This Sunday, Pentagon pressure. Defense Secretary Pete Hykse faces growing scrutiny over the strikes on alleged drug boats as questions grow over the legal basis for the attacks. But things on fire that's exploded in fire smoke. You can't see anything yet.
Digital. This is called the fog of war. You have two individuals in clear distress. I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs down the United States back over so they can stay in the fight.
I'll talk to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. Plus, hard lines. President Trump dismisses concerns about the cost of living. There's this fake narrative that the Democrats talk about affordability.
They just say the word. It doesn't mean anything to anybody. As the Supreme Court allows Texas to use its newly redrawn map that favors Republicans. What will it all mean for next year?
Midterms. I'll talk to Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. And crackdown immigration rates expand in New Orleans and Minneapolis as the president ramps up his rhetoric against Somali immigrants. I don't want him in our country.
We're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. Joining me for insight and analysis are USA Today Washington Bureau chief Susan Page, Sam Jacobs, editor in chief of Time, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and Adrian Elrod, former senior advisor to the Harris campaign. 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 Welken. Good Sunday morning. The demand for answers is growing louder over the Trump administration's targeted strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. With Defense Secret Secretary Pete Hegset in the hot sea over a September operation that targeted two men who survived an initial strike on their vessel but were killed in a second hit.
The admiral in charge of the mission appearing on Capitol Hill this week for closed door briefings with members of Congress. New this morning, NBC News reporting that Admiral Frank Bradley told lawmakers that everyone on the boat was on a list of military targets. While the Trump administration maintains its actions have been legal. I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire that was exploded in fire smoke.
You can't see anything. This is called the fog of war. I think you're gonna find that this is war. I think you're gonna find that there's a very receptive ear to doing exactly what they're doing, taking out those boats.
And very soon we're gonna start doing it on land, too. The reaction, breaking along party lines with Republicans defending the Pentagon's decisions while top Democrats on Capitol Hill expressing deep concerns. The first strike, the second strike, and the third and fourth strike on September 2nd were entirely lawful and needful, and they were exactly what we expect our military commanders to do. What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service.
You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel who are killed by the United States. And joining me now is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Who was in those briefings this week, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thanks for having me on. Chris, thank you so much for being here after a very big week. I want to ask you about our new reporting. NBC News is reporting this morning.
The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, his order was to kill all 11 individuals on that boat because they were on a list of narco terrorists who intelligence and military officials determined could be legally targeted. Was Secretary Hegseth's order to kill everyone on the boat because they were on this targetless Senator. The order, like the entire operation, Kristen, is to destroy these drug boats which are running drugs into our country from foreign drug cartels and traffickers that are killing hundreds of our Kansans every year and hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now, of course, before a military conducts such a strike, they have multiple sources of intelligence.
They give high confidence that everyone on that boat is a foreign drug trafficker, not an innocent civilian who's being human trafficked, for instance. And therefore Secretary Hex have said, and I agree, they're all valid targets. Now, this controversy, let's rem all started with a Washington Post story about nine days ago that said after the first strike there were two survivors that were helpless and then they were ordered to kill these helpless survivors. That is simply not the case.
They were not floating in the ocean on a wooden plane or in life jackets. They were on the capsized vessel. They were not incapacitated in any way. It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that its cargo was destroyed.
It is in no way violation of the law of war. And I think the Washington Post owes Secretary Hex said, and especially Admiral Mitch Bradley, a high decorated Navy seal, an apology for that, Senator. Okay. And we're gonna get to what you saw in the video momentarily.
But I should be very clear because what you're saying is significant, Senator. It Sounds like you're confirming. Did Admiral Bradley brief lawmakers that in fact all of the people on that book were on a military target list? I did not hear him personally say anything about military target lists.
He had several briefings that day. I was in the briefing with Mark Warner, I'm counterpart in an intelligence committee. I don't want to say what he told me. He said they had high confidence based on multiple sources of intelligence that everyone on that boat was part of a foreign or foreign terrorist organization and been designated by the US Government.
So they could be legally targeted. They could be unseenly and legally targeted, yes. Both before the first strike and after the first strike. Was Admiral Bradley acting on Secretary Hex's orders?
