Lawrence: As criminal as Nixon was, he had more respect for the Constitution than Trump

Summary

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Episode: As Criminal as Nixon Was, He Had More Respect for the Constitution than Trump
Release Date: April 17, 2025

In this compelling episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O'Donnell delves deep into the concerning parallels and stark differences between former Presidents Richard Nixon and Donald Trump regarding their respect for the United States Constitution. Drawing from his extensive political experience and keen analytical insights, O'Donnell provides a thorough examination of Trump’s actions and their constitutional implications, highlighting the unprecedented challenges faced by American democracy today.

---

1. Nixon vs. Trump: A Constitutional Examination

Lawrence O'Donnell opens the discussion by juxtaposing Nixon’s criminal actions with Trump’s blatant disregard for constitutional principles. He asserts, “[...] as bad as Richard Nixon was, as criminal as Richard Nixon was, Richard Nixon, the only president who escaped prosecution after serving his term as president by obtaining a pardon from his successor. Richard Nixon had more respect for the due process of law and more respect for the Constitution than Donald Trump” (02:07).

O'Donnell emphasizes that while Nixon ultimately complied with Supreme Court orders—albeit under duress—Trump has consistently demonstrated contempt for the Constitution, undermining foundational legal processes and norms.

---

2. Legal Challenges to Trump’s Tariff Policies

A significant portion of the episode focuses on the legal battles arising from Trump’s unilateral imposition of tariffs without congressional approval—a clear violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). O'Donnell explains the historical context of tariff authority, noting:

“The Constitution expressly vests the authority to impose tariffs solely in Congress, not the President. Congress's power in this area is exhaustive because the Constitution does not vest in the President any authority to impose tariffs” (16:27).

He details how California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta has taken legal action against Trump, asserting that his tariff impositions are unconstitutional. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, meticulously outlines the illegality of Trump’s actions, emphasizing that tariffs are taxes on imports and must be authorized by Congress.

Notable Quote:

“Tariffs are not among the numerous actions that the International Emergency Economic Powers act authorizes the President to take under a declared emergency. Indeed, the word tariff does not appear in the relevant statute at all” (19:54).

Rob Bonta corroborates this stance, highlighting the severe economic repercussions for California—a state with the largest economy in the U.S.—due to Trump’s tariffs. Bonta underscores the legal and economic imperatives of the lawsuit, stating:

“Trump doesn’t have the singular power to radically upend the country's economic landscape” (19:54).

---

3. Senate Finance Committee and Legislative Responses

Senator Maria Cantwell, a key member of the Senate Finance Committee, joins the discussion to elaborate on the broader implications of Trump’s tariff policies. She underscores the detrimental impact on American businesses, particularly at major ports like Seattle, where tariffs have led to increased costs and disrupted supply chains.

Cantwell introduces legislation aimed at restricting the President’s ability to impose tariffs without congressional oversight, ensuring that such economic measures undergo proper legislative scrutiny. She warns of potential long-term damage to critical industries, such as aerospace, due to retaliatory actions from trade partners like China.

Notable Quote:

“These tariffs are illegal. [...] So now what? Judge Boasberg literally asked and answered that question in his ruling” (27:26).

---

4. Criminal Contempt and Judicial Orders

The episode also explores the judiciary's response to Trump administration’s defiance of court orders. Federal Judge James Boasberg’s ruling on holding Trump officials in criminal contempt for ignoring deportation orders serves as a focal point. O'Donnell discusses the unprecedented nature of these contempt proceedings, highlighting the judiciary’s determination to uphold the rule of law despite executive opposition.

Congressman Dan Goldman provides additional legal perspective, emphasizing the gravity of the situation:

“If the government declines or the interest of justice requires, the court will appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt” (41:00).

Goldman underscores the necessity of maintaining judicial authority, asserting that allowing the administration to defy court orders would erode the foundational principles of American democracy.

---

5. Republican Obstruction and Legislative Battles

Beyond the legal sphere, O'Donnell addresses the political maneuvering within Congress. He highlights the obstruction by 12 House Republicans who have refused to support Speaker’s budget plan due to proposed Medicaid cuts, aligning against Trump’s agenda to protect vulnerable populations.

Representative Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico commends these Republicans for standing up against the administration’s harmful policies, emphasizing the power of grassroots movements in influencing legislative outcomes.

Notable Quote:

“Donald Trump's agenda, his signature package for this reconciliation bill that Mike Johnson is trying to pass by Memorial Day, essentially wants to give $7 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and the ultra rich and mega corporations” (46:50).

Stansbury passionately argues that cutting essential social programs in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy is not only unjust but detrimental to the social fabric of the nation.

---

6. Implications for American Democracy

Throughout the episode, O'Donnell raises critical concerns about the state of American governance under Trump’s leadership. He warns of the erosion of constitutional norms and the dangers of presidential overreach, drawing parallels to historical abuses of power while emphasizing the need for vigilant resistance to safeguard democratic institutions.

