Meet the Press NOW — August 19

If it's Tuesday, President Trump pushes for direct talks between Russian President Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky as he offers Ukraine security assistance but rules out any US Boots on the ground there. Plus, a top House Republican says the Justice Department will start handing over files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case this week, adding new fuel to the saga, despite the Trump administration's efforts to keep the documents and controversy out of the spotlight. And redistricting wars are ramping up nationwide, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying he's ready to sign the state's newly drawn congressional map into law as California Democrats and Indiana Republicans push ahead with plans of their own. Welcome to Meet the press.

Now I'm Dave Gutierrez in washing. As the Trump administration keeps searching for a path to end the war in Ukraine after a pair of historic summits, the urgent questions now can President Trump broker a meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky? And could that meeting lead to a peace deal? This morning, President Trump sounded a note of cautious optimism about getting to the next phase of the talk, saying that the US Would help coordinate security guarantees for Ukraine even though it will not deploy US Troops on the ground, and that Ukraine would also get some land back as part of any agreement.

Ukraine's gonna get their life back. They're gonna stop having people killed all over the place, and they're gonna get a lot of land. But this was a war, and Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation.

It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started. You don't do that. You don't take.

You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size. We should. Now, it was Russia that began the war when it invaded Ukraine, and that President Zelensky has repeatedly said Ukraine will not cede territories of Russia. And forgetting Russian President Putin to meet with President Zelensky.

During his meeting with President Zelensky and European leaders, President Trump was caught on a hot mic telling President Macron he thinks he can get a deal. My colleague Kristen Walker sat down with an exclusive interview with the French president and asked him about that moment, as well as if he shares President Trump's optimism about Putin's willingness to end the war. What went through your head when he said that to you? I think if at the end of the day, if we have a deal which is compliant with this long standing and robust peace, this is great news.

And your president indeed is very confident about the capacity he has to get this deal done. What is your level of optimism as we sit here today that they can break through this logjam? Look, first, I think the optimism of your president needs to be taken seriously. So if he comes to this and get the deal done, this is the great news.

And we have to do whatever we can to have a great deal being fixed, concluded. But the great deal is a deal with security guarantees and a robust peace. As far as I'm concerned. When I look at the situation and the facts, I don't see President Putin very willing to get a peace now that perhaps I'm, I'm too pessimistic.

And joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Micah Alba and NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who's on the ground for us in Ukraine. Mike, I want to start with you. What do we know about the security guarantees that President Trump discussed with President Zelensky and European leaders yesterday? How concrete are they?

Well, they're still working on them, Gabe, and they are really, really complex. So of course, that is a key question. We know that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is essentially going to be heading up a commission to try to discuss this with European partners and see what they can outline, see what they can present to see if they can then set up that meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky. But yesterday was notable when President Trump didn't rule out US Troops on the ground in this effort.

Now today he is ruling that out, but the White House is saying it's possible that there could be U.S. troops in the air helping to provide air support to European forces. And there are other ways that the US can be involved when it comes to some of these guarantee. So we know they're going to be discussing that they're gonna be working around the clock, according to these European officials, to see what kind of a plan they can present to them.

But of course, the fact that the US Is brokering much of this does leave open the question, Gabe, of what role they will ultimately pay in it. Of course, knowing the history of what the US has done when it comes to providing Ukraine with weapons and that kind of help and support during the course of the three and a half year war. But that is a very open and live question and one that certainly President Zelensky had at the top of his list when he came to make some of those asks here at the White House yesterday in those consequential face to face meetings. I mentioned things very fluid right now.

But is the White House any closer to securing a possible meeting between Zelensky and Putin or that trilateral meeting among Zelensky, Putin and Trump? Yeah. According to the White House, in this phone conversation that President Putin and Trump had yesterday, while those European leaders were still even at the White House, President Putin did commit, again, according to the White House, to meeting with President Zelensky. Though, if you look at the comments out of the Kremlin, there's a little more skepticism.

They're saying that there need to be other talks maybe below the leader level that need to take place first before you're going to see President Putin, Zelensky come face to face. And then I thought it was notable today that the White House press secretary said, yes, there could be a trilateral that would then include President Trump, quote, if necessary, sort of trying to imply that is it possible that enough could get done between Zelensky and Putin on their own that wouldn't necessitate that or leaving open the door again that this is going to take a little bit of time? They had said maybe in the next two weeks, but if it takes longer than that because of everything they need the parties to commit to, they're saying that President Trump would only come in at the end against once, once you have more that's ironed out. And again, that is where it's really tricky here.

Those are the most intractable issues that they just simply have to get in a room and figure out when we know both sides have said they won't make concessions on certain things that we're discussing here. Monica, there's also the question of where they could even meet. Right. Because Putin is wanted for war crimes in a bunch of countries.