Senator, anytime you have an operation like this, there's an operation order. It's written down, it's got very detailed instructions. I think because this is the first strike, Secretary Hexseth and Admiral Bradley both want to be present and be making the decision. As you heard Secretary Hexseth in the opening say he initiated the first strike.
You've seen the video. There's a lot of smoke. Takes a long time to clear. I'm sure Sector Hexat had many other matters that he had to tend to.
And he trusts Admiral Bradley. Once it smoked and cleared, once cloud covered cleared, it was clear that the first strike had not destroyed the boat. Then Admiral Bradley made a decision for the second strike. Nine subsequent strikes since then because there's been than 20.
Obviously it's no longer Secretary Hacks Hexaf or even for generals making that decision or should be on the first strike. I believe they don't want to be president be observing. Let me ask you about the aftermath of that first strike. The Pentagon's Law of War manual, which you're familiar with, having served in Iraq and Afghanistan, says quote, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
Given that, how was that follow on strike of two survivors legal, Senator? Well, again, Kristen, they were not incapacitated. They were not in the water, surviving only because they had a life jacket or hanging to a plank of wood. They were sitting on that boat, they were moving around on it.
That is in contrast, for instance, another strike that Secretary Hexaf described just yesterday in October, in which you had two survivors who were in that state. They were essentially just dog paddling in the water. And what happened on that strike, The US vessel went and picked those survivors up and took them back to their home country. That's just an example of how military makes these decisions.
Based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, consistent with laws and with the directive you just stated. I hear you saying they were incapacitated. And yet Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member in the House Armed Services Committee, saw this very differently. He saw that video.
He said, quote, it looks like two classically shipwrecked people. Other lawmakers who saw the video said the two men appeared to raise their arms, potentially to signal that they were trying to surrender. Senator, why did Admiral Bradley interpret those actions as anything other than these two men trying to seek help and survive? Well, look again, they were sitting here standing on top of a capsized boat.
They weren't floating helplessly in the water. And Chris, not only mattered all that much what they were trying to do, look at one point out there trying to flip the boat back over, presumably to rescue his cargo and continue their mission. What a safe float. Maybe they're signaling other airplanes or drug cartel boats because they're in waters that are just on drug cartel areas.
At one point the guy takes off his T shirt, maybe he's trying to get sun. It doesn't really matter what they were trying to do. What matters that they were not in a shipwreck state stress dog paddling in the water at all. And therefore that boat, its cargo and those drug tractors remain valid targets.
And I think what the Democrats objective here is not the second strike, it's the first strike and every other strike. We are going to talk about that as well. You continue to talk about one of them, talk about his shirt as if he's trying to stunt him. But again, your colleagues, some of them saying, look, they were waving their arms around.
Isn't it possible even the act of taking off a T shirt could have been part of an attempt to get attention for help, or it could have been an attempt to signal to another cartel boat to come pick them up and pick up the cargo. But is there confirmation of what Admiral Bradley's position It doesn't really matter what they were doing. They were on that boat. That boat was still a valid target.
They were not in a state of distress on a punk of wood in the ocean like subsequent survivors were. And when that was the case in October, our military did the right thing. Sen. They picked them up, they took them back short.
You're saying this vote was a threat to the United States and yet NBC is reporting that Admiral Bradley told the lawmakers the drugs were heading first to Suriname, that's another South American country, and then ultimately to Europe or Africa. How is a boat that's not heading to the United States, an imminent threat to this country, Senator? Well, that's one possibility based on the tactics and techniques that we've observed of these drug cartels. They send smaller boats to sea and they link up with a larger boat before they continue their mission.
I didn't hear that specifically, Madam Bradley, in my briefing, but what we know is that these drug cartels, which are designated for terrorist organizations, are tracking drugs to our shores. And we have an opportunity to strike one of the boats where the intelligence gives us high confidence that everyone on the boat is a valid target because they're associated with these cartels. And I think we need to strike it. And there's other cases when we don't have that high confidence.
There might be, for instance, young girls who are being human trafficked. And obviously, our military wouldn't take that strike. I think it's much more likely that we're missing some opportunities to strike these boats and protect Americans because we don't have the same high level of confidence. Senator, is there any hard evidence that shows that this particular boat was headed to the United States?