Conclusion:

Lawrence O'Donnell concludes the episode by reiterating the importance of upholding constitutional integrity and the rule of law. He calls for continued legal challenges and legislative reforms to prevent future executive abuses, advocating for a balanced distribution of power and unwavering adherence to democratic principles.

---

Notable Moments and Quotes:

• Lawrence O'Donnell on Nixon vs. Trump:
  “[...] Richard Nixon had more respect for the due process of law and more respect for the Constitution than Donald Trump” (02:07).

• Rob Bonta on Tariffs:
  “Tariffs are not among the numerous actions that the International Emergency Economic Powers act authorizes the President to take under a declared emergency” (19:54).

• Senator Maria Cantwell on Economic Impact:
  “These tariffs are illegal. So does the Constitution.” (29:26).

• Congressman Dan Goldman on Judicial Authority:
  “We don't have a criminal justice system and we don't have a rule of democratic rule of law that is the stuff of dictatorships” (41:00).

• Representative Melanie Stansbury on Medicaid Cuts:
  “Donald Trump's agenda [...] wants to give $7 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and the ultra rich and mega corporations” (46:50).

---

This episode serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of constitutional safeguards and the ongoing struggle to maintain the balance of power within the United States government. Through incisive analysis and firsthand accounts from key political figures, Lawrence O'Donnell underscores the urgent need to protect democratic institutions from executive overreach, ensuring that the Constitution remains the bedrock of American governance.

Transcript

[Roman Mars]

Hi, I'm Roman Mars, host of the podcast 99% invisible. Design is everywhere in our lives, but it's easy to not notice or take it for granted. 99% Invisible is a weekly exploration of the process and power of design and architecture. It's stories of who we are through the lens of the things we build. Like have you ever wondered why we use the 1kHz bleep sound to cover up inappropriate words on radio and TV? Or what aspects of infrastructure allow 5 year olds in Japan to run errands by themselves? Kids in the US Are completely dependent on their parents or their parents cars. Or why the historic flag of South Vietnam shows up at right wing protests all the time. Or why people are obsessed with houseplants. And when did we start bringing plants from halfway around the world into our homes to begin with? 99% invisible. We'll explore all of that and more every Tuesday. Follow and listen to 99% invisible wherever you get your podcasts.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out Procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done out Carpet in the bathroom. Like why? In knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. All right, that's going to do it for me tonight. I will see you again tomorrow and every night this week at 9pm Eastern. But now it is time for the Last Word with the great Lawrence O'Donnell. Good evening, Lawrence.

[Rachel Maddow]

Rachel, I have to tell you, there's so many memorable moments and interviews I've had watching your hour of television tonight. Senator Van Hollen from El Salvador is one of the real. It was just an amazing situation to be in that he's there, the reason he's there, and your interview with him was absolutely riveting from start to finish.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Oh, thank you. I mean, I feel really lucky that we were able to get him. I mean it's very affecting to me to see him standing alone. There's all these members of Congress, Democratic members of Congress and senators who said we'll go with you. You know, like let's go as a phalanx. And he just said he went down there on his own senior senator from Maryland and said this guy's my constituent. I told mother and I told his wife that I would try to get him out. I told them I would do everything that I could. This is me trying to do everything that I can and he said he'd said in the interview, you know, like, he may be back next week and that other members of Congress are going to be there, too, and he believes that they are going to get him out. A court order should be all it takes, but in this case, it's going to take all sorts of pressure from all sorts of elected officials and others doing all sorts of things we never thought an American politician would have to do. But Senator Van Hollen just down there kind of humbly doing the work work and trying to get that outcome is really a very moving thing for me.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, it really is. It is literally like nothing we've ever seen before, nothing we ever anticipated we would need to see. But he just did the most important work he could possibly have done on this day as a senator from Maryland.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Yeah, we're used to seeing, you know, individual elected officials or political figures out trying to, like, negotiate the release of hostages held by other countries. In this case, that guy's being held because of the US Government, not because of anybody else. And to have an American representative of the US Government, the US Senate, go there essentially to negotiate against our own government, holding an American in a foreign gulag, it's justi mean, it's amazing that it has to be done, but it's also amazing that he's doing it.

[Rachel Maddow]

Thank you for delivering that story as fully as you did tonight with Senator Van Hollen. Thanks, Rachel.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Thanks, Slide.

