Meet the Press NOW – August 7

Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliance HomeComfort has over 160,000 5-star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now, don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump.

Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat. Oh lord, reliable, yes. Conditions apply. See website for details.

Who fled the state to block a redistricting plan, as Republicans ramp up their pressure campaign, and Texas Democrats dig in. And the expectations game, new comments from President Trump and Vladimir Putin, as they prepare for a face-to-face meeting as early as next week, with sweeping new economic sanctions facing the Kremlin, if a deal to end the war in Ukraine isn't reached. Welcome to me, the press. Now, I'm Kristen Welker, as President Trump's new tariffs officially take effect, appending the global trading system and threatening to force Americans to pay more for everything from groceries to appliances and clothing, to tariffs taking effect at midnight on some 90 countries.

It puts tariffs overall on U.S. imports at the highest they've been since the Great Depression. The President touting his tariffs just minutes before the clock struck midnight, posting on social media, quote, billions of dollars in tariffs are now flowing into the United States of America. His Treasury Secretary this morning, claiming the new tariffs will be a boon to manufacturing in the United States.

We are trying to rebalance trade in America's favor. President Trump has said, and I've said, we want to bring back the high-precision manufacturing jobs. We want to get rid of these big deficits that we have with countries that have created these big surpluses, and they got in our manufacturing base. And have been terrible for American workers.

Now, here's a live look at the White House, where we could hear from the President this hour at a ceremony for Purple Heart recipients, and potentially take questions from reporters. Today marks the culmination of a tariff rollout that began more than four months ago, a rollout hampered by delays, extensions, and confusion over the size and scope of the new trade deals, confusion that has persisted even as the President threatens even more tariffs in the coming days and weeks ahead. We're going to be putting a very large tariff on chips and semiconductors, but the good news for companies like Apple is if you're building in the United States or have committed to build without question committed to build in the United States, there will be no charge. We'll be putting a tariff on of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors, but if you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge even though you're building, and you're not producing yet in terms of the big numbers of jobs and all of the things that you're building.

Now, this comes as Americans continue to show widespread concern about the state of the economy. Just 31%, that's less than a third, say the economy is excellent or good. That's according to the new CNBC All-America Economic Survey. But the President's handling of the economy is just eight points underwater in that survey, a slight improvement since April, which we now from the White House is NBC News chief justice and national affairs correspondent, Kelly O'Donnell, along with NBC News senior business correspondent, Christine Romans.

I'm also joined by Jared Bernstein, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Biden. He was also chief economist and economic policy advisor to Joe Biden when he was vice president, thanks to all of you for starting us off today. So Kelly, I have to start with you at the White House. There are still a whole lot of questions about these tariffs, even as they took effect overnight.

Do you have a sense of just how committed this White House is to the sweeping tariffs? Are they permanent? What are your sources telling you? Well, good to be with you, Kristen.

And there are many questions, and that's been embedded in the entire rollout of months of tariff talk from the Trump administration. Clearly, the President has been committed with a 40-year support for this kind of financial policy, trying to reorder the global method of trade, and his top advisor saying that they're trying to change the United States from being what they described as a beggar nation, the last consumer of choice for many other partner countries that they would do trade with into a more secure consumer and have a more balanced approach. That's sort of the idea that we've been hearing from this administration. What is hard to discern is all of the fine print that the President often introduces, pulls back, adjusts, and so forth, even in the clip that you played, where he talked about trying to get manufacturing in the United States.

But if you've already demonstrated a commitment, maybe there's a way to make a deal. So the deal-maker part of the President continues to be enforced, even as top officials say, no more deals to be made. There's some hard to understand rationales or results of the President's choices, where a country like Switzerland at nearly a 40% tariff without any ability to seem to be able to negotiate that down. Other places you see the President describe his intentions with trying to use tariffs to be a cudgel to have certain nations no longer do business with Russia, or to try to impact some of their internal political dynamics like Brazil.

So are they committed to tariffs? They appear to be. Will that change if there are market forces that suggest that the public is concerned or that economic conditions inside the United States dictate making another adjustment? Kelly, you know, another piece of this is the fact that the President is saying he will actually impose additional tariffs on semiconductors, chips, pharmaceuticals?

When can folks expect a formal announcement on some of those? Well, it's interesting because the President has been talking about this, often bringing in a new sector or sort of compliment of tariffs that he's considering while he's working on something else. So that was an announcement alongside Tim Cook of Apple, and there was a lot of discussion of could there be a future of an iPhone being built in the United States and Cook described what he thought could be happening there. Semiconductors, those kinds of pieces of the supply chain that are so essential to many of the goods that we use day to day.

How quickly that could come? The President has floated a variety of ideas. Certainly the prior administration, Mr. Bernstein, can speak to it that by the administration was trying to get semiconductors built in the United States again.

So one of the big questions is, how quickly is the workforce available? Is the investment available in the time frame that the President is talking about with three and a half years left in his term? Really important questions and great reporting. As always, Kelly O'Donnell, great to see you.

Thanks so much for being here. Really appreciate it. Christine, let me head over to you now. I think the big question on every person's mind all across the country, when will consumers actually start to feel the impact of these tariffs?

