Meet the Press NOW — August 20

If it's Wednesday, the path to peace in Ukraine faces new uncertainty as Russia appears to slow walk efforts to get President Putin and President Zelensky to meet face to face despite President Trump's push for direct talks. Plus, after weeks of delays and walkouts from Democrats, Texas House Republicans are officially poised to pass their redistricting plan, setting the stage for more states to follow suit as Democrats vow to fight fire with fire. And more national guardians are deployed to Washington as the president looks to tighten control over the district. And the Justice Department launches an investigation into whether local crime statistics were manipulated.

Welcome to me the press now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington where the next step in the Trump administration's effort to end the war in Ukraine remains unclear. At this hour, Moscow appears to be slow walking a potential meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky while also trying to insert itself into discussions about Ukraine's security. Now, one of President Trump's main objectives coming out of his sort summit, an anchorage into the White House, was to secure a leader level meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky.

And as recently as last night, President Trump appeared confident he could get it done. I had a very successful meeting with President Putin. I had a very successful meeting with President Zelensky. And now I thought it would be better if they met without me, just to see, I want to see what goes on.

You know, they had a hard relationship, very bad, very bad relationship. And now we'll see how they do and if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I'll go and I'll probably be able to get it closed. I just want to see what happens at the meeting. So they're in the process of setting it up and we're going to see what happens.

While President Zelensky says he's ready to meet with President Putin today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov appeared to throw cold water on the possibility of such a meeting, suggesting the talks at the highest level need to be preceded by lower level talks. First, Foreign Minister Lavrov also dismissed today's meetings among NATO defense chiefs to hash out potential security guarantees for Ukraine, saying discussions about security issues without the participation of Russia is a, quote, road to nowhere. It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will respond to Russia's apparent stall tactics, including whether President Trump will renew his threats of sanctions or other punitive measures against Moscow. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Albott.

In just a moment, I'm joined by NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell. Monica, let me start with you. So what is the White House saying about what we heard from Sergey Lavrov today? Well, I just got reaction from a White House official, Kristen, that essentially is saying they don't want to negotiate some of these details publicly or in the press.

And now that's notable because that can be read, obviously, as a message to all of this discussion that's really important that we're having. But also to Sergey Lavrov, who is trying to put some of these parameters out there that are different from what, according to the White House, President Putin had said to President Trump on the phone just on Monday. The White House is saying that he did commit in that meeting. They are at least saying that that was a conversation to at some point in the future meet with President Zelensky.

And that is different. That's a departure from what the Russian foreign minister is now saying. So that's really important here if that is indeed shifting. But this White House official also told me that his team are still working to continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials towards a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war.

So again, they're still working behind the scenes. We know that special envoy Steve Wyckoff had been tasked with some of the logistics with trying to see if he could identify a location that would work for this meeting that again, would just involve the Russian and Ukrainian presidents. And then President Trump, for his part, Kristen is saying if necessary, he would then join and there would be a trilateral summit. But that seems even very far away at this point because they can't agree on how they get to the first part, which is this meeting between Russia and Ukraine.

Yeah, it's such an important point, Monica. You know, we have heard President Trump get frustrated, quite frankly, with President Putin before, saying he's disappointed, even using stronger language as well. I had the opportunity to interview President Macron of France earlier this week who said that if there's no progress toward a meeting, he believes President Trump should move to impose sanctions against Russia. Do you have a sense of how long the president, the White House is willing to wait for this meeting?

Well, remember, heading into the Alaska summit, President Trump had said that if he wasn't happy with that conversation, there would be severe consequences, potentially sanctions for Russia. And certainly here we are as these negotiations continue and there's no sign of those sanctions. And there are others and experts who pointed out that even if you did have sanctions, would that really have much of an impact? In fact, that's something that we heard from even some Trump administration officials making that case, but of course saying that they still are trying to preserve a potential diplomatic path here to see if they can try to broker these conversations.

But you mentioned that question of timing, Kristen. It was President Trump who said he thought that these leaders, if they do come face to face, could do so in the next two weeks. Now, that's a familiar refrain from this president. Sometimes that just means as a placeholder until they figure it out.

But it's really unclear how long he could have this patience that right now he is holding for President Putin, saying that he does believe he wants an end to this war and does want to pursue a pathway to peace based off, he says, their conversation in Alaska. Andrea, let me turn to you now because we heard the optimism from President Trump coming out of his summit on Monday, all of the European leaders at the White House, President Zelensky at the White House, that strong show of force. And then today we hear from Sergei Lavrov, who seems to downplay the chances of a direct meeting, at least right now, between President Putin and President Zelensky. What do you make of where things stand?

