>> msnbc presents a new original podcast hosted by jen psaki.

each week, she and her guests explore how the democratic party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next. the blueprint with jen psaki. listen now. >> it is good to be back with you on this second hour of chris jansing reports at this hour. show me the money. the governor of pennsylvania fighting back in court saying money from the federal government is mia, even after a judge ordered it to start flowing again. what happens next in the battle over the funding freeze? and on high alert, the chilling moment a car plowed into a crowd in munich, germany, injuring at least 28

people in what authorities are calling a suspected attack just one day before the vice president is expected to be there. plus, is the end near? president trump says the horrible, very bloody war between russia and ukraine could soon be over. the latest as the defense secretary meets with key nato allies. also, can it pass weeks behind schedule? and with republicans not on the same page? house lawmakers are in a marathon session to pass a spending plan and get it out of committee. the latest on the drama on the hill. our nbc news reporters are following all of the latest developments. we start with the latest filing in what is now 66 lawsuits against the trump administration and its efforts to remake the federal government. msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin joins me now. so what is josh shapiro's lawsuit all about? >> well, chris, this is. >> one of those situations where the devil's in the details. you noted that another federal judge has already issued a temporary

restraining order against what had been that office of management and budget funding freeze and related executive orders. but in an order of his own last night, that judge from rhode island clarified that that doesn't prevent the federal government from freezing other funds where they have independent legal authority to do so. and into that void steps josh shapiro saying that pennsylvania is at risk of losing $5 billion in already appropriated federal funds. and he is now asking broadly for an injunction against various agencies putting pennsylvania's funding on hold. he says only congress has the ability to appropriate funds, and these are funds that have already been appropriated pursuant to congressional enactments and partnerships between pennsylvania and the federal government that have already been executed. he says there is no authority for any of these agencies to now take back those funds that have already been committed, and he's asking a

judge to immediately enjoin those. >> all right. now we also have some breaking news. we're just getting news about the usaid employees who are set to be put on leave. another ruling. tell us what a judge said. >> a judge basically said, chris, he's while he is going to write his opinion on a request for a preliminary injunction, he is extending the freeze on the putting usaid employees on administrative leave by another week. so until february 21st. that freeze on letting usaid employees go is still in place. that doesn't mean, however, that judge carl nichols of the federal court in d.c. is necessarily going to agree with the plaintiffs there. we saw a similar thing play out in boston, where judge george o'toole, who had issued a temporary restraining order against the federal buyout program, extended it until he could issue a written ruling. and then last night, as you well know, judge o'toole said the federal buyout program is good to go. >> lisa rubin with double

trouble today. thank you so much. let's go to munich now, where a car rammed into a crowd and at least 28 people are injured, including children. nbc's courtney kube is reporting for us from munich. what more can you tell us? courtney. >> earlier today here in munich, a 24 year old afghan man drove his mini cooper into a crowd of pedestrians in a busy intersection. now, the motive remains unclear, but what we know so far. this man was here in germany seeking asylum, but local officials were aware of him because of some potential past criminal activity, including possible drug offenses. he drove that car into a group of protesters who had gathered to argue for higher wages. but what's really unclear right now is, was he driving the vehicle and targeting the individuals who were protesting, or were they simply a target of opportunity, because it was a large group of people who were gathered together in a public space? as of now, we know at least 28 people were injured in

this attack. it's still unclear exactly how many of them may be in serious condition. back to you. >> courtney kube, thank you. also, overseas defense secretary pete hegseth told european allies that president trump will not stand for them, turning uncle sam into uncle sucker. nbc's raf sanchez is following this story, so obviously he's not mincing words about expectations from allies, raf, or expectations for bringing the war in ukraine to a close. tell us more about that. >> not mincing. >> words, chris. >> those comments about uncle. >> sam. >> uncle sucker. >> part of his call for european allies to. >> shoulder more. >> responsibility for their own. >> defense, to. >> rely less on. >> the united states. he wants the. european allies to spend 5%. >> of gdp. >> on defense. that is more than twice. >> what they. >> are spending now. but it is. >> his comments. >> about ukraine that are getting the most attention. germany's defense minister accusing. >> pete.

>> hegseth of. >> making concessions to. putin before peace negotiations have even begun. >> by calling for ukraine to abandon its goal of. >> recovering all territory. >> lost to russia since 2014. >> at this. >> press conference today, hegseth said he. wasn't making concessions. he was just offering a realistic assessment of the battlefield. but chris, it was very notable what. >> he did not say. >> other european allies have been consistent. they want to put ukraine in the strongest. possible position going into these negotiations. that is. not something that hegseth has publicly committed to. and i had a chance to ask the secretary general of nato about his silence. >> on that. >> take a listen. >> you said. >> the nato alliance is united around the goal. >> of putting ukraine. >> into the strongest possible. >> position going. >> into. >> these negotiations. but did. >> secretary hegseth. >> explicitly confirm to you that that is the american position? because the way president trump was speaking yesterday, it sounded to many people like he sees the united states as essentially a neutral

mediator in these talks. >> no. >> but you know that the us is. >> is one of the. >> biggest suppliers. >> of military aid into. >> ukraine. >> which is still ongoing. >> and what is very important, of course, here is that going forward, and i've said that before, i expect the us for the european allies to take a bigger share of the financial burden. >> now, you heard the secretary general there saying that nato is working towards those u.s. calls to spend more on defense, but not really answering my question about whether or not he got an explicit commitment from secretary hegseth. and i can tell you, chris, there is a lot of concern here in brussels at nato headquarters, and there is a lot of concern in ukraine that the trump administration may try to force the ukrainians into a bad deal to end this war. chris. >> raf sanchez, thank you. now to house lawmakers who are in a marathon session to pass a new spending plan. nbc's vaughn hillyard is on capitol hill for us. and vaughn, republicans can't afford to lose what, more than two votes on this

