Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/15/25

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

El Salvador's president says he won't return mistakenly deported man to U.S.

You can release him inside of El Salvador. Yeah, but I'm not releasing. I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country. I mean, you just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the Western Hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world. That's not going to happen. The president of El Salvador yesterday at the White House telling reporters he will

not release a man the Justice Department had admitted it mistakenly sent to that country to a prison there. It comes as the Trump administration continues to say it doesn't need to return the man to the United States, despite what the Supreme Court ruled. We'll go through what could come next in that case. Also ahead, we're going to bring you the latest on the diplomatic talks with Russia following a, quote, compelling meeting between President Trump's envoy and Vladimir Putin. And we'll have new developments with President Trump's fast-changing trade policy as he considers

new tariffs on key imports. We'll look at how the markets and business leaders may respond. And then there is this moment yesterday at the White House. President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance welcomed Ohio State's national championship football team, but the ceremony took a tough turn for the VP. Vance tried to lift the football-shaped trophy off the table, but he ended up pulling it apart and fumbling it to the ground while it appeared to break. The trophy is actually two separate and very heavy pieces. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, April 15th, along with Joe, Willie and me, we have MSNBC contributor Mike

Barnicle, Roger's chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University, historian John Meacham. He's an MSNBC political analyst. Joe, got a lot to break apart here with this story about the man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador, and that also doesn't even mention all the others that did not receive a version of due process. Well, yeah, so much to talk about with that meeting. And we were going to get to that,. So I will say Willie, on the lighter note, where is David Letterman when you need him?

You know, when I saw that moment where the trophy fell apart, I could only think of George W. Bush trying to bounce a basketball. Oh, conflated ball, yeah. One of Letterman's great moments. But that was yesterday I saw that they said where is David letterman when you need it.

It is I will say it's an unwieldy trophy. Yeah, you're assuming it's attached right, but it kind of rest in there, but you know how state Vanderbilt Alabama we stress ball security cannot fumble cannot turn over the football. So I'd like to see him just grip that a little tighter next time when he gets the chance. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So a lot to talk about, Mika, like you said, a lot to talk about. It's very interesting. I'm in London talking to economic leaders, reporters, journalists, economic leaders, reporters, journalists, also talking to academics. And you know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page today talks about the new economic opportunities

and diplomatic opportunities that are occurring because of the president's terrafore. And they say those economic and diplomatic opportunities, though unfortunately, are for China. If I could sum up everything I learned yesterday, three months after I was here, and I've talked about it on the show a good bit, but three months after all I heard in Britain and Europe was about America's supremacy, economic supremacy, and how they wanted to be more like us. And that was three months ago, four months ago in December. Things have changed so dramatically.

And just as the journal was talking about China's new diplomatic and economic opportunities, what I'm hearing here is new economic opportunities for Britain and the rest of Europe, economic diplomatic opportunities. Also, and this is important because the Harvard story that we're going to be talking about this morning also. Institutions here, whether you're talking about Cambridge, Oxford, all across Europe,

they can't believe their luck. They can't believe that America is dumb enough to cut funding to NIH. America is dumb enough to cut funding, R&D funding. They're dumb enough to chase off the best and the brightest students. And they're getting those students coming here. And actually, so a Britain and a Europe that three or four months ago said, we're never going to catch up with America,

just said, my God, they're actually slowing down and going to let us catch up. And the big start, again, that Harvard story, they think they're owning Harvard, they think they're owning Columbia, they think they're owning Harvard. They think they're owning Columbia. They think they're owning these schools. And I mean, they've said, all right, we're going to destroy, we want to destroy one of these big schools. All they're doing by cutting those grants is they're helping China. They're helping the EU. They're helping the EU, they're helping Britain, they're helping economic competitors and allies

by basically saying, yeah, you know what, we're not interested in this anymore. We're going after an ideological agenda. And you can have the best and brightest minds in tech, you can have the best and brightest minds in AI, you can have the best and brightest minds. And bio research, it's really, again, they cannot believe what we are doing to ourselves. Well, we're going to get to a couple of those stories and read from the Wall Street Journal in just a moment. But first, the Trump administration and El Salvador's government are striking a defiant tone in the case of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, the Maryland man who was mistakenly

deported to El Salvador's notorious mega prison last month. El Salvador's president met with President Trump at the White House yesterday amid the administration's sweeping immigration crackdown. Despite repeated calls for Abrego-Garcia's return to the U.S. both leaders made it clear he won't be coming back. OK I return him to the United States like I smuggle him into the United States or whether you of course I'm not going to do it is like

