Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/12/25

Episode Date: March 12, 2025

Trump places 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports

These CEOs who are coming to town, including from IBM and HP and Qualcomm, they all need to go back to their boards and to their shareholders to explain what exactly is going to happen. We also expect the White House to try to reassure folks who are sitting there looking at their 401Ks going down and down and down. This is a White House that came in trying to get federal workers to retire by the hundreds of thousands. But it's tough to make the argument that you should retire if your retirement accounts are getting throttled, which is what is happening right now.

Fox News reporter Peter Ducey posing questions of the Trump administration that a lot of Americans are asking right now. You know, we saw him ask that question at the press conference yesterday, but also I think some of the most remarkable coverage yesterday, CNBC, people saying things on CNBC that they don't usually say about this president or a Republican president. It all comes as new tariffs from the president took effect overnight. We'll go through those measures and look at how Trump's chaotic trade policies continue to impact the markets and the economy overall. Meanwhile, U.S. and Ukrainian relations appear

to be back on track after that disastrous White House meeting last month. U.S. intelligence and aid are flowing again into the war-torn country. Great news. And there's even a ceasefire proposal on the table. The question is, what will Russia do now? We're going to dig into all of that major news just ahead on Morning Joe.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. Well, I mean, what a day yesterday. Wow. I mean, we had what was going on in Saudi Arabia with the negotiations. That is very good news for the Ukrainians, especially they get the intel and they also get the military. The Wall Street Journal basically says it all, talking about stocks continuing to fall. Another volatile session. The headline, US-Canada trade war hits, you know, twists

and turns and again, trillions of dollars wiped out. Front page of the New York Times, of course, talking about this important breakthrough yesterday in the Ukrainian-US negotiationsS. negotiations. And now we wait for Russia. To see what happens. With us we have the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, covering the White House and national politics. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius is here.

And writer-at-lar large for The New York Times, Elizabeth Buhmiller joins us this morning. Good to have you all. President Trump's 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are now in effect. The taxes will affect Canada, Australia, and the European Union and others. The EU has already announced countermeasures

which will go into effect on April 1st. But Australia's prime minister said the country will not impose reciprocal tariffs on U.S. imports because it would only inflate prices for Australian consumers. Late yesterday, Trump backed off on raising tariffs on metals from Canada to 50 percent after the premiere of Ontario said he would pause a surcharge on electricity exports to the U.S.

The Canadian government, however, has promised to retaliate against the 25 percent tariffs on its metals. The president's also reiterated his desire for Canada to become the 51st state. So we spend $200 billion a year subsidizing Canada. We don't have to do that. And frankly, the way that gets solved is Canada should honestly become our 51st state. We wouldn't have a northern border problem. We wouldn't have a tariff problem. Canada would be great as our cherished 51st state. You wouldn't have to worry about borders. You wouldn't have to worry about anything.

And by the way, Canada is very highly taxed and we're very low tax. We're considered a low tax nation because of me, because I cut the taxes so low. So the people of Canada would pay much less tax. It makes a lot of sense. And by the way, when you take away that artificial line that looks like it was done with a ruler, and that's what it was.

Some guy sat there years ago and they said, rah. Well, when you take away that and you look at that beautiful formation of Canada and the United States, there is no place anywhere in the world that looks like that. Elizabeth, so many people have been thinking and saying, Oh, Donald Trump's joking about Greenland. He's not really serious. This is opening negotiations are the Panama Canal are fill in the blank. But especially Canada, that was always dismissed as a joke.

Prime Minister Trudeau, caught in a hot mic moment, told his advisors and people close to him, he's not joking. We have to take this threat seriously. And certainly yesterday, in the middle of an economic collapse Donald Trump goes back to saying we wouldn't have this tariff problem if you all would just agree to be our 51st state. It is very hard to believe but he is he seems to be increasingly serious. The strange thing though that is what it's done it it's made—you know, the Liberal

Party is one in Canada. And should Canada become part of the United States, there would never be a Republican president elected again, because it's a very liberal country, and they would all be Democrats. It's loopy. You know, people still seem to think that he's doing this just for effect, that he is trying to get major concessions out of Canada. But right now, it has had the opposite effect in Canada.

