Meet the Press NOW — August 14

If it's Thursday, President Trump and President Putin are set to arrive in Alaska in less than 24 hours as the leaders prepare to meet each other and to meet the press in what could be a make-or-break moment for the future of Ukraine and Trump's influence in the region. Plus, a key inflation gauge surged last month as the cost of wholesale goods in the U.S., so their biggest monthly increase in more than three years as tariffs threatened to push prices even higher. And President Trump's crackdown on crime and immigration converge in the capital with ICE operations and National Guard deployments ramping up as the president considers extending his federal takeover of D.C. police with or without the support of Congress.

Welcome to me, the President, I'm Kristen Welker, and Washington, where the countdown is on for President Trump's high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin with European and Ukrainian officials anxiously waiting from the sidelines. All ICE will be here on Anchorage, Alaska, and yes, even the local wildlife have taken notice today. As preparations are underway at the U.S. military base, where President Trump will host President Putin, their first in-person meeting since 2019, and Putin's first time on American soil in roughly ten years.

While speaking to reporters today in the Oval Office, President Trump laid out his expectations for tomorrow, and once again said he expects there will be a second more crucial meeting with both Presidents Putin and Zelensky. I would say that tomorrow all I want to do is set the table for the next meeting, which should happen shortly. I'd like to see it happen very quickly, very shortly after this meeting. I'd like to see it actually happen maybe in Alaska, where we just stay because it's so much easier.

But I think that, I think it's going to be very interesting. We're going to find out where everybody stands, and I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, we tend to find out whether or not we're going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting. And if it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly. And if it's a good meeting, we'll end up getting peace in the pretty near future.

Okay. Meanwhile, a Moscow president Putin struck an optimistic tone during a meeting with advisors said he believes President Trump is making, quote, energetic and sincere efforts towards peace in Ukraine. The view from Europe, however, is more apprehensive. According to European officials and others briefed on yesterday's call, President Trump assured President Zelensky and European leaders he won't discuss dividing territory with Putin, saying his goal is to secure a ceasefire.

US and Russian officials continue hammering out the exact details of tomorrow's meeting. According to a Putin aide, the two leaders will meet alone with just their translators, followed by a meeting with their larger delegations, and White House Press Secretary Caroline Levick confirmed that they're planning to hold a joint press conference following the talks. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba in Anchorage, Alaska, and NBC News Chief International correspondent Richard Engel is on the ground in key view. Craig, Monica, let me start with you.

We heard from President Trump, frankly, multiple times today, previewing the summit. What are your takeaways? What are you going to be watching for? Well, Kristin, I think it's notable that there are some things we know, but there's just still so much we don't know.

And of course, going into any major consequential face to face like the one we're going to see tomorrow between presidents Trump and Putin, the White House is going to set the expectations, right? And sometimes lower them a little bit or downplay them. But what's notable is you have President Trump doing that as well, saying that while this meeting is what's needed to determine the need for a second meeting, he says the real ability to potentially get some kind of a ceasefire or path to a peace agreement will be actually happening in a meeting with President Zelensky. But it's really unclear when that could happen, though the president has twice today left the door open to potentially somehow extending his trip here to Alaska to seeing if he would call him immediately and invite him again.

That's if the talks go well. But I think that's also kind of the framework that the president is using to approach this in case it goes sideways. And in case, he doesn't hear what he says he needs to hear from President Putin. And then that kind of delays and punts this to another face to see if then those leaders could come back to the table.

But President Putin hasn't said he's willing to meet with President Zelensky yet. That has been the key question as this meeting was set up. And remember, it's come together so last minute, but we do know some details in terms of the fact that the two are going to be face to face on their own with translators as we understand it for some time tomorrow. Then there will be a larger meeting with both delegations.

And then there's this question of the press conference. The White House had said there would be a joint press conference, but the president said he intends to take questions from reporters either way. But whether he will be shoulder to shoulder with President Putin, he says depends on how those talks go initially tomorrow, Kristen. And Monica, I know you've been working your sources on this.

And one of the big questions is will President Trump walk into that bilateral meeting with some type of sweetener, some offering to President Putin? And there's this question about Ukraine's of the United States, rare earth minerals. Are Gabe Gutierrez asked him about that? What did he say about it?

And do you think that's a possibility? I think it's something it sounds like they are discussing, but the president was very careful to say, well, let's see how the meeting goes. And it's typical that with something like this, the White House could potentially have a list of these concessions that they would try to offer. Or could there be something to incentivize Russia to somehow get to a peace agreement?

And is the president walking into this meeting with a list of those? There have certainly been some European officials who are concerned about what the president could be offering to President Putin in exchange for that kind of an agreement. But the White House is saying, look, the president wants to play the role of deal maker and peacemaker here if he can't. So there is a sense that it's possible that rare earth minerals, that's something that he could use to say, can we get you to yes on this if this was somehow being offered.