committee. and i'm wondering if that could be a problem. >> right. and especially once it were, to get to the entire house floor with just a 218 to 215 majority, they could only stand to lose one republican house member support here. and on this committee, you have several freedom caucus members, the hard line conservatives who, after the release of this initial house budget, text from from the budget committee chair that outlines up to $2 trillion in spending cuts, but up to 4.5 trillion in tax cuts. this is a moment where you have heard over the last 24 hours demands from those hard line conservatives that in order to avoid greater additions to the deficit, that they need to ensure that there is an ability, through this budgeting process to add to greater spending cuts, and that in the scenario, house republicans are unable to hit that $2 trillion reduction mark, then that there should be some

give on the amount of tax cuts that are provided through this budget process. again, to not add overly to the deficit. now, of course, president trump has called for not only an extension of his 2017 tax law, but also additional tax cuts, for example, no tax on tips. and that is where there is the conversation happening in real time among house republicans as to the extent to which they will be able to seek further spending cuts. and of course, there are some concerns not only from democrats, but also republicans, about the extent to which that would potentially impact snap medicaid funding, which goes into many of these key districts, including several swing districts. and so that is where you are watching this process play out on the house side. but we could expect, if house republicans give the leeway to other members to add on to these proposed spending cuts, the potential that this could pass not only out of the

budget committee here today, but also seek a tacit approval from the house freedom caucus members here ahead of or i should say, at a point in time in which they are essentially putting forward a budget that is going to go up against the one that is being put forward by senate republicans who have suggested that there should be two bills through this reconciliation process, as house members are trying to put not only immigration spending measures all in one, but also those tax cuts and essentially trying to make the case that on their side of the aisle, that they will be able to get every single one of their house republican members, or at least all but maybe one if democrats vote against them in order to push through a budget here in these first months of the trump administration, chris. >> vaughn hillyard, who should not expect to get any sleep over the next several weeks at least. we thank you for your reporting. and now let's go from capitol hill to the white house, because we're getting our first sense of the executive order on tariffs that president trump just signed. i want to bring in nbc's

gabe gutierrez and cnbc senior analyst and commentator ron insana. gabe, what can you tell us about this? what happened in the oval? >> hi there chris. >> good afternoon. well, president trump had been teasing this for several days. and just days after announcing that 25% tariff on steel and. >> aluminum, the. >> president now announcing what he calls reciprocal tariffs. and senior. administration officials. are saying that. >> this is. >> essentially to ensure, in their view, that there is a level playing field when it comes to trade around the world. now, senior administration officials significantly say that this is not a just against a foes of the united states, but also our friends. this could potentially affect our allies we've seen over the last several weeks. president trump threatened tariffs against mexico and canada. well, this line of this sweeping announcement of reciprocal tariffs could affect basically everyone around the world. but there's still a lot of questions about how this will be implemented. senior administration officials say that the lead time for this will be relatively short, just weeks

or months. but some analysts warn that this could take much longer to implement because there needs to be 180 days before administration officials can find out exactly how this will impact specific countries. and during the first trump administration, there were more than 200 tariffs imposed in the lead time. for that, it took about a year and a half to implement those. so this does appear, chris, to be the beginning step in a series of negotiations, perhaps, that president trump wants to have with countries around the world and see what he can extract from them in order to get a more favorable trade deals. and this all comes as the prime minister of india is expected here in the white house just this afternoon. and we're hearing from administration officials there that a big topic of conversation will, of course, be trade, defense, immigration. but we do expect to hear from the prime minister of india what you know, what he expects to concede to the united states in order to

curry favor with donald trump. of course, the us is india's largest trading partner, but carries a trade deficit of about $50 billion with india. so certainly no accident that president trump is fulfilling what he sees as a campaign promise, getting tougher on countries around the world by imposing what he calls these reciprocal tariffs. chris. >> gabe, thank you for that. so, ron, i don't know how much time you've had to look through this executive order, but beyond what we just heard from gabe, what can you tell us. >> so the reciprocal trade tariffs i should say, did not just include as was just delineated, tariffs per se, but also non-tariff barriers to trade. the us looks at the european union, for instance, which has a so-called value added tax where production is taxed at each level of assembly. and that would include parts coming to the united states that may go into products that are produced in europe. it could include hundreds of thousands of different products around the world, depending on whether or

not the value added tax is counted as a tariff, whether or not a country is accused of devaluing its currency to give it a competitive advantage in global export markets. and so, as was just stated, gabe said, it will be looking at every country with which we do business and every product that may face a tariff, non-tariff barrier or some currency benefit. and this this is a very involved process. leveling the playing field, as just stated, may take a little bit of time. this is not something that can be done overnight. >> so i'm curious, ron, you've been a reporter for a very long time, and i'm told that the president is still in the oval. still taking questions from folks who are part of the pool. having read it now, what would be your question for the president? what do you think the american people need to know about these tariffs? from his perspective, these reciprocal tariffs? >> well, the president promised on day one to lower prices. and one thing that we know about tariffs, whether they're introduced this way on a reciprocal basis or whether they

were more targeted with respect to steel and aluminum, or whether we're going to see 25% tariffs imposed on our closest trading partners, canada and mexico. how will this lower prices for the average american? and right now, there is no evidence from economists that that would in fact be the case. more likely than not, you would see, at the very least, a one time boost in prices for products that come here. and you could also see retaliatory tariffs imposed by our trading partners that would raise the price of some goods. it would also maybe dampen demand for products, the us exports. we saw that in the last trump administration that we had to offer subsidies to us farmers because certain countries stopped buying agricultural products from the united states. one of the few areas where we do export a great deal and have rather large surpluses with other countries. so those would be the two questions i'd focus on. how does this help the american consumer? in a certain sense, if there were more targeted, they might level the playing field for certain industries. but with these broad tariffs, probably from a consumer perspective, do more harm than good.

