Meet the Press NOW — August 13

If it's Wednesday, President Trump warns Russia it will face, quote, severe consequences if President Putin does not agree to stop the war when the two leaders meet Friday in Alaska. As Western leaders huddled with Ukrainian President Zelensky ahead of the summit. Plus, the White House says significantly more national guard troops are set to patrol D.C. tonight as more Democrats look to counter the administration's crackdown with Mayor Bowser calling Trump's federal takeover, a quote, authoritarian push.

And the top Texas House Democrat is here to respond to reports that his caucus may be returning to the Lone Star State after fleeing to block a vote on Republicans' gerrymandered congressional map. Hi there and welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where President Trump is preparing for his high-stakes meeting with Russian President Putin on Friday, virtually huddling with European leaders and President Zelensky this morning amid their concerns that the pair could strike a unilateral deal without Ukraine at the table. The leader-level summit with Putin, which the White House says will take place at a U.S.

military base in Anchorage, Alaska, will be their first in-person meeting since 2019 and the first time in 10 years since Putin steps foot on U.S. soil. President Trump spoke to reporters today during an event at the Kennedy Center about his call with Zelensky and his expectations for Friday's summit. He also delivered a warning to Russia.

We had a very good call. He was on the call. President Zelensky was on the call. I would rate it a 10, you know, very, very friendly.

Certain great things can be gained in the first. It's going to be a very important meeting, but it's setting the table for the second meeting. I think the second meeting, if the second meeting takes place, now there may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting. Do Russia face any consequences if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop the war after your meeting on Friday?

Yes, they will. Yeah. They will be consequences. They will be consequences.

Now, President Trump also appeared to downplay hopes of any real-lasting breakthroughs from Friday's meeting, giving the notorious difficulties of taking Vladimir Putin at his word. When you meet with Vladimir Putin Friday in Alaska, do you believe you can convince him to stop targeting civilians in Ukraine? Well, I'll tell you what. I've had that conversation with him.

I've had a lot of good conversations with him. Then I go home and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home or a rocket hit an apartment building and people are laying dead in the street. So, I guess the answer to that is no. Meanwhile, President Zelensky, speaking alongside the German Chancellor in Berlin, said he warned President Trump that Putin is bluffing, both trying to portray Russia as capable of occupying all of Ukraine and trying to act as if the sanctions are not hurting Russia's economy.

Zelensky added that he believes everything that concerns Ukraine should be discussed with Ukraine and is prepared for trilateral talks with President Trump and President Putin if they happen. The Trump-Putin summit also comes, as the New York Times is reporting, that investigators have uncovered evidence that Russia is partially responsible for a recent hack of a federal court's filing system, including highly sensitive records that could reveal sources and people charged with national security crimes. NBC News has not independently confirmed the New York Times reporting. President Trump said today that he was not surprised by the story given Russia's history of hacking.

Joining me now is White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor and NBC News Chief Washington correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell. All right, Yamiche, let's start with you. What more can we expect from this meeting on Friday with President Putin? What kind of expectations setting are you hearing from White House officials?

Well, it's a good question. The President really is lowering expectations here. The President saying essentially this is a feel, Putin out kind of meeting that he's going to sit down, look Vladimir Putin in his face and make a determination on whether or not he feels like he's actually interested in peace. Of course, we know President Zelensky has been insisting that Vladimir Putin isn't interested in peace and that really he just wants to occupy all of Ukraine.

But President Trump and White House officials say that while the President's talked of Vladimir Putin on the phone a number of times, he really needed a face-to-face meeting to assess whether or not he's serious about ending the war in Ukraine or whether he just wants to continue on. So the expectation here are low. And it's also interesting that the President says if things do go well, that he wants to have a meeting almost immediately. So the big question, of course, could this someone be extended by another day?

Or could there be another summit with all three leaders next week, Ryan? And we also heard the President raise the possibility of what he called severe consequences on Russia. Do we have any idea what that could include? Is this just the secondary sanctions that he's threatened last month, but he's never actually imposed?

Well, we know that the President, when he has been angry at Vladimir Putin, when he's lashed out online, he's talked about the issue of sanctions. We also know that European leaders on their call with President Trump and President Zelensky today, that they talked about the fact that sanctions should be put on Russia if they do not make progress toward peace. That being said, the President today did not want to get into details on what those consequences should be. But it is telling that he said there would be severe consequences.

It's also interesting because right now we have this tone from President Trump. At first, he was very angry at Vladimir Putin saying he had gone crazy, that he has conversations with President Trump, and then goes out and murders people, saying he was very confused by Vladimir Putin's decision-making and behavior. Then he said, well, actually, I think Vladimir Putin is interested in peace. So now, of course, we have this summit happening in Alaska.

I was in Helsinki last time. There was a summit between President Trump and President Putin, and President Trump took a sort of demure attitude in face-to-face when he was having that, of course, now-famous press conference where he was standing alongside him. He also was conciliatory, saying that he believed Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies when they were talking about Russian interferes in the 2016 election.

