This Sunday, Russian Roulette. President Trump meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, trying to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. There's no deal until there's a deal. Next time in Moscow.
But after rolling out the red carpet, was this high-stakes meeting a setback or a step forward to reaching a deal? My guests this morning, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Plus, Guard Duty. President Trump orders National Guard troops to the streets of D.C., taking control of the city's police force and pledging a crackdown on crime in the nation's capital.
We're starting very strongly with D.C. and we're going to clean it up real quick. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Jonathan Martin of Politico, Former State Department Spokesperson Ned Price, and Republican Strategist Sarah Fagan. Welcome to Sunday.
It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. President Trump is preparing to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House on Monday after rolling out the literal red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin for their high-stakes summit in Alaska.
Yet, following a tarmac greeting, a military flyover, and a ride for the Russian leader in the president's limo where Putin could be seen smiling, it remains unclear what, if anything, was agreed to in Mr. Trump's efforts to end Russia's war in Ukraine. The president vague in his post-meeting statement to reporters. I believe we had a very productive meeting.
There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So, there's no deal until there's a deal. Later, putting the pressure on Ukrainian President Zelensky to make a deal to end the war. Based on today, when you talk to Vladimir Zelensky, what's your advice to him?
Make a deal. Make the deal. You gotta make a deal, yeah. Look, Russia's a very big power, and they're not.
On his long flight back to Washington, D.C. from Alaska, the president held talks with President Zelensky as well as European leaders. NBC News has learned they discussed the potential of a NATO-like security guarantee for Ukraine. For months, President Trump has threatened to impose crushing sanctions on Russia if it did not agree to a ceasefire, saying this aboard Air Force One earlier in the day on the way to Alaska.
I'd like to see a ceasefire. I wouldn't be thrilled if I didn't get it, but everyone says, you're not going to get the ceasefire. It'll take place on the second meeting. But later, reversing course, posting on his Truth Social account, it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which oftentimes do not hold up.
With seemingly no plans to punish Putin for his refusal to end the war, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the president, saying Trump handed Putin legitimacy, a global stage, zero accountability, and got nothing in return. Mr. Trump's comments on Friday in stark opposition to what he vowed earlier in the week. Will Russia face any consequences if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop the war after your meeting on Friday?
Yes, they will. What will the consequences be? They will be consequences. Sanctions, tariffs?
There will be... I don't have to say. There will be very severe consequences. And joining me now is Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio.
Secretary Rubio, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you. Thank you for being here. So heading into the meeting with President Putin on Friday, President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire agreement.
Now he is saying he wants a broader peace deal. We know that Ukraine, we know that European allies want a ceasefire first. Is a ceasefire now off the table, Mr. Secretary?
No, it's not off the table. I think what the president said, in fact, you just read it on the air a few moments ago, it was agreed to by all that the best way to end this conflict is through a full peace deal. There's no doubt about that. I mean, who would be against the fact that tomorrow we came to you and said we have a full peace deal and it's done?
I think that's the best way to end the war. Now, whether there needs to be a ceasefire on the way there, well, we've abdicated for that. Unfortunately, the Russians, as of now, have not agreed to that. But the ideal here, what we're aiming for here is not a ceasefire.
What we ultimately are aiming for is an end to this war. Well, I want to drill down on that exactly and what happened because, as you just heard before the meeting with President Putin, President Trump warned there would be, quote, very severe consequences for Russia if it didn't stop the war. Here's a little bit more of what he said on the plane ride over. Take a look.
I want to see a ceasefire rapidly. I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today. So what exactly changed? Is it that Putin would not agree to a ceasefire?
Well, first of all, the Russians are already facing very severe consequences. There's not a single sanction that's been lifted, not one. I mean, they're facing all the same sanctions that have been in place today. All the American support continues for Ukraine.
And ultimately, look, if we're not going to be able to reach an agreement here at any point, then there are going to be consequences. Not only the consequences of the war continuing, but the consequences of all those sanctions continuing and potentially new sanctions on top of it as well. But what we're trying to do right now is end the war. And in order to end the war, you've got to give every opportunity that exists.
