Meet the Press NOW – February 13

Foreign. Press now on Peter Alexander here in Washington, where we expect Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to arrive at the White House at any moment now. The prime minister will be meeting with President Trump before the two holiday news conference later this evening. This meeting does come just hours after the president laid out his demands for US Trading partners while threatening new tariffs at levels the White House argues would level the playing field.

We are going to get to that in a moment and how it could impact you. But we want to begin with comments that the president made just a short time ago inside the Oval Office siding with Vladimir Putin just 24 hours before White House officials were scheduled to meet with Ukraine's president about potential peace talks as we approach the three year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Among other things, President Trump told the told the individuals with whom he was meeting. He said the following he said report supporters needed to know that he trusts Putin.

He largely blames his predecessor Joe Biden for Ukraine's invasion of Ukraine and he wants Russia back in the G7 global working group, which they were booted from after invading Crimea in 2014. I believe that's the reason the war started, because Biden went out and said that they could join NATO and he should have said that. As soon as he said that, I said, you know what, you can have a war now. And I was right about that.

This is a war that would have never happened. And I think when he said that they could join NATO, I thought that was a very stupid thing to say. I'd like to see peace. Do you trust?

I believe that, yeah. I believe that he would like to see something happen. I trust him on the subject. I think he'd like to see something happen.

I think it could have happened a long time ago. I think Biden, number one, it shouldn't have started, but it did. I think it was a mistake to throw that. It's not a question of liking Russia or not liking Russia.

It was the G8. And you know, I said what are you doing, you guys? What are you talking about is Russia and they should be sitting at the table. President Trump's comments are sure to add to the fears of some of Ukraine's supporters who worry that us could be stacking the deck in vyr Putin's favor ahead of these potential negotiations to try to end the war.

The president this afternoon also backed comments made by his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth from yesterday when Hegseth told Ukraine's allies gathered in Brussels that they needed to essentially abandon two of Ukraine's key goals, security guaranteed from NATO and a restoration of its pre war borders. Today he appears to soften those comments. The president drop in the Zovlov's comments this afternoon said he original marks about Ukraine were quote, pretty accurate. I thought his comments were good yesterday and they're probably good today.

They're a little bit softer perhaps. But I thought his comments from yes, I thought his comments yesterday were pretty accurate. I don't see any way that a country in Russia's position could allow them just in their position could allow them to join NATO. I'm joined now by NBC News y House Corporate Misha Sonoran, former U.S.

ambassador of Russia, Michael McFall. He's also an NBC News international affairs analyst. I thanks to both of you for being here. Yamiche, I'll start with you.

The headline for the presence of remarks for reporters today was supposed to be about tariffs, certainly. Instead he seems to have turned the Ukraine, Russian negotiations upside down yet again. What did we hear specifically on that issue from the Oval Office? Well, Peter, his remarks, the president's remarks about Ukraine and sort of what it could get from peace, I think was really striking.

You heard the president really say that Russia in some ways was going to be calling the shots, including on whether or not Ukraine could even join NATO, saying that he believes believe Russia would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. Of course, that's been a big question whether or not that country would be allowed in that European alliance. And that, of course, is something that Ukraine has been very much pushing for. So to be saying that Russia would be the one sort of making that decision was a big deal.

It was also very interesting to hear him back. Pete Kaiseff, of course, the defense secretary, he made a lot of headlines because Ukraine has been pushing to have its territory restored. We have to remind folks, this all started way back in 2014 when Russia first started invading Ukraine and took over Crimea and of course hasn't pushed through. We know something like 10,000 civilians in Ukraine have died since that this latest duration of the war started three years ago.

So for President Trump to also be saying that he trusts Russia when he, when he, when Vladimir Putin says that he wants to be fighting for another striking part of this, of course, what resilience. He has been saying that allies in the United States should really be cautious in taking anything that Vladimir Putin says at his word. So it's really, I think, striking that President Trump here seems to be doing just that. Peter, let me ask you for a second, the president's praise and really I Think his sort of trust of Vladimir Putin hits a familiar tone from his first term in office.

In a lot of ways, this did sound like a redux of the first go round, sort of warming a rapprochement, as it were, with Russia. That's right, Peter. You know, you and I were there and covered President Trump the first time around together when there was a lot of questions about his relationship with Russia. And President Trump has been very clear this time around that he has a good relationship with Vladimir Putin.

He's been making very clear that he believes that he can negotiate and find a way to find peace between Ukraine and Russia, but really leaning on the fact that he has a personal rapport with Vladimir Putin. So there are a lot of critics of President Trump who said that report was actually too close and that there were some who were wondering whether or not Vladimir Putin even helped him win the election the first time around. Of course, there were big questions about the meddling in the election in 2016 on the part of Russia. But this time around, we did hear that sort of familiar tone from President Trump when talking about Russia.