[Rachel Maddow]

Thank you. Well, with Justice Department lawyers facing the possibility for the first time in history of being found in criminal contempt of court, thanks entirely to Donald Trump, the greater tragedy that will be studied for centuries to come, wherever American law and American history are taught, is that tonight, the United States of America is enduring for the first time in its history, the governance of a president who treats any law that he does not like with contempt. Every president other than Donald Trump has taken the oath of office seriously. They all felt the solemnity of their pledge to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Some presidents embodied the principles of that oath more fully than others. But none of them ever came close to the constant contempt for the Constitution that Donald Trump has demonstrated. The only criminal president we had prior to Donald Trump was Republican President Richard Nixon, who in the end, followed his oath in fully complying with the most painful order any president has ever received from the United States Supreme Court. Richard Nixon was ordered by the unanimous opinion of the United States Supreme Court to turn over secret tape recordings of his conversations in the Oval Office, which he knew contained incriminating evidence against him that would get him impeached and removed from office and then convicted of federal crimes. Richard Nixon knew better than the lawyers who were pursuing those tapes just how incriminating those tapes would be for Richard Nixon. President Nixon knew better than the members of the Supreme Court just how incriminating those tapes would be for him. Richard Nixon was a sharp enough lawyer to know that if the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over those tapes, and if he turned over those tapes, he would be forced out of the presidency and he would be criminally prosecuted. Nixon knew all of that, and Nixon turned over those tapes 12 days after the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over those tapes. And so, as bad as Richard Nixon was, as criminal as Richard Nixon was, Richard Nixon, the only president who escaped prosecution after serving his term as president by obtaining a pardon from his successor. Richard Nixon had more respect for the due process of law and more respect for the Constitution than Donald Trump. The man who apparently respects nothing has never had anything but contempt for the Constitution, which he has solemnly sworn to protect and defend. What more evidence would anyone need that Donald Trump putting his hand on a Bible and taking an oath means absolutely nothing? All of Donald Trump's wives, including his current wife, soon learned that the words of a marital oath mean nothing to Donald Trump. Donald Trump's current wife was one of the two family members who never set foot in the courtroom in Manhattan last year when Stormy Daniels was testifying under oath about the precise nature of Donald Trump's violations of his marital oath that he is supposed to be living under right now. Tonight, the other family member who did not show up in that courtroom is Donald Trump's youngest son, who was at home with his mother when he was four months old and Donald Trump was in a hotel room with Stormy Daniels. You don't have to be highly educated, you don't have to follow the details of government and politics to know what an oath means to Donald Trump. Stormy Daniels could explain it all to you in very simple terms that anyone can understand. Donald Trump's contempt for the Constitution begins at the beginning of the list of amendments called the Bill of Rights. The Founders wrote the Constitution and the states ratified the Constitution and created the United States of America. Before the Bill of Rights was written, many of the Founders and the first Congress believed that the first order of business of the new government had to be the writing into the original law of the land. The constitution, via the 10amendments, exactly what the government owed to every citizen, the protections the government owed to everyone in America. Donald Trump doesn't just hate the First Amendment. He has violated it. Donald Trump repeatedly says that news organizations, including this one that he doesn't like, should be closed down. Richard Nixon, on his worst day, never thought that, never said that. Donald Trump's attempt to take over Harvard University was, from beginning to end, a violation of the First Amendment by the President of the United States of America, unlike anything we have ever seen in the history of the presidency. And now Donald Trump is violating the Constitution's Bill of Rights provisions for due process for anyone he wants to deport. And he has violated those rights to the point that the Trump Justice Department lawyers now face a possibility of being found in criminal contempt of court, which we will discuss in detail later in this program. From the start, for 10 full years now, since Donald Trump the candidate first began talking about tariffs, I have been reminding you of what you learned in your high school government class. If you took that course the way I did about tariffs, the President cannot randomly decide which tariffs to increase or decrease. So says the Constitution. And I learned that from my great teacher and baseball coach in high school, Henry Lane. And then I learned a little more about it while majoring in economics in college and studying, among other things, international trade. And then I learned a lot more about it when I became the Chief of Staff of the Senate Finance Committee, working for Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the committee that has jurisdiction over tariffs. When the Senate Finance Committee was created in 1815, tariffs were virtually the only business of the Finance Committee which also has jurisdiction over taxation, because in the early days of the country, tariffs were the largest source of revenue for the federal government. The income tax was a 20th century creation and instantly became the dominant revenue stream to the federal government. But Congress, the House and the Senate have complete control of tariffs and taxes given to the Congress directly in the Constitution. The very first law of the land, the first law of the United States of America. In 1977, the Congress passed an obscure law called the International Economic Emergency Powers act, which gave the President some tools, limited tools to deal directly in an emergency, a temporary emergency with some international issues specifically, but specifically did not give the President the power to touch tariffs in any way. And it is that obscure 1977 law that Donald