That didn't come up in my bridging, but again, there's very reliable, multiple sources of intelligence that tells us that this boat had drugs on it, that everyone on that boat is associated with these designated foreign terrorist organizations that are trying to kill American children. But are you comfortable having the United States target a boat in which you have not seen evidence that's actually heading to the United States that it's an imminent threat? Any boat loaded with drugs that is tra. That is crewed by associates and members of foreign terrorist organizations who are trying to kill American kids.
I think it's a valid target. I'm not discomfort with it. I want to continue it. Okay.
Do you think that the video should be released in full to the American public, as President Trump has said he would support? So, I personally, I don't have any problem with it. It's not gruesome. I didn't find it distressing, disturbing.
It looks like any number of the dozens of strikes we've seen on Jeeps and pickup trucks in the Middle east over the years. I will say that the department may have valid concerns about revealing what we know about tactics and techniques that these cartels are using about our sources of methods. And I would trust Secretary Hexseff and his team to make the decision about whether they can declassify and release the video. But again, there's nothing remarkable about that video, in my opinion.
Let's Talk bigger picture. As you were just alluding to the Trump administration. Overall, these military actions has taken action against 22 alleged drug boats, killing 86 people. Now, Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio made the point.
He said this, quote, if the people in these boats were captured and had a trial and were convicted, they would not be subject to capital punishment. They would go to jail. Why should death without due process be the punish? It would be drug smugglers at sea.
What President Trump's trying to do in life support is protect Americans from these drugs, especially kids. Again, we've had hundreds of thousands of Americans die drug overdoses in recent years. And it's been proven that the best way to have a large scale effect on these drug traffickers is to destroy these boats. Interdiction is very dangerous for our sailors, for our coast guardsmen.
It's time consuming and it's clear over the years that it simply doesn't have the kind of impact that blowing up these boats too. Right now there's a significant decrease in drugs trafficking to our country and I bet there's a significant decrease in the number of cartel members who want to be on the drugs. But the United States says there's a few people at the border who are bringing drugs into the country. Why should it be different at sea?
Are you saying we should start shooting people in the border? No, I'm not, Kristen, but we are going to the source where we have large scale boats that are trafficking hundreds if not thousands of pounds of drugs that could kill thousands of Americans hundreds of Arkansas year. It is a highly effective and efficient way to stop these drugs reaching our source. You are talking about the president protecting Americans Arkansas from drugs.
And yet just this week the president pardoned the former president of Honduras who trafficked more than 500 tons of cocaine into the United States. He was serving a 45 year sentence. Senator, how does that make America safer? Well, I haven't spoken to president about that pardon.
There may be strategic reasons to partner former president Honduras because of our relationship with Honduras and trying to move them in a more pro American direction. I'll leave that open as a possibility of Chris, I think you know my general approach to crime is that we should lock them, we should convict them and we should lock them up and must they rock up. So given that, do you oppose the part given that you're saying he protect our Kansas? I have to know more about the circumstances sometimes pardons of foreign nationals who have been leaders of other countries who have underlying strategic reasons.
But my approach, as you know, person to crime is to lock them up, but with a key and let him out. The World Powers act requires the President to notify Congress of the reason for committing combat troops within 48 hours of their deployment. And it specifies that hostilities must end within 60 days unless Congress extends that period. If the president wants to continue these strikes, which he says he's going to do, do you believe he needs to seek congressional approval?
No, Kristen, there's literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of presidents using the military to protect America going back to the early days of our republic. You don't have to go back to far though. In 1989, George Bush authorized the invasion of Kamal and overthrew his government because their illegitimate dictator was a US indicted drug trafficker. If George Bush can invade a Latin American country and overthrow his regime, I think President Bush has every power under the Constitution to strike votes in international waters from foreign terrorist designated organizations.
Ok, final question to you, Senator. The Pentagon inspector general was out with report this week including that when Secretary Hegset shared secret information about the United States attack plan in a single group chat, he quote created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed US mission objectives and potential harm to US pilots. Do you still have confidence in Secretary Hexa? Absolutely.
