“A seismic ruling today from the Supreme Court”

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47. Hi there, everyone. Happy Friday. It's four o'clock in New York. A seismic ruling today from the United States Supreme Court of monumental consequence, one that not only forcibly upends a core pillar of Donald Trump's economic policy, but also in rare form for this court of late, limits the scope of Donald Trump's presidential power. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explains why Trump does not have the tariff authority he's asserted these past several months. Quote, the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope. In light of the breadth, history and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. Basically, if Congress doesn't pass a law saying he can do it, he can't do it. In response, Donald Trump, live and on camera, seemed to go about the seven stages of grief in front of an assembled press and obviously the world. First, shock, denial, anger, rage, really, at the Supreme Court. He took the form of a disgusting new line of attack on the six justices who ruled against him. Watch. They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have. It's a no. You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people. others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court. And it's happened so often with this court. What a shame. Having to do with voting in particular. When in fact they're just being fools and lapdogs for the rhinos and the radical left Democrats and not that they should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. For those keeping score at home, that was a new low even for him. Trump's seven stages of grief processed from there, bargaining, depression, I dare say, testing, and ultimately acceptance as he announced that he'd attempt to invoke a new 10% global tariff citing an act passed in 1974. Although, once again, there are questions about his legal authority to do it that way. Despite Donald Trump's assertion today that this was some sort of twisted victory for the administration, it's actually a win for those who have argued that he'd overstepped his authorities and for advocates of our 250-year-old separation of powers tradition. This was our third branch of government ordering the second to seek approval from the first. The short, medium, and long-term consequences of this development are still taking shape even as we come on the air. It is more uncertainty for American businesses, large and small. They have already paid a price, literally and figuratively. So what about refunds for those businesses and their customers? How will the administration put the toothpaste back in the tube? In his dissent, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes this, quote, the court says nothing today about whether and if so, how the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess, as was acknowledged at oral argument. On that point, The New York Times writes this, quote, So far, the U.S. Treasury has collected roughly $240 billion in tariff revenue since April 2nd, 2025, a date Trump labeled Liberation Day as he imposed his sweeping tariffs. The research firm Capital Economics estimates that if the Treasury is forced to issue refunds, the costs would run to about $120 billion, or 0.5% of GDP. The blast radius of this landmark decision extends outward from there. What about the stock market? Trump insisted our economy would suffer if the courts struck down tariffs. But look at that. At close a few moments ago, things held steady. The Dow, the S&P, and the Nasdaq ended the day up slightly. What about Trump's trade deals? struck under penalty of a mechanism over which he has no control anymore. But for the moment, the White House must scheme its way forward, following an increasingly rare directive from the Supreme Court. It told Donald Trump no. That's where we start today with Neil Katyal. He argued against the tariffs before the United States Supreme Court, representing a group of more than 50 businesses. He's also the former principal deputy solicitor general of the United States. He's also a former close friend of our show. We're happy to see you, Neil. Congratulations on your win today. Thank you. Wonderful to see you, Nicole. So take me inside what the court decided, and then we'll deal with what happens next. Yeah. So the court, I think, today really strongly said President Trump's tariffs policy is unconstitutional and illegal. They said, look, if you want to get tariffs, the way to do it is to go to Congress and ask for authorization. And so, you know, it's not a decision about any particular president. It's a decision about the presidency. And the chief justice writing for six justices used very strong language about the president saying to the president saying, you know, the Constitution requires you to get this affirmative approval of the Congress. And you can't just do this on your own. In America, the stroke of the president's pen is not enough to impose taxes on the American people, and terrorists are nothing else but taxes, the chief justice said. And I think it's notable that this decision wasn't just written by some group of lefty justices, to the extent there even are any. It was written and joined by six justices, including two justices appointed by Donald Trump himself, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of them saying in full that these terrorists were unconstitutional. And so, you know, when I presented the argument, to the Supreme Court on November 5th, I made about six key points. Every single one, Nicole, of those six points was accepted 100 percent by all six justices today on the Supreme Court. So explain the dissent to me. Yeah, so the dissent written by Justice Kavanaugh says that presidents have flexibility. And if the president is able to, for example, blockade goods, then he should be able to impose taxes on goods. And the fundamental problem with that, as the chief justice said, echoing what I