I mean that this the question is preposterous how can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States. As many as possible. And I just asked the president, you know, it's this massive complex that he built, jail complex. I said, can you build some more of them, please? As many as we can get out of our country

that we're allowed in here by incompetent Joe Biden through open borders. Willie, of course, and Mika, Rego Garcia has never been charged with any gang-related crimes, and in 2019 an immigration judge actually barred him from being deported to El Salvador, saying he'd be harmed there. The Justice Department has acknowledged Willie time and again he was deported because of an administrative error. Now last week the Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the United States.

But here's the thing though Willie, there was ambiguity there. And it's ambiguity that a lot of people were talking about beforehand where they said, help facilitate the return. And then in another sentence, they directed the district court judge, though, to make sure you respect the president's ability to be commander in chief and run US foreign policy. Obviously, basically giving an escape route for whether it's a president or Stephen Miller to say, hey, the Supreme Court agreed with us. And this is something that Danny Savalas said last week, which is, you may think this is a win for Garcia. The Supreme Court's going to look at this

and say it's a win for them. And that's exactly what they did yesterday. Yeah, and President Trump and others in the room yesterday sort of misrepresented what the Supreme Court did actually say in its ruling and said it was purely on our side. So leaving that ambiguity gave them the opening to say we won that case. President Trump then in that meeting yesterday kind of went around the room asking members of his cabinet to weigh in on the deportation of Abrego Garcia.

Listen to what Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House Adviser Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had to say. First and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country. Right now, it was a paperwork, it was additional paperwork that needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.

That's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs, if they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. So, as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador. So, with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador. So it's very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens as a starting point. As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13.

I don't understand what the confusion is. This individual is a citizen of El Salvador. He was illegally in the United States of MS United States. It's that simple. End of story. Let's bring in NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent, Julia Ainslie and NBC News national security editor David Rhoade. Good morning to you both. So David, what did you hear in those comments as they sort of went around the room, Donald Trump opened the floor to his cabinet. It's this, I would say, odd sort of performative loyalty test in terms of repeating the same talking points, many of which don't correctly describe what the Supreme Court ruled or the facts of what happened in a Briego Garcia's case.

He was never convicted in a full court of being a member of this gang. And these judges, the Supreme Court itself isn't trying to take over American foreign policy. They're simply saying to the Trump administration, you deported this person to El Salvador and now bring him back. They're not trying to dictate a broader thing, but it's just a strange dynamic. And you see this over and over in cabinet meetings where these cabinet members have to sort of say these things fervently.

And maybe they believe them, to be fair, but it's just, it's unusual. Julie Ainsley, what's your reporting on this? Obviously, there was another deportation flight even after the 9-0 ruling? And also, what questions are you looking at as it pertains to this, quote, mistaken return of Abrega Garcia? I mean, Mika, so I'm looking forward. I think the most jarring thing that came out of that yesterday was when President Trump said that he was asked,

President Bukelele to build five more of those prisons because he wanted to continue to use it, not just for people who are in the country illegally or may have crossed into the country illegally, but for anyone who he deems a very violent criminal. That could be US citizens, Mika. He was asked specifically about naturalized US citizens. I think a question for Trump is, would he consider sending people who speak out against his policies? Would he consider sending foreign students there? I think there

are a lot of lines that we haven't asked him if he's willing to cross when it comes to this policy, because now they're really using this as a scare tactic in order to drive down numbers at the border. And as we'll get to later, if they can't deport enough people, this could be an ultimate tool. That's exactly what Kristi Noem said when she went and stood outside of those prisons and Sikat and El Salvador is, this could be your future if you come into the United States. And then further on what happened more recently, just this weekend, they sent 10 more people to El Salvador. And it's not clear.