100 and I've read report, not just public report, but classified reporter Hexa of any criminal wrongdoing. The rest of the group chat as well. And Chris, by the time they were sharing information on the signal app, they were also calling their foreign counterparts to let them know what happened on open lines. I just think this is amount of molecule.
But based on what the IG found which found that he could have potentially caused harm to US pilots. Are you comfortable with the Pentagon continuing to use signal to communicate sensitive information? I'm not going to opine on what communication apps or devices our government does or does not use until the back tell the bad guys that on national shelter. I am confident that Secretary Hexat is making the right decisions to protect our country.
Also to keep other administration officials and reform counterparts informed by a pol cops in the job he's doing. Senator Tom Cotton. Thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Thank you. When we come back, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California joins me next. Welcome back. And join me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California.
Senator Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press. Good to be with you. Well, it's great to have you back. We appreciate it.
Let me start on the boat strikes. What I was just discussing with Senator Tom Cotton, you heard his robust defense of these strikes. He says that they are lawful. Let me put this question to you, Senator.
I know you haven't seen the video, but based on what you know, do you believe these boat strikes are legal? No, I don't. They're unlawful, they're unconstitutional. And killing two people who are shipwrecketse is also morally repugnant.
I agree with Tom. We should do everything lawfully that we can to stop the scourge of drugs coming into this country. But this is not at all lawful or constitutional. And frankly, if the Pentagon and our defense secretaries are proud of what they're doing, let the American people see that video.
Let the American people see two people standing on a capsized boat or sitting on a capsized boat and deliberately killed and decide for themselves whether they're proud of what the country is doing. I can't imagine people will be proud of that. And as you pointed out, the manual on the law of war makes it explicit that killing people are shipwrecked is illegal. It's a violation of law.
And the most troubling thing I heard from Senator Cotton was when he said he really didn't matter what these people were doing on that capsized boat, whether they were signaling their distress and asking for rescue or what they were doing, it does matter. It does matter. And you know, one point I would share with him, and that is I also think that all of these strikes are unlawful. They're a form of extrajudicial killing.
These boats are not invading the United States in an armed assault. They're thousands of miles away. Some of them may, even this vessel reports are accurate. Wasn't even heading to the United States.
And for us to be engaged in this kind of unauthorized campaign of extrajudicial killing couldn't be, I think, a more clear violation of the law. The fact administration may put a group of organizations, terrorists, narco terrorist organizations on a list. Doesn't change the legal ability, doesn't confer on a president the ability to kill them at sea. You could put anyone you wanted list.
It doesn't make it lawful to say I can now kill them. And one final point. They've been very fast and loose with whether they know exactly who's on those ships or they're just saying they're associated with a terrorist organization on a secret list. And we need a thorough investigation to find out what the orders were, whether it was to kill everybody in an organization without knowing specifically who these people were or what the situation was.
Senator Schiff, let Me ask you because Admiral Bradley did consult with the military lawyer in the room. Before that second strike, there were hundreds of uniformed civilian personnel at the Pentagon reportedly watching this operation. Wouldn't they have raised a red flag if they thought this attack was illegal? Well, we can't forget the backdrop to this, which is it's been reported that the admiral in charge of Southern Command left that command potentially over concerns about these strikes.
The top lawyer in that command may have been fired or forced to resign. So it all depends on whether you bring in a lawyer to simply tell you what you want to hear. We have seen inspector generals pushed out. We've seen lawyers pushed out, military lawyers pushed out.
So you can always find a lawyer to give you the advice you want to hear. That doesn't make it the right legal advice. And having read that Office of Legal Counsel opinion that is still classified, I could say in the most general of terms that it looks like one strained legal argument piled on another. Strained legal argument piled on another.
We are bootstrapping an argument that takes people that are thousands of miles away or more than a thousand miles away, some of which are not even heading to this country, who are not engaged in an armed attack on this country, and we are somehow labeling them invading enemy combatants to justify their extrajudicial killing. And that doesn't make it lawful. Senator, coming up with some legal rationale doesn't make it lawful. Senator, let me ask you about the president's argument that he is making this week.
He said, quote, I think you're going to find that this is war. Have you seen what happens with the families of not only the people killed, the people that are trying to get their son or their daughter off of this poison that they've been fed, I think you're gonna find that there's a very receptive ear to doing exactly what they're doing. Now, the administration has not provided evidence of who's on the boats or what the votes are carrying. But what do you say to American families who do agree with President Trump's argument that these strikes may be making them safer?
