Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Big Law And Academia: Capitulation Or Cooperation?; Stocks Plunge As Tariff Chaos Rocks Markets. Will Congress Act To Stop Trump's Tariff Policy? Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 05, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: If you miss a conversation or story, check out our show's website and you can listen to our show as a podcast.

Tonight, remember to tune in for an all new episode of "Have I Got News for You." Guests this week will be Congressman Ro Khanna and comedian Karen Chee. That's at 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN.

Thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:33]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. That was Shakespeare 435 years ago. It may as well have been Donald Trump in 2025. You know, that line is often misunderstood.

It's not a condemnation of lawyers, but an acknowledgement of their vital role. The character Dick the Butcher says it he wants to overthrow the government. And lawyers are obstacles because they represent the rule of law. In other words, lawyers are the backbone of a stable society. Nevertheless, lawyers remain an easy target.

In January, Gallup released their latest ratings of professions by honesty and ethics. Nurses on top, 76 percent regard the profession as high or very high. Only 17 percent said the same about lawyers.

I've often said about trial lawyers in particular, by the way, my full time profession before I turn to radio and T.V. hosting, that everybody despises them until they need one. No doubt President Trump respects lawyers and not just Roy Cohn. Trouble is, he respects them the same way that Dick the Butcher does. Why else would he put the profession at the top of the list of those he is seeking to stifle? It's because he realizes the unique position lawyers can play in thwarting his agenda.

After all, Democrats can't stop him. They lack the votes in the House and the Senate. Cory Booker stayed on his feet in the well of the Senate for a record 25 hours and five minutes. A true feat of urinary endurance. But in the end, it was simply performative. No, Trump knows that his only true opposition could come from the bar. And that's why he's used executive orders, sometimes as a threat, sometimes in actuality against several top firms. Financially devastating orders that would say the government won't contract with businesses represented by these firms. And it bars access to federal buildings, which apparently means lawyers couldn't go into federal courthouses or have meetings with government lawyers. This is a core legal principle.

Lawyers aren't to be punished for their clients or their zealous advocacy. They're protected by the First Amendment, which the executive orders seem to contravene. Think about that it's akin to denying a surgeon access to an operating room or telling a pilot they can't board the airplane. Those who made the list are a real murderer's row, including Covington and Burling, a firm that assisted Special prosecutor Jack Smith, who oversaw criminal investigations into Trump. Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and played a part in commissioning the notorious Steele dossier.

Paul Weiss, which was involved in January 6th litigation and had a partner who assisted Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg in his criminal case against Trump. Jenner and Block and WilmerHale, which both employed members of Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. Wilkie Farr, which employs Kamala Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff, and lead investigator for the January 6 committee, Timothy Heaphy. Some of those firms are fighting back. Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, WilmerHale have all won temporary restraining orders blocking Trump's punishments, with courts ruling that these orders are likely unconstitutional.

And just last night, hundreds of firms joined Perkins Coie in issuing a court filing known as an amicus brief, denouncing the president's executive order, saying his actions endanger the rule of law. Some of the nation's largest firms targeted on that list, however, were not part of that filing and are not standing up against lawfare and are already making deals with the Trump administration. Paul, Weiss agreed to 40 million in pro bono work and abandoned DEI initiatives. Scadden, not even publicly targeted, struck a $100 million pro bono deal. And recently, Wilkie Farr agreed to spend up to $100 million for pro bono clients and causes that are agreeable to the White House.

Doug Emhoff reportedly told his firm not to strike that deal. Despite that objection, the message, unsaid but implied, is that these firms are not going to take on work against the Trump administration. Thus, it appears these firms are letting the president dictate who they'll represent. And now that they've knuckled under once, why wouldn't the president make them do it again? This capitulation is unnecessary.

After all, look at the 500 firms that signed on to the amicus brief. So it's all a gut check, a true character check for the legal profession. Stand up for yourself, your colleagues, the Constitution, the rule of law, or surrender and subordinate your role to the preferences of the president.

