If it's Monday ahead the 100 day mark, the White House is putting the spotlight on its immigration crackdown, with President Trump expected to sign new executive orders this afternoon and new polls showing public dissatisfaction with his handling of key issues. Plus, President Trump threatens new sanctions on Russia as he meets face to face with Ukrainian President Zelensky and questions whether Russia's Vladimir Putin is really willing to end the war. And Illinois Democratic billionaire Governor J.B. pritzker, the last President Trump in a fiery speech in all places New Hampshire, imploring Democrats to, quote, fight everywhere and only once while denouncing Democratic inaction and stoking speculation about 2028.
Welcome to Meet the Press. Now. I'm Kelly O' Donnell in Washington on day 99 of the second Trump administration, with the White House ratcheting up its focus on border security and mass deportations as the president lashes out at a slew of new polls that show an erosion in his political support. President Trump is set to sign two executive orders next hour, which the White House says will ramp up its crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
As part of the administration's laser focus on immigration issues today, the White House placed dozens of posters on the North Lawn, visible in the camera shots that all the TV outlets there have. And the administration contends these signs show alleged criminal migrants who have been arrested during the president's first 100 days in office. Though the White House has not provided information for independent verification, the administration began the day with a rare warning briefing featuring the president's border czar, Tom Holman, who delivered a message having the administration clamp down. Now.
President Trump and this administration here, their success is unprecedented. We beat Trump's first administration on board. Success. Border numbers are historic low today as I'm standing here, we are the most secure border in the history of this nation.
And the numbers prove it. President Trump's policies are saving lives every day. This is unprecedented success. The border secure.
President Trump saving lives. President Trump has proven no one does it better than President Trump. There is no equal is not even close. Homer also defended last week's FBI arrest of a Milwaukee judge who prosecutors say obstructed efforts to detain an undocumented immigrant.
And he defended removal of three children, all of them US Citizens who were on deportation flights late last week to Honduras with their undocumented mothers. I said a thousand times when you cross that line to impedement or annoying carbon concealing and illegal anti mice, you will be prosecuted. Judging that what we did is remove children with their mothers who requested the children to be part of them. This is a parental decision.
Parental 100 prepare parrying 101 the mothers made that choice. And I tell you what, if we didn't do it, the Storage Navy Trump administration separate families again? No, we're keeping families again. The White House focus on border security issues comes as new polling shows the public is souring on its ability to handle other major issues.
According to our new NBC News State Tune poll, 49% of U.S. adults approve of the administration's handling of border and immigration issues. It's the president's strongest issue in our poll, but just 45% of adults approve of his overall job performance, 55% disapprove. His disapproval number among independents in that poll is at 68%.
And his approval rating is at least 10 points underwater. In three other recent major polls leading up to his 100 day in office with that much softness reflected growing concerns about the president's handling of economic issues like inflation and the cost of living. NBC News White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard now joins me, and along with us is NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Juliette Ainslie. So good to have you with us.
Let me start with you, if I may. We see how the president is lashing out on social media, as he's known to do over polling. He's tracking the polls. He knows what they're saying.
Are you getting a sense that in the West Wing they're also looking at these numbers and is there any calibration happening, especially because the homecoming, if you will, for the president they had anticipated, especially with majorities in House and the Senate, a time in which they would continue to see polling numbers reflective of their initiatives and efforts and polling numbers that they had hoped would register positively and reflect upon an American populace that is approving of his performance. But yet what we see in these numbers are questions for skepticism, at least a great share of the country over some of his handling the economy. But also when you look at immigration here, when you get down in some of these numbers, you're looking at for approval, you're looking at the fact that when asked about economy, inflation and cost of living, just 40% approve, 60% disapprove. On trade and tariffs, 39% approve, 61% disapproved.
These are numbers that are stark and are not reflective of the electorate that the president wishes would stand by and he'd be able to lift up, is approving of his efforts despite, as he said, some of the disruptions that they should anticipate. Clearly, there's A percentage of Americans, Kelly, who are not as eager or approving of the disruptions that they are so far seeing in these first months of this administration at the hands of the policies. And yet we're also seeing a resilience for the White House on the issue of immigration. The White House leaning into that, talking about immigration, talking about border security.
Does the administration think this is an issue that remains kind of a barrier for the president against some of those other areas where there is a little erosion? Absolutely. That's why we have continued to see them hammer home and including this morning having Caroline Levitt, press secretary long time Tom Holman, the borders are out. And this Monday morning, along with lineup along the driveway heading into the White House here this morning, images of individuals they say are criminals, undocumented immigrants who came into this country and committed violent acts.
