Pod Save America - Will Trump Send Americans to Foreign Prisons?

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

Donald Trump and the president of El Salvador gloat about shipping migrants to a Salvadoran mega-prison, muse about sending American citizens there next, and lie about the court orders they're ignoring. Jon, Lovett, and Tommy break down what it means for the administration to ignore the Supreme Court's order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the message Trump is sending to student visa holders with the arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk, why Trump's war on the media appears to be succeeding, and reports that the Trump family is teaming up with Binance, the shady crypto platform, on a new money-making scheme. Then, Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal joins Jon to talk about Trump's trade war, the possibility of a recession, and what might happen next. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. The news cycle may feel relentless, but worrying about your home security doesn't have to be. Whether you're following the latest political updates or need a break from the headline, SimpliSafe provides proactive protection so you can enjoy some daily peace of mind. I love SimpliSafe.

I set up a SimpliSafe myself. The app is great. The system is great. It's easy to do, completely reliable, great customer support, highly recommend it. With SimpliSafe, millions of Americans enjoy the new standard in home security and greater peace of mind

every time they arm their system when heading out in the morning or when locking up each night, traditional security systems only take action after someone has already broken in, that's too late. SimpliSafe's active guard outdoor protection can help you prevent break-ins before they happen. If somebody is lurking about or acting suspiciously, those agents can see and talk to them in real time,

activate spotlights and even contact the police all before they have a chance to get inside your home. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring plans start affordably at around $1 per day, 60-day satisfaction guarantee or your money back. Visit simply safe.com slash crooked to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan

and get your first month free that's simply safe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like simply safe. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Nitor. On today's show, we're going to talk about the latest developments in Trump's war on the media and the latest in Trump's war on the global economy.

I'll also be talking to Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal about the impact of Trump's tariffs on the US economy and how all of this could shake out. But let's start with our most cheerful topic, Trump's war on the Constitution, specifically his government's illegal renditions of innocent people to a foreign prison. On Monday morning, Trump hosted an Oval Office press conference with the president of El Salvador, Naib Bukele, who oversees the notorious 40,000 person torture dungeon known as CICOT, where Trump has been sending people who the government says are gang members, assertions they're making without offering any evidence or allowing any hearings.

The meeting came just a few days after the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the case of Kilmar Obrego-Garcia, a Maryland father and husband of an American citizen, who the government mistakenly and illegally sent to the El Salvador prison, a fact that multiple Trump officials admitted in court, including Trump's Solicitor General. The SCOTUS ruling, in which there were no dissents, said that a lower court's order quote, properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El

Salvador." The Trump administration has responded by making the argument in court and in public that actually they have no legal obligation to facilitate Garcia's release, and they interpret the Supreme Court's ruling to mean that the U.S. only has to allow Garcia back into the country if El Salvador chooses to release him. Here's Trump and Bukele talking about this in the Oval today, joined by Stephen Miller. Do you plan to ask President Bukele to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported? The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?

What's the ruling in the Supreme Court, Steve? Was it nine to nothing? Yes, it was a nine-zero. In our favor? In our favor, against the district court ruling, the ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador's sole discretion, was sent back to our country,

that we could deport him a second time. Well, I... No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here. Can President Bukele weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him? Well, I guess, I'm supposed to have suggested that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States, right? How can I smuggle, how can I return him to the United States? Like, if I smuggle him into the United States, or whether I do it, of course, I'm not going to do it. Well, the President, Mr. President, you said that if the Supreme Court said someone needed to be returned, that you would abide by that.

You said that on Air Force One just a few days ago. And they said that it must be facilitated. Why don't you just say, isn't it wonderful that we're keeping criminals out of our country? Why can't you just say that? Just incredibly dark and infuriating. And I mean, they lie all the time,

but Stephen Miller's just complete lie about what is in the Supreme Court ruling and what it says is shocking. Just making up quotes, making up assertions from the Supreme Court ruling. What did you guys make of the discussion in the Oval about this and how the administration is responding

to the Supreme Court? A few thoughts. I mean, I thought it was notable that Trump himself doesn't seem all that comfortable talking about the details. He deferred to Pam Bondi. He deferred to Stephen Miller. Even sad little Marco Rubio decided to weigh in because he couldn't bear being left out. But yeah, I mean, your point that their general strategy is to lie about what's happening

in the courts, lie about what the courts are saying. The craziest new one, I think this is over the weekend, was Stephen Miller now arguing that the administration didn't make a mistake when it sent Abrego Garcia del Salvador. The Solicitor General said it was a mistake. The Supreme Court wrote in its opinion that it was a mistake. DOJ has admitted it was a mistake at every single hearing,

but Miller is now just gaslighting. Miller also said, I think it was on Fox News, that the gang that was threatening Garcia no longer exists, therefore it's not a problem to send him to El Salvador. I don't know if that's true, but if it is true, it's because all those gang members are now in the prison where they sent this man to rot wrongly based on a mistake.

So they're also just looking to find every loophole or technicality to avoid doing what the court says, like we're debating what the meaning of effectuate or facilitate means. And then finally, I mean, watching Trump and his team, watching Bukele sit there sneering, smugly laughing, enjoying it all, made me feel like, and I talked to a very smart immigration lawyer today who said something similar,

that it seems very unlikely the courts are going to be able to get a Briego Garcia back because ultimately the courts will say the US government can't order Bukele to do something they can't order El Salvador to do something and I think that what that says is that the only thing that we can do is keep up the public pressure keep the keep talking about this keep the story in the news because, you know, Bukele's line is like, oh, I'm not gonna smuggle a man back into the United States. That's not what has to happen.

Bukele needs to let Rodrigo Garcia out of prison. Then he can buy a plane ticket and fly to the United States. It's just that simple. But, you know, it's, you know, he's content holding a man in prison who is not even accused of committing a crime in El Salvador because he left the country when he was 16 years old Yeah, so I feel like we've rightly

focused on Trying to fix this right away And then the larger implications of it in terms of what it means if the president Can send someone to a foreign gulag and then because that gulag is on foreign soil, basically wash his hands of any responsibility. And that is terrible. I do think we're just skipping over a little bit what we need to learn about how depraved these people are because it's so baked into our understanding of Trump and Stephen Miller and now Marco Rubio and all of these people

that they are cruel and inhumane, that we don't really pause to say, don't you want to fix this? Even by your own standards, even by your own claims about the implications of this policy. Well, their claims are that he's a foreign terrorist. But they know that that's a lie, right? They know it's a lie, that they're doing a kind of,

they're prevaricating, they're playing games with the courts, they're outright lying about what the court has ruled or about the facts of the case, but they know those statements aren't true. They know that this person was sent in error and they really don't care. And so when we start talking about what it looks like for Trump to try to expand deportations to this prison,

when we start to talk about what it looks like for them to want to expand deportations to this prison, when we start to talk about what it looks like for them to want to send citizens to this place, we should just make sure we're noting that their kind of humanity is not kicking in here. There's no hope that we'll be able to appeal to their better angels, not even the Marco Rubios, right? The supposedly serious and establishment types who are outright participants in this. He's the one who made the deal with Bukele. Like he was gone long ago.

I mean, I just, Stephen Miller on Fox, you mentioned it, Tommy, like what he said about, he's like, it was not an error. And he said it in the lawyer, the DOJ lawyer who said it was an error, they were wrong and they were put on leave. And that was a, they've been relieved of duty. He's a saboteur, a Democrat. And and it's just like it's such an obvious lie

The guy was like promoted a couple weeks before he was relieved for all his good work on sanctuary cities The head of removal of operations at ICE also admitted it was an error the top DOJ official also admitted error the Solicitor General of the United States in the Supreme Court also admitted in error. I do think that like, I don't know that the courts will be able to bring him back at this point, but I think that the Supreme Court has a big decision to make because Judge Zinnis, who is the District Court judge in Maryland who ruled on this, first of all, it's 6.30 p.m. right now, East Coast time on Monday, and the government has not provided an update, a daily update about Abrego Garcia, like they had been ordered to do by Zinnis. She has a full hearing on Tuesday when you're listening to this. And

it's going to get back to the Supreme Court at some point. And John Roberts and the entire court has to know that they have made, the Trump administration has made a mockery of their order. They have misstated it, they have lied about it, they have said things that it doesn't actually say. And are they just gonna like let this go and be like, all right, well, they got us on this one. They decided to lie about it and not bring it back. And so nothing we can do

because it's making, what the Trump administration is doing in Stephen Miller in particular They are making a mockery of the Supreme Court right now. They're not just defying it They are making a mockery of it two points about that one It is interesting the way Trump Believes he still has to perform that he will defer to the law and defer to the courts Even as everyone under him is playing games. That is something I worry about changing. Right now, he's saying, look, we're not gonna deport people.

