Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/16/25

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Judge weighs contempt proceedings against Trump administration

Are you going to bring that guy back from El Salvador? Yeah. Why not? Well, because that's not the power of Congress. The Supreme Court said to bring him back. Yeah, but who can they do? He's defying the Constitution. You need to hold him accountable. Trump don't care.

If I get an order, pay a ticket for $1,200, and I just say no, does that stand up? Because he's got an order from the Supreme Court, and he just said no. Yeah. He just said screw it. The president of that country is not subject to our U.S. Supreme Court.

Why is it breaking back? Why did it break back? What's wrong? I'm pissed! Well, it appears the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not just a story for the media or the D.C. Beltway. It appears to be breaking through to middle America as Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was pressed about the deported man yesterday at his town hall. Something we were talking a lot about with Chris Matthews yesterday.

He was saying, people don't like this. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, April 16th. Along with Joe and me, we have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News and the host of Rest is Politics podcast, Cady Gay. The host of Pablo Torre Finds Out on Metal Arch Media, MSNBC contributor Pablo Torre, and New York Times opinion columnist David French is with us. So, Joe, I thought that town hall and the small group of people, but it did seem to show that this story

has filtered way past Washington. That wasn't in, as Pat Buchanan would say, the faculty lounges of Harvard. That wasn't in, you know, at a cocktail party in Georgetown. That was in an Iowa town hall meeting in middle America. And this is one of these stories. You never know what stories are going to cut through in American politics. This is one of these stories that have come through. First of all, because they've sent a man, after admitting that they made a mistake, they sent a man down to one of the worst prisons in the world, according actually to the president and also I think the president of El Salvador.

They take great pride in talking about what tough conditions there are down there. That's number one. But number two, you know, in Washington and New York, we all talk about, you know, defying the Supreme Court and what about the Constitutional Showdown. You heard it right there again in middle America. They're, you know, it's just like we'll talk about Harvard later today. Nobody's crying, going to be crying, as Chris Matthews and others said. Nobody's gonna be crying about, you know,

Harvard getting roughed up a little bit. But at the same time, they don't want the federal government, conservatives or liberals, don't want the federal government ordering professors what to teach in class. That is the... You talk about big government encroachment, right? So that's number one.

And then number two, they don't want the president of the United States defying the Supreme Court. Now, we're going to talk about whether he defied the Supreme Court. Now, we're gonna talk about whether he defied the Supreme Court or not. There are a lot of scholars that say, no, actually, he hasn't defied the Supreme Court yet in the letter of the law, even if he has in the spirit of the law. But the Supreme Court, when they get this again,

they're gonna need to tighten up their ruling. So that's one part of it. But Mika, I think the second part of it is extraordinarily important for the Trump administration to learn from. You know, they were too clever by half in Signalgate, if that's what we want to call it. I remember the morning before Jeffrey Goldberg released everything. We said on this show, just admit you made a mistake, it will be better for you in the long run.

And they wouldn't admit that they made a mistake. And then the White House will tell you that that was the first big bump in the road for them politically. It didn't have to happen that way. Same thing here. Say we made a mistake. All right. They've already said that. They can bring him back to the United States. They can go through the

deportation process and then work with the courts to figure out where to deport him, where he can go safely. And that's something, they win, he gets deported if he's here illegally, and he doesn't get this sort of blowback. But this isn't an issue that's gonna go away and they need to figure that out. And when they figure that out, you know, things will, again we'll get to it, but things will get worse for them, as the Wall Street Journal has said, as other constitutional scholars have said. He's alienating his allies on the Supreme Court right now, and they need to quit while they're behind. So, we're going to get to the fact that the entire set of deportations also legally questionable.

But in this case, U.S. District Judge Paula Zennis, who's overseeing Kilmar Abrego-Garcia's case, is now weighing contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to act in returning Abrego-Ggo Garcia back to the U.S. During a hearing yesterday, Zennis scolded Justice Department officials for doing nothing to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from El Salvador's notorious prison, telling them to cancel vacations and other appointments in order to comply with a two-week inquiry into the matter. She added, there will be no tolerance for gamesmanship

or grandstanding. In an eight-page written order, Zennis said four senior officials from Homeland Security and the State Department must sit for depositions by next Wednesday to produce details under oath about their attempts to bring him back. Zennis also called out the Trump administration for its semantics over the word facilitate in its read of both her order and the Supreme Court's order.