Oh, yeah. The International Criminal Court essentially could arrest him if he goes to much of the places that you would hold your typical summit. But there are some countries that aren't a party to that, and that includes the United States, which is why President Putin was able to come to Alaska, as you see there, to meet with President Trump. We know there are a couple of other countries that have been thrown out there.

Hungary, for instance, was one example. Turkey was another. They also discussed the possibility of Switzerland, where even one of the Swiss top officials said they would be willing to grant President Putin temporary immunity to come and have a meeting there. That is to say they wouldn't act on that just for the purposes of trying to see if they can have these discussions to see if they would yield a pathway to peace.

Certainly a lot of outstanding questions, though. Monica, live for us outside the White House. Monica, thank you. Now to Richard Engel for US in Ukraine.

Richard, how was yesterday summer the White House received there in Ukraine? And how willing is Zelensky to meet with Putin? Well, I'll start with the second part. President Zelensky is absolutely willing to meet with Vladimir Putin.

This is something that he's told me repeatedly since the early days of the war. It's something that he's told me several times that he wants to do. He's long wanted to meet with Vladimir Putin, but Vladimir Putin does not want to meet with him because he doesn't believe that he's a legitimate president, that he is a creation of the West. Putin is called him a Nazi, even though Zelensky is Jewish.

But Zelensky has consistently wanted to meet with Putin. I don't think that's part of the problem. In terms of your question, how is this all being perceived here in Ukraine? They want this war to stop and they want a ceasefire as well.

And they want security guarantees. It's not a question of one or the second or the third. They believe that you need all of them to end this conflict and live in peace and dignity. What's wrong with security guarantees?

Security guarantees are about stopping the next war. They're about preventing Russia from attacking again. So what kind of guarantees would Europe, the United States be willing to provide Ukraine so that it won't be invaded one more time? And the US has already provided security guarantees back in 1994, saying that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, there were Soviet era nuclear weapons in this country and they did give them up, that there would be guarantees, and they were signed, by the way, in Budapest, Hungary, that there would be no, there'd be no way that any country could attack this because the US And Europe and several other countries agreed to provide security guarantees.

They didn't hold up. So Ukrainians already have a decent amount of experience with bad security guarantees, not preventing wars. But the security guarantees in this timeframe are about stopping the next possible Russian invasion. Then there is the issue of land.

How do you end this current conflict? Does Ukraine have to give up 20% of its territory just because Russia happens to still occupy it and stole it illegally? And then there's the question of the ceasefire. President Trump says they don't need a ceasefire.

They can go right to a deal. That's not the way people see it here in Ukraine. When they are attacked every single day, when there are drone attacks every day, particularly in the morning and evening, it is now late in the evening in Ukraine. I have no doubt that between now and sunrise we will be hearing air raid sirens and we'll probably be hearing explosions from the position where I'm standing right now, you know, and Richard, you're in the heart of the northeast part of the country, such as the city, as having to fend off these Russian attacks throughout the entirety of the war.

I remember seeing you more than three years ago in Ukraine. It's hard to believe that it's been so long. I remember back then there was this idea among the Ukrainians I spoke with that they would never under any circumstances agree to ceding any territory. Richard, I'm wondering where you're standing right now with the Ukrainians that you spoke with.

Is there a sense of exhaustion and perhaps that they may come to terms that they may have to agree? There's not, none. No, there's not a sense of exhaustion. And think about how this process might play out, because can the Ukrainians or would the Ukrainians have no choice but to accept that they are giving up or forced to surrender 20% of their territory, or 19% or 18% or 17%?

President Zelensky can't just say, yes, I'm going to do that. There needs to be a referendum. There needs to be a change of the Constitution. Can you imagine how that process will go, the internal divisions that will take place in this country?

Imagine the politics of the United States if suddenly an American president had to say, well, we are going to give up the eastern seaboard of the United States to a foreign power forever and all the people in it and all the cities and all of their possessions. It is probably not something that any politician can survive. So just coming to a, just having a summit and agreeing to terms, then you have to sell it here. And selling it in Ukraine could be a very, very destructive process for the politics of this country.

So there's a lot of hills to climb still. Richard Englefaross and Harkee, Ukraine Richard, thank you for that context and we thank you and your team as well. And now let me bring in Mike McBaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and NBC News international affairs analyst.

Michael, after the high stakes summit both in Alaska and at the White House, do you think we are any closer than ending the war in Ukraine? I hope so, but I don't see the evidence to support that hypothesis. Putin has not changed any of his positions. He just reiterated them in Alaska.

And on some of them, tragically, in my view, the president decided to accept them. And for instance, on the ceasefire he just gave up on that Monday in Washington was better. I think that was a smart decision to have all those European leaders there. So it wasn't just a meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump.

