Meet the Press NOW — August 5

If it's Tuesday, it's the Trump economy, as businesses, trading partners, and consumers brace for even more tariffs while President Trump touts his turbulent trade agenda and doubles down on baseless claims that the jobs numbers will rig. Plus, new fallout in the Epstein-Files saga, as the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee subpoenas are turning General Pam Bondi, demanding she hand over every document she can find related to the Epstein case, and go big or go home. A top Texas Senator asked the FBI to help track down the Texas House Democrats who are defined civil arrest warrants after leaving the state to block a Trump-backed redistricting plan. Welcome to Meet the Press now.

I'm Gabe Gutierrez in Washington with the U.S. economy once again front and center, as the clock ticks down on sweeping new tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners, and the president warns of more trade penalties on everything from computer chips to prescription drugs. In an interview on CNBC, the president claimed that tariffs were boosting his poll numbers, even though his approval rating has weakened across multiple polls, and most voters disapprove of his handling of the economy.

So the president doubled down on his tariff agenda while vowing sweeping new penalties on imports of semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. We're going to be announcing on semiconductors and chips, which is a separate category, because we want them made in the United States, but on pharmaceuticals, we'll be putting a initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one and a half years maximum, it's going to go to 150 percent, and then it's going to go to 250 percent, because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country. It comes as the president continues to downplay weaker than expected jobs numbers, repeating his baseless claim that the numbers were being rigged, and that the ousted head of the agency that produced the report was part of a government conspiracy. Here's his response to pushback from CNBC anchors when they pressed him for evidence to back up his claims.

Well, I think when somebody says the commissioner is not involved, I don't want to get into any arguments with anybody. Why should I? She's a very nice woman. Exactly.

But when they say that nobody was involved and that wasn't political, give me a break. The president has said he plans to name a new commissioner of labor statistics in the coming days. He's also naming names of potential candidates that replace Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who is also baselessly accused of conspiring against him. Joining me now is MSNBC news, White House correspondent Monica Alba.

Hey there, Monica. President Trump says he'll unveil new tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors as we just heard. What more do we know about it? Yeah, this was some news that was made earlier today in that interview gave, and he is essentially when it comes to semiconductors talking about the fact that he wants more of those chips made in the United States.

Of course, many of the world semiconductors come from Taiwan, and specifically a company called TSMC, which has multiple clients, including companies in the U.S., like Apple and others. And so he is saying that he is going to unveil this new plan perhaps in the next week or so that would include those tariffs on semiconductors, and that is, of course, an important economic point and plan for the president. But he is also raising this issue of pharmaceuticals, as you mentioned, and he had talked about a tariff rate that would potentially be something like 200%, and now is floating the idea of raising that to 250%. So as we're talking about countries that are making certain kinds of deals with the United States, which we know are still ongoing and evolving in real time, in fact, the president of Switzerland is heading to the U.S.

to try to see if they can get a better deal or framework than what they currently have. So that shows you there is an openness to this, but the president is also now talking about these other sectors that are key that he's eyeing as well to perhaps change or increase tariffs on to. And you know, Monica, is the White House concerned about how those pharmaceutical tariffs could potentially impact the American consumers? Yeah, and this is something that the White House says that they would like to continue to have a conversation with the pharmaceutical companies about, remember, the president had reached out to, I think, almost all of them issuing nearly 17 or so letters, trying to urge them to try to consider to lower certain prices, otherwise there will be, again, this talk or discussion.

But this is something the president has tried to have an ongoing dialogue about and tries to dismiss concerns for consumers, saying that they are the ones that the administration is trying to work to protect, but they could see higher prices from this, too. And Monica, quickly, is there any update on the president's search for a new BLS commissioner? We know that he wants to make that announcement in the next couple of days, he says he wants to install somebody that he would like more than the person that he fired, and he does have a right to fire a political appointee, but it's a Senate confirmed position, so whoever he does nominate would have to go through that process, and that may take some time and face some opposition from Democrats who've already indicated that they will oppose that, perhaps. And Monica, before I let you go, the White House also just confirmed that the president spoke with President Zelensky of Ukraine today, do we have any information about that call?

