Meet the Press NOW — December 22

Hi there and welcome to Beat the press. Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington as President Trump is set to make announcement later this hour from Palm Beach, Florida, alongside his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, as well as the secretary of the Navy. The announcement comes as the Trump administration is ratcheting up its pressure campaign against the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Seasoned oil tankers emit a barrage of lethal strikes against alarmed drug boats.

The US Coast Guard says it is in active pursuit of another sanctioned oil tanker yesterday off the coast of Venezuela. That according to two US officials. The vessel known as Bella 1, was placed on the US sanctions list back in June of 2024. It comes a day after DHS Secretary Christy Noem released this video showing the US Coast Guard apprehending a different oil tanker on Saturday, also off the coast of Venezuela.

It was the second tanker the US 6 successfully intercepted this month. Adding to the tensions, the Pentagon has conducted at least 28 strikes on boats the administration says are used to traffic drugs, killing 103 people. It all comes as questions in loom over the administration's actual endgame. In an exclusive phone interview with President Trump last week before these latest escalations, NBC's Kristen Walker asked the president if he ruled out the possibility that this could lead to war.

The president initially said, I don't discuss it. But when pressed further, he said, I don't rule it out, no. And on the question of whether he wants to see Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro out of power, if that was the ultimate goal, the president said, quote, he knows what I want. Lawmakers within the president's party, however, appear divided on whether the US should be pursuing regime change.

Take a listen. I support the idea of standing up to Maduro and I want him to go. I am all in the camp for regime change. He is not the recognized leader of Venezuela.

We've supported the opposition leaders, the past two opposition leaders in Venezuela, and we should support it with arms. Biden did that with American arms and boots. Arms. Arms is a different issue.

That's a very different issue on that case. If you break it, you buy it. Joining me now is NBC News senior White House corporate Gary Haken, NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainslie. So, Julia, what is the latest when it comes to this third vessel?

What is the Department of Homeland Security saying about these operations? So this vessel is known as Bella One, and they're saying that it was flying a false flag, which means might have been carrying the flag of another country to disguise the fact that this is a sanctioned vessel. Now, in some cases, it's for not sanctioned oil. This vessel itself was sanctioned.

It was sanctioned in 2024 under the Biden administration because of the connection they saw between this particular vessel and someone who was financial backer of the Houthi rebel group. And so Secretary Noem in her post over the weekend talking about this operation, said that they were going after oil that had been sanctioned to keep them from funding narco terrorists. Of course, this is a tangent to the original mission that we saw there, to go after boats carrying narcotics, which the administration said was dedicated rights on those boats in order to save American lives. Presumably if this drugs had led to American overdoses, now they're going after oil, which of course is Venezuela's top exports.

If they continue to do this ramp up pressure that will be devastating to Venezuela's economy. So, Garrett, what are we hearing from White House officials when it comes to these escalations off the coast of Venezuela? Ryan Kimberly, Almost nothing. It is an interesting development here that you've got a little bit of mission creep from the White House after what started as these strikes against drug boats now involving seizures of far from far larger vessels.

And the president has kind of taken this out of his big sort of set piece remarks recently. It wasn't a big part of his speech to the nation. Baylor Pasak mentioned last week. It wasn't a part of his rally on Friday night.

And his administration has done relatively little to bring the American people along as we've moved from the strikes on small boats to the seizures of large vessels. Watching his remarks today very closely to see if he makes the case for why this is in America's interest. And Julia, let's expand a little bit on what you were talking about before, about the authority that the US Government has when it comes to seizing these vessels. One, it's a sanctioned tanker, but is it carrying sanctioned oil?

Is there a distinction between the two? Well, so for the second interdiction that we saw, the one that came on Saturday where they were able to successfully interdict that was sanctioned oil. And in that case, a federal judge had signed off saying that there could be at least a far as concern authority for the Coast Guard to go in and make these interdictions, we're seeing these rather striking videos of people from the Coast Guard dropping onto these vessels. That is part of the Coast Guard's job, at least as far as American law is concerned.

But of course, maritime law and international laws could come up with a different, different conclusion on whether or not it is legal to do so. And the question would also become, what about the vessels? Especially because these vessels don't necessarily just operate for one country. They can be going between many different countries.

And of course, sometimes most of the oil coming from Venezuela is bound for China. In this case, others have been times where some of this well has gone to Iran. And so a lot of complicating factors here. But at the end of the day, we're really waiting, I think Garrett's sitting on this as well, to have the White House explain to the American people what's going on here and why is it necessary?

Because it's a different argument when you're talking about oil for struggling. Could it mean that these are going to escalate, that we're going to see it more often? And does the Coast Guard have the capacity to do this on a regular basis? The Coast Guard chief mission is to save American lives at sea and interdict drugs that might be coming into the United States, in some cases interdict immigrants, those who might be coming in, and they do enforce US Law at sea.

