Meet the Press NOW — April 22

If it's Monday, the historic and unprecedented election year criminal trial into former President Trump has begun with opening statements, the prosecution's first witness and a key ruling on the scope of Donald Trump's potential testimony and cross-examination, plus intensifying unrest on college campuses as pro-Palestinian protests and concerns about the safety of Jewish students forced Colombia to move to virtual learning while nearly 50 students are arrested at Yale. And House Speaker Mike Johnson defies his hard right flank with a bipartisan vote to send aid to Ukraine as President Zelinsky speaks to meet the press about the urgency facing his country amid the unrelenting Russian assaults. Hello there and welcome to meet the press now on Ryan Nobles on yet another historic day in the legal and political world. As testimony begins in New York and Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, and as the judge rules that the former president's history of business fraud and defamation are fair game if he testifies.

The first witness to take the stand today was a critical one for prosecutors, the former publisher of the National Enquirer David Packer. He began his testimony talking about what he called, quote, checkbook journalism at the Enquirer, a prelude to what he will tell jurors about how the tabloid helped Mr. Trump bury damaging stories as part of a practice known as catch and kill. Packer's testimony began after opening statements in which prosecutors accused the former president of cooking the books to cover up payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and hide a politically damaging story in the run-up to the 2016 election.

On his way out of court, Mr. Trump reiterated his attorney's claims during his opening statement that no crime was committed. So you heard that yourself. This is a case that nobody wanted to bring and putting out, right?

It was just that the last thing you said was the case that if you're looking back, it goes back many, many years, 2015, maybe before that. And it's a case as to what keep me, which is a very minor thing in terms of the law. This is a case where you pay a lawyer, it's a lawyer, and they call it a legal expense. That's the exact term they use, legal expense in the books.

Now Packer will return to the stand tomorrow, but proceedings will cut short today because of an alternate juris dentist appointment. Now Judge One, will also hold a hearing on Manhattan prosecutors' allegations that the former president violated a gag order multiple times by publicly attacking prospective jurors and witnesses. For more now, I'm joined by NBC News correspondent, Dr. Burns, who's outside the courthouse in Manhattan.

Also with me is former federal prosecutor and former state court trial judge, Carol Lamb. She's now an NBC News legal analyst. And Danny Sivalis is also here. He's a criminal defense attorney and NBC News legal analyst as well.

So, Dr. Let's start with you. David Packer, he'll be back on the stand tomorrow. Explain to us why he's such a key witness in this case.

He's so important, Ryan, because, look, he was the guy in the room, a lot of the facts that the prosecution laid out that they say we will hear much more about is a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower between David Packer, Michael Cohen, and former president Trump, where they allegedly concocted this catch and kill scheme. A lot of the questioning for Packer today really centered on his oversight and influence over what the National Enquirer published. They allege that the former president was in cahoots, essentially, with Packer over the headlines over the stories, making sure that the publication published stories that were favorable to the former president, unfavorable to his 2016 opponents, and that the paper killed stories that would be damaging to former president Trump. So, Packer was in the room for this.

He was in, allegedly, in conversation with the former president and with Michael Cohen central to this entire story here. The other big development today, of course, Joshua, that opening statements kicked off. It really gives us an indication about how both sides are laying out their cases. Yeah, so for the prosecution's part, they said that, look, this is about a criminal conspiracy that the former president conspired to corrupt the 2016 election by conspiring with Michael Cohen and with David Packer, and then covered up that conspiracy by lying on his business record, quote, over and over again.

They lay out three examples of how the former president used the National Enquirer and David Packer to kill stories. They used the example of a Lege affair with Karen McDougal, where she was paid off by the paper $150,000 to her. They also brought up that infamous Access Hollywood tape, which they weren't allowed to play, but they did read from the transcript. And Ryan, that's important because they were trying to illustrate the state of the Trump campaign at the time that the Stormy Daniels story came to their attention, saying that, look, they were in crisis mode and panic mode that this Access Hollywood tape could sink his campaign.

So, when they learned that Stormy Daniels might be coming out with her story, it was urgent for them to try to suppress it. Now, the defense for their part came out saying, look, no crime here. It was committed. The only thing that Trump did was write checks for services rendered by his lawyer.

He had an invoice was processed, somebody had Trump Tower generated a check, and the check was signed. As for the claim of election interference, they say, there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. That's simply how democracy works. So, a set up for what we are likely to see from examination of these witnesses and the testimony that we're going forward.

And of course, it remains an open question if the former president will testify, but if he does, we do get a ruling from the judge concerning the potential scope of the questions he could be asked. Yeah, so this really went against what Trump's lawyers were arguing. The judge ruled that the prosecutors should Trump testify and ask him about past cases he has lost. For example, the Egypt Carol case, the fraud case here in New York, and he can also be asked about the prior violations of gag orders, like when he attacked the law clerk of Judge Engron in a previous case.

