Meet the Press NOW — August 6

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, and we begin with breaking news at Fort Stewart in Georgia, an army base, just 40 miles southwest of Savannah, where early this afternoon, a gunman opened fire. Moments ago, Army officials just provided an update. The alleged shooter has been identified as Cornelius Radford.

He was an active duty soldier who worked on the base. Here's more of what officials said. This morning, shortly before 11 o'clock, an active duty soldier assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia shot and wounded five of his fellow soldiers here on Fort Stewart. Thankfully, all are in stable condition and all are expected to recover.

The alleged shooter is in custody. I know that his soldiers in the area that witnessed the shooting immediately and without hesitation tackled the soldiers subdued him that allowed law enforcement to then take him into custody. This is a photo of the alleged shooter from an arrest earlier this year for a DUI. Army officials said the alleged shooter did not use a military weapon and they believe it was a personal handgun.

They don't know what his motivations were at this point. The officials also adding the lockdown has been lifted and there is no active threat to the community. Now, the White House saying President Trump has been briefed on the incident and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also saying she's actively monitoring the situation. In a statement, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp says he was saddened by the tragedy at Fort Stewart and his office remains in close contact with law enforcement on the ground.

Joining me now is NBC News senior national security correspondent, Courtney QB at the Pentagon. NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter. And in a moment, we'll be joined by Jim Kavanaugh, retired ATF special agent in charge and an NBC News law enforcement analyst. Courtney, I want to start with you.

You've been working your sources. What more can you tell us about this incident and the soldier who was identified as the alleged gunman? Yeah, we know a little bit more about the soldier himself, a sergeant. He joined the Army in the act of duty in January of 2018.

So he's been in just over seven years going on eight years. He worked in the sustainment brigade with the second armor brigade combat team. That's the unit part of the third infantry division down at Fort Stewart. Basically, his job, Kristen, was logistical support providing keeping up the supply chain to other troops.

Now, we know, according to the general there who just brief last hour, that the soldiers who were involved in this shooting were in his fellow unit. These are the people that he served with day in and day out. And one thing I was really struck by from that brief and Kristen is the fact that other soldiers are actually the ones who subdued him. After he started shooting, they tackled him, they waited until law enforcement were able to take him down.

Now, you mentioned that he was using his own handgun. This was not a military issued weapon. But we also have learned, according to this one star general, that in fact, he had no history of any kind of disciplinary issues within his background in the military. Now, they're still looking into that.

You mentioned the DUI. It appears that he did not report that up to his commanders at the time that it occurred. They've just recently learned about that. On that, like I said, the Army saying that there were no other indications of behavioral issues that they're aware of at this point.

Now, he's being held right now in free trial confinement there at Fort Stewart. At this point, we expect that this case will be handled within the military court of justice. That means because he is a soldier, the individuals involved, the victims are soldiers, and it occurred on a military base. We expect that even though the investigation itself will probably be more broad than just the Army CID and other military law enforcement, that at this point he will likely face criminal justice within the U.S.

military court system. So, Courtney, those are really notable details there. Where do you think this investigation goes from here at this point? I think it's really telling that despite the fact that the base has been clear for movement for several hours now, that the second BCT ABCT complex where the shooting occurred remains on lockdown.

I suspect that's because this will be an intensive and thorough investigation. The big question they will be looking for is, how did he get this weapon on base, Kristen? The reality is, if he had access to the base, even though troops and civilians and contractors, anyone who comes on and off the base are not supposed to have a weapon with them when they enter the base and they're supposed to declare if they do for some sort of an official reason. The reality is, this whole incident shows how it can be pretty simple for someone with base access to get a weapon on to the base.

And as we see here with very dangerous consequences, that'll be a big part of this investigation. But then again, I think one of the biggest questions remains the motive here. Why did he open fire on as we learned just last hour on the people who he was probably working with day in and day out there at Fort Stewart? Well, and this all, just to follow up on that point, Courtney, I mean, you would anticipate they'd have pretty strong security at a military base, like Fort Stewart.

Can you walk us through what security there would look like? Absolutely. So, they would not only have the overall perimeter security, you know, whether it's a fence, a wall, there will also be the gates where you can access the base. Those would have military police on them.

There will be military police patrolling. At various parts of the base, there are likely additional security gates that you have to go through. So, as you said, extensive security, you can't just get on there as a member of the public. You have to have base access to get on.

But, Kristen, remember, it's not just people who would be working there. The 10,000 or so military service members, civilians and contractors who go on and off the base every day. There would also be potentially family members, including children who would be coming on and off the base, whether to shop, maybe to go to daycare there. And then veterans would have access also to do their shopping or maybe even to go to their medical care there.

So, a lot of people coming on and off the base every single day, it just shows how the potential for someone to sneak a weapon on in this case. It shows a big loophole in what is a very, generally a very secure military installation. Absolutely a terrifying loophole at that. Courtney Cubie, thank you so much.

