This Sunday, push for peace. One week after the Trump Putin Summit in Alaska, Russia escalates its attacks on Ukraine. I don't see President Putin rewilling to get to peace now. President Trump presses for an end to the war, but is Moscow listening?
Where you enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine? I don't like it. I don't like it, Kristen, but this is a war. I'll speak exclusively with Vice President J.B.
Vance and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky, when the agenda would be ready for a summit. And this agenda is not ready at all. Plus, Retribution Raid, the FBI searches the home and office of former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton in search of classified records.
Was it political payback? I'll talk to Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. And MapQuest, lawmakers in Texas in California battle to redraw congressional maps ahead of the midterms. We got here because the President of the United States is stronger.
Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba. I'm Anavaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, former Democratic Senator Heidi Heikem of North Dakota, and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. 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. This week, President Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volod over Zelensky and European leaders to the White House and his efforts to negotiate an end to the war.
But one week after that high-stakes Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, no ceasefire has been agreed to, no meeting between Zelensky and Putin planned, and Russian missiles hit an American-owned factory in Ukraine as the attacks escalate. Back in Washington, the FBI raided the home and office of Mr. Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton, searching for classified documents, according to officials. Against this backdrop, I sat down on Friday with Vice President J.D.
Vance at his residence and started by asking him about the raid on Ambassador Bolton. We're in the very early stages of an ongoing investigation into John Bolton. I will say we're going to let that investigation proceed. What I can tell you is that unlike the Biden DOJ and the Biden FBI, our law enforcement agencies are going to be driven by law and not by politics.
And so if we think that Ambassador Bolton has committed a crime, of course, eventually prosecutions will come. But as you know, Kristen, this is all part of gathering evidence, trying to understand something that we're worried about. And of course, I'll let the FBI comment on the next stage of the investigation. What's at the root of this?
Is this about classified documents? Well, I'll let the FBI speak to that. Classified documents are certainly part of it. But I think that there's a broad concern about Ambassador Bolton.
They're going to look into it. And like I said, if there's no crime here, we're not going to prosecute it. If there is a crime here, of course Ambassador Bolton will get his day in court. That's how it should be.
But again, our focus here is on did he break the law? Did he commit crimes against the American people? If so, then he deserves to be prosecuted. As you know, Ambassador Bolton is a frequent critic of President Trump.
He's also on Cash Patel's enemies list. The administration has already revoked his security clearance. Secret Service protection is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump? No, not at all.
In fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions really nearly like the Biden administration DOJ did. Prosecutors that later got thrown out in court. If we bring a case, of course, we haven't done that yet. The Department of Justice has not done that yet.
We're investigating Ambassador Bolton. But if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he's broken into the law. We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that because we don't think that we should throw people.
Even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically. You shouldn't throw people willy-nilly in prison. You should let the law drive these determinations. And that's what we're doing.
You know, a lot of people have already looked at this and said this looks a lot like retribution. Is this retribution? Well, who has said it looks a lot like retribution, Kristen? A lot of people who try to throw Donald Trump in prison for completely fake charges that were later thrown out by multiple different courts.
I suspect that if the media and the American people let this case actually unfold, if they let the investigation unfold as it's currently doing, they're going to find out that what we're doing is being very deliberate and being very driven by the national interest and by the law here. And that's as it should be. Let's turn to the war in Ukraine. I had the opportunity to speak with the Russian Foreign Minister.
I heard. Yes, he says, as of right now, there's no meeting planned between President Putin and President Zelensky. And he added, there needs to be an agenda first saying, quote, this agenda is not ready at all. Are the Russians stringing President Trump along?
No, not at all, Kristen. I think the Russians have made significant concessions to President Trump for the first time in three and a half years of this conflict. They've actually been willing to be flexible on some of their core demands. They've talked about what would be necessary to end the war.
Of course, they haven't been completely there yet, or the war would be over, but we're engaging in this diplomatic process in good faith. We are trying to negotiate as much as we can with both the Russians and the Ukrainians to find a little ground to stop the killing. I think what the President has tried to do here is try to engage in very aggressive, very energetic diplomacy because this war is not in anyone's interests. It's not in Europe or the United States's interests.
We don't think it's in Russia or Ukraine's interests to keep going. So we're going to keep on pushing for a diplomatic solution. When about this, Kristen, if you look historically, whenever you have a complicated war with a lot of death and destruction, it kind of goes and fits and starts. There are hills and valleys to negotiation.
