'This should be shocking': Judge torches Trump admin. for neglecting due process for deportees

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.
You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.
Download today. Very, very happy to have you here.
Today is April 17th. This is the Old North Church in Boston, Massachusetts.
When I say it is the Old North Church, I mean really old. The Old North Church is famous for something that happened in 1775.
But in 1775, when that thing happened, the Old North Church was already old then. It was already more than 50 years old by that point.

It was the venerable old landmark and importantly, very tall building where the rebels had arranged in advance to use their code. They had arranged in advance that at the Old North Church, they would hoist either one or two lanterns into the steeple of that church.
And that would be the code. That would be the coded signal.
If it was one lantern, that would mean the British troops were coming by land. If it was two lanterns, that would mean they were coming by sea, or at least by water.
On the night of April 18th, 1775, they hung two lanterns in that steeple. That was the signal that the British troops were indeed on the move, and that they were not moving their troops into position for an attack by land.
They were instead taking the more direct route toward Lexington and Concord by sea or by water. They were crossing the Charles River in boats.
That's what the two lanterns meant. Once the rebels had figured out what the British were up to, once that two lantern warning was hoisted, those in the know knew that it was time to move.
Paul Revere and William Dawes and later Samuel Prescott, they rode off into the night pell-mell on fast horses because it was their job to go sound the alarm, to go convey the warning, to stand up the defense. And when the dawn arrived, when the next morning arrived, when the British troops arrived in Lexington, Massachusetts that next morning, there was a welcoming party.
There was the American militia, forewarned, forearmed, and ready to fight them. And what happened at Lexington and Concord were, of course, the first shots, right? And that was the start.
And on that first day, the forewarned, four-armed, prepared militia's success against the British, that first day, it soon swelled the ranks of the militia to thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans

who literally took up arms to throw off the tyrant king. And of course, they won.
And that's how we got here. And tomorrow marks 250 years to the day since the two-lantern signal was hoisted into the steeple of the Old North Church in Boston, Massachusetts.
at 6 p.m. Eastern tomorrow, Old North Church in Boston and churches and other houses of worship all over the country, and just regular people, regular Americans, are going to ring bells 6 p.m.
Eastern tomorrow to mark this moment in our history. The day after tomorrow, on Saturday, that of course is the anniversary of happened at dawn, the morning after Paul Revere's ride, right? That is, this Saturday is the 250th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, where America took its first radical, literally revolutionary steps to free ourselves from tyranny and establish ourselves as a democracy.
This Saturday, this Saturday, April 19th, on that 250th anniversary, we are expecting another day with potentially thousands of peaceful protests at state capitals all over the country. We're expecting protests this Saturday, very much along the lines of what we saw two weeks ago on Saturday, April 5th.

And you might remember the theme, the sort of banner under which those protests were organized two weeks ago.

That was hands off this weekend, this Saturday, perhaps inevitably, given the anniversary of the start of the American Revolutionary War.

This Saturday, the banner for this weekend's peaceful protests will be No Kings. No Kings.
National protest. April 19th.
No Kings protests are expected, I believe, in all 50 states this weekend. Yet again, yet again, we are expecting thousands and thousands and thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of Americans to protest all together this weekend in every state in the country.
Yet again, against our century's old North Church moment, right? Organizing our own efforts against the attempted authoritarian takeover of the United States government in our century,

Americans figuring out what they can do.

And of course, we are seeing protests every day, every day.

I mean, these big days of protests like April 5th and this weekend, April 19th. But this was Augusta, Maine yesterday.

Just a Wednesday.

This was Augusta, Maine.

