Meet the Press NOW — December 8

Hi, and welcome to Meet the Press Now and Ryan Nobles in Washington, where President Trump is tacitly acknowledging that his trade policies have heard some of his key supporters announcing today that his administration is offering a lifeline to farmers who have been impacted by the ongoing trade war with China. The president's announcement of a $12 billion aid package for American farmers comes as the White House struggles to address voters' growing concerns about affordability. So we're going to use that money to provide $12 billion in economic assistance to American farmers. This relief will provide much-needed certainty to farmers as they get this year's harvest market and look ahead to next year's crops, and it'll help them continue their efforts to lower food prices for American families.

The president is saying that the funding for the assistance package is coming from revenue generated from tariffs, while also touting Chinese imports of American soybeans. China, meanwhile, remains well short of the 12 million tons of soybeans and agreed to purchase this part of Beijing's trade agreement with the U.S., which was announced more than a month ago. Treasurer Secretary Scott Bessent describing today's package as a bridge payment to farmers while saying he remains confident that China will make good on its soybean commitment. Why would farmers need a bridge payment from the agriculture department that?

Because these prices haven't come in because the Chinese actually use our soybean farmers as pawns in the trade negotiations, and we are going to create this bridge because, again, agriculture is all about the future. You've got to start financing for planning next year, when things will be very good. Today's announcement comes as concerns about affordability remain a focus at the White House and on Capitol Hill, with President Trump set to travel to Pennsylvania tomorrow to address his administration's efforts to combat inflation and the Senate set to vote Thursday on a Democratic plan to extend affordable care access subsidies and bring down healthcare costs. And Republicans telling NBC News that they're concerned their party isn't doing enough to address those affordability concerns.

A recent Gallup poll shows that just 36% of Americans approve of President Trump's handling of the economy. And a recent Fox News poll shows that 53% of Americans think Democrats have a better plan to make things more affordable. President Trump today appearing to backtrack from his recent claims that affordability concerns worry hoax created by Democrats. We inherited a mess, affordability, but you can call it affordability or anything you want.

But the Democrats caused the affordability problem and with the ones that are fixing it, so it's a very simple statement and they cause it and we're fixing it. And they have a tendency to just say this election is based on affordability and nobody questions them, John, you know, nobody says, oh, well, what do you mean by that? But they just say the word they never said anything else because they cause the problem but we're fixing the problem. I'm joined now by NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and NBC News senior and national political reporter, Saljal Kapoor, Yamiche, how will this $12 billion be dispersed?

It's a good question. The president is saying that it's going to be, as you said, coming from this funds that is distributed and got money from tariffs, then you're going to see a number of farmers, not just soybean farmers, but also cotton farmers, rice farmers, a number of other crops, they're going to get what amounts to essentially a bailout. $12 billion is going to be part of a new program that the Agriculture Department is going to distribute. So it's really interesting to see the president talk about this issue.

And also, by the way, this isn't the first time that he's given out money to farmers during his first term. He also gave out billions of dollars to farmers because of some of his policies there. Now, the president, of course, is blaming Democrats, but there are some who are looking at this, a number of economists who are looking at this and saying that this is really because of the president's own terror policies that you now have American farmers under this strain. So you said, you described it as a bailout, does that mean it's not alone, they won't have to pay it back?

My understanding, it is not alone, the White House might change their mind or say something different, but from our understanding, this is a one-time payment, two farmers, so this is sort of a grant, you could call it a grant, you could call it a bailout, you could call it aid. There are a number of ways you could describe it, the point is that from my understanding, the White House officials have, unless they change their minds, this is going to be said that farmers get and will not have to be paid back. Okay. So then, isn't it an acknowledgement on some level by the administration that affordability is still a major concern, especially if you're a farmer?

Ryan, that's the sort of conclusion that you would come to, the fact that you have to give $12 billion to farmers, let's remember the president has now been an officer almost a year. As you just played, the president is continuing to blame Democrats, he went as far as to say that this was a really former president Biden's problem and his actions and that caused all of this. That being said, I have to go back to the idea that they have economic experts who are saying this is directly related to the president's own tariff policies, you have places like China and other places not buying soybeans from American farmers anymore and going to other countries for their crops and as a result, you have American farmers who are under this strain. So, this is in some ways if you look at an admission by the Trump administration that things are not working and that farmers need all this money to be given to them in order to be whole, to be made whole.

That being said, out of the president's own mouth, you heard him say that this is about Democrats and about his predecessor. Ryan. He's available to Pennsylvania tomorrow, the president to highlight his efforts to tackle these affordability concerns, but it also comes less than a week after he called affordability a hoax. What do we know about what the president will say tomorrow?

It's so interesting because what we know so far is that this is going to be of course the speech dedicated to economics, at least that's what the White House is telling us. Anyone who has covered President Trump knows that sometimes the speech, that's about economics, sometimes veers off into other issues that they talk about anything from transgender rights to immigration. That being said, when I asked the White House that I'm waiting for in response to this, and about what the president is going to talk about so far, they have not been clear on what those details are going to be. We expect the president to talk about the cost of living, but it's going to be I think it's some way it's going to be very interesting to hear how he talks about affordability, because as you said, he was essentially saying that affordability is an issue that Democrats are making a big deal about and that Americans weren't worried about.

