Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/17/25

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

DOJ, DHS release new documents on Kilmar Abrego Garcia

I asked the vice president if Abrego Garcia has not committed a crime and the US courts have found that he was illegally taken from the United States and the government of El Salvador has no evidence that he was part of MS-13, why is El Salvador continuing to hold him in CECOT? And his answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at CECOT. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland in El Salvador yesterday after being denied any access to Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

It comes as the judge overseeing the Alien Enemies Act case says there is probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court. We'll bring you expert legal analysis on both cases. Plus, we'll dig into the new comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell amid Trump's trade war with China. And we'll have a look at the latest rally for Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drawing another huge crowd in a deep red state. What does it all mean?

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday everyone, April 17th. We're almost through the week. With us we have NBC News national, we do have NBC News national affairs analyst and partner and chief political columnist at Puck, John Heilman. Thank you sir, very much in place, ready to go, top of the show.

Very impressive, Claire, a couple of times he just wasn't there. But today he's there. It's always impressive when Heilman gets up early. It's that and Barnacle. He's like a snow leopard. Yeah, no I know. When you see him it's a special thing.

I'm introducing him and I'm filled with angst because I don't know if his picture is actually going to pop up. But he leaves us kind of waiting. I guess it's kind of a draw. All right. NBC News political analyst, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, always on time, even on Central Time.

But here she is with us on the East Coast. Host of Pablo Torrey Finds Out on MetalArk Media, MSNBC contributor Pablo Torrey, White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason. A lot to talk to Jeff about today. Thank you for coming in. And speaking of a lot to talk about, she doesn't stop working because the legal news doesn't stop coming. MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator Lisa Rubin is here.

So let's get right to it. Remember, this is a fun show, right? Absolutely. Yeah. Except our new brand is Nothing About This Is Fun, right? At least that's what we were saying the other day. Nothing about this is fun, but we're muddling through as best we can. The federal judge overseeing the Alien Enemies Act case says he has found probable cause to hold the

Trump administration in contempt of court. In a new filing yesterday, Judge James Boasberg said the White House actions demonstrate a willful disregard of the court's order. He added, the court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily. Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory. Last month at an emergency hearing, Judge Boasberg ordered the Department of Justice to turn around planes heading to El Salvador with hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members on board, no one getting the process that they should have had to be

put on a flight such as this or leave the country thrown out. The flights did not return to the US as ordered. The Justice Department stonewalled Boesberg from learning additional details about the timing of the flights. Judge Boesberg says he will give the government a chance to remedy the situation, but if it doesn't, he'll proceed to identify the people in contempt and refer the matter for prosecution. I'm going to go to Claire. You can take it to Lisa, the two legal minds at the table here. I guess first of all, what has always been a little bit troubling to me in the coverage

of the Abrigo Garcia story is that that is a horrific story, and it absolutely, I guess on a political level, might actually move the meter a little bit. It gives a name, a face, a family to this incredible story of our laws being pushed to the limit or maybe even broken. And at the same time, all these other deportations, Claire, in a way calling Abrego Garcia a mistake is sort of giving subversive validation to these other deportees. All of their cases are legally questionable as well. And they continue.

These flights continue. Your thoughts? Yeah, I think that what this administration is doing is deciding that it's okay to be lawless. Keep in mind, there are ways to deport people in this country legally. And they have all kinds of ways they can, in fact, make these deportations go more quickly. But the things they're doing now, many of them are really running afoul of the majority of what America thinks.

I don't think the majority of America thinks that you should revoke all the student visas of foreign students without any kind of rhyme or reason other than that they may have a different opinion than you do. I don't think frankly they think that someone who's lived in this country and has children and is married and has never broken the law should be deported especially if they've been here for a decade or longer. That's not what America thinks. In fact, polling backs me up on this. So if they really want to deport folks then all they've got to do is use the law to do it. Deport folks.

Yeah. And I don't think, I mean, most Americans think criminals that are here illegally should be deported. Focus on that and quit doing this lawless stuff that, frankly, they're going to lose a big chunk, especially of independent voters. And let me just jump in. If you guys could pull up the Hillary Clinton she posted, I believe on Blue Sky or Instagram yesterday. I'm going to read that. Go back to you and you can take it to

Lisa. You'll have a way better question than me because you guys are deep into this and understanding of the law. But Trump TV will tell you that, oh, the lefties on MSNBC, the Democrats, they don't want gang members to be thrown out of this country. Listen to them. That is not what we're saying. Just FYI, everybody wants criminals and gang members to be put into jail or put in a situation where they can't hurt people again. We're all with you there.

