MSNBC Highlights — March 13 - video Dailymotion

Metatube

Watch highlights and must-see interviews from your favorite MSNBC shows.  For more context and news coverage of the most important stories of our day click here: https://www.msnbc.com/  » Subscribe to MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/msnbc » Subscribe to MSNBC on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@msnbc  » Subscribe to MSNBC on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/msnbc  Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: https://www.msnbc.com/information/download-msnbc-app-n1241692  Follow MSNBC Show Blogs  MaddowBlog: https://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog  MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of political headlines, commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Inside with Jen Psaki, Morning Joe, The Beat, Deadline: White House, All In, The Last Word, The 11th Hour, and more.  Connect with MSNBC Online  Visit msnbc.com: https://www.msnbc.com/  Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: https://link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc-daily-signup  #politics #msnbc #nes

Transcript

00:00Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayes. Today, the president of the United States,

00:03the man with the nuclear codes, is angry and emotional and acting, frankly, erratically.

00:08And that is not my judgment. It's basically what his own cabinet defenders are saying.

00:16The president was totally annoyed that the Europeans did this. And so you're going to

00:20hear back from someone who emotionally cares about America. And why are Europeans picking

00:26on Kentucky bourbon, Harley Davidson motorcycle? You're saying this is an emotional response.

00:32It's disrespectful. He wants these countries to respect him. And all this showed you is

00:38that Europe and Canada do not respect Donald Trump. You know, if you make him unhappy,

00:44he responds unhappy. I mean, points for honesty. He was totally annoyed. That's economic rationale.

00:51That was Commerce Secretary and Trump whisperer Howard Howard Lutnick explaining how the

00:56president is just completely shocked that the trade war he launched out of nowhere for

01:02no reason against America's closest allies, Canada, the European Union, is suddenly blowing

01:06up in his face and threatening to tank the U.S. economy. You might have seen today stocks

01:11continued. They're impressively downward fall amid fears of higher prices from Trump's tariffs

01:17and threats and the error of uncertainty that hangs over everything. The S&P 500 fell

01:22below 10 percent below its all-time high, raising concerns among investors. A sell-off

01:26might be happening soon, although it looks like it's already happening. This NASDAQ is

01:30already in that worrying territory. The Dow Jones was on track for its worst week since

01:35that string of high-profile bank failures in 2023. Again, all of this is happening not

01:41because banks failed or Russia invaded Ukraine or some huge macroeconomic structural thing

01:50happened. No, it's happening for literally no reason whatsoever other than Trump picking

01:56a fight with our neighbors and our neighbors fighting back. And Trump is big, mad about

02:01it, throwing out new threats of massive tariffs and annexation of foreign territories in a

02:06vicious cycle of escalation. Yesterday, Canada and the EU responded to Trump's tariffs by

02:12imposing new taxes on U.S. exports, including on signature American products like whiskey

02:19and motorcycles. When Trump heard about that retaliation, he basically lost it, made this

02:24totally unhinged social media post in the middle of night, quote, The European Union,

02:28one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world, which

02:33is formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put

02:38a nasty 50 percent tariff on whiskey. If this tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S.

02:43will shortly place a 200 percent tariff on all wine, champagnes, alcoholic products coming

02:48out of France and other EU represented countries. This will be great for the wine and champagne

02:53businesses in the U.S. That was at 8 a.m. I should know. Now, U.S. does not technically

02:57have any champagne businesses. We are the biggest market for champagne. Many other French

03:02wines. Trump is threatening a tax at such a high level. The price of a bottle of wine

03:07would essentially double again for Americans. Right. Americans are going to pay that. Everybody

03:13who understands trade understands this is insane. I think even people who don't understand

03:18trade understand this is insane. It was a point that even Emma Tucker, the editor of

03:23the very right wing Wall Street Journal, made this morning.

03:28That mood has shifted pretty much since all the tariffs started coming in. I think businesses

03:34realize is now Trump is serious about this. But the problem they've got is that they're

03:39being imposed in a very haphazard way. And that's creating so much instability. When

03:43a company has to pay more for its input, will they typically pass it on to the to the consumer?

03:49Do you think I think eventually they're going to have to. Yeah. No, they eat it. An hour

03:54later, Trump posted again. I think he was watching. The Globalist Wall Street Journal

03:58has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of

04:02the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of screwing United States

04:07America. Just to I have to say this because we keep saying it. This is a theory of the

04:11EU's formation that is just like a thing. As far as I can tell, Trump invented three

04:16days ago. Thousands of people fired by Donald Trump are getting their jobs back today because

04:24of the first round of proverbial fireworks that went off in a California federal courthouse.

