Meet the Press NOW — December 23

Hi, there. Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where the White House is facing more fallout from the release of new files tied to Jeffrey Epstein, including new documents that mention the president by name. It comes as the administration is trying to focus the spotlight on the economy after a blockbuster GDP report showed the nation's economy is growing faster than expected.

The president reacting, saying, quote, the Trump economic golden age is full steam ahead. But the good economic headlines for the White House are going to be overshadowed by bad headlines from the release of more Epstein files. This batch is the largest since Friday. Statutory deadlines release all the files.

And this batch contains the most direct references to Donald Trump, including a 2020 email from an Assistant U.S. attorney. 20 an unknown person setting flight records the Southern District apparently received as part of the Maxwell prosecution, saying, quote, donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously had been reported or what we were aware, including during the period we would expect to charge in a Maxwell case. It goes on to say that on two of the flights, two of the passengers respectively were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case.

Both the name of the sender and recipients of that email have been redacted, and the email does not accuse Mr. Trump of any wrongdoing. Other documents released in this latest batch include a report from an anonymous call to an FBI line From October of 2020, late in the first Trump administration and while the president was running for re election from someone claiming to be a limo driver for Mr. Trump in 2015.

That tips are claiming. During one ride, Trump continuously stated the name Jeffrey while on the phone and made references to abusing some girls. The Justice Department downplaying some of the allegations made against the president in today's release, saying, quote, some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, claims are unfound and false.

And if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already. President Trump also downplayed the issue last night when taking questions from reporters. What this whole thing is with Epstein is a way of trying to deflect from the tremendous success that the Republican Party has. But for instance, today we're building the biggest ships in the world, most powerful ships in the world, and they're asking me questions about Chef Epstein.

I thought that was finished. I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents and there's tremendous speculation. It's an interesting question because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people. They really had nothing to do with Epstein, but they're pictured with he was in a party and he ruined a reputation of somebody.

So a lot of people are very angry that this continues. A lot of Republicans are angry because the fact that it's just used to deflect against a tremendous success. The president's frustrations with the Epstein files comms, as I mentioned with the Bureau of Economic Analysis, reporting that the economy grew 4.3% in the third quarter of the year, far surpassing expectations. But new polling from Gallup shows that voters just aren't feeling it, which is 29% saying that economic conditions are getting better and a whopping 68% saying they're getting worse.

47% of Americans say the state of the economy is poor. That's up from 40% last month. 31% say the economy is fair. Just 19% say it's good.

There is 2% of the country that say it's excellent. NBC News senior White House correspondent Gary Haight joins me now, along with NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung, also Missy Maris, defense attorney and an NBC News legal analyst. Garrett, you're in studio. So let's start with you.

Let's dive deeper into this Epstein rules. We'll do that in a moment. It really is causing a headache for the White House. But let's talk about this strong economic data.

I mean, Americans still seem to have a negative view of the economy. What's the Trump administration doing to convince them otherwise? Well, clearly not enough. I mean, this is part of the problem.

The White House believes, the president believes that, you know, this social media posts and the fact that, you know, he's seen the stock market go up, these GDP numbers grow is enough in and of itself. They are trying, we know this from Susie Wise and the president saying it publicly to get the president out more to do this sales job about the idea that the economy is improving, but also it's going to continue to improve. That what they're very conscious of is not doing what they consider to be the Joe Biden sin here, which is telling people things are great when they don't feel it. They want to make sure they are promising out into the future that things will continue to improve for people.

The president is not particularly on message on that point, which has been part of their challenge here and also part of the challenge I know we'll get into a little more detail, is that things are not particularly great for Most people in the economy, that 2% is still excellent about it. He's probably the top 2%. They're doing a lot of spending, driving a lot of this growth. Yeah.

And is there any frustration about the polling? Do they feel annoyed that they feel that things are going on? It's not reflecting how people feel? Absolutely.

I mean, look, they believe that their economic prescription here is what ultimately will cure whales economy. I mean, they believe in their core. It starts with Donald Trump, who's never had a problem he doesn't think his tariffs can fix. You saw that today on social media, him claiming that it's the tariffs they're driving these numbers.

In some ways that's true, but they believe that there are what they call panic inside there. Those are the Republicans who panic at any sign that the numbers aren't going to be as good as they should be. Every time we get a release like today where the numbers beat expectations, the White House says not only are they not surprised, but people need to adjust their expectations accordingly. They are frustrated that they're not getting the credit that they deserve.

