Meet the Press NOW — August 21

You have a reason to care. You know someone. You've lost someone. You've lived it.

The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge. From May 25th to 29th, Canadians are waking up with a sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun, show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health.

Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca. That's sunrisechallenge.ca. If it's Thursday, Texas Republicans deliver a major win for the President voting on legislation to help Republicans maintain control of Congress by gerrymandering the state as California Democrats prepare to strike back and the lines are getting blurry in more ways than one. Plus, Russia launches a major assault on Ukraine involving hundreds of drones and missiles that led to NATO jets being scrambled as the Kremlin digs in and pushes to delay potential peace talks with Ukraine.

And fed up, President Trump steps up his campaign to overhaul the Federal Reserve accusing a fed governor of mortgage fraud and demanding that she resign as Chairman Jerome Powell prepares for a high-stakes address of an economic and political turbulence. Welcome to Meet the Press now and Peter Alexander here in Washington as the President tries to rewrite the rules to help Republicans to keep control of the levers of power here in Washington, starting in Texas where the state's Republican-controlled House answered his call to pass new gerrymandered congressional maps that could give Republicans five more seats in Congress in the 2026 midterms. Those maps were expected to sail through the Texas Senate could happen as early as later today. They could land on Governor Greg Abbott's desk for his signature by the end of this week.

Texas Democrats who temporarily delayed the effort to remember by fleeing the state, they slammed their Republican colleagues after the vote pledging to fight on. You have watched Republicans go to every length possible, use every trick in the book, throw everything in the kitchen sink in order to do what they are told, what they are told by Donald Trump, what they are told by the Washington insiders, and what they're told from the billionaire bosses. It's not just a power grab, it's the fact that because they're going to lose they want to pick up more votes, but it's the way they're going about it by dismantling black and brown districts. The next battlefield is the courts and we will win there.

And then we take the battlefield to the ballot box. Like President Trump, Texas Republicans have been quite transparent about their political ambitions during this entire process, calling it a mission to quote, improve Republican political performance. This is what the state representative Todd Hunter who wrote the legislation that created the new maps said just before its house. What's wrong with Republicans standing up and Republicans stepping up and Republicans being honest what you don't like, which is Supreme Court says we can use political and partisanship to do congressional redistricting.

In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering was beyond the reach of the federal courts leaving the issue to the states and to Congress. The president's focus on Texas has ignited something of a redistricting arms race at this point. You've got California Democrats who are moving as fast as they can to counter Texas with a proposal to redraw their districts to neutralize the Republican gains in Texas as Governor Gavin Newsom calls on his party to quote fight fire with fire. Today the California Assembly passed the first of three bills that will put new congressional maps before voters this November ahead of next year's midterms.

Meanwhile, President Trump is encouraging several other Republican states to gerrymander their maps while at the same time threatening to change how people can vote in ways that would benefit Republicans. It all comes as early polling suggests voters prefer a democratic controlled Congress. We want to get right to the latest from the redistricting battlegrounds. Ryan Chandler is there for us at Austin, Texas.

Dana Griffin is following the latest from California. You guys are busy these days. A lot of moving parts. Ryan, Texas is Senate.

They're expected to vote later today. Are we expecting the kinds of hold-ups on the floor that we had seen in the House? What are people looking at in terms of how this plays out? We're not, Peter.

This process is going to move very quickly now that it's through the House. That was the highest procedural hurdle that this bill had. Democrats had a lot more leverage in that chamber to at least all this legislation. The Senate's a seam roller and Republicans run that chamber very efficiently, so we expect the governor is going to sign this bill potentially by the end of this week, Peter.

And so let's talk about the Democrats for a second. They have said they plan to challenge this in the courts. How soon could we expect to see that happen? What is the sort of horizon for the court process?

I mean, clearly this is going to be resolved before the midterms, so it just sort of delays if anything, no? I expect litigation to come very quickly after the governor signs this bill. That is whatever indication from all the Democrats I've spoken to. That's what it points to when it needs to come quickly, because these maps need to either be in place or not.

Well ahead of the March primaries, so that potential candidates know what districts they're going to run in. So Democrats have considered raising legal challenges under racial concerns, potentially under the Voting Rights Act, depending on what kind of legal question they want to raise. They could either see themselves in front of the Texas Supreme Court, which is not friendly Democrats, no Democrats on the court, in fact. Or if they choose the Voting Rights Act, that could land in federal court in the Fifth Circuit, which is also very conservative.

So not a friendly legal battlefield ahead for Democrats, but it's the one option they have not. What are some of the areas that are most impacted by these new maps? For those who are watching and don't really get this conversation when you talk about redistricting, you're talking about a way to sort of make the map with all these odd shapes where you can put one part of a district next to a different part of another and shrink it into a shared district in some way, which can, for the sake of the Republicans in Texas, allow them to sort of take advantage of places where they have larger populations and capitalize on places, frankly, where the Democrats have larger ones as well. Let me give you two real world examples.

Congressman Al Green was here last night protesting this and the rotunda behind me because this is personal to him. He's represented the ninth congressional district in Texas in the Houston area for 20 years, the last election where he even had a challenger. He won by 53 points, not with 53 percent, by 53 points. It was his district to keep for as long as he wanted.