So, not what Trump necessarily wanted, but the judge did say that this is, quote, a shield not a sword, meaning he is giving as much information as he can so Trump and his lawyers can make an informed decision about whether or not it would be a good thing for him to testify. Okay, Josh, it burns outside the courthouse. Thank you for that, Josh. Let's turn out a Carol and Danny.

So, Carol, first to you, I'd love your take on the prosecutor's opening statements, and then tell us what you think David Packer's role as a prosecution's first witness tells you about the prosecution strategy. Right, so these are very typical opening statements and the prosecution's job is to lay out the scenario so that the jurors understand each piece of evidence as it comes in and why that evidence is being introduced. And they didn't take a long time to do this. They told the judge they only needed 40, 45 minutes.

That's what they took. The defense took even less time, 25 minutes, incredibly short opening statements in my experience. And the defense, the defense's job, although they're not allowed to so-called argue in opening statements. They're just supposed to stick to what they expect the evidence to be.

They started arguing. They started arguing points of law and such, and that drew some objections from the prosecution and the judge sustained a couple of those objections. But really what the defense is trying to do is they're trying to say, and this is very typical for white collar cases, well, this piece was not illegal, and this piece was not illegal, and this piece was not illegal, so how could anything have been illegal? And of course, the prosecution theory is individual pieces may not be illegal, but where the intent was to commit some kind of crime or some kind of fraud, you put them all together, and you have illegality.

So, Danny, what was your take on the defense's opening statement? Did they make a compelling argument? Pretty standard. One thing that surprised me was opening with my client is innocent.

It really is an ambitious thing to say, because in a defense opening, you have to remember, you don't have any burden to prove anything, so you don't necessarily want to promise things that you're not going to prove. But there's a very big statement in announcing that the client is innocent, because all they really have to do is be not guilty. Innocence is not something a jury finds in a case like this. They find guilty, or they find not guilty.

But what Blanche is essentially saying is that this is not a thing where he squeaks by because there's some reasonable doubt. We believe he's innocent. And, of course, he plans to back that up, because you never make a promise and openings that you can't back up with evidence. And that's even more curious, because the defense doesn't have to introduce one speck of evidence.

They can rest after the prosecution's case on just that and say they haven't made out their case. But, as expected, the defense pointed to certain witnesses and said they're not going to be credible. And, again, echoing what Carol said, there really weren't no true surprises today. So, we do have a pretty important hearing tomorrow where the judge is going to hear arguments as it relates to the gag order, the prosecution believes the former president has been violating it that seems to have been hanging over this trial from the very beginning.

Carol, what do you expect to hear tomorrow during that? Well, from the prosecution, I actually expect to hear that not only has he violated the gag order that the judge imposed several days ago by commenting about Michael Cohen and about Stormy Daniels, but he's been doing some pretty outrageous things right out the side of the courtroom, right after opening statements coming out and really just, at this point, they may not be technical violations of the gag order, but he's really inviting the judge to impose even a broader gag order. It's a very difficult decision because, first, amendment issues and the current front-runner for the Republican nomination and such, but I think that there's no other defendant in this country that could get away with making the kinds of statements that Donald Trump is making right outside the courtroom. Carol, do you think he needs to be penalized at some point in order to rein it in?

I mean, I know the judge has quite a bit of discretion as to what he can do to try and prevent the former president from continuing to at least walk right up to the line of violating the gag order. Does that need to happen at some point? It does need to happen. I think that there are some constraints here.

There's the bail reform law in New York State does limit what the judge can do. He can impose some financial restrictions. I mean, he needs to do that just to sort of send a message that if the defendant is going to ramp things up, the judge is going to have to take some more action. But the judge really doesn't want this to take over the trial.

You can see it in the way he's handling it, putting off the hearing for several days. He doesn't want this to become a huge distraction for this trial. He's got a lot to do with this trial. The jury has a lot on its plate.

And so I think the judge is doing what he can to compromise and try to just keep this trial on track. He's basically the former president not doing a very good job of controlling himself outside of the courtroom. He's not known for self-control. Do you think he would actually sit on the stand and testify in this case?

Yes. And part of me saying that just to be in the minority, because I think it's a safe bet and the majority would think that he's not going to take this stand. Look, as criminal defense attorneys, we're naturally risk averse. There's just too much risk in putting your client on the stand unless he has a piece of information that you absolutely cannot get from anywhere else.

But that being said, look, we also know Jerry's want to hear from the defendant. But Trump presents some very unique situations here. Number one, he doesn't believe that he can get a fair trial. So in his mind, he may be thinking, what the heck?

There's nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'll take the stand. And point two, and I think a lot of criminal defense attorneys with white-collar defendants, there's this common theme. And I don't know why this is, but so many white-collar criminal defendants believe that if they just could take the stand and explain themselves, they're the smartest ones in the room and they could explain everything away if they just had the chance.