You have to be open to any opportunity that exists to bring it about. And here's the thing to remind everybody. And the president says this is not our war, but let's be frank, this is not our war. The United States is not in a war.
Ukraine is in a war. We've been supporting Ukraine. We happen to be in the role of the only country in the world with the only leader in the world that can actually bring Putin to a table to even discuss these things. Now, the president has traveled, you know, all the way to Alaska, all the way back, has dedicated months and months of work, him, our entire team on this matter, because we want to see an end to the war.
But if tomorrow the war continues, life in America will not be fundamentally altered. So I think that we have to understand that this has been a priority for this president because he wants to promote peace. He wants to promote the end of a war. And I think we should be happy that we have a president that's trying to promote peace and bring a war to an end.
Mr. Secretary, let's look at the state of the war. It's really captured in this chart. I want to put it up on the screen for our viewers.
It shows that Russian attacks on Ukraine have nearly doubled since President Trump came into office. And in fact, in July, Russia launched more than 6,000 missiles and drones. That's the highest amount of attacks since the war began. What do you say to Ukrainians who worry that without a ceasefire in place, you are giving Putin more leverage at the negotiating table and a green light to drop more bombs?
Well, the problem with that is that we've been asking for a ceasefire for a long period of time. We think usually it's very hard to negotiate when you're in the middle of hostilities. But that said, the only way to have a ceasefire is for both sides to agree to stop firing at one another. Beyond that, and the Russians just haven't agreed to that.
Beyond that, I would say that one of the complications about ceasefires is they have to be maintained, which is very difficult. I mean, every single day we keep an eye on what's happening between Pakistan and India, what's happening between Cambodia and Thailand. Ceasefires can fall apart very quickly, especially after a three and a half year war like what we're facing now. But I don't think anyone disagrees that the ideal here, what we're aiming for, is not some permanent ceasefire.
What we're aiming for here is a peace deal so there's not a war now and there's not a war in the future. Well, why not impose more sanctions on them and force them to agree to a ceasefire instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one? Well, first, I think that that's a, that's something a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia are gonna force them to accept a ceasefire.
They're already under very severe sanctions. I think that it should be, you could argue that that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a ceasefire or the end of hostilities. But there's no evidence that more sanctions, because sanctions take months and sometimes years to bite. And we may very well wind up in that place.
I hope not, because that means that peace talks failed. But we have to give every opportunity for peace a chance in this particular case. And that's what we're trying to do here. And so those options remain with the president.
The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop. The minute we take those steps, there is no one left in the world to go talk to the Russians and try to get them to the table to reach a peace agreement. So that moment may come, I hope not, because I hope we get a peace deal President Putin believes in Ukraine's right to exist based on what you heard and saw. Well, look, I wasn't playing any of those games about looking people in the eye and trying to read their minds.
I'm reading actions. And that's what we're looking at is actions. What will you agree to? What will you commit to?
And what will you follow up on? And in order for this war to end, Russia will have to take actions. Ukraine will have to take actions. Ukraine's partners and allies will have to take actions as well to enforce that peace in the long term.
That's what we're interested in. Not all, you know, I get all the drama around this stuff. But at the end of the day, we are talking about a war in which people are being killed and maimed every single day, in which a country has been dismembered by 20 percent, as you just pointed out. And it's really important to bring this war to an end.
This war doesn't get better. It gets worse as time goes on. It gets worse. It actually threatens to spill over into other areas.
So it needs to be stopped. That's why the president's made it a priority. And that's what we're focused on. Concrete actions by both sides, especially the Russian side, to bring this conflict to an end.
And we're going to do everything we can to make it happen. Is it possible? I don't know. But we're going to try.
We've tried. We've spent a lot of time on this issue. We have a lot of other issues to focus on, but the president's made this a priority, and he deserves credit for that. Mr.
Secretary, a couple more questions, and we're almost out of time. NBC News is reporting this morning that NATO-like security guarantees for Ukraine were discussed as a part of this agreement. Can you tell us what role would the United States play in such a security agreement? Well, there'll have to be some security guarantees for Ukraine, right?