And I think they're still trying to get their arms around exactly how to, like, find that Goldilocks zone of selling what they've done without trying to tell people too much of, you know, what you're feeling in your wallet isn't real. Yeah. Let's bring Brian in and let's talk about these GDP numbers more. Brian, I mean, it really did shatter expectations.

I mean, what does that say about the state of the economy and what does it mean for the Fed? Could they do something with interest rates and etc. Yeah, I think that just contextualize the GDP numbers, if I may do. Unfortunately, a little bit of math right here.

What we're talking about when we say 4.3% growth in GDP, that is the pace that the American economy grew by in the June to September period, if it kept that pace for the entire year. So it did not grow by 4.3% just in those three months. That's the pace that it was going at. I know that sounds a little crazy, but I think it is an important distinction when you see the President going on through social and saying that at this rate, essentially the US economy could be growing by 20 GDP points over the course of the year.

That's not at all what this report says. But to your point, nonetheless, that 4.3% figure is still well above what Wall street economists were expecting somewhere in the 3% range. And a big reason why these numbers came in so Good was because of a reduction in imports. When that happens because of the accounting for GDP and there's more exports than there are imports, that juices these GDP numbers.

But I think to Garrett's question, what is the underlying reason for the consumption aspect of this, which was undoubtedly very strong, but is the consumption and the spending and this economy from people like you and me and people on Main street coming from the wealthy who can afford it, or is it coming from the lower income that are having those affordability issues? I think that that distinction from a political standpoint is a really important question. And this GDP report doesn't really get it because it doesn't really parse it out. And to your point, too, Brian, we can show you a report that says the economy's grown by 4.3%, but how does that impact the average American?

Yeah, well, I mean, it doesn't. I think that when we talk about gdp, again, I don't think people even really know what it stands for. Gross Domestic Product. That is the acronym.

But we're talking about the entire production of the United States economy. And that is not just consumption or imports, exports, like I just outlined, but other things like how much are businesses investing, how much is the government spending? And I think that a lot of people in economists will even tell you that GDP might not even be the most ideal measure how to measure an economy's growth, but nonetheless, it is generally seen as the North Star. The numbers are certainly positive, but this is not a direct translation how Main street is doing.

It's not even a direct translation to how Wall street is doing. What Wall street has had a great 2025. The GDP numbers are also very good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it matches the vibe that's happening on nature, with affordability being that word that we're hearing over and over again from people trying to buy groceries, trying to go out gift shopping. Such a cheer in the policies.

Yeah. So he can go to the bank and tell The Banker the GDP grew by 4.3%, giving a good rate on the mortgage. It just doesn't work that way. All right, Brian.

Sean, thank you for that analysis. We're going to turn now to the Epstein controversy, and we should know. We talked about the economy first, but we do have to talk about Epstein. You know, Garrett, what should we take away?

What's been the reaction so far from the White House as to what's been released here so far to this batch? Certainly we saw Donald Trump's name more than we had in any previous release. Yeah, look, there's been almost no reaction from the White House today to this new batch. I think some of that is by design.

They do not want to give us any more oxygen than it will already receive. Most of the reaction has been from the President yesterday, beyond a little bit of what that clip you just played, suggesting that, you know, Bill Clinton, who featured heavily in the first batch, so it was released, it's a big way that he can handle this on his own, and the President's own ruminations and frustrations, that he thinks a lot of other people who he believes are innocent will be kind of drawn into the story. And I think that gives away a little bit of his actual feelings about this. Despite the fact that he called for this transparency act to pass and the fact that he signs it, he does not want to be having this conversation, and he still views it as an enormous distraction.

So anything the White House can do to deprive the story of oxygen, they're happy to do. It's important to get your legal analysis on this because I'm sure many Americans are reading these documents and maybe they might be appalled. People aren't being called to jail based on what they're reading. From a legal standpoint, though, did anything in this release really jump out to you?

Well, there's a couple of things that did jump out to me, and part of it relates to what prosecutors were talking about shortly after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. There's a memo which has basically blacked out, but it says anticipated charges and investigative steps, just that heading. And it's talking about potentially going after co conspirators. It's talking about potential corporate prosecution.

And this is referenced in several different emails. So I think from the perspective of what are we looking for? What's the ultimate goal here? It was to identify potential co conspirators where there may still be a viable legal theory to prosecute.

Now, there's nothing solid in there, but it does tend to show that there was some continued investigation going on at that time. So to me, that was something that was very relevant in this most recent document exchange. I mean, we are kind of getting a look under the hood as to how investigations work with these documents. We see these tip sheets where witnesses are making serious allegations.