But I think it goes a step further because now you have Ukraine, who's been embattled and pushing back on this war where so many people thought they would not be able to wage successfully. They've been able to hold their ground in some ways push back Russia on trying to take over large swaths of that country. And now President Trump is coming into office not sounding like someone who is going to be sort of leaning on the side of Ukraine when it comes to holding onto that territory. We heard Vladimir Zelensky, of course, the President of Ukraine has insisted that any American talks with Russia include Ukraine.

These talks really do begin tomorrow. Their schedule happened with Zelensky and his team in Munich alongside Vice President of the United States will be there also, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio will be there. The National Security Advisor will be there. So when you got Vance and Zelensky on opposite sides of the table, what do we expect to become of these talks and how could these comments affect the sort of tenor of them?

Well, I think the comments are definitely gonna affect the tenor of them just in talking facts, but also just in listening to what V.R. zelensky is saying, which is that no one should be taking Russia's word. You have President Trump sounding like he's doing just that. So I think we can't underscore enough that President Trump is in somebody saying out loud that he believes what Ukraine is coming to the table, asking for Even if that's just their opening negotiating tactic, that he has to believe that that's possible.

So I think there's gonna be real consequences there. What actually comes out of those conversations, I think, is a very big question that we don't know yet. I also underscore that our European allies, including Britain, want to also be part of those conversations. NATO wants to be part of those conversations when we think about a peace deal there.

So I think a lot of people are gonna be involved. And President Trump did sort of hint at the idea that other people are gonna be involved in this and that, of course, saying that he's still gonna take the lead here. So very interesting to see what happens. Yeah, certainly, though, obviously, a lot of folks were concerned about Donald Trump speaking about Putin before he spoke to vulnerable leaders.

Once he effectively with the Russians being the last voice in his zero. I want to ask about a little about this, Mr. Basser, if I can. Your reaction.

Will you hear from the president? He spoke about Russia and Ukraine and Vladimir Putin, notably, the president said he would like Russia back in the G7, back in what would become the G8. Peter, where begin. There are so many mistakes in the way that President Trump is negotiating with Vladimir Putin to try to end the war, let alone talk about the G7 becoming the G8.

First, let's start with the facts. Joe Biden, President Biden did not start the war in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. He was not provoked by some new change in policy in just one year, a policy that was consistent with the Trump administration.

Number two, these negotiations are important, and I'm glad President Trump is involved. I'm here at the security conference, and everybody's talking about that there might be a chance for peace. But I've negotiated with Russians as a former ambassador, as a former White House official, and I can tell you, you don't give them everything they want before you sit down at the table. That's just.

It's illogical. I think most negotiations, you don't start that way, but you most certainly don't start that way with Vladimir Putin. And by saying in public that Ukraine will not be a member of NATO and that Ukraine needs to give territory away to Russia, you are handing Putin gifts before the negotiations. Maybe those things have to happen to get to peace, I don't know.

But they should be given as concessions in return for something that Vladimir Putin gives Ukrainians and ultimately European security. So I don't understand the logic. I hope they tighten it up by the time they meet with President Zelensky. Tomorrow, the Master McFarlane asks something we heard from the president today.

We've heard it from him many times before. He says none of this happened on his watch. The annexation of territory in Ukraine, Crimea under Barack Obama, some of the other land in the east under Joe Biden. None of this happened under me.

Donald Trump, does he have a point there? No, he does not have a point there. The war in Ukraine started in 2014. It raged in eastern Ukraine for the entire Trump presidency.

And yes, he has a special relationship with Vladimir Putin. I don't. I take him at his word. But did he use that relationship to end the war then during the Minsk Accords?

During the Minsk Agreements? No, he didn't. So this is correlation. Yes, the war got bigger when President Biden came in, but the idea that none of this would ever happen on his watch, it's just historically incorrect.

And by the way, it doesn't help to bring about peace today. Now, I don't understand why we're litigating the history of the Biden administration every single day on this issue and many others. We should be focused, the president's team should be focused on a real deal that would be good for the Ukrainians and also, by the way, include the Europeans. I'm here in Munich and I can tell you people are outraged that the Europeans were not consulted in any of these initial consultations that the President of the United States did.

Now, I want to get into that with you if I can't get, or your God, what you're hearing on the ground there from America's European allies, but also what you think the impact is of Donald Trump speaking of Vladimir Putin for an hour and a half before speaking of Volodymyr Zelensky and inviting Vladimir Putin to the White House. And he will go to Moscow without offering a similar invitation to Zelensky. Well, of course, in my opinion, he should have talked to President Zelensky first, and then he should have called European leaders. He should have talked to all of Europe so that we had a coordinated position ahead of time.

Second, he shouldn't have started to negotiate with Putin. Ultimately, this is for the Ukrainians to decide that, including the democratically elected president of Ukraine. And the idea that Trump is going to do a deal with Putin and then just email it to Zelensky and say, here's your deal. I'm here to tell you that will not work.

Ukrainians have not lost so many soldiers just to be dictated by the United States and Russian leaders what the terms of this deal would be so I think they made some initial mistakes, and I hope they get back to thinking about, after all, the art of the deal. The deal has to be where both sides give and take something. It is not an artful deal. If you just give Putin everything he wants and then tell the Ukrainian.

