Meet the Press NOW — August 18

It's here. The Ford, it's a big. Not yet. The Ford is a big deal.

Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford, it's a big deal. Event is on. Really?

Now hurry up. At least a 20, 26 Maverick SLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.79 APR for six months with 29.95 down. That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal.

Events. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford ca. Welcome to MEET the press. Now I'm Kelly o' Donnell in Washington where we continue our breaking news coverage of President Zelensky's high stakes visit to the White House.

The Ukrainian leader flanked by Europe's most powerful figures just three days after that historic summit on American soil between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. Last hour, President Trump began a multilateral meeting with Zelensky and those European leaders at the White House. He sounded an optimistic tone about progress made so far, but reiterated his push for a meeting that would include the two principals together in the same room to see if an agreement might actually be at hand. We're going to try and get a three party meeting maybe as soon as we can.

And I have a feeling you and President Putin are going to work something out. Ultimately, this is a decision that can only be made by President Zelensky and by the people of Ukraine working also together in agreement with President Putin. I think you'll see that President Putin really would like to do something else. I think when we set that up, when we do, I think it's going to be when, if I think you're going to see some very positive moves.

This concept for President Trump and President Zelensky huddled in the Oval Office. It was President Zelensky's first Oval Office visit since that explosive meeting back in February. The tone today noticeably more amicable. And both leaders dived some of the more difficult questions with at least while the cameras were rolling, including what is perhaps the biggest sticking point of any pco, and that's territorial control.

Whether Ukraine will have to cede land currently occupied by Russian forces in exchange for security guarantees from the US President Zelensky, are you prepared to keep sending Ukrainian troops to their deaths for another couple years or are you going to agree to redraw maps? Thank you for your question. So first of all, you know, we live under each day attacks. I think we show that we are strong people and we support the idea of the United States of personnel.

President Trump to stop this work, to make diplomatic wave of finish this war do you think it's fair to for Ukraine and for Russia to achieve a lasting and durable peace? If you sees it starters, that Russia hasn't yet conquered, do you think it's a fair peace for Ukraine? We can have a lasting piece. Just to answer the first part of your question.

We're going to have a lasting peace. And as the talks play out, it appears the war will rage on. As President Trump notably backed off his Bush for immediate ceasefire. Now agreeing with Putin, that isn't necessary.

I like the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you stop killing people immediately as opposed to in two weeks or one week or whatever it takes. But we can work a deal where we're working on a peace deal. While they're fighting, they have to fight. I wish they could stop.

I'd like them to stop. But strategically, that could be a disadvantage for one side or the other. Joining me now is our team of reporters, NBC News White House correspondent Monica Halba, and NBC News chief Washington and chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell is on set with me here. Monica, let me start with you.

What a day at the White House it has been. Just bring us up to speed. What is the latest and where do things stand with the meetings right now? Well, Kelly, they are still meeting, which is an indication just of how detailed these talks need to be when it comes to ironing out these specifics.

We know the topic, of course, of the conversation. And President Trump said himself he's speaking with European leaders about, quote, who will do what when it comes to security agreements, which Ukraine, of course, is asking for and requiring in order to sign off on any kind of a pathway to peace and any kind of a deal to potentially end this war. But that matter, as you know, is very complex. And the European leaders that have gathered here essentially saying we want to help and want to be here to support Ukraine, but they, of course, need to figure out what an end to this war could look like.

And I thought it was really notable that the German chancellor was the one who said it's hard to imagine some kind of a deal without getting a ceasefire, even though, as you played there, President Trump has sort of abandoned the desire for a ceasefire in the short term, saying it's better to maybe perhaps get a diplomatic deal. So how they resolve that is a major question here. But the president obviously had a very different meeting with President Zelensky in the Oval Office than the one that we remember six months ago that really devolved and collapsed and was derailed by the tone today. It was far warmer it was committed to trying to come up with a solution.

President Zelensky, for his part, Kelly, was also very gracious, thanking the president, thanking the first lady, thanking the US for weapons, which was a change, remember, from that conversation that blew up six months ago, because it was Vice President Vance who accused President Zelensky of not saying thank you enough. So this is a different kind of a meeting today in tone and then also in scope because it is involving so many different partners. And we'll see if they come out of this with both the president and President Zelensky saying if this goes well, there could be a trilateral meeting with President Putin. But it's unclear, depending on what they will iron out right now, Kelly, and certainly the notion of a trilateral meeting, Russia, Ukraine, the United States, that is something that has now become a clear priority for the president.

Do we have a sense of the timing of that if it were to happen and what conditions might be required, if any? Yeah. And President Trump, when he was in Alaska just a couple of days ago, said that he viewed that meeting with President Putin as a way to set the table for the next meeting. And here we are where we are, of course, seeing these key discussions and negotiations be ongoing.