Because so far, we've seen some price increases, but it's not as though we've seen them across the board increase. Yeah, you're right. When will we see it and how much? That's a big question.

Until now, many of these big companies say they have been eating the tariff cost themselves. You've seen the big hit that the automakers have taken billions of dollars they've taken in losses from the tariffs. They've been loathed to pass it along because so many Americans are just exhausted by inflation. This president was elected because people thought the cost of living was out of control.

And now we're on the forefront here of what many say will be higher prices for all the things you're seeing there on your screen. I would say clothing prices have already started to rise, footwear prices as well. Some of these big footwear companies, they make almost everything in China and in Asia. They've already been raising prices on high-end sneakers.

So the question is, how much longer will importers hold off on price increases so they don't lose their customers? Well, and I think the other piece of this, Christine, folks are seeing that jobs number report that came in weaker than expected. Some volatility certainly on Wall Street. Broadly speaking, can you assess the impact of tariffs so far on the economy or is it just too soon to say?

Well, you've been seeing that weakness in the labor market. That's an important place to look. You've seen inflation begin to slowly creep back up. And this is a really dangerous combination.

It's one of the reasons why the Federal Reserve may have its hands tied at some point. This is the S word that so many people worry about stagflation. We're not there yet. The U.S.

economy overall still quite robust. But when you have inflation creeping higher and the job market starting to deteriorate, that's concerning for the Fed because it can't just cut rates to juice the economy because it'll further fuel inflation. So that's a dangerous position to be in for the Federal Reserve. We just don't, look, we haven't seen what the President and his team have promised to be the benefits, the overall, the big benefits of this.

We're all so much money coming in that everyone is so rich. In fact, we don't even have to pay income taxes anymore because the tariff money is going to make up for that. We're not there. We're also not at that doom and gloom scenario of six months ago when this was so shocking, the idea of 17% average tariffs that a lot of folks are saying, you're risking a recession if you do that.

Both of those opposites, that's not where we are. We're somewhere in a transition in the middle trying to navigate really what is a reordering of the global system. All right. Well, Christine Romans, it's always great to have your perspective and reporting.

Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Let's head over to Jared Bernstein now. So Jared, a bit of the same question to you.

Can you give us a big picture sense of the impact that you are seeing so far due to these tariffs and what you anticipate will see because so far we haven't seen inflation spiking GDP numbers still fairly solid. What do you make of where we are right now? I think it's very clear that tariffs are really taking a toll on this economy. As you've just been discussing, I don't see a recession where we are right now or perhaps not even in the near future, but it is unquestionably the case that the economy has been dealt a non-trivial blow.

So GDP grew at 2.5% last year. So far this year it's growing at half that pace, 1.2%. Now I know that's kind of an obscure number. What are we talking about with this aggregate kind of analysis?

But that really makes a difference. When the economy is growing about half as fast as it should, which it is, it shows up in the job market as slower job growth. Then you heard Christine talk about some indicators that are robust. Well, one that isn't is the fact that the past three months have averaged 35,000 jobs per month.

That is too slow in terms of job creation to prevent the unemployment rate from going up. Consumer spending, which has been such an important driver of this economy, directly related to the cost of tariffs, it's actually been flat this year after growing at 3% last year. So you don't have to look that far into the hard data to see these impacts. So you don't think that the economy is headed for a recession is what you are describing effectively stagflation and for the audience.

Can you explain what that means? Well, first of all, let me say I don't think we're in a recession now. I think that if the Trump administration continues to double and triple down, we don't get the kind of certainty we need when these supposed deadlines just keep passing and Trump continues to negotiate. So I do think there are threats to the future, but right now, no, I don't think we're in a recession.

I do think stagflation is a beginning to occur. And as has been mentioned, this is a problem because what it means is increasing inflation with decreasing growth. Now, those don't usually show together when the growth rate slows down, the inflation rate tends to come down. But now we have them pushing in opposite directions because tariffs both hurt us on the growth side and make inflation a bigger problem.

So we are looking at some nascent stagflation. The problem for the Fed, but more importantly, I think it's a problem for just working Americans who believe that this president was going to lower their costs and not raise them. Jared, you know, as we're having this conversation, I should tell you that our group of pool reporters that gathers every day at the White House is reporting that President Trump is about to make a quote major announcement on the economy. So we are going to stay tuned for that as soon as they go into the Oval Office, we will dip into that.

But to continue our conversation here, talk a little bit if you could about what you are anticipating in terms of consumer prices. What might it mean? It's a good question today because one group that's been tracking this very carefully is the Yale Budget Lab. And they came out with a new analysis today that incorporates the most recent tariff information.

And they think that tariffs are going to increase the inflation rate by the end of this year with prices a couple of percent higher than they would have been otherwise. So translating that into the rate of inflation, instead of looking at something closer to two by the end of this year, two percent, probably looking at something closer to three percent. And by the way, the last CPI we saw was 2.7, so we're already in that ballpark. By the way, on the president's announcement, I wonder if he's going to say, we've heard a little bit of rumors about this, that he is appointing his CEA chair to be the interim governor at the Fed, given the seat that was just vacated there.