Well, first of all, I agree that this is a scourge on a country full of illegal drugs coming into Merket, and most particularly fentanyl, which is not what's involved in these folks strikes. But I would say this to the president, if that's the case, then why did you pardon the former president of Honduras, who, as you pointed out, was convicted in a massive cocaine smuggling scheme? It is simply the most blatant hypocrisy and you can't explain it, except I think when you look at what's really going on here, which is this is not about drug trafficking for the president. It's about regime change.
It's about forcing Maduro out. And how do you rationalize pardoning the former president of one country for drug running and bringing in an aircraft carrier, bringing in a mass amount of sailors and other forces to try to force one president out when you just pardoned another for essentially the same offense? So none of it makes sense. American people don't want to go to war with Venezuela.
And yes, we should be interdicting people bringing drugs in this country. We should be prosecuting them. We should be simply killing people at sea who are not even coming to this country. Senator, let me look forward with you, if I might.
The president saying the US Military will begin targeting Latin American drug smuggling operations with land strikes, quote, very soon, including in Venezuela. You have introduced a bipartisan resolution that would effectively block US Forces for military action in Venezuela unless authorized by Congress. Do you believe that you have enough votes to get your resolution passed? I don't know.
I think it's very possible that we could. We had two Republicans vote with us, Tim Kainan and I and Rand Paul introduced the last couple resolutions. This is the third resolution. And that number may grow as people watch what has just taken place and are appalled by it.
One of the reasons that we began introducing these resolutions is we wanted to protect our troops who might be put in harm's way, but we also wanted to protect them not just from physical harm, but from legal harm. And now we have, you know, everyone in the chain of command that carried out this strike on these shipwrecked people, you know, potentially facing legal liability. That is not good for our country. It's not good for our service members.
So I think the support of these resolutions is likely to grow, and it will grow further if the president follows through and actually releases this video to the American people. Because I think the clamor that will cause will force my colleagues to support an end to these strikes. Senator, final question here on the inspector general report of that group chat on signal that was used by Secretary Hegseth, the report finding that he ran the risk of potentially endangering US Troops when he shared secret information about military operations. Secretary Hexset says the report exonerates.
And you just heard Senator Tom Cotton say the same thing. What say you? Do you believe that this report exonerates Secretary Hegseth legally? No, of course not.
And it's another powerful reason why he should be fired. He should be fired over this killing of these survivors at sea, and he should be fired for endangering our pilots. That inspector general report made it clear that his actions in using this commercial app to signal military strike plans ahead of those strikes endangered our pilots. It also endangered the success of the mission.
That is more than enough reason to get rid of him. That kind of dangerous incompetence puts everyone at risk. His claim of exoneration is based on the fact that he has the authority to declassify information and he is deeming it declassified because he went through this reckless step of, you know, texting it out on signal to a journalist and family members and others. But the threat to our service members into the mission remained whatever you call it.
That material was classified before he sent it out, and I think it was classified when he did. So there needs to be some accountability or other people are going to be put in harm's way. All right. Senator Adam Schiff, thank you so much for joining us.
We really appreciate it. Thank you. When we come back, Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina joins me next. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the dark daily app, workouts, meal plans.
It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members to get an exclusive 50% off the annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more. Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically Reviews each year at 6599.
Taxi fees until canceled, all for ends May 20, 2026. Price is subject to change. Visit today.comxfinity for full on returns and details. Stay informed with the NBC News app Breaking news just coming in moments ago.
Watch, read and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best for NBC News with fewer ad instructions, including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back.
More context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. As the day wraps up, get to scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast for NBC News. With me, your host, Daphne.
We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories from NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. The front page, the zeitgeist here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.
Welcome back. And join me now is Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, the author of the new book the First A Personal History of the Pioneering Black Congressman who Shaped a Nation. Congressman Clyburn, welcome back to BE the press. Congratulations on the new book.
Well, thank you very much. I have it back. Thank you so much for being here. We'll get your book in just a moment.