So Donald Trump has an absolute constitutional right to testify. His attorneys have an absolute right to tell him not to do it. And he's got a right to ignore them and take the stand. Does Donald Trump think he's the smartest guy in the courtroom?

Yes. Will he take the stand as a result? Maybe. All right.

Danny Somado's bucking the conventional wisdom. Let's clip this and hold it for later and give you all the credit when it happens. You're not so sure about that. All right.

Carol and Danny, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. Next, crisis on campus. Clashes at Columbia University are drawing the attention of the White House.

We'll have the latest as the university orders classes go remote. I mean, safety concerns tied to pro-Palestinian protests. Plus, a live report from Tel Aviv. The US now prepares to sanction a unit of the Israeli military as the first senior Israeli official resigns over October 7th.

We're watching meet the press now. Welcome back. Tensions are running high at Columbia University after days of pro-Palestinian demonstrations and reports of anti-Semitic and offensive language, leaving many Jewish students on campus fearing for their safety. It all came to a head this weekend when Columbia University Rabbi Ellie Buechler told Jewish students that they should return home as soon as possible, saying it was clear that the university and city police were unable to guarantee their safety.

Today, Columbia University's president announced that all classes would be held virtually today, adding that she was deeply saddened by what's taking place on campus and called for a quote reset. Last hour, following an Earth Day event in Virginia, President Biden was asked by reporters about the protests at college campuses, and here's what he had to say. I condemn the protests on college campuses. I condemn the arithmetic protests.

That's why I've set up a program to do with that. I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the college studies. NBC News correspondent Rehema Ellis is at Columbia University's campus and joins me now. So Rehema, what is the mood like on campus today?

Ryan, you called it right off the top, and it is tense. There's a lot of tension here because these sides do not disagree, and it's been very difficult for Jewish students in particular who are saying this whole idea of debating ideas has gone from being a confrontation of students. Listen to what one of them told me it's earlier today. I was terrified.

I was probably the most terrified I've been. I mean, the moment you realize that there's no one protecting you at NYPD is not able to come on campus. I am concerned for my physical safety. I will not step on campus until something is done until rules are actually enforced.

And he was talking about the terror that he was feeling was because when he was behind that fence on campus, he was face to face with some of the protesters. He was trying to leave water was thrown into his face, and it just startles him beyond his imagination. He was not expecting that to happen on campus, Ryan. Rehema, the NYPD held a press conference today about these ongoing protests.

What do we hear from them? Is there anything they can do? Well, they can do something if they are invited to go on to the campus itself, because that is private property. They had been invited there last week, and in fact, there have been over a hundred arrests by police of those protesters, but they say even out here on the sidewalk, which is public property and the domain of NYPD, they can do something.

And the police are out here in full gear. They have zip ties attached to their belts, and they're ready for any kind of confrontation that might occur. About half a block from me is where about 200 protesters are, early was about maybe half that number, and they're contained on the sidewalk. The police are around them, and they are keeping them pretty much in that location, Ryan.

And there were also dozens of Palestinian protesters arrested at Yale University this morning. How much of a concern is there that this could spread across college campuses around the country? Well, it is spreading. And I think it's a concern to students across the country.

We know it's a concern to college and university presidents, some of whom have been fronted as, some who have resigned as a result of it, others who have been asked to resign. Even the president here at Columbia University has been asked to resign if she cannot get this under control, if you will, part of what she did in an effort to ratchet down the tension was to say that classes should go virtual. For some who don't agree with her style of containing the anger, even that caused them anger to say, that's a show that you can't control what's happening here. And that's why you're asking students to go virtual.

And they can't have virtual classes forever, I would assume. I mean, what are these Palestinian demonstrators saying? What are they asking for? How long might they continue these protests?

Well, one of the things they're saying is they want the university to disinvest, divest, if you will, from companies that are doing business in Israel, because they say any time you put any money into Israel, that's money that's being used to harm Palestinians. But they also, there's a representative from New York, D.S. Wasito, who was saying that he is a proposal for the federal government to withdraw funds, federal funds from Columbia University. Now, there is no, we haven't seen the proposal itself to talk about that would explain how he proposes to do that, if federal funds on a college campus are used for a variety of different things.

So I'm not quite sure how he would parcel out the federal funds here if that were to pass. But that's what they want. They want U.S dollars from federal money and U.S dollars in any American companies to stop being used by Columbia University going to those companies that are going to Israel and doing business with them. Okay.

One thing to remember. Go ahead. I was going to say one thing to remember is that graduation is coming up next month and at that point, maybe things here will come down once the point that students are no longer on campus in full force. All right, great point.

William Ellis, excellent reporting all day. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. Next, we head to the Hill.

After House Speaker Mike Johnson finally puts Adrian Crane and Israel on the floor with his job on the line. You're watching, get the press now. Welcome back to House Overwhelmingly Past Your Massive $95 billion aid package this weekend. That includes more than $60 billion in crucial funding for Ukraine, more than $21 billion for Israel and another $8 billion for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.