But it is unclear whether can be a trilateral meeting. The president said as soon as all this wrapped up, the White House, he was expecting to call President Putin, give him a readout of how this went, and then, yes, potentially invite him along with President Zelensky to a meeting in the future. President Trump said it could take place in the next week or two weeks. He left that timeline a little flexible there.

Remember that the Alaska meeting came together so last minute. It was such a scramble to put together. So maybe there will be a little more time for this one, though that remains unclear too, Kelly, because again, they have to figure out what that summit will entail. Will there be some kind of an agreement?

Is there something that's expected to be signed there? And I think they still have to figure out a lot of outstanding items from the very, very complex conversations today in order to do that. And among the very complex issues would be territory. How would it be divided, if at all, if that is an absolute condition in order to reach some kind of a peace deal.

Any signals about that today? Well, I thought it was notable, Kelly, and you probably had an eye out for this as well. There was a map in the Oval Office that President Zelensky and Trump were looking at. We saw some behind the scenes imagery where they were both standing near, in fact, presence once he said that he liked it and wanted to perhaps travel back with the one that was there in the Oval Office.

But of course, that is the key question here. What kind of land, if any, is Ukraine willing to concede? Remember that they have it written into their constitution that there would have to be a referendum, a vote in order to potentially cede any of that land. And then did President Trump get President Putin to agree to any kind of land negotiations there?

Remember, he said that was really gonna be up to Ukraine. So that is what we're still waiting to hear more about. And what underscores your point there is it's a sovereign democracy. They need to consult their constitution and their population to make a big change like that.

Thank you, Monica. Appreciate it. We know we will get back to you. There are any developments in a short while.

Let me turn now to Andrea. Good to have you with us here. Thank you. What are you hearing from Western sources that you have Western European sources about how this is playing out today?

Well, first of all, what we did here as Monica was just suggesting, the one person, the one European leader in that room at the figure of the larger meeting in the East Room was Chancellor Mertz, who was the only one who pushed back and said that there needed to be a ceasefire before the trilateral meeting. And immediately President Trump pushed back against him, saying, I've done six, I've made, you know, six agreements and ended six wars already. That's an exaggerated, there's some differences. But he said I've done them and we didn't need a ceasefire in any of them.

So he immediately pushed back on that. And that was their main concern, that coming out of the Friday's summit in Alaska, there was no ceasefire. There were no secondary sanctions. There was no pressure as promised, if there weren't a ceasefire by the president on route to Air Force One, I mean, on Air Force One, so going to Alaska, he said there would be pressure.

Then there wasn't seem to afterwards. It did evaporate by the time he was meeting, you know, interviewing with not the press war, which he rebuffed, but Sean Hannity before getting on the plane to go back. So that was a there was relief that he had not acceded to trading territory and showing, you know, land swaps, at least as far as anyone knows, and that there had been some discussion and now we see some nailing down of President Putin, at least the president says, President Trump says agreeing to security guarantees. And today for the first time, the president said we'll be involved and how are they going to find that I would be very skeptical that it'd be boots on the ground.

And what's really significant is that Steve Witkoff introduced this weekend said it would be some Article 5 like commitment, which is the basic NATO commitment of an attack on one. It's an attack on all and all come to the defense of the one. That is something that Donald Trump himself has pushed back on that if you don't pay enough into NATO with existing NATO relationships members, he said that we wouldn't come to their defense. Were you struck by how these European leaders were very clear in aligning themselves with Zelensky, whereas as we hear President Trump, he's often acknowledging the Russian point of view and President Putin's point of view as well as talking about his relationship with Zelensky.

But the Europeans did not do that. And even the Italian, you know, leader Meloni, who has been very supportive of Ukraine and even though she's very conservative and is very much aligned with Donald Trump on a lot of other issues and he's praising her, you know, very generously. She as well as all of them are absolutely committed to Ukraine. To them, they see, you know, Russian, the Russian aggression against Ukraine is an attack on Europe.

And now it's not just Finland, but certainly most importantly Finland at that table because Poland doesn't happen to be there. They have an 800 mile border with a young new leader new to NATO. And he was very clear in his message today among much more senior leadership in Europe that stood out. He's also been a golf partner, you know, playing golf, invited guests in Mar a Lago.

So that is using that personal report. He has that personal record. He's been to Florida and it's the first time that he's in the White House. But he's actually a real comer in terms of being a new someone new.

Obviously Finland new to NATO, relatively new to NATO. You know, the two new members are from Scandinavia and it's already taking such a high profile more to watch for that. Thank you. Andrea.

Good to have you with us and to have your insights. And joining me now is our chief international correspondent here, Simmons, who has of course been very upfront in our coverage of dealing with Russia and has a perspective there that you can really bring to this. How do you expect Moscow will react to the meetings as they played out today? What are they looking forward, do you think you.