Now congressional district nine is a Trump plus 20 district. It was drawn all the way out into the Houston excerpts and essentially will be impossible for him to win now. So that's one Democrat that is drawn out. You have another one, Greg Cassar, representing here in Austin in a district that is very blue, drawn between Austin and San Antonio.

His district is now a Trump plus 10 districts, so if he wants to stay in Congress, he's going to have to challenge Lloyd Doggett here in Austin. Only one of them can return in the new district 37. So this is personal for a lot of the Democratic congressman here protesting this year. Yes, you know, pitting some Democrats against other Democrats in this process as well.

Ryan Chandler, we appreciate your continued reporting there. Dana, let me ask you about the situation in California, the governor. Gavin Newsom says he's acting to counter what we're watching in Texas, but California's process to redraw the maps, it's notably more complicated. Walk us through the key steps there.

Yeah, it's very complicated, Peter. And so California voters gave the responsibility to redraw maps to the independent redistricting commission back in 2010. So in order to change that process, they have to put it to voters again. So that's what's happening today here at the state Capitol.

All makers are voting on a trail of bills to try to establish a special election and to also fund it. And so we got some movement, as you mentioned earlier, one of those bills have passed the assembly. It's not heading over to the Senate. And they're kind of doing this back and forth.

We've been told that lunch has been brought in for both chambers, which is a sign that this may go on past noon. It's already past noon, but it may go on for at least a couple more hours. And you know, it's one of those things where, you know, if they pass it today, which is likely to happen, Governor Gavin Newsom wants to sign it immediately. Peter, so then only walked through this a bit.

We're hearing from the Republicans there. They've already tried one legal challenge shot down by California's Supreme Court. What is what is their position on this right now? Yeah, so they held a press conference this morning, and they said, Hey, we are not fleeing the state.

We're not doing any dramatic moves to try to halt the vote, but they say they are going to continue their battle in the court system. And listen to what else they said today for fighting fire with fire. What happens? You burn it all down.

The people's right to representation is exactly what will be sacrificed when we continue down this road. But after you do it, Missouri does it. The other does it. Colorado is talking about doing it.

At the end of that, the parties will determine who represents and the people will be powerless to represent to elect their own representatives. So that's a silly member James Gallagher there, the leader here, the minority leader here, and he says that they will be pushing voters once this passes, which is likely going to happen to vote no for this measure, regardless of which party you belong to, Peter. So then let's walk through this a bit because this is what you need to California. Ultimately, they're it's going to be left up to the voters.

Are they open to it? Is there early polling in the vote? This is going to be a true special election in an off year. That's a big deal.

Can turnout play a factor there? Where is the energy? Absolutely. So I think with any with multiple elections, voter turnout obviously plays a major role.

But in California, we're in the last election. 46% of voters were registered Democrats. We're as only 24% were registered Republicans. They would need all the independents plus a nice huge chunk from Democrats to vote no on this.

And so I think we're at the place now where voters are kind of wondering, where am I going to lean? And over the next several weeks and months, you're going to see a lot of politics here in California. You've already seen the former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposing this. But then you've had former president Barack Obama calling this a responsible move.

So it can go either way. Peter. Dana Griffin there for us in Sacramento, California. Dana, thank you.

As we mentioned, President Trump is testing the limits of his power and influence to help Republicans in next year's midterm elections. And he is making no secret about it either. He posted on social media late last night, quote, end mail-in voting and go to paper ballots. 100 additional seats will go to Republicans, he says.

Important note that the president cannot unilaterally end mail-in voting. It's safe, reliable, and was used extensively in the 2024 election, which by the way, President Trump won. The Republican Party and President Trump even encouraged its use, and Mr. Trump has in the past voted by mail himself.

But ending mail-in voting, if the president got his way here would disproportionately hurt Democrats. This is from Pew. 43 percent of votes for Democratic candidates in the 2024 election were cast by mail or absentee ballots. That was boosted by Western states, including California that rely heavily on mail-in balloting.

Compare that to just 25 percent of all votes for Republicans that were cast by mail or absentee ballots. Joining me to keep this conversation going on set, Marianna Sotomayor, congressional reporter for the Washington Post. Former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards, she is also an NBC News political analyst. And former Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Cribello, he is also an NBC News political analyst.

So, first of all, thanks for being here as we talk about this right now. I was struck by what we heard from the Republican Congressman or lawmaker I should say in California right now saying, hey, at the end of the day, if it starts here and it's going to go there and there, that's sort of the same case that the Democrats are making right now. So, in some ways, they're all making the same argument, and this arms race, as we describe it, becomes potentially problematic to the way our democracy works. Let me ask you about this for a second, Marianna.

We talk about the redistricting push, we talk about the president's push to try to get rid of mail-in ballots right now. In fact, they share a common thread, which is the president's desire kind of to put his finger on the 2026 elections, no? Absolutely. And listen, the president, what we have been reporting is the fact that he does not want to one clearly see a House Democratic majority, the House has more of a pathway to flip than the Senate.