We sometimes feel like we've made great progress with the Russians, and sometimes, as the President has said, he's been very frustrated with the Russians, and we're going to keep on doing what we have to do to bring this thing to a close. I don't think it's going to happen overnight. I think we're going to continue to make progress, but ultimately, whether the killing stops, that determination is going to belong to whether the Russians and Ukrainians can actually find some little ground here. Well, you talk about concessions, and yet the Russians rejected the ceasefire proposal that President Trump put forward.
There's no meeting plan between President Putin and President Zelensky. And this week, Russia targeted an American factory in Ukraine. There were 600 people inside at the time. No one was killed.
What makes you think President Putin is serious about peace? Well, I didn't say they conceded on everything, but what they have conceded is the recognition that Ukraine will have territorial integrity after the war. They've recognized that they're not going to be able to install a public regime in Kiev. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning.
And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Again, have they made every concession? Of course they haven't. Should they have started the war?
Of course they haven't, but we're making progress, Kristen. And what I admire about the President in this moment is he's not asking three and a half years ago. He's not trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half years ago. He's trying to focus on the nitpicky details of now.
Of what do the parties disagree on? What do they agree on? And how do you build a foundation from one side of that ledger to the other so you can stop the killing? What was President Trump were you enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine?
I don't like it, Kristen, but this is a war. And this is why we want to stop the killing. The Russians have done a lot of things that we don't like. A lot of civilians have died.
We've condemned that stuff from the get-go, and frankly, President Trump has done more to apply pressure and to apply economic leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden did for three and a half years when he did nothing but talk, but do nothing to bring the killing to a stop. So you ask me what I'm enraged by? What I'm enraged by is the continuation of the war. What I'm enraged by is a presidency in Joe Biden who for three years did nothing to end the killing.
What I'm actually excited about right now is that we have a president who's engaging in energetic diplomacy to try to stop the killing. That's as it should be, I think the American people should be proud of it. And whatever the outcome of this, whether the war ends in three months or six months or hopefully not beyond, but maybe we should be proud that we have a president who's trying to stop the killing. He's done it, by the way, six wars that the president has brought to a close all over the world.
This would be the seventh. It's the most complicated, but we're trying to spike that. I had the opportunity to interview Secretary Rubio last week, and he said he actually doesn't think that new sanctions would force Putin into a ceasefire. Are sanctions now off the table, Mr.
Vice President? The sanctions aren't off the table, but we're going to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis. What do we think is actually going to exert the right kind of leverage to bring the Russians to the table? Now, you said sanctions were not going to lead to a ceasefire.
I think that's obviously correct. If you look at the way the Russians have conducted themselves, they don't want a ceasefire. They don't want a ceasefire for complicated reasons. We, of course, have pushed for a ceasefire.
But again, we don't control what Russia does if we did the war would have been over seven months ago. What we do believe, though, is that we continue to have a lot of cards. The president of the United States has a lot of cards left to play to apply pressure to try to bring this conflict to a close. And that's what we're going to do.
You take me to my next question. Where exactly is the pressure on Russia to do anything if you're not right now imposing new sanctions? How do you get them to a place of getting to the table with Zelensky and stopping to drop on? But, Kristen, I think that question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are.
The president has applied aggressive economic leverage, for example, the secondary tariffs on India to try to make it harder for the Russians to get rich from their oil economy. He's tried to make it clear that Russia can be reinvited into the world economy if they stop the killing, but they're going to continue to be isolated if they don't stop the killing. The president has applied more economic pressure to the Russians to stop this war than Biden did in three years. So the idea that we're not doing anything, we're already doing things right now, and this is how negotiation works.
You do something, you talk to the parties, you try to see if there's a meeting of minds. Again, we believe we've already seen some significant concessions from both sides just in the last few weeks. We're going to eventually be successful, or we'll hit a brick wall. And if we hit a brick wall, then we're going to continue this process of negotiation, of applying leverage.
This is the energetic diplomacy that's going to bring this war to a close. I hear what you're saying about India, China's actually the largest buyer of Russian oil. They're about equal. Why no sanctions on China?
Well, obviously we have a 54% tariff on the PRC right now, so we've already applied pretty hefty sanctions on the Chinese, and we've had a number of conversations at all levels of government to try to encourage the Chinese to be better partners and bring this war to a close. So again, I think the question betrays a misunderstanding of what's going on. We are applying aggressive economic pressure to bring this war to a close. Maybe we'll apply additional pressure.