We know, of course, in talking to Americans, especially during the shutdown, but also just overall after it's ended, that there are a lot of Americans who say that the cost of living is simply not adding up and not following the wages that people are getting around this country. So it's going to be very interesting to see that here the party doesn't talk about this. The other big issue that is a big affordability issue is health care. The president, again, was asked about health care, whether or not he had a policy or a proposal, a plan did not come up with one.

Health care eats up a lot of people's budgets in this country, Ryan. All right. Thank you for that from the White House. Let's turn now to the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sahel Kapoor, talk to me about the view of Republicans on Capitol Hill. How concerned are they about the political liability that the issue of affordability might become? Yeah. It absolutely is a growing concern among Republicans, Ryan.

I think that's evident because of recent data, recent polling, as well as recent elections that show Democrats are really benefiting from voter angst over the issue of affordability. There is a bit of a split among Republicans about the nature of the problem. Some believe it's a messaging problem that if the party simply tightens up its pitch to voters and does some more bragging about its accomplishments that can fix the issue. There are other Republicans more in the rank and file who believe this is a reality problem that the party's not delivered enough when it comes to lowering people's costs and or increasing their wages to make life more affordable.

And the biggest affordability issue that Congress is staring down right now is health care, expiring funds for about 20 million Americans who benefit from enhanced ACS subsidies, which would cause premiums to roughly double on average for those 20 million Americans. There's recent KFF polling that shows two-thirds of Americans in that category say they'll have to cut back on food, clothing and household items. Remember, this is an addition to existing strains on affordability that they're facing. Many say they'll go without insurance or look for a new job to cover it, 84% in that poll, say they favor extending the premium subsidies.

And among those 84, they say by a three to one margin that they would blame the president and Republicans. That's a very real political issue. And it doesn't appear at this point that there's a solution to that problem on Capitol Hill. We know the Senate's going to vote Thursday on an extension of those Affordable Care Act subsidies.

This is a democratic project. Do we know if it has enough votes in the Senate to pass? We'd need 60. Yeah, I look extremely likely to fail at this point, Ryan.

According to Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, all of the 47 Democratic caucus members will support it. But that's not enough. They need at least 13 Republicans to get the 60 and they don't have a single one right now who is announced that they will support the Democratic three-year plan. What most Republicans are doing is retreating to their corporate zone, which is attacking the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Take a look at what Senator John Coon, the majority leader, just sat on the floor. Democrats, great scheme to fix health care, Obamacare has failed. So what Democrats are proposing to do this week, Mr. President?

Introduce reforms? Perhaps try a different approach. They've proposed a clean, three-year extension of the enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Clean, Mr.

President. No reforms. No revisions. Just billions of additional taxpayer dollars to prop up part of a program that has utterly failed to reduce self-care costs.

And it was Senator Schumer who spoke moments after that speech on the floor pointing out that what Thune did not offer was a Republican plan or even sketch out broadly what they want. The party is two divided on this issue, Ryan. It's one of the reasons that AC funding looks likely to expire. Okay, so I hope you're poor.

Thank you for that. Let's talk more about this now with Congressman Tracey Nand. He's a Republican from Kansas, a member of the House Agriculture Committee and also hails from a family of farmers. So he's uniquely suited to talk about this conversation here today.

Congressman, talk to me right now about what farmers in Kansas, maybe even some of your family members are telling you right now about the state of their finances. Is it difficult? Yeah, absolutely. But it's tough times on the family farm.

My dad is sitting on a con mine right now trying to wrap up corn harvest this week. Some areas of our state have had great yields, which has been good. Some areas of our state have not. But at the end of the day, for farmers input costs, so the cost to put in the crop is up 40% over the last five years.

So when a president buys policies, input across skyrocketed, which is why farmers are in a squeeze right now, which is why this bridge announcement, this bridge aid announcement is so important to help our farmers keep going for another year as more trade yields get done as demand increases as in prices rise so that farmers can keep going in and we can return to profitability. So I see you mentioned that you think the Biden administration policies contributed to this, but do you think there's any part of the Trump administration policy as it relates to tariffs that have made it difficult for farmers in your state? Without question, the Biden administration was asleep at the wheel for four years when it comes to ag trade. So when Trump ended his first term, there was an ag trade surplus of $6 billion.

When Biden ended his term, there was a deficit of $40 billion. So we went years without no trade deal, no positive news for farmers, as far as trade goes. President Trump's come in. He is riding the ship.

You know, when you run the ship into iceberg, you've got to stop the ship, you've got to bail the water, you've got to repair the ship, you've got to pick a different direction. That's exactly what we're seeing happening. These deals are getting done. They've just been announced so far, you know, selling more soybeans to China, sorghum to China.

