This Sunday, border battle. The border is a catastrophe. We've got a broken immigration system. A bipartisan border security bill that would help fund the wars in Ukraine and Israel faces an uncertain future.
Any Republican that signs it should be ashamed of himself. We ultimately fail on the border policy. We will live to regret it. Will House Republicans kill the bill?
And is their push to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas just fueling partisan divisions? There's not an impeachable defense. This is a policy difference. My exclusive guests this morning, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
Plus, fighting back. The U.S. military launches retaliatory strikes against Iran-backed militants after a drone attack killed three American service members inside Jordan. They had a lot of capability.
I have a lot more. Does this proxy war with Iran risk turning into a direct conflict? I'll talk to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. And trailing Trump.
We now have, in large part because of you and organized labor, the strongest economy in the whole damn world. The economy is roaring back, but voters aren't willing to give President Biden credit as his approval rating hits a new low. And he is now trailing Donald Trump by five points. Steve Kornacki will have the results of our new NBC News poll.
Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News Senior Washington Correspondent Hallie Jackson, Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief of TIME, Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review, and Simone Sanders Townsend, Former Chief Spokeswoman for Vice President Kamala Harris. 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. We begin with our brand new NBC News poll, which brings more warning signs for President Biden and his re-election campaign. One of our pollsters tells us, we are looking at a, quote, presidency in peril.
With the general election just nine months away, President Biden has declined on every measure since 2020, is struggling with key elements of his base, and now trails former President Donald Trump by wide margins on the issues voters say are most important to them. Joining me now to take us through the numbers is National Political Correspondent Steve Kornacki. Steve, these are some truly stunning numbers. They really are, Kristen.
Let's just start with the bottom line. When you ask folks, hey, if it's the general election and it's Trump versus Biden in our poll, Donald Trump now leads Joe Biden by five points. Compare that to the last time we polled back in November. Trump was ahead then, but it was only by two points.
It is even more significant when you look at it this way. Over time, we have been testing for five years now, going back to 2019, a Biden-Trump matchup. Remember, 2019, 2020, Joe Biden led. He led big in every single one of our polls.
For the first time in November, Donald Trump pulled ahead in our poll. And now at five points, this is the biggest lead NBC has ever had in 16 polls for Donald Trump over Joe Biden. And of course, undergirding all of this is this question of, he is the incumbent, Joe Biden. We ask voters, what do you think of the job he's doing?
And look at that, Kristen. 37% approve and now 60% disapprove. And we should say, that is the lowest approval rating since former President George W. Bush's second term.
Yeah, and to put that in further context, too, Bush's second term wasn't running for re-election. Here's the presidents who were running for re-election in our poll, starting their re-election year. What was their approval rating? Bush was over 50.
He won. Obama was almost at 50. He won. Trump four years ago was 46.
He lost. Look how low Biden's number is compared to those predecessors at this point. Their numbers all much bigger than what Biden's at. It shows you the improvement Biden has to make here in the coming months.
The issues that are driving this, too, the economy, no surprise, we've been talking about it, but look at that advantage for Trump, 22 points. And securing the border here, folks, a very important Trump with a 35-point advantage. The economy is so striking, Steve, because jobs are up, inflation is down. Voters aren't giving him credit for that, clearly.
Yeah, there are a couple areas in here I think where Democrats see potential opportunities to grow Biden's support. Certainly they are hoping the economy, folks change their perceptions of it and start rewarding Biden for it. That's what they're hoping, certainly. How about this, though?
Also cautionary for the White House. Go back four years ago. It was two folks in their 70s running Biden versus Trump. And we asked then, do the candidates have the necessary physical and mental capacity?
It was about even, 41-38. Now you ask it, 46% say that Donald Trump does, just 23% when it comes to Joe Biden. Think of one of the central themes of Biden's campaign in 2020. He said he'd be competent.
He said he'd be effective. Folks said they believed that in our poll in 2020. One of the big reasons Trump lost. But now, complete, total reversal.
48% say Trump, competent and effective. Barely a third say that for Biden. That's right. He said he was going to bring stability back to the White House.
And now he's the incumbent, and folks are maybe looking at him and maybe looking at Trump as not the incumbent in a different light here. Just a couple other things to get through. On the foreign policy, again, Israel-Hamas center stage in the world picture right now. Overall, big disapproval for Biden on foreign policy, particularly on Israel-Hamas.
That's particularly acute among the youngest voters, 18 to 34-year-olds. We have them tied, Trump versus Biden. And a lot of those Biden voters, 18 to 34, they say they don't like Biden. They just don't like Trump more.