We just got the news from a tweet, a post on X from Marco Rubio, is that they sent 10 more people to El Salvador. And instead, we don't know whether or not they complied with the Supreme Court order when they were weighing in on a separate part of this policy, where they said that anyone going to El Salvador, even under the Alien Enemies Act, gets the right under due process to argue why they should not be part of the class that gets sent there in the first place. So it's unclear under what provision they sent these people. Now, it could be they just simply did it under the Immigration Nationalities Act, not Alien

Enemies Act, which would in turn mean that they could have already had final orders of deportation. And now doing it that way has not been challenged in court if you actually just deport people to El Salvador. But even still, these are people who may not be from El Salvador. Most of them are Venezuelan, being held in these conditions. So looking forward, I think this is just the beginning of this relationship between Trump and Bukele and the beginning of how much we're going to see. They wouldn't even put a limit on how many people they're going to be holding in those

facilities. And Julia, to your first point, President Trump is again floating the idea of deporting US citizens to El Salvador. As Trump and El Salvador's president walked into the Oval Office yesterday, a live stream of the event caught the duo discussing the idea. As the meeting began, Trump confirmed his administration is looking into it. Homegrown criminals. I said, homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You've got to build about five more places.

Yeah, that's fair. All right. We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country, but you'll have to be looking at the laws on that. OK, David Rode, let's talk about the legality here of that and also how it compares to Trump's

first term when it comes to those cabinet members and head of DOJ, what they would have said. So the president is talking about sending American citizens to essentially a foreign penal colony, where the president, President Bukele, has said the current people there, he doesn't know when he will release them. So this is a startling change, a huge step forward just in this administration that he's even talking about this idea. And then it's remarkably different from the first term.

In that first term, you saw that the administration went out of its way to make sure the Supreme Court with the travel ban, which was a huge issue, there were five, I think, four to five versions of it to get it up to snuff so that the Supreme Court would say this was legal. Here, it's ignore the Supreme Court. It's dismiss the Supreme Court and to bring up these more and more again, I guess frankly, radically, legally radical ideas. It is illegal and unconstitutional to send an American to a foreign prison, like period, full stop. And, you know, I was surprised and alarmed by what was said. Well, and again, it is...Pam Bondi can do all the research he wants to do.

The Justice Department can, but it is illegal and it is unconstitutional to send Americans to these prisons. The only point I will make, though, on the Supreme Court decision on Garcia is it's probably going to go back up to the Supreme Court, and this time they're going to have to be far more explicit in their language and not leave as many ambiguities there open. It's almost like they did that intentionally because it would allow them to lay down the law saying the president should facilitate the return,

but at the same time, say the district court has to give deference to the president. There is a way to write that up far more specifically, and chances are good they've only delayed the inevitable and the inevitable showdown. John Meats, I want to go to you not only about what happened in the Oval Office yesterday and the message that it is sending around the world. I also want to talk about what I was discussing off the top of the show and what I'm hearing over here from business leaders, academics, what I'm hearing from

tech leaders, what I'm hearing from everybody I talk to, which is, to use a soccer reference, the United States is committing one own goal after another. We're scoring on ourselves. And as the Wall Street Journal editorial page says today, all of this is creating new economic and diplomatic opportunities, but not for the United States, for China. And I'm hearing the same thing out of London, hearing the same thing And I'm hearing the same thing out of London, hearing the same thing from academic leaders, who again, can't believe that some of the best students on the planet, that they didn't have a shot at getting last year, because they'd be going to MIT or Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford, are now all applying to their universities.