In a status report ahead of yesterday's hearing, a Trump administration attorney wrote that even if Abrego Garcia does make it back to the U.S., the administration will only deport him again. For his part, President Trump continues to argue he won the decision, nine to nothing, and that the matter is entirely in the hands of El Salvador. Let's bring in NBC News' and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney. And Ken, what do you make of the order here? And what, it appears this judge, I'm assuming even the press conference that the president had with the president of El Salvador where the entire cabinet chimed in, probably not

helpful. Good morning, Mika. Good morning, Mika. Good morning, Joe. No, in fact, the judge said that she disregarded that news conference. She didn't believe that that was evidence of really anything. But I think one of the real takeaways from this whole saga so far is that there's no evidence that anyone from the Trump administration, the president or anyone else has even asked El Salvador to return this man. So when you talk about the definition of the word facilitate, the lawyer for the Trump

administration in that hearing yesterday said that they believe that facilitate is if he presents himself at a port of entry, they will facilitate his admission back to the United States where they will of course try to deport him again, as you mentioned. But the judge was not having this. She was very frustrated obviously. It's been very clear to her and other observers and the lawyer for Mr. Arbrego Garcia that the Trump administration has been resisting. They have not done a single thing to try to get this guy back from El Salvador.

And you're right, Joe, the Supreme Court ruling does give them a little wiggle room here because they apparently don't feel like they can bind the executive branch in any way in terms of their relations with another country. But it's clear that the courts have said this man was wrongly deported. And yet again, the administration has not asked for him back. They've not made that simple request. And so you're right, Mika, what this judge appears to be doing here with this inquiry and putting people under oath is setting the stage for a potential contempt order.

Now, we've seen those in the past. Executive branch officials have been held in contempt. The Interior Secretary was at one point over handling of some Native American trusts. And generally that's a symbolic act because to the extent that the judge issues fines, the federal government can pay endless amounts of fines. But in this case, you really wonder how far this judge will be willing to go to enforce her order in the face of resistance and recalcitrance from these executive branch officials. Would she order someone placed in jail?

And then the next question is who enforces that order? Is it the US Marshals? Well, they work for the Attorney General. So would the Attorney General tell them not to carry out that order, even though it's a lawful order from a court? And then if that happens, could the court appoint someone else with a badge and a gun to enforce that kind of court order? It really raises some uncomfortable questions, but that's what happens when an administration appears to defy the courts, guys. Well, it raises uncomfortable questions, again, the Supreme Court also. It's not just this federal judge, this district judge that's looking at what the Trump administration's

doing and what they did inside the White House and what they did with the president of El Salvador yesterday. You've got nine justices on the Supreme Court who are looking to, and as the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes about the case, they're not pleased. Mr. Abreu Garcia is being held under an agreement in which the administration is paying El Salvador six million dollars to house migrants this year. Since the Supreme Court has ordered efforts to facilitate the return, continuing to pay El Salvador for his detention

would violate that order, writes the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The larger problem is that Mr. Obrego Garcia was deported without due process, writes Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorial page. Mr. Trump would be wise to settle all of this by quietly asking Mr. Bukele to return Mr. Garcia, who has a family in the U.S., but the president may be bloody-minded enough that he wants to show the judiciary who's boss.

If this case does become a judicial showdown, Mr. Trump may assert his Article 2 powers not to return. Mr. Abreu Garcia and the Supreme Court will be reluctant to disagree, but Mr. Trump would be smarter to play the long game. He has many much bigger issues than the fate of one man that will come before the Supreme Court. By taunting the judiciary in this manner, he is inviting a rebuke on cases that carry far greater stakes. And again, this is again, going back to Signalgate.

This could be an example of the administration fighting to win a battle. And ending up losing a political war, a kindlingian. I'm reminded back in 2017 when Donald Trump started attacking federal judges on Twitter at the time, talking to a relative of a federal judge who was in the Federalist Society, very conservative, saying, not a smart move. An attack on one federal judge

is an attack on all federal judges. And you saw it time and time again over the next three and a half years that even the most conservative justices had no patience for the White House thumbing their nose at any federal judges. Yeah, Joe, that's right. It's one thing for the Trump administration to lose the Wall Street Journal editorial board on tariffs. That's to be expected.