He is—and America is increasingly unpopular in Canada, obviously. Same thing with Greenland. I think, although there seems to be—you know, Greenland wants to be independent from Denmark and would also welcome, you know, close relations with the United States. So that is less crazy than Canada. But right now, that's where the president is. And it's a whole big question about, which also business executives are having,

is how they didn't take him seriously about this tariff, on the tariffs he was going to impose. They didn't think he was going to do it. They thought it was just negotiations. And it turns out he is serious, at least for now, and they are very, very rattled, and they're calling the White House in a panic. Well, I mean, it's... I mean, I just don't know how anybody could be surprised.

Well, this is the problem. This is something that, again, he's said he was going to do this for 40 years, and I've been hearing from people on Wall Street, I've been hearing, talk to to CEO, they're shocked. Can you believe, where have you been for the last like year? He's promised to do all of these things. Oh yeah, well and on tariffs, he's been talking about it for 40 years. So again, these CEOs and you know, found out. Yeah. I mean, he meant what he said. And so, I just, I don't want to hear, oh I'm so shocked. Yeah. I'm losing money. There's a lot of gobsmacked CEOs and business leaders saying, I didn't think he would do this. And I think increasingly people are understanding that he is serious

about many of the ideas that he has put on the table that he did during the campaign. And I will say, well, tried our best. I mean, if people are constantly watching news organizations that follow only what Trump says and not necessarily the facts, then they will find out the hard way. Well, I mean, again, just to... Jonathan O'Meara, we've had people on this show, regulars on this show, that said, oh my God, I'm surprised he actually did this. He's been saying he was going to do this since 1987.

So if you are a CEO or if you're somebody that's invested in the market, we said it here repeatedly, he was serious, be careful with the economy, we have the strongest economy in the world, don't screw around and find out. You have to be careful. Like we said it day in, day out, day in and day out. And you actually talk to CEOs and investors and people in Wall Street who were shocked that Donald Trump's actually doing what he said he was going to do on the campaign and for 50 years. Yeah, the Wall Street and business leaders

sort of made a bet this past campaign that Trump would make these promises during the year and some things to pro-growth, you know, cutting taxes alike, they approved of, like, he'll do that. But he also talked about these tariffs. He talked about slashing immigration, things that these business leaders opposed. But the bet they made was, oh, that's just rhetoric. That's just bluster. That's just thing he says to get the crowd cheering at a rally.

He won't follow through on that. Well, that's bet they're wrong. That's what's happened here. And we have learned, first of all, as you point out, tariffs, his belief in tariffs is one of his few really consistently held ideologies. He's done that since the 1980s. But more than that, this past we have learned from his first administration and particularly this past campaign, when he makes these promises, he tends to follow through.

He tells us what he's going to do. He's actually far more transparent than people want to give him credit for. There's not a lot of hidden hand here. There's not a lot of, if ever, a three or four dimensional chess. This Donald Trump, when he says he's going to do it more times than not, he does. And we're seeing the impact now. We have, as we'll get into in a moment, you have markets again rattled by these policies. It's chaotic.

It's inconsistent. It seems to change by the hour. And we know, Joe and Mika, that we've had business leaders, Steve Ratner, again, join us yesterday saying how much it's about consistency and predictability. That's what the markets need. That's what corporations need. Well, that's exactly what they're not getting. And again, what everybody knew they were not going to get

for the past year or what everybody should have known, that they're going to get these tariffs. And that he negotiated. Again, there's no 100-year plan. It's just he's going to negotiate the way he negotiates, and it's going to take wild twists and turns. All right. President Trump's trade policy has even rattled some of his own allies, as both Republican lawmakers and business executives have flooded the White House with calls of concern.