And I will say, too, not to go on and on, but it is really something. It's one of the reasons I came here in December, one of the reasons I'm here now, to hear how shocked they are that we're cutting funding to NIH, not because it's going to hurt them, but because it's going to drive researchers from America to London, to Paris, across the continent, across the world. It is very surprising that we are giving up all the advantages we are giving up to China, as many in Europe are now looking east for new trading opportunities with China. One of the ironies of all this is that the America that so many supporters of the president

seem to want to go back to is the America that was built by the institutions, the impulses, the investments that they, I don't even want to say they want to undo them because I don't think they really voted for that. They voted for this man and whatever this man does, they're willing to follow. But we had this argument from 1945 until 1952. Were we going to build walls? Were we going to retreat from a world that had led to these two global cataclysms, the two world wars?

Or were we going to engage and invest? And it was a ferocious battle. There was red baiting. There was legitimate arguments about whether we were better off focusing on what Herbert Hoover called the Gibraltar of America, just stand alone if we can. And it was really, it was President Eisenhower and President Truman, one Republican, one Democrat, they couldn't stand each other by the time they had sort of ended up on the wrong side of politics.

So this isn't some sort of dorky nirvana I'm talking about. These were competitive political parties, competitive political men who made a decision at the beginning of the Cold War that we were going to compete, and we were going to research, we were going to build. We might not see instant returns on a dollar, but that's what research is. To use a biblical illusion this holy week, it's bred upon the waters, sometimes it comes back. And the builders won that debate, and now that's being undone. And I think that's one of the particular tragedies. There are a lot unfolding at the moment.

But it is, as you say, it's a self-inflicted wound and one that it may or may not be generational. I fear that it is, because if you're a scientist, if you're looking for a stable world in which to pursue your work, what makes you think after the last decade in American politics that the United States is a stable and safe environment for you to pursue something that may or may not find favor with a particular party. Well, I mean, history is not static, as you know. It's one thing that Europeans have always known.

Ed Luce, in his wonderful essay this past weekend on Dr. Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger talked about the fact that they did so well as foreign policy leaders because they were Europeans. They escaped the Holocaust. They understood that history is never stagnant. It's always moving forward. The same America that accepted the best and the brightest immigrants from across the world

back in the 1970s and the 1980s created Silicon Valley in the 1990s. And in the 21st century, there's a reason why we are light years ahead on technology. Look at Silicon Valley. Look at the people who either are immigrants themselves or whose family members were immigrants themselves. Silicon Valley and America's new economy was built by and large by immigrants. Now, where are they going? Will they continue to come to the United

States? Right now, it doesn't look that way because it doesn't seem that they are welcome. And when you're going after, when you're slashing research and development programs at the best institutions on the planet, not the best institutions in Massachusetts, not the best institutions in the United States, but the best institutions on the planet, the United States of America, has had pretty consistently the top 15 and the top 25 universities on the planet. We've had like 15 out of the top 25 on the planet, in large part because of research and development funding that did come from the government.

We want to cut it off, we want to cut it off for political reasons, okay. But understand the price, not just the price this year or next year, the generational price when the best and the brightest of people that are going to be on the cutting edge of what comes next are doing it out of Oxford, or Cambridge, or as I said, on the continent, or in China for God's sake.

I mean, Willie, it is again, as the Wall Street Journal says today, we are creating opportunities right now for the rest of the world unless we don't adjust a lot of these policies pretty quickly. Yeah, all this around the news, this back and forth between Harvard and the Trump administration, the Trump administration saying yesterday that it's going to hold up $2.2 billion in federal funding for Harvard. Now, Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. Those schools always say it's for a rainy day, starting to feel like a rainy day around there. We'll see if they dip into it. Back to the Abrego Garcia case, the editorial board of the National Review has a new piece titled, Abrego Garcia Should Be Returned from El Salvador, reads in part, the court fight over Kilmar Abrego Garcia

is a most unusual one in that no one denies the government violated the law in deporting him. This is an obvious injustice that could be easily remedied by bringing Abrego Garcia back. The administration maintains this is impossible because it sent him to a foreign jail run by the government of El Salvador, not the United States. This is a ridiculous pretense because the president of El Salvador will clearly do anything we ask. The U.S. government is paying El Salvador six million dollars to hold detainees for a year, after which we will determine their disposition. So we have functional control of the detainees,