[09:05:07] Dean Erwin Chemerinsky at the Berkeley School of Law has opined that President Donald Trump is trying to intimidate his critics into silence. And sadly, it's working. Chemerinsky lamented that he'd asked 197 law school deans to sign a petition condemning their government's efforts to punish lawyers, and only 79 would do so. Among those missing in action Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Columbia, NYU and Northwestern. And this is only one front in Trump's war to stifle dissent.

He's also taken on the press. For instance, he sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos, in a 2024 interview, repeatedly claimed that Trump had been, quote, "found liable for rape." Stephanopoulos was wrong, but in my opinion, whether his comments were actionable under the "New York Times" versus Sullivan, that was probably worth fighting over. Instead, ABC settled for $15 million and an expression of regret.

Trump has also sued CBS for $20 billion, claiming that its editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris amounted to election interference. Reportedly, there's great dissent within CBS's parent, Paramount Global, over whether to settle the case, but with the company seeking to merge with Skydance Media paying off Trump might seem like a rounding error.

Meanwhile, many claim that both Apple and Metta have been cozying up to the White House, with Apple's Tim Cook announcing the company will invest 500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years. And met as Mark Zuckerberg changing Facebook content policy in ways that would seem to please the president.

And while we're at it, Trump has barred the Associated Press from the Oval Office and White House press pool because it won't follow the president's order changing the Gulf of Mexico name to the Gulf of America. The AP is challenging the ban in court, but so far not succeeded.

Trump is also seeking to silence voices in academia and college campuses. More than 50 universities are being investigated for their DEI programs. If colleges aren't in compliance with the White House take on civil rights, they could lose federal funding. Trump has already pulled $400 million in grants at Columbia due to alleged inaction in protecting Jewish students. To get funding restored, Columbia gave in to the White House demands, including adopting a formal definition of anti-Semitism and changing its student protest policies.

Then there's Princeton University. The Trump White house has suspended $210 million in research grants while the Department of Education investigates anti-Semitism at the school.

The Trump administration has also made demands on Harvard. To save their federal funding, they must end DEI and modify programs that allegedly fuel anti-Semitism. Same for Brown University. The White House there planning to freeze $510 million in federal funds.

With all this happening, the president shows no signs of slowing down. Apparently he wants to put everybody on notice, attacking me and my policies, it's not cost free. And if you don't think so, just try and find out.

It's not like weren't warned. He said a couple of years ago at CPAC, I am your warrior. I am your justice. I am your retribution. One thing's for sure, he is his own retribution.

And as Hamlet said, the readiness is all. Which brings us back to Shakespeare and let's kill all the lawyers. Of course, the Bard wasn't the only wordsmith to comment on the bar. And to offer words that resonate today, the late, great Warren Zevon put it more simply, bring lawyers guns and money. The shit has hit the fan.

Joining me now, author of that recent op-ed in "The Washington Post" "Trump is targeting law firms and academia. Why don't they speak up?" Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky.

Dean, nice to see you again. Listen, law firms, they've got ethical duties, but they are businesses that exist to make money. So in settling with President Trump, are they not making a prudent business decision?

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, DEAN, UC BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW: I don't think they're making a prudent decision at all. What we've got to remember is that everything you described is blatantly illegal. And if all the law firms had stuck together, they would win. Three judges have already said, and it's three out of three, that what Trump was doing violated the law. And I think what's sad here is the law firm settling with President Trump just enables him to go further.

We all learned on the playground that if you give into a bully, you make it worse.

SMERCONISH: OK, I'm continuing to play devil's advocate with you because I've already tipped my hand. If a firm's lawyers are to be restricted from a courthouse, however unfair that might be, are they not representing the best interests of their clients by settling with Trump so as to remove that impediment?

CHEMERINSKY: Only if you assume that the executive orders are legal. Only if you assume there's a chance that Trump could win in court.

[09:10:02]

These executive orders, if allowed to stand, would put the law firms out of business. Law firms can't operate if their clients can't contract with the federal government. But as soon as Perkins Coie was subjected to the executive order, it went to court and it won. As soon as Jenner and Block and WilmerHale were subjected to the executive orders, they went to court and they won. And if every law firm had done this, President Trump would back down.