It also included another national security priority that's been stalled in Congress, a bill forcing Chinese-owned BitDance, by dance, I should say, to divest from TikTok. The package now advances to the Senate, which is set to vote on it this week. The votes came amid threats to Speaker Johnson's job, from House GOP hardliners over the inclusion of that money for Ukraine. Now, that threat remains very active, but following the vote, some Democrats signaled their willingness to potentially step in to save Speaker Johnson.

It comes to that. Speaking to my colleague Christine Welker this weekend, Ukrainian President Zelensky thanked the Speaker in Congress for the vital lifeline for his war-torn country. This aid will strengthen Ukraine and send the criminal powerful signal that it will not be the second Afghanistan. The United States will stay with Ukraine, will protect Ukrainians and they will protect democracy and they will bring it together fully by the Senate.

And then we want to, well, get things as fast as possible so that we get some tangible assistance for the soldiers on the front line as soon as possible, not in another six months, so that they will be able to move ahead. Now, according to the White House, President Biden spoke to Zelensky today, assuring him that the U.S. will send that critical aid as soon as the Senate passes the legislation. My colleague Sahil Kapoor will join us from Capitol Hill in a moment, but joining me on set right now is Bill Taylor, former U.S.

Ambassador to Ukraine, and Vice President for Europe and Russia at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Let's actually start with Sahil, who is standing by on Capitol Hill. So Sahil, these four aid bills cleared their biggest hurdle, but it's not done quite yet.

What is the timeline to finish this out? And could there be any potential hiccups in the Senate? Hey, Ryan, while there could be some hiccups in the Senate, the most significant one is time. Anyone senator can try to drag out this process beyond tomorrow, if they're in the Democrats have their way.

This would be passed pretty immediately tomorrow when they come in, but some Republicans will likely try to drag it out, which means it could take until late Wednesday to pass. Beyond that, the other hurdle is if somehow the opponents of it managed to topple together 41 votes to block it, then it may not pass the Senate, but that scenario is unlikely given that a very similar bill got 70 votes just a few months ago, with the only difference being the addition of the TikTok language. And of course, the TikTok language is significant. And that was one of the things that was put into this bill at the last second.

It's changed the parameters of the original House bill. What's different about this version of the bill and how significant is its inclusion? A very significant difference. Now that previous bill that passed the House in February allowed for a six month time window for a TikTok parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban nationwide in the United States.

That now moves it to nine months. And if you add the time that's already elapsed since then, it means TikTok will not be banned until at least 2025, early 2025, if the bill passes tomorrow or later this week, which means it will continue to be a force in the 2024 election, candidates, including the presidential candidates can continue to use it through election data, try to reach voters and young voters. And there won't be the kind of fallout that we might have seen among young voters who use the app and might want somebody to blame to take their anger out of the ballot box on the fact that it has been banned if it isn't banned by Election Day, which now it certainly won't be. All right.

And the House is going to return next week. We're probably not going to learn much about Johnson's future until that point. But the fallout still remains, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely.

There are a lot of House conservatives who are angry at him for allowing this process that led to passage of Ukraine aid. That's $60 billion that Ukrainian president says is crucial to his war to be able to fend off, you know, to defend his country against Russian aggression. But Johnson's future is still very much up in the air. It's not a hundred percent clear, firstly, whether Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is leading the charge to Alston, or when she's going to bring up that motion to vacate, she's written it out on a piece of paper, it's kind of dangling it in front of him, keeps threatening it.

But I asked her on the Capitol steps Saturday, what are you waiting for? Why aren't you bringing up this motion to vacate? Do you not have enough support? Let's play what she said.

I support my majority. I support the majority next time. I do not support Mike Johnson. He's already a lame duck.

If we have the vote today in our conference, he would not be speaker today. He's already a lame duck. We can't raise money. Everyone knows it.

We know we can't win the majority next year without raising money. He can't be speaker. Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene only has two other Republicans who are already on the record saying they'll vote to remove Mike Johnson, which might be enough, given how slender this majority is, unless you have Democrats stepping in to rescue the speaker, which some of them have said they would. That includes Tom Swazzy and includes Jared Moskowitz, who said he doesn't want Marjorie Taylor Greene to, you know, essentially be running the house.

There is some, you know, there are some chits that Johnson has gained with Democrats by virtue of bringing this package to the floor and standing up to his far right wing. But that won't be the end of the story, Ryan, because as you know, if Mike Johnson ends up surviving with the help of Democrats, that is going to make his job very complicated. In the sense that it's going to crash his standing with segments of the conservative base segment of the Republican Party, who will actively point that out at every opportunity and try to weaken what's left of his stature on the right. Yeah.

So I feel like we have a few more Shakespearean twists in this saga before it comes to an end. That's for sure. So I hope for thank you for your reporting on Capitol Hill. We appreciate it.