Trump has been using to justify what I have always insisted are his illegal tariffs. How obscure is the International Economic Emergency Powers act created in 1977 when I was the top staff member of the Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over tariffs, I did not know that that law existed. There was good reason for that. No president of the United States ever used that law to touch a single tariff. Not once. And so I entered the first Trump presidency with the belief that the president did not have the legal power to randomly raise tariffs. But Donald Trump did it, and Donald Trump got away with it. And Republicans in Congress who could have stopped him refused to do so. And I have been waiting and waiting and waiting since that first Trump presidency and his first illegal tariff on washing machines, claiming that imported washing machines created an international emergency. I have been waiting for what finally happened today. I have been waiting for someone with the power and legal authority to go into any federal court anywhere in the United States and put Donald Trump's name on a lawsuit suing him to stop his illegal tariffs. And that happened today in the federal court for the Northern District of California, with Donald J. Trump as the principal defendant and the State of California and Governor of California as the plaintiffs who have finally brought the case that spells out just how illegal the Trump tariffs are. The suit was filed by California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta. And right there in the lawsuit is one of the explanations for why I always believed we would never see a president, even Donald Trump, try to raise and lower tariffs without congressional approval. The lawsuit says, quote, tariffs are not among the numerous actions that the International Economic Emergency Powers act authorizes the President to take under a declared emergency. Indeed, the word tariff does not appear in the relevant statute at all. No president has previously relied on the International Economic Emergency Powers act to impose tariffs in the half century since the enactment of that law. Under our constitutional system, the president may not rule by fiat. The California lawsuit explains exactly what a tariff is. And none of Donald Trump's lawyers will be able to dispute one word of this in court, where they're not allowed to lie. A tariff is a tax. The lawsuit says a tariff is a tax placed on goods imported into a country. It is assessed on the good at the port of entry, so the cost is borne by the distributor who is receiving the goods in the United States, not on the country of origin. The tariff effects are thus immediate. And so there it is in writing, in federal court. China does not pay Donald Trump's tariffs. Never has, never will, not one penny of them. And Donald Trump's lawyers will not dare to contest that fact in any way in court. China does not pay Donald Trump's tariffs. That lawsuit says exactly what I learned in high school. Quote, the Constitution does not vest in the President any authority to impose tariffs. Rather, the Constitution expressly vests the authority to impose tariffs solely in Congress, not the President. Congress's power in this area is exhaustive because the Constitution does not vest in the President any authority to impose tariffs. Any authority for the President to do so must come, if at all, from an act of Congress. And Congress has indeed granted the President an extremely limited right to impose tariffs. For example, in anti dumping cases in which, after a full and exhaustive study of trade practices, the federal government determines that an exporter to this country has engaged in unfair trade practices of pricing below actual cost, for example, in an attempt to specifically undermine producers of that good in the United States. In cases like that which are rare, they have been carefully adjudged by every President who has imposed anti dumping penalties. That is the principal tool Presidents have used to combat unfair trade practices that violate some trade agreements that we already have in place with some countries around the world. And every president prior to Donald Trump has used that power rarely and very carefully. The lawsuit quotes language from the House Representatives defining the dimensions of an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Quote, emergencies are by their nature rare and brief and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems. Normal ongoing problems would be smuggling drugs into this country, smuggling fentanyl into this country, kind of drugs that have been smuggled in this country for all of our lives. Through the entire history of this country, there's been smuggling into this country. And there is another piece of the law that Donald Trump is pretending to use to raise tariffs, which he is very clearly violating. The lawsuit accurately says that the law provides that the President in every possible instance shall consult with the Congress before exercising any of the authorities granted by this chapter and shall consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised. Donald Trump violated each word of that provision. Donald Trump did not consult with Congress before trying to use that law and has not consulted with Congress after invoking that law. So he's violated that law. How much is at stake for the state of California? California is the biggest manufacturing state in the country. Not Michigan, where the auto industry created so many manufacturing jobs. California is our biggest manufacturing state. California is also our biggest agricultural state. Not Iowa, not Nebraska. California biggest agricultural state in the country. California's economy is bigger than the economy of every foreign country in the world except China, Germany and Japan. And so no state has bigger stakes in the burdens imposed by Donald Trump's illegal tariffs than California. No state is poised to lose more than the state of California. So that's our state of mind. That's why we're asserting ourselves on behalf of 40 million Americans and I imagine if you caucus those 40 million Americans, you'd find few, I don't care where they were in the last election, that are celebrating this uncertainty, that are celebrating the largest tax increase in modern US History, in essence, a sales tax. That is the plaintiff, Gavin Newsom, in the lawsuit California filed against Donald Trump today, announcing that lawsuit. And here's the lawyer who filed that case announcing the lawsuit this morning. In the Central Valley of California with the Governor, America's biggest agricultural basin, the Attorney General of the state of California, Rob Bonton.

