Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/9/25

Episode Date: April 9, 2025

Trump touts tariffs amid more market turmoil

This is a snapshot of the Dow since President Trump's inauguration, after dropping more than 15% since its record high, putting it into correction territory. I'm not an economist, but it's probably a bad sign when the chart itself looks like it jumped off the roof. Look at that drop. The Fed is going to make a roller coaster of that. Mom, I want to ride the Dow Jones. We can't afford it!

As a result of the tariffs, Americans are now racing to buy iPhones before prices increase. Yep, iPhones and toilet paper are two most essential bathroom items. How's he even coming up with these numbers? What do you think about a tariff of 100% on China? Not enough. Make it 104. All right. The late night shows focusing heavily on Donald Trump's tariffs. It comes as the

president's trade policies continue to rattle the markets, leading to a dramatic sell off yesterday on Wall Street and pushing one of the major averages dangerously close to a bear market. Meanwhile, Trump's sky-high taxes on Chinese imports took effect overnight, and the president already has plans for more tariffs on an industry that would impact millions of Americans. We're going to go through all of that straight ahead. Plus, we'll have an update on the Trump administration's attempts to control who can be a part of the White House press pool. And we'll get expert legal analysis on the state attorneys general who are having some success in challenging the president's executive orders. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday,

April 9th. There's a birthday boy, Morning Joe, himself. Happy birthday, Joe. With us, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan LeMare. He's a contributing writer at The Atlantic, covering the White House and national politics and writer-at-large for The New York Times. Elizabeth B. Miller joins us as well. The markets are off to a rollercoaster start this morning, as more of President Trump's tariffs take effect. It comes after another turbulent day for Wall Street, with a sharp sell-off sending the markets into the red at the closing bell.

The fourth straight day of losses has the S&P 500 nearing a bear market, which is a drop of at least 20 percent from its recent high. As The Wall Street Journal notes, the S&P 500 had a historic day, with Tuesday's swing marking the first time since at least 1978. The benchmark rose more than 4% during a session, only to close down more than 1%. The tech-heavy NASDAQ composite blew its biggest intraday

gain since at least 1982. And yet, the president continues to defend his tariffs, falsely claiming that countries are paying the taxes on imported goods. Last night, at a Republican event in Washington, the president bragged about his trade policies. The countries are paying tariffs. Right now, China is paying a 104 percent tariff. Think of it, 104 percent. Now, it sounds ridiculous, but they charged us for many items, 100 percent, 125 percent. Many countries have. They've ripped us off left and right. But now it's our turn to do the ripping.

I deal with other countries all the time. I am right now on tariffs where they want to make a deal with us. We don't necessarily want to make a deal with them. We're happy the way we are, taking our $2 billion a day. But they want to make a deal with us. I know what the hell I'm doing. I know what I'm doing and you know what I'm doing too. That's why you vote for me. I'm telling you these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make a deal. Please, please make a deal.

I'll do anything. I'll do anything sir and then I'll see some rebel Republican. You know some guy that wants to grandstand, say, I think that Congress should take over negotiations. Let me tell you, you don't negotiate like I negotiate. Meanwhile, President Trump's latest round of tariffs currently in effect includes an additional levy on Chinese imports, totaling 104% in what's now being described as a full-blown trade war between the two nations. The move comes after China refused to back down and drop its 34% retaliatory tariff on

the U.S. The Communist nation's Ministry of Commerce accused the U. the US of bullying and blackmail. At the same time, President Trump said the newly imposed tariff hike would remain in place until China makes a deal. China says it's willing to hold talks, but not under duress. And President Trump is now saying pharmaceuticals will be hit with more tariffs after evading his first round. But we're going to do something that we have to do.

We're going to put, we're going to tariff our pharmaceuticals. And once we do that, they're going to come rushing back into our country because we're the big market. The advantage we have over everybody is that we're the big market. So we're going gonna be announcing very shortly a major tariff on pharmaceuticals. All right, joining us now, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors

under President Biden, Jared Bernstein. Thank you so much for being on the show this morning. The president's term that I won't repeat, can you explain the potential consequences of us putting all these countries in this position? We're seeing the consequences. Thank you for having me on. We're seeing the consequences in real time. About $6 trillion of wealth has evaporated in the past few days by the way our total trade

Imbalance with all countries is a little bit north of one trillion So we're kind of burning down the house here versus you know taking out the garbage. So The consequences have been real the disruptions to global trade have been obvious We have a banner headline in the New York Times this morning. U.S. implements punishing tariffs on trade partners, including 104 percent levy on China. Now, when I was in the Biden administration, we put 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, and the idea there was to keep them out of the country. Last year, we imported $440 billion of imports from China.