That is part of their mission. But I think there's a question about their resources being stretched here and whether or not, especially as these regions are, the spheres which are operating continue to get further from the United States. Exactly. As Garrett said, are they getting into some condition creep here?

And Garrett, what is the end game here? Right. It seems as though the administration has a different explanation. Sometimes it's drugs, sometimes it's oil, sometimes it's regime change.

Have they really offered any clarity there? They haven't, Ryan. And all signs point towards it being regime changed due to the way the administration has linked all of these things. They argue that Nicolas Maduro is both ahead of one of the drug cartels here and also using the oil revenue that Venezuela has to support these narco terrorist efforts.

They put bounty on Maduro. None of that suggests a scenario in which Maduro could continue leading that country. When the president has been asked that question, he gives these kind of vague non answers like Maduro knows what I want or he knows what I want to see from him. So the administration has tried to create a posture of almost a strategic ambiguity around what their real goals are here.

But none of these actions provide for a stable Venezuelan economy or suggest that there's some negotiated way out of this for the Venezuela regime. And here we do. The President is expected to speak later this hour. What should we expect from that?

Well, most of the public reporting on this not confirmed by NBC News that this is about new vessels joining the US Navy. The president has spoken at some length at different times about his desire to grow the US Navy to grow the icebreaker fleet that the Coast Guard uses, for example. He sees shipbuilding as a sign of renewed American strength. He talks about the idea that he rebuilt the military in his first term.

Now a little bit more of a focus on the Navy again. This dovetails with what we've been talking about today. And he'll certainly be asked questions about how the ships that we have in the fleet, many of which are deployed in the Caribbean right now, are being used while we're talking about building more. All right, G.

Julia Ainsley, thank you guys both for being here. We're going turn now to the Justice Department's ongoing release of the Epstein files with Congressman Rohan saying that he expects another batch of documents to be released today. It comes with growing frustration over the department's handling of the documents. A group of Epstein survivors releasing a statement today demanding Congress take action after the DOJ failed to release all of the documents on Friday, as was required by law.

Those demands being echoed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowing to introduce a resolution directing the Senate to take legal action against the doj. In the House, Congressman Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna, who spearheaded the effort to compel the DOJ to release those files, are threatening to invoke a rarely used congressional power, so called inherent contempt, to punish Attorney General Pambani. They're flouting the spirit and the letter of the law. It's very troubling, the posture that they've taken.

And I won't be satisfied until the survivors are satisfied. So 1200 victims are rich and powerful people who either engage in this abuse, covered it up or were on this island. And what the American people want to know is who are these people? And instead of holding them accountable, Pam Bondi is breaking the law.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged on Friday morning, hours before the initial batch of documents were made public on the Epstein Files Transparency act, that the Trump administration needed more time and was planning to release the documents over the next couple of weeks. Blanche defending that decision on the press. The statute also requires us to protect victims. And and so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that to protect victims, we're going through a very methodical process with hundreds of lawyers looking at every single document and making sure that the victims names and any of the information from victims is protected and redacted, which is exactly what the transparency act expects.

Meanwhile, spokesperson for Bill Clinton is now demanding the DOJ release any material related to the former president, claiming the failure to do so would confirm that the Justice Department's actions are, quote, not about transparency but about insinuation. Joining me now is Misty Maris, a defense attorney and NBC News legal analyst and NBC News senior national politics reporter Sahil Boe. He's with me here on set. So let's talk about what's going on here in both chambers of Congress.

First, what would Chuck Schumer's resolution will accomplish in the Senate? Well, fundamentally, Schumer is trying to keep the heat on the doj. He's promising to force a vote or he tried to force a vote in the Senate to begin legal action against the DOJ for what he calls a blatant disregard for the law, the lobbying, the action, false Transparency Act. He's echoing claims made by the authors of the law, Rohan and Tom Massey, about the partial release of the files in the law requires complete release and the heavy redactions when the law is very specific about the limited grounds for withholdings that the DOJ is allowed to do.

There was of course the 119 page grand jury document which was just black ink, entirely redacted. There was a backlash without a photo involving President Trump that was posted and taken down and reposted when the law again says there's no basis for withholding to try to protect a public figure from reputational harm or embarrassment. So this is Schumer's way of saying people, he's not happy, that Democrats are not happy, the authors of law are not happy, the Epstein survivors are not happy. And there's a lot for the age of but then we've got mass incandor on the other side.

They're threatening to hold Attorney General Pembonti in inherent content. How would they go about doing that? Wouldn't they need some buy in from a wider range of Republicans? Yeah, they need a vote of the House of Representatives.