And the reason why is because he doesn't want to be impeached, he doesn't want to be necessarily have his own administration under investigation in the many ways the Democrats already pledged. They would do that. So, we are seeing a lot of this politics going around, and there are a lot of conversations happening about other states, Republican states being able to redraw their maps. I think one thing that is important here is that House Republicans, US Congress Republicans, they've been pretty quiet, barely heard from the speaker Mike Johnson, despite him only tweeting and saying the California shouldn't be doing this.

He has not said the same about Texas. And many of those Republican lawmakers, including some in Indiana, are, again, despite them not putting up against Trump and going against him, there are fears that their districts are going to become likely more competitive or just not easy to win. Well, to the point that you make right there, right? You're hearing Mike Johnson not so much talking about this.

He's not really talking about the real message the Republicans thought they'd be leaning into, which is the big, beautiful bill. There's conversations about changing the branding of the big, beautiful bill, even now. When you're fighting about the process, Mariana, they say you're not winning on the issues themselves. Is this about a lack of messaging for the Republicans that they're now sort of fighting this battle?

Yeah, it's interesting. I feel like we're already hearing from the White House. They want to rebrand. It's almost like this one big, beautiful, rebrand that Republicans are trying to put out there.

The president's language, by the way, the big, beautiful bill. This is the way he wanted to frame. Exactly. And what now they want to call this, as in touted as is, hey, it's a working-class tax bill that does sound better.

But the fact that they are just coming out now and trying to, you know, reposition this, and obviously not talk about redistricting, it is putting congressional Republicans in a really tight spot. And frankly, again, publicly, they're not saying much, but privately, they are worrying about this. Do you know what those town halls look like, Carlos? You've been there.

You've probably heard some loud voices on all sides of some of these different issues. Let me ask you one of the things the president's saying. This is another true social post. That's his favorite megaphone, right?

He said this morning, if we do these two things, end mail-in voting and institute paper ballots, we will pick up 100 more seats in the crooked game of politics is over. I'm struck by that language. I'm saying it wants to end the game of politics. What do you make of that statement, right?

The political process has existed for hundreds of years here. And despite a lot of criticism of our politics, it's the way our democracy works. Right. Well, Peter, first, let's say, and let's just recognize the obvious here.

President Trump and Republicans have not invented the practice of trying to gain political advantage through gerrymandering, through changing some voting rules. That's happened for a long time, and it's come from both sides. I think what's shocking about it this time, and what's perhaps different or extraordinary, is that it's mid-decade. I mean, these are fights that we typically have, and there's an understanding that we have these fights after the census is completed, after the district are re-atturbed.

How many people live in these different places? Exactly. The fact that it's happening at such an extraordinary time is drawing a lot of attention to it. And look, this is going to have a massive spillover effect outside of Texas and California.

And I think long-term, and looking at next November, the president is probably putting a lot of Republicans in a vulnerable position, because this is achieving something that looked a few weeks ago, like it'd be very hard to do, which is to excite Democrats, right, to get them excited and motivated, a base that's been pretty depressed now for a while, especially after the election. So, I think that short-term, obviously, the president's trying to gain as much of an advantage as possible for his party. Long-term, looking at next year's elections, this might be a net loss. Do you read this as evidence that the Republicans, the president, and his forces on the hill, are anxious about what their chances look like coming up next?

Listen, they should be. I mean, not, and this isn't unique to them. Right. Anytime one party has a trifecta, usually they lose the house in the next election.

So if history's any guy, I mean, they should be worried. And it makes sense to try to, you know, within the rules, try to gain as much of an advantage as possible. I have a sense that the average voter, the average swing voter is probably thinking, this is too much. They're trying to change the rules in a way that's unfair.

The Democrats have been saying to the alarm about Donald Trump for what are we more than a decade at this point, right? Since he came down, the escalator in Trump Tower in New York City, right now, the DNC chair called him a fascist. I think just a matter of days ago. What is the effect of message for Democrats right now?

This is energized in some way, but is this where the message should be? Well, look, I mean, I think that there are ways to fight this president on a number of fronts. The redistricting front, I think, is one. It's really clear to me that if there is going to be an escalation, if Republicans are going to do that in Texas, Democrats are going to respond in California, in my home state of Maryland, in New York.

And so there will be other opportunities. And I do think Carlos is right that they might find themselves Republicans winning in the short term, but in the long term, I just don't really see that this is a winner. And as a reminder that in addition, although we're used to doing this kind of thing over a decade, Trump is also trying to change the rules on the census on who can be counted or not. And so he's looking down the line at 2030 as well.

And I think Democrats have to continue to point that out to voters and to fight this president. So let me pull back the curtain a bit, though, go back to my initial question, which is Donald Trump isn't supposed to be on another ballot right now, right? He's not allowed to run again in 2028, unless there's some funny business that takes place and maybe tries to put himself on the bottom of the ticket there. The Democrats is at their own risk.

The Democrats make everything about Donald Trump right now. Well, there's a short term argument, right? 2026. Well, 2026 is about Donald Trump.

You go to 2028. There are going to be new cast of characters out there, but this naga movement is not going to disappear because Donald Trump is no longer on the ballot. And so there will still be opportunities, I think, for Democrats to really challenge what's going on in this country. And it's a reminder to us that the reason that the Congress is silent is because Donald Trump drives the agenda.