Well, President Putin said on Friday it was kind of a throwaway line, but I thought it was notable. He said we've got something here. We've got a deal, we've got a prospect, unless the Europeans derail it. And the question I think now is whether the Kremlin is watching what is happening in the White House.

That extraordinary meeting that Bonheime between European leaders and President Trump and thinking, there you are, that's the Europeans derailing what we thought we had with President Trump. The fact that President Trump kind of shifts, seems to shift his position depending on who he's with. And the very fact that those European leaders have raced to Washington, if you like, specifically because they know it's important to get in the room with President Trump, that's something that the Russians are aware of, too, and that Russian officials have talked about that with me, and they know that the challenge is not just about a victory on one day. I will say one thing about this.

Watching those scenes today with the European leaders united, purposeful, not arrogant, you find yourself watching that, Kelly, and thinking, are they really European leaders? It's incredible, the stagecraft that you're seeing Europe manage there and President Zelenskyy in order to get what they want. It is a diplomatic battle. And I think they recognize that.

And they are using every diplomat tool that they can muster and definitely signs here that there was a meeting before the meeting on the European side, that they had a sense of what they wanted to accomplish in messaging and in tone and in posture, knowing that all of that counts a great deal of President Trump. Therefore, have the discussions today about security guarantees, what that would look like. What is your sense of what Russia would say to discussion of security guarantees if that stopped short of what NATO would provide? Is is that something that you could see Putin agreeing to?

Well, I think one of the questions is the extent to which President Putin, who has his own political audience, if you like, okay, he's an autocrat, but he still does have to think about what Russian people think, and particularly one group, the hardliners, those who are very pro war in Russia, how will they respond to any deal he does? So when you just take that question of the suggestion that there might be some sort of Article 5 agreement, and it's not just now messaging from the Trump administration, of course, we saw two European leaders, Meloni of Italy and Starmer of Great Britain, suggest that there is something like that, an all for one and one for all type deal outside of NATO, that might be being considered. So back to the question. The question is whether whether President Putin is looking for what he can sell to his people, what he's looking for, being able to say, you see I've managed to stop NATO, even if they at the same time have these kind of security guarantees that look similar to NATO here.

Thank you so much for those insights. And we want to get perspective about Ukraine from Bill Taylor, the former US Ambassador to Ukraine and the distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center. Always good to have you with us with your long experience here and your insights. Let me ask you, what is your assessment of President Zelensky's meeting today?

It appeared he really had taken notes from the last time around and tactically went into this with a different approach. What's your sense? I agree, I agree. He clearly wants this to be a good meeting.

Came in very well prepared. The Europeans were very much behind him. So President Zelensky knew that there's a lot to be done here, and he knew that he had the opportunity to speak next to President Trump. As George just said, you know, the people who speak to him get some influence.

And so President Zelensky is taking clear advantage. One thing on the security guardians. I want to mention it, right, since you were just talking about it. It's not clear to me why the Russians get any say on what security guarantee the Europeans or the Americans or NATO or anybody else gives to Ukraine.

Seems to me that that is a Ukraine, Europe, United States issue. It's not a Russia issue. The security guarantee is to keep Russia from invading again. Why would we give them a veto or even a voice on that type of question that is designed to keep them from invading again?

Interesting. Very interesting point. And is it your sense that having the European leaders at the White House today and the way they spoke about their support for Ukraine, does that reflect strength for President Zelensky, or does it suggest that he needed backup? Clearly, clearly strengthened the numbers.

And I think Macron made the point that others hinted at, and that is this is about more than Ukraine. Russians threat to Ukraine is a threat to Europe. And the Europeans want Ukrainians to win. The Europeans want Ukraine to stop the Russians in Ukraine because if they keep coming towards Europe, then Europe is threat.

So Macron expressed it well that this is about European security. There's been a lot of talk about a ceasefire. Is that something that needs to happen before any larger peace deal? Obviously, Putin has been reluctant to engage on that.

Do you think he sees the interim period as a way to gain perhaps a stronger hand in what the ultimate discussion is? If he backs off on any aggression, does that change his place in the negotiations? It absolutely does. And I'm sure that's what President Trump was referring to when discussing the ceasefire.

Chancellor did raise this issue about a ceasefire and President Trump kind of pushed back on it, saying, well, we don't really need it. And he went on to say that it actually gives one side a strategic advantage. It clearly does. It gives the Ukrainians an advantage if they're not being bombed, if they're not being missile attacked, if attacks aren't going into civilian targets and apartment buildings and children being killed.

Yes, it does get advantage of the Ukrainian cease fire, stops the fighting, which is what President Trump is talking about doing the whole time. And he had in mind as a top priority when he went into that meeting with President Trump. And somehow President Trump changed his mind on that. So hopefully the European will make that point again right now as they're talking to him that yes, there is a treaty bench and it goes to the Ukrainians.