The Wall Street Journal reports senior officials, including White House Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles, have received panicked calls from chief executives and lobbyists who have urged the administration to calm jittery markets by outlining a more predictable tariff agenda. According to people familiar with discussions, many in the business community have abandoned efforts to get the president to reverse course on trade, instead pleading with the White House for clarity on his approach, the people said. The paper continues, the mixed messages from the president and his advisors have raised concerns among some Republicans that Trump lacks a cohesive economic plan.

And the Wall Street Journal's editorial board is asking, How do you like the trade war now? Its piece reads, in part, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said over the weekend that the president's tariffs would make some foreign products more expensive, but American products will get cheaper. Huh? Companies that use foreign components will have to raise prices or swallow narrower profit margins. Does Mr. Lutnick understand, well, commerce?

The trouble with trade wars is that once they begin, they can quickly escalate and get out of control. All the more so when politicians are nearing an election campaign as Canada now is or when Mr. Trump behaves as if his manhood is implicated because a foreign nation won't take his nasty border taxes lying down. We said from the beginning that this North American trade war is the dumbest in history and we were being kind. That's Wall Street Journal editorial page, obviously. The conservative voice, really, the intellectual conservative voice

and the voice of most conservatives and traders on Wall Street. Joe mentioned the coverage yesterday on CNBC. Here's some of the reaction from senior economics reporter Steve Leesman. What President Trump is doing is insane. It is absolutely insane. It is about the eighth reason we've had for the tariffs. And now he's saying he's putting 50 percent tariffs on Canada unless they agree to become the 51st state.

That is insane. There is just no other way of describing it. And the trouble, Kelly, is that it shows there are no bounds around President Trump. This is very different from the first administration, where there were people around him who seemed to — I don't know what the word is — but smooth over some of the edges now. And the other thing that's not talked about, Kelly, is what's going on within the administration in terms of how they're treating the Constitution and laws. I think all of that is bad for the attraction of capital. David Ignatius, we actually turned on CNBC yesterday, something that I can't say I've

ever done in the middle of the day. Not a traitor. Not a day trader. But yesterday, in fact, we don't usually watch news during the day. You know, we read it more. But we said yesterday, why, hmm, let's turn on CNBC. And it was remarkable. And one of the reasons we wanted to turn on CNBC is because, you know,

most people that watch CNBC voted for Donald Trump. It is a conservative network, and it's just conservative with a small C as it pertains to business. They wanna make money. That's why they're watching CNBC. But we were shocked by what we heard on it. It really does parallel a lot

of what the Wall Street Journal editorial page said. So, again, bedrock conservatives, again, warning against these moves that are draining trillions of dollars from the economy. And as Mr. Ducey said at Fox News yesterday, making people's 401Ks go, I think he said, down, down, down, down, down. And let me just tell you, that is something that a member of Congress hears about on the campaign trail or in his district office. You know, Joe, I think we're all watching CNN or CNBC, figuratively, if not literally,

because we're all implicated in this. You know, the financial market slide is something that's going to affect all of us in our savings, our retirement plans. And I think there is a sense of shock. The standard business view of Trump was, well, he's a disruptor. You know, he loves to come in and shake things up. He has these big bowl proposals for tariffs or whatever. But he'll back off.

That's the way he negotiates. He's the dealmaker. So he'll shake things up, and then the deal will come. And what we're seeing in these first six, seven weeks is that Trump is more determined, he's more confident, more insistent. I was thinking there's a little bit of Captain Ahab in him pursuing the white whale. He just won't stop. He won't pull back from some of these ideas.

And I think as people watch CNBC or whatever, there's a dawning sense this is really going to be serious and dangerous for our country's economy. And I think it's that fear factor that leads us to watch the financial news. In truth, we're making a bit of a joke about it, but it's deadly serious for the American people. And the political reaction, I think, is going to be very significant. Right. And financial security.

It's a financial sort of version of what we do in Florida every time a hurricane weather channel goes on. You just said the weather channel is in the background for things, but it's certainly in the background in a lot of Americans' homes right now in a way that's not usually there, because again, their retirement accounts, their 401Ks, so much depends on the volatility of the markets. Jim Cramer also talking about how this could be a manufactured recession. This is what I will say. This is one thing that most of the analysts who were talking yesterday deeply concerned about tariffs and what was going on. They said, we don't have to have a recession.