But let's start with this big Supreme Court ruling this week that basically allows Texas to use a redrawn congressional map which is favorable to Republicans. Democrats have been responding to efforts in Texas and other states in kind with blue states like California trying to add additional Democratic seats. But some in your party, including your friend, Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, are warning against this tit for tat response. Here's what he said, Congressman, he said, if you fight fire with fire long enough, all you're going to have left is ashes.
What do you say to Congressman Cleaver and others like him who fear that this tit for tat response could ultimately undermine the democratic norms of this country history? I agree with him entirely. The fact of the matter is we are seeing today, and this is so much of what the first eight is all about, a repeat of a history that led to some catastrophic consequences in our previous history. My book is all about what happened after the Civil War, what happened when the Reconstruction came to an end that led to Jim Crow and is all about the Supreme Court at that time, starting with the slaughterhouse cases all the way up to professors versus Ferguson, made a mockery of democracy.
And that is what we are approaching today. Are we going to continue our pursuit of a more perfect union or are we going to make a mockery out of this democracy? Well, and in your book, the First Date, I have it here with me. I want to talk a little bit more about what you write.
You write that your rise in politics was made possible thanks to three landmark laws. Here's your quote. You say the hard won successes of the movement. I have served in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights act, the 1965 Voting Rights act and the 1968 Fair Housing act provided the faith and promise that I could one day serve in public office.
You are currently the only Democrat representing South Carolina. Your district was created as a result of the Voting Rights Act. Congressman, let me ask you, if the Supreme Court rules to further weaken the Voting Rights act that effectively wipe out Democratic representation in your sake for the foreseeable future Absolutely. Well, I used to teach history down in Charleston, South Carolina.
I used to say to my students all the time, anything that's happened before can happen again. And this is exactly what happened before. This first eight is by the first eight African Americans that served in Congress from South Carolina. I'm the ninth.
The problem is there are 95 years between number eight and number nine. And I believe that what we are approaching with the Supreme Court could very well result in the next century being one that will repeat that which took place in the previous century in 1877. Well, those are pretty stark words. And let me kind of push this conversation forward a little bit and have you respond to some of the, of the rhetoric, at least, that we are hearing this week.
President Trump referred to people in the Somalian community as, quote, unquote, garbage, even singling out Congressman Elon Omar. This, of course, is part of his broader crackdown on illegal immigration. But what do you make of the rhetoric that we heard this week from President Trump? It is incredible.
And of course, once again, it is not new. The number seventh guy on this list of eight, Thomas Miller, was referred to as a canary. Number eight on that list, George Washington Murray, was nicknamed the Black Crow. This kind of nicknaming that took place after the Civil War, trying to discredit people of color is exactly what we're seeing now.
When people see all these nicknames denigrating people, devaluing their existence, that is not the kind of stuff of which our country has been made. We got over that after the 1954 Supreme Court decision. Why should we start back in that direction? And so when you look at the Somalians out in Minnesota, Ilhan Omashi is one incredible young lady who has withstood a lot in her life.
And I have defended her and her Somalian brethren. And I do believe that's what this country is all about. It is what made us a great country. And what we've got to do is continue that trek toward a more perfect union.
We'll never be perfect, but we should always be in pursuit of affection. And we don't do that by turning back the clock and having a future for our children and grandchildren, much like the past was for my parents and grandparents. That's not the American way. Let me ask you about the Democratic Party now.
Former Vice President Harris has said sexism and racism played a major role in her defeat back in 2024. In remarks last month, former first Lady Michelle Obama said something really interesting. I want to play it for you and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.
As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman. Congressman, do you think that America is ready to elect a woman president or do you agree with the former first lady?
Well, history is prologue, and I understand exactly what Kamala Harris has said. I had a very pleasant conversation with her last week. Michelle Obama is absolutely correct. If you look at the history, we demonstrated that we were not ready.
These are incredible women who have run. Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris. And I think that we are getting there. That's why we can't afford to turn the clock back.
We're taking one, two, and three steps forward. Let's not take two, three, and four steps backwards, which is what we're doing in these elections. So just because it doesn't seem that we're ready doesn't mean we should stop the pursuit. It's never.