You know, when you see make sure that they make good on those deals, selling beef to United Kingdom, buy ethanol to United Kingdom as well. This is all good news for the American farmer. It's going to take time. That's why they need this bridge.

Hey, that's what was announced today. President Trump was in the White House in the Oval Office. He told me how much he loves farmers and today was approved for that. So do you feel though that the tariffs, I guess what you're arguing here is that long-term, the tariff trade policy will ultimately benefit the farmers, but in the short term right now, has it made it more difficult?

Well, completely the long-term, but we need trade, not aid. We've got to get better fair trade deals. You know, especially the two crops that have been injured the most by trade talks this year are soybeans and sorghum. You know, we are seeing China make an announcement that they're going to buy soybeans and sorghum.

The president is now up today. He's been very adamant on requiring the Chinese to do that beyond that, but we've got to be continuing to open up new markets. And that's where Biden failed for years in doing no new trade deals, opening up new relationships. There's a level fair playing field.

Our American farmers can compete around the world, but we've got to get these trade deals done. Unfortunately, the Trump administration was handed the baton way behind, and now they're working to try to catch up. Is $12 billion enough? I mean, for your dad that's sitting out on that combine right now, will that be enough to help him and then the hundreds of thousands of other farmers across the country that need help right now?

Yeah, it'll certainly help. There was some disaster assistance also announced a month or so ago that's more weather related. I'm not sure it's going to solve all the problems. It'll certainly help.

We need to get that money out the door. Farmers are talking to their lenders right now as they're beginning to prepare for next year. We need to do more if we need to do more, we can. But at the end of the day, President Trump, House Republican love farmers care about them.

This bridge aid announcement is an example of that through the back mode of the country. And it's a tough business. President Eisenhower, who is from Abilene Kansas, my district, used to say that farming looks very easy when you're plow as a pencil and you're 1,000 miles from a cornfield. And it's very, very far business.

It sounds easy, very hard to do, but really excited to see the announcement today. So one of the things that Republicans criticized Joe Biden for was this idea that he tried to convince Americans that life was affordable when it actually wasn't. Now we're in a situation where President Trump is trying to do a similar thing, trying to convince Americans that the affordability situation isn't as bad as what their pocket books are telling them. Do you think the President is doing enough to try and convince Americans or help Americans on the issue of affordability?

He's doing everything possible. First and foremost, look at gas prices. Gas prices. When you have pro-energy policies, gas prices go down, you see that.

Don't forget the big, beautiful bill that was passed signed in July 4th. Many of the provisions in that bill, the tax provisions that will really give this economy a lift that folks are going to feel in their pocketbook, those aspects don't come into effect until January 1. So we're yet to see the positive benefit of the big, beautiful bill as that really sets in as trade deals get done. I think the American people are going to start feeling a lift.

In the economy. And that's what we need to move forward. Meanwhile, you know, we're seeing a lot of investments. You know, President Trump has many, many billion dollar deals in the analysis of investments that companies are making in our country.

We've got to work to get to better place to take in time to do that with the mess left by Joe Biden. But we're well in our way to get back on track. And before you go, I want to talk to you about something that one of your colleagues, Nancy Maes, just wrote, in the New York Times, it's an op-ed that's entitled, What's the Point of Congress? And in it, Maes writes, women will never be taken seriously until leadership decides to take seriously.

And I'm no longer holding my breath. Since 2013, the Republican Conference, your position has gone to a woman. It's a token slot that designated leadership role for the top woman in the conference while the real power lies in other offices. How would you respond to what the South Carolina Congress woman has to say here?

Should there be more leadership opportunities for women in the Republican Conference? You know, first time I've seen that, I don't agree with that sentiment. You know, the conference chair role is very important for our conference, whether that's filled by a male or a female, you know, being the spokesperson for our party. We have, you know, committee chairs that are held by women.

We have leadership roles all over our conference that are held by women. And so I don't agree with her statement there. My experience in Congress is women in the Republican House, a representative, very influential, very much speaking out and a big part of leading the Congress and getting the country back on track. Okay.

Congressman Mann, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good day.

All right. Turning now to the ongoing escalating fallout from the U.S. military's lethal strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats, President Trump today seeming to backtrack on his willingness to publicly release the video of the so-called double strike on September 2nd, now saying he will defer to Defense Secretary Hegsef, who this weekend would not commit to releasing the video. It comes as we're learning more about what the commander who ordered the strike told lawmakers behind closed doors.

According to an official and a person familiar with last week's briefings, Admiral Bradley acknowledged that U.S. intelligence showed that the boat struck on September 2nd was not heading to the U.S., but was rather traveling to sternum in South America and that the drugs on board were eventually heading to Europe or Africa, not the United States. Democrats and Republicans who saw the video, that the military action remain, all that military action remained deeply divided over whether the survivors of the initial strike posed an ongoing threat. Here's what Senator Tom Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee told Chris and Welker on Beat the Press.

They were not incapacitated in any way. It was entirely appropriate to strike the boat again to make sure that it was cargo was destroyed. It is in no way violation of the law of war. Other lawmakers who saw the video said the two men appeared to raise their arms potentially to signal that they were trying to surrender.