I mean, it's one of their fundamental demands, is that if this war were to end, they have to make sure this never happens again. They don't want to get reinvaded. They don't want to wait three or four years from now and find another, you know, war on their hands. So there's going to have to be some security guarantees as part of it.
How that's structured, how that's built, what our role will be, that'll be the kinds of things we'll have to work through. But again, that is going to be a key element of this deal. And it is something that in order for there to be a peace, the Russian side is going to have to accept that Ukraine is a sovereign country that has a right to defend itself, and has a right to enter into alliances with other countries to defend itself. How that's constructed, what we call it, how it's built, what guarantees are built in there that are enforceable, that's what we'll be talking about over the next few days with our partners who are coming in from overseas tomorrow for a series of meetings.
And in the days to come, we had a long phone call about this yesterday with several of the national security advisors from various countries in Europe. Mr. Secretary, I want to play something you said about President Putin. This was right after the invasion in March of 2022.
Take a look. This guy lies, habitually lies. He's never kept a deal he's ever signed, and he lies all the time. And I don't know why, but he plays us like a violin in the West.
Because the West wants to believe that you can cut a deal with everybody. You can't cut a deal with a guy like this. He's a professional, experienced liar. Mr.
Secretary, given that, what makes you think that if you are able to reach a deal with President Putin, that he would stick to it based on, as you just said, he's a liar? Well, that's the point. That's why the deal has to have enforceable mechanisms in it. That's why the deal has to have things like security guarantees.
That's the point I was making a few minutes ago when you were asking me about looking someone in the eye. What's important here is actions, not words, not paper documents. Those are all important. Those are elements of a deal, but they have to be enforceable.
They have to be verifiable. They have to be enduring. There's no point here in signing a deal that's going to be violated in three or four months. There's no point in doing that.
It actually would make things worse. So that's why this is such a difficult thing. Not only do you need a deal, you need a deal that's verifiable, that's enforceable, and that's enduring. If you don't achieve that, then I think you could have a ceasefire for a few months, a few weeks, and then the war will start again and more people will die.
That's not the outcome we're interested in. That's not the outcome anyone who bought wants. So that's why this is so difficult. All right.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, thank you so much for joining us after an historic week. We really appreciate it. Thank you. When we come back, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut joins me next.
Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Senator Murphy, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thanks for having me.
Thank you so much for being here on a very big week. You just heard my conversation with Secretary Rubio. We specifically started talking about the fact that President Trump initially said he wanted a ceasefire agreement. Now he wants a broader peace deal.
Secretary Rubio defending that approach, basically saying the Russians wouldn't agree to a ceasefire. Do you think that it's the right strategy to now focus on that broader peace deal? That meeting was a disaster. It was an embarrassment for the United States.
It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted. First of all, he wanted that photo op. He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world.
He was invited to the United States. War criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America. He is intentionally murdering civilians. He's kidnapping children.
And now he got to stand next to the president of the United States, legitimized in the view of the world. Second, he didn't have to give up anything, nothing. Right. President Trump said he wanted a ceasefire.
It appears the ceasefire wasn't even seriously discussed. And then third, there's no consequences. Trump said if I don't get a ceasefire, Putin's going to pay a price. And then he walked out of that meeting saying I didn't get a ceasefire.
I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions. You heard Secretary Rubio downplay sanctions. And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made and zero consequences.
What a great day for Russia. What about the argument that you heard Secretary Rubio make, which is he said he doesn't think that sanctions would make a difference in terms of forcing a ceasefire agreement. Does he have a point? I mean, after all, we have seen President Putin continue this war, dropping bombs relentlessly, despite the fact that there have been all of these sanctions imposed against him.
So he's right that sanctions have not had any practical impact thus far. But that is in part because our sanctions are directly levied on Russia. And it's a very limited economic relationship between the United States and Russia. These next sanctions that we're talking about that Congress is considering authorizing are actually secondary sanctions, sanctions that would make it hard for Russia to continue to do business with countries like China and India who are essentially funding the war.
