There is a magical land where museums are more fun than tablets, where picky eaters ask for seconds, and where boredom has long gone extinct. It's called Halifax, and you can plan your trip at HalifaxKids.ca. No magic required. You have a reason to care.
You know someone. You've lost someone. You've lived it. The darkest times are no match for what we can do together.
Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge from May 25th to 29th. Canadians are waking up with the sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun. Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health.
Register today at SunriseChallenge.ca. That's SunriseChallenge.ca. This Sunday, economic shakeup. After a weak jobs report, President Trump fires the official behind the jobs numbers.
I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election. And there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her.
Tells you what he's looking for. Blind loyalty. As his trade war heats up, disrupting global markets. I'll talk to White House National Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett.
Plus, battle lines. Democrats clash over how to fight the Trump presidency. You can't just pick out a few bills that came out of a committee and say, I'm going to stop those. It's time for Democrats to have a backbone.
It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines. As former Vice President Harris says she's not running for governor of California. I don't want to go back in the system.
I think it's broken. And former President Biden warns of the threats he sees ahead. Look, folks, you can't sugarcoat this. These are dark days.
I'll talk to Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California. And line dancing. Texas Republicans redraw congressional maps that could help flip five Democratic House seats. There's nothing more political than redistricting, but that's the nature of the beast.
Republican politicians want to choose their voters. Will it help Republicans hold power in the midterms? Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, Susan Glasser of The New Yorker, Simone Sanders-Townsend, former chief spokeswoman for Vice President Kamala Harris, and Stephen Hayes, editor of The Dispatch. 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.
With just days to go until President Trump's tariffs take effect for nearly 70 countries all around the world, there's uncertainty about the strength of the U.S. economy following a weaker than expected jobs report on Friday. In the wake of that disappointing news, President Trump sent shockwaves across Washington by firing the official in charge of the numbers, Erica McInturfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming without any evidence that the numbers were rigged to make him look bad. I've been with the numbers for a long time, but today's, we're doing so well.
I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election. And there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her.
The move prompting a backlash on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans expressing concern and Democrats denouncing the president's actions. It was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just did it because they didn't like the numbers. They had to grow up. The president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers, but they are accurate.
Then that's a problem. It is a sign of an authoritarian type that when you get information you don't like, rather than deal with the issue, you fire the people who gave you the bad news. It's classic Donald Trump. When he gets the news he doesn't like, he shoots the messenger.
In addition to the lackluster July report, jobs numbers for May and June were also revised downward, leading to the worst three months of job growth since the pandemic. All of it coinciding with Mr. Trump's announcement of sweeping tariffs. As the president's August 1st deadline for tariff deals passed, he signed an executive order locking in rates set to go into effect August 7th.
The United Kingdom will see 10% tariffs and Japan and the EU will each face 15% tariffs with those nations having made deals with the White House. While Canada, which has not yet reached terms with Mr. Trump, will face 35% tariffs on many goods. Well, they have to pay a fair rate.
It's always very simple. I love Canada. I have so many friends in Canada, but they've been very poorly led. They've been very, very poorly led.
And all we want is fairness for our country. Democrats accusing the president of wreaking havoc on the economy. The tariffs are going to decimate our economy if they are as extreme as the president wants. They're very, very worried about an economy that was the strongest economy in the world, not a perfect, but it was the strongest economy in the world in December of 2024.
Now it's got nothing but smoke coming out of it and red lights flashing. And joining me now is the director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Mr. Hassett, welcome to Meet the Press.
It's great to be here. Thank you. It's great to have you here. Let's start with President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erica McInturfer, who he accused of manipulating job numbers.
Mr. Hassett, what evidence does the administration have that she manipulated the jobs numbers? Well, what we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the job numbers. In fact, they were extremely reliable, the kind of numbers that you want to guide policy decisions and markets through COVID.