Farmers protesting against Trump's massive cuts to USDA funding and programs. And you know, farmers are busy, very busy people, particularly this time of year.
Anytime farmers are protesting, it's kind of a thing. You can see that tractor there, the sign on the front of it says, weed out the fascists, support farmers, not billionaires.
That was Augusta, Maine. This was San Diego, California yesterday.
People protesting against cuts to the VA, cuts to services for veterans, including lots of nurses out there protesting cuts to the VA from the Trump administration. This was South Dakota yesterday outside an event where South Dakota Republican Senate leader John Thune was speaking.
People had tape over their mouths at this protest, protesting John Thune's silence in the face of Donald Trump's destruction of the U.S. government and increasing defiance of the U.S.
Constitution. Red state South Dakota yesterday.
This was today in Washington. This was very dramatic.
These are coffins, full-size black coffins, being piled up outside the headquarters of the U.S. State Department.
They brought 200 adult-sized coffins and six baby-sized coffins, each of which represents 100,000 people who may die because of what Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump did to the decades-old, wildly successful PEPFAR program, which was providing HIV medications to literally 20 million people around the world. And, you know, you can live a long, full life while HIV positive if you receive antiretroviral drugs to keep the virus suppressed in your body.
But President Donald Trump ended those treatments mid-course for 20 million HIV positive people by cutting off that program with no warning. And there's no substitution for PEPFAR.
There's nothing like PEPFAR except PEPFAR. And Trump and Marco Rubio killed it, even while trying to say they weren't.
And those antiretroviral medications have been cut off all over the world. And so these coffins today represent the death toll of this decision that they have made, of what they have done.
Legendary U.S. AIDS activist Peter Staley conceived this protest today.
When I heard that just two weeks after Trump became president, that Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, decided to shut down USAID and PEPFAR, the best international foreign aid program ever launched by the U.S. since we rebuilt Europe after World War II.
I knew that 20 million lives were now at risk. Twenty million people with HIV around the world who were showing up to get their HIV meds refilled and finding the clinic door shut, which happened immediately.
And I just couldn't sleep. And I thought, does President Trump realize what Musk is about to do to his legacy? That he's going to relaunch the AIDS crisis around the world with millions and millions of more infections and deaths.
I'm not sure, I'm still not sure he does. And we're already seeing those deaths.
And they're now estimated that it'll be 5 million deaths before 2030. 5 million deaths in five years? That's a holocaust.
It's just mind-numbingly frightening. That was today in Washington.
Again, those hundreds of coffins brought and stacked up outside the U.S. State Department in protest of what the Trump administration has done to that program.
That was today in Washington. This was from the federal courthouse today in Richmond, Virginia, the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals. I will read to you from this ruling.
Quote, it is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter, but in this case it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.
Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody,

that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges,

but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses

still hold dear. The government asserts that Kilmar Abrego-Garcia is a terrorist and a member

of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order.
Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego-Garcia was wrongly or, quote, mistakenly deported. Why, then,

should it not make what was wrong right? Quote, the Supreme Court's decision remains,

as always, our guidepost. The decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give due

regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing.

It requires the government to, quote, facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent there.
Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken, as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.
Facilitation does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here.
Allowing this would, quote, facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.
The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court. Let one thing be clear.
Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes and helps us do a better job.
Court rulings can overstep, and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches. Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections, but also with a sense that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.
If today the executive branch claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed would lose its meaning. Today, both the U.S.
and El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and or responsibility to return Mr. Abrego Garcia.
We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally, and Mr.
Abrego Garcia specifically, in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort. The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect.
The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive's respect for the courts. Too often today, this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.
Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both.