Maybe if we feel like we're making progress, we'll dial that pressure back. That give and take as part of the negotiation that we think is working. It hasn't reached its final outcome yet. We're going to keep on working on this process for as long as we can.
Just to boil down what the Russian concessions might look like. Is the only thing that President Trump is asking Russia to give up is not to invade all of Ukraine? No, that's not at all. It's providing the Ukrainians the kind of security guarantees that ensures that the country's not going to be invaded again.
And this is really, you know, this is why I think we've made a lot of progress. Even though we're not yet there, why we've made a lot of progress is fundamentally the disagreement here is over security guarantees versus where you draw the battle lines in Ukraine. So whether we solve those issues, we've actually identified the two critical issues. One to Ukrainians, one to the Russians.
And I think that that is where the fruit. If we ultimately solve this thing, that's where the fruit of an agreement will come. I want to get to security guarantees, but very quickly, if Russia is allowed to keep any of the territory that it illegally sees, what message does that send to China? Does it give China a green light to invade Taiwan?
Does it give Russia a green light to invade other European countries? Which is what your European allies are concerned about? Well, first of all, Ukrainians are going to ultimately make the determination about where you draw the territory lines in their own country. But, Kristen, this is how wars ultimately get settled.
If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation. We're actually not active parties in the negotiation. We're effectively mediating. We're trying to mediate Ukrainians and the Russians to come to some agreement.
If Ukrainians are willing to say something on territory that brings the conflict to the close, we're not going to stop them. We're also not going to force them because it's not our country. We're trying to play a constructive role. The president is trying to play a constructive role to bring peace to the region.
But he's not going to force these parties to walk through the door. All he can do is open the door and ask them to negotiate a good fit. You talk about security guarantees. Sure.
Foreign Minister Lavrov discussed the importance of Russia being a part of security guarantees. Ukraine says that's a non-starter. Is that a non-starter for the United States as well? How can Russia secure Ukraine when it's dropping bombs?
There's a little bit of a talking passage other here. First of all, we're not talking about security guarantees until after the war has come to a close. And, of course, the Russians are going to be a part of the conversation about bringing that war to a close. So, of course, they're going to have some stake in this.
They're going to talk about this. That doesn't mean that they're going to have troops in Ukrainian territory. But how can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close? So, I think there's a little bit of people talking past each other.
This is going to be a security guarantee provided by a host of nations. I think the Europeans are obviously going to play a big role. We think there are other countries all over the world that might play a big role. The Russians are going to be involved because they're the critical party that's necessary to stop the killing.
Again, this is how negotiations happen. It's this give and take. It's a conversation between both sides. Very quickly before I move to domestic issues for Americans who are watching.
Can you guarantee no U.S. boots on the ground as a part of these security guarantees? They're not going to be boots on the ground in Ukraine, but we are going to continue to play an active role in trying to ensure that the Ukrainians have the security guarantees and the confidence they need to stop the war on their end. And the Russians feel like they can bring the war to a conclusion on their end.
It's complicated, Kristin, but we're going to keep on trying to play these parties. We're going to keep on trying to convince these parties to talk to each other and continue to play the game of diplomacy because that's the only way to get this thing wrapped up. Alright, let's talk about some domestic issues now. This week you were in Georgia.
You were there to talk about and promote the one big, beautiful bill. It also comes in the same week that Texas Republicans approved five new Republican seats. So they expanded the map for Republicans in their state. If President Trump's agenda is so popular, why do Republicans need to add additional seats to the map?
Well, first of all, Kristin, you have to ask yourself, why have Democrats and gerrymandered their states aggressively over the past 10 to 20 years? If you look, for example, at the popular vote in a lot of these states and Massachusetts, where 32% of the presidents and Massachusetts voted for Republicans, zero Republican federal representatives. So we're not trying to sort of, what we're doing, frankly, is trying to make the situation a little bit more fair on a national scale. The Democrats of gerrymandered their states really aggressively.
We think there are opportunities to push back against that, and that's really all we're doing. So final question, please. Mr. Vice President, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Elon Musk is halting his plans to create a new political party, in part because he wants to support you for President in 2028.
I know you've been asked about this. You said you have not discussed this with him. That's right. But do you see yourself as the apparent future of the matter movement?
