Trump rages at ‘highly neurotic' MSNBC host over tariffs, claims network committed ‘Major Campaign Violation'
Based on Donald Trump's social media feed, the president spent much of his Friday morning binge-watching MSNBC and growing increasingly enraged by what the hosts had to say about his global trade war.
According to the president, who has repeatedly threatened the liberal cable news network with investigations amid his ongoing war against the mainstream media, MSNBC had committed a 'Major Campaign Violation' and was 'nothing less than an arm of the Democrat National Committee' because of a Morning Joe segment that was critical of his tariff plan.
Specifically, the president was incensed that MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who also serves as NBC News' senior business analyst, said that he was looking to back down from his 'Liberation Day' tariffs because of the looming recession and likely inflation caused by a self-imposed supply chain crisis.
'I just watched an exhausted, highly neurotic Stephanie Ruhle spew LIES about Tariffs, as do many others, in order not to give me the Victory that they all see coming. Few people know Stephanie Ruhle, but I do, and she doesn't have what it takes,' Trump fumed on Truth Social.
Complaining that Ruhle wasn't giving him enough credit for the trade deal he announced with the U.K. Thursday, which has been described as 'bargain basement' and putting 'lipstick on a pig,' the president issued an implied threat to Brian Roberts, the chairman of MSNBC's parent company Comcast.
'We're going to make a fortune with Tariffs, only smart people understand that, and Stephanie was never known as a 'High IQ' person,' he groused. 'MSDNC has become the Voice of the Democrat Party, and they should be treated as a Political Advocate with all of the Taxes and Penalties therefrom. Their Ratings are terrible, but Brian Roberts and his crew should be forced to TELL THE TRUTH.'
In an earlier social media rant, which he posted minutes after Ruhle's appearance on Morning Joe, Trump called the network the 'worst there is on Television misrepresentation' before insisting that 'their statements about me and Tariffs that it should be considered a Major Campaign Violation.'
Adding that the channel is an arm of the DNC, the president called MSNBC 'real losers' before taking a shot at their viewership numbers – which have been on the rise since his inauguration. 'Their ratings are down the tubes, but that pressure on them doesn't give them the right to lie and cheat!' Trump concluded.
During the segment on Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough – who, along with his spouse/co-host Mika Brzezinski, met personally with Trump shortly after the election – said that the U.K. trade deal announcement amounted to nothing more than 'showbiz' and 'symbolism,' adding that there's no reason anyone should be 'freaking out' about it.
'Here's the representative of the country that we have the most special relationship in the world,' Scarborough stated. 'We're gonna start here. I just don't think the details right now matter, especially if you look back six months from now. This is the start of a symbolic process. That's my take on it.'
Ruhle, meanwhile, took aim at the president's declaration Friday morning that the massive tariffs on China could be dropped to 80 percent ahead of negotiations, but that it was all up to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
'Donald Trump is backed into a corner,' she noted. 'His grand plans of tariffs, tariffs, tariffs aren't working, right? You're seeing day in and day out, more business leaders, whether it's Warren Buffett or Jamie Dimon or Ken Griffin on big global stages saying this is going to crush us economically.'
Pointing out that American ports are already seeing fewer ships and cargo containers, Ruhle concluded that the president needs to quickly reverse course if he wants to avoid spiking inflation and an economic downturn.
'Unless he turns this around, three weeks from now you walk into a store and we're going to have a COVID-like supply chain crisis,' she noted. 'And Trump is looking for an exit. And while small businesses right now are saying, 'I don't see it yet I'm still panicked,' Wall Street sees it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
28 minutes ago
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. Brehm's attorney, Bradley Girard with Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment with the judge's decision. 'But in our parallel case, Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco, a grantee and two USADF employees have also challenged Marocco's unlawful appointment," Girard wrote in an email. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject the defendants' attempt to ignore the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing board members to federal agencies.' That lawsuit is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington AG exploring potential challenge to new federal travel restrictions
Jun. 10—Washington is "taking a careful look" at where it has standing to challenge President Donald Trump's recent proclamation restricting travel from 12 countries, Attorney General Nick Brown said during a news conference Tuesday. "The president says his travel ban is about national security, but this racist order will not make anyone safer," Brown said. The restrictions, Brown said, have stalled medical care, "struck fear" into Afghan refugees who previously aided the United States military and could hinder international students looking to study at American universities. "We are actively looking at ways to challenge this ban, but it will be difficult," Brown said, adding that the Supreme Court has upheld other travel bans in recent years. Trump last Wednesday announced that citizens from 12 countries — Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — would be barred from entering the United States. The president also partially banned citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video posted on social media, Trump said the "strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the threat posed" and said countries could be added or removed from the list. "But we will not allow people who enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said. "And nothing will stop us from keeping America safe." The restrictions continue a trend by Trump, who issued several bans on international travel during his first administration. The first, which barred travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, faced swift backlash and was challenged within days by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "I'll always be proud that Washington state was indeed the first state to take on that first travel ban, the first state to take on Donald Trump, and the first state to defeat Donald Trump in court," Ferguson said. "It is a little difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that we are back here again on another travel ban." Ferguson said that Washington will lead other states on standing up against Trump's orders. "And I want all Washingtonians to know that," Ferguson said. "We have a new attorney general, but guess what? The good news is he is as deeply connected to this issue, and as resolved to stand up against it, as we were eight years ago." Among those feeling the impact of the travel ban is Katia Jasmin, founder and executive director of Creole Resources in Spokane. During an interview Tuesday, Jasmin said the inclusion of Haiti caught her by surprise. Jasmin said the ban could have wide-ranging effects on Spokane's Haitian community, including deepening the existing trauma that many have experienced. Jasmin said the ban could also result in family separation, as many permanent residents or citizens still have family abroad — something she knows firsthand. "I have my brother that lives in Haiti, and he comes to see us, and now he won't be able to come and see us," Jasmin said. Katia's brother, Jay, was set to serve as the best man in an upcoming wedding — plans that seem to be in doubt. "My brother won't be able to see us, so I don't know how long we'll have to wait to be able to see him," Jasmin said. The restrictions, Jasmin said, will ultimately have minimal impact on safety. "If you people are scared of gang members coming to the States, I don't know how we are scared of the gang members; they don't have visas, they don't have anything. I don't think a gang member from Haiti will come here to the United States to do anything," Jasmin said. "So whatever they try to say that it's for, the security or stuff, it's not true."