So I'm going to be very interested to see what tone and sort of whether or not he has a conciliatory tone again with Vladimir Putin, or whether or not he's more critical and stands up for himself a bit more. Ryan? Okay. Yumeesh, thank you for that.

Let's bring Andrea into the conversation now. Actually, Yumeesh, we're going to bring Andrea into the conversation now. And so, Andrea, yesterday, President Zelensky said that Russia is not preparing for an end to the war, which seems a little different than President Trump, who seems to think there's a possibility that the end is imminent. He actually said they're preparing for a new offensive.

Is President Putin heading into this meeting in Alaska in good faith? What should we expect? Now, hardly, exactly the opposite. He has been escalating his attacks every day on Ukraine in the days leading up to this summit.

He is not showing any interest in a ceasefire, so it's hard to imagine that he's going to agree to a ceasefire. And President Trump today, again, as Yumeesh was just saying, was referring to the 2016 Russia investigation. Of course, his impeachment and the whole issue that soured him and where he, in Helsinki, when I was covering it, had a one-on-one summit without an American no-take who came out. And again, validated Putin's view that there was no Russian hoax, no Russian hanking.

And undercut his own intelligence agencies, the U.S. intelligence agencies. So he repeated that verbatim today that really seems to be stuck in his mind and talked about Pambadi, who was in the room at the Kennedy Center and about the investigation of Adam Schiff. He has not let go of that.

And President Trump said today there could be a second meeting. Perhaps this one might involve both Putin and Zelensky. Is that realistic, given where things are now? Putin has never agreed to sit down with Zelensky in good faith.

So if he were to, that would be a big deal. But the fact is, the real risk for Zelensky, despite how well the meetings apparently went in these, you know, these Zoom meetings today with Europeans, with Zelensky, with Trump, Rubio and Vance were also part of it. The real risk is that Donald Trump will agree to something, one-on-one, with Vladimir Putin, or there won't be a no-taker again. We won't know what, you know, Putin claims he agreed to.

And Zelensky will be faced with a Fedocom plea and will be put on defensive with concessions that he can't accept. Right. And you know that this better than anyone, that the optics of everything are so important in a meeting like this. Talk to me about what it says that there's a leader-level meeting on a U.S.

military base, especially given the fact that Putin has not been in the United States in more than 10 years. What should we take from that? What's the symbol as a chair? The last time it was at the United Nations, so it was technically not a U.S.

visit. It was a visit to New York as a foreign leader, which is considered, you know, diplomatic territory. Look, he's under indictment by the International Criminal Court under the U.N. He can't go in most places in Europe without at least some fear of being arrested.

He comes here. He's in Alaska, which Russia originally owned and then ceded to the U.S. in a notable, you know, arrangement, a treaty. And he has every advantage of being seen, you know, elevated to a leader on a par with the U.S.

president. Right. Right. Let's bring Yamesh back into the conversation.

And Yamesh, last week President Trump raised the possibility of land swaps between Russia and Ukraine. We know Europe and Ukraine are very much opposed to that. Is that something that's still on the table heading into this summit on Friday? It's a really good question, Ryan, because we know that President Zelensky has said that the Ukrainian Constitution doesn't allow Ukraine to just give up sovereign territory to Russia.

And we've also had NBC reporting talking to Ukrainian residents saying, look, they've been fighting this war for three years. They don't want to just give up land and territory to Russia. That being said, the president has not backed away from that. He said very clearly that he believes some sort of territory swapping will have to happen.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. We know that Russia has sort of moved their sort of goalposts, at least publicly. At one point, they wanted a whole region. Now they're saying maybe they can just do a fourth of that region.

Still, though, we have to remind folks that this is all sovereign Ukrainian territory. So it's a big question of what actually could be worked out here, Ryan. Okay, Yamesh, thank you for that. And one more to you, Andrea.

The German Chancellor laid out what he called five principles for peace. He said that European leaders and President Zelensky shared that with President Trump. It included Ukraine having a seat at the negotiating table, no recognition of territory seized by Russia. And security guarantees for Ukraine.

Is there a peace deal to end the war feasible if this is the framework that they're working off of? Well, that is the framework that the Europeans and Ukraine want. But that is not at all what President Putin has brought into. And so far, not President Trump either.

And the fact that Ukraine is not at the table, Europe is cut out of this. It's taking place in Alaska, violates the first two of those principles. Yeah, it's all right. Andrea Mitchell, thank you for that.

We appreciate it. And we're going to talk more about this now with Richard Haas, the president emeritus at the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard, thanks for joining me. Just first off, give me your expectations of the Trump-Putin summit.

Who is this meeting more important for, President Trump or for President Putin? Also important to them both for different reasons. Putin wants to use the meeting, ideally from his point of view, to bring about a one-sided arrangement in his favor, which is then presented to President Zelensky, who rejects it. And then it leads to a breakdown in U.S.-Ukrainian relations.