said at the argument, is tariffs are fundamentally different than blockades. Blockades stop some goods from coming in, but they don't impose taxes on the American people. They don't take money out of your wallet in order for you to get something. So that's very different than a blockade. And that's why, you know, going all the way back to the Boston Tea Party, and this is something that the chief justice, again, recognized in his opinion for the court, we've always understood had the taxation power to be special and different. And so I think the court today sends a clear message to the president, to future presidents, hey, you got to color within the lines. And Nicole, you know, I've had the privilege of being the government's top lawyer, the federal government's top lawyer in the Supreme Court. It's frankly, you know, a big deal whenever any federal policy is challenged. But it's incredibly rare to have one of the president's signature initiatives challenged and go to the Supreme Court, and rarer still to have the Supreme Court say no. You know, normally presidents get all sorts of deference, and I think here the president got deference, but the policy that he chose was so blatantly unconstitutional and illegal that the Supreme Court said no. Six members of the Supreme Court said no. Three seemed to give him a ton. You only need five in this business. To burrow under. You only need five in this business. Well, I want to turn to his reaction. We, I think, were on the air together through the duration of his really unprecedented smears against Robert Mueller and the people who investigated him. He seemed to use that category of smears for the six Supreme Court justices who delivered this ruling. Really, you know, I'm not a lawyer, never argued before the Supreme Court. but they seem to say this is illegal and unconstitutional. And in response, Donald Trump says your family should be embarrassed of you. You are a disgrace to Amy Coney Barrett, to Chief Justice Roberts, to Justice Corsuch, and to the three liberal justices. Have you heard that before in your career? Look, I'm not going to, Nicole, respond to the president's comments. I mean, I'm focused on what the decision said, which is a, well, it's a resounding win for the American people and for the Constitution. I mean, I can tell you that I personally, I've been on the losing end of Supreme Court decisions, both as the government's top lawyer and in private practice or representing pro bono clients. You know, I have deep respect for the court and always do, whether I win or lose. You know, one of the great things about the American system is what just happened today. I mean, just think about it like that. I was able to go to court, the son of immigrants, able to go to court and say on behalf of American small businesses, is, hey, this president is acting illegally. And I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions at me. It was a really intense oral argument. And at the end of it, they voted and we won. That is something so extraordinary about this country. The idea that we have a system that self-corrects, that allows us to say, you might be the most powerful man in the world, but you still can't break the Constitution. I mean, that to me is what today is a ballot. What do you make of the fact that the ruling in spirit and resounding this, as you said, you only need five, six justices delivered this ruling today, this decision, again, to the non public three of them were appointed by Democratic presidents three of them were appointed by Republican presidents two as you said by Donald Trump And his response was to figure out a workaround Do those same small businesses feel like the storm has passed or are they still concerned about Donald Trump and tariffs? Well, I think you always have to be concerned when you have a president who, you know, signals some disrespect for the law and the judicial system. So, you know, I suspect that, you know, that some of our clients are still concerned. The decision today, you know, like any court decision, isn't going to put every concern to rest. But I think it's a really clear statement by the Supreme Court that the president's got a color within the lines and can't just adopt extravagant tariff policies without going to Congress first. And I think that's a really important point here, which is we weren't saying you can never have tariffs. We were saying that the American way is to go and get them approved by the Congress. And if the president is so right that we need these tariffs, that we are suckers and all the other language he used, if that's right today, he has a very clear path. Indeed, I believe he's going there on Tuesday to the State of the Union. He could ask for Congress to impose such legislation. He's been able to do that for more than a year, and he hasn't. Now, notably, when he was president the first time, he did try and get legislation passed by Congress and they said no. And I think that tells you all you need to know about where this tariff policy is headed. You mentioned once serving as the department of the country's top lawyer, and that's the Solicitor General Post inside the Department of Justice. We haven't had a chance to talk to you since Donald Trump has turned that department inside out, has gone around Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and installed Lindsay Halligan to bring about cases against Jim Comey and Tish James to seek the political prosecutions of six Democratic lawmakers for making a video telling men and women of the military to not obey an illegal order. What is your analysis of the current state of the Department of Justice with Donald Trump's face now flanking it in a large banner for the first time in America's history? Hey, again, Nicole, I'm here to talk about tariffs and the Supreme Court and an incredible decision today. The Justice Department conversation I'd love to have with you, but it will be another day because I am focused on one thing today and one thing