I'm joined now by Ambassador Taylor. And before we get to our conversation, Ambassador, I want to play a little bit more of President Silencie's interview with Kristin Walker this weekend. Take a listen. Have a chance, victory, if Ukraine really gets the weapon system, which we need so much, which the thousands of soldiers need so much, we need long-range weapons to not lose people on the front line, because we have casualties because we cannot reach that far.

Our weapons are not that long-range, so we need it and air defense. This is crucial of these are the priorities now. So it sounds to me like President Silencie's concerned about implementation here. He wants to see these weapons as opposed to people just talking about them.

But give us a reality. What is the situation like on the ground there right now? Right. And the Russians have taken advantage of the pause or at least the slowdown in the delivery of these weapons to the Ukrainians.

So the Russians have been pushing. They've made little grains here and there, but at great expense, they've lost a lot of soldiers and a lot of equipment, but they have gained some territory, gained some land. And that has been a problem for the Ukrainians. Now, when this new weapon shows up, in particular the ammunition, that will allow the Ukrainians to stop that push and be able to hold off this push by the Russians.

But holding it off, it seems to be more the same in terms of the stalemate that's happening there, which I think has frustrated a lot of people. That's part of the argument that Republicans have been making about the continued funding to Ukraine. What is it going to take to win the war? Well, it's going to take the wind of the war is for the Russians to realize they can't win.

And when they realize they're going to lose, then they will stop this and they'll look for a way to stop this. Now, how does that happen? Well, one of the things is what President Silencie said is these long-range fires, these long-range missiles that can range into and all the way to the edge of Crimea, all the way to that bridge, the Kirch Bridge that goes into Russia. If those long-range fires could take out that bridge, it makes it very difficult for the Russians to maintain their support there, maintain the troops there, maintain the aircraft there.

And that is a major problem for the Russians if the Ukrainians can do that. And how vital was this funding in terms of the opportunity here, right? Do you believe that this is probably the last opportunity that the Congress will have to give this level of funding to Ukraine before the election? Do they basically have to make good on what they're receiving in this round?

This funding, the 60 billion, will take them into next year, for sure. I mean, we've provided so far about 45 billion on the military side. And this is 60 billion that should last them through this year. And they can use this, both to hold off the Russians, to rebuild, to rearm, to pull in more soldiers.

They have to pull in more soldiers. And they can go after this bridge and the other land bridge that is supplying the Russians. So they have ways to weaken the Russians. Tell me about this from a Russian perspective right now.

How is the Kremlin responding to the fact that the U.S. has got its act together and is going to offer this funding up? And has it changed perhaps their strategic decision-making here? Could there be a quicker offensive than maybe we'd anticipated?

They could be a quicker offensive, but it turns out that they haven't been able to so far. Now would have been the time. You're exactly right. But I don't think they have the capability.

I think their soldiers are probably more tired than the Ukrainians and weaker than the Ukrainians. So they can't push through. And you're asking, that's the right question. What does it change?

They now realize that Joe Biden said as long as it takes, means as long as it takes. They can't win this one. They know the Ukrainians are not going to give up. Now the Americans have shown they're not going to give up, and the Europeans have been moving stronger than they've been before because they were worried about where the Americans were.

So this is not good for the Russians. Yeah, and part of the thing that Foreign President Trump's been complaining about is that Europe hasn't been paying their fair share. That's inaccurate, right? You're actually doing more up until now, right?

It turns out that the Europeans have allocated more funds to Ukraine than the United States has. Right. So let's talk about another part of this foreign aid bill, and that's the repo act. It would allow the administration to confiscate these frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine.

Do you think that this adds to the complement of funding and everything that they're going to get along these lines? Could this actually work? This could work. This could work.

I'm not sure it's good for buying weapons because it's going to take time. What it's very good for is the rebuilding of Ukraine. Ukraine is going to need like $500 billion to rebuild after all the destruction of the Russians have done. And European taxpayers, American taxpayers, could pay this or the Russians can pay.

The Russians can pay by seizing those dollars that are in Western banks. The Russians pay. That's not a hard choice. Yeah.

You've already touched on this a little bit, but if we can expand on it, because in the interview with Kristen, President Zelensky did focus a lot on the big weapon system. But there's also a manpower issue in Ukraine, right? I mean, do they have the soldiers necessary to continue to prosecute this war? They need more soldiers in the army.

They're more, they have plenty of people there. They don't have as many as the Russians, but there are some 30 million Ukrainians there, and they're motivated. There'll be more motivated after this new bill that President Zelensky has just signed. More incentives.

They're lowering the age from 27 to 25, get more people that are available. They're available. They do need more soldiers on the battlefield. Their soldiers that have been fighting for more than two years are tired.

They're very tired. They need to be rotated. They need to be retrained. That can come.

And that's what the Ukrainians are planning right now. And beyond just the funding that's coming from the U.S., there's just even strength in the European resolve even more. The fact that Europe has now gotten a signal from the United States that they're willing to continue to support this effort. The Europeans were really looking for the United States to step back up, to step back up.