Well, you take us perfectly to our next guest, Jared Bernstein. Thank you so much for referring to Stephen Mirren. Of course, and let me go to see any CEA economics reporter, Steve Leeson. Steve, you are confirming now that President Trump has, in fact, tapped someone to serve as an interim federal reserve or on the federal reserve board seat in an interim basis.

What can you tell us? Yeah, the president has, in fact, tweeted out or whatever it is he does these days with the social media, that he will be nominating Stephen Mirren, his CEA chair, to fill a open slot which opens tomorrow on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Now, no, this is not replacing the chair here. The chair is Jay Powell.

His chairmanship ends in May, and we're waiting to hear if the president already has an idea of who to nominate. He came on our air earlier this week, and he said he has four people in mind. One of them was not Stephen Mirren, but just FYI, he's appointing Stephen Mirren to the position temporarily or for the four months remaining in that particular tenure. And then he'll say, we'll see about having somebody else take that job later.

So it's kind of an interim, it's a funny little thing here, we're not sure what it means, but again, this is the president putting somebody he trusts, somebody who's a big supporter, an advocate of his policies. In fact, Stephen Mirren is one of the thinkers behind the president's policies of the importance of bringing down the trade deficit, even devaluing the dollar while trying to maintain it as the world currency, and in fact doing some somewhat worrisome stuff with the U.S. debt and foreign holders of it. And just talk about why this position is so significant, Steve, for the folks who are watching right now.

Well, let's see, by the time the chair is nominated in May, the president will have four of the seven boards of governorships appointed by him. Just so everybody knows, the way the Federal Reserve Board votes, it's 12 votes, seven boards of governors and five district presidents who rotate in and out among the 12. So the question becomes, can the president, do these appointments, bend the Federal Reserve to his will? And that depends a bit upon whether or not these governors act like sometimes Supreme Court justices have acted, which is to kind of surprise them by not going along with where the party was on different legal things, and sometimes surprising the other side by going amazingly along with what the party thought they were going to do.

So they will be independent, these are 14-year terms you're appointed to, the chair is a four-year term. So they are supposed to be independent, but the president will have four of seven by this time next May, including the chair. Switching now, Steve, to these tariffs, what we've been talking about throughout our hour, can you put this into perspective for our viewers? How sweeping are the tariffs and how quickly do you think consumers are going to really start to feel the impact?

So, Kristen, I'm very interested in this as an economics reporter and as a reporter, because these tariffs were put on and we have seen some modest increases in prices. But the reporter in me is interested in how the story has set in that these tariffs don't have a big impact. But let's just be clear, from a timing standpoint and from a business standpoint, these tariffs have only just begun. The idea that somehow it's been ingrained that the story is, hey, these tariffs have no impact.

I think it's a very, very early days to show it. And in fact, what evidence we have is a little worrisome to me. The big revision to the jobs is serious. We had a step down in growth, meaningful step down in growth.

Jared talked about the step down in consumer spending. But I don't think you've seen much of it yet filtered down to the consumer. But at the same time, you are collecting and you did collect in July, tariffs at a $350 billion annual rate. This is one of the largest tax actually seen.

The American public is essentially paying for this one way or another. And this is going to have a meaningful impact. And I think it's very early days to say, either way, which way this is going to go and how much of an impact it will have. But I am sure it will raise prices over time.

Or, as you and I discussed over time, will mean a serious decline in profit for the companies that are importing this stuff. And Steve, actually we're going to go to the White House. Steve, President Trump, making that major economic announcement right now. He has not started his announcement.

But again, it does come on the heels of those tariffs going to effect at midnight. Let's listen in. Here he is. From the Oval Office.

Well, thank you very much, everybody. We're going to have just a quick session with Steve Moore. Everybody knows Steve Moore, with the Heritage Foundation. Highly respected.

One of the most highly respected economists and people that watch your money and know more about your money and your life than probably anybody I can think of. And I want to thank Steve for being here. I saw this today. They came out.

What he puts out gets a lot of coverage and I saw some of them and then he had a couple of others. And I'd like to ask Steve maybe to discuss a few of these numbers that we've just released. I mean literally just released. And then we're going over and we're going to do Purple Heart.

We have some incredible, brave people that I look forward to. So we're going to do that right after this. Steve, could you say a few words about the various jokes? Thank you, Mr.

President. So I called the President because I had some very good news from some new data that we've been able to put together that no one has ever seen before. And I'll just very quickly go through these. So I was telling the President that he did the right thing in calling for a new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the shows that over the last two years of the Biden administration, the BLS overestimated job creation by 1.5 million jobs.

That's a gigantic era. And I don't know if she's... It might not have been an era. That's a bad part.

It was an era. I don't think it's an era. I think they did it purposely. Whether or not you may well be right.

But even if it wasn't purposefully, it's incompetence. Right. Okay. So 1.5 million jobs overestimated.

We have access to the... We have access to some data that no one else does on what has happened a month by month with median household income. This is based on unpublished Census Bureau data. It will be released sometime in the next six months, but we get an advanced look at it.

And so I was telling the president in his first five months in office, starting in January through the end of June, the average median household income adjusted for inflation for the average family in America is already up $1,174. That's an incredible number. Just came out. Just came out.

Just came out. So that's a giant thing. And I would have said this nobody would have believed in. There's your number?