And his agenda is not necessarily the agenda of congressional Republicans. And I think Democrats have to keep that in mind. Carlos and others who were watching today were expecting Donald Trump to join the National Guard or some DC police that have been federalized right now, whether it's a ride along or going to thank them today, it follows up on JD Vance, the Vice President alongside the Defense Secretary going to Union Station just in the shadow of where we have this conversation right now yesterday. What do you make of that move right now?

To a lot of people, certainly in DC, they're not happy with the federalization of DC police. Is this a net positive for the president? Is this an issue that people are embracing the way he's handled it? Well, Peter, this issue law and order and immigration are the president's two favorite issues.

It's where he feels most comfortable and he knows his base really appreciates and applauds his engagement on these issues. This is a base play to get the base united strong. Obviously, the whole Epstein issue was disruptive to that base. So I think the president's really focused on that.

A lot of times though, focusing so much on the base means a cost with swing district voters, right? With swing voters in key districts. And again, that's why I think that a lot of these strategies while in the short term, they might seem to make sense for Republicans. I think as we look ahead to November of 26, there are a lot of voters who might say, this is too much.

We need to check this president because he's expanding his style. We do think it's going to be a little bit too much. Last thought, Donna, too really quickly, is the president overstepping by trying to do this right now? Is he playing his cars a little bit too far?

Look, I think he is. I mean, people have long been concerned, both independent Democrats really concerned about President Trump and his authoritarianism. And this move on the District of Columbia actually illustrates that. And I think it's going to backfire.

All right, we're going to be watching very on. Appreciate you're being here. Don't always nice to see you, Carlos. My friend, good to have you here as well.

And coming up, the Kremlin, casting new doubt on the Russian Ukraine peace talks that President Trump is pushing for after a top Putin official questioned the legitimacy of Zelensky's very presidency. We're going to get the view from the White House. That's next. Plus, turns out the snack that smiles back is cold, hard cash.

We have the details after top advisor to New York City Mayor Eric Adams was suspended from his reelection campaign for allegedly giving a reporter, this is true, a potato chip bag full of cash. That's true. We're going to explain it. You're watching the press now.

This one is nuts. No monthly fees on a savings amplifier account from this helpful bag. What is BMO? I'll try BMO for 500 competitive interest rates or just another way.

This bank helps her savings go further. My gut says BMO. BMO is correct. Wow, this game is really easy.

You can say that again. Drifting conditions apply visit BMO.com slash cash. Good night, everyone. Welcome back for a second straight day.

Russia is signaling it is in no rush to set up a meeting between President Putin and Zelensky despite the push by President Trump for the two leaders to meet face to face today. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov laid out Moscow's latest conditions for such a meeting questioning whether President Zelensky has the authority to negotiate an agreement on behalf of Ukraine. It's a longstanding Kremlin propaganda talking point that Zelensky is not the legitimate president of Ukraine because Zelensky's term would have normally expired last year, except for the fact that Ukraine is still under martial law because of Russia's invasion. It hasn't had new elections.

Meanwhile, Russia is continuing its aerial bombardment of Ukraine. According to Zelensky, overnight Russia launched nearly 600 drones and some 40 missiles across Ukraine, even hitting an American owned factory in Western Ukraine, 15 people injured there. Zelensky condemned the attack saying that there is still no sign that Moscow is going to engage in meaningful negotiations to end the war. Joining me now is my colleague at the White House.

Monica Aldermanica, I was over there a short time ago, we were talking about this very issue. And for all the urgency we saw in recent days after the Putin meeting with the Europeans and Zelensky at the White House now, it feels like we're sort of in that stall period to some degree. Are you getting the sense from the White House that there is some frustration perhaps with the Russians that this isn't moving more quickly toward a face to face? Well, I have to tell you, Peter, it was a week ago that we were in Alaska covering that meeting and coming out of it.

You're exactly right, President Trump said his goal was to set the table for the next meeting, for that potential meeting between presidents Putin and Zelensky. And then a trilateral meeting that would include President Trump as well. But now we're getting both some mixed signals and some notable silence on this topic, exactly what they are thinking about that bombardment of an American business you just mentioned or the comments from the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today, pouring cold water on any kind of meeting. You're just not hearing any kind of response on either of those from the White House.

And they did say yesterday that behind the scenes that's really where the effort is that those Russian and Ukrainian officials are still in contact trying to potentially plan a meeting and that much of those logistics are actually being brokered by the United States. So even if we're not getting a lot of public progress, the White House claims that they are making some progress. Again, they insist on this privately, but there are some real questions about the timing of all of this, Peter. And I think that given the fact that you had the European leaders at the White House earlier this week, and again, there seemed to be a little bit of momentum, that has really slowed now at this point, we can say.

Monica, President Zelensky said today that there needs to be increased pressure on Moscow, including stronger sanctions, tariffs. Does the White House view it that way? Is the president open to renewing his threats or even imposing those secondary sanctions on Russia? Remember, the reason we had that summit with Putin in part was because there had been a deadline only a week earlier for those secondary sanctions to go into effect.