Well, we know from the Ukrainian side a little bit more information, but the president hasn't given very many details, but of course the really relevant and important context here is that the president has given Russian president Vladimir Putin just until the end of this week as his deadline, and if he doesn't meet it in terms of trying to have a conversation about ending the war in Ukraine, there could be some secondary tariffs for Russia and some other potential responses that the administration has not outlined. So we know that currently the president's envoy, who deals with a lot of these complicated overseas issues, Steve Whitcoff, is on his way, we expect to Russia to have some of those meetings, so we know the administration is really approaching this from all angles right now. Well, for us outside the White House, Monica, thank you. And Jeremy now is the White House, from the White House, rather as one of the president's top economic advisors, Peter Navarro is a senior counselor to the president for trade and manufacturing.

Mr. Navarro, thank you so much for your time here on me. Okay, nice to see you, sir. Mr.

Navarro, yesterday we talked to the previous commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, William Beach. He was appointed and served in the first Trump administration. I want to play some of what he told us. It's not possible for the commissioner to have that influence.

I was never in the room where the data was collected, I was never in the room where the data It was summed up and then estimated into these well-known numbers that we get on first Friday. In fact, the commissioner doesn't see the numbers until they're completely finished. The current situation does not permit the commissioner to lead a conspiracy to rig the data. So Mr.

Navarro, as we just heard, he says it's not possible for a commissioner to have that much influence over the labor data. What's your reaction to that? Fish rots from the head down. The commissioner, if the data is consistently bad, has a responsibility as being the head of that union to figure out what the heck's going on.

The head, in this case, the worst miss in 50 years, the worst miss in 50 years. And if you want to look at it from the lens of the failure, it had a catastrophic failure in terms of our economy. If those numbers are indeed accurate and they had to be revised to what they were this week, what that tells you is that the Federal Reserve, there's no question it should have lowered interest rates by as much as 100 or 150 basis points. So the fact that the commissioner was not running the ship properly and allowed that there to happen is grounds alone for firing.

Now, with respect to whether there's manipulation of data, I can tell you there's several documented cases where in the hands of Obama, when Biden was vice president, documented manipulation of the data. In 2018, for example, we had a situation where things were moved from Q4 to Q3 to make things look like the tax cuts were failed. Now, hear me out. I mean, this is documented.

And it was documented by the Federal Reserve. And then there was another thing called the quick base scandal back during Obama's thing. The idea that it can't be rigged or whatever, I think more importantly that there's so much variable in the data post pandemic that we need competent people in there and that's what we should focus on. Those people are not competent.

If they give you those kind of numbers. Well, Mr. Varro, a couple of things. First, he said your numbers were may have been consistently bad that is different than being rigged.

But I do want to press you on this point. The president just over the last couple of months, for example, on March 7, he touted the job numbers back then. He said that they were much better. On April 29, he said that in three months, he created 350,000 jobs.

On June 6, he said a lot of jobs are being created. And even today, and you see in the interview, he said, if you look at the jobs report last week, it did show that 1.7 million, there was a drop off of 1.7 million foreign born workers from March to July. So he's okay with those numbers, but not these specific jobs numbers. How can you explain that?

Well, let me get back. Okay. See, here's the thing. If you're, if you want to know how you could like cause trouble for the Trump administration, the only thing holding back the Trump economy right now is the failure of the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.

Let me say I'm like, the only thing hold us back is the failure of the Fed to lower interest rates. Okay. But here's my point. So if, if three or four months ago, I'm sitting over in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and I hate Trump, like a lot of those bureaucrats do, what can I do?

I could, I could make the job numbers look better in the short run and keep Jay Powell on, on ice there. It's like, they're going to come, he's growing too fast. And then drop that bomb. I mean, that's a scenario, but I think, let's kind of get lost in that.

I think you and I can agree on this. That was the worst missing 50 years. You and I can agree on this. This is a factual matter since the pandemic for whatever reason we need to get to the bottom of it.

The numbers have gotten much more variable and we've got to fix that problem because it has real implications for investors in Wall Street and for Fed will reserve decisions. We can agree on that. And so, who's ever running that place, if they're overseeing that, it's fair game to fire. Like get them out of there.