This is a losing proposition all around. The judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dint of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply.
But the executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been.
And law in time will sign its epitaph. It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well.
We yet cling to the hope that it is not naive to believe our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
While there is still time. That ruling today written by a high-profile conservative judge on the Fourth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals. In case it's not obvious, the point of that ruling is to deny the Trump administration what it was asking for, which was an emergency stay to let them avoid what the courts have thus far very plainly ordered them to do.
This ruling on the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, in which the Trump administration has been ordered to bring him back to the U.S., this that I just read you, this comes on the heels, of course, of yesterday's ruling, that it's not just Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Trump administration has been ordered to retake U.S.
custody of all these guys, of the hundreds of men who the Trump administration sent to El Salvador for potentially life imprisonment without any court's adjudication as to their fate inside the United States. Remarkable, remarkable rulings these last two days, particularly this ruling tonight from the Fourth Circuit.
But I just want to say, in the spirit of Paul Revere tonight, I just want to note that the courts are not riding alone here. This stuff does not happen in a vacuum.
You ask scholars of authoritarianism and dictatorship, and they will tell you that it's never just one thing that works in terms of resistance. It's everything together.
And in our country, specifically on this issue at the sort of sharp end of the stick here on immigration, we really are seeing all kinds of resistance and strategic refusal and sounding the alarm all happening all at once. And it is mutually reinforcing.
When you start seeing it come from all directions, it feeds on itself. It gains momentum.
It gets bigger. And right now it is everywhere.
It is in the courts. It is also in communities.
It is in civic life. It is in political life.
It is in the press. And it is in the streets.
And I mean that all very specifically and literally. This is St.
Paul, Minnesota, yesterday, outside the Consulate of El Salvador in St. Paul.
People in the streets, lining both sides of the road, demanding that the Trump administration follow the court's orders and bring back Kilmar Obrego Garcia and bring back these men who they have shipped to that foreign prison. This was Santa Rosa, California yesterday.
Local clergy leading a rally in support of immigrants and against what Trump is doing. This was Denver, Colorado yesterday.
Again, local clergy leading a protest, a rally in support of immigrants and against the Trump administration's treatment of immigrants. This was Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday.
Local people protesting against Trump administration plans to open an immigration prison, a so-called detention facility in their community. This was New Orleans yesterday, people protesting at ICE headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana.
These students yesterday protesting against how they're going against immigrants and international students at Kennesaw State in Cobb County, Georgia, and in Newark, Delaware at the University of Delaware. When the Trump administration took a young man who's a legal permanent resident named Mohsen Madawi in Vermont this week, the community where he lives, where he is absolutely integrated into that community, they sprung into action.
They were worried that Trump's agents were going to come for him. His friends and supporters had created a text group called Mosin Just In Case to prepare a support plan, a network, a communication in case it happened.
They were with him when the arrest happened. They made sure to film it, to make sure that it was posted on social media, that they alerted the press.
They had prepared for the worst with lawyers who had prepped in advance legal motions to stop him being removed from Vermont and flown to one of these immigration dungeons, for lack of a better word, a thousand miles away in Louisiana or somewhere. And because they had those prepped in time, those motions worked.
A judge was able to order him kept in Vermont while he was still in Vermont before they had time to spirit him off elsewhere. Vermonters have since been protesting at the prison where he is being held in their state.
Mr. Madawi is Palestinian.
He was born and raised in the West Bank. They brought Palestinian flags to show their support for him.
And they banged drums and yelled as loud as they could in the hopes that he could hear them inside the prison. Now in Vermont, the Democratic leadership in the state legislature says they want to terminate their state's contract with the federal government to keep immigration prisoners, immigration so-called detainees, in the state's prisons, in their own facilities.
That's Vermont. In Raleigh, North Carolina, the Trump administration has just sent notice to two dozen Christians who fled Afghanistan when the Taliban took that country back over.
They are legally here in this country. They were given legal permission to stay here for obvious reasons.
For not obvious reasons, Donald Trump is now taking that away and telling these Afghan Christians that they have to return immediately to the tender mercies of the Taliban right now, this week. It is a Christian church in Raleigh, North Carolina, that's advocating for them.
At the Apostles Church in Raleigh, there's a community of Afghans, many going through the same thing. Pastor Nick Comiskey says the church has organized resources to help asylum seekers navigate the process.
It's a very personal issue. These are individuals, men, women, children that we know and have come to know and love.

That's Raleigh, North Carolina.

In Utah, it's people who are legally here, legally here from Haiti and Venezuela, who

are part of the community that they live in in Utah, who are beloved there.