And they're seeking to hold up those types of stories while frankly, Kelly, obfuscating other individual stories who they have alleged in some cases to be gang members, yet have not presented detailed evidence or accounts of their potential gang affiliations. In the case of the three US Citizen children who have been sent overseas, questions about their own stories. And yet this is where we have seen polling for immigration, the president continue to pour reform better among the highest of Americans when it comes to immigration policies than other issues. Yet at the same time, over the course of the last weeks slip in terms of some of those numbers.
We have heard Tom Holman in a conversation with our colleague Garrett Hague indicate that they are in need of congressional help to push more further ICE funding. And they are also affecting executive orders, statute in charge of sanctuary cities, a head nod to the need of federal law enforcement to have the help and support of local jurisdictions to act upon the mass deprecation efforts that he had promised through his administration, the American people. And he wants election November. And that's where the way to bookend the day with an executive order to round out the President's 99th day as we saw them start on a link chartered Julia.
Thank you, Vaughn. Good to see my friend, when it comes to the focus you've been doing, which is looking at these children, small children who need to be in the custody of a parent one would certainly easily agree with. They are US Citizens, their mothers are undocumented and have been deported. What is the status of how the administration is responding to the needs and the rights of these children?
Well, the difference here, the key question here, Kelly, is choice and whether or not the mothers knew their choices before they got on that airplane with the Children as home pointed out, there are children, there are families who have to make this tough decision all the time. This goes back really to any administration where a parent might be deported. They have to decide, do I take my child back to the country that I fled where they might not have as good of a life, or do I separate and have them save the character over the United States? That's all common.
What's unusual here is that they may not have been presented with the option. In fact, there was a lawyer for the woman who's the mother of a two year old who says that she was on the phone with the child's father. They were working out, could there be a custody arrangement? They were working out the details.
They got a minute into the phone call and then when the father gave her the number of a lawyer, ICE immediately cut off the call. So they're saying not only did that show that she had restricted access to legal counsel, that perhaps this mother felt that there was no other option for her child but to leave the child in the custody of ice, which wouldn't have happened, or to take this child with her. And she actually wrote a note. It's not in a court document or anywhere, any box that she's checking on official government form.
She wrote on what looks like a scrap of paper, I am bringing my daughter with me to Honduras. But what they're saying now is just the fact that she wrote that doesn't mean she knew her choices or that whether she was just stating a fact because she felt she had to bring her. So a lot of pointing back and forth. What we should also point out though, is that because they're U.S.
citizen children, because they have the rights of U.S. citizens, they could come back here. Of course, it's logistically difficult and the Trump administration would have to facilitate in some way how to bring them back if they had been wrongfully deported. But they do have rights to be in this country and do they get, does the government provide these American children with separate counsel, separate guidance to family members?
Are these mixed citizenship households? So when you reference the father, he might be an American citizen or naturalized American citizen, is that part of where the dilemma came in here? Is there kind of a custodian adult that could take care of children in the United States? Now, there could be a court appointed legal counsel in this case, but here it's not that even got to that level.
What happened is these families came for routine check. It they were detained and they weren't able to even go before a judge before they were deported. Now, they may have. They did follow the process and the mothers can be deported.
But whether or not they actually had the chance to stand before a judge, understand their rights and choose whether or not their children could come, that seems that didn't happen. In fact, that's why a judge is now scheduled a court hearing for mid May. She thinks that might be enough time for the family to understand the rights for them to make some kind of arrangements if they do decide to bring the children back here. But at the end, what happens is lawyers try to file an appeal and as the B hours warning, they're already in there on the way.
So both process and powerful emotions apply. We'll count on you to keep tracking. As for us, thank you, Julia. And turning now to the fake the president's legislative agenda in Congress, President Trump, Mack Witz, SPEAKER the House Mike Johnson.
This afternoon as lawmakers return from recess to take the next key steps on what the president calls that one big beautiful bill. Republicans want to get that sweeping measure to the president's desk for signature by Memorial Day recess. That's just four weeks. The legislation which Republicans promise will slash spending by more than a trillion dollars faces several major obstacles, including potential cuts to Medicaid, which has divided parts of the Republican Party.
Joining me now with the latest from Capitol Hills, NBC News senior political reporter Sahil Kapoor. Sahil, good to see you. I know you are following every move on this. And there's a limited sort of rush.
Four weeks sounds like a lot of time. It's not. Do we have a sense yet of any readout from the president's conversation with Speaker Johnson? Yeah, Kelly, we don't know too much.
The White House has not got a readout. But Speaker Johnson did come back to the Hill after the meeting, briefly spoke to reporters, didn't say a whole lot. He said it will be a critical few weeks coming up in the rapid Memorial Day because his goal is to pass that massive multi trillion dollar piece of legislation through the House of Representatives by Memorial Day. That requires committees in the coming days rolling out their individual pieces of the bill, passing it and sending it over to a budget committee which will essentially staple it all together, send it to the floor.