But big law firms settling just enables him and encouraged him to go after other law firms.

SMERCONISH: Here's part of what President Trump himself has said on the matter. Roll that tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You see what we're doing with the colleges, and they're all bending and saying, sir, thank you very much, we appreciate it. And they are -- nobody can believe it, including law firms that have been so horrible. Law firms that nobody would believe, and they're just saying, where do I sign? Where do I sign? Nobody can believe it.

And there's more coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Is he exaggerating when he says they're just rolling over and saying, where do I sign? Where do I sign?

CHEMERINSKY: It's certainly true of the law firms. A number of law firms that hadn't even targeted yet for executive orders has settled with President Trump.

And something you said is so important. One of the core principles of the legal profession is that lawyers should never be punished for the clients they represent or lawful zealous advocacy. And each of these law firms being punished explicitly so in the executive orders, just out of retribution.

SMERCONISH: Why do you think that you were unsuccessful largely in getting all the law schools on board to sign the letter that you circulated? I gave the data already in terms of how many you solicited and how many actually agreed.

CHEMERINSKY: I think people are afraid to speak up right now. They think that if they speak up, they're going to make their universities a target. Though again, if all 197 law school deans had signed a letter, we would have protection just because it was all of us. Unfortunately, only 79 out of 197 signed.

SMERCONISH: Dean, back in the day, it's been a while, but I spent three summers working at big law at a big law firm in a summer program. I know what that's like. And I'm putting myself today in the position of perhaps some of your Berkeley law students who've already agreed to work at these firms or firms like them. How do they come out in all of this and what kind of reaction are you hearing from them? Because if there's pro bono work to be done, arguably they'll be doing a lot of it.

CHEMERINSKY: I'm hearing great concern from my students and also my recent graduates. I get so many calls from associates at these firms who had graduated from Berkeley Law wondering if that's where they want to stay. I'm hearing from students who accepted offers, questioning whether that's where they want to go.

SMERCONISH: Is it a generational divide or maybe it's a financial divide? Maybe the partners are saying this is something we're not cool with, but we have to do it because they've got skin in the game. Otherwise the firms could be jeopardized their bottom line, whereas the younger associates are the ones who are more rebellious.

CHEMERINSKY: I don't think it's a generational divide. Keep in mind that Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block and WilmerHale didn't capitulate. They went to court. The question is, why didn't every law firm take that approach? There's of course a risk in fighting, in not capitulating, but I think there's a much larger risk when law firms give in because the president just goes one after another and he's not going to stop with the few that he's targeted.

SMERCONISH: Final thought. You heard me say at the outset that Democrats hands are tied. And I'm not seeking to cast the firms in a partisan role, but the Democrats hands are tied because they just don't have the votes in the House or the Senate. So the best that they can do is put Cory Booker on his feet for 25 hours and 5 minutes. What do we lose as a society when the law firms are now sent to the sidelines?

CHEMERINSKY: It's exactly as you said, who's going to challenge the myriad of unconstitutional Trump actions if the law firms are intimidated? It's the large law firms that have the resources to do so. But any law firm now knows if it brings a challenge to an unconstitutional Trump action, that firm can be targeted and its re existence threatened.

SMERCONISH: Dean, stick around for one moment. Put up on the screen some of the social media reaction to the program. I may want to lean on Erwin Chemerinsky to respond. Silent, says this person. They are screaming like stuck pigs.

They can't handle playing on a playing -- level playing field. They have been out to get Trump from day one 10 years ago. Will you respond to that to the perception that these firms have been after him, their law firm is what arguably, you know, gave rise to him being elected again. They deserve it. Your thoughts?

[09:15:03]

CHEMERINSKY: But that's not why these law firms are being targeted. Perkins Coie is targeted because it once represented Hillary Clinton. Paul Weiss was targeted because of the pro bono work that it did on behalf of those who were hurt by the January 6th insurrectionists. But even if this wasn't so, retribution is never an acceptable use of presidential power. The executive orders say this is just about retribution.

SMERCONISH: Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of UC Berkeley. Thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

CHEMERINSKY: Always great to talk with you.