I know you've been on this since we first learned about the shooting. Thank you for bringing us up to speed. Tom Winter, let me turn to you. Courtney, talking about the investigation.

What kind of information do you think investigators will be looking for at this point in time, given that he was with the military and was stationed on the base? Right, that's right, Kristen. And so, one of the things that we've learned from the press conference that we just had within the last hour or so coming from officials there on base is that, in fact, this individual, the Sergeant Radford, is talking to Army investigators. So, I mean, that's a great thing right off the bat from an investigative standpoint.

You're looking at a photo taken here. This is a booking photo tied to that DUI charge that you were referring to earlier. So, the fact that he's going to be talking to them could obviously be very helpful from a standpoint of motive. What was the reason for this?

What was the state of mind? How did he get that weapon on base? You know, some of the questions that you and Courtney were just talking about. So, that's going to be really helpful.

They'll do all the forensic work because they have to do that anyway. And then, of course, you know, if there's an issue about that gun and whether or not it was purchased legally, whether he should have had it legally or not, that'll obviously be addressed as well. The DUI charge against him was eligible to still have that weapon on his person. That all needs to be looked into, not just by law enforcement, by us, as our job as a reporter.

So, those are some initial questions that they'll want to tackle. Obviously, if he obtained the gun illegally, did somebody sell it to him illegally? That's going to be focused for investigators as well. But I think otherwise, this is pretty self-contained at this point.

The military seems to have what they believe to be a pretty good handle on the facts. Well, and to that point, Tom, does the fact that it has actually happened on a military base impact how the investigation is conducted, the speed with which it's conducted? Well, very much so. I mean, first off, there's an entirely different apparatus for investigating it.

We're not going to have a press conference soon with a local district attorney talking about this particular incident, perhaps if there are other charges elsewhere. It's going to be investigated with the help, if need be, of the FBI, who's obviously been aware of this and on top of it since it happened. They've put out statements to that effect, the ATF, if need be, and other federal agencies. So, they'll look at all of that, Kristen, and work with Army CID.

But, you know, most times I would say, okay, you know, maybe in a couple hours, we'll get some additional charging information, then we'll get a booking photo, then we'll get this and that. That's not going to be the case here. It's going to be contained within the military system. Presumably, they may have some other options as far as compelling individuals to talk.

Potentially, there's just, you know, kind of a different approach to this entirely. At the end of the day, they believe they have the person responsible for the crime. They're talking to this person, so there's also a lot of commonality and similarities with other active shooter incidents that we see, unfortunately, all too often. All right, Tom Winter, thank you so much for your great reporting.

Jim Kavanaugh, let me turn to you and what officials are saying, this extraordinary revelation that the suspect and the victim's work co-workers, how significant is that in the investigation? What does that tell you? Well, it gives the Army CID agents a lot of information, and they have all the background of the assailant. Kristen, they know who he is.

They have all his military files, and he's cooperating as Tom, just reported, so he's in there singing. Like he's in an audition for, you know, his show, and this is his show. I mean, this is his spree, his thing he's wanting to do. You know, it'll be interesting to see if he turns out to be suicidal, like about half of these guys are.

Although he didn't kill himself, that's an interesting fact as well, like the shooter just did in New York last week, shot his victims and then killed himself. I did not. We'll see what the reasons for that are. He was apprehended by other soldiers.

They talked about a 40-minute delay, so I don't know if he ran. He was chased or what happened. He didn't give us those facts, but the commanding general didn't give us a lot of facts. He told us it was a hand gun.

It was a privately owned hand gun. ATF will be tracing that. Probably he's already done it, an urgent trace, and providing that to CID. It's just an interesting fact that the Secretary of the Army is also the Director of ATF, and so his desk is going to be busy with all the facts landed on it today.

I want to protect his soldiers in Fort Stewart. I've been on that base. I've worked with the Army explosive ordinance. People there are great.

It's like a city. It's a city, really. 50,000 people moving around there. If you're a member of the military or even a civilian employee, you can get on the base with a hand gun.

Of course, because they have different levels of security depending on what's happening in the world and how their deployments are and what the threat level. So normally operating, it's just you're ordered not to bring the gun on, but you're not searched every time you come on. And certainly if you're a sergeant, you can come on with your backpack and you could you could secrete a hand gun. So that could happen.

But this soldier did not report his DUI, which he had recently, and he's required to do that to his commanding officer. So maybe some spiraling down of him. That would probably end his career, mess up his career for sure, a DUI. So maybe he was having some other difficulties and he decided he was going to take it out on his fellow soldiers.

Is it revenge? Is it a power grab? Is suicide a light motif in the case? I think that's interesting.

We'll see. It's probably going to be prosecuted by the military in their courts because it's all military, the shooter and all the victims. So and it happened on the base. So that's where it will be prosecuted.