As you know, Kelly Republic have a very small House majority and a lot of work to do. Now, we also know there was a political component to this meeting in the White House with President Trump. We know that because not only did Speaker Johnson attend, but the NRCC chairman, Rich Hudson runs the House Republican campaign effort was also there. And you know that right around the time of their meeting, President Trump put out endorsements of several key Republicans who are in competitive districts will be targeted by Democrats next fall, including Gabe Evans in Colorado, Juan Siani in Arizona, Derek Van Orden in Wisconsin and Scott Paris in Pennsylvania, who sort of surprised, almost defeated Republican.
A lot of times those campaign meetings are held offside and not at the White House because of the sort of line to keep official business and campaign business separate. When you consider some of the issues Republicans are dealing with right now, there's intra party fighting among Republicans about how to make all of these cuts work, what their priorities are and just how to get across the finish line. What are you sensing now about that? That sort of family conversation among Republicans about where things stand?
It's gotten quite consensus already, Kelly. There is an enormous amount to do for Republicans still between now the finish line, you have to iron out some of the toughest, thorniest issues and take a look at five of them. You have a new piece today outlining some of the biggest things that they have to address. One is how to cut Medicaid spending.
There's simply no way to make the math work for the public budget without significant spending cuts to Medicaid. The hardliners and the conservative side want to go big on this, whereas a number of Republicans in swing districts are very nervous about. There's a scope of the tax cuts. Just extending the TCJA from 2017, that's the Trump tax cuts from his first term is going to cost trillions of dollars.
Are they going to add Trump's other campaign promises for second term? No tax on septic over time, there's of course the salt deduction. That's state and local taxes, a huge issue in high tax jurisdictions where some Republicans in places like New York, New Jersey are insisting on lifting what is currently a $10,000 cap. Many Republicans don't want to do it.
And then they're also rollbacks with clean energy fund that they're wrestling with. A lot of the money goes to red districts. Finally, new Pagan spending. Does NAGON need another $100 billion?
Some Republicans say yes. Well, with that list, Sahil, I know you will be busy trying to track down how it's going day by day. That is a comprehensive and complicated list. Thank you so much.
We appreciate it. You're on the beat. Thanks. And coming up close, but not close enough, Secretary of State Marco Rubio talks to Meet the Press about this critical week for peace talks as Russia announces a unilateral but very temporary ceasefire.
Plus, who runs the World President Trump tells the Atlantic he does the comments and more takeaways from this interview as the administration looks ahead to the next 100 days. You're watching Meet THE Press Now. Welcome back. For the first time since their much talked about contentious Oval Office meeting, President Trump and President Zelensky met in person at the Vatican before the funeral for Pope Francis Saturday.
These images capture the body language and the unusual setting for this presidential meeting, which Ukrainian officials say lasted about 15 minutes. The white House described the meeting as, quote, productive. And it comes as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on Russia and Ukraine to reach a peace deal. Following that interaction, the president appeared to question Russian President Putin's commitment to peace, writing on social media.
Maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping the along. Adding pressure, Secretary of State Rubio on Meet the Press signal that if progress is not made soon, the US May walk away from these peace negotiations. I think this is gonna be a very critical week. This week is gonna be a really important week in which we have to make a determination about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in or if it's time to sort of focus on some other issues that are equally not more important in some cases.
But we want to see it happen. There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic, of course, as well. We're close, but we're not close enough. As the Trump administration seeks an end to the war today, President Putin announced a unilateral three day ceasefire that would begin on May 8th to coincide with what they call Victory Day when Russia commemorates its victory over Nazi Germany.
Joining me now is NBC News chief international correspondent Kier Simmons. And Kier, I know you've been trying to get a sense of how this meeting at the Vatican may have changed the tempo or maybe be swartz and trust in the what is your sense of how the two sides are looking at that encounter at the Vatican and what difference it could make? Yeah, I mean, maybe I think it's the right way to put it, Kelly. President Zelenskyy, let's put it this way, has a pretty mixed record with presidents, not just President Biden.
So the very fact that there weren't fireworks after that meeting, that you saw them having that confidential conversation, and there's another photo where they are there with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Macron, that suggests that there was some progress made in that, certainly in the readout that we got after the meeting. And I'm told by a senior US Official that there were constructive meetings in London, too, prior to that conversation. So there does appear to be a little bit of a thawing, if you like. And as you say, that may be to do with some frustration with the Kremlin, with President Putin from the Trump administration.
And I'm not sure that that three day ceasefire is necessarily going to help things. I mean, certainly it's not the 30 day ceasefire that Ukraine says it needs before it can agree on other issues like territory. And also, it looks like President Putin's trying to play chess. And effectively what he's done is announced a ceasefire during that period when there is that traditional Victory day parade in Red Square and when China's President Xi will be visiting Moscow.