Already, though, we see the Justice Department raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of some of that. Is there skepticism warranted? And was it responsible for the Department of Justice to come out and make such a declarative statement about some of the material that was released today? Yeah, and I think maybe Part of that was because you do see Donald Trump's name peppered throughout these documents that were released.

And while there's no accusations of wrongdoing, there are certain documents that, to me, are very relevant on that front. For instance, a 2020 email from an unidentified prosecutor which is saying that Donald Trump was on Jeffrey Epstein's plane a lot more than we knew. This is being sent to somebody else internally. And why I say this is relevant is that it's eight times between 1993 and 1996 for Glenn Maxwell.

Now, let's remember what Galene Nassau was Prosecuted for conduct 1984-97. So there's that overlap. So things like that, DOJ protocols, I would have expected to see more documents escalating that all the way up to the top, even if we're talking about the President being potential witness. So there are some things in here that I think the DOJ is trying to get ahead of.

They're trying to say that it's not necessarily all credible. And that could be true because we're talking about the results of an investigation, not necessarily what was enough to move forward with the prosecution. So it's different standards, but there's absolutely things in these documents that do jump out, especially when you're looking at those critical time frames. But it's not the DOJ's responsibility to run cover for Donald Trump.

Right. I mean, it's one thing for them to offer us up the proper context here, right? That these are uncorroborated, they would require more investigation. They don't necessarily mean that anyone is guilty or innocent of something.

But to make the declared a statement that the President did anything wrong, or also we can take a step further, suggest that it was some sort of political witch hunt. I mean, that's out of the ordinary for the doj, isn't it? Or certainly should be. The DOJ should be neutral in that respect.

They're in the pursuit of justice, not going for the whim of any political figure or the President. So to your point, making those types of declarative statements about a conclusion like that, a legal conclusion is out of the ordinary. And of course, the warning that, look, there's going to be information in here that does not say if somebody did anything wrong or is legally liable or criminally responsible for anything, that makes perfect simply Right. Taking that next leap, I think of a lot of the reasons why there's some skepticism about the transparency, even given the name of the act.

But what's really happening from the doj and whether or not. We're really getting the full story from the public perspective, which was the goal of the law. Yeah, and Missy raises the point, Garrett. I mean, part of this is about regaining the American people's trust in their government.

In terms of this case in particular, if you had the DOJ coming out and running interference for Donald Trump, which we've seen them do in the past, this is not a new precedent that they're necessarily setting. Doesn't that. Couldn't that potentially undermine the public's faith in this entire exercise? And do you think the White House is aware of that, or is the mandate take care of President Trump if you were.

I can't speak to the mandate is on this particular issue, but I will say this would be like example 30 of instances in which this White House has eliminated the normal barriers that exist between the Department of Justice and the White House. They exist for this reason. I mean, presidents going back since after the Watergate era have tried very hard to keep their hands off of the Department of Justice to make sure that exactly this kind of thing, you don't get this perception of White House interference. Donald Trump has thrown out the window entirely.

He fors himself as the chief law enforcement officer. He's basically been directing prosecutions from his social media account. And so they have gone down this road for quite a long time. Trying to suddenly restore credibility here, I think, would be a very tough sell.

As you know, I'm a little bit of pessimist about anybody giving a ton of credibility to these releases. I think in an age of AI everything and nobody trusts what they see on their social media platform. One of the things the President frequently says about this, that I do think he is right about, is that there will never be enough of a release here to fully satisfy people who think that the government is hiding. Especially when we have conspiracy theory, it's hard to ever get validation when it comes to conspiracy theory.

Misty, before you go, I'd like your expertise on this possibility of 10 additional co conspirators. There is a document where there's communication between investigators where they suggest that there are 10 other co conspirators that need to be interviewed. As far as we know, there's only two people that have been convicted of any crimes related to abst and that would be Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Should we learn more about who these co conspirators are?

Well, it seems that that would be the goal, to find out who these co conspirators are and to ascertain what the conduct Allegedly is and whether or not there's a viable charge to bring down the road. And that's why when I was going through this most recent batch of documents, those documents relating to investigations that were taking place with respect to co conspirators were of particular interest. Because the question is, will there be charges down the road? At this point, there has been nothing.

And there's been nothing that has come at least from the Department of Justice. But the question is why? I'm looking back to some of the conduct of the DOJ back 1996, this, this deal that was 2009 in Florida. The question is, where does that end?