That would be the ideal result for Putin. I think his fallback result is simply that things go nowhere, but he's not blamed for it. The president's put himself in the opposition of wanting progress, wanting to be the peacemaker. I think the good news is that in the last 24 hours we're seeing the White House in some ways, the escape from the trap they began to set for themselves.

They're dialing down the expectations, talking about this being a listening exercise, a preliminary meeting, what have you, and I think that's good because, quite honestly, the only kind of big result would be one in Russia's favor, not ours and not Ukraine's. Do you think they made a mistake by not having any sort of preconditions, something along the lines of requiring Zelensky Putin meeting first, or should you take advantage of an opportunity to sit down with the Russian leader when you have it? I would have first had a meeting with President Zelensky. My own view is you always meet with your friends and allies before you meet with your adversaries.

I also, perhaps, would have gotten some conditions from Vladimir Putin, basically saying, we're willing to meet, but what are you prepared to put on the table? For example, there's been zero evidence that Russia has pulled back its attacks on Ukraine, including civilian targets. Why not have asked for a few weeks of applause and those? So I think the idea that we agreed to an unconditional meeting, what shall I say, overly generous.

And there will be a portion of this summit in which President Putin and President Trump are going to meet one-on-one with nobody else in the room. Do you have any concerns about that? Look, absolutely. For two reasons.

I never liked meetings between heads of government without no takers in the room. I was the no taker many times when I worked, say, with President Bush 41. And it's important because leaders often talk past one another. They hear what they want to hear.

They misunderstand. English is not necessarily the first language for certain people. And so what translations can get off. So I'm never comfortable with that.

Plus in this, let's just be blunt about it. For Vladimir Putin, this is the issue he dreams about, thinks about, sleeps about, eats about, talks about all the time, 24-7, for Donald Trump. This is one of a hundred issues. Vladimir Putin simply knows this, incomparably better than Donald Trump.

That's not a cheap shot at our president. That's simply a fact of life. So the idea that he would be doing this without his experts in the room, to the extent we still have experts in our government, I think that's a tactical error. I think it's fair to say President Trump's at least public posture when it comes to Vladimir Putin has changed quite a bit since he won re-election in January, or I should say since he was inaugurated in January.

He's now saying there will be severe consequences if Putin doesn't agree to stop the war after their meeting on Friday. But we've also seen Trump make these threats and then he walks them back. Is he taking Putin, as Putin, I should say, taking that threat seriously, especially given the fact that Trump has changed his rhetoric as it relates to the Russian leader? I would think not.

Let's be blunt about it. The consequences of secondary sanctions are hardly severe. Just the other day, the vice president said the United States wasn't going to support the Ukrainian war effort. That would be a severe consequence if we were to basically tell the Russia, we are going to give open-ended military and intelligence support for Ukraine as long as it needs it and as much as it needs so Russia cannot advance on the battlefield and so Russia feels the cause of the war.

That would be a severe consequence for Mr. Putin. I see zero evidence that the Trump administration is prepared to put that forward, which is too bad. It's not only the right thing to do.

It's the best that I would think only way to get the ceasefire that President Trump is trying to bring about. Finally, this is going to happen on a U.S. military base. Usually you have weeks of planning that goes into these meetings like this.

Do you have any security concerns about having a meeting at a military installation like this? I have zero security concerns. I have, shall we say, a good many political and diplomatic concerns for the reason you suggest. This has not been sufficiently prepared or structured, but security concerns absolutely not.

Richard Host, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Coming up, the White House says a significantly higher number of national guard troops will be on the ground in DC tonight as the Trump administration's crackdown on the Capitol ramps up, plus law and order and the border, new reporting on increased ICE operations in DC, the role of federal immigration officers in the district-wide public safety push.

We're watching you meet the press now. Amazon presents Jamal versus the Shih Tzu. Descending from the gray wolf, Shih Tzu's live by their own untamed primal code of not giving a single Shih Tzu. But Jamal's shopped on Amazon and bought dog treats, chew toys, and 32 ounces of carpet cleaner.

Hey Jamal, you've been promoted to pack leader. Save the every day with Amazon. Welcome back. Miriel Bowser offered her strongest words yet about President Trump's federalization of the DC police as the National Guard hit the streets for the first time as part of the Trump administration's push to group what they claim is out of control crime in the nation's Capitol.

Bowser, who has acknowledged her limited legal authority to prevent a federal takeover, is instead urging DC residents to take action. Here's some of what she said during a virtual town hall last night. We all need to do what we can in our space in our lane to protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our home rule, and get to the other side of this guy and make sure we elect the Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push. Still Bowser has also said that she wants to take advantage of the federal support during its temporary 30-day takeover of DC's police force.

Anything longer than that would require congressional authorization. But speaking today from the Kennedy Senator, the President suggested that he doesn't need Congress, but will ask them, a sentiment echoed by borders R. Tom Holman earlier today. Are you talking to Congress about extending it or do you believe 30 days is sufficient?