But they've lost them now on these rule of law questions. This isn't the first time they've editorialized against them on the rule of law. And they've also lost regular folks in Iowa. I hadn't heard that recording of the Grassley town hall. That was remarkable. So across the board, look, you can't talk to any legal expert,

anyone in the legal community who doesn't work for Donald Trump, who thinks this is a good idea, who thinks that the way they've handled this is appropriate. People get really concerned and rattled when a president appears to be defying court orders and an order of the Supreme Court. It's a constitutional crisis essentially. Now there's some, as you said, there's wiggle room here. And if this goes back up to the Supreme Court, we can all only hope that they clarify what they mean

for the Trump administration to do and spell it out and make it happen, guys. All right, NBC's Ken Delaney, and thank you so much. And we're gonna play the comments that Abrigo Garcia's wife made yesterday as well in just a moment. But professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Stephen Vladeck had a piece for The Atlantic entitled, "'What the courts can still do to constrain Trump.'"

And he writes in part this, "'What's important to recognize is that federal courts have not reached the end of the road in this case. There is a wide swath of daylight and of judicially available relief between invading El Salvador and just taking the government at its fashionably preposterous claim that it's totally powerless.

Federal courts can't tell the executive branch what to do, but they can tell it what it can't do. And they can provide powerful incentives for the executive branch to choose to take specific steps on its own. A world in which the federal courts become reflexively skeptical of any effort to remove anyone from the United States is one in which the Trump administration's conduct in this one case will prevent it from accomplishing many of its broader immigration policy goals. Of course, Trump and his advisors might think that is a price worth paying.

But like so much of their behavior in this case, that too would be revealing, Joe. There's a long way to go here. Well, I mean, a long way to go. Also, a lot of options for the courts. They can actually cut at the very heart of this Alien Enemies Act that the Trump administration is using and say that it's unconstitutional. They can no longer do that. That's what the professor said later in that Atlantic article. But, David French, love to get your input on this.

I'm reminded of, I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case, and it's a hard case because actually, if Mr. Garcia were from, Honduras that would be much cleaner return him to the United States we will send him back we will deport him back to Honduras here he's from El Salvador he's in El Salvador and yet in 2019 there was a federal judge that said you can't return him back to El Salvador because his life will be endangered so sort through everything that you've seen and very interested in your take on what the

next move is, because we already know this federal district court judge is moving aggressively to make sure the White House doesn't defy court orders. Then it goes to the Supreme Court. What should we expect? Well, yeah, part of this is complicated and part of this is simple. The complicated element is it is true that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the government of El Salvador. There are limits to what the Supreme Court can order the federal government to do in this instance. But what is simple is that the federal government and the Trump administration is obviously

not powerless here. And it's very simple and very clear that they're doing nothing at all to effectuate the court's order to facilitate Garcia's return. So an administration acting in good faith here would immediately request his return as a diplomatic matter, immediately seek the return very firmly and clearly. It's obvious the administration is not acting in good faith in response to the Supreme Court or the District Court.

And Joe, you're right, there is a little bit of wiggle room from saying there is direct defiance of the Supreme Court in this moment. But it is absolutely obvious that right now the administration is demonstrating no intention to do anything. And David, let's underline that right now because for people that haven't read the decision, for people that haven't looked at the language, for people that didn't see the news stories written in the New York Times, watching this before the White House appeared to def New York Times, the Washington Post, before the White

House appeared to defy the order. There were already warnings that the Supreme Court had written such a sort of a general instruction to the Trump administration on one hand to facilitate, and then on the other side of it said, and by the way court you can't do anything to get in the way of the the the executives power to run foreign policy I mean that gave two loopholes to the Trump administration that you knew they were going to drive a truck through and they have well yes absolutely because you know they're not going to operate in good faith.

And so, on the one hand, you could say, well, the Supreme Court should have been more particular, although it is pretty routine to send a matter back to the lower courts for clarification, to make clarification part of the process in the lower court, because the Supreme Court didn't have all of the information to render that more specific judgment. So there's a normal process going on here in the face of a very abnormal administration. Yeah. And that's what's creating the tension. Under normal processes, this would be a very simple matter. We've got highly unusual, highly antagonistic administration, and that's what makes this so difficult.