It's a violation of law. I respect the Supreme Court. We're gonna follow the Supreme Court, or even as they're playing games underneath, that's a place where he's not sure yet, right? He's gone farther this term than he did last term. He is pushing new boundaries, but that's a line he hasn't crossed yet.

And when will he cross it? I feel like he will. The question is when. The other part of this too is, yes, this is about cross it? I feel like he will. The question is when. The other part of this too is, yes, this is about making a mockery of the Supreme Court. This is about the implications of all this. But one thing I really appreciate about the way Judge Zinnis has been talking about this is,

these are, you know, Trump is, they're doing this performative bluster and infallibility around this, around Kilmar. It's a person. He's just there. He's been there for 30 days. Andre has been there for 30 days. They don't know that there are cases pending. They don't know that they're leading the nightly news. They don't know that there's an ongoing dispute in front of the Supreme Court about their case. They have been removed

without communication. They have been disappeared. There's another example, just broke right before recording, documented, which is a news outlet that covers immigration out of New York. Another case, Merwill Gutierrez, somebody who also applied legally at the border, came in through report of entry, applied through CBP-1, was working, just grabbed off the street. His father had to go precinct to precinct in New York, trying to figure out where his son was,

because there's no information. The place where you check online to see where your relative is says he's in Pennsylvania. Apparently he's been already disappeared to El Salvador, basically trying to find information. No one can give this guy information because his son has been disappeared the way. Evil authoritarian regimes disappear people without regard for due process, without regard for the law, going door to door trying to find information. Is that what America is to Marco Rubio now? A place where if you're in the wrong place

at the wrong time, no tattoos, not that tattoos should matter, no evidence of having done anything, and now the relatives have to go searching the precincts? That's what happens in communist regimes. That's what happens in totalitarian regimes, people having to hold up pictures of their loved ones because the state has taken them.

And it's happening, it's happening right in front of us. And, you know, it got even worse in the Oval, if you can believe it. Trump was also asked about his stated desire to render American citizens to El Salvador, which he has now said multiple times. Said it again in the Oval today. He said he's open to it for Americans who've been convicted of certain crimes. He was also then heard in the Oval telling Bukele, quote, the home groans are next. You gotta build about five more places.

This is when he didn't even think the cameras, you know, the cameras were really on them. This comes after new reporting from Rolling Stone that the White House is discussing how they can strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship. They've been talking about this for quite a while. It was in Axios about a month ago as well. There was also a report from Politico over the weekend that former Blackwater CEO, Eric

Prince, is pitching the White House on a two-part plan to increase deportations to El Salvador. The first part is to pay Prince and his private contractors to handle the logistics of deportation. And the second step is to declare a section of CICOT, the El Salvadoran Gulag, to be US territory so they can get around the laws that they're already breaking. Trump and Bukele were expected to discuss this proposal in private at the White House. Legal experts are saying everywhere

the courts would never allow this. Sure seems like that doesn't matter to the Trump White House. What do you guys think? Yeah, I think we should take Trump at his word, which is that he would love to deport American citizens to El Salvador to rot in hell in this gulag. And I think Trump will claim, of course, that it's only the worst of the worst.

It's dangerous people, it's terrorists. But remember, Trump can just declare that a group is a terrorist organization. Pam Bondi called vandalism of Tesla's domestic terrorism. So it's not at all difficult to imagine the White House declaring that protesters or political enemies are terrorists who thus need to be sent to El Salvador because we can't possibly have them here, especially

if it is in the wake of some kind of domestic terrorist hack or major incident because there's always a crackdown on civil liberties in those moments. And so we might be a long way from this happening. It might sound hyperbolic. Of course, the courts would have a word. They would probably declare it unconstitutional or illegal. I'm sure it would be very unpopular.

But it's a serious concern. And man, fucking Eric Prince, like that guy, every idea he pitches is terrible. He floated privatizing the war in Afghanistan. There's discussions about him taking over rare earth mineral mines in the DRC on behalf of the United States. Like, again, them deciding that part of this prison in El Salvador is actually US territory

and therefore it's legal to send US citizens there, that is made up legal thinking. It will never fly in a court of law or public opinion, I don't think, but it doesn't mean that they won't do it. Look at the pattern around what has happened with non-citizens being sent to this place, which in violation of the law. It's a surprise. They move quickly.

Some are, there's evidence against some, no evidence against others. They're filling these planes that you're trying to get, stay ahead of the courts. And then the courts intercede to try to slow it down. The Trump administration plays games and it's, El Salvador is basically just a big pit they throw people in. Once they're in the pit, they can't do anything

to get them out of the pit. My question is, are citizens going to be subjected to this before the courts intervene or not? Are we going to need test cases of human beings grabbed by the administration and sent to some foreign hellhole for the court to try to stop it? Or is there going to be some mechanism that the Supreme Court will use? Maybe it's one of these cases around Kilmar, around Andre, around one of these other people that we're learning about where they make it clear that this is unconstitutional for citizens and non-citizens

alike. I don't know. And this is why I think that the Supreme Court has to step in here, even if, I mean, they're defying the order, right? You could see a situation where the Trump administration says, we asked El Salvador to facilitate the release, and Bukele says, no, he cannot, because he has evidence that the guy is a terrorist, and he wants him back, and it would hurt our relations with them, and blah, blah, blah, and it's foreign policy. We make some argument, and then we lose the argument. They're not even trying to do that,

and I don't know that Bukele really helped the whole case by saying, oh, I have no power. Bukele's saying, I have no power. Bukele's saying, I have no power to release them from prison, and then the Trump administration's saying, we have no power to get them back. So who's running the prison? Who has the power to decide what happens to the people there?

And it's absurd on its face. And if the Supreme Court, this is why the Supreme Court needs to step in, not just for the potential of getting Garcia back and some of the Venezuelans and some of the people who've already been deported wrongly or renditioned to El Salvador, but for what's coming with citizens, right? There was an immigration lawyer from Massachusetts. She's a US citizen, 40 years old, grew up in Newton, Mass.

Her whole life. She got an email from CPB ordering her to leave the country in seven days, saying, your parole has been eliminated. And CPB said in response, it may have been unintended, right? It may have been unintended. But under the Trump administration's reasoning, what they're arguing in court right now, if ICE had found this woman and saw this mistake in order and didn't know she was a citizen, grabbed her, threw her in the back of a van, sent her to detention center, and got her on the plane to El Salvador,

and then realized, oh shit, she's an American citizen. Trump administration has no power to bring her back. That's their argument, that sorry, Bukele, he wants to keep her. What can we do? You're a citizen. By the way, they're barely even making that argument. Right.

This is just like, the fear, the fear when the Trump administration before the ruling started talking about how these people are out of their custody was they would just tell the court they tried and failed with a wink and a nod to an ally in El Salvador. Uh, they're not even doing that. I also was just, when I was reading about the Gutierrez case, just before I recorded, that's another, basically it's a seems like he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, gets rounded up suddenly find yourself in Texas. Cause one of the ICE, wrong place at the wrong time, gets rounded up,

suddenly finds himself in Texas. Because one of the ICE agents said, oh, he's not the one we're looking for. And the other one was like, just grab him anyway. And so they're trying to fill these planes, right, with Venezuelans. This is their test case. This was their first attempt.