only. We'll look forward to it. Neil Katyal, congratulations on your win and thanks for being here. I want to bring in my panel, former top DOJ official legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. Puck News senior political columnist, national affairs analyst John Heilman is here as well. Heilman, Donald Trump had a complete meltdown. And as much as Neil Cotill didn't want to talk about it, I'm not sure I understand exactly why. It is something that the world saw on display today that I think brings about the next question. What if he ignores the Supreme Court? Well, let's just start with, Neil made the point that this is a win, and you made the point of this win for the Constitution. He also said it's a win for the American people. And I think there's a whole economic discussion to have about the fact that what an enormous win this is going to be for the American economy. The politics of that are a lot more confusing, and it will depend a lot on what Trump decides to do, to your point. We don't really know what he's going to do. Trump has thrown fits before. Sometimes that leads him to do things. Sometimes that leads him not to do things. I just struck watching that, you will remember as well as anybody, Al Gore losing a decision of even greater consequence than this in Bush v. Gore. And just anybody who has YouTube, go back and watch Al Gore as a picture of someone who bitterly, bitterly disagreed with the court, thought the court was acting not in line with the Constitution, acting in a totally partisan way, and who stood up and basically did exactly the opposite, the mirror image of what Donald Trump did there, which was to stand up and say, you know, I lost and I'm going to have to honor this decision and respect the decision of the court. Didn't trash anybody's family. Didn't say anybody was a disgrace. Didn't say anybody had done anything due to political correctness. Didn't do any of that kind of stuff. And to your point also to Neil, of course, we've never seen that before. Never seen a president, Dave, like this before. And I do think part of what's interesting about it is this, Nicole, is that I think Trump, this is a deviation from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been basically giving Donald Trump what he wants, mostly through the shadow docket. This has been the first big case they've taken on in the traditional Supreme Court fashion. Andrew will talk about this, I'm sure. But Trump, I think, had come reasonably to the expectation that this court had become a rubber stamp for him, much like Congress has been. Because what it had been doing over and over again through the shadow docket is basically quietly in the dead of night with no explanation, rubber stamping his policies. So I think he came to the conclusion that how is this any different? These people are all in my pocket. So I think a lot of his, I think the kids say butthurtness in this situation, has to do with that, has to do with the fact that he really just thought they're now in my pocket. I have no reason to expect anything to the contrary. And yet they did this. And the last, and they did the right thing according to the constitution. This was a slam dunk case. If you're on the plane reading the constitution, Again, not to dismiss and in any way denigrate Neal's efforts as an incredible Supreme Court litigator, but this was not a hard call case. This is not a case that's like on the line. It's a good point. And the reality is it gives people hope in another case that should be a slam dunk case, which is the birthright citizenship case. We wondered how far gone is the Supreme Court. This suggests that Supreme Court, at least on cases where the Constitution is really quite clear, its language is quite clear, that they may end up doing the right thing on that case when we get there. And I think those are all heartening developments for our day today. The court still is doing things regularly that are deeply problematic. But at least on these cases where it's like flagrantly not unconstitutional what Donald Trump is doing, they at least showed this week that they were willing to stand up and side with the Constitution of the American people rather than with any partisan political interests, at least six of them are willing to do that. Andrew Weissman, your thoughts? So, you know, we talked a lot about the Trump versus the United States immunity decision and how that sort of unleashed a lot of what we were seeing because the court was saying that the presidency is not going to be held to account. And they specifically said in that case, even where a grand jury had indicted a president for allegedly having sham investigations into Georgia fraud, they said that cannot be charged. Even just think about that, even if it's a sham investigation that the president has immunity and cannot be prosecuted. And there was this sense that the sort of three branches of government were really not being respected, that the court was saying, just do what you want, that the legislature cannot impose in any limit. And I think one of the things that I am taking away from this decision is how much the court seems to be cutting back on that view and realizing what it has wrought. And I just want to this is this is one of, I think, the most remarkable passages. And it comes from Justice Gorsuch. Let me just repeat that. It comes from Justice Gorsuch, where he is saying that the president can't do this, that it's up to the legislature to tax people. We are not giving that power to the president unless Congress has clearly and specifically said that they want to do that, which he says they didn't do that here. And he says at the very end of his opinion, he says, you know, people may not like that. They may think that that takes a lot of time. But he says that the reason you want the legislature to do this is so that we're not subjected to the whim of one faction or one man. And he said for he said for some today, the weight of those virtues, the virtue of having Congress act may be apparent. He said, for others, it may not seem so obvious, but if history is any God, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is. That's the key phrase for the bulwark of liberty. It is that is saying, and I think a real recognition and a change from where they were in the immunity decision saying there, we actually are here that you have to have three branches of government, that the design of the Constitution was that you secure liberty by diffusing power. And to me, this is this I really think is such an important decision because of what it is signaling about where the court is going to be. And I just want to point one thing out about because you asked Neil a very good question, which is about what Donald Trump has said about these justices. I'd just like to point out that it was nine zero, including the three liberal justices who all said when there was a challenge to Donald Trump being able to run this time as president. Remember, there was a challenge by Colorado saying they should be disqualified. Nine to zero. The three liberal justices who he smeared today all ruled in his favor. So it's just simply inaccurate to say that these are people who are acting only at a political whim. It's a good point. We'll talk more about the Supreme Court and what we learned about the court today from this decision. No one's going anywhere. When we come back, will this decision do anything to help the American consumers and American businesses? Or did Trump just create more uncertainty in how he responded to it? We'll talk to our friend Steve Leesman about that on the other side of the break. Also ahead, how this check on Donald Trump's power will play out in Congress, where the Republicans there don't like tariffs very much either. Republicans are vowing tariff alternatives for Trump, and Democrats are looking for ways to make it right for the American people to pay them back. They've been the ones hurt the most. We'll talk to a leading Democrat on that effort. And later in the broadcast, we'll continue to unpack today's ruling with special coverage joined by some of my primetime colleagues. Quick break. Don't go anywhere. The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. I never believed that America would be doing this. A stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat. Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. I want to bring into our coverage CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Leesman on whether any uncertainty has been alleviated by this decision today Just more broadly your reaction to what the Supreme Court decided on tariffs Well, it's good, I think, ultimately, for the restoration of the separation of powers. I think from a business standpoint, that's probably a good thing that you don't have a president who can raise as much revenue as he wants in any particular way, basically levy a massive tax on the American public. I think they do have to still deal with the question of whether or not the president can spend any money he wants without the authorization of Congress. But right now, the revenue thing and this idea, I think, to the extent to which some uncertainty has been lifted, this particular emergency tariff rule allowed the president to impose almost any tariff he wanted immediately and with no congressional review. Now, what's not been removed, Nicole, is this idea that he's now saying, and the Treasury Secretary said this, they intend to replace all of the revenue that they have raised and will raise from the emergency tariffs in other sections. So this is not going away. And in many respects, it may be even worse from an uncertainty standpoint in that a new patchwork of tariffs will now be assembled, which has been very, very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses, to navigate. So there's that one aspect right there. And these sometimes take time. So the whole process now could be extended over many months. So I would say that the amount of uncertainty alleviation is de minimis. And the Wall Street Journal alerted a story this morning about how the economy cooled, was weaker by the end of last year. Some of it was a government shutdown, but some of it is this uncertainty that we've talked about now for the better part of a year. How does this impact with all of the uncertainty that remains the experience of, you know, the everyday American who's shopping for things at Walmart or Target? Well, I don't think they're going to get much price relief here. What you saw in the data that came out this morning was goods inflation has now been on the way up. And we had more of it in December than in prior months. And that made me a little bit nervous because one of the stories out there is people say, where's the tariff inflation? Well, it's slowly been creeping into the economy and the year over year rate for goods inflation, it's just 2%. But what you need to understand by context here is that over the prior months before the tariffs were imposed, goods inflation was negative. It was deflation and it was keeping a check on inflation overall. So now that downward pressure on inflation from goods is gone, and now it's upward pressure from inflation. And the idea that it accelerated in December tells me that maybe it's going to be worse in January and February, as essentially businesses have tried to hold the line on passing those tariffs along to consumers. They passed some of it along, but not all of it. And they're saying publicly that they're going to try to pass more of it along to consumers. It's been a minute since we've had a chance to talk to you about the near daily assault on the rule of law. And I've often been curious about how titans of industry and business leaders have felt immune from those blows. How having a company headquartered in this country that does business around the world, not being a country where the rule of law matters or not being a country where the Justice Department means justice is an