It is not at all economically realistic to think about keeping them all out of this country. What do you make of China's response so far? And do you think that they will cave? As I think Trump is assuming a lot of countries are going to just cave, and some, in some ways, I guess, are. Well, first of all, let me say that China does engage in some unfair trade, but it's exactly the opposite of what we just heard the president say. He suggested that they are charging prices that are double what they should, and that's

how they're ripping us off. In fact, the China play is much different than that. It's exporting over capacity to us and capturing market share by selling under cost. So it's the opposite of what the president said. And that unfair trade should be addressed. We certainly tried to do so in the Biden administration. But I don't believe that what he's talking about now

is going to work at all. When the Chinese say, we'll fight to the end, that's a quote from Beijing, I don't know what that means, I don't know what the end is, it sounds terrible. There was some suggestion of negotiations overnight, and I suspect we'll see more of that. But what a terrible way to go about this.

This is some of the worst diplomacy I've ever seen, I expect we'll see more of that. But what a terrible way to go about this. This is some of the worst diplomacy I've ever seen and absolutely the worst economics I've seen in international trade in a long career. Yeah. You call this burning down the house. I'm wondering if in all the conversations you've had along the way about this, as everybody is talking about it, do you know anybody who has a positive spin on this? And if you could talk more about what this means to someone who's on the verge of retiring

and is watching the markets and trying to figure out what to do. Great questions. So first of all, I have not been able to find anyone who isn't paid So, first of all, I have not been able to find anyone who isn't paid to believe that this stuff can work who doesn't share the view that I have. So it is an extremely common and pervasive view. You know, a lot of us looked at this formula that they cooked up, which is kind of nonsense divided by two, in order to come up with this. And I literally haven't seen one economist who's not paid to believe otherwise to endorse that. The question you asked, I think, is in some ways the most important. How does this affect regular folks? Obviously, consumers are very worried about what this is going to do to

their prices. But yes, here's a number that I think gets overlooked. A lot of progressives, in particular, think the stock market doesn't really matter. 60% of people who are 55 to 65 have 401ks in the market, and they're getting killed by what just happened. And the last thing you want to do is to enter your retirement with your 401k in a down market like this. So he is really just whacking the heck out of people right at that pre-retirement space. Okay, so I want to hold that thought because a lot of folks on Trump-adjacent media, I'll just put it that way, are saying this is their time to give back to

their country. I can't even say it with a straight face. I want you to comment on that, these losses that these people that you were just talking about are enduring We're talking with Jared Bernstein who's former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Biden Jared if you could stand by just a moment We want to check in with CNBC and get a quick update on what's going on then come back to you on this topic Jonathan Thanks, because certainly we heard from the president yesterday and those I talked to around him, he is holding fast. There is, we've seen some slight rifts open up within the administration, within the Republican

Party. We know Treasury Secretary Besant urging more negotiations. Some of those taking, will be taking place in the days ahead. Others like Peter Navarro, some in extended Trump world, those listening to the Steve Bannon podcast are saying, no, dig in. This is indeed our moment to bring back these manufacturing jobs to the United States, even though economist after economist after economist says, that's just not realistic, or at the very least, it'll be extraordinarily lengthy process.

It will take years, and a lot of economic pain will be endured between now and then. So let's now indeed bring in the anchor of CNBC's worldwide exchange, Frank Holland. Frank, as we were talking about a few moments ago, a wild day on Wall Street yesterday. We were on air yesterday morning saying, hey, things are looking better. Asia looking better. Europe looking better. Future's looking better. And for the morning, things did.

Things seem to be going in the right direction, a little bit of a recovery. But then we had China say, hey, we're not going to be going in the right direction a little bit of a recovery but then we had China say hey we're not going to give it give in we're not going to cave and then the president further doubling down and we ended up seeing a lot of losses to tell us a little more about just how historic yesterday was but more than that what are we seeing overnight what should we expect today.

A John thing good morning so you're talking about yesterday volatility that's really the word of today in the futures this morning we've seen some very wild swings as investors. They really try to continue to digest the 104% tariff on China. And China is saying in response, it's going to remain resolute, but it's still willing to negotiate some bit of mixed messaging coming out of China. So the present administration are saying that dozens of countries are calling the administration to negotiate trade deals as tariffs on more than 80 countries they go into effect today.