It's this type of erosion among these key groups that really worries Democrats. And it is the area, too, we say where Democrats think there might be opportunity. They think they can get more young voters motivated to vote. Maybe not by being for Biden, but by being against Trump.
This is one area they think they can improve on and maybe make this race a little different. But the other one key in on to independents. Trump with that with a 19-point advantage. Also, keep in mind, that shows you a lot of independents look very open to potentially another choice if something were to emerge.
And also, among white voters, Trump with a big lead. Black voters, Biden with a big lead. But at one point, this one now, Hispanic voters. Trump with a one-point advantage.
We've been asking, would those gains he made four years ago stick? Our polls suggest they certainly have, and they may be growing. And we did ask this question, Kristen. If one of these cases this year ends in a conviction, a felony conviction, for former President Trump, would that change your vote?
45% said in that scenario, they'd vote for Biden. 43% for Trump. This is also something the Biden campaign obviously hoping for. Although, it's a long history in polling of asking folks about hypotheticals and then actually reacting a little differently when it actually happens.
A little bit of a game changer, but still incredibly close. Very. Steve Kornacki, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
We want to turn now to the Middle East. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is traveling to the region today. His fifth trip there focused on high stakes diplomatic talks. It comes after the U.S.
helped launch strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen overnight and after it bombed eight and five targets in Syria and Iraq Friday. Retaliation for a drone attack that killed three U.S. service members stationed in Jordan. Syria has called the strikes a blatant air aggression.
Iraq says they're a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The U.S. strikes come after more than 160 attacks by Iranian-backed militias on American targets since October and just hours after the remains of those three U.S. service members killed in Jordan were returned home.
And joining me now is National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Welcome back to Meet the Press, Jake. Thanks for having me. So the United States has now launched two rounds of retaliatory strikes.
Is the stated goal of deterrence against these Iranian-backed groups being accomplished? And do you have an accounting of how many people have been killed so far? So the president has been very clear from the beginning, which is that when American forces are attacked, we will respond. And we've responded several times over the course of the past few months.
And then when three Americans were tragically killed, the president ordered a firm and serious response, which we are now, which is now underway. It began with the strikes on Friday night, but that is not the end of it. We intend to take additional strikes and additional action to continue to send a clear message that the United States will respond when our forces are attacked or people are killed. At this point, we are still assessing the question of how many casualties there were among the militia groups.
And our military will continue to provide the president with those assessments. We do believe that the strikes had good effect in degrading the capabilities of these militia groups to attack us. And we do believe that as we continue, we will be able to continue to send a strong message about the United States' firm resolve to respond when our forces are attacked. Jake, do you know if any civilians were killed?
Do you know if any militant leaders were killed? We do not have at this time any confirmation You know, we've said from the beginning that because of the nature of how Hamas operates inside Gaza, hiding behind the civilian population, burrowing into these tunnels, that we do not and cannot have a clear picture of exactly how many hostages are still alive and how many have tragically passed away. And we've learned over the course of this conflict that at least two American citizens passed away on October 7th and then who we previously thought were hostages. So we cannot, with any clear sense, say the exact number of hostages, but we know that there are many.
And we know that it's our job day in, day out to try to bring them home. On the topic of Hamas, we know that there are divisions within Hamas about this deal. One sticking point seems to be about whether there should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?
Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza. Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire? Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire? Well, everybody wants, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war.
Nobody's rooting for the war to continue. But for the war to end in a serious and sustained way, what we need to see is all the hostages coming home and Hamas no longer being able to pose a threat to Israel. That's what is necessary. Otherwise, any temporary ceasefire is going to be just that, temporary.
There was a ceasefire on October 6th. Hamas broke it. So the goal now is to get all of the hostages out and to ensure that Hamas cannot represent a threat to Israel going forward. Speaker Johnson told his conference yesterday that the House is going to vote on a standalone aid package for Israel, Jake, without any spending offsets.
Will President Biden sign that bill if it comes to his desk? Look, we've been clear that we need to solve all of the major national security challenges facing the United States. That means supporting Israel. It means the war in Ukraine.
It means the Indo-Pacific, and it means the border. And there is a bipartisan effort in the Senate underway right now to do just that. We regard the ploy, and we see it as a ploy that's being put forward on the House side right now, as not being a serious effort to deal with the national security challenges America faces. From our perspective, the security of Israel should be sacred.
It shouldn't be part of any political game. And therefore, we believe the right thing to do is to pass a comprehensive bill, and that's exactly what a bipartisan group of senators are working on as we speak. Okay, let me ask you finally, Jake. Our new NBC News poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29 percent approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza, 60 percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy overall.