issue they feel they have any skin in the game in. Do you think his response to the Supreme Court calling the six justices, three appointed by Republicans or three appointed by Democrats, will cause any business leaders unease where he basically calls him disgraceful? You know, Nicole, not a day goes by that I think about the question that you ask me all the time that we're on, which is where is business in this whole Trump administration thing here? And there was a day not too long ago when the president tweeted out that very, very racist video that he tweeted out, and the market went up by 1,200 points. And I think, Nicole, the answer to where is business is they're either making money or afraid they're not going to make money if they open their mouths. And so the question for businesses, they are nowhere on this. And what I think business might be missing here is if indeed this Trump regime were to come down, there could be retribution for the cooperation that business is now providing and their failure to speak up. So I'm not sure, as I think long term about this, that business is making the smartest decision. It may be the smart decision for now, but I think long term, they're not necessarily keeping their interest at doing what is in their best interest. Because I think when the public gets around and thinking, well, where was business in all this? And, oh, they were funding the ballroom and they were funding the inauguration and they were spending all this money really essentially making deals with the president. I don't think that's going to be a good look. I'm so heartened that I'm not the only person that thinks about it every day. I mean, I just, You know, I guess the last time we had this conversation, it was more than three years away from it being over. It's now two years and change from it being over. There will be another side of this. Everything ends. The pendulum will swing. And this is now an administration that has killed two American citizens on the streets of Minneapolis, that has defied the Supreme Court's ruling, 9-0, saying before you send people to SECOT, they are entitled to due process. that today, after losing before the Supreme Court, called six justices unpatriotic and a disgrace and embarrassment to their families. So if you hear from anyone in business who says we care, call me. We'll get you right on the air. Steve Leisman, thank you. Thank you for joining us today. I'm always happy to see you. Heilman, I mean, it sort of gets back to a conversation you and I both had this week with Scott Galloway about the grassroots boycott. I mean, any message to business is going to have to come from their consumers and customers. Yeah, I think, well, any business that, any message that has any effect on any potential of moving- Of their behavior. Of changing the case is going to have to come from the bottom up. And there's no question about that. There has been, every day, literally every day from the time that Donald Trump took office in the second term to today, there has been opportunities aplenty for any CEO, I don't want to say with courage, because I don't think this actually requires courage, but with self-interest in mind, the long-term self-interest of the rule of law in the state of the country, et cetera, et cetera, and the health and welfare of their customers, they've been at opportunities every day, every day to come out and say something. And the fact that they haven't is telling, and I think we should stop expecting them to change in that regard. The only way they're going to change is they're going to change it as if consumers vote their feet, their pocketbook, whatever you want to call it, because their consciences, to the extent they have them, are not functional in this era. Yeah. Yeah. All right. We'll pick that up on the other side of the break. Also after the break, the damage has already been done to so many American businesses and American families who have been forced to pay higher prices for everything from groceries to toys to household goods. We'll talk with one of the leading senators calling for refunds to be paid back to people. Our special coverage continues. Don't go anywhere. The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. I never believed that America would be doing this. A stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat. Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. Democrats today are describing the Supreme Court ruling as a major win for American taxpayers and American business owners who have been bearing the brunt of Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policy. Last spring, Trump promised his tariffs would make them rich and bring them liberation, that he'd bring back manufacturing jobs and reduce U.S. imports. The opposite has happened. April 2nd, 2025 will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn. It's going to be Liberation Day in America, and it's going to be a day that hopefully you're going to look back in years to come and you're going to say, you know, he was right. We get rich because of tariffs, by the way. I hope everyone understands that. They hate to report. All I know is this. We're going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs and we're going to become so rich. You're not going to know where to spend all that money. Except it's not what happened. I want to bring in our coverage Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington. She sent a letter to the Trump administration today demanding the prompt reimbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses who have paid the substantial tariffs. I wonder if you've had any reaction to your letter today. Not yet, but obviously it's very important. We're happy what the Supreme Court said because we felt all along that this was a congressional authority, not something the executive branch could use, not this widely. And so it's important now that consumers get some relief that businesses, small businesses and manufacturers not