So let's talk about inherent content for one second. This power dates back to the mid-1800s. It's almost never been used. It's been dormant for about a century.

And it says con Congress can be a self enforcer, you know, of its own, of its own authorities. Essentially what they have to do here, if they go after Attorney General Bondi, is have the sergeant at arms show up at the DOJ and try to arrest her, but her handcuffs on, she has security details. It's not difficult to see the problems with that. So this is why the House has not taken, you know, taking this path.

But it is often considered, again, I think this is an attempt from all different angles from the office of the law to pile on the pressure of the DOJ saying, you're not complying with the law and something's going to happen because the DOJ has not helped its own case. The whole reason that we're here to begin with is that a huge number of people, not just Democrats, but many in the Madam Base, believe there was a cover up here. That is why this law passed overwhelmingly, unanimously in the Senate and all but one vote in the House in favor. But you can understand why inherit contempt would be necessary.

It is for this exact reason. Right. If one of the branches of government is not living up to the expectations of another branch of government. I understand kind of the logistical issues that would be involved with the Surgeon of Arms trying to arrest Pam Body.

But if you were able to bring this to the floor, whether it be through discharge petition or some of the means, if they had overwhelming support, just kind of the optics of being held in inherent contempt, that would have to at least compel Bondi to do something, wouldn't it? Yes. You would think the fact that this even coming up is going to put some pressure on the DOJ to quell, you know, those who are supporting it. I think the minimum.

Attorney General Bondi is going to have to convince Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune that they're trying to enforce the law in good faith, ultimately authority to and needs to want to give them the benefit of the doubt. So as long as she's able to do that, as long as the DOJ is able to do that, they should be able to prevent a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate, really majority of the household that we need here from actually moving forward with this extraordinary power. Okay. All right.

Thanks for the legal expertise here. So even if Attorney General Bondi is held in inherent consent, it would it be her own Justice Department that would be tasked with enforcing it? I mean, talk to us a little bit more about the practical implication of this if it were to happen. Yeah.

So this is the problem with the law and its actual enforcement is that ultimately you end up back with the dojo in general. If there were non compliance, there would be the ability to see the criminal contempt, there would be the ability to go to court and file a civil action. And while those are still doors that are open, ultimately it would be the Department of Justice who would be moving in when it comes to enforcement. So they're obviously not going to prosecute themselves.

So this is the issue where you have this law, but when it comes to actual enforcement, there aren't teeth. And that's why you see these alternatives, like inherent contempt that are within Congress being something that's pursued in order to as a remedy to cure these defects with this production. Talking a little bit too about them adhering to this deadline on Friday and how a judge might view this. Obviously the letter of the law said everything had to be there by Friday.

But if this was brought to a judge and they were making a good faith effort to get the material out, would a judge say, no, you have all done by Friday, so you're not adhering to the law, or would they give them some leeway in this process if it appeared they were doing the right thing in general, establishing that good faith exercise and saying that this is all being done above board and that it's simply a matter of needing more time. And the reasons that more time is needed is actually to protect victims in general. You're likely to see a judge within reason give those extensions of time. But I think here when we're looking at this from the public perspective, you know, outside of the courtroom, there's reason to have skepticism.

It's really the way that this has played out over time. But yes, if you were before a judge and it was, you know, the first extension needed, you would generally get that additional time so long as you could show you were doing what you needed to do to comply with the law. Right. The question would be whether or not it was in good faith, which I think is the open questions here.

So as far as opening a new criminal investigation, which is a big part of one of the excuses that DOJ is using on why they're slow rolling some of this release, based on what we've already seen that's been released, what type of investigations could still fall outside the statute of limitations? So the types of things that I'm looking for as we see more and more documents come to light, more and more information come to light is identifying potential co conspirators and the types of cases that could be investigated and prosecuted that would not be barred by the statute of limitations is anyone who is a co conspirator involved in the sex trafficking of minors. There's essentially no statute of limitations to bring those types of charges. Keep in mind Ghislaine Maxwelliam.

She was convicted of conduct that occurred between 1994 and 1997 and prosecuted in 2020. This was one of the appell issues. She tried to get her conviction overturned on stations. The court appeal said no.

So that is, that certainly is open to the extent that there's evidence of those who are involved in any aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's reign that could be subject to prosecution. I want to play for you something from Todd Blanche's interview with Kristen yesterday about Ghislaine Maxwell being moved to prison camp hasn't gotten enough attention. Take a listen to this. Why was she moved just days after you interviewed her, Mr.

Blanche? So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that I will not talk about. Did you have anything to do with it? Did you have anything to do with it?

Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prison. So every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. But just let me, let me talk about the security issue.

At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her and the institution she was in. She was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life. So the BO is not only responsible for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety.