04:30And I just just just got the transcript of what happened there. Trying all day to get

04:34it. Finally got it. I really want to share this with you. All right. So let me set the

04:38scene. Trump administration has sent a lawyer to defend them in this case in federal court

04:45in Northern California. But they are refusing to send any officials from the Trump administration

04:52to testify in this case, to explain what they have done and to be questioned about

04:56it. The basis of this case is that the Trump White House, the Office of Personnel Management

05:02and the Trump White House told federal agencies last month essentially to fire tens of thousands

05:08of people who work for the government, potentially hundreds of thousands of people. And then

05:13after the Trump White House, the Office of Personnel Management told the agencies to

05:17fire all those people. Then all those people got fired. And it really does not seem like

05:23that was legal. It has never seemed like that was legal, that the White House would have

05:27the authority to make those kinds of mass firings. But again, they won't send anybody

05:32to testify about what exactly they did. So this from the transcripts of the lawyer who

05:39is suing the Trump administration says this, Your Honor, quote, What we have before the

05:44court is record evidence that conclusively establishes that OPM directed the terminations

05:49at issue. We have a very unusual circumstance where the government has not mounted, has

05:55not attempted to say that they factually dispute that. They've actually withdrawn the declaration

06:00by which they were attempting to dispute that. And there's no record evidence on the other

06:04side by which they have disputed this fact. The judge, I tend to agree with you on that.

06:12The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge's ability to get at the truth of

06:17what happened here and then set forth sham declarations to a sham declaration. They withdrew

06:23it, then substituted another. That's not the way it works in the U.S. District Court, the

06:28judge says, quote, I'm going to talk to the government about that in a minute. I had expected

06:32to have an evidentiary hearing today in which these people would testify. And if they wanted

06:38to get your people on the stand, I was going to make that happen, too. It would be fair.

06:41But instead, we have been frustrated in that. The judge then says to the lawyer for the

06:47plaintiffs, quote, I'd like to hear your views on what relief should be issued today. T-O-D-A-Y,

06:54today. The lawyer, thank you, Your Honor. We are aligned in wanting that to happen as

07:00well. He spelled out T-O-D-A-Y. And so then they have a conversation, the judge and the

07:09lawyer for the plaintiffs, the lawyer who's suing the Trump administration on behalf of

07:13the fired employees. And they talk about what the fired employees who are suing the Trump

07:18administration, what they're seeking from the judge today, the kind of relief they want.

07:22They say they want a list of everybody who's been fired that haven't been able to get that,

07:26or even an enumeration from the government of how many people have been fired. They also want

07:31people to be reinstated if they have been fired illegally. So they go through all those details.

07:35Then it's time for the Trump administration lawyer to make his side of the case. And he

07:39starts explaining to the judge that all these fired workers, the only reason they were fired

07:44is because nobody wanted them. Nobody told anybody to fire anything. There was no instructions to

07:52fire people. These are just unwanted workers. If anybody wanted them back, they surely would

07:56have been rehired by now, right? At which point the judge interjects. The judge, quote, well,

08:03maybe that's why we need an injunction that tells them to rehire them. You will not bring the people

08:10in here to be cross-examined. You are afraid to do so because, you know, cross-examination

08:14would reveal the truth. Trump administration lawyer tries to interject. Respectfully,

08:19the judge continues. This is the U.S. District Court. Whenever you submit declarations,

08:25those people should be submitted to cross-examination, just like the plaintiff's

08:28side should be. And then we get at the truth of whether your story is actually true. I tend to

08:34doubt it. I tend to doubt that you are telling me the truth whenever we hear all the evidence

08:39eventually. Why can't you bring your people in to be cross-examined or to be deposed at their

08:44convenience? I said two hours for Mr. Eazel. Mr. Eazel is the acting head of OPM. I said two hours

08:51for Mr. Eazel, a deposition at his convenience. And you withdrew his declaration rather than do

08:56that? Come on, that's a sham. The judge says, quote, go ahead. I'm, I'm, it upsets me. I want

09:04you to know that. I have been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years, and I know how we

09:10get at the truth. And you're not helping me get at the truth. You're giving me press releases,

09:14sham documents. All right, he says, quote, I'm getting mad at you. And I shouldn't.

09:22The judge then decided in this hearing today that he wasn't going to wait to give a written ruling.

09:27He decided, you know what, I've heard enough. He decided he was going to rule from the bench today,

09:32T-O-D-A-Y, today. He started with this. The judge, quote, on February 13th, 2025, a briefing paper

09:41from human resources management at the Forest Service says this, quote, all, that's spelled A-L-L,

09:48all, that's spelled A-L-L, all federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture,

09:55were notified on February 12th by the Office of Personnel Management to terminate all employees

10:00who have not completed their probationary or trial period. That then led to the termination

10:04of a lot of people, the judge says. But one in particular, I will give as an example.

10:09Leandra Bailey was a physical science information specialist in Albuquerque. In September of last

10:15year, she'd received a performance review in which she was, quote, fully successful in every

10:20category, not just some, but every category. On February 13th, she was terminated using the OPM

10:27template letter. Because in addition to directing these terminations, OPM gave a proposed letter,

10:33and the letter said, I'm reading from it, Memorandum for Leandra Bailey, February 13th,

10:38from the Director of Human Source Management at the U.S. Forest Service. This is just one sentence,

10:43quote, the agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further

10:48employment at the agency would be in the public interest, close quote. And then the judge says

10:53this, despite the fact that her most recent review was fully successful in every category.

10:59The judge says, now, how could it be, you might ask, that the agency could find that based on her,

11:04find that based on her performance, when her performance had been stellar?

