Meet the Press NOW — December 2

Foreign. Hi, there. Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where with the cameras rolling, President Trump held a lengthy meeting with his Cabinet as the administration finds itself on defense, with voters on affordability issues, and with the president's job approval on the decline, all amid escalating scrutiny over lethal military strikes in the Caribbean.

At today's Cabinet meeting, which lasted more than two hours, both President Trump and Defense Secretary Hexeth were pressed by NBC's Gigliarez about a second strike on a suspected drug cartel vessel after an initial strike failed to kill everyone on board. That double tap strike has raised serious legal questions, some lawmakers and military experts even raising the possibility it was a war crime. The president and his defense secretary today defended the military's actions while also appearing to downplay their own roles in the decision making. As far as the attack is concerned, I didn't, you know, I still haven't gotten a lot of information because I rely on b.

But to me, it was an attack. It wasn't one strike. Two strikes, three strikes. Somebody asked me a question about the second strike.

I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about people. I wasn't involved in that. So you didn't see any survivors?

To be clear, after that first strike, you personally. I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. I was exploded in fire smoke. You can't see anything.

This is called the fog of war. Now, amid the escalation, President Trump also raising the possibility of land strikes, not just on Venezuela. Take a listen. We're gonna start doing those strikes on land, too.

You know, the land is much easier. It's much easier. And we know the routes they take. We know everything about them.

I hear Colombia, the country of Colombia is making cocaine. They have cocaine manufacturing plants. Okay. And then they sell usa.

Okay, we appreciate that very much. But, yeah, anybody that's doing that and selling it into our country is subject to attack. Not necessarily just Venezuela. No, not just Venezuela.

Now, at the same time, the White House is ramping up its crackdown on immigrants, with DHS Secretary Noem announcing a sweeping expansion of the administration's travel ban. And for napkin national shot, two members of the National Guard here in Washington. Secretary Noem writing on social media, quote, I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches and entitlement junkies. A source familiar with the announcement tells NC News approximately 30 countries will be on the list of nations that will be banned from entering the US in today's Cabinet meeting, President Trump doubling down on his immigration crackdown and escalating his rhetoric targeting migrants.

Our country's at a tipping point. We can go bad. We're in a tipping point. I don't know if people mind me saying that, but I'm saying it.

We could go one way or the other, and we're gonna go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain, and from where they came from, they got nothing. You know, they came from paradise and they said, this isn't paradise.

But when they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don't want him in our country. Joining me now is our team of reporters, NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NB News senior national Security correspondent Courtney Kibe, and NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. Monica, let's start with you. I mean, what are some of your other takeaways from that Cabot meeting today?

Yeah, I think you really hit on some of those, Ryan. And some of the key questions, the fact that even as we learn incremental new details about the timeline of that initial September 2nd strike, there are still so many more questions about some of the decision making and also just about whether there were any changes in how these strikes were ordered in the subsequent weeks and months, because we know there have been many different ones, and there have been many different scenarios in which we have seen certain survivors of these strikes actually picked up by the US Arrested and then released. So did something change, or have there been different orders throughout this process? I thought it was really notable that President Trump kind of continues to say that he doesn't have that kind of information.

Whether that's true or whether he is simply publicly trying to distance himself from some of this more potentially controversial decision making. That stood out to me as well. And Secretary Hegseth and his comments, the way that he was talking more generally about supporting and having the backs of any commanders or admirals who make these decisions, but also perhaps trying to put some distance between himself and this decision making, I thought was really, really notable. And then overall, Ryan, just the length of these meetings is something that we are always talking about.

The longest one was 3 hours and 17 minutes back in August. But this really defaults to a pretty much flattery session from every Cabinet official in the room going around and praising the president's leadership and what they perceive as their top accomplishments. But the president opened today's with a pretty lengthy list of grievances, of reporting that he feels has been unfair to him while making these other major headlines on the foreign policy front. Something that we didn't learn too much about but I think is really important today is the meeting between Special Envoy W.

Coffin, the president signing law Jared Kushner with President Putin in Moscow. That is still or was ongoing at the time of this meeting. So the president didn't have any additional details to share on that. But of course, that's something we're really interested in as well.

And Monica, we've mentioned some of the political challenges facing the president, and the issue of affordability appears to be the top of that list. The president talked about that a little bit today. What did he the other officials in the room say? He is so defensive on this topic, Ryan, which I think really tells you a lot about where the White House is.

And they're thinking and they have conceded in recent weeks, especially after those victories for Democrats in those elections in November, that essentially White House be doing a better job on messaging and on trying to communicate what they view as their main accomplishments when it comes to the economy. But the president continues to say something that I think Democrats will seize on and especially in the run up to the midterm elections, which is the president believes that affordability is, quote, a hoax, quote, a con job and something that basically he said people should stop talking about. So I think that really tells you a lot about where the president's mindset is on this. He feels that he isn't getting the credit that he deserves while repeating information that simply is not true when it comes to inflation, when it comes to some prices that have gone up.