Senator, why did Admiral Bradley interpret those actions as anything other than these two men trying to seek help and survive? Well, again, they were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat. They weren't floating helplessly in the water. And Chris, I don't think it matters all that much what they were trying to do.

It looked at one point like they were trying to flip the boat back over and presumably to rescue its cargo and continue their mission. You know what I mean now is that we've seen the senior national security correspondent Courtney QB. So it talks to me a little bit about where this boat was headed and how maybe that changes the conversation here. Could it complicate the legal administration's legal justification if these were drugs that weren't even intended for the United States?

Yeah, especially when you consider the fact that when the administration makes the case about why these boats are a danger, it's because they argue that they are coming to the U.S. shores, making it to Americans and killing Americans as we heard again from President Trump today, frankly. But we've been reporting for months now, several months now, that in fact, the majority of the drugs that are coming from this area are cocaine for starters, not fentanyl, but that many of them are actually going to Europe and to West Africa. They're not actually coming to the U.S.

at all. So it turns out, according to people who are familiar with this briefing, that I'm a Bradley game on the Hill last week, that in fact, he did acknowledge that the drugs were not believed to have been coming to the United States. Instead, they were headed towards Suriname. The belief is that they were going to have some sort of a link up with a larger boat, almost like a mothership.

And then ultimately, they were headed most likely to Europe or again to West Africa. You're also also reporting that the people on board were on an internal list of military targets. So what do you know about that? So U.S.

intelligence, according to Admiral Bradley and the briefing that he gave to members of Congress last week, U.S.S. intelligence was able to identify the individuals, the 11 individuals who were on the boat, to the point where they were deemed legitimate military targets. So that doesn't mean that they would necessarily all have to be killed. But it means that they could be essentially captured or killed, depending on how the mission orders are given.

Now, we know from Secretary Haggs that he acknowledged that he was the targeting authority on this. Essentially, he was the one who decided what the orders would be, and his order was because they were identified by U.S. intelligence that all 11 people on that boat should be killed. President Trump today kind of back-tracked a little bit.

He said last week that, sure, released the whole video, then over the weekend Secretary Haggs had seemed to kind of slow the role on that a little bit. Now today the President said he's going to defer to the Secretary of Defense. Does it seem to you like it's less and less likely that the full video of this drug will ever become public? I would be surprised at this point if we see the full video.

And the Pentagon and Secretary Haggs can, they can claim it because they don't want to expose sources and methods that they are worried about this because it's an ongoing operation. You know, they struck another boat at the end of the day, on Thursday, after Admiral Bradley and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed all day long senators and members of Congress. So they can argue that it's sources and methods, but the reality is they can do things that would mitigate any dangers. The same way that they have been releasing declassifying video and releasing parts of every strike, heavily editing to do that.

But we look at what we heard from Congressman Jim Himes, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee on the House side. He said that it was one of the most disturbing things he's ever seen. We heard something similar from Senator Warner. The notion that the Pentagon, Secretary Haggs, that specifically would want that release to the American public seems far-fetched.

It seems that they can edit it into a sizzle reel to try and show that they're being tough or something. Exactly. The people should be able to see the entire video. Exactly.

According to QV, thank you for that. Coming up, everything's bigger in Texas. Major developments today in the Lone Star State's hotly competitive Senate primary with one Democratic candidate out and another officially jumping in just minutes ago. Plus, President Trump weighs in on a battle between the nation's biggest media moguls as Paramount's guidance tries to derail Netflix's mega merger with Warner Brothers Discovery.

You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back. Things are heating up in the Lone Star State with a filing deadline less than two hours away. Moments ago, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett filed her paperwork to run for Senate in Texas, officially entering the race to try and flip that seat.

She's expected to officially announce her decision in Dallas in just about an hour. Meanwhile, former Congressman Colin Allred announced this morning that he's ending his Senate bid and instead opting to run for a newly redistrict deep blue house seat. Allred, Texas sets up a head-to-head primary contest between Congressmen Crockett and state representative James Tallarico who built a national profile while fighting Republicans redistricting efforts. With multiple Republicans already set to challenge Senator John Cornyn, Democrats are hoping a bruising Republican primary could give them a chance to win state-wide in Texas for the first time in decades.

Joining me now is our panel to lose Allred Nippon, the staff writer for The Atlantic, Tara Rosenkrantz, former managing director at the DCCC, and Ashley Davis, former White House official in the George W. Bush administration. So to lose, we knew this was coming. Crockett has been teasing it and forecasting it for quite some time.

How nervous will this make Democrats have her entry into the race? She's certainly a firebrand. She has quite a bit of support with the base of the party. The question is, can she win a general election, especially in the place like Texas?

There's a big question, and Democrats do not like uncertainty, especially in the age of Trump, where there's a lot of uncertainty in White House. They would have loved for this to be sort of a straightforward primary, where they can kind of hand-pick the person that they think would be the right person for Texas in this midterm race. Maybe that's James Tallarico, some people thought it was Colin Allred. Not many Democrats early in this cycle thought that Johnson Crockett was the person who would be able to get moderate voters, Republicans, and all the people that you need in a coalition to win in a red state like Texas as a Democrat.

But she is saying that she has the energy behind her, she has the fundraising, she has the fight that she's taking to Trump that a lot of voters are looking for, and it'll be an interesting clash between her style of politics and James Tallarico, who is talking about bringing people together, talking about his faith, talking about working with Republicans, and may have a message that's more collateral to moderates and some Republican voters. She has a message that's more for the Democrats that want to fight Trump. Yeah, the firebrand Democrats tear in the night talk to on a regular basis, the progressive wing of the party, they keep making this plea to more mainstream Democrats, that this is where the energy is in our party. This is the Zora and Mondame wing of the party, right?

This is where people are motivated to come out and vote, and that transfers to a general election. Is that an argument that you'd make, especially in a state like Texas? I think it's going to be hard to make that argument for a lot of folks when you try to use New York City as an example, as to really detect this. That's just logically, you're going to have to think to yourself, there was like old souls with commercials from Texas, they're like New York City, you know, it just doesn't seem to translate in the same way.

So I do think, but I do think what she is saying, and what a lot of folks are saying is that excitement, youth, energy, some change, people are looking for change, it's a very anti-encompet election that we're facing, and I think that goes for both sides of the party. And so when you are seeing primaries, and when you are seeing that kind of firebrand that you were saying, that's coming from energy, and I think that that's just that desire for change. So actually, I know that Democrats are just chopping at the bit to run against Ken Paxton in Texas. Right.

Is Jasmine Crockett in Texas? As of now, for sure. I mean, that was what everyone's been saying over the last 10 days, but I also think that she'll be able to raise a ton of money because at least she has a national profile. I don't know if money's ever needed at this point anymore in some of these high-profile races.

I think that it always happens to come at the end of the day. But listen, we have our own problems in the primary, we have Ken Paxton, and we obviously have John Cornyn, John Cornyn's on a lot better over the last couple of months than he was doing at the beginning, but it's still Texas. And I think that I'm the moderate Republican here that will say when things are wrong, but I actually think Democrats always feel they're going to pick up their seats, and then it's really hard to do so. I think the red areas of Texas come out.

Yeah. I mean, the literal graphic, the demonstrates that, right? Okay. Because I've been covering the white whale that is a blue Texas, and this is what's happened every time.

We had better homework, tick on Ted Cruz, Cruz won by three points, Cornyn in 2021 by 10, Cruz won again in 2024 against Colin O'Reilly by eight points. But in each one of these races, actually, you've gotten established Republicans there who had a base of support. Ken Paxton is a different animal here, right? How nervous are you if it is Paxton that ends up the nominee?

Well, I think he has so much baggage that I think it's really difficult. I think the president, probably at some point, will come out and figure out who's going to win and who can win, especially if it's going to be against Crockett, which is, I'm assuming it will be as a right now. And by the way, when is the primary in Texas? I don't know that I'm on top of my head.

I don't think I should know. I don't think it's me. I know. Because it's also a runoff situation there, right?

Right. Which is one of the big reasons already getting out was significant, because that prevents a three-way race, which is far more difficult to get over the 50% threshold. But anyway. Yeah.

No, all I was saying is I think that if it is Cornyn, it's going to be a handed race, if Paxton just has so many skeletons that it would be much more difficult. So again, though, I think she is, I don't say this about AOC and even Mondami, they do have a movement. But she's just a little bit more angry about some things that I don't know, Texas. All right.

So there's so much in Texas, the other big story there is that Henry Choir of everything, where he surprisingly gets a pardon from President Trump. The assumption here is that it means perhaps he's going to flip parties, which is something Republicans have been trying to get him to do for years. But then he just comes out and says, no, I'm running for reelection and I'm still a Democrat. The president responding on his social media channels, saying that Congressman Henry Choir announcing that he will be running for Congress again in the great set of Texas as a Democrat.

Such a lack of loyalty. Is this the president admitting that this was somewhat of a quid pro quo, that they had some sort of deal here to get him on pardon? It sounds like that's what he's sort of insinuating, but it sounds like the dealmaker did not really make the deal. He seems to sort of assume that because he was offering this pardon to get Henry Choir out of legal jeopardy, that the support would come directly from this longtime Democrat, who, yes, has been conservative on some issues, has been very much in the Trump, the pro-Trump when it comes to border issues, but he's a run of the middle Democrat on a lot of other issues.

And so the idea that he would just flip parties or abandon his long held beliefs because he got a pardon. Maybe something that's something that Trump sort of envisioned in his own mind, but it doesn't make there's any kind of deal or quid pro quo that was, you know, specifically laid out, that would have been consummated once this pardon came through. So it was very interesting that Trump said, you know, no more Mr. Nice guy, he seems to have learned his lesson in the pardon world and that he seems to want to pardon his friends and get something in exchange for that and not pardon based on the mayor.