This was their way of signaling a new policy. This was their trial run. Do we really think they're gonna make fewer mistakes when they're doing more plain loads of people, when they're doing thousands of people, not hundreds of people? To really think they're not gonna make more mistakes when they've dispatched even greater numbers of ICE agents

to try to round up more people? Well, the Washington Post reported that the goal for one year is a million people. Steven Miller is like the guy driving the organization every single day to deport one million people this year. So we also have some updates on the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts University PhD student from Turkey who masked agents grabbed off the streets of Summerville, Massachusetts, threw into the back of a van and sent her to a detention center in Louisiana. On Sunday, the Washington Post's John Hudson reported that an internal State Department

memo from before OzTurk's detainment said there was no evidence that she had engaged in any kind of anti-Semitic or pro-terrorist activity or rhetoric, as the government is claiming she simply signed an op-ed that criticized Tufts for its response to Gaza. So Benji Sarlin at The Post responded to the story with a post that asks, are they incompetently picking horrifyingly weak test cases or deliberately bringing them to scare the largest possible number of people? What do you guys think? Because I find it hard to argue at this point that it's the former and not the latter. So ProPublica has this piece up about her detention that's worth reading.

And it sounds like what happened was OzTurk was doxxed by this group called Canary Mission. This is a right-wing pro-Israel group. They have this anonymously run website. They doxx students, they doxx teachers and organizations that are ostensibly or they claim are hostile to Israel. There's even reports that Canary Mission has ties to Israeli intelligence. But her sin here, as you said, was she was one of four co-signers of an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper.

It criticized the school for refusing to, quote, divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel and, quote, being dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Like the whole thing was pretty banal. It was just a bunch of policy demands. quote being dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Like the whole thing was pretty banal. It was just a bunch of policy demands. So I don't think they are bringing purposefully weak cases. I think the overwhelming majority of cases are weak

because we are talking about completely reasonable free speech that has been demonized by groups like Canary Mission because they want to scare people out of criticizing Israel. And then broadly, the administration is now undergoing this effort to strip student visas from these kids because they want to terrify people into leaving the country, never coming here at all, not speaking up at the first place, and just intimidating.

Well, it's working because travel and tourism to the United States is cratering. Cratering. Including from Canadians. Well, and what you said there, Tommy, about Canary, right, is think about this administration travel and tourism to the United States is cratering. Including from Canadians. What you said, Tommy, about Canary, right, is think about this administration now and who it's filled with. It is filled with people from right-wing media fever swamps. And so, of course, the sources of their information, their intelligence about who's a supposed terrorist and who's a danger to the country are coming from like, you know,

random people who are doxing other people and right-wing fever swamps and all that bullshit. So, you know, they probably think well this I read this somewhere on some post from some right-wing blogger. So I guess it must be true. Yeah, in the letter that the Trump administration sent to Harvard with their list of demands to get federal funding, one of those are on international admissions reform. By August 2025, the university must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution, dot, dot, dot, including students supportive

of terrorism and anti-Semitism. They are putting pressure on these schools around international students. First of all, that's just a lever because a lot of international students pay full price. But also I do think they want, they want, I mean, I think they just want Brown students to be especially well behaved, right? If you're from an unsavory part of the world, you're here as our guest.

We don't want to have any Muslims on campus acting as if they're anything other than lucky to be here. And if you step out of line even a little bit, you will pay. And I do think that's guiding all of us. True, but plenty of people from other countries who are not brown are also getting swept up in this. And I'm only saying that because this is a larger issue

than like they don't want anyone here in this country. I do think that they look at somebody. Germans, Canadians, I mean. But they look at somebody. Germans, Canadians, I mean they. But they look at somebody. I bet they like the Germans, let's be real. Yeah, the Germans. That German guy got beat up at Logan. There is something I think they just sort of,

they see Arab students or students from the Middle East protesting in the US and it just makes them angry. And I do think that that's part of it and why they don't really give a fuck. I do think they'll like, I think it's actually, just to answer your question, I think some of these are signal cases. They're grabbing people for the sin of writing off beds.

They are sending a message. They are also haphazard, cruel, feckless, and other peoples are getting swept up in their incompetence. I mean, the most dangerous force in human history is a cruel bureaucracy that doesn't care about the consequences for the people it's hurting. And I will just say again, you know, I saw Chris Van Hollen, Senator from Maryland today,

say that he was going to demand a meeting with Bukele while he's in Washington this week, and if not, he will travel down to El Salvador himself. Good for him. Which is great. Like, that is the best thing I've seen from a Democratic politician. I saw Senator Padilla, our senator from California, post something about this. Schumer has a comment about this.

A bunch of House members have a comment about this. Still not enough in my view. There's still a lot of senators, Democratic senators who are still just tweeting about tariffs and Medicaid and all the other stuff and not talking about this. And it just feels like a real emergency. And it's about so much more than this one person from Maryland.

This is just the case that because the government admitted they made the error, it's like it's the most obvious case that went to the Supreme Court. But the idea of Trump saying, I want to send citizens there, like this is the moment for like all of the elected Democrats to get out there and make a huge deal about this. The other part of it too is there's still a lot of like, can he do this? No, he cannot send US citizens to a foreign gulag.

We have rights, we have rights under our constitution. He does not get to abrogate those rights. He does not get to pretend the constitution doesn't exist. And the question is, what are we gonna do to make sure that those rights are protected? And also non-citizens have the right to due process, period, paragraph. POD Save America is brought to you by Walmart.

Did you know that more than 75% of Walmart managers started in hourly roles? Walmart's $1 billion investment in its workforce helps prepare associates for jobs with greater responsibility and higher pay with or without a degree. Learn more about the associates earning promotions every day at walmart.com slash spark. That's walmart.com slash spark,

W-A-L-M-A-R-T dot com slash S-P-A-R-K. So the only reporter who pressed Trump and Bukele about the renditions was CNN's Caitlin Collins, who was at first denied a question. And then when she did finally ask them, she was attacked for asking her questions by Trump, Bukele, Stephen Miller, others in the Oval. Even though a federal judge ruled last week that Trump's decision to ban the Associated Press from covering the White House is unlawful, the AP was excluded again from today's Oval Office press pool. And then on Sunday night, Trump took to Truth Social

to revive his call for the FCC to strip CBS's broadcast license after watching 60 Minutes, apparently over segments they did about the war in Ukraine and Trump's efforts to take over Greenland. Reminder that Trump also has an active lawsuit against CBS over the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Are you guys surprised the White House Correspondents Association hasn't done more to stand up for the AP, especially after today's stunt?

I would say I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised. I think the White House Correspondents Association never really figured out an effective way to respond to Trump during the first term, and things have gotten exponentially worse. And I think in fairness to them, it's a very difficult task, because the biggest problem is getting reporters from different news outlets with different incentives

to take collective action that might harm their interests or their ability to report. And the second challenge is the White House loves the fight. They want to fight with the press. They want to use them as the foil. They want to twist what they do and say in defense of press freedom to make them look biased. And so it's just a lose-lose proposition for these reporters in a lot of ways. And you end up seeing the White House Correspondence Association being like, oh, we're fighting back by wearing a fucking pin. You know, and it just looks so feckless.

I think there's a third part that makes it hard, which is the White House is controlled by Donald Trump, and we have seen the way they play games when courts rule, but Donald Trump controls the White House, he controls who's led into that room, and as much as Caitlin Collins is there because of tradition, because she's expected to be there, Trump could decide at any moment to say no. And so it's a little bit of a game of tradition, because she's expected to be there, Trump could decide at any moment to say no.

And so it's a little bit of a game of chicken. And I don't think it's wrong to at least consider the possibility that if the press says we're all doing this together, if the AP is not in, we're not in, it will just be the mag of freaks and boyfriends of MTG in there. And I do wanna say like,

good for Caitlin Collins. That is hard. She is in that room. She is asking tough questions. She's being jeered at by members of the administration. She's being bullied by the president of the United States for asking completely reasonable questions, trying to keep the conversation focused

on actual substantive issues while fucking chuds left and right. Or be like, Mr. President, have you gotten taller? Talk to us about how healthy you are, that kind of question. And that is a hard thing to do. It's hard to stand there and just be kind of, just like be jeered at while you're doing your job and asking completely reasonable questions while the president's sitting next to a fucking Latin American authoritarian.