Their neighbors in Utah are stepping up to help them and also to sound the alarm. It's time for you to leave the United States.
That's the first line of a letter from the Department of Homeland Security to several refugee families here in Utah legally. New Specialist Dan Rascone is covering this story and joins us live.
Dan, this has left neighbors shocked and upset. It really has, Deanie.
That's exactly right. Shocked, upset, angry, and also heartbroken that several of these families got this letter from the Department of Homeland Security telling them they've got to be out of this country by the end of the week.
I'm angry. I'm sad.
I'm embarrassed. Emotions running high.
It's not right. It's inhumane.
For this group of neighbors in Mill Creek. We love them and they love us.
Gathered together to fight for three refugee families. I feel sad, really sad.
That arrived in the U.S. and in their area not long ago.
All of them getting this letter from the Department of Homeland Security saying, quote, it's time for you to leave the United States. Your parole will terminate in seven days.
Unimaginable. The government that we love would do this to people we love.
Honestly feel like family to us. Two of the families are from Venezuela, the other from Haiti, all too scared to identify themselves.
The letter said that I was supposed to leave. This mother from Haiti has a two-year-old daughter.
I wasn't shocked because I wasn't expecting something like that to happen because I came here legally. Attorney Jim McConkie with the Refugee Justice League is helping the families get representation.
We're dealing with a group of people that are here legally, and the letters that were sent intentionally are designed to bully and mislead these people into believing that they don't have rights. That's Utah.
That's Mill Creek, Utah. Those neighbors standing up for their neighbors who have been taken.
It's protests. It's community life.
It's also civic life. These students at Harvard today rallying to support international students at Harvard, who the Trump administration is threatening as a group, threatening en masse as their own university, one of the highest profile and most prestigious universities in the world, takes a firm stand against the administration and says they will not accede to Trump's demands.
We're going to have more on that coming up in just a moment. But you know what? If you look just outside Harvard Yard, if you look at the hometown press in Boston, you will see not only standing ovation level support for Harvard choosing to wage that fight, you will also see in the biggest local paper, the Boston Globe, you'll see them today leading with a brand new investigative piece into these vigilante groups that have been claiming credit for feeding individual student names to the Trump administration for the administration to then target those people for arrest and deportation.
The Globe's investigation today reviewed a so-called students deport list from one of these groups. Quote, it sometimes placed students at the wrong universities or featured people who were not even in the United States.
One woman on the list was pictured wearing a hijab and identified as a Harvard student from Nigeria who had already been detained in Massachusetts. The group claimed she should be deported because her visa had been revoked in March for a pro-Hamas rally speech.
Contacted by the Globe, the woman said she has never attended a pro-Hamas rally, she has never attended Harvard, and in fact, she has never visited the United States. An hour south in New Bedford, Massachusetts, the local NBC station Channel 10 has dug into this horrifying video in which ICE agents smashed through the window of a car to drag a man and a woman out of the vehicle.
They report that the ICE agents repeatedly, while they were doing this, referred to the man in the car as Antonio.

They insisted that that was what his name and it was Antonio who they were looking for.

Nobody in that car was named Antonio.

It really does appear to be a case of mistaken identity.

Local press has been covering it intensely while ICE is defending its conduct by saying

whether or not he's Antonio.

The man was not in the country legally, and so, you know. while ICE is defending its conduct by saying, whether or not he's Antonio,

the man was not in the country legally, and so, you know.

The New Republic was first to report that one of the police officers responsible for the disputed gang designation for Kilmar Abrego Garcia appears to have himself been soon thereafter

suspended from the police force for serious misconduct in an unrelated matter, which of course goes to a police officer's credibility on a matter like this. USA Today was first to report that in the case of the gay makeup artist who the Trump administration sent to El Salvador potentially for life in prison, his supposed gang affiliation was due to a single officer with a history of serious credibility and disciplinary problems, including driving his car into a family's home while intoxicated, after which he was summarily fired.
Now we've got increasing press coverage of the Trump administration sending get-out-of-the-country-immediately letters to at least three U.S. citizens, two of whom are lawyers in Massachusetts and one of whom is a random doctor in Connecticut, all of them American citizens, all inexplicably told by the Trump administration that they must get out of the country within a week.
And all of this press coverage, while it's depressing because of the subject matter, it is also incisive investigative press coverage. And it does have the effect of exposing the shambolic and slapdash and utterly incompetent behavior of the Trump administration as it embarks on this cruel and unconstitutional adventure for which it wants to be feared and respected.
And instead, they look ridiculous and cruel in equal measure. And that has the effect of shaping public opinion about what they're doing.
And that fuels not just protests and lots of them, but also lawsuits. Reuters reporting that on Tuesday alone this week, federal judges in at least seven states issued orders blocking the Trump administration from acting against international students that it is trying to arrest.
Lawsuits in Massachusetts, Montana, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., New Hampshire, Michigan, everywhere, and more filed every single day. Those legal roadblocks tend to turn up information.
The tide of incisive investigative press about what the administration is doing turns up yet more information about what Trump is doing and who he's hurting. And all of that information builds the public case, further galvanizes more public opinion against them and more protest against them.
And you know what? If you keep eventually going like this, this stuff snowballs and it builds on itself. And eventually you are going to embolden elected officials to make them believe that it is time they better take action.