And also using some of the same language that he's used to describe the Epstein controversy as well, which could also be a very telling Monka, thank you for that. Let's turn on Courtney. And Courtney, Secretary Hexseth acknowledged today that he didn't stick around is how he called it for the entire operation. Let's listen to his remarks in Cabinet Room today.

I watched that first strike lock. As you can imagine, the Department of War got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours wherever where all the sense of scienceploitation digitally occurs. So I'm gone to my next week.

A couple of hours later I learned that that commander had made the which he had the complete authority to do. And by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately save the boat and eliminate the threat. It doesn't seem like there's a little cleanup here. Right.

Because we know that the Secretary was on television bragging about having watched this entire operation. So there was some question about exactly what he saw and when he saw, which he seemed to be kind of free biting here. But is it unusual for a Secretary of Defense to be tuned in and pay attention to an operation like this and just leave before the mission is complete? I think it depends on the operation.

So this one may have taken upwards of an hour to complete. So there was the initial strike. We found out there was a second and the third strike. It wouldn't surprise me if he hadn't sat around for the entire one.

But that really gets to the crux of this entire controversy here, which is not just what was the Secretary's initial orders he had that he was the targeting engagement authority and this, he ended that today in the Cabinet Room because this is the first strike. He wanted to watch it, he wanted to be the one to give orders. So we know that. But the question is, after he gave those first orders to Admiral Mitch Riley who was head of JSOC at the time, was there any follow on order, did he continue to give commands to, to the Admiral who was in charge of this?

That's what we don't really know now. What he said today and what the President said today cast out on that, whether that's actually what occurred here. So then the next question becomes would his original orders, whatever they were, because we still don't have a complete fidelity on that. Would those have been able to continue throughout the entire operation?

Would Admiral Bradley have taken those orders and just continued them through that, no matter what it was that was seen on that video. Because I guess the question here is there's kind of an overarching order, right? There's a. Which could allude to what the Washington Post is reporting, that he said kill everybody.

And then the Admiral then takes a look at the situation and decides to make a subsequent strike based on the orders that he was given to by the Secretary of Defense. Right. It's not enough. I just signal I left the room.

Depending on what his original instructions were. Right. So the Admiral would have been, the authorities would have been delegated to him to make the decisions going forward whether Hexa was watching or not. Right.

So then the question becomes Secretary Hexac said he wasn't sure. He didn't really see any survivors there. He claimed it was fog of war. Whatever it was.

Admiral Bradley, more and more people are pointing fingers at Admiral Bradley as being the one who ordered that second strike, where it does seem that there were survivors in the water who were seen at the time? Now, he was given an order initially by Secretary Hegset to kill everyone. The question is, if he saw there were survivors, knowing his decades of experience in the military as a senior officer, knowing that that would most likely be a war crime, potentially murder, would he have still had to carry it? Would you still feel compelled to carry that out?

Or should he have refused that order? If, in fact, again, we were getting little dribs and drabs of information that's giving us a clear narrative of what actually occurred that day, but we still don't have several of the most important things. That is exactly what did Secretary Hegseth order Admiral Bradley to do? And did Admiral Bradley see survivors in the water and still say continue striking there because he was carrying out those orders?

And obviously there's congressional investigations that perhaps will reveal some of this, said that the US military could begin land strikes, not just on Venezuela, but other countries. Does he have the authority to launch those strikes? So, I mean, our Constitution says that only Congress can declare a war. Right.

And there are some people up in your neck of the woods on the Hill who are saying that they may force a War Power resolution vote if, in fact the president does carry out these strikes on land. We've been here before over the last several weeks where the president has said, we're going in there, we're going to have strikes in Venezuela. The thing that I found really fascinating was the way that he characterized these potential strikes, saying that they would be a lot easier. I'm not really sure what that means right now.

Even with all of this concern and this conversation about the legality of these strikes in international waters, what's easier about doing in a territory in a sovereign nation like Venezuela, logistically, perhaps you're not looking boats if it's a static target. But that was one thing that I found fascinating for the president, saying it'd be easier to take up strikes. Okay, thank you for that point, Julia. Let's turn to you now on the domestic front.

And this is a travel ban that was announced in kind of an unconventional way by Secretary no last night. Do we know how soon it could take effect? We also don't know what countries it could apply to yet. Right now we're getting some more detail because we really didn't have anything last night when Secretary no, after this meeting she had at the White House where Stephen Miller was also there in the President.

She came out and said, you know, we have to get rid of these damn countries that are sending us people who are killers. She talked about them having, you know, leeching the entitlement system. A really aggressive post on X. What I've been learning today, according to people who are familiar with what's now coming together, sometimes the policy comes together after the announcement is that there's a list of about 30 countries.

They could add more that they want to block from entry into the United States. That is the biggest travel ban this administration has ever had. The first travel ban under the first Trump administration had seven countries and took them three tries to get that through the Supreme Court. The most recent one they announced was for 19 countries, that they wanted to see those countries increase their vetting.

