Meet the Press NOW — April 6

Hi there. Welcome to be the Press. Now, I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington and we begin with breaking news on the war against Iran. With President Trump now threatening to level the country tomorrow, including its civilian infrastructure, unless Iran makes a deal.

Essentially doubling down on his profanity laced social media post over the weekend demanding to run open the Strait of Hormuz as oil prices continue to climb. Speaking from the White House briefing room this afternoon, President Trump warned that Iran is facing total destruction, but provided little clarity on how much longer the war could last. Here's some of what he had to say. The entire country could be taken out in one night and that night might be tomorrow night.

Are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount. I hope I don't have to do it. Your messaging on the war has moved from the war is coming to an end and we're going to be bombing around to the Stone Ages. And we heard a range of those kind of messages.

So are you. So which is it? Are you winding this down? I can't tell you.

I don't know. I can't tell. It depends what they do. We're giving them.

We're giving them till tomorrow, 8 o' clock Eastern Time. And after that they're going to have no bridges, they're going to have no power plants. Stone Ages. Yeah.

We have a plan because of the power of our military. Where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o' clock tomorrow night. Where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean, complete demolition by 12 o'.

Clock. It'll happen over a period of four hours if we wanted to. Now this comes in the reports of a potential 45 day ceasefire in the works. A White House official telling NBC News is sort of many things being discussed, though it remains unclear who exactly the White House is talking to inside Iran.

The President was pressed about the state of negotiations twice today. First during the White House Easter Egg Roll and then again during his press briefing. They made a proposal and it's a significant proposal. It's a significant step.

It's not good enough, but it's a very significant step. They have made the negotiating now and they've made a very significant step. We'll see what happens. But I can tell you that we have a active, willing participant on the other side.

They would like to be able to make a deal. I can't say any more than that. Now Iran state media is reporting that Tehran is rejecting the possibility of a temporary ceasefire Instead emphasizing the need for the permanent end to the war. All the coming after.

The President's expletive lay social media post on Easter Sunday sent shockwaves across the globe where he renewed his threat to launch strikes on Iran's civilian infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz isn't Open by his 8pm deadline tomorrow. Writing quote open the effin straight you crazy bastards or you'll be living in hell. The President today defending that crude language only to make my point. I think you've heard it before.

Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent to his circuit NBC News national security reporter of Gordon Lubel, NBC News chief international correspondent here Simmons and NBC News senior business correspondent Christine Romans. Julie, let's start with you. What else stood out to you from the President's press conference today? Ryan, I'll start almost rescued Aaron because it was interesting level of detail that the President gave at one point even wanted Dan Payne to provide the exact number of troops military personnel that were involved in this effort.

And Kane said he'd rather not especially Kane said if they have to do this sometime again soon. I also thought the President when he was asked in regards to operation whether everybody was on board he actually revealed that they were. He's a number of very senior military officials were nervous that this would be a very daring operation that could potentially cost lives. It would cost equipment, it would cost a lot of money.

And again as the President laid out this was a plane that was taken out by a shoulder missile. Again that was extremely interesting and it was new. Now in addition to that the President did say on oil for example that he wants to take seize the oil from Iran but he won't do it most likely because of people back home. They wouldn't be satisfied with it.

But the President did say why does he want the oil? Well he said quote I'm a businessman first. That was extremely interesting. A notable mission from the President there admission.

Excuse me as well as the plan the President repeatedly saying he will not provide details. Forgive that noise as you see the grass being cut behind me there. But the President did say when it comes to that plan that it could start at 8pm tomorrow. It could last until midnight, it could go on for four hours.

And then the President said all of Iran's power plants will be decimated. He was asked if that is a war crime under international law. It certainly could be the President saying he believes Iranian people would want that kind of move. He also again said that Iranian regime had killed thousands of protesters over the last two Months again saying that he's not sure if this is the war that is escalating or is winding down as he considers a ceasefire proposal put forward this morning by Pakistan.

Ryan? Julie, do you get a sense the President is feeling a bit emboldened after the US Military operation to rescue the US Airmen was shut down? Absolutely. Several times he detailed the military operation.

I thought that exchange that I mentioned with General Kane were King clearly did not want to give away classified intelligence sensitive information. The President saying multiple times referring to the fact that those details could have made a movie. He talked about the fact that this was the most historic operation, essentially saying it's never been done before. We know there have been countless risky and dangerous operations have been conducted to rescue Americans, troops and civilians alike.