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Can Stay in Effect Longer, Appeals Court Says
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump can continue to enforce his global tariffs for now, a federal appeals court held in a win for the president on one of his signature economic policies. Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire NYC Mayoral Candidates All Agree on Building More Housing. But Where? Senator Calls for Closing Troubled ICE Detention Facility in New Mexico California Pitches Emergency Loans for LA, Local Transit Systems The order Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit extends an earlier, short-term reprieve for the administration as it presses a challenge to a lower court ruling last month that blocked the tariffs. The Justice Department had argued that US officials' concerns about ongoing trade negotiations outweighed the economic harm claimed by the small businesses that sued. The Washington-based court put the case on an expedited track, citing the 'issues of exceptional importance' at stake, and scheduled arguments for July 31. The court didn't offer a detailed reason for siding with the administration at this stage, indicating in the order that the government had met its burden for showing that keeping the lower court's injunction on hold was 'warranted.' No judge noted a dissent. The ruling comes as negotiators for the US and China reached a preliminary agreement to de-escalate trade tensions. Representatives of the world's two largest economies announced the accord in the second day of talks in London over exports of key tech and industrial goods. Trump has portrayed tariffs as critical to leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers amid chronic trade deficits. Trade Court The Trump administration asked the appeals court to step in after the US Court of International Trade last month ruled that Trump had misused an emergency law to implement the tariffs. Unless the challengers request swift intervention by the US Supreme Court, the levies will stay in place for at least another month, if not longer, as the rest of the legal fight plays out before the Washington-based appellate court. Whoever loses the next round of the case before the Federal Circuit could then ask the high court justices to weigh in. Tuesday's order comes a month before Trump's own 90-day pause on most of his sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs is set to expire. On July 9, US tariff rates are set to increase drastically for many nations, absent trade deals or a further extension. Goods from the European Union, for instance, are facing a 50% levy. Companies led by New York wine importer V.O.S. Selections Inc. claimed that letting the tariffs go into effect would lead to much higher costs and lower sales, with some of them likely to end up in bankruptcy. The administration argued that blocking the tariffs would disrupt US diplomacy and intrude upon the president's power to conduct foreign affairs. A dozen Democratic-led states also sued the administration over the tariffs. Is Trump's Use of Emergency Law for Tariffs Legal?: QuickTake Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which represents the private plaintiffs, said in a statement that they were disappointed but glad the Federal Circuit set a fast schedule and would have the full court hear the fight over Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 'It's important to note that every court to rule on the merits so far has found these tariffs unlawful, and we have faith that this court will likewise see what is plain as day: that IEEPA does not allow the president to impose whatever tax he wants whenever he wants,' Schwab said. A White House spokesperson and a representative of the Oregon attorney general's office, which led the state coalition that sued, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 'Liberation Day' Tariffs covered by the trade court ruling include Trump's global 10% levy, his April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs and measures targeting China, Canada and Mexico over fentanyl trafficking. The president claimed authority to impose those tariffs under the 1977 emergency economic powers law. A three-judge panel of the trade court ruled last month that law didn't give the president unbridled tariff power. The court also took issue with Trump's claims of 'emergencies' over trade deficits and drug-trafficking. In their decision, the judges said government lawyers actually undercut that position by arguing that tariffs were needed as negotiating tools. 'The government's 'pressure' argument effectively concedes that the direct effect of the country-specific tariffs is simply to burden the countries they target,' wrote the panel, which includes judges appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles were imposed under a different law, so were not affected by the trade court ruling. Administration officials have often publicly downplayed the impact of the May 28 decision by claiming that most of its tariffs can be imposed by other means. Global markets have fluctuated wildly since Trump announced the so-called reciprocal levies in a sweeping executive order on April 2. Since then, trillions of dollars in market value have been shed and regained amid weeks of delays, reversals and announcements about potential trade deals, particularly with China. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, 25-1812, US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. (Updated with additional context in the fourth paragraph and comment from a plaintiffs' lawyer starting in the ninth paragraph.) New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