Accept it. Ambassador, what's the consequence of this, do you think, this sort of changed relationship between the US and Russia, Some of Trump's, the president's allies would say, hey, it's good to have good relationships with these people, even they're autocrats. What do you fear most? I'm a former diplomat.

I dealt with Vladimir Putin, too. I dealt with autocratic Russia, too. It's not the relationship is not the objective. It's what you do in those phone calls to achieve what objectives.

And sometimes I think President Trump thinks just having a good meeting is the goal. No, that is a means to these other ends. So I'm not against him calling Vladimir Putin, but I want that call to result in things that are good for American national interests. And I think an enduring, lasting peace in Ukraine is in America's national security interests.

I don't think capitulating to everything that Putin wants will lead to an enduring, just peace in Ukraine. And that has, I think, very negative consequences for us and our European allies. Ambassador Mike McFall, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate your time to speak to us. Thank you so much. And I have your anger.

Inside the Justice Department after prosecutors in New York appeared to fight the administration's order to dismiss the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the first. Even more news from the Oval Office as the President lays out his demands for American trading partners while threatening a new round of sweeping tariffs. You're watching me, the press now. Welcome back.

As we mentioned earlier, President Trump has laying groundwork to oppose sweeping tariffs on the US's trading partner, signing a memorandum this afternoon instructing his advisors to draw up what he calls fair and reciprocal tariffs on all major U.S. trading partners, including America's allies. Consumers expect the prices. Not necessarily.

But I'll tell you what, it will go up is jobs. The jobs will go up tremendously. We're going to have great jobs, jobs for everybody. This is something that should have been done many years ago.

And ultimately, prices will stay the same, go down. We're going to have a very dynamic country at the earliest date. Do you think tariffs will actually be implemented? Well, I would say maybe.

I'll ask Howard to answer that because he's going to be the one that's Implementing what do you think? Our studies should be all complete by April 1st. So we'll hand the president the opportunity to start on April 2nd if you want. Sir, directly about this, are they calling you?

Many love it and they say this is going to be the thing that makes our country really prosperous again. This is an amazing day. I think it's going to be a very big day in a very positive way for our country. As a reminder, President Trump signed a memo laying out his plan for reciprocal tariffs.

He did not impose new tariffs. The memo essentially instructs his advisors, as he were there, to determine within what they said is the next 180 days what new tariff levels should be implemented on a country by country basis. Up until now, President Trump has implemented only one set of the tariffs he has threatened. The president also said there would be additional import taxes on cars and my conductors, pharmaceuticals over and above the reciprocal tariffs, though those would come later.

Joining me is Anna Swanson, who covers trade and international economics for the New York Times. She was on a call with a White House official detailing all of this for us that I joined a short time ago as well. So, Ana, you heard the background on this, but you speak this language better than I do. So help, help explain for us exactly what this announcement is today.

In some ways, it's sort of a strongly worded letter and opening salvo more than actual implementation. I agree. So the president is saying, arguing that American tariffs, in his view, have been unfair for a long time. And he's saying that the United States should raise its tariff rates to match those of other countries.

But he's also kind of leaving the door open for negotiations here, you know, saying that countries can come to him and talk about it and we'll see if we can work something out. But he said he's tasking his advisors to essentially come up with new tariff rates for countries around the world based on what tariffs those countries charge the United States, but also other things like taxes and subsidies. So it seems like an exercise that could be incredibly transformative at the end of the day, but could also be a lot about negotiations in the months to so help us understand. Obviously this is part of a large negotiation.

It would appear similar to what we saw with Mexico, Canada and likely with China here. But what is the potential in terms of its effect on global trade? And I guess the bottom line is its effect on what Americans pay. Yeah, so.

So the president didn't give any kind of upper bound for the tariffs that he is considering. So it's really hard to Say you know exactly what this would mean. But it definitely is something that's really just unprecedented and something that would pretty clearly violate the rules of the global trading system as they exist now. The United States has negotiated tariff rates with other countries around the world at the wto and presumably this would break all of those rules in favor of something that the President and his own advisors are going to come up with.

So I think it just, you know, it gives them extraordinary leeway to change America's trading relationships and could mean a big upset for companies that depend on trade or for American consumers as well. You think about the countries sort of, sort of a lack of evenness of equity in terms of what they pay, what we pay. Countries like Vietnam, Brazil, those are the countries that could have the biggest impact. Right.

We're particularly more to receive their products. The President has been, has also been very vocal about the EU's value added taxes, the VAT. Anybody who's traveled overseas sees it. They pay a little extra when they're purchasing things.

It's spread out over the course of product sort of way through the system. Here's what the President had to say about it. Do you have a number in mind on your idea where that number is going? Well, what they are now is they have a 20% VAT tax which we're considering to be similar or the same as it are, plus they charge lots of fees and you know, they're doing something else.

European Union's been very tough on our companies. They sued Apple, they sued Google, they sued Facebook, they sued many other companies and American companies. And the kind of numbers are staggered. An I've been sort of monitoring what you've been reporting on this on the New York Times website right now.

