Meet the Press NOW — August 26

If it's Tuesday, President Trump looks to ramp up his control over the Federal Reserve. As he moves to fire, Fed Governor Lisa Cook over unconfirmed accusations of mortgage fraud, as she vows to stay on the job and take the President to court, arguing he's overstepping his authority. Plus, top Democrats sharpen their response to President Trump's crackdown on Democratic run cities over the issue of crime, with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker accusing Mr.

Trump of being a wannabe dictator in a call to action for Democrats. And Israel says it's investigating back-to-back strikes on a Gaza hospital that killed 20, including five journalists, calling the incident a, quote, tragic mishap, as Prime Minister Netanyahu plows forward with military operations, despite the criticism. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kelli O'Donnell in Washington, where President Trump continues to push the limits of his executive authority, threatening to ramp up his deployment of the military in Democratic run cities.

And now attempting to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing a criminal referral from his Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, William Polte, that accuses the Biden appointee of mortgage fraud. The President reiterating that allegation during a cabinet meeting today. She seems to have had an infraction, and she can't have an infraction, especially that infraction, because she's in charge of, if you think about it, mortgages, and we need people that are 100 percent above board, and it doesn't seem like she was. Cook who has not been charged with any crime is suing the President, saying he does not have the authority to fire her, that she will not resign and intends to stay on the job.

Now, moments ago, the Federal Reserve weighed in for the first time, suggesting it would wait for the courts to settle the dispute before taking any action with regard to Cook. In the statement, the Fed also emphasizing that, quote, Congress through the Federal Reserve Act directs that governors serve in long-fixed terms and may be removed by the President only for cause. Long-tenures and removal protections for governors serve as a vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people. This attempted firing is the President's latest attack in his ongoing feud with the independent Federal Reserve, including continued threats to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, who Mr.

Trump appointed himself, and he attacked again today. He's too late, costing us a lot of money. Because of him and his high interest rates, the housing is less than he could be. We're going to get that straight now very quickly.

He gets out very quickly. Fortunately, he's been the wrong guy. The country is doing so well. It sort of blows through the fact that we have a man who's too late and not doing a very good job.

NBC News, White House correspondent Yimmy Shelton joins me now, along with NBC News Business and Data Correspondent Brian Chung. Glad to have both of you here. Yimish, let me begin with you. Lisa Cook says she has no intention of leading the Fed.

What comes next? And what looks like a standoff? What comes next, Kelly, is a legal battle. Lisa Cook has made it very clear that she's not walking away, and her attorney says that she believes that he believes that the president doesn't have the authority to fire her.

Jerome Powell has also echoed this saying that the president doesn't have the authority to fire him. And it made a Supreme Court called the Fed, the Federal Reserve Board, a quasi-private entity. So there were a lot of legal experts who took that decision and that ruling coming from the Supreme Court and made it to believe that the president doesn't have the authority to set to fire the chairman or to fire governor to serve on the board. That being said, of course, President Trump is leaning into this saying that he thinks he does have the authority to do this because of cause, which reminds folks, that Lisa Cook was the first black woman to serve on the board, that she has not been charged with any crime, but that she had, there are allegations of mortgage fraud that the Department of Justice says it's looking into.

Kelly. And do we get a sense that the White House is looking for a court fight here in order for the president to be able to assert this authority? It's a good question. I mean, we know that the president is definitely looking for a cause to try to remove her because this is, of course, part of, as you just laid out, a long battle between the president and the country's central bank, and that, of course, that's monetary policy, including interest rates.

The president wants to be cut. So the president really wants her to be removed, but the White House isn't shying away from this fight. And in that sort, in the middle of this fight, you might even see Republicans try to confirm someone to replace her. It'll be very interesting to see whether or not she can sit on the board, whether or not she can even be allowed in the building as this legal fight goes on, Kelly.

Well, you and I were among those watching what was a very long cabinet meeting today with the president. It went hours. And he also made some news on a very different topic, saying that he intends to take very severe action against any convicted murderers in Washington, D.C. Filissant on that.

That's right. Our White House producers are saying that this was the longest presidential event that President Trump has ever held. So this isn't about campaign rallies, but for more than three hours, the president had this cabinet meeting. And he touched on a lot of topics.

One of them is really the president trying to tighten his grip even more on the nation's cap of Washington, D.C. He's suggesting now that he's an institute capital punishment in Washington, D.C. Take a listen to what the president said. Anybody murdered something in the capital, capital punishment, capital, capital punishment.

If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, D.C., we're going to be seeking the death penalty. And that's a very strong preventative. We have no choice. So in D.C.

in Washington, states are going to have to make their own decision. But if somebody kills somebody, like you could have been killed, very lucky you didn't get killed, it's the death penalty. So of course, this is a big policy change that the president is hoping to institute, Kelly. Yamiche, thank you for that.