You know the map of Ukraine far better than I do, or many in our audience. When you hear discussion of certain territories that Russia would like to claim, either they have military control right now or they want to expand to get it. Can you just briefly describe what those represent for Russia in terms of their strategic importance or their resources or why those are such big targets. Not just land for land's sake, but the purpose that might come with land that is at issue here.

Absolutely. And this is a very important point and the importance to Ukraine. It's not Russia. Russia just wants to buy off more of Ukraine.

But Ukraine needs that area that they are defending right now. They're defending Donetsk. It shows on your map there, right there there are three strategic cities. They're called fortress belt.

And those fortress belt are in the area that Putin wants. Putin wants to wrest that control from Ukraine so that he has the advantage. Ukraine needs those strategic talents to stop the Russians. The Russians have not been.

Putin's not been able to take those because Ukraine's had defended it all along. So the Ukrainians don't want to give it up, certainly not for just handing it over to Putin. One other thing, Kelly, just on the point, people talk about territories, there are two ways to talk about territories. One is to accept, acknowledge that the Russians are actually in the territory, are in Donbas, are in Crimea.

That's a fact. What people don't want to do and what the Ukrainians don't want, Europeans don't want. What we should want is to recognize those territories as part of Russia. That's what Russia wants, to recognize them as part of Russia.

We can acknowledge that the Russians are there, but we should never give them claim or ownership sovereignty over those parts of territory. So much an issue here. Thank you, Ambassador. Always great to talk to you and your depth of knowledge has really helped to our viewers.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Kelly. Coming up, more on the breaking news from the White House as President Trump meets with President Zelensky and European leaders on the future of Ukraine just days after his summit with Vladimir Putin. Plus, President Trump pushes for an overhaul of the midterm elections as his party faces major political headwinds in the battle for control of Congress.

You're watching Meet THE Press now. It's here. The Ford. It's a big not yet.

The Fort It's a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait. The Fort It's a big deal event is on. Really.

Now hurry into release of 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.29% APR for six months with 29.95 down. That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal. Events visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford ca.

Welcome back on this pivotal day regarding the war in Ukraine as President Trump hosts both Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as well as European leaders of the White House. The president downplaying the prospects of an immediate ceasefire. All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace. And maybe something like that could happen.

As of this moment, it's not happening. But President Zelensky and President Putin can talk a little bit more about that. And joining me now is Elise Labetta, Edward Rmrock press fellow, the Council on Foreign Relations and host of the Cosmopolitics podcast, and Michael Carpenter, former ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Elise, let me start with you.

What were your biggest takeaways as you were watching this not only as a news event that was unfolding, but looking for strategic insights? Well, I think first of all, both President Zelensky and the European leaders have really learned to deal with Trump over these past few months. And you see the difference between President Zelensky back then feeling he had to educate the president now bowing to thanking him. Heaps of praise.

Oh, heaps of praise. And you know, dressed up, gave him the respect that he thought President Trump needed and wanted. And I think the European leaders over the last few months have also been really adapt to dealing with him, Kelly. And also, you know, a lot of talk is about President Zelensky meeting that, you know, buffer of the Europeans.

I think President Trump needs it too. And I don't think enough people are talking about the Europeans weren't just there to have Zelensky's back. They're there to tell Trump, we have your back. You can stand up to President Putin.

We've got your back. We should be a united front. I think President Trump went into that meeting in Alaska with a little bit of nerve, kind of ready to call Putin out on his bs. I'll spare the language, but call Putin out, you know, demand a ceasefire, warn of consequences.

I think today was more of an effort to kind of deprogram him, if you will. And I think, you know, he's a little bit back. More message. Will he get a ceasefire?

It's not about whether he wants a ceasefire, Kelly. He can't get a ceasefire. President Putin was pretty clear he won't agree. So President Trump is trying to make lemons out of lemonade, lemonade out of lemons here, and say, look, this is what I can deliver.

I think he's, you know, between the lines, he's been pretty honest that he didn't get much from President Putin. Even if he's trying to put a rosy spin on it. He didn't get much and he's trying to make something of what he could, he thinks he could get Putin to do. The truth of the matter is President Putin doesn't want end this war.

He wants to keep going. And I think what the European leaders are trying to tell him is Putin's playing for time. He's doing what Kim Jong Un did during all your lovely meetings, and you need to do the same thing to him and walk away. But I think there'll probably be some meeting at some point.

But I think the European leaders are really trying to get Trump back on the same page and the back up for the U.S. that's an interesting point. I'm glad that you made it. And, Michael, how much influence do you think the Europeans have over President Trump?