And you view this as a major deal. This is something well above and beyond what we anticipate. We come from these reciprocal tariffs, right? Yeah.

So I think the President really is targeting some of our closest allies with this measure. He talked about the European Union in a call today. A White House official also mentioned Japan and India, whose Prime Minister is actually visiting the White House today. So I think this could really open up trade fights on many fronts for the United States.

The question is just how far did the President and his advisors want to take it? And all indications that they've given us in the last few weeks is that the President is really gung ho about terrorists tariffs, you know, thinks that they really can change the US Economy and is determined to implement them. Well, time will tell. We'll be watching.

Alan Swanson we appreciate you making time to speak to us and share your expertise. Thank you so much. Next right here, RFK Jr. Is sworn in.

The new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. What does confirmation mean? Score President Trump's agenda at a whirlwind of cabinet confirmations. You're watching Meet the Press now.

We're back. Now, as we've said, President Trump is meeting with Indian Prime Minister Modi this hour. But Elon Musk already met with the India leader. Earlier today, Modi tweeted these photos of the meeting in which Musk's young children were present.

You see them there on the left, on the right, That's Modi's entire inner circle, his core of advisors. That meeting comes after overnight, Moscow is leading President Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government. Spoke to a gathering overseas and by via video conference, saying he intends to double down on Doge's commitments. We do need to delete entire agencies as opposed to leave part of them behind.

Because if you leave part of them behind, it's easy. It's kind of like leaving the weed. If you don't remove the roots of the weed, then it's easy for weed to grow back. But if you remove the roots of the weed, it doesn't stop weeds from ever growing back, but it makes it harder.

So we have to really delete entire agencies, many of them. One of the agencies that The President and Mr. Musk want deleted is the Department of Education. It was in focus on Capitol Hill today as the Senate held its confirmation gearing for Linda McMahon.

You see there the president's paper, Education secretary of the former wrestling executive. McMahon was questioned about the president's plan to abolish the department that she would lead. Yes or no? Do you agree that since the department was created by Congress, it would need an act of Congress to actually close the Department of Education?

And certainly President Trump understands that we'll be working with Congress. We'd like to do this right. We'd like to make sure that we're presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with and our Congress could get on board with. A federal judge has ruled that President Trump's buyout program for federal employees can move forward with its implementation.

The Trump administration said about 75,000 or so federal workers accepted that deal, which was below the White House's targets. To be clear, NBC News can independently verify the number of employees who took the offer. I have reached out to the White House for a breakdown by agency, Department of exactly where these jobs are coming from. And joining us now as White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard.

He is at his post today on Capitol Hill. Vaughn, let's start with Elon Musk meeting with Prime Minister Moby, if we can, before the prime minister even met with President Trump. Can you give us a sense of the purpose of that meeting? The outstanding question that we don't have a good answer to is, was Musk there as a special government employee or as a private CEO?

President Trump didn't even have an answer to that. Just a short time ago inside the Oval Office, the president himself was asked about the context of the meeting between Modi and Musk. And he said in his own words, without directly responding to the question, whether he had conversations related to actual government business. Instead, he said that he knows that Elon Musk likely has a lot of business interests that he'd be interested in talking with Modi about.

And so I think that really gets at the heart in the layers of this year in the images that you see because we have heard from Elon Musk directly that looked really more like the type of photography you see in a bilateral meeting between two heads of state. And it was Modi who after the fact, put out on a social media post about the meeting that they discussed, quote, various issues, including those he was passionate about, about such as space, mobility and innovation. There's a lot to this meeting here, Peter. And to be clear, what would Modi have to offer that would be of any use to Doge or to deal with the government and Musk's responsibilities trying to evaporate waste and fraud.

Right. I think that's the question. If Elon Musk was working in the capacity of Doge and cutting waste and fraud, there's very little that one could come up with in terms of what Modi is able to offer. There are other issues like H1B visas.

More than 2/3 of H1B visa holders and work in the United States are Indian nationals. And so we've heard Elon Musk, much to the begrudging of many other Republicans, has been an advocate for expanding the H1B visa program and allowing the number of high tech skilled workers to come into the United States. Again, we don't know if that was discussed either here. We don't know the extent to which potentially tariffs were discussed or immigration in large part because clearly the White House, it's not clear to them.

But also we haven't heard Elon Musk on the strictly himself either. You have to imagine at some point other American CEOs gonna be watching these pictures of Musk meeting with foreign leaders and saying themselves, why are we not getting a private meeting with the president, the prime Minister of India. Let me ask you, if I can, about the Linda McMahon testimony today. Considering she's up for a job that her boss wants her to eliminate, what were the biggest takeaways that came out of this?

Right. There's no indication that Lind McMahon is not going to be confirmed by this U.S. senate. But for Linda McMahon, she has been elevated and nominated for this post.