Now, of course, you'll remember that just in the past few days, there was an attack in Moscow that killed a Russian general. If you imagine that Ukrainians would like to carry out some kind of attack like that in Moscow during a visit by the Chinese president or during the Victory day celebrations by announcing a ceasefire at the same time, what effectively President Putin is doing is saying to me, crazy, okay, well, if you do that, then you'll bring the ceasefire that I've put in place that you didn't agree, but which you said you wanted. It looks like kind of clever chess, but it may be a little bit too tr. Transparent clever chess, actually, kind of what I was thinking, as well as sort of insulating Putin's position in this at a time where he can try to get an upper hand, at least in the optics game, when it comes to the issue of Crimea, which of course, Russia came in, took it over, it's contentious.
It's a big section of the country with deep Russian roots. How do you expect that's going? President Trump has suggested that Ukraine would be willing to give that up. I don't hear that coming from Kyiv.
Where do you think that issue stands? Well, I mean, the reality about Crimea, of course, is that Russia has held it and annexed it for a long time, since back in 2014. Those who know Crimea well in the history of Crimea will point out, okay, but there were many people there who did not support Russia and they were driven out by the Russians. But equally though, the facts on the ground are that there are lots of people there now who consider themselves Russian, Russian speaking, have been given Russian passports, either they thought either under pressure or because they wanted it.
And that's the reality. So it's true that when it comes to Crimea, the other thing about Crimea too, and we were there just a few years ago. The other thing about Crimea, of course, is that it's strategically for Russia, it's incredibly important with the Fassabol port there. So, yes.
Is it the place that is least likely to end up back in Kyiv's hands? Yes. Will Kyiv feel as if it wants that kind of openly said before negotiations? No.
And again, what Ukrainians are saying is let's have a ceasefire, let's have a lasting ceasefire, and then we can go see all these things and are very likely whispering to the Americans, we will give it up. But they might not want Russia to know that, even if Russia kind of knows that. Exactly. Exactly.
Kir, thank you so much for your analysis. I know that you've been following this for many years, and we appreciate your insights. And coming up next, how some states are fighting back against President Trump's trade wars. California attorney general joins me in studio here from the west coast as he takes the administration to court.
Don't go anywhere. You're watching me, the press now. We're glad you're back with us. More than a dozen states have now sued the Trump administration over its sweeping use of tariffs, arguing that the president's actions are unconstitutional and that he's abusing his authority.
Earlier this month, California was the first state to challenge the administration on terrorists, claiming they are harming and harmful to the state's economy, which is one of the largest in the world. And last week, a coalition of 12 states also sued the Trump administration over its, quote, illegal tariffs. Now, joining me now on set, we're very happy you're in the studio is California Attorney General Rob Anta. We know you've there was a plane ride involved in getting you here.
We're delighted to see you here in person. I alluded to the fact that California is one of the world's great economies. And what are you seeing in the effects and the anticipated effects with the tariffs that are already in place and those that have been talked about and threatened by what's at stake in California? Well, California is the largest state in the nation, 39 million people, fourth largest economy in the world, biggest importer of any other state, second largest exporter, largest exporter of ag, biggest manufacturing state.
We have an outsized economy. And there's an outsized impact of the tariffs on our economy because so much we have iconic industries like agriculture and Hollywood entertainment, Silicon Valley, and they're all impacted. But not just those big iconic industries. Modern pop businesses are trying to see how they can keep their doors open if they can keep Their doors open.
And so from top to bottom of the business community, we're seeing harmful impacts and we're also seeing impacts on workers, on families. The cost of goods are going to go up and people speaking that the last voting booth during the election that they want to go down, not up. Inflation's going to go up. The economy will shrink by $100 billion a year.
And we had the two worst days in the stock market back to back in the history of the US Stock market. So lots of. Across many sectors of many. Give us a sense of what are the legal issues in the case that you're bringing.
There are a lot of lawsuits flying around from all different kinds of parties. Obviously, the state of California is who you represent. What is the issue that you are contesting in the court? In short, we're saying that President of the United States does not have the authority to issue the tariffs that we challenge.
Because it should be Congress. Yep. Congress has an authority. Congress, under Article 1 of the US Constitution, has the power to tax tariffs or taxes.
Now, Congress may delegate authority, give authority to the President to impose tariffs, if it's clear. But the statute, the law that the President relies on, the International Emergency Economic Powers act, as I mentioned, word tariffs anywhere in the statute, no president in the history of the use of the IEEPA has ever used that statute to impose tariffs. So I think we very compellingly argued that the President doesn't have authority to impose these very harmful terrorists. I'm sure you've looked not only at the facts of the case, but the environment in which you're bringing litigation against a President who's known to be legitimate himself in personal and public life.