They were worried that the leadership that the United States have provided, that the funding they've provided was somehow threatened or not coming. They're now pleased. The Europeans, almost as much as the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians are super pleased. And the Europeans are glad to see that the Americans are back.

And then finally, sir, if this aid package had not gone through, would Ukraine have lost this war and how quickly it could have happened? They could not have went without it. That is clear. They would not stop fighting.

They would have fought until they ran out. Which could have happened. So, yes, this was a crucial step. Ambassador, your perspective is always welcome.

So much about this region and are so highly ex, they have such expertise in this topic. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next, mind the enthusiasm gap.

Our new NBC News poll reveals a major challenge facing the Biden and Trump campaigns heading into November. We're watching. Welcome back. Turning now to the race for the White House.

Presidential campaigns are all about driving a voter enthusiasm. In this cycle, both the Biden campaign and the Trump campaign really have their work cut out for them. According to our new NBC News poll, the share of registered voters who say they have high interest in November's elections has hit a nearly 20-year low at 64%. That share was 77% at this stage of the race in 2020.

As for the state of the race itself, it's essentially a dead heat. Former President Trump has a two-point lead and a head-to-head with President Biden. That's in the margin of error. Our last poll in January, though, had Trump with a five-point lead.

So it doesn't appear the President Biden has started to close the gap a bit, though that movement's also within the margin of error. Turning me on set now to talk about this is Nicholas Wu, the congressional reporter for Politico. Kimberly, I can store a senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe and an NBC News contributor and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. He recently worked on Tim Scott's presidential campaign.

So Nick, let's start with you. Voters, he has him 10 points higher at this point in the 2020 election. I don't think any of us are surprised that people are already fatigued by this election. What do you attribute the drop-off to?

Well, I think what it points to is just how well-defined both candidates already are. People have seen this play out before in 2020 and it's the exact same candidates in many ways. Trump is litigating a lot of the 2020 election and there's not the only surprise like you see in some presidential campaigns. But at the same time, if we look at some of the other data that we saw earlier, there was a similar kind of drop-off from 2008 to 2012.

So perhaps for every election bid, there's some sort of drop-off in turnout as well. But it remains to be seen though how exactly Biden and Trump are going to have to fire up their respective bases heading into this election. It really doesn't seem as though it's just a general lack of enthusiasm for both candidates right now. Well, it does.

But we have to understand that for a lot of people who are not in Washington like we are, it's still early. I mean, when I am in places like Florida or Michigan, I am asked, who's the nominee going to be? People have not tuned in on yet. But a couple things are going to happen.

People are going to tune in as we head into the conventions. Also, the trial of Donald Trump is really putting him front and center in a way that I think could just make that dip in his support grow even bigger. And so we have to see how that plays out. We also have the third party candidacy of Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., which we don't know how it's going to play out in real life in terms of delegates. But at least in these early polling that's showing that it's pulling away from both candidates, pulling away from Trump a little more, so we have to see how all that will play out. All right. So Matt, I want to show you these numbers.

Joe Biden has a healthy lead among voters who voted in 2020 and 2022. But Trump leads with registered voters who did not. How big of a gamble is it, if you're in his war room, to run your reelection strategy on non-regular voters. And Trump's always had a benefit that he's brought people to the polls that haven't traditionally voted before.

This is the third time he's asking him to do that. And that was always the Obama era thing. I remember coming up then, Republicans always did a lot better in midterm years, smaller turnout. The Obama machine got the folks out in the presidential years.

I will also say one thing too. I think we just started with the COVID, the interest in that 2020 election. It was a bit of a sugar high, I think, in a lot of respects. You're sitting at home, you are extremely engaged in the TV.

That's why fundraising numbers were so high too. So I think that'll be a little higher than normal. But I think the other part too, look, if Donald Trump won's reelection, he's going to win it in large part because of minority voters, especially younger Latino voters, African American men. There was a big kind of thing, a lot of folks questioned who would be the Trump voter that didn't vote for him the previous two times and get voted for now.

Those are the types of voters that A, getting that 22 point lead, and it would be those sorts of voters that did. And you're not saying he has to win those. Absolutely not. Right?

Just asking him what's better. Because he had pretty bad with those two groups. Relatively. But I mean, he also did better than any Republican since Bush among Latinos and among the best since Reagan among African Americans.

He's not winning him, but cutting in the margin. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You have to wait and see. A lot is going to happen between now and then particularly with the trials, you're going to see Donald Trump a lot more visible in terms of that. And also you will see Joe Biden getting out and not just being president, but campaigning for that second term, making the case increasingly. So I do still think it's a bit early.

It's hard to take too much away from these polls. I would be interested to see in the swing state, crucial swing state polling over the next two, three months. That would give us a much better idea about how this race will shape up. All right.