Is there more to come? Okay, excellent as always. Gary Hake, Mr. Berri, thank you both.

Enjoy your holiday. We thank you for being here. Thank you so much. Breaking news after the Supreme Court just blocked the president's deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

Also coming up, strikes, seizures and soaring tensions. President Trump's latest warning to the Maduro regime in Venezuela as the US Military conducts yet another lethal strike on an alleged drug vessel. Plus, advance, advance inside the VP's early games with parts of the MAGA coalition as he begins to set his sights on 2028. You're watching me depress now.

Welcome back. We are following breaking news out of the Supreme Court, which has just blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Illinois. The justice is rejecting the White House's claim that the troops are needed to protect federal agents carrying out immigration enforcement, particularly in and around the Chicago area. The decision represents a rare defeat for this administration by this conservative leaning court.

Joining me now is ABC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. So, Lawrence, what did the justice say in the ruling? Yeah, as you said, this is a pretty significant setback for the Trump administration because the court was saying here that this law that the Trump administration was trying to use to deploy National Guard in Chicago basically couldn't be used at this point because that law says the president can deploy the National Guard when the regular forces are unable to execute the laws. And the court said regular forces doesn't refer to local police.

It refers to the US Military. And even if you could try to bring in the US Military to do this, there weren't any circumstances that would allow that to happen either. So it's kind of a double restriction on the president's ability to use this law as he's been trying to use it so far. No five justices who signed on to that out of the nine.

So it's a significant setback for this administration. And there was a split though, among the court's six conservative justices. What do you make of that? Yeah, I mean, you can see the conservative majority in the court isn't always in lockstep.

There's six conservatives. Three of them were in dissent this time. And they said at this point, this kind of preliminary point in the case, they thought that the president had the better of these arguments. But even then they were kind of divided on to what extent they thought the president could do this.

I think justice and Neil Gorsuch, for example, seems pretty lukewarm about the whole thing, but just said it's preliminary so we shouldn't be weighing in. So there's lots of moving parts in this case. They actually took a really long time to decide, even though it's supposedly on the emergency docket. And that's a sign of how the court found this difficult to deal with.

And of course, this is just the situation in Illinois. Will this ruling apply to sending National Guard troops to other parts of the country or is it just Democratic led states? Yeah, I think it's likely to have a huge impact on these other cases that we've seen. The Trump administration has really been trying to send in National Guard to a lot of Democratic run cities and those are being challenged too and are currently in the courts.

And I think the rationale that the screen call later here is going to be a huge setback to the Trump administration, not just in Illinois, but in all these other cases as well. Okay, Lawrence early, thank you for that. We appreciate it. Turning now to Venezuela, where President Trump is showing no sign of backing down for his pressure campaign against President Nicolas Maduro, issuing this warning last night as he took questions from reporters while announcing a new class of battleships.

Why should Maduro take your threat seriously? Seriously, we can do whatever he wants. Maduro, what's your end game? There's no answer.

He can do whatever he wants. We have a massive armada for him, the biggest we've ever had and by far the biggest we've ever had in South America. He could do whatever he wants. It's all right.

Whatever he wants to do. If he wants to do something. If he plays tough, it'll be the last time he's ever able to play tough. The president also telling reporters that the US Is still pursuing a third oil tanker known as the Bell One, off the coast of Venezuela, saying, quote, will end up getting it.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense releasing this video yesterday of its latest lethal military strike on an alleged drunk boat. The administration describing it as a low Profile vessel operated by designated terrorist organizations. The Pentagon says one man was killed in the strike, but didn't provide any additional details or proof that the boat was carrying drugs to the US it brings a total number of US lethal strikes to 29, with 104 reported deaths. Joining me now is Will Freeman.

He's a Fellow for Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Will, thanks for being here. I mean, how do you expect Maduro will respond to this latest threat by President Trump? Is there a lot of pressure that Maduro's feeling now given these latest escalations?

Look, targeting the oil tankers is more significant than the brevost. And the idea that some amount of the regime was sustained by little speedboats carrying packets of cocaine across the Caribbean, that was just ludicrous. The oil actually does matter. It's the economic lifeblood of the regime.

Now, that said, this is a dictator in Venezuela who showed incredible capacity to survive economic hardship and pressure before. We should remember that Venezuela, as of 2019 was already experiencing what economists call the worst economic crisis outside of the war zone in the past few decades. He survived all of that. He kept his generals unified around him.