And then when COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed so that the typical monthly revision often was bigger than the number itself. And now we had a number that just came out. The actual number for the month wasn't so bad, but the two months before were revised down by more than it ever happened since 1968. And in 2015, Alan Greenspan and I were asked to attend a conference at BLS where we were asked to give advice about how to modernize the data.
And we warned that if they didn't try to let the data collection and calculation keep up with the data that was happening in the economy, that we would have problems like this. And finally, in the UK, they had a very similar problem. And in 2023, they had to, for a while, shut down the data agency in the UK for the same kinds of problems. But just to be very clear, do you have, does the administration have any evidence that it was rigged, as the president said?
Will you be presenting that to the American public? Well, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could appear to partisan. Are they hard evidence? Well, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence.
For example, there was an 818,000 revision making the Joe Biden job record a lot worse that came out after he withdrew from the presidential campaign. There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable. Well, let me ask you about what William Beach, who was the last commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he was appointed by President Trump.
He was sharply critical of this decision to get rid of his successor. I want to read you what he wrote. He says, quote, These numbers are constructed by hundreds of people. They're finalized by about 40 people.
These 40 people are very professional people who served under Republicans and Democrats. And the commissioner does not see these numbers until the Wednesday prior to the release on Friday. By that time, the numbers are completely set into the IT system. They've been programmed.
They are simply reported to the commissioner so the commissioner can on Thursday brief the president's economic team. The commissioner doesn't have any hand or any influence or any way of even knowing the data until they're completely done. Isn't this the very definition of shooting the messenger? No, absolutely not.
I mean, the bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers. And if I were running the BLS and I had a number that was a huge politically important provision, the biggest since 1968, actually, revisions should be smaller, right? Because computers are better and so on. Then I would have a really long report explaining exactly what happened.
And we didn't get that. We didn't get that. And so and so right now, people, you know, Goldman Sachs, people on Wall Street are wondering where did these revisions come from and why do they keep happening? And what we need is a press set of eyes over at the BLS.
And there are great career staffers. One of the top BLS staffers is actually working in the White House to help us understand the jobs numbers. When I saw the jobs revisions, I literally called up that person and said, I think there's a typo because I've been following these numbers all the way back when I worked with Alan Greenspan for something like 40 years. And I've never seen revisions like this.
Let's just to be very clear. I mean, there are 40 people put these numbers together. Is the president planning to fire all 40 people involved in putting these numbers together? We're going to try to get the numbers so that they're transparent and reliable.
President Trump himself was happy to accept the jobs numbers issued under McInturfer's leadership when the numbers were good. Take a listen to what he said in the past. The numbers were much better, as you know Everything we can to give money back to the American public, but we've got to first balance our budget. Well, I think that there are a lot of people that think that balancing the budget is a top priority for the economy right now.
But we're also mindful of the fact that there's a legislative process where people dig over the details. And so I'm not sure I can predict right now which way it's going to end up. There's been a lot of focus on Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Obviously, President Trump really pressuring him to lower interest rates, which he did not do.
So the question becomes, who will replace him once his term ends? If President Trump taps you to be the next Fed Chair, will you accept? Do you want the job? I've been working with the president for about eight years.
And, you know, as one of his closest economic advisors, of course, we've talked about the Federal Reserve right now. He set up an active search with Secretary Besset. They're going to go through a list of names. And I'm sure the president will pick the best available person.
And we'll see if that's you. Will you say yes? We'll have to see if he chooses me. But I think that I have the best job in the world.
And I really well placed at the national level. In general, should a Fed Chair take direction from the Oval Office or from the economic conditions? I think that the Fed Chair should listen to all the voices, especially their critics, to try to think about what am I getting right? What am I getting wrong?
The Fed Chair also has a transparency responsibility, which I think that Jay has fallen down on a little bit, that if you're going to go out and say, for example, that you think that tariffs are going to cause inflation, then for goodness sake, you should put out a model that explains how much inflation and why you think that way. Because there are others that disagree. Have a lively academic debate. And if you could actually put a figure on the scale of tariffs causing inflation, then you need to explain why.
I don't think that the Fed or the BLS should be a black box. I think it should be transparent. All right. Before I let you go, President Trump has now been in office for more than six months.
Is this now the Trump economy? I mean, there is definitely a lot of policy yet to happen. We've just passed a big, beautiful bill. It's going to go into effect in July and it's going to have massive impact on the economy.
There's our residual problems that we've inherited in part of the runway spending from the previous term. And so whose economy is it is more of a political question than an economic question. Well, but you just touted all the benefits that you see. Is the president on the economy at this point?
He's been in office for six months. With the eye on the horizon, the economic outlook is huge. It's great. We've got the big, beautiful bill.
We've got AI increasing productivity. We've got everything. And we've got all the tariff revenue coming in. So we have every confidence that the economy is headed way, way up from here.
All right, Kevin Hassett, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. When we come back, Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California joins me next. Welcome back.
Joining me now is Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California. Senator Padilla, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thanks for having me back. Thank you so much for being here in person.
Let's start with the economy. President Trump, as I was just discussing with Kevin Hassett, his decision to fire the head of the BLS. Of course, it has prompted some backlash. You just heard Kevin Hassett defend the move.
Now that the president is appointing a replacement to head the BLS, my question for you, will you trust the job numbers when they come out? Well, and that's a big question for members of Congress who will have to confirm, which is members of the Senate who will have to confirm whoever Trump replaces. So confirmation hearings are supposed to be about, is it going to be somebody that will maintain the independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, like so many other departments and agencies that need to have independence from political pressure of the White House to do their job reliably? Or will this be another yes person for the president that's going to be more interested in propaganda than statistics, more interested in propaganda than the facts?
Well, you know, it's interesting because two former BLS commissioners wrote a letter calling on Congress actually to investigate what led to the firing of the commissioner and possibly to reverse the move. And we're even hearing some criticism from your Republican colleagues. Senator, do you think there would be enough bipartisan support to launch an investigation into the firing of the BLS commissioner? And would you support that?
I think an investigation is certainly in order. Right. Just as I called for an investigation, by the way, on Hatch Act violations on the redistricting in Texas conversation. The example after example of Donald Trump weaponizing no longer just the Department of Justice.
When he's trying to weaponize the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that tells you a lot about their insecurity about the economy and the state of economic affairs in America. Because everything that they're claiming to be true is not true. Prices are still going up. And this is from a president who promised to bring prices down.
And so American people are feeling that the impact of tariffs, $2,400 a year for working families across the country. That's the reality of tariffs. Well, we are going to get to redistricting in just a moment. But first, I want to talk to you about another issue that you're deeply engaged in, the issue of immigration.
The Trump administration is touting record low illegal crossings at the southern border. You've obviously been very critical of the president's deportation policies. You were very outspoken, for example, at a press conference that the Homeland Security secretary wound up getting handcuffed there. But do you give President Trump credit for these record low crossings at the border?
We should debate how the reduction in crossings has come about. But I think most importantly, let's look at the different pieces of what the immigration system looks like. Border security, everybody agrees we need an orderly, humane border. There's an element of people wanting to come to the United States and how those programs need to be modernized and updated.
My focus has been on the people who have been here, millions of long term residents of the United States who happen to be undocumented that have been the target of this administration's increasingly aggressive and cruel arrest, detention and deportation policies. If, and this is important to emphasize, they were truly only going after the dangerous violent criminals that so often talk about, there would be no debate. There would be no discussion. But the vast majority of the people that are arresting, detaining and even deporting, many without due process, do not have those criminal violent convictions on their records.
They're actually people who are critical to our economy. All right, I know that debate continues. Something we'll continue to track. Let's talk now about what you just brought up, the midterms, congressional maps, obviously in focus.
They are usually redrawn every decade. But in Texas, as you referenced, Republicans there rolled out a new map that could actually add up to five GOP seats. You now have Governor Gavin Newsom promising that California would respond with a new map that would boost Democratic seats in that state. Let me ask you, Senator, do you believe it's hypocritical for Democrats to deploy the same strategy that they're criticizing by Republicans in Texas?
Well, first of all, let's understand why Donald Trump is asking for five more Republican seats out of Texas. It's because his policies, especially his economic policies, have been so bad, right? The prior guest referenced the big beautiful bill. Wait till people start losing their health care and their health care costs go up, right?
If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November. But they know they're in trouble. And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power next November. That's what this redistricting move is really about.
You know, powerful language that you're using, rig the system. I mean, some of your party warned that going down this path could actually erode trust in the system. Here's California state assembly member Alex Lee. This is what he said.
He said, quote, trying to save democracy by destroying democracy is dangerous and foolish by legitimizing the race to the bottom of gerrymandering. Democrats will ultimately lose. Do Democrats run the risk of destroying voters faith in the entire system? I don't think it's destroying faith in the system.
It's everything coming out of the White House right now. The ideal scenario, Kristen, is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this. They shouldn't do this.
But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans, that's what he's asked for. Just like he asked the Georgia secretary of state for eleven thousand more votes after the 2020 election. The stakes are simply too high. The economic stakes, the state of our democracy, the health of our institutions, the checks and balances in our country.
So I guess California and others are going to look at what options we have to defend what we believe America should stand for. All right, let me talk about another recent split in your party. A lot of debate going on. Senator Cory Booker clashed with fellow Democrats over their support.
Just explain to our audience, OK, this was their support for bills that would fund police departments. Senator Booker is arguing that these bills would only reward police departments in states favored by the Trump administration. I want to play one exchange that he had with Senator Klobuchar. Get your reaction on the other side.
You can't just pick out a few bills that came out report that rattled the president and the markets. The panel is next. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the start today workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you.
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 renewed each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026.
Prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. Welcome back. The panel is here.
NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, Susan Glasser, staff writer for the New Yorker, Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of The Dispatch, and Simone Sanders-Townsend, former chief spokesperson for Vice President Harris and co-host of The Weeknight on MSNBC. Thanks to all of you for being here. A lot of news to talk about this week. Yamiche, let me start with you and President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You heard my conversation with Kevin Hassett. It's obviously going to continue to get backlash heading into this week. What are your sources telling you inside the White House about what was behind this? Based on my reporting and a lot of conversations with White House officials, this had been brewing for a while.
The president had been attacking the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even back when he was a candidate in 2024. But what White House officials told me that he was liking the job report numbers. So he essentially held off on firing the commissioner because he was okay with the data coming out. Then on Friday, when he saw those July numbers and then saw the revisions to May and June, he decided to pull the trigger.
And even though it's Kevin Hassett says these revisions are evidence, there really isn't any hard evidence that this commissioner was cooking the books. And also William Beach who held that job before and was appointed by Donald Trump called her firing dangerous. So the big question now is who ends up in that job? The president was asked specifically, are you gonna get somebody with experience and statistics and in data?
And he said, I want someone who's honest and I also want someone essentially who's who I like and who's going to be supportive of my goals. So it's gonna be very, very telling who he puts in that job because if you can't trust those numbers, and if the president installs someone that doesn't have the confidence of the 40 odd plus people, as you said who put this together, it's gonna be a real problem, not just for his administration, but for America on a whole. Susan, talk about the implications of this. Why is it significant and why does it run the risk of eroding public trust?
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is, you know, for many people who've lived and worked in other authoritarian countries, this seems like a move right out of the authoritarian playbook. You know, it's the move of a person, an individual or a system that doesn't like what it hears and chooses not to address the problem, but simply to fire the messenger. And I was really struck by your interview with Kevin Hassett.
Not only could he not provide any evidence, but he went out of his way essentially to say, the facts are whatever we think they are. And if we don't like it, you know, the president has the right to act arbitrarily. That again is something in the past, Donald Trump has insisted on his own facts. But in Trump 2.0, he's moving to create a world where he can fire people on the basis of what he himself admitted the other day was, quote, my opinion.
And I just think that is a transition and an escalation in Donald Trump's tactics that we should take very seriously. Simone, pick up on that point. And you are hearing some very fiery language from Democrats. Leader Chuck Schumer saying, quote, this is classic Donald Trump shooting the messenger.
What recourse do Democrats have in this moment? Well, look, I do think you have Senator Padilla here. Democrats are in the minority, I would note. But in the Senate, they do have a little more leeway to hold things up, to go to the floor, to to make a speech, to find some, you know, one or two other senators who want to join with them.
And I do think an investigation here is warranted. We do have examples across the world, the globe of other countries, Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union of what happens when data is manipulated or changed or maybe just underreported because you want to keep some people happy, like the person at the top, in this case, the president. And in every single one of those instances, the economy has been destabilized. The currency is affected.
Business is affected. So there are long-term implications for what looks like a short-term gain. This is really banana republic stuff. I mean, it's silly.
It's like breaking the thermometer because you don't like that it's hot outside. It's not the way that civilized nations behave. And one would hope that Republicans who disagree with this and behind the scenes are criticizing the president for this would find their voice at a moment like this. You talk to Republicans who aren't fully on board with the Trump train and they will say privately, they'll criticize him along and they'll say, well, I've got to pick and choose when I'm criticizing him.
I don't want to criticize him for everything. Well, now would be the time to find your voice. You know, this was an impetuous decision from the president, sort of a tantrum. We've seen this kind of thing from him before.
Remember when there was a black sharpie drawn to show the direction of a hurricane? You remember during COVID, he said he wanted to stop testing because he didn't want the results of the test. The MS-13 Photoshop. He just tries to bend reality to meet his perceptions in a way that I think is just fundamentally dishonest.
It's fascinating to hear some of the backlash from Republicans themselves in terms of what's dividing Democrats right now. You have to think about Gaza. You heard me have that discussion with Senator Padilla and this debate over whether funds should continue to flow to Israel. President Trump actually expressing some frustration privately amid questions about whether the images coming out of Gaza are real.
He's been told, yes, they're real. And he's been very firm with the prime minister. Apparently he wants something done about it. Yeah, my sources at the White House tell me that the president was very moved by the images of these children and families starving in Gaza.
And who really couldn't be? You see these images and they're heartbreaking, right? That said, this break between the president and the prime minister Netanyahu, it might be in some ways over this one issue, but they are still very much allied in the mission of it. And let's remember that President Trump has essentially called for the clearing out of Gaza and said that he wants to turn it into essentially a real estate resort.
So there's also that going on though the president has been clear he wants to get people fed. He had an interview with NBC News this week saying he wants to get people fed in Gaza, but we think about the long-term goal and how he's talked about Gaza. And that's not lost on folks. And then yeah, you have on the democratic side, Senator Bernie Sanders getting as many Democrats as he's ever had before backing this idea of stopping giving weapons to Israel.
But that doesn't mean Senator Padilla said, well, I still voted against that. And he's getting by that. So that's also where majority of Democrats are. It's a great point.
Susan, you wrote about it this weekend and that there is mounting pressure on both sides to do something. No, that's exactly right. But let's be clear here that Donald Trump, you know, what he's expressing is not so much a foreign policy shift as it is a series of social media postings. And Trump's own policy bears a lot of responsibility for what's happening right now in Gaza.
Remember that there was a ceasefire. Donald Trump hailed the ceasefire in January as epic, essentially a world historical event. When it collapsed in March, that was because Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, almost unilaterally pulled out from that ceasefire. You did not hear Donald Trump talking about the subsequent blockade of aid.