No, I saw a couple people saying like, maybe they all should have banded together when they denied the AP today and been like, all right, we're not going in. But like, if Caitlin Collins wasn't there today, I don't know that we would have gotten a question about Garcia because when he first denied her a question and he went to someone else, I don't know who it was,

they asked like a fine question about Ukraine, right, and Russia, but I was like, I was shocked that the first question wasn't obviously about Bukele and Garcia, and then most of them are just ridiculous questions. So it's like you do need some reporters who are still allowed asking tough questions, but it's a hard challenge. Yeah, I guess I'm at the point where I don't believe the way you challenge

Trump is by taking away coverage of him. I just don't think that that's effective. I don't know what other tools they have. It's not easy. But I do think that we are better off for Caitlin Collins having been there. In the Truth Post about punishing CBS, Trump specifically praised FCC Chairman Brendan Carr saying basically, I sure hope he does the right thing here. What do we know about Carr and what he might do or can do, I guess? Well, he's the chairman of the FCC. He's a right-wing activist.

He wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the FCC. He's known for playing hardball and using all the tools at his disposal to go after media organizations that Trump decides are biased in some way. For example, he's currently or has demanded that CBS turn over all these internal documents about an interview they did with Kamala Harris that Trump was not a part of because Trump says is unfairly edited. It's utterly ridiculous. But Carr did Trump's bidding there. Carr was also I I believe, spotted recently wearing a golden Trump pin.

Did you guys all see this? Yes, I did see that. He was wearing a fucking- It's like a Trump head. I want us to actually not call it a pin. It was a fucking brooch. It was a brooch. He was wearing a Trump brooch.

This fucking bag is wearing a Trump brooch. It's a golden brooch. It is the fucking queeniest fucking thing a person could have. It was drag. He was wearing Trump drag. So with his face on the brooch? With Trump's face looking up at him.

Yeah. Cool. It's unbelievable. So the brooch is obviously the real problem, but the other challenge is that there's a lot of concern that CBS is gonna cave to everything Trump wants because they're worried about their parent company,

Paramount Global, getting FCC approval to merge with Skydance Media. And Trump has lodged this, I think, $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News. So there's just a lot of lawfare happening. Speaking of corporate media capitulation, you guys see the Michael Wolff story in New York Magazine about how David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns CNN, has approached the White House about steps they can take to get back on Trump's good side. Yes, including a fishing show with Don Jr.

Because they want more conservative voices, but they have one in mind. Yeah, they had a list, apparently had a list. And it was just Don Jr. We had years of people worrying about what corporate consolidation in media would mean for journalistic independence, but it was in a world in which people took for granted that the federal government would not use politics to make those decisions.

There was ideological differences on mergers. There were different schools of thought about whether or not allowing these big consolidations should be, is this good or bad for consumers in the country. But the idea that just direct political interference in these kinds of decisions just wasn't part of the equation when all of a sudden CNN was being picked up by conglomerates and all these companies when Warner Brothers, Discovery were merging. And now we're watching these companies have to capitulate. I do think that like Harvard fighting back, some of the law firms fighting back is showing

a path. ABC capitulating makes it harder for CBS to fight. If CBS capitulates, it will make it harder for the next one. We're in a very dangerous moment. I want to go back. Donald Trump's saying today in the Oval, I want to follow the law. Look, I always deport people, but I want to follow the law.

I love and respect the Supreme Court. This is Donald Trump. He has gone so far, but he is still learning what he can and cannot get away with. He really is. The greatest lie about Donald Trump is that he doesn't respond to incentives. He does.

And if CBS capitulates, he will have learned that these tactics works. These law firms capitulating has taught him that those tactics work. When Columbia does it, they go after Harvard. The stakes for CBS and the stakes for the country of them deciding whether or not to capitulate are so enormous. I just hope that people inside understand that they are, you know, if they give into Trump on this, they are the next in a line of people in the story of how we no longer had a free press.

That is what is at stake. And just, it's worth pointing out that this started with no one facing any threat. It was a bunch of tech CEOs being like, oh yeah, here's a million dollars for your inauguration. And it was Jeff Bezos. According to the story, someone at Warner Brothers Discovery reached out to someone in the quote Trump orbit to get advice and one of the things they pointed to

was Jeff Bezos and Amazon buying a Melania Trump documentary for $40 million, which is about $40 million more than it's worth. And what did Bezos get? Bunch of tariffs. A bunch of tariffs. And so, and like, it just, you know, the source, you could look at that sourcing

and think, Trump orbit, what does that mean? That's a little thin. But also you just gotta remember, like Trump runs his extended universe like a mafia don, because the Wall Street Journal reported today that the guy negotiating all the deals between the Trump White House and law firms that they're pressuring to give what is up to $1 billion

worth of pro bono services at this point is Boris EFstein, who doesn't work at the White House. He has set up his own little whatever NAGA consulting shop. And so you'll end up having Boris EFstein working one side of this deal, companies, law firms hiring Trump-aligned lobbyists to negotiate on their behalf. Everyone's getting paid off of this. And it's just, it's mob shit.

It's just, and it's a lot of people just making the decision to cover their own asses. And this is financially better for me, or it's safer, or I gotta think about my firm, or my college, or my company. And maybe they're right in the narrowest sense, but like good for Harvard. And I really, really hope that...

It sucks saying that by the way. I know, I hate saying that. Fuck that. Really. Shut that whole place down last week. I just, I really hope that other colleges and universities who are gonna get targeted, like if anyone after Harvard now decides to give in again,

they have just really undercut Harvard and what they're doing. I hope this makes all the other colleges and universities finally say, you know what? Columbia fucked up. Harvard did the right thing. And now we're all going to fight it with Harvard. And same thing with other law firms. There's a couple of episodes of Sopranos

where the guy that played Terminator 2 in Terminator 2, I don't think that's the T1000, he gets in over his skis with some debt to the mob and he goes into business with Tony. He has a sporting goods store because he's trying to save his family, he's trying to save his life. And he ends up living in a tent inside that store. Just saying.

You're making a bad deal. You're going into business with terrible people. Especially the law firms too. It's like, this is- You're a law firm. This is a clearly unconstitutional- Fight in court. Yes, exactly.

Who wants a fucking lawyer from a law firm who doesn't think that, who isn't willing to fight an unconstitutional order here? The levels of irony, they are just so great. It's like law firms refusing to pursue legal avenues to do the right thing and protect the constitution, outrageous. Colleges refusing to stand up for the principles

on which they are founded. I was reading Rumeza Ozturk's op-ed that got her slapped on a list by the Canary Mission and swept up by ICE. It talks about according to the student code of conduct at Tufts, quote, active citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protest, gatherings and demonstrations is a vital part

of the Tufts community. Really? Really? You think so? I don't know about that anymore. Not according to our government. And the other part of this too is what Trump is betting on is that he is scarier than these law firms clients.

Yes. He's scarier than the alumni. He's scarier than the students. That Trump is betting he is more to worry about than all the people who claim to believe in these values. I'm just thinking about, when I first moved to LA and I was starting out, I had an entertainment lawyer who would negotiate when I was doing scripts and I saw him, he was a little bit tipsy at a party

and this is the kind of lawyer you want. And he just said, I was selling a script at the time and he just said, he said, love it, we're gonna pick them up by their ankles and we're gonna shake them. We're gonna shake them. That's the kind of lawyer you want. Now he's living in a tent.

Yeah, that's the kind of lawyer you want. You want a lawyer, even when they're at a party, they're thinking about how they're gonna shake down these fucking studios, all right? Not these capitulating little fucking weasels worrying about their ExxonMobil money. Oh boy. You gotta shake them.