And I think, though, it was telling to hear her directly in response to Senator Bernie Sanders questioning about who has the power to actually eliminate departments, which President Trump has pledged to do. And her response? She said that it is up to Congress to authorize that now that the bar to do that is very steep. It would take 60 votes in the Senate, which would require potentially seven Democrats to join Republicans.

And there's no indication that seven Democrats have the intent to dispatch the Department of Education. Yet at the same time, there's a lot that can be done in terms of appropriations. Congress is actively working on the budget. And potentially we have seen just in the last weeks previously approved funds by Congress to be through these departments and agencies, not dispersed in the way that they intended.

And so we could see that in this Department of Education, Linda McMahon saying she will carry out the desires of President Trump. Well, Hilary, we appreciate reporting the capital right now. Thank you so much. Senior national political correspondent, reporter Sahil Kapoor, Democratic strategist and former Obama campaign advisor Misha Cross.

A National Review editor, Ramesh Panuru. So I will start with you, President Trumpulan by they keep claiming that their focus is waste, fraud, abuse. We've heard that going back for a long time. Right now, they present a lot of what I think most Americans could say is waste or money that needs to be reformed and not spent the way that is.

But the challenge is, when it comes to the issue of fraud specifically, we haven't really demonstrated any evidence of findings of fraud, which of course is a crime. How is this being viewed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill? Well, it's called a mild stir, in part because some of the cuts that President Trump and Elon Musk are proposing with the blunt instrument have pain that hits home for these members of Congress. The NIH cuts are a good example.

You saw Senator Katie Britt of Alabama. The University of Alabama gets a lot of money from the nih, and she would lose. They create a lot of jobs there. Others, like Senator Ducasse Louisiana worries that the money that's not coming to Louisiana and other institutions with the burn down the senator Jeremiah concerned about the grain, the products that they produce around the world.

USAID foreign aid. There's a broad desire amongst cut foreign aid. But suddenly this food for peace program would benefit a lot of farmers in rural Suddenly you got a bunch of members in Kansas and North Dakota and these Republicans who generally, you know, want to cut spending and want to be a criticized foreign aid. Suddenly they're all like Mother Teresa saying we have to deal with world hunger and we have to combat starvation.

And this food for peace program does that. Are farmers up with that? So yes, I think that's the risk for President Trump. He uses too blunt instrument, causes too much pain in these red districts, these red states.

They will push back fundamentally the question a lot of Americans or those keep close eyes on politics for asking where are the Democrats on this? Where's the real good Democrat? The Democrat pushed back on this. We've had, we've seen some rallies outside some of these agencies that are either being shrunk down size even potentially shut down right now.

But is their messaging effective to this point and what do you propose would be the best way to communicate the Democratic message on everything we're witnessing so far? I think the best messengers right now is no one are actually the people who is affecting the most. So we saw the National Education association in EA or the American Federation of Teachers when they brought teachers in to D.C. just yesterday to have those conversations not only on the Hill, but also protests who are talking about what happened.

Department of Ed was to be dissolved. And without it being dissolved, we're talking about a lot of what's happening because of the Trump executive orders that came out a couple weeks ago. The things that are attacked right now are really bothering people on a state level. So as much as the Democratic Party at the national level can elevate people locally, I think that's what made a big difference.

Also listen to what those individuals were saying. It's not that they're not talking, it's the Democrats are trying to still figure their way out of the really deep hole when it comes to messaging. But the people on the ground get it. They're the ones who are affected the most.

When Trump decided he was going to cut off that budget, that federal budget ticket, the people who are running those community organizations, veterans organizations, after school programs, the programs that help with some of our youngest learners, they were the people who were speaking out and those messages rang loudly. Democrats need to Follow daily from Masha Democrats doing a good job in making this message clear to Americans, say Americans seem to be mostly satisfied with what they've heard or at least paid attention to from Donald Trump. Democrats just have a structural disadvantage right now. You just don't have a mephone as big as the White House megaphone.

There's a lot of excitement, there's a lot of drama, and there's a president who knows how to exploit that sense of drama and excitement. But what the Democrats can do is by standing as a block in opposition to congressional proposals, make it extremely difficult for Congress to get anything done with President Trump. That is going to become more important later on in this year as it becomes clear, I think, that a lot of what Musk is proposing and talking about can't happen without congressional buy in. Let me ask you one thing, if I can about we saw for the Department of Education potential secretary Linda Pan, likely to become the secretary after her confirmation here.

Was she successful in getting her message across there? It's sort of delicate balance. Right. Because her job is to really edge that she's taking over.

Well, it was interesting that she acknowledged that Congress had to work with administration. She said, we want to do this the right way. We want to shut my agency down the right way. And the fact is you cannot unilaterally, as an executive branch, get rid of the cabinet department that Congress has started.

You can't even do it through reconciliation, which is to say you'd be subject to a filibuster. What this means is the Department of Education is going to stay around. Yeah, it needs 60 votes. It's not a simple majority like living demands on confirmation itself would be.

Here, your takeaway results. This is all going to come to head in the March 14 government funding deadline. That is where Democrats have real leverage, not just the magnetic leverage, not just the messaging leverage. But he needs 60 bills to get a government funding bill through, even if the Stop Gap bill and continue resolution.

And there's real angst among Democrats as to how can they agree to a funding deal with President Trump if he's going to ignore parts of it. In other words, not spend some of the money the Congress has directed, even if they do, by the way, abolish the entire Department of education. That's not about 4% of federal spending. They abolish all four and a what are they going to do?

It's 1% of federal spending. This is the big contradiction that President Trump, Elon Musk and all the rhetoric and all the bluster about Cutting waste and cutting spending and downsizing government, even balancing the budget. They're not going after things that really cost money. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military and veterans.

That is three quarters of the budget. That's also their entire law scored against election cycle. They're not using those things because they know that voters on the ground actually strongly support them. Well, the bottom line I want to ask is speaking about money.

Here is the topic of tariffs right now. Right. Because I think most Americans hear a lot of stuff and I dare say for a lot of people it's a lot of noise. What they care about is what's in it for me, what happens to my pocket booking home, the cost of groceries, of goods and everything else I need.

The president today just announcing reciprocal tariffs. Let's be clear, there's probably a six month window, 180 days we heard from White House officials on calls over the course of the day with the president will be presented with a country by country reciprocal tariff proposal that he can do with as he pleases. Tariffs. At the end of the day, this may be where the rubber meets the road.

Right. Because this is what can impact what we pay for at home. Absolutely. I think that, you know, President Trump not being able to talk off the lid when it comes to tariffs is going to be the thing that basically is outer shots for him.

Because at the end, unfortunately the United States does not make as much as Donald Trump would like for us to say we make home world. So we're talking about cars when we're talking about the price of our goods and groceries and the grocery stores, which you love to bring up groceries. When we're talking about the division of labor. A lot changes when you decide that you are going to create these massive amounts of tariffs and those are paid on the backs of everyday Americans, Americans who are still in a dire issue related to how they're adjusting to their new normal post the pandemic.

Yes, economically we are more stable than any other country on the globe. But when people cannot afford to pay their rent, when they can't afford the cost of utilities, they can't afford the price of eggs and you're adding these tariffs back to school is going to be a real thing post summer. Everyone knows that by the time that happens, should his terrorists, no one knows that you're going to have three to four times the cost of what you have right now. I don't know the sale trouble, but at the end of the day, every economist knows that this is a bad idea.

Trump's terrorists in the first term, studies found that they pose a lot of costs. They didn't create a lot of jobs. But Americans shielded from their impact. Because you had good macroeconomic environment going in this time you have the backdrop of inflation.

Much more challenging situation. Yeah, you're right. I think that's what Americans are looking for. Day one, I start bringing prices down.

Day 100 prices down. Then we set it Republican voting against several of these nominees to this late turnaround, as it were. Yeah, who knew? Mitch McConnell is a reggae.

He's been a loyal party guy for his decades. He's been a senator for longer than I belong. He's accumulated his power by understanding his confidence really well and reflecting it. That's the leader McConnell that we saw for the last couple decades, for his 18 years.

But there's also the Senator McConnell who has a very different set of instincts. He does not support the MAGA turn that the party has taken. He does not have the same instincts as Donald Trump. He had his reasons for voting as he peg said Tulsi Gabbard, R.K.

the last two of them, he was the only Republican who stepped out and voted Noan. That's really remarkable to see in part because no one was following him. It shows how much of almost an pass he's come in his own party. But it also shows he's probably in his last turn now he's up for election 26.

I doubt he's gonna run again. I'd be very shocked if he does. And it looks like he's voting his conscience. A reminder that his own wife, his own wife served in the cabinet of President Trump the first over at times have changed the relationship between those parties.

Nice to see all of you. Appreciate you Misha being here. Very much appreciate you. Thank you as well.

Next we have breaking news has NBC News and Tate of bombshell allegation from top prosecutor who just resigned from the Justice Department over the Trump administration's order to dismiss the criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. You're watching the press now. We're back. Now we are following some breaking news.

The former acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of York is now making some stunning new allegations against a top Justice Department official as as well as the New York City Mayor Eric Adams that former U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon says the mayor's attorney effectively proposed a quid pro quo offering Adams assistance to the Justice Department if the corruption charges against him were dropped. The allegation comes on the same day that Sassoon resign after refusing to drop the crushing charges against the mayor.

Two prosecutors here in Washington also announced their resignations. And today the acting US Deputy attorney general announced that he was transferring out of his prosecution from the SDNY to the main doj. It's a lot to digest and say rights. NBC News law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter, who joins us now.

Tom, walk us through this. Exactly who is Danielle Sassoon? What specifically is she alleging here? Right.

So at the end of the Biden administration, obviously there was gonna be a changeover. In fact, the U.S. attorney in New York here had already resigned. That was Damian Williams.

He was in charge when the charges were filed against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. So Danielle Sassoo, pending the confirmation of Trump appointee Jay Clayton into the U.S. attorney's office, took over. She, you were looking at her there.

She is a federal prosecutor who went up against Sam Bankman Free cross examined him at that trial and really did a number on him in his defense. And then is somebody who is known for her conservative strikes. She clerked for Justice Scalia. She's somebody who's written for the Federalist.

She's somebody who came out with a strong op ed against former President Joe Biden in the Wall Street Journal and his actions. She writes today in a letter leading up to her resignation. I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, when Mr. Bovey, who's the acting Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Adams's counsel, and members of my office, Adams's attorneys, repeated the urge when I mounted to a quick program indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with departments with department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.

So what she is saying in charging here is that she effectively oh, and there's this that she had one of her assistant United States attorneys are taking notes at the end of that, apparently, according to her and her letter, Imel Bovey asked for those notes and took them at the meeting's conclusion. So what is happening here effectively is that you have Sassoon saying, look, in this meeting, the mayor of the city, New York said, look, I'll help you guys out with your, with your enforcement priorities, which in this case is specifically immigration priorities in New York City. In return, if you drop the charges, what is question about this is was the city, was the mayor of the city of New York trading the public safety of New Yorkers for his own legal benefit? There are going to be serious political fallout questions from this in serious questions about the Department of Justice's actions here.

Peter, what is the Status of this prosecution, Is it done, Gone over? Dunno. I mean, what happened here this afternoon prior to this was already an extraordinary afternoon. Peter, the case still stands.

It's not been formally dismissed on the docket once Sassoon tendered her resignation at approximately 1:50pm today, she apparently at that point the U.S. attorney's office also said, or she said, that the other assistant US Attorneys who are actually working in the Adam's case supported her view. Those assistant US Attorneys were placed on leave. Then the case was transferred to public integrity in D.C.

where you are. Then the two top people of public integrity at the Department of Justice said, we're not going to drop it either we reside. So what actually happens here is a huge question, Peter. So walk us through if you can, the long term effects, Tom, of this whole standoff on the doj, on the sdny.

This is the first sort of major real head to head episode where you're seeing some real pushback from some of these US Attorneys around the country. Typically, Peter, the Southern District would respond to a request like this if the Justice Department was even gonna make it because they know it would be perilous for them to do so from a public relations standpoint. But in past, if they were to kind of communicate this to the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, given their level of education and their ability to communicate, would politely have sent back to them basically a blank view.

And we're gonna do what we do because we're our own district and we bring these types of cases. What happened here today is that apparently occurred in the Justice Department. And I want people to understand this. Abel Bovey is not concerned with your feelings, is not concerned with how people perceive him, is not concerned with how this case going is gonna go going forward or any other enforcement actions.

He is there because he believes that there are higher priorities and those are prescribed by the president in the White House specifically, and that those priorities need to be acted upon. And if Daniel Sassoon resigns, others resign. If acting U.S. attorneys don't want to go along with it, they'll be placed on leave and be put under investigation, as they have been in this case by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Office of Attorney General.

And it's basically, this is what we're going to do. This is what we were elected to do, and we're going to pull all the levers that we have in our power to achieve our priorities in this case, immigration enforcement. So I don't say that in a way of color it to provide any sort of editorial. It's just the way that it is.

And if Abel Bovey was sitting next to us, Peter, that's exactly what he would say too. There's a higher mission here and they expect their prosecutors, whether in their New York City, Oklahoma City or Los Angeles, to follow their word. Hannibal Bobbet of course, ascended from his past position as President Trump's personal attorney for some of the cases that he was facing there in New York City. Tom Winter, I appreciate your expertise in your reporting here.

I want to stick with this breaking news for a moment and inviting the conversation to New York Democratic Congressman, that's Adriano Espanatt. He is the chairman, he's the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Congressman, we're Eric gets immigration. That's why we invited you to have this conversation with us.

But I gotta get your reaction to this news out of the sdny, this other district there in New York where this federal prosecutor resigned alleging a quid pro quo to drop charges against New York City's mayor Eric Adams. What is your reaction to that? Very troubling, extremely troubling. That someone's personal situation could get in the middle of immigrants.

I'm an immigrant myself in New York City is extremely troubling to me. Can I get a sense for you then what you think the consequence should be here? If it's true, should Mayor Adams be removed from his position, that's another matter. I mean he will have to make a decision.

I guess we'll have to look into what the law says. But I think he's troubling. Anytime a leader puts their own particular situation ahead of what may be the safety of the average New Yorker. So let me step back even before the news today, regardless of any quid pro quo, whether it proves to be true or not, do you think dropping these charges was proper?

I believe in due process. I've always believed in due process. Everyone is entitled to due process. No one should be above the law.

And if the law wasn't applied here, then I have a serious problem with it. If it's within the framework of the law, of course, then we'll have to take a look at those specifics. No doubt we'll keep it close eye. We'll circle back as we learn more about it.

I appreciate your real time reaction as we get that reporting. And here our news report, we'll ask you about Mayor Adams from only met with Donald Trump supporters. Arts on Holman today. Do you think the mayor right now is acting on behalf of what he thinks is best for the city or do you have concerns he's focused on his own political survival?