So this next set of sanctions could be much more impactful. The problem is, in the Senate, the Republican leader won't even bring up a vote, a debate on this bill, because Donald Trump doesn't even want a discussion about these sanctions because he's so worried that it might upset his great friend Vladimir Putin. What is most impactful and what will be most impactful on this war are more weapons for Ukraine. And here's where Putin has the upper hand.
So long as Trump is still opposed to continuing to arm Ukraine, Putin knows that it is just a matter of time before he can gain the advantage. So Putin walks away from the summit with no economic sanctions, with no sense that Trump is going to continue to send weapons to Ukraine, and essentially a green light to continue the war on his terms. Let me ask you about this new reporting that we have that basically President Trump did in a call with European allies with President Zelensky say that the United States would be willing to enter into a NATO-like security agreement, not including U.S. troops, but that the U.S.
would back European troops that were there. Is that enough? Well, that is an essential element of a peace agreement, because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on. He's made that commitment many times before.
So, yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine. But there are also reports from that call that Trump is willing to give more territory to Russia than they even occupy today, which would be a stunning development, again, another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations. Well, to that very point, if you talk to military experts, they say, look, the reality is Ukraine likely cannot win a prolonged war militarily.
Senator, do you think, from a realistic standpoint, Ukraine will need to cede some of its territory in order to end this war, in order to stop the killing? That question is up to the Ukrainian people and to President Zelensky. And if they want to enter into that negotiation, the United States should support them. The only way they would do that is if they have that security Which is members can get an exclusive 50 percent off an annual subscription.
Head to Xfinity.com/membership to learn more. Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026.
Prices subject to change. Visit Xfinity.com/Xfinity for full offer terms and details. Welcome back. The panel is here.
NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs and Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell. Jonathan Martin, Politics Bureau Chief and senior political columnist for Politico. Republican strategist Sarah Fagan. And Ned Price, former State Department spokesperson under President Biden.
Thanks to all of you for being here. Andrea, I have to start with you. And some of what we just heard from Secretary Rubio. And as we're having this conversation, we are learning that more European leaders are joining President Zelensky at the White House on Monday.
The leaders of Finland, Germany, the NATO commander, Secretary General, as well as Keir Starmer, the U.K. Prime Minister. What do you make of the fact that Secretary Rubio said that effectively a ceasefire is not off the table, but he doesn't think sanctions would basically be effective at pushing for a ceasefire? He made a lot of news there because he confirmed that it was Vladimir Putin, as we had assumed inferred from the dynamics of the meeting and what the president said afterwards, that it was President Putin who said no to a ceasefire right from the get go.
And President Trump went into this saying that he wants a ceasefire and if not, there would be severe consequences. And he said there would be economic consequences. We all understood that to be the secondary sanctions and the only country not yet officially announced to be sanctioned. That is the biggest purchaser of Russian oil is China.
So that raised all sorts of other complications for the U.S. But he was prepared to do that on Air Force One traveling out. And then at the end of the meeting, there are no consequences. And there are no sanctions.
And Secretary Rubio confirmed that today that sanctions take too long. They take months. They take years. Well secondary sanctions do bite and that would have an impact.
But that's there's no punishment for Vladimir Putin. He got what he wanted. He got the photo op. If the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Moscow is crowing about that, that he's no longer isolated.
So is Medvedev, the former president of Russia, who trolls, you know, President Trump all the time. And they're both, you know, they're bragging about this. So Putin comes out as the victor. He's no longer isolated.
He's got his summit. He got his ride in the limo. He got the red carpet. And what we're hearing today is that the ceasefire is not on the table.
And Russia, as you pointed out, is escalating its attacks. Well, the fact that you heard Secretary Rubio basically say Russia didn't agree to a ceasefire. I mean, what do you make of where this stands and where these talks could potentially go? I think if Putin came to the summit kind of like Corleone in The Godfather, he said, my offer is this, nothing.
