This Sunday, Widen and Gore, one week in, and the conflict with Iran is escalating, President Trump defends his decision to strike, as the fight rapidly spreads across the Middle East. If we didn't hit within two weeks, they would have had a nuclear weapon. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
And support for the war breaks across party lines. This is a war of choice. It did not have to happen. There was no evidence that has been presented to us that the United States was under threat of imminent attack from Iran.
This is not Iraq. This is not endless. We are not at war. We are not at war.
I'll talk to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mike Waltz, House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi. Plus, Cabinet Shakeup.
President Trump fires Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, amid a controversial immigration crackdown and growing bipartisan blowback. What we've seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. Have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski?
You budgeted an astonishing $220 million for media consulting contracts. And, mid-term signals. A new NBC News poll shows President Trump struggling on the economy, while Democrats hold an enthusiasm advantage, even as voters remain skeptical of the party itself. Steve Portnacki breaks down the latest numbers.
Joining me for insight and analysis are USA Today, Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page, Amy Walter, Editor-in-Chief of the Cook Political Report, former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, 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 Welker. Good Sunday morning. President Trump's war with Iran is now entering its second week with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes intensifying.
And Iran retaliating, now ensnaring 15 countries in the Middle East. On Saturday, President Trump, top administration officials and grieving families, paying their respects at a dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base. The sombre event honoring the six U.S. service members who were killed in an Iranian drone strike in Kuwait.
It comes as NBC News has confirmed Russia is providing Iran with intelligence on the location of U.S. forces in the Middle East. President Trump saying on Friday, he will demand Iran's unconditional surrender before he'll make any deal to end the fighting. While NBC News reports the president has privately shown interest in sending ground troops to Iran, he was asked about what circumstances would lead to that Saturday night on Air Force One.
Could there be a possible for a very good reason? I mean, have to be a very good reason. And I would say if we ever did that, they would be so decimated that they would be able to fight in the ground. And joining me now is U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Walts. Ambassador Walts, welcome back to Meet the Press. Yeah, thank you. Good to be with you.
It's good to have you here. Let me start off by asking you. It has now been one week since the United States and Israel attacked Iran. Is the United States at war with Iran?
Well, I'll tell you the military objectives and achievements a weekend are truly extraordinary. As the president has effectively laid out, Iran's Air Force destroyed. Iran's air defenses destroyed and almost completely degraded. It's Navy sunk over 40 ships sitting at the bottom of the ocean.
And importantly, their ability to produce these ballistic missiles and these drones, with which they've been terrorizing Israel, their neighbors in the Gulf, providing to Russia and using against Ukraine, is also being severely degraded. So the military, our great Secretary of War, Peacock, Secretary Rubio, and others are laying out the case in terms of how we are going to protect the American people and eliminate this threat once and for all. I can tell you as a veteran, it breaks my heart in so many ways that we have had to deal with this threat across the Middle East for 47 years. And I want to be clear, the Iranian regime started this war in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, and thank God for President Trump.
He's taking the bold, decisive action that so many of his predecessors have failed to do to end it and to end this threat to the American people and our allies once and for all. And you just said there that Iran started this war. This is what President Trump has said about this conflict. We may have casualties that often happens in war.
We have unlimited middle and upper ammunition, which is really what we're using in this war. And we're doing very well on the war front to put it mildly. As you know, words matter. Does the Trump administration do you describe this as a war against Iran?
Well, I describe it as Iran's Bennett war with us, as I just said. So it's a war. It is a war. President Trump is, President Trump is ending it.
Look, I'll leave it to the lawyers and those who deal with Congress in terms of the War Powers Act which every administration is viewed as unconstitutional. That said, Secretary Rubio has been there day after day and week after week in the recent months to appropriately brief congressional leaders. But I'll tell you who does believe that they're being attacked. It's the soldiers that have been buried for many, many years as a result of Iranian attacks and their proxy attacks.
Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others in Beirut in 1983 in Iraq through those years over 600 American soldiers. So, I mean, we have to take a step back, Kirsten, and look at how many billions, how much time, how much treasure that administration after administration has spent dealing with this. President Trump put diplomacy first, both last year and this year. It was clear the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith, had no intention of backing away from its nuclear intentions.
We're trying to protect it with a massive failings and shield of ballistic missiles that they were quadrupling their production of on a month by month basis. And finally, President Trump said enough is enough. Let me ask you about the endgame here. The President posted on Friday, quote, there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender.
Mr. Ambassador, what exactly does that mean? Well, I'll leave that to the President as Commander-in-Chief to determine what that ultimately looks like. But he's been very clear in no nuclear weapons program, no ballistic missiles that can deliver, no massive shield with which they're going to hide behind of both short-range ballistic missiles, long-range and drones that we're seeing them unleash on our neighbors and our allies and on the world right now.
And enough is enough with this ongoing 47-year support of terrorism all over the world as the world's largest sponsor of terrorists. So all of those objectives are being achieved, we're ahead of schedule. And what he ultimately wants is pretty much common sense, as he said. We have to have an Iranian government that no longer threatens the American people, threatens our allies and threatens the world, and holds the world's energy supplies hostage through both its missiles and its Navy.
There's a big question about what exactly it will take to achieve all of those goals. NBC News is reporting that President Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. Is the administration actively considering putting U.S.
boots on the ground in Iran? Well, I'm not going to get ahead of those conversations. I can tell you, unlike his predecessors, both Obama and Biden, President Trump is never going to take options off the table. I'm a former special operator.
We have troops and assets that are focused on seizing weapons of mass destruction, if needed and if so ordered. Again, I just go back to how consistent the President has been on this point. In his campaigns in 2016, 2020, 2024, he has consistently said Iran can never have a nuke. He'll do what's necessary to make sure they don't.
And I can tell you what the American people, my former constituents voted for, was a president who means what he says, stands on his red lines, doesn't back away from them as his predecessors did, and never takes a bad deal that's going to keep the American people less safe in the long run. Ambassador Weltz, I have to ask you about this reporting on Friday that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran to help target U.S. assets in the region. Will there be consequences for Russia?
Well, as Special Envoy Whitkov said last night on Air Force One, he sent a very strong message to Russia. I have no doubt President Trump will deal with it accordingly. Will there be consequences that will be more than worse? I don't want to get into intelligence, but I'll tell you what, Russia right now has just lost its main supplier of these one-way drones that they have been sending in night after night into Ukraine.
They just lost their main supplier of ballistic missiles. President Trump has taken incredibly decisive action in finally sanctioning both Ross Neft and Luke Oil, the main energy suppliers, that's the main form of revenue going into Russia. So no one can argue that he hasn't taken tough measures and will continue if he decides to do so as Commander-in-Chief. If Russia's giving Iran intelligence, do you effectively consider that Russia has entered this conflict?
Well, we know that both Russia and Iran have had this symbiotic relationship. Number one, number two, if they are providing anything, it certainly hasn't been very effective because the U.S. military is decimating Iran's air force, air defenses, navy, ground forces, command and control. So whatever they're providing, if they're providing anything, hasn't shown to help them very much.
Two more we have about a minute left. The Treasury Department announced it was easing oil sanctions on Russia, which will help Russia fund its war in Ukraine. As you know, why is the Trump administration helping Russia in this moment? Oh, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
I have to push back on that premise. How else could you characterize using oil sanctions? It's a 30-day pause to allow, which is just kind of common sense, to allow the millions and millions of barrels of oil that are sitting out on ships to go to Indian refineries. I just laid out the tough actions the Trump administration has taken to reduce their revenue.
But at the end of the day, so this is going to be a temporary issue. This is going to be, looks like, a bit of short-term pain for the long-term gain of Iran no longer being able to hold the world's energy supplies hostage. We have taken out that capability, but it also speaks to why President Trump's energy agenda has been so important. He calls it drill, baby drill.
This is unleashing American oil and gas. We now have it coming in from Venezuela. We have other diversified supplies for both our European and our Asian allies. At the end of the day, the world will be safer, stronger, and more prosperous because President Trump has taken this action.