Just to follow up with you. I mean, the fact that he had a DUI, how significant is that and what questions does it raise for you in addition to the ones that you're laying out? Well, you know, when you enter into the federal service, the civilian service or especially military law enforcement service, you know, if you get arrested, you're required to report that to your superiors immediately. The police often report it to the military, but you're required as well.

You can't hide that from your superiors. You've got to go in immediately and say, I was arrested last night for this or that because it may affect your service. And, you know, he apparently did not do that because the generals at the press conference, Chris, and he said, we just found out about it after the shooting today. We just found out he was arrested recently for DUI.

So what stuck out to me there is the army didn't know about it from the local sheriff, maybe, but the sergeant was required to report it to his commanding officer. Why didn't he report it? And so then he was hiding it from them. So something's going on in his life.

And then, you know, is he realizing that something's happening and, you know, he decides to act out here, bring his pistol in and, you know, he's blaming it on his coworkers? You know, Chris, and the thing is when it gets in people's mind, it doesn't even make sense to us when we hear about it. It's like the person from Las Vegas who drove to the NFL office in New York City, and he wanted to shoot up the NFL because he thought that they had caused his brain trauma. So it doesn't have to make sense.

It's just what they think they want to act on. All right, Jim Kavanaugh, thank you so much. It's always wonderful to have your perspective on these incredibly difficult days. Thanks so much for being here.

We are following this incident closely and we'll bring you any major developments as we get them coming up. The president struggles to turn the page on the Jeffrey Epstein saga have been new subpoenas and pressure for more information. Plus, US Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff meets with Russian President Putin in Moscow on the war in Ukraine. The takeaways from those talks as President Trump prepares for a potential face-to-face meeting with a Russian leader himself.

Do stay with us. You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back. We're following more breaking news.

The White House says President Trump could meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a White House official telling NBC News that the president could meet with his Russian counterpart as early as next week if Putin also agrees to meet with Ukrainian President Zelensky. A European official tells NBC News that Mr. Trump told European leaders on a call earlier that he plans to meet in person with Putin soon to discuss a possible ceasefire. Now, the news comes hours after the president's Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff wrapped up a meeting with Putin in Moscow, the president calling that meeting, highly productive on social media.

Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba and NBC News reporter Matt Bodner thanks to both of you for being here. So Monica, what are your sources telling you about when and where this potential meeting could take place? This is big news. Yeah, and those are the big questions, Kristen.

You know as well as I do that setting up a meeting between two major world leaders in any circumstance requires a lot of moving pieces, a lot of infrastructure, a lot of planning. So the idea that President Trump could meet with President Putin as early as next week, I'm told, is very significant, but it is still unclear how and when that would happen. And a big part of that condition is this idea that President Trump relayed to Steve Whitkoff after he briefed him on the meeting that, yes, he's open to meeting with President Putin in person, but that he also wants to see if President Putin will meet with Ukrainian President Zelensky. As well to discuss a possible ceasefire for the war in Ukraine.

That's an important piece to all of this. But in terms of some potential venues, we know for instance that the Turkish President Erdogan has offered Istanbul as a venue a couple of weeks ago, he said he wanted to help broker the talks. That's maybe one possibility. And in addition to that, the Vatican, the Pope, has also offered to potentially host those kinds of conversations as he has pushed for peace in recent weeks and months as well.

So are those two possibilities? We just simply don't know. I'm told nothing has been locked down. And with timing, we know these things can slide, and that's a distinct possibility here as well.

But it would obviously be a notable step as the President gave President Putin that 50-day deadline. He shortened it to 10 days. That's set to expire on Friday, but he is touting this great progress that was made in these diplomatic talks today in Moscow. So we'll see where that ultimately lands for future meetings.

We sure will. We know, Monica, of course, that President Trump also spoke with President Zelensky yesterday. Any key takeaways from that call? And was this meeting, do you know a part of that call?

I think that they have loosely been discussing the possibility of some kind of summit for a while. We know that President Trump has really expressed his disappointment with President Putin, but he's really been firm about trying to see if there could be some kind of a problem. That could be scheduled with President Zelensky. So I think it stands to reason that they discuss these next steps or where this goes from here in addition to this larger conversation in economic terms that the President is trying to levy these secondary sanctions and tariffs on countries that are doing business with Russia, and that they say the U.S.

and the President argue are fueling the Russian war machine, and we know that that has been a topic of conversation with President Zelensky as well. So this is a situation where the President is pushing for a major diplomatic breakthrough. He says after trying to do similar deals with other countries where he has had some success on stopping fighting elsewhere, but on the scale of the war in Ukraine, this would really be another level of diplomacy from this President, but he's trying to see if he can make some kind of impact there. All right, Monica Alba at the White House.