Should the president be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions? Well, I can't speak for the American people, but I can speak for the president. And the president every day is working tirelessly to deal with the threats and challenges we face in the Middle East, to support Israel while trying to bring down the number of civilian casualties, to protect shipping in the Red Sea with a coalition of more than 20 countries, and to respond to the threats against our forces, including the attack that killed three Americans. That's what he's going to continue to do in the best interests, the best national security interests of the United States.
All right, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, thank you so much for your time this morning. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. When we come back, can both parties agree on a border deal or will 2024 presidential politics prevent it?
The Republican House speaker Mike Johnson joins me next. Welcome back. Senate negotiators are preparing to release the details of a new border security bill today. If it passes, it would be the first significant immigration reform approved by Congress in more than two decades.
But even before the text of a bill has been released, former President Trump has vocally opposed it. And on Saturday, the House preempted months of negotiations and proposed a standalone Israel aid bill, setting up a showdown with the Senate. Joining me now is the Speaker of the House, Republican Congressman Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who just marked 100 days on the job. Mr.
Speaker, welcome to Meet the Press. Hey, Kristen. Great to be with you. Well, it's great to have you.
Before we get to the border talks, I want to ask you about the Middle East. Of course, you just heard me talking to the national security advisor about these rounds of retaliatory strikes, which you have been critical of. I want to be very clear, though. What specifically do you want to see, Mr.
Speaker? Do you want to see strikes inside Iran? Well, I do take issue with a little bit of what Jake Sullivan just said. I listened to that interview.
It was interesting. We need to make absolutely clear to Iran that nothing is off the table. You know, we maintain peace through strength. That was the Reagan doctrine.
That's what President Trump continued. And that's what we have to do right now. We should not be appeasing Iran. That's what the Biden administration has been doing for the last three years.
We are projecting weakness on the world stage. And frankly, Kristen, that is why our adversaries are acting so provocatively. What we need to be doing right now is turning up the heat on Iran. We need to act to decimate the Iran central bank, the assets that they've held there.
We need to lean on international banks to seize the assets of Iranian proxies. We need to put big-time pressure, maximum pressure on their oil exports. There's a lot that we could do to Iran to send a message instead of this appeasement strategy. Including strikes, Mr.
Speaker? Including strikes, just to be clear. It shouldn't. It should not be off the table.
Let me give you just a quick example. You know, in the Trump administration, we used a drone and three missiles to take out Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad. That sent a strong message, and it quelled all of the activity there. What we're doing right now, we're using potentially hundreds of munitions to strike close to 100 targets so far.
But we're not going right to the heart of the matter. I think that's a real problem. And, of course, the Biden administration has argued they have launched a number of retaliatory strikes against all of those attacks. Let me ask you, though, about your surprise move.
On Saturday, Mr. Speaker, you proposed a new standalone aid package to provide funding for Israel. It, of course, comes just hours before the Senate is set to unveil the details, the text of its border deal, which would also include funding for Israel and Ukraine. You just heard Jake call it a ploy, a political stunt.
Why not wait for the Senate to put out their bill first? Well, let's make a couple of things clear here, Kristen. You know, we passed the support for Iran many months ago, three months ago. Immediately after I became speaker, we sent the necessary resources there.
We passed our bill on border security nine months ago. It's been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk collecting dust ever since. The HR2, which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the blocks for the House Republican conference and our Republican majority, would have solved this problem. We would resolve the asylum, the broken asylum system and the broken parole system.
We would reinstitute remain in Mexico, which would stem the flow by probably 70 percent. We would end the catch and release, the release, the mass releases of illegals into our country that's happened. This border is out of control. All these problems have mounted and the Senate has been dithering ever since.
We cannot wait anymore. The reason we are going to send the new Israel package over is because the time is urgent and we have to take care of that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, as you know, that bill that you passed in the House would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Your Republican colleagues in the Senate have said as much. So I guess my question is, did you propose this standalone Israel aid package to kill this compromise deal in the Senate? No, we made very clear what the requirements of the House were, and that is to solve the problem at the border. Apparently, the Senate has not been able to come to an agreement.
They've been suggesting text should be filed maybe today, but we've been told the same thing for months now. We've been awaiting their action. We cannot wait any longer. The House is willing to lead.
And the reason we have to take care of this Israel situation right now is because the situation has escalated. Of course, the Hamas terrorists have not relented in their attacks on Israel. We're now having, of course, U.S. personnel being fired upon there and, of course, with retaliatory strikes that are taking place.
The heat has been turned up there. Israel has never been in greater need of our support, and the House is serious about that. I believe we'll pass this with a wide margin and take care of that responsibility. As you know, though, the Senate is poised to release the bill text today, Mr.