And eventually you are going to end up with a U.S. senator in El Salvador himself trying to get his constituent out of there.
And on that front, we have breaking news tonight. Just as we are getting on the air tonight, we have learned that Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, has been able to meet with imprisoned Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.
The government of El Salvador posting three photos online of the senator meeting with Mr. Abrego-Garcia a short time later.
Senator Van Hollen confirming that he did have a chance to meet with his constituent. He said, quote, I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar tonight.
I had that chance. I've called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love.
I look forward to providing a full update upon my return. It is unclear where that meeting took place.
It is unclear what Mr. Garcia's, Mr.
Obrego Garcia's current status is. We are working on getting more information from Senator Van Hollen's office.
We will bring it to you as we get it.

But note, you know, none of these things on their own is enough.

But all of them together are really something.

And all of them together just might be enough, right?

One if by land, two if by sea.

Fast horses, a relay of riders to alert everybody along the way.

Everybody ready to do their part. We've had 250 years of training for this.
We know what to do. MSNBC presents Maine Justice.
Each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice. The administration doesn't necessarily want to be questioned on any of its policy.
I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action. This is it coming to fruition.
Maine Justice. New episodes drop every Tuesday.
Listen now. The Trump administration has now sent Harvard University a letter threatening every single international student who attends Harvard.
There are thousands of them. The university responded by acknowledging receipt of the letter and saying that it, quote, follows on the heels of our statement that Harvard will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
We continue to stand by that statement. We will continue to comply with the law.
And we expect the administration to do the same. Joining us now is Professor Stephen Levitsky of Harvard.
He's the co-author of Tyranny of the Minority, Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point. He's also co-author of the sadly topical blockbuster bestseller, How Democracies Die.
Professor Levitsky, thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate you making time.
Thanks for having me. So on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolution, I feel like Americans are feeling like we're in our own revolutionary or counter-revolutionary moment right now.
One of the things that was implicit in your book, How Democracies Die, was the sort of counter-narrative of how democracies can survive, how they can fight and stay alive against an authoritarian attempted takeover. Right now, in the midst of this, where we are, what you're going through at Harvard and what we're going through as a country, how do you think we're doing in terms of the fight? I'm hopeful that we're getting there, Rachel.
We've been a little slow to respond. I think in part that's because most Americans don't have any memory or experience of living under authoritarian rule.
We have, luckily, we don't have the same collective memory of authoritarianism that Brazilians and Argentines and Chileans and South Koreans and Germans have. And so we just don't know how to react.
And also, 21st century authoritarianism looks a lot different than old fashioned authoritarianism.

There aren't tanks in the streets are going to. They're not going to be tanks in the streets.
These are often elected governments who weaponize the government and use government agencies as weapons to punish rivals. But it's done often in a fairly legalistic manner.
So citizens are often slow to realize what's going on,

to realize that they are, in fact, living in an authoritarian situation. But so I think civil

society was pretty slow these first few months. There's kind of an expectation that Trump 2.0

would be like Trump 1.0, which from my perspective was pretty bad. But there was a general sense that while we muddled through and we'll muddle through again, but this is obviously much worse.
But in recent weeks, and what happened at Harvard, I think is a sign of that, we're beginning to wake up. Well, let me ask you about the Harvard decision.
I feel like Americans all across the country, whether they've gotten any connection to Harvard or even any connection to higher education at all, I think people have been buoyed by Harvard's decision. It's been described in the national press as potentially the start of a sort of tipping point in terms of the way that people are positing themselves as either acceding to what Trump is doing or willing to fight it.
Can you give us any insight into how the decision was made at Harvard? I know you very publicly were part of trying to encourage the institution to take the kind of stance that they did. Can you help us understand how the decision was made and what was compelling to the powers that be there to convince them to take the stand? Well, I wasn't in the room, so I can only speculate.
I think, for one, Harvard's leadership looked at what happened to Columbia. Columbia effectively rolled over and got nothing out of it.
All it got was more demands and didn't even get the money released. So that's what happens when you negotiate, make concessions to an authoritarian extortionist.
And so Harvard realized that that strategy was a dead end. I think also the public debate had begun to shift.
As you know very well, the first few months, it's not just an attack on universities, an attack on law firms. It's an attack on the media.
It's an attack on politicians, on public critics of Trump, foundations, NGOs. And the initial response across the board was, unfortunately, among the most powerful law firms, most powerful billionaires in this country was to get on their knees.
And this but the public conversation has begun to shift. People have become very critical of that.
And there's been a growing sense, I think, across the country that we need to do better, that we need to respond, we need to get off the sidelines, and that it has to be our most privileged and most powerful civic leaders who do it first. We can't just rely on little old ladies in front of Tesla dealerships.
God love them. But those with the power and the resources to withstand the blows have got to take leadership.
And that public debate, I think, eventually prevailed at Harvard. In addition, the list of demands was so excessive, so authoritarian, that if Harvard were to accept it, it would have been the end of Harvard as a free university, as an institution, a democratic institution of higher education.
We cannot let the federal