You can't say that because you're lying when you do. What we are saying is that people deserve the process that is due to them, whether they are illegal immigrants or American citizens. And none of these people received any of that. And many of these people are being defamed by Trump TV, defamed by the president, defamed by Pam Bondi, defamed and being labeled things that they may not be. And in the case of Abrego Garcia, they're taking a baseball hat, a baseball hat, and saying he's a terrorist because he's wearing a baseball hat. Who's crazy? Okay?

So back to the Hillary Clinton post, Claire, she put this up. I don't know if it was yesterday, but it came my way. Before the election, I warned that there's no safe haven under authoritarianism. If they can ship Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to a foreign prison accused of no crime with no trial, they can do it to anyone. Americans of conscience must stand against this now. And you know, the hope is, Claire, that there is a groundswell of support for our country in this country, for our Constitution. Absolutely. And speaking of the Constitution,

this fire hose of legal cases that you are, I'm sure you've got some giant spreadsheet in your head, Lisa, but there are so many cases that are careening towards the ultimate showdown in the Supreme Court. How quickly will this Boasburg decision get to the Supreme Court, if at all? I think there's a possibility that not this particular decision, but something stemming from it, Claire, is going to end up at the Supreme Court, ultimately.

Right now, all we have is a decision saying that he's found probable cause that there is not just contempt, Mika, but criminal contempt. And I want to play out what that means. There are lots of different forms of judicial contempt as Claire knows. Usually what happens in a case is you start from civil contempt which is a fine and then it might escalate if the disobedience continues. Here Boasberg has found that there's probable cause already to find that there's criminal contempt and he's given the government two choices and the choices are by

April 23rd a week from yesterday you do one of two things you either purge the contempt or you identify the people who are responsible for having made the decision not to turn the first of the three the first two of the three planes that left on March 15th around now Mr. Obrego Garcia is on the third of those planes somewhere north of of 100 alleged members of Tren de Aragua are on the first two. But I want to underscore for our viewers how easy it would be to purge the contempt and what it means to cure it. Because it's not that he's telling them, release all of these people from an El Salvadoran prison.

All he's saying to them is, he says this directly, I'm going to read from the order, per the terms of the TRO, meaning his own temporary restraining order, the government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland, meaning the United States. All they have to do is retake custody of these people, put them back in US hands, assure that their rights are being respected as opposed to placing them in a notorious Salvadoran prison that looks more like a concentration camp than it does anything resembling an American prison that I've been to see clients in.

For example, Claire, you might have visited in your capacity as a law enforcement officer at some point in time. That is really startling, I think, because I don't think people appreciate that's all the government needs to do here to resolve this issue that could lead to a showdown with the court. The other thing I wanna underscore

is that if we get to a point where the government says, okay, we're gonna identify people, and Mika, you mentioned that he could appoint a prosecutor, there are going to be people on the right who say, this is further proof that he is just lawless, he meaning Judge Boasberg. And there is ample precedent for doing so. The federal rules of criminal procedure

require that in a situation of criminal contempt, first you refer to the Department of Justice. And if the Department of Justice says, no, we don't think a crime was committed here, the judge has every right to choose a lawyer of his or her own choosing to basically stand in the shoes of the government and prosecute a criminal contempt. And it's happened before. It's happened here in New York. There's a sort of infamous environmental lawyer named Steven Donziger, who served a term in prison for exactly this, for criminal contempt, where there was a civil litigation. He was referred by a judge here in the Southern District.

That case went up to the Supreme Court after his conviction was affirmed by an appeals court. And guess what? The Supreme Court did nothing to rescue him from that. So in the event that we get to a place where there is a finding of criminal contempt because there was a prosecutor appointed, make no mistake. We've seen that movie before. It won't be something wholly novel to this country. All right. Well, and we continue now. The Trump administration yesterday, as I mentioned, released new documents in the case of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media to post his 2019 immigration court records

after weeks of pressure on the government to prove its contention that Abrego-Garcia was a gang member. The documents describe how police officers in Maryland approached Abrego-Garcia, along with three other people, for loitering at a Home Depot parking lot. Officials say he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat. It's basketball, but baseball hat. And a hoodie with markings that were allegedly indicative of Hispanic gang culture and symbolizes

a, quote, member in good standing. At the time of his arrest, Abrego Garcia had no criminal history. The Department of Homeland Security also released records that said he was detained in connection to a 2019 murder investigation. Abrego Garcia denied he was ever involved and was never charged. DHS also released more documents revealing that Abrego Garcia's wife sought a temporary protective order against him in 2021. She says at the time it was out of abundance of caution and the couple had

worked through their issues. A month later the case was dismissed. In a statement about the incident his wife wrote part, no one is perfect and no marriage is perfect. That is not a justification for ISIS action of abducting him and deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from deportation. White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, doubled down on the administration's stance, stating that Abrego Garcia will never live in the U.S. again. As far as his current condition, DHS says there are no further updates.