Also an abnormal set of deportations. I mean, every single one of these. Yeah, absolutely. No due process, reports that some of these people committed no crimes, not part of gangs, no knowledge of exactly why these people are there. That is not how it works at all. So it's not just this one man. Calling this a mistake seems to indirectly validate all the others as

not mistakes, not the case at all. And we also... You know, Mika, though, it's important also to remember even on that point the Supreme Court has rule nine zero, just what you said. Rule nine zero that anybody deported has to receive notice of being deported and then after receiving notice of being deported they need to have due process in front of a judge before being deported. So the court has actually responded on that as well and yet we find a gray zone for those two, 300 men who have already been deported in a way that the Supreme Court has said is improper. And we heard yesterday from Abrego Garcia's wife for the first time since he was deported

and imprisoned. Jennifer Vasquez-Zura is an American citizen who was born in Virginia. She and Abrego Garcia share three children together. She spoke outside the federal court ahead of yesterday's hearing, pleading for the return of her husband. I will not stop fighting until I see my husband alive. Kielmar, if you can hear me, stay strong. God hasn't forgotten about you. Our children are asking, when would you come home? And I pray for the day I tell them the time and date that you'll return.

As we continue through Holy Week, my heart aches for my husband, who should have been here leading our Easter prayers. Instead, I find myself pleading with the Trump administration and the Bukele administration to stop playing political games with the life of Kilmer. Cady Kay, I'll let you take it from here. Yeah, I mean, look, it was, I think the administration is hoping that all of these people who have been deported will be seen almost as non-human, right? The line we keep getting from the White House is that they are terribly violent criminals.

They're not the kind of people you want in our society. How on earth could opponents of the White House say we should bring them back? Do you really want these people? And they're hoping that that is the message that plays around the country and that there'll be very little sympathy for people who have been put in chains

and sent off to this El Salvadorian prison. Hearing from Abrego Garcia's wife yesterday with her story of their children and leading Easter prayers instantly rejects some of the White House narrative about who these people are and that and what you're starting to see around the country with the town halls that are playing out in Chuck Grassley's district, for example, suggests that the White House's message is not the only message that the American public is hearing. I thought one of the things that was particularly interesting yesterday, concerning yesterday,

was the post from J.D. Vance, the vice president, when he when he questioned the very notion of whether people who are in the country illegally had right to due process anyway. He seemed to say that that was a question of whether there was resources or public interest or the status of the accused or even the proposed punishment that these people would get. And I think that's really, I mean I thought it was telling that it came from JD Vance, but that's really what the administration would like to believe and would like the American public to believe is that this whole idea of due process that he said, you know, Democrats keep complaining

about and liberals keep complaining about, it doesn't really pertain to these people, honestly. Anyway, let's be honest. I mean, that was the gist of what J.D. Vance was saying. It'll be interesting to see how that, again, to Joe's point earlier, how that goes down with the Supreme Court. Well, you know, I'm just a simple country lawyer.

And I didn't go to Yale or wherever he went, Yale, Harvard, whatever uppity schools he went to. I went to University of Alabama, Roll Tide and University of Florida, Go Gators. But I can tell you, I don't know what they taught at Yale. I can tell you in Southern state schools, they taught something called due process, right? And so you see those people out in Iowa, maybe they did not go to the law school that JD

went to, the vice president went to. I don't know what they teach at those schools because to tell you the truth, I tried to get admitted into Yale Law School and they responded, Dear Mr. Scarborough, no. And that was it. That's about as far as I got. But I guess I should thank Jesus this Holy Week. Then I went to a law school that actually taught due process because the Supreme Court has actually followed the Constitution of the United States.

We also read that in Southern state schools. Again, I don't know what they did. Like in the uppity schools that the vice president and everybody in that administration went to. But we actually read the Constitution in Alabama. And we read the Constitution in Florida. And at Florida law school, they talked about due process and taught us about due process.

They also taught us that if the Supreme Court rules on something nine to nothing, nine to nothing, that's the Constitution. That's the law of the land. And so to tweet that, after the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing, that due process still existed in America and existed for people that the administration wanted to grab up and whisk away and take away on an airplane, right? For a guy that went to Yale Law School, I think he went to Yale Law School, that's kind of unbelievable.

Wow. That's kind of unbelievable. But like I said, maybe, I mean, again, maybe those of us that were raised in middle America, maybe we don't understand that. Went to school in middle America. I'll tell you what, Pablo, I'm going to play you this clip from Iowa. There are a lot of people that probably went to state schools out in Iowa too and not Yale, and they understand when it's time to get pissed off when the Constitution is being ignored. Let's take a listen. You're going to bring that guy back from El Salvador? Why not? Well, because that's not a power of Congress.

The Supreme Court said to bring him back. Yeah, but who can they do? He's defying the Constitution. You need to hold him accountable. Trump don't care. If I get an order to pay a ticket for $1,200 and I just say no, does that stand up? Because he's got an order from the Supreme Court and he just said no! Yeah, yeah.