They tragically have the history of that famous phone call in 2019 that in part triggered the impeachment of President Trump, and he'll never forget that. So putting it in bigger context with more leaders, I think was a good thing. And it changed and opened up the issues that were discussed, particularly about security guarantees and children that have been kidnapped. Those are all good news.

But at the end of the day, Putin hasn't agreed to anything. He hasn't even agreed to meet with President Zelensky. So we're really not that much farther down the road than we were just a week ago. And, Ambassador, I want to pick up on a point that Richard Engel just mentioned this idea that even if President Zelensky felt that he was in a position to negotiate some sort of territory, he actually can't.

And he said that repeatedly. And then domestically, within Ukraine, it's all impossible to get the population there to agree to any of this. What do you make of that? How is it.

How can we get any sort of land swap, as the president has been discussing? Well, of course, it would have to be approved, you know, through abiding by the Ukrainian constitution. That is true. What Richard was talking about.

That's not completely insurmountable. That could be done. But the essence of it all, as you were talking, the essence of everything is a credible security guarantee. You can't ask President Zelensky to give away big chunks of his territory and reward imperialism.

Right? Reward war, reward annexation. Those are very dangerous things for us all, by the way, not just for Zelensky. I don't want to live in a world where might makes right and big countries can just annex their neighbors and there's no consequences.

So you can't ask him to do such a giant thing without something in return. And people keep using this phrase, land for peace. Well, the peace has to be durable and credible, and that means a security guarantee. To me, the real creative, bold move would be bringing Ukraine into NATO.

And by the way, just want to remind everybody, Putin doesn't get to vote on that. This notion that we have to get his permission for that. We didn't get his permission to create NATO back in 49. We didn't get Khrushchev permission to bring West Germany in in 1950, and we didn't get permission from the Russian leaders to bring in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

We don't need Putin's permission for that. But President Trump tragically doesn't agree with me on that. So therefore, you got to have something else, and it's got to be something that will keep the peace. Speaking about the security guarantees, I want to play something French President Macron told my colleague Kristen Welker about that yesterday.

Let's listen. The first security guarantee for Ukraine on Europe is to have an important Ukrainian army which will resist to an inauguration and which will create a deterrence effect vis a vis. I mean, the attempt to address Ukraine again. So we worked on the format of his army, and in fact, what we want is no limitation in terms of number of soldiers, ammunitions, equipment, and so on.

The second pillar is to be sure that in the air, on sea, on land, we have support from all the different key partners of the coalition of the willing to come and to support the Ukrainian forces, not to be a substitute. And the observation and the first part is not to have our boots on the ground, but to be sure that we have regular operations which are sort of guarantee or strategic signal that it's not just a piece of paper that the day there are attacks, we will be here. Because this piece of paper, we had it in the past, it was called the Budapest Agreement, and it didn't work. Ambassador, do no security guarantees for Ukraine.

Correct. Enough. Is what President Macron outlined enough to constrain Putin? I don't know.

Honestly, I don't know. I don't know if anybody knows. If Russian soldiers are marching into Ukraine, will France actually go to war with Ukraine? Will they do that without American support?

Right now, President Trump's talking about coordination of a security guarantee that's different than American airplanes flying in the sky, bombing Ukrainian soldiers going back into Ukraine. So I think, you know, at some point, if that's the best they can do, they'll have to settle for it. Maybe, but I think it's not as credible as what Ukrainians want right now. Ambassador McBaul, we thank you for your time and expertise.

Thank you. And coming out, the Republican House Oversight Committee chairman says that the Justice Department is cooperating with his subpoena and will start turning over records related to the Jeffrey Epstein case this week. Plus, the latest in the redistricting wars as House Republicans in Indiana get on board with the president's push to redraw their congressional map as both Texas and California move forward with maps of their own. What it all means for the midterm elections, straight ahead.

You're watching Beat the Press now. And welcome back. Turning now to new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein saga saga as pressure to release the government's case files continues to grow despite the President's claim that the issue is a Democratic Party hoax, a Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, announced late yesterday that the Justice Department would begin complying with his committee's subpoenas for documents and information tied to the case. And we'll start handing over that material on Friday.

The news changes hours after President Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr sat for a closed door deposition as the first witness in the oversight Committee's investigation into the Epstein files. NBC News senior national political reporter Sadhguru Kapoor is with me now. So how, what types of documents will the oversight committee be receiving? Not only the DOJ knows and they have not said, but I can tell you what types of documents the subpoena required.

The DOJA handover. This was issued two weeks ago by the way. The deadline is today and they will miss that deadline. Documents include all documents and communications involving Epstein killing Maxwell and relating to trafficking and exploitation of minors.