Do you anticipate we could see that meeting in two weeks? I think it's very unlikely because what Lavrov is saying is that they have to have a role, Russia has to have a role in the security guarantees and how that force is composed, you know, which countries are involved, whether air support, ground support, what units are involved. Well, when I talked to Finland's president the night of the meetings, he said that's not up to them, that's up to us. And that's the European position.

Now, President Trump famously has wavered and has been more willing to make concessions, frankly, to Russia. Just in the last 24, 48 hours, Wykov and the president both saying that it's up to Ukraine to meet in the middle, to reach a middle ground with Russia. What concessions has Russia made? Russia is stretching this out and they're continuing to bombard Ukraine.

And it just seems that they're going to continue stretching it out. I would look to the Senate, to the possibility of Lindsey Graham, whom you talked to, and some of the other Republican senators who are going to be who are going to get frustrated if this continues too long because 85 senators have approved sanctions, secondary sanctions, and there's a waiver in there for President Trump to pull them back once they're approved, but at least starting when the Senate comes back, some action. If Vladimir Putin has not made any moves and the Europeans have been oppressed for action and Andrea, just to flesh out the interview a little bit more that you did on Monday, that show of force by top leaders of European countries, what was the significance? What do they think they achieved on Monday?

I think importantly Putin thought or hoped that he would divide the US and NATO and that show of force was a show of force for Ukraine and it was that Europe is united. Italy, a relatively conservative leader who is in the Trump camp showing the strong support. They view the fall of Ukraine to Russia as the beginning of a threat to their own existence, to Germany, to Poland, Estonia, finland with an 800 mile plus border. So they're not going to tolerate that.

But they don't have the firepower that the US has. So they need American intelligence, American air support, but not, as the President pointed out, American troops on the ground. That was always a non starter. But Putin just cannot have a veto over how that security force is comprised.

And this coalition of the willing, which is three countries, not some are NATO countries, but it's a separate unit, it's a separate composition. And they were co led by Canada's Marc Carney on Tuesday, the day after the summit here already planning and taking steps towards how this would be composed. And again saying that Russia can't be to it. And you lay out so well, Andrea, the implications for Europe more broadly, all of those other countries, President Macron telling me it's a credibility issue not just for the United States but for all of Europe.

It's something that could undermine the entire international order. Andrea? Monica, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for starting us off.

We really appreciate your reporting and your perspective. Joining me now is a Ukrainian Member of Parliament, Kyor Rudyk. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

Hello and thank you so much for having me. Well, no, these are incredibly difficult days and I wonder given what you have heard from Russia's foreign minister, both about the likelihood of a meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky and this idea that I was just discussing with Andrea, that he's saying that Russia needs to be a part of the conversation about Ukraine's security guarantees. What do you take from all of this and what we heard from Sergei Lavrov today? Tristan, this was exactly what we have been warning about when everybody was so happy about the meeting in Anchorage and then about the meeting in the White House, that all the threats and all the next steps need to come with a very firm timeline with again the threat that President Trump will be able to go ahead with that would include sanctions and perhaps some additional steps to pressure Putin.

We have not seen by this moment any single fact that would prove that Russia wants to end the war, is capable of a ceasefire, or has any ideas of making a deal. We just do not see it because all the actions are proving the contrary. Even right now, when we are speaking the air, it's irrelevant off in Kiev and throughout Ukraine, and we see that there is yet another drone attack. So Putin is definitely trying to escape the sanctions, and he will be dragging any kind of meeting on, and he will find all kinds of reasons not to move in the peace process forward.

Russia never gave up on any single thing that they were demanding in 2022. And right now, we didn't hear them changing their positions. They want to control Ukraine, or directly or indirectly, they want to influence our path to NATO and European Union. They want to have a say or veto on who will be defending Ukraine in future and what will be security guarantees.

So just tell me, like, what does anyone see as a change in their position? That is exactly what they had were the reasons why they have attacked us in 2022. And just to be very clear, as we have this conversation today, is it your sense that there is a meeting set up between President Zelensky and President Putin, or is it your sense that it's still very much in flux? President Zelensky has said that he agrees to the meeting and he would not stand in the way to peace.