He just said screw it! The president of that country is not subject to our U.S. Supreme Court. I can't believe my family is taking us wrong! I'm pissed! Pablo, not the faculty lounge at Harvard talking there. It's very obvious. Those are people from middle America that know what's right and they know what's wrong and they kind of like James Madison's constitution and they kind of want to make sure that we

got people in all three branches of government that respect it. This administration thinks we're stupid. And I mean that when I say we, America, they think America is stupid. Chuck Grassley thinks that. J.D. Vance in the replies late last night thinks that. Stephen Miller thinks that when he is trying to spin a ruling from the Supreme Court into something that it is not. Joe, when I think about due process, I feel like the word that gets overlooked sometimes is the word process. It doesn't matter if Kilmar Abrego Garcia is the father of the year or one of the quote unquote bad guys. The whole point is that we have a process and the process is the rule of law

as interpreted by a court system that is one of the branches of government you described. And so when they say, when this administration says we're exporting our problems to Bukele's El Salvador, by the way, Bukele, a guy who calls himself the world's coolest dictator, that's a quote from the leader in question. What I think America is realizing is that we're not exporting our problems. We're importing their principles. And this scene right here of this guy next to our guy is a repudiation of the basic premise that has been ruled on by the Supreme Court,

by Antonin Scalia himself, by every constitutional scholar, let alone the Supreme Court on this case, which is that, yes, undocumented citizens do deserve due process and equal protection. It says it literally in the document that they say in every other circumstance, guys, that they venerate, except when it's useful to get what they want. And it is disgusting. And still ahead on Morning Joe, President Trump is escalating his fight with Harvard University,

threatening to revoke the school's tax-exempt status. We'll explain the Wall Street Journal editorial board's warning that this could be a bad move. Plus, independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continue their fighting oligarchy tour. We'll play for you some of their comments from deep red Idaho as Democrats see a huge boost in fundraising. You're watching Morning Joe.

We're back in 90 seconds. All right. It's time now to take a quick look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning at half past the hour. Three students in Dallas are expected to recover after being shot yesterday inside their high school. The shooting at Wilmer Hutchins High School happened around 1 p.m. Central Time. The school district says the gunman brought the weapon into the school at some point after

students had already passed through metal detectors. Police arrested a suspect yesterday afternoon but have not released their identity. This is the second shooting at the high school in two years. More children are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder according to the CDC. About one in 31 kids were diagnosed with the disorder by their eighth birthday in 2022. That's nearly five times the figure in 2000 when the agency first began collecting data. Researchers attribute the increase to improvements

in detecting the developmental disorder. And popular game show host Wink Martindale has passed away. Martindale's career spent 74 years. He was known for hosting the game shows Gambit and Tic-Tac-Dough. He was also a radio host in the 50s and one of the first people to interview Elvis Presley on TV.

Martindale passed away at his home in California yesterday. He was 91 years old. And coming up, we're gonna take a closer look at the economic ties between the United States and the United Kingdom. As Vice President J.D. Vance signals a trade deal is in the works. Morning Joe, we'll be right back.

Thirty-seven past the hour, President Trump is ramping up his feud with Harvard University. On Monday, the university flatly rejected the White House's demands to change its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. In response, the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in funding for the school. Then, yesterday, the president suggested taking things a step further, calling to remove Harvard's tax-exempt status. That however needs to be approved by the IRS, which the White House says will make the decision independently.

A spokesperson for the IRS declined to comment. Losing tax exempt status could cost Harvard billions of dollars over time, but the university can withstand some of the funding loss as it has a $50 billion endowment. David, hold on. Let me just read from the Wall Street Journal, and then this will really get you going. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is writing about this in a new piece entitled Donald Trump Tries to Run Harvard. It reads in part, quote, few Americans will shed tears for the Cambridge crowd, but there

are good reasons to oppose this unprecedented attempt by government to micromanage a private university. The administration runs off the legal rails by ordering Harvard to reduce governance bloat duplication or decentralization. It also orders the school to review all existing and prospective faculty for plagiarism and ensure viewpoint diversity in each department field or teaching unit. These reforms may be worth pursuing, but the government has no business requiring them. Much of the federal money Harvard receives supports medical research and affiliated hospitals,