That was a good lawyer, He's a great lawyer. Pod Save America is brought to you by Helix. I love my Helix mattress. I have a Dawn Lux. It's incredibly comfortable. Just yesterday I was thinking about how nice it is at the end of the day to get into my linen sheets on my beautiful helix mattress It's so nice to have a nice bed. It's a it's a gift you give yourself Also, I got a Dawn Lux because I have I like I sleep on my side

I sleep on my stomach and it's just super comfortable. So I highly recommend it How will you know which helix mattress works best for you and your body take the helix sleep quiz to find your perfect mattress in? Under two minutes. That's what happened when I took the Helix Sleep Quiz, got that Dawn Lux. The Helix lineup offers 20 unique mattresses including the award-winning Lux and Ultra Premium Elite collections. Helix Plus, a mattress designed for big and tall sleepers. Helix Kids, a mattress designed for growing bodies endorsed by child sleep experts. Helix knows there's no better way to test out a mattress than by sleeping on it in your

own home. That's why they offer a 100-night trial and a 10 10 to 15 year warranty to try out your new Helix mattress. Plus your personalized mattress is shipped straight to your door free of charge. Go to helixsleep.com slash crooked for 20% off site wide. That's helixsleep.com slash crooked for 20% off site wide helixsleep.com slash crooked. I'm gonna get into the latest on Trump's tariff policy in my interview with Joe Weisenthal,

but before that, let's talk about the politics of how the trade war is playing out. According to a CBS YouGov poll released over the weekend, support for Trump's handling of the economy and inflation continues to slide. A few notable numbers from the poll. 75% of respondents said the short-term impact of tariffs will be rising prices. 63% dislike Trump's approach to trade, even though a bare majority does support its stated goals. That said, 57% of independents, as well as 84% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, said Trump does not have a clear tariffs and trade plan. No shit.

Latest example, over the weekend, Customs and Border Protection issued a notice that exempted electronics like smartphones and computers from the latest round of tariffs. But on Sunday, the administration said those exemptions would be temporary. Trump himself said that, quote, there was no tariff exception announced on Friday and added these products are subject to the existing 20% fentanyl tariffs. You always want to put a fentanyl tariff on your phone. And they are just moving to a different tariff bucket. Then on Sunday, Trump said the tariffs on semiconductors

are coming quote very soon. And in his meeting with Bukele on Monday, said there will be some short-lived exceptions for car parts. If you're confused, you're not alone. Here are just a few of Trump's top economic advisors on the Sunday shows, as well as Trump himself on Monday. Did those tariffs are temporarily off, but they're going to be coming right back on in

another form in a month or so? Or what are you saying? Correct. That's right. That's right. But 90 days could be a rolling deadline, is what I hear you saying. Well, I would not say that. You want to call it exclusion, potatoes, potatoes.

When people talk about the chaos or lack of straight, whatever, you just go back to day one. Look, I'm a very flexible person. I don't change my mind, but I'm flexible. And you have to be, you just can't have a wall and you'll only go, sometimes you have to go around it, under it or above it. What in the lead time is on a new semiconductor plant? Three days?

A couple decades. A couple of days. Yeah, when was the last time you think Trump touched his toes because of flexibility or saw them? He goes under, around, over. We got the physical, he's doing great. Amazing. Our boy's healthier than ever.

Specimen six three, two 24. DK Metcalfe stats, looking ripped. What do you guys make of the polling on Trump's tariffs and his economic approval? Anything surprising? One number that stuck out to me that I liked was who's responsible for the economy. 54% say Trump, 20% say Biden and Trump

with some smaller percentage saying, or some small percentage saying just Biden still. That's basically three quarters saying that Donald Trump is now responsible for the economy. The honeymoon is over. There's no more blaming Biden. That's not flying anymore. He owns what is happening. He owns this mess. He owns the high cost of living. He owns the failure to address problems in the economy. 67% of independents say the economy is not in good shape. That is now on him.

Yeah, that's right. I think that jumped out at me too. I think big picture, he still has North Korea numbers among Republicans. Like the whatever economic pain they're feeling when they look at their 401k is they're not blaming him. You got to at least moving away from him. I do think there's some real warning signs when you've only got 40% approval of Trump's handling of inflation. 65% think the tariffs will make the economy worse in the short term.

There are big majorities that think that the tariffs, like I said, over 70% think tariffs will primarily benefit corporations and the wealthy. It doesn't seem like they've done the best branding there. However, the voters are more forgiving when you ask them about the long-term prospects of terrorists and as you mentioned, if you ask them about kind of Trump's goals versus how he's executing on it, basically I think about 60% of the country thinks he's going to use tariffs to negotiate and then he's going to remove them later. And I assume therefore they think things will be okay.

I continue to think that this is going to be the high watermark for his polling on the economy and on tariffs. I think what has happened is the tariff story has, and a lot of the polling shows this, has broken through like nothing else, right? Everyone has heard about this, financial news, business news, political news, it's everywhere, right? And so I think people's feelings

about what's going to happen to the economy are getting pretty negative, but they haven't yet experienced the higher costs because the tariffs haven't really kicked in, or the higher interest rate, like the worst of it hasn't happened yet, materially to people's lives, and when that happens,

I think the bottom falls out at least for, you know, independence, and maybe some Republicans to start feeling. Economically, what's happening right now is, businesses aren't making decisions because they can't predict what's gonna happen, so they are not hiring or adding or spending or doing capex, et cetera.

At some point soon, businesses will start firing. And I was talking to someone I know here in LA who was working on a merchandise deal with a athlete and now it's completely on hold in perpetuity because the socks were gonna come from China. There's a billion stories like that. There's a great story, The Daily did it today, about a small business owner who basically,

she imports a baby product from China. Right now, it would be more expensive for this woman to import things she's already paid to have produced than to just leave them there. There's a manufacturer that said they were considering moving to Canada to produce there. I thought we were supposed to bring manufacturing back, is that not what's gonna happen here? Yeah, I do think also like the,

so I think the delta between the goal and the execution just talks about the way the chaos has really broken through for people. The other piece of this is the stories have now kind of, Teron, I'm interested what Joe has to say about this, but the stories have now turned to, okay, he stepped back from the brink on these crazy tariffs for the whole world,

but there's still 10% global tariff and there's still this massive tariffs on China that's having implications. Let those implications, companies directly affected, the people being unable to figure out how to work around it, layoffs, all that will take time, I think,

to kind of reach people, hear the, just in the, literally just like hear from a friend about somebody facing a consequence, because I think people in their mind think, oh yeah we got to stop, you know, China's taking advantage. I think people believe that, I believe that, you know, but I think seeing the consequences is different. I will say just to be a straight shooter on the other side of this, respect to Nebo Science, that's something I busted out in a while. He's caused an international economic meltdown, he's shipping people off to a gulag by mistake, he's rambling on the, in the

Oval Office for hours a day. His approval has dropped from, you know, 51, 52 to 47, right? He's still like that, that kind of unmovable uh, opinion, like that is. Sucks. It sucks. It just sucks.

It sucks. He's at 47%. He's the worst president we've ever had. He's caused a fucking self-inflicted wound that may have decades-long consequences for our leadership and the global economy, and he's at 47%. I will say, it's April.

Yeah. And at this time in Biden's term, his staff was talking about the next FDR. Why didn't Obama learn from, he's not gonna repeat the mistakes of Barack Obama, he's the greatest president ever. And his approval rating was much, much higher than this. But I saw someone, the Biden slide in his approval rating that happened around the withdrawal of Afghanistan,

like Trump is facing that slide, that level of slide right now. I just want, yes. And I agree, I hope it is the high water mark, but him living at 47% is just a reason to be like, a little bit just cautious about over-interpreting the results right now. And I do, I mean, I was saying,

I do think that interpretation from your average American who is not a political junkie like all of us is don't love the news about Donald Trump right now. Don't love the tariff stuff. Maybe some of the deportation stuff is a little weird, but I like deporting criminals and stuff. But I don't know, it's a few months. Give them a little more time, see what happens.