But the President multiple times spoke about this operation in terms of forecasting and showing off American strength. And my only he said, the President, that this is something that Americans can do. He said the technology that we have, the anti air defense capabilities, even the planes, the 155 aircraft the President said we're involved in this is something that showcased the American military might. And again, it comes at a very critical point.

You know, I thought it was even interesting when the President was asked about Artemis, right, the space shuttle operation that is taking place right now. He said it comes at a critical time so that the Americans can continue to showcase this might they're involved in this war in Iran. So all of those things the President are very eager to show off today. And finally, the President also kind of alarmingly threatened jail time today for whoever leaked the news about the US Pilot who was rescued first.

Listen to what he had to say. We're looking very hard to find that leaker. So whoever it is, we think we'll be able to find it out because we're going to the media company that released it and we're going to say national security, give it up or go to jail. Threatening jail time against reporters.

How seriously do you expect the administration will pursue this investigation? Ryan, this is something we know that has been weighing on the mind of the President for days, ever since that leak for surface on Friday. We know that the White House was intentionally very quiet not to reveal details when that first airman, the pilot was rescued from Iran. Again, the president not really saying much until the second airman was rescued in those early morning hours and late night hours and Saturday I should say.

And so this is something I know the White House is going to take seriously. In addition to those comments that you just heard, President Trump said that this was a leak that endangered the rest of the operation. They said it became a much more difficult operation to rescue that second airman. Again, you had American personnel, hundreds of them, the President said, involved in this, 155 aircraft involved in this.

Again, this was happening not the middle of the night, but in broad daylight. So for those reasons, the President said it's extremely pertinent for them to find out who this leaker is. We know the administration has been trying to prevent leaks, the shift that we've seen in the present second term than the first term. And so this is something expecting will take extremely seriously, especially at the Department of Defense.

We know the hexa there at the helm of that department has tried to keep media access restricted. And the message very carefully crafted coming from the Pentagon to whoever needs to hear it. Right. Okay, Julie, thanks for that.

Let's turn on Gordon Studio here with me. I'm president's proud this mission to save this airmen. Obviously we're very glad that he is home. But it did not come without a cost.

Perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military aircraft that were lost as a result of this. What more can you tell us about what went into this mission? The planning and the execution? Sure.

So military always likes to talk about the planning organization. It sure came to bear in this case. I think as this conflict has unfolded the last several weeks, the threat that something like this could happen was planned for all the more. And so there was definitely a plan to kind of figure out in vague way, depending on the circumstances, how to go in.

Again, as Julie said and as the President said, stuff of Hollywood, behind enemy lines, very risky. The first rescue of the first airmen, as the President said, was done by day, super perilous, very dangerous. But that was conducted fairly quickly as we learned a little more about today. The second one far more perilous just because it required more assets, a lot of aircraft, a lot of personnel.

And it was done undercover of darkness. I think as Julie said in the President mentioned, I think the biggest thing to me that we learned was that what brought down the F15E aircraft to begin with was a shoulder fired weapon shot by any operator of the regime and really kind of laid bare the perils not just of the Air Force and the Navy, which the US military all but decimated in many ways, but the individual threats posed by individuals on the ground. And the President also talked about a contingency plan. They needed to use lighter aircraft.

What more do we know about that? I think that's more the president just Kind of providing commentary on an operation he's clearly very intrigued by. As we know now, some of the aircraft went to what they call the lz, the landing zone, to retrieve the second airman once he was initially found. And they got stuck in the sand.

But the US and as president mentioned today, even the contingency plan, the backup plan, was, you know, remarkable in itself. They had aircraft ready to come in and undo the problem after the other ones got stuck. But amidst all this, the good news about the army being both airmen being saved. This is still a war that is raging by any measure.

And Secretary Hexa said today that it's the largest volume of strikes since the start of the war. They've already said that their air defenses have been decimated, the nuclear program has been obliterated. What are they targeting? Right.

I would note that the Secretary has said that several times over the course of this conflict over weeks, like, this is going to be the biggest day. And so he's saying, once again, this is really hard, easy way for us to measure that other than these principles coming out saying this. But they are continuing to go after, you know, finish these conventional targets, targets, the Navy, Air Force missile sites, what are known as command and control sites, where top military officials operate, other headquarters buildings in the military. I think that they will continue to kind of prosecute against those targets for now to eliminate drone sites and drone manufacturing sites, which remain a problem until they get to a point where they decide to shift gears.