SMERCONISH: Up ahead, the Trump tariffs setting off a massive global reorder as China slaps a 34 percent tariff on American made goods. Did the administration overplay its hand or is this all part of the strategy? He says, the president says, he's playing chess others are playing checkers. We're about to find out because the president's top trade counselor, Peter Navarro, is here to shed some light on the financial chaos erupting from these tariffs.

I want to know what you think. Go to smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Will the Trump administration's tariffs ultimately be good or bad for the United States? Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter while you're there at smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:32]

SMERCONISH: President Trump's tariff chaos sending the stock market down this week with record lows. NASDAQ closed in a bear market for the first time since 2022, down more than 20 percent from its record high just this past December. The Dow posted its biggest back to back losses since March. The S&P fell 6 percent on Friday, bringing its losses for the week to 9.1 percent.

And while markets, along with our 401ks, are reeling here at home on the international stage, China threw down the gauntlet, becoming the first country to retaliate against the United States in the global trade war. It slapped a 34 percent retaliatory tariff on all American exports to the country. One of the biggest allies following suit, Canada enacted reciprocal tariffs against the U.S. putting a 25 percent tariff on cars and car parts.

And to bring it back home, inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying Friday that Trump's tariffs were, quote, "Larger than expected and could raise inflation." Powell therefore said that he'll keep interest rates steady for the time being.

So, when is the administration expecting the chaos to calm and the green to return to the boards? The perfect person to talk about it right now, President Trump Senior counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, Peter Navarro.

Peter, thank you so much for being here. Did you anticipate, did you forecast this bad of a market reaction to the announcement?

PETER NAVARRO, TRUMP SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE & MANUFACTURING: It's really great to be back with you after many years. We talked a lot during the first term.

With respect to the markets, look, it's been an orderly retreat, as it were. We're in a situation where we're simply rebalancing and restructuring. I can guarantee you that the market will find its bottom, that we will have -- the Dow hit 50,000 easily during the Trump second term. And that S&P 500, which is 500 companies, will have a very broad based recovery and it will involve many, many companies.

The Biden market went up for the s and P500, but 90 percent or so of the gains for the S&P 500 was only the magnificent seven AI stocks and about 80 percent of the stocks in the S&P 500 were simply stagnating or going up a little.

Fifty thousand on the Dow, to put that in perspective, that's only about 5 percent a year. So it's not that unattainable. So people need to just simply observe what's going on now, not get panicked by the media and understand that what's going to happen is that the stocks that are going to be the winners as we move forward are those who are going to be the domestic manufacturers who make stuff here. So the markets will be just fine.

Now the other thing to say here when everybody else is watching the stock market, I'm watching the bond market and we've had mortgage rates now below 6 percent. We're having the long bond go down in terms of yield. That's going to be great for home buyers again, for auto buyers again. And everything in place, Michael, you have to look at the tariff --

SMERCONISH: But, Peter --

NAVARRO: -- one commentator said is a chapter in a longer book of Drill, baby, drill ship oil.

SMERCONISH: But my question --

NAVARRO: Sure, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: OK, but my question remains. I'm holding up the front page of the "New York Times" today with all the --

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- downward trajectory. And I simply want to know --

NAVARRO: Sure.

SMERCONISH: -- did you anticipate this? If I had been with you two or three days ago at the announcement in the Rose Garden, would you have expected that on Saturday morning it would all, as I said, have hit the fan to this extent?

NAVARRO: Hasn't hit the fan. Look, sure, what we're having is going to be a restructuring and a repricing of companies. That's a given. I mean, it's a given.

But what's also a given is we're going to have --

SMERCONISH: So you knew this would happen?

NAVARRO: What's this you're referring to? We knew that markets were going to refresh (ph).

SMERCONISH: Well, I'm referring to 9.1 percent --

NAVARRO: Again, the bond market (inaudible) too.

SMERCONISH: -- of the S&P 500 bottom falling out in one week.