pay more money for the development of product or services than they should have to pay. And it does affect our economy and it does affect our long-term opportunities. So as Mr. Gleesman was saying, you know, it's hard to say, you know, businesses have been struggling along trying to deal with this uncertainty, but the future hopefully will have a little more predictability now that the court has acted. You've written in the letter that should they arrive at the point where they agree to the refunds, quote, refunds must not be limited to those businesses that choose to litigate or who can afford to initiate litigation to seek the relief they are entitled to in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. It seems that the businesses on Main Street for whom price fluctuations can be the difference between surviving or not surviving are the ones that could really miss out. What can you do or what can be done to protect them? Well that why we sent the letter So first of all big retailers Costco and others like them have already filed cases So those cases are going to be litigated But now that this has been ruled illegal then yes the Treasury should say to Congress what are the reliefs to those particular importers of product And what would we like to see in future relief for consumers So that's where we're starting, trying to get those answers out of Treasury. The Customs and Border Organization already does have a fund now where, I should say, a process where electronically, where if they have overcharged importers, they can give them relief. So there is a structure that exists in our import-export system. So we're simply asking the questions, how much money was collected that was illegally collected? How much money are those individual importers going to be paid back? And how can we do our job in making sure the people have been hurt the most, the consumer, get a little relief in the future from that? Let me bring in Andrew Weissman with a legal question that I have. How do you, as a senator saying, Andrew, I mean, the funds were illegally collected. The act was illegal at the time. And now that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. How who is who enforces that if Donald Trump is made so abundantly clear that the Department of Justice works for him? Well, it depends who was paying. So for individuals who are hurt, they can bring a class action to say that this money has to be paid back. I think for countries and large organizations, you may see this administration resort to the same kind of strong arm tactics that it's been using against universities, law firms, media organizations and foreign countries. to say, we're not going to pay you back. And if you try to do something about it, we will take retaliatory action. In other words, they have, that is something that we've seen Donald Trump do. But I think for the small fry, for the people who have paid for importing goods for small businesses, I think you will see ongoing litigation, the same kind of litigation that ended up with Neil winning in the Supreme Court today. So I think you'll see a combination of things to try and get their money back. Senator Campbell, please come back and keep us posted as this makes its way. If you hear from the administration, do let us know and come back and tell us. I think I really want to hear from my colleagues. I want to hear from my colleagues in the Senate. I heard from the president today, I guess, if you would say what he said on television. And it's to be expected in so many other policies where they've overreached. But it's time for my Senate colleagues to say, yes, we understand the court basically said it is our authority. It is our power. We are the ones who should be reviewing these things. And now you should also be reviewing how you're going to help the consumer who's been affected by this and how to help those individual businesses that were mentioned may not have all the weight or all the processes of of a big corporation to to weigh in on the legal front. But it's time for my Senate colleagues to weigh in on the trade debate. And I'm glad that seven Democrats and seven Republicans joined me and Senator Grassley in a letter a year ago, basically saying that this was Congress's authority. And so the president had an opportunity. He could have been the big, beautiful bill, come to Congress and said, this is what I want to do. Are you guys for it or not? And the truth is, there's a lot of members of Congress who represent states with big agricultural products and who rely on export markets, and they never thought tariffs were a great idea. So it's time to hear from them now. Yeah, and they don't have anything nice to say about tariffs when they're out on TV, but we'll see if Trump asks them to pass tariffs, do you think they'll say yes? I personally do not think that the president is listening to the American people. And I think my Senate colleagues have a closer ear. I think that, you know, we all want open markets and we all want fair trade. I think the point is, is that he made these products more expensive for the American people, harder to compete. And I think you're going to hear from soybean growers and you're going to hear from small manufacturers and people are going to tell their senators, We don't like this. That's what they've been telling them. Yeah. Senator Campbell, thank you for joining us today on this. We'll stay on top of it. One more break. Thank you. We'll be right back. Through an extraordinary piece of reporting in The New York Times, we learned this week that the husband of Donald Trump's Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez de Remmer, has been barred from entering the department's building after two women accused him of sexually assaulting them on the premises. That's according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously. The New York Times was the first to report this story about Shonda Remmer, including one incident in December that was captured on