Okay, Gord, thanks for that. Let's go here. How do we expect officials in Iran will react to what we heard from President Trump today? Well, I think what we heard President Trump do today is try to use what was once have been called the bully pulpit of the American presidency to push the Iranians into a compromise.

And President Trump is frustrated that the Iranians haven't compromised. And Steve Wikiless said before the war, frustrated that they haven't capitulated it. And actually the President said it out in that news conference very clearly. He described a particular situation.

He didn't exactly say when this was, when he thought there might be a deal. And then Steve Witkoff, his negotiator, his envoy, Jared Kushner, his son in law, and The Vice President, J.D. vance came to him and said, I think the Iranians are breaking the deal because according to President Trump's account, and he said to them, to his team, if you like, okay, tell them to look out the window. And in 45 minutes we'll have hit a major bridge and we Know, of course, that that bridge was hit.

And what President Trump was describing there, effectively, is what he sees as a negotiating style, which is to threaten and even to take action, while at the same time trying to hold out an offer of a deal. To your question, the issue is that the Iranians want quite a number of concessions in order to agree to a deal, including, and this is important for them, for example, an agreement that the US And Israel will never strike them again. Effectively, what you're seeing is the United States and Israel on the one side and the Iranians on the other side both indicate that they would like an end to this war, but they would like it on their terms. It sounds familiar.

It's very much the kind of thing that I've been talking about in relation to another war between Russia and Ukraine. The question here is not about whether the two sides would like to stop fighting. They would. The question is on what terms are they prepared to stop fighting.

And obviously, there's Israel, the United States, Iran's role in all this. But there is a lot of interest for all these different Gulf states as well. And we're just over 24 hours from the president's deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz. I know you're in Saudi Arabia now.

What is the mood like in these Gulf countries? Are they bracing for another major escalation, or do they hold out any hope that there could be an agreement before the deadline? They are bracing. They are worried about it, no question.

That being said, Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, have been able to be very effective in protecting themselves from these missiles and drones, albeit some have got through and the debris from interceptions has caused real damage. And it's interesting. The message that you hear from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries is actually similar to the kind of message we're hearing from President Trump, and that is this. We want the war to stop, but we don't want it to stop if what it ends up with is a weakened but angry and effectively empowered Iran.

And that all goes to the question of the Strait of Hormuz and whether it can be opened up. And I think that is why it's very difficult to see how President Trump doesn't come to the conclusion that there's going to need to be more action by the United States in order to open up the state of Hormuz, possibly taking islands in the Strait, with all of the risks that that will entail and all of the questions of boots on the ground that that will raise. Okay, here, Simmons, in here. Thanks for that now Christine, to you and you heard here talk about what is at stake with the straightforward moves.

It's obviously something that markets around the world are keeping a very close eye on. How do markets react today from what we heard from President Trump? Well, oil markets quite frankly rose when the President reiterated his threat about 8pm tomorrow in a four hour window in which you could decimate civilian important energy structure inside Iran. So you saw crude oil go up at above $112 a barrel.

Diesel prices are at $5. Now look at gas above 412. And when I talk to experts they say if you start to see oil prices continue to rise maybe as high as $120 a barrel, you know, then you talk about four and a half dollar gas in the U.S. so all of this is not hypothetical.

There are tangible, tangible effects right now what's happening in the Middle east of less oil going through the strain for moves onto global markets. You have less oil being produced and liquefied natural gas being produced in some of these important places in the Middle East. So that's just less supply, supply, demand. You know college economics 101 when supply goes down, demand is still relatively high.

That means prices go up. And obviously the place we're seeing it most specifically immediately is at the gas pump maturity outline. But let's say Iran opens trader for moves tomorrow by the deadline. Would that be enough to bring gas prices down in the near term?

I think you would see in markets probably a reaction where in the futures markets you would see oil prices come down in some in far out futures contract. Not to get too wonky about how these things are priced and traded but if you are a gas station owner operator in the United States, you're not going to be lowering gas dramatically in the very near term. Why? Because there's still less oil being produced and shipped through here.

There's still a backlog of weeks if not months of getting things back up. It's not a switch, Ryan. As you know switch just goes on and off. I mean there are long supply chain effects here.

There's also diesel fuel, jet oil, jet fuel. There are all kinds of different products that have been moving through there like fertilizer. So the not that effect is much more than what American drivers are putting their gas tank. It's, it's really a global oil shock that we haven't seen in a generation.