So initially we're going to talk about, but then essentially admitted that he at least played some role in her being moved. There's also questions about her moving from one type of a prison facility to something that seems a bit less in terms of difficulty. Is this normal protocol for the Justice Department? How serious would the threats have to be for her to move?

So this is incredibly unusual and here's why. And it's really about the type of establishment she was in that she's moved to FPC Bright, which is a prison camp. It is minimum security and it's not unusual for prisoners to move necessarily. The Bureau of Prisons would do an analysis that there was a safety concern.

Sure. But someone like Elaine Maxwell, who is a designated sex offender, would not be eligible to go to a camp under any other circumstance. Maybe a lower degree, a low security prison, but not a camp like this one. So that is a highly, highly unusual move.

And it's one of the reasons why people are thinking that there's more to that than meets the eye, especially the timeline. Right. It happened right after the interview. And now he admits that he at least played some role in the movement.

Obviously a lot more to talk about as relates to that. Mr. Barris, thank you so much for being. Appreciate it.

Coming up, U.S. strikes Back. Watching retaliatory strikes on dozens of ISIS targets in Syria following a deadly attack of American troops in the region. We're covering the fallout and where the conflict goes from here.

Plus, a top Russian general is killed by a car bomb in Moscow and what appears to be the latest targeted assassination of by Ukraine of a high ranking Russian commander. We have the response from the Kremlin. And Keith, you're watching Meet THE Press now. Welcome back.

It was a whirlwind weekend for President Trump's foreign policy agenda. We already mentioned that escalation between the US And Venezuela. But we're also tracking developments both in the Middle east as well as the administration's ongoing but slow moving talks to end the war in Ukraine, starting in Syria. With US Military launching strikes against ISIS infrastructure and weapons sites on Friday in retaliation for an attack earlier this month that killed two US Soldiers and a contractor.

And a contractor. In a post on social media, Defense Secretary Petset said, quote, this is not the beginning of a war. It is a declaration of vengeance. Meanwhile in Moscow, a Russian general was killed after bomb exploded under his car.

Russian investigators say they are looking into whether Ukraine's intelligence service was involved in the attack. Ukrainian officials have yet to comment. This comes after US Special envoy Steve Wyckoff spent the weekend in Miami meeting separately with Russian and Ukrainian officials. Joining me now is NBC News intelligence reporter Vandal.

Again, let's first start with these US Strikes on ISIS targets in Syria. What more do we know about what the US Struck? And is this it for the US Retaliation or could be some more? They're saying they hit more than 70 targets.

This was a substantial operation. They were using fighter jets, attack helicopters, even artillery. And they say that what they're trying to do is hit these weapon sites and hit these fighters to make it more difficult for them to stage attacks or even terrorist operations. And of course, ISIS is not what it was, but that attack on those troops the other day was a reminder that it's not gone right and that it still has this ability to inspire attacks abroad as well.

And they're saying this is not over. They're saying this could go on for weeks. It could even go on for up a month. And that's interesting because of course, President Trump has very much coming off as saying we're not going to get us involved as much as we did in overseas.

I'm reporting the possibility of, of military strikes by either the US Or Israel on Iran. Speaking of foreign entanglements, what can you tell us about that? Yeah, so Israeli officials told myself and my colleagues that they're very concerned about Iran's ballistic missile program, that they're rebuilding that program really quickly after the Israelis bombed it over the past year. Right.

And the nuclear sites are heavily damaged. And they're making some initial steps to try to reconstitute the nuclear program as well. But Israel has a meeting coming up. Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting President Trump later this month.

And this is going to come up, which we were told and it's not clear how President Trump will respond to this. He may not be so enthusiastic about Israel going into Iran again. So there could be some friction there. And Trump's focus, of course, is the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, which he sees as a great accomplishment.

But it's very fragile right now. And he may be focusing more on that when he talks to Netanyahu. And finally on Ukraine, we reported a special envoy Wykoff meeting with both Russian and Ukrainian officials over the weekend. Are we any closer to a deal there?

I think we should be cautious making any big forecasts. A lot of positive statements were made. Wykoff said those were productive talks. You had the Ukrainian President Zelensky saying that they really had a solid basis.

Now this was quite, quite positive. But he also said there are still issues that the Ukrainians and the Russians still aren't ready to compromise on. And I would remind everyone that despite all this positive talk, there is no sign from Russia thus far that they're ready to make major concessions. And you had a pretty strident response when our colleague here asked him at his press conference in Moscow what his attitude was.

And he said, you know, we're not basically compromising. Ukraine doesn't basically capitulated to their demands is over. Okay, Dan, thanks so much. Major midterm shake up as a one time horizon Republican Party announces she's dropping her bid for New York governor and leaving Congress as Republicans race for more retirement announcements over nominates.