And another part of the poll that's interesting is an issue that affects everybody, right? And that's inflation. And inflation is something that by and large, almost every voter you talk to seems to be concerned about across the political spectrum. Is president Biden going to have to find a way to convince voters that either inflation is in his fault or that inflation is getting better?

How does he win that argument? The challenge of Biden and Democrats is really going to be able to convince voters that, yes, the economy is improving, whether Democrats policies had any effect on that, well, at the same time, still empathizing with voters who are feeling the pain of inflation. That's something that I've seen a lot from congressional Democrats and Democrats on the campaign trail. They're trying to walk that fine line between talking about the policies they passed before, while still making sure that they understand what their voters are going through.

Yeah. Let's put that pull up again if we can, Matt, because I want to show you the other numbers that are underneath it. I want to show you the question is first, immigration in the border are pretty close up there, threats to democracy, jobs and the economy. You don't see abortion as one of the top issues there, but we've seen a number of elections where that's been a huge driver for Democratic voters.

Even though it's not on this list and we see it there at 6% in this particular poll, it's that maybe not their most important issue, but is it going to drive voters and should Republicans be concerned about it? It's certainly for single issue voters. I mean, almost the idea for Biden would be like, well, inflation, can I talk to you about abortion? That might be the more effective tactic.

You're right. There was also the one issue of the issue set that Biden actually won. So lean into that issue. And as we saw in 2022, it might be down in the list of overall issues, but people will essentially crawl over broken glass to vote on it.

But that being said, immigration now competes with that at least with both as a single issue, according to your poll, but also is number two in the overall issue matrix. So who knows? Maybe there's an answer for Republicans within that question as well. Is it enough for Democrats just to talk about abortion?

Could they overplay their hand if they're not talking about the economy enough? Can we really? I don't know that abortion is overplaying their hand. If it passes for a lot, what we saw in 2022 and other special elections since then, every time abortion access is on the ballot, abortion access wins and wins big.

It is a big driver. It gets the vote out. Like, what is affecting your life right now? But most of course, you think about economic things.

But I also think that people are extremely concerned, not just about abortion, but also the state of our democracy. I think those are drivers for Democrats right now and Republicans don't seem to have a good counter argument on any of those things. So I think that is a big win for Democrats. All right.

So Nick, let's get to our wheelhouse here. We both cover Capitol Hill. We've seen the issue of Ukraine divide the Republican conference. I don't know if it's cut it in half, but there's certainly a huge divide between the two.

What's interesting is that Donald Trump hasn't really talked about it that much. He put out a cryptic statement, kind of half endorsed Mike Johnson's plan. He went down. Mike Johnson went down there.

They were kind of arm and arm. Like, Mike Johnson's defense at all. How concerned should Mike Johnson be about the role Donald Trump may play in his future? I think it's something that Mike Johnson should be very concerned about.

Trump has always been a wild card throughout all of this. And I think the joint appearance with Trump at Mar-a-Lago surely at the time did a lot to help switch a lot of Mike Johnson's fears among Republicans about his standing with their presidential candidate. But the question remains, how exactly does it play out at the coming weeks? Once Marjorie Taylor Greene, or if Marjorie Taylor Greene does trigger her motion to vacate, does Trump weigh in about that?

Does he put something on truth social? That's something that we're going to have to keep a very close eye on since that could help to the difference. As a Republican strategist, are you, you don't have any here left? No, I'm not right.

Thank you, John Bush. Are you pulling your hair out that they had a bipartisan immigration deal on the table and threw it out? But then still allowed Ukraine funding and everything else to go through. I think the original cinema with that bill was they didn't incorporate the housing negotiations.

It was a three-vote margin when they were negotiating it late last year. Now it's a one. You were never going to get that through, unless it was HR 2, essentially a three-vote margin in the house. It was the original scene.

It was dead among a rival. People who didn't know it yet. And look, I think if Trump wanted to shift, Mike Johnson would have done it already, at least for now. The real danger for Mike Johnson, it comes post-election Republicans choose their leaders.

They're going to choose a new Republican leader anyway. If there's a move he made successfully, that's where it happens. Do Democrats provide Mike Johnson the lifeline he's looking for here? Do they protect his speakership if Marjorie Taylor Greene ends up pulling the motion of AK?

I can't see how that happens. And I think what is more front of mind for Mike Johnson is if the Republicans lose control of the House, he won't have any power to begin with. I think he finally had a realization that he either had to lead or get out of the way or be pushed out of the way. And if he's pushed out of the way for doing his job, that's a better way to go out than actually being held hostage by a small minority within his caucus.

I think it finally came to that realization. That's what we saw this weekend. And he is hoping that that will be enough to help the Republicans hold on to the House. I'm not sure it is.

All right, so we're going to go out with this. Nick Wu is going to predict. If Mike Johnson gets booted, who's the next speaker? We'll see what his, his special list is.

Yeah, yeah. I'll put the speaker. That's not what I mean. We can get two hundred and eighteen votes.

Nick, the answer is no one. I'll answer for you. Nick, that's Kimberly Matt. Thank you all for being here.