>> we're running low on time here, and we're going to hear once the tape gets out of the oval office and we can if there's news made, we will play it. but i'm looking at the notes from the pool. and they asked him exactly that question. will prices go up? and his answer was and again, these are quick notes taken by the pool. but he said the jobs will go up tremendously. we're going to have great jobs, jobs for everybody. this is something that should have been done many years ago. our jobs are going to go up as a result of reciprocal tariffs. >> i don't know, it's impossible to answer. i mean, economists like to use the expression, all other things being equal, if you're protecting certain industries and providing them with an advantage that these tariffs might deliver, then you could say you might save or add jobs. but we don't know that jobs on their own because of these reciprocal trade or tariff impositions would actually go up. the employment situation in the united states is far more complex than that. so i think

you're reducing it to such a simplistic notion probably doesn't make any sense, not any economic sense, and may or may not be true. we just won't know. >> ron insana, gabe gutierrez thank you both. and again, as we hear more about what the president has been talking about with reporters, if the news is made, we will have that for you. but first, in 90s a new warning from a top democratic senator about the future of the fbi, the sycophantic goon squad. he says sycophantic goon squad. he says the bureau is becoming. with fatigue and light-headedness, i knew something was wrong. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke. symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light-headedness, can come and go. but if you have afib, the risk of stroke is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. this is no time to wait.

nutri tears. it works differently than drops. blink neutral tears is a once daily supplement clinically proven to hydrate from within, helping your eyes produce more of their own tears. to promote lasting, continuous relief you'll feel day after day. try blink neutral tears. >> a different. >> a different. >> way you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. that's why pnc bank strives to be boring with your money. the pragmatic, calculated kind of boring. passes the savings on to you. >> so i get the same fast nationwide coverage. >> if i switch.

>> yep. for unlimited talk and text with reliable coverage and your second month free call consumer cellular. >> kash patel is now one step closer to leading the fbi. the senate judiciary committee voted along party lines to advance his nomination today, but not before some heated debate. >> he will be an unrestrained, unguided missile against. the integrity. >> of the department. >> of justice. >> why do the. democrats fear him? why do they fear him? >> and i think the. >> answer is so very apparent. they fear him because yes, indeed, he is out of the box. >> this man has. >> so many. >> red flags about why it is completely. >> inappropriate to have. him as the head of one of the. >> one of our most important. law enforcement agencies. >> that it makes your head spin. >> i want to bring in nbc news justice reporter ryan riley.

also with me, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi, frank figliuzzi, and msnbc security analyst frank. senator blumenthal says that kash patel in charge would mean the fbi would turn into a, quote, sycophantic goon squad. republicans argue that the fbi needs to shake up, needs some reform. do we have indications already of what the fbi is likely to look like with him at the helm? >> indeed, chris, we don't need to be clairvoyant or engage in conjecture. we just need to take patel's. >> own words and. writings and actions. >> and we've got a recipe for severe abuse that could happen with him at the helm of the fbi. the kind of abuse we haven't seen since j. edgar hoover illegally wiretapping and planting evidence against. people he. thought were a threat to him and to the nation. look, patel has been accused multiple times of deceit regarding sensitive hostage negotiations.

hostage rescue. he demanded from doj a criminal immunity promise in order to testify to a grand jury about the mar-a-lago case. and now we've learned that he's been paid by the russians for a speaking engagement. tens of thousands of dollars. he owns $1 million or more in stock in a. chinese company. and he's told us repeatedly that, yes, he has an enemies list. >> he may. >> deny that language, but we've already seen the evidence at doj prosecutors being fired at fbi. lists of names of agents who worked for the january 6th cases being demanded. he's in on that. and we're going to see it when i think day one occurs with him walking into the hoover building. >> in fact, senator dick durbin sent a letter to doj accusing patel of secretly ordering the firing of fbi officials, even though he wasn't even an fbi in charge of the fbi yet. but are there let me ask you this, ryan,

do we know are there indications that that is indeed what happened? >> you know, it's a tough question because i think we know that there are lots of people who are linked to kash patel in important roles currently at the fbi, and that was something that he answered, you know, on the record during his confirmation hearing said, you know, knowledge that he knew some of these people who were already in the bureau and that raised a lot of red flags because one individual had a connection to elon musk. and just this idea of having these outsiders who did not have the background of the fbi were not just career fbi employees in these positions, obviously raised a lot of questions. i spoke with kyle serafin, who's one of these former fbi special agents who's pretty close with kash patel. in fact, kash patel gave kyle serafin some money, as well as some other former fbi special agents after they were sort of pushed out of the bureau for various reasons. and so he has this ongoing relationship with him. in fact, kash patel called a number of these individuals immediately after he was was nominated. and what what kyle