You're watching MEET the Press now. Welcome back. Just moments after the DOJ began releasing the Epstein files on Friday afternoon, there was a big political announcement of a different kind and one that was largely eclipsed by the Epstein news. An unexpected shake up in New York's Republican primary for governor with New York Representative Elisa Fonnik announcing that she was dropping out of the race and retiring from Congress.

Stefanika was once a rising star in the party and a member of House Republican leadership saying in a statement, quote, it is not an effective use of our time or your generous resources to spend the first half of the next year in an unnecessary and protracted Republican primary. Her departure seemingly clears the way for Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman to be the Republican nominee. President Trump quickly endorsed Blakeman in the wake of suffice exit calling him quote MAGA all the way. Joining me now is our panel, former Missouri state Representative Don Calloway.

He's now a Democratic strategist. And former Florida Congressman Carlos Corbello. He is an NBC News political analyst. So Carlos, let's start with you.

I know you know Congresswoman Stefaniki served with her. She's leaving the race and Congress. It was all announced just as our attention was on the Justice Department in the Epstein files last week. What do you make of this time?

Well, Ryan, this is a big blow for New York Republicans, especially for members running for reelection to the House for challengers and then also for Republicans down better. Lisa Fennec is very popular. She was going to boost Republican turnout in New York like Lee zeldin did in 2022 when Republicans had those gains in the congressional delegation there. And now this is going to be a much harder race for governor and I think it's going to have a negative trickle down effect on New York Republicans.

On the personal side, look at Lisa Fennec, aside from having served in Congress now for quite some time, is a relatively new mother and the cost of public service has gone up. We know she hasn't been happy in the House. She hasn't been content with Speaker Johnson's leadership. So she made this personal decision and I think it's the best decision for her and her family.

So down to Carlos's point about how this impacts the Republican Party in New York, the president has already thrown his support behind Bruce Blakeman. Part of the reason the Stefanik got in was because there was a sense that the Democratic incumbent there, Kathy Hochul, was vulnerable. These alderman ran a strong race as Republicans have in some time. Does this make the path for Hochul much easier?

Oh, it absolutely does. Listen, anybody who carries that MAGA flag will come with some immediate vulnerabilities that they're have to address, particularly in a state night like New York in which, yes, a Republican can absolutely be competitive. We've seen folks like Representative Zelda and other Republican nominees be competitive in those state white races for Senate and governor over the years in New York State. You've got upstate, all of them.

You got some extraordinarily rural areas. It's not just New York City, but you'd have to be competitive in New York City. And it's going to be very, very difficult for a guy who's carrying the mega flag, particularly if The President gets out there and campaigns for him aggressively. It's going to be very, very difficult for someone like that to be Kathy Hochel, who is not the most liberal governor in the United States and who effectively has not done a PO Objectively.

It's not that I poor job as governor. So Carl, I'm from New York, I grew up in New York. I know exactly what I was talking about. It's much different than New York City.

But that's also part of the problem for Republicans, isn't it? The way for a Republican to win would be someone that's a bit more moderate, that could appeal perhaps to more right leaning Democrats or independent Democrats. But in order to win a Republican primary and really bring out the base Republican vote, you've got to be all in on Donald Trump. Is that why it's so hard for Republicans to win a blue state like New York?

It's a tough balancing act. Right. And we know there's a big difference between the New York Giants and the Buffalo Bills. Right?

I know what you're talking about, but at least the fan is a candidate who maybe could have pulled that off. Elisa Fanick, of course, has all the moderate credentials, but she also had somewhat of a centrist voting record in Congress, especially at the beginning when I served with her. So she's one of the Republicans that I think could have pulled off that difficult balancing act that a lot of Republicans need to pull off. And again, even if she hadn't won, I think she would have helped Republicans down ballot.

We know that in places like Long island, which has become a battleground within the state of New York, Lee Zeldin was critical at helping a lot of those Republicans in that area get elected. I think Stefanik would have done the same. Now that's going to be a lot harder, Carlos. The big difference between the Buffalo Bills and New York Times is the Buffalo Bills actually play in New York State with the New York Giants.

Do not. But Don, to expand on Carlos's point here, wasn't that also part of the problem for Elisa Phonics is she had someone of an authenticity problem. She started out as someone of a moderate Republican, tried to appeal to the mill of the country, but then went all in on Donald Trump and became a MAGA warrior and no one could really tell where her true loyalties lie. Well, I think she did what all Republicans did in the era of maga.

I mean, they all went all in with Donald Trump, particularly a member of House leadership. We have to remember that at least the Fanik rose through the ranks of House rank and file extremely quickly. She was one of the younger members of the House, and she got the leadership an extraordinarily quick time for a young person and a young woman at that. So I think that at the time when Donald Trump had a chokehold on the Republican Party, particularly in the House, she fell in line.