government dictate what we teach, how we hire, how we admit students, how we treat our students.

I mean, it's only in totalitarian regimes do universities allow that.

I got to say, those little ladies, little old ladies in front of the Tesla dealership, I feel

like, A, I wouldn't mess with them. And B, I feel like what they're doing is putting the steel in

the spines of a lot of other people who haven't been willing to stand out there in the sleet. Totally agree.
There is an element of all these decisions being interlinked. We, for example, over the last few days have been tracking efforts that we've been noticing at other universities around the country, universities making efforts to band together.
Senate faculty is voting in the Big Ten, to name one example. They're debating and voting on and potentially trying to set up kind of mutual defense compact.
I think there's been some discussion about law firms that have entered into these deals with Donald Trump now recognizing maybe those weren't good faith deals. They may want to get out of those.
Those law firms may want to band together to jump out of those deals, to stand up together. Can you talk just from your academic perspective, in terms of talking about the way other countries have dealt with this in other times and in other places, other contexts, can you talk about the value of fighting together, of not fighting alone, and whether or not that makes you not just a bigger target, whether that makes you more effective and more resilient? It definitely makes you more effective and more resilient, but it's difficult.
As you know very well, Rachel, collective action problems are notoriously difficult to overcome because every CEO has to worry about his or her shareholders. Every university president has got to worry about their organization.
Every NGO has got to worry about being able to pay their staff. And when they get taken on Individually, there's a strong incentive to to to be very pragmatic, to to lay low, to not act, to make concessions, to do what is necessary to preserve oneself.
The problem is if every individual university, every individual media outlet, every individual CEO, every individual law firm does that, acts out of self-preservation, then our entire civil society ends up on the sideline and we end up where we've been the last few months. So overcoming that is really tough.
One way to do it, the way that we've been recommending, is that society's most prominent and best endowed leaders have to act first. It's got to be precisely the people who got on their knees in December and January should be the people out there leading the way.
And I think we're hopeful that Harvard setting this example will, in fact, empower other people to that collectively. So what happens when we act collectively? They don't have the capacity to punish hundreds of universities simultaneously.
This is a way of sharing risk. And it's a way of communicating to society that, first of all, that there's a fight on this isn't a one way steamroller.
And but two, that there is a there is a serious crisis that we have to respond to. And we've gotten to the point where even David Brooks is calling on society to to to rise up in civic mobilization.
So acting collective universities, acting collectively can send a signal to others that that it's possible. And it's a way of

sharing the risk and sharing the cost so that no individual organization is likely to take

such a heavy blow. Yeah.
And there's a lot of sort of elite organizing to be done soon to go to those

elites who previously bent down, bent the knee and decided to try to ride this wave to pull them back over to the other side. It's a really, really, really important point.
Professor Stephen Levitsky at Harvard, thank you very much. Yeah.
Yes. Thank you for being with us tonight, sir.
Appreciate it. All right.
Much more news ahead here tonight. Stay with us.
It's President Trump's first 100 days, and MSNBC's Alex Wagner will be covering it all from the front lines. What issue matters to you the most? Join her as she travels the country to talk to the people at the center of the president's policies and promises.
Do you think now that he's pardoned everybody, he can count on this group of people again? Search for Trumpland with Alex Wagner wherever you're listening and follow. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen ad-free.
Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.
I do think it's worth being very clear-eyed, very realistic about what's going on here. Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning.
Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc.com.
Hey, everyone. It's Chris Hayes.
This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, New York Attorney General Letitia James. It's important that individuals understand that in our system of justice, that there are judges independently analyzing all that we put forth.

They make a determination as to whether or not our cause of action, our claim, has any merit based on the law.

Politics stops at the door.

