This Sunday. Foreign relations Can Ukraine survive without US Military support? We will have low chance, low chance to survive without support of the United States. My exclusive interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as President Trump seeks to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.
Do you think President Trump is negotiating in good faith? I hope so. I hope so. Plus, cancel culture.
We do need to delete entire agencies. Elon Musk says he plans to wipe out entire government agencies in his efforts to curb government spending, while also admitting he might make some mistakes along the way. We ought to be passed through real make mistakes. We will also fix the mistakes for and live from New York, the lockbox.
Hi, Monica, you're fired. Our Meet the Moment conversation with Saturday Night Live's master impressionist Daryl Hamm as the show gets ready to celebrate 50 years of laughs. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapoor, Amina Vaz, co anchor of PBS NewsHour, Republican strategist Matt Gorman, and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki. 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 Moffert. Good Sunday morning. President Trump's foreign policy is facing its most urgent test of his new term as efforts ramp up to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, which is about to enter its fourth year.
World leaders gathered at the Munich security conference this weekend, where tensions mounted over mixed messaging from the president and his top officials. You suggested several things that Ukraine should give up, the idea of NATO membership, territory that was seized back in 2014 by Russia. What should Russia give up? Russia has gotten themselves into something that I think they wish they didn't.
NATO allies were reportedly blindsided by news of President Trump's call with Vladimir Putin and frustrated that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to make concessions to Russia. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Hexif After a backlash, then saying everything is on the table, European leaders worry President Trump is giving leverage to Putin even before peace talks begin and signaling a desire to retreat from Europe. These comments by Vice President Vance at the Munich security conference setting off alarm bells.
The threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values. I sat down exclusively in Munich with Ukrainian President Zelensky who delivered a stark warning about what will happen if the US Stops military aid. President Zelensky, welcome back to MEET THE press.
Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. It is an honor to have you. Ukraine is approaching the third anniversary of Russia's invasion into your country.
Let me ask you about something that President Trump said this week. He did not say yes when he was asked if he sees Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process. He did say later that Ukraine would have a seat at the table. He have you been given any assurances that Ukraine will have an equal seat at the negotiating table?
So I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine. Never. And our people, never. And our adults and children and everybody.
It's coming. So this is the war in Ukraine against us and it's our human losses. We are thankful for all the support, unity between USA in USA around Ukraine's support, bipartisan unity, bipartisan support. We're thankful for all of this.
But there is no any leader in the world who can really make a deal with Putin without us, about us. Of course United States can have a lot of decisions, canonical partnership, etc. We're not happy with it, but they can help with Russia, but not about this war without us. And that's why and I think that what we need very closely to work and quicker, I think we lose time now quicker to work on the plan, common plan.
So we're ready because United States is our the biggest strategic partner. We are ready not only to share our plan, we're ready for common plan with President Trump. And of course we need support from eu. It's important they also beat the NATO during this war.
And we will be the members of future European Union. That's why we need the support of Europe. And this content we have to discuss with Russia and we will. And at the table it's very important to hear America, Europe, Ukraine and Russia.
Yes. Can you accept any peace deal that is cut without Ukraine? No. Do you feel like you have a seat at the table right now?
I not only count on it, I'm sure that we have to be there otherwise it's not acceptable. But if there is a decision without us and Putin will go out from all our land, we will be in NATO and Putin will be in the prison. So President Trump can do it without us. Let me ask you about your phone call with President Trump earlier this week.
It came on the heels of his call with President Putin. Does Mr. Trump's direct communication with Vladimir Putin before speaking to you, unnerve you? No, no.
We spoke about it, by the way, with President Trump, and I said that. I know that we had already phone calls. Yes, both our. Each guy that he phoned him to.
Of course, I wanted very much that Ukraine is in priority for Trump, and that's Russia. And I hope that we are more important. More important, yes. We're not so big as Russia, but I think strategically, Ukraine is more important for the United States because we are really partners, allies, and we share common values and we are really from democratic worlds.
Do you feel like you have President Trump's full support? Do you feel like he's valuing Ukraine as much as you say he may be? I became more. More.
More pragmatic from the very beginning of this war and less sensitive to such things. And I believe and trust only in real steps. And I trust President Trump because he's the President of the United States, because your people, your people voted for him and I respect their choice. And I will work with President Trump with trust, which I have to the United States.