So, Terry, Congress require what's asked about the president's post. This is what he said, take a listen. As a probably the most bipartisan individual, I don't vote party, I vote for what's right for the country. I am a conservative Democrat, but I will work with the president.

I've reached out to his administration. I told him, you know, name the folks, you know, Tom Homie, Christie, other folks that say, hey, can we sit down? I'd love to sit down and see what we can find. Common ground.

Can the congressman continue to walk this fine line as a conservative Democrat, especially in the wake of this part? Well, interestingly enough, I think he's always watched that line, like in Texas Democrats, and a lot of Democrats who are in red states have always had to walk that line of like making sure that they're, you know, esteemed, we're a big tent party. It was really saying, right? So there are people who don't exactly agree on every issue, but I certainly think that all this does is really expose sort of this healing of this Trump, like what else is he expecting from people when he pardons them?

Like, he's pardoned some real criminals here in the last few months and what does that mean? What kind of deals are being made? So I think it's raising more eyebrows than it is on the QR side. Okay, and the control room tells me that Texas primary is on March 3rd.

The runoff is in May. So I'm going to completely wrong. We had at least part of it. All right.

Toulouse, Tarred, and Ashley, thank you all for being here. I promise next time we'll talk about another statement just texting. Up next, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments and a key case that will determine whether President Trump has the authority to fire the heads of independent agencies that really could dramatically overhaul legal precedent and the power of the executive branch. Stay with us.

You're watching The Press Now. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with, Here's the Scoop, putting your podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Gazzam D'Souguin. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

On the front page, the Zeitgeist hears the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the Doctoria. Workouts and meal plans.

If you're fast-tracked to a healthier you. And now, during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more. XFINITY, imagine that.

Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599, plus taxes and fees until cancel. All the rins may 20th, 26th, prices subject to change. Visit today.com slash XFINITY for full on for terms of 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. Welcome back. The president's effort to expand the executive branch's power is once again in front of the Supreme Court.

The justice is hearing arguments today on whether President Trump has the authority to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. The president fired Rebecca Slaughter and the commission's other Democratic appointee in March, despite a law protecting appointees at independent agencies from political interference. A decision in the administration's favor will likely give the president sweeping new powers over agencies that have been considered independent from the executive branch. NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley joins me now.

So Lawrence, this case pertains to a Supreme Court president called Humphrey's executor. What is that ruling and how does it relate to this case? This was a Supreme Court ruling from almost 100 years ago, 1935, where in a case involving the FTC, the court actually upheld these removal protections that say what Congress said. The president can't remove members without cause, so this was designed to insulate them from political pressures.

Everyone kind of acted for the last 90 years like that was the law of the land and we've seen a proliferation of these agencies. But now that's under question and based on today's argument, the court might overturn it. Let's get into that a little bit. The court has shown a willingness to grant the executive branch significantly more power on some of their recent decisions.

Do they seem to be buying the Trump administration's arguments in this case? Definitely yes. The conservative Supreme Court, 6-3, conservative majority, they all came up through the conservative legal movement that's long opposed to these independent agencies. They think they encroach upon the separation of powers, what we learn in school about the different branches of government, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the executive branch.

We can listen in to Justice Neil Gorsuch actually outlining some of those complaints that they have. I'll put my cards on the table. Maybe it's a recognition that Humphrey's executor was poorly recent and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that's quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. You can hear from that, he's elaborating on those concerns and he's not the only one.

There's probably at least five votes there to overturn, maybe to overturn Humphrey's executive, but definitely to rule in favor of the Trump administration. How long could we get a decision on this case? This is a pretty big case. It's probably going to be decided sometime early next year, maybe as late as June when they issue their big rulings.

Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Turning now to a major shake up in the media and entertainment landscape that's grabbed the president's attention. Paramount's Skydance announced today that it's going to try and take over Warner Brothers' discovery by force.

We attempted hospital takeover comes after Netflix announced at late last week that it had secured a deal to merge with Warner Brothers' discovery. It comes as president Trump is making it clear he wants to be directly involved in the government's approval process over the massive deal, saying the Netflix deal could, quote, be a problem while separately attacking Paramount, which is the parrot company of CBS News. NBC News' entertainment correspondent Chloe Milose joins me now with more on this. So Chloe, the size of this fight is enormous, tens of billions of dollars.

We're talking about a battle for media and entertainment assets that are valued around $100 billion. What comes next in this fight for Warner Brothers' discovery? Well, there is a lot that is going to take place and first of all, Warner Brothers' discovery and the shareholders ultimately have to decide whose deal they want to move forward with for now. As of today, they say that they are sticking with Netflix, but Skydance Paramount has given the Warner Brothers board till January 8th to make a decision.

Now, again, we could know sooner than that what they decide to do, but David Ellison that runs Paramount's Skydance is clearly not taking note for an answer. He has tried six times and now this bid of $108 billion to buy all of Warner Brothers' discovery, not just Warner Brothers, the film studio and the streaming assets that Netflix wants to buy. That's why the numbers are different. That's why Netflix is around $83 billion.