NAVARRO: Look -- OK. So let's level set here for the American people. And this would be a great poll question. Do you think the world is treating the United States and its manufacturing base fairly? The problem we're trying to deal here with, and I would love to see the "New York Times" put up a front page on this is a national emergency associated with a $1.2 trillion annual trade deficit that is the result of systematically higher tariffs and non-tariff barriers which are institutionalized by the World Trade Organization.

[09:25:07]

That's what we're up against. Michael, we've transferred $18 trillion of wealth into foreign hands since China joined the WTO in 2001. Eighteen trillion --

SMERCONISH: You could --

NAVARRO: -- that's 2/3 of our annual GDP in 2024. We cannot afford to keep going.

SMERCONISH: I have a -- I have a different question.

NAVARRO: Sure.

SMERCONISH: OK. I have a different question. By the way, you can easily convince me we've been taken advantage of.

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: You'll have a much more difficult time convincing me, this is the approach to get it back. But I want to ask you a very basic, practical question --

NAVARRO: Sure.

SMERCONISH: -- because I -- you know, I can understand things on a very basic level far more than the concepts. Guy calls my radio show yesterday from Florida.

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: He sells bicycles. And he tells me I get my bicycles from Taiwan and I've got 20 cartons of bicycles now overseas that I cannot afford because they're being hit with a 43 percent tariff that I will have to pay. I can't afford it. My margin isn't 43 percent. And if I do, I need to pass that on to U.S. consumers.

What's the answer to him?

NAVARRO: The answer to him is what we saw when we put on the historic China tariffs during the first term is that the people shipping product from Taiwan or China or Vietnam or wherever it's going to come are going to absorb much of that burden. And what we're going to see is Schwinn and the other bikes which we used to buy and ride when were kids made here back in America. And we'll have people being able to have jobs making things like bicycles again and cars again and all sorts of kitchen cabinetry. And by the way, the shrimpers down in Louisiana will be able to have a decent living down there instead of having to get hammered by Vietnam and Thailand with all that. And the big picture here, Michael, is that it's time, it's decades past time for us to bring back our manufacturing and defense industrial base so that we have both economic prosperity and national security. We can't keep send in a trillion dollars or more offshore every year along with our factories and our jobs, and then let foreigners come in and buy our housing, buy our office buildings, buy our farmland, buy our food supply. So, can we talk about that, Michael? You can -- we're having a moment in history here.

SMERCONISH: And we are. I mean, we are. How practical is it to think that with the U.S. at near full employment, if those manufacturing jobs were to come back, that we'd fill them and that they wouldn't be filled by robots? I mean, I'm questioning now the objective at the end of the road according to the administration. Quickly respond to that, if you don't mind, before we run out of time.

NAVARRO: Sure. Liberation Day, President Trump's speech we had Brian (ph) get up from the UAW and tell everybody about how there's empty factories, unutilized factories in Detroit. We're going to fill all that up. There are going to be high wage factories. It's going to beautiful.

We have $3 trillion of investment committed. That's a -- that's -- I think that's like a substantial part of our GDP and it's going to be great. And there's going to be plenty of work for the robots and the people. And right now there's not enough work for the people and not enough good wages for the people. That's going to change and we'll be able to defend ourselves, protect our assets and that's what all about.

Again with your poll, I hope you will ask him, do you think America has been treated fairly? Do you think we need a strong manufacturing base? I'd love to see the results from your audience.

SMERCONISH: Peter, Peter, guess what?

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: That is tomorrow's poll question.

NAVARRO: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: You've just dictated tomorrow's poll -- tomorrow's poll question.

NAVARRO: I appreciate that.

SMERCONISH: Final question because --

NAVARRO: Yes, sir.

SMERCONISH: -- you don't seem -- you don't seem unsettled by the market this week. Let me ask one final question. How bad would the markets have to get before there would be a course correction, a change of policy by you, by President Trump? How bad would things have to get? NAVARRO: Michael, you know, for 10 years I was a commentator on CNBC. I lived my life doing macro forecasting and stock market analysis. Everything's going to be flying, particularly if the media will calm down and try and not get people panicked. The market will find a bottom. It will be soon.

