Trump WH Aide Peter Navarro joins The Beat

Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Burlington knows you cannot forget Mother's Day. And be real, texting your sibling to add your name to their card isn't enough. Instead, head to your newly refreshed Burlington, where it's easier to shop for deals that'll make Mom proud. Find fragrances from perfume to candles or opt for a brand name bag. Plus, your store had a glow-up, so it's more fun to shop for those special women in your life. Mom is Wow upside down after all. Burlington, deals, brands, wow. Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melbert. We are covering more of the reaction, the law enforcement response, and what is increasingly a very divided political response to the terrible shooting of Charlie Kirk. This is a nation that is reckoning with things we do know about, gun violence, political violence, and a range of reactions from leaders. There have been many leaders who have been responsible and tried to tone down the rhetoric, others dialing up the rhetoric. Now, Let's start with the most basic thing that is the same as it was last week. Law enforcement officials have not determined or publicized a motive for 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. He will be charged tomorrow, and given the voluminous evidence, he is, as always, legally presumed innocent, but facing a lot of evidence that he was the shooter in this heinous act. That, of course, will be dealt with in court. Democratic leaders have condemned this shooting and this type of violence. The New York Times reports, the Trump White House, however, is not joining them in that type of approach where you just deal with this as a terrible and initially nonpartisan matter, especially with, as I remind you, no official motive from law enforcement, but instead is vowing a, quote, vast crackdown on their opponents on what they call in the Times headline liberal groups. threatening to bring the weight of the feds down on what they alleged was a left-wing network that funds and incites violence. And the Times reports that this White House, again, before all the facts about what is already clearly a terrible killing, for those facts are in, they are, quote, seizing on the killing to make broad and unsubstantiated claims about their political opponents. The problem is on the left. It's not on the right. And when you look at the agitators, you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that's the left. That's not the right. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left. They're already under investigation. That's the president's response. Fact check, largely false and misleading.

No motive yet for this shooter. And Donald Trump, along with other political leaders in both parties, have faced this type of risk. No one's underestimating that. It is a serious and terrible time. But what he said there about attributing blame in a generalized manner or attributing this violence to only one ideology in the United States is not true. There are the luminous reports on this, including from the government that he, of course, oversees now as president, DHS, DOJ, and experts who are nonpartisan and independent, who study this for a living and have pointed to the rise in violence in the United States, some of it political and coming from all sides and often not neatly cleaved into exact partisan groups. There were attacks on Nancy Pelosi's household when the intruder stormed in and brutally attacked her husband. Democratic lawmakers assassinated in Minnesota. As I just mentioned before, the attempted terrible assassination of then former President Trump. He was, of course, a candidate last year before winning the election. There's this killing of Kirk, who was a very prominent conservative. This is a dangerous moment and one that will continue to require not meeting fire with fire or rhetoric with rhetoric, but both acknowledging and then fact-checking and putting aside false claims wherever they may emanate from. Now, that is clearly what you just heard, what Donald Trump is saying, what the New York Times calls an exploitation for a crackdown is one response. Today, in what must have been, of course, a difficult and moving and really harrowing time for people who listened to Kirk regularly, who followed him as a leader, who respected him. He has one of these shows, right? So people were tuning back in, and they had an organized presentation from Vice President JD Vance, who also, we should note, was very friendly with him for years. There's a tough time for them as human beings. But there are many ways one could use this platform to mourn, to grieve, to... try unity. I want to just play you what the vice president did in part during that presentation on the Kirk platform today. Of course, we have to make sure that the killer is brought to justice. And importantly, we have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years. And I believe as part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin's bullet, we're going to talk about how to dismantle that and how to bring real unity. The vice president uses that term. I believe. So he's sharing his belief or opinion. And First Amendment protects that. He can share that. And again, as I'm careful to mention, he's very friendly with the deceased Mr. Kirk and his family. Tough time for all. But his belief is not the law enforcement conclusion. Indeed, we don't have a motive yet for this, not according to law enforcement. And they are clearly on the case charging the individual tomorrow. A guest today on that same Kirk platform was top White House official Stephen Miller. Here is what he said.