camera and reported as, quote, sexual contact against her will, end quote. This would be front page news in any normal political moment. But it's not even the only scandal involving the labor secretary and her family. The New York Times is also reporting this. The, quote, Inspector General's office is investigating a formal complaint that Secretary Chavez de Remer was having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, a member of her security detail, and abusing her office by taking staff to strip clubs, drinking alcohol on the job, and taking personal trips at taxpayer expense. Her lawyer denies the allegations, end quote. We have reached out to the Labor Department but haven't heard a response from them. We're back with Andrew and John Hellman. I mean, I don't have a lot of words to, like, what is going on? Well, one doesn't want to make light of this too much. I'd say, first of all, the Department of Labor is in the Francis Perkins building in Washington, D.C. Francis Perkins was the first female cabinet secretary in the history of the country. There's something kind of darkly ironic about the fact that all of this is going on there. It is, you know, you've got a labor secretary's husband who's accused of, is apparently under criminal investigation for two sexual assault, two different women. You've got the labor secretary herself, who was apparently under a cloud suspicion about having a sexual relation with her security official. She is accused, she had two top aides who were placed on leave as the department's IG was inspecting the allegations that she drank in the office and took her staff, not just to trip clubs, but to Las Vegas. And if this wasn't the government of the United States of America, you'd be kind of like, this is apparently kind of a wild party thing. It sounds like spring breakers in D.C. But how bad does it have to be, Nicole, that a government that thinks it's okay for Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense? How bad does this have to be at the Department of Labor to have your husband banned? How bad does it have to be for all this to actually meet some standard where you'll think you've gone too far? I mean, you can go pretty far. Well, and Trump got rid of all the inspectors general. So this is also whatever shell of an inspector general still exists that investigated her and found these things to be true. And, you know, again, there's so much malfeasance and so much behavior that, you know, makes all of our heads explode irregularities. that this, if it hadn't gotten to this level, this might have gone just under the radar given the scale of everything else that's going on. And I guess the why is it's being done in our name. It's being done in all of our name. These people's salaries to do these things, to go to strip clubs and drink and have relationships, sexual and otherwise, with their subordinates and sexually. So it's all being done in our names as American taxpayers. Yes, that is a very fine point. And it's the reason why we can talk about it on the show and it's not just merely gossip and tittle-tattle. We'll give Andrew the last word on this on the other side of a short break. Don't go anywhere. Andrew, I'm going to come back to the question I tried to get Neil Katyal to answer. And it's sort of why these two stories go together in my mind. When you end, this is sort of what happens where the rule of law ends. And when the rule of law ends with the people who are supposed to uphold the rule of law, the president of the United States, this is what ensues. Your thoughts. So what I was thinking about this decision today and the president's reaction to it, I thought he is looking at a tariff decision, sort of that tariff gift horse in the mouth. When this case was first brought, people thought, OK, the president is driving the economy off a cliff with these tariffs. Most reputable economists thought these were going to be a disaster. And the data so far indicates that is exactly what's going to happen. And people thought, okay, well, the courts are going to bail him out because they're going to say you can't do this. And that way the economy will not suffer at his hand. And then today, being so stubborn and not being willing to listen and not being willing to understand that they're experts and people who may know just a thing or two more about the economy than he does, he's like, well, we're going to still do it. And so it's doubling down where he now has a Supreme Court with two justices he appointed, I think, clearly signaling that they have had it with him and this idea of unfettered presidential power. And he's still going to be taking steps that most economists think are going to really hurt the economy. So it is really like a lose-lose, not a win-win from his perspective. And for the American people. Keep in mind what Steve Leisman said, though. It's a mess either way. There's no good out now. He's made such a giant mess that tariffs on, tariffs off, trying to pull out of this regime is also going to be a mess for the economy. There's no happy ending here, given what he's unleashed. And that is sort of the quintessential statement about all things that we cover these days. Andrew Weisman, John Heilman, thank you both for spending the hour with me. After the break, we've gathered a few of our primetime friends to join us on the Supreme Court's major rebuke of Donald Trump's tariff policy. The next hour of Deadline White House starts after a quick break. Stay with us. Subscribe to MSNOW Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad-free listening, and bonus content to all of MSNOW's original podcasts, including the chart-topping series, The Best People with Nicole Wallace, Why Is This Happening, Main Justice, and more. Plus, new episodes of all your favorite MSNOW shows ad-free, and add free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, including Rachel Maddow Presents Burn Order. Subscribe to MS Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.