So what does this all mean for the U.S. economy and for the U.S. markets? Well, investors, as you mentioned, they're really trying to figure it out. Yesterday we saw the S&P 500 often called the broader market, swinging from up 4.5% to down 3.5% before closing down 2% lower. The Dow also on a more than 2,000 point ride from its high to its lows. We got two other things to watch. Since the tariffs were announced, the dollar falling about 1.5% bond yields rising by more So on a more than 2,000-point ride from its high to its lows, we've got two other things to watch. Since the tariffs were announced, the dollar falling about 1.5% bond yields rising by more

than 30 basis points. Again, since the tariffs were announced on April the 2nd. Coming up today, we have two critical events that don't often get talked about, not even here on CNBC, much less on MSNBC. We have the auctions for the 10-year Treasury and the 30-year Treasury this week. So demand, especially from foreign buyers, that is going to be closely watched. As investors, they look to see for any signs of another battlefront on this global trade war. U.S. debt and the U.S. dollar both seen as safe havens for global wealth.

For money all around the world, this murmurs that dynamic. It could be changing. It probably wouldn't happen anytime soon, but that dynamic could be changing. Here's another question. What's going on with the Fed? How does the Fed respond to all this and also the potential inflationary impacts of tariffs? Coming up on May 7th, we have a Fed decision coming up just a week ago. Back on April 2nd, the odds of a cut coming up on May 7th, that was only at 10%. Today, it's at about 36%. We had a number of guests on my show saying, it's time for the Fed to cut, maybe even an emergency cut, just to put that in perspective. Emergency cuts, they happen during what a lot of people call

exogenous events, things like COVID or the financial crisis. So, a lot of calls for that just for the Fed to respond to rising inflation and a weakening economy. Also later today, we get earnings from Delta Airlines. That'll be another read on the consumer. We want to hear with the CEO of Delta Airlines, Ed Bastion, has to say about demand, not only here in the U.S., but also to travel internationally. A lot of times, people, they kind of pull back on those vacations and international travel plans when they have concerns about their individual job or just concerns about the economy overall. So back to you. A lot of questions today, a lot of volatility in the market. Futures taking some very wild swings. They were higher when I started my show at about 5 o'clock this morning.

Right now I'm taking a look. They're lower right now in general. The NASDAQ is still holding on to gain. So a lot of questions about what's next. Wow. CNBC's Frank Holland, thank you. A lot of layers to this story that we're watching in real time here. But we're talking with Elizabeth B. Miller and Jared Bernstein.

Elizabeth, what are the angles that you're looking at closely here? You can take it to Jared as well. Yeah, I'd like to ask him a question. But first, I just want to say what Jared talked about just recently was the effect on people who are about to retire or just retired. And what's been interesting to me is the comments from the Trump administration about that. You know, Scott Besant on Sunday said underneath the press that, you know, Scott Bessent on Sunday said underneath the press that, you know, look, he said very cavalierly that the people

who want to retire right now are not looking at the day-to-day fluctuations in their savings accounts, which did not address 401K. So you begin to wonder how much some of these billionaires in the Trump administration are aware of the effect on ordinary Americans. Similarly, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, said his mother-in-law was not concerned about should her Social Security check not turn up in one month. So that is interesting to me that they're just discounting

this turmoil that is terrifying a lot of people, particularly people who are about to retire or are retired and depending on income from their investments. The other question I would have for Jared Bernstein is, what is, this is a big question, what is your guess or estimation of what the Fed will do on May 7th? Jerome Powell was pretty clear most recently that he was going to wait and see what happens with inflation and he was not going to respond certainly to Trump's demand that same day that you have to lower interest rates now. So that's the question.