11:09The reason OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part, in my judgment,

11:14a gimmick, because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance. And the judge says

11:21this, now, what I'm about to say is not the legal basis for what I'm going to order today,

11:25but I just want to say it. He says, quote, it is a sad day when our government would fire some good

11:31employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie.

11:36Excellent in all, fully, what was the phrase? I don't want to misstate it. Quote,

11:40fully successful in every category, yet they terminate her based on her performance.

11:45That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to avoid statutory

11:52requirements. It also happens to be that whenever you fire somebody based on performance,

11:56then they can't get unemployment insurance. So that makes it even worse, doesn't it?

11:59And then it makes it even worse because the next employer is going to say,

12:03well, have you ever been terminated based on performance? They're going to have to say yes

12:08to thousands of people. It is illustrative of the manipulation that was going on by OPM

12:15to try to orchestrate this government-wide termination of probationary employees.

12:21Quote, the court finds that OPM did direct all the agencies to terminate probationary employees.

12:27The court rejects the government's attempt to use these press releases and to read between the lines

12:32to say that the agency heads made their own decision with no direction from OPM. The relief

12:36that's going to be granted is as follows. First, the temporary restraining order will be extended.

12:42The VA shall immediately offer reinstatement to any and all probationary employees

12:47terminated on or about February 13th or 14th. This order finds that all such terminations were

12:53directed by defendant OPM and were unlawful because OPM had no authority to do so. Further,

12:59the VA shall cease any and all use of the template termination notice provided by OPM

13:04and shall immediately advise all probationary employees terminated February 13th and 14th

13:09that the notice and termination have been found to be unlawful by the U.S. District Court

13:14for the Northern District of California. The VA shall cease any termination of probationary

13:19employees at the direction of OPM. To repeat, this order holds that OPM has no authority whatsoever

13:27to direct, order, or require in any way that any agency fire any employee.

13:34Now, given the arguments and the facts in this case, namely that defendants have attempted to

13:39recast these directives as mere guidance, my order today, quote, further prohibits defendants

13:45from giving guidance as to whether any employee should be terminated. Any termination of agency's

13:52employees must be made by the agencies themselves, if made at all, and they must be made in conformity

13:57with the Civil Service Reform Act and the Reduction in Force Act and any other constitutional or

14:02statutory legal requirement. He says, quote, in seven calendar days, relief defendant VA,

14:11the VA shall submit a list of all probationary employees terminated on or about February 13th

14:17and 14th with an explanation as to each of what has been done to comply with this order.

14:23And the judge says this, now this order so far has only mentioned the VA, the Veterans

14:27Administration, but the same relief is extended, and I'm not going to repeat it, but I'm extending

14:32the same relief to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of

14:36Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Treasury. And so it's the VA plus

14:41all those other agencies. He says, and this is without prejudice to extending the relief later

14:46in further to other agencies. The judge then closes with this, I will try to get out a short

14:53memorandum opinion that elaborates on this order, but this is the order and it counts effective

14:58immediately. Please don't say, oh, I'm waiting for the written order. This is the order from the bench.

15:06And then the judge then closes with this admonition to the Trump administration lawyer,

15:11quote, if you want to appeal to the court of appeals, God bless you.

15:15I want you to, because I'm tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.

15:25And that is how thousands of people who work in our government, who Donald Trump and his top

15:31campaign donor tried to fire. That is how thousands of Americans got their jobs back today at the VA,

15:38at USDA, at the Defense Department, at the Department of Energy, at the Department of

15:42Interior, which includes the National Park Service, at the Treasury Department, which of course,

15:47includes the IRS. The court ruling also means that the Office of Personnel Management,

15:54which they've been using as like the central office for all this stuff that DOJ has been doing,

15:59right? The Office of Personnel Management at the White House can no longer tell anyone

16:04anything about anybody who should be fired for any reason from any part of the U.S. government.

16:12This is the order.

16:15Senate Democrats are split over how they will vote on the Republican plan to

16:19keep the government funded, though, on Elon Musk and Donald Trump's terms.

16:23Trump's budget director, and this is key, is already reportedly preparing to ignore

16:28the spending appropriated in the bill. Some Democrats have said they will not support

16:33the plan, even if it means a government shutdown. But Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New

16:37York says he will support the vote basically to get the bill in a position to pass and to keep

16:45the government open. For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option.

16:54It is not a clean CR. It is deeply partisan. It doesn't address far too many of this country's

17:02needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even more, even much more power

17:10via a government shutdown is a far worse option. And Senator Chuck Schumer joins me now. Senator,

17:17thank you for joining us. My pleasure. Let's just start on this. I think there are a lot of people

17:22watching this right now who are confused about this decision or upset by it. So just spell out,

17:29just give me your logic, particularly on this sort of on the one hand. On the other,

17:32what is the cost you see to the constitutional order of a shutdown that isn't already being done

17:39now? It's a dramatic cost. Here's why, Chris. Under a shutdown, it is the executive branch,

17:47in this case, Trump, Musk, Doge and vote whose head of the OMB, who we all know are authoritarians,

17:55vicious, nasty, who would have sole control over what is funded and what isn't.