I don't know if that created an authenticity problem, but it certainly created a MAGA problem that she would have had to face in the general had she made it there. The challenge is that Donald Trump really doesn't have loyalty to anyone. So when you see the links that she went to at her own personal sacrifice, and he didn't even endorse her. Right.

He still went with the Nassau county executive, who has nowhere near the political experience or national visibility that Lisa Phonic did. And now that we've started to see other maga, other Republican members of the House and Senate, peel off from imagination, it's gonna be interesting to watch the tide shift over the course of the next eight years. And unfortunately, at least the Fenwick was appears her political career was something of a victim of that. Yeah.

To that point, Carlos, it's not just that she decided not run for governor, but she seems to be getting out of politics for good, or at least for now by not running for re election. What do you make of the amount of people, particularly Republican Party Republican women in particular, Stefanik being one, Marjorie Taylor Green being another, that have decided they just are done with this, they do not want to be in Congress anymore? Ryan, My understanding is all the retirements we've read about already, there are many more in the pipeline. Again, it is a difficult time to serve.

We know that this administration has not deferred to Congress on many issues. A lot of members are quietly frustrated about that. Most members aren't like Marjorie Taylor Greene, where they're going to declare war and make it a big public spat. But there's a lot of frustration in and at the end of the day, I know it's hard to think about this because we view these people as leaders, as people who are in the political game.

But these are human beings. And when the cost of public service gets too expensive, too high, people get out. I definitely think that's one of the factors that led to at least a fan decision. There's a lot of frustration, particularly in the House with House leadership.

So I think we're going to be talking about a lot more people heading for the exits here in the coming weeks. Don, less than a minute can Democrats take advantage of this and do they have a different problem and that now they're seeing even more competitive Democratic primaries with candidates that are further to the left. I don't think we'll see it in that fashion. Perhaps you'll see some challenges statewide, such as a Chuck Schumer who's probably vulnerable to the left.

I don't see that being the national pattern. I do want to focus something on something that representatives said, which is there are extraordinary financial opportunities. I'm not saying that at least the finale is leaving to pursue them. But we should note that there are extraordinary financial opportunities in a post political life, particularly for someone who's a member of House leadership and as visible as at least the phonic has been.

And you know, once you get that congressional pension locked in a la Marjorie Taylor Greene and you see that you have probably capped your potential as a member of Congress, then go make your money. And that's unfortunately, I'm sorry, not forcing unfortunately, but there's a practical reality of what goes into these people's decision making process as well. Okay. More to come, I'm sure on that point.

Donna, Carlos, thank you guys both for being here. I appreciate it. After the break, the Trump administration moves to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of migrants who initially came to the US Legally. That stories next on BE THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. As part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, Department of Homeland Security is revoking temporary protected status, known as tps, for hundreds of thousands of migrants who came to the US legally. TPS is a program created by Congress in 1990 to allow immigrants fleeing their home country, often due to war, natural disasters or other dangerous conditions, to temporarily live and work in the US but with the administration's latest move, many of those immigrants who were once protected may now be facing deportation. NBC News White House correspondent Emishal Sindor has more every day.

Alex Le Mong, who fled violence in South Sudan and immigrated to the US in 2009, worries about his future. I just want to give an opportunity to start my life fresh without always worrying about, hey, will I be sick next year? The 28 year old is one of thousands of immigrants facing possible deportation as a Trump administration ends temporary protected status for host of countries. Lemong was 11 when he came to the U.S.

says his father, two brothers and a number of family members were killed in the ongoing bloodshed involved in South Sudan. So your whole extended family basically has been killed in South Sudan because of the violence there? Yes, ma'. Am.

That must be terrifying to think about being deported back there. Being deported there is basically like a suicide mission. The whole community is devastated because this is the only thing we've been relying on to live in states. And now that's stripped away.

As of March 31, 2025, there are approximately 1.3 million people with Temporary Protected Status living in the U.S. according to the American Immigration Council. The Trump administration has said it is ending TPS for at least 11 countries. Officials have also insisted that the situations in those places no longer meet the TPS requirements and in some cases they've set condition on the ground have improved enough for people to safely return.

CBS is a program that was always meant to be temporary. I know that the president wants to bring integrity to our program to make sure that they're applied appropriately to the individuals into the countries which they're supposed to benefit. Though affiliate Alcaldrone, an immigration lawyer says the Trump administration's efforts are part of a different goal than the one articulated by the administration. I think it's part of their push to punish all immigrants, legal or otherwise, for being in the United States.