however inconvenient it is for the Trump administration to admit that at the moment. The administration can bring him back the easy and correct way as soon as possible or play a losing hand in the courts while someone we never should have sent there sweats out his days in a terrorist confinement center. That is the new piece from the National Review. So Mike, as you sit and absorb all this, you watched that spectacle in the Oval Office yesterday where the president went around the room and had his cabinet officials and

the attorney general offer praise to his policy and sort of distort some of the facts in this case. What did you make of it? Well, this is a real moment for us as a country. That's what I made of it and make of it today. I mean, we are around 80 days into the Trump presidency, his second presidency. We're in the verge, four or five days away from the 250th anniversary of the start of the Revolutionary War in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. We have a president who wants to make Canada the 51st state, threatens to invade Greenland because he wants it. A president who literally, if you listen to him, has never made a mistake.

95% of the problems that he has today he blames on Joe Biden, but he is perfect. And I have the awful feeling for the first time in my life, John Meacham, that we are seemingly slow-walking ourselves toward autocracy, that we are slow-walking ourselves at a moment in time when every American family has their own issues. They're worried about college tuitions. They're worried about their high school kids. They're worried about the jobs they have, the money they make. They worry about inflation. The stock market collapsed to some extent.

But behind all of that screen of everyday problems that people face, we have a potential conflict between a piece of paper that people died for 250 years ago. The piece of paper is called the Constitution of the United States of America. And it seems to me now we are hours, perhaps days away from a confrontation, Donald Trump versus the Constitution of the United States. What do you think? I think you're right. I think that confrontation is coming. I think a lot of us have worried about it, feared it, and have to hope and make the case,

tell the story that you just told, which is that this isn't some notional thing. This isn't some idealistic or ideological or, God help us, partisan struggle. The Constitution exists for the reason that other covenants exist. It is to protect ourselves by making sure that other people are protected. That's what a covenant is. You surrender a certain amount of liberty,

a certain amount of agency, in order to have maximum liberty and maximum agency in what is a difficult and fallen world. I mean, that's what this is. And one of the things that I think we've seen that I don't want to say I've been surprised by but it's been particularly vivid is this notion of this unfolding example of picking on the weak. Not just picking on the strong is one thing, right?

But picking on the weak is part of what the Constitution, part of what the United States was invented to, if not prevent, at least minimize. I would just say this as a test of citizenship for all of us. Democracy works if just enough of us are willing to defer immediate gratification. If there's something we want and we just want to grab it, which is part of what the President of the United States is doing, right? There's things he wants to do, so he does them. Part of democracy is not giving in to every impulse, every whim that we have, because in fact we're told, we're taught that the more we can be together, the stronger we become.

And we can only be together if we obey the rule of law. Historian John Meacham, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And Julia, you've got new reporting on the Trump administration pushing immigrants to self-deport. Tell us about that, because I think a lot of people are afraid to even take the steps to do that, given what's happening at some of these immigration naturalization hearings, meetings that some people are showing up to and then finding themselves in a bad situation. That's right.

We just saw some reporting on that from yesterday. What are new data finds? And I should say, Mika, this is very hard. ICE is not publishing these numbers, but we were able to obtain the numbers of deportations for March 1st through 28th of this year and compared to March 1st through 28th of last year. And what we found is that in this year year under the Trump administration, there were about 12,300 deportations by ICE.

That includes people who came across the border and were deported and people who were arrested in the United States in the interior and the kind of roundups that we've been seeing made so publicly. Compare that to 2024, it was actually higher under Biden, just slightly. It was about 12,700. What all this means, though, is not only is the Trump administration not deporting as many as Biden, it's far below its goal. We heard from Stephen Miller yesterday that he wants to get to a million a year, perhaps more. As I understand it from people on the Hill who are looking at the funding of what they might want to pass in the budget reconciliation, they're coalescing around an idea of $600,000

a year. All of these numbers and what they're deporting now is far below that. What all this means, Omeka, is that even though these numbers are new to us, they're not new to people who are in the White House making these decisions. Of course, Stephen Miller sees these deportation numbers every day. And so they're starting to be a real scaffolding about what they're building this policy on. They're deciding that if it takes too much money, too much funding, and too much time to investigate, find an immigrant, arrest them, detain them, go through whatever legal

process they need to, unless they're sending them off to El Salvador, and actually put them on a plane, that takes too much money, too much time, too much manpower, even when you apply a lot of the Justice Department resources to it. It's not working out for them. The numbers are adding up. So, they want to encourage self-deportation. That's why we've seen this multimillion-dollar ad campaign from Kristi Noem telling migrants to go home, to self-deport, that

they could have a chance of coming back in. It's something the president called for in the Oval Office last week when he was talking specifically about hotel workers. Go ahead and leave. We'll find a way for you to come back in without actually announcing a policy that would allow them to fast track to do so. In fact, if you've come illegally into the United States, there's usually about a 10-year wait before you can even apply to come back in.

And they also have launched a new app called CBP Home, where they want people to tell the government when they're self-deporting, so that they can include that in these overall deportation numbers. So what all of this means is that in the end, they're actually looking at the goal, which was Trump said he wanted to deport millions and millions of immigrants. And then they're looking at the reality. And so in the end, if they can get people to self-deport, if they can put pressure on Congress for more money, and if they can scare people, which is really what we've been talking

about the entire time, they can scare people from coming, show that even if they've made a mistake, like in the case of Abrego Garcia, there's nothing they're going to do to bring them back. The whole idea about due process and giving people with an asylum claim a chance here is completely out the window. That's a way they can win, at least when it comes to new immigration and on the border, and perhaps encourage more people to deport, because the numbers themselves aren't giving them that win. It's not getting close enough to their goal.

All right, NBC News, Senior Homeland Security Correspondent Julia Ainsley. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. You know, Mika, we could actually take clips over the last three months, and we could just, without saying, I told you so, but we've done it. We've done it already on the economy. We've done it already on the markets. We could also do it on immigration. We said consistently around the table, you are not going to have enough money.

You're not going to have enough manpower. You're not going to have enough manpower, you're not going to have enough judges, you're not going to have the ability to reach significant numbers in deportations, right? So, self-deporting actually makes the most sense for the Trump administration. But the message that they've put out there to stop other immigrants from coming in, illegal immigrants from coming in. Obviously, and I think it's probably, it's a frightening message that will probably do just that, but it also is having a reverse effect.

It's stopping illegal immigrants in America that are ready to go home, that don't want to stay in the United States, that get the message and are ready to leave, it's got them afraid to go home. It's got them afraid to go to an ICE office. It's got them afraid to go to their local sheriff or their local police officer and say, hey, I'm not here legally. I want to go home. How do I do it? Well, the Trump administration has a responsibility. If they want that to happen, they're

going to have to show that there is a pathway for people that are here illegally to go home and not end up in a prison in El Salvador. That's on them right now. And if they can do that, they will, I think, as Julia said, they will actually see their numbers go up significantly. But they've got to make sure that you don't have what the incident that you were talking about, where somebody goes and reports themselves and then ends up, up again in terrible situation.

Yeah we've got much more to get to on this and other news. NBC News National Security Editor David Rode, thank you for coming on this morning. We'll see you again very soon. Still ahead on Morning Joe, President Trump is looking to implement tariffs on semiconductor chips and pharmaceuticals. We'll play for you his comments. Plus, we'll have the latest on the arson attack at the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

What we're learning about the suspect. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Stakeholder stories making headlines. The man accused of setting fire to the Pennsylvania governor's mansion is being held this morning without bail. Cody Ballmer is facing charges of attempted criminal homicide, aggravated arson, burglary and terrorism. Authorities say on Sunday Ballmer climbed the fence of the governor's residence, used

a hammer to break a window and threw Molotov cocktails inside the house, forcing Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro, his family and guests, to flee in the middle of the night, just hours after celebrating the Jewish holiday Passover. According to court documents, Ballmer told police he intended to attack the governor with that hammer. An antitrust trial against Metta is now underway. CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand yesterday to defend his company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The Federal Trade Commission argues the tech giant wields an illegal monopoly in social media. The company says there is stiff competition from YouTube, TikTok and other video sharing platforms. And a 5.2 magnitude earthquake struck Southern California yesterday, happened in the San Diego area.

Tremors also felt in Los Angeles, a series of small aftershocks followed within minutes. There were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage. Coming up, we'll take a closer look at the escalating trade war between the United States and China and how Beijing is reacting to it. Morning Joe's coming right back.

Forty-five past the hour this morning, it appears the Trump administration is setting the stage for new tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. The Commerce Department has launched an investigation to determine the impact of imported computer chips and drugs, semiconductor chips, power electronics, cars, toys, and other goods. Right now the US is heavily dependent on importing them from Taiwan while many pharmaceuticals are made in China, India, and Ireland. The news comes just days after the White House announced some electronics from China will be temporarily exempt from higher tariffs.

The president says more businesses may also see some reprieve. We don't make our own drugs anymore. The drug companies are in Ireland and they're in lots of other places, China. And all I have to do is impose a tariff. The more, the faster they move in. The higher the tariff is, it's inversely proportional. The higher the tariff, the faster they come. I'm looking at something to help some of the car companies

where they're switching to parts that were made in Canada, Mexico, and other places, and they need a little bit of time because they're going to make them here. But they need a little bit of time because they're going to make them here. But they need a little bit of time. So I'm talking about things like that. What about any Apple products, other cell phones? Look, I'm a very flexible person.

I don't change my mind, but I'm flexible. And you have to be. You just can't have a wall and you'll only go. No, sometimes you have to go around it, under it or above it. There'll be maybe things coming up. I speak to Tim Cook. I helped Tim Cook recently in that whole business. I don't want to hurt anybody.

Meanwhile, as America's trade war with Beijing escalates, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is trying to strengthen economic ties in Southeast Asia. Xi visited Vietnam yesterday and signed dozens of cooperation agreements. Joining us now, columnist and member at the editorial board, the Financial Times, Jillian Tett. And Jillian, the president's last words there in that soundbite was, I don't want to hurt anyone. There's a lot of people who would love an exemption.

I have an email here from a business owner in New York City who at current levels, their costs, if the tariffs remain at the current levels, will increase more than 17 times. The level of expense is not sustainable. We simply cannot stay in business under these conditions, he will be shut down. That is a story which has been played out over and over again. People are freezing in their tracks right across the economy right now. And one of the things that's really scary is that there's a survey which Bank of America does of the global fund managers and big fund managers, the guys who decide where to invest

and the girls. And basically, we've just seen in the last few weeks the fastest shift in sentiment on record. If you go back a month ago, the big international fund managers were overweight American assets. They believed in American economic exceptionalism. Now three-quarters have lost faith in American economic exceptionalism. Now three-quarters have lost faith in American economic exceptionalism, and they're more negative on investing in America than you've seen on record. That is

incredible. And if you look underneath the hood of the financial markets right now, you've got the junk bond market essentially frozen. You've got a whole bunch of deals essentially frozen. There's no merger and acquisition activity at all right now. The whole system is freezing up because of this incredible uncertainty. Jill. You know, Gillian, first of all, we've got to get our schedules more aligned. We're switching places. We just talked about that. Next month. But I had a roundtable yesterday, an interview which I'm going to be showing later this week. And one of the people that was on was, of course, somebody you know very well, Jeremy Adelman. But as I said at the top of the show, whether it was academics, business

leaders, tech leaders, nobody can believe the sort of own goal the United States is committing on itself and the opportunities not only for Britain, for great institutions like King's College, but institutions all across Europe. And they were talking though also said you really have to back up and better understand this. You know, there are a lot of distractions, but we basically have a bipolar world with the United States and China. And that's what the United States needs to be focusing on.