Do you think this is an opportunity for some kind of leverage, which is something we often see from the president, or do you expect this to just go through the steps of the legal process and have an answer at some point? We don't bring cases to leverage. We've been cases till we on the maps. We think that he unlawfully imposed tariffs.
So we're going to court to get a declaration that he unlawfully imposes tariffs and get an order to stop him. Declare the tariffs null and void and unenforceable. We think we have a really strong case. And I think the American people, from the polling that recently come out, think these tariffs are terrible and they're harmful and they don't support them.
So whether it be legal, the actual judicial courts, or the court of public opinion, I think this is illusion. That's part of it too. Right. You're trying to educate the public on the view that you believe that this is a step too far and in the ways that it's affecting Californians.
Where do you think the most immediate impact is? Is it on the prices of goods they buy every day? Is it on jobs that are affected and tied to trade? Where do you think the real critical point is that people will feel first?
Yeah, you know, I'll say that the tariffs are a broad ranging, indiscriminate. They're imposed against every single trading part of the United States of America, over 200 nations, in particular the three biggest trading partners, Mexico, Canada, China, of the United States, of the United States and of California. And California has made a case that this impacts the price of the goods that we buy as a government purpose to serve the vendors that we work with. Our cost will go up.
They'll pass that on to us. It also lowers taxes and makes us pay more with our social service safety net. But I think it's like the cost of goods for their everyday California, they're going to go up and it'll be multiple, multiple ways that we've seen those prices across the board. You've also brought attention to issues we talked about a lot in these first 99 days.
Doge cuts, the president's and his administration's attacks on DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. You've brought that into the, into litigation as well. Tell me, how are you trying to do that? Obviously, California is a predominantly Democratic state, although with some very strong pockets of conservative, historically conservative places.
How do you think this is playing out in terms of people's concern about DEI and things like government cuts? I think very positively. We only bring a lawsuit when the Trump administration has violated the law, when Trump has violated the Constitution. We've done that 15 times now in 14 weeks, more than one week, because that's how brazenly, blatantly, consistently and frequently he's violated the law.
I think the American people and Californians support the rule of law, support compliance with the Constitution, and do not want a president who to break it. And when you talk about frequently, consistent, consistently, do you think then your response as a prominent attorney general is you've got to keep going to court. Is that a sustainable strategy for states like yours? Yes.
If we must go to court, we will. I, I and our fellow states will suit the Trump administration. Every time he harms our states and he breaks the law, period, full stop. And as soon as he stops breaking the law, we'll stop suing him.
If he doesn't like all these court orders that are being issued against him and we're broadly winning court. We're getting restricting orders, we're getting preliminary injunctions. Then he should stop breaking the law. He hasn't learned that lesson yet.
So if he keeps breaking the law, we'll see him in court. So Democrats have been talking a lot about whether there's a uniform strategy with the party. Obviously, Governor Newsom has been prominent on the national stage trying to get Democrats to have a plan for how to counter the Trump administration. As we sit here on the eve of 100 days, where do you think Democrats need to be be on response to President Trump?
Obviously, as Trey General, you told us about your legal strategy. Is there a messaging component or another aspect of this you think needs more attention? Yeah, you know, I think we can always do more. We can always do better.
I think reaching our potential, always striving to be better is important. I think Democratic attorney general at the front and center being very impactful, very active, taking the administration to court, winning in court, that's been important. I think we're seeing a lot of great town halls, empty chair town halls. We have legislators and centers talking directly to American people, but that it is important to them while Republicans are hiding and not talking to the American people.
We see Corey Crist filibuster and we see Senator Von Holland going to El Salvador to bring back a constitution who's been unlawfully treated. That's all great stuff. Everyone has something to do. And meanwhile, we need to focus on highlighting the failures of this failed Trump administration.
His polling is in a tank right now. And talk about how we're gonna deliver for it for as Democrats for the American people on the courtesy that important to them. And Democratic attorneys general from California are often prominent on the national stage, seen at time and time again for beer. Glad that we had a chance of a conversation with you today.
Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. And after the break, Democrats look to play offense against the Trump administration as Republicans go on defense in some raucous town halls.
The panel is next. You're watching Meet THE Press now. Welcome back. We aren't even yet at the 100 day mark of President Trump's second term.
Imagine that for a moment. And we're seeing already some early jockeying among potential 2028 presidential candidates. On the Democratic side at an event last night in New Hampshire, again, New Hampshire, Illinois Democratic Governor JP Pitzer delivered a thundering message to his party, channeling the frustrations of the bas, calling on Democrats to quote, fight everywhere, all at once. Here's part of what he had to say.
Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption, but I am now. These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box.
So much for us to talk about. Joining me now on set is Molly Ball, senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She's also an ABC News contributor and Republican strategist and founder of Endeavor Pack of Me smiling. Welcome, lady.
Glad to have you here. Molly, let me start with you. Listening to the governor there now he's got some safe distance all the way in Illinois is his home. New Hampshire was where he made those remarks.
Is he now channeling the anger of the base or is he just one of those voices? I think he's one of the most prominent ones. I mean, when I speak to rank and file Democrats, he's a name that comes up a lot because they do see him as one of the few high profile Democrats right now who don't seem to have any indecision about how to respond. He's a fearless streak.
There's a fearlessness and there's an authenticity to that. He feels like he's as angry as they are. And a lot of rank and file Democratic partisans feel like they haven't seen enough of that from their leaders. So, you know, it's obviously a long time from now until 2028.
But I think once that race does get underway, Democrats are going to remember what they've seen in these early days of the Trump administration when so many leading Democrats, Democrats seemed uncertain how to respond or were sort of, you know, running around like because of their heads cut off. The idea is that, you know, you can make an impression. Right now people are going to remember, Don, I know some people are probably thinking 2028, we're now even at 100 days. Fair enough.
We get that. But there are important markers now and Democrats are trying to get their footing on messaging and on having other voices to step forward when there's kind of a question about who's the leader of the Democratic Party now. What is your sense about the 100 day mark as an opportunity for Democrats? Well, I think it's on I think it's very clear what the Trump presidency has meant over these last 100 days.
And it's been a disaster. And I think Democrats are Right. To really seize on that as an opportunity. And because there is no obvious party leader, I think it is important for some of these Democrats to step up.
I mean, take Cory Booker. I mean, Cory Booker got so much, you know, support from his taking marathon session. You know, and I think Democrat, Democratic voters and activists want to see that. I mean, give them some fight.
They want to see that. Let me read something from Governor Pritzer. He said that we're gonna play even better. Let's play this.
I want to get your reaction what the governor has to say. Oh, Democrats, for far too long we've been guilty of listening to a bunch of do nothing political types who would tell you that America's house is not on fire. Even as the flames were licking their faces. Those same do nothing Democrats want to blame our losses on our defense of black people, of trans kids, of immigrants, instead of, instead of their own lack of guts and gumption.
Well, he's not holding back there. What is your sense about how he is framing that? Is it a way to sort of shock other Democrats? Well, I mean, we also had a lot of voters, Democratic voters who sat at home in 2024.
And I think what he's saying is that, you know, if you continue to push away the base of the party, there's no way to win because it's the base plus one. And I think that Governor Pritzer is onto something and Democratic activists are listening to that. Tiffany, let me bring you in on this. When we're looking at the Republican side of things, 2028 feels far off there too, unless you're wearing one of the new Trump hats that is touting from 2028.
There is this sense that President Trump, by being in office for a second non consecutive term, there are people and he has said it all the time. We know the Constitution makes it clear it's only two terms. Do you think his position, whether it's for fun or whether he actually intends, is it affecting the potential successor field in the gop? No.
What? The GOP is strong. I mean, I think President Trump is one of the, one of the strongest hundred days in history of any president. He's accomplished a lot and it's building blocks to build on for the future of Republicans.
And as long as Governor Pritzker is out there running for president like he's done for years, I think it's a good sign for Republicans that we have an opportunity to seize more, pick up more seats. We have opportunity in the midterms to deliver on results. And I do want to Point out something about Governor Pritzker announcing he's running when he camped out in 2022 in New Hampshire. Right.
He jockey to replace Biden on the ticket. He didn't actually announce. He's just. He's on the circuit.
He's on the circuit. He's thinking about it and clearly wants to see his name in house the headlines. But what is alarming is what he said. I wrote it down.
Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. Here's a sitting governor and a potential presidential candidate calling for violence against Republicans. It's going to look very, very good for our country and for the GOP in its future. Okay?
If President Trump has said that he's calling for mass protests, he's calling for activism, he's calling for democracy, I think what you're saying is certainly valid. And you are going to highlight the fact that even using the word peace implies might there be violence? Fritz will have the answer for that. But the idea of maintaining a sustained resistance and opposition, certainly what he is, he's arguing, would it be helpful if the president made clear he's not going to seek a change to the Constitution or run for a third term to allow others to come forward?
Or do you think because he's been so strong at the top of the ticket for Republicans, he needs to stay in the of being a candidate? I mean, we have four years to the president. Trump has four years to deliver on his promises made, promises kept. And I have no doubt that the Republican bench is strong, especially when you look at what we've already been able to accomplish, from securing our border to keeping men out of women's sports, protecting young girls in this country.