And it's not just those on the left calling for due process here. We've heard from the editors at the National Review, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, Joe Rogan, all speaking out for due process. However, that turns out, but due process. And Fox News host and former Republican congressman and federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy yesterday criticized the Trump administration for how it's handling the Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to the U.S. Take a look. I mean, I think what they ought to do is probably follow the judge's order and the Supreme Court

decision, which used the word facilitate. Also in that opinion, more so were the words accidental, mistake, and illegal. I mean those are not three good words you want in a Supreme Court decision. If the president doesn't agree with that, and he may not, then bring him back and then remove him to another country. Appeal the removal order. But what we can't have is any executive disobeying or not following a judge's decision, even if you disagree with it. So a few voices there, which is something, Pablo.

And also we're seeing a smattering of voices in some of these town halls, where maybe even red state Americans might say, hey, hey, hey, can we just do things the right way? Yeah. I want to be clear about something, Mika. Right now, what Trump TV, as you put it, is doing is asking you to look at an inkblot

test and they're saying, what do you see? Here are the details. He was a man never charged with a crime, but he's had problems in his marriage, but he was found in this parking lot with alleged gang affiliated caps, hoodies, that stuff. And what I want to make clear is that you actually don't need to respect Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a man in order to come to a clear conclusion on this matter. It's whether you respect the law. It's not about whether he's a good

guy. It's about whether the process, the system, the rule of law is worthy of protection even when it's an unpopular person, even if it's not an ambiguous inkblot. Even when it's a guy you clearly think, I don't want that person living next to me in my neighborhood, even if I grant you that. That's why I read Hillary Clinton's post. And it's why this is about. And it's why we're seeing a coalition of people at the Wall Street Journal, serious conservative thinkers say to themselves, this is beyond the pale.

And when we say deportation, I also want to make clear as well, one more thing. We're talking about an El Salvadorian concentration camp, a prison camp, a terrorist holding facility run by a guy who calls himself the world's coolest dictator. And I just have to keep on stressing that because we're making a choice about whether we care about how America figures out whether someone is worthy of punishment or not. And you do that, as we've established now, through the legal system. And that's what we're not doing by indulging Bukele and Trump. I think you are actually paring it down to, this is really good, because the question

for Americans is, is it okay with you that hundreds of men, allegedly, but no one's giving the due process, the proof, the court proceeding, accused of crimes by members of the administration, by people on television? John Heilman. I just wonder if there are political consequences to this. When you take a group of people and remove them and send them to a prison that is pretty much like a concentration camp, where some of them probably won't come out alive or will never see the light of day.

Are Americans OK with that? And are they OK with going a step further, which is what Donald Trump is talking about? And we, of course, remind our viewers, who were all there during the election, he said he wanted to do tariffs. He's doing tariffs. He said he wanted to do mass deportations. He's trying. The numbers are tough to meet.

So you know, it's not like we should be surprised. But will Americans be OK with what is happening here before it grows into something else, which Trump is telling us about? Well, Mika, I wish I had the crystal ball here on what Americans will or won't be OK with. We have so many of these things we're seeing are things we've never seen before, and we don't really have any precedent to make any judgment about it, I would say there are a lot of Americans who, in the abstract, do not care about due process.

There are a lot of Americans who are fine with the notion, if all they're presented with is the notion of bad guy, gang member, criminal, they don't particularly mind. I'm not speaking for myself here, but they don't particularly mind if they're sent out of the country. I don't think they particularly mind if they're given due process. And I think they particularly mind if they're sent to a brutal gulag concentration camp level facility in El Salvador. I'm afraid the matter is that there are a lot of Americans who don't care about that.