He quashed two attempts, honestly, unfortunately, I'm pretty passive here. I think that Maduro has shown in capacity to survive in office. He's probably going to survive this too. And just look at Cuba, right?

That's a country where we've been putting economic pressure since the 1960s. It's even more miserable economically than Venezuela, and yet there the regime survives. Is it also unclear what the goal of this US Pressure campaign is for the President to talk about drugs? He's talked about oil, he's talked about regime change.

Does it seem like there's a clear strategy? No, no, not to me. Now, it could be that the administration has a motive, it has an end game. That's just not telling us.

But the public messages and even private ones are incredibly scattered. I mean, you have on the one hand Secretary Noam, Secretary Hegseth, excuse me, Secretary Rubio and President himself going out and saying in different ways and using it for words that the end goal is regime change. But then you have Secretary for Hexath and Rubio just last week briefing a group of Senate Republicans saying that the goal is not regime change. Right?

So I don't know what we're supposed to make of this. Right? Is this pressure to get Maduro make some kind of deal on oil, on assets, on stopping drugs? Is this ultimately, as Trump is himself implied, the goal here, regime change?

We're not being given a clear answer. And I think that's part of why you see 70% of the US public opposing further military action in Venezuela, while you see even Republicans very divided on starting to push back. I know you think that regime change is probably unlikely, at least in the short term. But if it were to occur, how destabilizing would that be in Venezuela and would it practically do anything when it comes to the illicit drug network?

Yeah, that's a great question. So first, on the, on the matter of stability, look, I think that some Democrats, critics of the president are going too far when they say that Venezuela is automatically balanced to become like a Libya or in Iraq. Okay. Let's remember that this is not a country with deep ethnic divisions.

This is not a country with deep religious divisions of any kind. Yes, there are armed militias close to the current government and those could be a disruptive factor, but it's not similar to the context we've seen in the Middle East. I mean, this country with a long history of decades of having had a democracy before Maduro's predecessor came to power. So I don't think it's likely that Maduro goes.

If he does go, I'm probably a little bit more optimistic than the president's most strongest critics out there about what happens next. Now, I don't understand the difficulty though, that the real object will be the military. So currently Maduro governs the country with the military. Maduro, if we get them to take off, will be got.

The military will still be there. Right. That's still very much a match of crime, corruption. And whoever comes in office next is going to have to deal with that.

So it's very unpredictable. It's a tricky, it'll be a tricky scenario. And you also asked about drugs. Now, even if there's an opposition like government, are they all of a sudden going to be able to control the entire country including its borders with Colombia, rural areas where drugs are trafficking the country, all the ports?

No, no, they're not going to be able to do that right off the bat. So using will see drug trafficking continue. Again, drug trafficking, though that's mostly bad for Europe, we keep forgetting this. But the key country process is really concerned about stopping flow of deadly drugs in the U.S.

that's Mexico. And if you ask me, that's really the should be posted in posse. Okay. Well, Freeman, excellent expertise.

We appreciate, sir. Thank you. Up next, wicker of discontent. New polling shows voters are closing out the year in a sour mood with little confidence in the economy.

The President, the corruption leaders and the direction of the country. The panel digs into the potential fallout you can hear on Meet the Press. Now get the best of NBC News with a subscription viewer ads C for access and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity Member Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

Head to xiny.com membership to learn more. Xin Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20, 2026. Price is subject to change.

Visit nbcnews.comxfinity for full offer terms and details. 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.

And we're back. The President's Mega base making Nearing a moment of reckoning with possible cracks growing within the coalition Yesterday, more than a dozen staff members of the Heritage foundation, the think tank behind Project 2025, left the organization instead joining a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Vice President J.D. vance is trying to lock down factions of the MAGA coalition ahead of 2028.

While speaking at Turning Points USA America Fest 2025, the Vice President looked to paint the MATA base as a big tent coalition. President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless self defeating security tests. He says make America great again because every American is invited. We don't care if you're white or black, rich or poor, young or old, rural or urban, controversial or a little bit boring or somewhere in between.

Joey now is a panel Democrat strategist Joel Payne and Noel Rothman, a senior writer at the National Review. No, let's dig into this growing grip within the MAGA coalition. It seems as though Vice president's trying to just gloss over it. Is that enough?

Or does he actually need to kind of confront the issues that are at the core of this rip, particularly among these conservative podcasters. There's accusations of racism, antisemitism, and they're really aimed at each other right now. Is it enough just to say we all love each other and move on? Well, the vice president's objectives sort of conflict.