So, you know, it's a long ways away, but I don't see anything. Trump is popping up yet, working hard, and we have a deep bench with a winning message, that which we know well. Let's sample some of the conversation that's been happening in the country. Like Lawler of New York State, a member of Congress, held a town hall, and as we have all seen, town halls can get raucous.
And let's get a sense of what was going on there. He had a taste, a little taste of what the movement country is like right now. We have a little bit of that clip we can share. What are you doing to stand in opposition to this administration?
And what specifically are you doing that warrants the label moderate? So, again, my record speaks for itself. I have been, I have been rated the fourth most bipartisan for a reason. I'm gonna know the Poor man is standing in the dark there.
That was a staging issue, I think. But certainly his, his staff says they screened those who were participating so that they were in fact, constituents. Obviously, those who go to town halls usually have something to say. Molly, what is your sense, Is this happening in real energy that Republicans now have to answer for?
I think that's obvious. I mean, look, the Republicans for a while, their own leaders were saying just don't even hold town halls because it's just these fired up Democrats and you're in your districts that are coming out and that sort of, that basically doesn't count because those people weren't voting for you anyway. So what's the point of sort of giving them a state, giving them a platform to yell at you? But the key for Democrats in these midterms is going to be the enthusiasm of their base.
Right. A midterm is a lower turnout election when the side whose base is more enraged and more excited to come out and vote usually wins. So it's a very different dynamic than a high turnout presidential election. And if the Democratic base keeps coming out the way that we have seen them doing at these town halls, you know, I don't know if whether or not Mike Lawler's going to lose his seat, but he's one of the most vulnerable members and he clearly knows that he can't afford to only appeal to the Republican base if he wants.
His calculation is to be out there. Exactly, exactly. Among the issues he talked about was Medicaid. And we know that Congress is trying to look at ways that they can find waste, fraud and abuse, which everyone broadly thinks it's good to root that out.
The question, question is, can Medicaid sustain cuts without really causing people real world pain and difficulty? What do you think the battle lines are for that issue of Medicaid in this next few weeks when Congress has big decisions to make? Well, this is going to be a real challenge because there's only so much money in the till and really to achieve the kind of cuts and, you know, payments for border security and other priorities that they want, there's no way that they can do that without going to Medicaid. And I think that's going to pose real problems for.
And so very quickly you also see Medicaid as being the hardest when you get the communication breakdown and that the Republicans are having because they've been clear they're not going to cut their labor, waste, fraud and abuse, they're not going to cut benefits. Anyone that's holding them and they're looking for ways to make it efficient, effective for the future. So maybe put some restrictions on IT requirements and so forth. We've run out of time.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate all of your insights. And still to come, the political forces driving President Trump's first 100 days. C.
Kornacky breaks down new polling data on the president's political standing as his administration. It's a major milestone. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back.
We've got a bevy of new polls showing how the public feels about President Trump. And NBC's see if Wernacki is where else? Right at the big board with some of the newest numbers from our NBC News Station poll. All right, Kelly, take a look here at Gen Z and how different it is politically from the rest of the age groups out there.
So our new poll looks at this. Let's just start with the basic question. Donald Trump's job approval rating. And you can see here Donald Trump not populous among Gen Z.
Gen Z particularly hostile when it comes to Donald Trump. Basically a 2 to 1 margin disapprove over approve. And again, that's different than what we see with all adults nationally with that group Trump not that popular. But still it's only a 10 point gap between 45 approved, 55 disapprove.
So there you go. When it comes to Trump, Gen Z more hostile, more anti Trump. How about the actions Trump is taking as president? Here he is trade and tariffs.
Again, not popular overall. Certainly that's the headline right here. Particularly unpopular, more acute among Gen Z. Look at that, 2872 on that question, on the question basically of where the country is heading.
Here again, are folks optimistic or pessimistic? This one's interesting. There's a bit of context here. Overall, you look at this, 40% say right direction, 60% wrong direction.
You say it's a pessimistic country. Certainly by those numbers. It is. But the context is this number, 40% is actually a lot higher than we've seen in a long time.
You know, in our own NDC poll, we had a similar number this recently. It was the first time in two decades it had been that high. A lot of that is Republicans, you know, coming together really to say almost unanimously they think the country is on the right track. And again, among Gen Z, though, much more of a gap, 2971.
So we say Gen Z is more anti Trump, anti Trump's policies, more liberal overall. But I think what's really interesting in these numbers, it's a particular part of Gen Z. It's the gender gap. We talk about it all the time in politics.
It is so much more pronounced in this generation, in this young generation, Gen Z. So look at it this way. Go back to that question of Trump's job performance. Do you approve or disapprove?
And actually when you look at it by gender, men, 45, 55. Remember we showed you a minute ago, that's Trump overall. That's Trump nationally. That's when you put everybody in the poll.