There are also a lot of Americans who do. This is what we...we have a very, very divided country. And there are...there's a great split about this, and the arguments in favor of civil liberties due process have not been clear-cut political winners over the course of recent American history. However, here's what I think a lot of Americans do overwhelmingly, to Claire's point about what the polling suggests. I don't think that a lot of Americans support the notion of people who have been living

in the country under any immigration status, who've been here for a long time, who have not been convicted of crimes, who have not been charged of crimes, who have held down jobs, who have families, who are married in some cases, as is the case with Kilmar Albrego Garcia, married to an American citizen. There's an overwhelming body of data that shows that most Americans are not in favor of those people being sent anywhere, not just to a gulag, but being deported even from the country at all. people being sent anywhere, not just to a gulag, but being deported even from the country at all. And further, and finally, I will say, that the other thing that I think that a lot of

Americans instinctively find problematic is the notion that Donald Trump or any president would stand up on a routine basis and say, I am the law and court orders are not for me. Nine-oh decisions by the Supreme Court, go pound sand, Supreme Court. Flipping the middle finger to the Supreme Court and to all the lower courts, I think is a thing that gives a lot of Americans a lot of pause. And you're starting to see that is the thing that you're starting to pop up in some of these town hall meetings where Americans are just kind of like, I don't want...

I can't really necessarily tell you my theory of government, but I like the fact that we have a few branches that kind of balance each other out, and they don't like the idea of having an all-powerful executive. Well, Halman, it's like the guy at the Grassley Town Hall who said, you know, if I get a $1,200 ticket and I don't pay it, does that stand up? I mean, that's bringing it down to how it impacts everyday Americans' lives. So Jeff, what's your reporting, reporter's mind, what stands out to you in...there's these two stories that are really converging.

It's the bigger story of all the deportations that took place, the Gazi video that was made of these people being treated like animals, chained and dragged out of the country and thrown into a gulag. This is America 2025. And the one, and then down to the one story, I guess the face of the story, which is Mr. Garcia. Yeah. So I'm a White House reporter. So I'm going to look at it from my sort of wheelhouse, which is politics. And I think there's a political aspect to this and there's a legal aspect to this, which you're much better at talking about. But I'll start with the legal piece, which is,

I think many people are seeing the beginning of or the potential for a constitutional crisis because of the Trump administration and the president's willingness to basically challenge the courts and to challenge these court rulings. I asked the president last weekend, I was traveling with him to Florida, if he would respect the Supreme Court decision or with the Supreme Court's order to facilitate this the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia and he said if the Supreme Court says we have to return him we'll return him and then I said well what about the lower courts and he wouldn't engage on that so I think and the president has said

multiple times that he will respect the Supreme Court I think he does respect respect the Supreme Court but I think he's also very willing to see this and every other battle that he's fighting right now go all the way up to the Supreme Court. On the political side, the fact that I was glad you played or you mentioned what Caroline Levitt said yesterday, I think they're clearly feeling the heat because the fact that yesterday she brought out a mother

whose daughter had died, was killed brutally by a person who was here illegally. She's trying with that kind of move to say, as you said earlier, Democrats, the media, everyone is pushing for this man to come back. Why aren't you looking over here? Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive. And I think that's showing that they're beginning to feel a little bit of political pressure. Yeah.

Lisa, where is this going next? What should we be watching for? I think you should circle April 23rd on your calendar. It's the date where not only do the Department of Justice and many of the defendants owe an answer to Judge Boasberg, but it's also the date where the judge in the Abrego Garcia case has said, plainness, that's your deadline for your first deposition. She's already told them as she barrels toward a contempt hearing of her own, you can take four depositions of the four people who have put declarations sworn

under oath in my court refusing to really give me the information that I've required about this man's whereabouts and what efforts the government has taken to return him. So April 23rd is gonna be a big day. Mika, I just wanna add one more thing about the constitutional crisis that some people feel is impending. I interviewed a law professor at Columbia yesterday, Jamal Green, he's an expert in constitutional law,

and I asked him, when do you see this constitutional crisis coming? And he said, we're already there. Because most of what happens in this country in terms of our fidelity to the constitution never happens in a court of law. It happens behind the scenes and what determines whether or not we are faithful to the constitution is largely behind closed doors in terms of the executive branch's willingness to monitor

themselves, to hold themselves back. He said, we hit that constitutional crisis on day one with the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order and all of the executive orders that followed, including the one on February 20th that named a number of these gangs foreign terrorist organizations that set into motion the events that we're all talking about right here and now. I would also add that it's not hyperbole

to raise questions about whether he would do, the administration would do this to American citizens because he has floated at himself. So that that is not just a made-up threat. That's something that's quoting the president United States. Yep. So we have a piece that we're gonna read from Ed Luce coming up that really plays into what you're saying here. MSNBC legal correspondent and host of Can They Do That on YouTube, Lisa Rubin. Thank you so much for coming on this morning, explaining everything. Still ahead on Morning Joe, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is warning inflation is likely to

rise because of President Trump's tariffs. We'll play for you those comments along with his reference to the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Also ahead, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who sits on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, will join the conversation. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. At great Chicagoan, Ferris Bueller once noted, life moves pretty fast. For the time being, we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.