Are we going to know enough on May 7th for the Fed to act in any way? Elizabeth, I will answer that excellent question. It's something I've been writing about, so I'm happy to speak to it. But first, let me just say, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I am just sick to death of billionaires telling regular people not to worry about what these incompetent people are doing. All right, I mean, I just think that if you're a billionaire and you're sitting there while the market is in correction territory and 60% of middle-class people

about to retire are watching their 401ks, don't tell them not to worry about it, okay? Just don't. Okay, now sorry, a little bit of a rant, but I feel very deeply about that and I'm sure that resonates with many folks. Now, in terms of the Fed, they have a real challenge here because, yes, if it was the market, the economy, all this turmoil and uncertainty, an interest rate cut would be something that we'd probably expect. In fact, especially since that's kind of the direction they've been going in anyway, but there's a new problem. Tariffs are a particular challenge for the Fed because they do two

things. They slow growth, but they raise prices. Okay, that's stagflation. The Fed has a hard time cutting interest rates, especially a Fed that's nervous about inflation getting back to its target. The Fed has a hard time rational interest rates, especially a Fed that's nervous about inflation getting back to its target. The Fed has a hard time rationalizing, justifying an interest rate cut when it's into a price rising kind of environment. So when I hear Jay Powell talk, I hear him say he's precisely concerned about that dichotomy, that tradeoff. So I think he might hold, as opposed to lower.

So I've got to ask you now, if you could please, to respond to an attempt to spin this. I'm trying to be kind, but I am talking about the media that is very supportive of Donald Trump. And I'm just going to quote some of these extremely powerful hosts, one is a retired judge and the other is a primary host. I don't care about my 401k right now. Don't look right now. Just don't look right now, just don't look. And also, one saying, this is,

when you lose your 401k, this is your time. Just like during wartime, people gave of themselves to the country. This is your opportunity to give of yourself to the country. Jared Bernstein, go. I'm very sympathetic to a message that says we as Americans sometimes have to sacrifice for a bigger gain. I think that's 100 percent correct.

That is not this. That is not this moment. This is Trump. You just heard the man stand up on the podium and say, every country is calling me and kissing my butt. That's the goal here. This is an authoritarian president who understands nothing about international trade, breaking the global economy

so that he can get other countries to call him up and grovel. Americans are happy to give up pain if there's gain later, but pain now for pain later? I don't think anyone should be happy about that deal. And frankly, I'm thinking more, I'm hearing more and more people, even the billionaire class who supported him

seems to be waking up and wondering if they've bet on the wrong pony here. I'm hearing more and more people, including some folks in the MAGA camp, say this is not what we signed up for, this is not what we voted for. Yeah, it's the mega voters across the country that one might be most worried about. Because what you're saying, we're hearing from the Wall Street Journal,

we're hearing from the National Review, we're hearing from some Republican senators, there are concerns about this, there are more concerns than there is support. And as you said, it appears the support are those who are in some way benefiting from this or under the president's thumb. I haven't found positive support that isn't in some way connected to Trump directly. I'll keep looking. Former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jared Bernstein, thank you so much for breaking this down for us. We appreciate it.

Thanks for being on this morning. My pleasure. All right, still ahead on Morning Joe, a growing feud between two of President Trump's top advisors is playing out in public. We'll take you through the tit for tat fight between Elon Musk and Peter Navarro. Plus a big primary fight is taking shape between two Republicans in Texas.

The big question is whether former President Trump will get involved. 23 past the hour time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will mount a primary challenge against Republican Senator John Cornyn and next year's midterm elections. It's expected to be among the most expensive and competitive GOP races in the country. Paxton, a fierce defender of the president, has faced a number of legal and political problems including impeachment by the Texas House on corruption charges before acquittal in the state Senate.

In announcing his run, Paxton accused Cornyn of being anti-Trump, to which Cornyn replied, quote, hard to run from prison, Ken. All right, that's gonna be a fight. The parents of a third grader are facing charges after their child found a handgun, brought it to his Virginia elementary school, and accidentally fired a shot in the classroom. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Police say the parents are now accused of recklessly failing to secure a loaded firearm and endangering a child. And a court in the UK will soon decide whether the government should reinstate a security detail for Prince Harry. Harry lost his police protection back in 2020 after he stepped down from his role as a working member of the royal family.

The 40-year-old son of King Charles III appeared in court yesterday in what the AP calls an indication of how seriously he views the issue. Harry remains fifth in line to the British throne. And coming up, the Supreme Court is allowing the White House to fire thousands of federal employees. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin will join us to break down that decision straight ahead on Morning Joe. That was an impromptu performance in the subway station underneath 30 Rock late last night in New York City.

And if you don't recognize the performers, it was Jimmy Fallon and Ed Sheeran covering Chapel Roan's hit song, Pink Pony Club. Look at this. How fun. We need this. The pop-up concert aired last night on The Tonight Show. Really nice. And now back to the news. A federal judge is ordering the White House to give the Associated Press journalists full access to the Oval Office and other spaces to cover news events. Back in February, the AP filed a lawsuit after it was excluded from the White House events

and also President Trump's travel plans for refusing to change the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's preferred Gulf of America in its coverage. So they wouldn't say it, so they kicked him out. He kicked them out. In his ruling, the judge says, the administration must put the AP on an equal playing field, despite the AP's use of disfavored terminology. The judge added, quote, under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists, be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere. It cannot then shut those doors to other journalists

because of their viewpoints. The order is on pause through Sunday to allow the Trump administration to seek an appeal. And what I think is interesting about that is disfavored terminology. I can think of a lot of disfavored terminology that is used by members of the media and they're not kicked out. But anywho, you worked at the AP. What do you make of, first of all, what the judge has done here? And do you think the White House is going

to continue to push back? Yeah, first of all, a win for the First Amendment, a win for the free and independent press, that's really important. The AP refused to use that language of Gulf of America. And this is an ominous moment here where the Trump administration tried to police the language of the outlets that cover it. And this was a pretty scathing rebuke yesterday from the judge, really taking apart their arguments. Now, as noted, it doesn't go into effect until Sunday, and the White House didn't buckle

yesterday. There was an event, the president gave a speech last night, the AP was still not permitted to be part of the pool, the travel pool there, we assume would not be permitted in the Oval Office for events later today or in Air Force One in the days ahead. We'll see what happens on Sunday, Elizabeth Mueller. But let's talk about this. Yes, it's a win, but the Trump administration surely not going to back down. And there's sort of been a sense in the White House Correspondents Association and the press

corps writ large that this is not going to be the only time this White House tries to punish news outlets for their coverage. Talk to us about the sort of, I think, dangerous path ahead as the press tries to cover this administration. Yeah, it's a very difficult path ahead. You know, the White House has favorite news outlets we know about. There's talk about giving them preferential treatment over the, you know, legacy media, New York Times, the networks, the big media organizations.

I also want to say about the Associated Press. This was not just an assault on the Associated Press. It was an assault on the thousands, 3,000 media outlets that use Associated Press stories across the country, plus 900 international outlets. So it was really, the White House picked a very big target here. And it was, so it doesn't just affect the Associated Press. It just affects thousands of newspapers and radio stations and television stations across the country.

Really, really a wide, wide array. So it does not. I can't imagine I agree with you that the White House is going to sit quietly. I think there will be there will be an appeal to this. I think we're all expecting that. Yeah, as noted, you know, the White House suggesting to reshape the White House briefing room. It's handpicking outlets for the pool, ignoring the WHCA's rotation. Still real questions as to whether the White House Correspondence Association dinner should take place later this month. Other headlines now. The Supreme Court has paused a California federal district court

decision that allowed some fired federal employees to return to work. In a 7-2 ruling, the court's majority ruled that the plaintiffs who brought the suit did not have standing. Although the order was a setback for the federal workers involved, there is still a Maryland federal court order in place that has saved the jobs of some of the fired workers. The Supreme Court has not yet been asked to weigh in on that suit. Let's now bring in MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator Lisa Rubin.

She's host of the new show titled Can They Do That? which seeks to answer the complicated legal questions arising from the Trump's administration's controversial policies. complicated legal questions arising from the Trump's administration's controversial policies. And Lisa, we'll turn to your new episodes here in just a moment. But first, let's get your thoughts on this. It's a ruling on standing as opposed to merit. But talk to us about what you're seeing here.

Supreme Court growing more and more involved in recent days, weighing in on what the Trump administration can and cannot do, handing some partial victories. Yeah. In this case, I think this is sort of a hollow victory in some respects because, as you noted, there is that Maryland ruling. It covers 20 different agencies and it pertains to probationary workers of those 20 agencies in the 19 states and District of Columbia that brought that suit.

And so in that regard, one of the things that's really helpful here is how many different groups are bringing similar lawsuits, even though it makes it perhaps difficult and annoying sometimes for people like me to follow. There is a backstop here, though, to your point about the Supreme Court, we're seeing the Supreme Court increasingly give the Trump administration some small wins and some bigger wins on technicalities. Things like standing, who has the right to bring a lawsuit or with respect to Judge Boasberg's temporary restraining orders, which it vacated as to the Alien Enemies Act. That case, they

basically are saying you sued in the wrong place and you sought the wrong relief. Start over again. That's not necessarily a merits-based ruling about whether or not the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act with respect to Trinidad and Aragua. Remaining to be decided, for example, is was there an invasion and were the individual people who were sent to El Salvador or who are scheduled to be deported are those in fact members of Trinidad and Ragua? Can they contest that? The Supreme Court says yes, they just didn't do it

in the right place so far. So there are a lot of battles still to be fought, but as you note, small victories often on procedural grounds to the administration so far. Yeah, that's exactly right. We'll certainly be following those going forward. So Lisa, in the most recent episode of your new web series, Can They Do That?, you interviewed Democratic Attorney General Matt Pletkin of New Jersey. You asked him about President Trump's recent executive order, which has now been challenged in court, that would require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. Let's take a listen as to what he had to say.

That order is among the various orders they've issued. Just so unbelievably and blatantly unconstitutional. And they know it. But like, think about what they're trying to do. They're trying to dictate to states their right to have... They want the federal government to dictate to states how to run their elections. The most fundamental right is the right to vote. They want to tell states how they can administer their elections.

And if they don't, they'll defund our police. That's what the order says. They will yank all law enforcement funding as a stick to make you comply with unconstitutional directives about how to run your elections. So Lisa, let's get you to weigh in on that answer there. And certainly part of a broader effort we know from White House Republicans for quite some time now to try to restrict access to the ballot box. Yes and as you saw Attorney General Plattkin really giving a strenuous really full-throated defense of the

rights of states to regulate their own elections. But I want to put this Jonathan in a broader context because you see Congress right now sort of abdicating some of its responsibilities with respect to its constitutional authorities, right? They are not, for example, standing up for themselves with the power of the purse, where it's made appropriations that affect these grants that now the Trump administration is trying to rescind. You don't see Congress standing up for itself.

Instead, into that void has marched a series of state attorneys general who are challenging Trump administration policies, executive orders, firings across the board, everything from birthright citizenship to that very early in the administration OMB funding freeze to now this executive order on election administration. These state AGs coming together as a coalition and saying, we have some power and also we're affected by what you do. For example, in another portion of the interview, the attorney

general Matt Plotkin says to me when they try to revoke birthright citizenship, that has a real effect on states like mine. If people are no longer citizens, who has to provide for them? If federal dollars can't educate them, can't give them nutrition programs, can't give them nutrition programs, can't funding. My state and the cover that deficit. And s mat platkin and folks like William Tong in Connecticut and others to come togethe

now numbering over two do these policies. That one its infancy. But for exa got a massive victory cha off of $11 billion in pub or not they continue to b remains to be seen as mor percolate to the Supreme

I would contend the sort of the resistance that we are starting to see on the streets, including last weekend. The legal pushback is being led by the state's attorneys general. All right, MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. Thank you very much. And you can watch,

Can They Do That with Lisa Rubin on YouTube and by going to msnbc.com slash can they do that. And still ahead as president Trump's reciprocal tariff increase on China takes effect what will Beijing do next and how much pain is coming for American consumers MSNBC's Stephanie rule and BC's Christine Romans and CNBC's Dom Chu standing by with their analysis plus we'll speak with Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana as he and other GOP lawmakers

are now sounding the alarm about Trump's trade war. Also ahead, Democratic member of the House Rules Committee, Congressman Joe Ngoos of Colorado will be a guest ahead of today's vote on the Senate's budget resolution. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Back to 2016, it was brilliant. Then they stole it from us by illegally rigging the election.

We all went through hell. I went through hell in particular. by illegally rigging the election. We all went through hell. I went through hell in particular. Indictments, impeachments, two impeachments over nothing over a phone call that was perfect. They knew it was perfect. And they found out after they realized that the calls were essentially taped by the government. President Trump ending his remarks to the National Republican Campaign Committee by listing his grievances and suggesting the government somehow spied on him while he was president. Let's take a look now at the mustered opinion pages, which are all about his tariffs.

The editor of the National Review have a new editorial entitled, Congress Should End Trump's Trade War. And it reads in part this, if it desires, Congress can choose to take back as much of that power as it sees fit. It ought to do so now. And what has happened since last Thursday is hard to fathom. Based on an ever-shifting series of rationales characterized by an embarrassing methodology and punctuated with an extraordinary arrogance toward the country's constitutional order, the Trump administration has alienated our global allies, discombobulated our domestic

businesses, decimated our capital markets, and increased the likelihood of a serious recession. This should alarm members of both political parties, and in particular, it should worry the hundreds of Republican legislators, who in less than two years' time will be judged in large part on whether the president who shares their brand has done a good job. And conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg has a new piece for the Los Angeles Time entitled, Markets to GOP. We won't save you from Trump's folly. He writes in part this, the markets have hated Trump's views on trade from the get-go, which is a major reason markets have lost some $11 trillion in value since

his inauguration. The markets are not merely saying that Trump's policies are bad for stock prices or corporate profits. They are saying to other politicians and policymakers, we're not going to save you from Trump's irrationality that realization is starting to dawn on some Republicans who brought who bought the preposterous idea that Trump has a mandate to unilaterally and irrationally bend the international economy to his will. Republicans are starting to understand that their political solvency won't last longer than Trump's

irrationality. And, Jonathan Lumiere, back to the National Review first line. Congress can choose to take back as much of that power as it sees fit. They can get together and make a vote on this, can't they? Can senators and members of Congress, which I know is a tougher slog, pull back on these tariffs? What's so interesting is that at least for now, President Trump is ignoring the pressure points of the first term. He'd always be so reactionary to Wall Street, to cable news coverage.

He's not doing that. He's also getting very little pushback Internally at least so far so that's the the wild card here would be Congress, you know But they've been this point have been so pliant We are seeing some pushback senator Tillis yesterday made a point of Ruin very skeptical of how these tariffs are going other Republicans like Ted Cruz have said well, I hope this passes quickly But at least that's not action. No no it's not I was just gonna say right now it's just rhetoric no action that will be the threshold at what point do

they cross into action and it passes prologue Republicans probably aren't likely to do it this time might be different if they are hearing from constituents about their 401ks melting, about prices on the verge of rising. We'll just have to see. As Republicans head into budget negotiations and looking to talk about tax cuts, what will they do? That is the question in Washington right now.

At least so far, just words, no action. Meanwhile, Wall Street Journal editor-at-large, Jared Baker, has a piece with this headline. Trump is trashing America's reputation. Baker writes in part this. America's reputation built on its ideals and burnished over centuries is the greatest geopolitical brand ever created. But as someone put it to me this past week,

we may be witnessing the greatest exercise in brand destruction in history. Brands have real value. It isn't always easy to calculate, but businesses from BlackBerry to Bud Light know when they have lost it. Destroying geopolitical brand value can be devastating too. Mr. Trump may find all this in-your-face diplomacy satisfying now, but casting off America's reputation as a place that reveres freedom, dignity, and the rule of

law will harm the brand and not just in the long term. The Romans had a saying, let them hate us as long as they fear us. But part of our superpower has derived from being admired, too. In the end, as the Romans discovered, you don't want to be around when they still hate you, but they no longer fear you. Elizabeth, well said there from Jared Baker in the Wall Street Journal. But he's right that the United States' standing in the world has changed, fallen, many would argue, so much in the last few months as this president has turned his back on allies, Ukraine to be sure,

but also such harsh words for Europe, deprioritizing how we will interact with them. There was sort of the strategic and military aspect of this. And now there's the economic one as well where we've launched a trade war. It's not just China. It's against people we used to consider friends. That's what was so interesting. I read that piece actually online yesterday and Jerry Baker said at the time that, yes, we all know that China has engaged in unfair trade practices for a long, long time. And we all know that the United States gave preferences and was easier on countries.

The US for decades, it's the richest country in the world. There were unfair trade practices, but the United States, in the interest of just global economic success around the world, looked the other way in some of these countries. But that is clearly not Trump's, you know. I think he wants, you know, he has always found Europe to be an irritant. He felt that the Europeans were against him in his first term. up to be an irritant. He felt that the Europeans were against him in his first term. He feels he's not respected over there. And he wanted to cozy up to strongmen.

He admires the way the authoritarian control they have over their countries. Again, there are no tariffs on Russia right now. And we shall see what happens with China. I don't know where this goes with China. China has a lot to lose here, more than the United States. But right now, politically, it is very hard for Xi to stand down. I don't see how this—I don't know where this ends.

But right now, we're looking at, for the United States potentially, $3,300, $3,500 iPhones, because 90% of iPhones are manufactured in China. The idea that we would start manufacturing them here is going to take years. It's not going to be resolved by the end of the Trump administration. So I don't know where this ends up right now. All right. Righter at large for The New York Times, Elizabeth Buhmiller. Thank you very much for coming on this morning.

We appreciate it.