as well throughout the last few days. So it is indeed the case that, you know, this is not, I would describe a remarkably positive day.
That's kind of hinged to specifically this development. And I think that's because markets are kind of shrugging off the implications of all of this, because some of the commentary is that, first off, obviously, there's a legal challenge. This appeals development just last hour underscores how it's really far from a set done deal that these tariffs will be canceled by the legal system here in the United States. But also, even if they are, the Trump administration could just use other types of avenues, like, for example, Section 232 tariffs on specific industries to get around the current way of getting these tariffs done, but still imposing these added costs on imports coming in from other countries.
So I think that's one big reason why we didn't see the stock market react more strongly to Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that does not authorize worldwide retaliatory tariffs, and it doesn't authorize the president to impose whatever tariff rates he deems desirable. And then second, while the president declared a national emergency due to an unusual and extraordinary threat, due to the fentanyl crisis, the court found that his remedy of tariffs did not address or deal with that threat and emergency. It only provided leverage or negotiation power, which is not what the law requires. So, I think a very important decision from the Court of International Trade.
Now it all gets reviewed again by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and ultimately, I do think, to the Supreme Court. How do you assess the strength of the case that the Trump administration is making that they do in fact have this emergency authority? Well, it's interesting. The Court of International Trade is the same court that largely upheld President Trump's China tariffs and national security tariffs in the prior administration.
So, I think it's very significant that they ruled against the president on these broader tariffs. So, we'll just have to see how the appeals court will proceed. And again, ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will have the final word on whether the president does have authority and whether the AIPA law allows the use of tariffs. Normally, it's used for sanctions, not for tariffs on dozens of countries.
You know, it's interesting. You heard Peter Navarro there at the top of the show say, look, even if we get locked in the courts, there are other methods that we could use. We are not deterred by the courts trying to block us. What are those other avenues by which they could impose these tariffs?
And if they're so confident in those, why not go that route in the first place? Sure. The president might move ahead with other forms of tariffs. There are several other laws available.
You have Section 301, which was the basis for the China tariffs that are still in effect. You have Section 232, the national security law, which was used for steel and aluminum initially. And there are current investigations going on targeted toward lumber, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other industries. So those laws could be used.
And there are other laws, such as Section 122, where the president can respond to a balance of payments emergency with tariffs of up to 15 percent. But that's only for up to 150 days. So it's a real question whether the president will simply fight this appeal or give it to one of these other laws as a way to impose tariffs. You know, the president has argued that these tariffs are necessary to level the playing field to get better trade deals.
How do you see this whiplash that we're all watching in the courts impacting those negotiations that are ongoing? Well, I agree that I think our trading partners would be wise to continue discussions and negotiations. So perhaps the court ruling perhaps limits leverage a little bit. But if I were the United Kingdom or the European Union, Japan, Korea, any of our trading partners, I would continue to negotiate.
There are plenty of trade issues to address, plenty of trade barriers to remove if both sides are interested. So I would not use the court rulings as an excuse for stepping away from the negotiating table. All right, Timothy Brightbill, thank you so much for all that great information. We really appreciate it.
Coming up, Harvard University wins a key fight against the Trump administration over the school's ability to enroll foreign students. But what does the temporary reprieve mean for students now living in limbo and the future of the country's oldest university? We're live in Cambridge with the view from campus. Plus, Secretary of State Marco Rubio puts Chinese students on notice, vowing to revoke certain student visas as Beijing blasts the actions as, quote, politicized and discriminatory.
Stay with us. You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back. It's graduation day at Harvard University.
And as commencement ceremonies were underway, lawyers for the Ivy League school won a temporary victory in their ongoing and escalating legal battle with the Trump administration. A federal judge in Boston extended a temporary order blocking the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. That ruling came after the Trump administration said it would give the university 30 days to challenge the revocation. On campus, Harvard University president Alan Garber received a standing ovation as he welcomed all members of the graduating class.
Members of the class of 2025 from down the street, across the country, and around the world. Around the world, just as it should be. Joining me now from the Harvard University campus is NBC News correspondent Antonia Hilton. And former U.S.
attorney and NBC News legal analyst Carol Lamb. Thanks to both of you for being here in this extraordinary story. Antonia, let me start with you. You were there.