Because, you know, what is Putin offering in terms of, can you try to press Rubio on what is what is Russia offering as far as concessions? And he didn't answer because the answer is basically what Putin is saying is, you know, if you basically sign over a fifth of your country, Ukraine, I'll take it and I'll give you a piece of paper that says I, Vladimir Putin, will be a good boy and stop invading my neighbors. Well, that paper isn't worth anything even written on. So, you know, Putin is offering nothing and he gets everything from that summit.
And Trump doesn't push back because Trump doesn't want to walk out of that summit a la Reagan and recognize that because Trump wants to keep the deal alive because Trump desperately wants this deal. And so we'll see what happens this week. I think it's smart of Ukrainians to bring allies. Trump likes comfort food around him, literally and metaphorically.
I think that's smart to bring some of his friends from Europe. And hopefully Trump will listen to the last books in the room. Well, Ned, we should remind people you were in the Biden administration, of course, when Russia went into Ukraine in 2022. But pick up on that point.
I pressed Secretary Rubio and named one thing that Putin's being asked to give up. And there was nothing. And that's not to say that there wasn't something that was privately discussed, but at least publicly, they are not saying what Russia is being asked to give up. Well, because the answer might be simple.
Russia might be asked to give up very little or nothing at all. President Trump likes to give Putin concessions, not to make demands of him. Look, there's been a lot made of this question. How much will Ukraine have to give up?
Will Ukraine have to give up land to see peace ultimately? Of course, we would all like to see Ukraine retain the land that it had that it had not only in 2022, but in 2014 when President Putin's little green men first went into Crimea into eastern Ukraine. But if you listen to Ukrainians and sometimes only say this privately, that's just not all that realistic. Ultimately, just as the senator said, this has to be up to them.
And there's going to be one thing that will ultimately dictate what Ukraine looks like. And that's leverage. How much leverage Ukraine has in the first instance on the battlefield and ultimately, in turn, how much leverage Ukraine has at the diplomatic table. And the United States has to be the key provider of that leverage.
Unfortunately, Ukraine coming out of Friday has less leverage, not more. Sarah, how is this playing inside Republican circles? Well, I mean, one thing we saw in recent weeks is polling that showed the Republican base moving to the side of Ukraine in part because of President Trump's comments against Russia and against Vladimir Putin. I mean, look, coming out of this summit, it feels uncomfortable to sort of have seen the pageantry for a warmonger, you know, effectively.
But it is one inning in a long process. And so the question ultimately is, you know, the president not getting a ceasefire, the president not imposing sanctions doesn't mean that he won't get those things. And so Monday is very important in terms of sort of how does this play out over the course of the next several weeks and potentially months. Well, you take us to the next part of the conversation beautifully because, Andrea, inning two takes place at the White House with President Zelensky and these European allies on Monday.
What will you be watching for, particularly the fact that this is President Zelensky's first trip to the White House since that explosive meeting he had with the vice president, President Trump? I'm told Vice President Vance will be in this meeting as well. Oh, you can be sure that Vice President Vance will be in there. Now, the lineup on the couch will include Vance, Rubio and all the rest.
Whitcroft, clearly, doesn't. But on the other side will be Vandenland from the EU and the NATO Secretary General, the other Europeans, Macron, we understand, Starmer. And the UK Prime Minister Starmer has been coaching Zelensky ever since that disastrous Oval Office because Zelensky was, many people feel, ambushed. And he felt that he had to defend his his own country.
He's got a political audience at home. But what this president has never what President Trump has never agreed to. And this was clear in his conversation a week ago Monday, in fact, when he talked about Zelensky. He has never accepted the fact that Russia invaded Russia was the aggressor.
You've never heard that come from him. And until he unless he acknowledges that, I don't know how he can mediate this dispute. The Europeans have conceded what was the Putin line. Now it's the Trump line, which is forget the ceasefire.
Let's go straight to a bigger deal. If that's the case, can the Europeans at least get from Trump a concession from Trump that, yes, we will send some kind of, you know, US assets as part of a Western security force in Ukraine after this war. That, to me, I think is important coming out of this meeting is, look, if we're not going to do a ceasefire, what can we get to at least save some face? We being the Europeans and Ukraine.