Let's see how the economy goes. I think that's what they're thinking. Yeah. So before we get to my conversation with Joe Wyzenthal, we've got to end today's news block with a corrupt date That's our awesome name for a recurring segment on all the latest Trump family corruption news. It's really wearing Well, I think sure it gets here to stay. It was the best of the list of options that we had. Yeah Exactly. Today's item is a Wall Street Journal report about the shady crypto exchange Binance, which pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in 2023. Since then, Binance

has been banned from the US market and has special government monitors making sure it's not money laundering again. But here's the journal headline. Binance seeks to curb US oversight while in deal talks with Trump's crypto company. The journal found that execs from Binance met with treasury officials last month about getting rid of the monitors and returning to the US market, even as it's considering listing a so-called stablecoin

from World Liberty Financial, which is a Trump family money-making endeavor. The journal says that this scheme could make billions for the Trump family. Tommy, could you help decode the terms here and any sense of how bad this could potentially be? I mean, it's just, think about what's happening. It's not just that the Wall Street Journal reported

that the Binance folks were meeting with the Treasury Department to talk about loosening oversight of their company while exploring this deal with the Trump administration. The Trump administration has also talked about taking a stake in the Binance US operations. And the crime that Binance was accused of was like money laundering by Iran on its platform, terrorist organizations using it, other criminal organizations. It was a massive amount of money

laundering happening. And the fine they paid was $4.3 billion. The CEO went to jail for four months. And now CZ, the founder of Binance. But not in El Salvador. Not in El Salvador. Not bad enough for that, even though terrorist financing was part of it. In the US.

So, you know, the CZ, the founder wants a pardon. They want to get rid of restrictions on Binance from the US government. And according to a bunch of news reports, Binance looked at the treatment of another crypto founder named Justin Sun, who quote unquote invested about $75 million into World Liberty Financial, which is the Trump family's crypto company.

And then, wow, who would you thunk it, the SEC paused their fraud investigation to Justin Sun. So there's just this very clear way you can work with the Trump family organization to get not only regulatory relief, but even personal legal relief for the leaders of these companies. And all of that's on top of the Trump family launching the meme coin right before the inauguration, which basically allows anyone to funnel money into his pocket because every time you buy a Trump coin or a Melania coin, fees go to the Trump organization and they're collecting hundreds of millions of

dollars worth of fees. So there's just this like there's this whole set of crypto specific deregulation that's happening. The SEC is dropping investigations into crypto companies. DOJ announced it wouldn't be enforcing certain money laundering cases on crypto. It's just a very, it's like something we shall be watching both in terms of how people can funnel money to Trump but also future consumer harm because a lot of these companies are pretty fucking shady. The-

Sure, I'm sure a crypto czar, David Sachs has a- Yeah, he's on it. He's got a handle on it. We should just assume that people are bribing Trump, that they're putting money into his account. Part of this ties back into tariffs. We are now in the what industries and what companies specifically get exemptions phase. Trump loves this.

Tim Cook, desperate to have exemptions for iPhones, other companies have billions of dollars worth of business at stake. What is to stop someone from just getting a meeting with the president, talking all about how good they are for the American economy, and then just have to show them on your phone that you made a transfer, and only two of you will ever know, because there's no record, there's no paper trail, and all of a sudden

the exemption's lifted. Or you could just do it in the Oval Office in front of a bunch of cameras. They don't care either way. Well, Gambondi certainly doesn't give a fuck. The level of, like, it is just incredible the way in which Republicans in Congress do not give a fuck about how corrupt this administration is. They are the problem,

and obviously Trump is the core problem here, but the fact that these Republicans have so just completely abandoned any sense of responsibility to the country. Just no sense of obligation to their office, to their state, to taxpayers, to the nation they swore an oath to. Nothing. None of it.

You see Marjorie Taylor Greene bought the dip? What? There was a New York Times story that she finally reported that she did make a bunch of stock purchases right after Trump's... Marjorie and I have that in common. That's a bipartisan problem. They need to ban stock trading. He did tweet it. He did tweet it.

Well, did she buy day of? Yeah. The day of the rip? Yeah, I mean, him tweeting 15 minutes before, it's a good time to buy, probably gives everyone who was insider trading, because of information from the administration, cover to do whatever they did.

Yeah. Well, some people just had a feeling. Yeah. It's just like the what about ism of like, imagine if Hunter Biden did this is so tired and so boring, but this is just so much worse than any of the things that we read about him doing. Like, yes, it was gross to get a retainer from a Burisma or whatever, but like we're talking about billion dollar purchases in industries and These are not like long-held Trump family organization businesses. These are crypto companies

They started right before the administration so that they could capitalize in moments like this Yeah, David Foster Wallace gave a great commencement speech once about the importance of cliche and I know that what if Obama did it? What if Biden did it? I know it's a cliche. Maybe we gotta bring it back. We just gotta stop. Like, I know we all roll our eyes in it because we're so, like, hyper-engaged, fucking broken partisans, but like...

What if Obama did it? People would lose their minds. We can't point that out anymore because it's cliche. It's a good cliche. Yeah, I think it's just... If George W. Bush did it, we would've all lost our minds. Absolutely. You know, and probably something would've happened. Yeah. I think what the problem with pointing to the Hunter stuff is it sounds like a defense

to him, which no one's intending it to be. It's just pointing out their hypocrisy. So MTG bought between 21,000 and 315,000 in stocks both the day before and the day of. Way to go, Marjorie. Way to be brave. What a range. That's great. I great. And the day before Trump's move, she also dumped between 50 and $100,000 in treasury bills. Day before?

Yes. Wait, she dumped treasury bills? Yeah. Hmm, that's. She was freeing up cash probably to buy stocks. If it dropped, interesting, interesting, interesting. I'm interested in who got out of stocks on Monday, or when was Liberation Day, Tuesday?

Because we recorded Monday. Like who got out on Monday? Got a lot of cash out and then jumped in. She did both days. She did the day before and the day after. Yeah, I mean that one, none of them should be able to trade stocks. I mean, liberation day, everyone knows is coming,

you know, right? So it's a little more defensible, but if you're all of a sudden buying a bunch of options. Oh, it was the day before the pause. Yeah, not before liberation day, it was the day before the pause, which no one knew about because, you know, Trump said it was the day before the pause. Yeah, not before liberation, it was the day before the pause, which no one knew about because Trump said it was just, they wrote it from their heart in the Oval Office the

day of. Watching Jamie Dimon on TV. Right. All right, when we get back from the break, you'll hear my conversation with Joe Weisenthal of Bloomberg about what Trump thinks he's doing with tariff policy and what's likely to happen in real life. Two quick things before we do that. The next book from Crooked Media Reads coming soon.

It's called When We're In Charge, The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership by our pal Amanda Litman. She's been on the pod many times. It's out May 13th. Amanda's co-founder of Run for Something. She's helped launch the political careers of hundreds of millennials and Gen Zers.

Now she's turning that experience into a guide for the next wave of leaders who wanna make an impact without sacrificing their wellbeing or their principles. I know that just since Trump has been reelected, Run for Something has had, I think, more applications for people who want to run for office than they did even in 2017. That's great. So that's fantastic. When We're In Charge is part manifesto, part manual, and just so helpful in thinking about

how young people can lead and run for office. So it's essential book, it's great reading. Pre-order When We're In Charge now at crooked.com slash books or anywhere you get your books, check it out. Also this month, we're offering a 30 day free trial of Crooked's Friends of the Pod subscription. No commitment, just a full month of ad free listening and exclusive content totally free. Subscribing to Friends of the Pod subscription, no commitment, just a full month of ad-free listening and exclusive content totally free.

Subscribing to Friends of the Pod is the best way to support our mission of building a progressive media. Counterweight to the right, you get ad-free episodes of Pod Save America and Pod Save the World, but now you also get ad-free episodes of Offline and Love It or Leave It. Wow. Look at that.

Plus you get exclusive shows like Polar Coaster with Dan. You'll also join our Discord community where you can process and discuss the news with fellow listeners all around the world. Sign up today at crooked.com slash friends or directly through Apple podcasts to start your free 30 day trial. POD Save America is brought to you by Quince.