Wow. Jerome Powell yesterday making a Ferris Bueller reference during a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago. The Fed chair is warning President Trump's tariffs could spur a temporary rise in inflation. The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects. Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. Inflationary effects could also be more persistent.

Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the effects, on how long it takes for them to pass through fully to prices, and ultimately on keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Powell's comments triggered a market sell-off, and all three indexes ended the day in the red. Let's bring in former Treasury official and Morning Joe Economic analyst Steve Ratner. You've got some charts for us, but first, what do you make of the Fed chair's comments? It was an important speech because the Fed chairman had been pretty quiet about all this

tariff stuff and what the impact was likely to be. The market's been wondering because, as we've talked about many, many times on this show, tariffs are inflationary. They're also, I don't want to say recessionary, but a drag on economic growth because higher inflation means people buy less and the economy slows down and so forth. And so the Fed is sort of between a rock and a hard place. So you remember that the Fed's goal, and they've been very, very clear and explicit about it, is 2% inflation.

Inflation's been running about 3%. Powell keeps reiterating 2% inflation. But now you have an economy that's slowing down. And so the question is, is the Fed going to try to help? And market, as I said, has been wondering about this. I think what you heard yesterday is one thing that we know, which is a very tough and difficult decision for the Fed. What do they actually do?

And I think, as the lead-in said, the market took it as a hawkish sign that the Fed was going to be tough on inflation. And so the market went down, because high interest rates are the enemy of the stock market, basically. So we're going to get to your charts in just a moment. But Claire, I'm just... Trump posted yesterday, I guess he didn't like Powell's speech. He posted that this morning, among other things things he says there, Powell's termination cannot

come fast enough. But nobody likes these tariffs. Who likes these tariffs except for the, like, Steve Miller? Is there one other guy? Alutnik? And Donald Trump. I mean, who's in support of what is happening to the nation's economy right now? Peter Navarro.

Yeah, Peter Navarro. Peter Navarro loves Jesus. You got me. Jesus is terrible. But Elon Musk says he's dumb as a brick. I haven't seen Elon Musk in a while. We're going to talk maybe about why. Can I just say one quick thing before, Claire? Because this is really important. This is really important, which is when

Trump says he hates Powell, the question is, what does he want? Does he want someone who's just going to cut interest rates, which is what he's implied, which would be really bad for inflation, which we are now committed to getting back to 2%. And so, sorry, Claire, but I just wanted to make that point. Listen, the thing about his speech yesterday that struck me is that he's waiting for clarity. Well, that's like saying, I'm going to see the real Easter bunny on Sunday, because this

administration is specializing in chaos. Right, in lack of clarity. And the one thing that Trump is learning, and if he were to try to get rid of Powell, that would just be more chaotic. That would be more damaging in terms of what it would mean to our economy. So he can bully a lot of people. He can try to bully news outlets.

He can try to bully universities. He's obviously successfully bullied. Some of the largest, most successful law firms in the country brought them to their knees like little baby cowards they are are but he can't bully investors. He can't say to the rest of the world you can trust us now and they can see with their own eyes they can't. So he's really, Trump is, and he will be captured by the stock market in terms of his political popularity. People like to say, well, only rich people have stocks.

There is a huge number of people whose 401s, especially people near retirement, they're dwindling in front of their very eyes, and they are in a state of panic about this. So politically, Donald Trump has a problem because he can't control investors that are turning their back on the United States bonds. OK, I just have to make one clarification for our viewers. I know that we have been on the air for 18 years now, and people say, I grew up watching you. So I know that there are children watching.

And Claire's wrong. The Easter Bunny is very real. And you're going to get lots of eggs, and they're going to have little treats inside. My daughter, if she's awake right now, Violet, don't listen to Claire McCaskill. It's gonna be okay. That is fake news. That part is fake news. If your child that believes in the Easter Bunny is watching this program.

Yeah. Because the parents are watching. Well, I guess that's true. I guess it's possible. We're back. Sorry. We're back. Sorry. We need the demo, Claire. We're trying to get the new demo.