I think they're going to try to get something from Trump in terms of a concrete promise to have American assets in Europe. Ned, what do you think the best thing Zelensky can get at this point is? Well, clearly, I think he needs to bring back President Trump to his side. Look, to the extent there was any good news coming out of Friday, it was not entirely the surrender summit.
It wasn't entirely the betrayal at the Bering Strait. But that's where the good news sort of ends for Ukraine and for the West. I say Friday was a very bad day in some ways. Saturday was an even worse day for Ukraine, for the West, because that's when President Trump came out and started pushing Vladimir Putin's proposal for a peace agreement rather than an immediate unconditional ceasefire.
Look, Secretary Rubio said this. A peace agreement might sound nice. It might sound good. But if you think about peace as merely the absence of war, the absence of violence, well, Ukraine could have had peace on February twenty fifth of twenty twenty two.
They could have raised their hands. They could have waved the white flag. They could have said here, Russian invaders, take the keys to our city. Take the keys to our country.
That's not a just and durable piece. What President Zelensky needs to do is to bring President Trump onto his side to push for that end goal, a just and durable peace. As you're saying, a lot of Republicans still support Zelensky Some of the theatrics, you know, maybe we don't need people in uniforms around the Gallery of Art. More bodies on the street is helpful and needed.
All right. Well, we'll watch how it unfolds. There's a big court fight right now unfolding as well. And we keep questioning whether, I mean, I live in the neighborhoods.
I've lived here for 50 years. I don't live here too in those neighborhoods I described. And I just don't think, I think it can be a problem in any urban area. It's not a crisis.
All right. Well, another big flashpoint right now, certainly, is this debate, Jaymar, over gerrymandering, which is the technical term for basically trying to carve out new districts. Texas Republicans trying to find five new Republican seats. Governor Gavin Newsom of California responding in kind, saying, OK, if you do that, we're going to find more Democratic seats here in California.
Take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say this week. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire. And we've got to be held to a higher level of accountability. How do you see this play out in 2016 and 2028?
Yeah, no, exactly. Let's take this first look at the midterms of 2026. The upshot of this is it creates a mess. These states, Texas, California, everybody who follows red and blue, are not going to be locked in court fights, protracted legal battles.
We're not going to have lines for a lot of these states' House districts until well into calendar year 2026. There's an arms race. It is now fully engaged, and it's going to be a mess going into the midterms. I think the upshot of this is there's more red states that can deliver more seats to the Republicans than there are blue states available.
But let's focus on 2028 for a minute, though. This is a gift for Gavin Newsom. Donald Trump loaded the weapon and handed it to Gavin Newsom. And now Gavin Newsom is the real for this opportunity, because California front and center this year.
Sarah? Well, I agree with Jonathan. This is good for Gavin Newsom. I'm not sure it's good for the Democratic Party.
You know, here you have this prolonged conversation around Texas and going in and doing redistricting. And the longer that played out, the worse it was going to be in the eyes of independent voters towards the Republican Party. And now it is. It's just a jump ball, and it's both sides fighting.
Look, I think the difference is the Republicans are doing this out of zeal. Democrats are doing this in response. They're doing it somewhat out of sorrow, somewhat out of regret. This is what they have to do in order to maintain parity.
But look, I think we also want to see backbone. We have seen so much folding, all of our institutions. Most of our institutions have caved, academia, law, corporate media. I think what Gavin Newsom is finding and others are finding it as well, is that when people stand up, stand up to President Trump and to power grabs into Republicans trying to do the same, they're applied.
We need to see more of that. Do their fight base wants to see fight. Gavin's giving them fight. What I would watch for is JD Pritzker at Westmore also eyeing 2028.
Do they follow suit and gerrymander their own states to get them more seats in Maryland and Illinois? All right. There's a lot to unpack in this fight that we're watching. Thank you all so much for a fantastic conversation.
That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's meet the press.