Let me turn now to Brian. The Fed put out a very long and carefully worded statement. We read a part of it at the top of the program. And it's about the president's attempt to fire cook.

Is this the Fed's way of saying that they answered a Congress and not the president? What was your take? Yeah. Well, I mean, the Fed normally is used to crafting its words very carefully when they're in their interest rate decisions.

But this is the very uncomfortable position that the central bank finds itself and wanting to be very deliberate about the way that it's going to approach this incoming legal fight as well. Another part of that same statement that they released just today, just this afternoon, was that quote, Lisa Cook has indicated through her personal turning that she will properly challenge this action in court and seek a judicial decision that would confirm her ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate confirmed member of the Board of Governors and then saying, as always, the Federal Reserve will abide by any court decision. So Congress or the president, what the Federal Reserve is saying in that statement is that it's really up to the courts. If there's an injunction, for example, where they decide they will allow Lisa Cook to continue to serve in this function while a higher court reviews the merits of this case, that would be something that the Federal Reserve would abide by as laid out in this statement.

But again, this is now a legal battle and the politics certainly can't be ignored, but this is in the hands of the court with this legal filing earlier on today. And Brian, the broader context is we know the president has been in a longstanding feud with the Fed over interest rate policy. And what impact could this have if Cook is removed and how the president might be able to influence their policy making abilities? Well, I mean, you're saying just now that the White House has been very clear on their intentions.

They're not backing down from a fight. They're the ones that essentially instigated this fight. But the president, interestingly, for a moment in that long cabin meeting today, said, quote, we will have a majority shortly on the Fed referring to the number of governors, including the chair, that would have been appointed by him either in this term or in a previous term over the previous Biden era appointees, there are seven seats, if he's able to flip the cook seat in addition to get his other nominees even mirrored on the board, that would constitute a majority. When the president said something like that, that's essentially saying the quiet part out loud, which is that this fight against Lisa Cook is really for the greater purpose in his view of getting interest rates lower, which he has been very vocal about.

He's been saying Jerome Powell is too slow on lowering interest rates, and he not only wants an interest rate cut in the next meeting, which is just a few weeks from now, he wants the Fed to more aggressively lower interest rates by something closer to three full percentage points, which no economist I talked to said would be appropriate in this type of economy. But if the president gets his way with the personnel on the board, there's marginal movement towards him getting what he wants. And talking about having a majority of his appointees was certainly a big tell, as you point out, what are the potential market consequences of the Fed losing what is actual independence or perceived independence? Yeah.

Well, the markets didn't move too much. This announcement from the president of firing a Lisa Cook happened overnight, markets ended the day marginally positive, nothing too much to read from that. But it doesn't seem like markets aren't too worried about this. I think in part because a lot of investors are saying, well, I'm a trader, I'm not necessarily someone that's an expert in injunctions or the court system when it comes to how appointees are treated and whether or not for cause is applicable in this situation for this potential firing.

I don't know what happens down line, but look, economists and traders and those that are in the stock market that I've been speaking to lately have said, this is only going to introduce more volatility. If you don't have faith in a Fed being independent, how do you know what's going to happen to markets because it could just be at the whim of what the president wants you to tell me? Brian, appreciate your insights there. Thank you so much.

And joining me now is Greg Ip is the chief economics commentator for the Wall Street Journal. And Greg, you wrote in the journal today that the Fed is in uncharted waters. We've heard that kind of phrase before in the Trump era. What is going on and help us understand the impact here?

Well, historically, we didn't worry too much about relationships between the president and the Fed because essentially the president's influence over the Fed only extended to nominating governors and the chairman. And then once they were in place, they did as they felt best for the economy. The president couldn't tell them what to do. What he has basically signaled now is that he does not consider his influence to end when he nominates a person.

He expects the people that he appoints to do as he prefers. What's interesting in the case of Cook, of course, is that she has generally voted with Chair Powell and Powell himself had said Friday that the Fed was likely to cut interest rates in September because even though they're still a bit worried about the effect of tariffs on inflation, they think the labor market is a bigger issue. And that would be the reason to cut rates. So in some sense, removing Cook isn't so much about getting rates down now.

It's about ensuring that Trump gets people that are loyal to him on the board for the remainder of his presidential term. And I think that that probably means that interest rates will be lower and if the risk that inflation will be higher as a result. And we've seen this month alone that the president fired the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner and is now attempting to fire a federal reserve governor. So these are moves that show how he is expansive in his push of authority.

And some of this could potentially cause long-term damage to the U.S. economy. Is that your view? Or should Americans continue to have faith that the economy can weather this?

Well, the economy is pretty phenomenally dynamic and productive. And so it can actually withstand a lot of mistakes made by various policymakers. We've seen that over time. We saw it in global financial crisis.

