Sotomayor: ‘No right is safe’ after new SCOTUS ruling

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Sotomayor: ‘No right is safe’ after new SCOTUS ruling"

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Host: Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC
Release Date: June 28, 2025
Episode Title: Sotomayor: ‘No right is safe’ after new SCOTUS ruling

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell delves into a landmark Supreme Court decision that has significant implications for executive power and constitutional rights. The discussion centers around Justice Sonia Sotomayor's powerful dissent in a 6-3 decision that alters the landscape of federal judicial power and its intersection with presidential authority.

Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship and Executive Power

Justice Sotomayor's Dissent: "No right is safe"

The episode opens with Ali Velshi reporting on a pivotal Supreme Court ruling that restricts federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a rare vocal dissent, stating, “No right is safe in the new legal regime that the Court creates” (04:35).

The case in question challenged President Donald Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship, a provision guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. While the Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the executive order, the majority opinion paved the way for the executive branch to undertake actions with fewer legal constraints.

Majority Decision and Its Implications

Ali Velshi highlights that the Supreme Court's ruling allows federal judges to only halt presidential orders against plaintiffs directly involved in lawsuits. As Professor Lawrence Tribe explains, “the Supreme Court has made it much easier, not only for this president, but for any President to get away with violating any law, including the Constitution” (08:11).

Tribe emphasizes the dangerous precedent set by the Court, comparing it to an “imperial” executive and Supreme Court, undermining the foundational rule of law. The decision effectively means that unless a lawsuit is filed, presidential orders can proceed unchecked, posing a significant threat to constitutional protections.

Analysis by Professor Lawrence Tribe

Professor Tribe, a constitutional law expert from Harvard Law School, underscores the procedural nuances of the ruling and its broader implications. He criticizes the Court for prioritizing civil procedure mechanics over substantive constitutional principles, stating, “They love parsing legal details, but they don't think about the human consequences of what they're doing” (12:21).

Tribe warns that this ruling could lead to an executive overreach where the President could impose arbitrary policies without meaningful judicial oversight, eroding democratic institutions and accountability.

Trump Family's Crypto Ventures and Foreign Investments

Overview of Trump's Family Involvement in Cryptocurrency

The conversation shifts to the Trump family's foray into cryptocurrency, revealing significant investments and potential conflicts of interest. Ali Velshi discusses how the Trump family has blurred the lines between private enterprise and governmental influence, citing “Trump's cryptocurrency has generated at least $320 million in fees” (18:07).

Recent Investments from UAE

Velshi reports on the United Arab Emirates becoming the largest publicly known investor in the Trump family's crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, with a $100 million investment. This influx of foreign capital raises questions about potential influence and conflicts of interest, especially considering Trump's recent state visit to the UAE.

Implications and Potential Conflicts of Interest

Tim O'Brien, senior executive editor for Bloomberg Opinion, argues that such investments compromise the integrity of the presidency. He states, “The framers of the Constitution had a great 18th century word for this. They called it emoluments, and they forbade presidents from taking them” (23:07). O'Brien asserts that the Trump family's business dealings, particularly in cryptocurrency, represent a significant abuse of presidential power and a corrupting influence on government policy.

US-Canada Trade Tensions and Tariffs

Trump's Tariff Threats Over Tech Taxes

Ali Velshi transitions to the escalating trade tensions between the United States and Canada, triggered by Canada’s implementation of a 3% digital services tax targeting American tech giants. President Trump has responded by terminating all trade talks with Canada and threatening substantial tariffs in retaliation, a move that directly impacts American consumers.

Impact on States Like New Hampshire

The episode features insights from Congressman Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, a key trading state affected by these tariffs. Pappas explains how the tariffs threaten essential building materials and disrupt the local economy, stating, “The tariffs are on, they're off, they're on again. They're negotiating, they're not negotiating” (31:37). He emphasizes the detrimental effects on small businesses and the broader economic instability caused by unpredictable trade policies.

Responses from Political Figures

Pappas advocates for legislation to exempt small businesses from these tariffs, highlighting the urgent need for predictable and fair trade policies to sustain the fragile economy exacerbated by the pandemic.

Medicaid Cuts and Impact on Healthcare

SCOTUS Ruling on Planned Parenthood and Medicaid

The discussion further explores a Supreme Court decision empowering states like South Carolina to defund Planned Parenthood by excluding it from Medicaid. Justice Sotomayor ties this ruling to broader attempts to undermine reproductive healthcare, declaring, “When you gut Planned Parenthood, when you gut Medicaid services, what the Supreme Court just did in the Medina case, these are ways that the extreme right are trying to undermine abortion care in this country” (44:24).

Statements from Experts and Lawmakers

Democratic Congresswoman Kelly Morrison of Minnesota and Minnie Temmaraju, President of Reproductive Freedom for All, join the conversation to highlight the severe consequences of Medicaid cuts. Morrison emphasizes the widespread impact on hospitals and community health services, stating, “Hospitals will close down, clinics will shut down, we will be less healthy overall and we all will have less access to health care” (43:56).