Includes case files of Epstein and Maxwell and their respective prosecutions. Documents on the 2007 non prosecution agreement at the time of Jeffrey Epstein, which critics have called a sweetheart deal. All documents and communications regarding his death in 2018, which has sparked quite a few conspiracy theories as it was ruled a suicide and finally any references to his case that were brought up in the dusty department during the Biden administration. These documents are required to be handed over full and unredacted with two exceptions.

They're allowed to redact personally identifying information of victims and they're allowed to remove or redact any sex abuse material. Now Comer yesterday defended the move by the DOJ to take a few extra days, you know, to start hanging out with documents saying that DOJ needs more time to redact that Barry information. And he argued that the administration is committed to transparency. The ranking Democrat I'm going to be Robert Garcia, not so convinced, says the documents are due today and he said any delay would show that the so called Trump Epstein cover up continues, end quote.

So wait, if this does begin on Friday, how long will process take? Once again, that's up to the DOJ and Comer. In a statement yesterday, Chairman Comer did not say how long the DOJ would take, only that would begin Friday. And the DOJ has yet to definitively say that will hand over all the documents required.

So there are a lot of open questions still. Now we mentioned Bill Barr did sit for a closed door deposition yesterday. What do we know about this point about the committee's investigation. Can we expect any public hearings in the coming weeks and months?

This was the first of many depositions that Chairman Comer had demanded in his subpoena. William Barr, of course, the former attorney general was in the room for several hours. He didn't speak after the fact. So there's still a lot of lot that's unclear about what specifically he said.

Chairman Comer did say after that deposition that Barr told the committee he never saw anything that implicates Trump in this. Keep in mind, of course, Comer, a Kentucky Republican affirmed Trump ally, was sort of forced into issuing the subpoena by Democrats on committee who teamed up with a couple of Republicans and voted for the chairman to have to authorize this again. The Democratic ranking member Robert Garcia had disputed what Comer said there, saying that Barr did not clear trouble of wrongdoing. He called on Comer to release the full transcript of the Barr deposition, which the Republicans can do before I show any update on some of the other targets of the Oversight Committee's subpoenas related to fc.

But we know the next ones coming up are Alberto Gonzalez in August, on August 26, Jeff Sessions on August 28. Everything else comes in the in the months after that. That includes a bunch of former attorneys general and former FBI director as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton. They go to questions whether they're going to do this or what kind of involvement they're going to have.

One person who's not been called, interestingly, Alex Acosta, the US Attorney who directly oversaw the Epstein case when that plea deal ended up happening. There's some Democrats who rise and meeting call he had directed the others who were kind of overseeing it from a distance. You think any investigation would indeed want to talk to himself. All right, Sahakapur, our national politics reporter, thank you so much.

Thank you. And turning now to Texas, where Democrats have returned to the state ending a two weeks long standoff over redistricting which sparked a national reckoning over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. With Democrats back home, Texas Governor Greg Abbott telling Fox News he is confident Republicans will now be able to act quickly on the redrawn maps that could potentially give the GOP five new seats in Congress. The House committee already passed those maps out and those congressional maps are going to pass out on the House floor on Wednesday.

They've already passed out of the Senate. They will become law probably by the end of this week. Tensions remain high in the state House as Democratic state Representative Nicole Collier says she will remain locked in the chamber until the House recommends tomorrow morning or longer if she has to, refusing to sign off on a law enforcement escort to be allowed to go home. Meanwhile in Indiana, a Republican congressional delegation has now endorsed a Trump backed push to redraw the state's congressional maps, framing it as a response to Democrats gerrymandering at all times as California is pushing ahead with its own redistricting plans which Gavin Newsom has said is a direct response to Republicans actions in Texas.

Joining me now is senior national politics reporter Natasha Correcti. Natasha, so good to have you here. I want to start in Texas. You spoke with state Representative Collier.

What she tell you and what does it say about Texas Democrats strategy now that they're back in the state? Right. Well, she said first of all she's not budging in order to leave. She framed it as having to sign a permission slip.

And essentially what Republicans said was Democrats, you fled the state once. We didn't have a quorum. So you have to now sign something that allows a surveillance officer, basically somebody with them around the block to stay with them. She would not sign that.

Other Democrats have a couple of them came back and stayed with her overnight. So she has now been there for over 24 hours. She stayed locked inside of the chamber because she refused to take that escort. And so essentially what she was saying to me was she thinks that Republicans are overreaching and they want her power and she's not going to give up her power without a fight.

Well, Indiana's congressional delegation is calling for mid decade redistricting in their state, echoing calls from the president. How are those calls playing out among state lawmakers there? Right. Well, it's very different with state lawmakers here in Indiana you have a very different situation than in Texas where Governor Abbott acquiesced immediately to the White House's demands.

Indiana state lawmakers and the governor said we don't like this. There's a vision in the leadership on the state level. They're the ones who have to approve it. So there's Republicans pushing back on this saying that it's not necessary.