It's not exactly clear what the criteria will be for these 30 countries, except that recently the president said that he didn't want anyone from third world countries to come. And you saw him today talk about how he thinks if people are coming from hell, they should be excited to be here. And what we heard recently from dhs, when they were pressed, is this the issue with the country or is it the issue with the vetting? They said that they wanted to just go back to what they called base camp, basically, in part, these incredibly draconian blocks on entry into the United States.

They say until the apparatus can be working again, according to their lightning. Okay, well, then I'm sure there'll be a court challenge after that as well. So we're going to look at that. Julia Corney.

Monica, I appreciate you all. I'm going to be joined now by the Texas Republican Congressman Tim Burchett, who's joining me from Capitol Hill. Congressman, always a pleasure to talk to you. I want to begin where we left off, and that's on that news, that Secretary Noemus moving to ban travel from approximately 30 countries.

Do you think that's an effective immigration policy? Yes, sir, I do, considering the circumstances we're in. Remember, everybody was mad at Trump when he banned Chinese folks during COVID And that could have eliminated a lot of a lot of pain and death in this country. So, yeah, I think it is.

We've got some bad actors. They put 30 on the list. I suspect there to be a whole lot more. We can't continue to be the dumping ground of these countries.

Yeah, they seem to like great people over, but we know, in fact that they in the past have emptied out a lot of bad areas and they drop into our country and expect them to assimilate. And as we've seen in Minnesota and other areas, they do not assimilate. Well, the president also said that immigrants are, quote, incapable of loving our country and they should be removed. What does that mean in your mind?

And how do you even quantify something like that? Well, I think they immediately take on an anti American attitude. You know, we have members of Congress that come from other countries, and yet they continue to dump on our country and tell us how bad we are. Yet the countries that they came from are literally war zones and people are clamoring to get out.

So I think there's a lot, a lot of discretion in what he said. And I think that when it, when it comes down to it, and they bet these folks in these countries that will have a better answer to that. There does seem to be some inconsistency here, though, because the president said that he's still in favor of legal immigration, saying this afternoon that people have to come to this country legally. But at the same time, the administration is going to review the status of green card holders from nearly 20 countries.

I mean, the green card holders go through some of the most rigorous vetting process, and that is also a legal process. How can you be in favor of a legal immigration process, but then go after the people that have gone and done it the right way? Let's just be honest about our immigration system. President Trump is doing an excellent job of reviewing that.

I think that's what he should. But our immigration system, originally, you have a green card, you come in and work seasonal work, then you go home again. Another great government program that's been abused, and we've allowed it to be abused. Washington's allowed it just out of pure greed.

You know, the Republicans want the workers and the factories and the Democrats want the voters. And we can't afford it. And working folks are not paying the tab on both of it. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

But I think President Trump is going as usual. I think he's going about it in the right way. I'd like to ask you, sir, about the situation with the National Guard shooting here in Washington, D.C. you've said that the evacuees that the suspect was a part of weren't properly vetted.

Our reporting suggests that it was part of the CIA back route. But the suspect was given extensive vetting at multiple different stages before he came into the country, was also vetted for his, which happened under the Trump administration. Have you seen specific information that these type of evacuees were given? No betting whatsoever.

As a matter of Fact, I was briefed this morning by an Afghan who actually fought on our side. He's been a dear friend of me for quite some time. And as the CIA does, and a lot of times they go into these areas and some of these areas that went in Afghanistan were areas that we didn't want to send our troops in that were vicious on both sides. And the CIA, of course, goes in there and hires the thugs.

And of course there are thugs. They're loyal to us. It's kind of hard to turn that switch off. And we guarantee them asylum and in fact some folks citizenship and they come into our country now we're finding that some of them are going back in overseas, joining the Taliban or rejoining the Taliban and then coming back to America.

So we've got a real problem. We've got posted by some estimates over a thousand members of Taliban in our dadgum country that we don't know where they're at. And thank goodness for President Trump because he's the first one in a long time that just called it out. And he's not worried about all this.

He's doing executive orders. He's overstepping Congress, rather. Congress doesn't have the guts to do a daddy thing. You know it and I know both parties.

We'll have hearings and we'll, we'll blame the other side and they'll blame us. We'll write a strong letter and then we'll all go home claiming victory and nothing will happen and Americans will continue to die. I'm finally, we finally got administration. Yeah, that's offending people and people are kicked off about it.

But I don't like seeing Americans die, especially innocent Americans. Let me change. Talk about the second strike on survivors of an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean. Both Armed Services committees are calling for increased oversight.

Would you like to see the Foreign Affairs Committee launch its own probability incident? I'm sure we will, brother. Again. And six weeks later we're going to issue a strong letter and slap somebody on the crisp again.

Congress is pretty ineffective. It's that way. I've been here eight years under Pelosi and under others, and it's always been the same goddamn thing. We'll, we'll stomp up a little bit, create a little dust, and we won't do anything.

I would like to see, as the lady said, that was on your, your host panel there just a few minutes ago, right before me. I'd like to see all the details first before I cast any judgment. But you know, you got these Foreign affairs committees that are, they have stock portfolios, members that are invested in our missile defense system. They come back and tell you how good it is in the economy for war and killing.