No, I see myself as a vice president who's trying to do a good job for the American people, Kristin. And if I do a good job, and if the president continues to be successful, as I know that he will be, the politics will take care of itself. We can cross that bridge and we come to it. But we just had an election seven months ago.
I think I'm probably like most Americans, and I'm already sick of talking about politics after a big general election. The next election that matters is not the election of 2028. It's 2026. So before we talk about anything, three and a half years down the road, let's take a break from politics, focus on governing the country.
And when we return to politics, it's going to be to focus on his midterm elections. Have you had any conversations with President Trump about him passing the torch on to you? As you know, the president talks about everything. And if it's in the news, the president and I have certainly discussed it.
But I think the president is just focused on doing a good job for the American people. He wants me to be focused on doing a good job for the American people. That's what I'll keep on doing. And again, if we take care of business, if America is safer, if it's more prosperous, if young people can afford to buy a home, if we actually bring peace to all these regions of the world, which we've made great progress in doing, the politics will take care of itself.
When we come back, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov joins me exclusively. That's next. It's here. The Ford is a big deal.
Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh guys, just wait. The Ford is a big deal event is on.
Really? Now! Hurry until at least a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at 5.2% APR for 60 months with $29.95 down. That's like $99 a week.
The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. Welcome back. In an exclusive interview on Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, he told me there's currently no meeting plan between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, despite President Trump's push for peace.
This week, Russia escalated its attacks in Ukraine. Just this week, Russia bombed an American-owned factory near the Hungarian border. I've spoken to people who frankly see that as a slap in the face to President Trump to the entire peace process, isn't it? Well, I would say that those who are sincerely interested in understanding what is going on would know, should know by now, that never ever Russia deliberately targeted any sites which are not linked to military abilities of Ukraine.
This is an electronics factory, though, sir. This is an electronics factory. I've spoken to people on the ground there. It builds coffee machines among other electronics.
This is not a military site. Well, I understand that some people are really naive and when they see a coffee machine in the window, they believe that this is the place where coffee machines are produced. Our intelligence has very good information. And we target only, as I said, either military enterprises, military sites or industrial enterprises directly involved in producing military equipment for Ukrainian army.
Mr. Foreign Minister, here are the facts. Close to 50,000 civilians have either been killed or injured in this war. Russia has hit maternity wards, churches, schools, hospitals, a kindergarten just this past week.
So either the Russian military has terrible aim or you are targeting civilians. Which is it? Look, look, MDC is a very respectful structure and I hope you are responsible for the wards which you broadcast. I asked you to send us or to publicize the information to which you just referred because we never targeted.
The civilian targets of the kind you cited. You might be missing the information because it is a fact that quite a number of churches were purposefully hit by the Ukrainian regime. Quite a number of just civilian settlements. But what about your actions, Mr.
Foreign Minister? Look, we are going by circles. I told you already what we mentioned repeatedly that we never target civilian sites. That we only attack the sites which are directly involved in the Ukrainian military machine, which the West is trying to beef up.
And if you have any proof of what you just said about churches, kindergarten schools and so on and so forth, I challenge you. Make it public. Make it public with the dates with the addresses and so on and so forth. As I said, MDC has a very reputed broadcast in the agency.
Absolutely. It's all public, Mr. Foreign Minister. It's all publically documented and we have reporters on the ground who have seen it with their own eyes.
When you make such claims. All of the information is publicly available. We do have reporters on the ground who have seen these strikes with their own eyes. But I want to ask about what is happening on the ground right now attacks against Ukraine have doubled in the time since President Trump took office.
President Putin has so much regard. If President Putin has so much regard for President Trump, why is he taking actions that are undermining his push for peace? President Putin has regard for President Trump respecting President Trump concentration on the interests, national interests of the United States, national interests and well-being, and historic heritage of the American people. And I don't have any doubt that President Trump respects the same attitude of President Putin to protecting national interests of Russia, to protecting basic interests of the Russian citizens, including the right to be a nation which has very rich history, very rich traditions.
And which has the duty, if you wish, to support those who share the values of the Russian language, Russian world, if you wish. Mr. Foreign Minister, let me ask you about something that President Putin said in June. He said, quote, I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation.
In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours. Does President Putin believe that Ukraine has a right to exist? No, this is not true. Ukraine has the right to exist, provided.