A bunch of you is they were incompetent, that's incompetent, that cannot happen if they're paying attention. So I said we get to the point about the Fed and I do want to ask you about that. Are we in an economic emergency right now to justify the firing of Jerome Powell? Well let me do the numbers for you there.

My view is that we're 100 basis points at least higher than we are on short term race. Now what does that do? Yeah, but the administration doesn't have to pay for it. This happened during the Trump administration.

This is the problem. I get to come here and say hey when we were back in 2018 and they were making bad decisions instead of growing 3%, we could have grown at 4%. So Powell was at three major blunders. Back in the first turn he raised rates too fast and that caused this a point of growth.

During Biden's thing, he raised rates too late and that allowed inflation to get widely out of control. Now this time he's raising him too late. But you asked me is this an emergency? Well you tell me, 100 basis points too high is over a hundred billion dollars of extra interest rates.

We're going to have to pay on the debt because 20 to 30% of that debt is finished by short term rates. It's mortgage rates of family, pays a thousand dollars or more on their mortgage, it's credit card debt. It's over a million jobs, over a million jobs you do not create because interest rates are too high. All of that is statistics.

So when you ask, should he be fired, I would say to Jay Powell it's like resign. You are the worst fed chair in history and I've written an op-ed to Hill on that and it's in fact. We have you for a limited time. So I want to move on to tariffs.

President Trump this morning, he announced that he's planning to increase tariffs on pharmaceuticals as we mentioned. Is that going to make Americans pay more for some prescription drugs? So I have some experience in this. I was called the Defense Production Act Coordinator during the pandemic and during the pandemic we were threatened by China in particular that being ground in a sea of virus holding back our pharmaceuticals and it was an epiphany then that we needed to bring home our production of pharmaceuticals.

And we need to do that. Now we started to do that at the end of the first term but Biden dropped the ball on that and we need to do that. Now with respect to whether prices are going to be higher, here's another problem we've got to deal with. We're dealing with these pharmaceutical companies which are oligopolies.

One of the practices they do which I think Americans should really condemn is what's called cross subsidization. In other words, they have pills that they sell worldwide and they stick us with the highest prices because we have the highest incomes and therefore have the highest lowest elasticity in the airport. So it's just that's kind of things not fair and so that one is complicated but I can tell you again. I can tell you this.

If we do not bring home our pharmaceutical production we will be vulnerable strategically to the kind of blackmail that China has been using lately with things like rare earths and gallium and things like that. And we can't live in that world game. And Mr. Navarro, the administration that has made that argument repeatedly that you want to bring manufacturing pharmaceuticals back to the United States.

But the question I have still stands, can you assure Americans that the price of their drugs won't go up at least in the short term? You have been listening to what I'm saying here. It's like again we have a lot of tools to keep drug prices down by putting pressure on the pharmaceutical companies to stop bringing all the monopoly prices. Stop spending so much money on TV on their ads and instead give them back to the American people.

At the same time we develop our capabilities. I mean are you saying to me Gabe you'd rather have the lowest possible prices and depend on the rest of the world and then like in the pandemic not have the pharmaceuticals when you need them. Do you want to live in that world? So don't present me with this false choice of prices versus what?

You got to say what the what is. The what is is a very dangerous strategic vulnerability if we're not able to produce the penicillin and all the antibiotics everything we need and we can't do that right now. And we need to. Peter Navarro, the White House advisor joining us sir.

Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate your administration's perspective. Pleasure talking. Thanks.

And thank you turning out a Capitol Hill where the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee just issued a trove of new subpoenas demanding information tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Among the targets of Congressman James Comer, President Trump's own Justice Department which has been subpoenaed to turn over the full complete unredacted Epstein files to his committee by August 19th two weeks from today. Other targets include a slew of other names directly and indirectly tied to Epstein like former President Clinton former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former top Justice Department officials including five former attorneys general from the Bush Obama and first Trump administration. I mean it's a new senior national political reporter Saha Kapoor joins me now in Saha.

So what lengths is the House Oversight Committee willing to go to get the Epstein files from the Justice Department? Significant Gabe. Mr. Comer is going to be a very busy man in the months of August and September because he just dropped a lot of subpoenas on Justice Department officials dating all the way back to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez back in 2006 when Jeffrey Epstein was first arrested.