We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks. We are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie's name. Mr. Miller has a lot of power. He's talking about going after terrorist networks. As is often the case in a time like this, the government going after actual terrorist networks is a good thing generally welcomed by virtually everyone who's not a terrorist. But authorities so far have said this individual acted alone. We don't have any link from this terrible shooting to the idea of a wider network or funding, as he referenced there, of terrorism. And the separate advancement of that agenda may be fine, but combining it as the government is doing here, your government, your taxpayer dollars, today at the level of the vice president, the separate remarks from the president and Mr. Miller, who's number two staffer in the White House, is quite a considerable escalation. for what law enforcement has said thus far, and this could change, and if the evidence changes, we'll update you on it, but thus far they view as what they call a lone wolf for solo attack, not a network, let alone one that meets the definition of federal terrorism charges. Miller talked about specific agencies, he talked about going after opponents, and so this time, which could have been for mourning or grieving or some lowering. of the rhetoric, which we heard from some politicians last week, this is that time maybe to do that, instead has this coming from the incumbent administration and democratic officials pushing back. Instead, it looks as if President Trump and his allies are gearing up to potentially exploit this tragedy and use it as a means to do what they have been planning to do, what they have wanted to do for the entirety of their time in office, which is to try to use their control of the legal system to destroy, to obliterate the political opposition to Donald Trump. We're joined by New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg and MSNBC analyst and Maya Wiley, a former ST&Y civil prosecutor and president of leadership conference on civil and human rights. Maya, your view on how to deal with this responsibly, not falling into echoing or only rebutting what we're hearing while also taking it seriously because, as the New York Times puts it, there appears to be a much wider rushed agenda from the White House. Yeah, I mean, first starting with There's a difference between shooting someone and shunning someone. Let's just be very clear. Charlie Kirk should be alive today, and it is critically important that we have a process of fact-finding and the rights of every individual protected. That's number one.

The facts matter here. The facts do matter and should matter. And you laid them out, Ari, but the facts are, number one, that we have a serious problem of driving hate and bias in this country. And it does matter what political leaders say in terms of whether they're being part of the solution. or being part of the problem. Let me just say this one. We're even hearing this word political. with the word assassination. First of all, I don't think that's an accurate way to describe what is an act that should have never happened. No shooting should, in my view. And I come from the tradition where Shirley Chisholm, first black woman elected the Congress, went and sat at the bedside by George Wallace when he was shot, even though he was a segregationist, right? That is our tradition. That is our... experience, that is what we need to be about. But this is very, what's political here is claiming that someone who has every, every right to have his viewpoints, but also every right for the rest of us to shun the ideas that we heard, the ideas, the ideas that said that if you're gay, you should be stoned. The ideas that said you should think of black women as being intellectually inferior and incompetent, that is not. political. That is not partisan. That should not be seen as Democrat or Republican. That should just be seen as something we should as a nation and have as a nation traditionally shunned and should not see that as partisan politics. And certainly if we are at a time when the people who have been voted and elected into office use the powers of government to try to place blame on people who have taken no unlawful action for their viewpoints because that's part of what we're seeing out of New York Times reporting today about how the White House may be planning to go after not-for-profit organizations that have totally legitimate positions and, frankly, are trying to protect the rights and the democracy. of people in this country, the democracy that we all share, and the opportunity to have disagreement and to do it safely. Understood. I mean, very, very well put, and I hope people are listening. You know, Michelle, politics doesn't wait for facts, and a lot of politics gets facts, and then the political project is to... dispute, override, or lie about the facts that are inconvenient. I did mention that we're both covering the reality of this because this is what we're hearing from the administration right now while also bringing in everything we're learning about the shooting. So I want to add in one more fact about what I mentioned was what looks like considerable evidence against the shooter on these chat rooms and people have different things. People sometimes think they're...

Every bold journey starts with a decision to go, and if you're ready, the Defender is too. This is a vehicle built for more, whether you're heading off the grid or just getting out of town for the weekend. Defender is a true icon, reimagined for a new generation. Its rugged exterior is built from durable materials and tested in the toughest conditions. Inside, it's modern, functional, and refined, with smart storage and premium touches that keep you comfortable wherever the road leads. It's packed with tech like 3D surround cameras, clear site ground and rear views, driver assist features, and an intuitive infotainment system. With three models, the Defender 90, 110, and 130, there's a defender for every kind of adventure, from city streets to remote trails. This is a vehicle that, like you, is capable of great things. Explore the full defender lineup at Land Rover USA.com. More people, more devices, more AI. The way we live today takes a lot of energy. Wind and solar are powerful, but not always available. That's where natural gas comes in, with reliable energy whenever it's needed. Companies like energy transfer work behind the scenes, safely transporting these resources to facilities across the country through a network of underground pipelines. Learn more at it takesenergy.com. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters.

