Meet the Press NOW — December 1

Hi there, and welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where the Trump administration is facing growing scrutiny over its strategy of lethal strikes on alleged drug cartel boats in the Caribbean, as President Trump appears to be escalating pressure on Venezuela and the Maduro regime. Right now, all eyes are on Defense Secretary Pete Hegsev following revelations that in early September, the military conducted a second strike on both the administration claims was carrying drugs from Venezuela. The second strike coming after an initial strike failed to kill everyone on the vessel.

That's according to a U.S. official and a source familiar with the Pentagon's actions. The Washington Post reports the second strike was ordered to comply with a spoken directive from Secretary Hegsev to, quote, kill everybody. Those strikes were the first known U.S.

strikes against alleged cartel boats. In total, the Pentagon is carried out more than 20 strikes, killing at least 82 people. But they've not publicly disclosed intelligence to back up their claims that the boats are carrying illegal drugs. Over the weekend, in a rare break with the president, both the Republican-led House and Senate Armed Services Committees pushing for answers on that secondary strike, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for increased oversight.

We're gonna have a public hearing. We're gonna put these folks under oath and we're gonna find out what happens, happened, and then there needs to be accountability. If it was, as if the article said, that is a violation of the law of war. When people on a surrender, you don't kill them.

Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act. If that reporting is true, it's a clear violation of the DOD-owned laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so this rises to the level of a war crime, if it's true. President Trump speaking to reporters yesterday on Air Force One appeared to be backing his defense secretary.

Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about. So we'll look into it. But no, I would have wanted that.

Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine. If there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen.

I have great confidence. No second strike. I don't know. I'm gonna find out about it.

But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men. Still, some military experts have raised questions about the legality of these strikes, comparing them to extra-judicial killings, even war crimes. When House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt doubled down today on the administration's position that these strikes are legal in saying that the second strike was ordered by an Admiral, not Secretary Haggseth. President Trump and Secretary Haggseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war.

With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2nd, Secretary Haggseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the vote was destroyed, and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. So clarified. Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike.

And he was well within his authority to do so. On Air Force One, President Trump also telling reporters that he had a phone call with Venezuela's Nicholas Maduro, but he didn't provide any details about the call. But publicly, the president is escalating his rhetoric against Venezuela, saying during a Thanksgiving message to U.S. troops that lands strikes on Venezuela could begin very soon.

And in a post on social media over the weekend, writing, quote, please consider the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela to be closed in its entirety. Appearing to suggest that military action could be imminent. Joining me now, NBC News White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent, Melanie Zenona, and NBC News senior national correspondent, security correspondent Courtney Kubie, also with me as retired Air Force Major General and former Deputy Judge Advocate General Steve Lepper. So Courtney, let's start with you.

Why would this second strike raise so many legal concerns? So if in fact, there was a strike and there were individuals who were potentially injured or incapacitated in some way by that first strike, legally, the military would have to make some sort of an effort to rescue them because there would be, they're not potentially a threat anymore. They don't pose an existential threat to the military. Now, that being said, Carolyn Levitt really, she answered some questions, but she also left others unanswered that almost makes us even more confusing.

She confirmed today that there was a second strike, but she continued to say that the strikes were legal, that everything that Admiral Bradley, who at the time was ahead of joint special operations command, Jay Sock, everything that he ordered was legal. The question is, how can those two facts coexist? How can it be that there was a strike, there were survivors of it, there was a second strike, and everything was still conducted legally? That's the question.

So that's the line we're getting from the White House, but what about the Pentagon? What about Secretary Haggseth? Are they denying the reporting? So Secretary Haggseth put out a long post on social media as did some of the people who worked for him, where they didn't necessarily deny the reporting, they attacked the reporters.

He has sort of a playbook for these things. He attacks the reporters, he attacks the media, he says that this is all about harming the troops, and that's the intent here, without actually addressing the facts in the actual reporting. And then he put out this tweet overnight, or this posting on social media that was really head scratching, it was sort of making fun, or a mock up of a children's book, which seemed to have a character who was firing on boats down below. What's interesting about it though, if you actually look at what this illustration was, it is a double tap.

There was a boat that was on fire and it seems as if this turtle is firing a second time. The thing that's most astonishing about this entire narrative here with the second social media posting is it appears he's making light on something of something that is a very serious issue. And it's not, it's an issue that is being taken seriously by both sides of the aisle. We have Republicans who are speaking out, Democrats who are speaking out, we have people in the military who are speaking about it, we have retired jags like Stephen Lepper, people who are talking about the potential for real criminality here, and we have a sect who is posting about it and is essentially making light of it.