Some, some experts that we've never seen. And that's going to take some time, some time to get back to normal. Even if things miraculously just Overnight went back to pre war conditions. Yeah.

People traveling right now are seeing the sticker shock on their airline ticket as a result of this. Christine Romans Next is also breaking down force. Coming up, what is next in the war as the President threatens to destroy virtually all of Iran if the deal is reached by Tomor, a former Defense Secretary and a top military Expert. Join Me Next Plus, Houston, do youo Copy?

The Artemis 2 Crew Makes History, officially traveling deeper into space than anyone has before. We have the latest on the mission and new images of the moon you're not gonna want to miss. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back.

Joining me now, former Secretary of Defense and former CIA Director Leon Panetta and NBC News military analyst, retired Colonel Steve Warren. A Secretary, let's start with you. We're now in the sixth week of this war. What is your assessment of the war so far and what appears to be a shifting timeline and objectives of this military operation?

Well, without question, I think as the President has said, we've largely achieved a great deal of our military objectives here. There's probably still a few targets that remain. But I think overall we have in fact achieved our military objectives. The problem is that in order to get to a ceasefire, which I think is where we all need to go, you've got to deal with the Straits of Hormuz.

And that remains a fundamental issue that if we don't address, is obviously going to put tremendous pressure on our economy and on the American people. So the key right now is for the President to, to try to see if we can at least work out a deal between allowing some kind of ceasefire in exchange for opening up the Straits of Hormuz. I think that is the best turnout that can happen in the sixth week of the war. Okay, Colonel Warren, let's turn to you.

We did learn quite a bit more about the details of the operation to rescue the two US Airmen in Iran. Let's stuck out to you from what we learned today. Well, two things really stood out to me. The first was that hundreds of American military members willingly put their lives in danger to find our downed aviator.

And I think that really speaks to the, to the ethos that we try to live by in the military, which is I will never leave a fallen comrade behind. We try to live by that. The other piece of that same ethos was demonstrated by that aviator who never quit. You know, that's the other piece of our ethos.

I will never quit. And he never quit. Sure did he stuck in there. And I think the other thing that Stood out to me were those images of the aircraft that we had to leave, you know, destroyed on the battlefield.

Right. Because we didn't want any of that equipment to fall into any hands. That's two C130s, potentially some helicopters as well. All of that, we had to abandon that there, but we didn't leave a single thing for the enemy to gain.

Secretary, I want to play for you something that the former DHS Secretary Jay Johnson said. I mean, the press yesterday about the operation to rescue that airman. Take a listen. I would encourage the President and Secretary of Defense, consistent with operational security, share as much of that with the American public so that the American public can appreciate what goes into this kind of operation is more complicated than Bin Laden operation, for example.

Wow. I'm not sure. I'm not sure any of that justifies a $1.5 trillion budget request. But still, this was, this was remarkable.

And I think Americans deserve to see a lot more value. Mr. Secretary, you were in the room during the Bin Laden. Do you agree with his assessment?

Was this operation more complicated than the operation that killed bin Laden? Well, you know, not being there, it's hard for me to make a judgment one way or the other. I can tell you this. The bin Laden operation was a complicated operation that required intelligence people and Special Forces working together.

Clearly, this operation was equally well planned. It involved intelligence sources, the CIA, it involved Special Forces being able to go in and conduct this operation. It was an outstanding operation. I give them a hell of a lot of credit.

I have tremendous confidence in the ability of our military to do these kinds of things. And I would hope that the President would kind of use this as a way to try to determine what is the best path now to bringing this war to an end. That really is the key point in the sixth week of war that I think everybody would like to have. And Colonel Warren, we've talked a lot.

The President's talked a lot about all these military successes. He's even described Iran as being decapitated. But yet they were still able to shoot down a US Fighter. Jeff, what we learned today was just a shoulder fired missile.

What does it tell you about Iran's military capabilities, even if it's as downgraded as the Trump administration is suggesting? All right. The military capabilities are significantly downgraded. I believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command when they say that, I do believe them.

But we have to understand that downgraded does not mean eliminated. We have to understand that, you know, air superior superiority does not mean we are invulnerable. There are still weapon systems out there on the battlefield. The skies that we fly in today, while we have control of those skies, they are not the friendly skies.

We cannot fly with absolute impunity. And that's something we have to keep in mind. Wars are dangerous, and this is a war. And is that part of the problem, Colonel, in terms of trying to bring this to an end?