Donald Trump's unusual pick for FBI director Kash Patel is showing that his inexperience is a problem, and that's according to people inside the FBI and Trump administration as well as independent experts. Congress will be grilling him this week, a series of hearings that come at a precarious time for him. Fox News reporting on administration sources and others inside the FBI who just view him despite Trump's support as embattled and incompetent. Despite that report in Fox News, which speaks to the problems, he then went on Fox News today. The job of the FBI is not just to manhunt the actual suspect who did the killing or suspects, but it's also to eliminate targets and eliminate subjects who are not involved in the process, and that's what we were doing. Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment? Sure, but do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not. he's referencing there something we actually covered in real time as an unusual post that then was a misleading at best post but he may have been misinformed from the beginning which is exactly why as you know my having worked in DOJ alongside at the FBI they don't typically do it this way so he's doing it a different way that is being panned from all sides your thoughts on this this aspect of the story This aspect sort of story sounds like Kash Patel being political, which is why two Republican senators actually would not vote to confirm him, which is concerned about some of his political behavior before, you know, between the time when he left the White House and had his own private merchandising concerns, for example. So what he did was exactly what should never happen from anyone who's... heading the FBI, which is sharing anything before there's confirmation because this is not uncommon. It is not uncommon to have initial arrests and find out you don't actually have enough evidence. Or even if you have an initial arrest, you don't want to do anything that might undermine your investigation by suggesting you do have an arrest because if you find out there's someone else you're looking for, that could be a problem. So all I can say is it's actually very consistent with concerns that were raised as confirmation. hearing it's also very consistent in another way in his confirmation hearing he would not say that he would, for example, resign if asked to do the political bidding of Donald Trump and utilize the office in a way that either protected Donald Trump's allies or came after people he didn't like. And just to bring in Michelle, because I only have a minute left on this, they've also, under Kash Patel, fired a lot of career experts, and that seems to be... a net negative for law enforcement. Right, including somebody in Salt Lake City who was very known for, I guess, penetrating terrorist networks. And I mean, I think that, look, you need a functioning FBI. And that shouldn't, that's become a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. I think that, you know, you see this sort of nihilistic attack on state capacity in this administration, this, you know, kind of.

replacing qualified people with not just ideologs, but kind of clownish ideologs. And you're starting to see at least some people on the right, at least with this, realize that, you know, you maybe want your apparatchiks, but you want apparatchiks who know what they know what they're doing. Yeah, because the incompetence is what. Many people agree. And thank God somebody turned this guy in because they could, you know, I mean, what a disaster if he wasn't caught with all of the, I mean, you look at the conspiracy theories that are already percolating, you know, if he had been able to somehow get away. And there's kind of no evidence that they were closing in on him. I mean, they got lucky. Well, you say they got lucky in Trump that Steve Bannon said that as well, that it was a product of. Good thing people in the community did this. But Steve Bannon, of all people was saying this had nothing to do with Kash Patel or the FBI's actual law enforcement work, which... To your point means without the community, this killer could be at large. And that again goes to whether this FBI is fully staffed in functioning or whether it is a failed partisan experiment right now. Michelle and Maya, my thanks to both of you. Thank you. Legendary Bob Woodward is here tonight. We're going to play new things from him. You haven't heard yet. That's something we are looking forward to. Meanwhile, Trump's trade war is in trouble in the courts. Peter Navarro has a lot of experience on that and many other issues and joins us after the break. Do you remember in school when your teacher had a favorite of everything? A favorite marker, a favorite element, and yes, even a favorite student, who wasn't me, so let's move on. I want to talk about their real favorite thing. Kleenex tissues. According to teacher lists, Kleenex is the number one facial tissue trusted by teachers. Their silky soft help prevent skin irritation. And now, with Kleenex snap and go, you can take them anywhere. Stock up on the ultimate classroom favorite. For whatever happens next, Grab Kleenex. Need a lesson in savings? Who doesn't? That's where Burlington comes in for back-to-school style. Because those school lists get long, but your receipts shouldn't. Find backpacks and sneakers to sweatshirts and jeans. Burlington has them all from the brands your kids keep begging for. Why choose just a few looks? With our prices, just get them all. Burlington, deals, brands, wow. Everyone's talking about protein lately, but how do you actually get enough of it? Muscle milk. Muscle milk has a great-tasting new formula with no artificial sweeteners, flavors, or added colors. It's high-quality, complete protein designed to support healthy muscles with fewer ingredients than the previous formula and 206 to 42 grams of protein. For when you're stuck in meetings or need a post-work recovery, available in chocolate, vanilla cream, cookies and cream, and strawberries and cream. Try the new great-tasting muscle milk today. Available in stores nationwide, muscle milk. Protein for All.