It was graduation day. What was the atmosphere like on campus today? Kristen, I have been describing the atmosphere here as celebratory, but also defiant. Because I have not found a single student or family member on campus who was not aware of the fact that while they were reflecting on their four years as Harvard students here, trying to take pictures with their family members, that there were lawyers just a couple miles down the road going into court to go toe-to-toe with Trump administration lawyers.
And, of course, about 27% of the student body here at this school is international. So it's highly personal for more than a quarter of the people who are part of the celebration today. The students who have been at times really diametrically opposed to each other, particularly when it comes to the issue of the war in Israel and Gaza, they've now started coming together and uniting around what they say has become an existential threat. Take a listen to a conversation I had with one senior named Leo this morning, right before he processed into graduation.
We're all obviously celebrating our own achievements today, four hours, four years. But I think that Trump's threat against Harvard is really hanging over this. Without the international students, Harvard is not Harvard anymore. You know, we might be the last international class in a while when people come back next semester, there might not be any international students left.
So that's sort of the other piece that's on everyone's mind. So after the party tonight, what actually happens to the 17 and 18 year olds who were hoping to come here for the first time in the fall, for all our classmates who may went home to visit their families in other countries, but are worried that when they come back to the U.S., they could be turned away at the border because something changes in the courts in the coming days. They're grateful for this 30 day window here and that this judge has kept the temporary restraining order in place. But they're very aware too, this is going to be a long term battle that the Trump administration may make other moves in addition to this one.
So that sense of anxiety, Chris, I think it's going to be here for a while. Yeah, it's just extraordinary to hear that student say we might be the last international class for a while. Antonia, how is the university reacting overall to today's ruling? I would say the vast majority of students, faculty members on leadership here, you know, they're celebrating this as a temporary win.
But the real behind the scenes conversation, Kristen, is that there is a need to sort of build the endurance for a fight that is going to last three and a half years. So that means they are marshaling alums to donate sums of money so that certain labs can continue to do their work if they completely lose their federal funding. I have spoken to quantum physics students, people who do genetics and cancer research here who are worried that the lifesaving work that they do may not be able to continue. So there's an effort to figure out, well, how do we keep our academic programs, the sort of lifeblood of the school here and present, while also also gathering a team of lawyers who are going to see this school through because they see it as bigger than just Harvard and really as just the beginning of a broader fight against higher ed.
Antonia Hilton, thank you so much for being there on the ground for great reporting. We really appreciate it. Carol Lamb, let me head over to you. So just before the hearing started today, we learned that the Trump administration is giving Harvard 30 days to respond to why the government shouldn't revoke the university's ability to enroll international students.
Do you view this as an attempt to try to preempt whatever the judge ruled today? How do you view that action? Well, Kristen, let me just say that from a competency in court point of view, this has been a complete embarrassment for the government. When a week ago, the Department of Homeland Security told Harvard, we are revoking your ability to have international students.
Apparently, the government didn't realize that it was in violation of its own regulations. Its own regulations, the DHS regulations say you get notice to a university, then they have 30 days to respond. And then it goes through at least two levels of appeal within the agency. And that's before you even get to a court.
So now Harvard pointed that out in their lawsuit. And now the Department of Homeland Security has had to say, essentially, oops, you caught us. OK, we'll give you your 30 days notice. And they said, go ahead and lift the temporary restraining order.
But the judge wasn't having any of that. The judge said, no, I want the status quo to remain. And she left the temporary restraining order there. And she said, you guys can come up with a language for a preliminary injunction.
But I am going to enter a preliminary injunction to make sure the status quo remains as is. Carol, is this case going to go to the Supreme Court, do you think? I think there's a good possibility it will because this administration is simply not giving up on what appears to be sort of a temper tantrum against Harvard. And it's going to keep fighting on all including those, he said, with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.
The Department of Homeland Security is revising visa criteria for all international students. This was an order that went to all U.S. embassies globally. But here in Beijing, embassy staff were told to stop taking applications for new visa appointments.