We saw it during COVID. But I think that there's something about things like an independent non-partisan Bureau of Labor Statistics, an independent non-partisan federal reserve that we've all come to take for granted. And we haven't given much thought to what life would be like without them, just as we don't think much about what life would be like if the plumbing in our house didn't work. When the markets look at what the Fed does, they assume the Fed is looking at the same data as them and is making a call on interest rates based on its best rate for what's good for unemployment and inflation.

Now they have to understand that in fact a major consideration for the people on the Fed will be what does Trump think because Trump will be ready to remove anybody that he doesn't think is in line with him. We've seen the officials that he has in mind for the Federal Reserve talking about how interest rates should be lower. In spite of the fact that inflation still runs above the Federal Reserve's 2% inflation target, and so I think going forward, those are the kinds of risks that investors and the public have to deal with. One possibility, again, where inflation goes in the next six or 12 months is kind of already baked in stone or related to the economy a little bit to tariffs, not to what the Fed does.

But over the longer term, if the Fed is not inclined or is not motivated to act forcefully when it sees a risk of inflation, then it probably means long-term interest rates and mortgage rates will be higher than they otherwise would be. And finally, just a broader question about the reputation of the Fed. No charges have been filed here. These are just allegations.

We've got to see where it plays out. But do you see this as being a risk to the credibility of not only Cook, but maybe the Fed more broadly? So these allegations, if true, they're a consequential allegations. But we don't know yet whether they're true, Cook has not had the opportunity to respond in detail to them.

It's interesting that Trump, after demanded that she resign before she'd had even a chance to respond to them. And furthermore, we don't know even if they were true whether they rise through the standard of cause. But in some sense, as you know, Brian was mentioning earlier, when Trump said today he thinks he'll have a majority on the Board of Governors, he sort of, I think, indicated that the real issue, the real motivation here was to get control of the Fed. It wasn't whether one particular individual had broken the rules or not.

Greg, thank you so much. We really appreciate your insights today. Thank you. And now I'm joined by Scott Alvarez, former federal counsel, former general counsel for the Federal Reserve.

And I'm glad you could be with us. You have a lot of knowledge about this. And let's point out again that Lisa Cook has not been indicted or charged. This is the president using allegations made by a member of his administration as a justification for firing her and that he goes into an explanation in the letter to her about it being for due cause and that that is the basis for his effort to terminate her.

What is your sense of the seriousness of this allegation and how it came into the decision making process? So I agree with Greg and with Brian Earl, both saying earlier that this is part of the president's plan to try to take control of the Federal Reserve and get the interest rate policy that he wants. So in that respect, I don't think it's really about Lisa Cook that said what Lisa Cook is facing is allegations that she has not had the opportunity to respond to that she's committed fraud. And on that basis, the president is trying to say there is cause to remove her.

But there's some real legal issues here. We don't know what the facts are and whether there was any fraud involved at all. All we know is that her name that she put primary residence on two different mortgages. A lot of people do that.

A lot of people buy second homes. Circumstances change and applications tend to be static once they're filed their file. So it depends on what she told the banks and what the banks understood the purposes of the mortgage were for. We don't know anything about any of that.

So she's had no opportunity to present her side of the case. We also don't know, you know, for calls is not really explained by the courts yet. So certainly not in the Federal Reserve context. So we don't know whether the seriousness of this charge you've proven is enough to demonstrate cause.

Cause could be left to just what is malfeasance in the job or dereliction and duty in the job. These are all allegations that relate to practices before Lisa Cook was nominated for the job. So they have nothing to do with her current job. So there's a lot of uncertainty here from legal perspective on where this would go and whether it would be effective in getting Lisa removed from the board.

So much we don't know. And yet her name is being thrust into the spotlight. And I'm sure that is she probably looks forward to having a chance to respond to these charges. It comes from a criminal referral as you were indicating it dealing with two mortgage documents that each list of primary residents.

We don't know if they were consecutive or at the same time. So many questions. The person who brought this forward is Bill Polte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And he talked about this on CNBC last week.

Of course, if you commit a crime and you have a reasonable suspicion that somebody's committing a crime, that is cause. I mean, I don't know what cause is if that's not cause. I mean, this lady, I don't understand how she can be in charge of sending interest rates for our country. And here she is potentially lying on her applications to get better interest rates.

And of course, as you pointed out, the courts have to decide what is cause. So he can opine on that, but that may not be relevant in the outcome here. But is it your sense that this is something where he's correct in saying that simply the facts of her having this documentation are enough or do you think that it's still to be determined? I don't think that's enough.

In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty and there has been no proof of guilt here. If these are false charges, then that certainly is not cause. And we don't know if there's truth to the charge, not so much about what's on the application, but the charge of fraud, which is what underlies the president's letter. So I think we're far from knowing whether this is going to be effective.