serafin was saying to me is essentially that it would make sense that. right, that someone who was coming in was in communication and vaguely aware. but he insisted that, you know, that kash patel was not pulling the strings of these actual orders and making the order directly. obviously, that would be inappropriate. so i think we're sort of in this muddled territory. and of course, i think, you know, just based on the idea that a lot of people are using, you know, encrypted communications these days, will we ever get an answer to that question of how much of a role that kash patel played in this, or was this all just face to face? was he sort of being read in? i don't know if we're ever going to be able to get sort of to the bottom of that question, certainly in time for kash patel's confirmation vote ultimately. >> which leads me to the question, frank, what you're hearing from folks, your friends who are still inside the fbi. >> yeah. they're leaving. that's what i'm hearing. they're they're out. their resumes are out. they're interviewing. they understand they're going to be asked to violate their oath to protect, preserve and defend the constitution. they see the prosecutors being fired. they

see the list being demanded, probationary agents who have no due process rights. that list has been demanded. they're they're seemingly going to get fired. the top layer of management is gone now. now we understand every us attorney is going to be replaced. and who are they going to be replaced with? trump sycophants. so they're leaving. that's what's happening. and there's no one in line to replace them because there's a hiring freeze at the fbi. >> frank figliuzzi and ryan riley, guys, thanks so much. coming up, publicly, republicans support president trump's big cuts to federal spending. but what happens when those cuts hit close to home? you're watching close to home? you're watching chris jansing reports onl want a next level clean? swish with the whoa of listerine. it kills 99.9% of bad breath germs for five times more cleaning power than brushing and flossing alone. get a next level clean... ahhhhh with listerine. feel the whoa! here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday.

help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need, and the flavor you love. so, here's to now... now available: boost max! >> oh. >> but at least you. >> can go to safelite.com. >> and schedule a fix in minutes. >> can't confirm. >> very easy. >> safelite can come to you for free. and our highly trained techs can replace your windshield right at your home. >> safelite. >> safelite. >> repair safelite replace. cidp is no walk in the park. that's true. but i take vyvgart hytrulo. same! it's the first major innovation in cidp treatment in over 30 years. vyvgart hytrulo has been proven to significantly reduce the risk of symptoms getting worse. and my cidp can be treated with once-weekly injections that take about 30 to 90 seconds.

do not use vyvgart hytrulo if you have a serious allergy to any of its ingredients. serious allergic reactions, like trouble breathing and decrease in blood pressure leading to fainting, and allergic reactions such as rashes, swelling under the skin, shortness of breath, and hives have been reported. the most common side effects are respiratory and urinary tract infections, headache, and injection site reactions. it may increase the risk of infusion-related reactions and infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection. i'm hittin' fairways with the fellas. i'm hittin' the road with my number 1. ♪♪ that's how we live vyvidly with vyvgart hytrulo. visit livevyvidly.com or talk to your neurologist. ♪♪ >> i. >> economy. perhaps they need to call it something else. nail

fungus is nasty. nail starts improving the appearance of fungus damaged toenails in just two days. it's clinically proven formula penetrates the nail for resu dave's been very excited about saving big with the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. five years? -five years. and he's not alone. -high five. it's five years of reliable gig speed internet. five years of advanced securit. five years of a great rate that won't change. it's back. but only for a limited time. high five.

five years? -nope. comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. powering five years of savings. powering possibilities. comcast business. just 4.99 a month. call 1-888-246-2612 or visit homeserve. com. >> republicans are all in on the government's disruption. that is, until the cuts come for their states and their districts. republican lawmakers are starting to push back carefully against certain

aspects of president trump's slashed the budget plans. it's an early indication of the obstacles the president could face from within his own party. joining us now, nbc, sahil kapur from capitol hill. ashley parker, a staff writer for the atlantic and an msnbc political analyst. joel payne is the democratic strategist and former press secretary for senate majority leader harry reid. good to have all of you here. sahil, what concerns are being heard, however quietly, from some republican lawmakers? >> yeah, chris, we're seeing what a difference it makes when the pain of president trump's executive actions hits home for some of his allies in congress, his republican allies, the idea of government spending cuts and spending freezes sounds. >> good. >> in the abstract. but when you get specific, that's when there are real consequences. and that's when we're seeing some simmering angst among republicans that he might be using to blunt instrument here. one example is nih reductions to indirect costs for research. in addition to others like senator. katie britt. i talked. >> to senator bill. >> cassidy of louisiana. he told me he worries it will hurt universities like those in his

state without big endowments. he said he wants people in louisiana to benefit from research dollars, so that they don't all go to places like massachusetts and california. in addition, you have this new group of house and senate republicans, most of whom represent rural districts and states, introducing a bill to save the usaid food for peace program. this comes as trump and his billionaire ally, elon musk are trying to dissolve usaid. they want to save it by moving this program into the department of agriculture. why are there farmers? sell crops to the government and make money off of them? take a look at what congressman tracy mann of kansas said. quote, for 70 years, kansas and american farmers have played an active role in sending their commodities to feed malnourished and starving populations around the world. he calls it a free gift from the american people that will help vulnerable communities. there's also the question of tariffs. senator chuck grassley of iowa tweeted a few days ago that he wants an exemption for iowa farmers from the pain of some of trump's threatened tariffs in canada. senator rand paul of kentucky said republicans won the last election by complaining about democrats policies that he

argues led to high prices, and says tariff lovers will be forced to explain the persistence of high prices. his fellow kentucky senator, mitch mcconnell, wrote in an op ed that kentuckians will face the higher costs as a result of trump's tariffs. higher costs of as much as $1,200 a year for kentuckians, according to one study. now, the sleeper dynamic here, chris, is that red states that vote solidly for trump are disproportionately more dependent on the federal government. they take in more money from the us treasury than they give, whereas blue states like new jersey, california and new york are more likely to be net givers to the treasury than than net takers from the treasury. so it's very hard to make a meaningful reductions, major cuts in government spending without harming red states. and this is where i think the rubber is going to hit the road. how much of this pain are republican lawmakers going to tolerate? at what point do they push back? and if they do, they do have the article one powers to override anything that president trump tries to do.