Even if you have that superiority and you have the advantage militarily, it's very difficult for these things to come to an end in a neat and tidy way. Well, war is never neat and war is never tidy. And my old boss, Secretary Panetta, understands the strategic level of this better than anyone. But what I will tell you is, in my experience, in order to get both sides at the table negotiating in good faith, one side or the other has to have had enough.

One side has to say uncle. And to that point, Mr. Secretary, the President is now suggesting, in an effort, I guess, to make Iran say uncle, that he's willing to go after civilian energy and infrastructure, potentially its bridges. Do you believe that that strike would be lawful and would be crossing a red line that the US Military should not cross?

Well, obviously it raises a lot of questions with regards to whether or not, you know it, it's legal or illegal. But I think the bigger question, very frankly, is what's going to be the payoff here? Let's assume he goes ahead and does. The kind of destruction he's talking about, the one thing he can't eliminate, is the ability of Iran to keep the straits of Hormuz closed.

And what's going to happen as a result of those attacks is that the price of oil is going to continue to escalate, and it's the American people who are going to have to pay that price at the pump. So in some ways, you know, there aren't any winners here. Both sides are going to lose a little bit. And Warren, what type of retribution could come from Iran if the US Were to take that sort of strike or take that sort of action?

Well, we know, as we just discussed, that Iran still has capabilities. They still retain offensive capabilities. So I think you can expect to see strikes against civilian infrastructure in the Gulf region. For example, the desalination plants in many of the Gulf nations additional strikes on their critical oil and natural gas infrastructure.

So we can see, again, an escalation will bring an escalation. So as we escalate, I think we can expect the Iranians to do the same. Okay, great conversation. Secretary Warren, thank you both for your time and effort.

We appreciate it. Coming up, we are digging deeper into the President's Trump jump rhetoric on the war with Iran, the escalating fallout and what it all means for the path to the midterms. Only to make my point, I think you've heard it before. Welcome back.

As we showed before, that was President Trump this morning brushing off questions about his profanity social media post that he made on Easter Sunday telling Iran to open the effing straight, you crazy bastards, as he threatened to strike civilian infrastructure in the country. Joining me now is our panel. Mariana Somayor, the congressional reporter at the Washington Post. Josh Orton, a former senior advisor, Vice President Harris and the current president of Demand Justice.

And Danielle Paka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprises. You know, the President, I don't know how many times I've started a panel with this question, but has shattered a lot of norms. But even this one, especially to read it on an Easter Sunday morning, came as a shock to the system. For those of us that read these from him on a regular basis, I mean, should we be surprised by this anymore?

And could this maybe cross the line? I mean, it was shocking. It was one of those messages that I had to read twice to be like, is this really happening? Especially as I saw other messages, Easter messages coming in from congressional leaders, which were much more tame.

You know, should it be surprising? I mean, I think what we need to look into and understand is how legitimate is this threat? Is he really going to go as far as to reign hell all over Iran? Is he going to just obliterate, as he's been saying, this nation?

Because as many people are pointing out, that could amount to war crimes. We obviously have not, not gotten there yet. But if he really, he's been teasing this, you know, the decision has to be made by 8pm and even today during his press conference, he mentioned the fact that he won't say whether he is for this peace plan, but he might be for a peace plan if it's good for him. And Iran opens a straight up Hormuz.

So he hasn't really indicated exactly what's gonna happen by tomorrow night, but we're just gonna have to wait and watch, which is another thing that we're used to with Trump. We're gonna have to wait and see what he was saying. And inconsistency at all, I think is part of why so many people are slicing some questions about this. But, Dan, I wanna go deeper on this and I want to read for you what former Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene had to say about this.

She's obviously been very critical the president. She's not falling out with him. But I think she still has kind of a relevant voice in all this because she is connected to the MAGA movement. She understands the MAGA movement.

This is what she said. I know all of you and him, all of you. She's talking about his supporters and the maggo in the party and he's gone insane. And all of you are complicit.

She's also talking about people working for him. Trump threatening to bomb power plants and bridges hurts the Iranian people, the very people Trump claimed he was freeing. This is not what we promised the American people when they overwhelmingly voted in 2024. I know they're.

I know this. I was there more than most. This is not making America great again. She was gonna say this is evil.

Trump said earlier today, MAGA still loves me. Is he right? Is there even something like this? Not enough to try and have some of that support erode.

Particularly that wing of the party that was very much opposed to foreign intervention. I'm very impressed that Marjorie Taylor Greene has become such an object of admiring quotes in American media. That wasn't always the case. But I guess she's figured out what is necessary to get into the good graces of some people.

Are you suggesting that. It's not your suggestion. We shouldn't bring that up. Suggesting that she is.

I'm suggesting she's a loathsome anti Semitic pos. That's what I'm suggesting. A horrible human being who we all recognize was a horrible human being. A hater.

A hater who Donald Trump never should have supported. And now that she's turned on him, suddenly appealing and the answer is no. Margaret Taylor is a loathsome concussion. But do you think she has the pulse of the base of any relationship?

I don't think she has the pulse of the base. I think she has the pulse of Marjorie Taylor Greene and she does what's good for her. But on the question, on the broader question, polling tells us I don't have the pulse of a MAGA movement, such as it is. But I do believe the polling that I see.

The polling suggests that the president not only has a higher rate of support on the Iran war with self identified MAGA voters than he does with even Republicans, but it's still up 80, 90%. I think that's pretty solid. So I think Marjorie is talking out of the same mouth that told us that Jewish space lasers were important Important. Okay, Josh.

She's a. Margaret is a low person for all the reasons she mentioned and is correct about this. Donald Trump is at the lowest nadir of the presidency in terms of popularity. He is about the same place that Joe Biden was right after his politically failed debate performance.

Right. Donald Trump has no idea what's going to happen next in the Iran war. And what he did with this tweet on Sunday is actually classic. This is actually vintage Donald Trump from the 2016, 2018.

He does not control the narrative. The war is unpopular. They didn't even bother to give us a narrative ahead of time, wrong or right like they did with Iraq war. He's now threatening war crimes.

He's replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Isol Khomeini. He bombed their nuclear program last year to take it out. And now we're going to war to take out the nuclear program. The American people are facing sky high gas prices and a midterm election for Republicans is looking dimmer and dimmer by the second.

And so I think what Donald Trump is doing with this tweet is what Donald Trump always does when he's backed against the wall and he wants to retake control of the narrative. Now, he may have the pulse of the mago wing of the party. If he just has the base of the mago base of the party, come November, he's going to be a landslide for Democrats. And I would sort of, I hate to give advice to Republicans, but I would issue a warning here.

Donald Trump does not care if you want to lose. Donald Trump cares about his own legacy. He cares about being in charge. He cares about being loved.

He does not care how Republicans do in the midterm. And the longer the congressional Republicans cling to this war and his decisions, the worse it's going to be. The they're not here this week, Moriana. They don't have to answer questions about this tweet, which we'd all be chasing down to talk about.

They're probably pleased that they don't have to deal with that. But at some point, this is going to have to be an issue like Josh talks about, where members of Congress are going to have to weigh in and take a sandwich. Other particularly now that the president's budget request is in and that there's a potential cancellation package that could include, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions of dollars in terms of support for this supplemental. Where is the Republican Party in Congress on this?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I've Been texting some Republican lawmakers and hoping they would text back, call back, they want to talk about this. Right now they're probably enjoying other Easter holidays, but it is going to get complicated for them because they will have to vote and make known how they feel about this war. There are already questions about that 200 billion supplemental, could they eventually have to vote on even more money because they don't know how long this last.

Lawmakers are very upset with the administration not being asked, forthcoming, not really knowing what the end goal is. They are looking at the mixed messages from Trump in the same way that we are observing them. What is it going to be? What is it now?

I think one thing to note in terms of priority for this administration is they obviously sent over this budget. That is more significant than not because the proprietors tend to appropriate the way that they do. But that is the White House requested $1.5 trillion in defense. That is a significantly large number.

Also 73 billion in cuts to domestic spending. Where our voters right now, they aren't screaming. They have been screaming about the economy. They want to see more investment in their day to day life or at least just a normal regular life, not have to worry about politics.

And the fact that even Trump last week said, you know, the federal government can't take care of Medicare, Medicaid. Well, we know for a very long time that those social issues are front of mind for voters. So he's making very clear America should be prioritizing this. Let's play what the President had to say about that social programs last week.

We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We have 50 states, we have all these other people. We're fighting wars.

We can't take care of daycare. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis.

You can't do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection. We have to guard the country. We're throwing.

The White House did not want this video. They accidentally posted it. But now the cat's on the bag. So G, to Josh's point, is this the type of midterm message that you want if you are a Republican running in the fall?

No, but look, I think, I think you characterize the president fairly, fairly, which is that he's not always a team player and B, he's really not out there. Just look at the taxes race. Look at John Cornyn, right? President should endorse John Cornyn.

President should still endorse John Cornyn. John Cornyn will win that election. His competitor will not. This is the kind of game that Donald Trump played in 2016.

He played it again in 20. The president has many good qualities, let's say, but these are not among them. And I think that's going to be very difficult. And I think as far as Congress is concerned, you know, look, I wish I could say that Congress had its own interests at heart, but even there, what we've seen, and this is not a, this is not a new phenomenon, I say it every time I'm on the show.

I really do. Congress doesn't do its job anymore. And if Congress did its job, whether it was standing up to or acquiescing what the President wanted, then perhaps it would set itself up some respect in the midterms. Yeah.

And Jeff, finally, what will the Democrats play in all this? Can they continue to be the party of. No. Do they have to offer some sort of an alternative message?

Where does this land is made in the midterms? Yeah. That's vitally important. Right.

And look, I think the old adage of when you're enemy, shooting yourself in the foot should a point, but I don't think Democrats can rest there. I think Trump is going to, towards the end of his second term, sort of do his own thing to implode the coalition. To be able to win the Republican Party, the Democrats have to actually pose something that the consumers in this country, the people of this country, the workers in this country will hear and know they're addressing their problems. What is your plan for healthcare?

What's your plan for healthcare? What is your plan to lower prices? It's not going to be just enough to oppose Trump. That being said, you can point for now.

Mariano, Josh, thank you all for being here. Appreciate it. Welcome back. Turning now to space, you're looking at live pictures aboard the Artemis 2 spacecraft and something you don't see every day.

Part of the far side of the moon. Moon. The astronauts right now are circling the moon after making history this afternoon, traveling further from Planet Earth than any human ever. Crew member Jeremy Hansen marking the moment on behalf of his fellow astronauts on board.

Take a listen. As we surpass the furthest distance humans have ever traveled from Planet Earth. We do so in honoring the extraordinary efforts and feats of our predecessors in human space exploration. We will continue our journey even further into space before Mother Earth succeeds in pulling us back to everything that we hold here.

But we, most importantly, choose this moment to challenge this generation and the next, to make sure this record is not long lived. And the Crow Artemis is set to go even further this evening as they continue their lunar flyby. And BC's Tonka Stella is more for mission control in Houston. So right there, right now, well into this flyby or fly over on the far side of the moon, about 4 to 6,000 miles above the surface, and that is giving them a view of the moon that no human has ever had before.

The totality of the moon, pole to pole on the far side of the moon. Here's what's interesting. You know, for centuries, thousands of years, people thought it was the dark side of the moon. The astronauts have been radioing back it's actually quite bright, bright on the far side of the Moon.

Their job is to document, photograph as much as they can, and then describe it in human terms. And not only is all that gonna matter in terms of the photography with high resolution, 40 to 80 millimeter zoom lenses, but just the descriptions that we're getting back. We've heard Christina talking. The lunar surface almost looks like it is so bright in places.

It almost looks like a lampshade with pinholes in it. We've heard Victor say it's so bright, he has a hard time his eyes adjusting when he looks away from the window and into the cabin. Incredibly bright, he says. And then they're describing the terrain.

They're describing what looks almost like ancient, ancient rivers or lava fields on the Moon. The bottom line is that this is going exceptionally well now. They've already broken a major record today. They have flown farther than any humans ever, beating the Apollo 13 record that was set back in 1971, 70 by about 4,100 miles.

So they are now already in the record books. And this is going to go on for a while. They're going to lose comms, a temporary loss of signal that's planned. It's going to happen in the 630 to 715 period of time that's normal.

Nobody's worried about it. They'll come out on the other side of the moon and they'll keep going. But this is already proving to be a record setter. One last note here, and that is that as they have looked down on the Moon, a very poignant emotional moment for anybody watching.

They identify two craters that they wanted to name. One of them they're naming Integrity after their ship, and the other one they want to name after Commander Reed Weissman's wife Carol, who passed away just a few years ago, leaving him with two daughters. They want to call that crater, Carol's Crater. And everybody on board that ship was broken up.

You could see them crying and hugging as they talked about Carol's crater. Mission control simply acknowledged it. Integrity crater and Carol Crater. It is a very fascinating journey.

Right after you. Okay, Tom, thank you for that. Still, President Trump lashing out at NATO again as the head of the alliance prepares to visit the White House this week. A former ambassador to NATO joins us next.

You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Amid increasing tensions between the US and its NATO allies over the war in Iran, NATO's secretary general is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Wednesday. The president repeatedly voiced his anger with NATO countries for their lack of support for the war and for not stepping in to help open the Strait of Hormuz.

This afternoon, the president lashed out at NATO once again. Take a listen. I'm very disappointed in NATO. Very.

I think that NATO, I think it's a mark on NATO that will never disappear. Never disappear in my mind. You know, they're coming to see me on Wednesday. They're gonna say, oh, we'll do this, we'll do that.

Now they all of a sudden want to send things, you know. Last week, the president claimed several times that the US Might leave NATO after the Iran war and told European allies it was up to them to take back the Strait of Horus and get their own. Joining me now, zima Tyler, former U.S. ambassador to NATO.

What did you make of what you heard from the president today? You know, frankly, nothing surprising. He's been saying this about NATO for the better part of 25 years. He's never seen the value of NATO.

He called it obsolete when he first came to office in 2017. And he's always believed that the burdens of NATO are bigger than benefits. He's wrong about that. He's always been wrong about that.

But it's not particularly surprising. You earlier talking about the defense budget, he's asking for another sort of $500 billion in defense spending. Well, that's what you would need each year if you wanted to get rid of your alliances. We could not be fighting this war today without NATO.

We couldn't find it without the access to the air bases and refueling stations and all of the other capabilities that the United States has built up over the last 80 years as part of the NATO alliance. So the practical president does this all the time. He just needs to be better informed. NATO is critical to American security.

It's even critical to this operation. And he's angry at the fact that the allies are not willing to help on a war in which they were not consulted about, which they think is both unnecessary and illegal, and frankly, is not working out too well for the United States. And they're not going to help him solve that problem for him. And he obviously can't get out of NATO by himself.

He'd need an act of Congress to do so. But does it raise a level of doubt amongst these NATO member nations about the willingness of the United States to be part of this alliance? Do they view it as a pressure tactic? Or does it fray that very sacred bond that these countries have had for all these years, and could it leave parts of the world vulnerable as a result?

Yeah, this is no longer about leverage in a negotiation. You could argue that the president wanted European countries to spend more on defense, used it in his first term and the beginning, even of a second term, the strong language that he needed in order to get the Europeans to do more on the fence, which, by the way, they should do and they should have been doing for a very long time. They're now doing it because of the second problem that you mentioned. They're increasing defense spending not only because they're worried about Russia and the threat that Russia poses to their security, but frankly, they're worried about the United States.

They don't believe the United States is a reliable ally anymore. They don't believe that they can count on the United States, certainly not as long as Donald Trump is president, to come to their aid. After all, this is not only a president who has repeatedly called into question his commitment to NATO in a variety of different ways, but in fact, a few months ago threatened to use force against NATO by taking Greenland, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which of course is a NATO member. So the last three months have really sort of brought home to many Europeans, Europeans, that the president's distrust and dislike of NATO now may well have strategic consequences.

And as you say, a division between the United States and Europe is something that first, the Soviet Union and Russia have been wanting to see for the better part of 80 years. They now have it, and they may one day come and test it. Now, the president mentioned that the secretary general will be here in Washington to meet with him. And Mercury, he's been making the Trump whisperer before.

He's obviously a very charming man and Trump does seem to like him. Can he salvage the relationship with this visit? Will that relationship alone be enough to try and protect this relationship? You know, Richard, the Trump whispers among all Trump whispers.

And I imagine that the meeting is going to be a good and positive one. What Margaret can't do on his is to erase the 15 months or so now of serious doubts that have been created in the European minds about America's willingness to come to the defense of Europe. And this latest problem that we're facing with regard to Iran, where the differences really are stark and significant and where European countries really, for the first time in this kind of way has said, we cannot possibly be part of a military strike that we regard as contrary to international law. This is a big deal and the president is making a big deal of it.

I just don't think that a meeting, even among someone who is as charming as Mark Ritza is going to be enough to convince Donald Trump to say, oh, you know what? I was wrong about Native American for 25 years and therefore, it's time for me to change course. I don't see that happening. Okay.

Ambassador Dowler, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. We'll be back tomorrow with more MEET THE PRESS now, But there's always more news ahead on NBC News now. Thanks so much for watching.

Have a great day. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now.

But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.

Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.