He has an objective as a constitutional officer and as the as a member of the executive branch and he has an obligation as a political official and somebody who wants to succeed the president as the head of the Republican Party. And those two objectives aren't entirely aligned when it comes to confronting, as you say, elements of the coalition that JD Vance is attempting to assemble. The Manhattan Institute had a really good set of data set that they put out last week, two weeks ago, about the nature of the Republican coalition. To summarize all the Data, essentially roughly 60% of the Republican Party is conventionally conservative of The Republican before 2016, before Trump, prefers limited government, prefers supply side economics, etc.

There's a minority in that coalition, which is much louder, which is much more conspiratorial, and which I think the podcast base that you're talking about appeals to. And Jay Vance is attempting to paper over the distinctions there. But it is a minority within maga. The MAGA movement, which includes conventional Republicans and new entrants, as Manhattan Institute calls them, is very diverse and very broad and focused on only one element of that coalition, particularly loud element that makes themselves hard to ignore.

May miss the forest for the trees. Yeah. But then takes decides in this debate over the rise of antisemitism in particular within the MEGA coalition. How dangerous is that if you just let that infighting fester?

Yeah, Ryan, it's a good point. It kind of seems like JD Vance's view here is all cranks matter, which might do him okay at AmFest for today, but I don't think it's gonna age well. I think it's gonna help him hold that Republican coalition together long term. You know, a couple lines on this.

So I look at this as a Democrat, right. And there's a party that's actually a little bit j. In this sense, the Democratic Party needs messy public conversations like this. Not like this per se, not the actual content of the conversations that Republicans are having.

But politics, democracy, Putting coalitions together is messy and is iterative. And I actually think Democrats could actually take some lessons from not trying to have everything so tidy and neat and allowing some of these things to play out in public. That said, the Republican issue that they're having here is that the types of conversations that they're having are not popular. They are not populist, they are minimalist, they are reductive, and they will drive people away from their coalition.

So look, I'm four messy public conversations. I'm four primaries, I'm four difficult, confrontational political movements bring coalitions together. I am not for the things that are popularized on that stage. America Fest.

Yeah, well, it's interesting you make that point though, Joel, about wanting to have those messy conversations because there's two things happening right now in the Democratic Party like your take on first, you have the DNC deciding not to even release an autopsy of what went wrong in 2024. And then you also have this growing movement of moderate Democrats really upset with the fact that there are primary challengers that come from further down the left side of the political sphere. Is that exactly what you're talking about? Should they welcome this autopsy?

Should they welcome these primary challenges? Ryan, even from satellite yeah, that is. That is exactly what I'm getting at. I think that look, the Democratic Party has tried I think the last couple of cycles particularly to be a little bit more top down and look at understandable why parties reflexively go into that mode.

I don't think that we're in a season right now for the Democratic Party where you should be, you know, shoving conversations under the rug or preventing people from having difficult confrontational conversations that are going to get messy on you in public. I think Democrats are point in their coalition building where they need to hear the things that are hard to hear. They need to hear from the disparate groups that were unhappy in 2024. They need to hear about the difficulties in coalition building and they need primaries to be competitive all over the country.

You need a competitive primary in Maine between Graham Platner and between Janet Belgian E1 and Texas between Talario and Crockett. That's healthy at this stage. The Democratic Party rebuilding trust with the public. Okay, that's interesting.

No, I want to go to you now. I think many of us had maybe written off Vice President Mike Pence's future in politics, of course unsuccessfully challenged President Trump with the Republican nomination. Never even made it to the primary process. But now out of the blue, his political action group is think tank is picking up staffers from the Heritage foundation which was directly tied to the MAGA movement rope project 2025.

Does this tell us anything about his standing with the Republican Party? Is there a heartbeat that there it tells you a lot about Mike Pence. First of all, he's inoculated. He's been through the ringer.

There's very few things that you could sling at him I think would stick at this point. But it says much more about conservative ideology to which Heritage foundation scholars and members who are attracted to the institution Fellows with the institution visiting fellows with the institution are still subscribers, still believe in small government, in limited constitutional authority and supply side economics and in abandoning the conspiratorial thinking that has become so prevalent, as we discussed, on the more alternative side of the right wing aisle. And we're talking about people who've been lifetime officials within Heritage, members of the conservative movement, good standing, including, for example, the Meese former attorney general who's taking his center, his legal center at Heritage and moving it over to McKenzie's shop. This is much more about an ideology and a movement than it is personalities.

In that sense, it is a healthy demonstration that the Republican Party has not ceded entirely the brain trust to Donald Trump, his movement, his personality. All right, we got just a little bit time left. I'm putting up a graph for you guys to show you what Americans think about the leading political figures right now. There isn't a single person on this list who are probably the most powerful people in politics right now, even at 40%.

Quickly, Noah, what does this tell us about where what Americans think about their politicians? And does it present an opening for someone that we're not even thinking about in 28? It absolutely does. To the point about how the Democratic Party needs, you know, open and sort of messy internal debates.

True, but careful what you wish for. The party as an institution should be a commander, captain of its own destiny and should not submit itself and its destiny to the primary electorate, which is wildly unrepresentative of the broader general electorate. Even a brown representative of the broad Democratic Party as a Republican who went through this 10 years ago and continues to go through it, the newest Republican Party have stood up for its own identity and it's since constitutional direction. Democracy is something that happens between the parties, not necessarily inside of one.

Okay, we're leaving there. I wanted to give you the last word, Joel, but no one just kept talking. I'm just kidding. That was my, that was my apology.

I appreciate you guys both have a very happy holiday. After the break. Lone Star Standoff. Meet the House Democrat running for Texas Senate and facing a potentially bruising primary battle against a rising star in her own party.

It's a top race to watch for a reason. That's next. I MEET the PRESS now. Welcome back.

Turning now to one of the Senate races that both parties are keeping a close eye on heading into the 2026 primary season. Incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn is facing primary challenges for not one, but two MAGA loyalists, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Congressman Wesley Hunt. While on the progressive side. I'm sorry, on the Democratic side, progressive Congressman Jasmine Crockett jumped into the race just hours before the filing deadline and will face off against State Representative James Talarico, who grew his national profile while fighting the GOP's redistricting push in Texas.

NBC's Gabe Gutierrez recently spoke with Congresswoman Crockett as part of our Meet the Press, Meet the Candidate series and began by asking her what her internal polling said about getting into this race. My polling said I should run. That's pretty much what it said. Listen, you know, polling for me was a benchmark to determine whether or not I was really competitive.

I will tell you that it showed that I am absolutely competitive to the extent that some people are probably very concerned about the fact that I entered this race. Thus, I've been on the receiving end of lots of lots of love, we'll say it that way, since I've injured. Well, look, Democrats have been trying to flip the seat for quite a while now. What makes you think you can do this differently and actually be successful this time?

Yeah, well, something's a little different about me, so we can start there. But no, I think that when I look at everything, when I pour over historical data, when I talk to other candidates that have run statewide, from talking to Colin Albright to talk to festival work, to examine kind of what all happened in those cases, as well as talk to people like 68 rooms about what that looks like in Georgia, I came to the conclusion that there are a couple of things that give us advantage. Number one is this environment is a terrible environment for Republicans. Number two, we know right now that they are going to be locked into a race, most likely until May.

We've not seen them have to kind of go at it and fight for such a long amount of time. And number four, we historically start with a candidate who has a great resume, but unfortunately doesn't have necessarily the name ID. And so when we're talking about $100 million raise, we're starting and that money has to be spent just so starts to learn that person's name and starts to build a rapport. At least walking into this race, we know that our first dollars, they go to actually turning people out and more so towards persuasion and expansion.

It's hard to expand if the base itself still is trying to know you are speaking of name recognition, there is an occupant at the White House who I cover on a daily basis who knows exactly who you are, brings you up quite a bit. Is that part of the reason why you say you have such high name recognition and aren't you the foil that Republicans want to run against? That's exactly what they like to put out there. But I don't know how many poker players normally reveal their hands before they win.

And so that is what they're saying. Now, going to your first question about the name of D, I think it's a couple of things. Number one, we've always done layered communications. So my communications have not been limited to cable news networks.

It's been quite expensive from radio to local radio to nationally syndicated radio to podcasts to news stations, local as well as national PR as well as tv as well as we've built our own ecosystem. I actually have more followers on our YouTube channel than anyone else in House or the Senate and YouTube. The reason I specifically bring it up is because that's where a lot of people go for a lot of information. So people will go and watch those longer form videos of the work that I'm doing, whether we're talking about my teletown halls, which I do those once a quarter, or I even send out weekly emails of everything that I've done in the district of the week.

So that's part of it. Obviously, the president saying my name also makes people say, well, who is Jasmine Crockett if they don't know who I am? So that's definitely put it out there as well. But you obviously see an opening here still.