chris. >> well, that is my question for you, ashley, as one of your colleagues at the atlanta, put it, atlantic, put it, donald trump is very busy. so is there a point where these instances of protecting their slice of the federal pie? their constituents, slice of the federal pie becomes an obstacle for the president's agenda? >> well, what you're. >> seeing so far at least, are sort of tentative. complaints and petitions for carve outs for how what trump is doing, which is sort of he and elon musk are taking a sledgehammer to the federal bureaucracy, is affecting their particular state. so far, at least, what you are not having is republicans in congress coming out and saying, this is unacceptable. we are going to take back some of our authority to make sure that he's not cutting programs that we have appropriated, that we have the power to control the purse strings of. but it's more trying to do this delicate two step,

which is i support everything trump is doing. but of course, he didn't mean to, you know, defund nih in my state or i support everything he's doing. but of course, he didn't mean to hurt the rural farmers. we just need to undo this one little tiny part. and the question remains donald trump and his allies have a sort of break stuff. maybe put it back together afterwards. philosophy. and the question is if they can or are even interested in putting this back together because, as sahil articulated, you know, senator katie britt asks for one thing. the senators from kentucky ask for another thing. everyone believes that their particular request is reasonable. it's like how members of congress used to feel about pork. they hated it except for their own districts. but for trump to act on every single one of those requests, frankly, in many ways, could almost entirely put back together what he very deliberately broke. and that's

not what the strategy is right now. >> yeah, therein lies the rub. so, joel, if you're looking at a map, right, an electoral map, whether it's tommy tuberville up for reelection in alabama, which could face impacts from nih cuts, joni ernst in iowa, farmers could start feeling the pinch of usaid being shuttered. how should democrats or how are democrats looking at potential vulnerabilities to funnel money, frankly, to particular races that are coming up? >> well, chris. >> that's. >> the question, right? so, look, even if you're. >> not bothered. >> by. >> the fact that donald trump, elon musk and republicans are flouting. >> the constitution. >> flouting the law with the things that they have, musk and his minions doing in treasury, you know, messing around with our data and in our pockets. >> you should be. >> concerned with the end user impact. how is it impacting you in your pocketbooks day to day? and again, not just folks in blue america, not just folks in. democratic cities, but in republican places. katie britt.

>> shortly after the president was at. >> the super bowl last weekend, talked about her concerns about those nih cuts. look at a place like the. consumer financial protection bureau. they're making a claim that efficiency can be found in an organization like that, where that government agency actually returns a 20 to 1 benefit to taxpayers, that elon musk and donald trump cannot claim in other. parts of government. i do think that. as the economy does not recover at the pace that donald trump talks about is egg prices don't drop, as all the promises that donald trump made about the economy don't come to bear. those things will become more, you know, opportunities for democrats. >> to. >> hold republicans and donald trump accountable going forward. >> joel. >> ashley sawhill, thank you all. i've got to cut this short because we have breaking news. the acting u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york has just resigned. that's from a senior official talking to nbc news. i want to bring in nbc's tom winter and lisa rubin, both here with me. tell us about

this, tom. is this related at all to eric adams and the push to get his case? >> well, there was no. the resignation letter, to be clear, for danielle sassoon, the acting u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. >> is only two. >> sentences in length. we're told. >> it does not. >> specifically address the directive that you referenced. >> from the. >> justice department in beauvais, who is the current acting deputy attorney general, to drop this case without prejudice, meaning that it could be called again at some point in the future. and the letter specifically discusses that. >> so there. >> were no plans for sassoon to resign. now there are no plans for sassoon to resign prior to this letter. so while she doesn't specifically reference it, it is very difficult to look at this letter as anything other than a i'm not going to do this. and the office. a couple of things have come up over the past couple of days. first, let's talk about sassoon. this is an individual who went toe to toe with sam bankman-fried, cross-examined him, and by all accounts really tuned him up when he was on the defense stand in his own defense in that case.

and obviously he was convicted. this is somebody who has been described to me over the years as a killer, and they say that in a good way. somebody who goes out there and gets the cases and gets the cases done. somebody yesterday described her to me as somebody who represents the epitome of the southern district, which is somebody who goes after cases without fear or favor, somebody who believes in justice. so that's who this individual is. they're a veteran of that office. i don't think there's any indication whatsoever that she ever wanted to leave. and she was there in an acting capacity until jay clayton, who's the trump appointee for that office, could be confirmed. so just so people understand who she is, her connections to all this and the connections to the office, there is nothing that has been docketed yet. formally dismissing this case without prejudice, as has been directed by the justice department headquarters. main justice as people referred to it. and so there's no other way that you could read this at this stage, barring any sort of other information, that this is a resignation in lieu of filing that order. now, what happens

next is. >> she was not about to potentially this is the way we're reading it. she was not about to drop a case that she felt was strong, that she and her office had worked on a long time and felt they could win. would would that be fair to say? >> to be clear, she was not a prosecutor on the adams case specifically. but as the adams prosecution has been arguing, they believed it was a very strong case that additional charges were coming against new york city's mayor, including charges for witness tampering with law enforcement. whether you're a special agent, two years on the job, or whether you've been a federal prosecutor for 20 years, the idea of somebody tampering with with your witnesses prior to trial is something that is a real affront to them. of course, mayor adams has denied all sorts of all the allegations against him. they've he's denied that there was any sort of crime here. and of course, this case never even, well has yet to go to trial, may never go to trial. so there's nothing there that we can say definitively about his guilt. but certainly prosecutors are moving forward with this case