And from there we're going to have a bullish boom. And the Dow is going to hit 50,000 during Trump's term. The S&P 500 is going to have a very broad based recovery and wages are going to go up, profits are going to go up and life's going to beautiful here in America. Trust in Trump.

We had the same kind of hysteria during the first time on China tariffs. And you were a little part of that. I went back and looked at some of your transcripts and this can't happen again. So the media needs to have some responsibility in this matter. "The Times," the Wall Street Journal --

SMERCONISH: Well, I get -- give --

NAVARRO: -- should be publishing stories --

SMERCONISH: OK. Give me the final --

NAVARRO: -- about the destruction of America.

SMERCONISH: Give me the -- give me the --

NAVARRO: -- by the -- by the unfair trade.

SMERCONISH: -- final word. Give me the final word. I understand --

NAVARRO: Oh, sure.

SMERCONISH: I understand --

NAVARRO: Go for it.

SMERCONISH: -- market volatility.

NAVARRO: It's your show.

SMERCONISH: I was --

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: I was -- theoretically. I was -- I was a friend of the late great Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, who believed in owning a total market index fund, own the whole market. And Bogle would famously say, don't look at the statements. Don't drive yourself crazy. When it's time for retirement, all will be well.

Jeremy Siegel wrote the book, you know, "Stocks for the Long Run." I get that mindset. I believe it. But I worry about the couple that has played by the rules and now is their retirement moment. And they look at their 401(k) and they're -- they're wiped-out 10 percent in the last week. Thirty seconds, the final word is yours.

NAVARRO: They just have to be patient. We're going to hit 50,000 on the DOW. We're going to have a broad-based S&P 500 recovery. And it will involve 80 percent of the S&P 500 instead of seven A.I. companies.

And life's going to be good not just for Wall Street but for main street. We care about main street as well, Michael, and that's a big difference. We want people in America to have good jobs, rising real wages, and we want this country to have a defense industrial base and manufacturing base that will defend us in time of need.

We can't keep doing what we're doing. I think your poll will indicate that most people agree with that. So, let's see what happens as the boss says, but I'm confident that the markets will be strong and that we will have a great economy because we did it before, Michael.

Remember this. We did it. Donald Trump did it in the first term. Let's not forget that. And everything in the first term was about people criticizing him, warning of inflation and recession. All we got was price stability and a strong economy and rising real wages.

SMERCONISH: OK. Hopefully you'll come.

NAVARRO: It's a beautiful thing.

SMERCONISH: I need to continue.

NAVARRO: Anytime you want, Michael. I always enjoy being with you.

SMERCONISH: I want to continue this. Come back.

NAVARRO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: OK. Thank you, Peter. Peter Navarro, ladies and gentlemen. He has determined tomorrow's poll question. Now let me tell you today's. Here's today's poll question.

Will the Trump administration tariffs ultimately be good or bad for the United States? I think it's a fair question. Fairly phrased, right down the middle. Go to my Web site and cast a ballot. And tomorrow come back to the Web site and I'll word it Peter's way.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Later, President Trump's self-inflicted tariff crisis triggering chaos and confusion. But is it all part of his political calculus? Could he be playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers?

Would you please sign up for my daily newsletter at Smerconish.com. when you're voting? It's free and it's worthy. And you'll get the work of prize-winning illustrators like Rob Rogers, who drew this, and Jack Ohman, who drew that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:37:26] SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media outlets and platforms. I don't see your social media in advance. You get that, right? Other programs, they do it differently when they imitate us. I don't see them.

Instead, it's my poor producer, T.C. Cannon, who has to wade through all of them and decide what's going to come up on the screen. I did get a note from her, however, that said, you're going to be happy because everybody is angry at you today. And I know what she means by that. I would be disappointed if only one side of the aisle were upset with me.

I'm a Trump fan but not sure how this is going to work. I have lost a ton of money in the last few weeks which will take a long time to make up along the prices going up. It's time for him to address the people and explain how much longer it will last.

I share -- I share that perception of being worried about how it ends. And I did ask Peter twice, was this anticipated? I mean, like give us a comfort level that in the White House war room, as they were announcing what they were announcing in the Rose Garden that they expected things were going to really be problematic for -- how long? Days, weeks, months?