This is not an emergency district to win. You know, a maternal election is not an emergency. So there's a little more finessing the White House has to do and they have an invitation to the lawmakers to come to the White House. Natasha, they're saying it's a response to Democratic gerrymandering.

Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom says Democrats need response to Republican gerrymandering. Has this just become a chicken or the egg situation. It really has, I mean, and you can see how quickly this could end up rippling across the country. The difference though, that Democrats would argue and something that is true, it is very unusual to redistrict mid decade.

You're supposed to redistrict and draw new congressional maps after a census. And that's, you know, once every 10 years. Now Trump came forward and said, I essentially he's admitting he's not, he's not looking at a good political situation in the midterm next year. He needs more seats.

He specifically said publicly that he wants five more seats in Texas. And so he's pushing forward a mid, mid decade redistricting. That is what is different here. And in California, they're saying they're responding to Texas and that they have to fight fire with fire.

And that's what Democrats are. How restrained are states like California by their own laws? Is it out of the realm of possibility that voters reject this effort in November? That's not out of the realm of possibility.

Democrats there say they do see a path to winning this, a very good path, otherwise they would not embark on this at all. But it is, it is possible that they could get rejected. Our senior national politics reporter Natasha Krekki. Natasha, always good to have you.

Thank you. And up next, a top official in the Middle east tells NBC News that the ball is now in Israel's court after Hamas agreed to a ceasefire proposal in coordination with Egypt and Qatar. We have the details in response. Watch your meat press now.

Stay with us. Welcome back. Turning now to the Middle east where Hamas says it has accepted a ceasefire proposal mediated by Qatar and Egypt. It comes after ceasefire talks broke down last month after Israel now plans over the weekend to expand its offensive in the Gaza Strip and reoccupy Gaza City.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sang yesterday that reports that Hamas accepted a proposal showed it's quote, under immense pressure. NBC's international correspondent Matt Bradley has more from Tel Aviv's now very much in Israel's court after Hamas decided that they were going to approve a proposed plan for a ceasefire that according to the Egyptian foreign minister spoke at NBC today, was proposed by Steve Wikoff, President Trump's main envoy for the Middle east and for Russia and Ukraine. Now, this deal would see 60 days of a ceasefire during which there would be discussions presumably leading to a permanent end of the war in the Gaza Strip and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops. This would also include the exchange of hostages, 10 living hostages.

There are thought to be about 20 living hostages in Gaza and 17 dead hostages, of whom there thought to be about 30 in the Gaza Strip. There would also mean an influx, a huge influx of aid in the Gaza Strip as the humanitarian situation deteriorates even further. Now, I spoke with the Foreign Minister of Egypt. Rabbi Sinuso spoke with the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

He had this to say about the immediacy of this deal. We need to exert our maximum efforts in order to push for the ceasefire. Even it's temporary, one that we have a window of opportunity, we have to use it. We have to apply maximum pressure on the two sides in order to move forward.

Now, as I mentioned, it's up to Israel to respond positively. And we are counting on the American side because the United States has a great deal of influence on the ground. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he's sticking to his plan, which means he will not see the full release of the hostages and end to the fighting. Unless Hamas is completely disarmed and destroyed, it has no future political role in the governance of the Gaza Strip.

President Trump signaled yesterday that he was on board with Netanyahu's approach. So it doesn't look like this deal, like so many in the past, it's necessarily going to lead to a great thanks to Matt Riley for that report. Turning now to the Trump administration's ongoing fight against drug cartels, according to a source brief on the matter. With communal border crossings at record lows, the administration is now increasing its efforts to stop drug trafficking at sea.

The source tells NBC News that the US Plans to deploy three warships near Venezuela as part of that effort. Homeland Security spokesperson also said ABC News, that Coast Guard ships seized about 3,500 kilos of cocaine south of the Galapagos Islands this past weekend off the coast of Ecuador as part of Operation Pacific Vipers is all part of the administration cracking down on those cartels. And President Trump, meanwhile, has declared several black American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Up to 4,000 sailors, Marines are expected to be part of the operation.

White House Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked about that today about the reported deployment. President Trump has been very clear and consistent. He's prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice. The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela.

It is a narco terror cartel. Maduro is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He is a fugitive hen of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country. Meanwhile, the Maduro administration has banned the use of drones throughout Venezuela amid what it considers threats from the U.S.

we have much more news ahead. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Stay with us. Hey, welcome back.

A potential presidential candidate is playing to his party's base with all caps tirades on social media. Now, it isn't Donald Trump in 2015, but California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in 2025. As the redistricting arms race moves to California. Newsom and his official press account had taken a page out of President Trump's playbook with sharp and antagonistic posts about President Trump and his allies.