We often see that the most recent person to have the president's ear can often be reflected in the next thing that he says. Will they take, will Mr. Trump take the word of these Europeans over what he just heard from President Putin the other day? Well, ultimately, that remains to be seen because he's going to speak to President Trump right after this meeting.

Right. And so there could be additional information that President Putin conveys that somehow changes his mind. But the Europeans are very important because they also know the details of this conflict. And frankly, the details matter.

I mean, for example, if President Putin agrees to a ceasefire, only after Ukraine has withdrawn from those parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that they currently control. That's a lot of territory with probably over 100,000 residents. That's a big deal. Obviously, Ukraine would never do that.

That would be capitulation to Russia. They have no reason to do that. But, you know, President Trump may not not fully grasp that nuance, that a ceasefire at the start is essential before they get to talking about land and territory. And a ceasefire that comes later is something that really gives all the advantage to President Putin.

And also, I would just point out for you and your viewers that the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs has come out with a statement today, just now, which says in unequivocal terms that they reject the notion of any, and I'm quoting now, any contingent, military contingent in Ukraine with the participation of NATO members. So this notion, this whole notion of security guarantees is entirely up in the air right now. So interesting and a good update. Thank you for flagging us on that, at least.

I'll play for you one of the clips from the Oval Office today in exchange so that we can watch that and then talk about it. Do you, have you had an understanding? What are the root causes of this war? Look, the war is going to end.

When it ends, I can't tell you, but the war is going to end. And this gentleman wants it to end. And Vladimir Putin wants it to end. I think the whole world is tired of it, and we're going to get it ended.

Portions of what he said there are widely agreed to, but not all of that. Europeans don't seem to have any hesitation to say Russia was the aggressor in an illegal war. It's notable that President Trump does not do that. And what do you think he seeks to gain by not doing that?

I think he respects an aggressor. We talked about this over many different conflicts in many months. He said it in many different ways. Russia is the strong man.

They're the one with the territory. President Zelensky, you don't have any of the cards. I think he almost respects it. And so that's why I think President Zelensky capitulating, just giving away the territory.

I don't think President Trump would respect it very much, even though he would love to just get this. He wants to get to an end, but he respects Russia. He doesn't want to call them the aggressor. He's calling them a strong power.

And he believes what President Putin is saying. And he's basically saying like, you know, when he says Zelensky can end this war. It's basically surrender. He said it the other day to Sean Hannity, make a deal, give Putin what he wants.

And Michael, when you see the ending, based on your knowledge of these circumstances and how this could come to a wind down after three and a half years, what scenario do you think President Trump would accept that would be something he could reach with with Putin and Zelensky? Do you see something or does Trump walk away at some point? I don't look, unfortunately, I don't see a scenario where there's a peace agreement simply because the Venn diagram between what Ukraine wants and what Russia wants does not overlap. I mean, Putin has been demanding this education of Ukraine.

He wants all of that territory in the south and east. He wants those five provinces of Ukraine to belong to Russia. And obviously President Zelensky, after all the casualties, all the fighting, the torture, the maiming, the unfortunate instances of rape and extrajudicial killing, he's not just going to give up that land. So I don't think there's a sweet spot where the two meet.

And you know, I think in that earlier clip you played of the president in the press conference, I don't think it's true that Russia wants this war to end. I think Russia wants this war to continue. And so if you operate on the assumption that both parties want the war to end, I think that's a false assumption. And I think the president may be doing that strategically to try to keep this deal going.

But there's so much more to talk to both of you about. I look forward to we get to do this again next time. Elise Lavis, thank you so much. Ambassador Michael Carpenter, thank you.

And we will continue with our coverage on this very fast paced day of developments coming out of the White House. But up next, we will also take a look at the number of National Guard troops controlling the nation's capital. And that's expected to nearly double with the help of red state governors. And some of those troops may be armed, marking a major shift in the Trump administration's federal takeover.

You're watching MEET THE Press now. It's here. The fort is a big not yet the fort. It's a big deal.

Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford it's a big deal event is on really now. Murray intel lease a 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.29% APR for six months with $29.95 down. That's like $99 a week.

The Ford is a Big Deal events. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford ca. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription viewer ads fee for access and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity Member Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more. Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99/ taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20, 2026. The price is subject to change.

Visit nbcnews.comxfinity for full offer terms and detail. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop with a podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Gazine Dasuvian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

The front page to the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back.

We're gonna take a turn here to the latest developments as we enter the second week of the president's federal takeover of Washington, DC's police force and his deployment of the National Guard. Now, in a show of solidarity with the president, several Republican governors have now announced that hundreds of their state's National Guard troops troops are being deployed to the District to support President Trump's crackdown on crime. Now, that adds roughly 800 D.C. guardsmen who are already deployed.

So the numbers are plussing up and those were of course, approved by the president. And two officials tell NBC News that some of those troops will be carrying firearms. Now, that is a sharp change in the policy since these deployments began. Speaking today, D.C.

mayor Muriel Bowser says the reality on the ground does not match the escalation of forces. I don't have any authority over the DC Guard or any other guards, but I think it is kind of makes the point that this is not about D.C. crime. This doesn't make sense.

You know, it doesn't make sense. The numbers on the ground in the District don't support a thousand people from other states coming to Washington, D.C. if you want to know what's happening, the question is really not for us. It's for why the military would be deployed in an American city to police Americans.

That's the question and it's not for me. This all comes as President Trump is already calling his increased law enforcement operation a success. We went from the most unsafe place anywhere to a place that now people, friends are calling me up, Democrats are calling me up, and they're saying, sir, I want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years and Washington, D.C.

is safe. And you did that in four days. I'll tell you it's safe. You should note that data from the reservation platform open table shows reservations in the city have significantly dropped since President Trump announced his federalization of DC as compared to the same period last year.

And joining me now is NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. Always good to have you with us, Gary, and your expertise here. I know you've been putting in excessive hours on this issue. What do you see as the significant shift in having other states sending their troops in?

And tell us a little bit about the change in their sort of orders and the complement of equipment they have. So much of the federal takeover here across the board is about optics. President Trump, prosperity is big on how things look, even if they are entirely effective. So what he's doing is have Republican governors from across the country send in hundreds of members of the National Guard to the streets of Washington, D.C.

but they're not necessarily in the highest primaries of Washington, D.C. they're at the National Mall. They're at Union Station. They're near the White House.

By no means high primaries. And now, as you said, there are locations for sure, absolutely. But some of the high primaries in D.C. or Northeast D.C.

and parts of Southeast D.C. and that's not where these National Guard members are placed right now. What is important is they are going to be armed. And now it's important to note they're armed, but they cannot make arrests.

I think it's important to note here. And in terms of the purpose of being armed, do they have rules of engagement that would allow them obviously to defend themselves? But are there other terms? We have seen this before where National Guard had arms on January 6 and so forth.

But why? Why is this a change? So we're being told by the National Guard they're going to serve largely as deterrence and largely for crowd control. Now, we aren't seeing mobs of people on the streets of Washington, D.C.

that's an important thing to note. I was at protest on Saturday during the day. There were thousands of people there. It was loud, but it was entirely peaceful.

And there were National Guard numbers there when they made their way around the National Mall, of course, but they were not actually engaging with the crowd. They were standing there near the Humvees. And I think it's important they're sitting there as a show and not necessarily doing much actually. And when you have other states that support, there's a natural inclination that citizens of those states support their National Guard troops, which could broaden the president's view of how the public broadly would support this action.

That could be one of components of this. Do you sense that what they are doing in terms of traffic stops, for example, is this about traffic or is it about access to finding people who might not be here legally? So this is not about traffic lawyers. Right.

This is about some of the administration's largest priorities, which include immigration for one. Right. And that's what we're seeing when we see the federal agents going out across the country. You've got a metric police officer, which is the city police.

You've got somebody from ICE, obviously folks on immigration. And you've got me from U.S. marshals, which is focus on warrants and arrests. And so with those three priorities, that's how they can guard to the city.

Obviously, the MPD officers should know a lot more about the community, where the hotspots are and where they should be. And the ICE folks and the U.S. marshals have targeted ideas in mind. And you get with that configuration a greater rate of arrest.

Is that something that you're seeing? So that's actually not worse. Our friends at NBC Washington, a local affiliate here in D.C. have seen that actually arrests have gone down when it comes to both MPD and federal agents combined.

The rest of us have gone down week over week compared to the week before the federal takeover began. So interesting. We know you'll keep tracking it for us. Thank you very.

We appreciate it. And after the break, Nat quest, Texas House Democrats return to the capital, their capital officially ending a two week standoff over Republican redistricting efforts and paving the way for a new map that could flip five seats in the president's favor. We're live from Austin. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. Texas Democratic state representatives have arrived back in Austin to cheers after they delayed the mid decade congressional redistricting plan pushed by President Trump and by fleeing the state for two weeks. While many Democrats said the goal was to stop the redistricting effort, which they haven't done, they are still proclaiming victory after derailing the governor's first attempt at a special session and spurring California Democrats to draw their own plans to redistrict in their state to counter Texas Republicans led by Deborah Rabbit are now eager to push their maps through when this second special session reconvenes on Wednesday. Our NBC News colleague Ryan Chandler is on the ground in Austin.

He's been our man on this since the beginning. Ryan, good to see you. When Democrats return to Austin today, what have you seen? What is the story inside the Capitol?

Well, Democrats got a real heroes welcome today. When they returned, you would have thought it was a famous band walking through this all the way. Staff and supporters were cheering them on as they entered the House for the first time in more than two weeks. Business is back here at the Texas Capitol.

But as soon as they got through that crowd, reality really set in for the Democrats here. The Republican speaker of the House, Dustin Burrows, not angry. The tone, the word has been used to describe his tone is conciliatory. Just saying, we're back.

It is time to get to work. And he took more harsh measures to make sure that Democrats don't run away again, including assigning an individual DPS special agent, a state trooper, to essentially keep each Democrat in their custody for the next 48 hours to force them back to the House floor when they reconvene on Wednesday. And, Kelly, I'll tell you, the Democrats I've spoken to about that are not happy. They say that as elected officials, they do not have the ability to move on their own free will.

Being watched 247 by these state troopers in other countries we call those minders. Did the Texas Democrats really move the goalpost here? Are you getting that sense from talking to them? They were certainly trying to disrupt the session in the first special called by the governor.

And now as they're sort of getting, getting their legs under them for what is coming next, do they feel like they have achieved something? Absolutely, they do. And it depends how you spin this. But Democrats are claiming absolute victory even while knowing they're gonna lose this vote eventually.

And it will probably happen quickly. But they say the way that they have drawn national attention to this issue, even getting promises from states like California for retaliatory maps that could make what happens here in Texas matter a lot less. They say that this was a huge victory. We were talking with Democratic leader Jean Wu.

He said that this was beyond his wildest dreams, successful in the way that they were able to keep the attention on this issue for two weeks, weeks to stall Republicans from getting their work done. While the map will ultimately pass, they think that they've done something big here. We appreciate all your coverage on this for weeks now. Ryan, thank you so much.

And we will be right back there's more ahead. You're watching. Meet the President. Welcome back.

In a presidency that has been defined by the pursuit of expansive executive power, President Trump this morning claimed he has the power to change the way Americans vote in the midterm elections. In a long social media post riddled with what are arguably false or misleading claims, President Trump said he is going to lead a movement to get rid of mail in voting and certain voting machines via executive order. Never states decide how those are run. This is an effort, the president says, that would turn state elections into agents for the federal government to bring, quote, honesty as he sees it, to midterm elections in 2020.

Now, it is important to note that the Constitution gives the states power to decide how they conduct their congressional elections unless preempted by Congress. Now, additionally, the US Is not the only country to use mail in ballots. It's about three dozen when I last checked. And the president claimed that, and that was just simply false.

We should also note that there is no evidence of widespread fraud using mail in ballots. In fact, President Trump himself encouraged their use during last year's elections. Many older Americans, many reliable voters, often prefer them. Certainly saw that during COVID when people wanted to have that as an option.

He also ridiculed them on the campaign trail. So there's a lot for our panel of pros to talk about here. So joining me now is Audrey Fulberg, who is a political reporter for the National Review, former New York Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley, and Michael Dufte, former White House communications director during President Trump's first term of 45ers. What I like to call you, Mike.

And so, Audrey, let me start with you. There are certainly safe ways that people can use mail in voting. It has become popular. The president had, in fact, I don't know if he's ever done it himself.

Certainly other presidents have. I also can picture him going down upon each vote. But what do you think is the impact of this kind of social media post where the president is clearly arguing a position that probably has a lot to do with his concerns about the midterms, but there's a lot of information in that just simply not accurate. I think this is a big, risky political bet for him.

Looking ahead to the midterms, his big, beautiful bill is already kind of pulling on the rocks a little bit. They need every vote that they can get. Right. As mentioned, he has a kind of tortured relationship in Malibu that obviously hit a fever kitchen 2020.

But last cycle, he urged his voters to, quote, unquote, swamp the vote. Vote early and absentee, especially early vote. I can remember that. To make the election, quote, unquote, too big to rig.

You know, I profiled a bunch of Republican Senate groups and folks who invested millions of dollars urging Republic Republicans to catch up with Democrats on this front. So I can imagine a lot of political operatives and Republicans are frustrated with this because, especially because Trump has such a unique ability to really juice low propensity voter turnout. Republicans, everybody vote they can get. And this is risky.

And like how you us said you've been in the rooms where these strategies have been talked about and certainly when you consider the risk that older voters might not be able to turn out, you know how weather happens. He certainly likes military overseas ballots. What do you think the president is really saying? First of all, I want to be clear that there is a difference between mail in ballots and absentee ballots.

Yes. So, and let's go back to. And state by state. Absolutely, state by state.

They set the rules and in some states, you even have absentee in person. So there's multiple different ways to vote in different states. I am concerned, I am with you on the concern. In 2024, the RNC, the Republican National Committee, really pressed on the Trump campaign to lower the rhetoric on mail in ballots.

Because what we saw 2022, is with that rhetoric, Republican use of mail in ballots was so low that it probably cost us a couple of seats. I understand where he's coming from. Look, they take too long to count. A lot of times they're treated differently than these absentee ballots.