It ain't good for anybody, brother. My dad fought the second World War. I know the cost of that. My mama lost her brother and nobody wins.

The fat cats on K Street and some, some legislators in a few obvious. And it stinks. Okay. All right.

I want to talk to you now about what's happening in your home state today. That special election in Tennessee, which people thought is. Is going to be much more competitive than any thought. Do you think this would be a warning bell for your fellow Republicans?

It's always a warning bell, brother. There's only two ways to run scared. None opposed. And I, I won with 14 or 14 or 15 points.

Actually won a one point better than President Trump. So if you're watching this president I miss, but I'm kidding aside. Yeah, it's gonna be tight. It'll be too tight.

It's an awful election year. Republicans get to vote on election day traditionally, and the Democrats and liberals will vote early voting and on election day, so the turnout is gonna be louder than expected. But honestly, 12% of population votes, and that's, that's what you get. 45% evangelical Christians, which I associate myself with, vote.

30% don't vote. Excuse me, 30% of gun owners don't vote. She's a homegrown Marxist. She was educated in Knoxville, Tennessee, where I come from.

You know, I always hear about talking about the folks moving out all the blue space and bringing their values down here. That's not the case. They're refugees, man. They're trying to escape that craziness in New York and Los Angeles, and they're warning us about what's going on.

She's a homegrown Marxist. She's motivated, she's got a good ground game. And yeah, I'm very worried. I think Matt's the greatest, the best candidate I've seen.

He should win by five or six points, though. Okay, to be clear, she does not define herself as a Marxist. That's the deck that you're putting on her. But Congressman will let me see how this election goes here tonight.

And I appreciate you being eyes off. Thank you, sir. Thank you, brother. All right, coming up, we'll dive deeper into the administration's push to ban travel from approximately 30 countries and its controversial use of illegal military power in the Caribbean.

A former Homeland Security chief who also served as a top lawyer for the Pad Line joins us next. Plus, if it's Tuesday, we're covering every angle of the surprisingly competitive and expensive Tennessee special election as Republicans look to stave off a potentially embarrassing defeat in a district they won last year by more than 20 points. Stay with us. I Meet the PRESS now.

Welcome back. We did get some new details about the alleged National Guard shooter. Several prosecutors formally announced first degree murder charges against the 29 year old Afghan national. In the indictment, prosecutors take he effectively ambushed the officers shooting two members of the West Virginia barn, killing one, a fellow guardsman who was at the scene reportedly seeing the alleged gunman opened fire yelling al Akbar.

Prosecutors also released images of the alleged shooter captured from video that was taken near the scene showing him waiting near a local Metro stop and then coming around the corner with his hands raised in a firing stance. The defendant, Ramanala Lakhinwal, pled not guilty to the charges today. He appeared in court virtually as he recovers from injuries sustained while being taken into custody. Joining now is Jay Johnson, the former Homeland Security secretary and the former general counsel at the Defense Department during the Obama administration.

We've got a lot to talk to you about, Mr. Secretary, because you have a lot of expertise in making your narratives. Let me first ask you about this shooting of the National Guards members. There's been so much talk about the vetting process of this Afghan national.

You're a former Homeland Security official. How many stages of vetting would there have been before someone in his position would have been granted asylum here? United States vetting is extensive and has been becoming more extensive as time goes by. He was paroled into this country in 2021.

Parole is a separate status of lawful presence in the United States versus asylum. So first he was paroled in and presumably there was extensive vetting leading up to the grant of asylum. I have to believe that the process didn't stop during the Biden administration and that he was apparently granted asylum in April of this year. There was probably almost certainly some sort of additional supplemental vet that occurred in the months leading up to the grant of asylum in April.

So to simply say this was all happened on the Biden administration's watch and nothing occurred between January when Trump took office in April. April seems frankly not possible. But even if this extensive event took place, given everything that this person had gone through working for the CIA, living through more than a decade of war, is it possible that even an extensive vending process, that a mental health issue or something along those lines will slip through the cracks? Well, we really don't know.

What we do know is that this individual is a dangerously disturbed and complex mental health picture. And I suspect we'll learn a lot more in the days to come. The the remedy, the answer, let's ban everybody from Afghanistan does not correlate with the problem. It's like, you know, a mentally disturbed person leaves the state of Montana five years ago and tragically shoots and kills somebody here in Washington, D.C.

the answer is not, well, let's just ban everybody from the state of Montana from coming to Washington, D.C. they don't correlate. All right, let's turn now and talk about the situation with the Double Tapper attack on this boat in the Caribbean. Help us understand the distinction, if you can, between what would be considered a survivor versus a terrorist who still poses a threat.

There's a legal distinction there, right? So, first of all, I'm dubious, as the former lawyer for the Department of Defense, I'm dubious about the legality of the whole thing without congressional office, even before the Double Tapper saying, even before the, you know. Well, the double tap is apparently one of the first strikes. But I'm dubious about the whole operation, the whole effort, whole campaign.

