Unnamed official

Today I'm announcing the unsealing of a three count indictment. charging Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, interstate transportation for prostitution.

These are court authorized search warrants that are under seal and we can discuss what the cases are.

Our preference would have been to do this in a more orderly fashion from the top down, but we had no cooperation and, in fact, insubordination, and so it required us to work from the bottom up.

Gave me the hardest question, sir. I mean, look, as the President said, we're not going to do the negotiation in public with the American media. He's going to do it in private with the President of Russia, with the President of Ukraine, and with other leaders. And I think that's how this has to go.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.

Jonathan, thank you very much.

After the break, Rachel Abrams talks to our colleague David Pearson about how China and its leader are likely to respond. We'll be right back.

Right, this was all pre-planned.

We haven't had all that much time to make sense of basically a three-hour-old pause.

The latest attempt by Republicans to undercut judges who have blocked President Trump's agenda. Trump and his allies have been frustrated by how frequently district court judges have struck down his executive orders on issues ranging from deportations to mass firings at federal agencies.

But the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Democrats and moderate Republicans are expected to oppose it. Today's episode was produced by Claire Tennesketter, Mary Wilson, Carlos Prieto, and Nina Feldman. It was edited by Maria Braun and Paige Cowan. Contains original music by Marian Lozano, Alisha Ba'itu, and Rowan Nemisto, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley.

Our theme music is by Jim Blumberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Babar. See you tomorrow.

After promising that tariffs against dozens of countries were here to stay, no matter how much they hurt businesses or the stock market, President Trump has abruptly reversed course

Okay, okay. Jonathan, we figured this might be the case, that you are not the authority on the bond market. And so in the grand tradition of phoning a friend and having Marshall McLuhan behind the potted plant, we're going to bring on someone who is an authority on bonds to briefly explain what the heck just happened there.

Good, good. Also, hello to Jonathan Swan, who has just acknowledged what I would acknowledge in this moment, too, which is that the bond market is pretty hard to explain. So we decided to call you and ask you to just briefly explain... What happened in the bond market? Because as Jonathan just put it, that felt decisive in the Trump administration's decision to hit pause on the tariffs.

That terrified them, Jonathan just said. So what happened? Why would it merit terror from this administration?

God, just to make sure I understand, traditionally you buy a bond. You basically loan the United States government some money. You are 1,000% sure that money is going to come back with a little extra. All of a sudden, people are fearful that might not be the case. The government might not be so dependable.

It looks like the U.S. has blinked. Except when it comes to China.

They start selling these bonds, and it starts to mess up all other kinds of borrowing rates around the economy, and that's how you suddenly get into a situation where... this all starts to go really sideways.

Got it. And that shock is exactly what happened today in the bottom. Okay, Peter, this is really helpful. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, Jonathan, do you get it now?

Well, perhaps you could have done it just as well. We'll never know.

So what else is factoring into the White House decision beyond the bond market? When we had been talking to you a couple of days ago, there were all these CEOs knocking on the president's door. and saying this is not sustainable, none of that mattered? It was just the bond market suddenly going haywire? Or was it all kind of becoming one big collective untenable situation?

Today, Jonathan Swan on why the president changed his mind and David Pearson on why China won't back down. It's Thursday, April 10th. Hey, Jonathan. Thank you for coming in very last minute and joining us. Thanks for having me. So the question here is very simple. Why did Donald Trump reverse himself here and take the off-ramp from these tariffs that none of us thought he was very likely to take?

Right. And that earned him some serious mockery from Democrats who said, who is in charge here? Because if the U.S. trade representative is in front of Congress defending these tariffs while the tariffs are paused, it did not seem to the members of that congressional committee that there was any unified vision of what was happening.

So, Jonathan, we're learning something it seems pretty important about this president, which is contrary to our belief that after the first term, he was no longer swayable by market forces when it came to something like tariffs, that if the markets went down, even if perhaps the bond market started to go haywire, he was deeply committed to this vision of tariffs. That was our thinking. And

the markets were not going to take him off that position.

We hear something very different, including the president personally in front of the White House acknowledging that people were getting the yippies. That was his word.

But yeah, I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy. And so clearly this is the president conceding that he is at the mercy of the markets to a degree.

$10 trillion in wealth wiped out.

I'm curious what it does to Trump's credibility going forward to have that pain threshold reached in such a short period of time, less than a week when it came to these tariffs. And so if you're the rest of the world looking at whether Trump and his administration can stand by these difficult positions like tariffs that he said were a long-term project to bring jobs back to the U.S.,

Who's going to believe him the next time he wants to create leverage in one of these situations?

Again, asking you to do something that perhaps is a little uncomfortable for you, which is to speculate on what happens next. But is there any sense that in 90 days the president would ever restore these tariffs, knowing the amount of trauma they inflicted on the U.S. and the global economy?

Or is the sense that they have every incentive to do deals and not bring these tariffs back across the world?

Right, and we should just say the state of play at this moment is that tariffs that were varied based on countries, and in some cases extremely high, have gone down to a much, much smaller universal tariff of 10%. The rest have been paused, but not... when it comes to China, those originally very high tariffs remain.

And in fact, through tit for tat and back and forth, they've gone up past 100% from the U.S. as of Wednesday. And so therefore, we now have a trade war that has seemingly been narrowed down to China. And I wonder how you think about that and how far we think the president is willing to take that particular face off.

What happened here?

Mahmoud Khalil was an individual who was given the privilege of coming to this country to study at one of our nation's finest universities and colleges. And he took advantage of that opportunity, of that privilege, by siding with terrorists, Hamas terrorists who have killed innocent men, women and children.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who serve or are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America.

On day one, I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on behalf of the United States.

I firmly said on day one, I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on behalf of the United States. He shouldn't have taken the case. He shouldn't have argued it if that's what he was going to do.