Thank you so much for your great reporting. As always, now, Bader, let me turn to you now. Let's talk about the signals that we are getting from the Kremlin. Is there a sense that Vladimir Putin may be serious about meeting with Trump?

As Monica just pointed out, this has been something that's been under discussion for quite some time. Well, thank you, Kristin. Yes. I mean, the Kremlin really has wanted a meeting with President Trump for a long time.

There's no doubt really in my mind that this is something that's come up. Each time Whitkov has gone to Moscow, but they haven't yet really had a chance to respond to these latest developments out of the White House. Essentially, that's by design. Today's meeting and sort of the chronology of events was a bit interesting.

There was some potentially mixed signaling. But, you know, really all we have from the Kremlin at this point comes from Putin's foreign policy advisor, his name is Yuri Ushakov. And he did put out a vague statement earlier today that saying, you know, beyond the topic of Ukraine, the two sides discussed the prospects of a strategic partnership between U.S. and Russia, that's a bit at restoring business ties, most likely.

But really the important takeaway from Ushakov's statement was in reference to the signals from Trump on the Ukraine issue and the war by Friday. He said the Putin's fully aware of the situation. He said that Putin gave his own signals to Trump via Whitkov. That now appears to be this idea.

Let's meet. He wouldn't talk about what that was just yet. He wanted Whitkov to go chop to Trump, give them a chance to discuss this meeting, put out their own statements, and basically said we'll comment on this tomorrow. So I think we won't hear very much from the Kremlin until tomorrow morning.

But it is important to keep in mind, Whitkov before going to Moscow have referred to these conversations as Russia's last chance to reach a deal before the U. S. moved forward with various threats to impose sanctions. So it did appear things could be at a tent stage.

But again, we really do need to hear more from the Kremlin tomorrow. And Matt, talk about the role that Whitkov has played. He has met with Vladimir Putin three times now. He's been significant in trying to move these talks forward.

Absolutely. I mean, he's been basically the shuttle diplomat here. And he liaises a lot with a very similar figure in the Kremlin, a man who's sort of been around in Moscow for a while, Karel Demitryev. He actually was sort of the spokesman for the Russian COVID vaccine.

But his story has risen significantly as essentially the liaison to Whitkov. And a lot of that early discussion we saw between the Trump administration and the Kremlin when Trump first came to office, you know, a lot of the friendlier tones was facilitated by Demitryev via Whitkov. And the two of them definitely seemed too headed off. But he is the point, man.

He is the guy pushing this forward for the White House. And it is interesting. You know, there were also some statements by Demitryev today that were fundamentally different in tone from UChicago's statements, sort of suggesting that dialogue is happening, dialogue is possible. So the two of them do appear to be talking.

And again, it's going to be very interesting tomorrow what, for example, the Kremlin spokesman Demitryev has to say about these latest developments. And all of those tea leaves. So important, Matt Bodner. Thank you so much, as always, for your fantastic reporting.

We really appreciate it. What we are expecting to hear from President Trump this hour when he announces a major investment by Apple in the U.S. economy from the Oval Office. It comes just hours before new tariffs on dozens of U.S.

trading partners begin taking effect today. The president is also announcing a doubling of tariffs in India as punishment for buying Russian oil. The economic news coming as the White House is plagued by new headlines in the Jeffrey Epstein saga. After the House Oversight Committee issued a series of subpoenas to the Justice Department demanding it hand over case files, in addition to documents and testimony from former government officials.

Vice President J.D. Vance, meanwhile, is expected to hold a strategy session at his residence this evening on the matter, which will include Attorney General Pambani, another top administration officials. And the Justice Department is now considering releasing the transcripts of its two-day interview with Epstein accomplice, his Lane Maxwell. Back with me now is M.B.C.'s Tom Winter.

Tom, thanks so much for joining me, really appreciate it. So there's been so much discussion about this. What are the potential ramifications of releasing the Justice Department's interview with Lane Maxwell? So, Kristen, I look at our jobs, and of course, you know, we earn a living, but our job really is to represent our audience.

And the best way that I can do that is get as much information as possible. So, reporters are salivating at the idea that it would be possible that for so many years, the entire Democrat are getting an interview that the Justice Department and the FBI might have done with somebody that is not included, eventually, in either a court filing or some sort of exhibited trial, that's next to impossible. So, the idea that they're going to set the precedent of doing this is something that really has reporters' attention, because it's typically one of the most kind of behind-the-wall records that exist. It's just really hard to get.

It's very unusual. And the idea that it would be put out as a transcript, perhaps with a recording as well, obviously, the potential for more information. From Maxwell to get out there is large. I would also point out, though, it's not clear to us, was there a lot of adversarial questioning?

In other words, the Justice Department really pushed back on some of her assertions. I mentioned that because, of course, Maxwell was charged with perjury in a 2016 deposition involved in some of the civil litigation against her. Prosecutors ultimately did not pursue those charges because she'd already been convicted of sex trafficking and other related charges, including with girls as young as the age of 14. So, this is somebody who's had, according to prosecutors, a very difficult relationship with the truth over the years.