And our Gulf allies, I got to tell you, here at the UN are outraged and are going to take both military and diplomatic action in the coming days and weeks. This whole strategy of Iran shooting in all direction at their neighbors and at our allies is absolutely backfiring on them. And just a button, I mean, Russia will be getting that money as it wages this war in Ukraine. But let me just ask you this critical final question, more than 170 people.
They're no longer getting drones or no longer getting ballistic missiles. And at the end of the day, we're going to drive a deal to end that war. Okay, let me ask you about this critical final issue. More than 170 people, including many children, were killed in a strike on a school in Southern Iran last weekend on Saturday.
President Trump said he thinks Iran was behind the bombing. But NBC News and others are reporting that the military's preliminary finding is that it's increasingly likely that a U.S. was responsible. Was Iran or the United States responsible and will the U.S.
provide evidence to the American people? Okay, so look, a couple of things here. One, let's let the investigation play out. Number two, again, as a veteran and a special operator, we never deliberately attack civilians.
If civilians were injured, it's always by accident. Contrast that. I mean, this is really rich coming from the Iranians, who they and their proxies, high caches of weapons and military apparatus and hospitals and schools. We know they do that all over the world.
And this is coming from a regime that literally has massacred its own people at an industrial scale. So I don't think a word coming out of their mouth, let the investigation play out. All right, Ambassador Walt, thank you so very much. When we come back, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins me next.
Welcome back and joining me now is House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to Meet the Press. Good morning. Great to be back.
It's great to have you back. Let's start with the war in Iran, the United States now, a week into this conflict. Do you think the world is safer now that the Supreme Leader is dead? Well, certainly as it relates to the Ayatollah, he was a bad actor and I'm not going to shed any tears as a result of his departure.
I think the big question is, why do we get into this war? What are our strategic objectives? Because they shift every day. And what is the plan to get out of this conflict?
The American people don't want to see billions of dollars being spent to bomb Iran in the Middle East. Well, at the same period of time, my Republican colleagues and this President are unwilling to spend a dime to lower their grocery bills, spend a dime to actually make it more affordable to go see a doctor or do anything about this affordability crisis that is very real in the United States of America. Well, in talking about the strategy for this war, let me ask you because NBC News is reporting that President Trump has privately considered sending boots on the ground to Iran. Is there any scenario where you would support sending U.S.
forces to be on the ground in Iran? No, in fact, candidate Trump suggested that under no circumstances should American servicemen and women be put into harm's way in this particular type of situation, particularly as it relates to another endless war in the Middle East. And we are deeply saddened right now by the loss of six brave and heroic servicemen and women who have already lost their lives and will continue to pray for their families and their loved ones. But the American people deserve answers from the administration as to how we're going to actually move forward in a way that makes America safer, not more vulnerable.
Well, there is a push for congressional oversight, but both the House and the Senate this week rejected a resolution to curb President Trump's war powers in Iran. And frankly, even five Democrats joined Republicans to block the resolution in those chambers. Does that effectively give President Trump a mandate to fight this war? Not at all.
The President, of course, has a responsibility, first and foremost, to make his case to the American people, which he's failed to do. There's a reason why this President is deeply unpopular. His policies, including the one big ugly bill, are unpopular. And this war of choice in the Middle East, are unpopular.
As Democrats, we're going to continue to make the case to the American people, that we should be stewards of spending their taxpayer dollars in a manner that actually is designed to make their life better and make their life more affordable. As opposed to another endless war in the Middle East, where we're spending billions and billions of dollars to drop bombs and doing nothing to drop the high cost of living. Well, Democratic, Democratic Congressman Jared Golden is among those who voted to block their resolution. I want to read you a little bit of his statement from this week.
He says, quote, the President has so far acted within the authorities given to him by Congress through the War Powers Act of 1973. He has been briefing Congress, and he has 60 days to make his case for ongoing operations. This is not in a legal war, but it could become one. How do you respond to your House colleague?