I don't know. Like give the market some comfort. And as I said previously, I worry most about people who are vulnerable now because now is their retirement moment. And OK, they followed Bogle's advice for all those years and they never looked at the statement. But they've got no choice except to look now.

More social media reaction. What do we have?

Tariffs won't bring America back. They'll hold us back. Trump sells factory nostalgia, but most of us don't work in steel or coal anymore and that's a good thing. We're in tech, services, small business. Tariffs kill those jobs. Don't fight the future. Build it.

I mean, that's part of the point that I was making in recounting the conversation that I had with the caller yesterday, importing the bikes. What's the premise? The premise is OK. If a 43 percent tariff has been slapped on that which comes from Taiwan, then someone surely will fill the void here in the United States and create manufacturing jobs. To which I then respond, will it be humans or will it be robots?

I mean, you know, because many of you are angry about the fact that I love bragging about my Tesla. Well, it rolled off the assembly line in Fremont, California. I'm dying to see the inside of the plant. From the footage that I've seen, it's entirely robotic. So, are we really bringing back manufacturing jobs to that person's comment? I think that it's a worthy question.

I wish I had more time for social media reaction, but I do not. Ron Burgundy needs his prompter. Can somebody put that back up on the screen? Stay classy, San Diego.

[09:40:00] And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will the Trump administration tariffs ultimately be good or bad for the United States?

Still to come, Congress has the power to halt Trump's tariffs. But are Republicans ready to use it? Well go there next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Congress has the power to halt Trump's tariffs. It doesn't look like Republicans are ready to use it. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are expected to introduce two bills next week aimed at restoring congressional power over Trump's trade war.

The bipartisan Senate bill, led by top Republican Chuck Grassley, would require Trump to justify new tariffs to Congress and need congressional approval within 60 days, or else they would expire. GOP congressman Don Bacon expected to be the first House Republican to challenge Trump's tariffs and introduce a House bill to the floor. Bacon's move, a rare step in the deeply Trump loyal House Republican conference.

Joining me now, Jonathan Allen, senior national politics reporter for NBC News, Amie Parnes, senior political correspondent for "The Hill."

[09:45:06]

They are the co-authors of this new book, "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House," currently, number three on Amazon. I'm going to ask you about the book in a moment. But, Jonathan, humor me. You're watching what's going on with the tariffs? Do you think there will be any blowback from Republicans?

JONATHAN ALLEN, SENIOR NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, NBC NEWS: I think it really matters what the time horizon of the pain is, right? So, we're seeing, obviously, the stock market pain as a very early indicator. And there are people who are watching their 401(k)s go down and getting very nervous about it. I think his base is pretty strong. And they'll stick with him for a little bit.

But the other piece of this is prices are likely to go up. And if you are watching your 401(k) go down and your prices go up, if you support the president, you'll -- you'll have a little bit of tolerance for that. But not indefinite tolerance.

SMERCONISH: Amie, I would think that people who are looking at their statements are calling their members of Congress and their senators. How long until Republicans buckle on that issue?

AMIE PARNES, SENIOR POLITICS CORRESPONDENT, THE HILL: Very soon, Michael. Because I'm hearing from a lot of Republicans already -- Trump supporters who are uncomfortable with how things are going right now. And they're going home for the Easter break shortly, and I expect them to hear a mouthful from a lot of their constituents.

SMERCONISH: You two have a hit book. I'm going to put up on the screen some of the headlines that have been drawn from the book so far. Put that up so I can take a peek. Yes, there are some of them. Kirkus Reviews, dishy scoops fuel a comprehensive account of a historic election.

Jonathan, what's your headline? Because I've read the book and I've read the takeaways, and everybody likes to isolate, like, wow, here's the big revelation. If you were writing a review of your book, what's the biggest thing the two of you revealed?

ALLEN: The biggest takeaway is the broad one, which is that if Democrats keep their heads in the sand, they're going to continue to get their butts kicked. They deluded themselves into thinking that Joe Biden was going to be fine. The leadership of the Democratic Party told Democratic voters and swing voters that Joe Biden was fine. They told them all sorts of things that weren't true.