Scott Alvarez, thank you so very much again, pointing out that these are allegations. There are no charges. There will be more for us to explore in the days ahead. We thank you for your time.

Good pleasure. Thank you. And coming up, Democrats promise a fight. The fiery comments from Illinois Governor J.B.

Pritzker responding to President Trump's threats to send the National Guard to Chicago and the DNC Chairman's warning to his party that it can't play by the same rules anymore. But first, look what you made him do. Trump responds to the engagement news that broke the internet this afternoon as pop megastar Taylor Swift and football star Travis Kelsey announce they're getting hitched. Well, I wish I had a lot of love.

I think he's a great player, I think he's a great guy, and I think that she's a terrific person. So I wish I had a lot of love. Booking a verbal vacation rental means you get verbal care and 24-7 life support verified reviews from real guests in top rated homes with a love by guest builder. I just book my verbal because there was a sweet line for interest.

We all have our reasons. If you know, give her a vote. Terms apply. See verbal.com slash draw for details.

Welcome back. This is exactly the type of overreach that our country's founders warned against. This is not a time to fall back into the reflective crouch that I so often see whether the authoritarian creep by this administration is ignored. If this were happening in any other country, we would have no trouble calling it what it is, a dangerous power grab to the public servants who have forsaken their oath to the Constitution to serve the petty whims of an arrogant little man.

To any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous, we are watching and we are taking names. Pritzker's warning, a potential rallying cry for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms as the party seeks to chart a significantly more aggressive path forward. This was the UNC chair Ken Martin speaking at the committee's summer meeting last night. This is not politics as usual, my friends.

This is authoritarianism. It's fascism dressed in a red tie. We cannot be the only party that plays by the rules anymore. We've got to stand up and fight.

We're not going to have a hand tied behind our back anymore. Let's grow a damn spine and get into this fight, Democrats. And today the president rejecting criticisms that he's governing like an authoritarian, while also insisting he has unchecked authority on this issue. So the line is that I'm a dictator when I stop crying.

So a lot of people say, you know, that's the case, I'd rather have a dictator. But I'm not a dictator. I just had to stop crying. If they're right to do anything I want to do.

I'm the president of the United States. If I think our country's in danger and it is in danger of these cities, I can do it. But the proposed military deployments would represent an effort to drastically expand executive power. One already being challenged in court after the president federalized the California guard to respond to protests over immigration enforcement.

And they are just the latest moves from the Oval Office pushing the boundaries of presidential authority, as President Trump leans on emergency powers to bypass Congress to pursue policy objectives, pushes Republican states to minimize Democratic party representation in Congress through redistricting, spreads false claims about voter fraud to call for elections overhaul of the midterms, cheers criminal investigations launched by his Justice Department into political rivals, threatens to revoke, broadcast licenses for news organizations, including NBC, and targets universities. Whoo, that's a lot. So joining me now is our panel with Chief Capitol Hill correspondent, Ryan Nobles, Chief Washington correspondent for Puck Leanne Caldwell, Democratic strategist, Joel Payne, and CEO and editor of the dispatch, Stephen Hayes. He's also an NBC News contributor.

So Leanne, let me start with you. There is Trump won from the 45th term and Trump of the 47th term. You see a significant difference in his approach. Absolutely.

Well, this is what Trump won. 45 wanted to do, but didn't quite know how to do it, especially when he had a lot of staff around him and had officials, yes, who said that you can't do this stuff. So now he's unfettered. He has a staff around him who will not push back, who wants this, in fact, and you have said he has staff around him who have been working for the past four years planning for this very exact thing.

They, one thing that I've been quite impressed with, Kelly, is actually how detailed and specific they are knowing the law and what they can do and how to get around it or find these rules. And just a painting challenge. Absolutely. And so they're working within the system, even though they are pushing sometimes way outside the system of precedent and potentially the law.

Joel, let me turn to you. Governor Pritzker was his remarks yesterday were just dense with lots of step-by-step criticisms of the president. When he used the phrase authoritarian creep, I think it was both noun and verb that he meant. Do you think that is effective?

Did he break through in this moment? Oh, I think Governor Pritzker was effective. I think that the Newsom has been effective. I actually think Democrats are starting to find their sea legs on this issue.

Having the conversation on Donald Trump's terms is having a conversation about crime that is complicated and that the American people have a variety of opinions on based on where they are. But this isn't about crime. This is about power and specifically abuse of power. And I think Pritzker gave good context to that.

I think Newsom's given good context to that. And I think you're going to see Democrats continue. Is that the essence of it that the fight is about the use of authority and power in the presidency? Because it's a pretext.