Chinese officials responding today saying they lodged a diplomatic protest, calling the move unreasonable and accusing the U.S. of targeting China. Students we talked to here are fearful. And it's no small detail that Xi Jinping's daughter went to Harvard under a pseudonym.
With more than 275,000 Chinese students in the U.S., there is a ripple effect here, not just universities losing revenue, but the wider economy. According to the Association of International Educators, more than 1.1 million international students contributed nearly $44 billion to the economy in the 2023-24 school year. And a good chunk of that was in California. This could also complicate trade talks with China and send anxiety rippling across university campuses in the U.S.
All right, Janice, thank you for that report. Coming up next, all the president's pardons and all the fallout. How the governor of Michigan is responding after President Trump said he would look at potentially pardoning the men who were convicted of plotting to kidnap her. Stay with us.
You're watching Meet the Press Now. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the start today app. Workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you.
And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled.
Offer ends May 20th, 2026. Prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. 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.
As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, the podcast from NBC News. With me, your host, Gabi Dusugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalists. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.
From the front page to the zeitgeist, Here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music. Welcome back. It's been a busy week for President Trump's pardon power.
The White House yesterday said the president officially signed pardons for reality TV personalities Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of fraud in 2022. He also signed pardons for former New York Republican Congressman Michael Grimm, who pled guilty to tax fraud. Former Connecticut Republican Governor John Rowland, who pled guilty to conspiracy. And also a commutation for gang leader Larry Hoover, who was serving six life sentences.
Some of the other notable pardons of Mr. Trump's second term include several individuals and groups of people who claimed to be victims of Trump's political enemies. Responding to a question in the Oval Office yesterday, President Trump said he is looking into another pardon for the men who were convicted of trying to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, saying the trail looked to him like, quote, somewhat of a railroad job. The trial looked to him like a railroad job.
Governor Whitmer responded earlier today. Very disappointed that they're even considering it, frankly. You know, when the president was shot at in Pennsylvania, I was one of the first people on either side of the aisle to condemn it. We have to condemn political violence no matter where it comes from, no matter who it's aimed at.
It does a disservice to everyone if we do anything short of that. And so I'll be making my thoughts known to the White House. And I hope they take it into consideration. Joining me now with the very latest is NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor.
Yamiche, thanks so much for joining us this afternoon. So what do you make of the fact that there's been so much pardon activity right now? What are your sources telling you about the timing? Well, Kristen, it's a good question because there is this question of why are all these pardons happening now?
And in talking to experts as well as legal analysts, they tell me that this is really about President Trump looking at these pardons as a sort of messaging tool. He's messaging on financial crimes. He's using these pardons to attack his predecessor, former President Biden, in some cases saying that it was Biden's grubbed DOJ that went after people. We saw that in the January 6th pardons, but we also see that in some of these federal crimes.
There's also the sense that he's pardoning people that he feels like are supporters of him. So Ed Martin said no MAGA left behind me, no Make America Great Again supporter left behind. Ed Martin being, of course, his pardon attorney. So they're making it very plain that this is not just about sort of who they feel like may have been wrongly convicted, but this is also about political loyalties, which is a very interesting thing for the president to be doing.
But he's not being at all sort of trying to hide it. He's being very transparent about the idea that some of these people donated millions of dollars. In one case, it was a man's mother who donated more than a million dollars. And then he was pardoned.
So that's sort of what we're seeing at the Trump White House. And I expect that we're going to continue to see this. Yeah. You know, obviously his comments about those who were convicted of plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, those comments getting a lot of attention, a lot of pushback, including from the governor herself.
What do you make of the fallout? You mentioned where does this debate or discussion go from here? It's interesting. I'm not quite sure where it's going to go from here because you have Gretchen Whitmer, somebody as the governor of Michigan, who's come into the White House, had one on one meetings with President Trump.
Her answer there, I think, was very politically neutral in some ways in that she's saying, look, I was very concerned when someone was after you. And when you face your own assassination attempts, I would hope that you would also take my life seriously when it was threatened by these people. That being said, the fact that President Trump is openly talking about this and the fact that he's saying that these people may have been railroaded, that's definitely giving a lot of people in Michigan sources that I'm talking to a heart palpitations because this was a very, very serious plot to kidnap and kill the governor of Michigan. The other thing is, though, that some of this could just, again, be political messaging.