This is something that he's tried to do six times, like I just said. The last time that he sent a bid over earlier this month, he said he never got a response. So, again, this is a very public and like a drastic move. Like you would see, I feel like in a Hollywood movie, it's all playing out for all of us and a lot of people have some strong feelings about both sides.

A merger of this size, obviously, will have quite a bit of government oversight aligned with it. What role could the government play? And is President Trump himself trying to position himself as a kingmaker in this fight? Well, President Donald Trump has said that he is going to be involved in how this all plays out, but there are regulatory hurdles.

It doesn't matter if it's Netflix or Paramount's skydance that could take a year or more. That involves the DOJ, the FCC, even state lawmakers, perhaps you could see a hearing or this even playing out in a courtroom. But President Trump was asked about it today. And this is what he said.

He said, I know the company is very well. I know what they're doing, but I have to see. I have to see what percentage of market they have. We have to see the Netflix percentage of market, Paramount's percentage of market, and he wanted to say, I mean, none of them are particularly great friends of mine.

You know, I just want to do what's right. So very important to do what's right. Now, here's the thing. The Paramount deal has his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, behind it, it appears, helping raise funds for it.

Although President Trump was asked about that today, and he said that he didn't really know what Jared Kushner's involvement in this was, okay? And then on the flip side, you know that the co-chair of Netflix are the co-CEO, Ted Sorendos. He's been meeting with President Trump since he took office in his second term and met with him as recently as last month to talk about them potentially buying Warner Brothers. So both sides are trying to get into the ear of President Trump, and as we know, the Ellison family has a long history with Trump as one of his biggest financial supporters.

And some of the money into Paramount's raising might come from some questionable locations, and that could all be part of the discussion as well. Chloe, thank you so much for breaking it down for us. Coming up next, President Zelensky meets with European leaders after President Trump said he was, quote, disappointed in Zelensky over the lack of progress towards peace. We have that reporting and an NBC interview with a top EU official.

That's next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back, Ukrainian President Volodymors Zelensky met with European leaders today in a show of support for Ukraine, as Russia continues its bombardment, and as the White House appears to be pressing Ukraine to sign a peace deal, that would include significant concessions. Here's President Trump last night speaking to reporters on the red carpet before the Kennedy Center Honors. I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn't yet read the proposal.

That was as a few hours ago. His people love it, but he has Russia's fine with it, Russia's, you know, Russia, I guess, would rather have the whole country when you think of it. But Russia is, I believe, fine with it, but I'm not sure that Zelensky's fine with it. Now, despite what the president said that Russia has not agreed to a peace deal, President Zelensky said today that Ukraine is working on a 20-point peace plan with EU leaders, and that he hopes to share it with the U.S.

by tomorrow. I'm skeptical of some of the details, which we are seeing in the documents going from the U.S. site, but we have to talk about that. I have today's meetings in London, NBC News Chief International Correspondent Keir Simmons sat down with European Commissioner Vice President Kaya Kallis.

Well, as President Zelensky prepared to meet with European leaders in London today, some of his key allies, President Trump posted that Ukrainian negotiators, quote, love his peace plan. Now, that may be an example of positive thinking designed to push the peace talks along, because it came after President Trump's own son, speaking in Doha, in the region where I am now, said his dad could abandon Ukraine, and of course, last week, President Putin doubled down on his demands in an interview reported by Russian state media, saying his military will take more territory the whole of Don Bassi said by military or other means. In other words, give us what we want, or we'll just take it by force. Ahead of today's latest European summit, I sat down with the European Commission's Vice President responsible for foreign affairs, and I asked her about the Trump Administration's Russia negotiations.

Can Europe trust the Trump Administration to negotiate with Russia? Well, can we trust Russia? It's the biggest question, because that is the main problem. I mean, if you look at the overall picture, you know, putting the pressure on Ukraine to give in is of course an easy way, but it doesn't give you a sustainable peace, because if you look 100 years back, then Russia has attacked 19 different countries, some as many as three or four times.

So, you know, the problem is clearly Russia doing that over again. So if Ukraine receives security guarantees, they are out of the danger, but then somebody else is in danger. I mean, we have Central Asian countries that have border more than 7,600 kilometers. They have critical wrong materials.

I mean, if a Russian pays off somewhere, then it serves as an invitation to use it elsewhere. That is my point. And that's why we have been also signaling that, you know, in order to have peace, that's a sustainable peace that lasts, we need to get concessions from the Russian side, you know, that they will not do this again. I mean, putting the pressure on the vaccine is easy way, but not the right way.

How would you summarize the outcome of the negotiations in Moscow and then the negotiations in Florida, the negotiations that were continuing just at the end of last week? Well, of course we welcome any push for peace, but we see very clearly that while Ukraine has agreed to uncondition a ceasefire already in February this year, then, you know, Russia is just pretending to negotiate every time, you know, it gets tougher. Then, you know, they make a face and pretend they negotiate. We need to get to a point where they actually need to negotiate.

Already there is real disquiet in part of Europe about the Trump Administration's new national security strategy published last week. It has some highly critical language about European domestic policies like immigration. I asked the European Commission's Vice President about that. The Trump Administration just published its national security strategy.

What it has to say about Europe is unprecedented. What was your reaction when you read it? Well, I read it. I took some positive sides.

America still considers Europe as the biggest ally, and the other thing is also that we should have more self-confidence regarding Russia, for example. This is also very true. I mean, in compared, we have a lot of economic power and a lot of leverage as well, so we should use it wisely. Did you agree with it that Europe's biggest problem is internal?

I mean, everybody has internal issues when you have democracy, and actually those countries who are not democracies also have internal issues, but they don't talk about this. Should America be telling Europe what to do? No, definitely not. Let me be very clear here.

I mean, we have our domestic issues. We are dealing with our domestic issues ourselves. That is very clear. What we are working together with the Americans are transatlantic issues, but also global security issues.

I mean, different parts where we can cooperate together. I mean, the worry is that Americans have when it comes to global drug trafficking, for example, also the worries we have, but global challenges require global solutions, and there we are willing to work together with what comes to our internal issues. We have not done it ourselves. Thanks to care for that reporting.

President Trump's push to redraw Indiana's congressional map to give Republicans an edge in next year's midterm election space is its biggest test yet. You're watching with the press now. Welcome back. The battle over mid-decade redistricting in Indiana faces another critical test this week, as the state's senators now take up the redistricting bill amid immense pressure from the White House.

The Indiana State House passed the new map last week that would eliminate the two democratic held seats, instead making all nine congressional districts lean in the GOP's favor. But some Indiana Senate Republicans have resisted the White House's redistricting push over the weekend. President Trump escalating his pressure campaign, calling out nine Republican senators by name in a social media post, saying they needed encouragement to make the right decision during the onset. He's having seen his national politics report of Ben Camusar.

So Ben, why are these Republicans in the Indiana Senate opposed to this redistricting proposal, even in the face of this pressure campaign for President Trump himself? You know, obviously, President Trump has a huge gravitational poll over Republicans in Washington and around the country, but the further you go out from Washington, the lesser that poll can be a little bit. I mean, ultimately, they could have done this in 2021 during the normal redistricting cycle, but there's always a concern of when you try to draw these maps for this total wipeouts. Are you accidentally making something a little bit too vulnerable for a flip?

They feel really good. Are these Republicans do about the map that they have right now, 7 to 2? They think that the trends up in that first district are really good for them that can make it pretty easily 8 to 2? You know, so ultimately, they didn't want to take on this type of risk.

So if it fails in the Indiana Senate, is that it? Are we done here or is there another option? There's no real magic third door here, right? The governor can't do it himself.

There's no independent commission that could do it, then something has to live and die in legislature. And we've seen these redistricting fights breaking out in red states and in blue states. Is it clear which party is ultimately going to have the upper hand in the 2026 midterms? It's most likely Republicans are going to have an upper hand, particularly now that the Supreme Court has decided to allow for Texas to stay.

But ultimately, the question is going to be, you know, how big of a margin. And when we talk about this back and forth, you know, and you kind of alluded to it already, but when you start to pull from one district to try and create a more Republican-friendly district, then you're pulling from another district, right? And you are creating more potential battle grounds, aren't you? Yeah, and that's why I mentioned you.

We don't know how large this, you know, ultimately is going to shake out because you know, Texas, for example, is always talked about as a state where you could win if Republicans could flip up to five seats. They can do that, but that requires, you know, them to defeat incumbents like Henry Choir, who was just pardoned by the president. He, despite facing, you know, federal indictment won his race last election. So he's certainly, he's a longtime political force in South Texas.

He's going to be hard to beat no matter what. So you'd have to do that. You'd have to beat another incumbent in South Texas. You'd have to buck some trends there.

And so ultimately, yes, you know, in a certain situation, these districts that are becoming more Republican on paper, they look like they will stay. They will turn Republican, but that's on paper and we live in a world of reality. And also, to a certain extent, you were districting based on the reality of politics today, or even maybe last election cycle, those could change dramatically by the fall of 2026, right? Yeah.

No, we talk about the Latino vote too, right? And the decisions were made back when Republicans thought they had a grip on the Latino vote looking to 2024. Now, that's been a little bit of a question in 2025 after results in New Jersey and Virginia. So like I said, it just flips on a dime really easily.

And our Democrats, okay, we're going to have to go there. Sorry about that. My clock's out. So I'm just kind of flying a little bit.

Ben, Ben, thank you for being here rolling with the punches. We're back tomorrow. We're going to meet the press now. There's more news ahead on NBC News now.

I'm Greg Malthus. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half bolt kind of guy.

And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their stories, their stories are funny, and I can't believe so I hope you'll join me each week. And those, you might just come away with your own glass half bolt. Search glass half bolt with Craig Malthus from today on YouTube and wherever you get to podcast.