[Rob Bonta]

Trump is attempting to override Congress and steamroll the separation of powers. That means he's trampling over his own party, by the way, which currently controls Congress. Again, Congress hasn't given him the authority to impose these sweeping and chaotic tariffs pursuant to emergency powers, which means he can't do it. Bottom line, Trump doesn't have the singular power to radically upend the country's economic landscape.

[Rachel Maddow]

If you've been wondering all these years why the founders would have given the President of the United States the singular power to radically upend the country's economic landscape, the answer is they didn't. No one did. The Trump tariffs are unconstitutional. So says the Constitution. So says the richest and most economically powerful state in the union. Leading off our discussion tonight is California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta. General Bonta, thank you very much for joining us tonight on this important night. And thank you so much for all of the details that you've incorporated in your complaint that you filed today. Read every word of it. All of the trade history, all of the constitutional history, all of the legal history. What made you finally decide at this point, this is when we have to take this action?

[Rob Bonta]

Well, thank you for having me, Lawrence. I'm honored to be here. Governor Newsom and I are bullish on protecting California and preventing the President of the United States from doing unlawful things, from violating the Constitution, from breaking the law, from doing things that harm our state. As mentioned, fifth largest economy in the world, the largest importer of any state, the second largest exporter. We have our people who are facing harm right now going to be paying over 2000 doll more per year in increased costs. We have inflation that will be rising because of these tariffs that aren't just patent policy that sent our economy into a tailspin, led to the two biggest days of losses on the stock market and will shrink our economy by some estimations of $200 billion to tune $100 billion a year. They're illegal. And that is our North Star. When the Trump administration does something unlawful, we will see him in court. He cannot break the law. He cannot violate the Constitution. He thinks the, the law. He's not. He thinks he can violate the Constitution. He can't. And we are here in California to take him to court when he does, hold him accountable and prevent him from doing harmful and unlawful things as he's done here. We're the first to act of any state. We're proud of that. We have a unique place in the world economy, as you mentioned, the fifth largest economy in the world. And we need to protect our people, our families and our businesses.

[Rachel Maddow]

You made the announcement in the Central Valley. That's Republican voting territory. Normally it's heavily agricultural area. That's the place that's being hit hardest, possibly hardest by these tariffs in California, but they're hitting everything, including Hollywood. China has taken action against entertainment products coming into China. What were you hearing today in the Central Valley with so many Trump supporters in the Central Valley who are now on the verge of or becoming the victims of these tariffs, Gratefulness for California's.

[Rob Bonta]

Action, for standing up and pushing back against this unlawful conduct from the president that is so harmful. I'm hard pressed to find anyone who is supportive of these tariffs. And we had business owners from the Central Valley of California, Chris and Christine, who powerfully told their stories about the impact this is having on their businesses and their industries. And it's important for people to tell their story, to tell the impact on the small mom and pop that's about to shutter their doors and go out of business, on the iconic anchors of our California industries, you know, ag or tech, Hollywood, and the impacts that it has on them. This is indiscriminate and reckless impacting everyone. Doesn't matter if you are blue or red, your political affiliation, you are being impacted, you are being damaged, you are being harmed. And while some might want to voice their support, I'm certain there are many quietly cheering for the sidelines about the this action that we're taking today as the state of California because we're preventing with it harm from being visited on Californians going forward if we're able to be successful, as we believe we will in this case and able to stop a majority of these tariffs.

[Rachel Maddow]

General bother. Before you go, I've got to ask you one question about the post fire California. This is actually my first week back in Los Angeles since the fires. I'm dealing with some struggles at at my house, which was very close to the edge of the fire. But I've had so many friends as you do. I know so many people who lost their homes in this fire who are now struggling with an insurance system in California that will not come close to compensating their losses. What can be done about the victims of this fire who thought they were fully insured against it? Who will believe they are now facing real financial ruin by not being compensated for the total losses they've suffered?

[Rob Bonta]

Let me first say my heart goes out to you, Lawrence, all of those impacted.

[Rachel Maddow]

Please, General Bontha, let me stop you there. Your heart needs not pay any attention to me. I had to clean up. I had to clean up some ash and nothing compared to people who actually suffered.

[Rob Bonta]

Understood. And the governor and I, our leaders here in California, are fully committed to helping our Cal fellow California teal. We've seen some of the best in California as people have locked arms and gone shoulder to shoulder and lifted others up during this difficult time. We fought back against price gouging and other scams and frauds to protect consumers. And the insurance issue is a challenge. It's an ongoing challenge that needs a resolution. It's all hands on deck. The legislature, the governor, our insurance commissioner, and many others are focused on making sure that people get their full extent of their insurance. And we have a fair plan that can be part of the solution. Solution, but it's certainly not a complete solution. So this is an ongoing challenge as we continue to move into these unprecedented times where we have new normals. Wildfires become more frequent, more devastating. We're seeing such pain and devastation. We need to be able to have a system, including an insurance system, that works for everyday Californians, and make sure they're made whole when they're harmed. So more to come on that ongoing work. We got our sleeves rolled up and our heads down, but we know the gravity of the issue and the urgency of the need for a solution.

[Rachel Maddow]

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who already had a lot on his plate before deciding to sue Donald Trump, thank you very much for starting off our conversations here tonight.

[Rob Bonta]

My great pleasure. Thanks for having me, Lawrence.

[Rachel Maddow]

Thank you. Coming up at the Port of Seattle today, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell and others told the truth about Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. That's next.

[Roman Mars]

Hi, I'm Roman Mars, host of the podcast 99% invisible. Design is everywhere in our lives, but it's easy to not notice or take it for granted. 99% invisible is a weekly exploration of the process and power of design and architecture. It's stories of who we are through the lens of the things we build. Like have you ever wondered why we use the 1kHz bleep sound to cover up inappropriate words on radio and TV? Or what aspects of infrastructure allow 5 year olds in Japan to run errands by themselves while kids in the US are completely dependent on their parents or their parents cars? Or why the historic flag of South Vietnam shows up at right wing protests all the time? Or why people are obsessed with houseplants? And when did we start bringing plants from halfway around the world into our homes to begin with? With 99% invisible, we'll explore all of that and more every Tuesday. Follow and listen to 99% invisible wherever you get your podcasts.

[Rachel Maddow]

The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options.

[Unknown]

Which is why with USAA auto insurance.

[Rachel Maddow]

You'Ll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button.

[Unknown]

Get a quote today Restrictions apply.

USAA At Strayer University we help students like you go from Is it possible? To Anything is possible by offering access to up to 10 no cost gen Ed courses so you can reach your goals affordably and fast. Visit Strayer. Edu to learn more. No cost gen EDS provided by Strayer University affiliate Sophia. Eligibility rules apply. Connect with us for details. Strayer University is certified to operate in Virginia by Chev and has many campuses, including at 2121 15th Street north in Arlington, Virginia.

[Rachel Maddow]

We're very concerned that Americans think that the Chinese companies or the Chinese government are paying for these tariffs. I want to assure you that they are not. We are paying for these tariffs.

[Maria Cantwell]

Our factories do not have the resources.

[Rachel Maddow]

To pay and clearly the Chinese government is not paying the tariffs. With Senator Cantwell joining the group there in Seattle today, the stories of increased costs for American businesses and American consumers just kept coming at the Port of Seattle. In my 32 years of design and manufacturing, Cavoo has survived tough times, but nothing close to this. The newly imposed tariff rates that affect Kavoo are from Vietnam, India and China. The duty increases was so sudden that it's impossible to price them into our business model. This is an unsustainable business model due to the extreme spikes in prices we are expecting that many, if not all of our 2,000 independent outdoor retailers who rely on us for their income across the country will cancel their orders, leaving us with no sales. And at the precipice of shutting down Washington Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, who was at the Port of Seattle there today has introduced legislation to stop Donald Trump from imposing Tariffs without congressional review and approval. Joining us now is Senator Maria Cantwell. She's a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tariffs, and the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee. Senator, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And it's unfortunate what it's taken to make it so clear to the American people who really pays these tariffs. China doesn't pay them and what it means to American businesses. But you made that very clear today.

[Maria Cantwell]

Well, it was good to have small businesses join me at the Port of Seattle. You just had the attorney General from California on. And west coast ports are a big part of our U.S. economy. And the fact that they now have containers either being halted or people wondering how much the price is going to go up is stopping them from making orders for the future. So all those businesses we're talking about, baby clothes, outdoor wear, wine, coffee, everybody talked about the price expense that they were going to see.

[Rachel Maddow]

So among the retaliatory actions taken by China, which by the way, that is normal, if you start a trade war with other countries, they tend to fire back in some way. The potentially most harmful of all is canceling orders or freezing orders of Boeing airliners to China. We are now a country that has exactly one manufacturer of airliners. We used to have several. We're now down to just Boeing. And this could kill our only airline aircraft manufacturer.

[Maria Cantwell]

Well, you know, today we heard from a lot of business and growers about the fact that tariffs, you lose the business but you also lose the market. And how do you get back on the shelf? Well, now apply that to airplanes. And apply it to airplanes at a moment when we have a world demand for 40,000 airplanes, that is the long term commitments by various companies, sometimes countries, in helping make decisions about their future purchase. So this is a 2 million person industry in the United States of America and one of our largestour largest exporter. So now all of a sudden this product is being retaliated against and it will affect our competitiveness for the future if this goes on.

[Rachel Maddow]

As you look down the road in the Senate, you've got Republican co sponsors, Senator Grassley, a powerful member of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican and others who are supporting your legislation to restrict the President's power, making sure that if the President does try to raise a tariff this way, it will expire in a short period of time unless Congress votes in approval of it.

[Maria Cantwell]

Well, I think Jerome Powell probably made very interesting news today when he warned that the tariffs were going to lead to higher inflation. Now he has a if you will a fiscal quagmire. Are you making Fed policy to lower interest rates because you were interested in growth? Are you dealing with higher cost? And what are you trying to do? So I think my colleagues who are in their states, hopefully listening to their constituents just like I did, are now understanding that this whole chaos is putting so much undue burden on people and literally is putting the Fed in this quandary about whether they're going to have to deal with stagflation, something that is like practically impossible to deal with. So why do all of this? Let's go back to having conversations, building alliances, getting markets open and winning that aerospace market, because it is. There's 150,000 people in the state of Washington who work proudly in the aerospace sector. And when we see that there's a huge demand for the future, we don't want to lose out. We want to win the next hundred years of aviation.