It's not about stopping crime. And so if you wanted to do that, he could reinstate the funding in DC. He could reinstate funding in places like Illinois that goes to stopping crime. He wants to have a pretext so that if things go wrong, either in an election or in a civil disturbance, he can use the military use the National Guard with greater ease.

And Ryan, let me turn to you on 2026. It's only a moment away. Do you see the outlines of the arguments that would play out district by district? It does seem like it's forming up that way, Kelly.

I remember when my college professors at the State University of New York at Brockport telling me that almost every political argument can be boiled down to the simple struggle between personal freedom and personal security. And that seems to be the argument that both Republicans and Democrats are making right now. And it does seem as though it's heading to an inflection point as to who's going to win that argument when it comes to 2026. And what Republicans are doing right now is to assert agree that they're baiting Democrats.

They're saying, come, let's have this fight about law enforcement and keeping people safe. And what Democrats have to convince the American people is that, hey, things aren't as bad as maybe you think they are, but also this is actually going to end up hurting you in the long run. Having National Guard troops on our city streets, the militarization of our police force, hey, it's not necessarily going to make things safer, but also is going to impinge on these personal freedoms that you hold dear. The first argument is a pretty easy one to make, right?

We want to take the bad guys off the streets. The second argument requires that context, it requires historical perspective, it requires a lot of layers that make it very difficult to put in a 30-second TV ad. And I think that's what Republicans are banking on heading into 2026. And Stephen, I was almost breathless reading the list of issues where the president is exercising authority and pushing the boundaries of that authority really far beyond what conservatives would typically espouse.

One of the things that I wanted to point out is invoking Ronald Reagan. I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan. He joked that the nine most terrifying words in English language were, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. We all remember.

Well, those of us old enough remember. I'm with you. Thank you. Thank you.

And from President Trump, there seems to be a twist that I'm from the government and I'm here to take it over. He really wants to insert his authority in both government structure, in the culture, in institutions beyond the federal government. How is that being judged by his voters and by conservatives in the future of the conservative movement? Yeah.

I mean, it's been an interesting ride. If you go back to the beginning of his second term, you see that his base conservatives they basically support what he's doing. They're not worried to Joel's point. They're not as worried about the rules.

They're not as worried about, you know, the process and why he's doing this thing. Does he have the power to do this? Does the Constitution grant him the power to do this? They're worried about results.

And Donald Trump says, we haven't had any homicides in Washington, D.C. And they say, I think in part because they believe things about Washington, D.C. that are true, to a certain extent. They say, wow, that's real progress.

I don't care how he gets it done. He's getting it done. And after years of listening to politicians who don't get it done and make promises that they don't deliver on, this guy's at least delivering. And to that point that we can fill up with.

It's also not necessarily an argument that's being made to the residents of the District of Columbia, right? Because they're not going to decide the balance of power in the 2026 midterms. You're making an argument about crime and punishment in Washington, D.C. to suburban voters in places like Kansas City, Missouri and suburban northern Virginia.

None of these troops are ever going to be. And it's only the perception of what people have of these big cities. It's a much easier argument. He creates this reality.

And if you look at the things he's saying, if you listen to what Stephen Miller said yesterday standing next to the President in the Oval Office, he's creating a fictional version of Washington, and he's trying to make a difference with the other. There's crime. Crime is worse than it happened for a while, and I think Democrats should have done a lot more. But the description that Stephen Miller gave, it's just nonsense.

It's not the way that things are in Washington. And do you get a sense that this one man approach that the President projects is that uniquely Trump or does this fundamentally change how Republicans view government, which used to be less government, less intrusion, less, you know, it's really turned it on its head. I mean, when can Republicans make a limited government argument be taken seriously again? Honestly, I mean, they're mid-wifing what we're seeing.

And it's a problem and it should be a problem. A little clip of what he is the deputy chief of staff. He may have outsized power in this administration. Stephen Miller, he spoke on Fox last night.

Let's take a look. The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization. But I would say to the mayor of all these Democrat cities, like Chicago, what you are doing to your own citizens is evil.

Subjecting your own citizens to this constant bloodbath and then rejoicing it is evil. And you should praise God every single day. The President and Trump is in the White House. So do you get a sense that that that argument is one that is persuasive to the kinds of voters who will be decisive?

Yeah, sort of the caffeinated ones, maybe. You know, what's interesting about this is, and I get it, I get what Donald Trump is trying to do here, and I understand the political theory behind it, it actually flies in the face of logic of who he is. I mean, let's not forget his first act as president was to give clemency to 1600 violent criminals, not too far from the studio in Washington, D.C. So it's hard for me and it's hard for millions of Americans to take him seriously on tackling crime in a good faith, honest way, when this is a president who the first thing he did was deprioritize holding violent offenders accountable.