I think that there are lots of New Yorkers that are immigrants that have not committed a violent crime that are out there very scared right now. This came from a restaurant where the waitress came up and whispered in my ear how scared she was as the news was on TV live about only being, being around New York City. So there's a chilling effect out there that is gripping the city. And it's not good for the city.

I don't think it's good for the nation. I think that of course, if people commit a violent crime and they are, they go to trial, they found guilty, then they should be sent back. But not people that may have had an offensive ticket or speeding ticket. They jump to turnstile.

These are mothers and fathers, grandparents that contribute to their families. And I don't think we should be in that predicament as a or as a country. Congressman, the Justice Department, as you know, filed a civil lawsuit against the state of New York and several of its public officials over its policies as they relate to migrants that have come to New York State. At her first press conference since being sworn, we heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi where she attacked a New York State law that allows a documented migrants to receive driver's licenses and requires the DMV to inform those individuals if a federal immigration agency requests their information.

So I want your take on this civil suit from the Justice Department right now. Do you think that they have a legitimate issue with the way the state is governed? Should the state be doing anything differently with Donald Trump in the White House? No, I think the state is doing everything they should do.

In fact, if somebody commits a violent crime, crime again, the federal authorities could have access to that information, but not if it's a non violent offense. Again, there is a difference between a violent person, a violent felon and someone that made a minor mistake on any given day in the city or state of New York. I think those people that did a minor mistake that is non violent on a given day that any of us could do should not be subject to deportation. Particularly if you're splitting families up, right?

This is bad for New York and bad for the country. So you can a violent crime. There are already laws in the books that say that you're going to be arrested, you're going to go to trial and the federal authorities will be informed and if convicted, then you're subject to deportation. Holman says his top priority is to protect New Yorkers from violent criminals.

Do you believe him? I believe that we should all protect ourselves from violent criminals. You don't believe that their enforcement is focused on violent criminals? No, I think that they have cast a wire net out there and we will soon find that many people that have not committed a violent crime are also being subject to be deported.

So, no, I think that they have cast a wider net. There's fear out there. It's impacting small businesses. People are not even on the streets the way they walking around the way they used to New York City.

And so should we do this as a country? So some of the jump to turnstile on a given day, a young person without papers then be arrested and send back to wherever they came from. Or should they. If their father or mother, should they continue to support their children?

That is what is before us. Of course, there are laws in the book. I give this 170 pieces of law in the penal code that protect us from violent criminals that commit violent crimes. And they of course are entitled also to due process.

And if found guilty, they should. Let me ask you if I can. This is from your fellow Congressional Hispanic Caucus member, New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. She recently said the following will share it so people home can read.

It says, what is the party's message on immigration? There presently is not one Congressman. How would you answer that question? Well, she's a member of our caucus and our caucus began to work on a very important message, which is dreamers.

We believe in dreamers. They should be regularized. We believe in farm workers. They are the ones that bring the food to our table and our prices will go up if they don't work the farms.

And we believe in keeping families together. That is our message. Dreamers, farm workers and keeping families together. So to be clear, you talk about dreamers and farmers and keeping families together.

In a sense, are you laying low until the president starts supporting individuals who are not criminals? There are. There are some that don't want you to wait. They want you to take action on this now.

No, we're working every day. My office is working every day to educate people, to let them know what their rights are, where they get legal services. But again, we believe that dreamers that have been here on average over 20 years that provide for our economy. We leave farm workers that go out and pick, you know, all kinds of fruits and vegetables, a dinner table.

We believe that families should be kept together, that a child should not be ripped away from their mother. That's our message as a Congressional Hispanic Caucus, dreamers, farm workers and keeping families together. We also believe in other things as well. Within the immigration debate.

We're not exempt from taking a position on tps, temporary protective status or other issues. But right now our primary issues are dreamers, farm workers and keeping families together. We also know that the border needs to be safer and we're willing to talk about that as well. So at the same time, our Hispanic Democrats who say the party is out of touch, in particular to the Lutina working classroom, Gallego recently told NPR the following he said it's usually white liberals that are talking to liberal Latinos and they are essentially saying that's what working class Latinos feel and think about immigration, when in reality they don't.

Your thoughts on that comment? We're not a monolithic community. You know, we have people that come from different countries that live in different regions. They are the Latinos that live at the border that have a more in depth and more intimate opinion about what happens at the border than New Yorkers like myself that live at the border, that live in Manhattan.

We have Latinos that live on the west coast and Latinos that live in Florida. They may have a different persuasion about the entire immigration issue, but altogether we're bounded by the, I think three fundamental elements, dreamers, farm workers and keeping families together. Congressman Adriano Espe, I appreciate you spending so much time with us dealing with breaking news as we watch you come in here. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. We hope to have you back again soon. We are back here tomorrow with more Me the press. Now the news continues with my friend Hallie Jackson Right now as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop with a podcast from NBC News with your host Gazian.

We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing closer to headlines conversations that are shaping our world. The front page to the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Spotify.