including Boston Children's. Harvard could fund some, though not all, of such research with its $53 billion endowment. But there are sure to be casualties from the administration's hostage-taking, including perhaps for cancer patients. Before I get to David, Joe, just chime in on this. Harvard can withstand this, but it's going to be brutal. Well, I mean, it would be brutal for any school. They've got a massive endowment. And of course, the conservative in me, I'm sure David Finch would feel the same way, part of me would say, if you don't want the federal government telling you what to do,

don't take the federal government's money. Okay, that's the conservative in me. And yet I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page as well in that the idea, David French, that the federal government would be reaching into the classroom and telling teachers what they can and cannot teach students, that's either out of, you know, 1984 or the old Soviet Union. We don't do that in America, right? And one other thing, when you're cut... So post-1945, the way that we have funded R&D is, we funded R&D to stay ahead of the Soviet Union and then stay ahead of China and then stay ahead of the EU and then stay ahead of Japan.

We funded it through the top universities on the planet. That's how we've kept our competitive edge. So one, I've got to say I'm in London, I'm talking to a lot of business leaders, economic leaders, professors, they can't believe their luck. All the students and all the professors and all the money that's going to start coming their way, that's number one. But number two, David, how frightening for us small government conservatives that you actually have the federal government saying,

okay, we're going to tell you what to teach your students. Yeah, what's happening here is actually something that conservative lawyers warned about for a very long time, but from the left, arguing that, wait, you need to defend the First Amendment, free speech, academic freedom on campus. Otherwise, a left-wing establishment would crush you down.

But this is exactly behaving, exactly pulling more pages out of this authoritarian playbook. And what's interesting about this and really most disturbing about this is they're just so open and upfront and brazen about this. They're taking on Harvard's point of view, Harvard's free speech rights, Harvard's academic freedom rights very, very, very directly. And finally, though, finally, one of these large, powerful institutions that's being challenged is doing something about it. We've seen capitulation from wealthy and powerful institutions before, but I haven't said these

words in a while, Joe, but I gotta say it now, good for Harvard. So Pablo, you went to Harvard, of course, your alma mater. My understanding is, and I'm thinking about what you said in the first block, where you talked about the words due process and there is a process, that if they had followed the process in the case of Harvard,

they wouldn't be running into legal issues, right? So if they had followed the process in the case of Harvard, they wouldn't be running into legal issues, right? So if they had had an investigation, which is what the Obama and Biden administrations did when they also threatened to withdraw federal funds if the universities didn't push through with civil rights provisions as fast as the Obama and Biden administrations would have liked, then they wouldn't be running into legal issues. So why are they moving, why is the administration moving so fast? If they're gonna get hit with legal issues,

which would eventually mean they're gonna be less effective in this process than they might want to be, why move so fast? Why not just follow the process? Yeah, I'm always weighing, Katty, whether this is malice or incompetence. And I am now proud to report that it is very obviously both. It is malice in terms of the ideology behind this.

David French gave an excellent summary of how they would like to be the champions of freedom in every regard. And yet, of course, in their stated intent, they indicate the opposite. Now, the incompetence part is where it gets interesting to me because they are picking the right villains here.

Harvard, for all of my debt, is a place that is worthy of derision in lots of ways. I have not tried to make any sort of argument that elides that. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, on paper, is the right target. But the rank and competence of how to accomplish this, it just feels like a mafia group that doesn't exactly know what they're doing. And so when Harvard had this decision, it was, OK,

ideologically, we know obviously what we should be doing here. Be a laboratory of free speech, preserve the rights of our professors to academically explore the topics that we believe are appropriate. But then from the strategic side, they were boxed in and they said, if we were to agree with what is essentially this extortionary program like Columbia did, like so many law firms in Midtown Manhattan, where we are, have done, they would be signing up for something that is actually indefensible and unsustainable. And so, it's a low bar that they proposed. And God bless my alma mater for having the wisdom, or at least the lack of options, to

hop over it and then get praise for it. All right. Coming up, you know, we're going to talk about the politics of all of this. We have Sean Patrick Maloney here with us, former congressman, former chair of the DCCC, the politics of what the Trump administration is doing so far and also what he thinks about the fighting oligarchy tour with Bernie Sanders and AOC, how that plays into all of this. We'll be right back with more Morning Joe.

And welcome back to Morning Joe, a shot of the U.S. capital, a beautiful day, 650 now on the East Coast. Vice President J.D. Vance says the U.S. and the United Kingdom have a, quote, good chance of confirming a new trade deal. In an interview earlier this week, the Vice President hinted at the possibility of an agreement between the countries, saying the administration is, quote, working very hard with the U.K. to secure a new deal.