My dad used to tell me all the time, son, the darkest part of the night is that moment just before dawn. And so we may be in the dark moments as it relates to women serving as president, but we may be in that moment just before dawn when a woman will serve. And in order for that to happen, they've got to run. So I want women to run.
I'm gonna support them. I'm the father of three fantastic women. I want them to keep their pursuit and not give it up on this country. All right, Thomas McLember, thank you much.
So much. We always appreciate having you. Thank you very much. All right.
And when we come back, a national security scandal where the major players admitted mistakes were made. Army. The president is next. Welcome back.
The Pentagon's scrutiny over its targeting of suspected drug boats echoes another crisis from decades ago, when a secret military operation erupted into a national scandal in the 1980s. The Reagan secretly sold arms to Iran, hoping to free American hostages held by Hezbollah and diverted the profits to fund the anti communist Contras in Nicaragua. Despite a congressional ban, the Iran Contra affair quickly grew into a major political crisis for the Reagan White House. Vice President George H.W.
bush addressed it right here on Meet the Press. I have said that mistakes were made on this, and now we're moving forward. Did you make mistakes? Sure.
In retrospect, if I had a lot more knowledge of what was going on, I would have said, don't do this. Or if I'd have been sharp enough to see into the future that a program that started out as not having arms for hostages turned into that, I'd have said, don't do that. And if I had been a little more, you know, perceptive about the future, I would have said let's convene the National Security Council to be sure that everybody who has a different opinion is heard so the president can benefit, benefit by the advice of everybody. I didn't do that.
But now we're moving forward. Mistakes were made and everyone admits that. And so I don't see much use in dwelling on what I told the president or not, because I'm not going to now do that, which I've been unwilling to do for seven years. When we come back, is President Trump's handling of the issue of affordability going to cost his party in the midterms?
The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here. Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, editor in chief of Time, Sam Jacobs, Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and Democratic strategist Adrian Elrod.
Thanks to all of you for being here. Susan, let me start with you. Let's talk about these boat strikes. What's so extraordinary is that you had these closed door briefings this week on Capitol Hill.
Democrats and Republicans emerged with two totally different interpretations of what happened. What do you make of this divide that we're seeing? What we heard from Senator Cotton this morning, watching the same video, seeing very different things. Look what you heard in your interview this morning.
Senator Cotton saying everything was entirely appropriate, Senator Schiff saying illegal and unconstitutional. You know, there was a moment about a week ago where there was kind of bipartisan concern about holding the administration accountable to this specific attack on September 2, but also the entire regime of attacks on votes. But that moment has passed. It looks like members of Congress have returned to their partisan corners.
So if you're waiting for bipartisan oversight, not yet. Sam, what do you make of this moment? The fact you heard Senator Cotton City still has confidence in Secretary Hesit, but clearly not ready to fully endorse the use of signal. It's a separate matter.
Another controversy looming over the secretary. There are three different controversies right now. One, his relationship with the press that keep people Pentagon. Two, the signal gate issue and then three of these boat strikes.
And I think the fact that you asked the question is leading many people to believe is he secure in this administration? And I would say good luck to any of us who wants to predict what Donald Trump is going to do. His values are intentionally, he's set up this administration to say it's gonna Be calmer, more stable than the last one. We're not gonna have this carousel of characters coming in and out.
And at the same time, the president is an eternal programmer. And as we round the corner to year one, it's possible he's ready for new characters in this administration. Peggy, what do you think? What do you make of that and what do you make of what we are seeing from Congress?
I think it's interesting. Things are moving in an inter. Things are sort of fluid, it seems to me, although I know at the end everybody will go back to their corners. But the President's been president for about 10 months now, and that is long enough to get on everybody's nerves.
There is. There's an old saying in politics, friends come and go, but enemies acc. So I think I see a lot, a little bit of that going on in Capitol Hill. I do think the, the boat story is going to stay because at the end of the day, it has to do with accusations of war crime.
I think we should all keep in mind, as Tom Cotton said, this is an administration attempt which can be debated. It's an attempt to keep drugs from coming to the American shores. And Americans will say thank you for that, especially American parents. I also think it's hanging on as an issue because Pete Hegseth himself has a reputation as being a guy who's unduly cocky and his comments tend to be aggressive and his pushback on the story has not been completely credible.