Well if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be to Congress before Congress very quickly. We're going to be asking for extensions on that long-term extensions because you can't have 30 days. Do you fear though that if the time frame is set after 30 days, pay our authorities over that then these criminals that took themselves off the streets might come right back? President's authority is never over.

Joining the now senior national security correspondent, Courtney Cubey and senior homeland security correspondent, Julia Ainsley. Courtney, first of you, last night we saw the first National Guard troops deployed on the streets of DC, is this just going to continue to expect an increased troop presence in the coming days? And based on what we've seen so far, what exactly is their mission? Yes, so the total number is going to grow throughout the week, up to about 800 members of the DC National Guard.

But the number that are expected to be on the street at any given time should stay relatively consistent. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 to 200 troops will be on the ground supporting law enforcement at any given time. So think of this as 800 total people assigned to this but working in shifts of 1 to 200 at a time. Now, they are working to support law enforcement with things like crowd control, perimeter security, but they are not expected to be engaged in any kind of direct law enforcement activities while they're on this.

Think of this as in some cases, they will be supporting law enforcement who will be going after potential criminals while the DC Guard are back behind. In some cases, even doing things like administrative and logistical support, sort of freeing up the law enforcement so that they can go after any kind of criminals or crime. Another mission that we expect them to have is exactly what we saw last night, Ryan. And that was protecting some of the national, or a presence at some national monuments.

The idea there is, again, to deter crime, but also just to show presence, to try to shore up security in the city. Of course, President Trump has said that there's a crime emergency here. But many of the police statistics really don't back that up, Ryan. Trump says he's going to seek an extension of the federalization of the DC police.

That does require congressional approval for anything longer than 30 days, but are there any restrictions to how long he could keep the guard on the streets? Yeah, and that 30-day restriction didn't really seem to bother President Trump today. He sort of slept it off and wasn't concerned at all about that as a possible roadblock to his effort here. As far as the National Guard right now, this call-up is until at least September 25th.

But officials are saying, look, this could be shorter than that, technically, or it could go longer than that. We even heard from Defense Secretary Pete Hegsef on Fox News. The other night asked about the timeline for this. And he said, look, it could be days.

It could be weeks. It could be months. It's going to be as long as it takes. At this point, the federal government is paying for the National Guard deployment, so technically they could go as long as the Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, decides that he wants them to be out on the streets.

Do we expect any chain of command issues here when it comes to the intermingling of the Guard and federal law enforcement and NPD? There's so many different enforcement agencies that are involved in this. Yeah, I don't know of any place that is as complicated as the District of Columbia when it comes to all the different law enforcement agencies that exist. But at this point, the DC Guard is really officials that we're talking to them, and look, and keep in mind this is we're on day, what, two or three of this year.

They just started checking in yesterday. They just were on the streets last night. At this point, we are not seeing any indications of that. They'll fall under this joint task force.

They are again in support of law enforcement, but you know, we've heard this cooperative tone from D.C. Mayor Mule Bowser from the Police Chief, but they have also been very clear about saying that they are going to watch and see how these federal officials, including the DC Guard, are used, and they will be watching to ensure that they're relatively narrow and limited authorities that they have been granted for this mission, that those do not expand out into anything that they view as potentially concerning Ryan. Okay, thank you, Courtney. Let's turn to you now, Julia.

And if you can talk to us a bit about the mix of federal law enforcement on the ground, and both city and administration officials say that they've had good coordination on resources, is that what you're hearing from these agencies? Yeah, I mean, good coordination, but some really blurry lines when it comes to ICE, and just to reiterate what Courtney was saying about how usual and common it is for federal police to be working with the Metropolitan Police Department, D.C., I once went on a ride along with the Capitol Police, and they told me there were more than 30 law enforcement agencies just right here in this city. That includes Amtrak Police, Park Police, the Metro Police, Federal Protective Services. It's very common for these agencies to be working together, and they have good relationships but I wanted to call your attention to what's happening with ICE right now, because they have different parts of ICE that have been deployed in different ways.

We know that they are enhancing immigration arrests, and they're really publicizing this on social media right now. They're operating on the mall today, yesterday. They were at Home Depot and in Union Station, but it's unclear exactly what they're doing in each situation. In some cases, as I understand it, they're working with the U.S.

Marshall Service to conduct what would be a rest of citizens who are just criminals in this situation, suspected criminals, and other cases, they're doing what ICE does, filling ICE's mission of arresting people with immigration violations, and it's getting confusing to figure out what they're doing in each part, and I even pressed ICE today on that, and they said, well look, if they come across an immigrant in the spirit of fulfilling Trump's order of trying to fight crime in D.C., and of course, they're going to arrest an immigrant, but the lines are blurring here, and I think it's getting harder to see how this agency that has historically been just about immigration is also being used to enforce domestic law against U.S. citizens at the same time. Also, another example of this is the DEA, their administrator, Cole, says that federal law enforcement will embed with the MPD. Is this an agency that has the training for this kind of patrolling?