But again, the president didn't want to get into specifics on that saying that he was very focused, quote, on saving lives and seeing if there could be an end to the fighting. But I think you are right to point out that that is certainly an expectation from experts about how these discussions get underway. And the Kremlin has certainly indicated that they're very pleased with the fact that this meeting is taking place at all. And it's just unclear what they are walking away with.

They're already excited that there's a meeting in the first place. So the question for the president and the U.S. is what do they get out of it if President Putin doesn't necessarily agree to a framework to peace. Well, you know, that's my quick final question to you, Monica, because I was talking to one Western official who said, look, a victory for President Trump is to get President Putin to agree to an immediate and unconditional, unconditional being the keyword ceasefire agreement.

Does the White House view it that way as well, Monica? Well, the White House is really again saying that the president is going to try, but that they are being very careful about what specifically they will discuss to get to that point. And that's the key thing here, Kristen, because we know yesterday in a phone call with European officials that both President Trump and President Zelensky were on, he said that he wouldn't get into the specific territorial discussions about what would happen here, because it's hard to have a conversation about Ukraine without Ukraine. So he was saying, I am going to try to push for a potential ceasefire here, but I'm not necessarily going to talk about who gets what in it to paraphrase.

But then today, the president said in an interview that he is going to be potentially discussing the quote, divvying up of that land. Of course, that is a really central point here where the Ukrainians and President Zelensky for himself has said that Ukraine won't be seating that kind of territory. And so that is what this completely hinges on as you know, Kristen, in the White House again, lowering those expectations, because they're also saying and the president has said that if he doesn't like what he hears, he'll walk out of this and head home. And that would, of course, not be a successful result.

Absolutely. Monica, thank you for all of your reporting, traveling with the president on the ground there in Alaska. Richard Engle, let me turn to you in Harkiv, Ukraine. First of all, set the scene based on your conversations you've been talking to Ukrainian officials, very different view of tomorrow's meeting than what we're hearing from the White House.

What are they telling you and what are they going to be watching for, Richard? Well, Ukrainians are deeply concerned about this summit and feel that the future of this country, Ukraine's borders, are being negotiated and they're not in the room. And they're worried that President Trump and President Putin are going to sit down and start pulling out the maps and carving up the country. Even if President Trump says that's not what he wants to do, that he's going to use his gut to get a sense if the meeting is successful and that he'll end it quickly if it's not going in the right direction and that he's trying to tee up a second meeting.

But just the fact that these two leaders are meeting has Ukrainians concerned because they're not in the room. You mentioned a key word earlier. Does the US have any sweeteners or Vladimir Putin to agree to this deal? When you're here in Ukraine, and I've been speaking to Ukrainian soldiers today, I've been speaking to officials for the last several weeks when we first got an indication that things were maybe heading in this direction, and they don't believe that Vladimir Putin should be rewarded in any way, shape or fashion, that he illegally took part of Ukraine is currently occupying about 20% of the country and that anything he gets in a in a peace deal is perhaps too much that he shouldn't be rewarded and given any piece of Ukraine.

But that said, Ukrainians also realized the front lines are what they are. Russian troops are occupying Ukrainian territory. Ukrainian forces have not been able to push them out. Both sides are losing a staggering number of both soldiers and civilians.

So at the very least, a ceasefire is necessary. Everyone here I speak to says we want a ceasefire, but they don't want to see President Trump and President Putin divvy up the country, seed territory to Vladimir Putin because they think it will not sweeten him. It will not appease him. It will only reward him and encourage him to take more Ukrainian territory down the line.

They really want some sort of security guarantees, either NATO membership, more weapons, EU membership, a whole army of foreign troops on the border, telling the Russians don't come in again. I spoke to one Ukrainian today, Kristin, and he told me, you know what Ukraine needs? It needs a wall, it needs a moat, and to fill it with crocodiles. That will make us feel safe so that Ukrainians don't come back and start the Russians don't come crossing over the border again.

That very clearly lays out just how vulnerable they feel and how much they want security agreements as a part of any final deal, Richard. And I think you speak to the critical point here, there is still a war going on. People are still dying every single day. Bring us up to speed in that regard.

What is the latest in the status of the fighting? We know that Russia had suffered some setbacks, and yet now they've been able to retool. What is the very latest? So Russia has been sending more troops into Ukraine, according to a local commander I spoke to earlier.

This is now by and large a drone war. It began as something that looked three and a half years ago, like World War I or World War II. Imagine those miles and miles of trenches and barbed wire and tanks. And when this first began with the frozen terrain, I and many others thought this would become a massive tank battle.