Vacation season is nearly upon us this year. Treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve with Quince's high quality travel essentials at fair prices like lightweight shirts and shorts for $30, pants for any occasion, and comfortable lounge sets with premium luggage options and durable duffel bags to carry it all. The best part? All Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. By partnering directly with top factories, Quinn's cuts out the cost of the middleman

and passes the savings on to us. And Quinn's only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. We love that. Just yesterday, I was looking at Quinn's because Passover's coming and I have to have a lot of stuff and I didn to have a lot of stuff and I didn't have the right, I don't have any kitchen utensils or serving things

and a lot of family coming. And so I went to Quince and they have amazing stuff. So I'm gonna click purchase on a cart for Quince literally after we record these ads. So that's just a fact about me and how much I like Quince. Whether it's for Pesok or a trip to Positano. Try Quince. For your next trip treat yourself to the lux upgrades you deserve from Quince. Wouldn't be nice to go to Positano. I don't even know what that is. It just sounds fancy to me. Go to

quince.com slash crooked for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. That's q u i n c e dot com slash crooked to get free shipping and 365 day returns, quince.com slash crooked. Joe Weisenthal, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. You know the economic news isn't stellar when I have to turn on notifications for your Twitter feed. People are calling me up who normally don't call me up as like, okay, that must mean that there's at a minimum

a lot of volatility in the market. Though obviously there's a lot more going on than just that. I want to start with your 30,000 foot view of where things stand right now. We are recording Monday afternoon, California time. It seems as if the markets have stabilized a bit after the last two weeks, but how are the business and financial worlds feeling

about this trade war and how it might affect the economy? Yeah, I mean, I think at a minimum, at a minimum, there is this view that for a long time, you know, the quote rules, they always say businesses want certainty, the businesses hate uncertainty. These are cliches, but there's probably always some truth to why these are cliches.

At a minimum, we're in a period of a high degree of uncertainty about what the trading relationship between the US and the rest of the world is going to look like. And at a minimum, you would think that, okay, this is not an environment in which businesses are going to be inclined to make new investments, open up new factories, open up new locations, expand headcount, et cetera. It's, I think the general perception is it's worse than that.

So, right, so that would be, the minimum is that you have this sort of period of uncertainty where there's no new expansion, but you know, you have the hit to the stock market. You have major new costs coming through. I mean, this is something of an instantaneous supply shock, probably not quite on the order of the COVID supply shock, but a supply shock nonetheless.

You have the rise in interest rates that we've seen over the last several days, that's going to affect borrowing costs. It's going to affect the housing market. That's going to affect the car market, other areas of corporate finance. So that probably has a tightening and negative effect on actual activity. So it's really not just, it's not just a market story, even though, you know, everyone's watching

the charts on their screen, that's sort of what's getting the immediate attention, because we really haven't had like the hard data so-called hit that really shows what's been going on in the economy over the last few weeks. Trump's top economic advisor in the White House, Kevin Hassett, he was on Fox today saying that there's no chance at all of a recession happening in 2025. Is that believable to you? Yeah. I mean, I don't know how anyone could say that ever.

I mean, in any condition, right? In any condition, I don't know how anyone could ever say there's no chance at all Happening and when you look at just the just the degree of tightening that we've gotten in financial Markets and by tightening I mean like if you're issuing equity that's gotten more expensive because the price has gone down if you're issuing Credit not only have you seen yields rise rise you've seen credit spreads rise And just the higher costs of all kinds of inputs, and then the sort of negativity that's out in the ether, out in the media, it's hard for me to believe that there is literally no chance at all of a recession. Even, I would say actually, there are some people

who think that a recession has started already, right? Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackstone said, I think about a week and a half ago, that the CEOs he talks to think the recession has already begun. Charlie Gasbrino, who works for Fox Business, said he talks to CEOs who think that a recession is either imminent or has perhaps already begun.

If you look at the betting markets, there's like at least a 50-50% chance, according to people with money on the line, that a recession has begun. If you look at the betting markets, you know, there's like at least a 50-50% chance, according to people with money on the line, that a recession has begun. So the idea that there's no chance at all of a recession in 2025 strikes me as a little bit implausible. I'm a little confused about how the markets are reacting to the news that smartphones and other electronics are currently exempt from Trump's tariffs on China, which was quickly followed by Trump and some of his staff saying

actually, they're still subjected to the 20% fentanyl tariffs and will probably be subjected to additional tariffs targeted at the semiconductor industry and electronic supply chains. What did you make of all that and the market reaction to that today? I mean, there's an extraordinary amount of uncertainty, obviously. I mean, look, I guess the market presumes that there is not going to be a hundred and forty five percent tariffs on iPhones. That seems like, OK, it's not going to be that big, which maybe some people thought that was going to be. And, you know, that would just be an eye popping a staggering number. I mean, the important thing is that a lot of the action, if you look in the market, really took place

before April 2nd, before so-called Liberation Day. And so, you know, it's like, you know, Apple is a $202 stock, this is the time we're talking about this. You know, it had been over 240 in late February. So already a lot of the anxiety from this trade war was getting baked into the market even before we you know the actual formal numbers which seem all still seem very uncertain were revealed.

How big of a deal do you think it is that China is now trying to halt exports of rare earth minerals to the US? You know what I'm really glad you asked that question because I would just say I will do a plug for my own podcast, Odd Lots, which we have an episode that will come out Tuesday morning. I'm not sure when this will come out. Tuesday morning. It's so perfect. We're actually on this question exactly. So here's the good news.

Here's the good news. It's not that big of a deal. It turns out they're not that rare. They're not that much. It turns out, and I didn't know this up until we talked to our own colleague who really knows this stuff, the number one use of so-called rare earth metals is actually in vacuum cleaners. In the worst comes, yeah, I know, it sounds really scary, rare earth metals or China has control of them.

It turns out this is not that, of all the big deals that are out there in the world and there are many this is one that like people can probably chill out about. In the worst case scenario they say like oh yeah this is you is it like missile tech or whatever in the worst case scenario maybe people will come around and ask to like buy your vacuum cleaner your Dyson vacuum cleaner from you and so that they can extract the metal. But this is probably one thing that'll be okay. Well, let's talk about the trade war with China at large, because it does seem like, regardless of what Trump backs off or what he doesn't, that that trade war is here to stay at least for the foreseeable future.

If that's the case, could you talk about what that will mean for most Americans and our economy overall? Yeah, I mean, like, you know, there's a huge share of goods consumption that comes from China and it's not just so there's the goods consumption, obviously, which ranges from all kinds of things from like high end items like smartphones to like small plastic things that you would get at a dollar store like refillable water balloons and so forth. There are a lot of small businesses. I mean, one of the reasons that this is perceived by some as perverse is that you have a lot

of small businesses, small manufacturing companies in instances who might buy some sort of intermediate good or they buy some piece from China that they reassemble and make it into something more expensive in the US. So it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't be massively disruptive, that there wouldn't be companies that face some sort of existential threat to their ongoing viability from what are truly like staggeringly high tariffs between the number one and the number two economy in the entire world. I don't, you know, it's an insured period of time, you know, countries undergo trading relationships

and they rebuild their manufacturing sectors. And this is the thing that happens from time to time in history. You know, they start off as small and maybe there's like one protected sector, there's like export subsidies and stuff. There's not, you know, there's not obviously some sort of, you know, social insurance to spread the pain from these, particularly to small businesses who buy things from China and so forth. So this is massively disruptive in a short period of time. Just with that in mind, like stepping back from all this,

what would you say the Trump administration's theory of the cases with its trade policy right now. And I ask that question because there have been a few different rationales given, some of which seem to contradict each other. But what do you think they are hoping to achieve based on the policies you've seen so far? And how likely do you think it is that they can achieve those goals? You know, they have revealed many different arguments for the tariffs, right?

So one is it's, oh, it's about, you know, fighting the budget deficit. Some is it's about we need to rebuild a manufacturing base. My guess is that, you know, there's various versions of it. Some of it is just that, you know, all of these countries have ripped us off for a long time through unfair trading practices, and therefore this is like the right way to redress years of wrong.

I think the main theory of the case though, is that this belief that the US is an incredibly rich economy, which it is, with a very strong consumer sector, and it's so strong and it's so central to the global economy that other countries and companies in other countries should essentially pay for the right to sell into the economy. And if their economics don't work, such that paying for the right to sell into the economy no longer is viable for them, then they should set up a manufacturing base.