And Jim Cramer called it a manufactured recession. But I think what they're concerned about mainly, well, they're concerned about a manufactured recession, but not even a manufactured recession. As Wall Street Journal says, hard landing fears start to grow. You know, we've been talking about this remarkable soft landing that the United States has been going through The Wall Street Journal says hard landing fears start to grow. You know, we've been talking about this remarkable soft landing that the United States has been

going through over the past six to nine months. Now that landing is not quite so soft. It's a hard landing. And as Jim Cramer at CNBC says, it's not because of natural market forces, it's because it is manufactured by policy. So a lot more to talk about there and also make a great breakthrough for the Ukrainian people yesterday in Saudi Arabia. We can only hope. Still ahead on Morning Joe.

We'll get to that possible breakthrough when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Kiev has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire proposal from the United States. But where does Russia stand on it? Morning Joe is back in 90 seconds. I don't think we'll have a recession. Like I said, it's manufacturing. It's a manufacturing. Well, that doesn't mean there won't be.

I'm not sure I understand. Oh no, manufacturing can easily cause a recession. Absolutely. I don't, you know, I'm not saying that manufacturing means it's not gonna happen. Right. I'm saying manufacturing is that you can make it happen. And when you get angry and when you kind of lose your temper and you get mad instead of

like the way Shinebombs handle it in Mexico, it gets people nervous and upset. They want the president to be a little happier. There's nothing wrong with being happy. You can be tough as nails and be happy. But right now it just feels like, oh, we're gonna just screw every, people have been screwing us for years and we're gonna fight back, which is true. It's absolutely true, but you gotta explain it

very calmly and empirically how we're being hurt by, in Italy, how we're being hurt by a German. And this is gonna stop and we're gonna make it stop. And then don't scream at those countries. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because they know that they can stand their ground. You tell them, look I am going to scream

at you. Help us. Help us and we'll help you. People are scared. You don't scare people. You don't scare people. It's a wrong call. It's all message. People are scared. 22 past the hour. The other big story we're following this morning. Russia is pushing back after Ukraine said it is ready to accept a 30-day ceasefire proposed by the United States. The Guardian quotes the spokeswoman for Russia's foreign ministry as saying Moscow will make its own decisions about the conflict in Ukraine, regardless of outside influence. U.S. and Ukrainian officials met yesterday for nearly eight hours to discuss an end to the war.

Afterwards, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to reporters about the agreement. Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable, and accounts for their interests, their security, their ability to prosper as a nation. Hopefully, we'll take this offer now to the Russians, and we hope that they'll say yes, that they'll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court. So last night in his evening address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he welcomed

the U.S. ceasefire proposal and expressed gratitude to President Trump. Whether Russia and Vladimir Putin ultimately agree to the ceasefire's terms remains to be seen. Meanwhile, European leaders reacted in support of the news, including the president of the European Commission and French President Emmanuel Macron. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he'll be convening leaders on Saturday to discuss the next steps in the process. Following Ukraine's endorsement of the U.S. proposed temporary ceasefire

with Russia, the United States said it would immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and security assistance with the country. Presidential envoy Steve Whitkoff will travel to Moscow later this week, that's according to a source familiar with the plans who spoke to NBC News, although that source would not confirm who Witkoff is specifically meeting with. We'll be looking into that. Well, David, if this U.S. policy holds, it certainly does sound like a very positive, a very positive step forward that Secretary Rubio announced yesterday. And they have said now the ball is in Russia's court. What do we expect?