Speaker. Let's talk about what is in it. We haven't seen all of the details yet, but it is expected to speed up the asylum process, mandate DHS shut down the border during surges, and so-called catch and release, which you just mentioned, and expand migrant detentions, just to name a few of the things that it does. Will you put a bill like that on the floor for a vote, given that you're saying we have to address the crisis at the border Even former President Trump, though, called for legislative change on this issue.
You have one of the slimmest majorities in the House in history. Don't you have to compromise to get something done? What you passed in the House can't pass in the Senate, Mr. Speaker.
You know that. We are willing to work. We are willing to work with the Senate. I'm not disclosing that.
And I've been very consistent for the hundred days that I've had the gavel. We're willing to work, but they have to be serious about it. If you only do a few of those components, you are not going to solve the problem. And Kristen, that's not a Republican talking point.
That's what the sheriffs at the border, the Border Patrol agents, the deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, a 33-year veteran of the agency, told us. He said it's as though we're administering an open fire hydrant. He said, I don't need more buckets, like the president's proposed.
I need to stop the flow. And we know how to do that, but Joe Biden is unwilling to do it. Let me ask you about your decision. And by the way, Joe Biden has said that he would shut down the border.
He's calling for more funding. He's calling for you to pass this legislation. Let me ask you about your move to impeach Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. You accused him of, quote, willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law, a breach of public trust.
Mayorkas has said these claims are baseless and politically motivated. What's interesting here is that some prominent conservative legal experts who opposed Donald Trump's impeachment also imposed the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. This is what Jonathan Turley had to say, Mr. Speaker.
He says there is no current evidence that he is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense. He can be legitimately accused of effectuating an open border policy, but that is a disagreement on policy. What has not been shown is conduct by the secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable. Are you impeaching Secretary Mayorkas over a policy disagreement?
Jonathan Turley is a friend and a former colleague. I was a constitutional law attorney and practitioner litigator myself. And I also worked on the impeachment defense team for President Trump twice. So I'm very familiar with the law.
What we're suggesting here is that Secretary Mayorkas has openly defied federal law, openly, repeatedly engaged in a practice of defying the law that Congress has put on the books and previous presidents have signed. He has also lied to Congress. He has misrepresented facts over and over. And because of that, he's obstructed congressional oversight.
All of these are constitutional responsibilities that we are unable to fulfill because this cabinet secretary has decided to defy federal law. Extreme times, desperate times call for desperate measures. And that's where we are. Mr.
Speaker, just a couple of points there. Of course, Secretary Mayorkas and you had a dispute over what it means for the border to be secured. So the notion that he lied has not stood up under independent fact checkers. When you look at the fact that this was a dispute.
Secondly, he says he's following the law. He says that's why new legislation needs to be passed. Mr. Speaker, how does impeaching Mayorkas do anything to address the immediate crisis at the border, which you have called a catastrophe, which you said deserves immediate attention?
Kristen, for that matter, how does passing a new law by Congress do anything to solve the catastrophe that they have intentionally designed and created? If we pass a new law, he won't follow that law either. It gives the president expanded authority. It does a range of different things.
But the president is not using the authorities he has right now. All right. Kristen, the president and Mayorkas are not using the authorities they have right now. All right.
Let me just play. This is you were, as you just said, a part of President Trump's defense team in his first impeachment. Here's what you had to say about impeachment back then. The founders of this country warned against single party impeachments.
The founders of this country warned us against the single party impeachment. The founders of this country warned against a single party impeachment. You know why? You guys know why?
Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation. What changed, Mr. Speaker? Nothing.
Nothing's changed. I would repeat the same refrain over and over because facts are stubborn things and they do not change. The Constitution does not change. Impeachment power is probably the heaviest power that the House of Representatives has given in the Constitution.
Next to the declaration of war, you can argue it's the most serious power we have. And it's not to be used for partisan political purposes. That is exactly what they did for Donald Trump. How is this different, Mr.
Speaker? How is this more different? If that's the case, then how is this more different now? Kristen, in many ways.
Let me explain the many ways. For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction, judiciary, oversight, ways and means. We have followed the facts where they have led, not for political purposes, not because we take pleasure in this.
It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a cabinet secretary. But these facts require it. The House of Representatives has the constitutional responsibility of impeachment. And that begins with the investigation.
And it must be very carefully methodically done in a nonpartisan manner. That's exactly what the House Republican majority has done here. And it is exactly the opposite of what the House Democrats did in the previous administration. That is a fact.
And we can follow those facts and understand them for what they are. All right. And, of course, Secretary Mayorkas has said that the allegations against him are baseless. Mr.