It's without congressional authorization. And it exceeds even the most aggressive interpretation of the President's war powers. Without congressional authorization, it's like trying to put a round peg in a square hole. Cartels, they're international criminal organizations for which we have law enforcement, Coast Guard, US Navy, that interdicts drug couriers on the high seas.

You can't treat criminals as combatants in a war. And that's what this administration is doing now. Now, in terms of the double tap, it's legally problematic on a number of different levels. One is we cannot have, as an official government policy, a take no prisoners rule of engagement.

If someone surrenders, if someone's wounded, if someone's been disarmed, disabled, you have to give them quarter. The second related concept is a French term called doors of combat, which means basically. Basically, you're out of the fight, you've been disabled. If someone's out of the fight, disabled, you can't come along and then shoot them later.

These are international legal principles, and they're also principles embedded in our Uniform Code of Military Justice. So if what we're hearing is true, then at a minimum, Congress should be conducting public hearings about what happened. The video of this strike, which I'm sure exists, should be made public. There shouldn't be a claim that it's somehow classified because this Defense Department has been releasing the videos of all the first strikes literally within minutes of when they occur.

I think the public should know whether or not our US Military, our government, is committing war crimes in the name of the United States of America. And let's talk about the distinction of when these orders may have come down. The White House said the defense Secretary, hence that ordered or authorized the strike, but it was Admiral Bradley who actually ordered the second strike. Is that a distinction without a difference?

Is the admiral perhaps bear more responsibility for the second strike or. I think it's one of the reasons why there should be public congressional hearings on this. Yeah. If you.

There are these anonymous sources coming to light that the secretary Defense did not give a specific order for that second strike. But, you know, I suspect a lot of that is spin. And I think that having people testify under oath in a congressional hearing, Senator House or both is something that is imperative to get to the bottom of this. Gonna be on the Hill this week is expected to as well.

But to your point, all of these briefings right now are behind closed doors in classified settings. You were saying they need to come out into like public hearings. Look at the difference. Why would the public hearings be more important?

People are under oath. There's the glare of, you know, the cameras. And I think that there's a compelling public interest in knowing what happened, not just Congress. Behind closed doors where people are not under oath, you can closed door briefings for members of Congress.

It's not the same as testifying in front of Congress in, you know, in the public spotlight. All right, Secretary Johnson, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, voters hit the polls in a ruby red Tennessee district for a special election that is unexpectedly turned into a major test of the national political planet. We're on the ground speaking with voters and the Democratic candidate, plus Steve Kodaki is here in our DC Studio at the Big Board. Sleeves already rolled up with what you need to know as the results start to come into night. You're watching with the press now as the day wraps up.

Get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, a new podcast for NBC News with your host Dazugin. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and informative bring you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist.

Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. Hey, guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit Down Podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound.

You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription viewer ads, deeper access and exclusive content. And now during the Xfinity Member Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50 off an annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more.

Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically reuses each year at 6599 ads and fees. Go canceled. Offer ends May 20, 2026. Price is subject to change.

Visit nbcnews.comxfinity for full offer terms and details. Welcome back. If it's Tuesday, voters are voting somewhere, and today that's somewhere is Tennessee's seventh Congressional District. Republican Matt Maps and Democrat Bean are competing in a special election for a seat held by former Representative Mark Green, who retired earlier this year.

Hoping to build on the momentum from last month's elections victories, Democrats the opportunity to put up a strong challenge in this deep red district, Republicans appear to be feeling the heat. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson traveled to Tennessee yesterday to campaign with Annapse, and President Trump appeared at a tele rally last night. Joining now from Nashville, Tennessee is NBC's Melzinon. Of course, the Kornacki is where else at the big board.

Mel, you're on the ground there in Tennessee. You spoke to the Democratic candidate in this race who's forced Republicans to step in and help defend the seat. What did she tell you? Well, she knows this would be an upset and a long shot for her to win here in the heart of Trump country.

But she believes the fact that it's even close and competitive shows how dissatisfied voters are with the cost of living and how dissatisfied they are with the current Trump administration. She's been running a campaign focused relentlessly on the cost of living as well as health care, and she thinks that even if she loses but is able to keep the race close. So that should be a massive warning sign for Republicans head of the midterms given this is a district that Trump carried by 22 points. Just watch what she told me.

And knowledge within single digits. It is a testament to the fact that this administration hasn't delivered. Do you think the electorate is ready to embrace someone who is not Democratic, perhaps more progressive than they've been used to in the past? Yeah, I think so.

I think voters in this district have given me a lot of grace and I definitely assured I was organizer, activist, public, private citizen and as a state legislator I represent 60,000 voters. As a next congresswoman, this district represents 700,000 of which there's a lot of different varying political opinions. Now Republicans have tried to say that she is far too extreme for this district and they've highlighted her past calls to defend the police. So I asked her whether she still maintains that position, but she largely dodged saying it depends on the community wants.