It must let people go. The people whom they call terrorists, whom they call species, and who, during several referenda in Novarosea, in Dambas, in Crimea, decided that they belong to the Russian culture, and the government, which came to power as a result of the coup, was determined as a priority to exterminate the research. But as you also know, a number of those people did not want Russia. The number of those people did not want Russia to invade.
Mr. Foreign Minister, do you acknowledge that Russia invaded Ukraine? Well, democracy is about the people, you know, having a chance to vote. The people vote.
The people pronounce themselves. Did Russia invade Ukraine? Mr. Foreign Minister, did Russia invade Ukraine?
Russia started special military operations to defend the people whom Zelensky and his predecessor did not consider as humans. They call them being suspicious. You should look. You should really understand that you need something to sell today.
But if you are raising and touching upon so serious things, my suggestion is to take a look at the history of Ukrainian development after the coup in 2014. But it's a yes or no question. It's a yes or no question, Mr. Foreign Minister.
Do you acknowledge Russia invaded Ukraine? I said to you that we started special military operations to protect the people whom the regime declared terrorist and enemies, and whom the regime was bombing. Mr. Foreign Minister, final question.
Does Russia, does President Putin want peace? Yes. And what say you to US lawmakers here who believe you are stringing along President Trump? Are you?
It is not for the lawmakers, sorry, for any media outlets to decide, you know, what President Trump is motivated by. We respect President Trump because President Trump defends American national interests. And they have reason to believe that President Trump respects President Putin because he defends Russian national interests. And whatever they discuss between themselves is not a secret.
We want peace on Ukraine. He wants President Trump wants peace on Ukraine. The reaction to anti-rich meeting, the gathering in Washington of the European representatives and what they were doing after Washington indicates that they don't want peace. Foreign Minister Lavrov also told me quote, security guarantees must be subject to consensus.
You can watch my full interview with Foreign Minister Lavrov online. And when we come back, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California joins me next. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking News is just coming in moments ago.
Watch, read and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back.
It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. Fewer ads, deeper access and exclusive content.
And now, during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled.
Hover ends May 20th, 2026. Crisis subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening.
With here's the scoop. Put a new podcast from NBC News with your host, Gazzam Vasugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful.
And it's informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. On the front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.
Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. Senator Schiff, welcome back to be the press. Great to be with you. It's wonderful to have you here on a big Sunday.
You just heard my interviews with Vice President J.D. Vance with the Russian Foreign Minister. Senator, what do you make of where this peace process stands? Do you believe it is stalled or do you think it's moving forward albeit slowly?
I think it's stalled. And I was most interested in your question to him. Was Russia essentially stringing along? Was Putin stringing along the president of the United States?
Now, Lavrov is such a practice liar. He's been doing this for decades. He seemed to have trouble with that question. He didn't answer that question directly.
I was also surprised, frankly, that Russia would go and bomb a U.S. electronics factor that's so in your face to the president, to present Trump. That seems unnecessarily provocative. But they're clearly stringing the president along.
And I think at some we have to start, what's our national security interest? Our national security interest is seeing a strong, sovereign, independent democratic Ukraine. And measured against that. This summit, I think, was a failure.
It didn't advance our interests or Ukraine's interests or that of our allies. Putin walked away with essentially no ceasefire, despite the presence of man for it. He walked away after being honest age on U.S. soil.
U.S. president literally the red carpet rolled out for him. He walked away out from under the threat of sanctions from the United States. Trump had promised to impose sanctions.
So they stringed along successfully. And I think the president for his part was correct when he said Ukraine can't win a war if it can't go on offense. But it is the president administration that is preventing Ukraine from going on offense by preventing Ukraine from using weapons to attack Russia on Russian soil. So I think it was a setback for us.
Lavrov, no surprises in his statements, except perhaps in his inability to directly refute the idea that they're stringing along the president. Well, something will obviously continue to watch really closely. I do want to ask you about one of the top domestic issues this week. The FBI search of former national security adviser and ambassador, John Bolton's home and office.
I did have the opportunity to ask the vice president about this. He rejects the idea that this is political retribution. Do you believe that people need to let this investigation play out and not get ahead of it at this point? I think this is clearly retribution.
I mean, the idea that what they just picked, John Bolton, a prominent critic of the president at random, what the president is trying to do here is very systemic and systematic. And that is anyone who stands up to the president, anyone who criticizes the president, anyone who says anything adverse to the president's interests gets the full weight of the federal government brought down on them. So if you're John Bolton, you get your home seized. If you're on the federal reserve and you won't lower interest rates, you get threatened with prosecution or with firing.
If you're a general, like the head of the defense intelligence agency and you issue a reporter agency does, casting doubt on the success of US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, you get fired. If you are the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and you give a jobs report that the president doesn't like, you get fired. They're essentially going after any critic, any opposition in an effort to intimidate them. That's what this is about.
It's not about Bolton, per se. It's about anyone else that like Bolton might stand up to the president. Well, you have been a critic of the president's and the administration is targeting you of what they alleged is mortgage fraud. I want to read a little bit of what President Trump posted on social media.
He writes, quote, Adam Schiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible mortgage fraud. Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in Maryland to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America when he must live in California because he was a congressman from California. Now the government mortgage company, Fannie Mae, says you're, quote, engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy. Misrepresentation on several loans.
Are these allegations true? How do you respond to them? They're patently false. And the president knows it in the housing agency.
President's person Polte knows that he's essentially doing the president's bidding against me, against LaTisha James, against this person on the Federal Reserve. Mortgage is their new weapon to go after their critics. But I've been very open about my residency both in California and in Maryland with my constituents and with the lenders. So there's no there there.
But the common denominator is they will manufacture anything to go after their critics. After members of Congress to try to silence them after John Bolton, after people on the Federal Reserve, after generals, after former presidents, they're investigating Comey and Clapper, the Obamas, the Clintons. Basically, it's free rein with a corrupt leadership at the Justice Department. And just very quickly, will you cooperate with the investigation?
Oh, we have. And we've refuted their allegations. In fact, we put it in writing. But it doesn't matter.
What matters to them is the intimidation campaign. And they're going to mount it against anyone who stands up to the president. But I'm not backing down. And I have to hope that others will stand up to this increasing authoritarian form of government.
Couple more in just a few minutes left. I want to talk to you about the Epstein Files, the Justice Department this week, releasing more than 300 pages of interview transcripts with Elaine Maxwell. Of course, she's serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking. She said in the interview she never witnessed President Trump back inappropriately.
And that Epstein actually did not have a client list that she's aware of. Did the released satisfy any of the outstanding questions that you have about this matter? Well, I don't think it'll satisfy anyone. They go and they do this interview without the presence of a prosecutor who actually knows the facts, because they fired her.
James Comey's daughter. So they go in there, the number two person in the Justice Department, not knowing any of the facts, not having a lawyer present to represent the victims of this child's sex trafficking. The convicted sex trafficker, Gisley Maxwell, goes into this interview, undoubtedly told by her attorney, unless you completely exonerate the present, you're going to spend most of the rest of your life in prison. So she wants a pardon.
She says exactly what her lawyers tell her is going to be necessary to get a pardon. No one should be surprised here. And she's immediately moved to a more less secure prison, which is not for convicted child sex traffickers. It all stinks to high heaven.
And there's a common denominator here too, which is the person going after his enemies to distract from their failure to do. The one thing they promised to the Justice Department, and that is released the Epstein Files. Very quickly, final question this week, Texas Republicans redrew their map. They added five additional Republican seats.
The governor of California, Gavin Newsom says it's time to fight fire with fire. He is moving to add five additional Democratic seats. You, Senator, have been very outspoken against tearing down Democratic norms. Does this tit for tat over redistricting run the risk of undercutting Democrats' credibility in the eyes of voters?
Democrats offered the legislation in the last session to eliminate the jury matter in every state. We supported, I think, to a person. Republicans, I think, almost to a person, maybe to a person opposed that. It's very clear what party wants to do with gerrymandering.
But it was interesting to me when you asked JD Vance, hey, if you're a gender so popular, why are you trying to gerrymandered Texas? A state that has already gerrymandered to like Republicans, and he didn't try to defend the president's agenda. The president is deeply unpopular, one of the most unpopular presidents in history. His agenda is unpopular.
The big ugly bill that is cutting health care for millions to fund tax cuts for rich people is historically unpopular. So, of course, the only way they feel they can survive the midterms is by redrawing the lines in Texas. California is not going to stand for this. We will fight fire with fire, don't poke the bear, and it's going to be necessary.
But I hope we'll come out of the end of all of this is where we should have begun, and that was with the Democratic bill to end the gerrymander in every state. All right, we covered a lot of ground today. Senator Adam Schiff, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Thank you. And still ahead, the panel is here. But first, it was one of the deadliest and most destructive storms in U.S. history.
Twenty years ago this week, army the press minute is next. Welcome back. This week will mark 20 years since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, claiming nearly 2,000 lives, causing more than $100 billion in damage, and leaving much of New Orleans underwater. It's people without power, food, or shelter.
Aaron Broussard, the president of Jefferson Parish, joined Meet the Press in the Aftermath, pleading for more action from the federal government. The guy who runs this building, I'm in, the emergency management. He's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in the Sakeman Island nursing home, and every day she called him.
And said, are you coming, son? Is somebody coming? And she said, yeah, mama, somebody's coming to get you. Somebody's coming to get you.
Somebody's coming to get you a Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you a Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you a Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you a Friday.
And she's around in Friday night. She's around in Friday night. Mr. President.
Nobody's coming to get us. Nobody's coming to get us. The Secretary has promised. Everybody's promised.
They've had press conferences. I'm sick of press conferences. Well, God sakes. Shut up and send us somebody.
Welcome back. The panel is here. Monica Alva, NBC News White House correspondent, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour. Thank you for being here, Monica.
I want to start with you. You were on the ground in Alaska for that summit between President Trump and President Putin. You heard the conversations with Lavrov and with the vice president based on your reporting and your sources. Where do you think this process stands right now?
Well, look, Chris, remember candidate Donald Trump promised to solve this conflict basically within hours of taking office. This week has shown why that has proven to be so difficult. And that's a point that he concedes and that White House officials are conceding now as well. The complexities of these questions of security guarantees, of territory, all of that.
That is why you now have the White House taking a little bit of a step back, shifting their language, shifting their tone a little bit to say, we're still working furiously on this behind the scenes, but publicly, they're saying this is up to Ukraine and Russia, and the U.S. will only have a role if they are able to iron out those incredibly complex issues. And that's now why you also have the president laying out a two-week promise. We bring that many times.
Those timeframes come and go without action sometimes. But he's saying maybe there will be these severe consequences that we haven't seen yet. Maybe sanctions, maybe tariffs, and so one thing to watch this week, and soon when the Senate returns, will they take up that package? That is a real question of whether those sanctions would even have an impact or be efficient in getting Russia to make some of those concessions.
Frankly, they haven't, but the White House says they're not giving up. They're still trying to work on this. And that burst of momentum you saw in Alaska and with the European leaders at the White House is now showing its risks, because then when you have a pause, an impasse like the one now, it's clear after all that activity. It's a great point.
And the question of sanctions, Secretary Rubio said to me, I don't even think sanctions would work to get Russia engaged in a ceasefire. You've interviewed Zelensky multiple times. You've been on the ground in Ukraine. There was so much skepticism about this peace process.
And then as Monica notes, we are seeing this shift in tone from the White House. And I think that skepticism remains. I want to point out that was a lot of babies from the White House, as Monica's reporting has showed in terms of what happens next. I thought you were so right to necessarily call out the misinformation being pushed by the Foreign Minister there on the fact that Ukraine started the war as they claim, and also that civilians are not being targeted on the ground.
You're reporting shows that I have seen that. As Monica laid out this burst of momentum, the Alaska Summit, Zelensky and EU leaders coming to the White House, NATO military chiefs meeting together, there's a lot of talk. The question is whether those are signals leading to something or whether they are noise continuing to allow Russia to stall time benefits Putin right now. When I spoke to a former national security senior defense official who worked on NATO policy, he set the role for the U.S.
to play here as critical, either as a backstop to any European security guarantees, or in providing the kind of things Europeans can't, transportation, intelligence, satellite communications. What we've seen from the White House is a move from President Trump saying, we're going to provide very good protection to more careful, mediated language now. We also know that three and a half years into this war now, the U.S. and others can provide a process, but they can't set the pace for that process.
And Matt, for as dynamic as this situation is, the push for peace by President Trump, or we had a lot of headlines this week on the domestic front, that weighed of former Ambassador John Bolton's home and office. You heard the Vice President defend it and say, this is not retribution. Senator Adam Schiff has a very different take. Do you think this could potentially backfire against the President, against his allies?
How do you see it? What are you hearing? Well, look, it's an important point that this started, this whole investigation started under the Biden administration, which I think you can't get lost on that. And look, as the left has said to us over the course of many years, no one is above the law.
I think at the end of the day, the allegations of war were reminiscent about 20 years ago, the former Clinton official, Sandy Burger, when he had the issue with classified documents, we'll find out how this plays out. But my bigger takeaway from all of this is, if I'm Adam Schiff, if I'm Tish James, I'd be very worried right now. The Trump administration has been quiet on the bolt in front before this, but they've been very vocal about wanting to hold them to account when it comes to alleged mortgage fraud on that. And I think that's likely going to come down the pike sooner rather than later.
That's my blurger takeaway from this. Senator Hikemp, the fact that Matt points to the idea that this list might continue to grow, and this comes against the backdrop of the administration dispatching national guard troops to DC, the fight over gerrymandering, we're obviously entering them in terms. What should Democrats be focused on? Should it be the issue of these investigations, or should it be pocketbook issues, all of the above?
It should be nothing that is beltway. What you're seeing right now is consumer sentiment as low as it was in the Biden administration. You're seeing record increases in insurance rates, and health insurance is going to hit like a ton of bricks. At the end of the year, you are seeing food prices not coming down.
And in the first Trump administration, the lower half or the lower quartile saw their wages increased dramatically. That's inverted now. Rich people are getting richer. Poor people are having a harder time catching up.
The Democrats have to lay the groundwork for an economic argument that they can do better because people out there are suffering, and that is getting ignored. The Trump administration isn't doing this. He's the master of changing the subject. Oh, he said he's great at crazy age.
If you're losing playing arts, change it to clubs. And that's what he's doing with a lot of the law and order stuff with the bolt and stuff, diversion, diversion, diversion, and Democrats have to say razor focused on the bread and butter and macaroni and cheese issues, not just the macro issues. Well, and Monica, to that point, I think a lot of Republicans are wondering if the White House is going to stay laser focused on trying to sell the Big Beautiful Bill. You had the Vice President out in Georgia, as I referenced with him.
There is so much that's being thrown out there right now. What is the strategy moving forward? Well, one example is the sort of rebranding of the One Big Beautiful Bill that they are now trying to message as a working family tax cut, trying to put an emphasis on no tax on tips, no tax on overtime with limitations and up to a certain point, and trying to really define it before some of the benefits, as Republicans would say, kick in. But before a lot of the issues with the Medicaid cuts also kick in, which, of course, Democrats and critics are really going to focus on.
Do you think Democrats will focus on it on it? Because, Heidi's point, there is the risk of getting distracted by all of these other issues. I think it's I really want to hear what Heidi has to say about that, whether they will or not. The economy is the single largest voting issue for all Americans, regardless of what else is swirling, regardless of what else the President promises and are reporting to follow up on our accountability.
But on the economy, it's resilient. That there's a good story for them to be telling there. You're going to see the first rate cut in a long time likely in September. But the reason a former Fed governor told me we may not see more ahead is because of all the uncertainty, the tariffs and their long-term impact.
Some of these policies and their long-term impact. There's reasons to be concerned. Consumer confidence is down. It's almost the economy.
Well, your name checked. We saw the stock market soar after that indication that that might cut rate. The stock market is not the economy. And you need to look at how consumers are feeling, how voters are feeling, especially independent voters.
And right now, they don't feel safe. They don't feel secure economically. And they are deeply concerned about what's going to happen going forward with tariffs, what's going forward. And on the big, beautiful bill, the biggest problem the Republicans have is the cost was actually a continuation of existing policy.
So people aren't going to see the vast majority of Americans are not going to see a big refund at the end of the year, saying, Wahoo, I'm trucking great things for me. And at the same time, you're seeing record defaults in credit cards. You're seeing record defaults in car loans. This is not a good economy for average people.
Matt, 10 seconds left. I'm watching the cry in law and order issue. It seems like Democrats are falling in that same trap they did on the economy. The economy and the greatest under Biden telling them things are better, even though people don't feel it.
Yeah, President Trump clearly thinks it's a winning issue for him. Thank you for a great conversation. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching.
We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's meet the press. A vacation rental shouldn't come with surprises. It should come with verbal care and 24-7 life support. If the hot tub's broken, that's a verbal care thing.
If my teenager starts going Leslie, that's a family thing Leslie. Verbal care and 24-7 life support. If you know, you have verbal, turn supply, zverbo.com slash trust for details.