I have 16 grandchildren, so I should know better. I've gotten, I grew up watching Maureen Jo. I think Pablo actually said that to me, which really hurt me. Yikes. Still paying the price for that. Thanks. Actuarial honesty. Pablo.

Jeff, yeah, I know you're leaving, so final word here. Easter Bunny, go. Well, I was going to say final word politics, although I'm sure we can bring Easter Bunny into that too. President Trump, as a candidate, promised to bring down inflation. And that was one of the key things that he promised as a presidential candidate. He also promised to bring on tariffs. And as you said earlier, everything he's doing are things that he has given people a heads up about.

But those two things are colliding. And the politics will come to collide as well, I think pretty quickly, if those prices do not come down. Yeah. No, I mean, he's promised a lot of these things that are happening, and that's why it can't be shocked. But it still can be deeply troubling. White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason,

thank you very much. We're going to get to Steve's charts after a break, but let's take a moment to take a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Puerto Rico is in the middle of an island-wide blackout. More than 1.4 million people lost electricity yesterday afternoon. Officials say a problem near a transmission line knocked out service to the island's power plants. It's expected to tape up to 72 hours to fully restore the power. All the hospitals are now operating under generators. The Trump administration is changing its policy about which news outlets

cover the president each day. Wire services, which usually include the Associated Press, Bloomberg News and Reuters, will no longer have a permanent place in the White House daily press pool. They'll be now placed in a larger rotation with roughly 30 other newspapers and print outlets. Jeff, just, that's, just quick, chime in. Just that it's a blow to keeping independent news reporters

and agencies in the pool. It affects my company, it affects me, and it affects the ability for people who are straight down the middle reporters to ask questions that are important to the president. The Associated Press claims this violates a court order that says the administration does not have sole discretion on who gets to ask the president questions.

Of course, we'll be following that. And NASA's James Webb telescope has detected a potential hint of life on a planet that's 124 light years away. Researchers say the telescope found signs of a molecule that on Earth has only one known source. Simple organisms such as marine algae. Early observations also suggest the planet's atmosphere is consistent with the presence of a global ocean. More evidence still needs to be collected. Maybe the... I can't do it. I shouldn't do it. I was going to say maybe the ladies of Blue Origin should go check it out. I feel like they're...

Simple organisms here on Earth, Nika. I feel like we're... I think I'm with Priceline. Start with, I'm with Shatner. I'm with Shatner. Oh yeah. County Kirk. Read Shatner's comments about his experience in space. Incredible. Coming up, Steve Ratner has a closer look at Tesla's drop in sales as Elon Musk continues

to slash the federal workforce through his Department of Government Efficiency. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Beautiful shot of New York City, thanks to Chopper Four for you this morning. Gorgeous sunrise. As billionaire Elon Musk continues his work with the Department of Government Efficiency, he has not spoken much about his company, Tesla. As new data shows, its electronic vehicle, well, the sales fell almost 9% in the first three months of 2025. What could be behind that? Steve Ratner has made his way over to the southwest wall with his

charts. Let's start with Tesla. What's going on there, Steve? Yeah, Meek, as you said, Tesla has actually hit a bit of a bump in the road, no pun intended. But you can see here that Tesla in its early years had huge sales increases, as you would expect, very popular, one of the few makers of really good electric vehicles in the country. But beginning in 2025, its sales kind of stagnated, combination of really two reasons. One, some competition, more competition from other people trying to get in the business, including domestic manufacturers. And also the fact that people are getting their models Y and S, two of their most popular models, getting a little bit long in the tooth, so to speak. But look what

happened here in the first quarter. In the first quarter, their sales went down 13% more than they've ever done before. That's across the world. If you look at just the U.S., you can see that all U.S. EV sales are actually up 11% and Tesla was down 9%. And so what I think you are starting to see, and I'll get to this a bit more in a second, you are starting to see Musk's unpopularity weigh on Tesla's sales. Some of it is expected. Their market share, when you start with a very, very high market share, it's really only one way to go.