We have not heard from anyone except President Trump that Putin is ready for this meeting, as we have heard President Trump saying that Putin told him so. But neither Kremlin, no representatives, nor any other representatives of Russia confirmed that this meeting can take place. Nobody. So right now, the feeling on the ground is that there will be different reasons to give Russia yet another month without sanctions, hoping that President Trump's patience will be stretching that long.

And what do you think should happen if there is not a direct meeting between President Zelensky and Putin? And I asked this against the backdrop of having spoken to President Macron of France, who said there should be sanctions imposed immediately. Is that how you see this? Yes, we see that the sanctions should be imposed both from the United States and from the European Union.

This year has been not successful in making threats, both from Europeans and the American leader in making threats and then going ahead with them to Putin, because it seems that he's able to give, like, some small moves and everybody will think, oh, this is the path to peace. Unfortunately, it is not. So there needs to be a clear path of what's going to happen. If Putin doesn't want peace, doesn't want ceasefire, something that we have been trying to get from the beginning of all this idea of peaceful negotiations, the sanctions, additional military support, and of course for the leaders to go ahead on the confiscation of Russian assets and using them for the sake of arming Ukraine and spending it on additional security matters, this is something that will hit Russia hard.

They have, they have been very clear that they don't want to give up on those money. But I see no other ways on pressuring Russia to a ceasefire or to meeting with President Zelensky or to anything else. In fact, rather than just feeding to the leadership of the United States the illusion that it is possible to end the war just by talking to Putin, to the extent that it's possible to poll people in your country, which is obviously in the midst of being attacked daily by Russia, a majority of Ukrainians, based on recent polling, do want to see an end to the fighting and end to this war. Let me ask you, because the reports are that President Putin is saying he wants to keep the battle lines where they are.

His agreement would be he wouldn't go any further into Ukraine. And then the United States is proposing, European allies are proposing in exchange for NATO like security agreements. Is that something that you would see as a good deal for Ukraine to basically freeze the front lines where they are, which essentially gives Putin even more territory than what he's actually claimed? You know, it's hard to, to talk about the polling, if you ask me.

I also want the war to end as soon as possible. I dream of it. But are we ready for the things that the war will become a war of our children? Absolutely not.

So of course the first thing should be the security guarantees and the people need to be able to trust them then to be talking about freezing, freezing the conflict at the battlefield lines right now. But I think if that would be possible. So having this NATO like security guarantees that people will trust not giving away any of Ukrainian territory that has not been captured by Russia and not having Russia any say in our future, I think that may be something that people will accept. Okay, thank you so much.

Please stay close. Your insights are so important. We really appreciate your joining us. Thank you.

And glory to Ukraine. Thank you so much. Coming up, any moment now. Texas Republicans are poised to deliver President Trump a major redistricting victory as Democrats try to throw up a last minute roadblock.

With the very latest on what's happening inside the Texas state capitol. Plus show of force, Vice President Van and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visit with National Guard troops on patrol in Washington as the administration faces intensifying backlash from residents over its federal takeover of the District's law enforcement. You're watching EAT THE PRESS now. Stay with us.

Welcome back. Any minute now we are expecting a vote in the Texas House of Representatives on a mid decade redistricting plan. They could give Republicans five more congressional seats as the president's party fights to retain control of Congress in next year's midterms. State Democrats have little power to block the new map from advancing even as they introduced amendments to delay it further, slamming Republicans for working at the behest of the president.

Legislative seats, be they in this chamber, in this building or in Washington, D.C. do not belong to politicians. They belong to the people of Texas. The impulses of outside politicians and their billionaire backers shouldn't dictate what we do in this chamber in this house.

We were sent here to work for the people of Texas, not them. Republicans, for their part, not denying the goal of the maps are to, quote, improve Republican political performance while accusing Democrats of shrinking their dirking their duty during their two week walkout which slowed down the legislation. So for 17 to 18 days you left. Now you're getting on a microphone saying, why didn't I involve you?

Well, I wasn't going across state lines to find you. I was here. You own the walkout. You said you did that.

But don't come into this body and say we didn't include you. You left us for 18 days and that's wrong. Joining me now is Josh Hinkle, host of the weekly politics show State of Texas on our NBC Austin affiliate, kxan. Also with me is NBC News national political reporter Ben Kamazar.

Thanks to both of you for being here. So, Josh, let me start with you. What are your biggest takeaways from what we've heard on the House floor today? There's been a lot of drama, a lot of back and forth.