And it looked like that in the early days. It was the largest ground invasion when Russian troops invaded Ukraine since World War II. But it has changed dramatically since then. You barely see armored vehicles anymore.

You barely see soldiers anymore on either side. They're hiding. They hide in sellers. They hide in bunkers and they operate drones.

And these drones are up in the sky all the time. I was looking today at a live drone feed from a hidden Ukrainian position that showed all of the Russian drones in the area. And there were quite a few of them. And that is the concern that there's always these drones in the air.

They can explode. They can be kamikaze drones or they can drop bombs. And it's a game of sort of hide and seek that both sides are playing along the front line. The Ukrainians and the Russians don't want to be obvious anymore.

If you're driving around in a big armored vehicle or a tank, you're a potential target. So instead, tiny units are hiding in houses. They're hiding in sellers. They're hiding in the forest.

They're operating drones. They're looking for opportunities to attack their enemies. And they're taking them. And it is an extraordinarily lethal conflict.

Well, you are there to watch it all unfold. Thank you for your extraordinary reporting as always, Richard Angle. Please be safe. And we will, of course, hope to have you back tomorrow because tomorrow will be the historic day.

Thank you for joining us, Richard. Looking forward to it. Joining you now is former UN ambassador John Bolton. He also served as President Trump's National Security Advisor during his first term ambassador Bolton.

Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. Glad to be with him. Well, it's wonderful to have you in your perspective on the eve of this historic summit between President Trump and President Putin.

What will you be watching for tomorrow? Well, I think the main question is whether Vladimir Putin can apply his KGB training to bring Donald Trump back into the bubble that he and Vladimir are good friends. That's been the way that Putin has very successfully been able to influence President Trump during his first term and during the first six months of this term. I think he lost it a little bit.

I think he intentionally or unintentionally pushed Trump out of his comfort zone. And he's using this summit, which was his idea and put together very quickly to try and bring the two of them back together, not just on Ukraine, but on the bigger picture of US-Russian relations. And whether there's an outcome in that direction or not will tell us whether or not Putin has succeeded. Well, you know, I was talking to some Western officials ambassador Bolton and they said a victory for President Trump tomorrow will be if he can secure an unconditional and immediate ceasefire agreement from Putin.

But if a ceasefire agreement comes with any conditions or there's no ceasefire agreement at all, that that's a victory for President Putin. Is that how you see it? Well, I guess I say two things there. I'm told that the White House and the president in particular is already saying he doesn't think there's going to be a ceasefire coming out of the meeting as part of the continual lowering of expectations.

But a ceasefire doesn't occur just when you snap your fingers. It takes time to negotiate and that alone would buy Putin more time. And I think more fundamentally, I think a ceasefire is dangerous for Ukraine. And in fact, we could be surprised that given all the problems Putin has had with his military, the terrible losses they've taken, he could accept the ceasefire and could make good use of it if the ceasefire line is along the present battlefront.

Because the longer that ceasefire lasts with that line in place, the more likely it becomes the new Russian-Ukrainian border, which would be a substantial win diplomatically for Putin. Well, you take me perfectly to my next question, which is about territory based on conversations with multiple sources. MVC News has learned that in his call with his European counterparts earlier this week, President Trump did agree that he's not going to negotiate any territorial lines with Putin. In other words, this is aimed at being a first step according to the sources.

Do you think that this could potentially be a slippery slope though? How risky is a conversation like this? Because if President Putin wants to raise the issue of the territory that he's illegally claimed that he wants to hold on to, he will do it, Moni? Absolutely, and diplomats have a way of avoiding negotiations.

They call it, we're just having an exchange of views. So Putin and Trump can easily just exchange a few views on what the new territorial makeup in Ukraine will be. And I think there's an underlying point here that escapes all of us sometimes. These are not just land swaps.

These are potentially people swaps. People are going to be consigned under some versions of this agreement to live under Putin's authoritarian regime as part of Russia, which they may not like. So it's not just casually one block on Manhattan compared to another block on Manhattan. People could be put under an authoritarian government or they might decide they're going to leave.

You could have very substantial refugee flows coming out of territory the Russians hold if it looks like that hold is going to be made more permanent. The other piece of this is that there is reporting around the idea that President Putin may want to interject other subjects like the new start treaty, for example, which Russia pulled out of several years ago. Is that if he does do that aimed at muddying the conversation around what the key issue is, which is trying to bring the war in Ukraine to an end? Yeah, I think it would have that effect.

And I think Putin's indicated he wants to talk about the successor treaty to new start, which is a very perilous position for the United States to be in. But what it does for Putin is not just muddy the situation about Ukraine, it plays to what he wants Trump to hear to talk about bigger pictures, talk about the big picture of the US-Russian bilateral relationship, one of the most important in the world. Arms control, economic arrangements, all things that will attract Trump's attention because they're high-profile issues that will get a lot of attention if he and Vladimir Putin, maybe now his friend Vladimir Putin again, are talking about and resolving over the heads of everybody else. I think that would appeal to Trump.

I think that's right down Putin's alley. Well, and just thinking about that one-on-one interaction with Trump and Putin, I want to play you something that Secretary Rubio had to say and get to reaction on the other side. As the President said, his hope is to interact with tomorrow and sort of get censored quickly and early, whether he's as possible or not. The President's spoken to him.

I believe four times my phone. I felt it was important to now speak to him in person and look on my eye and figure out what was possible and what is it. Mr. Ambassador, you have met with Putin.

You've looked him in the eye. What is that like and what did you learn about how Putin may be approaching tomorrow? Right. Well, I first met Putin when I accompanied Don Rumsfeld to Moscow about six weeks after 9-11.

And I found Putin at that time only a year and a half as president to be fully in command of all the issues we talked about and one of the most cold-blooded people I'd ever met. And I don't think that's changed at all. Putin knows exactly what he thinks Russia's national interests are. He's very, very knowledgeable, deeply invested in Russia, his version of Russian Ukrainian history.

And he knows exactly what outcome he wants. And that requires working Donald Trump into the right frame of mind. I don't think Trump's going to be prepared. I think he said, as he has before, exactly what his view of negotiations is he'll know in two minutes if it's going to work out.

And that shows just about how well prepared he is. Well, he's also, as you say, he's been down playing chances for anything significant coming out of tomorrow. But he has said he wants to have a second meeting, a follow-up meeting that includes President Zelensky, which, of course, Ukraine, European leaders have said that any real agreement has to include President Zelensky. He says he would like for it to happen in Alaska.

Realistically speaking, is that possible? Could a follow-up meeting happen within the next week or so? What are you watching for there? Well, I don't think it's going to happen in Alaska.

It's just not feasible. And this is where the slowdown begins. When you're now trying to put three people together, it gets harder. It won't happen immediately.

I don't think Vladimir Putin fears the Vladimir Zelensky. I think at some point that that will happen. But ironically, this sounds like what often happens in State Department negotiations, where people say our meeting was a great success. We've agreed to another meeting.

And is that what you're expecting to come from this, that there may be another meeting? I think that's likely, and they could announce another great breakthrough. They're going to begin strategic arms talks immediately. And maybe Steve Wickoff will be our negotiator for that, too.

All right. Ambassador John Bolton, thank you so much for joining us and for your perspective today. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

Coming up, we'll go inside the new economic report that's raising inflation fears as the potential toll of President Trump's trade war potentially comes into view. Plus, Governor Gavin Newsom tries to grab the spotlight. The California Democrat just wrapped a firing campaign style speech on his party's plan to counter Republicans gerrymandering efforts in Texas. The remarks further raising speculation.

Could he run for president? You're watching at the press now. Welcome back. There are new signs today that inflation remains a threat to the U.S.

economy as President Trump's sweeping tariffs take hold. The Labor Department reporting that wholesale prices rose nine-tenths of a percent last month, well above Wall Street estimates. It's also the single largest monthly jump in more than three years. The producer price index or PPI measures inflation before it hits consumers.

The report comes two days after the Labor Department reported that prices were up 2.7% in July compared to one year ago. Core inflation, which excludes more volatile food and energy prices, climbed to 3.1%. It also comes as the Fed considers cutting interest rates during its meeting next month. CNBC senior economist Steve Leisman joins me now.

Steve, thanks as always for being here. So talk to us about these numbers. What are the key takeaways? Well, I think the key takeaways is that tariffs are not disappearing.

That was sort of like, it had not really been showing up in the data. We got a bit of it this week in the consumer prices. Now we see, we look essentially up the pipeline, the stuff from the exporter to the wholesaler and retailer to the shelves where consumers buy them, a little bit of a blip in the consumer we got on Wednesday. And now we're seeing a little bit more pressure or pricing to the wholesalers right now.

And the fear now is that it works its way down to the consumer. It doesn't have to be all of it, because the producers and the wholesalers might absorb some of it in their profit margins. But it just suggests that there's more on the way. Look, the government raised $27 billion in tariffs in July.

It's like something like a $250 or $300 billion annual rate. Somebody's going to pay it. And we'll know tomorrow a little bit more. But so far, the indication is that the exporters, the foreign producers are not paying the bulk of it.

So just to be very clear, we're talking about prices on wholesale goods going up. So effectively, what you're saying is that prices at the checkout counter could be next. They could be next. It's exactly right.

Now, what you're going to have is what you've had so far is strategies by companies to, in some cases, avoid raising those prices. For example, let's say the import price of a sweater goes up by $10. They may raise that price by $2 and spread the other $8 over other costs that are out there. That's one possibility.

The other thing is that they do pass along the entire price, depending upon how much choice the consumer has in buying stuff. But it's going to happen. And it's been happening over, let's say, a three to six month period that these prices are going to, but right now also, Kristin, one of the things that's happening is there was a surge in imports ahead of the tariffs. So some of what has been being sold over the past several months has been from the inventory at the old price.

As time goes by, the stuff that the retailers are going to be selling is stuff at the new tariff price. So they're going to either take a hit on margins. And some of them, by the way, those stocks of some of those importers have taken a hit, or they're going to have to pass along to the consumer. See, very quickly before I let you go, what do you think this means for the Fed?

Of course, we're all watching waiting to see if they lower rates next month. Well, the Fed's in a very difficult position right now. It has a president who is hammering them to lower rates and complaining that what's wrong with the economy is what's wrong with Fed policy. Being too tight with the Fed has this issue of trying to see what's going to happen with inflation relative to these tariffs and it being their responsibility to make sure that if you have an increase in tariff prices, it doesn't spread to a broader inflation.

And we know how the public feels about that broader inflation, it costs a president's job. All right. Well, Steve Lee Smith, thank you so much. We really appreciate it.

I'm sure we'll have you back tomorrow. Probably good to see you as always coming up next. Protesters push back as law enforcement steps up. We have new reporting on how the Trump administration's crackdowns on crime and immigration are converging in the Capitol.

Stay with us. You're watching Get the Press Now. Welcome back, federal law enforcement and the National Guard are increasing their presence on the streets of the nation's Capitol. As the president considers extending his federal takeover of the district with or without congressional authority.

And as we learned today, the chief of the Washington DC police issued an executive order allowing increased cooperation with immigration and customs enforcement. Speaking from the Oval Office today, the president calling it a great step. ICE is one of many agencies participating in the administration's beefed up law enforcement presence. It also comes as we saw federal agents and DC police set up one of their first checkpoints since Trump's federalization of the police force, which drew more than 100 protesters last night.

Take a look. Meanwhile, President Trump says he will ask Congress to pass a DC security fund to secure additional resources for his plans to remake the nation's Capitol, as he seeks to also extend his federalization of DC police. Some Republican allies already indicating they plan to help the president. But speaking on a podcast yesterday, Senate minority leader, Truxie, were did not mince words that Democrats would have no part of it.

If he went to Congress and said, you know what, there's this crime emergency, we need the National Guard out there longer, we need to take over Washington DC. Would you grant him? No way. Well, with that joining me now is senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley and pulling double duty for us today.

Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, who is at the White House. Thanks to both of you for being here. So Julia, take us through this change that we're seeing by DC police in terms of cooperating with ICE. What does it tell us about the posture of law enforcement under this new action by the president?

Yeah, it's really surprising, Kristen, and I think it's sending mixed messages to anyone who's undocumented in the district right now. You have a 2020 law that was passed by the DC City Council that put in place a lot of sanctuary laws that kept DC police from handing over information or people who were arrested to ICE. That's pretty much bread and butter sanctuary city policies. We see it in a lot of progressive cities across the country.

But then just this May, the mayor started kind of quietly unwinding some of these policies through her budget proposal. So there were some signals that might be coming. And then today, the biggest move of all, where the DC police commissioner is now putting out an order instructing police that if they stop someone who's not in custody, that can be during a traffic stop, they should share that information with ICE. That doesn't mean to detain them until ICE arrives, but rather to give information like someone's address with ICE so that they could make a future arrest or possibly a deportation.

This is a city, Kristen, where undocumented immigrants are allowed to vote in local elections. So now they could vote for their city councilman, but they could be arrested and hand it over to ICE on their way to the polls. So real mixed messages here in terms of where DC stands on whether or not they welcome in these immigrants. And it's obvious that this is coming in the context of this federal takeover of DC.

It's hard to separate this and not see the DC police chief or the mayor and the moves they've made recently not responding to the pressure that's coming from the Trump administration. As we've reported, many of the arrests that have been made in DC so far are of undocumented immigrants. And this could be a way that DC is helping the president achieve that goal of mass deportations and boost those numbers higher. Yes, we're seeing all of it converged as those protesters continue to grow.

Julia, let me ask you about that checkpoint I just talked about last night. What are you hearing? Are there going to be more checkpoints, particularly given the fact that you had people standing there shouting down the officers who were there? There will be more checkpoints tonight and over the weekend going into all eight words of the district.

But when I pressed for more locations, really so that we could be in the best place to report, I've been told that they're not giving away that that information because they consider that law enforcement sensitive. They don't want protesters to arrive at certain locations or for people to evade the checkpoints. We saw some of the protesters recently standing by with signs telling people to take a left to avoid a road that would leave to a checkpoint. As we know, many of those checkpoints are rather than one on 14th Street.

Most recently, some of those who were arrested were undocumented immigrants who were passing through the area. I usually instantly thank you so much for your great reporting. We really appreciate it, Ryan Nables. Let me turn to you now.

President Trump saying he's going to ask Congress for what he's calling a D.C. security fund. What exactly does that mean? And what are you hearing from members of Congress?

Is that something that could get through? Well, there aren't a lot of specifics tied to this. Kristen, which is not uncommon for President Trump, he often kind of throws ideas out and then hopes his congressional partners pick up the ball and run with it. We've already seen Senator Lindsey Graham say that he's working with Senator Katie Britt to try and come up with some sort of fund that would help provide support to Washington D.C.

to try and get this crime situation resolved. It would be incumbent upon Congress to get Democrats involved in this process because you could not ask legislation like this, particularly standalone legislation like this, without Democratic support. So then that obviously dovetails into this question as to how long this process is going to play itself out and will it bump up against the funding deadline, which is set for the end of September. Kristen, that would fall in line with when this 30-day window of time that the president has to deal with this under an emergency declaration.

What a clips? You have to ask the question, will Senate and House Republicans try and tie this all in to one big spending package, which would make it more difficult for Democrats to vote against because if they voted no, that would lead to a government shutdown. So all of these different issues could collide potentially on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Well, in terms of the position the Democrats are in, I mean, it's notable Chuck Schumer's reaction to that question is very defiant on this issue.

But does it put Democrats in a tough spot politically speaking because President Trump is that he's the law in order president? He's trying to paint Democrats as we go on crime. How do they plan to respond? Yeah, Kristen, you and I have covered so many midterm and presidential elections over the course of our career and law and order is a bread and butter Republican issue.

It's an issue that they often use to corner Democrats when things are not looking good for them, for instance, on the economy, which right now is not something where President Trump is scoring a high mark. And so there is a scenario here where Republicans use this very isolated issue in Washington, D.C. as a way to extend out a broader conversation about crime and punishment across the country and force Democrats to take a vote that they could then use against them in these midterm elections. But there's another part of this, Kristen, and that is the base of the Democratic Party, which is very unhappy with its leaders right now.

Pulling across the board shows that the Democratic brand is not very strong. Part of the reason it's not very strong, it's because Democrats feel that their leaders are not fighting hard enough for them. So this is going to be a make a break moment for them at the end of September. How hard are they willing to fight?

Their base wants them to fight hard, but couldn't come at the expense of more in the middle of the road voters, which could be crucial to holding on or taking over power of the House of Representatives in 2026. That is the key question, my nobles. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

I'm gonna have to break how the president's latest threat to extend his takeover D.C. police is part of a growing strategy touching nearly every corner of his sweeping agenda. We'll delve into it. You're watching the press app.

Welcome back. You could call it the emergency presidency several months into his second term. President Trump has leaned into a strategy of governing by emergency, unlocking expansive executive powers to advance his agenda, even in circumstances that past presidents wouldn't consider true national emergencies. Take a listen to what he said yesterday suggesting that he could sidestep a law that requires Congress to extend a federal takeover of Washington, D.C.'s police force if it lasts more than 30 days.

Look, we're gonna do this very quickly, but we're gonna want extensions. I don't want to call national emergency if I have to, I will, but I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously. To be clear, presidents make emergency declarations all the time on a number of different issues, but no president in modern history has arguably tried to invoke the emergency powers of his office in such sweeping fashion. In the last six months, President Trump has claimed emergency powers to implement major changes to U.S.

border policy, energy policy, and economic policy all without Congress. Joining me now on set to discuss all of this is Dan Merricka, co-anchor of the Washington Post's early brief newsletter. Kimberly Atkins, senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe and NBC News political analyst, and Rob Louie, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal. Thanks to all of you for being here.

We've got a lot to discuss. Dan, let me start with you and this idea that President Trump, whether we're talking about the border or tariffs or now what crime in DC, what he's calling an emergency, has cast all of these things as an emergency. The challenge is some of this requires congressional action and he's saying, no, he doesn't need it. Yeah, I mean, for him, it's very much whatever he makes it, emergency is what he makes it.

And I think he made the point in your open that this is about extending the powers of the presidency. I mean, you see him do that a whole host of things. That's kind of what he does is he tries to draw out as much power of the executive as he could. It's also really interesting because it mimics his language.

He's really no kind of like nilk-tose language from Trump. Everything is an emergency. And he's really, he won on that. I mean, he won on that kind of language.

So it figures that he's going to try and do that in the White House. The question is, are there any Republicans or certainly Democrats who want to check that power of any Republicans on Capitol Hill behind you who want to check that power right now? It doesn't really seem. Superly, it's a great point that this is how the president talks about issues.

Take the border, though. For example, he told me in the border secure, if the border's secure, can it also still be an emergency? And if you're doing so much explaining, is it an emergency? Yeah, the same way when he talked about the DC takeover, the federal takeover of DC, he said crime is running rampant, yet the MPD doesn't need more cops.

He contradicts himself. But with these emergencies, what he's actually doing and has been quite successful is staying ahead of legal challenges. Keep in mind, most of these things have not been determined by a court to be legal, to be constitutional. We don't know that he has the powers even under the Home Rule Act that he claims he does to federalize the DC police in this way.

So he's sticking ahead, he's trying to get ahead of being told he can't do it. And by the time a court has time to vet it, it's already done. It's already a place in the damages. Rob, how do you see this?

And what are Republicans saying about these emergency actions that he's saying? There's no doubt, Kristen, that Donald Trump is in a hurry. I think that his first term showed him that there are things that he probably regrets not moving faster on. And so he's not wasting an opportunity here in the second term to do that.

And I agree with you, that he's staying at a much faster pace than the courts and even politicians in Congress can keep up on it. I mean, conservatives and Republicans historically have argued that Article 1 of the Constitution is important and Congress should have a role here. And so I would expect that what Donald Trump said there about DC, Republicans will get behind him and back what he is asking for. You're probably right about that, Rob.

And of course, all of this comes against the backdrop of the midterm, midterm season heating up the president asking Texas to find five additional GOP seats that has sparked this nationwide fight basically over the issue of redistricting in Texas. California's Governor Gavin News and really at the forefront of that saying he's going to respond in kind and find five new Democratic seats in California. He unveiled his redistricting plan today. Let's take a listen a little bit before I have to say.

Here we are an open and plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election. And here he is once again trying to rig the system. He doesn't play by different set of rules. He doesn't believe in the rules.

And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt and we have got to meet fire with fire. And we've got to be held by our level of accountability.

We're giving the people of this state the power to save democracy, not just in California, but all across the United States of America. I hope we are waking up to this reality. Wake up America, wake up to what Donald Trump is doing. Gavin News, I'm talking about fighting fire with fire, talking about a rigged system.

Dan, what do you make of the fire fury and language that we're hearing from Gavin Newsom? I mean, there's a lot of 2028 politics to play there. We can get to that if we want. But I think what's incredibly interesting about this moment is Democrats are hungry for somebody to be a fighter.

There are some Democrats who look at Trump and maybe they disagree with what he's doing, but the way that he talks, the way that he attacks, there are some Democrats who want that fire from their politicians. And it's very clear that Gavin Newsom has been watching Trump, and that was all Trump's language. And it really is a perfect example that our political system, Trump is at the center of it. He's the son right now and everyone else is kind of revolving around him and responding to him.

And in this instance, Gavin Newsom is responding to Trump directly by using Trump's own language. Kimberly, what about that? And the fact that he's one of the people who gets a lot of buzz about 2028 and he's clearly laying out a marker. He's laying out a marker, but I think even more so, he is meeting the moment in real time.

And that's what Democrats have not been seen to be doing. They seem to be largely silent. And what he is saying, look, what Texas is doing is anti-democratic. We can talk later about the need for independent redistricting committees and to do this in a fair way.

But right now, temporarily, we have to address the fact that people are not going to be represented fairly in our midterms. And we need to fix that now and give it to the people to do it in a democratic way. I thought the message was really good. You know, sometimes Gavin Newsom can be a lot.

I don't always agree with everything that's going to say or says. But I think that today was a really good message for this moment. It's a huge shift for Democrats in a decade ago. Obama Holder embraced these redistricting commissions, got them past in key states.

And this is a huge shift. And that's why he's a Internet. We can't do the old ways. We need to fight fire with fire, as he said.

What about the fact that Democrats are now in fight mode, fighting fire with fire, as Gavin Newsom says? I mean, you have what's happening in Texas, but Governor Newsom is saying, we're going to find five democratic seats. I agree with Dan. And I think it's not just Democrats who want to see politicians fight harder.

It's independent voters as well who feel that they're interested, probably haven't been represented either in state capitals or here in the nation's capital. And so that was one of the things that Donald Trump did to appeal to them. And that's why he was able to win over some constituencies that were traditionally supporting Democrats in the past in the 2024 election. I think that they have taken a page, as Dan said, from Trump, and they will continue to do that.

I think what it means for Republicans is they need to be on the top of their game because now they're going to be facing some adversaries who will fight fire with fire. That's a very interesting point. We'll see if that starts to happen. Let's talk about Texas, which really has been at the center of our political discourse right now, Dan.

We're learning today that Democrats, Texas Democrats who left the state to deprive Republicans of a quorum so that they could vote on these redistricting laws are going to return with two conditions, one that basically they end the term and two that it somehow jump starts California being able to redistrict if Texas does move to do it. It does seem like you have a new some gave these Texas Democrats a level of cover. This was always going to be a very difficult thing for Democrats to do in Texas. They hold very little power there.

The levers of government are dominated by Republicans. This was always kind of a short term bid for Texas Democrats. And with Gavin Newsom signaling, he's going to do this, putting this on the ballot beginning this process. I do think it gave Texas Democrats some cover to come back to Texas and begin their process in their state.

And what we're seeing right now is two trains headed right out of each other, Texas and California. Yes. If one's going to keep going, the other one's going to keep going. Did the Democrats accomplish, do you think what they set out too, Kimberly?

They did. Yes. I think that they did do as best as they could. And I think you were right, Newsom is giving them cover.

And also, this is a platform to jump off of for Democrats to continue. Now, because then they can talk about fair district drawing. They can talk about independent commissions and how to make the government more representative of we the people. Rob, if Texas is successful, if Governor Abbott is successful in carving out five Republican districts, but then Governor Newsom carves out five Democratic districts and obviously cancels each other out.

Has he been successful? I mean, he's done what the president asked him to. Sure. And we'll see.

I mean, I'm from upstate New York, originally, and I know what Kathy Hockel did with New York and was able to eliminate four Republicans over the course of the last election, right? Through redistricting. So I think you can see a number of consequences to what is playing out in these states. I think it's important to remember the facts of the room.

It was the Department of Justice that asked Texas and Governor Abbott specifically to look at four of those districts because they believe that they were unconstitutional in terms of their racial makeup. And we also shouldn't forget that Texas has had an influx of two million new residents since the last redistricting. So the composition of the state has changed quite significantly. Well, and you're very right to point out this doesn't just end with Texas and California.

A lot of states are now talking about this. Thank you so much, Rob Kimberly, and Dan. Great conversation. We covered a lot of ground here today.

Still, the president drops nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics faces new scrutiny for being at the Capitol on the day of the insurrection. We'll delve into that. You're watching me the press now. Welcome back.

The White House is defending its pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics while acknowledging that he was at the Capitol on January 6th. And BC News was first to report that E.J. Antonio was in the crowd outside of the Capitol that day. Now, this is footage posted online that shows Antonio about an hour after the mob removed police barricades.

Video also shows him leaving the grounds as people stormed the building. The White House tells NBC News that Antonio was a bystander who came to the Capitol after seeing coverage on the news. Antonio is a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation. He's already faced scrutiny for his lack of experience, his partisan views, and his calls for BLS to suspend its monthly jobs report.

He will need senate confirmation to take over the Bureau of Labor Statistics. NBC News Justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now. So thank you so much, Ryan, for being here. Talk about this really remarkable video.

How was it found? And was this what alerted government officials as the fact that he was at the Capitol? Yeah. I mean, you know, these clues are very good, right?

The online solution we did all investigation before was to all shut down when Donald Trump took office, were able to, you know, identify him in the crowd that day. And, you know, at that time in the moment, that video, he's walking sort of away from the crowd. There's tear gas happening. You know, Alex Jones is on a megaphone to the left.

There are people who are on the bleachers on the inauguration stage. And there is people who are trying to get up to stare before the actual breach of the Capitol. And so he's walking away from that scene there. And then he seems to go around the building and then walk sort of south.

And what the White House said is that he was in town for some meetings that day was nearby and sort of land, I guess, as a spectator, bystanders, what they called him and didn't, you know, participate in any actual demonstrations and such rights. And has he been implicated in any crime on that day, Ryan? No, so, no. In that area was restricted, but we do not know when exactly he arrived, but by he says the White House said he's not cross any barricades.

Now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, the former said that everyone who's in that area theoretically could have been. But like, that's not really who they went after. They focused on people whether entered the Capitol, who created some sort of assault outside.

There were a few circumstances that people got charged with trespassing in that general area. But those were sort of the outliers. And in order for bringing for a case, we really wanted to make sure that there was knowledge that they passed and sort of barricade or acknowledge that, you know, what they were doing as well. All right, Ryan Riley, thank you so much for that update.

We really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now and of course that historic meeting with President Trump and President Putin. But the news continues right now. Class F4.

Search Class F4 with Craig Nelson from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.