18:00They get to determine what is a, quote, essential service. And they will just cut to smithereens

18:07far greater than in the CR bill, which is a lousy bill. Far greater than that. What could be funded

18:13and what couldn't. And there's no recourse. You can't go to court. This is a decision totally in

18:18the executive branch. And so it would be devastating. Why is it that Elon Musk and Donald

18:24Trump want a government shutdown so they can take control of the government and do their vicious,

18:30horrible things? They could cut half the government. They could tell employees you're

18:34not essential and never bring them back, permanently firing them. It's a disaster.

18:39And in a few weeks, if there was a shutdown, everyone would be complaining and howling.

18:44Why did they cut? Why did they eliminate snap? Why did they cut so much of Medicaid? But they

18:50could do all that on their own. That's the problem. There is no check on them with a shutdown.

18:56That's not to say this CR bill is a good bill. It isn't. It didn't have any safeguards in it.

19:00But it would be much, much worse to have a shutdown. And my job, Chris, as leader,

19:05is to see things a little bit ahead down the road and see how horrible this would be and

19:09alert people to it. So I want to sort of present our two arguments on the other side. One of them

19:14is that I was I was it was quite and I hear you on this. It doesn't this is not an easy call.

19:18I want to be clear. I mean, I don't think it is. But, you know, the AFGY union, which is the

19:24largest union representing federal workers there in they want a big victory today in federal court

19:29about those probationary employees fired. They came out against the CR, which really surprised

19:34me. Right. These are the people that seem to have the most skin in the game on precisely

19:38the terms you're enunciating. And they said the fact that this CR has no protections that

19:44will actually be followed means that we can't support it. If the people whose

19:50livelihoods are on the line say you have to you cannot go along with this thing. Why are they

19:54wrong? I understand why they're so upset with the CR, but I disagree with them because the shutdown

20:00would be worse for their employees. They could just eliminate huge portions of government workers

20:07automatically. They could eliminate programs automatically, which they can't do on the CR.

20:12The CR has certain spending and they can screw around with it and they will. These guys are sons

20:17of guns. They're going to do everything they can to hurt the government. You know what they've

20:22talked about. Elon Musk, this billionaire who cares nothing about taking people's Social Security

20:28away. This guy says that he wants to cut two trillion dollars out of the federal government.

20:33A shutdown would allow him to do it. And here's another point, Chris. There's no exit ramp.

20:38Anyone who wants the shutdown, I've asked them, well, how do we get out of it? Guess who it's

20:42up to to get out of it? Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Doge. So it's a horrible, it's two bad alternatives.

20:50And I respect people who actually want, you know, don't want to vote for the CR. It's awful.

20:56But with the alternative being a government shutdown, that's even worse.

21:00So here's the other, the other sort of way that I've heard people phrase this, right?

21:06Democrats don't control any part of the government. So there's not a ton of levers.

21:11The one thing they have leverage is in the Senate where you need a filibuster proof majority on a

21:16cloture vote that there is essentially an unconstitutional assault on the government

21:21right now. And I think you would agree with that assault on the constitutional.

21:25These guys are the worst and we've got to fight them every step of the way,

21:29every as we say in Brooklyn, Chris, every step of the way.

21:32But, but look, Russell is already telling people, but he's telling people on the floor,

21:37we are not even going to listen to this CR. This is a paper paper that we will impound and rip up

21:43the moments it's passed. If that's the case, how is voting for cloture, not essentially an

21:49imprimatur on the very same assault on the constitutional order? They're already, even

21:54without this CR, they're already doing it, right? Okay. They are going to, they did it to the

21:59department of education, but I can tell you, I've been through shutdowns before the all. It's not

22:04that this CR is good. It's not that voting for it is good. It's horrible, but the alternative is

22:10worse. And we have to look just a month ahead and see how bad a shutdown would be for all the

22:16things we believe in and how I'd say Trump and Doge and Musk and vote. They're like drooling

22:24with happiness and desire to get a government shutdown. They've said they want it. Why?

22:29Not for doing anything good. I'll tell you that these guys are authoritarians.

22:35Let me just say with this in one second, I think the theory of the case for people that don't want

22:40Democrats to vote for cloture is that Americans don't quite understand what's being done to their

22:46government. It's being done in this sort of haphazard fashion. The stories are sort of getting

22:50out. You know, there's this forest service worker who got laid off for no reason. And there's this

22:55veteran who's got a traumatic brain injury, who's got a clinical trial, but that the shutdown would

23:00be a way of actually calling the question. And here's, here's what I would just offer.

23:06It seems to me that the demand that makes the most sense here, and I'm not a U S senator is for

23:12the Republicans to vote on a rescission package that enunciates the cuts Doge has done as opposed

23:19to allowing an unelected co-president unilaterally eviscerate the American constitutional power of

23:25the purse. Well, the bottom line is the Republican Senate is in total obeisance to Trump. They're not

23:32going to oppose him in any way. And, but if they allow Trump to make the kind of drastic cuts that

23:39I greatly fear in a government shutdown, they'll be culpable as well. And make no mistake about it,

23:47make no mistake about it. Why ask yourself again, the question, why does Musk and Trump and, and

23:55vote want this vote already has plans on how to slash the government far worse than slashed in

24:01the CR much worse. Every program, every part of government would be at their disposal, their

24:07wicked disposal. So that's the problem here. It's not that the CR is good. It's horrible.