What we've seen is Democrats getting back into the swing of things, really charging up to figure out what the fight is next. There's been a lot of amendments that have been filed today and all of them have been struck down. So it seems like the Democrats really don't have a chance at this point, are going to have to figure out what their next move is after the legislative process. Well, Josh, let me follow up with you on that point.

I mean, do they have a strategy to move forward? This seems like a loss for them. And yet obviously they have their sights set on Other states as well. Well, so much of what they're focusing on today has been about race and that's really what we're going to see with their strategy moving forward.

They are claiming that these maps, the ones that Republicans have drawn and are currently considering, are not going to. They're going to disenfranchise voters of color. And so we're going to see that play out in the courts. They're going to try to take this argum to try to get these maps struck down as unconstitutional, as illegal, and we'll see if that plays out.

But they have a timeline that comes in play as well because we have to get the next round of elections to think about and also the primaries, you know, so if there's any delays, we could see a possible delay in the primary here in Texas. Well, such a dynamic situation there. Ben, let me turn to you because speaking of the issue of legality, there's been so much discussion and debate about the legality of redrawing maps. We know the Supreme Court has weighed in.

What does the high court say? Yeah. So this is why that question about race is important. The court has said if you just look at the partisan nature and you're doing a partisan redraw, that's okay.

If you're just trying to improve Republican or improve Democratic results, that's okay. We'll get more dicey if you start looking into, you know, racial redistricting or stuff like that. So that's why Democrats want to push that conversation today. Republicans are being very clear.

No, no, no. This is strictly about Republican versus Democratic politics, Josh. I guess the question is, is the new map going to be a clear cut win, which is obviously what President Trump and Republicans are hoping for. Does it get murkier?

It could get a little bit murkier. They've been very careful to make sure that any inroads they're making with trying to gain five seats that they're not taking away any Republican voters that would be in Republican strongholds already. So so far what we've seen is Republicans feel like they're safe in the maps, but it really depends on how it plays out from this point forward. And Ben, just turning back to you, I mean, are there risks in redistricting mid cycle?

After all, some of the information is five years old that they're dealing with the census data. Yeah. There's sort of a joke of term. You talk about gerrymandering.

There's the risk of dummy mandering where you're doing this move and you Ultimately, it backfires on you because whether, you know, the composition of the people have changed or just the politics at all. You know, we were just talking about Republic kind of stuff floor here. Every incumbent got, you know, 10 plus seat. Donald Trump won that seat by 10 points.

That works in this current environment. If the electorate holds, it looks similar to how it looks before. If you look at a couple of these seats, they're more competitive back in the 2018 election cycle, 2020. So Republicans are looking forward.

They think their inroads with Latinos specifically are going to help them moving forward. They're just taking a bet that stuff isn't going to change in the future. Yeah. One of the extraordinary aspects of all of this, obviously, is we're not just talking about Texas.

We are talking about California, New York, potentially Illinois. You have the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, really at the forefront of the Democrats fight over this and saying, basically, okay, Texas, if you add five Republican seats, we're going to add five Democratic seats. How do you see this unfolding and who wins this arms race to find more seats? It's so difficult.

And obviously in California, they're in a compressed timeline. They want to get this to the voters. What they have to do is pass it to the legislature and then get it in front of the voters for referendum. But then it can, like you said, it's going to spiral.

It's a snowball. I think broadly, Republicans are in better shape because in a lot of their states where they might be able to do this, they have an easier glide and they can just bring this legislature back and vote on it versus Democrats and Democrat controlled states are hamstrung a little bit more by the state laws and procedures there. All right, and Josh, one more final one to you. How fast do you expect the governor is going to sign this bill into law?

I think it's going to be very fast if he can get it. But we still have a ways to get through this special session before we get to that point. So I think the rest of this week will probably play out as predicted. Democrats probably aren't going to do much when it comes to stopping this to go through.

But even if he doesn't sign it, I think that we're going to have to see how it plays out in the courts. We sure will. All right, we'll be watching. Joshar, thank you both for great conversation.

Really appreciate it. Up next, Israel is pushing forward with a new phase in the war with Hamas beginning a planned assault on Gaza City after calling up 60,000 reservists for the expanded military operation. We'll have the very latest. You're watching the press now.

Welcome back. In a show of support today from the Trump administration, Vice President J. Vance and defense expert, he visited with members of the National Guard deployed to patrol Washington, D.C. take a look.

We don't have to live like this. We do not have to allow our cities to be taken over by violence and by disorder and by chaos. You can actually do stuff. You can actually bring, you can actually bring law and order to communities.

You just got to have the political willpower to do it. Now this it comes as the National Guard expands its presence in the nation's capital, both in scale and numbers. Troops are now showing additional sites in the city, including metro stations, as six Republican governors order Guard members from their states to deploy. D.C.

meanwhile, two senior law enforcement officials confirmed NBC News that the Justice Department is investigating whether D.C. police manipulated crime data to make crime rates appear lower than they really were. That comes after President Trump claimed on social media that the District gave fake crime numbers in order to create a false illusion of safety. NBC News justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now.

Ryan, thank you so much for being here. So let's start with the fact the National Guard is now expanding. What it is doing here in D.C. what exactly does that mean?

What will it look like? We saw the presence of a union station nearby here and then, but they also apparently expanded beyond, as you saw that there was a metro. So it's gone maybe beyond sort of the tourist areas that people would expect. What the Trump administration has sort of argued is that by having that presence, you can offset and have other individuals in sort of, you know, areas of the city that might be considered more crime hotspots.

And they've obviously had a lot of federal officers to back up local patrol officers here. Yeah, they absolutely have. And a number of the National Guard members who are here are from other states. About how many?

And are we expecting more governors to send in their guards? Yeah, I was trying to do the math. I think maybe we could be potentially Approaching Thousands. Right, 2000.

It would be outside the realm here because you consider all the hundreds of officers, a lot of the guardsmen that all these various states are sending in, as well as the ones who are based in D.C. so in total, it could be that number down number. Those are shifts. So that's not going to be that many people out on the street all at once.

But I think the total scope of people could be in that ballpark. And what is the latest with this investigation the Justice Department is doing into whether local crime statistics have been manipulated, is there any evidence whatsoever to back that up? I mean, there was one individual case where an officer in one particular district had been accused of this, but not on a mass scale that they're sort of talking about here. And this is just this very unusual approach that we see from the Justice Department overall in which they are sort of announcing or leaking these investigations up front.

Right. This is not normally how this process works. It's not the criminal statute that necessarily fall under what the federal hook could potentially be here. So a lot of the details, I think, aren't quite there, but that certainly said that they want to get the message out that they're looking into.

And then Finally, Ryan, the U.S. attorney's office in Washington says it's no longer going to seek felony charges against people who are carrying rifles or shotguns. Why? Great question.

I think it's because, I mean, the Second Amendment considerations here in some of the Supreme Court decisions, there's a local law that has a ban on handguns, but that's, you know, quite a departure from what we've seen in the past. And there are still other ways potentially for them to prosecute crimes involving guns, of course, if they're used in violence. But, you know, are there a lot of people out there on the streets necessarily with long guns at the moment? Not necessarily so.

But if there's some sort of drug code, they could still prosecute it that way. So it doesn't take them off the table completely, but it is quite a departure for the U.S. attorney's office. All right, Ryan Reilly covering all the angles for us.

Really appreciate it. Great to see you. Thank you. We want to turn now back overseas where Israel is entering the first stages of its new offensive on Gaza.

The Israeli military announcing today that the planned offensive has begun after the country called up 60,000 reservists to take part in the operation. The renewed offensive comes despite strong opposition from both the international community and from many Israelis who are demanding an end to the nearly two year conflict. It also comes just days after Hamas announced that it accepted a ceasefire proposal mediated by Qatar and Egypt. NBC News correspondent Danielle Hamanjan joins me now.

So, Danielle, thanks so much for joining me. What does this first stage of the Gaza operation entail? Well, keep in mind that There are over 800,000 people living in Gaza City. This is the operation called Gideon's Chariots 2.

They've entered the first stages, the Israeli military says, and have a hold on the outskirts of the Gaza City. What this means is that we'll see the IDF intensifying strikes on Gaza City. They say that they will warn the population and allow them to evacuate from maneuver areas for their protection. So we will be seeing thousands of Palestinians go from northern Gaza to southern Gaza.

But, Kristen, when Palestinians hear the word evacuation, this is code word for permanent displacement, they fear that they'll never be able to return again. But at this point, you're not seeing the defiance we saw in the first weeks and months of the war because at this point, there's a question of survival, of food, of being able to feed their families. The you mentioned 60,000 reservists will be called up. Another 20,000 will have their service extended.

Emmanuel Macron, the French president has condemned the move. He said on on X that he spoke with his Egyptian and Jordanian counterparts. And he said the military offensive can only lead to disaster for both peoples and risks plunging the entire region into a cycle of perpetual war. Again, for Palestinians, this is not about stopping Hamas from regrouping, but potentially forcing the permanent displacement of Palestinians to occupy Gaza once again.

At least that's what the far right ministers, government have been calling for. And another angle to this that you're watching is Israel's approval of a settlement that could divide the West Bank. What can you tell us about that and the fallout from that so far? Yeah, this is the E1 settlement plan.

It's been very controversial for years. It's been a redline for the United States for many decades. But not now, not anymore. This was approved and made official today by the finance minister.

It cuts the west bank in two parts and isolates Jerusalem, making it virtually impossible to establish the state of Palestine. In the words of of the finance minister today. He says this is to bury the idea of a Palestinian state. He says it's another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea.

Needless to say, Christian has been widely condemned by countries around the world. All right, Danielle, thank you so much for that reporting. We really appreciate it. Good to see you.

Coming up after the breakdown, we're trying to find a rallying cry bow and to fight fire with fire against the Trump administration. But two key lawmakers warn the party needs more than outrage. It needs a plan. The panel's next.

You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Ten months after losing the 2024 presidential election, some top Democrats are starting to voice frustrations with upholding norms and playing by the rules. Take a listen to what TNC chair Ken Martin said last night when asked if Democrats would shut down the government to counter President Trump.

We cannot be the only one playing by the rules with a hand tied behind our backs. That old playbook, the norms that, you know, used to have guardrails on our democracy and protect all of us in this country, that doesn't exist anymore. We gotta throw that playbook out the window because the Republicans have. We cannot be the only party that's playing by the rules anymore.

Top Democrats of all strides are now saying they are ready for a fight on the terms set by President Trump and the Republican Party. It's our belief that we can't fight with one hand behind our backs because a lot of us caucus fight. I'm tired of fighting this fight with my hand tied behind my back. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we've got to beat fire with fire.

Joining me now is our great panel, Shelby Talent, White House correspondent for Semaphore, Anthony Coley, former Justice Department spokesman under President Biden and an NSC news contributor, and Sarah Matthews, former Trump White House deputy press secretary and spokesman for Home of Brave. Thanks to all of you for being here. Shelby, let me start with you. We are seeing this fight fire with fire strategy in a range of different areas, including this redistricting battle from Texas to California.

Do you think Democrats are starting to find their footing in this second Trump administration as they try to retool ahead of the midterms, the next presidential. I think they're certainly trying. Right. One thing that Democrats heard after the 2024 election from voters was they wanted more of a fighter.

And that's one of the reasons, I think, you know, Republicans will also say that they lost was because Donald Trump did things differently and it was successful. And it's taken Democrats a little to sort of accept that now. I think there's a long ways to go. Right?

There's, there's the redistricting effort. That is sort of step point five in a very long list of things I think Democrats need to do still in order to really get back in the game. They still don't have a core leader. They still don't necessarily always have a core message.

But this is sort of the start. You're starting to see agreement that maybe things need to be done differently to be successful going forward. Anthony, I want to play you something that Congressman Jonah Goose and Senator Michael Bennett said last night about the Democratic Party gets reaction on the other side. Do you have a sense that there is a Democratic master plan underway or in development?

Do you have that there's no one running to save us. I mean, there's not, you know, it's the folks in this room. Right? There is no panacea.

There's no master plan. I mean, I mean, I think the answer is no. That's what I believe. And I.

Anthony, does that message give voters hope? What do you think voters will take from that? Well, listen, I think it's important to know sitting here inside the Bell Bay, the state of Democratic Party, to be frank, it looks pretty dire, right? I mean, the favorability on the party is that your record lows.

You've got new people registering to vote for the first time. They're choosing the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. And then just this week, Politico reported that the is raising money at a 3:1 factor over the DNC. So those are like real problems.

But Kristen, if you take a step back and you get outside the Beltway, you see real energy among the Democratic base. There have been, and I think you all report on this, some 38 special elections since Donald Trump was inaugurated. Not the Democrats didn't win all those elections, but the Democratic candidate overperformed by a factor of 11 points. And that is real energy among the Democratic grassroots.

And I think going into a midterm election, I think that really worries a lot of Republicans, which is why we're saying, I mean, you just did a whole segment on redistricting in Texas that tells me they see the writing on the walls and they're now trying to gerrymander districts that have already been impressively gerrymandered. Right. So that's what's happening here, sir. What about that, do you think, in the gerrymandering fight, some Democrats say that he's making this point right now is about the fact that Republicans don't feel confident, confident in their agenda heading into the midterms.

What do you make of that? Is that a potential area of weakness? Yeah, I do think that they wouldn't need to redraw the maps if they weren't worried heading into 2026. And so that does kind of show their hand that maybe there are voters out there that are upset with the Trump administration because they've seen time after time, he's broken campaign promise after campaign promise.

He said that he would mandate ivf. He said he would release, I've seen files. He said he protect Medicaid. He said that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one.

He'd bring down grocery prices. I mean, I could keep going. And so I do think that they are worried. But the issue that I'm seeing with the Democratic Party is that for better, for worse, the Republicans do have a unified front.

You know what the Republican brand is and what the platform is. It is economic nationalism, strong borders, culture wars. But with Democrats, I think that the chasm between the progressives and the moderates is so wide that it's hard for them to articulate a unified vision. And that is going to be their going into 2020.

I think if you want to break the fever of Trumpism, I agree with you. You have to have two things. You have to have a message that resonates with the people you're trying to reach. You have to have trusted messengers.

And the Democratic Party isn't always in sync on either of those two things. Shelby, you know, you think about the messenger. We've been watching California Governor Gavin Newsom, who's taking on some of these fights, both when it comes to redistricting, saying to Texas, hey, if you want to add five Republican districts, we will add five Democratic districts. He's also taken to Twitter to try to hold up a mirror, his allies say, to show the country this is what it's like when President Trump tweets.

So you're seeing a lot of tweets from him in all caps, for example. He's trying to capture the tone of it. But can you out Trump, Trump, Is this a fool's errand or is it smart strategy? I think that's a big question because again, one of the reasons why half the country didn't vote for they don't like Trump and they don't like how he postures himself.

And so it's difficult to sort of become a caricature of Trump and then also garner those voters who didn't like what Trump was doing originally. I do think it is a form of fighting, but I also think that there's a lot more that can be done right. Voters, at the end of the day, just like the 2024 election, are going to be voting on kitchen table issues. Should Gavin Newsom be talking about the economy?

Should he be talking more about crime, about the cost of living? That's what won Republicans the election. And it's probably what's going to determine how the midterms go. So, Kristen, the biggest gap in the last election was the gap between news seekers and news receivers.

And while we saw people who actively turn into your program. Right. Or read the Washington Post, Fox News, they're informed voters and Donald Trump and Democrats and Republicans like they performed as you would expect amongst Voters. The biggest group of voters up for grass were the news receivers, people who didn't sign up to receive news on their devices, who gets news delivered to them via their algorithms.

And that is the group that Donald Trump dominated in 2021. That's the group that Gavin Newsom is trying to reach with his. With his hands. And it's fun to watch.

To his credit, yeah, I think that Gavin Newsom is fun to watch. It's fun for someone to feel like, hold a mirror to what Trump is doing and the way that he talks because he has become so desensitized and numb to it. And it's definitely making waves. And I feel like people feel like at least Gavin Newsom is fighting back.

And there hasn't been that energy in the Democratic Party. And so I think when you look at the Republican Party, you can see that they have a clear leader with Donald Trump and an heir parent with J.D. vance. But with Gavin Newsom, he seems to emerge as a leader.

You know, Shelby, one of the tactics that we're seeing from the Trump administration right now is this federal takeover of the nation's capital. You had the vice president, you had the secretary of def visiting National Guard troops who were stationed at Union Station. Could this backfire, though? I mean, President Trump is trying to say, I'm the law and order president.

Crime has gotten too high in D.C. do you think there's some real risk here, though? Absolutely. Just like with everything that Donald Trump does, he owns it at the end of the day in both a positive and a potentially negative way.

And so while the base might like what he's doing right now, there is a potential that it either goes too far or it goes on for too long, or they don't see the results that they're hoping to see out of this. And so, yes, if one or two things goes wrong or if he tries to perhaps expand beyond D.C. where the rules are obviously different in other cities, it could backfire on him. All right, guys, great conversation.

Thank you so much. Great to see you all. Shelby, Anthony, and Sarah, really appreciate it. Still to come, ballot box battle.

The Republican official who oversaw early voting. And one of the most important battlegrounds counties in one of the most important battleground states weighs in on the Trump administration's threat to do away with mail and voting. We'll delve into that. You're watching Meet the Press now.

Welcome back. As Republicans gear up for a fight over control of Congress, President Trump said this week he plans to sign an executive order to get rid of mail in ballots in certain voting machines. We should know. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to vote by mail, according to survey data.

Now, in a lengthy post on social media, the president falsely decried mail in ballot against fraudulent and called certain voting machines inaccurate. He also incorrectly claimed that the US Is the only country that uses mail in voting. The president repeated those false claims in the Oval Office. Election experts like those at Brennan center for justice have long said that mail in voting is secure against fraud and tampering and that wrongdoing is exceptionally rare.

And it's important to note that President Trump and the Republican Party encouraged the use of mail in ballot in 2024. And Mr. Trump has in the past voted by mail himself. Additionally, while President Trump claims he can make states change their voting procedures by signing executive order, the Constitution gives states the power to control elections, not the president.

And only Congress can change that. Joining me now is Stephen Richard. He ran the voting system in Maricopa County, Arizona as the county reporter and is now an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Thank you so much for joining me, Mr.

Richard. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. So let's start with these claims by the president over the safety of voting machines and mail in ballots.

You were in elections officially. What do you make of these allegations by the president? Just somehow we haven't moved on. Despite the fact that Republicans pushed for mail in voting in 24, despite the fact that Trump himself and Don Jr.

Said you should get out there and you should vote by mail if you want to. Despite that and despite President Trump's victory, we're still having these same conversations, every one of which has failed in any court of law and which continues to be the subject of defamation suits from the various tabulation companies that have been able to successfully sue Fox and excuse me, and Newsmax and others. And so it's very frustrating because we just can't seem to get through this. And so just bottom line, for folks who are watching this, is mail in voting safe?

Mail in voting is safe. It gets better every single year. But we've had it in the United States since the Civil War and we've been iterating on that process. There are multiple layers of checks.

For instance, all mail in ballots have a barcode assigned to them that assigns to your individual voter profile. There has to be signature verification done on your ballot affidavit envelope. And of course, this is all being handled by bipartisan teams that are subject to post election audits and post election litigation. This is frustrating because Republican lawyers know this President Trump undoubtedly has access to this information, and yet he continues to go on and undermine people's competence in this process.

I don't know to what ends. Again, it worked out pretty well for him in 2024. It doesn't seem like he should try to fix a system that's not broken. Well, and let me just read for everyone what the Constitution says about this.

This is Article 1, Section 4. It says the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature. There are thereof. But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

So does the president actually have the power to tell states to do anything when it comes to voting? No, as you point out, it says the Congress, not the president. And this is being litigated right now with respect to the president's March Executive Order on Election administration. But setting the legality aside, I would also just point out that we Republicans have long cherished the notion of federalism, that government should be determined at the closest level possible.

And states have long had different voting policies, such that the state law of Oregon doesn't look like the state law of Georgia, and elections are administered differently in those states. And we've celebrated that. And here's President Trump, who wants to wipe away those pesky states and wants to federalize elections. And I think that if you take took President Trump's name off to some of these comments, then Republicans, my people, would be up in arms over the federal government takeover.

Well, and what if President Trump were to try to pass something by executive order? What would happen in that case, given what's in the Constitution? Would there be almost immediate legal challenges? There would undoubtedly be immediate legal challenges.

There would be requests for temporary restraining orders. There would be requests for injunctive relief. But what I'm worried about is the ongoing damage to people's competence in the system. What I'm worried about is if Democrats retake the House by a few seats.

And President Trump has been building this narrative once again that you can't trust mail in voting. Oh, and guess what? California has all mail in voting. So therefore, what we shouldn't say seat U.S.

house members from California. I worry we're building up to something that extreme, and if not that, then we could just be in the position that we were after the 2020 election in which one third of the population believes that the election was stolen. And that's not healthy for the United States. You have been incredibly outspoken about this.

We haven't heard much yet from other election officials. Why do you think that is? Do you expect that to change at all? Well, I was kindly removed in the Republican primary in 2024 after running in that office for four years.

And I would say it's unfortunately really bad politics right now if you're a Republican to disagree with anything that Donald Trump says, even if it's as flagrantly wrong as the notion that other states or other countries don't use mail in voting, when a 5 second Google search disproves that. And so but that's the, that's the state of the Republican Party world and it's a sad state. And I, I keep speaking out because I think that the truth is important. I think this is critical to our form of government.

And so I hope that more speak out. All right. Stephen Richards, always great to have your perspective. Thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you. Appreciate it. We're back tomorrow with more MEET THE Press now. There's more news 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.