Now, there is no deadline in no new sanctions. Exactly. And heading into the Alaska summit, President Trump had said there could be severe consequences in the form of those sanctions or other measures. But then now everything appears to be in a holding pattern while these negotiations continue.

The White House says that that's an option that they will still reserve that they could still use. We know there has been a little bit of movement on Capitol Hill, and certainly maybe when the Senate returns in the short term, they may take this out. There could be a bill that would slap additional sanctions on Russia. But even Trump administration officials have said, Peter, that they're not sure that that that would have much of an impact because in the past they haven't.

So there's also this narrative that even if they did them, what would it mean? And then also, you do have the White House right now saying we want to let diplomacy play out, and they claim and they're still hopeful they can push for that. Monica, we appreciate your reporting. Thank you very much.

We want to bring in Richard Haas, the president of Aratus at the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard, it's good to talk to you here. Can you help pull back the curtain for us a little bit? I want to get your reaction to these recent comments from the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

It feels for those of us covering it like he's just throwing up roadblocks left and right that would delay anything from changing the situation on the ground, postpone any potential meeting with Zelensky and Vladimir Putin. Well, Peter, it feels like he's throwing up roadblocks because he is throwing up roadblocks. The Russians aren't serious about wanting peace. They want to prosecute the war.

They think the time is on their side. They can wear down Ukraine. The only thing that surprises me at all is it's so clumsy. It's so heavy handed ruling out this without security assurance, setting preconditions for meeting with President Zelensky that they won't achieve their goal of having a breakdown of diplomacy blamed on Ukraine.

So to me, the only really interesting question is now what the United States does. Where are the severe consequences for Russia? And sanctions aren't the severe consequence, to be honest. The severe consequence is a clear, open-ended American commitment to Ukraine's defense, military aid, intelligence, what have you.

We'll see if that is forthcoming. So let's talk about that. The severe consequences you make an important point there, right? The President, remember, he said before he met with Vladimir Putin, he said, hey, I'm going to be unhappy if there is not a ceasefire here.

Not only was there not a ceasefire, he actually then embraced Vladimir Putin's view, which is they should go straight to a peace deal. It's not clear why a ceasefire would be an obstacle to a peace deal. But then in terms of those severe consequences, you mentioned the potential for some military engagement here by the United States. The President has said it's not going to be boots on the ground.

He embraced, would be open to a European peace keeping force there. What is the U.S. do you think in a position that it could or should do here? Is it military air support?

Is that enough? Is it some sort of command position overseeing what's going on in Ukraine in terms of peacekeeping force? Do the Russians feel like there's a real teeth? I think all that's wildly premature because there's no peace to keep and we're not going to put boots on the ground or planes in the air while a war is going on.

If we're serious, we will provide Ukraine the means it needs to defend itself and to bring to the cost of war to Russia. I also think Peterson, she alluded to it, the President made a tactical error by buying Putin's approach. We should go ceasefire first. Trying to get a peace agreement is so difficult, so complicated.

Again, it's a recipe for simply prolonging this war. The United States should have stuck to it, try to get a clean ceasefire and keep open the possibility of diplomacy to address the so-called final status issues down the road. But essentially, we fell into Putin's trap here. We've repeated this point a million times by now, right?

But the President said that he could have this war wrapped up maybe even before he took office. He said it would be so easy to do. Now he acknowledges how hard and complex it all is right now. How concerned should Zelensky, the Ukrainians, the Europeans be about the possibility at some point that Donald Trump sort of just walks away from these peace talks.

He said, hey, you know, I did what I could. It's up to them to figure it out from here. It shouldn't be concerned that he walks away from peace talks. Again, you need a partner, Russia's not a partner.

The real question is whether he walks away from supporting Ukraine's defense. That's the big issue. If he stands by Ukraine, he will actually increase the odds he could get the ceasefire and one day the peace that he wants. So it's very much in his hands.

He's got the right goal. Don't get me wrong. The problem is the way the President is going about it. He's undermining even sabotaging his own goal.

Of course, he's not doing enough to persuade Putin that more war will not be to Russia's advantage. And what message does this end to the rest of the world, specifically China, vis-a-vis, Taiwan and beyond? We can't watch this in a vacuum, can we? Absolutely not, as big as the States are for Ukraine and for Europe.

You're right. The stakes are global. If we show that people can acquire territory by force and get away with it, this will hardly be the last such case. It's why we went to war against Iraq 30 years ago.

It's why we should stand by Ukraine now and part to deter China from moving against Taiwan. Richard, I've benefited a lot from your expertise as I've been reporting this out a little bit. Let me pull back the curtain sharing that with the audience. Help me, though, as we go for it.

What worries you? What, as you look, at the horizon right now, what worries you about what we're witnessing taking place right now between Russia and Ukraine? Probably the biggest thing that worries me is the United States will wash its hands. And we are just discussing it, not just diplomacy, but of the war itself.

And then Russia could bring too much debate. It's got too much scale, too much population, too much defense industry. So to me, we can't get bored with this. We can get short of breath.

We've got to stand by Ukraine, not to liberate all of its lands, but to defend itself. And one day to persuade, however lucky he may be, Vladimir Putin that he's got to accept the ceasefire, because the costs of war are simply becoming too great for Russia. And as you said, the ramifications are much wider just in that region and how they affect the rest of the global community as well. Richard Hosmer, the very latest Richard, I appreciate your expertise on all these topics.