So, Joe, first, it is extremely positive that this terrible war has been going on for three years. As National Security Advisor Mike Walz said, it's a meat grinder. And trying to stop that meat grinder is something that I think everyone supports, certainly the Ukrainians do. Now it is up to Russia, but I think more to the point it's up to the Trump administration

to pressure Russia to make enough concessions that you have a real negotiation. Something important that Secretary Rubio said in announcing this agreement is that he wants it to be enduring and sustainable. And that's a kind of code for giving Ukraine enough security that it can be confident that six months, a year, two years after the agreement is made, Russian troops won't simply resume the war and move towards Kiev. A lot of us think that Putin has never really given up his desire to suppress Ukraine as an independent nation. So this is gonna be hard bargaining. Russia does not want the kind of security guarantees

that Ukraine is talking about and that we're part of the conversation in Jeddah. Yesterday, I think, I wanna underline that. This is something they didn't come to agreement on, but they certainly talked about. So the action now moves to the US-Russia dialogue. I was thinking this morning that if there's one way that Donald Trump could reset the global image of him, it's by being tough on Vladimir Putin. Something that many of us have wondered if he could ever do. If he

does it, if he says you have to to do this, or we are going to take increasing steps to compel you to the table, that would be interesting. Yeah, to this point, though, he never has shown a willingness to be tough personally on Putin, even as in the first term, his administration will be hard on Russia. Putin, as Trump, as as we know time and time again We very deferential the Russian leader and Elizabeth that's continued so far in this term and it's so much for Trump Diplomacy is about personality. It's about those personal connections and and we should know this is a breakthrough yesterday for us Ukrainian relations But who was not in the room Donald Trump was not in the room

Volodymyr Zelensky was not in the room. And we know how Trump feels about Zelensky. So as this accelerates, what will you be looking for? Because this won't get done till the very end when Trump's in the room. How do you see him playing the dynamics with both Zelensky and Putin? Well, I want to know what his leverage is on Putin right now.

More sanctions? What can he do? If Putin is boxed or if there's a holdup in the kind of security guarantees that the Ukrainians want, what is Trump's—that's actually asked David that, who's sitting here. What is the next—what is his next play if Putin boxed? What kind of leverage does the United States have on Putin right now, in this war? It's a tough one. So there are two things that Trump has spoken about that are worth noting. One is the ability to add additional sanctions.

The Russian economy is pretty fragile. They've been fighting a war for three years. Their inflation problems are serious. They've had to divert resources to the war economy. So, significant new additional economic pressure would be something there. Keith Kellogg, who's the special envoy, said that our sanctions enforcement is now at about three. The sanctions may be at eight, but the enforcement's at three.

Well, you could move that up to eight and have some real effect. And the second thing I just would note, Trump has talked from the beginning about bringing China in as, in effect, a co-guarantor of this settlement in Ukraine. If China, believing in its interest that this war end—I'm not sure China does think that, but if it decided that that was so, China could, I think, nudge Putin towards making concessions he's not now ready to. But I would add, I think, that that debacle in the Oval Office with Trump and Zelensky and J.D. Vance, as horrible as that was to watch, obviously it was a pressure tactic

that how ugly it was, it got us somewhere. To where we are today. So Elizabeth, in your latest piece for the New York Times, you write, quote, The silence grows louder every day. Fired federal workers who are worried about losing their homes asked not to be quoted by name. University presidents fearing that millions of dollars in federal funding could disappear are holding their fire. Chief executives alarmed by tariffs that could hurt their businesses are on mute. Even longtime Republican hawks on Capitol Hill, stunned by President Trump's revisionist history that Ukraine is to blame for its invasion by Russia and his Oval Office blow up at President

Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Elizabeth was just talking about, have either muzzled themselves, of Mirzulenski that Elizabeth was just talking about, have either muzzled themselves, tiptoed up to criticism without naming Mr. Trump, or completely reversed their positions. More than six weeks into the second Trump administration, there is a chill spreading over political debate in Washington and beyond. And you see that in publications as well, newspaper publications. Yeah, you see it everywhere and meanwhile in a companion piece that I am sure they did not coordinate, the Wall Street Journal's editor emeritus Jerry Baker writes this in the Wall Street Journal, Capitol Hill's Republican

sycophant caucus and it reads, As the president ventures further down a diplomatic track that punishes and alienates for no good reasons our closest neighbor and ally, that rewards the tyranny of a murderous and implacable foe of America, that nods approvingly as the dictator of that country carries out the rape of a free nation, that casually slashes at the bonds of alliance that have served this country well