And I think there's probably this sort of part economical and part cultural impulse of like why manufacturing is per se important. And I think it's important to also address that this is obviously not just a Trump thing that a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle, we saw this under Biden, obviously, this sort of deep anxiety about manufacturing

or the lack of manufacturing, particularly in advanced goods. We experienced it during COVID with all the anxiety around, you know, personal protection equipment and stuff like that. It's not a new thing, but I think there is this clear anxiety about the fact that, you know, the entire world really is so dependent on one country that's emerging as a manufacturing powerhouse in almost every category that you can think of. What's your best guess on what's going on with the bond markets and the weakening dollar?

I think there's two things. It's a really good question. My co-host of the podcast, Tracy Elway, has written a lot about this. I wouldn't say there's two things going on right now. It does feel like to some extent, there is this general flight out of US assets. So we have this sort of trifecta of the stock market going down, the dollar going down, the treasury market going down. And so people look at the US and they start to question, is the US a place where I want to park my marginal dollar?

And it seems like at least at the margins, more people are answering no. The other thing with the bond market specifically is that we've had a few bouts of really intense selling and then intense selling, and it's happened a couple of times at night, you know, like during the overnight futures, etc. There's not a lot of liquidity in the market. And when people are panicking, they want dollars, you know, they want to pay the bills, I always joke, you know, it's like, you have to pay your rent, you have to pay your cell phone bill, all these things become very immediate, it doesn't matter, you can't, you know, I can't pay my mortgage

with a treasury bond. I need actual dollars. And so you just start the cliches. You sell everything that's not nailed down. You sell your desk, you sell your headphones, et cetera. And so I think it's like rumblings of that where there's this like very acute sense of anxiety where it's like, I just want to survive to the next day.

I just want to survive to the next month. And treasuries are one of the things in the menu of things that you can sell. Treasuries are one of the things in the menu of things that you can sell Treasuries are one of the things that's available to you so you think it remains to be seen whether this is a consequence of the Instability we're facing right now or a longer term trend away from the US based on just the unpredictability of the Trump administration's policies? Yeah, I mean, look,

I do think it's probably too early to say, but you know, look, there are other signs of it too, of this sort of like, you know, the US is turning away from the rest of the world in sort of very straightforward ways. That's what tariffs do. And you see various ways that the rest of the world is turning away from the US.

You see it in the drop of, you know, I tend not to put a ton of stock in like polls of how people think about the US at any given time, but their way down. We see tourism way down from other countries already that's already hit. You know, today there were headlines about, you know, I think there's this hope that, for example, you know, the US could become have a good relationship with the Vietnamese, for example, and pry away one of China's neighbors seems very implausible to me, China is going to be an important

supply and demand source for Vietnam and its future. It's its next door neighbor. There were headlines today about China wanting its companies to deepen their investment in Vietnam. So you know, I think you look at Europe, you saw the Prime Minister of Spain already talking about deepening its relationship with China and so forth. So I think there's certainly a risk that just as we're turning away from the rest of the world,

that the rest of the world, like, refix its relationship with us. Because you follow this, you know, every second of the day, you've seen all the headlines and all that, there's a lot, you know, I'd say there's been a fair amount of panic or at least people making proclamations that like, this reminds me of COVID or this reminds me of 2007 and eight

or this reminds me, like, where are you on the scale of, like, this is a development that we should really be concerned about, or maybe this is just, you know, just some instability now and things will level out. You know, I started my career as a financial journalist in 2008, October 2008 specifically. So, you know, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the failure of authorities then to sort of like, stem that major bank run was to always, to my mind, the sort of defining event of my career. And, you know, I always thought it would be in COVID

for a second seemed like it could be that as well. But, you know, then obviously there was a pretty forceful economic response. And I like a lot of people were surprised to some extent, the degree to which something resembling normalcy or something resembling the pre-COVID life came back to the pre-COVID economy and it actually came back extremely fast.

This feels really different to me because this feels really different than 2008. And I think it's certainly plausible that it's a bigger deal than 2008. I don't know if it's gonna be a bigger deal in terms of like unemployment per se, because I don't, you know, it's a bigger deal than 2008. I don't know if it's going to be a bigger deal in terms of like unemployment per se, because I don't, you know, it's a different, it's different, but the idea, you know,

this seems like one of those bells that's hard to unring because even, you know, the tariffs are still here. They don't seem like they're going anywhere. In theory, the tariffs could be totally reversed, but it's hard to imagine the president credibly committing to never using them again, right? This is the problem. He could completely reverse the tariffs tomorrow and then he could reverse himself the next day. And so I think people have really woken up to this idea that like the relationship that the US will have to the rest of the world that, you know,

to some extent had just been taken for granted, for better or worse, over the last, you know, several decades, may not be the same again. Yeah. And that's something that could outlast Trump as well. And I don't think that's really sunk in yet. Yeah, yeah, it's definitely. Look, you know, Trump really, maybe the word is credit, but, you know, it was his administration in 2016 that sort of heightened this anxiety about China in general. And then there was a lot of carry through to the Biden administration.

I remember like in the 2020 primaries, like wondering with candidates, are you gonna keep the then existing China tariffs? And it was a remarkable amount of continuity. In fact, I would say like, it was probably like the most bipartisan consensus of any topic I can think of, is this view that we have to change our relationship

with China, that China is some sort of existential threat, whether it's economically or perhaps military, et cetera, probably one of the most bipartisan views that there is. And, you know, I don't think, I think by and large, like Democrats probably at this point would say, no, that's like roll back the tariffs. But in general, right. But I do think like the relationship with China is probably. On some level, never going to go back to even the sort of 2020,

you know, this even the Biden era environment. Yeah, and I also keep thinking that even if they announce, you know, dozens of deals with all the rest of the countries to get rid of the reciprocal tariffs, he seems like he's pretty intent on keeping the 10% universal tariff. Yeah, it does feel like that. It seems like these China tariffs

are also here to stay as well. Yeah, and maybe, you know, the thing I keep thinking about, you know, and people talk about these deals and the White House is how these countries have lined up and you hear Wall Street people's like, make a deal, make a deal, announce a deal and so forth. And the thing that I keep wondering about, which I've never seen is like,

what does this supposed deal even look like with any of these countries? Because the truth of the matter is, you know, that chart that they came up with on like April 2nd, Liberation Day, who's essentially like this made up formula, like that was not a real measure of existing trade barriers. And in a lot of cases, you know, they're like, oh, it's not just tariffs, but it's non-trade barriers. I think by and large, that's perceived to be nonsense.

It's not obvious that many of these countries have a lot to like, a lot to give us. You know, like I imagine, sure, you might be able to like sell some of these countries more soybeans or something like that. And that's usually, you know, one of the things, oh yeah, we're gonna like, we're gonna buy some more natural gas from you.

I could totally see that in some cases, but there's not like a ton, obviously, that any of these countries can give. sure every country has some tariffs because every country has its own internal politics You know, it's like why does the US subsidize like ethanol or something? Yeah, cuz of politics and so every country probably has their own equivalent of ethanol where there's like some industry Then for political reasons has to be protected or is untouchable and to have this or that. But by and large, I don't think most countries that we trade with have a ton of obvious gives, nor is it clear what our asks are in many of these cases.

So I'm kind of skeptical about this idea that there's going to be this parade of deals coming that can bring down the tariffs. Now, of course, it's always possible that countries could give Trump almost nothing and he takes it as a win, especially if he wants the market to go up. All of that is certainly possible, of course. Yeah, and I would say maybe even plausible. Maybe even plausible, that's it.

What's gonna happen, yeah. Joe Weisenthal, thank you so much for joining. Thank you for having me. And thanks for all you're doing to keep us informed. Appreciate it. Anytime, that was a blast. That's our show for today. Thanks to Joe Weisenthal for joining.

Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our friends of the pod community at crooked.com slash friends or subscribe on Apple podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed. Also, be sure to follow Pod Save America on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for full episodes, bonus content, and more. And before you hit that next button, you can help boost this episode by leaving us a review and by sharing it with friends and family.

Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Madeleine Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellaveve, and David Tolles. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.