And, of course, the challenges this comes out, and now she's allowed to effectively have a platform for herself. It's going to require a lot of reporting and a lot of fact-checking. Well, you know, the other piece of this story that we're watching and that you've been reporting on so extensively, Tom, is the fact that the Justice Department has faced scrutiny for transferring Maxwell to a minimum security prison in Texas, some other big names in that prison complex. How common is this?

How unusual is the move? Yeah, it's highly uncommon. I can't stress that enough. I've been doing this for over a decade.

I've talked to people that have been doing it twice as long. This is not something that typically happens for somebody who's been convicted of the types of charges that Elaine Maxwell has been convicted of. It would have required a waiver for her to be transferred. Not unusual, Kristen, what a senior administration official told our colleague Monica Alba.

People get transferred for security reasons, for other reasons, all the time, but not kind of a step down so much in security. Just as an example over the weekend, Elizabeth Holmes, who was, of course, convicted for her role in fraud-related charges tied to the blood company called Theranos, there were pictures of her taken working out. And those pictures were clear as a bell because one whole portion of this facility has a short fence, no razor wire, there's no extensive gate for cards. So I think it just kind of underscores the lack of security that exists at this particular camp, Kristen.

Yeah, all right. Well, I know you'll continue to follow all of the angles very closely. Tom Winter, as always, thank you. Appreciate your reporting.

Coming up next, Texas State officials seek a court order to remove the House's top Democrat, as his party digs in after flailing the state to block a Trump-backed redistricting effort. My interview with one of the Texas State Democrats, who's on the run, stay with us. You're watching the president. Welcome back.

Turning to Texas with new developments on the redistricting showdown that's playing out at the Lone Star State and all across the country. Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott filed an emergency petition with the Texas Supreme Court to remove House Democratic caucus chair Jean Wu from his seat. Now, Wu is one of dozens of Texas Democrats who fled 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. Abbott's move comes as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he will ask courts to declare some Democratic seats vacant if members don't return by Friday.

And to the White House, yesterday, President Trump said he may get the FBI involved. Look. Well, they may have to. They may have to.

So a lot of people have demanded they come back. You can't just sit it out. You have to go back. You have to fight it out.

That's what elections are all about. Meanwhile, the group of Texas House Democrats who fled to Illinois were evacuated from their hotel after receiving a bomb threat earlier today. The lawmakers and their Democratic allies say they will not be backing down and pledging to take their fight nationally. Here's DNC Chair Ken Martin.

We are not going to roll over on this. We are going to fight with every single lever of power. This is not the time for one party to play by the rules and tie one hand behind the back. We are done playing by the rules.

We are going to fight fire with fire. And if they want to showdown, damn it, we're going to give them a showdown. Texas State Democratic Representative, Jelanda Jones. She is one of the Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state.

Representative Jones, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Hey, Chris. And thank you for having me.

I appreciate it. Well, a lot to discuss. And I want to start with this bomb threat that was made toward Texas Democratic representatives who had fled to Illinois like yourself. This happened earlier today.

What can you tell us about what happened? So first of all, I don't want the story to be about this. So all I will say is yes, it happened. We're safe and it is not stopping us.

We are marching on. Do you have any security concerns though? I feel safe. Okay.

Well, we will move now to the latest out of Austin. Of course, Greg Abbott, your governor is trying to get the chair of your caucus removed from his seat. Ken Paxton is threatening to start removing members from their seats. Is this going to have an impact on you and your fellow Democrats?

No, it's not. First of all, neither the governor nor Ken Paxton have the power authority under Texas law to remove us from our seats. Let's be clear. There are two ways to remove us.

There's removing you where it has to be a quorum to do that. First of all, which they don't have a quorum, which is why they're whining right now. And it has to go to the House and Senate with quorums on both. And then they would literally need assuming there was a quorum, which is not going to be.

They would need 12 Democrats to go with them. And we'd have to be voted out by 100 members. So you need 104 quorum and then you need 100 votes and they'd have to go to the Senate. And they need two thirds of the sentence and then it would go to the governor.

So that's not happening. The second way you could be removed is to be expelled and each house can expel their members. And the way you expel someone is to have a hundred people there, which again, they don't have because we have a quorum rate going. And then they'd have to have 100 people vote to expel you, which again, they're not going to get 12 Democrats to vote to expel us.

So it's an empty threat and I'm scared. Very quickly. I mean, could this go to the state Supreme Court, which is majority Republicans? The Constitution of Texas determines how we can be removed from the House and the Senate.

So the governor can't Trump pun intended the Constitution and neither can the Attorney General. He can't Trump the Constitution either. There would have to be a constitutional amendment put in the Constitution where 100 people have to vote on it in the state house and then it would have to go to the voters of the state of Texas to change the Constitution. So I'm going to say it again.