Justice Sotomayor further warns of a “perfect storm, a disaster of proportions” resulting from these Medicaid cuts, underscoring the critical role Medicaid plays in supporting maternal and child health across the nation.

Conclusion

Lawrence O'Donnell's episode provides a thorough examination of recent Supreme Court rulings and their far-reaching implications on constitutional rights, executive power, and public policy. Through expert interviews and incisive analysis, the podcast highlights the potential erosion of legal safeguards and the growing influence of partisan politics on critical aspects of American life, including citizenship rights, healthcare, and international trade.

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Sotomayor: “No right is safe in the new legal regime that the Court creates” (04:35)
• Professor Lawrence Tribe: “They love parsing legal details, but they don't think about the human consequences of what they're doing” (12:21)
• Tim O'Brien: “The framers of the Constitution had a great 18th century word for this. They called it emoluments, and they forbade presidents from taking them” (23:07)
• Congressman Chris Pappas: “The tariffs are on, they're off, they're on again. They're negotiating, they're not negotiating” (31:37)
• Kelly Morrison: “Hospitals will close down, clinics will shut down, we will be less healthy overall and we all will have less access to health care” (43:56)

---

Note: Timestamps are included in brackets for reference and are based on the provided transcript.

Transcript

[Nature's Bounty Advertiser]

Your body is brilliant. Nature's Bounty has a bounty of solutions to help you thrive, supporting your systems from your head to your heels. Nature's Bounty High absorption magnesium glycinate supports heart, bone, nerve and muscle health, while just one hair growth capsule a day helps grow thicker, fuller hair. Delicious new Nature's Bounty probiotic gummies contain prebiotics and postbiotics, supporting gut health, regularity and immune health. Nature's Bounty. It's in your nature. Learn [e-mail] these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

[Ashley Flowers]

Hi, I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of the number one true crime podcast, Crime Junkie. Every Monday, me and my best friend Brit break down a new case, but not in the way you've heard before and not the cases you've heard before. You'll hear stories on Crime Junkie that haven't been told anywhere else. I'll tell you what you can do to help victims and their families get justice. Join us for new episodes of Crime Junkie every Monday. Already waiting for you by searching for Crime Junkie wherever you listen to podcasts. Now it's time for the Last Word.

[Nature's Bounty Advertiser]

With Ali Velshi hosting.

[Ali Velshi]

Hey Ali, thank you for that. That was a nice way to end things off for the week.

[Nature's Bounty Advertiser]

We need a little nice moment every.

[Ashley Flowers]

Now and then, right?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Even when there are dark, difficult days.

[Ali Velshi]

To talk about, like sometimes many times a day. Thank you, my friend. You have yourself a great weekend. We'll see you next week.

[Chris Pappas]

Thank you.

[Ali Velshi]

No right is safe in the new legal regime in the court that the court creates. That's Justice Sonia Sotomayor issuing a warning from the bench today, taking the rare step of read her dissent out loud. In a 6, 3 decision, the Supreme Court's Republican appointed justices restricted the ability for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The case challenged Donald Trump's clearly unconstitutional executive order that was issued shortly after being sworn into office for the second time that denies to certain children birthright citizenship that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court didn't actually decide whether Donald Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship is constitutional, but the conservative justices did clear the way today for more unchecked actions from the Trump White House. In a New York Times opinion piece titled the Supreme Court's Intolerable Ruling, david Firestone writes, quote, what can individual federal courts immediately do when the president issues a blatantly unconstitutional order? The Supreme Court gave its answer on Friday morning. Not much. In an astonishing act of deference to the executive branch, the Supreme Court essentially said that district judges cannot stop an illegal presidential order from going into effect nationwide. A judge can stop an order from affecting a given plaintiff or state if one has the wherewithal to file a lawsuit. But if there's no lawsuit in the next state over, the president can get away with virtually anything he wants, end quote. The president can get away with virtually anything he wants. Sound familiar? Yeah. You can thank the Supreme Court for that. Again, Donald Trump has described this as a, quote, giant win in the United States Supreme Court. Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. Once again, the ruling did not address the constitutionality of Donald Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. It did not examine the merits of that case. The Supreme Court's term ended last year with granting Donald Trump broad immunity. In the 20 minutes that Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke from the bench, she added a line that wasn't included in her written dissent linking today's decision to last year's immunity ruling. Justice Sotomayor said, quote, now the other shoe has dropped on executive immunity. What the Supreme Court did today was hand Donald Trump another pathway to expand his presidential authority with fewer legal constraints. Donald Trump is now free to test the limits of his executive authority in an even more aggressive and far reaching way and continue the disturbing and dangerous pattern of calling into question the credibility of judges that has become standard from Trump and from his Republican allies. If the court says this deployment of troops into our cities is not legal, would you follow that court's order? It's pending in the courts, Senator. Well, when the court decides, would you.

[Tim O'Brien]

Follow the court's order decision?

[Ali Velshi]

I don't believe district courts should be determining national security policy.

[Tim O'Brien]

So you will not be following that.

[Ali Velshi]

When it goes to the Supreme Court. We'll see. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor in dissenting, writing, quote, the government does not ask for complete stays of the injunction as it ordinarily does with this court.

[Professor Lawrence Tribe]

Why?

[Ali Velshi]

The answer is obvious. To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text history, this court's precedents, federal law, and executive branch practice. So the government instead tries its hands at a different game. It asks this court to hold that no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. Instead, the government says it should be able to apply the citizenship order whose legality it does not defend. To everyone except the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet shamefully, this court plays along. A majority of this court decides that these applications of all cases provide the appropriate occasion to resolve the questions of universal injunctions and and end the centuries old practice once and for all. In his rush to do so, the Court disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to non parties. The liberal justices add, no right is safe in the new legal regime that the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that absent cumbersome class action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. For any individuals who are not party to a lawsuit. Now, keep that in mind because for those of us who aren't lawyers, this may be hard to get your head around, but we're going to discuss discuss it with a legal expert and a constitutional expert in a moment. Now, in addition to joining Justice Sotomayor's dissent, Justice Jackson writes in a separate dissent, the Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. The majority's ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it's also profoundly dangerous since it gives the Executive the go ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate the very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness with deep disillusionment. I dissent. Joining us now is Professor Lawrence Tribe. He's taught constitutional law at Harvard Law School for five decades. Professor, it's good to see you. And we really need your help today, not just in opinion, but in trying to make sense of this. What does this mean? What is the Court? What are the dissenters saying about the danger of this decision when it refers to people who have not yet sued, people who are not part of a lawsuit?

[Professor Lawrence Tribe]

What it means, Ali, is that the Supreme Court has made it much easier, not only for this president, but for any President to get away with violating any law, including the Constitution. The example of a hyper liberal president ordering that agencies of the federal government take away everybody's gun or restrict religious exercise of a kind that doesn't satisfy the views of the majority. Those kinds of examples too would be subject to this entirely new regime. It's a regime that is completely inimical to the rule of law in a nation of 300 million people. You can't possibly say that when the Constitution or a federal statute is clearly and outrageously violated, they get to keep violating it unless and until everybody has sued or someone representing everybody in a cumbersome process has achieved standing to sue, unless and until the U.S. supreme Court speaks. That kind of ruling establishes not just an imperial executive, but an imperial Supreme Court. They have the only binding word. And it's useful, Ali, to take a step back and ask what this is all about. To read the majority opinion, you would think that we were taking a class in civil procedure. Justice Barrett, who knows her procedure going back to the Courts of Chancery in England, which, by the way, as Justice Jackson pointed out in her dissent, were basically impotent against the crown and hardly established the relevant precedent for us. She knows her detailed civil procedure, but she never takes a step back and asks, what. What are we talking about here? No judge of any court who has heard a challenge to this president's attempt to say that even if you are born in the usa, you may not be a citizen unless your parents meet certain criteria, no judge has failed to say, my golly, that's obviously unconstitutional. It's been the law ever since the founding that if you're born here, you belong here, you're a citizen. That was embodied textually in the Constitution in the very first line of the 14th Amendment, which overruled the infamous Dred Scott decision that carved a terrible hole in that principle by saying that if you are born to people who were slaves, you don't get the benefit of birthright citizenship. But nobody in the majority even hinted that this might be valid. But what they did was say unless you can meet the requirements of a very cumbersome class action procedure or maybe take some other circuitous path, you are not going to establish your rights. And it's not clear that this case will reach the court, because if every time the administration confronts a challenge in a lower court, it loses, as it has so far before, Republican and Democratic judges alike, you can count on it not to take that loss to the US Supreme Court, where it might learn that the Constitution means what it says instead they will try some end round and run around it like they did this time and ask for a slight revision in the scope of whatever relief has been granted.

[Ali Velshi]

Yeah.

[Professor Lawrence Tribe]

As Justice Jackson put it, catch me if you can. That's what the, the law now says.

[Ali Velshi]

Right. And this is interesting because I think there may be a lot of people out there tonight thinking, did the Supreme Court say that, that, that Donald Trump can revoke birthright citizenship? Not at all. They didn't touch the issue. The issue here is that the administration says federal district judges cannot make a decision that applies to everybody other than the people who are suing or other than the people in that particular state. So for most of us, this sounds procedural, but to Justice Sotomayor and you and others who are thinking about this, constitutionally, it's not a small procedural matter. It's a great import that the court is saying all injunctions and all decisions by federal judges who can see the unconstitutionality of something this administration does are not enforceable across the law.

[Professor Lawrence Tribe]

Well, you know, if Justice Barrett were listening, she would say, no, you've overstated it, Ali, because we did say that if, for example, a state could prove, when we send the case back to the district courts, if a state could prove that in order to get complete relief, it had to get nationwide relief because people might be born in another state where they're not deemed citizens and then come to the state, the patchwork quilt wouldn't work. And maybe states could prove that they are entitled to a sweeping injunction, but maybe not. We've seen that this court often dangles possibilities in front of us, only to pull them back when push comes to shove. And this is a really basic part of what America means. Not just the rule of law in the abstract, but law protecting the basic meaning of American citizenship. Other countries, you know, don't say that if you're born there, you are automatically a citizen. Many of the people who are going to lose their American citizenship for an indefinite period will be stateless under this ruling because their parents come from countries that say that unless you were born there, you don't have a chance of becoming a citizen. And unless your grandparents and your forebears were born there, you don't count. So what we have is a ruling that traps lots of people into lives of continued impoverishment. A lot of these kids will not be eligible for school lunches, for all kinds of aid. There are many things that only citizens can get. And if you are unlucky enough, and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in this situation. If you're unlucky enough not to be born with the right lineage, this decision sets a trap for you. And in general, this court has relished abstractions. They love parsing legal details, but they don't think about the human consequences of what they're doing, what it means for the lives of people. And I think the more the people recognize what this president and the court that he is stacked or doing, the more we will have a popular uprising against a would be tyrant or who is now destroying democracy and the rule of law step by determined step.

[Ali Velshi]

It's remarkable you bring up the concept of statelessness, because when we think about people who are stateless, we think about people who have been exiled, who are political dissidents, who are products or victims of a revolution or a crisis of some sort. Can you imagine that we're going to create stateless people in America by none of their own doing?

[Professor Lawrence Tribe]

I know what it's like. My mother was a stateless person. I know what it's like. She was born in a part of Manchuria that then became the Soviet Union and she lost her citizenship. She came here. She was a citizen of nowhere. But at least someone who is born here is guaranteed citizenship. This is a nightmare, what the court is creating.

[Ali Velshi]

Yep. Professor, it's good to see you as always. Thank you for joining us tonight. To make this a little bit clearer to us, professor, you all his tribe is a constitutional law professor emeritus at Harvard University. All right, coming up today, a United Arab Emirates company became the largest publicly known investor in a Trump family crypto venture. That's next. Okay, let's play a game. Let's fill in the blank quote. If there's one family that hasn't profited off politics, it's the Blank family. The answer Donald Trump's son wants you to fill in is it's the Trump family. That's what Eric Trump said in an interview with the Financial Times. Eric Trump actually said that the Trump family does not profit off of politics. Now, here's the thing. The Trump family has done more to monetize the presidency than anyone who has ever occupied the White House in just the past five months. Here are some of the ways the Trump family is profiting off of the presidency. Donald Trump Jr. And Eric Trump are involved in real estate ventures spread across three continents. A luxury hotel in Dubai, a second high end residential tower in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A new golf course in Qatar, and a new private club in Washington, D.C. as for their financial ventures, Trump's cryptocurrency has generated at least $320 million in fees, according to one crypto analytics firm, the Trump Share the business with business partners. Donald Trump held a private dinner at his Virginia golf club in May to raise money from investors for his cryptocurrency. The New York Times noted the invitees for President Trump's private dinner for customers of his cryptocurrency business on Thursday included a Chinese billionaire fighting a lawsuit from U.S. regulators and a lawyer for Justice Clarence Thomas. And today, Reuters reports on this influx from a fund based in the United Arab Emirates where Trump was just on an official state visit six weeks ago. Quote, a United Arab Emirates Fund has bought $100 million worth of digital tokens issued by World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture of US President Donald Trump's family, becoming its largest publicly known investor. End quote. Donald Trump's family's ventures into crypto have eviscerated the boundary between private enterprise and the government policy in ways without precedent in modern history. In fact, just this week, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to discuss the Justice Department's budget. But Senator Jeff Merkley wanted some answers as to the business interests and of the Trumps.

[Tim O'Brien]

I think you really are very sensitive to the possibility of foreign agents or foreign influence on our government and making sure that we make sure that doesn't happen.

[Ali Velshi]

Yes, Yes.

[Tim O'Brien]

I want to know if when the President held his dinner for 220 individuals who purchased the most of his meme coins, were there foreign interests attending that dinner?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Senator, we're here to talk about the Department of Justice and my budget for the upcoming year.

[Tim O'Brien]

Will you appoint a special investigator to make sure that that foreign influence does not affect the policies of the United States of America?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

I'm not going to tell you what I will or will not do other than I will do everything to keep the people of your state safe.

[Ali Velshi]

Wow. All right. Joining us now is Tim o' Brien, senior executive editor for Bloomberg Opinion and author of Trump Nation. He's an MSNBC political analyst and host of the Bloomberg podcast Crash Course. Tim, nice to see you. Thank you for being with us. That was interesting because first of all, it's unusual for Cabinet secretaries to tell the people who provide them with oversight, including senators and members of Congress, what they will or won't answer. But secondly, she's the attorney General. If there is enforcement about foreign interests influencing the president, that would fall to the attorney general to deal with. This isn't randomly asking the environment secretary or the Health and Human Services secretary about Trump's crypto businesses. This is the Attorney General.

[Tim O'Brien]

Well, that would be true in any other era, Ali, except for this one, because traditionally, Attorney Generals and the Justice Department have been meant to operate independently of the President for obvious reasons. First and foremost, you want the law applied and prosecuted in a nonpartisan way. And of course, there have been presidents throughout history who thought to do otherwise, especially in the modern era, famously Richard Nixon. But Trump has been just open about the idea that he sees the Attorney General as essentially his in house counsel and someone whose duty it is to serve his interests. So we are not going to see Pam Bondi try to get in the way between Donald Trump and his wallet. That is just never going to happen. And when you have the President's son giving interviews in which he's carrying on this farce, that the Trumps haven't monetized the White House and they're merely sacrificing as public servants through their father's service as president, it's just a hallucination. They've turned the White House into a Walmart.

[Ali Velshi]

So the question here is, when it comes to cryptocurrency, there's sort of an added level of complexity because we don't really regulate these things all that well. And it's this thing that you can buy, and it's sort of different than taking a hotel room at the Trump Hotel. But all of this is of a piece, right? It's the idea that people who may have business before the American government or things they want from this White House, or cases they want to disappear, or criminal charges they want to disappear now have this new methodology by which they can invest in or with the President and his family and their ventures and maybe get favorable treatment on the other side.

[Tim O'Brien]

Yeah, Ali, I would actually, I would disagree with you a little bit about the idea that it's different than a hotel room. You know, crypto. Right now, I don't think they are tangible assets in that they represent anything other than the good faith of other people in that chain to buy and sell them. So they're more like a gambling chip than a stock or a bond. But if you look at any transaction as potentially compromising a president, I don't know there's a difference between investing in crypto or renting a Trump hotel room. The framers of the Constitution had a great 18th century word for this. They called it emoluments, and they forbade presidents from taking them. In the modern era, we call them bribes. But the whole point of this was to make sure that presidents weren't taking money and then shading US Policy in any fashion to feather their nests. And the crypto holdings of the Trump family are the most glaring thumbing of the nose that's occurred in any presidency, but even within Trump's because he's lent his name out. And they've pursued so many different business ventures that neither of the Trump sons are qualified in past lives to be running but for their proximity to their father. I would also point out that the UAE invested about $100 million or so, I think, according to Reuters reporting, in Trump's cryptocurrency venture just in recent days, the Trump family paid off, I think it's $115 million mortgage on 40 Wall Street. This was a building in Manhattan that was deeply underwater. It was one of the things Trump was saddled with when he left the White House at the end of his first term. Deeply indebted in a real estate market. Remember that men hollowed out by Covid urban real estate. And this was one of his prize assets. And there was a lot of speculation as to whether or not he'd be able to refinance that loan or pay it off when it came due. And it was coming due very soon. And so you have to wonder if the timing of this UAE investment and the Trump family's ability to pay off a debt that was weighing down on them are related. But even if they aren't, the fact that Trump was able someone who has never been in different parts of his life has frequently been cash flow negative, as they say in the trade, suddenly has very deep wells of money to dip into to get past financial challenges. And that wasn't always the case. And he has certainly monetized the White House. His sons have, his son in law, Jared Kushner have and it is a perversion of good government. And that's a nonpartisan observation. And it's a stain on the Oval Office.

[Ali Velshi]

Yeah, I mean, you mentioned Jared Kushner talking about people who weren't qualified to do things. He got this big investment from the government of Saudi Arabia, the sovereign wealth con also no qualification to run such a thing. Tim, thank you, my friend, for being with us. Tim o' Brien thank you, Ali joining us tonight. All right, coming up, Donald Trump is mad that Canada wants to put a small tax on American tech companies. So he's decided to end all trade talks with Canada and is threatening huge tariffs in retaliation. A tax, by the way, which will be paid by you, the American consumer. That's Next.

[Nature's Bounty Advertiser]

Your body is brilliant. Nature's Bounty has a bounty of solutions to help you thrive, supporting your systems from your head to your heels. Nature's Bounty High absorption magnesium glycinate supports heart, bone, nerve and muscle health, while just one hair growth capsule a day helps grow thicker, fuller hair. Delicious new Nature's Bounty Probiotic Gummies contain prebiotics and postbiotics, supporting gut health, regularity and immune health. Nature's Bounty it's in your nature. Learn [e-mail] these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Ashley Flowers]

Hi, I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of the number one true crime podcast, Crime Junkie. Every Monday, me and my best friend Brit break down a new case, but not in the way you've heard before and not the cases you've heard before. You'll hear stories on Crime Junkie that haven't been told anywhere else. I'll tell you what you can do to help victims and their families get justice. Join us for new episodes of Crime Junkie every Monday. Already waiting for you by searching for Crime Junkie wherever you listen to podcasts.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but on deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to 250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtibank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Ali Velshi]

Donald Trump is mad at Canada, so he may punish you with new tariffs Donald Trump is mad that Canada wants to tax some American companies, which also happened to be the world's richest tech giants and that are worth trillions of dollars with a 3% tax on their revenue, the New York Times reports. Canada 3% digital services tax has been in place since last year, but the first payments are due beginning on Monday. Now, because the tax is retroactive, American companies were preparing to turn over roughly $2.7 billion to the Canadian government, according to a trade group for large American tech companies. U.S. officials from both parties have long chafed at taxes like the one Canada has imposed, calling them unfairly targeted at provided by American Companies like Google, Apple and Amazon. The foreign policies target the revenue that businesses earn from online advertising, the sale of user data and other services, even if the firm is headquartered elsewhere. So Trump has decided you should pay that tax instead. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said, based on this egregious tax, we are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada effective immediately. We will let Canada know the tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period, end quote. So let's be clear. Trump is calling off all trade negotiations with Canada over this very small tax on the world's richest companies, which happen to be American. Tonight, Mehta's head of global affairs posted, thank you, President Trump for standing up for American tech companies in the face of unprecedented attacks from other governments, end quote. Unprecedented attacks. Cuz taxes are now apparently a tax. What will this Trump tariff on Canada be? We don't know. Small businesses don't know. But as we all know, whatever punishment tariff is imposed on Canada, it is in fact Americans who will pay directly or indirectly.

[Tim O'Brien]

They were foolish to do it. So I said we're going to stop all negotiations with Canada right now until they straighten out their act. We have all the cards. We have all, every single one.

[Ali Velshi]

We have all the cards. Tell that to our northern border states. Here's the Boston Globe last week on how people in New Hampshire are being harmed by Trump's tariff war. Canada's tariffs have threatened to increase the cost of essential building materials such as lumber, aluminum and drywall in the Granite State, which is already in the midst of a housing affordability crisis. Tariffs have also cast uncertainty on the import and export of billions of dollars of goods across the state's border. Canada is among New Hampshire's most prominent trading partners, accounting for 17% of all exports, or $1.2 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, New Hampshire imported $2 billion in Canadian goods last year. Tourism, New Hampshire's second largest industry, has also taken a hit. Canadian visits to the State decreased by 42% this April compared to the same time last year. Joining us now is the Democratic Congressman Chris Pappas of New Hampshire. He's a candidate for the United States Senate in 2026. Congressman, good to see you. Thank you for being with us tonight.

[Chris Pappas]

Good to be on with you, Ali.

[Ali Velshi]

New Hampshire's obvious given your geography, but whether it's Vermont or Maine or New York State and states that are not on the border with Canada, they understand that the trade relationship between these two countries, putting aside Military relationships and just friendship in general. The trade relationships between these two countries are essential for both countries.

[Chris Pappas]

It's a force multiplier. Trade between the United States and Canada is historic. It benefits both sides of the trading partnership. And you mentioned taxes. What we're going to get are more tariffs that are just a sales tax on the American people at a time where they're already struggling to afford basic household expenses. So this is a move that's hurting our families and small businesses right now. I talk to them every day across the state of New Hampshire. People know how strong that partnership is with Canada. People have family relations on both sides of the border. New Hampshire exports over a billion dollars worth of goods to Canada, and we rely on those Canadian visitors, especially during the summer months. And as you mentioned in that report, they're not showing up in the same numbers. So this is going to have a direct impact on our economy. And the uncertainty and instability that President Trump has created here is a chaos factor that businesses just can't afford to deal with right now. They've already dealt with the supply chain challenges and workforce shortages just after the pandemic. Right now, they're having trouble predicting what's around the corner. The tariffs are on, they're off, they're on again. He's negotiating, he's not negotiating. So they're not hiring in the same way they were. They're not filling positions. They're not buying that new piece of equipment. It's slowing our economy down and it's going to have a direct impact on our Main street economy.

[Ali Velshi]

So there are, there are several things going on in the, in the Canada U.S. trade Agreement. One is Canadians are just a little bit mad about this whole 51st state thing and the threats and all that from what is really their oldest friend, you know, since Canada was formed, number one. Number two, there's a little bit of fear. There are a lot of Canadians who are, you know, worried about this immigration stuff. A lot of immigrants in Canada who would be tourists to New Hampshire, anywhere else, who are just a little fearful about getting swept up in something in the United States. And then there's this buy at home mentality, which, having grown up in Canada, I have to tell you, was not that prominent. I mean, the fact is, people want the best deal they can get. If the goods come from America or they come from Canada, they didn't distinguish. But now there's a sense of, if I can buy something that's made in Canada, I'm going to do that. I'm not going to take my tourist dollars to the United States. What's your fear as somebody from New Hampshire about the lasting effects of this? Because these tariffs can go away and we can have a normal relationship with Canada again. But is there something that is interesting that's building that may not be reparable?

[Chris Pappas]

Well, I think so. I think it's fraying. The relations between both of our countries, between people on both sides of the borders, communities that have long had indelible relationships that are being disrupted by all this. And, and the cost impact and the economic impact is something that we're seeing happening and unfolding in real time right here on the ground in New Hampshire. So we need smart policies. We need rules of the road here that are predictable. That's why I've introduced legislation in Congress with my colleague Kelly Morrison from Minnesota to eliminate the Liberation Day tariffs that are affecting the small business community right now. Let's at least exempt those small businesses that don't have armies of lawyers to go directly to the administration and try to beg for relief. We should be doing everything we can right now because we know the economy is fragile. It's shrunk by half a percent in terms of GDP in the first quarter. We're seeing consumers pulling back. So there are some warning signs right now that we've got to heed and the president can back off this trade war in a way that allows us to restore relations across the border and continue to benefit from the relationship in the trade. That is absolutely essential.

[Ali Velshi]

Congressman, good to see you. Thank you as always. Congressman Chris Pappas is a candidate for Senate in New Hampshire. All right, coming up, Republicans have a big problem. A Republican lawmaker from a red state that voted to elect Donald Trump by 15 points writes an op ed today that says our state cannot survive this bill. As Republicans are working through the weekend to try and ram that big so called beautiful bill through Congress. That's next.

[Ashley Flowers]

Hi, I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of the number one true crime podcast, Crime Junkie. Every Monday, me and my best friend Brit break down a new case, but not in the way you've heard before and not the cases you've heard before. You'll hear stories on Crime Junkie that haven't been told anywhere else. I'll tell you what you can do to help victims and their families get justice. Join us for new episodes of Crime Junkie every Monday. Already waiting for you by searching for Crime Junkie. Wherever you listen to podcasts.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but ondeck, small business loans can help keep you afloat with lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan advisors, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic bank on Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Ashley Flowers]

Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days, it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills Want to be an AI mastermind? Learn with us Game developer. We've got you covered. AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job.

[Ali Velshi]

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer knows Donald Trump's budget bill is on the ropes.

[Tim O'Brien]

Of course Americans hate this bill. It steals their Medicaid, it jacks up their premiums, it takes away their jobs and gives trillions away to billionaires and special interests. So of course, Republicans are scrambling and rushing. They know their bill is terrible.

[Ali Velshi]

Facing looming pressure from the president, Senate Republicans are having an awfully hard time selling the bill's Medicaid cuts to members of their own caucus. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of four Republican doctors serving in the Senate, tweeted, quote, my position is that cuts, and especially drastic cuts to Medicaid have to be avoided. The Senate bill cuts Medicaid too much, end quote. Earlier this week, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who's up for reelection next year, circulated this document to his Senate GOP colleagues outlining how the Medicaid provisions in Trump's budget would hurt rural Republican voting states. Two state lawmakers in Alaska are sounding the alarm in a New York Times op ed entitled Alaska Cannot Survive this Bill, end quote. This is not about partisanship. One of us is a Republican, the other is an independent. In the Alaska legislature. Our state Senate and House are led by a bipartisan governing coalition. Our focus is squarely on the survival of the people we represent. The benefits of Medicaid and the SNAP program permeate the entire fabric of the Alaska economy, with 1 in 3 Alaskans receiving Medicaid, including more than half of the children in the remote Arctic communities. Medicaid dollars make travel possible for residents from the hundreds of roadless villages to the communities where they are able to receive proper medical treatments. The bill being rushed through Congress is based on a one size fits all approach that does not reflect these realities on the ground. Again, that's coming from Alaska, a state Trump won by double digits in November. And this assault on Medicaid patients isn't just coming from Republicans on Capitol Hill. NBC News reports. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for South Carolina in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, concluding that individual Medicaid patients cannot sue to enforce their right to pick a medical provider. The ruling written by Justice Neil Gorsuch is a boost to the state's efforts to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through Medicaid because it prevents individual patients from enforcing their right to choose their preferred healthcare provider. The ruling could also give a boost to other Republican led states that choose to follow suit. Planned Parenthood responded on social media saying the ruling, quote, is a blow to Medicaid patients freedom to access health care at their chosen provider, end quote. Joining us now, Minnie Timaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, and Democratic Congresswoman Kelly Morrison of Minnesota. She's a doctor in obstetrics and gynecology and a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Welcome to both of you. Thank you for being with us. Congressman Morrison, we just, Congressman Pappas just gave you a shout out in our last segment. I think there's something important to remember here. Medicaid cuts, let's say they're directed at abortion or reproductive care in general. The recipients of these Medicare dollars don't tend to just do one thing. They don't tend to just be abortion providers. They don't even tend to just be reproductive health providers. They're in many cases community health services providers, community hospitals or hospitals themselves. So when you cut Medicaid funding, you end up with people who have to go somewhere else because maybe their hospital closes.

[Kelly Morrison]

Well, that is what is so upsetting about this ruling, Ali. You know, the anti abortion movement's obsession with abortion has led it and its allies in the White House, in Congress and in the Supreme Court to now be in a place where they are actively harming women and children and the most, the least advantaged among us. And layering on top of that, the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to snap all in the, I mean, the harm that is being done to women and children if these cuts go through, it's stunning. It is immoral Allie? I don't know how else to put it, Minnie.

[Ali Velshi]

You've seen and been involved in studies that demonstrate that these cuts, particularly the targeting of reproductive care, has had a much broader effect on the health of women and children. We already, in some of the states, some of our southern states, have maternal mortality rates that exceed some developing countries and that is increasing as a result of these pressures.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

That's right. I mean, Planned Parenthood, first of all, is the safety net provider for so many Americans, one of the most popular providers in this country. And we were talking about the budget reconciliation. Right now, the parliamentarian and Senate Republicans are reviewing language that passed out of the House that would defund Planned Parenthood by excluding them from Medicaid through budget reconciliation. So I agree completely with the congresswoman. It's unconscionable, but it's also a complete disaster post Dobbs. We are in the third year since the Dobbs decision. We are seeing skyrocketing rates, as you just pointed out, of maternal healthcare, maternal mortality, deserts, maternal health care, deserts, maternal mortality, Medicare. Medicaid is the safety net program for prenatal care, birth and postpartum care. 40% of all births in this country are Medicaid funded. And we're going to be a forced birth nation and cut all services for women and families. It's outrageous. And it's setting us up for a perfect storm, a disaster of proportions I don't think people can predict, really.

[Ali Velshi]

Congressman Morrison, you're an obgyn. This is important to understand that when you see maternal mortality rates or infant mortality rates increase or at high numbers, it's usually indicative of a bad economy. It's usually indicative of a country that's not particularly developed. It's very weird. And it's economically dangerous. Forget about morally dangerous. It's also economically dangerous to have a world in which giving birth is more dangerous than it needs to be and being born is more dangerous than it needs to be.

[Kelly Morrison]

Absolutely. And I think I've shared with you before, Allie, that the reason I ran for office kind of late in my career, I'd practiced obstetrics and gynecology for more than 20 years, was Trump ran specifically in 2016 on putting justices on the court who would overturn Roe versus Wade. And I said absolutely not, because I knew what that would mean for reproductive health care across the country. I knew we already had unacceptable racial disparities in our outcomes for moms and babies. I knew what this would mean for the United States of America and Americans. And we're seeing it play out. And all of these continued actions are only making our maternal healthcare crisis worse.

[Ali Velshi]

Minnie, would it resonate with people to understand that these cuts, even if you've got nothing to do with Medicaid, these cuts affect you? A place like Austin, Texas, I think 40 or 50% of the babies born there are born in hospitals that receive majority of their funding from Medicaid. I mean, this is. You may have nothing to do with Medicaid and hope you never have anything to do with Medicaid, but when you cut Medicaid, it cuts availability of health services across the board to a whole bunch of people who didn't even know they had any relationship to it.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

And those numbers go up in red states and purple states. In Arizona, it's something like 60% of all births are Medicaid. And when they expanded Medicaid to cover postpartum, they saw an incredible dramatic increase in patient health outcomes and a decrease in maternal mortality. Look, at the end of the day, Ali, what we've been trying to explain to Americans is this is actually a backdoor abortion ban. When you gut Planned Parenthood, when you gut Medicaid services, what the Supreme Court just did in the Medina case, these are ways that the extreme right are trying to undermine abortion care in this country. It wasn't enough to overturn Roe three years ago, now they're going after every possible provider in this country. And as you said, those providers provide so much more care than just abortion. But abortion is still really critical and is life saving healthcare in this country.

[Kelly Morrison]

Thanks to both of you. We appreciate it.

[Ali Velshi]

Oh yeah, go ahead, Kangshu.

[Kelly Morrison]

I'm so glad you brought up the fact that Medicaid, these Medicaid cuts impact all of us. I've been hearing from patients and providers, hospitals in my district, who are literally going to have to shut their doors. So if you don't get your health insurance through Medicaid or you don't even know anyone who gets their health insurance through Medicaid, this will affect you too. This is an all of us problem because hospitals will close down, clinics will shut down, we will be less healthy overall and we all will have less access to health care. This is incredibly dangerous.

[Ali Velshi]

And that is something we all have to understand right now. Thanks to both of you. I appreciate it. Minnesota Congresswoman Dr. Kelly Morrison and Mini Temmaraju, President of Reproductive Freedom for All. We'll be right back. The pandemic began in a small village in China and it spread rapidly across the globe. Millions of people got sick and infected the world. Is still picking up the pieces. And I'm not talking about the COVID 19 pandemic. I'm talking about the premise for tomorrow's Welsh band book club feature. Max Brooks, 2006 apocalyptic zombie horror horror novel World War z. That's tomorrow, 10:00am Eastern on Velshi. And that is tonight's last word.

[Ashley Flowers]

Hi, I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of the number one true crime podcast, Crime Junkie. Every Monday, me and my best friend Britt break down a new case, but not in the way you've heard before and not the cases you've heard before. You'll hear stories on Crime Junkie that haven't been told anywhere else. I'll tell you what you can do to help victims and their families get justice. Join us for new episodes of Crime Junkie every Monday. Already waiting for you by searching for Crime Junkie. Wherever you listen to podcasts.