But of course, I want to have real meeting, productive without. Without just words with a comparative steps. And to hear us, to hear President Trump to make common plan and to share it with allies then with Russians and stop this war. I think we need it urgently.
Is it true that you told President Trump during that phone call that Putin is only pretending to want peace because he's afraid of Mr. Trump? Yes, yes, I said that he's a liar. And he said, I think that my feeling.
He said that he's ready for peace negotiations. And I said to him, no, he's a lie. He doesn't want any peace. But I think he's really a little bit scared about the President Trump.
And I think the president has this chance that he's strong, and I think that really he can. He can push Putin to peace negotiations? Yes, I think so. I think, though, he can.
But don't trust him. Don't trust Putin. Don't trust just words about ceasefire, I said, because I have very practical things. Practical meeting with Putin in 2019, and we made a decision with all our signatures, then we made a decision about ceasefire and exchange of prisons.
Yes. And he destroyed all these decisions and et cetera. So we don't trust him. Do you think President Trump is negotiating in good faith?
I hope so. I hope so, yes. I count on it. I count on it very much.
Based on what you're saying about President Putin, do you think he's negotiating in good faith? Once talks Begin who? Putin. Putin.
That he really. Is he capable of negotiation in good faith? Is Putin capable of negotiating in good faith? No, it's not about good faith.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yes. You just can't block his motivation to put him in such strong circumstances where he can't begin the new innovation, renovation. But he wants.
You'll see. Everybody will see. He will. He will try to begin something new.
By the way, I said it today, I'm not sure that only about Ukraine we're speaking. He's thinking not only about Ukraine, for example, now we have and we shared it with intelligence of our partners. Now we see how. How he's Preparing to train 150,000 people, mostly on the territory of Belarus, to show it to the world that it's just training.
That is usually he's doing the same. Usually, but it's not true. From such point he began occupation three years ago, full scale work. He began from.
From some symbolic trainings and. Etc. But really, really it was really under a conspiracy. So he conducted military training exercises on the territory of Belarus.
He said that these are exercises that are always ongoing on Belarus territories, that they are a allied states with Belarus and that they do regular business. But he started the invasion of the missiles and the first night flew from the Belarus and the invasion came from Belarus. We know for sure that he is preparing steps on the territory of Belarus this year. It can happen in summer.
Maybe in the beginning, maybe in the end of summer. I do not know when he prepares it, it will happen. And at that moment, knowing that he did not succeed in occupying us, we do not know where he will go. There are risks that this can be Poland, Lithuania.
Because we believe. We believe that Putin will wage war against NATO. That is why I told you that what is he waiting for? For weakening of NATO by for instance, policy of the United States of America.
For example, that the United States of America will think to take its military from Europe. Yes, Putin thinks of that. But I will believe that the United States will not take its forces, its contingents from Europe because that will severely weakenate on the European continent. Putin definitely counts on that.
And the fact that there is information that he will think of the invasion against former Soviet republics and forgive me, about these NATO countries. Just to be very clear, you are saying you have actual intelligence that President Putin is planning to attack NATO countries? No, we have intelligence, we have documents. But they are preparing trained mission of a big number of soldiers on the.
On the territory of Belarus. And we just sharing that there is a High risk that he can do the same. Maybe not. God bless.
Not. And maybe before it, President Trump and the allies will stop him. Yes. But anyway, I think that we have to prepare.
Yes. To prevent it. Not to be such surprises that he will come back like he was three years ago with invasion to Ukraine. That is my point of view.
Not my point of view. That is our intelligence understanding. If you were sitting across from Vladimir Putin right now instead of me, what would you say to him? I will speak.
I will speak. It's not about emotions. It's about how to stop him. So for me, he is a killer and he will never change.
And that's why this is a dialogue with the terrorists. This is dialogue with a killer. I don't have such power, enough power to push him out. That's why I have to speak about it.
So our allies can give me such power to push him out. But our allies decided to make a deal with Putin. But what can I say? Say what?
I'm ready. Of course, we don't want, you know, to lose our people and if it can be so in diplomacy to stop this war. So of course we are ready. Of course we'll be happy with the piece.
And when we come back, more of my exclusive interview with President Zelensky. Do you still think it's possible for Ukraine to win this war militarily? Welcome back. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said this week NATO membership is not a realistic outcome of Ukraine peace talks, a sentiment echoed by President Trump.