Interesting. So what is driving this momentum for the Democrats now? Is it a continuation of the affordability message that we saw dominate last month's elections? Ryan One thing I've heard consistently from voters today is that they are concerned about the cost of living and it is simply harder to pay their bills, to buy their groceries and to put food on the table.

That was a similar dynamic we did see in both Virginia and New Jersey during those governor races where Democrats had big, big victories last month. And it is no different here in Nashville. Just watch jobs, mostly jobs, the high cost of food, gas, yeah, everything. It's not as easy for lower income, middle income people these days.

So that's a big part of my concern. Things are getting very expensive, Expensive. I am still able to make it. However, things are getting really, really expensive.

And Trump of course is the one who ran on lowering costs for Americans, making life more affordable. But so far this year at least it's been Democrats who have successfully campaigned and capitalized on that very issue. Okay, Melodies Donut live in Nashville. Mel, thanks for that.

Let's now go to the big board and Steve, give us a reality check here. How are Democrats chances looking in Tennessee? This would still be a massive upset, wouldn't it? It would be a massive upset if they do win.

But yes, there has been some polling here showing a close racing. Again, the backdrop you heard there, Donald Trump last year he won this district by 22 points. Now four years earlier in 2020 when Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden, he still won his district, but it was only 15 points then. So you know already that you hear that 22, it's been closer than that before.

There have been some local contests in this area, a couple of them where Democrats have done even a little bit better. Where's the action going to be tonight as the results start to come in? I think one way to look at this is this is where we talk about middle Tennessee right here, about a quarter of the city of Nashville. That's Davidson county is in this district.

This is going to be one of the only, maybe the only blue spots you see on the map tonight, but it's going to be very blue. The question here is going to be can Bain run up the score massively in the Democratic part of this district in Nashville, in Davidson County, a lot of rural areas here, exurb areas where it's going to be very, very Republican red tonight. And I think sort of the swing area, this district I'm going to be looking at is right here. This is Montgomery County.

This is where Clarksville is. This is the other major population center in the district. And I think, look, if Bain is going to have any chance of actually pulling off at winning tonight, she probably needs to be winning in this county. There probably need to be two blue counties by the end of the night.

That would be Davidson county and then that would be Montgomery County. She's actually going to win this. So we'll see as the story unfolds tonight. But again, the backdrop for this, why this is even, even close.

One thing we have been seeing in special elections this year, special congressional elections, Democrats have been overperforming relative to last year's presidential election. Take a look at this in April, or is it pair of special congressional elections in Florida? Now, Republicans won both of them. They won both of them solidly.

A 15 point margin and one of them 14 in the other. But this is what it had been in the 2020, 2024 presidential election. So from a 37 point Republican win in Florida's 1st district in 2024 down to 15 in the special election, that was a game for the Democrats of 22 points. They didn't win it, but they made up a lot of ground.

Look, from 30 to 14, Democrats made up 16 points. In Florida, 6 district, we've seen this even more. Democrats have won this year. They've won bigger than they did in 2024.

Look at this district in Arizona, Kamala Harris had won it by 22. Democrats won it by 40 this year they gained 18 points. From a 34 point Democratic win in this Virginia district to 50 this year. That's a 16 point Democratic.

16, 18, 16. You see a pattern here. And again, this district where it was 22 point for Donald Trump, if Democrats are getting anywhere around that kind of gain that they've gotten elsewhere this year, then this does become a competitive single digit race. Now again, we'll raise all 22 points.

That might be a bit more of a stretch here, but it does speak to a political climate. That we've seen in these special elections that we saw in the New Jersey and Virginia results where Democrats, you know, won landslide, unexpected landslides. And it does call to mind this is a back to Trump's first term here, going back to 2018 here, March 2018. There was a special election in Trump's first term, okay, where Donald Trump had a 41% approval rating.

He had won the district by 20 points. Remember this name, Conor Lamb, Connor Lamb won the special election in that district. It voted for Trump by 20 points in March of 2018. That was a harbinger.

That proved to be a harbinger for the blue wave that fall when Democrats gained 40 seats. Flip control of the House. Here we are now, December 2025. Remember, Trump's approval rating was 41.

Then it's not too far off that now it's 42.5. And it has been edging down this fall. We're in a district that's only a little bit more Republican than that Pennsylvania one is. So again, that is the backdrop.

Democrats would love obviously to actually win this night. To be able to do what Conor William did in 2018 is not they want to keep it close. They want to say it's another sign of Republican weakness. Republicans, they don't just want to win.

They want to win by double digits tonight. They want to put up a solid win and say, hey, for all that talk about the close race, for that poll you saw showing the close race, they want to be able to say, hey, that attack on Bain is too far left. It actually worked and it could work next week. Okay, Steve Koraki, thank you.

And if you enjoyed that, there's much more where that came from. Tonight there will be a special Kornacki cam coverage of the Tennessee as they're coming in. It kicks off at 7:45 Eastern. You can watch on NBC news.com on NBC's YouTube and Instagram channels and on the NBC News app All that Kornaki.