This is Texas has a lot of supporters in Texas. And one of the key issues in Texas is, of course, immigration. You, of course, have been an outspoken critic of the president's mass deportation policies and of ice. But a lot of voters, a lot of Americans who voted for President Trump think that he has done a strong job at the border.

In fact, border encounter numbers are down and the president is touting that as a success. You obviously have issues with the way he's going about it, but has the president been successful? Can you acknowledge that on bringing border encounters down? I will acknowledge that what is being reported is that border encounters are lower.

I will also say that we know this administration has not been the most honest when it comes to reporting numbers, as we know that there's now reporting that they've not been honest about the jobs numbers. What I can tell you is that he has invoked a very inhumane way of carrying out immigration. But I also can tell you is that he has not worked through the Congress and that's what we need is comprehensive immigration reform. What I also can tell you is that we have a historic number of people that have died in ICE custody since he's been in what I also can tell you that we have a historic number of American citizens that have been rounded up.

And what I can also tell you is that discipline court unfortunately has basically given him carte blanche to go after people because of an accent or because of what they look like. And that is wrong. Now, the administration will come back and say that it's a Biden administration who is inhumane by allowing chaos, in their words, to go forward. The border, that was a chaotic policy and that there was a lot of sex trafficking going on by a lot of migrants that were coming to the US The Trump White House says they cut down on that.

Your response? They may say that, but ultimately what I know is that we can't. So let me say it this way. I can't say that the border has ever been perfect, and I can't say that I believe that the border is perfect right now.

So let me acknowledge that. What I do believe again, though, is that we need to focus on comprehensive immigration reform, and that means the Congress has to get involved. Because what I can tell you is that we've already been behind on asylum cases. We know that our judges have already been overloaded.

And that was prior to Covid. We're talking about backlog of seven years. That was not making it safe for us because we were not ascertaining whether or not certain people should be in this country. Quickly, Senator Cornman reacted to your Senate campaign, told Semaphore, quote, am I hiding my glee?

I'll try to wipe the smile off my face. I would say it's a gift. Colin Allred obviously wasn't successful before, but he was what I would call closer to a normal Democrat than Jasmine. She is something else.

What's your response? Yeah, well, you know what's. Considering the fact that normal Democrats have been losing, I think that this is absolutely the fight that we need at this moment. I also can tell you that it's quite disappointing that the senator has decided that he has to kind of tout this negative kind of Persona in order to win over in his primary.

I can tell you that the senator, frankly, when there came down to certain things, he was a good partner. I had legislation that I brought from the state level around fentanyl. He's been a partner on that legislation. I had legislation around food security.

He's been a partner on that legislation. We actually had President Joe Biden sign a bill of ours into law. It was about grant transparency. He actually was more like a normal Republican than these times have called for.

But I do think that in this current environment, we probably don't need a normal Democrat, if we are going to do the abnormal thing like winning in Texas. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you so much for talking. Absolutely. And thank you to Congresswoman Andy Gabe.

Up next, the year in Memorial, we'll take a moment to pay tribute to the politicians, journalists and cultural figures that we lost in 2025. Same with us. I'm at the Press now. Welcome back.

As the year comes to an end, we want to take a little time to pause and remember some of the iconic people in politics, culture and the media who we lost this year. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. The oath the president and I take when we're sworn in up there on Capitol Hill is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And we've done everything within our power and within the Constitution, in fact, respond that objective.

When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against everybody. What we as a culture have to get back to is we have that reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option. I want to be remembered for having helped people to understand the true nature of animals, that they do matter as individuals, that they do have a part to play in the scheme of things.

And they're not just objects, they're beings. These are civil rights issues. And there is one group of people in this country that is not regarded equal under the law. There will be gay marriage in this country without question, because we cannot look at our fellow citizens and say that they deserve less than than we in the heterosexual community.

One single thing about which I have learned more since I've been out of White House is how we can potentially at least help to elevate the life and hope of people who pray for peace, who pray for freedom, who pray for human rights, who pray for the alleviation of suffer. And we now pay very little attention to them. And we'll be back next week with more MEET THE PRESS now. But if it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS on your local NBC news station.

Chris will have a special Meet the Moment edition of the show featuring interviews with Hoda Kapi, Mel Robbins, Marcus Samuelson and John M. Chewy. Do not want to miss it. And for all of us at MEET THE Press and the MEET THE PRESS family, we wish you and yours a happy holidays and a happy and healthy new year.

Thanks so much for joining. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink this month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple.

Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about Ricardo, recovery for new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.