Here's what he said Thursday. That date, his Twitter account dubbed Liberation Day when he announced California's plan for new House maps to counter redistricting in Texas. He's a failed president who also has ice. Same time have a conversation like this, someone is weak, someone is broken, someone whose weakness is masturbating his strength.

And joining us as a panel, Aaron sat with me is Julie Manchester, national political reporter for the Hill Amisha Cross, Democratic strategist and former campaign adviser to President Obama and Brendan Buck, former advisor to House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan. He, of course, is also an NBC News political analyst. Thank you all for joining me. Really appreciate it.

Julie, I want to start with you. I want to also put up one of Governor Newsom's, his press office's recent tweets or posts. Tiny ants is out here copying me, but without the stamina, sad, and certainly without the looks, total beta. Is this what Democrats want here?

Do they want their own Trump, Julia? Well, I think Democrats are trying to figure out what the best way to how they should best resist Trump. And they've been trying to figure this out really over the past eight months or so. It's interesting that we're hearing Governor Newsom take this tone now because eight months ago or maybe seven months ago, when Newsom traveled here to Washington, D.C.

to ask Trump and Republicans and Democrats on the Hill for federal aid to help with those wildfire efforts out in California, we saw him taking a very conciliatory tone, even going on cable news networks and giving interviews where he was somewhat complimentary of the president. Now it's night and day and we're seeing, I think him really trying to punch back. And we've seen from a wing of the Democratic Party, I think the more progressive wing of the party that's growing louder and louder this push for Democrats to really fight fire and fight with fire and take a more aggressive tone. You know, I Mean, it's so interesting.

What Julia was bringing up is this. This shows a divide within the Democratic Party, but is. Is it between moderate and progressive, or is it really just how you end up taking on Donald Trump? I think it's the formula about how to take on Donald Trump.

What many Democrats have recognized is that policy or policy does not work at the end of the day. Democrats ran on policy in the last election cycle, and, God, Molly, walk across the country, they have to find a way to not only break the news cycle, but to also knock Trump on the chin. He has been in this ring fighting Democrats day and day out since 2016, and for the better part of that time has actually landed some really heavy hits. So Democrats are now jumping into the fight that they're in versus the one that they want.

The one that they want is a field of, you know, a for long past, so to speak. And they're recognizing that Americans, for the most part, are kind of into camp. And at the end of the day, they got to show Democrats. Moreover, because Democrats, you know, the polling numbers for the Democratic Party are still in the toilet.

They got to show Democrats that they have something to believe in. They have to show them they're in this fight. They also have to show them that, you know, Trump's not going to. Trump's not going to just roll them over.

And I think that that's what a lot of Democratic leaders are trying to. Right. You know, Brendan, a lot of people tried to mimic Donald Trump before. It worked out really well for Marco Rubio in 2016.

Is this gonna work this time? I mean, I'm not gonna say it's not smart for a minute. You know, gotta talk about it. I think clearly what gabinism is trying to do is kinda the main character on the Democratic side, and that's what he's working for him at this point.

He is the party. This lacks a leader. He's the first person you think of. Now, does that make you the nominee in three years?

I don't know. There's not a great track record of, versus concerns of a frontrunner actually ending up there. But some of the learning lessons from Donald Trump, and it is worked for Donald Trump. You know, Donald Trump's biggest superpower course is he blocks out the sun.

He all have to talk about it. We're talking about Gavin Newsom. That's probably a good footprint, but you'll have half a little more substance than tweets. Well, speaking of substance, it will be difficult for Republicans to attack Newsom on Redistricting, when that's what they're doing in Texas.

Everyone's a hypocrite on redistricting. So I don't think they're going to get. Everyone's a hypocrite. Vote for Nick.

There's no good guys, there's no bad guys on the redistricting. Everybody does it. You can talk about who did it first or not, but it's a race to the bottom. It's really making governing almost impossible.

So, sure, like everyone, this is politics. This is the purest form of politics. So everyone's just gonna say it in a very fundamentally different way than we're seeing Republicans do in Texas. He's actually taking it to the people.

There's a liberal process to rehik it. That's how you have to do it. If you can do it the way Texas is doing it, I'm sure he would do it the exact same way. Would we be having this conversation if Donald Trump had injected himself into this and publicly said, hey, I want five extra seats and texts?

I don't think we would. And you know, another thing we're starting to have a conversation about after President Trump brought this up yesterday is mail in voting. I mean, we are seeing President Trump seemingly throw everything out there ahead of the midterms to potentially give Republicans a boost. Or at least that's the argument that Democrats are making.

I mean, we've seen, you know, from redistricting to mail in voting, this is all about, you know, according to Democrats, President Trump trying to help Republicans. And we're talking about it. So I do want to turn out another topic. The takeover of dc, the takeover of the police department, the deployment of hundreds of national directors.