prior to this coming up. and i think for me, chris, it was around the time that a press conference was called by the mayor this past fall, prior to the election, when donald trump was speaking at madison square garden at a campaign event. i think it was several weeks before election day, and everybody was concerned because everybody thought in everybody being the reporters thought, is there some sort of security concern involving donald trump? obviously, the target of two assassination attempts, we were then subsequently told there is no additional threat reporting. and so the question came up as to why mayor adams at that stage, might have been wanting to do a press conference when there was no clear, articulable threat. and then the question started to be asked, is he appealing to trump? has he made the pivot here in order to get attention from the former president, now current president, to get some sort of a good outcome? to be clear, the memo says that there's no sort of exchange here about immigration enforcement. in lieu of dropping the charges. but why did this get to this point?

well, the memo also points out that they're looking for mayor adams's help with immigration efforts in new york city. so and. >> in fact, is meeting with tom homan today. >> exactly. correct. so this issue is, is escalating, if you will. and clearly, if the acting u.s. attorney now has since resigned, danielle sassoon believe that the directive was a okay, she would have just ordered her office to file the dismissal and moved on. so yes, her resignation letter, to be clear, we are told, does not actually reference a specific case. but in lieu of that, there does not appear to be any other reason for her resignation. >> and in fact, the new attorney general, pam bondi, talked about the case against eric adams just last night. let's listen to that. >> that case. >> should. >> be dropped. it was done at the direct directive of amel. so that case should be dropped. i did not know that it had not been dropped yet, but i will certainly look into that. >> there's so much going on legally. the attorney general didn't even know that the status

of the case. so what does that tell us about where we are and this resignation? tell us about where we are. >> well, it. >> could tell us on one hand, chris, how much is going on legally. and certainly we have a full plate. i mean, tom and i and others here are drinking from a fire hose constantly with respect to legal goings on. but the other thing that it suggests is that pam bondi expected that danielle sassoon would play ball. danielle sassoon was chosen by this justice department to be the acting u.s. attorney. there was another acting u.s. attorney, ed kim, who was a career official who was the number two to damien williams. the former senate confirmed u.s. attorney had stepped into that role. he was dismissed by the trump administration so that danielle sassoon, also a career prosecutor, could come and take his place. but the expectation was that danielle sassoon, who has stalwart conservative credentials, would be the sort of u.s. attorney that the trump administration wanted. to be fair, lots of people of different political stripes will tell you that she is a brilliant, strategic and ethical

to a core. i spoke to multiple former southern district prosecutors yesterday who would say that about her, but i think pam bondi just expected it would get done. >> i just want to jump in here. we have the email from my colleague jonathan deans and myself that she sent sassoon, sent to staff at the us attorney's office for the southern district of new york. it says moments ago, i submitted my resignation to the attorney general. as i told her, it has been my greatest honor to represent the united states and to pursue justice as a prosecutor in the southern district of new york. it has been a privilege to be your colleague, and i will be watching with pride as you continue your service to the united states. so, just as we referenced, there was no specific mention of the adams case. >> but there is a bigger question that people have been talking about. and we were just, for example, talking to frank figliuzzi, who was saying that he knows people within the fbi. they've got their resumes out there job hunting. the impact on the legal system, on the criminal justice system of a brain drain of people leaving

federal service. >> that's absolutely true. now, danielle sassoon had written an op ed in the wall street journal a couple of weeks ago in which she said, one thing that was incredibly important to her was that prosecutors be able to do their work unimpeded. when i talked to former prosecutors who are still in touch with people in the southern district, one of the things they say is that people are not thinking about the bigger political picture. what they're really focused on, chris, is their own cases and their own work. to the extent that people feel that they are no longer able to do that. however, i think you will start to see big resignations come in the southern district. but right now, are we at a place where we're facing a massive insurrection or resignation from that office? not quite yet. >> tom winter. lisa rubin, you've given us a lot to think about. obviously, if we get new information, feel free to run back out. we'll keep your seat warm. thank you both so much. well, elon musk's ex has agreed to pay about $10 million to

settle a lawsuit with president trump. trump sued ex, then known as twitter, for suspending him over his role in the january 6th attack on the capitol. that was all before musk took control of the company, though this approximate $10 million payout is just a fraction of 1% of x's value, which as of december, fidelity placed at $12.32 billion. that means if you're an average american with an average income, the settlement would cost you the equivalent of about $49.50. nbc's garrett haake is following this for us. garrett, what more can you tell us about this? >> well, chris. >> candidly. >> not much. >> and that's part of the reason it's. >> his. >> story. because here. >> you. >> have a settlement with this company now. >> controlled by elon musk. >> over. >> a. >> lawsuit that was begun long. >> before musk was. >> involved in it. >> and musk, as we all. >> know. by now. >> is donald trump's closest. >> ally outside of the federal government. we're going to hear from the president now. >> we'll talk about this.