So I think it's going to continue going for a while here. Adrian, pick up on the point that Peggy makes about this is visceral for some American families. You hear the president, this argument about the fact that for parents who are afraid of or who have lost their children to drugs, they support these strikes, some of them. How do Democrats navigate this moment, given that politics of this?
Yeah, well, first of all, 90% of it noncommunicate border. So, like, I think it's important to bear that in mind. But look, here's the bottom line. I think this is where the Trump administration yet again, has gotten themselves into a pit bubble.
Democrats should lean into this. We should make it clear that we take our national security very seriously. We should also make it clear, as you heard senatorship say, that the tape should be released so that the American people can see for themselves what they actually think happen. We believe in transparency, but we also believe in the blah, blah, blah.
And again, protecting our national security is important, but Americans should be able to see for themselves whether or not this was work or not. And, of course, Sam, this is all taking place against the backdrop of the midterm elections. All of this is getting factored in for voters at the top of the list, though, arguably the economy, affordability. And what's fascinating is that we've heard heard President Trump really trying to downplay the issue this week, referencing it as a Democratic hoax.
He's going to Pennsylvania to talk about the economy on Tuesday. Do you think we're gonna hear a different tone from him? I'm almost certain we are. Here's why the president says people don't know what affordability means.
Senator Josh Ali says people aren't dumb. And in fact, preparing for this conversation, the last night, the White House press office sent out an email and it said the primary focus of the Trump administration is affordability. It's a challenge for the president because he knows he won the election because the Biden Harris campaign couldn't win this argument. He also has always offered himself up as an essential player in our lives.
This is not someone who's hands off. When Time spoke with the manual blocks in April, he described the American economy as a department store and the president as a store owner. He told us, in 2016, I alone can fix it. So it's very, very hard for him now to say, eh, not my problem.
This is what's so great I about Sam's anecdote is that you have the White House press office and then you have what President Trump says. Do the two align at some point, do you think? No, not necessarily. Just because the White House press office says affordability as our primary item on our agenda doesn't make it so for President Trump, because he's not running for reelection.
He's running at this point for history. And that's why I think you see the focus on winning the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance, and leaving his physical stamp on everything from the Rose Garden to this new ballroom to the Kennedy Center. Surely the White House knows holding on to Congress is the only way to preserve that mission. No, I think he's not particularly interested in any more legislation.
I think he's interested in things he can do himself. So we'll see about investigations and subpoenas. And he's familiar with what happens when Democrats win the House. Petty.
What a great question to pose to you. Do you think he's interested in legislating, or is he done? Is he deeply in the midterms and just trying to fall into the House right now? I think he's certainly trying to hold on to the House.
Very important for Republicans. Of course, he's on his back heels for the last two years of his administration if they don't. But I was so struck by the blooper this week that the president said on the quote, affordability crisis that it's kind of a con and Democratic hex or whatever the heck. He sounded to me like Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam era when people were complaining about inflation starting to go up and Johnson said, why are they complaining?
They've never had it so good. Presidents get to the point where they say they've never had it so good and it speaks to a detachment that has begun. Adrian. It parallels with what we saw with former President Biden.
His re election campaign are astounding. He struggled with his message on the economy. Our Democrats are cutting the campaign ads with some of the language. I ask American families who are trying to put food on the table and trying to put gas in their car and feed their families.
Look at the other day. Here's a bottom line. If we're building was the number one issue in 2024 campaign, it's been the number one issue in every special election that we had in the last year. It will be the number one issue in the midterms.
Trump going out there and telling the American people that no, actually the economy is fine. This is all hooks and democratic hoax. People don't believe that they will vote with their pocketbooks as the tails all the time. That's exactly what will happen in the midterms in 2026.
And when they start to feel that a president has become a little detached in his interests, gallivanting a bit about in the world, having a good time, creating ballrooms and fighting with architects. It seems, you know what, the American people, they're patient. They know things go up and down. It's hard to turn the battleship.
But also they want a president who's thinking long term about creating a secure economy going forward. Like in the age of AI, everybody's afraid of losing their job job. So they want to see him on the economy. All right, guys, fantastic conversation.
Thank you so much. 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.
Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple.
Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she never thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the drink wherever you get your podcast.