This also includes subpoenas for FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller all for testimony related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein. Now the most interesting one here is that subpoena to current Attorney General Pam Bondi requiring her to turn over a slew of documents and communications regarding the Epstein matter including case files including the non-prosecution agreement back in 2007 including those involving Epstein's death in 2019 which has been quite the topic of conversation among some of President Trump's MAGA base. The deadline Comer gives Bondi as August 19th all these documents are required to be turned over to him in unredacted form. The letter says with some exceptions for personal identifiable information for the victims.

Now this does follow a vote within the House Oversight Committee requiring James Comer to issue this subpoena and he pushed it off for a little while. Now he has issued it. So in a way James Comer's hands were tied here because of this effort by not just Republicans but a lot of Democrats in the House of Representatives forced by Democrats to require the DOJ to release the Epstein files. In part, Democrats have an opportunity here to drive a wedge between the President and his basic supporter.

So this Epstein story has been a drip drip of information over the last couple of weeks even President Trump commenting on several days has really catapulted the news cycle at times. These subpoenas specifically put the Epstein story front and center yet again which is not exactly what the White House wants. So do you know if James Comer consulted with the Trump administration at all before issuing these subpoenas? We don't know.

If he didn't he's going to be dealing with a pretty angry President Trump who has been eager to get this issue of Jeffrey Epstein on this whole saga off his plate, tried unsuccessfully to get his own base and some of his own staunch supporters to move on from it. There is one element of this year with James Comer trying to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton. They would be and I think the White House would be more content to hear a conversation about the Clinton's past associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Now there is a subpoena for the former President of Bill Clinton.

It's not quite so simple. As you know, the January 6th, when they tried to subpoena then former President Trump and simply ignored it and nothing happened. Bill Clinton by the way, through his spokesman said in 2019 that he knows nothing about the terrible crimes that Epstein had been charged with, that yes he had traveled on Epstein's plan. This spokesperson said while doing work with the Clinton Foundation but as of 2019 when Jeffrey Epstein had died that Bill Clinton had not spoken to him in well over a decade gave.

So that's the statement from the Clintons and beyond that with all these subpoenas, there's usually a legal back and forth between the committee and these individuals about when they would testify about the nature of the deposition testimony. All of that is going to be ongoing and it's going to continue in the month of August while Congress is off. So I hope you're live for us on Capitol Hill style. Thank you.

And coming up, don't mess with Texas. We have the latest developments in the spiraling redistricting fiasco. It's like the one of the Democratic state lawmakers who is currently on the run and facing a civil arrest threat for blocking a vote from the Lone Star State's proposed congressional map. Don't go anywhere.

I'm watching Meet the Press now. Now welcome back. Turn into Texas where the State House of Representatives adjourned without a quorum for the second straight day as dozens of Democratic lawmakers remain out of the state to block the start of a special legislative session and a Trump-backed plan to draw new lines for the state's congressional districts. Texas House Speaker says they'll try again on Friday to see if there's a quorum urging Democrats to return to take up business in the special session.

Some of the Democrats who fled to Illinois include DNC Chair Ken Martin at a press conference today, digging in on their opposition to the new district maps. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn is asking the FBI to get involved to investigate the lawmakers that left the state after the House authorized a warrant for their arrest and the governor ordered state authorities to return them to the chamber. President Trump weighed in on the situation for the first time today, saying that Republicans are entitled to five more seats in Texas under the new maps he wants. We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats.

We have a really good governor and we have good people in Texas. And I want Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats. And title to five more seats.

Now, let's turn now to one of the Texas Democratic lawmakers who's left the state. Joining me now is Texas State Representative Gina Hinojosa, state representative. Thank you so much for joining us here on Meet the Press. Now, you're in Illinois with other Democratic representatives.

Now, in 2021, UN, your fellow Democrats also left the state for six weeks before returning. Is this time going to be different and how long are you planning on staying out of the state? We take it day by day. We fight to win today.

When we broke quorum in 2021, we knew we could win for the day and we knew we could win for a special session. And the amount of national attention that we shined on what Texas Republicans were doing to take away the voice and vote of Texans, shame them into getting their own bill and removing the most egregious provisions of the bill that had inspired a quorum break to begin with. We could not have known at that time. That would be the outcome.

We just knew it was the right thing to do on that day at that time. That is a lesson from 21. We take it day by day. We fight to win each day.

Representative Governor Abbott is threatening to fine remove and prosecute Texas Democrats who left the state, including yourself. Are you and Texas Democrats prepared to potentially be arrested when and if you return to Texas? This thing happened in 2021. It is a civil arrest warrant and that's why we had to come to another state.

To avoid being taken back to the floor of the house, to be forced to pass their power grab, their Trump maps. So that's why we're here in order to keep from having to be hauled into the Texas House. What is the end game here? Is this just about trying to make things more painful for Governor Abbott and Republicans?

You talked about drawing national attention to this. You have it. What is your end game now? The end game is to kill the maps.

So we take it day by day. We fight to win. And that is what the end game is. Right.

I want to play something for you that Governor Abbott said last night, let's listen. The point here is that Democrats have done something that is very untexable. They turn their backs on their fellow Texans when it came to a fight. They turn and run away, not just from this redistricting fight.

They ran away from dealing with the flooding issues that are still echoing across the curvil area. Families desperately need results from the state legislature in this 30-day special session that are not going to be delivered because Democrats are hanging out in Chicago and New York and other places. Representative Hossa, what's your reaction to that? He's saying that you're holding up flood release of relief rather by leading the state.

What do you make of that? The truth is this Governor is shamefully withholding flood relief in exchange for his maps. He is holding flood relief hostage. So he has the power to move money for these victims, for these communities that have been devastated by the July 4th, he did it in 2021, when he moved $250 million to build parts of a border wall.

It was not appropriate then, but this would be appropriate for him to use his emergency powers to move money because there was a natural disaster. Let's also remember that his appointed River Authority refused to spend their reserves of $3.4 million for a flood warning system that could have saved lives. It was only $1 million to purchase that system. They did not.

The problem here is not the laws. The problem here is who is elected and who is in power and that's Governor Abbott and he has disregarded the lives and safety of Texans. The dereliction of duty is in the lap of Governor Abbott. Representative National Democrats like New York Governor Kathy Holgo are saying Democrats must fight fire with fire and use similar redistricting to match Governor Abbott.

Do you want to see that? Isn't that exactly what you're fighting against in Texas? So if Democrats were in power of Texas, we would have independent non-partisan citizen redistricting commissions. That is legislation we have filed, that is legislation we have signed on to.

We aren't in power, unfortunately. And so what you are seeing now is an arms war. We have other governors of Democratic states seeing a real and present threat from their constituents through Texas, through this power grab, and they're just trying to figure out how to defend their own constituents from the harm and pain that this president who is unchecked for another two years under the midterms will cause them. That's what you're seeing.

It's an arms race and it wouldn't be happening if Democrats were in charge of Texas. I take your point about an arms race. I want to put up some of your op-ed right here. It says, we must fight for Texas and a country where every voter in every neighborhood has an equal voice.

After all, a hallmark of a thriving American democracy is that voters choose their elected leaders, not the other way around. So Representative, California and New York, both redistrict to help Democrats, wouldn't they be denying Republicans in those states an equal voice? And how is that different than what Greg Abbott is pushing in Texas? So again, this is not ideal, but it is the reality when Republicans are in charge of Texas and trying to achieve this power grab that is disrespectful of voters.

So what is happening in other states is they're just trying to figure out how to protect their own. In Texas, they are trying to achieve five more Republican members, but on the backs of black and brown communities. In Austin, where I represent, they have eliminated a Latino district in the Trump map. In Houston, the same thing is true in the area that has the most Latinos living in any other part of Texas.

It will no longer have a Latino opportunity district out of Houston. So that is illegal. It is unlawful. It is exactly what Governor Abbott was charged to do with the Department of Justice letter by Pam Bondi, saying you need to eliminate districts because they are majority black and brown.

That's what they're trying to do. And it is unlawful. It is unconscionable. And it's shameful.

And finally, Representative Illinois Governor David Pritzker said that Texas Republicans are trying to cheat with these maps. And California Governor Gavin Newsom says that the 2026 election is rigged because of these maps. Do you agree with them? Yes, absolutely.

What they were trying to do is manipulate these congressional districts so that the outcome of the 26th and in terms is predetermined in favor of Republican control. Trump is running scared. He's running away from the voters. He is trying to block them from holding him accountable for high prices at the grocery stores.

Loss of health care hits to our neighborhood schools. The list goes on and on. They have a right to hold him accountable in his fundamental to our identity as Americans. And we are doing everything in our power to stop it.

Texas State Representative Gina Hinojosaki, we thank you so much for your time. It's my pleasure. Thank you. And up next, the deeper dive into the importance of Texas redistricting and why it could decide House Control nationwide.

Steve Cordacki standing by the big board to break it all down. They're watching the press now. Stay with us. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the card today at workouts meal plans.

It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members begin an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription into XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more XFINITY. Imagine that subscription automatically reduce each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. All brands may 20th, 26th prices subject to change visit today.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details.

As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop, but a podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Gazzman D'Souguin. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world with what page, the zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Spotify. 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 viewer 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. As we mentioned, the fight in Texas is brewing over the new congressional map proposed by Republicans. But they hope will help them gain up to five seats in the house in the 2026 midterms.

Well, joining me now, from the big board, is NBC News's national political correspondent, Steve Cornakke. Steve, so good to have you here. How might the proposed redistricting map in Texas affect the balance of power in the house? Yeah.

Well, you mentioned those five seats that Republicans are aiming for here. Look, the proposal has not been enacted. It might change, but I think it shows you here at least what their goal is. Twenty-five, thirteen is the delegation right now from Texas.

This proposed map from Republicans, if you just filled in each district based on the presidential election result last year, Trump Republican or Harris Democrat, it would give Republicans a 30 to eight advantage from the Texas delegation. Now, actually getting all five of those, though, might be complicated under this plan a little bit, at least, for Republicans. Let me show you this. These are the five districts Republicans are after with this proposed redraw, and there are two different things happening here.

Start with these three that I'm going to circle right here, the 35th district, the 9th district, and the 32nd district. In these three, what you are seeing here is just sort of a wholesale redraw of each district, geographically, demographically, a transformed district. All of these overwhelming Democratic districts, currently represented by Democrats, they would become double-digit Trump districts, likely then the question would be with these Democratic incumbents. Do they go try to seek re-election in other nearby districts?

So these could be three, almost, give me pickups for Republicans here, then the other two. Henry Quayar is the Democratic incumbent in the 28th district, Vicente Gonzalez is the Democratic incumbent in the 34th district. The changes in these districts were more minor. You can see here Quayar, a Democrat, had just won re-election last year in a district that went for Trump by seven points.

Under this redraw, this district, this is in the Laredo area, South Texas, gets more Republican by three points. But again, Quayar was able to win with Trump winning this district by seven. If he comes to district, Trump would have won by 10, Quayar certainly would still be competitive in that district. So this would not be automatic for Republicans.

A wildcard here too, Henry Quayar, a more moderate, conservative Democrat, especially on the border, has some particular appeal in that district. He's facing federal bribery charges. Will he even be a candidate come 2026? That's a big wildcard.

But certainly if he is in this district, this redraw doesn't rule him out of winning that at all. And also, Gonzalez here, Vicente Gonzalez in the 34th district, again, Rio Grande Valley, won last year in a district that voted for Trump by four points. It becomes a district that would have voted for Trump by 10. That certainly puts him in grave jeopardy if this is the district he ends up running in.

But again, the fact that he could win here means he certainly would have a shot to win here, especially in a midterm environment. Nationalize this. Again, we talk about these three districts here that have gone that under this plan would go from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. What that means is we have this count here.

There are currently 13 Democrats around the country in districts that were won by Trump last year. These are places Republicans want to play offense in 2026. Those three that they're completely redrawing we just showed you in Texas would bring that count up to 16. So Republicans could now potentially be playing offense in 16 districts and don't forget Gabe.

There's certainly a possibility what we're seeing in Texas could play out soon in Ohio with Republicans trying to do the same thing here and Republicans could potentially bring this number of 16 up to say 18, maybe 19 if they were able to get a redraw, the redraw they're looking for there. So the net effect here for Democrats, if they get a map like this out of Texas, it lets them play offense next year in places they weren't originally going to and they can afford. Students can afford a net loss of no more than two house seats. So anything they can pick up from Democrats is huge for them.

You know, Steve, 26 doesn't seem so far off anymore. Thanks so much for helping us flush it out. Steve, you've got it. And after the break home is where the town halls are.

We have a look at how Republican and Democratic lawmakers are taking heat from their constituents as voters demand accountability. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. If it's August, it's time for some fiery town halls with Congress out of session.

Lawmakers are back in their districts facing constituents starting in Nebraska where Republican Congressman Mike Flood was just a few minutes into his remarks trying to sell the president's sweeping agenda bill when the audience broke out into booze. I want to go right into this bill because I know this is something a lot of people have questions about. And quite frankly, from where I sit, there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the bill. One of those changes is that if you are able to work and you are able-bodied, you have to work.

If you choose not to work, you do not get free health care. You do not get free health care. Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin held the town hall in a Republican district trying to focus on pocketbook issues, health care, and the cost of living. For Donald Trump, whose central thesis, his central theme when he ran in November, was he was going to lower your costs.

In every single category, he is not lowering your costs. He is raising your costs. And we should know about prices for some goods are up. Inflation overall is about the same as it was when President Biden left office.

And we see his Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin was at that town hall in Michigan. She joins me now. Julie, what more did you hear from Senator Slotkin about what direction the Democratic Party needs to go heading into 2026 and 2028? Well, Gabe, it was kind of a full circle because I remember being on the campaign bus with her when she was running for Senate in November.

And she told me then that Democrats need to go on offense, that leaders right now don't have a plan. So I asked her yesterday. Do you feel like they have a plan now? He's been in the Senate for seven months.

And she said there's still more work to be done. And she threw shade at Democratic leadership for being too old. I should note, her town hall was different than Mike Floods. It was a ticketed event.

You have to register in advance. I should also note, her message was catered toward young people. But everyone in that room, almost everyone, was older. Take a listen to what she told me.

They don't see themselves in elected leadership. And that's why some of the youngest members of elected leadership get a ton of energy and enthusiasm around them because it's like, oh, that person understands my issues. You know, that person doesn't use a flick bow and that person is like up understands technology and the changing economy. So the economy and a new generation of leadership, to me, are keys to bringing that next generation into politics.

Is that what you think? I'm down in New York. Had so much success. It wasn't necessarily his progressiveness.

It was his age. Yeah, I've said very openly that I don't, I don't, I'm never would be called an expert on New York City politics. But the two messages were like a blinking red light. How can you miss them?

People are still extremely focused on the cost of living and how they can't get ahead, still the motivating issue. And the number two, they want that new generation of leadership. That's what's like and said, she said Democrats are too scattered. She compared them to his victory to what happened in November of course when Democrats, some of them didn't show up, Trump ended up benefiting off of that.

And she said Democrats need to focus on the economy. And there's also this, as we've been talking about the growing fight over redistricting in Texas. Where does she stand on how Democrats should respond to that? Yeah, I've covered her in the house.

She was a CIA analyst before she got into politics. I covered her run for Senate. She's always been somebody who was middle of the road center of the aisle moderate. And now she says that she will go nuclear.

Those are her words. She said, if Republicans are going to play with fire, then you bring fire right back. And she said she doesn't like the idea of redistricting becoming partisan. But if Republicans are going to follow suit, whatever the president tells them to do in Texas, now potentially eyeing other red states, she said Democrats have to be out there in California, in Illinois, in New York.

They need to be out there saying that they too will try to redraw the maps in favor of their party. Though she agrees, of course, as many Democrats and even some Republicans do, this entire process is just partisan no matter which side is trying to redraw the lines. But of course, this issue is so big, talking on redistricting, on government funding, which is the next fight coming up. He's going to play hardball.

We'll be certain. Bye for us. I'm Tabitha Hill. Thank you.

Hey, everyone. I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of The Third Hour of Today, and mom to three wild boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one.

This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week, I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real-world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up.

I'm not giving you advice. I'm not screwing yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.