You can get up next, a live report from Moscow where President Trump's special envoy and his son alone that face to face with Russian President Putin about a potential plan for peace with Ukraine. Stay with us on the press now. Welcome back to a special envoy Steve Witkoff and President son in law Jared Kushner met with Russian President Putin in Moscow today as the Trump administration tries to finalize a deal to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Wikoff was expected to present Putin with a version of the deal.

The to end the war that's been approved by Ukrainian Officials in comms after US Officials led by Secretary State Rubio, met with Ukraine officials this weekend in Florida, Florida to discuss the details of a potential peace framework. Following that meeting, Secretary Rubio touted the progress made, but said that much work remains. Joining me now is NBC News chief international correspondent Kirk Simmons. He is in Moscow.

So here what are we learning about this meeting between Steve Wyckoff, Jared Kushner and President Putin? Are there any signs that there's progress toward a deal? Well, we certainly are hearing signs that the meeting is over. That's being widely reported.

There is a Russian Kremlin press pool there, and they have been there all evening. So they're confident that that is the case. The meeting appears to have lasted just under five hours. Another Russian news agency reporting now that Steve Wyckoff and they were there, therefore, we assume Jared Kushner, the president, son in law, too, who was in the room, have made their way to the American Embassy here in Moscow.

They will be doing that in order to get to a secure line to communicate with President Trump from here in Russia. There are, of course, many risks to trying to talk to the American president from an open phone line from Russia. So they'll be there in order to communicate, and they may have much to communicate. President Putin's envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, posting immediately after the meeting that the talks were constructive.

There is a lineup of Russian reporters waiting for comment. That could be that they are going to hear from Yuri Ushakov, who is President Putin's foreign policy adviser. He was in the front, too. So we may in the coming hours, and I will tell you hence why I am here in Moscow.

So a late night meeting for President Putin and the American delegation. We may hear from the Kremlin about what they thought of this meeting. That wouldn't surprise me because they are quite adept at message management, if you like, in the Kremlin, and they will want to get their message out quickly and answer your question honestly about whether these talks have been constructive. And I will just say this.

Just before the meeting, despite the images you see there of smiles and pleasantries being exchanged, they talked. Initially, the cameras caught them talking about how lovely Moscow is, for example. But just before President Putin walked into that meeting with that smile he met with, he answered questions in Russian reporters and he was asked whether there might be a conflict with Europe. And he said something to the effect of, we don't want a conflict with Europe, but if Europe starts a fight with us, then we are ready.

That's the kind of uncompromising talk that we've heard from President Putin in recent days and weeks didn't seem to change at all in the minutes before this meeting. And so we wait to hear how the actual summit went. Okay. All right.

Here, Simmons with the very latest on the ground in Moscow here. Thank you for that. After the break, Finding COMMON GROUND in the age of AI and polarizing politics. A pair of bipartisan lawmakers joins me in studio on their push to help small businesses adapt to the AI revolution.

That interviews next on the PRESS now. Welcome back now to the latest in our Finding Common Ground series, spotlighting lawmakers working across the aisle on a specific issue or piece of legislation. Legislation. Today we have a bipartisan parallel makers working to help small businesses embrace and utilize the power of AI.

The legislation would require the Small Business Administration to develop resources on its online platform to help small business owners become more literate about AI. Joining me now are the two lawmakers who introduced that legislation, Democratic Congressman Hillary Sultan of Michigan and Republican Congressman Troy Downing of Montana. Thank you guys. So both for being here.

I appreciate it. It's always good to get people from both sides of the aisle talking about an issue that they're working on together. Congressman, talk to me about this legislation, the AI Wise Act. Why is it so important and how do you think it's going to help small businesses?

The AI revolution is not just coming, it is here. You know, almost 50% of small businesses report that they use AI in some form or another. Compare that to the fact that a recent Deloitte study analyzed that close to 80% of CEOs in this country believe that AI will shape the future of business. But two thirds say we're not ready.

So think about that. The vast majority agree this is going to shape the future, how we do business, but also the vast majority saying we're not ready for it. And that's because if you delay in adopting these AI tools, you get left behind. Your business gets left behind.

But also if you take advantage in the wrong way, you open yourself up to all kinds of risk and liability. So we need the SBA to be doing its job providing the critical tools that small businesses need to educate themselves on how to use AI wisely. Because small business, if I'm not mistaken, employs more people than any other industry. Absolutely.

Especially my state. Absolutely. There's also worry. Right, that AI is going to take some of these small business jobs as well.

Right. So the congressman talks about how you've got to be able to adapt it in AI world. But then how also do you kind of combat this idea that's going to take jobs away. You know, we've seen this many times in humanity.

I mean, you see some new technology, you think it's going to destroy one industry, there's always something else that comes, comes out of it. And you know, AI, for me, it's so exciting, the opportunity that you have there. It's also so scary at the same time how you navigate this because you see a lot of, you know, fraudsters and bad actors who are adopting and using this a lot more quickly than you see business and small businesses. And they need to be able to keep up and understand this.