Speaker, we really appreciate your time this morning. We do hope that you will come back. We have a lot more to talk about. But there was a lot to discuss about the border today and foreign policy.
Thank you. When we come back, President Biden's approval is at the lowest level of his presidency. Why are young voters turning against him? The panel is next.
Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson, Sam Jacobs, editor in chief of Time, Ramesh Manuru, editor of National Review and Simone Sanders Townsend, co-host of The Weekend and former chief spokesperson for Vice President Harris. Thank you all for being here on a day with a jam-packed show.
Hallie, let's dive into these poll numbers. President Biden had a victory in South Carolina last night, expected. So his base there is strong. But, boy, some headwinds in that poll.
Yeah, headwinds to say the least. And here's the reason I'm reporting what I think I've heard from both camps here. Biden campaign talking with folks there overnight, are saying the thing that they've said to her consistently, which is it is early yet. Polls are all over the place.
People are engaging at this moment. They haven't started to really prosecute the case against former President Trump in a way that people are engaging with right now. So that's kind of the view I think from one side. Other piece that I heard from the Trump campaign this morning after this poll came out, basically focusing on the economic numbers in there, which are super interesting.
And, Sam, I know you know this, too, because objectively, we saw a gangbusters jobs report just on Friday. We're seeing an unemployment rate below 4 percent. We're seeing inflation going down. People don't feel good about it.
People just don't feel good about it. You know, I was on the road with you for a couple of weeks for Iowa and New Hampshire. And that's what you hear consistently from some of these voters. So watch for that economic piece of things to be something that you see both sides try to hammer hard because the Trump campaign believes that they can continue to go after President Biden on that issue.
The Biden campaign believes that there is some signaling that the pessimism people feel are starting to ease up and that within the next six to eight months, that could shift. Sam, that divide on the economy, as Hallie is saying, could be the key to who wins on Election Day. And by the way, this border deal, the crisis at the border is looming large as well. I think we're seeing those two key issues on the economy where we're seeing the fact that the story the White House wants to tell is not the story the voters are telling you in this poll.
And it connected to that is this issue of enthusiasm. So the president won 18 to 29 year olds by something like, you know, 24 percent in 2020. When you look at this poll now, you're seeing a dead heat between young voters when it comes to the current president and the former president. And I think that's connected to this economic question.
Can the story the White House is telling match with what people are feeling? Simone, when you look at this poll, I know that we're just absorbing it this morning, but take us inside what you expect your Democratic colleagues at the White House and the campaign to say when they see these numbers. I think people are going to echo what they told Hallie this last night and this morning, that it is early and there is still time, which is true now that it's I think that there is still timing. There's time until August, September.
If you were waiting all the way until November, if we're having this conversation in August, that is time for the pants on fire. It's early now. We spoke to Mitch Landrieu, former mayor of New Orleans, former senior advisor to the president, now co 40% of people who had voted in previous Republican primaries voted for Haley. Is that a sign that he's going to have a weakness that is Trump unifying his party in November?
Haley, it's interesting because when I interviewed Haley last week and she said, I just have to do better than I did in New Hampshire in South Carolina, but boy, she's trailing him and our national poll shows nationally, she's trailing Trump by 60 points. 60 points, right. And she's got to get above, I think, 43% in South Carolina to hit the bar that she has set publicly with you for herself, which is a very sort of clear metric here. Listen, to your point here, when you talk to people that are close to her campaign, she is essentially running a general election campaign in a primary.
She is making an electability argument about where Donald Trump is weakest with some of these suburban women voters, et cetera. The voters that he's going to need in November. The problem is she is not gonna get to November if she does not get through the primary. They insist that they have the resources to go for the long haul.
She's talking to you about going through Super Tuesday, organizing in some of these states. But at this point, you know, the consolidation is happening, right? And the expectations are high here, not just because she set them herself with you, but she's never lost a race in South Carolina. And very few Republican nominees have gone on to become president without winning South Carolina, minus one in the last 45 years, 44 years.
And no nominee of either party has ever lost their home state in a primary and gone on to be the nominee. I feel like I can identify with Nikki Haley and Dean Phillips. I've been where they've been, okay? I worked on Senator Sanders in 2015, 2016.
I used to make those arguments. I was the press secretary. I used to make the arguments about, mm, but he's strong when you get to November. You're not getting to November if you cannot win a primary.
And the reality of the way in which candidates are nominated in this country is you have to win a primary process. Everything else is just fodder and punditry. And it's all about will her donors stay with her? Thank you guys.
Amazing panel. Appreciate it. 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. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, the podcast from NBC News. With me, your host, Gavin Vasuya. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalists.
It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist, here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.