>> another time. >> and so. >> this is the president about to take. >> questions after signing is just about. >> the highest tariff country. they charge more tariffs. than any other country. and i mean, we'll be talking about that. but again, whatever they charge us we're charging them. so it works out very well. it's very it's a beautiful, simple system. and we don't have to worry about charging too much or too little. but traditionally india is right at the top of the pack. >> pretty much. >> there are a couple of smaller countries that are actually more, but india is a very, very they they charge tremendous tariffs. i remember when harley davidson couldn't sell their motorbikes into india because of the fact that india, the tax was so high, the tariff was so high, and harley was forced to build, i guess they built, i don't know, that was a while ago, but i think they built a factory in india in order to avoid paying the tariffs. and that's what people can do with us. they can

build a factory here, a plant or whatever it may be here. and that includes the medical, that includes cars, that includes chips and semiconductors, that includes everything. if you build here, you have no tariffs whatsoever. and i think that's what's going to happen. i think our country is going to be flooded with jobs. >> so. >> what are your. >> consumers expect? are prices going. >> to. >> go up short term? not necessarily. >> i mean not necessarily. but i'll tell you what will go up is jobs. the jobs will go up tremendously. we're going to have great jobs, jobs for everybody. this is something that should have been done many years ago. china did it. i mean, china did it at a level that probably nobody has ever seen before. if you manufacture a car, you couldn't send it into china. the tariff was so high. so everybody went and they built in china. it was no big secret. so we're going to see, but it's going to mean tremendous amounts of jobs. and ultimately prices will stay the same go down. but

we're going to have a very dynamic country. >> prices go. >> up. >> mr. president, because of these tariffs. >> who do you. >> think voters. >> should hold responsible? >> oh, i. >> think what's going to go. >> up is jobs are going to go up and prices could go up somewhat short term, but prices will also go down. and i think the farmers are going to be helped by this very much because product is being dumped into our country and our farmers are getting hurt very badly by the last administration. the last administration hated our farmers, like at a level that i've never seen before. i think our farmers are going to be helped. jobs are going to be helped, but our farmers are going to be helped by our manufacturers are going to be helped. and again, if somebody wants to come in, including the car companies, if they want to come in and build car plants, they'll do it without tariffs and therefore prices won't go up. there could be some short term disturbance, but long term it's going to it's going to make our country a fortune. >> so americans should prepare for some short term pain.

>> you said that. i didn't say that. >> well, if prices go up. >> and let's see what. >> happens, nobody really knows what is going to happen other than we know that jobs are going to be produced at levels that we haven't seen before. we know that we think interest rates are going to ultimately be coming down because of things that happen, and they go hand in hand with the tariffs. but we think that we think that the prices for some things, many things it could be all things will go down, ultimately will go down. >> mr. president. >> explain the timeline here, sir. there's a period of time for a review of report 180 days. what's the earliest date that you think tariffs will actually be implemented? >> well, i would say maybe i'll ask howard to answer that because he's going to be the one that's implementing. what do you. >> think? our studies should be all. >> complete by. >> april 1st. so we'll. >> hand. >> the. >> president the opportunity to start. >> on april 2nd if you want. so i think. >> we'll. >> be ready to. >> go pretty soon, april 1st. >> and we'll hand. >> it to the president.

>> and he'll make his decisions. >> but remember, if they. drop their tariffs. prices for. >> americans are coming down. our production. >> is going up. >> and our costs are. >> going down. remember. >> it's a two way street. >> that's why it's called reciprocal. >> have you. >> spoken. >> to any american ceos directly about this? are they calling you and asking. >> for many and many love it. and they say this is going to be the thing that makes our country really prosperous again, and this is going to be what pays down to $36 trillion in debt and all the other things. and this is going to be this is an amazing day. this i think this is going to be a very big day and in a very positive way for our country. yes, please. >> mr. president. >> you talked about the vat and the eu before and your concerns with how the eu treats you. >> do you have a number in mind on the european union? >> do you have. >> any. >> idea where that number is going to land? >> well, what they are now is they have a 20% vat tax, which we're considering to be similar or the same as the tariff. plus

they charge lots of fees and, you know, they're doing something else. the european union has been very tough on our companies. they sued apple, they sued google. they sued facebook. they sued many other companies and their american companies. and the kind of numbers are staggering. and the court system over there is not very good to our companies. if you know that apple had to pay, i think, $16 billion in a penalty, a court case, that was really shocking because most people thought they would have won that court case, people that watched it. so they've been very tough. airlines have called me up and they said, could you help us with europe because they're charging us so many different fees? i got a call from the head of american, united and other airlines saying, every time we land a plane, we get just absolutely killed by the european union. and so they haven't been treated as good. you know, we think the european union is wonderful. we all love europe. we love all the countries in europe. but european union has been

absolutely brutal on trade. canada has been very bad to us on trade. but now canada is going to have to start paying up. and canada has been tough on the military because they don't have a very they have a very low military cost. they think we're going to, you know, protect them with our military, which is unfair. so canada is going to be a very interesting situation because, you know, we just don't need that product. and yet they survive off the fact that, you know, we do 95% of what they do. and canada is just absolutely i say it. and sometimes people smile and sometimes they say, great idea. but canada with their taxes would come down greatly. their security would go up greatly. amazing things happen to canada and really canada in this particular, why would we pay $200 billion a year in subsidies to canada when they're not a state? you do that for a state, but you don't do

that for somebody else's country. so i think canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st state. >> i wasn't going with canada. >> there was obviously. >> a delay. >> in. >> implementing those tariffs. >> i spoke to governor trudeau on numerous occasions and we'll see what happens, but it just sets up so good for them. look, the people would pay much less tax than they're paying right now. they'd have perfect military protection. they don't have any military protection because they essentially because and you take a look at what's going on out there. you have russian ships, you have china ships, you have chinese ships, you have a lot of ships out there. and, you know, people are in danger. this is a different world today. it's a different world, and they need our protection. yes. >> elon musk and the efforts that he's undertaken. >> with your authority. >> you granted him new authority this week. will he secure. >> any new government contracts while he is working on? >> no, not not if there's a conflict. if there's no