Yesterday, during the Oval Office remarks, during his office remarks, the president said, D.C. safe. And now people go out to dinner for the first time in two years. And yet you see all these Republican led states, these red state governors sending more troops to dc.

How can, how can that be true? DC is now safe, but now governors are sending more troops. Well, these two things can't be true at the same time. Just last week, you know, we were a hell state.

We can't all of a sudden be the most safe place owner today. The truth of the matter of the fact of the matter here is that DC's crime is at a 30 year low. the end of the day, yes, there are still some hot spots in the city, just like every major city has those issues. There was no need to call in extra reports.

The D.C. police, yes, they need more Support. There's more community services than other things that the mayor's office has done that has worked to reduce crime. But moreover, I think that there are southern governors who are literally just trying to get a pat on the back from President Trump.

So you're seeing them. Mississippi, lord knows you're in the middle of hurricane season. Louisiana, Texas, you name it. You guys should be worried about using national garbage things that they need instead of sending them to D.C.

where we have it under control. To be fair, I did speak with Community act this last week and there has been few of them say, look, we've been wanting more attention to crime in D.C. for a long time. The police department can use the help and they're glad to see the increase presence even if it is a show of force.

How do you respond to that? Well, as somebody who's working criminal justice reform and somebody who, full disclosure, has a father who's a police superintendent at 9 BC, the collaboration between police and community has to always be a 50, 50 work around with each other. When you don't have that, you're gonna have issues. So after school programs, mental health resources, areas that provide housing, ensuring that there's a certain level of stability is always going to make the community safer.

It is not just policing. It is not surveilling. Having cops on the corner, yes, that fear the hell out of people, but specifically it is overzealous in communities of color where we've seen time and time again this go in the wrong direction. In addition to that, we know that Donald Trump, somebody who was spoke and I agree with him when he did, when he spoke out again the crime bill that was in the early 90s, we knew what those outcomes were and the way that we got there is the exact same way that he is trying to pursue criminal justice reform right now.

And my caution to those who stand by that is that if you had a problem with the lock them up, the beat em up, the three striker out, the people getting shot, named on the street from the police officers just a few years ago, be ready for that to happen again. Brendan, the president said last week that other cities, other Democrat led cities should pay attention to what's happening in D.C. obviously he can't do a lot of things he's doing in D.C. in other cities.

But is this becoming ahead of the midterms, just the Republican boogie man in these Democrat cities? And what do you think? What can they learn from what's happening in D.C. should they expect the Trump administration to go after cities or deploy more federal resources somehow, even if it is a national bargain trip.

Well, we'll see how this works out for him. Again, disclosure, I work a lot of mayors. I think the reality is Donald Trump is very good at choosing the issue set that we discuss. Now, crime was a very real issue in recent elections.

Everybody understands after the pandemic it got really bad. And he understands emotional politics as well as anybody. And there are a lot of people who felt like where they lived with cities near them weren't very safe. And he's able to use that very effectively.

And so he is not fool ourselves in the game of doing any of these. He's doing a statistics or anything he witness or anything like that. He understands that there's an emotional response that people haven't talked about crime. They want people to crack down on it.

So he's doing this whether or not this leaves any impact. But he loses his patience for it and gets distracted. Some other issues that he'd probably be talking about in a few days, who knows. But I think this is much more about him setting the tone and deciding what our debate is about more than any substantive matter.

Brendan, truly, thank you so much for joining me here on panel. I appreciate it. Instead of come meet the Republican candidate running in a special election to be Virginia's next congressman in the deep blue D.C. area district, Stuart Wilson choose here in studio.

We're just three weeks ago until Election Day. You're watching ME PRESS now. Stay with us. Hey, welcome back.

While it may not feel like election season, voters will soon be heading to the polls for a special election in Northern Virginia, the fill the House seat vacated when longtime Virginia Democratic Congressman Gary Connelly died earlier this year from esophageal cancer. The field is already set for the September 9 race with former Connolly chief of staff and Fairfax County Supervisor Jacob Wappinshaw taking on former FBI agent think tank staffer Stuart Whitson. We talked to the Democratic candidate Walkinshaw last week, so let's bring on his opponent. Running here now on set is Stuart Whitson.

He's a Republican nominee for next month's special House election in Virginia. Mr. Whitson, thank you so much for joining us here on THE PRESS now. Thanks for having me on.

Now you're running in a district to represent an area that hasn't elected a Republican to Congress in nearly 20 years. What is your pitch? Well, so right now we have a special election. So you're right.

For 16 years, voters in our district didn't really have a choice. But because of the dynamics of the special election. They do. And the choices couldn't be more different.

Two very different candidates with very different backgrounds and different visions for our future. Well, I want to turn out of the federal takeover of law enforcement here in D.C. the police department here in D.C. this is what your opponent told us last week.

Let's listen. I think it's another attempt to distract from the Trump administration's failures to address the real issues that are facing folks across this country, which is rising prices. We need our DEA agents doing their work to prevent fentanyl from getting into our communities across this country. We don't need them standing on the mall taking pictures with Horus, which is what the Trump administration has them doing now.

It makes no sense. What's your reaction? So my point just said we need to deal with real issues. And our response to him would be crime is a real issue.

It is something we have to deal with. But it doesn't surprise me that he would take that stance when he has a history of defunding the police and promoting a sanctuary policy that frankly has invited violent criminals into our communities. And so you've probably seen a couple of the scandals that rock the nation that people are looking at. But one was the abduction in broad daylight of a young kid at Fair Oaks Mall in our district.

So it is shocking to me that someone who represents our area can say that crime is not important. And also from a practical standpoint, anyone that works in D.C. or lives near there, which a lot of people in our community do, they know crime is a problem. Everyone has a story of a friend or themselves respected by crime.

And so this should be non partisan, making D.C. safe. Well, there's a lot of people that agree with that. And look, look, there's a dispute over the crime stats here in D.C.

certainly the local police union says that those crime numbers have been manipulated. The district attorney, though, has said that they're at a 30 year low. I did speak with community activists last week that welcomed this federal presence. But the question is, how long is this going to go on for?

Is this show of force really sustainable long term, or what can be done in order to increase resources to the police department instead of just deploying troops here? Because there has been some criticism, the National Guard troops, they are standing on national monuments. But that is not exactly where the crime is happening, as you know. Yeah, but you know, if you put National Guard in those areas, what does that do?

It frees up law enforcement resources to areas where they're needed. And so to me, that Seems like a practical, practical explanation. They don't want National Guard troops in a position where they're having to affect arrest. They want law enforcement officers to do that.

But they can't completely abandon the monuments instead of having the National Guard maintain presence there, keep it safe and putting the law enforce announcers in the communities where they need to be. And that's why community activists are loving this. And I'll say even we do have disputes over the crime data. There's a lot of underreporting.

There's actually a leadership in D.C. that's under investigation for under reporting. And so that's a problem. So everyone that works in D.C.

knows crimes is a problem to deal with. And again, this should be nonpartisan. Now, Governor Youngton, he said that President Trump has not asked him to send in National Guard troops From Virginia to D.C. if the president does ask him, should he?

Well, that'd be a decision for Governor Youngton to make. And I would guess if the president hasn't asked for that, he doesn't think he needs that. So. Well, the president yesterday of office, he talked about people being able to go out to dinner in D.C.

for the first time in two years that businesses are now getting all these reservations. According to data from OpenTable, though it's not the case. The reservations have plummeted after the federal takeover. Do you worry that all this could hurt the local economy or it sounds like what you're saying.

No, this will end up happening in the long run. But what do you say to the statistics from Open Table that actually reservations are down? I would say every business owner you talk to or whether it's a business owner, the people working in that business, they want the area around there to be safer first and foremost. And a safer communities will naturally lead to more people coming in.

Now, Election Day is just a few weeks away, as we mentioned. Would you want President Trump to come in and stump for you? Of course I welcome that. I welcome any leaders.

So Governor Youngkin has come up with a strong endorsement. Winsome Sears has come up with a strong endorsement. Jason Yarrez has come up with a strong endorsement. So I would welcome that in a heartbeat to have great leaders endorsing our campaign now changing gears just a bit.

Before we let you go, you testified earlier this year from Congress about DOGE and its efforts. Would you say that the Department of Government officials, would you say its efforts have been a success thus far? Yeah. So what I would say is, you know, first and foremost, we had an amount of reckless spending that was going on at the federal level.

That was unprecedented. And I think if most taxpayers assume that taxpayer money is being wasted, but only through the Doge effort were we able to see the kinds of things that was being wasted on. So $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru that does not affect the use of money. And that same radical transgender policy is actually igniting folks in our district as well because we see that the Fairfax County Public Schools report on as well.

When it comes to the end result, though, according to recent analysis by Polito, Dogecoino saved nearly $53 billion through July through canceling contracts. But only about 1.4 billion of that has actually been verified. Have the numbers been over inflated when it comes to touch? Well, I'm going to say 1.4 billion.

I'll take that over zero. And the other thing is, again, we got to back up. This is auditing the government. This is something we should welcome every agenc go in and actually audit and make sure we're not doing wasteful spending again.

We have to be good stewards of the taxpayers money and that's what they're trying to do. Stuart, we really appreciate your time here. The nominee for the Republican nominee for next month's special election here in Virginia. Thanks so much.

We're back tomorrow with more need to press now. There's more ahead on NBC News now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest.

The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook.

The Drink is always about the journey to the top. And this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.