Then after backlash, Hegseth said, everything is on the table. In our interview, President Zelensky insisted his country must have a future in the military alliance for Ukraine's long term survival. President Trump said he does not think Ukrainian membership in NATO is, quote, practical. In your view, is NATO membership something that should be determined as a part of this deal?
I want to be very clear with NATO, for us and for everybody, it's the cheapest security guarantees, the cheapest for us, the cheapest for Europe, the cheapest for the United States, and the cheapest really for Russia. If we are not in NATO, it means that we will build NATO in Ukraine. Otherwise, we will not recognize the security guarantees. President Trump said on Wednesday that restoring all of the territories seized by Russia since 2014 is unlikely.
Are you willing to say here that you are prepared to formally cede some of the sovereign territory of Ukraine to Russia in order to stop the killing? Judicially, we will not recognize everybody and stand that it's out of constitution to recognize our occupied territory like territory of Russia we will never do it. It's not about. It's not about any negotiations.
We will never speak about it. Even Crimea, you seem to have acknowledged even Crimea. We will never recognize it because in years, in years, all things, all things which are Ukrainian will be Ukrainian. But maybe, I don't know.
Well, but yes, we have to return it diplomatically. Yes, we can if we need to. It's understandable. Why diplomatically it's very understandable and of course not to lose people.
It's a good way, diplomatic way to find diplomatic way how to get back our land and that's it. But the people are most important for today. That's why the way is good. But.
But where we will have security guarantees where we will stand. What security guarantees does Ukraine need specifically from the United States? The strong package of missiles like provincial step that we will not use it before any invasion. We will not use it.
But if they will do it, we will do it quickly. But it has to stand on our territory. Not like it was before the full scale invasion. That White House put sanctions after invasion.
No. And gave us weapons after invasion. Now they occupied it. Big territory.
If we could have before, they couldn't occupy us. Yes, some territory, but not territory. Because we've been without weapons. That's why.
Strong package of missiles and big army. If we are not in nature, as I said, comparable with Russians, not sure the same number, but comparable. Not to give them possibility to occupy it. And it's psychologically, it's very important because psychologically it's a strong signal that Putin will not go.
If you understand it opposite, let's say the same, comparable, the same number army. Can Ukraine survive without US Military support? Probably. It will be very, very difficult.
And of course, in all the difficult situations, you have a chance, but we will have low chance, low chance to survive without support of the United States. Your concern being without US military support, Ukraine would be vulnerable to another attack by Russia in another few years. Is that your concern? Yes, I think this, this can be.
This is really what he wants. He wants pause, prepare, trained, take off some sanctions. Let me ask you about this deal that has been discussed, President Trump has discussed about mining Ukraine's rare earth minerals. Just so everyone understands those are minerals that are used to make things like cell phones, electric cars.
That would be. President Trump says to pay back of what the United States has already given to Ukraine. What is the status of that deal? President Zelensky?
Look, that is first and foremost. We wanted American business to come. And these critical minerals, rare earth, they are closed for many partners. We are ready to open them for the business of the United States.
That is what we have is where we can put money and make profits together. This is goodwill from us so it's possible to make money. And I believe that here we cannot forget about the main idea that was in the very beginning that let us protect all that help us defend this and we will make money on this together. And here it's very important that in this document shall be a term to protect it.
And that is the security guarantees. And if we're not given the security guarantees from the United States, I believe that the economics treaty will not work. You had a message to Vice President Vance about the potential implications of pulling out of NATO. What was your message to the Vice President?
Will be destroying of NATO. Why? Because in 80 strong brigades in Europe. I'm just talking about NATO in Europe.
So about it's more than 30%. It's United States. And even if I will look at the army of Russia, if they will see that Russia have 220 or 250 brigades and Europe has 50, that is the answer. The risk that Russia will Occupy Europe is 100%.
If the United States pulls out of NATO. Russia will occupy Europe. Yes. Not only Europe.
They will begin from those countries, as I said, big up France, but small countries who have been in the USSR and the Soviet Union. They will begin and we'll see what will be the answer. But Europe will not answer because they don't have. They will begin to defend itself.
Each country defend itself at this moment. So Russia will get all this, all the successes with all the territories. They will want. I don't know what they will want.
30% of Europe, 50. I don't know. Nobody knows. But they will have this possibility.
Do you still think it's possible for Ukraine to win this war Militarily? Of course, yes. But it's many, many losses. So we understand.
We understand how many? I think it's too much. And I'm not sure that with so with such speed as our partners do this out support. It will be difficult.
It will be long. Longer than it can be. I know you're a dad of two and you have remarkable energy and have put so much heart into spreading the message for Ukraine all. What is your message to Ukrainians who have lost hope that this war will ever end?
No, no, no, no. We will finish this war and it doesn't matter will Putin want it or not. We will finish the war. And I'm sure together we are much more stronger than Putin.
And I'm sure that we will finish. I know that the peace that what we really need and we really want. And you know, it's like in the light when you want something very much with friends and with, with that, we will do it. I'm sure.
U.S. and Russian officials will meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to start talks. Two U.S. officials say Ukraine was not invited, but the intention is for the US to host bilateral talks with Russia, then with Ukraine, and then the hope is for talks together and they last in peace.
In a close to President Zelensky tells NBC News this morning, quote, it is dangerous to speak with enemies before speak with allies. Ukraine's position remains unchanged. We need to have a joint position of Ukraine, the US And Europe before any negotiations with Putin. And you can see my full interview with Ukrainian President Valencia meetthepress.com and when we come back, President Trump is making dramatic changes in foreign policy and reshaping the federal government.
The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapoor Amitavaz co ankara of PBS NewsHour, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, host of Inside with Jen Psaki, and Republican strategist Matt Gorman.
Thanks to all of you for being here. I'm going to let me start with you. The interview with President Zelensky. He said that there can be no deal without Ukraine at the table, and yet talks are proceeding in Saudi Arabia between the US and the Russians.
They say Ukraine will be next. But what do you make of this moment? I mean, it's interesting that they're speaking with the Russians first. I think that the call was first to President Putin before it was to President Zelensky.
And any of this, if there is a plan, it's clear the Ukrainians don't yet know what it is. I think what's missing from the plan is this bigger context here, which is to say that security guarantees from Europe alone have never been enough to deter Russia. We know that Vladimir Putin has expansionist aspirations that he's clearly articulated. And we know there's no way to separate the Russia and China threat.
None of this has been taken into consideration or articulated by the US in terms of a broader plan or approach here. What I take away from your interview, though, is this. A man who is desperate for help in this moment to save his nation. I spoke to him last year in April in Ukraine at the same moment US Aid was on the line.
He wasn't sure if he'd get that money and he said back then he didn't know what a Trump presidency would bring, but that it could bring change. He's having to deal with that reality now. I will say if there's a Trump plan for peace, tactically, I'm not sure how it makes sense to concede two of Russia's biggest points. You even begin to negotiate.
Negotiate. And that's what European officials were saying, Jen, that basically they were taking bargaining chips off the table before these talks had really begun. They're trying to get this deal for rare earth minerals. The USA give us 50% of your rare earth minerals.
President Valencia say not without security guarantees. He believes that is critical, quite frankly, to Ukraine's long term survival. Of course it is. I mean, and I think what we've seen from your interview in just the last couple of weeks is why it says two dramatic shifts in the dynamics here.
I mean, one of them is just the way that US Leadership use the reasons to help Ukraine. And this has been true for Democratic and Republican presidents prior to Trump. The reasons to help countries like Ukraine in the past has been a country like Russia does not have the right to illegally invade a sovereign country and there are risks to what they could do to other countries in Eastern Europe. That's the reason the United States has supported them in the past.
Now it's what do we get from you? It's a very transactional approach to this, the minerals proposal. Right. The second piece I would say, and on the reference, this is just the changing leverage that Zelenskyy has.
You could hear it in his voice during your interview and in some of his answers. He does not have the leverage that he had with the United States a couple of years ago. That is part of the reason is U.S. support among the American public for significant aid to Ukraine has also changed over the course of time.
And you can hear he's trying to get to yes, he needs the security support, but he doesn't have the leverage he had a couple of years ago. Yeah. And Matt, on top of this there was the speech BY Vice President J.D. vance where he said the biggest threat is not from Russia, it's not from China, it's the threat from within Europe, which really stunned a number of European allies who felt as though women.
Is this a sign that the United States may be aiming to retreat from Europe itself? And again, kind of leaning towards some of the more far right groups in Europe? I don't think it was that. It was provocative by design.
Look, Europe is its owners enemy because it can't confront Russia or it can't confront China if it's not meaning security demands, which it hasn't been. Right. If you de industrialize, you demilitarized, you expand your welfare state, you don't have enough money to provide for your own security. So they have been way too passive and they cannot help Ukraine if they don't step up in a lot of respects.
And look, president of both parties, to be fair, told European countries they need to do more in NATO. Trump got more done than anybody else. But for the sake of their own security in their own continent and Ukraine, they need to be able to do more. I think that's what you heard from Vance.
You're gonna hear that morphine administration. And yet, Sahil, that's the concern that will the United States even stay in NATO? You heard Pete Hegset's defense secretary this week laying out all of these things that are going to be unlikely again, kind of taking some of the bargaining chips off of the table. His message, he walked it back the next.
Then it was walked back. The walk back was walked back by President Trump. And one of the things that I think unnerved folks at the Munich security conference was the mixed messaging. They weren't exactly sure where the US Stood on all of these issues.
Yeah, that's right. Because we're seeing a growing divide within the Republican Party between the traditional security hawks who favor robust American involvement to preserve the post war order. That includes NATO, that includes traditional European allies on one hand, and I would put Senator Roger Wicker to share the Armed Services Committee in that category. He had some choice criticism for the Secretary of Defense.
But the other category is President Trump. It's Vice President Vance. We've seen this movement for years now. And the second category, this America First Win, which wants to pull back from the world, is winning the argument within the Republican Party.
I spoke to Vice President Vance just a little over a year ago about this and he explicitly said that Ukraine's gonna need to seed land in order for this war to end. A huge venture as vp. I understand the alarm among Republicans. Nobody should be surprised at where this is going.
He has been in position for years now. One other thing that Vice President Van back when he was the senator told me is that Article 5, he still believes that the US should honor Article 5 commitments. Zelensky, in your interview you said the United States is the only Bulwark for Article 5. And he said.
And that if Ukraine falls, the Lithuanian polar nets. Yeah. And all of this is taking place against the backdrop of President Trump Elon Musk really just stripping government spending agencies, gutting some of them. Elon Musk in the Oval Office this week fielding questions, saying, we're moving so quickly, there are going to be some mistakes made.
It's notable that some of the layoffs resulted in accidental firings of nuclear safety workers that the administration is now trying to unfire. That came after we saw that attack at Chernobyl. What do you make of the speed and breadth with which they are moving? I mean, there's the big picture here, which is that there's a private citizen who is an unelected billionaire who is operating with unprecedented power and influence within the government right now.
Just put that over here in this bucket for a moment. You look at what Doge has been doing. And I think this example of the nuclear staff raises the exact question, if the agency making these cuts itself isn't aware of what it's cutting in the moment, then how can the American people understand what's happening at all? The question is, is this.
You know, no one will disagree that there's fraud and waste in the government. The Government Accountability Offices said, absolutely. The way you get there is not mass firing the inspector's general. The way you get there is not using a machete rather than a scalpel.
So these mistakes, as they call them, real consequences. President Trump says, this is what I campaigned on. I'm following through with it. The counterpoint to that is, did he campaign on cuts that go this deep?
And there are jitters about Medicaid and about Social Security, even though Trump has said Social Security is off the table for cuts. Yeah, exactly. That's the problem that President Trump, Elon Musk are running into, that there are already early rumblings of Republican angst about the way they're, you know, they're proceeding with this for the specific reason that some of these cuts hit home for Republic allies of Donald Trump, nih indirect cuts. We've seen several senators come out and say, this has been hurt institutions in my state, including Senator K.
Britt of Alabama, the university, which happens to be her state's largest employer. She's unhappy about that. Usaid, which Republicans generally have strongly supported cutting, has the Food for Peace program, which benefits a lot of their farmers in rural America. So suddenly we're seeing a coalition.
Republicans in rural states like North Dakota, like Kansas, Inc. Save the Food for Peace program. Our farmers sell money to the government that helps combat starvation around the world. We're also seeing discontented about the federal workforce cuts from senators like Bill Cassidy, Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.
The broader, the big picture issue that Trump is about to run into is that red states are disproportionately more dependent on the federal government. In other words, they take more from the US treasury than they pay in, in contrast to blue states. And you can't take a meat a federal government without drawing some blood in Trump country. This, I think, is, I mean, this is such a key part.
It is. I'm for cuts, but not if they impact me. And you mentioned some of the specific examples under Britannia Bloody North Carolina who complained about the NIH cuts, but they've been fine overall with cutting the nih, just not the universities that are in their states. But I think there's going to be the next layer of this, which is when people recognize that this money that has been held up and this is what the judge ruled this week, that they haven't given all back.
And people in communities like farmers are like, I need these subsidies. I know I voted for Trump, but this is what I voted for. Wait. My kids rely on this early childhood education center.
Wait. Medicaid helps me get health care. These are things that impact communities across the country. And you're going to start to feel the impacts of that in the coming weeks.
What about that tension map between what President Trump campaigned on versus who's actually being impacted? I think you'll see isolated incidents of Republican concentration on this. I think Justin said that in, in the Oval Office part. But look, I think Republicans feel very confident, by and large, fighting on this.
I think they believe that, rightly so, that government contract, lifetime contracts, everyone in the private sector outside of government understands what layouts are. They understand what buyouts are. And everyone's been affected by it or know someone who has. So the idea that it's foreign to people might be unfortunate, but it's a fact of life.
I think, you know, if Democrats want to be the party defending, by Republican standards, bureaucrats and foreign a, we'll have that fight. I'll have it every day. Shan, we have about 30 seconds left. Very quickly, some Democrats are saying this is a constitutional crisis because of the deep cuts, because of the tensions we're seeing within the Justice Department, for example, after it called for the case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York to be dismissed.
What do you make of that term? Does it go too far? Well, specifically, I'm not a lawyer, but specifically because the Trump administration appears to be ignoring the court order to get the money flowing again. That is the potential of the concentration crisis.
But my view is that is not the phrase that Democrats should be screaming from the rooftops every day. It may be we're on that road, but you need to be talking about how this is impacting your communities. The farmer style reference, reference the people who rely on Medicaid, the veterans, early childhood education, kids who are relying on that. That is what we should be talking about, what Democrats should be talking about out there, because that is how you connect what is happening in Washington with communities in the country.
All right, guys, fantastic conversation. Thanks so much for being here. When we come back, what is the best way to cut the federal workforce? Army.
The president is next. Welcome back. Thousands of federal workers have been fired and many more have taken buyouts as President Trump and Elon Musk ramp up their dismantling of the federal government. While their approach is unprecedented in scale, the debate over government spending is as old as Washington.
But in a 2012 interview with Meet the Press, President Barack Obama made the case that cutting costs isn't always the right answer. You are not only going to cut your way to prosperity. One of the fallacies, I think, that has been promoted is this notion that deficit reduction is only a matter of cutting programs that are really important to seniors, students and so forth. That has to be part of the Mexico I ran on.
And what the American people elected me to do was to put forward a balanced approach to make sure that there's shared sacrifice, that everybody is doing a little bit more. And it is very difficult for me to say to a senior citizen or a student or a mom with a disabled kid, you are going to have to do with less. But we're not going to ask millionaires and billionaires to do more. When we come back, Saturday night live celebrates 50 years.
Our meet the Moment conversation with Daryl Hammond is next. Welcome back. The iconic Saturday Night live celebrates its 50th anniversary tonight. In its five decades, SNL has spanned 10 presidencies, offering up the definitive impressions of American presidents and becoming a campaign stop for candidates.
No problem. I'm the person only I need to understand. Is that clear? Not got that.
I'm talking 3, 4% tops. No more than 5. That's it. So read my lips.
No huge new taxes and whatever you dig up, I promise you I will lie about it. I will do this. I will do this. I will do them both together.
I will instead ask each candidate to sum up in a single word the best argument for his candidacy. Governor Bush. Strategery. And I can see Russia from my house.
Such great memories. There only 167 people have landed the dream job is cast member Inside Studio. Ah. Among them, Daryl Hammond, who has done more than 100 impressions on SNL, including President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and President Donald Trump.
Hammond has performed for four presidents and is now the show's announcer. And Daryl Hammond joins me now for a live Meet the Moment Conversation Day. Darrell Hammond, welcome to Meet the Press. Hi there, Kristen.
It's great to be with you. It is so great to have you. Well, congratulations, because NBC is celebrating 50 years of SNL. You were on 14 seasons of those years.
Talk about why you think this show has been so beloved for half a century. Because it's so well done, that's why. I mean, I, you know, I was backstage at the Radio City Music Hal concert the other night, moving 35 bands in and out of that place and timing it all down to the second. It's so well done.
You know, all the best comics in the world, all the best singers in the world, all the best dancers in the world. It's just so well done. It's the precision. You're absolutely right.
In all of the characters you've played, so many of them. President Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Donald Trump. Do you have a favorite, what's your favorite political impersonation?
Well, you know, we sort of likened President Clinton to Daffy Duck in that, you know, Warner Brothers eventually could use Daffy Duck for any, any kind of comedy, any kind of sketch, dramatic readings. He was that versatile. After we'd done Clint a number of times, you know, we did him in a musical once. We, we did a slapstick thing with him one time.
It would have to be him. There's no one more colorful that I can think of. Well, okay, so on that note, just to remind folks, you actually played his clone at the 1997 Radio and Television Correspondent association dinner, we have this great picture of the two of you standing together. If you can give us your best President Bill Clinton impersonation this morning.
Well, do you want to do one with me or no? Sure, let's do it. You go first. Okay.
Okay. This is how, this is how we do it on snl. We do the thumb and the lip. Right?
Okay. Right. Even though he never did those things. And then we do the staircase.
It's called. The staircase is like love your shoes. Okay, let me try it. Love your shoes.
Oh, that's so good. All right. Well, here. I love your shoes.
I think you're much better at it. All right, let me. Here's one of my favorite clips of you. You are playing Tim Russert, the moderator of this program, actually interviewing the real Senator John McCain.
I want to play a clip for ours, get your reaction on the other side. What if President Bush does not run? I don't see any reason. What if he forgets to run?
All right. All right, Chief. The president forgets to run for reelection, and the Republicans are without a candidate. Does John McCain then step in to fill that void?
I would call the president and remind him you run. So you're running. How did you prepare for that? Did you watch a bunch of Meet the Press episodes to prepare?
It was written by Jim Downey, who's one of all those Emmys. Legendary fabled writer. In both Downey and Gore. Sorry, both Russert and Gore.
Downey came to me in my dressing room before the show and literally gave me line readings. He put his head down. Had anything like that. He gave him a head.
He literally gave me line readings. I copied what I saw him do in my dressing room, both in the Bush debates and the dresser. I mean, that's one of those things. You're assisted by people who win Emmys.
Writers, hair, makeup, wardrobe, lighting, everything. There's a whole big team involved in putting that product out there. Yeah, you put your whole body, heart and soul into it, and I think that's what made each of those characters so, so special. Daryl, you know, we live in such divided times right now.
What role do you think SNL plays in our politics, in our culture right now? It's interesting that when you tell a political joke and the audience laughs, you can conclude they basically understand your premise and they basically agree with you. So that's what's being put out there every week. They're taking a look at both sides.
Here's what you're looking at these days. Up to you to make a choice. Finally, Daryl, as we approach tonight's special, what are you looking forward to most? What do you hope?
People who watch take away from the special tonight, they just. They saw the greatest show in history. I mean, I. I don't know how to put it any other way.
It's the most successful show in history. What you're gonna see tonight is every star you ever heard of. You're gonna see cast members past and present from snl. You're gonna see figures from the sports world.
The biggest, the brightest, the best are gonna be there doing their thing tonight and hope everyone loves it. I'm sure it's gonna be great. All right, well, I'm gonna work on my Bill Clinton impersonation. But thank you so much for joining us.
We will be watching. We'll be laughing. And here's to 50 more. Thank you so much.
Daryl Hammond, such a pleasure to have you. Thank you. And you can see Saturday Night Live's 50th anniversary special tonight at 8pm Eastern only on NBC. That is all for today.
Thank you so much for watching. We will be back next week because if it's Sunday. Hey, everyone. I'm Dylan Dryer, co host of the third hour of TODAY and mom to three wild boys.
I learned a lot of my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, the Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting.
I'm over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm trying not to do my own kid on my video. I'm not. Screw your thoughts.
Parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.