The U.K. was one of the few nations spared from the brunt of President Trump's tariffs in his so-called Liberation Day, only seeing a 10 percent duty on all imports to the United States. And, you know, Cady K, President Trump has told people close to him he likes Keir Starmer. And many would think this might be an unlikely relationship, but they had a very positive meeting in the White House and apparently have continued to have a close relationship. And it may lead to a trade deal between the prime minister and President Trump. Yes, Starmer seems to have played Donald Trump very well.

It's something that a lot of world leaders struggle with, but Stammer is somebody who famously puts his own ego aside. And you saw that in that Oval Office meeting that the two had together. He was happy to fawn, happy to be of sequest, happy to flatter Donald Trump, brought out the letter from King Charles. We also know that Donald Trump has an affection

for the United Kingdom, always has done. He said publicly that he really likes the royal family. He loved the Queen. He likes King Charles. We also know that Donald Trump has an affection for the United Kingdom, always has done. He said publicly that he really likes the royal family. He loved the queen. He likes King Charles. He likes the idea of having this unprecedented second state visit for an American politician. That all placed his favor. Listen, when we say they've only been hit by 10% tariffs, the UK government, and I've heard them say it, is very keen to say 10 percent tariffs is still huge on British exports to America.

It's still a real economic cost. Britain's been trying to get this trade deal ever since 2016, when Barack Obama said the UK would have to go to the back of the trade queue because of Brexit. So if Stammer can pull this off, this would be a huge coup for him, not just in terms of trade, but also in terms of his domestic standing as well. Well, and I interviewed the mayor of London yesterday. We're going to be playing that in a minute, Mika. But the mayor also talked about the importance of this coming trade deal and the good relationship

between Keir Starmer and President Donald Trump. Yeah. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continue to draw thousands of people to their rallies across the country. In Idaho, over 12,000 people attended the duo's Monday stop in the ruby red state. The lawmakers also made two stops in California yesterday with more than 30,000 people in attendance altogether. I wonder how you're going to see Bernie going to Idaho.

And I'll give you one simple answer. It's because you matter. We are at a crossroads. We can either have extreme wealth inequality with the toxic division and corruption that it requires to continue and survive, or we can have a fair economy for all working people along with the democracy and freedoms that uphold it. it. Oligarchy or democracy. But we cannot have both.

This guy cannot take criticism. He can dish it out alright, but he can't take it. And I say to Mr. Trump, if you can't take criticism, get out of the political process. This is a democracy. Joining us now, former Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, and actually also adding to your list of creds, former U.S. ambassador to Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development. I say that because I want to ask you if the tariffs and this tour that we're witnessing with AOC and Bernie Sanders, is there any potential opportunity for Democrats here? Well, sure. And God bless those guys for doing it. You're seeing the energy. You know, the Democratic Party needs to get up. You need to get off the mat.

And then you need to get our own house in order. And then we need to get back in this fight. And those guys are leading. And God bless them. And there's a bunch of our own house in order. And then we need to get back in this fight. And those guys are leading and God bless them. And there's a bunch of sources of energy for that, but they come together into something pretty powerful. And when you're putting together, my in-laws are from Iowa.

When you're putting together farmers in Iowa and you're putting together the Harvard faculty, something's going on. And I think that the key is that people like that are the ones that provide a space for people to find their voice, find their power. And this whole thing is going to turn around when we start believing we can do something about it again. And I'm proud of those guys for doing it. And the crowds tell the story. Those crowds are hard to get when you're not a presidential candidate, when

you're not some rock star. I mean, those guys are pulling thousands of people out. That's telling me something. Yeah, it sure is, Joe. Yeah, you know, Mr. Ambassador, it's so fascinating. Of course, you had a leadership role, a big leadership role in the Democratic Party. You understand there are many parts of the Democratic Party. Bernie and AOC represent one very important part of the base that drives so many people out to the polls. But there's also, you know, I hear from Democrats all the time, man, we've got to figure out how to win middle America back again. It's interesting them choosing Idaho for that message. I'm wondering, we won't look backwards, we'll look forward. What do the Democrats need to do to keep their base energized,

as we're seeing with Senator Sanders and AOC? And at the same time, get those moderate voters that are so important to get in Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Right, well, you're seeing one half of that equation, I think, with what Alex and Bernie are doing out there, and that's important. I think the other half of it, when I say we need to get up,

but we also need to get our own house in order, is you've got to have something you can offer. And we can't just be depending on the president's unpopularity because that's not the same as them saying, well, I wish I had voted for you guys. There's a lot of opposition to this president, and then that same voter will say, well, but I wouldn't have changed my vote,

or I'm not ready to vote for you. And that's the part where we need to fill this void with reasonableness and common sense and some good ideas that speak to those folks who just want something better, but who know this is wrong. And that's the hard work of rebuilding a national majority. Now, I think the progressives have one argument for that. I think moderates have another one.