And Leanne, do you get a sense that this is an argument that is fueled by events or motivated by events? For example, they see an incident of crime and then they kind of build policy around it or build a response around it. Or do you think they are just going through that list of things that they're trying to accomplish? I think it's a combination of both things.

The president ran on crime. He ran on immigration, and that's what's happening. What he's trying to see that he's trying to create in Washington, D.C. Not only on one hand, he's talking about crime and arresting criminals.

On the other hand, they're talking about all the immigration arrests that they are also doing. And so, yes, his staffer, his doge staffer, was one of the people who was carjacked, and that was what they were using as an excuse to do this. But as the Washington Post has reported, they've been planning for weeks to go into Chicago as well. And so these are things that the president wants to keep front and center and front of voters, make it look like he is accomplishing something regardless of what the real facts are about those accomplishments and champion them.

And Ryan, do you see this? Some of the members that you cover when they're here in town, some are holding town hall meetings or certainly in their districts getting some feedback. Is this something that people are bringing to them, or is this something that lawmakers are talking about initiating? So I did see some feet today at Mark Alfred, who's a Republican congressman from Missouri, was asked about this in a town hall, and he did express a degree of skepticism about using the National Guard for this purpose and his kind of slow creep and the militarization of police.

But having covered Congress for almost the entire run of the Donald Trump era of politics, I can tell you that if you're looking for congressional Republicans to be the top gap against Donald Trump, you are looking in the wrong place. When push comes to shove, they may fame a degree of concern, they may put out a press release or answer a question in a town hall that provides a degree of skepticism. The push comes to shove. If Donald Trump says he needs backup from his congressional Republican supporters, he will get it and he will get it overwhelmingly.

The question is, how will congressional Republicans be willing to carry his water when this comes to extend some of these security agreements? That may be more of a difficult task and could require that. They will have to be accountable for that to voters in 2020. Yes, the limitations on his use of that.

And of course today he's the president, he has the power to expect more of this. Thank you, panel. Appreciate you being here. A lively conversation.

Ryan Lee-Ann, Joel, and Stephen, thank you all. And up next, we're turning to what's happening in the Middle East. Famine and fighting take hold in Gaza, as Israel faces mounting global criticism for a military operation that mistakenly hit journalists and rescue workers. A humanitarian aid worker joins me next on the challenges ahead.

You're watching Need the Press Now. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking News 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. Across Israel, protesters are taking part in whether calling a day of disruption, demanding the release of hostages, and an end to the war in Gaza.

Earlier today, protesters there shut down roads, including a major highway in Tel Aviv during rush hour. On Monday, strikes on one of the main hospitals in the Gaza Strip killed at least 20 people, including five journalists working with Reuters, the Associated Press, and Al Jazeera. Since the war began two years ago, the Israeli government has banned international journalists from entering Gaza, which means that news organizations are relying entirely on reporting from Palestinian journalists who are inside the confines there. NBC's Molly Hunter has more on these strikes.

And what we want you to know is this video may be hard to watch. So hours after those attacks yesterday morning, the Israeli military came out with a very short statement saying they were investigating late last night. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the whole event a tragic mishap. Again, these were two strikes yesterday morning just after 10 a.m.

on Nasser Hospital. It's the South's only functioning and main hospital. It's also a place where journalists often went to work, not only because it was assumed to be fairly safe, because it was a hospital, but also because it had Wi-Fi. It was a place where journalists could upload photos and videos, get the reporting out to the rest of the world.

Well, we have just this afternoon received a very long statement posted on X sent out by the Israeli military about their initial inquiry. They are saying that the reason for that strike on Nasser Hospital is that Hamas had a camera posted on the roof of Nasser Hospital that was monitoring Israeli troops in the area. Now, in this long statement, they did not include a picture or any additional evidence of this camera. They also went on to say that of the 20 people killed, we know that five were journalists.

We know from the WHO that four were medical workers. They say that six were terrorists. Now, at the end of the statement, they also say that they have further examination to do, including a further examination of the authorization process prior to the strike, including the ammunition approved for the strike and the timing of the authorization. And secondly, an examination of the decision-making process in the field.

Now, we are going out to our sources trying to figure out who these six men are that they have named. But what this statement doesn't do, what this initial inquiry doesn't do is explain why there were two strikes. And one of the things when the AP and Reuters wrote a very strongly worded letter to the Israeli authorities, demanding answers after two of their journalists were killed yesterday, demanding answers about why there was another strike. There was a first strike.

And if that strike was a mistake, it was then seven minutes later that there was a second strike once journalists had gathered, once medics had gathered on the exact same place. I'll send it back to you. And our thanks to Molly Hunter for that report. Joining me now is UNICEF, spokesperson Joe English.

And one of the big questions we have is the military for Israel is continuing, it's offensive on Gaza City where around half of Gaza's population lives. And what have you heard from people on the ground about the status of the humanitarian need there right now? Yeah, because it is absolutely staggering. When we speak to parents, to children, they are terrified.

