Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:01]
A
This is where the president's approach, where he likes to go big, go early with these big executive orders can fall down in the court because they're very skeptical of unilateral use of executive power.
- [00:17]
B
Hey, everyone. And welcome to here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Vesugian. Today on the show, the president is threatening to pull the US out of NATO amidst the war with Iran. What could be the national security implications if he does this? Plus potential federal control over elections? What is changing ahead of this year's midterm elections? And which former World cup champion team didn't even make the cut this year? Up first, though, when Democrats are under attack, what do we do? That is the sound of protesters gathering outside the Supreme Court today as the justices weighed a fundamental change to what constitutes being an American, the guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on US Soil. It is part of the Trump administration's hardline approach to rewriting immigration policy. So on the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order that would deny citizenship if a newborn's parents are not legally in the United States. The order also applies to those whose parents are present legally, but only temporarily, such as on student, work, or tourist visas. It challenges the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War. And that order has been struck down in all lower level courts. And today, as the Supreme Court justices considered the case, President Trump sat in that courtroom. It was a historic moment, marking the first time a sitting president has attended Supreme Court oral arguments. So I want to bring the NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley, who was there for it all. Hey, Lawrence.
- [01:55]
A
Hi. Nice to see you.
- [01:57]
B
Nice to see you. What a day. A president has never done this before in the history of the Supreme Court showing up for these oral arguments. What were your top line takeaways from this morning?
- [02:09]
A
Yeah, I mean, of course, the president being there was unique. You know, for those of us who've covered the court for a long time, it kind of became a bit of a spectacle in itself of, you know, all the reporters in the courtroom kind of craning their necks trying to see where he was coming in, where he was going to sit and what, what he was going to be doing while he's in the courtroom and all that kind of stuff. But aside from that, the case sort of went ahead pretty much, you know, as you might have imagined going in. Bearing in mind that lower courts have struck down this executive order, and the justices did seem quite skeptical that this redefinition of the fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause was lawful. Lots of questions from both conservative and liberal justices. So it kind of looks like the court's probably going to rule against the administration, which is what we would have anticipated going in. But, you know, they had tough questions of both sides as well. And, you know, we'll wait and see what happens.
- [03:05]
B
The president posted on Truth Social that the United States is, quote, unquote, stupid for allowing birthright citizenship. Was he there for the entirety of the oral arguments? Was there a sense at all that the justices kind of curtailed any of their questioning and or responses, that arguments were made a certain way, considering the president was now in the crowd?
- [03:29]
A
Well, I would say it was a little bit low energy for a Supreme Court argument like this, where often the justices kind of go in hot. The Solicitor General, John Sauer, was up first representing the Trump administration, and the president was there for that entire session, and he left soon after. When the lawyer for the challengers got up to speak, he listened for the first sort of 10, 15 minutes of what she had to say, and then he got up and left. I do think that maybe it affected the tone of the argument. The questions of sour were quite very respectable. And there was no sort of hot moments, really, throughout the argument, which sometimes happens. But, of course, the president's not going to be there when the justices are actually deciding and deliberating on the case. So whatever impact he might have hoped to have in influencing the court, it's not gonna reach them when they're upstairs in their chambers.
- [04:29]
B
So the Trump administration's arguments here hinge on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Walk us through what more we heard in the line of this argument and the questioning that we heard from the Supreme Court justices that would tell you which way they are leaning.
- [04:46]
A
Well, a key issue here, of course, is that the word domicile, which the Trump administration is heavily relying on, is not actually in the 14th amendment. The citizenship clause just says that any person born in the United States who's subject to the jurisdiction of the United states is a U.S. citizen. And so a lot of the argument is about what that phrase in the middle, subject to the jurisdiction, what that means, because when the 14th Amendment was enacted, there were some exceptions to that, which included Native Americans and people who were born to diplomats who were in the United States. And so the question being raised by the Trump administration, well, if those people were included as exceptions, why shouldn't, for example, babies born to people who entered the country illegally also be included? And there was quite a lot of pushback on that from the justices on the lines of, everyone's always understood that birthright citizenship is applied broadly. And just because at the time they enacted the 14th amendment, there wasn't this issue of mass immigration doesn't mean you can kind of extend it to include that. And there was a kind of notable quote, I think, from Chief Justice John Roberts rebutting the Solicitor General, where he said, well, I'm paraphrasing. It may be a new world, but it's not a new Constitution. And so that kind of tells you a little bit how they're approaching this.
- [06:11]
B
This is a case, as I mentioned, about birthright citizenship, but in a way, it's also about presidential power. The Supreme Court struck down earlier in this term most of the president's sweeping global tariffs, saying he had exceeded his authority in implementing those. Does that decision tell us anything about how the Court could weigh this order on birthright citizenship and other cases involving presidential reach presidential powers, overreaching presidential powers?
- [06:46]
A
Potentially, yes, because what the tariffs case and this case have in common is that these are both policies, major policies that the President ran on that he's trying to do unilaterally through the White House using his executive powers, executive orders, or just ordering these the tariffs, or ordering a new version of the citizenship clause. Congress has not been involved in both situations. It's different. Right. If Congress passed a law that said that the President could do the tariffs that he wanted to do, it'd be a completely different question. The citizenship clause issue is a little different because it's obviously in the 14th Amendment. But even during today's argument, there was some discussion about, well, if Congress had come in and changed its definition of who gets to be a citizen. You know, that could also be a slightly different question, as long as it didn't go against the 14th amendment. So this is where the President's approach, where he likes to go big, go early with these big executive orders, can fall down in the court because they're very skeptical of unilateral use of executive power.
- [07:52]
B
Zooming out a bit. When could we get a decision from the Supreme Court on this? And if, in fact, they do decide in favor of the Trump administration, how many people could actually be impacted by this? I mean, what would this mean for the United States if birthright citizenship has changed?
- [08:12]
A
Yeah, it would really upend everyone's understanding of citizenship. If it ever went into effect. The ruling would come probably by the end of June. Of course, we don't expect them to actually go that way. But if they did. There would be thousands of babies born every year within the United States that would not have birthright citizenship. There would then be a lot of administrative, bureaucratic kind of back and forth about each baby, whether they have citizenship, whether they can claim citizenship. It'd kind of be a bureaucratic nightmare, I think, to try and implement that. Some of the states, for example, Democratic led states, might try to resist in terms of the information that they share with the federal government about the status of people. And you can imagine all kinds of situations that would come up. So, yeah, I think we have yet to see how that could work out in practice if it ever happens.
- [09:08]
B
Lawrence Hurley, it was quite an exciting day at the Supreme Court. Thank you.
- [09:13]
A
Thanks for having me.
- [09:16]
B
We're going to take a very quick break. And when we are back, President Trump has been threatening to pull out of the NATO alliance for years. Has the Iran war finally pushed him over the edge? That is next. And by the way, while you are waiting, I want to ask you to do us a solid. Subscribe to here's the scoop and then leave us a review and comment. It will really help us with the algorithm.
- [09:40]
C
Every bold journey starts with a decision to go. And if you're ready, the Defender is, too. This is a vehicle built for more. Whether you're heading off the grid or just getting out of town for the weekend, Defender is a true icon reimagined for a new generation. Its rugged exterior is built from durable materials and tested in the toughest conditions. Inside, it's modern, functional and refined, with smart storage and premium touches that keep you comfortable wherever the road leads. It's packed with tech like 3D surround cameras, ClearSight, ground and rear views, driver assist features, and an intuitive infotainment system. With three models, the Defender 90, 110, and 130, there's a Defender for every kind of adventure. From city streets to remote trails, this is a vehicle that, like you, is capable of great things. Explore the full Defender lineup@land roverusa.com A text says, you're on my mind. A bouquet from 1-800-FLowers says, you're my everything. Heartfelt moments belong in the real world, not just your phone. For 50 years, 1-800-Flowers has helped millions of people make memories that'll last a lifetime with gifts they'll cherish forever, their expertly curated arrangements and gift baskets shipped nationwide with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. Don't wait for the next big moment. Make it when you visit 1-800-FLowers-comm/sxm today, that's 1-800FLowers-comm/sxM.
- [11:08]
B
And we are back with here is the scoop from NBC News. So the Supreme Court is not the only place President Trump is raising eyebrows. He is now turning heads on the world stage by telling the British newspaper the Telegraph that he is considering pulling the US out of NATO because it didn't join the US in the Iran war. That's no small move. NATO has been a cornerstone of global security since World War II, and the US is a cornerstone of the alliance. If that changes, it could reshape the balance of power across the world. And we may not have to wait long to find out what he decides. The president is set to address the Nation tonight at 9:00pm Eastern Standard Time. So for more on this, I want to bring in NBC News national security and global affairs reporter Dan Delouse. Hey, Dan.
- [11:58]
D
Hello. How are you?
- [11:59]
B
I'm good. It's great to have you. So the president has been rallying against NATO for quite a long time, right? Since 2018. And he recently ignited this, this conversation in an interview with the Telegraph, as I mentioned, in part because the stance that the NATO allies have taken against the United States and not wanting to get involved with the war with Iran. Then on Fox News, you had Secretary of State Marco Rubio double down saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, by the way, that we need to reexamine whether NATO has served this country well or if it is a one way street. I think the big question here is is this the start of a real policy shift pulling the United States potentially out of NATO, or is this the way the United States negotiates to get more help from its NATO allies?
- [12:52]
D
That is always the question with Trump because he's so transactional, he's so into leverage and kind of pushing and trying to even coerce a partner, the person across the table, to get more out of them. In the past, in his first term, it was the latter. Right. He made a lot of complaints, did sort of suggest maybe the US Might leave NATO. We now know from accounts from his aides that he did contemplate pulling out of the alliance. And that threat forced in some sense and pushed NATO allies to spend more on their defense, which sort of placated him at the time. And then he also got that response just in his first year in office, long before this war with Iran started, he was complaining. And the NATO allies said, hey, we're really worried about Russia and Russia's invasion of Ukraine and we're making dramatic changes and we're going to spend a dramatically more on our defense, with Germany really making a major political decision. And he was very satisfied that. And there was a NATO summit last year where he tried to take credit for it all and say, look, look what I've done. The NATO allowance, the allies are now sort of paying their share, as he would say. Now, as you say, this is more critical. Right. This is him and Rubio echoing him, the Secretary of State, saying, you know, these allies in Europe aren't coming to our assistance as we've requested. Like, we're now in a war and we're fighting Iran and defending the Strait of Hormuz and global oil supplies as they arg. And where are you? Where is Europe? Where are these NATO allies when we need them? And so the question is, will he try to pull the US out of the alliance?
- [14:40]
B
Yeah.
- [14:41]
D
Another question is, will he just damage the alliance? He's already damaged the trust. Right. So does he undermine the alliance by, for example, starving it of US Military contributions?
- [14:53]
B
So if the president decides that he wants to pull out a NATO, can he just unilaterally do this? And I ask this because back in 2023, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization act, which, by the way, Marco Rubio supported at the time. And this act requires two thirds of the Senate vote or a new act of Congress to pull out of the alliance. So even if the President says, okay, folks, we're done with it, we're done with NATO, can he actually do that legally?
- [15:24]
D
No, there is a law in place and it's a treaty, and he cannot do that. But he can do a lot of damage. And he's already really, according to the Europeans and a lot of other analysts and former officials, inflicted a serious amount of damage on the trust that underpins the whole relationship that dates back to the end of World War II, because the threats against Greenland, which is the territory of Denmark, a NATO member, got quite serious a few months ago, and that shocked our friends across the Atlantic. And if you speak to European officials now, they say that was a watershed and we haven't come back from that, and it's very hard to repair the trust. And now he's once again questioning their loyalty and their utility. Even if he can't withdraw the US Formally from the alliance, he can take all sorts of actions that kind of reduce the US Presence in Europe, the military presence. He can make more statements that degrade the trust between the partners, and then he can push Congress perhaps not to fund certain military contributions. We have troops there. We have capabilities. We have assets. What if he serves to sort of hollow out the alliance. So that's also a danger.
- [16:47]
B
So let's talk about the potential damage here. Right, because you say there could be a tremendous amount of damage done. And, you know, trust is one of them. What about Ukraine? What about other areas in which we're being supported by NATO? Where else could we see the repercussions of a decision like the president pulling out of NATO?
- [17:08]
D
Well, the US And President Trump have a lot of leverage because the United States always encouraged our European allies to buy US Made military equipment because we said it was the best. And also they are very dependent on US Intelligence because the US Intelligence agencies are funded dramatically more than the Europeans are. We have capabilities they do not, especially in terms of eavesdropping, satellites and so on. So if the US Just chose to begin to scale back that intelligence sharing, that would be extremely damaging. That would be a really drastic thing to do. And in terms of Ukraine, I think we've already seen the beginnings of the U.S. scaling back under Trump. Right. So the U.S. is not sending weapons to Ukraine anymore. We have this arrangement where the Europeans can buy US Made gear, equipment and weapons on behalf of the Ukrainians. And then there was that one week suspension early on last year of intelligence sharing with Ukraine because Trump was so frustrated with President Zelensky in Ukraine that he felt Ukraine wasn't willing to compromise sufficiently to cut a quick peace deal. And that one week of intelligence sharing that was stopped was a very serious moment for Ukraine. It was frightening for the Ukrainians and it really alarmed the Europeans. There is a debate already happening now in Europe about where they should buy their weapons in the future.
- [18:44]
B
You know, the President, Dan, makes an argument that essentially the United States doesn't need NATO because the United States gives and they get nothing in return. On the world stage, the United States has the military, it has the financials, it has its own oil that the United States can go it alone. We talked about some of the short term, for instance, with Ukraine. But what are some of those long term consequences, especially when you hear the argument that's being made by the president that I just laid out?
- [19:12]
D
Yeah, well, the counterargument to that, as you know, is that Europe has been at peace since 1945 until Russia invaded Ukraine. If you want to count the war in form Yugoslavia, then that's also an exception. But the kind of world war that we saw twice in the 20th century was averted. And also clearly, Russia and the Soviet Union chose not to invade Western Europe. And that is thanks to that NATO alliance. And you also saw democracy flourish in Europe over these decades. You saw economic prosperity, tremendous prosperity that has seen a huge amount of trade between the US And Europe. So I think there are a lot of people who would argue with President Trump's description that we don't get anything out of the alliance. And Also the Article 5 provision of the alliance, which is when one member is attacked, all the other members come to their aid. That's only been invoked once, and that was after the tax of September 11th. So it's just factually incorrect to say that NATO members were not there for the U.S. and in fact, many of them sent troops to Afghanistan who fought and died in Afghanistan. What does this mean? No one knows exactly, but you can imagine scenarios that are pretty negative for the US because as powerful as the US Is, both military and economically, we rely heavily on our alliances. And it's one of our advantages against US Adversaries like Russia or China or North Korea, or as we see with Iran, the US has this whole network of partners and allies that are both trade allies and security, military partners, where we have access to air bases and runways.
- [21:00]
B
NATO's not helping with Iran right now. NATO's. NATO's chosen to stay out of the conflict.
- [21:06]
D
Yes, but I guess I would say we're now seeing that maybe Trump is incorrect when he says that we don't need these allies because he's asked for their help.
- [21:16]
B
Are you a betting guy? Do you like to make bets? Are you a Vegas guy?
- [21:21]
D
Generally not, but go ahead if you were.
- [21:24]
B
Let's put your betting hat on for a moment. Would you say the president tonight in this 9pm address, will be saying, the war is over, we're done with Iran, we've achieved our goals and objectives, or that in fact, the United States is planning on moving tours, pulling out of the the Western alliance? Or do you have reporting to suggest otherwise?
- [21:47]
D
I put my money on the former. It'll probably be more ambiguous. It'll be something like the war is almost over or nearly over, something like that. And with NATO, I would bet that it's easier for him simply to threaten it. There's some perhaps leverage he believes he has when he makes these threats. But if he actually says, I'm going to pull out of NATO, and then Congress says, no, you can't, it could make him actually look not so powerful. So I would say, given his track record, I'd put my money on the former.
- [22:17]
B
Dan Delous, thank you.
- [22:19]
D
Thank you.
- [22:22]
B
We're gonna take a very quick break, and when we are back 50 years ago today, two guys named Steve started a company in a garage. You may have heard about it. That's next in the headlines. There's nothing like your first Mac. Here's what people online are sharing. Rhain says. Everything is just so smooth and fast. I still can't get over it. Syncing stuff between my phone and this is just chef's kiss. Rincredible488 says Apple Silicon basically cures low battery trauma. That's how they felt with their first Mac. How will you introducing the all new MacBook Neo, an amazing Mac at a surprising price. Find out more on apple.com Mac it's
- [23:08]
E
tax season and at LifeLock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com special offer for the threats you can't control, terms apply this week
- [23:39]
B
on Meet the Press the rising risks of the war with Iran. We dig into the latest as the conflict enters its second month. Plus chaos at the airports as TSA and safety concerns grow, is there any relief in sight? This week on Meet the Press. Listen to the full full episode now, wherever you get your podcasts. And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. Let's get to some headlines. President Trump has signed an executive order to exert more federal control over elections. The order is directing the Department of Homeland Security to create voter lists using federal databases and asking states to use those to verify their own voter rolls. The U.S. postal Service would also be asked to only transmit ballots to voters on those federally confirmed lists. The order is sure to be challenged in court, since the US Constitution gives states the power to set voting rules and administer their own elections, though Congress has the ability to set some regulations as well. A federal judge in Massachusetts is blocking a Trump administration policy from terminating temporary parole status for hundreds of of thousands of migrants. So during the Biden administration, more than 900,000 people legally entered the US using the CBP1 app, and many of them were allowed to live and work in the US for two years. The Trump administration has tried to revoke that status, but this week a federal judge said the move was illegal and called for their protected status to be reinstated. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said the agency disagrees with the decision and called it, quote, unquote, judicial activism. The countdown is officially underway for NASA's Artemis 2 mission launch. It is scheduled to lift off from launch pad 39B at the Kennedy Space center tonight. As we talked about on Tuesday's show, the Artemis will be NASA's first crewed mission around the moon in more than half a century. And hey, also, 50 years ago, literally to the day, a couple of college dropouts shook hands in a California garage. And then they decided to casually start a company with a vision. Those two people were Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Wanting to build computers small enough that anyone could have one in their home or their office. They called it Apple. Five decades and many iterations of that idea later, we've all got Apple Computers in our pockets, and the company is worth $3.7 trillion. And finally, the 48 soccer teams that are going to be vying for FIFA's biggest ever World cup or set. After a qualifying process that spanned more than two and a half years, Iraq edged out Bolivia yesterday to lock down the final spot. So when the competition kicks off on June 11, there's going to be four groups of 12 teams featuring soccer powerhouses like Spain, France, Argentina and England. But you know who's not going to be there? Italy. History buffs are going to tell you that Italians used to be good. Back in 2006 they won the whole thing. But since then, it seems they may be cursed. Italy has choked in the qualifying round for three, count them, three World Cups in a row. Maybe someone needs to make FIFA an offer they can't refuse. Get it, Godfather fans. That is going to do it for us. It here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Bissugin. We'll be back tomorrow with whatever the day may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And you can also subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Inside Scoop. It is a deeper dive on the main stories of the day that comes out every weeknight straight to your inbox. You can sign up for the Inside Scoop as part of our paid subscription@nbcnews.com we'll see you tomorrow.
- [27:38]
E
He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from
- [27:58]
D
DATELINE listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion.
- [28:02]
E
Now, wherever you get your podcasts,