I appreciate it. Today, President Biden marked Earth Day touting a pair of climate-related initiatives in a week. The White House says will include historic climate actions. It may stop to end Prince William County's Forest Park Triangle in Virginia.

It's part of the National Park System, which was developed by FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. Today, President Biden announced the American Climate Corps, which is a program that will place young people into clean energy jobs. He also launched Solar for All, meant to make clean energy more accessible to more Americans by offering free or low-cost panels. If I'm willing to protect you, we'll invest seven billion dollars for my inflation reduction act from a new program called Solar for All.

900,000 households. 900,000. We'll have solar on the rooftops for the first time, and soon. The move underscores the Biden campaign's focus on a crucial voting bloc, young people, many of whom say climate change is a top issue.

And still ahead, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that could affect major cities across America at issue, homeless encampments, and how far local governments can go in policing this growing population here watching the President. Welcome back. How to deal with homelessness has become a flashpoint in communities across America, worsened by high rents and a lack of housing. Now, the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether cities and towns can enact ordinances that punish homeless people for camping on public property when they have nowhere else to go.

Today, justices appear split on the issue, while hearing a case tied to laws in the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon, after officials began strictly enforcing a ban on camping on public property, effectively criminalizing homelessness. A group of homeless people sue the city, arguing the law violated the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. Joining me now on set is NBC Washington correspondent, Emeesh El-Sindor. Emeesh, take us through what we heard in court today.

What issues did the court focus on? Well, this really did center on whether or not these ordinances criminalize homelessness and whether or not these jail terms that the city wants to put in place, whether or not they're cruel and unusual punishment. So on the side of attorneys who were representing the homeless people, they said that really this is not criminalizing their very existence, that people should be allowed to sleep in their cards in places like city parks or be able to sleep on city sidewalks if they don't have anywhere else to go. But then the city was arguing, well, really, we are just trying to incentivize people to go into shelters and really just trying to help people get help.

It's interesting, though, you mentioned the fact that the court seemed split on this. There were some real questions about whether or not using the Eighth Amendment was the right way to go about this, but both sides were really, really clear in their arguments and were trying to make their case adjustment. And expand on that a little bit. Did you get a sense which way the court might be leaning in this case?

Is there any way to tell? Well, as you noted, it seemed like the court was split on this issue. The conservative justices, in particular, seemed really skeptical of the idea that it was cruel and unusual punishment to have fines and short jail terms for violating this law. That being said, you had someone like Brett Kavanaugh, who's a conservative justice, say something that I thought was pretty notable, which is, well, how is arresting someone for sleeping on public property going to help them in the long run?

They don't want to get out of jail. They're not any better off than they were before they went into jail. But that was notable. You also had someone like Elena Kagan who was a liberal justice, that side seemed a little bit more sympathetic to the homeless arguments that were being made by their lawyers.

And she said, well, it's being homeless for people who don't have anywhere else to go. It's like breathing. So can you criminalize breathing on public property? So in some ways, the court seems slit or long-party lines, but there was, I think, some interesting moments where you could see that the justices could lean one way or the other.

Now, Grants Pass is a pretty small city. Most of us haven't even heard of it before. But I have to imagine that there are other cities, even much bigger cities that are closely watching the outcome here. There are definitely other cities that are watching this.

And this could really, if the justices rule against this city, Grants Pass, Oregon, they could have far-reaching impact here. And you have cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, they wrote letters to the Supreme Court backing up Grants Pass ordinances because they are cities too, have similar ordinances that bar people from sleeping on public property. But interestingly, another Biden administration has also been backing the arguments that the homeless population that sued the city have been making, saying that really it is unlawful for someone to criminalize, sleeping outside. And I want to read a bit of what they say, because they say, in particular, it's unlawful if they are applied in a manner that prevents an individual without available shelter from residing in the jurisdiction.

So the Biden administration is siding here with the homeless party, but they're also being very clear on sort of how they're making that argument. I mean, this seems like a pretty narrow part of this much bigger problem, right? Does the country need to do more to deal with the issue of homelessness in general? That's a really good point.

There are, of course, thousands and thousands of Americans who are homeless and more people are facing it every day when you think of the idea that there are so many economic struggles and so many people that are dealing with housing insecurity. And part of the arguments that the lawyers for the homeless parties are making were, well, the city is going to be having these ordinances. Why don't they do something better in terms of getting shelter for people? Why don't they use their resources in that regard?

And we should say, grants have to seem to have a shelter. They're directing people to a shelter run by a religious organization. So very interesting details there. Yeah, you kick them out of the public park.

They still have to go somewhere. So that doesn't solve the problem. All right. Thank you so much for being here.

We appreciate it. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. But there is plenty of news to come. NBC News Now coverage continues with Kelly Jackson right now.

He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died.

And then the death investigation took a while, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Maguas, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from daylight. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion Now, wherever you get your podcasts.