24:13And all things being equal, we should have opposed it, but the alternative being a shutdown

24:18makes things worse. And I believe this much worse. And I believe this, I wouldn't have done this.

24:23I knew I'd get criticized, but I felt obligated for the country for my democratic caucus to the

24:31people to explain how bad a shutdown would be. And if we had, if we went into a shutdown and everything

24:38bad happened, I had to give people this warning. Can I just keep you for two more questions,

24:44if that's okay. One is, is a sort of question about strategy and dealing what I, what I think

24:50you and I, and many people watching this agree is, is essentially an assault on the constitutional

24:53order. And that it's absolutely the only people they, the only thing they understand is meeting

24:59conflict with conflict. So if you look at Doug Ford in Ontario, who, who banged the table and

25:04said, you're going to tariff us. I'm going to, I'm going to tariff you. We're going to put a

25:08surcharge on electricity. That the only thing that gets their attention, the only thing that gets them

25:12to back down is meeting conflict with conflict. If you meet conflict with essentially managed

25:18retreat or strategic non-engagement, then they roll all over you. We are going to conflict with

25:25them on everything on the tax cuts for the billionaires. This they've, they've, they become

25:30a plutocracy and oligarchy on, on Medicaid. We have plans to conflict them with all of that.

25:36If the shutdown occurred, we wouldn't be able to do that because they would fill up both the Senate

25:42and the discussion on whether we should cut this and not cut that of things that they want to cut.

25:48So to, to have the conflict on the, on the best ground we have summed up in a sentence that they're

25:54making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires. It's much, much better not to be in

26:00the middle of a shutdown, which to divert people from the number one issue we have against these

26:05bastards, sorry, these people, which is not only all these cuts, but they're ruining democracy.

26:12And one other thing on a shutdown, on a shutdown, the courts could close or, or at least be totally,

26:19totally disabled. And the courts are one of the best ways we've had to go after these guys.

26:26Final question about just an issue of inter-cameral strategy. I mean,

26:31the Democrats voted en masse against this in the House. They lost only one vote, Jared Goldman in

26:35Maine. I've seen a lot of House members and across an ideological range, interestingly enough,

26:42urging the Senate to filibuster this, saying, look, this is existential about whether we

26:46control the power of the purse or not. We cannot essentially sign off on this

26:52doge unilateral arrogation of this power. Yeah, look, I said they have it wrong.

26:58I supported what the House did to vote against this bill universally, but that didn't cause a

27:03shutdown. It's a different, it's different in the Senate. And I knew people were going to disagree

27:08with me, but I felt so strongly that the shutdown would be a, the greatest disaster we face with

27:14these arrogant, arrogant autocrats that we had to avoid the shutdown and fight on many of the

27:21other things, every other issue that we have. All right, Senator Chuck Schumer, who's the

27:26leader of the Democrats in the Senate announcing he will be a yes for cloture tomorrow. I imagine

27:29you will have the six or so other votes you need to get that over the hump.

27:35You said earlier you were a quote, hell no on the Republican CR. Are you still a hell no?

27:41Oh, absolutely. And here's what it comes down to. If you want to stop a bully,

27:47you don't hand over your lunch money. And if you want to stop a tyrant, you don't hand them

27:51more power. What we have seen in this extraordinary set of circumstances is a president who has taken

27:57down the watchdogs in terms of the inspector generals, fired the FBI agents who look over

28:02executive branch, who is trying to intimidate the press and who is trying to intimidate Congress.

28:08And we have seen republics around the world fall because Congress becomes intimidated. Well,

28:14the Republicans on both sides are intimidated. The House Democrats don't have the power to stop

28:20on the House side. So the only power rests with us to use our 60 vote power to force a negotiation.

28:28I feel like the path we are on for tomorrow night in which Democrats will provide votes

28:35will not accomplish that negotiation. In fact, for clearly, clearly it won't. Back in 2019,

28:41when we were facing a Republican president, Trump, we use this power. We forced a negotiation.

28:48And what we did then is even more true now. That's the path we should be on. We have to

28:54fight a tyrant now. It is never true that you let them accumulate more power and it will be easier

29:00later. Senator Smith, you said you were a no on the Republican resolution. Are you still a no?

29:06Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, this is a moment where the Republicans are helping Donald Trump

29:13and Elon Musk do a giant power grab on our government. Either way, they're hell bent to

29:18shut down the government. And I think that it is essential in this moment that we stand up to it.

29:23Just as Jeff is saying, this is a moment where we have to say, no, we are not going to go along

29:27with this bully, because if we go along with it now, it's going to come back again and again

29:32and again. And I think it's important that people understand that this so-called continuing

29:37resolution is not a continuation of laws that Congress passed in the prior year, last year.

29:43It is a complete wholesale rewriting of those laws. It takes away research money for Alzheimer's and

29:49fetal alcohol syndrome. It would stop hundreds of projects in Minnesota that help us build

29:55child care centers in Moorhead and public safety projects in Rochester, Minnesota. And it gives

30:03Elon Musk and Donald Trump the power to basically decide, is this money that we want to reward our

30:10friends with? Are we going to punish our enemies by not spending that money?

30:13And that was where I was going to ask you about, because do you trust President Trump

30:20and Elon Musk and Russell Vought to actually spend the money in the ways that even that CR

30:27says they should be spent? Well, one thing about this CR, it does not have the type of

30:33table in it that says how different funds will be allocated. So let's take, for example, the Great

30:38American Outdoor Act. Normally there'd be a table that would lay out how it'd be fairly distributed

30:42around the country to different projects. Those tables are not in this. This means what we are

30:46handing Trump is a slush fund that he can use to reward states he's happy with, red states,

30:53and to penalize states he's unhappy with, blue states. That type of situation absolutely feeds

31:00into his desire already to have a way to kind of turn the knife in members of Congress to work his

31:08will. Congress, under the separation of powers, has to be fierce in defending that separation and

31:15defending the checks and balances. So Senator Smith, then, what are you hearing from your

31:19colleagues ahead of tomorrow's vote? Because there are, you have colleagues, Democratic colleagues,

31:25who are in a tough position. They are on the ballot next year. What are you hearing from them

31:30or others who might be thinking of actually voting for the CR tomorrow? Well, what I'm hearing from

31:34my colleagues is, first of all, nobody wants the federal government to shut down. Everybody wants

31:39to hold the Republicans. And this is really about what the Republicans in the House and in the

31:43Senate are doing. This is their power grab. And people are furious about it. And everyone is

31:48trying to figure out what is the right thing to do to protect our country in this moment. Jeff and I

31:52believe, and I think many of our colleagues believe, that this is a moment where we really

31:57have to stand up. But at the end of the day, everyone is trying to figure out what the right

32:01thing to do is. And it's, you know, we're faced with two terrible choices. And that's the reality

32:08that the Republicans have put on our feet. And, you know, my view of it is, you know,

32:14if they want me to vote for their plan, then they need to negotiate with me and my colleagues to

32:19make sure that the interests of the people that I represent are reflected in their bills. And

32:23they haven't done that. They don't seem to be interested in doing. Absolutely not. No.

32:27So if there is a government shutdown, Senator Berkley, how do Democrats get the message out

32:32that it is, in fact, a Republican shutdown? Well, here's the way we do it. We take Patty

32:38Murray, Senator Murray from Washington, head of the Appropriations Committee, has laid out a 30-day

32:43plan in which we would have the government come open and we would negotiate. We'd either negotiate

32:49over the appropriation bills, which have all passed out of the Senate appropriation bill.

32:53That's the spending bills, 12 different bills, all passed out either unanimously or almost

32:58unanimously. Or if that path didn't avail itself, we could get a bipartisan continuing resolution

33:06that doesn't do these terrible things that the House version does. But to have that path work,

33:13we absolutely have to use the power we have in the Senate to deny the House Republican version.

33:20And here's the thing. We could go back to the floor every two hours and say we're asking

33:26unanimous consent to spend an hour debating a return of opening the government for this 30 days,

33:33for this purpose. And Republicans would vote it down time after time. They would say no to the

33:38unanimous consent. And to be so clear to the American people, there's only one person and

33:44there's only one party to blame for a shutdown, and that's Trump and that's the Republicans.

33:49And the American people are already inclined to think that because they understand the Republicans

33:54control the House, the Senate, the Oval Office. A recent poll said independents fully understand

34:00by 29 percent that it's the Republicans who would be responsible if there was a shutdown.

34:06And what we would see is Trump, last time on the 2019 shutdown, 35 days, he suffered politically.

34:13The point that I disagree with some of my colleagues who have said Trump wants a shutdown

34:18is what I have heard, is that he was lobbying for the House bill and didn't want a shutdown,

34:26knows how it hurt him last time, and knows that Doge would be shut down under a shutdown.

34:31Senator Smith, what do you hear? Let's switch gears and talk about tariffs and the impacts of tariffs or

34:35even the uncertainty over tariffs. What are you hearing from your constituencies about the impact

34:40of all this on local economies in Minnesota? And then we'll talk about Oregon.

34:44It's a huge deal. So, you know, here's a guy who campaigned on delivering prosperity to Americans

34:50on day one. And what's happened? Costs are up. You know, the tariffs have created massive chaos.

34:57People's retirement savings, as we had at the beginning of your show, are disappearing overnight.

35:02And what I'm hearing at home is just the, especially from farmers and producers, is the,

35:08just the trauma of having no idea what to expect. And you can see that being reflected

35:13in the stock market as well, but you can see it reflected in the faces of farmers in Minnesota

35:18who are wondering where their markets are going to be, what's going to happen. And then when at

35:22the same time the president is and Doge are cutting the farm to school programs that create markets at

35:29home for American food products in schools, they are just feeling like there's nobody who has their

35:37back in the Trump administration. Is that what you're hearing in Oregon, Senator? We are hearing

35:41exactly the same thing. I mean, during the last Trump tariff battles, we had bans on our Christmas

35:48trees, on our wine, on our fruits. And in fact, right now we're looking at the situation where

35:54with Europe, if we're banning their alcohol from coming to the U.S., my wine industry is very

36:01concerned about our wine. The best pinot noir on the planet, I might add, will be banned from going

36:06to Europe. It can affect us in all kinds of ways. There's an extremely high level of stress over

36:11this. Senator Smith, let me get you on one thing before we have to go. Federal judges appear to be

36:15holding the line against Trump and Musk's dictator moves. Does it make you feel confident this can be

36:23stopped? Well, I think it's going to be stopped by Americans saying enough already. We are not

36:29going to put up with this. And it's going to be stopped by those of us in Congress who fight.

36:34But what is happening in the lower courts does give me real hope. We had this judge today who

36:39said this is a scam effort to defend the firings that you're doing. And I think that we're seeing

36:44some really good things coming out of the courts so far. Erin, let's talk about this trade war,

36:56reciprocal tariffs. You know, we heard the president not so long ago saying they raise

37:01it 25, we raise it 25. That's fair. Now he's saying they raise it 25, we raise it 200.

37:07What's the administration thinking going forward here? Well, Chris, President Trump is fully

37:13dug in on this issue of going to war over these tariffs. I should note that the president right

37:19now is in the Oval Office with the Secretary General of NATO. They're having a Q&A with

37:24reporters that are in the Oval Office recording what is happening right now, the beginning of

37:29their bilateral meeting. And the president said on tariffs, I'm not going to bend at all. He was

37:34asked specifically about the tariffs that are being placed on the Canadians. And he responded

37:39to that by saying, we don't need anything they have. We don't need their lumber. We don't need

37:43their energy. And so again, it shows that the president is fully dug in on this idea of charging

37:51or matching at least the taxes that other countries, Canada, the European Union are placing

37:57on American goods as well. We know that there was a meeting scheduled for today between

38:03the Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, as well as the Finance Minister from Canada,

38:08the Premier of Ontario coming to Washington. And we were told that they were really here to try to

38:13figure out an off-ramp, try to figure out a way to bring down the temperature on this trade war,

38:20this tariff war that exists right now. At the same time, we heard the foreign minister in

38:26Canada yesterday say that the Canadians are also willing to keep going with this, to fight,

38:32to go on offense here. She is holding the G7 foreign ministers meeting where Secretary of State

38:38Marco Rubio is in attendance right now. And she indicated that throughout the day of meetings that

38:43they're having there in Canada, she intends to bring up the issue of tariffs with European

38:48countries in an effort to stand up together against the Americans in this moment. And so

38:54it seems as though, Chris, everybody is dug in on this issue. The Treasury Secretary seemed to

39:01indicate that President Trump simply wants other countries to bring down their tariffs and the

39:06United States would match suit. He also said that he would counsel other governments around the

39:11world that they are on the losing side of this argument economically if they want to go tit for

39:17tat on tariffs with the United States, Chris. All right. Thank you for that. I should let people

39:22know that we are indeed following through the pool notes what we're hearing inside the Oval

39:26Office. The president was asked, among other things, what about the impact on small business,

39:30to which he said they're going to be so much richer than they are right now, continuing

39:35what has been messaging from him, suggesting it's all going to be OK. But, Peter, let me play a

39:40little bit of what Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this morning about the thinking

39:46with the president threatening European wine after the EU taxed American whiskey.

39:52The president was totally annoyed that the Europeans did this. And so you're going to hear

39:56back from someone who emotionally cares about America. He cares about America and he wants

40:03to take care of Americans. And why are Europeans picking on Kentucky bourbon,

40:09Harley Davidson motorcycle? You're saying this is an emotional response.

40:14Peter, you heard the interview asking if this is an emotional response. What did you hear there?

40:19And what does your reporting tell you about whether this trade war is being determined by

40:24a long term economic vision or how the president feels that day?

40:30Yeah, I mean, you heard the word annoyed. That's the word I heard there.

40:33It's all about his personal peak. It's not about an economic strategy. I mean,

40:37when Secretary Besant says we're not going to change course, which course are we talking about?

40:41The course we put him on, the course we take him off, the course when we pause them,

40:45the course we escalate them. It's hard to tell. Businesses, foreign trading partners,

40:50they don't know what the course is because the president doesn't seem to stick to a course. He's

40:53been all over the map on this. And I think that's one of the things that people find

40:57so hard to understand. That's why you see so much volatility in the market.

41:01Now, you know, maybe they're right that over the short term, it will make some disruption. And

41:06long term, it'll create better policy. And nobody will remember this a month from now or six months

41:11from now or a year from now. That's possible. But we've heard that before. The last president

41:15I heard say, hey, don't worry about short term pain. It'll work out in the long run,

41:19was President Joe Biden when he said, yeah, OK, inflation is high right now, but don't worry,

41:23it'll come back down. It did come back down, but people still remember the inflation. They're still

41:27paying higher prices that resulted from that inflation. So if they don't manage to get to

41:33wherever it is that they're trying to go and even maybe to explain where they're trying to go

41:37because they haven't really done that very well, then it poses a risk if they get someplace and

41:43then call this off and find a better policy that makes a difference. Sure. But right now,

41:48nobody has described exactly what that would look like. Yeah. And Julia, you heard Secretary

41:53Besant saying exactly what we've been hearing from President Trump. Look past the day to day

41:58market drops, focus on the long term vision. But our business leaders buying that that argument

42:05from the administration. And by the way, our small business owners who we've been interviewing,

42:10who are saying, please stop the tariffs, going to buy the fact that, again, I'll quote him,

42:16they're going to be so much richer than they are right now.