Well, every individual member, of course, is going to articulate their position. The overwhelming majority of both House and Senate Democrats have made the case to the American people and taken the position that this is a war of choice that Donald Trump decided to get into without any evidence being presented to us as members of Congress or to the American people. But do you agree with Golden if not in a legal war yet? The protective national security of the American people.
No, Jared obviously has a very different position. He's a hero. He fought in the Middle East bravely, and he's entitled, of course, to his perspective. But as I indicated, the American people are dissatisfied with this war of choice that Donald Trump has decided to enter into, and Donald Trump has not made a compelling case as to why we are in a situation where American servicemen and women, their lives are at risk.
Let's talk about the cost of this war at Leader Jeffries. The White House is reportedly weighing a request to Congress for tens of millions of dollars. Several Senate Democrats have said they're open to reviewing what the administration requests argument could be critical to military readiness overall. As the leader of House Democrats, do you plan to block all Pentagon funding, even if the argument is, it is critical for military readiness?
Well, of course, that bridge when we get to it in terms of if the administration makes a request to Congress to consider additional funding. But at this particular point in time, the administration has failed to make its case as to the rationale of justification for this war of choice in the Middle East. Listen, candidate Trump promised that he was not going to get the country into an endless war, particularly in the Middle East, in the aftermath of what we saw in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. President Trump has now done the exact opposite.
And absent him actually providing us with a compelling rationale, he's going to have a difficult case to make on Capitol Hill. Leader Jeffries, let me ask you about another aspect of this. As you well know, President Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary, Christine Om, this week, something you and other Democrats have been calling for. Democrats continue to block funding for DHS amid these demands that there be changes to ICE and the President's deportation policies.
Is the change in leadership at DHS enough for you and other Democrats to reopen the government to start to fund DHS again? Well, again, let's understand, Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. They've made an affirmative decision that they would rather shut down FEMA, shut down the Coast Guard, and shut down TSA as opposed to getting ICE under control. What we want is a situation where ICE is actually conducting itself like every other law enforcement agency in the country as opposed to using taxpayer dollars to brutalize or, in some cases, kill American citizens.
So is replacing Om? Is replacing Om a big enough step for you to get to yes? No, it's certainly not. What we need is a change in policy, not simply a change in personnel.
Now, Christine Om was a disgrace. He was totally unqualified. She was a pathological liar. She called American citizens domestic terrorists without any justification whatsoever.
But we need dramatic, bold, meaningful, and transformational changes to get ICE under control. That's what the American people want to see. That's what we're working hard to deliver. Congressman, there's a real concern that the Iran strikes may increase the terrorists here in the United States.
Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York wrote this quote, Given the situation in the Middle East and the potential for Iran and its terrorist proxies to attempt some type of attack, it is imperative that Senator Schumer and Rep. Jeffries immediately drop all opposition to funding the Department of Homeland Security and pass the funding bill. Let's say you to that argument that this is about the safety and security of U.S. citizens.
Well, how Senate Democrats have actually introduced legislation to make sure that every other aspect of the Department of Homeland Security is funded in order to ensure that we are protecting our national security, funding the Coast Guard, funding FEMA, as well as funding TSA? Unfortunately, Republicans have decided that they would block those changes from being put into place in order simply to continue to protect and shield ICE from the type of accountability, the type of dramatic change that's necessary. Things that we're asking to do that are common sense, like making sure that judicial warrants are required before ICE agents can break into the homes of the American people and show that there are independent investigations when ICE agents break the law or even kill American citizens so that there's accountability. We want to make sure sensitive locations like schools and hospitals are protected, including other locations like houses of worship and polling sites.
These are common sense reforms that are necessary in order to get ICE under control. Leader Jeffries, a couple more and we're almost out of time. I want to turn to the midterms, the results in Texas this week. State Rep.
James Tallarico, of course, as you know, won the Democratic primary against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, who, what message do you have for black voters who supported Crockett and may feel less enthusiastic about supporting Tallarico? Well, Jasmine Crockett ran a great race and continued to be a powerful voice as we move forward to hold this administration accountable and to push back against extremism that they're unleashing on the American people. And I think in her own statement in the aftermath of the results, she indicated that we needed to all come together to make sure that we're doing what's necessary to support our Democratic nominee and to win up and down the ballot in Texas and across the country. And that's what we'll continue to do, to fight to lower the high cost of living, to fix our broken health care system and to clean up the corruption that the Trump cartel has unleashed on the American people.
Leader Jeffress have to ask you very quickly because Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed Crockett in that race. After Crockett's loss, a former Biden-Harris staffer said of the former vice president, quote, her rapidly declining polling numbers are a lagging indicator. Her lack of political relevancy is a leading one. Has Kamala Harris lost her political relevancy, Leader Jeffress?
No, I don't think so, but look, we're focused right now on the 2026 midterm elections and we're going to do everything we can to make sure we take back control of the House of Representatives to focus on the issues that matter in terms of dealing with the affordability crisis to make life more affordable for every day Americans struggling for too many people to live paycheck to paycheck. That should not be the case in the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world. All right, Leader Jeffress, thank you so much. When we come back, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi joins me next.
Welcome back and joining me now is the Foreign Minister of Iran, Abbas Arachi. Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome to meet the press. Well, thank you so much.
Thank you for having me. Thank you very much for being here. I have to ask you the big question on everyone's mind. Who is in charge in Iran right now?
Well, it is already known. The leadership council is now in charge and they are doing their act in the absence of the leader, while a new Supreme Leader is going to be elected soon by the Assembly of Experts. And the President and the Cabinet are also doing their duties. Everything is in place.
Well, there are reports this morning that the Iranian Assembly of Experts has come to a decision on a new Supreme Leader for Iran. Many have suggested it would be the son of the late Supreme Leader, Moshtaba Kamani. Will he be the next leader of Iran? Well, nobody knows.
Actually, there are lots of rumors around, but we have to wait for the Assembly of Experts to convene and vote for the new Supreme Leader and the one who is elected by them. Do you think he should be the next leader of Iran? Well, anybody which is elected by the Assembly of Experts would be the next Supreme Leader of Iran. And as you know, the members of the Assembly are already elected by the people.
Alright, well, President Trump says he should pick the new leader of Iran. Will Iran allow President Trump to have any role in picking its new leader? Yeah, I don't know, but to interfere in our domestic affairs, this is up to the Iranian people to elect the new leader. They have already elected the Assembly of Experts and the Assembly of Experts would do the job.
It is only the business of the Iranian people and nobody else business. President Trump says there will be no deal with Iran except for, quote, unconditional surrender. Will Iran agree to unconditional surrender for the sake of bringing this war to an end, Mr. Foreign Minister?
Well, this is what he asked previous time, last year in June, that when Israel started to attack us, you know, President Trump used the same phrase, unconditional surrender. That was a tweet he made. And that didn't happen. We resisted, and after 12 days, Israel is asked for unconditional ceasefire.
So we never give up, we never surround, and we continue to resist. As long as it takes, we continue to defend ourselves, and we are defending our territory, our people, and our dignity. And our dignity is not for sale. Well, let me ask you, because what conditions would Iran accept to bring this war to an end?
Well, actually, we are not at that point yet. Obviously, this time is different from the previous time. Last time, we accepted the ceasefire. But, you know, this time is quite different.
And the reason is obvious. You know, last time they attacked us, they made aggression against us, they killed our people, they destroyed our places, and then asked for a ceasefire. And we accepted out of good faith, because we were only exercising the, you know, the act of self-defense. And when the aggression was stopped, we stopped too.
But, you know, it didn't bring about peace. And now this year, they again started to attack us. And again, they have, you know, they are killing our people, they are killing, you know, girls, students, you know, they are attacking hospitals. You know, freshwater destinations, you know, refineries, you know, everywhere, people have been killed, places have been destroyed.
And now they want to ask for a ceasefire again. Well, this doesn't work like this. So there should be a permanent end of the war. And unless we get to that, I think we need to, you know, continue fighting for the sake of our people and our security.
We are going to get to the reports about some of the deaths in just a moment. But just to say on this topic, would Iran ever agree to a ceasefire to get back to the negotiating table to end all of this military conflict? Well, they have to explain why they started this aggression before we come to the point to even consider a ceasefire. Of course, nobody wants to continue this war.
This is not our war. This is not our, you know, the war of our choice. This is imposed on us by the United States, by Israelis. They have, you know, started this war, unprovoked, unwarranted illegally.
And what we are doing is illegal is legal acts of self-defense and we have ever like to do that. So it is not fair that if only a soft stagnation and ask us to stop to, you know, as I said, this time is different. Let me ask you about some of what Iran has been doing. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles at 13 other nations in the region.
On Saturday, the Iranian president apologized for those strikes on neighboring Gulf states. Was it a mistake for Iran to attack its neighbors? Well, it is a mistake if you consider that Iran is attacking its neighbors. No, we are not attacking our neighbors.
We are attacking American bases, American installations, American assets, which are unfortunately located in the soils of our neighbors. So we are not attacking our neighbors. We are attacking Americans who are attacking us. We are retaliating.
We have not started this war. It is Americans who started this war against us, attacking us and we are defending ourselves. So our, it is obvious that our missiles cannot reach the US soil. What we can do is to attack American bases and American installations around us, which are unfortunately in the soils of our, you know, neighborly countries.
But Mr. Foreign Minister, if you're not attacking your neighbors, why did the Iranian president apologize? Well, first of all, apology in our culture is a sign of dignity and strength. Secondly, he apologized from the people of the region for the inconveniences they have faced because of this aggression by the United States and retaliation by us.
So as a matter of fact, it is, it is, in fact, the president of the United States, which should apologize from the people of the region and Iranian people for the killings and disruptions they have done against us. Let me ask you, because NBC News is reporting that Iran is receiving help from Russia to help locate US forces. Are you receiving any help from Russia? Well, we have a strategy partnership with Russia.
So that's a yes. Well, a military cooperation between Iran and Russia is not something new. It's not a secret. It has been in the past and it's still there and will continue in the future.
Is Russia helping you locate US forces? I just want to be very clear here. Well, I don't have exact military information. As far as I know, we have a very good partnership with Russia.
So they are helping you. They are providing intelligence. Well, they are helping us in many different directions. I don't have any detailed information.
Okay, let's move to the strike on the elementary school in Southern Iran. It killed more than 170 people, including many children. President Trump said Iran is responsible for that strike. What is your response to what the president said?
Well, it is, you know, funny. It is our school. These are our students, our girls. And they are attacked by an American fighter, a jet fighter.
And they're having killed. Why Iran is responsible? Have we started this war? Have we attacked our own people?
No, we even negotiating with the United States. And in the middle of negotiations, in the middle of diplomacy, they decided to attack us. And they have attacked so many places, including schools and hospitals. And there are all evidences that this school is attacked by an American jet fighter.
Where is the Iranian evidence that this was a US attack, a jet fighter, as you say? If it was not you, if it was not us, then who was that? Maybe Israelis. But it is obvious.
Who else is attacking us? Well, let me move on to this question about potential ground troops. You said earlier this week on US ground troops to my colleague, Tom Yama's quote, we are waiting for them. But President Trump says the condition for sending troops to Iran would be that Iran, quote, would be so decimated that they wouldn't be able to fight at the ground level.
Is the president right? Would you not be able to fight at the ground level, Mr. Foreign Minister? Well, at least it's not the case right now.
For the time being, we are capable enough. We have brave soldiers who are waiting for any enemy who entered into our soil to fight with them and to kill them and destroy them. So, and that would be the case in the coming days and the coming years and always in our, you know, in Iran. We are brave people.
We have a great civilization. We have defended our land for thousands of years and we continue to do that as much as it takes. Let me ask you because you have said that this was a war of choice. President Trump said one of the reasons for launching this war was that Iran, quote, already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases and would soon have missiles capable of reaching America was Iran planning to directly attack the United States.
Well, this is not true. This is in fact misinformation. You know, we have capability to produce missiles, but we have intentionally limited ourselves to below 2000 kilometers of range because we don't want to be felt as threats by anybody else in the world. We have not started any plan to increase the range of our missiles more than what it is right now.
So there is no evidence. There is no intelligence. Nothing to indicate that Iran is going to long-range missiles, let alone those missiles who can reach the United States. All right.
And of course, U.S. officials say that negotiations over this came to a halt and that is part of why they moved forward with this action. Minister Arachi, thank you very much. We will obviously be tracking everything that unfolds very closely.
We appreciate your being here. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. When we come back, Steve Bernanke is here with the results of a brand new NBC News poll.
Welcome back. NBC News chief data analyst Steve Bernanke is here to break down the results of our latest NBC News poll. Steve, some big takeaways here. Absolutely, Chris.
I mean, let's start with the headline. Where does Donald Trump stand heading into this midterm year? A 44% approval rating for the president. You know, not far off where he was when we last checked him.
But I think for Trump here in his first term, that 2018 midterm, this is almost exactly where he was at that point too. Of course, there was a 40 seat Democratic landslide that your Democrats took back the house. Also, what is driving the low number for Trump? It continues to be the economy.
Look at this, Chris. I'm asking folks, do you approve of how the president has handled inflation cost the living specifically 36% approved? 62 disapproval. That's down a year ago.
It was 42.55. It's twice as bad now for him. Steve, that's a big dip on a critical issue for this midterm election. Absolutely, Chris.
And voters continue to say this one is of pretty central importance to them. And then also, are they feeling it? You know, have Trump's policies helped or hurt almost 50% they're saying they have hurt? A majority of independents saying the same thing.
We checked in the president on some other issues here. Immigration now, 44% approval. But this is interesting. We also asked not immigration.
We asked border security. And when you put it that way, it is different. 53% majority approve of the president. There are almost 110 voters who have this split opinion, disapprove immigration, approve on border security.
And I think this spills over to broader attitudes about immigration. He's high-profile, instant Minnesota. You know, look at this. Ice, a positive rating of only 38% for ice.
Does that mean the country's getting more dovish on immigration? Not necessarily, because when we ask about sanctuary cities, look at that. 33, 43. Also very negative there.
So complicated attitudes, I think, on immigration. How about the state of the two parties heading into the midterm to generic ballots? It's a six-point advantage here for Democrats. It's a sizable lead for them, although we mentioned 2018, Trump's first term at this point.
It was 10 points for Democrats. So it is a little bit less. And I think what's driving the Democratic advantage now really is heavily this. It's the interest of their own base.
We ask folks if they have the highest level of interest in these elections, three-quarters of Democrats are saying they do barely 60% of Republicans are. And again, that is a difference, Kristen. When you go back to that first Trump midterm, the gap wasn't as pronounced as it is right now. This, though, as well, the image of the parties getting outside the base here, what all voters think of this.
Republicans are not that popular. Democrats, though, even more unpopular than Republicans. Well, this is so significant because even though they have an enthusiasm advantage, they clearly have an image issue. That's it.
And that gets to the question, too, then. How do voters look at these two parties when it comes to the major issues here? So Democrats do have this advantage. When you ask about the rest of democracy, that's an 11-point advantage for Democrats there.
Democratic voters say, that's their top issue. Republican voters say the border security immigration, more important to them. Big Republican advantage, but Kristen, this will be it. It's the economy.
It's a tie between the parties. Republicans have had the advantage on this issue for nearly a decade. Now it's wiped away. Question going forward.
Did Democrats actually open an advantage on the economy? That could be key to them if they are going to have a big midterm. Still the top issue. Steve Kornaki, thank you so much for being here.
When we come back, the first primary results are in for the midterms. Welcome back to panelists here. Susan Paige, USA Today, Washington Bureau Chief. Amy Walter, Editor-in-Chief of the Cook Political Report.
Democratic Strategist Adrian Elrod. And Republican Strategist Bill Steppian, thanks to all of you for being here. Amy, let's dive right in. Your takeaways from the polling you just heard from C.
Yeah, I thought it was quite telling that on the number one issue, which we know is the economy. The President deeply under water voters. Very frustrated about what they're seeing. And yet, as you did on this show, the majority of what we're talking about is around.
And when I talk to a Republican strategist the other day said to me, you know, what Americans are asking for is for the President to declare war on gross prices, not on a run. And that is going to be the challenge going forward for Republicans, is proving to voters that they get what their number one priority is. So when you see those numbers, particularly on the economy, how gerry is it making Republicans? I look at the enthusiasm gap.
Thirteen points is a gulf between the parties. That's always the case for the outparty. Democrats are as ginned up as they can be. Donald Trump is the human turnout machine.
I don't think Democrats can get more riled up to win. Republicans have to be on offense. To get on offense, they have to close that gap. Donald Trump can do that in midterm election.
Agent, what did you take away from the numbers, the enthusiasm gap, and yet Democrats struggling with the party image? Well, look, it's interesting because I think one of the reasons why Democrats are struggling with our image a little bit is because we don't have that one unified leader. That one person who we know is going to be the heir of parents who take over the Democratic nomination going into May 28. I think when she starts seeing the 2028 election heat up, you're going to hear from a lot of talented people in the party.
A lot of our governors, people who are going to be running are going to help fill that gap. But look, it is also incredibly interesting to see the turnout that we saw in Texas in North Carolina among Democrats. More Democrats turned out in Texas in the primary than Republicans. So there's a lot of enthusiasm.
We do have a lot of work to do as a party. But I think we're certainly on the road to doing that. Susan, I was going to ask you about the enthusiasm that Democrats showed in Texas, the turnout there. The fact that they actually have a candidate for their Senate primary, there's a runoff for the Republican primary.
What do you make of that, and particularly as it relates to the poll membership? Well, you did see Democratic voters, I think, going with the candidate who was seen as more electable as opposed to the one that maybe fired them up more, so that was interesting. You know, the Democrats do have a problem here. 30% of the Democratic party in your poll is a terrible number.
And you match that with 50% say they want Democrats to win control of Congress, a six-point lead over Republicans. That is, I think, traditionally enough to make it clear that your guest on the show, Hawking Jeffery, is going to be the next speaker of the House. Do you agree with that? And I thought it was fascinating because it really showcased how complicated the immigration issue is.
That used to be President Trump's strong suit. But now the border, the way he's handling deportations is the potential liability. Oh, it's definitely a liability. It's one that Democrats are talking about a lot.
You hear about it in so many of their ads. But note, too, when you ask a question of, well, who do you trust on the issue of immigration, even with all the controversy over ICE? Republicans continue to have a double-digit lead on that. So if I'm Democrats right now thinking about the midterm elections, what do I want to talk about?
It's still about the economy that I would put front. Senator, it's why you hear them talking a lot more about affordability than anything else. You know, how do you see the war in Iran, as Amy references, playing into all of this gas prices are going up? Some MAGA movement members are saying they're not happy with it.
In the NBC poll that you just referenced, 88% of Republicans approved Donald Trump's job performance, including 8-in-10 approval of this handling of Iran of those who voted for him. So I know there's a lot of MAGA voices saying that he's abandoned the base. They're going to abandon him. Poll numbers.
The data shows a different story. Yeah, well, with our final 22nds, Adrian, President Obama at Jesse Jackson's funeral said, we wake up each day to a new assault on our Democratic institutions. Is that the right message for the midterms? Look, I don't think that Obama's really talking about the message for the midterms.
I mean, that statement below the bottom line is this while voters do care about protecting democracy and Democrats are concerned because they see Trump threatening our institutions every single day. The overall issue that Democrats will win on is affordability, and that's what we have to prove. All right, guys, 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. Everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of The Third Hour of Today, and Mom to Three Wild Boys. I've learned a lot in 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 am over here just like winging it.
Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kid up. I'm not giving you advice when I screw yourself. There's a parent chat on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts.