Meet the Press NOW — December 12

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where a new poll shows the president struggling on key issues as the White House grapples with its messaging on affordability, as a looming healthcare premium spike threatens to magnify the issue for millions of Americans. And it all comes as the president was dealt a major rebuke by members of his own party, complicating Republicans' efforts to hold the House in next year's midterms. But we do begin with Republicans' healthcare dilemma.

After dueling bills failed in the Senate yesterday, attention now turns to the House. Speaker Johnson says he's expecting a vote on healthcare next week. Telling reporters earlier today the quote, final details of a Republican plan are in the works. We had a very productive meeting just now with lots of leaders from across the conference.

Everybody is coming together on the final plan. We're still working on the final details. But there are some great ideas put on the table just now. This is going to be a great piece of legislation that everybody we unite around, so stay tuned for the details.

I'm not announcing it today. I don't think we'll probably announce the final details today, but you can look forward to that probably coming together on the weekends. But that Republican House plan is not expected to include an extension of the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies in contrast to two Republican-led bills that have already been introduced and have Democratic co-sponsors. Today, I'm an ordinary leader, Jeff, for you saying Democratic leadership could be open to those bipartisan plans, which would likely give them enough support to be brought for a vote.

We're actively reviewing those two discharge petitions and we'll have more to say about it early next week. But what is clear time is running out. Where will these Republican ideas over the last several months? We're going to evaluate every single good faith proposal, but it has to meaningfully provide certainty to the American people who are at risk of having their healthcare ripped away from them.

Last night, President Trump expressed optimism that both parties could work together. We have a lot of Democrats and we welcome you. Honestly, we do. I think we're going to start working together in healthcare.

I really predict that. We make beautiful big payments directly to the people and they buy their own health insurance. And it's so good and so popular and everybody wants it. And I think, frankly, I think a lot of the Democrats are going to want to do.

But President Trump has been noticeably absent from any discussions or negotiations on healthcare. According to a new Associated Press poll, only 29% of Americans approve of his handling of healthcare. His handling of the economy is that similarly dire at 31%. His lowest ever in that poll.

And across the board, most Americans giving the President low marks on key issues. Border security, though, is the only issue where his approval is above 50%. The President this week defended his administration's record on affordability and argued costs have come down in his second term. Take a listen.

Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. You know, they always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.

But they use the word affordability. And that's their only word. They say affordability. And everyone says, oh, that must mean Trump has high prices.

No, our prices are coming down tremendously from the highest prices in the history of our country. But despite what the President says, large majorities of Americans say they're experiencing higher prices than usual on groceries, electricity, and holiday gifts this December. Joining me now from the White House is M.B.C. Amy Shausendor, and Mel Zinnona is on Capitol Hill for us, Yamiche.

Let me start with you at the White House. The President is saying last night he thinks they can work with Democrats on a healthcare deal. Are you getting any sense that that can actually happen? What are your sources telling you?

Kristen, my sources are telling you that anything is possible, but that it's not likely. Let's remember that the President during the shutdown, that longer shutdown in U.S. history, the President at one point was floating talking to the Democrats about subsidies. But that went nowhere.

What we know is that the President over and over again has blamed Democrats for these subsidies that are likely going to hit millions and millions of Americans. So the President here is really just saying that he's going to work with Republicans and try to come up with some sort of plan. But when the White House Press Secretary was pressed yesterday on what that plan could look like, what the details could be, she did not get any sort of information about that. So I think it's still very, very unlikely that the President has some sort of negotiation with Democrats that would allow them to come to some sort of deal on this.

All that being said, anything is possible. President Trump, when he was running in 2016, sounded in some ways like a Democrat, he was talking about Medicare for all and wanting to lower healthcare costs. But he's also very, very, I think, sensitive to the idea that he doesn't want to be blamed once these subsidies do expire and once people's health care costs go up, Kristen. Yeah, and the President talking about giving money directly to the people, something that many Democrats have said is dead on arrival.

So yesterday, I spoke with Congresswoman Melia Takis. She urged the White House not to listen to party leadership on this. She, of course, is a part of a bipartisan proposal on health care. Is there any concern in the administration that a failure to extend these subsidies could, in fact, cause Republicans in the midterms?

In talking to sources here, I get a sense of that there might be some trepidation to the fact that they are going to have to wrestle this messaging down and have to really try to make sure that they make people believe and convince Americans that if this is Democrats false, when you talk to the President, and hear the President talk about this, he says it's all because the Affordable Care Act was a bad idea from the get-go and that these subsidies could have been made permanent, but it was Democrats who made them be able to expire in this way. That being said, you have heard this White House talk about the fact that they are trying to come up with a plan. Let's remember, it's been a decade of the President saying he was going to come up with a plan. So the fact that this seems to be getting closer tells me that there is some sort of worry here that when as Americans see those prices go up, people saying even double digits or even in some cases, doubling their cost of health care, that they're worried about that and want to at least point to something that they could do.

But again, all of this seems very much like it's a messaging war with that with any actual details here, Kristen. Well, and Yamiche, before I let you go, we talked about some of those tough poll numbers. The President's got his job approval rating, according to this latest poll. 36% approved Yamiche, 61% disapproved.

What is the White House saying? Are folks there worried? The President has said over and over again that he's not worried about polling. He's not worried about his numbers, whether or not that's actually true, I think it's something that's going to be interesting to see.

We know that the President has done now a series of interviews. And of course he had that speech in Pennsylvania talking about the economy and affordability. So you can tell that the President is trying his best to sort of turn this messaging into trying to convince Americans that he's worried about lowering costs. And I think that, of course, is tied to the approval ratings.

And the fact that, of course, he was elected on the promise that he was going to lower costs for all Americans, Kristen. Alright, Yamiche, the White House starting us off. Yamiche, thank you so much now. Let me head over to you on Capitol Hill.

So we heard Leader Jeffery say they're reviewing the bipartisan proposals that have been introduced on extending these health care subsidies. I don't momentum though on the House side because we saw what happened in the Senate yesterday. Everything was voted down. Well, it really depends on what Jeffery's position is, because if he does throw his weight behind either of those bipartisan proposals, it would essentially open the floodgates for Democratic support.

And because we already have the requisite number of Republicans supporting it, it would be enough to trigger a so-called discharge petition. So Jeffery says a really big decision here. That being said, the discharge petition, it takes time. So even if that were to succeed at some point next week, it would still take seven legislative days, meaning the vote probably wouldn't happen until the new year after these Obamacare subsidies already expire.

But to your point, we already have seen that nothing at least at this moment can get 60 votes in the Senate. So that is really the key question right now, and why a lot of lawmakers and both parties are calling on President Trump to get involved and cut a real deal. Well, Mel Speaker Johnson is teasing a Republican plan. We haven't seen the details yet.

Look, it's worse than noting that I interviewed Secretary Scott Besson several weeks ago. He said President Trump was going to be rolling on a plan. We haven't seen that yet. Are you getting any details about what this plan is going to be that Speaker Johnson has been teasing?

Well, we do expect that the House Republicans will release a plan. There's been multiple leadership meetings, including just this morning. It's probably going to be a package of health care proposals, a bunch of conservative health care ideas from health savings accounts to cost sharing reduction plans. It is not expected to include an extension of the ACA subsidies.

However, that being said, there is discussion right now amongst the GOP leadership of allowing an amendment vote on extending the ACA subsidies during the debate on that health care bill that they're planning on rolling out. And that really says to me that Johnson recognizes that there is a huge political consequence for his moderate members, and they need some sort of political cover. And really those members are the ones that are going to determine whether or not Republicans keep the majority next year. So to that point, Mel, in the Senate yesterday, two proposals failed.

However, four Republicans did vote for the Democratic bill. Is that an indication that maybe there could be some common ground here? Well, I also think it's interesting who of those Republicans actually voted for the bill. Two of them are from Alaska.

Alaska has higher cost of living than most states. And also they are set to face the highest premium spikes, some of the highest premium spikes in the entire country if these Obamacare subsidies do lapse. And meanwhile, then you have Susan Collins, she's another Republican from Bain, a purple battleground state shoots up for reelection next year in 2026. And so clearly, this is going to be a defining issue in the midterms, and why you have more and more Republicans, especially in competitive districts, starting to speak out, Kristen.

All right, Mel, thank you so much during now. Is the panel Daniela Diaz, congressional reporter at notice, Joe Crowley, former Democratic Congressman from New York, a Malik Abdul, Republican strategist, thanks to all of you for being here. Daniela, this is, boy, it's hard to know how this is going to end. I talked to one white house official who said don't roll out the possibility of an 11th hour deal.

You heard President Trump express confidence. How do you see this coming together? That's the question that we've had on our minds since it's even started before the shutdown, which Democrats were making this a major issue. Look, I've talked to a lot of experts, healthcare experts, who are telling me that regardless of what the House could do next week, with the pressure from moderate Republicans, from Democrats, on something on the Affordable Care Act subsidies, addressing healthcare before the end of the year is going to be mess.

The Americans are going to see premiums skyrocket. It's going to be really hard to message back from that, even if there are changes, if there's income caps, if there's reforms, if they do get these tax credits back in their pockets. This is regardless going to be a major issue going into next year, which is what I've been covering, Kristen, because this is not going away anytime soon. Well, and it's clear Speaker Johnson is aware of that.

Let me play a little bit of what he had to say and get your reaction on the other side. Next week, we'll be bringing a package of legislation to the floor that will bring down the cost of healthcare for all Americans. We're not just 7% of them, which is what the subsidy is all about. So, what do you make of that?

And if Republicans propose something that doesn't actually extend the subsidies, is that politically problematic, even if there's an amendment introduced? So I think that if the amendment probably gives them cover, Donald Trump has typically been to the left of the Republican Party on the issue of healthcare. You remember in 1.0, he was really focused on protecting preexisting conditions. So this has always been a position, but the House caucus, the Republicans have been just get rid of everything.

And we've heard them over and over again, repeal and replace, repeal and replace, and then they haven't gotten anything to actually replace it. So I think it's an acknowledgement from Johnson that they need to do something because these healthcare premiums, that will be on the ballot and during the midterms, whether it's in the primary or even in the general election. So I do think that it was acknowledgement whether or not it ultimately class, I don't know, but it absolutely has to. Congressman, how do you see this playing out, this battle now moving to the House?

Do you think that if some of these, if Speaker Johnson puts the Republican plan on the floor, do you think that that's something that some Democrats will get behind? If, for example, it doesn't initially include an extension of the ACA tax credits? Well, they're talking about a two-year extension, the Republican frontline, those who are maybe possibly looking to have a discharge petition. But I don't think there's really going to be an opportunity for cover.

I think they can take a vote on amendment and say, well, I voted for a two-year extension, but what those premiums are going to hit, I was kind of skeptical about whether this was going to be an issue for Democrats to run on in 2020. I'm coming around to thinking that this might be a much stronger issue than I initially thought it was going to be. I actually thought they'd find a solution between how and the end of the year. And since that doesn't look like it's going to happen, and if it does, it looks like it's going to happen after the premiums go up.

So people are going to see that course increase. And the President's answer is to give them a one-time shot money to pay for it, but it won't cover the course of the whole year. So I think Darren lies a real problem for Republicans. They don't have a plan.

They've criticized you about McCain, the former character, 15 years, and they said they could replace it, but they've never replaced it. Daniela, it was so notable about this woman. We've heard President Trump make comments like the one he just made. He hasn't really been a part of the conversation, though.

No, he hasn't. And that's why we're seeing Speaker Mike Johnson lose the power from his own rank and file. We're seeing so many discharge petitions. You know, this is basically rank and file members taking control of the floor and forcing votes on things.

This is a major thing. It's supposed to be Republican leadership setting the floor. I mean, Congressman knows that. This is unprecedented.

And it has to be noted that this is a sign of what's to come when, you know, the conference, he doesn't have a grasp of it. Yeah. Very rarely have a number of the majority actually offering a discharge petition. That was a tool that was never successful.

And it says everything you need to know about this extraordinary moment. And speaking of the president and health care fits into this broader discussion about affordability. I want to play what we heard from President Trump on this issue this week and get everyone's reaction on the other side. You know, you can give up certain products.

You can give up pencils. That's under the China policy. You know, every child can get 37 pencils. They only need one or two.

You know, they don't need that many. But you always need, you always need steel. You don't need $37 for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don't need $37.

So we're doing things like we're running this country, right? Malik, what do you make of that messaging? We don't need $37. Two is fine.

Okay, so you can go back there. You know, this is Donald Trump kind of doing his riffs sort of thing. And Donald Trump should know and I was not here, but many of us during the Biden administration, we were hitting Biden over and over again on this on the economy where there was immigration or the economy in Donald Trump. God, my God, I support you, but he's making the exact same mistakes that the Biden administration made because you can't tell people how to feel.

It doesn't matter what the macro economics are. It doesn't matter what the stock market is doing. It doesn't matter any of that. It matters how people feel.

And if they're paying more, you know, gas prices are down for sure, but if they're paying more for anything, whether it's due to Donald Trump or not, you are the president of the United States and they're not going to go back and blame Joe Biden. Is he right? Is this a parallel strategy that we saw during the Biden administration? I think the truth is that I do think that Joe continually said, you know, we have a great economy.

It's working. Things will get better. It didn't happen in time for the elections. And I tease with you just a little bit.

He actually went back there. I mean, it's months ago that he was talking about, you're gonna have one or two dollars. I mean, reality is, this has come on it. Let them eat cake moment, except let them eat pretzels.

You know, it could be true general pick up on that point as it relates to the midterms because here we have in these off-year elections, Democrats running on affordability and having big wins in New Jersey, Virginia. And now the mayor's race in Miami, Democrat hasn't won the mayor's race in Miami in 30 years, all on affordability. It's working. That's what it's telling me.

I mean, I covered those races. I'm talking to battleground district, Congressmen, women who are aware of what they're going to face in just a few months. They're going back to their districts. Americans don't feel better.

And that's why we're seeing what we're seeing with Republicans taking charge because the biggest issue right now is these tax credits. This is real change that leadership can do to help Americans. And what we're seeing we're going to see in just a couple of days on the House floor is nothing done about it. This amendment might happen.

It's unclear at this moment. It's unclear if they'll be able to implement it, especially considering what happened in the Senate, which Mel did. Yeah, exactly. There was a big setback this week, I think, in addition to kind of this debate over healthcare over redistricting in Indiana.

The Republicans, the Senate Republicans did not comply with what President Trump wanted. They voted against a redistricting plan. How big of a setback and a blow is that to the administration? So I'll say this.

I was actually talking to a number of Republicans in Indiana and the state house and elsewhere. And one of my good friends, Pete C, Pete C, out of Indiana, he talked about himself that this wasn't about Donald Trump. This was about principle. And for many people, just like me and many others, who support this idea of small government conservatism, you know, states rights and the federal government shouldn't use their state's authority.

This was what the fight was about because what Donald Trump was saying to them is that I'm going to threaten you, bully you to do exactly what I want you to do irrespective of what your state actually wants. We should say we're going to talk to one of those Senate Republicans coming up in the show that Congress and Carly last point to you. This is the counterpoint look. This is about principle.

From the perspective of who's going to win, it's about the math. What does this math now mean in terms of this race to redistrict each other? Well, there's always race really started by the president in Texas, took off. The California response was to say, if Texas goes forward, we will go forward.

All putting it still in Texas, now it's reaching out into other states as well. This makes it more difficult for the president to get those numbers. What I will say is this. This harkens back to Georgia at the end of his first term.

When he said to the secretary state, find me 11,780 votes. And they stood up to him. It's because they're more distant. They're not here in Washington.

They don't know him. He don't know them as opposed to here. That's what I heard. That's what I heard.

It wasn't nice about it either. Interesting. All right, big difference between DC Republicans and those rest of the country is what you are saying. Thank you so much.

Great conversation, Daniella Joe and Malik really appreciate it coming up. We're digging deeper into the healthcare dilemma. What we're really both parties in Congress, Democratic Senator John Federman will join us in just a few moments plus House Oversight Committee Democrats released more Epstein documents, this time containing never-before-seen photographs of President Trump and other powerful people mingling with the convicted sex offender. Stay with us.

You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back, join me now is Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Federman. Senator Federman, thank you so much for joining me. No, well, thank you for having me on.

Well, I wanted to talk to you about the big issue. This week, healthcare, do you think at this point that Congress will be able to prevent premiums from skyrocketing at the end of the year? Yeah, I mean, anything's possible, honestly. I mean, both of those proposals that were put up in the Senate on Thursday, they were essentially designed to fail.

I mean, everybody knew that they were going to fail because there was no discussions and it's all assumed that that's where it's going to go. They knew that they were going to have two or three other Republicans voting for our proposal as well, too. And I knew we would have no Democrats voting for the Republican version. And I've been pushing and I'm trying to encourage people like, you know, if you really want to deliver, you know, affordability for healthcare premiums right now and we essentially have three days of next week to do this.

And just to a clean one-year extension of the Obama tax situation, that's easy. And that's something that we all understand that we'd be voting on. And that doesn't require the Republicans to die on the, oh, we love Obamacare, Obamacare, Hill, and that for us here as a Democrats, you know, we would have gladly reopened our government just for something like that. And we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now if they extended this now.

To your point, Senator, that you believe both bills were designed to fail. Do you think that Democratic leadership should have offered more concessions to Republicans to get their bill over the finish line? I'm saying that if the Republicans are genuinely scared for their own election, then they would take a one clean one-year extension. That's the cheapest way that they're going to be able to get this solved right now.

And for me, I know we as Democrats, you know, we wanted to have healthcare, healthcare, for everything after the 43 days of the shutdown. You know, we could have had that this vote on Thursday, and it didn't require it to plunge our country into the kinds of chaos and put us in that situation. You know, if you really want, if you really, really want a solution right now, a clean one-year extension could do that, and that would give Congress an entire year to do the kinds of appropriate kinds of negotiations and make the kinds of changes to make it more durable. But, you know, you really couldn't get a wall painted, you know, in three days, you know, there in the Senate, you know, for something that's complicated.

You know, this is the one easy and the most elegant way to do that. That could, I think, effectively could meet both parties. And if the Republicans aren't interested in that, then they, it's essentially saying, you know, we're okay with these things going to expire. And if the Democrats aren't serious, then I do think that they could and should be.

Then that means, do we really want to have, do we really want to deliver this kinds of affordability? Or do we just doing this to make a political point and using the whole thing as theater? We're using it as a weaponized for 2026 election. Senator, some Republicans say they don't want to see any extension.

Do you think you could get enough votes for a one-year extension for it to pass? I'm saying we got four. We got four with three years. And for one year, you know, we need to hit 60.

It doesn't matter if it hits 59, it still won't pass. It has to hit 60. And I'd say that's the cleanest, elegant way. You know, when you have essentially three days to do that, that's the one way to do that.

That could meet our core responsibility. If you have to deliver those kinds of tax credits, that's the only way to do that with the amount of time that we have left right now. If there is no deal, if these ACA subsidies do expire, Senator, what do you think the message should be from Democrats heading into the midterms? I mean, the message would be, well, we voted, we voted for healthcare, yeah.

But if you're only willing to put up three years, knowing that it's not going to pass, it's like, you know, to me, I would rather have actually, I'd like to talk to the 400,000 Pennsylvania's that they need these kinds of tax subsidiaries. I'd like to say, yeah, we got one year and I'm going to fight like held up the upcoming year that we're going to make sure to extend those things beyond 2026, you know, because right now with three days, be honest. I would say be honest that this is not something that you can have these kinds of small kinds of changes and pass it right now. We got four, we got four votes with three years.

We need enough to hit to 60. That's math. It doesn't matter if it's 59. It doesn't matter if it's 57.

It means it has to be 60. That's the only chance that we can pass through this. And I think another thing's interesting. President Trump isn't, you know, he's not putting input on a lot of this thing.

You know, you know, when he feels strongly about something, you know, we all know that he's made very clear about those things. He's saying you guys find a way forward. I assume that. And I am just putting that.

That's the quickest, easiest, elegant and the one that delivers, you know, really the core responsibility to deliver those kinds of benefits for the tens of millions of Americans that are going to rely on that. Senator, follow up with you. Do you think President Trump needs to get involved in order for there to be any type of deal struck here? Would you encourage him to get involved?

Oh, I'm saying I've pushed this. Not to the White House directly, but I have been pitching this. It's like, look, guys, I'm not going to argue the small, small points. You know, if you really, if you're concerned about affordability on healthcare, you know, it's like, hey, this is the easiest way to do this.

And now that's, that's where I think it's entirely appropriate. Three years was not going to pass. And that thing that they put together on Thursday, not one single vote. There's no path on that.

So I'm saying it's like, let's, you know, if we were willing to take this, I'm sure, to reopen our government just in a couple of weeks ago, we would not even be having this conversation right now if they had done that back then. So with three days left, are you really serious? Are you really concerned about the impact this would have on 2026? You will figure out how really concerned you are or on the flip side are really concerned about delivering those kinds of healthcare benefits or we just want to weaponize it for 2026.

Senator, what is your message to Pennsylvaniaans who are watching this right now who are terrified that their premiums are going to go up and they lay the blame at the feet of every elected official? I would say to them, I'm fighting for that. I'm fighting. I'm hoping, you know, it's like an empty show vote.

Start going to deliver those things you need for you. You know, I'll be very honest and straightforward. It's like the one thing that could deliver those kinds of things that you need is going to be needs to be the one that pass and the one that everyone else can sign off on that thing. And I'm saying that's the quickest and easiest solution.

What's up? What's other one? Well, there's been multiple ones and it hasn't gone anywhere. It got remotely close on passing.

It's a math problem. It's a math problem. What's the thing that can do all those things? And I could talk to those people and say we delivered that we delivered for you.

And for 2026, you don't have to worry about this right now. And then I will fight like hell to fight for those kinds of and extending those for 2728 and perhaps even make them more permanent right now. But we're going to have to negotiate with our colleagues on the other side. That's the essence of democracy and the Senate and then Congress.

All right, Senator John Fetterman. Thank you so much for joining us at this really pivotal moment in this debate over healthcare. Really appreciate it. Coming up next, ahead of next week's deadline for the Justice Department, hand over the Epstein files to Congress.

House Democrats just released more photos showing Epstein with high profile people and politicians. Stay with us. I'll need the press now. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop.

But you podcast from NBC News. With me your host, Yasmin Vasugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and 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 Amazon Music. Thanks, guys.

We'll see you next week. We'll see you next week. Bye. Welcome back.

We've got new developments today surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released 19 more photos from Epstein's estate today. They come from a batch of about 95,000 documents the committee obtained last night. They include images of a younger Donald Trump with Epstein, posing with women whose identities have been protected by the House Democrats.

We should be clear none of the photos appear to demonstrate any criminal activity. But they do show more evidence of the relationship Epstein had with many powerful men, Republicans and the White House accusing Democrats of cherry-picking these photos from Troves of Thompson. NBC News Chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Noble joins me now, along with NBC News National Law Enforcement correspondent Tom Winter. Thanks to both of you for being here, Ryan.

Let me start with you. These are 19 photos out of about 95,000 photos the House Oversight Committee has in its possession. Democrats explaining why they released 19 and again Republicans say they're just chairing ticket. Well, part of the reason that they've only released these photos and we should point out that they just in the last five minutes or so released another Trove of about 70 more photos.

These also contain pictures of Epstein with various individuals and also pictures of his property, similar to what they released a week or so ago, is because they're still going through them. They have some 95,000 photos that they received from the estate overnight and they're plowing through them each one by one to determine what is relevant and what is not. The long-term goal here is to make everything public. But before they do that, they have to go through a very careful process to make sure anything that can interrupt an investigation or that could reveal the identity of a survivor or victim that doesn't want their identity to be revealed.

So it is a painstaking process. And when they get information that they feel they can release safely, that is of interest to the public, that's what they're doing. They're releasing it. Tom, let me head over to you because, of course, all of this comes ahead of the next Friday's deadline for the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files.

What's the status of that? Are you anticipating that they will, in fact, move forward with that? You know, Kristen, we have got no guidance whatsoever and I'm including that my capable and friendly colleagues that sit next to you in Washington, D.C. They've been talking to the Justice Department headquarters.

We just have no sense from them whether or not they're going to hit that deadline. There are several carve-outs that may or may not be relevant here. One was the first one about grand jury material. Well, now the grand jury judges who oversaw that material or released the district court judges that oversaw that material have signed off on those documents and those pieces of evidence being released as long as the proper redactions are done.

There's a lot of indication that some of that redaction work has already occurred to occur back in the spring. So we'll have to see where that goes. So that's going to be case file information, a lot of which we probably already know do not anticipate any information to come out based on our reporting that has to do with any potential additional charges against any other individual. So I want to be clear about that.

And the FBI and the Justice Department has already told you so in their memo back in July. The other carve-out is about the ongoing investigation component and it happened just before Thanksgiving, so maybe some folks forgot Kristin, but there was an additional inquiry that was ordered up. Trump suggested it that the Attorney General Pam Bondi said that she would ask Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to look at some of the things that came up and the Epstein emails that was received by the House Oversight Committee.

So whether or not that thwarts the release of further documents because the law does provide for documents to be withheld for an ongoing investigation. Ryan, let me head back over to you. I know you said that there were more photos that were just released. What's the plan?

Are you anticipating there's going to be a steady stream of photos and potentially more documents released in the coming days? I think that's exactly how it's going to play out. The sources that I've talked to on the committee have said that this process could take weeks. It could take months given the volume of content that they're dealing with.

But the committee is also not working together. In other words, Republicans and Democrats are kind of working in parallel streams here. They're not necessarily working in a bipartisan fashion. So while this is the way Democrats have chose to release this information, there's a possibility that at any point Republicans could just drop the entire document we did before when we received email documents from the Epstein estate and Democrats had pushed out just certain select emails.

So we're always on watch for Epstein information to be dropped from these committees. In addition to, of course, these photos from the estate, of course, and we're still waiting for the information that they received from banks. We know that they have that in-house. And those documents have still not been released to the public.

And Tom, so far nothing in these photos has proven to be criminal in nature. However, this is clearly going to be studied carefully by the committee, by potentially law enforcement officials. How do you think these photos will be received? Potentially from a law enforcement perspective, these images probably provide little to no value.

I do think it speaks based on all of our reporting from the testimony of the victims, the witnesses that's come out of trial as well as the ones we've spoken to here on NBC News on this program and others. It does speak to the fact that imagine if you were 13, 14, 15-year-old girl who was involved in being recruited, then sexually assaulted at the Epstein home in Florida, and then you're looking around and you're seeing photo after photo of the person who did this with a former president of the United States and very well known businessman, what would that sense that you would get if you were to go to law enforcement or speak out that that may be a potential problem, and I think that speaks to the power that Epstein projected, how much power he actually had, I think is a big question. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. All right, Ryan and Tom, thank you both so much, really appreciate the great reporting.

Coming up after the break, a rare rebuke from Republicans in a deep red state as Indiana lawmakers defy President Trump's redistricting campaign. One of those state senators who spoke out against the president joins me next. Stay with us, you're watching, meet the president out. Welcome back, turning out of that stunning news that broke while we were on the air yesterday.

Republicans failed efforts to redraw Indiana's congressional map. The state's GOP-controlled Senate rejected a proposed map that would have dismantled Indiana's two Democrat-controlled districts, the vote coming despite mounting pressure from President Trump, who threatened primary challenges to any Republican who voted against redistricting. It is also a major setback from Republicans in the nationwide redistricting fight, which has already seen four states adopt new maps and efforts to redraw new maps underway and three others. Joining me now is one of the Indiana Senate Republicans who voted against the new congressional map.

Mike Bohachak, thank you so much for joining me, State Senator, I really appreciate it. All right, thanks for the time. So, take me back to that vote yesterday. You and your Republican colleagues faced a lot of pressure from President Trump.

The vice president even traveled to your state to talk to all of you about this vote. How and why did your colleagues decide to vote against this redistricting campaign? You know, we all had, I think, different reasons. Probably the big reason was, is that just our constituency base didn't want it, and after they saw the maps and they saw how it was going to impact their districts and their representation.

There was a pretty big outcry from my constituency was very displaced about it. I have my own personal reasons why I voted against it as well, as in addition to it just being very bad policy. What were those personal reasons, State Senator Trump? You know, right after Thanksgiving, I was sitting with my daughter, we were watching TV and some of the comments that the president made regarding a political adversary, and he used a word, a slur, to refer to handicap of people.

And I have a daughter who has downstairs, so I took it very personally. And, you know, this is the first time this slur has been used. We know that by not only his own administration, but even members of his cabinet this past summer. And it just finally just hit a chord.

We see how he speaks to the media. And that's up to, you know, certainly you folks to deal with that, but this was a chance to meet at my voice heard on this one particular issue. It is extraordinary, State Senator, because many Republicans have been over time swayed by President Trump. For various reasons, they're afraid of getting primary.

They're afraid about the political pressure. They're afraid about just the pressure within their own party. Are you concerned that there will be some type of retribution campaign that you will be primary, for example, next time you're up. So I just got through my election last year.

So my primary season is over with. But for some of my colleagues that voted against this, there's a real risk that they could get primary. And certainly the President and his supporters have sufficient and significant resources behind them to make that a very difficult process. But it's still not going to sway some of these folks because, you know, look, they are traditional Republicans.

They believe what they believe. They listen to their constituents. And they're not going to change their minds. And you're not going to believe them.

You're not going to bribe or coerce them. It's just not how it is in Indiana. We're just a different group. And even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand just as firmly in their position to move forward with the redistricting.

So, you know, Indiana Republicans were a pretty stubborn breed. What do you say to Republicans who may make the argument? You know, this is about holding on to the house. And Indiana Republicans may have made it just a little bit more difficult for Republicans to hold on to the house.

How do you respond to that line of argument? Well, if you look at the maps, there's no guarantee of 90. I looked at one of the districts that actually would impact my own voting. And that district does not guarantee our win.

It's not. So, there was no guarantee of a 90. And it's, you know, it's just one of those times that it's, you know, policy has to win. And this is bad policy.

It's not something I want to do every two years because that's what this could turn into. And it does not need to be that. You know, we need to be more deliberative. And with something that's this consequential, it's very important that we are the deliberative body that makes sure that good policy moves forward.

Because like I've told others, you know, your time in the Senate is very, very small. And once you're gone, you're forgotten. So you can't make this your identity, but bad policy stays forever. Let me finally get you to respond to your Republican governor.

This is what he had to say yesterday after the vote. He released a statement saying, quote, I am very disappointed that a small group of misguided state senators have partnered with Democrats to reject this opportunity to protect Hoosiers with fair maps and to reject the leadership of President Trump. Ultimately, decisions like this carry political consequences. I will be working with the president to challenge these people who do not represent the best interests of Hoosiers.

Have you spoken to the governor since the vote has a relationship with him been damaged? I have not spoken with him about this specifically. They did call me and asked me if I would support the redistricting, which I honestly told him I would not. But the same governor also used his own political funds this past spring during the session to try to push forth a property tax plan that was very misguided and would have resulted in, you know, extreme financial hardships for our municipalities in our schools, which we ultimately were able to work through a better solution.

Use some campaign dollars for that. And if he's going to use his own campaign dollars to punish senators because his vote is not coming back. You know, you're just going to get to punish them to get your pound of flesh. Why don't you invest those dollars?

Recruit a good candidate for the two Democrat districts that are in question and push your money behind them and win this seat fairly, as opposed to try to punish my colleagues. But the governor can do what the governor wants to do. And let's be honest, you know, he has political capital that he's lost within the chamber. All right.

Just fascinating to hear from you. State Senator Mike Bohachuk. We really appreciate your perspective today. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We wish you a very happy holiday season. I now want to turn to NBC News National Political Reporter, Ben Camisar, who joins me. That is so fascinating to hear from State Senator Bohachuk.

He took us behind the scenes a little bit to explain his thinking, some of which was personal. Some of which he said there was no guarantee. What do you make of the vote yesterday? One of the implications of the fact that this was to some extent a rebuke of President Trump.

I think we said you're in Washington, D.C., and President Trump's gravitational pull on Republicans is so big, right? And I think we realize now that as we go further away from Washington, D.C., that gravitational pull doesn't look the same. You heard from the State Senator. It was a fascinating conversation because it was multi-faceted.

It was political. It was personal. It was these dynamics that you really wouldn't hear among Capitol Hill Republicans. And it just was a reminder that there are limitations right now to the President's gravitational pull on his party.

It's a really great point. And here he is approaching the first year of the second term in office. And it does raise the question about whether his grip is loosening on the party overall. And of course, he sent the Vice President to make the case for this redistricting push.

Do you get the sense that there was a behind-the-scenes, wrangling effort going on that may have led to this defeat on the other side that may not have been as public? There were kind of polls, right? We saw the carrots and the stick from the Trump administration, from the President's allies, from the Heritage Foundation, right? We saw all of that.

But, you know, politics is local. There was a local group. There was a lot of people who were pushing against this on the smaller side. One of the big salient arguments was the one that the Senator mentioned, that 9-0 is not a guarantee.

And there's always this concern that if you're redrawing the lines, are you going to accidentally make some districts a little bit? A little more vulnerable than you wanted them to be in the first place. So I think that on its law of unintended consequences seems to be a piece of this, too, and that resonates more locally than it does nationally. Yeah, and I guess the question, Ben, is we are thinking about the math overall very quickly.

Does this zero everything out? Is everything now at an even point? It's probably not going to zero everything out. We still need to see what's going to happen in other states.

Republicans still working may or likely to have a little bit of an edge, but it's not the edge that they were hoping for, you know, months ago. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

It's great to see you really appreciate it. And still a calm, brand new NBC reporting on tensions in turmoil under Secretary Kristi Non's leadership at the Department of Homeland Security will delve into all of it. Keep it right here. I'll meet the press now.

Welcome back. Turning now to what appears to be turmoil and rising tensions within the Department of Homeland Security. Pressure from the White House to ramp up deportations has sparked tensions at the DHS, prompting finger pointing within the agency with Secretary Noam and her top advisor, blaming subordinates for not meeting arrest quotas. That's according to two DHS officials with direct knowledge of the matter.

Joining me now is NBC News Senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, who had that exclusive reporting. Congratulations. You're always breaking news here, Julia. So thank you for being here.

Take us inside your reporting. What are you learning? Well, I'm not going to be there temporarily, but it's still there. They have been running a lot of the show inside DHS, which includes approving contracts.

And what we understand is that the White House wants to move a lot faster to expand detention for immigration because they think that would really boost these arrest numbers and be able to make at least more good on President Trump's promise for mass deportations, even though they likely won't get to a million by the end of his first year. But what's been happening internally is that Noam and Lewandowski have been pointing fingers as they felt that pressure, especially on the heads of certain agencies like Customs and Border Protection, even though they're at record low numbers on the border. The commissioner of CBP Rodney Scott, who has always been a Trump loyalist, now believes and has been told that his emails are being monitored by Lewandowski because there's a sense that he might be undermining them to the White House. We also know Todd Lyons, the head of ICE, has threatened to quit on multiple occasions under this pressure to ramp up numbers, basically saying the reason we haven't been able to expand detention space has nothing to do with him as acting director, but more to do with Lewandowski and Noam's roles, really having this outside influence over the contracting process.

So it sounds like a lot of finger pointing gossip drawn out within DHS, but what it comes down to is administration really adds with itself over whether or not it can come through on President Trump's key campaign promise and the leadership style of Noam and whether or not the White House continues to keep faith in her as the leader of DHS. It's just fascinating reporting and just very quickly, you have new reporting as well on Kilmar Bregogerci's case. What can you tell us there? What's the status, Julia?

That's right. So exactly 24 hours ago, Kilmar Bregogerci walked out of ICE detention in Pennsylvania. It was picked up. He has conditions for his release.

He has to stay with his brother, not with his family. He has to apply for jobs. He has to try to work very specific conditions. But this is all because a federal judge overseeing his case said, look, the Department of Homeland Security has tried so many times to send to other countries that hasn't worked out.

They cannot detain him indefinitely. And what his legal team wants is a chance for him to have due process, why his criminal case plays out because if he's not in the country to defend himself and he gets deported, that's the end of his story. And he never gets to do process that this whole thing was about in the first place. Okay.

Well, so many twists and turns. With that case, you've been on top of all of them. Julia, thank you so much. We have a great weekend.

I appreciate your being here. And we will be back Monday with more of the press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press and your little NBC News station. I'll have exclusive interviews with Senators Rand Paul and Rafael Warnock.

Plus, Steve Krenakke will join us with brand new NBC News decision desk polling. Do not miss it. There's much more ahead on NBC News. Everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the Third Hour of Today and Mom to Three Wild Boys.

I've learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week, I sit down with someone new 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 on how much screw yours up. I'm just going to search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.