I think that their movement to one by one terminate designation is a movement to piece by piece, terminate tps, period. There have been at least a half a dozen lawsuits seeking to push back on President Trump's efforts at ntps, with varying results. Anybody actually who has TBS should seek legal counsel so that they can figure out if there's something that can be done. NBC News asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment on the story and about what recourse it offers people whose TPS is ending.

But we didn't hear back. In October, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal status for up to 600,000 Venezuelan immigrants. Maria Sidman, who ran a medical lab in Venezuela, is worried about being forced back there. She says local political actors began threatening her for not supporting Venezuelan President Nicholas Van Burro.

We was forced to leave Venezuela. It's not like my decision, I was forced. Now her TPS has expired and her silent request is still pending. Like Le Mong, she says she isn't sure what she will do.

Government of Venezuela Having broken so many human rights, I don't understand what you want to send us back. The situation, it's getting worse. It's getting worse and worse every day. Meanwhile, Meng, a decorated track athlete in graduate of Ohio State, lives in fear as he tries to get asylum to stay in the uk US I'm terrified.

I don't know where I'll go. I don't know. I'll just feel like another foreigner in a place where I used to know that no longer exists. Yamiche, NBC News thanks for that reporting.

And as you just heard, the Trump administration is ending temporary protection status for South Sudanese immigrants, despite that nation remaining deeply unstable. So much so that a leading humanitarian relief organization places South Sudan third on its list of countries most likely to face worsening human rights crises in the coming year. Only Sudan and the occupied Palestinian Territory are deemed more urgent on the International Rescue Committee's emergency watch list for 2026. Joining me now is Karen Donnelly, who's the senior vice president for crisis response, recovery, recovery and development at the International Rescue Committee.

First of all, how do you compile your emergency watch list? What criteria goes into that decisions? So we look at a database of 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators that help us understand situation in countries around the world. And then we complement that with analysis and information coming from the IRC's own staff.

We have thousands of staff in over 35 countries around the world. That helps us come up with a list of the 20 countries that are most at risk of deterioration in terms of the humanitarian situation over the coming year. And those 20 countries represent 89% of the people estimated to be needed humanitarian assistance today. That's 239 people, 9 million people worldwide, 89% in these 20 countries.

But they're only 12% of the global population. So it's really a concentration both of humanitarian need today and humanitarian risk for the year ahead. And the IRC warned a new world disorder with regards to next year's list. What makes this different than previous years?

So we're seeing surging humanitarian needs around the world. As I said, 239 million people estimated by the UN to be needed humanitarian assistance over the coming year. 117 million people have been displaced and forced to flee from their homes. The vast majority of them are hosted in neighboring countries and lower and middle income income countries.

Excuse me. What we're seeing around the world are three trends that are contributing to, prolonging and extending this level of humanitarian need in the underlying conflict. The first is an unraveling of global cooperation. So not only have we seen dramatic cuts to foreign aid over the past year, 83% of U.S.

foreign aid programs have been cut. Other donors have also slashed humanitarian budgets. But we're seeing countries increasingly using their veto with the UN Security Council to prevent and hinder conflict resolution, conflict prevention. Secondly, we're seeing an increased duration and complexity of conflicts and an increasing level of conflict perpetuated because of economic incentives.

Countries that are involved in wars in order to facilitate trade, in order to generate revenue. We see that in the gold trade in Sudan, we see that in eastern Congo and other places. And then lastly, there's an increase in the impunity for attacks against civilians and a workers, making it even harder for us to serve people and putting civilians increasingly in harm's way with schools, health centers increasingly in the firing line as conflicts unfold. So these three things together are not just increasing the level of humanitarian need, they're extending conflicts and making it increasingly an unstable dynamic, especially in these 20 countries where there's a concentration of humanitarian it's so complicated.

But what could be done that could alleviate your concerns? So we set out in the watch list, which is available on our website on rescue.org a detailed set of recommendations. But essentially it involves empowering and resourcing conflict prevention and mitigation efforts. It involves supporting foreign aid and reforms to foreign aid so that the most effective solutions can be deployed to meet the needs of people around the world.

And it involves standing up for humanitarian law and the rights of civilians and the rights of aid workers working in dangerous conflicts zones around the world. And these are all essentially simple but profoundly challenging in today's political environment. Okay. Garen Donald, an eye opening reporter.

Thank you so much for joining us. Super chat Silicon Finding Common ground on the 2028 primary calendar. A pair of bipartisan political insiders coming together together to make their home state the first in the nation primary state. Stay with us on the PRESS now.

Welcome back. Turning now to our Finding Common Ground series and a pair of political operators on opposite sides of the aisle who are coming together to push both parties to make a big change to the 2028 presidential primary schedule. Former Biden White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates and former Republican National Committee communications director Doug I argue in an op ed that North Carolina should hold the nation's first presidential primaries. Writing in part, the entire country would benefit from hearing from the perspective of voters in a diverse swing state representing the largest region in the country.