They're giving up their competitiveness, which leads me to ask, why aren't we rushing to do deals with South Korea, with Japan, with the very people and the places where she went yesterday? Well, that's a really fantastic question. And the reason I'm actually in the US right now is partly because I was at a conference in Vanderbilt just a few days ago with a whole number of military and intel people talking about where America and the world is going in terms of cyberspace and AI and things like that. And the message that emerged very, very loudly and clearly is that it is

entirely impossible to make a chip to do anything like have a smartphone or let alone a military system right now without a supply chain which crosses, involves Japan and South Korea and the Netherlands and the UK and the US all working together. You simply cannot make anything right now without taking components from all around the world. So the idea of putting tariffs puts everything into freeze. And so of course a number of countries are looking at each other and trying to work out how to actually work together to keep those supply chains going. Of course, countries like the UK or elsewhere are trying to pull in disaffected American scientists and cyber people and things like that.

There are now efforts underway to take American cyber security experts who don't want to stay in America across to Japan or Singapore or places like that because they need that talent there. So in many ways a key message from what's been happening is that this is a massive own goal for America. It's helping China dramatically and it's helping many other countries as well. So Jillian we were talking before we came on the air about this survey that really caught your eye that tells us a lot about the state of where the global economy is and the impact of these last few weeks of the Trump administration's policies has been. What did you find there?

Well, I think the most important thing right now that the smart money is asking is, are we on the verge of seeing capital flight? Are we on the verge of seeing a big shift in the global monetary order? Because you just have to roll back to say the World Economic Forum in Davos at the beginning of the year. Yes, that's an event that the MAGA love to hate because it's about globalists, but that's basically where businesses and investors decide where to put their money. Back in Davos in January, the feeling was that America was on top of the world. American exceptionalism in finance was a big theme. Now you're seeing

people flee as fast as they can. Now, investors are fickle, maybe that will change. But as long as you have this flip-flopping uncertainty around things like tariffs, the problem is you're going to see people very, very nervous. And I've said it before in air, to me, the really big one to watch is the bond market. Because yes, equity prices have stabilized in the last 24 hours, bond prices have stabilized too, and the yield has stopped rising, the 10-year yield that sets essentially mortgage rates and things like that. However, if you look underneath the hood at a rather geeky thing called the term premier, which the Federal Reserve regards as the best measure of risk around American

bonds, that's still rising and that is not good. Well, you know, Mike Barnicle, it's so fascinating that, again, that was a large part of our conversation yesterday. There was a belief three, four months ago that maybe it would be the stock market that would stop Donald Trump from pursuing his worst instincts on tariffs and the minds of the people I spoke to. Yesterday, they were all talking about, no, not the stock market, it's the bond market. And at the same time, they're telling me that Ray Dalio is talking about how he's afraid

the United States is going to go into something that's going to be far worse than a recession. You look at a $36 trillion debt, you look at this Republican bill that's going to be four worse than a recession. You look at a $36 trillion debt. You look at this Republican bill that's going through that's going to add another $5 to $10 trillion to that debt. You look at the tariffs. You look at the U.S. dollar that's going to be taking a beating right now. A lot of real concerns. We're talking about all of these.

There's so many things that are coming at us. But you talk to people who understand global finance and you're married to one, they will tell you the greatest concern is what happens when China starts selling all their US bonds. What happens when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency for the know, there's no guarantee that it will be for long. Well, you pray that the Chinese don't start selling U.S. bonds. But Joe, the other thing that you just mentioned, you pay attention to China, something that the United States is doing, but maybe not in the right way. I mean, there's a reason that President Xi's first stop on a Southeast Asian tour yesterday was Vietnam. Vietnam is potentially

and ironically our strongest potential ally in Southeast Asia. And they were hit with 46% tariffs by the United States. Absolutely. And the one thing I'd say is, Joe, since you're in London right now, you should look into the story of Liz Truss and how she created a so-called moron premium for the British bond markets about three years ago that we still face in the UK in terms of more expensive borrowing. And the thing that's really starting to worry people here in New York is that there's going to be a moron premium around US assets going forward. Wow. Columnist and member of the editorial board at the

Financial Times, Gillian Ted, thank you as always we appreciate it.