So at some point, someone in the Trump administration has the president's ear and convinces him that pardoning these people is going to be like pardoning the January 6th writers. And they might actually be successful in getting this pardon done, Kristen. All right. Well, I know you will continue to watch it very closely.
Yamiche, thank you so much. Great to see you as always. We want to turn now to staffing shakeups at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The head of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, Kenneth Ganalo, stepping down effective immediately.
Sources telling NBC News that Ganalo was given a choice to retire or resign and he chose retirement. Meantime, the acting head of Homeland Security Investigations is being reassigned to a new role within ICE. His focus is on combating human and drug trafficking and also plays a key role in finding criminal immigrants. This move comes amid growing pressure on ICE from the White House to dramatically ramp up immigrant arrests.
Top advisors Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Chrissy Noem have been pushing ICE to accelerate enforcement actions in line with President Trump's immigration agenda. Coming up after the break, 128 days later, Elon Musk's unceremonious departure from the White House and whether Doge can go on without him. We'll dig into all the politics next. The panel is coming up.
You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. Elon Musk's official time at the White House has come to a close. The architect of the Department of Government Efficiency posted last night, quote, As my scheduled time as a special government employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.
The Doge mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government. His final days were not without controversy as Musk slammed Trump's congressional agenda as too pricey and lamented the criticism Doge received in Washington, even as its efforts to cut the size and scope of government came up, well, short of his own expectations. While he was a constant presence at the White House over the first months of the Trump administration, there was no thank you ceremony or even social media post from the president or the man who once dubbed himself as the first buddy. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt thanked him for his service today.
Joining me now instead of Shelby Talcott, White House correspondent for Semaphore, Jennifer Palmieri, White House communications director in the Obama administration and advisor on the Hillary Clinton campaign and Kamala Harris campaigns as well. And Stephen Moore, former Trump economic advisor and co-founder of Unleashed Prosperity. Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it.
Let's start with We'll watch it how it all plays out. The backdrop to all of this, Shelby, is President Trump's tariff policy. There's been a fair amount of whiplash on that from the courts to his own policies imposing tariffs and then pulling them back. A Financial Times columnist coined the word taco, which stands for Trump always chickens out when describing how the markets react to how Trump makes and then pauses his tariff threats.
He was actually directly asked about this yesterday. Let's look at how he responded. Chicken out. I've never heard that.
You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number? And I said, you have to open up your whole country. And because I gave the European Union a 50% tax tariff and they called up and they said, please, let's meet right now. Please let's meet right now.
We had a dead country. We had a country people didn't think it was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that. It's called negotiation.
Clearly did not like the question, but he's very dug in on his tariff policy. We've heard that from Peter Navarro today, despite his legal challenges. Yeah. And we've heard from the White House and they've noted that just because of these legal setbacks, that doesn't mean that there's not other ways that they can implement tariffs.
And that's exactly what they are planning on doing. Just like the legal setbacks with immigration. They're still deporting people under different measures. But, you know, I think the big thing for the White House has been this sort of whiplash has been the ultimate question over what is the point of the tariffs?
Is it going to produce revenue for the U.S., which the White House says, or is it a negotiation? You know, I think there's questions over whether it can be both essentially. Yeah. I mean, Stephen, what do you make of how the president is carrying out his tariff policy?
Do you think he's being careful enough in some of these instances to get what he says he wants, which are these deals done with? I mean, the one thing about this taco to drop all the stuff is that I think a lot of people in the media still don't get Trump. I mean, this is vintage Trump negotiating strategy. He always starts out with a huge number.
I was right out of the deal. And then, you know, he retreats from that. That's not him, you know, chickening out. And it's just putting his firm out on the table.
This court decision is going to have to change the strategy. You know, some of the tariffs are going to probably prevail under the law. Some of them aren't. And that puts Trump in a little, you know, he was using these tariffs as a leverage negotiating tool.