The governor should know better. He's a lawyer. The Attorney General should know better. He's a lawyer.

And so no, I'm not worried. Let me ask you about some of what we're hearing from your colleagues, your colleague, Gina Hosta, told us yesterday that the end game of all of this and of this exodus out of Texas is to basically get these new maps put aside, killed forever. How do you actually make that happen, Representative Jones? Well, so if they never get a quorum, then they don't get these maps enacted.

If we manage to get all the way until the elections in 2026, they're just going to go with the current lines. So that's what you do. You don't get them a quorum. They are finding you every day.

I know that some of that may be being paid for by outside groups. Does that deter you? Does that worry you? I hear your defiance, but there's a practical piece of this as well.

Look at my face. Do I look afraid? I ain't scared. I ain't never been afraid.

Okay, ever. Trump doesn't scare me. Evan doesn't scare me. Paxton doesn't scare me.

On a personal note, I was with my dad when he committed suicide when he blew his brains out. Any day that I'm not suicidal or that someone isn't killing themselves in front of me is a good day. I have breath in me to fight, and that's exactly what I'm doing. For my constituents in Houston, Texas, that deserve to elect a representative of their choice, Congress of District 18, which has been racially gerrymandered, so that black people and brown people in Houston literally can't choose a representative of their choice.

And they literally took one of those seats. They did the same thing in Dallas. And you know what? I have an obligation to fight for their right to elect their representative specifically, but generally we're safe in America.

In 2024, Republicans racially gerrymandered in North Carolina. They stole three seats. And I want to say this again. Trump is a thief, so it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to steal the election at 2026 and steal five seats in Texas.

And so people didn't pay attention. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that the Republicans right now in Congress have a three-person lead, and that came from those three Republican seats that they created, that they stole from Democrats, and people weren't paying attention and had those seats not been stolen. That big, ugly, nasty, terrible, racist bill would have never been passed and that Congressional District 18 had someone in it like me, for example, we would have voted against it and it would have failed. So there's nothing more important than saving my constituents right to elect the representative of their choice and tangentially freaking save America from this despot.

Well, we're so sorry to hear about your father. We appreciate your sharing that part of your story with us in that perspective with us. Let me ask you, look, we have heard a lot of Democratic governors and politicians talk about meeting fire with fire DNC chair Ken Martin, for example, said Democrats are, quote, done playing by the rules. Do you want to see Democratic-led states respond in kind, California, New York, and beyond?

If California and New York can make 100% Democratic congressional members go for it. Because here's the problem with Trump. He's a bully, and he's a liar, and he doesn't respect anyone for the Constitution or democracy or us. So if that's what you want to do, you started it, we're going to finish it.

All right, state Representative Jones, thank you so much for your time today and your perspective. We really appreciate it. Coming up next, Health Secretary, RFK Junior cancels nearly half a billion dollars in vaccine contracts. I'll talk to a former chief of the CDC about the fallout.

You're watching at the press now. Welcome back, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to reshape America's vaccine policy.

Yesterday announcing he was terminating contracts that focused on developing mRNA vaccines. In addition to ending those contracts, which are estimated to be worth nearly $500 million, Kennedy announced HHS would also wind down investments in mRNA technology. The announcement is drawing swift criticism from the medical community, including from the former director of BARDA, the group within HHS that works with pharmaceutical companies, to develop vaccines who warn cutting mRNA development now puts every American at greater risk. Joining me now is Dr.

Richard Bassar, former acting director of the CDC. He's now the president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Bassar, thanks so much for joining me.

Great to be here, Kristen. Well, it's great to have you as always. I have to just start by getting your reaction to Secretary Kennedy's decision to cancel those contracts. Yeah, you know, for four years, I ran emergency preparedness and response at the CDC.

And one thing that's clear, we don't know when the next pandemic will come or what it will be, but we will have another one. And to be as prepared as possible, you want to make sure that you can make vaccines that are safe and effective quickly, because time is of the essence. What the Secretary has just done is to take away one of the most incredible tools that I've seen develop over the past 30, 40 years. mRNA vaccines are the reason why, back when this pandemic hit in 2020, in less than a year we had so many safe and effective vaccines against COVID, save millions of lives.

That was something that the Trump administration moved forward under Secretary Azar. The idea that this Secretary would now unwind that and take away that tool is, to me, shocking and extremely dangerous. Let me play you a little bit of what he had to say about this decision to get your reaction on the other side, take a listen. mRNA only codes for a small part of the viral proteins, usually a single antigen.

One mutation and the vaccine becomes ineffective. After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. Your response, Dr. Besser?

This feeds into the Secretary's anti-vaccine agenda. He is one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine proponents. When he became the Secretary, he said we should not take science advice from him because he's not a scientist, he's not a health professional, and he pledged to have radical transparency. The idea that he would release this announcement on social media rather than at a press conference with leading scientists explaining their rationale is typical for the way he's been functioning in this role.

It puts people here and around the world at incredible risk. Well, just to that point, Dr. Besser, in addition to this latest announcement, Secretary Kennedy has already taken several actions at HHS to end COVID vaccine recommendations for kids and pregnant women, gutting the CDC's vaccine advisory panel, even raised the possibility of firing members of the task force that provide guidance of preventative health services. What does all of this mean for our broader public health and, quite frankly, people's trust in those institutions?

It's extremely damaging. He removed from the advisory committee all of the people from the medical organizations you would want at the table, the Academy of Pediatrics, the organization that represents internists and family doctors and elderly patients and infectious needs experts, to say that having them at the table put in bias. You want people who know something at that table, but unfortunately, that's not the way they're moving forward. What it means for me, I practice pediatrics for more than 30 years, and I always look to that committee for the advice that I needed as a pediatrician to provide the best care for my patients, and unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get it there.

We're going to need to get it from other organizations and societies. You know, my advice to parents, to the public in general is the same. Talk to your doctor, talk to someone you trust for your medical advice, don't get it from politicians who really don't know the field, get it from someone who knows you so you can get your questions answered. And I think when you do, you'll decide like I did for my children and my patients to get the vaccinated fully and on time.

And Dr. Besser quickly before I let you go, we're seeing all of these headlines about more tick-borne illnesses nationwide. The CDC is reporting that Lyme disease, other diseases from ticks are on the rise. What should parents know about this season and how can they protect their families?

Yeah, it is that tick-borne season from April to October. It's an important thing if your kids are out in the woods to check them for ticks. You know, a number of concerns as our climate changes, some areas that didn't have ticks before or having them now. And I'm very concerned that with a lot of people losing health insurance, if they have a rash, if they have a fever, if they have something from a tick, many people will not have a doctor to go to to ask those questions.

So, you know, prevention is the best thing. If you wear white clothing when you're out in the woods, you're more likely to be able to spot that tick. But if there is a tick, you want to remove it quickly and safely with a tweezer, if you can't go see a health professional who can help you with that. Alright, great advice.

Thank you so much. Dr. Richard Besser, as always, we really appreciate your joining us. My pleasure.

Welcome back to the Break Tested Town Halls at a potential in-person meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. The panel is next. Welcome back as the saying goes, three makes a trend. So, by that measure, there's now officially a trend of U.S.

Senators running for state governorships. Tennessee Republican Senator Marshall Blackburn announced her candidacy for governor in a social media video this morning. She just won re-election to the Senate last year. She joins Colorado, Democrat Michael Bennett and Alabama Republican Tommy Toperville as three senators in relatively safe seats deciding to run for governor in 2026, rather than remain here in Washington.

Joining me now on set is Audrey Falberg, political reporter for National Review. Donna Edwards, former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman and NBC News Political Analyst. And Brendan Bach, former advisor to House Republican Speaker Paul Ryan and John Boehner. He is also an NBC News Political Analyst.

Thanks to all of you for being here. Audrey, let me start with you. What do you make of the fact that we have three senators who are now opting to leave the Senate and make a bid for the governor's ship? You're right that lots of people are tiring of Washington, lots of gridlock here.

And even among Republicans, clearly, President Trump is looking at his second-term imprisonment. As we saw with the Big Beautiful Builder, a lot of divisions over how that got figured out. It was a long, fraught process. But also her jumping in and those other two senators mentioned it is a reminder that 2026 is going to be a big year for governors races.

36 governors races. We have two this fall in Virginia, New Jersey. Next year is going to be fun. It sure is.

We're going to be watching the governor's races this year very closely as well, Brendan, but I want to put up some of Marshall Blackburn's launch video and have you respond on the other side. Trump is back. America is blessed and Tennessee, better than ever. I believe in Tennesseans.

And I'm ready to deliver the kind of conservative leadership that will ensure our state is America's conservative leader for this generation and the next. So Brendan, a lot to discuss about her candidacy. One, will Trump endorse her? You see he's featured prominently there in the launch video.

And two, what could this mean for Defense Secretary Pete Hegset? He was eyeing a potential run for governor. This makes it a little bit more complicated. He sure does.

Marshall Blackburn already, obviously, won statewide. You would think in any normal circumstance, you would sort of clear field and with certainly with the normal Trump support. Hegset has reported looking for an exit ramp potentially. This, to me, feels like he probably won't have that clear of a path.

I don't think that he wants to leave that post as DOD secretary. I don't get any sense he's being pushed out. I don't think you leave and they get yourself into a messy primary and potentially lose that. Now, Marshall Blackburn is maybe not the smoothest politician.

She clearly knows how to play the Trump game right now. So I don't want to say that she's unbeatable, but certainly she has built a clear record of standing with Donald Trump in a way that, with her state-wide, previously winning statewide, you would think that she's got an inside track. Yeah, and her video just speaks to how prominent of a role President Trump will play in her campaign. Donna, let me turn to you in the Democrat.

They'll want to play a little bit of what we heard from Senator Bennett and get your reaction to that. You tell me what the Democrats' education policy was in the last election. You tell me what the Democrats' health care policy was. You tell me if Democrats had an immigration policy that made any sense.

So I'm not here to blame them for that, but that's part of what we have to figure out as well, because if we don't figure it out and we keep losing elections to Trump or whoever comes after Trump, the answer is, we'll never solve it. Donna, that seems to me continues to be the question, what is the real plan and message and strategy moving forward? What do you make of what we heard from Senator Bennett? Is he right?

Well, I think, unfortunately, we shouldn't be here sitting in August trying to figure out what the plan and the strategy and the message is. I think that that really speaks to some of the disarray. I think that Democrats are facing right now. I think the questions that Senator Bennett has raised are important ones.

It's not just enough to be against Donald Trump. Democrats have to clearly define how they would govern differently, what they would do differently, and that hasn't completely come through yet. Look, it's not over yet. We're just on the verge of getting to 2026, but Democrats need to get there pretty quickly.

I might say, in the short term, I don't know that you need all of those things. I think short-term politics, you can't just be against the president. We've seen that election after election after election. If you're just against the incumbent president, it tends to work out for you.

Where it doesn't work is long-term if your party never defines itself as what its values and what it stands for. That's how you end up with a Democratic party that should be riding high right now, historically the outside party should be riding high, because they have been defined by their activist base, because they don't have leaders who have set out clear policy visions, and that's the mess they find themselves. They may still think about that. I don't know about that.

I mean, I think Democrats are finding their way. They have outlined some very specific opposition in this big, beautiful bill, which I think is important because those are things that help define the Democratic party. That's so interesting, Donna's point, because Audrey, I mean, we have this discussion. The big, beautiful bill seemed to be the focus, the weekend that it passed.

When a number of Democrats started focusing on the Epstein files and other issues, what are you hearing from your sources? Is there concern that that could cloud pocketbook issues, which coming out of 2024, a lot of Democrats said that's the winning ticket? Yeah, I think the problem is Democrats are just cycling through different things to oppose. With the beginning right, it was Elon Musk.

You know, now we're seeing opposition to the big, beautiful bill, opposition to Trump's deportation strategies, things to oppose and oppose. It's interesting looking at people like Ezra Klein, who are putting forth an abundance agenda. Here's where Democrats should be for. But even still, I think in the next election cycle, we're going to continue to see activists continue to get in the way.

We're seeing candidates questionnaires with litmus tests about what to believe. And I know there's some folks on the Democratic Party who are trying to get rid of that, but yeah, it's a tricky spot for Democrats now. Well, look, it's not hard for Democrats to say we support Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It's not hard to say that Democrats support, making sure that families have the ability to make their way through this economy.

Those are easy things. Those are things that are clearly in opposition in that big, beautiful bill and their opportunities for Democrats to really define the Democratic Party. Fred, let me talk to you about the Republicans. President Trump said something that got a lot of attention.

I want to play it and we'll talk about it on the other side. Take a look. Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is JD Vance? Well, I think most likely in all fairness, he's the vice president.

I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. I also think we have incredible people, some of the people in the stage right here. So it's too early, obviously, to talk about it. But certainly he's doing a great job.

And he would be probably favorite at this point. This is the furthest we've heard President Trump lean into the idea of JD Vance being the standard bearer of MAGA. What do you make of? Yeah, that's a huge improvement for JD Vance.

He's sort of saying, yeah, no, I don't think he is. It shows you how loyal JD Vance is. No matter what Donald Trump does, even if it's in direct contradiction, something JD Vance had said previously, he rises with him. And obviously that's what matters.

It's also very, but Donald Trump doesn't like the idea of somebody else being charged right now. It says it's way too early. I think it's notable that he also mentioned Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio's got six jobs in the administration right now.

He clearly likes what he's doing. Any vice president is going to be sort of the next in line naturally. But the fact that Donald Trump is sort of opening the door, putting his arm around him a little bit right there, should I think maybe frees up a few other people who are thinking of potentially getting it at some point. Audrey, what do you make of that and what we heard from the president really leaning into the idea of a Vance run?

And underscoring that Vance has played his cards pretty smartly so far. He has. And this is also the second time that or maybe it's been multiple times that he's mentioned Marco Rubio unprompted and asked this question, right? I think at this point, there's no incentive for him to offer his ringing endorsement of a candidate.

He is a kingmaker. He loves being president Trump. You know, why, why endorse somebody this early when, you know, he's still the president. All right, unfortunately we're out of time.

We'll see how it plays out. Thank you for a great conversation. We'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.