And so having educational tools out there formed through the SBA I think is incredibly important so that these, they have the resources to figure out how to use it, what it's going to do. But to your question on whether this displaces workers, I think it shifts workers. I mean, and at the end of the day, as you start to see these tools develop and get stronger and faster, there's always going to be the question on where's the humanity? Where are the poets and philosophers?

Where's the human part of this? As you're solving problems for businesses and still need that human part to, you know, maintain our humanity as we create these opportunities for small business. You talk about adapting, right? Because I think small business think mom and pop, right.

I remember my father in law ran a law firm and never had email. Right. That's how they were retired about four, five years ago. So it's part of that as well, right?

Like teaching these small business owners who have done things a certain way for a long time how to adapt this as this term. And that's exactly right because as we say, you know, it's, it's coming whether we like or not. In fact, it's already here. And so we don't view it as taking jobs away, but rather teaching people how to keep these jobs just in a new and more tech friendly format.

And so many people are already using the tools of AI, they might just not realize it or know how to use them properly. So what this bill is going to do is help the platform of the Small Business Administration be able to, to help small business owners to use this wisely, appropriately and safeguard their clients. Yeah. And one of the things, obviously this is one tool of, you know, requirements, a huge toolbox for dealing with this.

But you know, I'm a former regulator, securities insurance regulator, and trying to understand how AI affected insurance rating, how it affected, you know, these large, large industries. Was always an interesting issue because as soon as you get prescriptive, as soon as you put something down on paper, it becomes irrelevant because it's just evolving so quickly. So how to be concepts based. And I think a big part of this education and these tools is to think about concepts and how this can be used, how this can make your business more efficient, how you can answer questions more quickly.

And there's so many things that you can do with this. But again, one of the problems with the evolutionary cycle this is we're getting to the point now where AI can write AI. It's going to evolve faster than we can keep up. So how do you keep that concept based education so you're thinking correctly about this without putting something prescriptive that is irrelevant as soon as you put it on.

To that end, does Congress need to do to regulate AI? Absolutely. And you know, I think that this is not the end point of what we're hoping to do. And several other committees are hoping to weigh in here.

You know, first and foremost, we need a foundational data privacy bill. It's been in the works for quite some time, but absent, you know, that we're not going to wait and, you know, prevent small business owners from having the tools that they need to protect themselves. So absolutely, Congress needs to do more. We're planning to do more.

On the small business Committee, you know, there was a tandem bill that was already introduced alongside that passed by a committee, bipartisan AI for Main Street Act, a committee that I'm ranking member on as well. We're going to have a hearing in the new year on digital currency, which is another emerging technology, emerging platform that so many entrepreneurs and small businesses are using. But yeah, but one of the problems we need to be cognizant of is if, you know, you need to have sideboards. We need to be sideboards.

We need to decide where the sideboards are. But they can't be so restrictive that you start forcing innovation elsewhere because we'll lose that race if we're too restrictive on that. We need to make sure we're encouraging innovation here, but really asking the hard questions of, you know, how, how do we need to get the tools out there and the protections out there in industries for consumers, for businesses. And it's just so widespread.

But the reality of it is, is if we put too many restrictions, we're gonna be left in the dust by adversaries sitting here cover every day see a Republican and Democrat nod while the others making a point. You know, this is an issue where you guys obviously have common ground. Are there more issues that we don't realize that Republicans and Democrats have come? There's so much people get stuck on.

You know, when you put on the jersey on social media and everybody gets upset about what divides us and nobody gets excited about what connects us and we find these things. And so, you know, there's, there's bills that I brought where I have Democrat co sponsors that really we have very little in common. But we found some consensus where we both are passionate about it and we get that through. I've got examples of that in the Financial Services Committee where we got it through unanimously, it got through unanimous consent up the House floor.

So that happens. It's just not exciting to people who are looking for things that anger them in headlines on social media. I mean, that's an issue for you, right? Because sometimes the base of your party, they can get upset if they see you working with a Republican.

Right. How do you, how do you message that to show them that ultimately it's good for the country? You know, I think it's good for our district. It's good for our country.

You know, back home in West Michigan, people want to see me working in their best interest. Republican or Democrat, you know, it doesn't matter. I'm the first Democrat in a century to hold this important seat. I serve in the legacy of Gerald Ford and bringing that stability back to the work that we do is essential.

But you're right, you know, it doesn't really sell headlines. I remember when I passed my first bipartisan bill out of the House and I walked down with my Republican colleague, walked down the steps and the cameras were flanked around a very controversial member of Congress who's no longer with us in the House. And we thought this is what the American people see, what they think Congress is. But what we just did was to transform the way small business bill, the way small businesses can access capital, you know, and that type of work happens every single day, you know, if people are there to look for it and see it.

And we're going to keep delivering on those things because it matters now more than ever. We're going to leave it there. I appreciate you guys being here. Let's see more examples of this as we go forward.

Thanks for having us. Thank you. Congressman Sultan and Congressman Downing, thank you both for your time. We're going to back tomorrow with more media press now, but as always, there's more news ahead on NBC News now.

Thanks for watching. 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 Matiewis 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.