We're doing well. So the next one compares, we finally have the 2024 data on what happened with real family in common in the United States. And so what I did was I compared the record and Donald Trump's first term with the Joe Biden first term. By the way, this, these dotted lines here, Mr.

President, that's COVID. So if it had happened for COVID, these numbers would have been substantially better. But even taking account President Trump's last year in 2020, we saw a $6,400 real after inflation gain and income for the average family and that compares with Joe Biden, which was immediately $551. So Mr.

President, you gain 10 times more income for the average family than Joe Biden. It's because of your policy. And that's taken into consideration, COVID, which a lot of times you don't have to do that. No, we're $8,000.

Look at that number. Yeah. Okay. So then we looked at, you know, which families do you have been watching President Trump alongside one of his economic advisors, Stephen Moore, trying to defend his move to remove the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after that disappointing jobs report in asking top White House officials if there was any hard evidence to back up the President's claim that the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was in any way manipulating the figures.

No hard evidence has yet been presented. President Trump there, along with Stephen Moore, trying to make the case that the economy is headed in the right direction. You heard Stephen Moore say that jobs numbers were revised under former President Joe Biden. That kind of undercutting the idea that the economy was a real drag on former President Biden during his entire reelection campaign.

Let's go back to Steve Lee Smith. Steve, help our audience understand what we just watched. What are the key things that you would like to tease out there to help people understand? Well, the first thing that strikes me is the idea that Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation appears to have government data that wasn't released to the public at a timely and across the board measure.

So I don't, I'm sorry, Kristen. I don't know what he's talking about in terms of there is some data that comes out that gives us an idea of how previous data will be benchmarked. But look, let's just be clear about something. There is no evidence at all that any of this data was ever rigged for political purposes.

Is the data revised and revised continuously on a second month and a third month and then later, about a year later? Yes, it is. Does the BLS make mistakes, can it be improved? All of that is true.

But the idea that the political charge has morphed into a competence charge is a little bit weird to me and I just don't know, I couldn't understand the data that Stephen Moore was talking about. Okay, well, we are going to continue to monitor it. The president's taking question out. Let's listen to what they're asking him.

What he has to say? I'm glad we're putting the green to a ceasefire. Still stand tomorrow. Is that it?

Fluid now that talks right? What? Is your deadline still standing for a lot of your Putin to agree with ceasefire tomorrow? What is that?

Fluid now? It's going to be up to him. We're going to see what he has to say. It's going to be up to him.

Very disappointed. Yeah. Oh, you have to meet with, does Putin have to meet with Zelensky in order and before you and Putin have to meet? No.

That's actually important because the president, the president said this morning he was pretty dismissive of his idea of meeting with President Putin. Who was? I don't know. I didn't hear him.

He doesn't have to. He doesn't have to. No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't.

No. They would like to meet with me and I'll do whatever I can to stop the killing. So last month, they lost 14,000 people killed last month. Every week is four or 5,000 people.

So I don't like long waits. I think it's a shame. And they're mostly soldiers. The Ukrainian and Russian soldiers.

And some people from the cities where missiles are lobbed in and you lose 35, 40 people a night, which is terrible. But no, mostly it's soldiers. And you're talking about, on average, 20,000 a month, 20,000 people dying a month, young, generally young people, soldiers. We're going to speak about soldiers.

We'll see you over for a couple of weeks. Thank you, Riley. Thank you, Riley. You have been listening to President Trump taking a few questions in the Oval Office there.

I want to head over to Kelly O'Donnell at the White House. Kelly, in listening to the questions, they are largely focused on what could be a meeting as early as next week between President Trump, President Putin, and President Zelensky with the goal of trying to bring the war there to an end. And the president was asked about the deadline that he imposed, saying that he would impose tariffs this week if this war did not end on Russia. He was asked about that.

Does that deadline hold? He said, well, that's up to him, meaning Putin. We'll see about what he has to say, basically saying it seems like he wants to give some space for these talks to move forward. What did you make of what we just heard, Kelly?

Well, that's a very good point, because the question was about the president's own decision-making. And if he would adhere to a deadline that he himself set, not about the response from Vladimir Putin. Give plenty of wiggle room there on that issue. As we know, the president had originally set a 50-day deadline that it kind of down to 10 or 12, then he set a fixed point of tomorrow for a deadline for Putin to accept a ceasefire or face additional financial penalties and tear-ups and sanctions, a whole package of those things that have not been fully discussed.

But that idea, coming from the United States and targeting nations that do business with Russia to cut off some of Russia's financial power that is necessary to wage a war. So that was notable. Also, the president backed away from his stated goal that there would be a condition for Zelensky, President Zelensky, if Ukraine to be included. Now, the president is saying that he would meet because he wants to bring about an end of this war.

That is certainly a goal many people would like to see achieved. But the president, typically, in recent weeks, has been very much acknowledging his disappointment in dealing with Vladimir Putin. So without Zelensky there, it's unclear how they would achieve that. All to be sorted out.

What we have seen unfolding here is that the idea of such a meeting has been floated a timeline loosely beginning as early as next week. We don't have a location yet. That is complicated, because Putin could be arrested if he leaves Russia to certain other countries that would honor the ICC indictment on him as a war criminal for wage and war in Ukraine. And there are friendly nations.

Some have been talked about, including the United Arab Emirates, perhaps Turkey, some other options that might exist. So when and where are still questions, who apparently is a bit of a question, would Zelensky be involved or not? But clearly, the president wants to move forward on this. For both substantive reasons, I think he genuinely would want to see an end to war.

Many across the globe would like to see an end to war. It also has a great potential of dominating headlines and changing up some of the headlines, whether it's economic or Epstein related or what have you, that might be dogging the president of it. Kelly, great breakdown of what we just heard. Just remind our viewers briefly.

I mean, when you put this into broader context, this was one of the president's key campaign promises to bring this war to an end. He is clearly focused on trying to achieve that, but it's proven more challenging than he initially anticipated by his own admission. Very much so. There have been phone calls.

Also, he took an opportunity when at the Vatican for the late Pope's funeral to have a meeting with Zelensky to try to repair, perhaps, the relationship that had appeared so frayed when President Zelensky was in the Oval Office and things got very heated. So, the president has certainly used a lot of his capital to try to move this forward. Also, it's important to point out that when you have a summit, as this would be, of giant figures, there's usually a lot of work done in advance so you know exactly what the likely outcomes are. And we don't have a sense that that has happened here.

Kelly O'Donnell, pulling double duty for us today. Thank you so much, my friend. I really appreciate it. We want to turn out a new development out of Texas as Republicans seek to pressure democratic representatives to return to Austin.

Justice Republican Senator John Cornyn says the FBI has agreed to his request to assist Texas law enforcement in locating the 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. Now, it's unclear what authority the FBI actually has to compel members to return to Texas. It does come as Texas Attorney General and Cornyn primary opponent Ken Paxton launched an investigation into a political group run by former Congress in Beto O'Rourke for funding Democrats who left the state who are incurring fines each day they don't return. Democrats for their part have shown no signs of backing down to these threats from Texas Republicans.

The Trump is also inserting himself into the redistricting fight posting on social media that he wants to see a new census that excludes immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Experts say the president cannot order a new census without Congress and it may also raise constitutional questions. Joining me now is Texas State Representative James Telerico.

He is one of several Texas House Democrats to leave the state to block this special session. Congressman Telerico, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

So, we have to start with this latest news out of Austin that I was just setting up. Senator Cornyn saying the FBI has agreed to his request to assist Texas law enforcement in locating the Democrats who fled the state. What is your reaction to this allegation that you broke a law? Well, I think Senator Cornyn is trying to win a primary battle against Kim Paxton.

That's probably what this is mostly about. But it should trouble all of us that elected officials like Senator Cornyn or Attorney General Paxton or Governor Abbott or President Trump are using the power of their office to go after duly elected state legislators. I was elected by the people in my district back in Texas and I swore an oath not to Donald Trump, not to Greg Abbott or Kim Paxton or John Cornyn. I swore an oath to the Constitution and I took that oath very seriously and I planned to fulfill it.

We came here to Illinois to stop this Trump power grab in Texas and stop them from redrawing our political maps in the middle of the decade, which is unprecedented and would allow them to shield the president from accountability in the next election. Well, I guess the question becomes, Congressman, how long are you prepared for this fight? Given the fact that it could cost you $400,000 for fleeing the state you're being fined on a daily basis, should you stay away during the potential success of legislative session? You could face more than $3.2 million in penalties.

Obviously, some members have families, other things that they need to be focused on. What is it realistic to stay out of the state for a prolonged period? Well, we could drive ourselves crazy with hypotheticals. We have all committed to at least staying out of the state capitol for the remainder of this special session, which lasts two weeks.

We were already there in Austin at the state capitol for the first two weeks of the special session and we were breaking quorum for the last two weeks to kill these rigged maps and stop this corrupt special session. And what happens after that is anyone's guess. The governor does have the power to call us back. We're also seeing these developments in blue states that are threatening retaliation.

Some of them are moving forward with that retaliation and we're seeing Republican legislators in other states and Republican Congress members speaking out against this corrupt process. So a lot is changing. I think this is a fluid situation. We're not going to get distracted with hypotheticals.

We're focused on the mission at hand, which is killing these maps and ending this corrupt special session. Well, I want to change gears a little bit and ask you about the Democratic Party more broadly. Let me put up some new poll numbers. This is from our friends at CNBC.

It shows that just 22% of respondents have a positive view of the Democratic Party. Congressman, how do you explain that and how do you combat that in the midterms? Well, I think that probably includes a lot of Democrats like me who are fed up with the state of our party. And I'm hoping that Texas Democrats are showing a path forward for national Democrats in Texas.

We are living with the consequences of Republican extremism every day, not only this redistricting power grab, but also a voucher stand that's defunding our local schools, the most extreme abortion ban in the country that endangers the lives of women and girls across Texas, the failure to expand Medicaid, which means we have the highest number of uninsured people in the entire country. So my constituents are living with the consequences of that Republican extremism every day. And Texas Democrats, even when we're in the minority, we know how to use every tool in our toolbox to fight for the people of our state. And I think that's what folks across the country are looking for in a new Democratic party, a fighting spirit and ability to deliver for people and not just lie down and play dead.