And as I said, other people are making them. But look what happened in Europe in the first quarter. In Europe, their market share dropped enormously. And this, I do think, has heavily related to the unpopularity of both American products, frankly, as well as Elon Musk in Europe. Interesting. And so Tesla tanking, what's the reason behind it? So, yes, you can see the Tesla stock back in September, October was down here. When Trump was elected, it took this huge run up because people thought that Musk was simply going

to be a great beneficiary of the federal government's largesse. And then you can see that along with all the chaos and commotion and Trump's own personal issues, you can see Tesla stocks gone all the way back down. But Morgan Stanley did a survey and they found that 85% of investors think that Musk's political activities are going to have a negative impact on Tesla's business fundamentals. And so, again, I think the market is starting to say that Musk is becoming too hot to handle, so to speak. But one other point about Musk that's worth making, which is that for all his talk about

being anti-government, anti-government programs and things like that, Tesla has been an unbelievable beneficiary of government largesse. And so this is year by year you can see here. The biggest piece of all of this about 1.7 billion dollars are electric vehicle credits that Tesla sells to other automakers who are forced to comply with our electric vehicle and our fuel emission standards. So ironically a program that Trump has talked about killing is one of the ones that Musk has been the biggest beneficiary of. So ironically a program that Trump has talked about killing is one of the ones that Musk has been the biggest beneficiary of. So let's just talk about

Musk overall and Doge. I mean the promises were, I don't know, target cutting 150 billion, 2 trillion annually from the budget. I mean they went in there, a bunch of people, with I believe no clearance, no cabinet position. So there's those issues and those questions that have a lot of us wondering. But okay, so what's been the outcome of these grand projections? So yeah, as you said, there's been an enormous amount of commotion. You've had a bunch of people lose their jobs. You've had confusion all over the place. What do we have to show for it? Well, back during the campaign, Trump claimed we have to show for it? Well, back during the campaign, Trump claimed that he was going to cut $2 trillion from

our annual budget. And by the way, our annual budget is $7 trillion. So you're talking about, he would have been talking obviously about a massive, massive cut. They quickly realized that was not successful in January. They said, we'll cut a trillion out of the budget. And by the way, the government's fiscal year is now more than half over anyway. But then on April 10th, they lowered it to $150 billion.

So two trillion, one trillion, 150. But even the 150 billion, the New York Times did a very thorough investigation of this. And 92 billion of it is unspecified. Nobody knows where that's coming from. Of the other 63 billion, there were all kinds of mistakes, including, for example, a contract for 1.9 billion they claim credit for actually canceled during the Biden administration. So for all the commotion, all the layoffs, all the unhappy people,

there's not, there's very little to show for it. You can see that most clearly over here because this tracks federal spending month by month since the beginning of each year back from 2022 and as you would expect it went up a little bit in 23, a little bit in 24, but it's actually gone up a good bit in 25. So there's still no impact whatsoever on government spending from all of, as I said, the commotion that Musk has created in Washington. Wow. Morning, Joe, economic analyst Steve Ratner.

Thank you very much for coming on this morning. And John Hellman, your thoughts on how DOGE is doing. Well, Mika, to Steve's point, I think some of us said from the very beginning that given the composition of the federal government and the federal budget, given how much of that goes to the big entitlement programs and defense spending, that you are not going to have much of an impact on the budget unless you started to take on some of those large programs. And so, Elon Musk, he put his hand on the hot stove when he talked about how Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

People immediately bridled at that. That became a political liability for the Trump team. And Elon Musk made himself, as you'll remember, the face of that Wisconsin judicial election. He took a drubbing there. There's now been a lot of data that's looked at that election that showed that for all the money that he spent on that conservative judicial Supreme Court candidate, that he actually hurt the candidate more than he helped the candidate.

And the Trump administration very quickly has been kind of ditching Musk and decoupling itself from Musk because he's become so unpopular. And just to get back to one thing Steve was saying a second ago, I am not a stock market analyst, but I'll tell you, when a thing starts to have a name out in America, Tesla regret syndrome, people are out there in the world right now peeling the Tesla, not the logo, but the little symbol that they have on the car. People who own those cars are now going to places to have the Tesla symbol removed and replaced with an Audi symbol or a Toyota symbol or something else because people are now going to places to have the Tesla symbol removed and replaced with an Audi symbol

or a Toyota symbol or something else because people are now embarrassed, have buyer's remorse over driving Teslas around. That cannot be good for business, Mika. Yeah, that's better than other things that have been happening. Can we talk about his legions of children in the Wall Street Journal Exposé? Oh my God. Please, oh please. That he's DMing women on Twitter and saying have my baby.

What is that? And giving them his sperm. Oh! And then he told one of the women, this killed me, told one of the women that he expected her to have a C-section rather than a vaginal burst because that would impact the size of his child's brain. Now this is a guy that not only is destroying his company, but more importantly, he's a weirdo. He is a weirdo. He's like a harem.