That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
New poll out today from CNBC Heart Research. Do you approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing as president? No, no, we do not.
Donald Trump's overall approval rating underwater by seven points. That is even lower than it was last month in this same poll when they had him underwater by four points.
But things get much worse for him when you start asking about Trump's handling of specific issues. Do you approve of Donald Trump's handling of the federal government workforce? No, no, we do not.
By a nine point margin, we do not approve of his handling of that. Do you approve of Donald Trump's handling of foreign policy? No, no, we do not as a country approve of Donald Trump's handling of foreign policy.
By an 11 point margin, we disapprove of him on that. On tariffs, the thing Trump calls the most beautiful word in the English language.
Do you approve of Donald Trump's handling of

tariffs? No, no, we do not approve of that by a whopping 16 point margin. On inflation, which is, you know, prices, the issue that arguably did more than anything else to get Donald Trump elected president.
Do you approve of Donald Trump's handling of prices? No. Of inflation? No.
Voters disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation by a 23-point margin. The proportion of Americans who disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation is 60%.
The proportion who approve it is just 37%. And it's not just this one poll where he's doing so terribly.
Another poll this week from The Economist and YouGov shows basically the same thing. That poll has Donald Trump's overall approval rating underwater by 10 points.
In that same poll, Americans are asked if they approve or disapprove of Trump's handling of foreign trade, including tariffs. Americans say no by a 16 point margin.
They disapprove. when voters are asked if they think Trump's tariffs will increase or decrease the prices they pay for the things that they buy, the proportion of Americans who say Trump's tariffs are going to increase the price on stuff they buy is 75 percent.
Three in four Americans think that Trump's policies are deliberately driving up prices.

Throughout Donald Trump's entire life as a political figure,

the one issue where he has almost always enjoyed,

to my mind, inexplicable, but nevertheless, net positive support from the American public

is on the issue of immigration.

But even on that, not anymore.

Look at this.

A Quinnipiac poll from this month now shows that Americans disapprove

of Trump's handling of his signature issue of immigration by a five point margin. That's supposed to be his best thing, right? He's underwater on all of it.
Trump has been back in office for less than 100 days. The American people are quite disapproving of his agenda.
The American people are protesting what he's doing more and more, and he's losing every single day in court on almost everything that gets him into court. How was your Thursday? Morehead, stay with us.
I hope to meet with representatives of the government. I hope to have the chance to actually see Kilmar and see what his condition is.
That was Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen when he was on his way to El Salvador yesterday, saying one of the main goals of his visit was to essentially do a wellness check on this constituent of his that the Trump administration said it mistakenly shipped to El Salvador and then said they couldn't or wouldn't try to get him back. Well, earlier in the show tonight, we had the breaking news that Senator Van Hollen has accomplished at least that stated goal.
He was initially turned away from this prison in El Salvador today, but then hours later, the El Salvadoran government arranged for Mr. Obrego Garcia to get out of the prison in order to meet Senator Van Hollen, somewhat bizarrelyly in civilian clothes at a hotel in San Salvador.
Now, we do not have a sense of what this is going to mean for Mr. Abrego Garcia overall.
His lawyer tells us tonight he's just learning this meeting happened from social media like the rest of us are learning it. El Salvador's president just posted online that Mr.
Abrego Garcia will now stay in El Salvador's custody. But again, it is the U.S.
government that has been ordered by U.S. courts to get Mr.
Obrego Garcia back to the United States. So we shall see.
We did just obtain this statement from Mr. Obrego Garcia's wife.
She says, quote, my children and my prayers have been answered. The efforts of my family and community in fighting for justice are being heard because I now know that my husband is alive.
God is listening and the community is standing strong. We still have so many questions, hopes,

and fears. I will continue praying and fighting for Kilmar's return home.
Thank you to everyone,

including Senator Van Hollen, my CASA family, all our unions, faith leaders, and community

for continuing this fight for my family to be reunited. We are just learning about this

situation as it unfolds. This hour, we'll bring you whatever new information we get as we get it.
Stay with us. This hour feels like it was about four seconds long, but apparently it's done.
That does it for me tonight. I will see you again tomorrow at 9 p.m.
Eastern. MSNBC Films presents a six-part documentary series,

David Frost Versus, on the next episode.

Muhammad Ali!

You think I'm going to get on this TV show and deny what I believe?

Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.