And then we should be very clear about when you say double tap. I mean, there's some question about whether or not the strikes are legal at all. But this idea of there being an attack, potential people that survive that attack, and then another attack, that's where people are really concerned, which is exactly depicted in this fake children's book that he posted. Exactly.

And it also brings up one of the issues of legality that we've been discussing since these started in early September. And that is, who are these people on these boats? Are they combatants or are they criminals? And that, and is there actually a combat situation that's going on here that would necessitate or even make these strikes legal?

And you know, this potential double tap here is just bringing all these issues even more to the forefront. Yeah, so let's go to the White House now on that. Yamiche, when we talk about this double tap, this is that second strike. And I do think it's significant, that President Trump himself said that he wouldn't have wanted the second strike to happen, even though it did happen.

What does this mean for Secretary Hegset? Well, it's really interesting because President Trump is saying that he would not have wanted a second strike. He's also in some ways defending Defense Secretary Pete Hegset saying that he believes he did not give that order and that it was not done with because of his direction. So really in some ways there, Admiral Bradley, who is of course the person that the White House Secretary says ordered this second strike, they're essentially saying, well, he's really the one to blame here in some ways.

The president really distancing himself from this idea and from this, this action. I think it's going to be really interesting what happens next because one of the things that the White House Secretary was asked about was whether or not the policy change, because he had survivors in September that were essentially killed by the second strike. But then in October, you had survivors that didn't face a second strike and were actually returned to their home country. So I think there are a lot of questions about why the White House or the Defense Secretary or the president would act differently in these two cases.

Yeah. And we know that the president is set to meet with his national security team today on Venezuela. What do we know about that meeting? Well, the White House Secretary did confirm this meeting.

It's interesting. She didn't go into that much detail other than to say as you pointed out that what the president's doing so far is all legal and that he has other options and the president has said a number of times that some of those options could actually be land strikes. We also have reporting that the president has essentially been pressuring the leader of Venezuela to leave office without actually sort of providing what happens next if he doesn't. So I think there's a lot of escalation happening here in the White House.

Having this meeting amid all of this escalation, I think is intriguing. We'll have to know a little bit more of what's the meeting is over as of course all of us are going to be digging into that reporting. All right. Let's figure out what's happening now on Capitol Hill.

Melanie, let's bring you in. It is notable that we have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for this increased oversight. But it also comes at a time when Congress has really seated a lot of authority to the executive branch. Why is this incident different?

Well, first and foremost, what we're talking about here, the nature of these allegations are extremely serious with international implications. As we've seen, even Republicans are raising the possibility of war crimes being committed here. But more broadly, I would say Republicans have long been uncomfortable with Trump's actions in Venezuela. And they've been uncomfortable or at least skeptical for even longer with Pete Hegseth as the secretary, even just confirming him as secretary was a really tough pill for some Republicans as well, especially on these key committees that are now investigating the latest Venezuela strikes.

So that has been brewing for a long time. There's been a lot of concern with his leadership. You also think of Signalgate, where these Yemen attack plans were shared in a single group chat, including with a reporter. I think that's playing into it as well.

And something else we're picking up on Capitol Hill and Ryan, you know this, where Republicans are starting to look to a post-Trump GOP. And so yes, they don't like standing up to them always, but they're also thinking about their own power and looking around and wanting to protect whatever power and authority they still do have left in Congress. And because they've seen it so much over the past year, Mel, there has been this breakdown in information sharing between the Pentagon and Congress. We're basically the Pentagon and some respects.

We don't have to give you any information despite you being a co-equal branch of government. Are the lawmakers confident here that they're going to get the answers they're seeking? Well, certainly there is some concern among Democrats, at least, that they're going to be stonewalled by the Trump administration in this investigation. And as you mentioned, even just the normal lines of communication between Capitol Hill and the Pentagon have been severely and significantly restricted in a really unprecedented way.

That being said, though, the investigative process is slightly different. And that is because Republicans technically have subpoena power. They could force the administration to handle over documents or force people to testify. The question, though, is whether they're willing to use it.

Okay, Courtney, the president also kind of alluded to this in a social media post that he, I guess, you know, laterally he's going to close the airspace around Venezuela. I'm not sure he can even do that. But does that give us any insight into what military action that the U.S. could take against Venezuela?

No, because the president himself then said, oh, don't read too much into what I wrote. So it's again sort of head scratching. The reality is the military has everything in place right now that they need if they want to escalate the situation pretty significantly. So that could include land strikes inside Venezuela strikes inside Venezuela's territorial water.

They don't have what they need in place right now anyway for some sort of a large scale ground invasion. But nobody's really been talking to us about that anyway. If they wanted to take strikes against cartels in Venezuela, they could do it right now with what they have. No one can really explain what President Trump meant by closing the airspace.

You're right. The FAA doesn't close the airspace over Venezuela. It could be that it was more of a warning. But it, as we know, there was no action that took place.

There's not like evidence of fighter jets patrolling around Venezuela. And that's, yeah, and in this day and age, you know, it's the you can track these aircraft. There are people who track them. So you can see when they take off where they're flying to, that's how these bomber missions and these bomber runs have all been exposed frankly.

And then you meet amidst all of this. President Trump saying that he's going to pardon the former president of Honduras who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking, which is, I think, the point of all these Venezuelan strikes. How's the administration defending this decision while simultaneously cracking down on cartels in the Caribbean? Well, Ryan, it's a key question.

And the White House Secretary was asked specifically about this saying, doesn't this conflict with the president's state and goals to go after people who are accused of drug trafficking? And her response was that this was really a setup. This was an over prosecution by former president Biden and that their sources, including the Honduran people that she didn't go into detail with who those people were that this was a setup. I mean, that the former Honduran president's way didn't have enough time to get the case together.

Essentially, she was defending the Honduran president, the former Honduran president and saying that he essentially was a rare robot and that he deserved this part. And so they are what they are doing to doubling down and defending this part in. Ryan. Okay, Yamiche Alcindor.

Thank you for that, Courtney QB. Thank you. Also, I want to thank Melanie's and Ona for her reporting. And I want to bring in major general leper to get his take on this from a military and legal standpoint.

General leper, what would be the biggest legal concern when it comes to this second strike? In your view, from what you know, and based on the reporting, could it be a war crime? Absolutely. One of the things that I and my colleagues did over the weekend was provide an analysis of the facts that were recorded.

And we compared them to the international law and the domestic law that talks about the apps that were perpetrated against these two survivors. And depending upon the legal justification that you rely on for the strikes to begin with, they either are war crimes or murder or both. And when I say justification for the strikes to begin with, there's considerable doubt that the strikes in and of themselves are legal. The administration is calling them non-international armed conflict.

And if that is the case and we accept that rationale, then these would be war crimes because they are prohibited by the Geneva Convention. If they are not international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict, then we look to U.S. law to determine what the consequences would be for the order in two survivors of a shipwreck vessel to be killed. And let's say that this determination is that it's a war crime, or it is even a domestic crime.

Who would go about prosecuting that? And what could be the potential penalties as a result of that? Well, one of the things that we argued when we decided not to become a party to the International Criminal Court was that we could take care of our own problems, and presumably that's what we would do. We would basically have the Department of Justice investigate this as a domestic crime.

There are statutes in the U.S. Code that prohibit murder, of course. And there's also a statute that prohibits war crimes. This action could constitute both.

It could constitute violation under both of those provisions. And everyone from the Secretary of Defense down to the individuals who pulled the trigger could be held accountable under those statutes. But it seems, probably unlikely, almost impossible, that this Department of Justice would take that action to investigate and then subsequently prosecute other people responsible. Is there a statute of limitations on this, though?

If a different Department of Justice were in charge in three or four years from now, could they potentially come back and offer charges as a result of this? They could. Yes, they absolutely could because there's no statute of limitations on murder. And the only way of hoping this whole story is that Congress is willing to investigate this.

And based on the fact that they uncover, the record they create as a result of their investigation, any future administration could pick it up and use it in prosecution. I want to play for you a little bit of what the White House Secretary Caroline let it say today. Take a listen. The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests.

The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflicts. In your mind, is that a proper interpretation of the president's authorities? Well, the president does have the authority to defend the United States. Our argument has been all along that we have been doing that for decades through law enforcement.

We've had the Coast Guard out in the Caribbean, interdicting and seizing drugs as they are found. We have only recently resorted to military force to target these boats. And so whether they are lawful strikes to begin with is still an open question. We have yet to see the office of legal counsel opinion that says it is.

Now, as a second matter, though, the actual second strike, the double tap, very, very clearly is a violation of the laws of armed conflict. So what as Levitt said about these operations following the law of armed conflict is wrong and at least that respect. Okay, thank you for bringing that down for us. Don't Steve Lepper, we appreciate you being here.

Thank you. Coming up by partisan blowback, the top Democrat on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee responds to the Trump administration's military actions in the Caribbean. Senator Mark Warner is standing by. Don't go anywhere.

Plus, new NBC News reporting on the suspected accused of opening fire on two National Guard members in D.C. and the elite CIA-backed unit of Afghans he fought with before immigrating to the U.S. You're watching me to press now. Welcome back.

Let's get right to it. Joining me now is the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Senator, I want to begin with this reporting that the military conducted a second strike on what the administration claims was a drug carrying built from Venezuela after the initial strike failed to kill all on board. That's according to a U.S.

official and a source familiar with the action. What is your reaction to this reporting? My reaction is why are we waiting three months to get this information? I've reached out now to the commanding officer Admiral Bradley and expect him to come in and brief my committee and other senior members on what happened.

I think it's time for the administration to release the whole unedited video of this strike. We saw lots of images and we've seen particularly out of this defense secretary, Pete Haggseth. It started with Signalgate. It seems it's one chaotic action after another.

I don't know what to believe coming out of this DOD. I do know that Bradley's got a good reputation. I do know that there are many sailors from Virginia that have been deployed in the region. I want them to be safe.

I want them to be professional. I want them to stay legal. Those are questions and I've got to get the answers to it. The Washington Post is reporting that this was to comply with a verbal directive from Secretary Haggseth to kill everybody.

Would that be a war crime if such a directive was given? I think one of your prior guests said, if these individuals were they still on the boat, were they in the water? My understanding of the rule of war is if clearly somebody has become a noncombatant and doesn't have any means to further attack, that would be a violation of the rules of war. But I want to hear from the Admiral in charge and I hope he'll be able to share whether Secretary Haggseth will, again, I've thought for a long time is way over his head, actually off of verbal order or not.

I think we need to get to the bottom of this. Again, one of the ways that at least Congress can make a judgment is if the administration would release the whole on edited video. We saw parts of this video months ago, but it appears now we may have only seen what the administration wanted us to see. This is just one of more than 20 strikes in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific.

We've been told that at least 82 people have been killed. Are you concerned that similar second strikes to kill survivors may have been carried out in those instances? I'd like to get the answer to that, absolutely. And one of the things I made the case, I'm not saying we're not drugs on some of these vessels, but why not interdict them?

Show the world the drugs, show the world that these are narco traffickers on these boats and not simply some poor guy from a village who's paid an extra 100 bucks or some on some cases reports of migrants. So if the administration is so sure of their facts, show us and show the world. They've chosen not to do that. The president, as we've noted, the Armed Services Committee said that they're going to be looking into this reported second strike.

Are there any plans for your intelligence committee to do the same? And have you spoken with the Chair Senator Cotton on this? Obviously, when Tom Cotton later, clearly the Armed Services Committee is looking into it. We've got the Commander Bradley, who are Admiral Bradley, to give us his rendition.

He's a military professional. But this is the problem. This administration and the Defense Department, Pete Hegsep, has been so chaotic that you've finally even got Republican members of the Armed Services Committee saying, slow down, time out, something's clearly not right here, and let's investigate it fully. I wish we'd have started these kind of bipartisan investigations much earlier.

And maybe expand on that a little bit. Are you hearing even privately from your Republican colleagues that they're concerned about what's happening in South America right now? We have seen this administration and I've gone to the four number of times undermine the integrity of our intelligence committee. We've seen them undermine the integrity of the FBI.

We've seen military leaders fired without reason ahead of the NSA, the former, frankly, so come Commander who retired early. I've heard concerns, finally, maybe after the drumming that the Republicans took last month, people are beginning to raise their hands a little bit more. But these kind of undermining of the basic integrity of oftentimes of our insulin community, you don't put that genie back in the bottle right away. And I do think it's finally time that some of the Republicans are saying, well, maybe this has long-term negative consequences for our country and its defense.

I want to go back to something you mentioned earlier. One last thing. One last thing. And one other thing for me, Ryan, we also need to acknowledge most of our Republican college as well, American intervention in Central America and South America over the last century, and gone too well.

And we still have gotten no brief on what justification the president would use other than Maduro's a bad guy on what action that he might take towards Venezuela. So there's been concerns about that as well. I want to ask you about that in a second, but I want to do go back to what you said about the potential of these boats actually carrying drugs. You and your colleagues on the intelligence, armed services, and foreign relations committees were briefed by secretaries Rubio and Hanks last month.

At that time, you expressed confidence in the administration's quote, visibility into these drug trafficking lanes and our intelligence assets. Do you maintain that confidence now in the wake of this weekend's reporting? I have confidence that we have pretty good routes on tracing the drugs, but having drugs on these boats and everyone on the boats being a narco trafficker or in the case of what the reporting of requiring a second strike, where people may or may not have been combatants at that point. That is a very different issue than whether there might be or there is drugs on the boat.

I can accept the fact that the drugs on the boat, I've never accepted the fact that everyone that's on these boats is a vowed narco terrorist. And I think, again, if the administration can prove that, interdict the darn boats and show the world. Yeah. And let's now go back to this a potential growing conflict with Venezuela.

How concerned are you about direct military action in that country? I would be very concerned. I mean, and let me be clear, Maduro was a bad guy, and I think the Biden administration made a mistake when the Venezuelan people voted overwhelmingly, nearly two thirds of the population came out strongly and voted Maduro out. And we didn't put enough pressure on the adjacent countries like Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, to push Maduro out then.

But Trump may be joined by this show of force is actually doing something that Maduro could never accomplish on his own, restoring it, making himself a bit of a hero to the Venezuelan people because the idea of North American intervention in their country, one way to guarantee material support, local support or frankly support from other nations in the region, it would be for Americans to strike without further evidence of either drugs or more nefarious behavior from Maduro. And then last week, you said that you hadn't been briefed on any potential military action in Venezuela. Are you confident at least a gang of eight would receive some sort of briefing before any action is taken? Well, Ryan, as you know, I didn't get briefed in advance of the strike on the ring.

So do I have confidence that this administration will follow what is the law in terms of informing Congress? I have very little confidence at all, because that has been born of 11 months of this administration blowing off congressional requests, not getting us the information and appropriate timing. Again, remember the legal opinion on taking this action was made in July, July 25th, I believe. We didn't get a chance to look at that legal opinion until middle of last month.

This was not an administration to place by any defined traditional set of rules in terms of informing Congress, frankly, if you have the party. Okay, Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you.

After the break, Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Gnome says that the suspected DC shooter was radicalized on American soil as the Trump administration moves to crack down on immigrants receiving asylum in the U.S. Stay with us on the press now. Welcome back. A West Virginia National Guardsman shot in Washington, DC last week remains in serious condition, according to the state's governor, Andrew Wolf and Sarah Baxram were shot at close range outside DC Metro station on Wednesday.

Baxram later died of her injuries. Wolf remains hospitalized. The suspect is a 29 year old Afghan national who's expected to be charged with first degree murder. Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Gnome saying on me depressed that he was radicalized in the U.S.

We believe he was radicalized since he's been here in this country. We do believe it was through connections in his home community and state. And we're going to continue to talk to those who interacted with him, who were his family members that talked to them so far. We've had some participation.

Now, the suspect who worked alongside an elite CIA backed military unit was evacuated to the U.S during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. His asylum request was approved in April of this year. Kristin pressed Secretary Gnome if any additional vetting was done by the administration before that approval. I was very very clear about this because his asylum was approved in April of this year on the Trump administration's watch.

So just to be very clear, was there a vetting process in place to approve that asylum request? Yeah, the vetting process all happened under Joe Biden's administration. So was he vetted when he was granted asylum? Was he saying he wasn't vetted when he was granted asylum?

Vetting is happening when they come into the country, and that was completely abandoned under Joe Biden's administration. It comes as the president is escalating his immigration crackdown, vowing to permanently pause migration from what he calls third world countries. White House also announcing that all asylum decisions have been halted, and that all asylum decisions approved under the Biden administration will be reviewed. Joining you now is NBC News intelligence reporter Dan DeLuc.

So Dan, we heard the secretary there say that the shooter was not properly vetted. We do know that he was part of a CIA backed force in Afghanistan. What kind of vetting would he be received just to be part of that group? So Ryan, this would have been the most vetted group of Afghans that came to the United States.

This was not an unknown person who somehow sneaked under an airplane, right? This was an elite force that the U.S. relied heavily on. They were trained by the U.S.

armed by the CIA. It was secret. It was not a force that was acknowledged publicly until very recently. They were called the zero units.

So they would go out in these very dangerous night raids and try to hunt down Taliban commanders. So he was on a list in that force, and they got on an airplane. The CIA made sure they got their people out. So it's really misleading to say that he would have been some unknown quantity.

And how many Afghans were part of these strike groups, and how many came to the U.S. in the wake of that withdrawal in 2021? Under that big pool of tens of thousands of Afghans that came refugees, more than 70,000. The zero units were about 10,000 people, 10,000 soldiers who had been in intense combat.

A lot of them probably have some kind of PTSD. That's what people work with them say. So that's about the number we're dealing with. And then a certain pool of them were struggling.

They didn't have papers to work. They were in legal limbo and they were really struggling. And I would imagine they would have been among the most vulnerable had they stayed in country, right? They would be absolutely on a death list, a black list for the Taliban, absolutely.

Yeah. So no, also said that she believed that the shooter was radicalized here in the United States. Have there been any concerns raised about the radicalization of evacuees prior to this incident? I think there are zero units.

I've never heard anyone raised that concern with that group. They were considered pretty in with the US. There was an incident earlier this year where a Afghan refugee pleaded guilty to terrorism and related charges trying to plot an election day attack. So yes, there are concerns that some may be radicalized.

But this individual, we don't know. We don't know if it was simply just a mental breakdown. Yeah. And what are advocates for Afghans who worked alongside American troops saying now in the wake of this shooter?

I mean, there's got to be so many other Afghans that are here in this country that are very scared right now. That's right. They're scared. They're horrified.

They think what happened is absolutely horrible and horrendous. They think this person should be whoever did it. It should be prosecuted to the maximum. But they feel like this is that this is the actions of one person and that the whole Afghan community shouldn't be sort of viewed through this prism that there are tens of thousands of loyal Afghans who wish their lives fighting alongside the US, fighting along American troops, and that they should be treated properly and not tarnished by this act.

Okay, and Elizabeth, thanks for being here. We appreciate it. Turning now to an update in the nationwide redistricting war. Right now in Indiana, Republican lawmakers are considering redrawing the Hoosier States congressional map, which could lead to the elimination of the state's two democratic seats in next year's midterms.

The decision comes amid mounting pressure from President Trump to make deep red Indiana even redder. At least nine elected Republicans have been the target of what's known as swatting attacks in the weeks since the president first began publicly pressuring state lawmakers to pass the new maps. But it's not clear that President Trump will get his way on this. The Indiana Senate leader has said there aren't enough Republican votes for the president's redistricting push.

And on Friday, a Republican state senator whose daughter has down syndrome said he wouldn't support the effort, citing the president's recent use of a slur for those with intellectual disabilities to describe democratic governor Tim Walz. Up next, ceiling, a deal, US Special Envoy Steve Wickhoff heads to Moscow to meet face to face with Russian President Putin about the war in Ukraine and the growing signs of progress toward a potential peace deal. We're live in Ukraine straight ahead. Keep it here.

I'll meet the press now. Welcome back. Turning now to the war in Ukraine and the start of a pivotal week, I'm in progress in talks to end the nearly four-year-old conflict. US Special Envoy Steve Wickhoff is set to meet with Russian President Putin tomorrow in Moscow after meeting alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Ukrainian officials yesterday in Florida.

Rubio calling those talks productive. We continue to be realistic about how difficult this is but optimistic, particularly given the fact that as we've made progress, I think there's a shared vision here that this is not just about ending the war, which is very important. It is about securing Ukraine's future, a future that we hope will be more prosperous than it's ever been. President Zelensky described the meeting as constructive but also warned that the tough issues still remain.

Zelensky was in Paris today, where he met with the French President Emmanuel Macron as he seeks to fortify European support for Ukraine. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engle joins me now from Ukraine. So Richard, what is the mood in Ukraine ahead of tomorrow's meeting with Wickhoff and President Putin? Well, Ryan, I can't tell you that the mood is very good.

People here are worried about these negotiations. They want the war to end, obviously, but they don't want to have a humiliating peace deal imposed upon them. They feel, many feel that this is Putin's peace plan, that Ukraine is being asked to surrender all of the, to give in and offer concessions. That very little or almost nothing is being asked from Vladimir Putin.

And look where I am right now. You could probably tell behind me it's pitch black. That's because this was one of the many cities that was attacked by Russian forces today. Now there is a rolling blackout here, a partial blackout in the city.

I was talking other people in the city earlier today. And some of them feel very discouraged. They are living, it's been almost four years now. And they are living in cities where there's periodic blackouts, frequent attacks where the energy sector is specifically targeted.

I met a woman inside her house. She has no food, no running water, no heat. She was burning sticks that she was able to find. And this is nearly four years into the war.

And she's not seeing any progress. And she told me that she wants this war to end. But even she, like many other people I've been speaking to worry that a bad piece, a piece that humiliates Ukraine that takes large amounts of territory from the country and awards it to Russia won't last. And that the Ukrainians could very well face another Russian invasion in the future, even if a piece deal is concluded.

So not a lot of confidence here. People want the war to be finished, but they're worried about the Trump administration and Putin cooking up a deal together that Ukraine is going to have to live with. So to that end, what are Ukrainian officials hoping could come out of tomorrow's meeting in Moscow? Ukrainian officials are nervous.

There's a lot of skepticism here about Steve Whitkoff in particular, did not go unnoticed. That leaked recording that was published by Bloomberg just a few days ago now in which Whitkoff appeared to be coaching a Russian official on how he should be talking to President Trump, how he should be talking to President Trump in order to block Ukraine from receiving certain U.S. assistance. There's not trust here in him as an envoy.

So they're skeptical when he goes to Washington, when he goes to Moscow. He's been to Russia many times and has not been to Ukraine. And that is something that Ukrainians also are concerned about, who is doing the mediating and what is being said. But Ukrainians and U.S.

officials have been meeting, you showed that clip from Marco Rubio in Geneva. They've been meeting in Florida. But they don't know what's going to happen in that meeting tomorrow between Putin and Whitkoff. What will be agreed?

What won't be agreed? And will Vladimir Putin have new demands? So there's a lot of nervousness in this city as they sit in their blacked out homes tonight. Yeah, certainly seems like a pivotal moment in this war and a lot of anxiety where you are in Ukraine.

Richard Engle, thank you so much for that report. We appreciate it. Still to come. It's a blue wave building.

We're about to get our next big clue as voters head to the polls tomorrow in a surprisingly close of special election in Tennessee in a district that President Trump won by more than 20 points last year. The panel is next. You're watching with the press now. Welcome back.

If it's Monday, someone's about to vote somewhere. And tomorrow that somewhere is Tennessee, and a special election that under normal circumstances wouldn't be competitive. But these aren't normal circumstances. Less than a month after the Democrats dominant election victories and with the president struggling in the polls.

In Tennessee's 7th congressional district, Republican Matt Manaps faces Democrat Afton Bain in a contest to replace the Republican Congress from Mark Green, who resigned in July. Now, this race is surprisingly tight, even though Republicans won this seat by more than 20 points just a year ago. President Trump won the district by a similar margin. But the president's popularity is declining.

A new Gallup poll shows just 36% of Americans approving of his job performance. That's the lowest number of his second term and just two percentage points better than his all-time low at the end of his first term in the wake of the attack on the Capitol. Do you want to mean now to talk about all of this? Jeff Mason, the White House correspondent for Reuters, R.C.

Siddiqui, a former senior age, a former speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and now a Democratic strategist, and Rob Louie, the president and executive editor of the Daily Single. And Jeff, to add all of these complications in, it's a special election. And there could be snow in the forecast in Tennessee tomorrow. What does this tell us about the state of politics 11 months before next year's midterm that a state like this could even be slightly competitive?

Well, I was going to start by saying I'm not going to comment on the snow as a Colorado and I'm always forced to know. But actually, it actually matters on a day like that because snow and weather and impact turn out. So I bet that's not used to it. Absolutely.

Absolutely. But what does it tell me? I mean, it tells me that the election we saw a few weeks ago where Democrats did really well was not, it's probably indicative of broader things. I mean, surely, if you are looking at a state like Tennessee, and you've cited the statistics of how strongly both the president and the Republicans won that district in that state a year ago, if they are struggling to get a Republican over the finish line, then Republicans, at least right now, are in trouble.

And that's got to be concerning in the White House and it's got to be concerning in Speaker Johnson's office. So actually, does this mean that Democrats have to win tomorrow? Would anything short of a victory be a disappointment? No, absolutely not.

I think it's all about the margin of victory. And I think what's interesting about the point that you've made is that there have been a lot of resources put into this race. So you look at, you look at a few months ago when the Florida race earlier this year was more, it seems like a longer than that. But in Florida, they had some warning signals and then really put resources, got some star power down to Florida, and it just really leveled the steady to the ship.

Now, in this instance, we're talking about a totally different ballgame where we had a month ago, he was up eight points, man, up. Now it's two points. We're within margin of air territory. So I think despite the president really doubling down, Speaker Johnson, millions of dollars going into the district.

Speaker Johnson's there today, Rob, President Trump's going to do a teller alley with the speaker. If for some reason, Ben does pull this out, and it is a big F no doubt. Who would be to blame? Would it be President Trump?

Would it be congressional Republicans? Where would the blame line? I'm sure there'll be a lot of finger points. Oh, I'm sure there will be right.

I've blamed congressional Republicans for months, including I probably saw the broken record on the show, because I don't think that they have done an effective job of talking about all the benefits and the things that they passed with the one big beautiful bill. If you go back to what President Trump said, the reason they wanted to get that done by July 4th was precisely so they would have time to talk about it, and they would start to see the effects of that early in 2026. And you spent the bulk of this show talking about what national security foreign policy issues we know from polling in that district, that the economy and affordability is the number one and number two issue that voters care about. It's not congressional, just for congressional Republicans aren't talking about it though, right?

Neither is the president. There was no across the country campaign to kind of tell the benefits of the bill. Isn't he at least partly to blame for it? Sure, I would like to see the president talking about it more as well.

I think you worked in Congress right on some major pieces of legislation, and we know that presidents sometimes have a tough job of getting it to the finish line once they do, then selling it to the American people can also be a challenge. We saw what the consequences were in 2010 after the passage of Obamacare. We saw that what the consequences were also for Joe Biden and what he was trying to do, Ryan. So I think that President Trump has time to recover from this, but the clock is ticking.

And we're already starting to see congressional Republicans kind of run for the hills a little bit here, Jeff. We saw Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she's leaving in January, now Troy Nelles of Texas, perhaps one of the most staunch supporters of President Trump in Congress say that he's not going to run. His twin brother is, which they often joke that if one of them went on the floor, he wouldn't know who was voting anyway. But is this just normal attrition from the party that controls the house?

Or is there something more to this? I don't think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a tradition. I just don't think you can argue that. I mean, the fact that somebody who was asked not to support her as she was, and in many cases, in many ways, still is, is deciding to bail is a sign of deep concern within the Republican ranks.

And again, another really bad sign for President Trump going into them in terms. And his approval numbers right now, Rob, are just two points higher than they were after January 6. When you talk about him trying to sell what he's accomplished and sell things like the big beautiful bill, isn't it? A lot more difficult when you're already starting at a deficit like he is right now?

Sure. And I think one of the most important poll numbers to look at is how Americans view their personal finances. And unfortunately, those numbers have deteriorated over the course of the past few months. So they are seeing, not only the effects right during the holiday season, when they're probably going to be needing to spend a little bit more money on friends and family for Christmas presents and things like that.

So yes, the president does need to be concerned about that. I think that the way you get around this is, again, I go back to what I said, they passed the tax cuts and jobs act in December of 2017. And the effects of that didn't go into play largely in time for them to make those stop catastrophic losses in the 2018 midterms. He can still do that, Ryan.

I think he needs to be on the stump though, talking about what the benefits are and what the American people will see. And the question is, can Democrats capitalize on it? I mean, they've shown an inability sometimes to not take advantage of when their opponents not doing well politically. I mean, how do Democrats hone in on this affordability message and then make a compelling case to the American people that is more than just were not Donald Trump?

No, absolutely. And I think the one thing on the Democratic side, because being a big tent party has its challenges, no doubt. So you always see a spirited debate. But I do think Democrats really did learn their lessons from the last cycle.

And you saw the members of Congress in the House and Senate who were successful. They all were laser focused on their districts and states. And so on affordability, it's going to mean different things in different states. And I think that's how Democrats come back.

And it is very much with a positive agenda. Okay. Rob, I want to play for you what President Trump said yesterday. He doubled down on the slower than he used to describe Minister of Governor Tim Walts last week.

This is what the president said late yesterday. Do you stand by that gleam of all into walls retarded? Yeah, I think there's something wrong with him. Absolutely.

Sure. You don't have a problem with it? You know what? I think there's something wrong with them.

Anybody that would do what he did, anybody that would allow those people into a state and pay billions of dollars up to Somalia, we get billions of dollars to Somalia. It's not even a country because it doesn't function like a country. It's got a name, but it doesn't function like a country. There's something wrong with walls.

I mean, we know how President Trump handles these situations, right? He never apologizes. Right. Does it make sense to double down on this or should have at least downplayed it or maybe tried to explain it a little better?

Tim Walts has been a punching bag for Donald Trump for over a year now. Let's face it. So I mean, I'm not necessarily surprised on this. And we also know that on the issue of immigration and some of those questions, President Trump is extremely hawkish.

So I'm not particularly surprised. I don't necessarily know that the president's going to shift course either, right? But are you okay with that? Okay, with what?

That using that word? No, I wouldn't use that language personally, no, Jeff. Yeah. I mean, but are we getting desensitized to this, Jeff?

Is it the question I'm going to ask? I mean, it seems as though he makes these, I tell you called a reporter piggy. I mean, you've been in the room where he's gone after some of your fellow White House colleagues, and we just kind of say, well, that's just Trump being Trump after what's been almost 15 years of this. Are we just not even doesn't even register anymore?

I got two answers to that. I mean, I think from a reporter's perspective, we have a different job when we get arrows like that from the president. I've certainly gotten some as well. And our job is just to keep reporting the news and reporting the truth and not becoming the story.

The president makes that hard sometimes because he tries to make us the story. But that is definitely not our job. I do think it's our job. That's one reason I just asked you that question is to ask the people who do have a role in having an influence over society or over dialogue over the public discourse to weigh in on whether they think it's okay.

And a lot of people aren't. So I think that's interesting. Whether people got desensitized, I think, and I totally the answer to that question is probably yes. Okay.

All right. We're gonna leave it there, guys. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it, R.C.

Rob. Jeff. We appreciate you guys being here. Thank you.

And we'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. There's always more news ahead on NBC News Now. Thank you so much for joining us. We'll see you tomorrow.

Everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the third hour of today and mom to three wild boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat.

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

I'm kind of screw yourself. Search The Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.