It seems like a similar issue to what you're talking about with these ICE agents. Yeah, training can get really hairy here, especially when you have DEA agents that are used to going in on really high-profile, high-threat operations, and oftentimes a local police department is trained to deescalate a situation, particularly when you're dealing with someone who may have a mental health issue. That is part of their training, but the DEA administrator is in charge of this operation in D.C., and so embedding with MPD is within his purview now. Of course, you're getting into how long that purview could extend, but yeah, I think a lot of the questions that are being raised here is not just about these people working together.

We've seen that before, but when it comes to the authorities of these law enforcement agencies, they're training, and what it means really through optics is a citizen of D.C., a lot of citizens of D.C., are watching people march through the streets of Georgetown, of 14th Street. People are going out to dinner last night, seeing people in their full gear marching through the streets. What does that do to the optics of people here if they feel that they're being occupied, really, as the mayor put it? Okay, Julia Ainsley, thank you for that report.

Up next, are Texas Democrats planning their return to the state? One-on-one interview with the head of the Texas House Democratic Caucus is next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. The Battle of Redistricting in Texas has threatened to ignite a partisan redistricting arms race.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom says his state will respond to Texas and call a November special election over redistricting to redraw California's maps. Meanwhile, Republican controlled states from Missouri to Indiana to Florida are being encouraged by President Trump and Vice President Vance to take a look at their district maps ahead of the midterms. Joining me now is the expert on all things redistricting, Cook Political Report, Senior Editor and Elections Analyst Dave Wasserman. So, Dave, let's first talk about this big picture.

How is this redistricting arms race going to shake out? I mean, how many states could you see changing their lines and what impact could that have on the midterms? Ryan, this has the potential to be the gerrymandering apocalypse. We've all feared, given that, increasingly, for both parties, the ends have justified the means.

And Republicans are obviously desperate to hold their majority. They know that President Trump's approval rating is not great, that the bill they passed isn't that popular. And so adding insurance and piling on sandbags to their very thin majority, the only way they can do that is by redistricting Texas. We knew they were going to redistrict Florida, Missouri, Indiana, or, I'm sorry, Ohio, we knew they were going to redistrict.

If Florida joins in, it could potentially triple the Republican cushion heading into 2026. And the big question is whether California Democrats are able to retaliate because they are going to be unveiling a map that essentially wields and acts over the careers of up to five California Republicans, hoping that will dial up the pressure on Republicans elsewhere to dial back their efforts. So on just the sheer lines alone, does one party have an advantage over the other? If this goes forward as you describe it as the gerrymander apocalypse?

If both parties pursue every avenue they can, Republicans will come out ahead. Because Republicans, they simply have more states that they control, more democratic seats that they can go after. In Texas, if they pass the map, we expect them to, that's three to five seats. Missouri, Indiana, very likely one seat, a piece, Ohio, likely two seats.

Florida, perhaps an additional three or four seats. Whereas Democrats are pretty maxed out in the states that they control. They hold every seat in Massachusetts and New Mexico. They hold a 14 to three advantage in Illinois.

And it's almost impossible to squeeze out another democratic seat there. California is really the only state that they can revisit that would yield big dividends. But in order to do so, they have to convince the voters first. And so Democrats face procedural constraints, thanks to the reforms, blue states have implemented that make it harder for them to go maximal in the way that Republicans are doing.

I want to play something that Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Monday. Take a listen. Look at the map of Illinois. Look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts and so many other blue states.

They gerrymandered a long time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what they can do. And know this, if California tries to gerrymandered five more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state. Is that a legitimate threat?

Can he safely draw the lines to eliminate 10 Democratic seats in Texas? I mean, I would have to imagine at some point you're going to create districts that are more competitive in other places. And it wouldn't necessarily be a guarantee. Yeah, that's not a legitimate threat.

And it would require a work of abstract art that the incumbent Republican members of Texas's delegation would oppose. So look, it is very possible for Republicans to eliminate five Democrats in the Lone Star state go from 25 to 13 to 30 to eight. But Greg Abbott's threat isn't borne out by what's possible on the map realistically. Okay, well, if there's anyone to go through the gerrymander apocalypse with Dave Wasserman, I would want it to be you.

Thank you so much for your expertise, my friend. Thank you, Ryan. At a top Texas House Democrat leading the charge in the redistricting battle is standing by. Our one-on-one interview is next.

So keep it here on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. We're tracking new developments in the Texas redistricting standoff that's resulted in dozens of Democratic state House members fleeing the state to block new congressional maps pushed by President Trump. The state's Republican leaders announced plans to adjourn the current special session and start a new one on Friday, resetting the clock as they wait for Democrats to return to the state.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott says he will call as many special sessions as it takes to compel Democrats to return. For their part, Texas Democrats are claiming victory, saying that Abbott chickened out. Texas Democratic leader Jean Wu said in a statement today and keeping with our original promise to Texans, the first-called special session will never make quorum again. The social media post-Texas Democrats say they are assessing their strategies and holding meetings to make decisions about their plans going forward.