And now the courts have taken that away from him. So we'll see whether we can cut these deals now. You know, Jen, when I talk to Democrats, they say the courts are really our strongest point of leverage that we have to counter Trump right now. Is that how you see it as they, you know, obviously there has been a lot of opposition to how he's carrying out his tariffs.
Yeah, I mean, I think that when Trump controls the White House, when he controls Republican and moderate Republicans control the Congress, the courts are the only leverage that you have. And I think there's a lot of concern early on that you could not count that that the courts would not be ruling in the ways that they are, you know, like every. I think every law firm that's going to work. Two of those justices were Republicans.
Reagan. They are backing up. They are backing up the law until you get to, you know, until you have things to actually fight over, like the reconciliation bill, you know, by twenty twenty six. That's the best leverage you have.
The courts. Yeah. And you see this going to the Supreme Court. Sorry.
I'm not confident that Trump would necessarily win in the Supreme Court on this one because they're originalists. And the Constitution is pretty clear. Tax bills start in the House. But they're OK with it going to the Supreme Court.
Trump administration. They want almost all of these. They would be OK with going to the Supreme Court. That's the best chance.
This is the fight they want. Yeah. All right, guys. Thank you.
Great conversation. Shelby, Jen and Stephen. Really appreciate it. And still to come, the U.S.
military escalates its crackdown on transgender troops in the Army. We're live at the Pentagon with new reporting that you don't want to miss. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.
The Army is announcing a new policy solidifying that transgender soldiers are disqualified from service. The Army put out an order detailing the new discharge policy for what it calls gender dysphoria disqualification and separation from service. The order requires commanders to update soldiers records to reflect biological sex assigned at birth, not gender identity. That means in their final days of service, transgender troops will be forced to live as the sex they no longer identify as before being retired from the Army as a different sex than they served.
The order comes in the wake of President Trump's January executive order banning transgender people from serving the military and a Supreme Court ruling upholding that order earlier this month. NBC News international security correspondent Courtney Kuby joins me now from outside the Pentagon. Courtney, thanks so much for being here. So what more do we know about the way the Army is enacting this transgender ban?
Yeah, so I mean, this is pretty much in keeping with going all the way back to January when President Trump first issued the executive order that talked about how transgender service members would no longer be able to serve. Now, a few weeks later, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth released a large memo that essentially laid out those guidelines. But then it was up to the services to sort of figure out the specifics. So the Army has come out, as you mentioned, late yesterday with what they call a fraggo, a fragmentation order.
Basically, that is Army wide guidance about how to carry out a new policy in a very practical way. A lot of this stuff is not surprising. You know, we knew, according to the earlier guidance, that the Army was going to say that service members are going to have to serve in their birth sex, the sex that they were born at born at. But what we did not know until this order came out, Kristen, is that individuals who have already identified themselves as either being transgender or having gender dysphoria, thereby disqualifying them from continuing to serve in the Army, that their birth or excuse me, their sex would also revert in their personal personnel records, meaning that even though they've already identified, even though they're most likely on administrative leave, their remaining days in the military, they will have to serve in the sex they were born at and not necessarily the one that they had been serving in in the Army, no matter how long they had been in.
And why that's also really important is they will also separate from the military. So all their military separation or retirement records will also indicate their birth sex and not necessarily the one that they had been serving in. Kristen Courtney, I think a lot of people are curious about how many people we're talking about here. How many people does this actually impact?
So military officials say it's about 200 so far individuals who have come forward and voluntarily identified themselves as either again being transgender or having either gender dysphoria diagnosis or having some of the characteristics or the symptoms of gender dysphoria. There are likely others who are in the army more than that. We don't know an exact number, but estimates are there higher than 200 who may have to be essentially discovered by the army. Now, remember, their commanders can see some of their medical history and their medical records.
So it is possible that after the first this first deadline, others could be identified and then involuntarily separated. Courtney Kuby, as always, thank you so much. We appreciate you joining us. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press.
Now that the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive, The Price is Right Fortune Pick, has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show only at BetMGM.
Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Cliffhanger and The Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BetMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Pull up a seat and experience The Price is Right Fortune Pick only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.
19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly if you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you. Please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.
BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.