42:20Yeah, look, there's a couple of issues for people who are operating businesses right now in this

42:25environment. One are the policies themselves, as Peter noted, it's not really clear what the

42:31strategy or the end goal is to these trade wars. When he ran on tariffs, it was mostly focused on

42:39China, not focused on our biggest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, throwing fentanyl into the mix

42:46as some kind of motivating issue is confusing. So the you know, we don't know where we're going.

42:54And uncertainty is terrible for business. It's very hard to make capital spending plans and

43:00hiring plans when you just don't know what the future looks like. And the second is that, you know,

43:05tariffs and trade wars are just bad for growth. They're expensive. They raise costs. They throw

43:11sand into the gears of your supply chains. So, you know, what we're seeing in markets is, you know,

43:17investors are starting to mark down their growth expectations. They had already marked up their

43:23inflation expectations a bit, bracing themselves for a trade war. But, you know, trade war tariffs

43:31can be managed if you know exactly what they are. They're put in place and then you can navigate

43:38around those realities. We just don't know where we're going. And that leaves businesses sort of

43:43like deer in the headlights wondering what comes next. Let me ask you a big picture question,

43:47because we looked at your company's Web site. It says your work is based on the principle

43:52that the U.S. economy is inextricably linked to the global economy.

43:56Do you believe the goal of this trade war is to sever that link?

44:01It does appear, and certainly that has been President Trump's philosophy, is to sort of,

44:06it's more nativist. It looks inward. These are almost sort of what we call import substitution

44:11policies, bring things back. But that is really not the reality of the global economy, which

44:17is inextricably linked, both on the production of services and goods. There is no real reality to

44:25de-globalization. Now, you can address strategic issues like we did with chips or medical supplies.

44:33You can sort of identify that you want sort of domestic capacity in key areas. And, you know,

44:39that could be a reasonable goal. But just sort of have a blanket policy that we're going to put up

44:45tariffs on everything and try to reshore manufacturing. I mean, one of the overlooked

44:51things that we think is very important is that the U.S. operates a major services surplus. We export

44:59education services. We export tourism. We export research and professional consulting services and

45:07finance. These are areas that are going to suffer from these policies. So, you know, it's a real

45:15shock to the system and to try to reorient the U.S. economy away from these global linkages

45:23very quickly and again, without a clear strategy of where we're going or what we're trying to do.

45:29Peter, David Sanger wrote a piece in your paper today that says this, quote,

45:34President Trump's simultaneous trade wars with Canada, Mexico, China and the European Union

45:40amount to a huge economic and political gamble that Americans will endure months or years of

45:45economic pain in return for the distant hope of reindustrializing the American heartland. I mean,

45:52we've heard about some rumblings within his inner circle, people concerned about what this might

45:57mean. Obviously, the president doesn't have to worry about reelection. And let's be honest about

46:02it. Every time pretty much doom and gloom has been mentioned when he does something incredibly

46:08unconventional, he comes out on the other side. But I'm wondering what you're hearing. Is there

46:14nervousness about the level of gamble? Yeah, I think so. Look, this is a president who has

46:19measured his success in the past on the daily gyrations of the stock market. Time and time

46:24again in his first term, he would say the stock market increases were proof of his economic

46:29genius. Well, now, of course, that they're going down. He's saying, well, don't pay attention to

46:34that. I don't look at that. I mean, if you invested money on the day he took office,

46:39you've lost money. Americans have lost money under Donald Trump at this point. It's early.

46:43Doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. Markets tend to go up and they tend to go down.

46:47And it's very likely they'll go back up again. But it's a remarkable thing for a president who

46:54has been so market focused to take the chance that he's taking now. And the question is whether

47:00or not ultimately long term businesses agree with his strategy, if they can discern what it is

47:07and get back into a growth phase. But the idea, as we were just talking about, that we might be

47:12heading toward a recession, I would think that that's what the people of the White House think

47:16is the most dangerous political possibility for them. We may end up having to to go to the White

47:25House just to see what's going on because they're going to play back, Julia, the the pool questions

47:31that were given to the president and the NATO secretary general. But let me ask you this kind of

47:38expectation setting a reality check. One of the things that he was asked about just now was about

47:44tariffs on aluminum and steel. And he says he's not going to bend at all. He said, we've been

47:49being ripped off. It's a phrase he uses over and over and over again when it comes to his reasons

47:55for tariffs that the United States has been ripped off. What is the general it's maybe a good line

48:03for the American public who wants to get ripped off? Nobody. But what's the reality?

48:10The reality of the U.S. economy is that the U.S. has experienced by far the strongest recovery

48:18in the world from the pandemic by every metric. And it's been growth. It's been productivity growth.

48:27We've seen inflation cool down pretty substantially without a rise in unemployment.

48:32We've really been outperforming every other economy. So this notion that somehow we're getting

48:38the short end of the stick is definitely not the global perception of the U.S. economy

48:44and not really the reality that the macro statistics paint.

49:07you

MSNBC Highlights — March 13

Category

Transcript

Recommended