[Rachel Maddow]

Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

[Maria Cantwell]

So, Lawrence, I just want to add there's a lot of young staffers on the Hill and I said people don't know, but Lawrence O'Donnell knows a lot about trade and you proved that tonight.

[Rachel Maddow]

Well, you know, you get to work in the Finance Committee, you better pick up some of it. Thank you, Senator.

[Maria Cantwell]

Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you so much. Thank you.

[Rachel Maddow]

Thank you. Thank you. And coming up, what happens if a federal judge holds Trump officials in criminal contempt of court and the Trump Justice Department refuses to prosecute them? That judge has a plan for that. That's next with former federal prosecutor and now Congressman Dan Goldman.

[Roman Mars]

Hi, I'm Roman Mars, host of the podcast 99% invisible. Design is everywhere in our lives, but it's easy to not notice or take it for granted. 99% invisible is a weekly exploration of the process and power of design and architecture. It's stories of who we are through the lens of the things we build. Like have you ever wondered why we use the 1kHz bleep sound to cover up inappropriate words on radio and TV? Or what aspects of infrastructure allow 5 year olds in Japan to run errands by themselves while kids in the US Are completely dependent on their parents or their parents cars? Or why the historic flag of South Vietnam shows up at right wing protests all the time?

[Rachel Maddow]

Time.

[Roman Mars]

Or why people are obsessed with houseplants? And when did we start bringing plants from halfway around the world into our homes to begin with? 99% invisible. We'll explore all of that and more every Tuesday. Follow and listen to 99% invisible wherever you get your podcasts.

[Unknown]

At Strayer University, we help students like you go from Is it possible To Anything is possible by offering access to up to 10 no cost gen ed courses so you can reach your goals affordably and fast. Visit strayer.edu to learn more. No cost gen eds provided by Strayer University affiliate Sophia eligibility rules apply. Connect with us for details. Strayer University is certified to operate in Virginia by Chev and has many campuses, including at 2121 15th Street north in Arlington, Virginia.

Hey guys, have you heard of Gold Belly?

[Rachel Maddow]

It's this amazing site where they ship.

[Unknown]

The most iconic famous foods from restaurants.

[Rachel Maddow]

Across the country anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. They ship Chicago Deep Dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls and even Ina Garten's famous cakes. So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your Life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code gift Today, Donald Trump is appealing an order from a federal judge of possible finding a probable cause to hold individual members of the Trump deportation team in criminal contempt for willfully ignoring his order to turn back the planes that delivered immigrants to an El Salvador prison, federal Judge James Boasberg wrote. The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely annul the judgments of the courts of the United States would not just destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, it would make a solemn mockery of the Constitution itself. So now what? Judge Boasberg literally asked and answered that question in his ruling. The Trump administration can try to eliminate their contempt by letting the immigrants challenge their imprisonment through American legal proceedings that could be held in El Salvador. If they don't do that, the judge will proceed to conduct hearings on possible contempt charges. Judge Boasberg could then decide to refer criminal cases for prosecution even if the Trump Justice Department refuses to prosecute those cases, the judge wrote. If the government declines or the interest of justice requires, the court will appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt. And tonight, another federal judge is considering contempt proceedings and another deportation case. Donald Trump's Justice Department lawyers have refused to give federal Judge Paul Azinas daily updates on how they are complying with her order and the United States Supreme Court's order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States from a prison in El Salvador, where the Trump lawyers have admitted to the court that he was sent by mistake. Today, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, as you saw in the last hour with Rachel, went to El Salvador hoping to meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia, who has been a resident of Maryland. Instead, the senator met with the vice president of El Salvador, who according to NBC News, quote, refused to allow a virtual or in person meeting. In addition to denying Van Hollen's request to facilitate a phone call between Abrego Garcia and his family, I asked the vice president if Abrego Garcia has not committed a crime and the US Courts have found that he was illegally taken from the United States and the governor government of El Salvador has no evidence that he was part of Ms. 13, why is EL Salvador continuing to hold him in secot and his answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador to keep him at cecom. Joining us now, former federal prosecutor now Congressman Daniel Goldman of New York. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. How many times did judges threaten you with criminal contempt when you were a federal prosecutor?

[Unknown]

Never, Lawrence. And it's very unusual for a judge under any circumstance to threaten criminal contempt separate and apart from a witness that refuses to testify in front of a grand jury. And that but that's entirely different process. I'm not aware of any time when a Department of justice official or the government generally has been held in referred for a contempt prosecution, a criminal contempt. And it's quite a bold and appropriate in this case statement because not only did the administration did Donald Trump flout the constitutional rights of all of these individuals who were removed, but they now are defying the judge's order. And in doing so, and it's if we allow for court orders or due process to be excused or to be nullified or eliminated or avoided, then we don't have a criminal justice system and we don't have a rule of democratic rule of law that is the stuff of dictatorships.