and enhanced its global power and standing for decades. My question is, when is someone going to say something? By someone, I mean a member of the world's greatest deliberative body. And maybe its junior partner across Capitol Hill, too. There is nothing in the Constitution, Mr. Baker writes, or the conventions of democratic politics that requires members of the co-equal elected branch of government to be constrained from offering even the slightest hint of critical advice or

withholding consent when they see the president nonchalantly pouring gasoline on our national security and International economic relationships and dancing around them with a lighted match Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Jerry Baker, but he this was all launched Elizabeth by Lindsey Graham saying I don't mind what Trump does because I trust Trump, says servile Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Thus spoke Lindsey Graham last week, cheerfully declaring unconditional surrender,

not only of his own judgment, his freedom of thought, his relevance and his dignity, but in this one actually matters, his role as a leading member of one of the elected branches of the U.S. government. And I must say there were more than a few observers shocked how so many United States senators serving in six year terms appointed are are are voted for the nominations of the president's cabinet, people that they said clearly off the record were not even qualified to fit the post. And in some cases, they said were dangerous. Right, well, the answer to the questions

of why they're so silent, there's a couple of answers. One, people are worried about primaries. And just yesterday, Trump threatened a primary, which could be certainly a primary opponent, which could be certainly funded by his partner, Elon Musk, who gave $100 million yesterday to Trump on political efforts. It could be funded by Musk. And he threatened Massie with a primary because he voted against the spending deal, and Trump had a tantrum. The other—but that doesn't make complete sense with the Senate, because, as you note,

they only run every six years. So some of them are quite far away from a reelection campaign. The other reason, people say quietly, is that they're worried about the safety of their families. There are people that get going to, there are a lot of online threats against members of Congress. And it's, they're serious threats. The threats are quite high right now and people are scared. That's the other reason.

The university presidents, you mentioned in my story, are just, they're just protecting their institutions. They don't want to get into a big public battle with the with the administration, especially when after the administration is now withholding or canceled canceled 400 million dollars in in grants to Columbia University and it's caused others to be silent. There's just a lot of fear. People say this is a sign of authoritarianism when people are so afraid of the government they're afraid to speak out. Others say it's this is overblown, this is a sign of authoritarianism. When people are so afraid of the government, they're afraid to speak out.

Others say this is overblown, this is a reaction to the left and DEI and the sort of efforts of the Democrats and language efforts. Especially last year after the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel, and there was sort of language police there. It's still, but I've never seen anything like this in Washington, where so many people are so afraid to talk on the record when they used to in the past. Yeah, and connecting to our previous conversation, this is another campaign promise that Donald Trump is fulfilling, and that's one of retribution, that there would be punishment for those who

dare oppose him. He has identified the deep state, these career bureaucrats as enemies of his from the first time around. Well, we're seeing Elon Musk and Doge take a chainsaw and eliminate so many of those positions, often losing high quality people. We're seeing that at the Pentagon as well. We are, to Elizabeth's point, Harvard announced a hiring freeze. Some perceive that as means to stay clear of Trump's wrath.

We saw what happened to Columbia. We're seeing media organizations be more concerned, their owners being concerned about avoiding litigation or not wanting to pursue critical coverage perhaps because they had another business interest at stake, whether that's we see it from the Washington Post, we're seeing it from the ABC, we're seeing the LA Times, other places. There does seem to be an effort to sort of be intimidation seems to be working. And Joe Meek, we're even seeing the White House and some of these Trump rapid response

accounts and political allies target reporters by name in a way that we hadn't seen before. And that leads to an online wave of hate and at times threats. So there is an effort here of intimidation and retribution to, as Elizabeth points out, create this culture of silence. All right. Our thanks to Elizabeth Buhmiller for coming on this morning and for writing that. Thank you. Coming up, we'll take a closer look at President Trump's efforts to curb illegal immigration.