You know, you said something that's interesting, fighting against this extremism. And I wonder how you see the broader message coming together for the midterms. Should it be a message about, as you say, extremism, or does it need to focus more on pocketbook issues like Medicare, like Medicaid? What do you think is going to be a winning message for Democrats because that has been one of the challenges for your party?

Well, and I don't think it's the other word choice. The extremism is what's affecting people's pocketbooks. You know, I just talked about these bills they've passed that are defunding schools, that are taking away health care, that are raising costs for everyday Texans. So the extremism is the problem, and it's what is holding working families back from being able to provide for their kids and build a brighter future.

So you know, I think it's important that we connect the dots here and help folks understand why electing extreme politicians hurts themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods. And I should say, Kristen, that this gerrymandering attempt is the heart of the problem because when politicians draw their own lines, when they insulate themselves from the will of the public, it leads to more extreme politics and more extreme policymaking. That's why we are shining a national spotlight on this problem because it is the rot at the core of our broken political system. Congressman, I have to ask you, broadly speaking, a few months ago, podcaster Joe Rogan said, you should consider running for president.

You've had a few months to think about it. Is that something that you can imagine being in your future? How do you see that? No, I was thankful for his kind words.

I'm focused on the job I have as a state representative. A lot of our politics has become nationalized, and people mostly care about national politics. But there's so much happening in state capitals all over this country that probably has more of an impact on people's day-to-day lives. And I hope we can keep an eye on the ball, especially with this power grab in Texas, because if this goes through, it's going to affect the rest of the country.

It's going to allow Donald Trump to shield himself from the voters, shield himself from accountability in the next election. So this is the job I have and the one that I'm focused on right now. And apologies. I called you Congress and I elevated you state representatives.

I understand what you mean. I understand what you mean. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your joining us and appreciate your perspective.

Thank you for having me. Take care. Coming up next. Welcome back to The Answer Is BMO.

I'm on. The board is yours. I'll take BMO for 300. You'll find no monthly fees on a savings amplifier account from this health bank.

What is BMO? I'll try BMO for 500. Competitive interest rates. Or just another way.

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

You can say that again. It's BMO.com slash cash. Good night, everyone. BMO.

Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the Start Today app. Workout's meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

And to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity. Imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at 65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled.

All for ends May 20th, 26th, prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full long returns and details. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop. With a podcast from NBC News.

With your host, Jasmine Vesugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative for you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page of the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back. Moscow has now responded to President Trump's announcement that he plans to meet with President Putin with a Kremlin aide saying that meeting will take place in the coming days. The Trump administration has also been pushing for Ukraine's President Zelensky to be part of that summit.

But in comments today, President Putin said certain conditions need to be met for him to meet with Zelensky and those conditions are still far away. No formal data location has been announced by either side. The push for talks comes as President Trump's deadline expires tomorrow for Russia to agree to some kind of ceasefire or face sweeping economic sanctions. And moments ago, we heard the President say Zelensky doesn't have to be a part of that meeting.

Joining me now instead is Bill Taylor from U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center. Ambassador Taylor, thank you so much for being here. Let's start right there.

I think a lot of people's ears perked up when they heard President Trump say that Zelensky doesn't necessarily have to be a part of that meeting. What did you make of that? Were you surprised to hear that? I was surprised because that's not what the White House had put out earlier.

The White House had said that in order to have that meeting, President Putin would have to agree to meet with President Zelensky. And that's a good idea. That's been an idea that White House's administrations have used, which is nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. So Ukraine needs to be there to be part of that discussion.

If they're going to be talking about Ukraine. And what would you anticipate from such a meeting if Ukraine were to be a part of it? Who would have the leverage going into that meeting given the fact that President Trump did just ramp up the amount of military systems to the U.S. President Trump clearly has the leverage.

President Putin wants this meeting. He wants this meeting. President, as you've indicated, as you've reported, President Putin is an indicted war criminal. He wants to get some credibility back.

He wants to be admitted back to the table. And President Trump has said, yes, it will be willing to do that. That surprised a lot of people. But that's what he wants to find a way to end the war, which is a good thing.

However, as you say, President Zelensky needs to represent that side of the discussion. Both sides want certain things that we have sort of publicly heard about in order for there to be any ceasefire agreement from the perspective of Russia. We've heard them talk about, obviously, Crimea, but then the Donbas region. We've also heard Ukraine talk about the desire to join NATO.

Do you anticipate those sorts of asks will be on the table in any discussion? Not yet. Not yet. I think the discussion will focus on a ceasefire.

The ceasefire is doable. That's achievable. President Zelensky and President Trump agreed on a ceasefire a couple of months ago, took it to President Putin, Putin said no, but that idea of a comprehensive ceasefire, air, land and sea, that would stop the killing. That's just what President Trump has been talking about.

That could be done. Then these other issues. NATO, territory, compensation, reparations, all those things, that can come. But those are long-term discussions.

And in terms of what the threat that President Trump made, basically, if there's not a ceasefire by this week, he's prepared to impose secondary sanctions against Russia. Now, saying in those remarks, in the Oval Office, that's going to be up to President Putin. We'll have to hear what he has to say, giving yet more wiggle room there to see how any potential talks could play out. What did you make of that?

And does that in any way undercut the President's hand by taking those sanctions to some extent off the table for now? For now. So he has already put sanctions on India, who buys a lot of Russian oil. Right.

That part of put tariffs on India. So that part is there. He has also provided Ukraine with weapons, which he hadn't done before. And those American weapons through NATO allies are really important message, first of all, to the Ukrainian.

So they can defend themselves. But also a message to Putin that the United States is going to continue to support Ukraine militarily. So that part of the message still exists. The question of timing of these other tariffs or other sanctions does sound a little more flexible.

Let me ask you about some new poll numbers that we are getting out. And we should caveat this, Ambassador Taylor, by saying it's incredibly difficult to poll in a conflict zone. But this is a Gallup poll of Ukrainians' views of the war. And you can see there that support for the war has dropped.

It shows after three years that it's hit a record low, in fact. And while support for a negotiated end to the war, is it an all-time high? What do you make of those numbers? Because Ukrainians are tired.

They've been fighting for three and a half years against the Russians. And they're not just the soldiers. The whole society is united and working. And it's tired.

They do want an end to this war. There's no doubt about it. They don't want to give up territory. They know that these negotiations are possible.

They will give them a ceasefire. And then, as I say, then the discussions of these other things can happen. So the Ukrainians do want an end to the war. No doubt about that.

That is increased. But that has to happen just in lasting peace. Whenever you and I talk, I always ask you this question. But I do think it's so important for our viewers.

Can you update us on what this war looks like right now on the ground? What is the reality of where this fighting stands? The reality is on the ground that the Russians are grinding a little bit by little bit. Peace by peace, meter by meter, at great expense.

But they are grinding forward. And then the question is what happens to the Ukrainians? The Ukrainians are shooting deep into Russia at military targets trying to stop that advance. Stop the support, the ammunition, the fuel that comes in.

So those are the military targets that the Ukrainians are going after with great success. But on the ground, the Russians are grinding forward. The Russians have actually been effectively defeated, stopped on the sea. And then in the air, it's an advantage for the Russians because they've got bombs and missiles and drones.

The Ukrainians are smarter and quicker, but the Russians have more. Ambassador Taylor, we always appreciate your perspective on this ongoing war that we continue to track so closely. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Much more ahead. Stay with us. We have much more ahead.

You're watching the rest now. Welcome back to The Answer Is BMO! I'm on. The board is yours.

I'll take BMO for 300. You'll find no monthly fees on a savings amplifier account from this helpful bank. What is BMO? I'll try BMO for 500.

Competitive interest rates are just another way this bank helps your savings go further. My gut says BMO. BMO is correct. This game is really easy.

You can say that again. Get out again. Turn to your digital suppliers at BMO.com slash cash. Good night, everyone.

BMO! Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news is just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day.

And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows. Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back.

It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back. As President Trump's slate of tariffs take effect polling from our friends at CNBC shows that while Americans still disapprove of the president's handling of the issue by an at six points, those numbers have greatly improved in just a few months.

Now it's our panel, NBC News, Senior National Political reporter, Sahil Kapoor, former special assistant to President Biden, Megan Hayes, and Republican strategist Rick Tyler. Thanks to all of you for being here. Sahil, let's start off right there on those numbers. What do you make of those numbers?

The president's still under water in the handling of the economy. The number one issue, the reason that he was put into office. Yeah, a couple of things, Chris. And first of all, this is a better poll for President Trump than most that we've seen recently.

His approval ratings a little bit. His numbers look a little bit better than others. So time will tell firstly whether this is a one-off or whether this is the start of a trend. I don't make too much of the tariff numbers, whether it's April or now, because people are reacting more to expectations and discourse than the actual facts of the tariffs.

Because President Trump has this demonstrable tendency to slam the brakes on the tariffs when the consequences get severe when the pushback and the fears of price hikes get serious. The markets have a term for this. It's a taco trade. The question for me is, is this a taco poll?

Is President Trump going to follow through because then the entire conversation changes that people feel the impacts? Yeah, Rick, let's say you about that, and let's put those approval numbers back up on the board because, look, it's a 46% approved. That's basically where he's been. It doesn't move around a whole lot.

No, I mean, a lot of this is just fixed in time and I'm not sure it's going to move, but there are two significant numbers that are not good news for the president. The first is 68% of the American people think that the economy is less than good, either really it's doing not well or it's doing poorly. The other is 60% of Americans believe that their family is just not getting ahead and they're very pessimistic about the future. And part of that is because of the unknown.

Tariffs want to know the facts today. They will have a cost effect. We see that by one senator's idea of a reboot, which is absolutely the stupidest idea of a herd. Let's pay more to counter and let the federal government figure out how to get us our money back rather than just paying less at the counter.

And President Trump on truth social said the opposite, which was that there's billions of dollars pouring into the US. Nobody is pouring into the US. All of these taxes and tariffs are paid by the American consumer because they have to be paid for by the people who pick up the products at the port. And those costs are ultimately going to impact on either consumers or shareholders.

Meghan, pick up on this and those are the headwinds for the president for Republicans. Let's look at the headwinds for Democrats right now. They're approval rating way underwater, much lower than Republicans. Look at this, Meghan, 22% positive, 55% negative.

How do you address that heading into the midterms as a party? I think that these are what people feel about the national party and I think in communities, people feel differently about the Democrats. Democrats have overperformed or won something like 33 of 37 contests that have been sent to the election. So I think that people in their communities feel differently.

But something on your point when you were saying about the president wants to give rebates back or other people want to give rebates back and it's really causing people money now. It's also going to start impacting jobs. More people are going to lose their jobs because manufacturing, people aren't building homes, construction. All of these things have downwind effects of the tariffs that people have to spend more money.

And I think that when we start seeing more job loss, it will be more impactful to people. Also, the rebate is an implicit acknowledgement that it is going to cost people money. It's not like all this money is going to magically appear. It's going to come out of people's paychecks.

Yeah, I mean, the rebate idea is one that the president's been floating. We'll have to see if they actually try to move forward with it. But to your point, it's really more complicated than it just sounds on page sounds hearing its style. Let me talk to you about kind of the big picture that we are seeing because despite the headwinds that Democrats are facing, if you look at these new poll numbers actually by a slim margin where people want Democrats to take back control of Congress, what's sort of the mood in the Democratic Party given that?

And what are the implications of this going? Yeah, this is a vitally important juxtaposition. Yes, the Democratic Party brand is exceptionally weak. Part of the reason it's weak is that a lot of Democrats have a low opinion of their own leaders.

There's a desire for new leadership, new vision candidates who are more authentic and less stale and less scripted, wedded to talking points. So there is a real issue that Democrats are having with their own party base, which is driving some of this stuff. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Democrats are going to have a bad midterm, because those angry Democratic voters are still going to show up to Senate message Republicans. I talked to several Republicans, including Senator Tom Tillis, who says this is not going to save the GOP in 2026.

He notes that the Republican brand was also really weak in 2009, heading up to 2010, and we all know how that ended. It was a red wave. So the weak Democratic brand does not necessarily mean a good midterm for Republicans. Rick, what are Republicans saying to you about their level of optimism or concern about potentially losing a house and fighting?

Look, the Republicans are pointing to a lot of things that they've wanted to get done, that Republicans forever said they wanted to get done, for instance, defunding schools that are anti-Semitic for tariffs, which I think is a terrible idea. But they do somehow think that it's going to create more American jobs. It won't, but that's what they think. And the border, I mean, the border has been, the illegal crossings have come to a virtual standstill, and that's what Republicans have wanted.

So Republicans are very optimistic about the future. It is really hard to just afford to reconcile a 22% approval for the Democrats, and yet they want the Democrats in charge. And I think what that means is, I think they're trying to send a message to the Republicans saying, we kind of like some of the stuff we just don't like the way you're doing it. I think that is a check.

That's a check. Republicans control everything from the executive branch of the legislature into the course. And so I think that people in this country want to check. The independent number over half the independents agree with the Democratic number.

But I think that is a check. I do that is more that people want to check on what's happening because they're not getting it from the courts and they're not getting it from the legislature. So Rick's point. Trump's numbers are good on the border.

That has been a great spot for him. Throughout immigration in the border, including in the recent CNBC poll. I think the other problem that Republicans will have in 2026 is that the party has reconstituted itself into one that is heavily reliant on MAGA voters who show up when Donald Trump is on the ballot and who have this tendency to stay home when he's not, including in 2022, which should have been a much bigger backlash election for Republicans. They couldn't turn out these voters.

So can they now? I want to get you guys to respond to some reporting in the New York Times. Fascinating report. President Trump may have moved out of New York City, but he has privately discussed whether to intercede in its fractious race for mayor to try to stop Zoramadani, the Democratic nominee, according to eight people briefed on the discussions.

What do you make of that? And what would it look like for President Trump to insert himself? Reportedly, he's spoken to Cuomo, though. He denies that.

Well, Trump has this very strange relationship with New York. When I say New York, I mean Manhattan. And, you know, he wants to be an influence there. I mean, that's where he built his business.

His father told him, don't go to Manhattan, but he did. So, look, I don't know. I don't know that Trump weighing in in New York is going to help him or help whoever it is that he thinks he's going to support. I think if you look at poll numbers, I'm sure the approval rating is not very good in New York at large, so he could probably help by staying away.

Megan, how do you see it? Does this help a campaign like Zoramadani? I think it does help them. I think that if Democrats, traditional Democrats are paying their hopes to Donald Trump to be their savior, we have bigger problems than what we have right now.

So, I'm cautious of this. Kyle, 30 seconds left. How do you see this playing out? So, one thing we didn't see in the New York Times article, and I read it carefully, is any indication of how exactly Trump is going to weigh in to get the result he wants.

President Trump got 18% in Manhattan in the 2024 election when he cut into, you know, Democrats' previous margins across New York. He's not popular there because Brandon's toxic. Yes, he wants to be an influencer, but it's hard for me to imagine how he tries to help someone without inadvertently hurting them. All right, guys.

Thank you. Great conversation, Kyle, Megan, and Rick, really appreciate it. Thank you for joining us. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.

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 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. We're on his 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 on how much screw yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts.