Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where the Trump administration is not backing down on its strategy of lethal but legally questionable strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels, even amid all the scrutiny surrounding the double tap strike on a boat back in September, with some lawmakers still wanting more clarification and answers from the Pentagon. Yesterday, the Defense Department announced it carried out another lethal strike on a suspected vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing four so-called narco terrorists on board. Like all the other strikes, the administration did not provide any evidence that this boat was carrying illegal drugs or any details about the individuals killed.
It comes after top military officials briefed a select group of lawmakers yesterday, showing them video of a second strike the U.S. military carried out against an alleged drug cartel vessel in September, after the first strike took out the boat but failed to kill everyone on board. The briefing satisfying some members, not others. I'm not questioning how our armed forces are carrying out their orders.
I'm questioning why the administration is engaging in this campaign and whether this is justified. I'm going to say the video was very troubling, and I think more people need to see it. But I want to better understand process, justification, and some of the items. I had a checklist of items that I want to see that I think many of my colleagues at that time as well.
As the White House doubles down on using wartime tactics without a war authorization, last night the White House unveiling its national security strategy, outlining this administration's foreign policy doctrine. In the 33-page document, the White House called for a readjustment of the U.S. global military presence in the Western Hemisphere, saying a more suitable Coast Guard and Navy presence is needed to thwart illegal and unwanted migration and reduce human and drug trafficking. The document was also highly critical of traditional allies in Europe and called for the expeditious end to the war in Ukraine.
Joining me now, NBC News international security correspondent Courtney Kube and NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake. Thanks to both of you for starting us off. Courtney, let me start with you. You were all over Capitol Hill yesterday talking to the lawmakers who were briefed.
Before we get to the briefings, I just want to ask you about this breaking news overnight. The fact that the Pentagon— the defense secretary—basically doubling down on this strategy and ordered yet another strike overnight. What do you know about it? Literally announcing it as Admiral Bradley, the head of SOCOM, Special Operations Command, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs were leaving the Hill after briefing all day behind closed doors.
The secretary of defense and U.S. Southern Command putting out a posting on social media that there was yet another strike. Four people were killed this time in the Eastern Pacific. The reality is this just shows exactly what we're hearing from administration officials, particularly at the Pentagon.
And that is they have no intention of stopping these strikes. They believe that they are fully legal and lawful, and they are not going to slow down. The reality is, though, yesterday's briefings were about the September 2nd strike. But there is a larger issue here and a larger thing that we keep hearing from these lawmakers as well, and that is the legality or questionable legality of the strikes overall.
Yeah, and I think that's going to continue to be in focus, Courtney. There's no doubt about that. And you were pressing all of these lawmakers who were in these very select briefings. And one thing that stood out to me, you and I have kind of been talking about this, the fact that we heard such different reactions from the lawmakers, and it really seemed to come down along party lines.
What did you make of it? What did you hear? And it wasn't just the reactions to things like, was this a war crime? Are these legal or illegal?
It was facts about what they saw in the video. So each one of them, they watched the full video, both General Kane and primarily Admiral Bradley walked them through what they were seeing at the time. And yet they came out, again, completely down the aisle. One side came out saying that the strikes were illegal and unlawful and that these certain things happened.
And the other side saying the other. So it just shows that this entire story has been very difficult. There's very little transparency out of the Pentagon and the military about it. And because these briefings were behind closed doors in a classified setting, all we're getting is what the lawmakers are telling us.
One of the aspects of all of this, Courtney, that stands out to me, this is one of the first times that we're really seeing oversight, robust oversight, by Congress of this administration. And to the point that you were making earlier, the question really seems to revolve around, does the president need to go to Congress if he wants to continue this? Do you have a sense, based on your conversations with those lawmakers yesterday, that that's still a live ball? Are they going to continue to press that issue?
Yes, they absolutely are. And so the question is, will there need to be an authorization of use of military force? People aren't talking about that quite as much, but there is more momentum for a possible war powers resolution here. And I think what would definitely put that over is if we hear more talk and more movement about possible strikes on land.
So not just the boat strikes in international waters, but actual strikes inside Venezuela in a sovereign nation. That is what seems to be what would trigger especially a war powers resolution. And of course, President Trump is signaling that that could, in fact, be what we see next. Courtney Cuban, thanks for joining us after a big and very busy week.
We really appreciate it. Great to have you here. Garrett, let me turn to you outside of a snow covered White House. Let's talk about what I was just discussing with Courtney.
And I want to start where we started the conversation, which is the fact that Secretary Hegseth ordered yet another strike. Do you have the sense that the White House backs this strategy completely? Is there any daylight, Garrett, between the White House and the defense secretary? Not at this moment, Kristen.
I mean, this is sort of classic Trump going back through his campaigns to never admit weakness, never admit the challenges to your argument. And when pressed, press back even harder. Here you have a White House who is convinced, or at least is saying publicly that they are convinced the strikes that they are pursuing are legal. And they're going to pursue them to the maximum strategy, the maximum amount possible every day if they can.
It presents a situation where ultimately the president is the decider here. Hegseth is the tool implementing that policy. And this is something that Hegseth seems to have learned well going back to his confirmation hearings where the White House made clear they wanted to see him fight. As long as he is out there aggressively pursuing the policy that is candidly kind of the only Trump administration foreign policy with any motion to it right now.
When you consider these Ukraine talks have been outsourced to outside aides. This is sort of the only game in town. And if Hegseth is pursuing it aggressively, he's likely to continue to have the backing of this White House. Well, let me follow up with you on that, Garrett, because we did hear President Trump give his backing to Secretary Hegseth.
And at the start of this administration, you and I had reporting on what was being referred to as a no scalps policy. It seems like that's still in place, as far as I can tell. Yeah, in terms of cabinet officials being pushed out, I think that's absolutely the case. The administration is loathe to be seen to bow to pressure from the outside, be it pressure from Congress, Democrats, from the media.
When someone gets pushed out, they tend to get pushed up. Take, for example, Mike Waltz, who was kind of the original sin in the single gate operation, ended up as a Senate confirmed ambassador to the United Nations. Other officials who have left have either left of their own accord, just simply saying they're leaving, or have become nominees to be ambassadors or given other roles. The idea that Hegseth would be pushed out abruptly or in some kind of ugly way during the pressure campaign is anathema to Susie Wiles, President Trump and the folks who run this White House.
Yes, such great context. Garrett, let me ask you, because we also saw President Trump today receive the FIFA Peace Prize, a symbolic gesture. He was pressed on whether this runs counter to all of this military action he's been taking in the Caribbean. How did he respond to that?
What's the line from the White House and the president? Tying himself into a bit of a rhetorical knot here, suggesting that the actions he's taking in the Caribbean are about peace and about protecting this country. They're not in some way about violence. I suppose you could argue that since this isn't a war, the same argument that's being used against it, that he's not breaking some kind of peace vow here.
But it goes to show the challenges this administration has to sell President Trump and the America First agenda as this peace president, but also running this unprecedented bombing campaign in Latin America. All right, Garrett Haake, thank you so much for joining us. Great reporting, as always, after a very busy news week. We really appreciate it.
We do want to turn now to some breaking news out of the CDC. The agency's vaccine advisory panel today voted to end a decades-long vaccine recommendation that every newborn receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth. The vote goes against public health consensus on the vaccine, which a 2024 CDC analysis found prevented an estimated 6 million infections and 1 million hospitalizations since 1991 when the CDC instituted the recommendation. Major medical organizations decrying the decision.
Ahead of the vote, the president of the American College of Physicians addressing the You know, Kristen, I would say that what we saw today was a farce if it wasn't such an important day in terms of the health of children. You know, I worked at the CDC for 13 years, and it breaks my heart to say that I don't think people should listen to the CDC anymore when it comes to vaccine recommendations. When the ACIP, this committee, typically meets, and they're looking at making a change in a recommendation, it's always been because there's been a signal that either there's a safety concern or there's an opportunity to protect more children. By taking on the newborn dose of hepatitis B vaccine, something that has been shown to pretty much eliminate this infection in children and has absolutely no safety concerns, they are moving us back to a day when we are going to see thousands of children get this infection and many of those children go on to develop liver failure.
And that's unbelievable to me that our nation's public health agency can be moving in that direction. Given what you are saying, Dr. Besser, that you could have an increased instances of children getting this infection, could that impact the adult population as well, including adults who were vaccinated decades ago? Well, here's the thing.
I'm a pediatrician, and I've practiced pediatrics for more than 30 years, and I don't think I ever saw a case of hepatitis B infection. And there's a reason for that. It may not be because they were not occurring, but when these infections occur in young children, there are usually no symptoms whatsoever. Some children will clear the infection and do fine.
Then there's a group of children that will go on to develop something called chronic hepatitis, where the virus is still living in their liver. And over time, their liver can fail. They can develop liver cancer. And that often happens either in adolescence or in adulthood.
So the changes from this recommendation, we probably won't see it for decades, and we'll only see if the CDC is collecting good data. And we've seen a destruction in the ability of the CDC to even collect that kind of information. So this is going to be one of those kind of silent killers that we may not detect for a very long time. Wow.
Well, you are saying that people shouldn't trust the information coming from the CDC or ACIP. What should families do, Dr. Besser? Where can they go for accurate information if you are expecting, if you have a young child?
What should families think about doing to acquire accurate information? Well, you know, a few things. One is it speaks to the importance of everyone in our country having a health care provider, a doctor, a nurse practitioner, someone who they can trust and turn to to help sort through the very confusing information. Policy makers should be looking to medical societies, the Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, to give the recommendations.
Insurance companies should no longer look to CDC. They should look to these medical societies. You know, when I was hearing Senator Cassidy talk about what's happening today, it gave me hope because it's our legislators who have to step up and say what's happening at CDC is unacceptable. Our nation deserves to be protected from these infections.
And having a secretary of health with such a strong anti-vaccine agenda that he is marching forward on puts us all at risk. And just to be clear, so in its recommendation, the panel said women who are hep B negative can still opt in for the birth dose in consultation with their provider. Currently, the standard is women can opt out. Can you tell us what that change might mean?
Yeah, so so the way it works is if a woman is tested and is hepatitis B positive, the recommendation is that their newborn baby gets the hepatitis B vaccine. This is very similar to what the recommendations were before 1991. And they helped reduce the number of cases dramatically, but there were still thousands that occurred. The reason for that is a woman can become positive after she's tested.
A child can get this infection in ways apart from from his or her mother. And so, you know, a parent who a mom who tests negative, who wants her child to be vaccinated, can do so. They're recommending that that occur not before two months of age. And what happens is children fall through the cracks.
Information doesn't get passed along. And so we're going to see we have such a terrible health care system in terms of follow up and continuity that we are going to see children who are missed. And in particular, lower income children who may be less likely to have a care provider who's with them on a regular basis. So, you know, this is a challenge.
It's something that I hope doesn't set the path for where we're headed. But I am really concerned, given the other presentations today, that this committee is going to take down the entire childhood vaccination schedule. And that is going to be very, very frightening. All right, Dr.
Besser, well, we really appreciate your joining us to sort through this incredibly significant announcement. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks very much, Kristen. Coming up, sources tell NBC News that the man accused of placing the pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC headquarters ahead of the January 6th attack on the Capitol has confessed as he appears in court for the first time today.
The details next. Plus, meet the voters who backed Democrats in last month's elections after voting for President Trump last year. Why they flipped and what it means for the White House in the midterms. The latest installment of our Deciders Focus group is straight ahead.
You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. The man charged with planting pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican Party headquarters on the night before January 6th made his first court appearance today. Brian Kohl Jr.
was charged with transporting an explosive device and attempted malicious destruction by means of explosive materials. Kohl confessed to planting the devices outside the RNC and DNC buildings and told the FBI that he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. That's according to three people familiar with the matter. Joining me now is NBC News senior justice reporter Ryan Riley.
Ryan, thank you so much for being here. You've had some great scoops on this story. You were at the courthouse today. What can you tell us about what unfolded there?
Yeah. So we had a lot of family support. There were a lot of people in the audience that behind them. They declined to comment to us afterwards, but the lawyer said that there was a lot of family support there.
There were some basic questions here. The next step of this is going to be the detention hearing, but we're hearing some trickles coming out. You know, as we reported, he did believe those. He told the FBI that he believed that the 2020 election was stolen.
And U.S. Attorney Janine Shapiro actually confirmed that this evening in an interview with with ABC telling them that the suspect said that he was disappointed in the 2020 election results. And if you rewind, that makes sense here, because why would you plant bombs on the eve of the January 6th attack if you weren't trying to stop the election? Would it make sense if you're a Biden supporter?
So it takes me to my next question, which is, of course, that President Trump pardoned everyone who was convicted of a crime related to January 6th. If you're the defense attorney of this suspect, that undoubtedly will be something that you have in your sights. Do you think that that will loom large over this potential case? Yeah, I'd want to stress or say that that would be the first motion that they would file is to say that this applies to his actions.
I don't necessarily know that the judges are going to go along with that, but I think there will be some interesting debates potentially about it down the line, because, you know, the language of the part in itself mostly spoke to charges that were looming at that moment. And since that point, it's essentially been prosecutorial discretion, then deciding not to charge hundreds of other people they could have charged who were never charged, including people who viciously assaulted law enforcement officers, I should say, with any crimes since Donald Trump took back office. That's it. They shut down the Capitol siege unit.
They fired a bunch of prosecutors. They demoted a bunch of prosecutors. They weren't going along with this. But this is that because of the conspiracy theories surrounding this.
This is the one investigation that really moved forward during the Trump administration. So one of the questions looming over this is what is the motive? You're saying that the suspect has said that he was very frustrated, disappointed with the results of the 2020 election. Is that the motive?
What are authorities saying about that? They're not explicitly saying, but I think we're going to get to that as these filings take place in the future ahead of that detention hearing. That's going to be coming up soon. But based on the fact that he believed that the election was stolen, I think that that probably suggests here you never want to close any possibilities out at the base of the start of an investigation.
And you definitely want to get it from the man himself in this case who allegedly did this. But that would just also just be what logically makes sense for someone because it wouldn't make a lot of sense if you supported Joe Biden to try to stop his election from being certified. And what are you watching for next? The detention hearing?
Is there any sense that this person did act alone? Is that what authorities believe? That's the belief right now. I mean, I think we'll be looking for future details, but it's also really interesting how the president reacts to this.
Given that we're getting some hints of motive, how people within the cabinet react to this because you have two officials at the top of the FBI who spread conspiracy theories about the pipe bombing itself. And of course, you have Janine Shapiro, who has been extremely like within the Justice Department, people were very impressed with how she's been handling a lot of this. But way back There are so many other problems that have just taken a priority over that. Part of the problem is he lacks focus and I just don't think he can solve everything at once.
And so while I think it's an important issue, I don't hold it against him the fact that that hasn't been a top priority. Basically just because of the average person in America, I don't think that they are being catered to. I think it's a big difference now with middle class and higher class. And I know one of the biggest things that has an effect to people that I know is healthcare, especially with Medicaid as well with there being cuts to Medicaid.
I feel like I expected certain things to be improved or certain things to become more affordable and it did the exact opposite. So Margaret, President Trump called affordability a Democratic hoax earlier this week. How is that playing with these voters and the concerns overall about the economy? Affordability is a real problem for everyone in these two panels.
And you can see it. And look, none of this is good news for President Trump. But President Trump is not running for re-election. And so the question is, is it good news for Democrats that they feel this way about President Trump?
What's interesting about these voters that we're watching here together now, these were two panels conducted earlier this week of voters who voted for Donald Trump last November, but then for a Democratic governor in those off-year elections just a few weeks ago. So one panel, Virginia voters, Trump to Spanberger. The other panel, New Jersey voters, Trump to Cheryl. Two female Democratic gubernatorial candidates.
And so we were trying to find out, like, why the switch? You know, and the reasons were fascinating. Well, affordability is certainly one of those central reasons. And what's notable, though, we asked these voters about their views of the Democratic Party, which weren't exactly positive.
Let's take a listen to a little bit of that. What are the key characteristics or traits that best describe today's Democratic Party? To meet dishonest, scolding. Carrot-cutting.
Promises no delivery. Out of touch. Dishonest. Weak, unfocused, and grasping to the left.
Ineffective and old. Kind of a lack of leadership. Inconsiderate. Out of touch.
Outstaying considerate too. It's kind of wishy-washy, like, meh. Like, lackadaisical. Ouch.
You could, like, watch it for hours. You could watch this for hours. What should Democrats, if you've been watching this right now, what do you think they should take from these voters? I mean, that's very blunt, very blunt assessment.
These are not all voters. These are particular kind of voters, swing voters. You know, so it's a particular type of voter who's going to go back and forth anyway. But you might watch this and say, why did they vote for these Democratic governors and it must have been a referendum against Donald Trump?
No, most of them said that responding to Trump was not what was driving their vote. And so what they liked about Spanberger and Cheryl, overwhelmingly they told us, was that they basically trusted them. They seemed like kind of moderate and like they had skills and that they liked them better than the character of their Republican rivals. So candidate quality matters.
That sort of charisma slash trust matters. And these voters in particular, they don't like extremism. We heard them again and again say they like some of Trump's ideas, but not the way he's executing them. It's too over the top for them.
The immigration and the stuff with the boats, like that's not what they want. They just want competence. And with Cheryl and Spanberger, this particular group of voters sees that. So for Democrats, at least if you're trying to appeal to swing voters, the message is someone who can kind of not be stuck on the fringes of the party and be leaning into the sort of common sense of affordability or nonpartisan bipartisan issues is appealing to these particular voters.
Both Spanberger and Cheryl moderates. And that was what they leaned into. Margaret Talbot, thank you so much for being here. Really fascinating.
Come back soon with more. We appreciate it. Coming up after the break, mapping the midterms. The Supreme Court delivers Republicans and President Trump a major win in the battle over redistricting in Texas as Republicans gear up for the next big redistricting fight in Indiana.
Stay with us right here on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Indiana Republicans are set to take the next steps toward redrawing the Hoosier state's congressional map. The House of Representatives passed a new map today that could turn the only two blue districts in the state red in next year's midterms.
It now heads to the state Senate, which is set to take up the measure as early as next week. The Indiana redistricting fight comes amid an intense pressure campaign from President Trump, who has publicly criticized Senate Republicans in Indiana who didn't support the effort. At least 11 Indiana Republicans tell NBC News they've been targeted with threats or swatting attacks in the wake of the president's social media post last month criticizing them. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, just delivered a major victory for Texas Republicans in their redistricting effort, allowing the state to use a new map that could give Republicans as many as five additional seats in next year's midterms.
NBC News senior reporter Jane Tim has been covering the nationwide redistricting fight. She joins us now. Jane, thanks for being here. So what happens next in the Indiana fight?
Yes, so Indiana's map now goes to the Senate. Senate Republican leaders say they don't have the support to pass this, but they'll let it go to a vote. And that vote came in in large part because the House came back, said that they were going to pass a measure, but also because there's been so much pressure on these lawmakers. So as you said, a lot of threats, a lot of social media pressure, calls from the White House, two visits from J.D.
Vance. This has been a months long pressure campaign to get these lawmakers to cave. They say, you know, the Republicans say that their support doesn't exist, but they're going to put it to a test. And I think all out pressure on these lawmakers, including some, as you said, very sort of violent swatting attempts that have been alarming and definitely making people feel unsafe in the Senate there.
Jane, if they don't have the support, could that change by the time this goes for a vote? You know, it's really funny. This is a hard legislature to crack because all of these members are really keeping it quiet about how they're going to vote in their conversations with each other, in conversations with the press. Really, you know, it's this is one of the true democratic processes where we don't know what's going to happen.
It always makes it exciting, right? Look, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to move forward with its new congressional map. Does that decision impact any other states redistricting efforts? Yeah, it's going to turn the pressure on Democratic states that have not moved.
And it's also going to probably encourage Virginia Democrats, who have begun a very complicated maneuver to redraw their maps to be even more aggressive. Earlier this week, we saw Democratic leaders say they might go for four new Democratic seats in that state. That's a lot more than the two to three we had previously expected. I think that number will be even more firm after that Texas ruling.
And bring us up to speed about what's happening in Florida. Well, Florida has begun their process is sure to be the most contentious one. And what's different about all these other states as well, it's very legal to partisan gerrymander in the rest of the country. In Florida, it is quite blank, not legal to partisan gerrymander.
So they're going to have to, if they want to do this, if they want to draw a new map, they're going to have to find a reason not to. We see some lawmakers talking about population growth, but there hasn't been a census. And they're not talking about redrawing any other districts, just the congressional districts. So it'll be really interesting to see how that process goes forward.
There's also a lot of party divisions about how to do it. Some want to do it in the spring. Some want to do it right now. I think we might see a map next week, but don't know where that map's going to go.
All right. Well, storyline we continue to watch so closely with major implications for the midterms. Jane Timms, always thank you. Great to see you on this Friday.
Really appreciate it. And still to come, Democrats turn up the heat on Republicans over house care and rising costs as millions of Americans brace for a major spike in premiums. The panel's next. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Welcome back. It looks increasingly unlikely Congress will reach any health care deal before the Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of the month. Democrats are ramping up their attacks on Republicans seeking to tie it to larger issues around affordability. House Republicans promised, along with Donald Trump, that they were going to lower costs on day one.
Costs aren't going down in the United States of America. Costs are going up. Housing costs through the roof. Electricity bills through the roof.
Grocery costs through the roof. And now as a result of the Republican refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, tens of millions of people are on the verge of experiencing dramatically increased health care costs. Joining me now is our panel Dan America co-anchor of the Early Brief newsletter at The Washington Post, Don Calloway, former Missouri State representative and now a Democratic strategist and Republican strategist Annalise Keller. Thanks to all of you for being here on this Friday.
Dan, set the stage for us here in this health care battle. It was literally at the root of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. It doesn't seem like they're any closer to reaching a deal.
Is And it's kind of like Republicans are hoping for him to shift that message. And I'm not sure he really can because it's acknowledging that he hasn't been able or hasn't been successful in tackling an issue. And I think it is worrying Republicans. We've talked to a lot of strategists who are working in races like you've worked in and they would like to see something different from the broader Republican messaging.
And it just hasn't happened yet. Annelies, what do you think that message should be? Again, he's heading to Pennsylvania. If you're a Republican in Pennsylvania, what do you want to hear?
Or just a voter in Pennsylvania, what do you want to hear from the president? People want to feel like they're being heard, like their struggles are real and someone's acknowledging them. I hate to say that it's a con job, to say that affordability is not happening or is not a real issue that people are facing. It's a hoax to say that, you know, I fixed inflation.
You know, those types of things are not helpful. I think that the the accounts that the tax accounts or the tally counts, rather, I think that's kind of an interesting idea. There's some solutions that he's putting forward that might have legs. I mean, I don't think that the tariff checks are going to go very far, in my opinion.
I don't think that is an idea that's going to really take hold. So there are a couple of things that, you know, that he has been talking about, but he's got to stay disciplined. He's not message disciplined. And when he goes and does these conversations, if he's just talking about Biden's failures, that's not making voters feel like they're moving in the right direction.
John, one of the big debates inside the Democratic Party right now is what should that message be on affordability? Should it be the more moderate message that we saw, for example, in the recent elections in Virginia and New Jersey of Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger? Or is it the more progressive message of Zoran Mamdani? How do you think that debate is going to play out in the midterms?
Well, I think in 2026, you're going to see a whole lot of bad Mamdani's who don't have his charisma, who don't have his swag, but are walking around talking about affordability because it's a message that works. The problem is that you're going to have folks from the middle of America who, by the way, have not raised the money to the DCCC to be able to message anything. Right. Money is being consolidated with the Republican Party right now, the executive branch in the Senate.
So I'm worried that Democrats will be able to afford to say anything. I just don't see the resources coming in. But it feels like this is the moment to say to let the people feel the actual pain of these premiums in some cases, which are going to double. And I hate to inflict that kind of pain on the American people.
But you have to say, hey, look at your wallet right now and how much money you have at the end of the month. That is a result of this administration. At least if we don't have a broad economic plan on affordability, at least we would not have done that because that's what you feel today. And very quickly on the redistricting battle, how big of a setback is it that the Supreme Court did rule in favor of Texas Republicans that they can add up to five seats?
It's a very big setback for Democrats number in Congress in terms of being able to control that 218. However, it's a bigger setback for democracy. One of the rules of democracy is that we do not redistrict unless it is pursuant to a census every 10 years. So that is one of the major kind of Democratic pillars that we've all relied on.
That being out of the way portends that there's really nothing sacred left in American democracy. And that's what worries me beyond that. Anneliese, what do you project is going to happen in Louisiana? You know, well, I just want to go back quickly to the redistricting.
I think it's really important that these redistricts in Texas are based on the census data from 2024 or rather the presidential election results of 2024 with that Trump coalition. And I am not confident that that Trump coalition in a midterm election is going to stay with Republicans. And I think that that, you know, there might be a chance that some of this backfires. Dan, you're calling it a big.
Yeah, it's a big risk. I mean, you see some Republicans in these states already worrying about that, that you can't necessarily assume that Latino voters, for example, in the Rio Grande Valley or Latino voters in South Florida, for example, if they go ahead with redistricting, that they're going to stick with Trump when he's not on the ballot. It's an issue we've seen over the last decade. Donald Trump does very well at the ballot box when he's at the ballot on the ballot.
His party does not do as well when he's not on the ballot. So to set and redistrict based on a 2024 election where he was on the ballot and did remarkably well with Latino voters is a huge risk to assume that that's going to continue happening. All right, well, we will watch it closely. Great conversation, guys.
Thank you so much, Dan, Don and Anneliese. Really appreciate it. We'll be back Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC News station.
I'll have exclusive interviews with Senators Tom Cotton and Adam Schiff. Plus, Congressman Jim Clyburn. You don't want to miss it. There's more ahead on NBC News now.
As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop with the podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Yasmin Desugian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take, sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist.
Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.