NBC's Julia Ainslie will join us with her new reporting on the number of deportations conducted this year and how it compares to what we saw during the Biden administration. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back. 20 minutes before the top of the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. The NTSB is making urgent safety recommendations following the midair collision between a military helicopter and a passenger jet that killed 67 people in the Washington, D.C. area. Yesterday, the NTSB called for the FAA to permanently ban helicopter operations in a four-mile stretch over the Potomac River

when flights are landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport, this comes as investigators believe January's deadly crash occurred after the Black Hawk helicopter was flying higher than its permitted altitude, putting it on a collision course with the passenger jet. Southwest Airlines will begin charging customers a fee to check bags. That's a reversal from a decades-long policy. The carrier has struggled recently in its bid to boost profits and revenue. It cut roughly 15% of its corporate workforce last month.

And scientists will now get the chance to study how galaxies formed and evolved over billions of years. NASA launched a new space telescope and four solar satellites yesterday from the Space Force base in California. The $488 million Sphere X will take images of the entire sky in more than a hundred colors or wavelengths. And Mika, this from Germany. What? Finally, after fierce competition,

a German zoo has officially revealed the winning name for its four month old polar bear. Please make Mika. No. Yeah, the Germans, you're very big in Germany. Mika! Just like Jerry Lewis who's big in Japan. Oh my goodness, he's so cute!

The adorable cub made his first public appearance yesterday and we're told he runs all day after his mom and plays with her and enjoys his fair naps. Runs all day! Runs all day and enjoys naps, that's it! Wait, that is the cutest thing, is it? Really? Mika?

Like M-I-K-A? Yeah, they voted on it and Mika was the winning, yeah? Do you know that Mika means blooming flower in Japanese? Oh, really? Yeah. Well, it means little cute bear in German. No, it doesn't. Still ahead, Democratic congressmen Jim Himes of Connecticut and Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania will join

us with reaction to the government funding bill that passed in the House and much more. Plus, we'll speak with the New Republic's Michael Tomaski. On his new piece, Democrats are failing to deliver a key ingredient of effective protest. He'll break down what he says they should be doing instead. Also ahead, actor and director Ben Falcone will be live in studio with a look at his new project. You know, like, so if you're keeping score at home, I conflated some things. You did? Yeah.

Are you ready? Yeah. Jerry Lewis, of course, is big in France. It's spinal tap that I was thinking about. Massive in Japan's Spinal Tap. I was keeping score on some other things. And Mika. Okay.

Big in Germany. Last week, during his joint address to Congress, President Trump falsely claimed tens of millions of dead people over 100 years old are receiving Social Security payments. Listen to a part of what he said. Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old.

But a lot of money is paid out to people because it just keeps getting paid and paid and nobody does, and it really hurts getting paid and paid and nobody does and it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country. Now according to the White House transcript you heard the president said quote it just keeps getting paid and paid and nobody does and it really hurts Social Security. Nobody does what? Anything about it? Well, if a dead 100 year old is receiving a check in 2025, it stands to reason that back in 2016, when Trump was president, that same 91 year old would also have been receiving a check. Why didn't anyone do anything about it back

then? Or when President Trump rails against USAID, calling it wasteful or part of a liberal agenda, back in 2017, his own administration requested $37 billion for the program, saying it prioritizes the well-being of Americans and advances U.S. economic interests. Was it a liberal agenda back then? And then there's President Trump's claims of being tough on undocumented immigration while suggesting former President Biden was weak on the border. But now, new exclusive reporting from NBC News shows Trump actually deported fewer people last month than Biden did one year ago.

Joining us now, the reporter behind that story, NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainslie, also with us, the host of Way Too Early, Ali Battali. And Julia, two different stories going on here. One is that deportations are lower, but also, as you also have reported, border crossings have plummeted over the past several months. Yeah, so what's going on here, Joe, is that we've heard a lot about the fact that border

crossings have gone down and arrests have gone up, but it's been really hard to get our hands on this data about deportations. And, of course, Trump campaigned on mass deportations. In his inaugural address, he said he would deport millions and millions. He never campaigned on mass arrests. And as we've reported here, not everyone who gets arrested by ICE gets deported. Some of them are released. Some of them are not detained, not deportable.

And so, as it turns out, there's actually fewer people who were deported in February 2025, the first full month of Trump being in office this term, compared to February 2024, under Biden. A big reason for that drop, though, and why it's lower under Trump than it was under Biden is because Customs and Border Protection are arresting fewer people at the border. It's much easier to deport people right after they've crossed. We have a pathway there called expedited removal. Biden used this, too, where they're basically deported very quickly, rather than being in

the United States and facing that years-long backlog in immigration courts. And so, it's easier to deport them if they're arrested by Border Patrol. Now, why the numbers are so low at the border is basically because Trump has completely shut down the asylum system. Biden, of course, signed that executive order in June of 2024. The numbers started to go down then, because people weren't allowed to claim asylum if they cross the border illegally. Now, Trump's made it impossible to claim asylum, even if you cross the border illegally. Now, Trump's made it impossible to claim asylum even if you cross the border legally. As I'm told, it's almost impossible to even approach these legal

ports of entry where historically anyone who thinks that they are fleeing fear or persecution in their own country can make an asylum claim. Now there are 10,000 people from the Mexican National Guard standing by these ports of entry. Many of these migrants can't even approach the legal ports of entry. And those who migrants can't even approach the legal ports of entry. And those who are coming through illegally are very quickly stopped by border patrol. Not because border patrol is really doing anything different, but because there's so many fewer migrants to actually track that they're able to spread their resources more efficiently there than they would be if there were a surge.

Also, Mexico is doing a lot. Mexico does not want tariffs. They're in a position where they're trying to do a lot to cooperate with the U.S. on immigration and to combat fentanyl. So they've increased interdictions as well. That's also bringing the numbers down at the border. But I do think it's important that we continue to look at this data on deportations because it's something that they're not putting out. This is something that we obtained here at NBC. We also found that over half of those who were deported

were non-criminal, which of course goes against what the Trump administration said they would do by focusing on the worst of the worst for deportations. Yeah, Julia, that bucks the promise that you and I were talking about last week when you were here with more reporting on this topic. But can you talk a little bit about how this latest report on deportation

numbers being lower than the Biden administration might only exacerbate the frustration internally within the White House and at the agency level that you've been reporting on for the last two months of this administration, the concern and the frustration that they're not doing enough fast enough? Yeah, you're right, Ali. I think we also have to remember that they've been looking at these numbers, even though we're just now getting them. I think this explains a lot of that inner turmoil where we saw the acting head of ICE get reassigned to another part of ICE. They replaced him very quickly. That's someone who had a relationship with Stephen Miller and was handpicked for that job.

And now they're replacing him. We know that Borders R. Tom Homan is very frequently on calls with ICE telling them they need to ramp up their deportation numbers. They try giving them a quota, quotas that they weren't able to meet. Of course, they've assigned many people from DOJ components like the ATF and DEA to go out and help make these arrests. None of that has actually brought the deportation numbers as high as they want them to. I will say, Allie, one key thing that they could do or that they want to do that could increase is more money. If they get more money from Congress, which could be a long time coming, they can increase detention space and then they could arrest and deport more people.

Of course, they tried that in Guantanamo Bay, and now as we've reported here, of course, they're rethinking that policy because that turned out to be so expensive and not logistically possible either. But this explains, I think, these deportation numbers, explain why we've seen so much hand-wringing, the anger, the firings. It's because of these numbers. And that's one of the reasons why they haven't been as public with these as they have been with the arrest numbers, which are up over 100 percent. Yeah.

NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, thank you so much for your reporting. And if I say this is again, go back to the tape, this is what we've been hearing around the table that these high numbers were going to be very hard to reach because they're inflationary, but also we were saying for some time the cost of deportation, certainly a mass deportation, would be absolutely massive. And again, with the business community not wanting it, saying it's inflationary, there's just a lot of cross currents that are cutting against that right now. In the business community, especially.