You know, what we've seen so far, I think, is a continuation of the heads in the sand. And the other thing is the Democratic Party right now is an anti-Trump coalition and has not offered a vision for the major things that particularly swing voters were interested in this election, which is what is their vision for an economy? What is their alternative to what Trump is offering?

So, we can look at the tariffs right now, for example, and say, you know, there are going to be a lot of people that are upset with that. But what is the Democratic view for a modern American economy? What was the Democratic view for how to deal with a border situation that has been untenable for decades?

And the Democrats were unwilling to offer that to the American public. And I think if they, you know, they continue to do that, continue to reassure themselves that just being anti-Trump will be good enough they're going to continue to get their butts kicked.

SMERCONISH: OK. Decent answer, not dishy enough. Amie, let me try with you. Clooney --

PARNES: I mean - yes.

SMERCONISH: Clooney, the essay. Obama.

PARNES: Yes.

SMERCONISH: What went on with Clooney? Put that headline back on the screen so that everybody remembers it wasn't a politician. It was an actor who stepped out for the first time. I love Joe Biden, but we need a new nominee. Give me the 62nd version of Barack Obama's involvement with Clooney.

PARNES: Well, we know that they all knew that this was coming. That's what's so fascinating. We report in the book that Jeffrey Katzenberg, who's an Obama ally, obviously, is trying to quash the entire op-ed. And it's coming at a time where there is a one-two punch for Biden.

He's -- this op-ed is out there and Pelosi is on national television essentially saying Biden has a decision to make. And what we do is we take you inside that moment of the book. It's amazing.

You learn something new on every page, Michael. I'm not just saying that because this is our book. It is a playbook for going forward, and it is something that Democrats and Republicans can learn from.

SMERCONISH: Number three book in the country. Congratulations to both of you. Thank you for being here.

ALLEN: Thanks, Michael. And I'll give you some dish --

PARNES: Thanks, Michael.

ALLEN: -- if we can have a cigar soon.

SMERCONISH: Please, let's have the dish conversation on radio. I know you can do better than that, Jonathan.

You still have time to vote. Today's poll question at Smerconish.com, will the Trump administration tariffs ultimately be good or bad for the United States? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's awesome. It's free. Steve Breen just -- come on. Look at that. It's genius.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:02]

SMERCONISH: OK. So, there is the poll result -- wow, 55,947. That's like D1 football stadium. Will the Trump administration tariffs ultimately be good or bad for the United States? Ninety-two percent saying, negative.

Here's some of the social media reaction that came in for the program thus far. What do we have?

I'm tired of hearing in the long run things will be great. Today, I have to feed my children. Today, I have to pay my mortgage. Today, I need money et cetera, et cetera. How do you justify the lack of money to the American people today?

Colleen, I'm not here to carry the water for the administration, but they would say that they're writing a playing surface that long has been unfair to the United States and it's going to take time. More social media reaction. Here's some more that came in. What do we have?

Why would anyone in the Trump administration tell us commoners -- why would -- what their real plan is and how long the tariffs will stay in place?

Well, Christopher, I didn't -- I didn't ask that question. You didn't hear me ask Peter Navarro for how long will they stay in place?

[09:55:00]

What you heard me say is, was this anticipated? I simply wanted to know was this part of their forecast or are they behind closed doors saying, holy smokes, look what we've created in the same way that that many investors are? And he really didn't answer that question. I did ask at what point would you have a course correction and reverse policy if this gets even worse?

One more social media reaction. Let's see it.

These lawyers have no integrity. They suffer from Trump derangement syndrome and distort the law. They, not Trump, are the threat to democracy.

RI, I disagree with you. I'm not defending the lawfare that was used against Trump. Did you hear me say that? Yes. I'm of that opinion in Atlanta and in the New York case. I've always made that crystal clear. But for these law firms to be folding their tents now and getting in line, it removes a very important guardrail that should exist with regard to any American president.

Tomorrow, Sunday, Peter Navarro asked for, do you think America has been treated fairly by her trade partners? That will be the Sunday question.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)