You did not hear Donald Trump changing American policy to address the very obvious consequence of a near blockade of aid, which is going to be starvation. So these pictures that he's seeing, he is in part the author of them. And I have not heard this week. He sent his envoy Steve Wickoff on a trip to Israel, including a visit to Gaza.
I have not heard a major shift in what the U.S. is actually going to do. This is Donald Trump doing what he does, which is watching the television and acting in a sort of media feedback loop with it. Can I just also say that our reporting on the ground from NBC is that that was sort of a publicity set in some people's eyes, including medical professionals, and that Steve Wickoff really wasn't seeing the reality on the ground in Gaza.
Of course, he's saying something different, but I just want to point out what our reporting is showing. I mean, they've announced the trip prior to going. And when you go to a zone such as the given with what's happening on the ground in Gaza, you're not announced a trip like that prior to for security reasons to ensure that you can see what you need to see in the report out when you leave the proactive note, I think is something to think about. Quick thoughts before we break.
Yeah, I mean, look, we should level set here. Hamas is responsible for the deaths and starvation. They were responsible for starting the war. I think the risk for Israel at this point is the loss of moral authority.
Israel has had moral authority since October Democratic leader couldn't name or refused to name Democratic leaders when asked about it. And if you look at what she was doing, she announces that she's, rather than going to try to fix the system, she's going to sit back. She's not going to try to fix the system. I mean, that's, if you're looking for a leader.
No, Kamala Harris has spent her entire life within the system. And frankly, I think she mirrors a lot of women elected officials, a lot of black women in the Democratic Party apparatus that say, I have been in this, I have been fighting, and I am a little tired, and I'm a little dismayed by what I'm seeing. So let me try it a different way. How is she leading?
I think Kamala Harris is going to go out there and campaign for folks. I think she's going to raise money for people, and I think she's going to help get some people elected. When you cover her campaign, what are you watching for? I'm watching for a couple of things.
One, our reporting is that she still wants to keep the door open on looking at 2028. I'm also looking at who she ends up campaigning for and how that goes, who wants her out there on the campaign trail. I think the other thing when you hear talk about the system being broken, I think Simone is right about the idea of a lot of black women feeling like this system is broken. Senator Padilla said it's under duress.
He wouldn't say broken, but to me the language is very much mirroring the fact that they see all this power that President Trump has amassed, and they're very shaken by it. And they're not also really understanding how, not only did they lose it, yes, it was a close election, but they lost every battleground state. And that's something that I think Democrats are still trying to wrap their heads around. Susan, this comes against the backdrop of this debate that we saw in the Senate between Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar.
You referenced it. But this idea about how to fight back against Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, what's extraordinary is that you've seen Donald Trump's shock and awe campaign unleashed on the federal government and segments of the American people over the last six months. And you have Democrats still having a circular fight about this.
I have to say, so I'm like, I get the idea that she's going to do what she's going to do. But to define that as leadership, you know, right now, and I get the idea that, you know, there's many Americans who are suffering right now as a result of, you know, what they perceive to be the Trump administration's policies. But say, well, I'm going to wash my hands of the fight because the system is broken. I find that hard to believe just as a matter of politics that that's going to be a winning message for Democrats next year.
I didn't hear that washing hands of the fight. I think I've heard a lot of people interpret what she said that way. And I didn't hear it that way. I think that power has never come from real power in the grassroots and the energy has actually never come from the elected leaders.
And especially not in Washington, D.C. Even in the resistance movement, if you will, from post 2016, those were people in the streets. And so I hear Kamala Harris saying, I'm about to go over here and get out here with the resistance because what I'm seeing in Washington is not working. If Democrats look at Donald Trump and his ascent to the pinnacle of American politics, he did it with one thing.
He fought. He fought everybody at all times. He blew up what the Republican Party had thought of it, ideologically thought of itself, ideologically and philosophically. And I think you're seeing Democrat Cory Booker being the most notable, trying to imitate that, trying to make that same case.
All right, guys, thank you so much. Great 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.