And joining me now are the two North Carolinians behind that op ed, Andrew Bates and Doug High. Doug, I think kind of wearing Carolina blue, a version of it, as you guys both point out, North Carolina, it's swing state. Donald Trump won it. So the Democratic governor, Josh signing 2024.

Douglas, are with you. Why is it a good reason to start voting there? Because as we put in the piece, this is a very diverse state. It is a growing state and it's also a very close one and not just on the presidential level where Donald Trump short he carried it three times but his biggest margin was 3.7%.

So that's not a blowout. If you look at Senate races through the years, we haven't had a double digit, double digit Senate victory since the Watergate election of 1974. And our Senate races and our gubernatorial races seem to go back and forth by a bit between R and D and they're always close. And you both reference Andrew, the target states, purple credentials, the demographics, those are things that you can do that can change over a year to year.

Why do you think a primary move should be permanent or should it be permanent or should the parties be always reevaluating this every election cycle? Well, like you Doug, we're talking about almost every recent election in North Carolina has been close and it has been contested. I was there in 2016 as the communications director for the Hillary Clinton's campaign where we fought hard to win it. Barack Obama won it in 2008 and this is a state that both parties are going to continue fighting hard for up and down ballot.

And I also think that it's important to take note that the south is by far the biggest region in the country. One in three Americans live in the South. And as Democrats work to make ourselves more competitive, I think that it would be very beneficial for us to hear that perspective from Southern voters in a large diverse swing state out of the gate as our presidential candidates start trying to make their case case. Andrew, your pitch does come after the DNC voting to start voting for Democrats in the other Carolina in 2024.

That led to some schedule and drama with New Hampshire. Obviously the state thinks it matters, but do voters care that much about this primary process? I think that this has more to do with us caring about hearing from voters in a new way because like you're talking about Iowa, New Hampshire have gone first for a long time and I don't know many Americans who think it is fair to the rest of the country for that to be permanent. I think that it would make sense to take into account where do most Americans live.

The south is by far the biggest region and as Democrats we have a lot of repairing to do our relationship with voters who we need to win in swing states like North Carolina. So I think it would say a lot if we shared that we wanted to listen to them, to hear from them and to figure out right as our contests start does it take to earn their supporters for your Republicans or Andrew's Democrats, especially considering the former RNC chair is an active Senate candidate. I think the Republicans are set in stone. I love the Iowa cause I ran communications for it in 2012, but I was not going to be in play.

And if we look at senator racism races, I was not really in play. New Hampshire a little bit, but North Carolina always in play. And regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats do this, it's good for both parties because you develop that farm team mentality where you're developing political talent on the grassroots level in counties and throughout the state. So many people come from Ireland, New Hampshire, who have very big political careers.

I want to grow that talent in North Carolina. Okay, well, I got both of you here. A Republican operative and a Democratic cooperative. Obviously, we come together on this issue.

But let me start with you, Doug. Are there other areas that Republicans and Democrats should be working together on? Can you about think something that is an issue that you can find common ground on in 2026 and beyond? Well, I start with where President Trump had enormous success on a bipartisan basis in his first term.

That was criminal justice reform. I think you can be for common sense criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenders without saying that you're weak on crime and so forth. Donald Trump did very well in that. He doesn't really talk about it anymore.

He tries to hide from some of that. I think there's a good opportunity to continue trying to do that kind of work. Andrew, what about you? What's an issue?

You think that Democrats could find common ground with Republicans on criminal justice reform being one, but are there others? I agree with Doug about criminal justice reform. Another one is monopolies and mega mergers, because there is a lot of concern in this country among people from all kinds of political points of view about how these companies that keep consolidating and eliminating competition are gaining more and more power over consumers and able to charge them in a lot of cases, whatever they want. I know this is Sally because of the conversation about Netflix, Paramount, but I think that there are a lot of folks, Democrats and Republicans, who want to hear from their leaders that they have the guts to take on some of these extremely powerful companies, especially when affordability is what Americans care about the most.

Okay, and what about. Are we both Tar Heels here? Andrew White. I know, I know.

Allegiance in North Carolina. Where's your side? I went to NC State. I'm a proud member of the Wolf Pack.

A member of the Wolf Pack. All right, well, listen, it's good to see that you have those allegiances. But you also can come together on an issue like this. We come together on hanging Duke as well.

That's also a common ground. Okay. Andrew Bates, Doug, Hi. Thank you guys both for being here.

I have a terrific holiday. I appreciate you being here on a holiday week. Thank you. And we'll be back tomorrow with more MEET THE press.

Now, thank you so much for joining me. There's more news ahead right now on NBC News. Now, He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention.

They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Manowitz, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Big Lab.

Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.