conflict, i guess, what difference does it make? but we won't let him do any of anything having to do with the conflict. >> are you personally. >> checking to make sure there's no conflicts. >> of interest? yes, i am. >> i am. >> he answers. >> to you. sure he does. first of all, he wouldn't do it. and second of all, we're not going to let him do anything with his conflict of interest. >> you're in negotiations with the eu are you know, there's just discussions. >> ongoing already. how quickly do. >> you expect that. >> you'll hear back. >> from them about any of these? >> i can tell you, yeah. the eu has been very nasty and it's just been they haven't treated us properly. look, we were great to them on nato. essentially it's similar group of countries. when i came in my first term, i raised their fees. i mean they were not paying. we were paying for in my opinion, almost all of nato. and now, you know, i had the bad moment with the press where the press said, well, does this mean you won't protect him? i said, i won't protect him if they're not paying. but because i said that the secretary

general, as you know, said it was the greatest thing he's ever seen because the money came pouring in, and but they don't treat us right on trade. they don't treat us right on the military either. i mean, if you look at ukraine, we're in for probably $200 billion more than europe. why are we in for more than europe? we're in for more than europe. i mean, think of it. or nato, i mean, let's call it now because canada is in. by the way, canada is just about the lowest payer. also just, you know, they shouldn't be that they are just about the lowest payer in nato in addition to everything else. so canada has really been taken advantage of. and if they had to pay just something modestly fair, they wouldn't be able to succeed as a country. and that's why that's why i feel they have to become a state. yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. president. is it your expectation that partners. will offer major concessions and that you actually don't end up applying those tariffs?

>> no, i think that a lot of them will stay the same. and whatever they pay, i'll pay. i mean, we'll have we'll have a lot of them stay the same. i think some look i heard they as an example, eu lowered their tax on cars down to the exact same amount that they were much higher. they were approximately five times higher. and they lowered them down to the exact tax that we're charging that took place like yesterday or the day before. is that a correct statement? yeah. >> do you expect any exemptions or waivers? >> i don't expect that. no. this is a simple system and there wouldn't be any. and in the case of apple i gave them a waiver, an exemption in my first term because samsung was in south korea and samsung didn't have to pay the tax because it was a tax on china. and apple makes a lot of their product in china. so i did that because it wouldn't have been fair. but now this applies to everybody across the board. this is a much simpler

way of doing it. much better way. >> yes. i mean, you had that major call yesterday with president putin of russia. president zelensky responded today basically saying any agreements they won't accept unless they're made with ukraine. will ukraine have a seat at that table for those negotiations? >> they would. i mean, they're part of it. we would have ukraine and we'd have russia, and we'll have other people involved, too. a lot of people, a lot of a lot of forks in the a lot of forks in this game. i'll tell you what, this is a very interesting situation. but the ukraine war has to end. the young people are being killed at levels that nobody's seen since world war two, and it's a ridiculous war and it has to end. we had a good talk with president putin. i had a good talk with president zelensky. very good talk. and somebody said, oh, i should have called zelensky first. i don't think so. i mean, we have to find out whether or not russia wants to make a deal. i know that zelensky wants to make a deal because he told me that. but i now know that russia wants to make a deal. >> did you ask secretary to walk

back his comments yesterday, saying ukraine won't join nato and won't go back to pre 2014 borders because those are bargaining chips you could use? >> no i didn't, somebody told me, but i thought his comments were good yesterday and they're probably good today. they're a little bit softer perhaps. but i thought his comments from yesterday, i thought his comments yesterday were pretty accurate. i don't see any way that a country in russia's position could allow them just in their position, could allow them to join nato. i don't see that happening. and long before president putin, russia was very strong on the fact that i believe that's the reason the war started, because biden went out and said that they could join nato, and he shouldn't have said that. as soon as he said that, i said, you know what? you're going to have a war now. and i was right about that. this is a war that would have never happened if i were president. >> mr. >> president biden's not president. >> i think biden is incompetent. and i think when he said that they could join nato, i thought

that was a very stupid thing to say. i thought when he said, well, it depends if it's a minor incursion. in other words, it's okay if russia does a minor incursion. i thought that was a very foolish thing to say. >> when you. >> got it started. the other thing that got it started was how badly milley and these stupid people, these bad generals, how badly they did with afghanistan. i was going to pull out, but we were pulling out with dignity and strength, and we were going to take our equipment with us and everything else. they are. i mean, what they're doing is what they did with that. i think putin looked at that mess and he said, wow, this is a great time. i'm going to go in. but what what the americans said, i'm not blaming americans, but i will say what they said had a big influence on his deciding to go in. yeah. >> when elon musk met. >> with prime minister modi earlier today, did he do so as an american ceo, or did he do so as a representative of the us government?

>> are you talking about me? >> no. elon musk. >> elon i don't know. he they met and i assume he wants to do business in india. but india is a very hard place to do business in because of the tariffs. they have the highest tariffs just about in the world and it's a hard place to do business. no, i would imagine he met possibly because you know he's running a company. he's he's doing this as a as something that he's felt strongly about for a long time because he sees what's happening and he sees how the country is really being hurt badly by all of the fraud, waste and abuse. >> going on. whether he's meeting with the. >> ceo or. >> meeting with. >> a representative of your government. >> well, he's meeting with me in a little while, so i'm going to ask him that question. all right. i'll ask him that question. yeah. >> what should we expect, sir? you mentioned obviously steel and aluminum and pharmaceuticals. >> what are. >> you thinking of? >> i think autos are coming soon. i think they're all coming more or less at the same time.