Now we turn to a White House aide who has an interesting, if not perhaps unique story, Peter Navarro, one of the most influential economic voices in this White House. And you may recall his journey from first-term trade advisor, an influential member as well, of an ad hoc or ongoing effort to challenge Trump's loss in 2020 and ultimately going to jail for defying a congressional subpoena related to a Jan 6 probe. He is now, after all that, back. in a powerful post in the White House as senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. We had over 100 congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill ready to implement the sweep. And then they put me in handcuffs. They bring me here. They put me in leg irons. If they can come for me, and if they can come for Donald Trump. Be careful. They will come for you. And I guarantee no recession. Okay. There's not going to be any inflation. Lighthouse advisor Peter Navarro joins me live now. His new book, I went to prison. So You Won't Have to. He's out now a love and lawfare story in Trump land. Thanks for coming back on the program. It was a pleasure, Arden. Let's start with the book. What did you learn in this journey through prison or jail, three months, and back to the White House? So I wrote this, Aran, is a warning about the partisan weaponization of our justiceists and the lawfare that we... are encountering. And I want to appeal now to you as a legal expert on a nonpartisan basis. I don't even know this, but my case is on appeal. It's likely headed for the Supreme Court. And the question is very simple. Does Congress have the right to subpoena senior White House and advisors? And for 50 years, the Department of Justice. said no based on the principle of executive privilege, which goes back to George Washington, candor and confidentiality are required for presidential communications. And I had a duty to refuse that subpoena. And nothing to do with J6, good been to subpoena for anything. And I had a duty to refuse that. And I wound up going to prison for that. And if I lose my appeal. then every senior White House advisor going forward, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, will face that same kind. a dilemma, that Hobson's choice. Do your duty, maybe go to prison or bend the need? And you made that decision. Let me read from an interesting part in the book. You say inmates would regularly check this sort of legal federal database pacer to screen new inmates for danger signs that they would cooperate with law enforcement or be what some call, quote, snitches. Such searching is highly sophisticated and organized among the inmate population for safety and security you learned.

And then you recount an inmate telling you, Navarro, quote, you're okay because you're, quote, not a snitch. And you didn't rat out Trump. Well, finish you because. Go ahead. You finish it. There's a book. I mean, look, it's legal, but it's tragedy. It's funny. It's a love story. You know, my fiancé, went did the time with it. But in that post, I called them postcards from prison, I basically ended by saying I wasn't sure what the moral equivalence was of these felons basically not ratting out on their thing and me upholding the Constitution. And this wasn't about... That's my question for you. You include... You include that detail of someone who might be involved in something really bad saying you guys are similar. But he said we were similar. He said you were similar. Yeah, no, you write that detail. Yeah, but cooperating with law enforcement about helping them solve crimes is a good thing, yes? That was the funny part about the whole thing. There was some kind of moral equivalence to that. I mean, the book, the book itself, it's a bunch of different stories. But one of the things that happened, Ari, which I think will never happen again, is I go in there. could have just cried, you know, in my corner and kept my head down. And I wound up uncovering, but essentially it was a $5 billion scandal involving the failure to enforce what's called the First Step Act, which was a piece of bipartisan legislation spearheaded by Donald Trump to deal with harsh sentencing and basically move people out of the system, nonviolent first time offenders, out of the system faster. And I was, I discovered. in the course of my own trials and devils, that people were being kept in three to 12 months or more longer than the law required. And so... And just, I'm just going to just mention to viewers, you're talking about a reform act that basically tried to say people who've done their time nonviolent offenders should have some transition out to society. Yeah. And the reason why you want to do that is you want to punish people, I'm tough as crimes as anybody. You want to punish people up to the point where they get the message. But... As you go longer than that, recidivism increases. They lose their skills. They get alienated from their family. They learn more in the crime school, otherwise known as prison. So I was able to go in there and learn all about that. I wrote fairly actively op-eds from prison, talked about it. And now on the outside. The two reforms I advocated on the inside, which was to fix the way they forecast the FSA credits so people get those credits and get out on time. And then if there's not halfway house capacity, moving right to home. And you're, I'm jumping in. I got that policy already done. I've solved a five. And you're talking about nonviolent offenders. That's correct. Then in the book you write, quote, lock up the violent repeat offenders forever. let go release nonviolent offenders after appropriate punishment. So.