But somewhere in the middle there is some substance and some things we're gonna do for people that they look at and say, yeah, that makes sense. And then more than that, you're gonna have to start winning the culture because the fact is, the politics is downstream of the culture. And if all we're doing is talking

to other politically engaged people, you're not getting to 51. And we're going to be talking to each other, telling each other we're right, you know, and stopping at 48%. And that means you've got to get out into these communities that have found a home in the Trump movement, but who aren't really involved in politics and need to pull some of them back. And that is the hard work that folks in frontline districts often do.

And those folks tend to tend to be more problem solvers, more practical. So I think the substance drives that when you start offering solutions. But I think it starts, man, with giving people their voices back. And that's why I give Bernie and AFC a lot of credit for going out there and doing that work and more of that, please. We want more of that. You know, David French, it's so fascinating. You look back to 2016 and there were a lot of people that voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary that jumped over to Donald Trump.

There are so many examples of that happening and we've given them all here before. I won't repeat it again. But a lot of Americans who are populists, not ideological. They don't really care about the Republican Party. They really don't care about the Democratic Party. And so much of what we heard AOC and Bernie Sanders say when it comes to economics, you also hear some people in the MAGA base, including Steve Bannon at times, saying the same thing. I guess the question is how do Democrats get that energy and regain the middle of the country? Well, it's pretty clear that there's a segment

of the American voters that aren't, say, all in with Donald Trump. They're all in against the establishment. They're all in against an establishment that they feel like has failed them. Well, guess who is the establishment now? I mean, MAGA has nowhere to run if it's looking to assign responsibility for the outcomes of this administration. It controls the House. It controls the Senate. It controls the presidency. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices have been nominated by Republican presidents.

There's this is the very definition of establishment. Supreme Court justices have been nominated by Republican presidents. This is the very definition of establishment. So yeah, absolutely Trump has this base that will never run from him ever. We know that at this point, but there are people who are frustrated when things just don't work. And earlier we were talking about the difference between incompetence and malice, and malice is horrible, but incompetence may be the thing that actually does the Trump movement in.

Yeah. Mr. Ambassador, it's interesting to think about how there's an opportunity to build a coalition here that is so much more ambitious than the one that was even possible in this last election. I think about welcoming people who maybe want to admit, to paraphrase the rest of development, that they made a huge, tiny mistake. I don't wish to shame those people.

I want them to consider the broad coalition you're describing. But when it comes to how to offer them something affirmative, as opposed to merely riding the pendulum of incumbency and anti-incumbency, which is what David's talking about. Is there an obvious strategy here when it comes to how to say this is not merely not Trump, it's something actually more ambitious?

Yeah, 100%. And we've seen it in the past, but you're right to focus on the future. I mean, look, I want a Bobby Kennedy, I mean, the original, the OG Bobby Kennedy Democratic Party that can go into Appalachia like those guys are going out to red states and talk to people who are struggling and not sound like a weirdo and be able to sound like their neighbor, be able to talk like their friend or the guy they grew up with and yet can also say, hey, you know, no principles matter. We're going to stand up for the thing called the Constitution. And so, yeah, you may think due process doesn't apply to these folks, but here's why it matters.

And I do think combining working class people and people who are looking for a place in the American dream is always been the project of the Democratic Party at our best, and we can do that, and we can energize young people again, and we can talk about the future. And I think this Trump stuff is all a bunch of junk food. It's going to leave people feeling lousy and tired and it's not going to work.

And when that space opens up, it's our job to fill it. And it's our job to fill it with something healthy and something good and something they know is better. I mean, ultimately, I want to be a party of hope and of positive change while these guys are finding their power and anger and in hatred and in resentment. You know, that can get you pretty far. We'll see.

But we can go farther if we go together. And that's always been the Democrats at our best. Former congressman and former U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Sean Patrick Maloney, thanks for coming on this morning. Great to see you. Thanks.