The party of family values and moral majority, and he's got a harem, and he wants to call his children a legion. We don't even know how many kids he has. That's my favorite part is that the reporting. He pays them to be quiet. The reporting can't even have a kid he has. That's my favorite part is that the reporting can't even bracket the reasonable range of how many kids yeah, Roger and with who it's important that we point out this is reporting

from the Wall Street Wall Street Journal that we're not talking about. It's such an important detail me go that when we reference these stories. It's not just the It's such an important detail, Mika, that when we reference these stories, it's not just the people at this desk. Yeah. It is data empirics, conservative leaning traditionally when it comes to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, like outlets, outlets that really are just saying, this DeClaris point is just profoundly weird.

Yeah, and disturbing. And how is he in on everybody's private information without any clearance? I still, I'll go back to that. But he's paying people to make sure his information is private. OK. That's just all, doesn't seem good. John Hellman, thank you very much. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to turn to some medical news now where the CDC

is now reporting a rise in autism in school-aged children. We're going to break down those new findings. Plus, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren will join the conversation on the economy, how President Trump's tariffs policies are impacting her state, and much more. Morning Joe will be right back. These will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children, and we need to put an end

to it. That was HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. yesterday discussing a new CDC report detailing a rise in autism among children. According to the agency, about one in 31 kids were diagnosed with the disorder by their eighth birthday in 2022. That is nearly five times the figure in 2000. Joining us now, physician and senior public health contributor for Forbes, Dr. Omer Awan. Thank you very much for coming on the show.

Let's start there. Why are we seeing this uptick? Sometimes it's better reporting, but is there something else? Well, the diagnostic criteria for autism is brought in significantly, and this has allowed for many more milder cases of autism to be classified under the umbrella term autism spectrum disorder. And the other thing about this, Mika, is that, you know, physicians and pediatricians in particular are doing a much better job screening for autism.

So you go to a pediatric office and you'll get good questions about exactly social interactions, learning, and this has allowed many more children to eventually be diagnosed with autism. So I want to get...there's a lot of interesting health news to get to here with you. A fluoride in the water and this new information about CT scans. So, but let's move to fluoride, which we have in our water for a reason. RFK Jr. says he plans to tell the CDC to stop recommending fluoride in drinking water. Will this happen? And what will be the consequences? Well, it could absolutely happen because in Utah already they've banned fluoride in drinking

water and this, Mika, could really have devastating consequences for public health and oral health in particular. You know, the American Dental Association has said that fluoride in public water decreases tooth decay and cavities by 25% in both children and adults. And when we consider this, you know, this is really going to be devastating because remember, 70 million Americans lack dental insurance. This is going to cause a huge uptick in cavities and this may cost the federal government. Why is he doing it?

He believes that it could be harmful. And certainly at the concentrations that we see, it is not harmful. And decades of research has shown that at the concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter, we don't see harm. But when it's at higher concentrations, like 2 milligrams, 4 milligrams, it can cause certain adverse effects like tooth discoloration, even bony abnormalities. But the research has shown that that doesn't occur at the concentrations that currently exist.

So this is in tap water, fluoride, public drinking. A lot of people drink bottled water and plastic bottles. Does that have fluoride in it? It does, yeah. It does. Certainly, you know, anything that has spring water, anything that comes from a public source has fluoride in it. And this has saved many people, probably yourself and myself, from getting cavities.

So it's going to be interesting to see what happens next. All right. There's also been a study that is highlighting increased cancer risk from CT scans. Tell us what the findings were and I mean, where do we go from here? A lot of people really depend on them. Absolutely. Well, I think the important thing to remember about this study is that it was based on statistical

modeling and not real patient outcomes. And what the study did was it showed that CT scans, which have ballooned significantly, more than 90 million CT scans are done yearly, can result in 5% of all cancers in America. Now remember also, CT scans are very important. They're critical in saving lives and detecting cancers earlier. They're critical in decreasing hospital stays for people that are in the hospital, and even they prevent invasive procedures from happening, and that has risks in itself. But with that said, there is a harm from the radiation from CT scans. People, the more CT scans you have, the more radiation you're going to cumulatively get,

and then you can also have an increased risk of having cancer in the future. We got to go, but on a scale of one to 10, RFK as HHS secretary has you how concerned? 10 being the highest. 10. Yeah. Physician and senior public health contributor for Forbes, Dr. Omer Awan. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. Come back.