By that standard, was it wrong for President Trump to pardon all these violent offenders and let them out early from Jan 6th? When I was referring to that, I'm talking about, very specifically, about rapists and murders and people who are going to be a real danger. What about people who beat? Now, with respect. Police. With respect to the J6, there was just a lot of people there who don't fit that profile. What about the people attack police? I'm fine with what President Trump did. And I saw, look, Ari. Let's keep this down, temperature down on this. The judge, for example, who put me in prison, his name's Ahmed Mehta, okay? I never thought, Ari, that if I ever got in a situation where I went to trial, that by the time I got to a jury, I would be stripped of every single defense. And Judge Amman did that, hang on, but he did that by bending the Constitution in a way, which I think will be repudiated clearly. I don't know if you know this. The Department of Justice, of course, under Trump has already withdrawn their support of the government's case. And that's your case, and we followed that. I think we followed it as much as anyone. I want to play because of this distinction. JD Vance saying they shouldn't pardon the people who attack police. Take a list. Yes. If you protested peacefully on January the 6th and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned. And again, you've said the violent people should stay in prison. Violent repeat offenders, okay? And I'm talking about murderous rape. So is one time okay against the cops? And the reason why I'm asking you, Peter, is I'm going to play one more thing because, again, we have this chance to sit together. I don't think we should, look, if you don't get into the J6 thing, I think it's a, it's a dead end and a red hair. Well, it's your book is about the, I didn't go to prison. Well, you went on the, on the subpoena. It was a J6 pro. It was a misdemeanor. For simply refusing... For refusing to cooperate with the House J6 probe. Any kind of subpoena. In fact, I got... All right. I got... But I want to play your distinction because you at the time, when we talked about this, you also condemned the violent side of that day. Take a look at you. Yes.

The last three people on God's Good Earth who wanted violence that day on Capitol Hill was Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and myself. Because per the law, well within the lanes of the law, we had a strategy, not a plot, a strategy using the Electoral Count Act to get a legal counting of the actual votes. Now you're working for a president who, unlike what you said there, release the violent attackers. I'm not going to criticize the boss on this. Look. But help us understand that. Look, the people who were on J6, there were a few. who were very violent, okay? Mm-hmm. And they were... They did some time. I don't know the details on everybody who was part of. I'll just be honest about that. But I do know that a lot of the people who were put into prison by people like Judge Meda should never even been sent there. They could have been given just... I forget what you call it, but you found guilty and you let them out on their own reconnaissance. Look, I think that... I met some of these people, and it's, this is not about J6. It's about, I understand, but these are, I think you would agree. These are fair questions about what you said because you said no violence, and now you have a president who embraced the violent. You want me to criticize my president. I'm not going to do that. Well, I'm talking about the part decision. I'm not saying him writ large, but that decision. All right, we have your answer on that. Let me, let me get you, because I have you here today, talking about the book. You're also a big guy on trade. Yeah. Here's the court ruling. As you know, the court says... On trade, sure. Yeah, trade. The core congressional power to impose taxes, which is what the courts sometimes call tariffs, is vested exclusively in Congress. Tariffs are a core congressional power. Does this tie your hands? Where do you guys go from here? So this is very simple, Ari. There's a concern that I suffered. You remember that virtually everyone involved... in putting me in prison was a Democrat, okay? It was a Democrat Congress, party-line vote. It was a Democrat Justice Department, prosecutors. Merrick Garland and everybody in between. It was a Democrat appointed judge. Respectfully, is this the tariff answer? Yes, because what I'm going to tell you is that the court, which issued the opinion, if you look at the majority, it was seven, and there were six Democrats and one H.W. Bush appointee. And they made their decision. But what was very strange about this in encouraging.

was the dissent. It was a very strong dissent. You rarely see such a strong and thoughtful dissent written, and it was right on point. Then I wrote an article about this shortly afterwards about how it's basically a roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the terror. So let me just go through the issues. I mean, the first issue is, does the killing of Americans with fentanyl constitute emergency? Does the trade deficit, which is doing all sorts of things, our jobs and factories, creating supply chain vulnerabilities that are putting us at great risk. Does that qualify as much? I'll let you continue, but let me just jump in. So you're saying that dissent is like a road or a blueprint for how to redeem the trade war. Redeem the, whatever term you want to use, Peter, redeem the tariffs. But let me finish and I'll let you go. So you're saying that could be a roadmap that Supreme Court could bail out. So let's say one. Okay, if that happens, you guys win. If that doesn't happen, and the Supreme Court agrees with this lower court, which is the current law of the land, but it's going to be stayed upon the Supreme Court probably adjudicating this. If the Supreme Court agrees with this court, is that game over for these tariffs, or what do you guys do then? Well, we have certainly other means of doing terrorists, but I can tell you, I agree with President Trump here. This would be catastrophic. for this country. I mean, what would you see? You'd see it immediately a spike in bond interest rates. Because one of the beautiful things that we've learned about tariffs is they actually raise substantial revenues. And we're turning what looked like to be a fiscal cliff and a deficit that was going to go out of control into something. We're going to be able to pay down to the two and three and four billion trillion trillion dollars. So you feel like this is working for the U.S. even though you didn't get all the deals that you vowed. I mean, we don't have 90 deals. Well, wait a minute. I think we've done beautifully. If you look at what we've got so far, we've got Europe in hand, we've got Japan, we got Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, we've got the UK. But you don't have written completed deals with all these countries. You have some frameworks. They are effectively done. Are you? You feel like they're done. Yes. It's just a matter of getting the dots, the eyes dot, and sees crossed. No, those are done. We have an equilibrium, as it were, in an ongoing negotiate with the Chinese, where we have tariffs over 50%. And that's a good thing. India, the prime minister of India, just wrote a very encouraging note. through social media to the president. We seem like that one settling down. I mean, what's not the like about this, all right? We're getting trillions of dollars of new investment. There's no inflation on the rise. And how can you criticize? How can anybody criticize?

our tariff policy right now. Even Wall Street. It's working. And some American producers have criticized it. But I understand, and you get your time for that, before I lose you, because the Dow went over 46,000. Yeah, the markets are back. The markets clearly are not currently pricing this in as a problem, but it's a long-term thing. Before I lose you, because of the history and what you've told us, and we appreciate you making time. Yes. The president and his allies have sometimes talked about maybe he should have an illegal. Third term. Then they've said, maybe not. We've seen this back and forth. I want to just play, so everyone's on the same page. Some of what we've heard. President Trump will run and win again in 2028. How do you think he gets another term? We're working on it. We have almost four years to go. And that's a long time. But despite that, so many people are saying, you've got to run again. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. Chief Executive is limited in his role with regard to elections, except that where there is a threat to the national sovereignty of the United States. I think maybe the president is thinking that he will exercise some emergency powers to protect the federal elections going forward. You worked on part of Trump's effort in 2020. That's part of why we have the story. Come on, R. This is, I just showed you the President of the United States. Come on. Come on. He's playing with you. Okay. So if he's playing, he may, he may have a grand play. And what you did in 20. He's the best chess master ever. But he's also playing with you. In 208. In 28, would you rule out joining any effort to pursue an illegal third term for Donald Trump? Would I rule out? Yeah, because you're involved in 20. I don't do this. Look, Ari, the only thing that happened, the only thing that happened after the 2020 election is we tried to use a lawful exercise of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. And we've discussed that on this very program, and you've gotten time. The question on the table is, the question on the table is, would you rule that out in 28? Come on, you're getting trolled. If I'm getting trolled, why can't you tell me no? I don't feel trouble. You said, would you join an effort? I'm not going to support anything illegal. You're not going to support anything illegal. I'm not going to support anything illegal. And a third term is illegal. I haven't done anything illegal. I went to prison for four months and didn't do anything illegal. And a third term is illegal, so you wouldn't support a third term. You answer your own question. As the boss says, let's see what happens. Let's see what happened. Peter Navarro. One thing. I'm running over on time. I'll give you a final word. Just one thing. I just want to put this because I was sitting there listening to Maya. And you want a fact check. Maya saying that Charles Kirk said that black women are inferior, that's, he never said that.

Okay, fact check that for me. We've given you time and I appreciate you coming back. And I meant what I said. We live in this world. You've had quite a journey. You're back in the White House. I appreciate to come back on the program. I always are. All right. White House advisor Peter Navarro. To you and your new spin-off venture here. Thank you, sir. We will be right back. For all the developments on the home front, President Trump is also headed to the U.K., where the war in Ukraine is top of that agenda. We turn to Bob Woodward for the ongoing Trump-Pudan relationship. We just saw him join together with Vladimir Putin again, but not seem to get anything out of it for the United States or our interests in the region, best we can tell. And... When you talk to him, you raise the question of this relationship. And he did sound somewhat gullible while you raised sort of the foreign policy implications. Take a listen. Vladimir Putin respects me and I respect Vladimir Putin. I think Vladimir Putin likes me. I think I like him. So do you want Vladimir Putin to be afraid of you? I want Vladimir Putin to respect our country. Okay. And what would he respect? Well, you know, first of all, you know, it's sort of interesting. He said very good things about me. He said, Trump is brilliant and Trump is going to be the new leader and all that. And some of these clowns said, you should repudiate Vladimir Putin. I said, why would I repute him? But what is food in respect? The former KGB lieutenant colonel, force, power. I think you respect strength. Okay. Is it so nice to be able to interview him that way where I can try to prepare my questions, and there are follow-ups. Maybe you can think of, I certainly looking at it and listening, I can think of more questions I should have asked, but there's some, I mean, the line, I like Vladimir Putin. I think he likes me. What a sent me? Well, we have intelligence experts, veterans in both parties who say that other leaders, KGB experience or not, do try to manipulate. in foreign policy. That's part of it. And as effective as Trump has been about certain things, in his conversation with you, and in general, he sounds almost unaware of that. He just says, they like me, they're bringing me gifts. I mean, he sounds almost naive, although we know in many respects he's not. No, but on this he might be, and there is this debate in the intelligence community about is Trump. Has he been taken in by Vladimir Putin? Because the Trump-Vladimir Putin relationship is one of the most important in the world. And having reported on it for years, it's not clear. There are elements of I like him, he likes me. And then there are elements of, hey, he's got a.

stop some of these things. Now, if you look at the history of this, which again, I have the luxury of time to do, what happened in Ukraine, and 2021, Vladimir Putin issued a manifesto about Ukraine. And he said, Ukraine really is. and always has been part of Russia. And one of his pieces of evidence is it goes back to the ninth century of what American politician can say, part of the basis for this is what happened in the ninth century. Bob Woodward with some thoughts there, including the Vladimir Putin approach. He has reported on this extensively. That's from our longer interview, which is now up at MSNBC.com slash ARI. That piece airing tonight for the first time on television. You can see it all there. We'll be right back.

Turning to some new living history. Pope Leo made history as the first American pope. Many recall that. He celebrated his 70th birthday at the Vatican just this weekend. And there was more history being made there because John Legend and the Clips, Push a Tea and Malice, are the first hip-hop concert ever at St. Peter's Square. Another sign about how globalization and different cultures combine. Here they were with John Legend. performing a song about mourning their parents' debt. Post a noted Bible quote, where you preparing in, I can hear your voice now, I can feel your presence, asking shit I rap again, you gave me your blessing. The way you spelled it out, there's an Nell in every lesson. Boy, you owe it to the world. Let your mess become your message. If that song and theme sounds familiar, they also told us about that collaboration with John Legend, about mourning and grief and honoring your parents right here on this program. We'll be right back.

Thanks for watching The Beat. You can always find me at a.melber.com. Real talent is defined by what people can do, not where they learn to do it. So by stopping at the education section of a resume, you might throw away the perfect hire. Skills first hiring helps you see talent others miss, like more than 70 million stars, skilled through alternative routes. Let their story unfold and gain a competitive advantage. Because hiring managers who start with skills are 60% more likely to find a successful hire. Higher skills first. Learn why at tear the paper ceiling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council.