Trump's 4,555 Gen Z men are right in line with that. Where the country as a whole is, it's Gen Z women where Trump falls off the cliff. Look at the 2476. Look at the gap between those two groups.
Now put this in further context right here. Looking at the gender gaps in all the different generations. Again, look at this. This is Trump's approval.
Right now we're just showing the approval right at 45 with Gen Z men. We just showed you that 24% with Gen Z women. And here's Trump's approval rating. You know, these are millennial men, Gen X men, boomers.
You see 40s in the 50s. 40s here among women, millennials, Gen X boomers. Wow. Does that number stand out, that 24%.
So within Gen Z you're seeing women as much more liberal, much more progressive, much more anti Trump than men. But also among all generations. This particular group right here is just much more liberal, much more progressive than you're going to see really anywhere else on the spectrum that we're just head any range of questions and issues we have in this poll right here. Again, you're seeing this is the number for all adults.
This is the number for Gen Z men. This is the number for Gen Z women. On you have a favorable deal with Republicans. 44 nationally.
44 Gen Z men falls off a cliff with women. Approve of how Trump's handling DEI. 4445 down to 22. Look at this approval of Trump.
You see the pattern. Agree on the question. There are only two genders. You agree or disagree?
71% overall agree. 69% of Gen Z men falls down to barely 50%. 51 Gen Z women have this question. Are you only a little or not at all proud to be American.
22% nationally, 22% Gen Z almost double that. Gen Z women. So we say Gen Z is more liberal. Kelly.
It is, but it particularly is a gender gap. Women pushing the generation in that direction much more than men. The story behind the number is so compelling. Thank you, Steve.
And joining me now on set for a big picture look at President Trump's first 100 days is presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. And Doug, it's so great to have you here. When you look at 100 days, in some ways it's blink than I. Is it as important to historians as President Trump says, where he talks about he's doing more than any other president?
Is it a good measure for him? History? It's one that FDR created. But FDR had 77 major legislative bills pushed through.
You're not seeing anything done in Congress with Trump. He's decided his 100 days would be to flood the system with executive orders. And history is really only to remember a handful of those because many of them are going through the court system or being illegal every day. And the one that I think history is going to focus on will be the departing of the January 6 insurgents that it seems hard to believe that he comes in and everybody's let out of jail.
Right now, you see that as a real legacy piece for him. For those who endos with musk, let me read with for you a little quote that I think is kind of popular from the president. This is an interview that he gave with the Atlantic where he says, the first time, meaning his first term, I had two things to do, run the country and survive. I had all these crooked guys as president's words.
And the second time I run the country and world. Now, we know that we often refer to the president as the leader of the free world, but we don't often hear presidents saying it quite so plainly. Do you think that is kind of a statement about how he views his presidency through a lens that you'd be studying for years to come? Running the world.
I think we use the word Trump's authoritarian bent, but what it really is is it goes back to the older word of narcissism, the sense that he wants to be a one name person in history. It could be Napoleon, Stalin, Washington, Churchill, Trump. He just doesn't want to be marginalized. He doesn't want to seem part of the crowd that hands up a con on and does good governance.
So this is it gives him encouragement to do wild, flamboyant things or at least say he's going to. And then he gets pulled back because, you know, you can't do this stuff overnight. You can't do these tariffs this high and think factories are going to bloom like flowers. Akron, well, he certainly made the executive orders sort of his daily diet of those.
And having a second term that's not consecutive. We've only seen that once before, rover Cleveland and now the 45th and 47th president. Do you think that pause in between, the sort of in a rhygm of his time actually changes the kind of president he is in the second term? Oh, without a doubt.
Because in the second term, you know, first off, he had first term, he got three Supreme Court justices and then he was able to get a kind of get out of jail free card, meaning the Supreme Court giving an upgrade in presidential power. And then you saw Joe Biden with all the pardoning. So Trump's view is I can do whatever I want. He believes president does it, it's legal.
And if not, I'll pardon anybody and pardon myself, pardon cronies, pardoned colleagues. So in many ways, he's, he's behaving beyond the law. Only problem is that we do have a legal system and they're reining in and it's creating he's getting so furious about it. We see him going after a judge in Wisconsin in an unseemly way.
And so the 100 days may ultimately be rewritten with what happens in the course in terms of what his success and his. Yes. What sticks. We are already out of time.
100 days went so fast for us. But I so appreciate your insights. Thank you, Doug. Thank you.
We'll see you again soon. And when we come back tomorrow, more on MEET THE PRESS now. But in the news, it continues right now. You know we're not going anywhere.
Hallie Jackson is next. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News with me, your host. Gather. We'll take a deep dive into today's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists.
It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist, here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.