[Rachel Maddow]

And this judge is facing things that we've never seen before that he included in his ruling and writing about this. And that's the secretary of State. He actually the judge wrote in his order saying, the secretary of State, for instance, retweeted a post in which a news headline noting this court's order to return the flights to the United States, the president of El Salvador wrote, oopsie, too late. So he's seeing the president of El Salvador making fun of the court, the secretary of state making fun of the court. We've never seen anything like this?

[Unknown]

No, not at all. And it's obviously not the only case. As you pointed out, Abrego Garcia is in some ways even a more egregious flouting of a court order that continues to this day. And it's bewildering to me, especially in the Abrego Garcia case, why Donald Trump and the Trump administration just simply does not return Mr. Abrego Garcia to properly go through due process. And Chris Van Hollen, the senator, gave the answer today. Donald Trump is paying El Salvador to keep Abrego Garcia there. Therefore, El Salvador does not feel like it can or wants to release him. If Donald Trump wanted to facilitate, which is the word the Supreme Court used, the return of Abrego Garcia, he could simply stop, stop paying El Salvador to keep them. It's that simple. And he gets his due process. And if he is an MS.13 member and they can prove that, then he gets removed and deported or some other appropriate punishment under courts of law not based on Donald Trump's determination of the law.

[Rachel Maddow]

And there is no evidence that anyone has seen that he is a gang member. But the Trump standard of proof here seems to be against, again, something we've never seen before.

[Unknown]

The only real evidence is that an officer relayed in a fairly standard form that a confidential informant said that he was a member of Ms. 13. That law enforcement officer was subsequently convicted of providing confidential information to a sex worker that he was paying for sex. His credibility is nullified. You can never rely on that and you would never be able to rely on a confidential informant statement without any corroboration. That is all the evidence we have. It is insufficient to determine him to be an MS.13 gang member. And the fact that the Trump administration and the vice president and everybody are calling, is calling him a terrorist is egregious and is false and needs to be corrected and called out.

[Rachel Maddow]

Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you very much for joining us.

[Unknown]

Thank you.

[Rachel Maddow]

And coming up, 12 House Republicans told the Republican speaker they will not vote for his plan and Donald Trump's plan to cut Medicaid benefits for their constituents. That's more than enough Republican votes to kill the Republican budget plan. Democratic member of the House of Representatives Melanie Stansberry joins us next.

[Maria Cantwell]

First, let me start with hands off our Social Security.

[Rachel Maddow]

Hands off our education.

[Lawrence O'Donnell]

Hands off our Medicare, Medicaid.

[Unknown]

Hands off the veterans.

[Rachel Maddow]

You are veterans. Brothers and sisters. We are tired of being oppressed. We believe in an economy that works for all, not just for Musk and his fellow billionaires. And now 12 House Republicans are threatening to kill the Republican budget bill. In a letter to the speaker, they wrote, quote, we cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations. Joining just now is Democratic Representative Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, who's just completed a town hall event at the Mescalero Apache Reservation. And I have to say, these 12 House Republicans are making me think that these town halls are working.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah, well, I mean, listen, we are a democracy and our power lies in our checks and balances, but most importantly, the power of the people. Americans have shown up all across the country en masse to town halls. They've been marching in the streets. They've been calling their representatives and saying, we do not support what Donald Trump, Elon Musk and what Republicans are doing, because not only will this reconciliation bill gut Medicaid and food assistance, but it's just a cruel agenda that nobody voted for. And so I think that it is a reflection of the power of the people that finally a handful of Republicans are standing, standing up and doing their jobs. And it's because all of you all out there stood up and marched and showed up and had your voices heard.

[Rachel Maddow]

And 12 is more than you need to block this Republican budget bill. It's almost 10 more than you need to do it. And so these town halls are having more than the needed effect so far, if these Republicans hold to their word to stop this legislation.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah, I mean, I think the important thing to understand is that Donald Trump's agenda, his signature package for this reconciliation bill that Mike Johnson is trying to pass by Memorial Day, essentially wants to give $7 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and the ultra rich and mega corporations. And they want to pay for it partially because they're going to blow a hole in the debt, let's be clear about that. But they're going to pay for it by cutting 1.5 to trillion dollars in social spending. That is SNAP, that's food assistance for millions of Americans. Medicaid, it's housing assistance. These are programs that are essential for the survival of Americans. And so people showing up, explaining that. And it's not just the people that will be directly harmed. For example, the cuts to Medicaid will decimate medical systems across the country. Hospitals, clinics, rural providers, all of medical services will collapse if Medicaid is cut. And so, you know, the American people are speaking loud and clear. And I am grateful to my Republican colleagues who are finally finding the backbone to stand up against the leadership and Donald Trump and say we're not going to support this cruel agenda.

[Rachel Maddow]

Representative Melanie Stansbury, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Absolutely.

[Rachel Maddow]

We'll be right back. That's tonight's last word. The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options.

[Unknown]

Which is why with USAA Auto Insurance.

[Rachel Maddow]

You'Ll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.