Thank you. We turn now to the Middle East, where Israel's widely anticipated offensive to seize Gaza City is now underway. Large plumes of smoke were seen over Gaza City forcing civilians, many of whom have already been displaced to once again flee the area. The largest escalation is drawing international condemnation, as well as concerns within Israel that the offensive could endanger the lives of the remaining hostages still held there in Gaza.

In a video statement today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has approved the military's plans to take over Gaza City and defeat Hamas, while simultaneously he says ordering immediate negotiations to secure the release of the hostages and end to the war, and an end to the war on terms acceptable to Israel. Earlier this week, Hamas said it accepted a proposal from Arab mediators for ceasefire in Gaza and a release of some hostages. The initial number was about 10 of those still living, though Israel has yet to respond to that latest proposal. Next, right here, President Trump's feud with the Fed takes a new turn accusing an official with the central bank of mortgage fraud and pressuring her to resign.

Don't go anywhere, you're watching to meet the press now. Welcome back to The Answer Is BMO! I'm on, the board is yours. I'll take BMO for 300.

You'll find no monthly fees on a savings edifier account from this helpful bank. What is BMO? I'll try BMO for 500. Competitive interest rates are just another way.

This bank helps your savings go further. My gut says BMO. BMO is correct! Wow, this game is really easy.

You can say that again. Terms and conditions apply visit BMO.com slash cash. Good night, everyone. Stay informed with the NBC News app.

Breaking News is just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows.

Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.

Welcome back to me. The press now is President Trump continues to pressure the federal reserve to cut interest rates. His latest target is a Fed governor. Lisa Cook is her name, the president posting on social media that Cook must resign now, he says, after the head of the U.S.

federal housing finance agency, an outspoken critic of the Fed accused her of mortgage fraud claiming a letter to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, that Cook falsified bank documents and property records to secure more favorable terms on loan. And a statement Cook said that she had no intention of being bullied into stepping down. She is just the latest perceived political enemy of the president to face mortgage fraud accusations. NBC News reported this same month that Bondi had appointed former interim U.S.

attorney at Martin to serve as a special attorney to investigate similar allegations against California Senator Adam Schiff and New York State Attorney General Dixisha. James both of them have pushed back on those allegations. And NBC News politics reporter Alan Smith is joining me now. So Alan, start with the allegations and we'll talk about the bigger picture here.

But first, what are these allegations against Lisa Cook? So the allegations against her are actually quite similar to the allegations that are against Tish James and Adam Schiff. And it is that on a mortgage application, she listed a residence as her primary residence that wasn't necessarily where she was living most of the year. This is actually pretty common occurrence that we've seen in campaigns.

I was talking to somebody who's worked on a number of Republican campaign efforts over the last few years. And they said one of the first things they have researchers look into is whether or not a candidate has listed a residence as their primary residence that is actually not where they're spending most of the year. And this is an issue that, again, comes up in campaigns all the time, but is this person told me, look, this often, if someone does do this incorrectly, often leads to a fine. It's not something that's going to screw their entire life up.

So it's interesting that, you know, as soon as these allegations have surfaced, President Trump has already called for resignations and we've seen Ed Martin really push hard for the Fed to take immediate action before an investigation has even taken place. Just a reminder to folks, if they're not familiar, Ed Martin, of course, was the man who was among those who was heavily defending the January 6th defendants here in Washington, D.C. So talk about the impact it can have on an individual's life. Is there a criminal investigation into Cook right now?

Like what are the stakes here? So Ed Martin did come out today and express interest in looking into this and is already written directly to the Federal Reserve Chairman. So, you know, right now, he is explicitly investigating Adam Schiff and Tish James over such allegations. And just today has come out and said that he is very much open to looking into the latest allegations against the Fed governor, Lisa Cook.

So the big picture here, Alan, critics say that this is the latest example of President Trump using the Justice Department to go after his political opponents perceived or otherwise. Do the allegations against folks like Cook, against Schiff, they don't clearly merit investigations like this. This is obviously pretty unprecedented here. So what does this say about sort of the bigger picture?

This follows a trend where the president was attacking Jerome Powell. Now he's found ways to attack Biden appointed members of the Fed governing board. How do you sort of read the big picture of the climate that we're witnessing? Well, it's interesting because I would separate the Fed example out just slightly because it's not as if Lisa Cook was on the front lines of investigating President Trump or as Adam Schiff was, right?

A lead character in the impeachment investigations against him. But what it does say is that the president is deadly serious about turning the tables on folks who did spend years investigating him or were heavily involved in some of the impeachment actions or legal actions involving him in his business. And you know, this is the latest sign that it's not just talk for him. He wants to take action.

Yeah. And or they are an obstacle to some policies that he wants to see implemented specifically as it relates to the Fed, a desire to have interest rates cut referred to him called Jerome Powell, sorts of insults, including to his face. Although in front of him, he was a lot more polite in terms of his language. Alan Smith with the latest on that reporting.

Alan, we appreciate it. Thank you. And turning to President Trump's trade policy agenda today, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney says he had a productive and wide-ranging conversation about trade with the US president. It comes after the United States and EU announced new details to their trade framework, including capping tariffs in some specific sectors, pharmaceuticals among them.

NBC News, business and data correspondent Brian has the very latest Brian. Well, hey there, Peter, call it tariff Thursday with a flurry of headlines updating us on a number of tariff fronts starting off with as of late the conversation with our neighbors to the North that being Canada, the prime minister there, Mark Carney issuing a statement today saying quote, there was a productive and wide-ranging conversation with Donald Trump and quote the leaders discussed current trade challenges, opportunities and shared priorities in a new economic and security relationship. So that certainly points to optimism towards this trade relationship with the US and Canada that has been at times since the president entered office in January, been quite fraught. You recall that massive spat between the two of them where they were threatening retaliatory tariffs on one another.

So even though this is just a vague statement, it does point to some optimism that there could be some de-escalation. Where there is already de-escalation happening is with the European Union, where just this morning we got the announcement that the European Union and the US had essentially finalized their framework for trade discussions and most notably saying that there was going to be a cap on three specific industries when it comes to the tariff rate. That being lumber semiconductors and also pharmaceuticals, this is significant because even though the US had already agreed to a 15% tariff on the European Union, that being applied to all goods coming into the United States, there were these threats that the president was lobbing out there of 250% on pharmaceutical products coming into the United States and 100% on semiconductors for a lot of generic drugs that come in many cases from countries like the European Union members, that could have had the threat of raising costs substantially on American consumers that rely so heavily on those drugs. But the framework that was agreed to today and put in writing to agree that we haven't seen for any trade relationship really thus far does say that that cap will now be at 15% and all this is hitting consumers as we got the very much real world anecdotes from Walmart.

This is one of the largest employers in the United States as well as a major company that we've been watching in terms of price increases. They reported earnings before the bell earlier this morning. They said that they raised their full year earnings and sales outlook even though they said costs from tariffs continued to rise. But when it comes to what we see at Walmart, they did say that they've been starting to raise prices on some items but have left others unchanged.

The overall anecdote matches what we've been hearing in the rest of the economy, which is that the tariff costs are starting to get passed out to consumers, although not at the degree and the severity by which a lot of people had originally feared at the beginning of this administration. So these are all fascinating tariff threats that we're going to continue to follow as the months go on. Peter. Thank you very much.

And after the break, President Trump secures a major legal win in New York where an appeals court just tossed out a civil fraud penalty of more than a half a billion dollars against the president of the Trump Organization. When it's done that, you're watching the press now. Welcome back on a major legal victory for President Trump. Today, a New York appeals court dismissed a nearly half billion dollar civil fraud penalty against the president and his companies.

Some of the judges on that court agreed that President Trump had engaged in fraud, but argued that the penalty was a quote, excessive fine. That ruling is a setback for New York Attorney General Leticia James, who is vowing to appeal. Today's decision comes nearly a year and a half after a New York judge found that President Trump and his top executives had intentionally inflated the value of his assets on financial statements to secure favorable loans and insurance rates. And joining us now is NBC News legal analyst Danny Svalos.

Danny, this headline, I think a lot of us sort of came out of nowhere. Was this in your view a surprise? Oh, yes, it was definitely a surprise. But when you read the court's reasoning and the court reasoning runs 300 plus pages, what you find is that in a sense, it might have been a surprise to the judges because they bitterly disagreed on the panel as to how they were going to decide this case.

In fact, you could say the only thing they had some consensus on was that Donald Trump remained liable, but also that this half billion dollar or almost half billion dollar fine was excessive and violated the eighth amendment prohibition against excessive fines. But other than that, the judges were all over the place. I mean, one judge felt that this isn't even a case that could have been brought period. That judge concluded that liability was not appropriate, but he was in the minority.

So now you have a very fractured decision, but one big takeaway, and it's that the half billion is out. So walk us through the appeal here, let's just say she's going to appeal. What happens now? How does that play out?

Even the appellate division forecast an appeal, they said as much in their opinion. So this may just be a temporary placeholder while the case goes up to the court of appeals, which in the strange scheme of New York courts, the Supreme Court is the lowest trial court, and the court of appeals is the highest court, the Supreme Court, so to speak, of the land, the case is now in the appellate division, the intermediate court, it will likely head up to the court of appeals, the highest court. So just in English terms here, can they just reduce the penalty? Can they argue, okay, fine, we'll take your point, the penalty should be reduced here?

Is that like a feasible conclusion to this or I trust it's much more complicated than that? No, actually, I mean, your assessment is, I think, spot on. I think the court of appeals has the same amount of power that the appellate division did to essentially modify this order or this judgment, and they certainly modified it. They eliminated it, but it's possible that James, let's issue James, the attorney general of New York may be successful on appeal to the court of appeals.

Danny Svalos, we appreciate your way in any of your expertise on this issue. Thank you very much. And as we mentioned, while we have not yet seen President Trump today, we may see him tonight in D.C., the president said in a radio interview this afternoon that he will visit with the federal law enforcement, National Guard troops among them, that he activated to patrol the streets of Washington, the White House, says the president is expected and effective. Thank them later today.

The president's plan visit comes just a day after the vice president should advance visit with National Guard troops at Union Station. He was alongside Pete Hegset, the defense secretary, Stephen Miller, one of the president's top advisors there as well, thanking the troops for their service, delivering some brief remarks as they were heckled by others nearby. We are not sure when or where we're going to see the president tonight, but we are going to keep you updated as this evening goes on. So the come right here in scrunched time from Eric Adams and his reelection campaign after one of his top aims was accused of handing a reporter cash money tucked into a potato chip bag.

We have that story, it's a wild one in the fallout. You're watching me at the press now. So there's a lot of heavy stuff in the world. And then there is this a bizarre story out of New York involving politics, cash and a bag full of surprises.

Winnie Greco, a longtime aide and fundraiser for mayor Eric Adams has been suspended from his reelection campaign after handing a potato chip bag full of cash to a reporter. The reporter works for publication. It's called The City, which broke the story late last night. Pretty good scoop if you literally had it land in your hands.

This is the open bag of her sour cream and onion chips that the reporter, Katie Honan, says Greco handed her near an event marking the opening of Adam's new campaign office in Harlem. The city says it reported the incident to authorities and has been contacted by the Brooklyn US Attorney's office. Greco's attorney told the city that his client's intent was purely innocent and that it's common in Chinese culture to give money to others as a gesture of friendship and gratitude. I don't know if the follow-up question was specifically about whether that tradition applies to putting it inside an open potato chip bag.

NBC News National Law Enforcement Intelligence Correspondent Tom Winter is joining us now. Tom, this one is just nuts. I was reading this earlier. It's I dare say a bit entertaining.

So first, let's start with the basics. Who is Winnie Greco? Yes, Peter. And I'll just clarify two things off the top.

Number one, I prefer ruffles over sour cream and onion and you all in DC have your pomp and circumstance with Marine One and your White House and your White House North Lawn. We here in New York have potato chips and these types of scandals. I wouldn't trade it for the world with you. But the incident here and you're looking there at a bag of potato chips, that's Honan.

And this is a photo that she apparently took holding her press pass in between her index and middle fingers and then obviously this bag of chips. Winnie Greco was somebody who's been on our radar for a long time and that's because Peter, she's been on law enforcement's radar for a long time. First started hearing her name approximately a year ago in connection with a federal criminal investigation that reports that apparently possible ties that she might have to China, specifically the Chinese government, was the subject of a probe at the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. There were not any charges have been filed so far in that case and Greco was denied any sort of wrongdoing.

But the FBI did search two of her properties and then in October she resigned from the Adams administration and we didn't hear much about the investigation or from her. In the meantime, until she started volunteering for the Adams campaign and there were reports from city hall reporters and political reporters in New York that she was kind of back on the beat but apparently not back on the payroll of the Adams administration or campaign and then that makes all the sense of the world. Obviously why reporter would want to have some questions for her and apparently this started out with a text message exchange looking for more information, looking to ask her some questions. So I want to follow up on that in a second.

First let's get to another basic here. Explain her explanation for why she was handing over this bag with cash in it. Right. So the TikTok here is that Honan sees her at this event outside of Adams opening up his Harlem office for his campaign and then apparently they agreed to meet at the Whole Foods in Greco in Sis according to Honan in the city's account of this.

It's Sis that she has this bag of potato chips and keeps it with her after Honan initially declined to take it. Honan's on her way to the subway she says and then finds the cash inside at least one $100 bill, several $20 bills but they didn't go deep into it because they wanted to preserve it potentially for law enforcement. Greco initially had a conversation with the paper saying look this is please don't print this I'm so sorry I don't want you know I have a discussion that she called back with her attorney and the explanation is you had it there was that this was a gratuity or something in Chinese culture. Now Peter as you know I've reported on all sorts of matters involving Chinese nationals the Chinese government and Chinese Americans and nobody has ever offered to give me any sort of cash obviously we refuse and that's not something I've experienced with that culture over a decade plus of doing this work.

So let me ask a question about if there is a payoff but nothing implicitly expected in return I guess maybe she wanted some coverage to be ignored or not to be written about does this still constitute a bribe? Yeah it's a little bit difficult to tell I mean obviously if Honan had accepted and she clearly did not based on the on the fact that apparently this was then turned over to the US attorney's office this bag if there had been a specific request for a specific thing that could possibly constitute bribery but it's not clear to me what statutes would necessarily come into play as far as charging it because she's not a public official it's just it's a little bit of a gray area from a from a law standpoint it would certainly look bad for all of those involved but there's no indication from the city's account of this that Greco ever asked for a specific thing. Tom I wonder you know much more about your ruffles and lays in her potato chips and I have to appreciate your expertise on this and it'll be a fresh bag on your desk when you get back to it. Our friend Kristen will be back tomorrow with more of me at the press now and if it is Sunday it's me at the press on your local NBC News station.

Kristen will have an exclusive interview this is a big show with Vice President J.D. Vance you won't want to miss that there is much more ahead you are watching NBC News now. Last summer the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year it's time to level up.

Reliance HomeComfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump calling the experts that know how to beat the heat. Conditions apply. See website for details.