You know, Gaza City was where we had this family classification just a few days ago. And whilst this has been a long time coming and we have warned repeatedly, it's important to say that this was not inevitable. A famine was not inevitable. It is down to the choices that have been made over the past few months.

And we see the pictures. And the level of destruction and damage is almost unbelievable. You know, I've worked in conflicts and I've worked in natural disasters and earthquakes. And this level of damage and destruction to people's lives is almost beyond what you can imagine.

So what parents thinking, you know, it's just another day. They've been through weeks, months, almost two years of this. You know, they have so little energy left, but what are they doing every day? They're just trying to keep their kids safe, same as any of us would.

And so you use the word famine. And while that might seem like a general description, it actually is a very specific designation. And a UN panel formally made that declaration. Can you tell us what does that specifically mean?

And in terms of the context here. And what do you think some of the long-term consequences can be if famine, that designation continues to spread? Yeah, you know, famine is not a term that we use lightly. And this was a panel of independent experts who came to this conclusion.

And it means that there's just not enough food insecurity as widespread. It also means the child malnutrition, you know, kids who are wasting away. We've all seen images over the last few weeks that the rates of that are increasing rapidly. And it also means that people are dying.

People are dying from malnutrition and malnutrition related causes. And when what we know is that if I'm in declaration, if I'm in classification, it's too late for far to make children. But now, you know, this is a time for action. And the first piece of action should be to halt any plans for an escalation in military activity around Gaza City.

This is where this famine is occurring. You know, many of these children, they are too small to walk. They are too weak to run and they are too sick to flee. And so, you know, any escalation is only going to see these children caught in this in the crossfire.

It's horrific conflict. And when it gets to a famine point, you need special intervention in terms of how you can help to provide nutrition. It's not just any typical food that could be brought in through aid work. Are there specific medical needs or specific types of food products that are required at this level?

Yeah. For children who are very acutely malnourished, there are, it's basically a medical intervention and it takes a number of weeks. You know, I've been in malnutrition clinics all around the world and I've seen how it works. And you see children who are, you know, to stay often where they are barely able to move.

They are too weak often to even be able to sort of suckle with their mother or cries. The silence often is absolutely harrowing. But over a course of days, you return and you see the colour come back to these children's cheeks. You see them come almost back to life.

But it takes six weeks of this medical support. And that can't happen whilst there are bonds falling and fighting continuing. So we have to see a ceasefire. We have to see the hostages.

But at least organizations like UNICEF say to children, the UN, we have to get out to do the work that we do all around the world. We do this in conflicts. We just have to get out and do it. And we wish you well in that work.

And thank you for bringing us your understanding and the descriptions of what's happening there. We need the information. Thank you, Joe. Thanks so much, Kelly.

And we will be right back with more of Meet the Press now. Welcome back. Turning now to a major divide inside the Democratic Party, on display inside of Minneapolis Ballroom, a DNC panel at its summer meeting in Minnesota rejected a resolution that called for an arms embargo and suspension of military aid to Israel along with recognition of a Palestinian state. The panel passed a more moderate resolution from DNC chair Ken Martin that called for a ceasefire and unrestricted aid to Gaza civilians.

But he later pulled it in favor of a task force to find quote, common ground for all Democrats on this issue. It's a big issue. And one where the party needs to organize its thinking. So joining me now is our NBC News colleague, Natasha Kurecki.

You have been on the ground for us in Minnesota. Take us inside the room for what happened in this vote. And is there a sense of people being upset about this? Yes.

So today we had, you know, we're starting to see the contours of this debate really formed here in the party early on before the midterms, before the next presidential. Inside the room, it was a lot of tension. You know, when they're doing resolutions, as you pointed out, Kelly, and it was just, it got very quiet in the room. It was orderly.

It was somewhat subdued. There was no protest or outbursts as we've seen in the past. However, as you said, you know, Ken Martin came out and threw his resolution ultimately. And it did leave, you know, the main sponsor of the stronger resolution, you know, pretty upset.

She's willing to work with the DNC, but she's a little concerned that they're just kicking the can down the road right now. And there were divisions on this in the last election as well, certainly. So this has been an enduring issue, the task force that was announced by the DNC chair. What does that look like?

Yeah, I just want to point out that no one knows. This seemed to be a spur of the moment decision by Ken Martin. And just being in the room, I think you could kind of feel, you know, the stronger resolution failed. You've had one person stand up and sort of swear.

And you could see the press was about to follow the woman, the young woman who, the 26-year-old Gen Z, you know, DNC member who had sponsored this, she's from Florida, and Ken Martin stood up and pulled her aside. So I think he could see this moment about to detonate, and he was trying to defuse it. So he came out and announced he would have a task force. Later on, talking to the advocates of the stronger resolution, they said they hadn't heard anything about this before.

That Ken Martin had not reached out to them and discussed it at all with them. And, you know, the DNC member who had put this forward said she didn't even know she would be on the task force. So we don't have a lot of, you know, information, moving forward here. And before we let you go, let's zoom out a little bit.

And the biggest divide in the party is, although that's an intense issue, but it really is about how to combat the Trump administration in all of its far-reaching views and policy endeavors and the imprint it's putting on the country right now, from a Democrats perspective, they want to find a way to address that. So where are you seeing the divide playing out in this conference? You know, I think they're still very much trying to figure this out. You know, one thing that, you know, sort of those who are pro this stronger resolution point out is that there's a lot of activism and hunger for this Gaza issue, and they want to become involved.

But they don't want to become involved if it's status quo. So I think that's sort of what the DNC is wrestling with right now. How do they bridge that divide without alienating one part of the party or the other? Natasha, thank you so much.

Appreciate getting those early insights on where the party is headed. Thank you. And still to come the latest in the redistricting wars as Republican and Democratic state lawmakers in multiple states are literally mapping out their midterm strategies. We're covering it all, and you're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back. We've got multiple new developments today on what's becoming a redistricting arms race. As some states look to redraw their congressional lines before the 2026 midterms. Now we'll start in Texas.

You've heard a lot about that. That was the genesis of this escalating fight after President Trump pushed state lawmakers to draw new maps there to make what he hopes would be five-house seats more winnable for Republicans. Next year Republican Governor Greg Abbott is expected to, it's going to sign as soon as that. It's affecting next year.

To sign that redistricting bill soon. And meanwhile, the White House is also urging other Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines as well. Looking for some partisan gain ahead of the midterms. Now that includes Indiana, where some top state Republicans made the trip from Indianapolis to the White House complex today after meeting with Vice President Vance earlier this month.

And joining me now to help break this down with all things on redistricting is NBC News National Political Reporter Ben Camusar. Walk us through it. Is Texas done? And we're on to the next?

Texas is all but done, like you said. The governor needs to sign it. And look, all of these are going to hit court cases. And the question moving over all of these is will the court cases make any delay so that that would make it harder and possible to implement these lines for 2026?

Or will the courts just say we will keep these lines in and then deal with things later? So when that's the question in Texas and in California, where they're set to put this question to voters in the fall to allow them to do it. But like you said, there's other states too. You've got Indiana where they're thinking about it.

You've got Missouri where they're thinking about it. And you've got some Democratic states like Maryland where Democrats are trying to push back. And New York where Democrats want to push back but are a little bit hamstrung by their state constitution and will make it a little harder for them to get it done this cycle. And while they're mining for advantage, ultimately voters will decide when they go to the ballot in terms of how the new lines look and if they actually do benefit the parties as described here.

Is this also a challenge for figuring out who's running and how some of these races, especially if it changes the map in a way where you've got perhaps a member on member races? Yeah, and you're going to see that in Texas specifically. Let's stick into Texas because we know that one. A little more familiar with it.

And because it's the one that's definitely going to, you know, most likely going to go in, you know, California's got to wait until the voters decide. But in Texas, yeah, you've got incumbents that are debating running against each other, they have to run against each other or decide to leave. You know, Austin area got carved up into two different districts. You've had Lloyd Doggett and Greg Kizzar, two Democrats, one young, one old, one progressive, one moderate.

And it was going to be really interesting primary that was needed to be needed to shake its way out. And Doggett ended up deciding recently that he would not run if those lines ultimately go into effect. So yeah, these questions loom over all of this. And also the questions of are these seats going to behave exactly as the map makers wanted to draw them, we think, but we don't know.

And of course, we'll have say in all of this as well. You've used the carrot and stick analogy in talking about this around the office with us. How do you see that playing out here? Is there more carrot or more stick?

Oh, my God, it's the President Trump, right? You know, I think you said he's meeting with the Indiana delegation or with members of the Indiana delegation today. You know, whether there's a carrot or a stick, he doesn't have to say the stick. President Trump has remade the Republican Party in his image.

Everyone knows that, you know, if he wants this, Texas got online, Texas got on board and they got praised for that. Those members got endorsed for reelection and perhaps when they run, they will get some benefits from President too. We may see that in Indiana if they move forward. And giving them the DC experience coming in and seeing all of the trappings and talking to the President.

That could be pretty influential. Well, we're glad you're on the case, Ben. Thank you so much. We'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now so much going on.

You know you'll be able to track it right here, but there's more news ahead on NBC News Now. I'm Craig Malef. Cheers. Cheers.

I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny and candid. So I hope you'll join me each week.

Who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half full. Search glass half full with Craig Malef and from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.