Welcome to Meet the Press Now, I'm Kristen Welker in New York. We begin with the Trump administration's dramatic escalation with Venezuela and the Nicolas Maduro regime, seizing an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, sanctioning six additional tankers, and threatening more action amid a surge in military assets to the region, Attorney General Pam Bondi releasing this video, showing members of the Coast Guard repelling from a helicopter onto the seized tanker and moving throughout the vessel with their weapons drawn. In her post, Bondi said the oil tanker was sanctioned by the U.S., due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations. Yesterday, President Trump suggested the U.S.
would keep the oil, and today, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt echoed that, sentiment while defending the decision to seize the tanker, despite concerns about the escalation in tensions. The United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground, on the vessel, and individuals on board the vessel, are being interviewed in any relevant evidence as being seized. With respect to the oil, that's a different issue. As you know, Peter, the vessel will go to a U.S.
port, and the United States does intend to seize the oil. However, there is a legal process for the seizure of that oil, and that legal process will be followed. Does the president consider the seizure of the oil tanker an escalation or step towards war with that to the left? I think the president considers the seizure of the oil tanker as effectuating the administration's sanction policies.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also touting that operation today during a worldwide threats hearing on Capitol Hill. And it was a successful operation directed by the president to ensure that we're pushing back on a regime that is systematically covering and flooding our country with deadly drugs and killing our next generation of Americans. And this afternoon, the administration appearing to double down on its strategy. With the Treasury Department sanctioning six crude oil tankers as part of a fresh round of sanctions on Venezuela.
Now, it comes after Venezuela's foreign minister denounced the seizure of the oil tanker, calling it, quote, blatant theft and an act of international piracy. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, there was mixed reaction with Republicans supporting the seizure of the tanker, and Democrats warning the escalation could lead to war. What the president is doing is he is stopping drugs from killing our grandchildren and our children. And I'm plotting for that.
The president is well within his authority to enforce sanctions. I would actually argue that part of the reason why sanctions aren't effective is they're not actually enforced. And so this is what happened with the tanker of a sanction country at a different place to place. It's kind of warrior mentality resorting to physical force all the time everywhere is going to have tragic results and as well as if the seizure of the tankers of military invasion as appears to be the mounting case.
The president is trying to get us into a war. People need to remember that only Congress should depart war and what is the purpose of this war? Seems to be. Does he want the oil?
Does he want to stop it? We don't know what he wants. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor, NBC News National Security reporter, Gordon Luebold, and retired General Wesley Clark, former commander of the US Southern Command. Thank you all so much for starting us off.
Yamiche, let me start with you at the White House. What more are you hearing from officials there today about this tanker operation? Well, White House Press Secretary Caroline Luebold, it took questions here a few hours ago about this. And she was really doubling down on the defense that this was all done legally and that the seizure of this oil is going to be following a process that will likely learn and in seizing the oil, but again, through a legal process.
The White House Press Secretary also talked about the fact that this is about drugs and oil because she was asked that question. She said not only is Venezuela being targeted because the US sees it as a large drug trafficker that's hurting Americans, but also this oil is seen as sanctioned oil and as part of a sort of black market sanction of aiding network. So the White House being very clear that they want to continue to do these kinds of operations. It's also our understanding based on a senior administration official that the crew for that tanker is still on board and that they are now in negotiations with where they go next.
We also know that this vessel is heading toward a US port, but its final destination is something that we're still trying to work on and trying to figure out, but it is sort of still an active investigation, Christian. Well, and you mean she talked about the fact that there could be more action taken. The Treasury Department today announced it was sanctioning six more crude oil tankers. Do you think and based on your reporting, could that be a sign that these kinds of operations are only going to escalate?
Certainly, Christian. This is a White House that is looking at Venezuela and essentially treating it like an enemy terrorist state saying that it is going to go after it and target it by sea, by land, possibly by air, and also that it's not going to just limit it to these, of course, both strikes that we've seen. They've been, of course, killing what they say are alleged drug slums, but we're now seeing a new sort of chapter in this, which is seizing oil. Now, I should say that this vessel that we know it's supposed to be part of a list in 2022 of sanctions vessels that was allegedly carrying oil from Venezuela and Iran.
So in some ways, is it new in terms of targeting vessels, but it is new to be seizing this oil. And the White House Secretary was asked specifically, is this oil going to be used for the benefit of Americans? Essentially, is it going to become now property of the US government? And she essentially said, yes, but again, through a legal process is what she's saying.
One of the big questions, I mean, is what are the implications broadly speaking for the Maduro regime we've heard the president make threats against Maduro? We've heard him threaten, for example, potential strikes inside Venezuela. Is regime change something that is still on the table at this point? It's a question that I just asked the White House I'm waiting for response, but it seems as though it's still on the table.
It's also interesting if you think about all of this happening that the opposition leader who won the Nobel Peace Prize is saying that she got out of Venezuela and was able to go to Oslo to get that award with the help of the US government. So that also tells you that the US government is helping the opposition of Nicolas Maduro. All that being said, the president hasn't been clear about whether or not that means that US troops on the ground will actually go out and move Maduro or whether or not it's going to be more increased pressure in all of the different ways that we've been seeing. All right, Yamiche, thank you so much for your reporting from the White House.
We really appreciate it. Gordon, let me head over to you. What are your key takeaways, particularly given that dramatic video that we all witnessed? Mr.
McChryson, I think that it wasn't by accident that Attorney General Panbond tweeted all those images of the helicopters landing and Coast Guardsmen, those are US Navy helicopters and US Guardsmen boarding the ship and running around in kind of a flurry of activity. I think it's all part of this kind of optics effort to kind of signal to not only Venezuela but to the region that Trump administration plans to kind of commit all assets it needs to to achieve their objectives. What are you watching for in terms of what might happen next with this tanker, Gordon, and quite frankly with the people on board? Sure, so I think the tanker is headed to an American port as a clip of Caroline Levitt said, we assume everything probably in Texas.
The crew appears to have been given an opportunity to during this investigation that's being conducted on the ship now to be given an off ramp that they can go home or whatever. We're not quite sure where that will lead, but I think that's what our reporting tells us for now. And then as we've been talking about the legal process will be under go. And then the oil will be seized by the Trump administration.
You know, one other thing that we're hearing from the president are threats to potentially take action against Columbia. Where does that stand, Gordon, at this moment, and what's the rationale there that you're hearing from your sources? Right, so I think this is more in this kind of effort to telegraph to the region by President Trump and the rest of his administration that he's serious about achieving these objectives. The thing is now it seems to be something about oil.
It's been about drugs. Certainly the Pentagon has the assets in the region to conduct whatever it is that he wants to do. We've threatened regime change, but they've kind of backed away from it. Caroline and I didn't seem to talk a lot about that today as much as trying to maintain and stop the drug flow and stop any sanction oil from flowing in the region.
But they certainly have more than 10% of the Navy is in the region right now, 14,000 troops. I'm sure that they're ready for whatever it is they want to do when they do it, if they do it. All right, Gordon Louisville, thank you so much always for your great reporting. We really appreciate it.
Let me turn out to General Wesley Clark. General Clark, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. It's obviously a significant day as the country tries to process what exactly happened with this oil tanker.
What is your key takeaway here? And do you think, as was asked during the briefing, this is a step toward war with Venezuela? I don't know if it's a step toward war, but it is a step toward increasing the pressure on the material regime. If these sanctions or tankers received the ability of Venezuela to export oil and receive foreign currency for this as curtail, it certainly puts a lot of pressure on the Venezuelan government.
Why do you think this is happening now? I think the seizure of the tanker might have been opportunistic or they may have been looking for some other way to ratchet up the pressure on material rather than airstrikes or putting troops on the ground. And I think the lawful seizure of this tanker was a very, very good move. Well, and based on the reporting, it seems as though the administration has poised to potentially seize more tankers.
That's one of the options that is on the table. Can you be specific about what type of pressure this actually puts on Maduro in practical terms? What does this accomplish? I think it makes it more difficult for him to have the money that he needs to run his government.
Clearly, this is where it would be worth maybe $150 million depending on the type of oil and who gets it. And that's foreign exchange money that he needs. But it also means that the groups that are cooperating with him, Iran, maybe Russia, maybe some Southeast Asian criminals or whatever, they're under pressure now. They can't easily work with Venezuela.
It makes them doubt maybe he's not reliable as a supplier. Maybe they got the links to Venezuela. Oh, that's good. Do you think though, General, that there could be retaliation by Venezuela, we've heard some pretty defiant language from Maduro himself?
I think there could be retaliation if there are terrorist groups from Venezuela under the control of Maduro in the United States. We know there's a gang that's reported to be here, but the ability of Maduro to effect retaliation in a significant way, I would think that's surprising. And I do think it's a good thing that the United States is enforcing these sanctions. I mean, if you put sanctions on, you should enforce them.
However, I think when you spread this from Venezuela to Colombia and you talk about maybe going in on the ground. Look, I was the commander down there. I've done counter-drug operations. I've been in the jungle down there.
I've blown out and looked at the radar sites. I know the police, the national police. I know how big the country is, how many people they are, how diverse the climate is. We don't want to put working thousand groups in the South America, I can tell you that.
Well, and you take me to my next question. I mean, do you think that the president has the authority for land strikes in Venezuela to take this fight to Colombia as well? What's your estimation then? It's a total political question.
And the Congress certainly has the right to demand an explanation to invoke the War Powers Act. This is what happened and really how we got the War Powers Act in 1973. President Nixon was executing a vigorous bombing campaign in Laos. It was a secret campaign.
No one was supposed to know about it when the word came out. Congress said, what are you doing? And that resulted in the creation of the War Powers Act. Now, I will tell you that when I was the NATO commander and we were executing the air campaign against Serbia and ethnic cleansing and Kosovo, we did not get a congressional finding and resolution under the War Powers Act.
Essentially, it was determined legally that the continued funding of the campaign constituted implicit acceptance and approval of the campaign by the Congress. And so that's where it stood. It was a 90-day operation. This looks like to be much longer, much more intense.
And I'm sure the Congress is here. The Senator speak and so forth. And even the Republican members of Congress, the President's own party. They don't want to see us in a war, especially a land war in South America.
And just one more thing if I could. You know, Maduro is not a great guy to have an hemisphere. It'd be really nice if we got rid of him or if the people in Venezuela could get rid of him. He's caused a lot of trouble in the region.
However, he's nothing compared to what's going on between Vladimir Putin and what he's doing to Ukraine. And I hope we don't take our eyes off the real tragedy, for national security, for international rules-based order, and obviously the humanitarian tragedy that Vladimir Putin is imposing on the people of Ukraine. All right, General Wesley Clark with a really strong final thought there. I really appreciate your joining us.
Thank you. Thank you. Coming up, paying the price. Both Democratic and Republican health care proposals fail in the Senate, pushing millions of Americans closer to a health care cliff with premium spiking just weeks away.
What it means for you and the midterms. That's next. Plus breaking news, say lawmakers are about to vote on a Trump-backed plan to redraw Indiana's congressional districts in favor of Republicans and extras in term elections. We're live in Indianapolis, straight ahead.
You're watching The Press now. Welcome back with Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire in less than three weeks. And insurance premiums are about to spike for millions of Americans. The path to a health care deal on Capitol Hill seems to have all that evaporated.
Today, in the Senate, two proposals, one Democratic, one Republican both failed to get the votes needed to pass. The Democratic proposal would have extended the expiring ACA subsidies for three years. Something Republicans have repeatedly rejected. The Republican plan would have deposited money directly to health savings accounts, an idea the president has vocally supported.
Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle blaming the other party for the stalemate before and after the failed votes. Democrats may talk about helping Americans, but their bill is nothing more than a political messaging exercise they hope they can use against Republicans next November. Leader Thune ought to start talking to the American people. When your health care premiums double.
When you can't afford medicine, when you have to switch doctors who's been on your case for so many years, that ain't political, John Thune. That's humane and that's democracy doing what the people want. Meanwhile, on the House Republicans plan to vote on some kind of health care plan next week, but it's not exactly clear yet what that will be. Two different bipartisan bills offering temporary extensions of the tax credits have been introduced, but both options lack the support of Republican leadership, which appears to be moving forward on a proposal that would not include an extension of the tax credits.
Joining now from Capitol Hill to sort this all out, NBC's Mel Zadona Mel, thanks so much for joining us. I know it's a busy time on the Hill. So look, this was expected to fail today, these two proposals. Where does the health care subsidy debate go now in the Senate?
Well, you know, there has been some hope on Capitol Hill that a bipartisan deal will arise out of the ashes of these failed Senate votes. And I think Lisa Murkowski actually put it best when she said what today's exercise showed is that the Democrat only plan, which is just an extension of the Obamacare subsidies doesn't work, and the Republican only approach, which is a complete alternative, doesn't work either. However, there are some substantial hurdles to them reaching an actual bipartisan compromise. The first one being the clock itself.
These subsidies expire at the end of the year, open enrollment ends in many states January 15th, and the Senate is scheduled to actually leave town for their recess next week. And there are no additional plans to put anything on the floor next week, at least in the Senate. And meanwhile, you also have the subsidy policy differences between the two sides with some Republicans just absolutely dug in against any form of an extension of the Obamacare subsidies, and then some Democrats saying that they don't want to back any sort of reforms and that they can't let these subsidies expire. So that's where we're at.
The question of the bipartisan deal very much still up in the air here in Capitol Hill. Well, Mel, as we did mention, there are some bipartisan proposals pending in the House. How do you see that playing out? Well, the central question with those bipartisan proposals is whether the Democratic leadership is going to get onboard because those bipartisan proposals are trying to come up through what's known as a discharge petition.
They need 218 signatures. And if every single Democrat gets behind those discharge petitions, either one of those could succeed and essentially force the floor vote on extending the ACA subsidies. But so far, the Democratic leadership has really made remains non-committal on where they stand and that I just asked how can Jeffries moments ago about his position on these discharge petitions. And he said, I'm focused on what we're voting on today.
So really dodging the question. But I told behind the scenes, there is at least some more inclination among Democrats to back the Gotheimer-Kiggins discharge petition. That would just be a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies with some income caps with some reforms. That being said, though, Jeffries has his own discharge petition, which would be a three-year extension, a clean extension, no additional reforms.
So at this moment, Democratic leadership really wants to keep the pressure on moderate Republicans to back that instead of some of these other bipartisan efforts. You know, Republicans saying that three-year extension did on arrival. Mel's an owner on Capitol Hill for us. Thanks so much.
Joining me now is New York Republican Congressman Nicole Meleitakis. Thank you so much for joining us, Congressman Meleitakis. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
So let's talk about this big battle over extending the health care subsidies. You're, of course, a co-sponsor of Congressman Fitzpatrick's bill that would, among other things, basically extend the subsidies for two years. It would also extend access to health savings accounts and it would overhaul rules around pharmacy benefits managers. He has filed a discharge petition to force a vote on this bill.
Do you support that discharge petition? Well, in general, I don't assign discharge petitions. I think the goal should be here to get as many sponsors on this bill to show that we have the votes necessary to pass it on the House floor. We started off with eight members, four Republicans and four Democrats who are members of the problem solvers caucus who have came together to present the solution.
We think that our piece of legislation is very balanced. It's a centrist policy that not only addresses the immediate issue, which is rising premiums as a result of the Affordable Care Act not being affordable and needing subsidies and also cracking down on insurance companies and their brokers who have signed people up for the Affordable Care Act, who in some cases didn't even know they were being signed up or in some cases are deceased. In some cases, the same Social Security number being used to sign up multiple people. I've saw as many as one over 100 people signed up with the same Social Security number.
So there is a lot of fraud in the program and the system and our bill addresses it by extending the subsidies, but doing so with necessary reforms and also giving those owner, those consumers the opportunity to take 50% in a health savings account to be able to then pay for premiums, which currently they cannot do with a health savings account. But as you mentioned, going after the PBMs is critical to reducing a drug prices and I've been a big advocate for more transparency and reigning in those PBMs that are now oftentimes the insurer and the pharmacy as well and that type of vertical integration has led to very, very problematic issues for not just the consumers but for mom and pop pharmacies across the country. Well, and I hear you saying in general you do not support discharge petitions, but just to be very clear, in this case, are you prepared to vote yes? I'm not signing a discharge petition at this time, but I will vote yes, obviously because it's my legislation.
I mean, look, if they get to 217 signatures and they need a 218 to get it to the floor, then I will sign the petition. But I think right now our goal should be getting as many, if it's not a petition you can actually sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill and that's much more important to be able to get the message across the leadership that there are more than just handful Republicans and Democrats that are willing to work in a bipartisan manner to get this across the finish line. So Congresswoman, that's your breaking point, basically. If you get to 217, you would be that final vote necessary.
Yeah, if it gets to that, I will be, I will be happy to be the deciding factor here to get that to the floor because I think it is important and more importantly, it will show that we do have a 218 to get it across the finish line. But right now we're far from that and that's why I urge my colleagues to take a look at our legislation because it is a common sense, bipartisan, balanced approach that tackles a lot of issues here from not just rising pharmaceutical costs, the rising premiums, allowing more flexibility with the health savings account and going after the fraud in the system that we know is rampant because the insurance companies and the brokers are not being reined in and they're, right now they have too much incentive to sign up as many people as possible because they get this subsidy. And let's just, I just want to be clear how we got here to where we are today. We have to remember that the Affordable Care Act passed in 2014 by President Obama was never truly affordable.
That is why we have the problem we have now with the premiums being so high. Now, the COVID era subsidy that was supposed to be temporary, that expiration date was set by the Democrats to expire this year. So this is a problem that was really dumped in the lapse of Republicans. However, we were able to find a bipartisan solution in our problem-solvers caucus and that is the very reason why we exist to try to come to the table and find solutions on difficult issues like this.
Congressman, let me ask you because your bill does have a lot of overlap with actually another bipartisan bill proposed by representatives, Jen Higgins and Josh Dottheimer, including that two-year extension of ACA subsidies. If that bill could somehow get leadership support from either side of the aisle, would you be willing to throw your weight and your support behind that? Well, our bill is actually more conservative and actually tackles the reforms in a better manner. And that is why I think it has a better chance of getting support of leadership.
But if it were the other version that came to the floor, I probably would support that as well because it is a balanced approach that does somewhat what we're trying to accomplish, but not as strong. So right now, I don't know that either one would be coming to the floor. Quite frankly, the leadership has sent the message that they don't intend to put any extension of the COVID era subsidies on the house floor. And that is why we are making this effort to show that they're significant bipartisan support.
And, you know, again, the negotiations continue. The advocacy continues. I hope we get something done that addresses this court issue. There are about 80,000 constituents of mine that would be affected.
It's about roughly 10% of my district that does use the Affordable Care Act. And I think that we have struck the proper balance here to get something that is a good policy. It's better than the policy that exists today. And it also doesn't allow it to completely expire.
A couple more questions that we are almost out of time. But one person who has been largely absent from this health care debate is President Trump. He did say he wants money to go directly to the people. But despite Secretary Bessent telling me, it's about three weeks ago now, Congresswoman, that the White House would have an announcement on health care.
So far, that announcement has not come. What exactly is your message to the President? And would you support money going directly to the people? Look, it's my understanding that the President does support some type of extension or money going directly to consumers, whether it be the way we describe it in a health savings account that then could be allowed to pay for their premiums.
Currently, consumers cannot do that with their health savings accounts. That would be a big change. I think that there was some pushback from the House leadership on the White House on this, which is unfortunate. And I have repeatedly urged the White House to continue on their path to put forward a health care plan that the President has signaled early on that he did support.
We have shown them our bill. They're aware of our bill. I'm hopeful that we can get some support from them on this bill because we think it's the most common sense approach. There are many different factors that come into play here with the leadership of our House.
But I think it's a mistake from a policy level and a political level to not put this bill on the floor and allow the rank and file membership to have a vote, which is why you're seeing this type of frustration coming from rank and file members of both parties. We have ideas. We have solutions. We should be able to get a proper airing and they should be able to get a vote on the floor.
So we'll continue to push for that and we'll continue to urge the White House to continue on its path. Don't be discouraged by what our House leadership has been saying because you have a lot of support from both Republicans and Democrats to put forward a solution. Well, and just finally, when you talk about the frustration, some of that has been directed at Speaker Johnson over this issue, but quite frankly, a range of issues. We've seen multiple discharge petitions, including a successful one on the Epstein files, as you know.
And NBC News is reporting that there's growing frustration among some Republican women. Do you believe Congressman that he's losing control of the Republican conference? Look, I think being the speakers, obviously, a very difficult job, particularly when you have a slim majority, like we do. I'd also urge the speaker early on to allow the rank and file to bring forward more pieces of legislation that are not controversial, that don't cost money in particular.
It's very easy for them to say, what are your top three priorities that are easy, that can get the best amount of support from the rank and file members of both parties? And let's put them on the floor and get them done and you can deliver wins for your district and for the country. Unfortunately, that has not happened. And it is discouraging.
It is disappointing. I've been fortunate to get a lot of my priorities done this year through the House Ways and Means Committee and the One Big Beautiful Bill because I've been pushing for the salt deduction, the senior deduction that will eliminate the liability on social security, they'll get refund when they file their taxes, 88% of seniors across this country, manufacturing by allowing a deduction for new facilities or expansion of manufacturing facilities in the United States. I've got a lot of my stuff done, but there still are smaller pieces of legislation that I would like to see come through the committee process and we're having difficulty doing that. And so I continue to urge the speaker to allow rank and file members to pick three bills that are not controversial, don't cost money, and let's bring them to the floor for a vote.
Let's help us get them through the committee instead of installing them in committee, which unfortunately I've had seen done to me and other members here. All right, Congresswoman Malia Takis, thank you so much for joining us to discuss a range of topics. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up after the break, how the uncertain fate of health care reform on Capitol Hill could shake up the road to the midterms, keep it right here on Meet the Press Now. 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 the 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. What's been happening with Here's The Scoop, with a podcast from NBC News with your host, Gazzam D'Souguin. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.
On the front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's The Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back, joining me now.
Carlos Carbello, former Republican Congressman from Florida and now an NBC News contributor and demand commitment, Democratic strategist, who's also the co-founder and president of Run for Something. Thank you both so much for being here. We appreciate it. Carlos, let me start with you.
I want to play a little something that Don Bacon, Congressman Don Bacon, had to say about this health care battle gets a reaction on the other side. How bad can this be for Republicans? If you do not accept this. I don't think it will be used like a sledgehammer on us.
You're from now. The rally will be bad. It will be used like a sledgehammer, he says. Do you think that's accurate?
Chris and Don Bacon remembers the first Trump midterm election where health care was the most potent issue. And really, it cost Republicans the 40-plus seats that they lost that year. Health care is always a difficult issue for Republicans. The ACA, particularly, has been a hot-button issue where Republicans have gotten burned over and over again.
So what the party needs to do, what house members need to do, is address this issue quickly, extinguish it politically, because the longer that this issue burns, the more difficult it will be for Republicans to keep their majority next year. So let me ask you, how do you think Democrats should proceed in this fight? I mean, they shut down the government over extending these health care subsidies. They didn't win that battle.
Now they're trying to pass legislation that would effectively do the same. Do you think they're going to get it done? Or does this become basically something that they can't paint on? I think it becomes something they can't paint on.
And they've got to make sure that people understand their health care bills are going to double, or in some cases go up much, much more, because of Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. You want to fix it? Elect Democrats. Full stop.
Yeah, well, I guess the question is, and this is part of what you're raising, Amanda. I mean, could this become a pox on both your houses? If subsidies expire, if, as you say, premiums are going to skyrocket on tens of millions of people all across the country, is it a double-edged sword for Democrats? You know, I do think, and especially in the Democratic primaries where you have those challenging incumbents, they're going to have to answer, like, how are you fighting here?
What are you doing? And what is the new vision you've got moving forward for health care? Because clearly, the status quo, where at the whims of subsidies expiring or not, is not working for people. You've got to present a bigger vision, and I think the pox on both your houses is going to come up in those primaries.
Carlos, let me get your take in talking to a White House official. I was told, look, don't rule out the possibility that there could be an 11th-hour deal. Is that person being realistic? Do you think that there could actually be an 11th-hour deal here?
You could understand why it would happen, Kristen. Again, Republicans, President Trump, understand how difficult this health care issue is. They know what it costs them in 2018. My understanding is that the White House wants to see a deal.
I know they haven't been explicit about that, but I think they're quietly rooting for these members in the House that have taken matters into their own hands with these discharge petitions to hope that this issue gets addressed in some kind of meaningful way so that it does not continue being a major topic of conversation next year. The biggest achievement of the Democratic shutdown of the government was not any policy achievement, but elevating this issue of health care, which always benefits Democrats. Amanda, I had the opportunity to interview Secretary Bess a couple weeks ago. He said the President was going to have a big announcement on health care.
That has not happened. But he also said this. He said, in the new year, some of their tax cuts are going to kick in. The administration projecting that the economy is going to start to get better for more people.
What do you anticipate if that does happen? Does that take the wind out of the sales of Democrats who are undoubtedly going to make affordability their top issue? I don't anticipate it happening. The cost of housing keeps going off.
The cost of health care is about to double. Gross rates are more expensive than we were a year ago. We learned this from the Biden administration. You cannot get some people like and tell them it's raining.
You can't tell them the economy is good when their costs are going up month after month after month. You can try. But we've learned this before. It doesn't work.
You cannot convince people the economy is good when it doesn't feel that way to them. So Carlos, let me ask you because one of the targets of the DNC, which has already launched a new ad aimed at main senators using Collins over ACA subsidies. Do you think that Democrats attacks on Republicans over health care will resonate, for example, with with main voters next year? Yeah, I think it depends on the state and on the district.
Kristen, Senator Collins has a very long record of being an independent minded senator. Maine has ranked choice voting, which is good for centrist candidates like Senator Collins. So if Senator Collins is all in for her reelection, I think it will be very difficult to defeat. Her Democrats have tried in the past.
I think she's one of the few Senate Republicans that's truly insulated now. It's a big, massive wave anything can happen, of course, but under normal circumstances, I think you bet on Susan Collins. And then the Senator Collins has hung in there despite Democrats trying to unseat her cycle after cycle. How do you see that race playing out?
Oh, I think she's got a tough fight to hold on to that. So I think people are pissed at Trump. The economy is not good and not going to get better. There's a competitive primary on the Democratic side, which I think is good.
It's going to generate more engagement. The person who comes out of that primary is going to be like sharp and ready for the general. And I think we have seen over and over again, these are double digit swings throughout the special elections in 2025 and in the across the country. Susan Collins can't hold on that tight.
And she's got to walk out a fine line of holding on to Trump, but she holds on too tight. She gets screwed on the other side. I do not envy her. And I wish her a happy retirement when she has to leave.
Let me ask you about what's happening in Indiana, because there's going to be a vote for redistricting. And I'm told in my ear that it actually just failed. So effectively, just to be very clear, and this is breaking news, the Indiana Senate rejects the new congressional map. That's hugely significant because President Trump, Vice President J.D.
Vance, had made a strong push for them. Can I get your reaction, Amanda? And then Carlos will go to you. Amazing, a huge win for democracy, a huge win for independence, especially in the Republican Party in Indiana, was getting so much pressure, not for just from the White House, but from turning points USA and from other outside parties.
They lost big time. And really, thank you to the Indiana Republicans who stood up for their voters. They were getting incredible threats to their safety. I don't think that helped their cause.
But Carlos, it's pretty astounding. I mean, Amanda lays it out accurately, which is that there was an immense amount of pressure on Republicans to vote for this redistricting measure that went all the way up to the president, Vice President J.D. Vance, visiting the state of Indiana to make the case in person. How big of a blow is this?
This is big news, Kristen. I mean, we all know how rare it is for Republicans to defy President Trump, particularly state officials that don't have the big profiles. They don't have the high name ID that members of Congress or senators might have. So this is remarkable.
And this is one of a recent string of examples of Republicans kind of stepping away from the president, refusing to go along with him. It's big news. The president really launched a very, very aggressive pressure campaign. Some would call it Boeing.
It apparently did not work out. So this could be the beginning of a trend here where Republicans are starting to distance themselves from President Trump and his administration ahead of next year's elections. Well, just an extraordinary outcome. Again, this breaking news, the Indiana Senate rejecting the new congressional map that would have added additional Republican seats, Amanda and Carlos.
Thank you both so much for rolling with the breaking news with us up next. We are live in Indianapolis with more on that breaking news that the redistricting push by that was led by President Trump has officially failed in the state Senate. Stay with us. I'll meet the president now.
Welcome back. And we have more now on that breaking news out of Indiana where an effort to redraw the state's congressional map has just failed. Just moments ago, the state Senate rejected the proposed map which would have dismantled the state's two Democrat held districts essentially turning in already read state even redder. The Indiana House approved the new map last week, but Republican leaders in the state Senate had warned they didn't have the votes to pass it.
The defeat comes despite mounting pressure from President Trump, who's threatened to go after any Senate Republican who opposed the redistricting effort, posting on social media late yesterday, quote, anybody that votes against redistricting and the success of the Republican party in DC will be, I am sure, met with a mag up primary in the spring. NBC News Senior reporter, Jane Tim joins me now from Indianapolis, Jane, you've been following every twist and turn, put this into context. How significant of a blow is this to President Trump? And we may have lost Jane Tim.
Let me ask one more time. Jane, if you are there, we're going to work to reestablish our connection with Jane Tim. But again, just to recap, the Indiana Senate rejecting a new congressional map after President Trump pushed for it publicly threatened to campaign against anyone who didn't support his effort for this new map after Vice President JD Vance went to Indianapolis himself to make the case in person. Why does all of this matter?
We are seeing a tit for tax race for redistricting in states all across the country. Of course, it started in Texas. That was the biggest battle where Republicans were successful in their effort to be able to redraw that states map. They have won the Supreme Court just handing them a victory.
They could add up to five additional Republican seats that prompting a counterpoint from California. California is Governor Gavin Newsom, of course, someone who has been talked about as a potential 2028 contender backing an effort in California to redraw that states map to find additional blue seats. He was successful in his ballot measure in the elections that we just had this past November. We do have Jane Tim now on the phone.
Jane, put all of this into context for us. How significant? How big of a blow is this to President Trump and Republicans? Kristen, this is a stunning review of the President when I traveled out here.
I expected to see some votes flip. I expected to see potentially this map passed because Republicans elected Republicans, even when they say they don't agree to President Trump, they often get in line. You see other states get in line. But as you see, this was a really strong vote on terms of the Senate against the President.
By my tally, from the last time lawmakers voted on this and what was sort of seen as a proxy vote where lawmakers said they didn't want to come back in December previously, the Trump team hasn't flipped a single vote in the last few weeks. If I put any ads on the air, if I called from the President, if I called from my Johnson in Washington, we've heard this with an all-hand deck situation with all of Trump's allies calling and trying to flip votes here in Indianapolis, but it just didn't get across. You heard lawmakers coming forward and saying, you know what? This is bad for my community and they were sometimes the proponents of this bill were drowned out by protesters outside the chamber, chanting, saying, no cheating, shame, sort of stopping on the ground and shaking the Senate chamber, but truly a really surprising and rare rebuke of the President and his power.
We have about 30 seconds left. It's worth noting that Indiana's Governor Mike Braun just releasing a statement saying he's disappointed in a small group of misguided state senators, some really strong language there. The reaction will undoubtedly continue to pour into this big blow to President Trump and Republicans. Jane Tim, thank you so much for your great reporting and for being there.
I, for us, we appreciate it. Still to come, my one-on-one interview with an Iowa Democrat and two-time Paralympic gold medalist now running for Senate in Iowa. The latest installment of our Meet the Candidates series is next. I'll meet the President.
Welcome back. 2025 isn't over yet, but the 2026 midterms are already kicking into gear with Democrats jockeying with each other and keep battlegrounds. In some races, the party is already facing a crowded primary field, including an Iowa where five candidates have already jumped into the Democratic Senate primary, hoping to flip the seat after incumbent Republican Senator, Joni Ernst, announced earlier this year she will not seek reelection. Joni Minow is one of those candidates.
Democratic state representative Josh Turic, state representative Turic, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. So let's start off by talking about the state of play and the odds that you may be facing.
Iowa hasn't had a Democratic Senator in a decade. Why do you think you would have a better shot this year at winning a general election than the other candidates? Who failed in the past? Yeah, absolutely.
Well, one, I say that Iowa is not the red state. We are a common sense state that has masqueraded red. In Trump's first midterm, we won three of the four congressional seats. Very recently, in 2022, we were only 1.5% away from having three of our six statewide officials be in Democrats.
And so that means the average I went to the ballot box and voted for three Republicans and three Democrats. And I'm somebody that I represent the reddest district that was won on election day. Trump won my county by 20 points. And two communities that I represent by double digits and I was able to win by nearly six points.
And I think that that gives me a lot of hope that we can pull this off. All right. We're going to watch it very closely. I do have to ask you about the action on Capitol Hill today.
You have been very critical of the Senate for its failure to pass legislation to address the health care issue, the big battle over how and whether to extend Obamacare subsidies. I wonder, would you have supported either bill that failed today? I would have supported continuing the ACA subsidies. I think it's absolutely violating.
I'm in a state here in Iowa where by basically every single metric, we are dead last. We're healthcare from OBGYNs, rural hospitals. We're in a state where we've closed 31 nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities and rural hospitals. We're the only state in the nation with a growing cancer rate.
And we're looking at a situation now where we're going to have 132,000 Iowans that here in the next few days are going to see their health care premiums double or triple. Do you support extending it by two years, three years? And what do you do about the broader issue, which is that these premiums have gotten too high altogether? Sure.
Well, I don't think that now is necessarily where we need to be reinventing the wheel on this. I mean, sadly, we're 20 days away from seeing millions of Americans and certainly, as I said, 132,000 Iowans are going to see their premiums double or triple. I'm for continuing the ACA subsidies for at least two years. I think that's the best place to start.
Okay. Well, let me talk about the broader issue of affordability. As you know, that's going to be one of the top issues, if not the top issue in these midterms. So what is your proposal to drive down prices for Iowans?
Sure. I absolutely 100% agree with you that the issue of the day is affordability. I am a self-described common sense, very popular, like my hero, Senator Tom Harkin. I think the issues of the day are we need a livable wage here in Iowa, 725 that is certainly not a livable wage.
We need to do something about affordable housing that is being driven up by the influence of private equity in the sector. We absolutely need to be doing what we can for affordable and accessible health care and affordable and accessible pharmaceutical. We've got some unique challenges as well here in Iowa. We're staying with a growing cancer rate and also water quality crisis.
These are the issues that we need to be focusing on and this is the way we're going to be able to win this election. Let me ask you broadly speaking if I could about the broader Democratic Party, the leadership there, two of your fellow Democratic candidates for Senate, Zach Wall is an eighth in Sage, actually called for Senate minority leader trucks, you were to step down after eight Democrats voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown. You did not though. Let me ask you, do you believe Senator Schumer should remain the leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus?
You know, I think that the party needs change and this is one of the reasons why I'm running is I'm 20 years younger than your average Senator. I think that we need more senators from places like Council plus Iowa blue color communities that have actually gone through economic struggle and healthcare struggle. This is one of the reasons why I'm doing that. If I'm fortunate enough to get up to the United States Senate and end up in this position, whoever is ultimately running for leader at that time, I'm going to ask them two questions and two questions only and that is going to be what are you going to do for Iowa and what are you going to do for Iowans and whoever gives me the best answer to those two questions.
That is who I'm going to support. Would you support leader Schumer if he decided to say in leadership if you were elected? Again, if I'm able to get up there and I'm able to have a conversation with leader Schumer, I'm going to ask him those two questions because that's what is the most important to me. What are you going to do for Iowa?
What are you going to do for Iowans? Do you ever ultimately give me the best answer to that? That is who will get my support. All right, Josh Turk.
Thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And we are back tomorrow with more Me The Press Now. There is more ahead on NBC News Now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention.
They made a life together. Then one night the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Maguets and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from daylight.
Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion Now, wherever you get your podcasts.