And joining me now to talk more about this is the aforementioned chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus State Representative Jean Wu. Jean, thank you so much for joining us. You claimed victory after Republican leadership in Texas said that they're going to adjourn, though they may call just another special session on Friday. There are reports that Democrats who fled the state are considering coming back soon.

Clarify this for you, us. Are you planning on returning to Texas soon and tell us what's going on in these meetings? Well, thank you so much for having me. And, you know, from the very beginning, from the first time I was on MSNBC talking about this, we've said that we have two goals in mind.

Our first goal was to kill this corrupt special session and hopefully give the Republican leaders a chance after a public input to, you know, not make the next special session just as corrupt as they made the first. And there's always hope for that. The second thing is we wanted the light of fire. We wanted the light of fire across the nation, warning all other states, all other good Americans.

What is in store for them? What the danger is for them? And how the people trying to lie and cheat and steal their way into power to remain in power are going to destroy their lives, destroy any ability for us to try to get this country on the right track. Okay, I understand all of that, but that's not an answer to my question about what you do next.

Are you planning to return to the state when this next session comes up? Or are you going to continue to stay out of the state for as long as possible? Look, I, again, our membership, our commitment was only to kill this corrupt special session. What we will do, what we're going to do in the future, we're in discussions right now.

Unfortunately, we do not discuss what we discuss. Okay, so that's, I think, a bit of news that you had only committed to that first session. I do want to talk to you a bit about how your Senate colleagues are responding to this. The Texas Senate approved the House maps after some of your Senate colleagues broke and actually did come to quorum.

This is what they told the Texas Tribune in a statement. They said that legislators cannot stay away forever and the governor will call as many special sessions as needed to prevail. They argue that your greatest hope is in the courthouse and the sooner we get there, the better. Do you agree with that assessment?

Do you believe the only way possible to prevent these maps from actually becoming a reality is winning in court? No, I think going to court is one of our strategies and it is still one of our strategies, but we have many other strategies to deal with this. Obviously, we're not going to tell Republicans, we're not going to tell Governor Abbott what those strategies are. We're not going to show her hand too early.

But look, we have committed to fighting this fight and we know that the governor holds all the cards. The Republicans have been in control of this state for the past 30 years. Everything that is wrong with our state falls on their shoulders, including what's wrong with this corrupt special session. And they have the power and only they have the power to stop their own corruption.

And we're always hopeful that the American people will have their say and that our leaders in the state house will actually listen to them. And if they don't, we will come right back and say, we're going to hold you accountable. We're going to make sure that the public knows what you're doing. Okay.

I do think, though, that you might be moving the goalposts a bit here, right? You know, the rhetoric that was coming from you and many of your colleagues initially was that you were willing to hold out for as long as possible. Now you're saying that it was just this one session that you were hoping to stop. What is the long term goal here?

I understand the optics that you want the rest of the American public to understand what's happening here in Texas. But there are other real issues that you have to deal with. You have this disaster really funding that needs to be addressed. There's a long other list of issues that need to be addressed.

How long can you prolong this situation before coming to a definitive decision as to what you do next? Now, and you know, you want to say that, but I've said from the very beginning, from the first time I was on TV talking about this, is that our commitment was to kill this first corrupt special session. Nothing that has ever changed. And we have said over and over again that we understand that the governor might call this and make us do this again and again.

But at some point we will have to help make sure that Texans are assisted, that families get the help they need, the communities that get hit by the reflecting get the help they need, that the $50 billion of unmet disaster preparations are done before the hurricane season starts. And all the subsars are rolling along. We have a commitment to take care of other things. We can fight this fight for as long as we can do it.

But we have other strategies, other methods of fighting it. It does not have to be just a quorum break. It does not have to be just one thing or the other. We can throw everything at this.

And you know, in the meantime, I hope that the American people, the people in Texas, wake up to this and start joining us and start fighting back on it. Can you just give me one example of something you can do other than a quorum break? You keep saying that there are other things that you can do. What else can you do?

Can you sit out? Can you break committee meetings? For people that aren't familiar with the Texas legislative process, what other tangible option do you have at your disposal to prevent this from happening? So the most basic ways are one, we can fight this in the courts that we think that even the five that they're drawing, much less the nine or ten that Gregor Abbott is threatening.

The five is already grossly unconstitutional, grossly illegal, because it is so racially based and so illegal. And there's a way to fight this in the legislative process, whether that is with amendments, whether that is with procedural moves, whether that there's any number of things that we can and will do. There's also ways a fight is in the public sphere. And the most important thing, the most important way that we fight this is something that's still going on right now.

If you look at California, your previous segment just went straight into this, look at California, look where that's happening, California would not have happened, but for Texas House Democrats. New York is looking at this and New York is hard, we get that. But the fact that they're looking at this and considering putting in their own trigger bill is a victory. Illinois is looking at and many other states, Michigan, go up and down the line.

Blue states that we're happy to just sit on their hands and say, hey, we're protected, we're fine, are now saying, okay, if they're going to fight, we're going to fight. Yeah, but I think if you watch that segment, the other part of it that we pointed out is that if you're really planning on getting into a redistricting arms race, that this may not be a race that Democrats can keep up with. That Republicans have looser laws in many of their states that make it easier for them to redistrict. And there's just more places where Republicans can redistrict.

Aren't you concerned that this could spiral out of control and that Republicans are willing to go further than Democrats are even able to go? And that's absolutely possible. I want to be very clear about what is actually happening out there. This is not a tit for tat.

This is not a, you know, both sides do this thing. Everywhere around the nation where Democrats are in charge, they have put in, they have attempted to put in nonpartisan commissions that fairly redraw the maps. And then that is not the equivalent of Republicans intentionally using illegal unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to do the same thing on their side. Those are not equivalents.

And this, and right now, Texas is actively trying to cheat in the midterms, right? In the mid decade redistricting. California is putting in a trigger bill that only goes into effect if Texas tries to cheat. Those are not equivalents.

And I really wish people would stop saying that they're equivalents. Because one is a defensive measure. One is an aggressive, unprovoked measure. Okay, before I let you go, just one last time, you have not decided whether or not you'll return to the state if Governor Abbott were to just call another session immediately.

We are still in discussions, and this is something that we're not going to do unless we have consensus among our membership. Okay. State Representative Jean Wu, we've covered a lot, sir. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much for joining us. Still to come, Cultural Wars, President Trump takes on the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian and his latest effort to remake landmark American institutions in his image. The panel is next. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back, President Trump is extending his reach in Washington from taking control of the city's police to now reshaping its cultural institutions. Today he announced the recipients of this year's Kennedy Center Honors, adding he will personally host the December ceremony, which is a break from the tradition of enlisting a celebrity host. Six months ago, the president terminated members of the Kennedy Senators Board of trustees, and it took over his chairman. The move appears to be emblematic of a broader cultural shift in progress, which NBC News has now confirmed extends to the Smithsonian, where exhibits are under review to ensure they reflect the president's stated vision.

In a letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, the administration wrote, quote, this initiative aims to ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institution. Joining me now are Francesca Chambers, White House correspondent for USA Today, Ashley at the end, former communications director for then Vice President Kamala Harrison, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Chamberlain, the Republican strategist and the president and CEO of the Main Street Partnership. So Francesca, let's start with the Smithsonian. I mean, what potential long-term effects could there be to this review?

Well, it gives them 120 days to make these changes, and as you noted, they're the white houses looking for them to also take out language that they call ideological language. And this lines up with executive orders that we've seen from the president, who says that he's going to try and get rid of DEI in America, or at least pressure companies or other businesses to take steps in that direction. But I think you were hitting on a really important point a moment ago, which is it's not just about the Smithsonian, right? We've seen from President Trump since he got back in office this attempt through executive orders or otherwise to try and expand the power of the presidency or rather test it to its broadest possible limit.

Yeah, and Sarah, you know, the Smithsonian has really prided itself on being an independent nonpartisan institution. And part of its responsibility, isn't it, to wrestle with the difficult parts of American history? Are you concerned at all that what the president may be trying to do here is erase some of that, or at least downplay it? Absolutely.

But this is what the American people voted for. He made it very clear that this is what he's going to do with all the national institutions. And here we are. I also think he's trying to get ready for the Smithsonian ready for 2050th anniversary next year.

I think that's going to be very important to him. I know he's thrilled to be the president during such an important time. But is changing the way we remember our history the right way to go about doing that? Well, it's what they voted for.

I mean, I'll just say this. I think this will be Trump's greatest legacy. It won't be some innovative policy. It won't be his presidency.

It'll be his war on the truth, his systematic efforts to undermine our faith in the truth and to distort it. I mean, you can see it happening right now with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, his attacks on the media from the lawsuits to beyond to him rewriting history about January 6 to Russian support and invasion, or I should say, in the 2016 election, involvement in 2016 election. So this is part of Donald Trump's pattern. He understands that manipulation, or I think he believes that manipulation is fundamental to power in holding it and exercising it.

And that's what we're saying right now. I think the real question is though, how do we reverse this trend here? I mean, because again, this is happening not just at the federal level, but this is happening at the state level as well. I mean, we ask this question almost every day at this table.

What can Democrats do to stop something like this from happening? Well, I mean, I think the real question though is do we want to stop something like this from happening? I mean, I think that is what we have to continue with as a party. I think we have historically and traditionally tried to step in the way of Republicans, try to protect them from their worse angels.

My point is get out of the way, let them crash the whole thing. That's what they're intending to do anyway. There's no other way to explain the tariffs, the big, beautiful bill, the tax cuts, the cuts in social services, the downsizing of government other than to explain it as a way of tanking the whole system. So get out of their way.

They say they're better at the economy, let them prove these things. They said they're better at foreign policy, let them prove these things. And right now they've not proven that. And so we just need to get out of their way and let them tank them.

So Senator Chris Murphy, I think, looks at it a little differently than Ashley, Francesca. He told Politico that it's time for Senate Democrats to boycott all funding bill negotiations. He told Politico, every single day there's new evidence that our democracy is failing and you've got to take stands. You've got to put up fights.

I just worry every time we go along with these appropriations bills, we're putting a bipartisan veneer of endorsement on an illegal process that's ultimately part of his campaign to destroy our democracy. This is the one thing that Democrats are going to have the change. And by the way, we're in alignment on this. I agree with our thing.

On this particular, yes. This is the one thing that they actually can stand in the way of. And it would lead to a government shutdown. There would be shrapnel all over the place.

They took a lot of heat when they didn't allow the government to shut down in the spring. Is this the tactic Democrats are going to take here in the next month? Well, to your point, I think that you were raising, is what can Democrats actually do? I mean, there's very little that Senate Democrats were, the House Democrats can do in these instances, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.

And I think that's why you're seeing this huge focus right now, of course, on the midterm elections and the House of Representatives, in particular, about the redistricting and some of these other issues, Ryan, because whether or not you take the House of Representatives could be the difference maker for Democrats between stopping some of the things from President Trump that they've been upset about moving forward. Because to your point, I mean, what else can Democrats do besides, as Chuck Schumer has taken some black for the strongly worded letter, besides blocking nominations? So I think there is something we can do. And I've seen this play out in the House.

You know, I used to be an advisor to speak of Pelosi, as you mentioned. You can force the Republicans to give you a no. There is a power, there is power in a no. I think both of these strategies should run concurrent with Patty Murphy is suggesting, and with the senators suggesting, you've got to force Republicans to tell you to demand that the increase in the Social Services Medicare, let them tell you no, and then you go in campaign on that.

So, but isn't that part of the problem, OSARA, is that Democrats have not done as good a job as President Trump in messaging these fights, and if you get to a point of a shutdown, could President Trump win that war in the court of public opinion? I just want to play this in talking about these negotiations, and I'll have you respond. Well, I will, I guess, but it's almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything. If we want money to fight crime, if we want money to do only good things, just good things.

Let's not even talk about controversy. They don't want to meet about anything. I don't believe that we, I don't believe that anybody is capable of making a deal with these people. They have gone crazy.

I mean, that reads to me, like him, setting the stage to blame Democrats at the government shutdown. He's absolutely doing that, and he's right to be doing that. The Democrats are 19 percent approval rating. They're doing nothing.

I mean, I understand your philosophy is to sit back and do nothing, but they're doing nothing, and they're letting the Republicans do whatever you want. I don't mean that you should do nothing. I think you should take every one of these opportunities to get on the offense to define Republicans, but we're not doing that. I mean, I've been very critical of my party, but there is some things you can do.

You can force, again, the Republicans to tell you, you know, then you go out and say, we're not going to be a party until you take in, bankrupting the country and the people who occupy it. If you guys force the government shutdown, I think the Republicans will win, and that will give even more power to President Trump. I'm anti-shutdown. Yes.

I mean, you say anti-shutdown. What other option do you have? I mean, if they put a bill on the floor that Democrats don't like, or if Democrats want to make a statement about some of the things that they're upset with, how do you do anything but vote no against that, and doesn't that lead to a shutdown? No.

I mean, I think you take the same strategy that they took before, which is you force them to hold, no, no, no, not the fumbling debacle of the strategy, but I'm saying, you vote for cloture, and then you let them hold the bag on the actual final passage. I think that is an actual strategy, but the problem is, is what we've identified, we've all identified it. The problem last time is, we had no idea why the bill was bad. Why should we even shut down the government behind this bill?

Now you've got an opportunity to learn the lessons from the last fight. Start messaging right now, laying down the predicate for why you would say no, and force them to give you a no, and then go out and continue. Let me give you the last word. There's also a question of a year from now when you're talking about the midterm elections.

How much is this going to be on voters' minds? Either way, actually, if the government were to shut down, Republicans had so much difficulty during Joe Biden's administration, right? And then they were able by the time it came to the midterm elections, or sorry, the last set of elections, to be able to win the House of Representatives. And we saw that partially because it was a whole year later, and voters have short attention spans, and they're worried about the economy and inflation.

But the reality is, every time you have a shutdown, it's pox on both houses. Voters blame both sides. So we don't win by shutting down the government. We win by forcing them to tell us no, and then we can't pay and define them.

We'll find out. We got about a month, and we're going to be right back here talking about a government shutdown. Francesca Ashley and Sarah, we appreciate it. And thank you all for joining us.

We'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. 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 podcasts.