And you get what, you know, he talks about Election Day, I'm winning, and then afterwards, that vote for the Democrats just ticks up. Part of that is we need to do a better job as Republicans getting the vote out. I'm not sure pushing voters away from mail in ballots is going to be the right way to go. Joe, let me play something from the president where he was speaking on Fox News.

This was after his Friday meeting in Alaska with President Putin. Let's take a look at that. Vladimir Putin said something, one of the most interesting things. He said your election was rigged because you have mail in voting.

He said mail in voting every election. He said, no country has mail in voting. It's impossible to have mail in voting and have honest elections. And he said that to me was very interesting because we talked about, he said, you won the election by so much.

And that's how he got. He said, and if you would have won, we wouldn't have had a war. You'd have all These millions of people alive now instead of dead. Okay, here's the fine print.

Of course, President Trump lost the 2020 election. If you believe that the president is telling us is accurate. There's an instance of Putin telling him what he wants to hear. I mean, clearly this is KGB Putin.

The president spent a long time in his intelligence service, knows the president well, and there was no cost to Putin to say the things that President Trump would really respond to. What is your sense of that? Especially when on space. Yes, lots of other countries do.

The country does this. Only the other industrialized democracies in the world do it. So it really is. It really harkens back to a really weird, weird time.

I think that we're all looking back on the past elections, as to the influence of Russia on the elections themselves and things. We're here. But here, the President of the United States just aping what Putin says is disturbing on so many levels. What do you imagine Putin was trying to do there?

Again, I guess, to further play with that person's head, maybe I really won that election in 2020. Maybe that's really true. You know, not only did they not have any influence on the 2020 election, well, I actually won because mailen ballots stole it from me. You know, the reality is that first, he's not going to change this.

This is done statewide or state by state. Unless they change the Constitution. Congress itself can't make it do it. Except you can withhold federal dollars for elections, but you cannot actually get a lot of extended new standards for elections and make nations.

Is this all in the category of distractions? We've been seeing a lot of overstatement about these things. And, and do you see. And if you can hear the alarm?

Yes, it's one of those things. Just a little phone alarm. It's not my phone, but there is one in here. I set a lot of alarms.

So I'm all for. Yes, I'm all for that. If there's a call in coming in from the Kremlin dispute, like you just said, I'm all for it. When we talk about these things as distractions, do you think there is a sense of Democrats dealing with that?

One of the things I want to say is that from ranking member Robert Garcia, he has talked about this, that we don't have the Epstein issue right now. Right. There were days and days and days of coverage, and the president has created a set of events with Putin and other issues that have taken that off the table. Do you think there is.

Is that just coincidence? No, I don't think it's coincident. I also think that in terms of what's happening in Texas, there'. Coordination.

No one's talking to anybody, but there's coordination going on. And you know, so, you know, it's happening in Texas. And you know, the folks who went back to Texas now, we've seen this, we've seen this play before as well. But you know, adding now to this, not only redistricting but actually, you know, questioning mail in ballots.

It's all about little marginal ways that I think the president can cheat to win the next election. Interesting. So let me ask you about Gavin Newsom and what he has done. He has been able to take issues like Trump talking about mail in ballots, talking about redistricting and to try to turn those.

What is your assessment of how he has inserted himself in the national conversation right now? Well, both parties gerrymander, we know that, but it's been really funny kind of watching him be the champion of this fight fire with fire. We're going to go against the voters. You know, California voters, remember they wanted an independent redistricting commission.

So it's a little rich seeing them push back against this again, argument from him. Another Democrats is, you know, Exactly. Republicans are going tough. We gotta be tougher.

We're at this moment where they lost badly in 2024. Their voters are extremely frustrated. They're not fighting back against Trump enough. But, you know, I'm also hearing California Republicans are hoping fight back here.

They're blaring up and they have an emergency meeting later today to discuss strategies. So interesting kind of strategies that they get a sense of how many seats they think they could mine that would favor their, their party. I mean, Democrats, I mean, something between five and six or something that could neutralize potentially what we're seeing in Texas. Potentially.

I think all you have to look at is who are the Democratic governors who have offered with open arms the Texan Democrats to come into town and who is trying to use this to grandstand right now. And they're all of the Democratic governors that are going to be running in 2028 for the presidency. This is, this is political on both sides. It is a useful purpose.

And some of these states have already gerrymandered. Wait a second. And that's what's outrageous. There's politics happening here.

Audrey, Joe and Mike, we thank you so much. And we will be back tomorrow with more MEET the Press. Now, of course, there's more news ahead on NBC News now. I'm Craig Melt.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too.

It's a really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs and challenges. Their stories are fun and organic. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows, you might just come away with your own glass apple.

Search Glass Apple with Craig Milford From Today on YouTube. Wherever you get a podcast.