Meet the Press NOW — February 14

If it's Friday, U.S. officials meet with President Zelensky amid a flood of mixed messages from the Trump administration about its plans for peace talks with Russia and its support for Europe. Plus, New York Mayor Eric Adams and President Trump's borders speak out amid a wave of resignations at the Justice Department protesting the administration's order to dismiss corruption charges against the mayor so he can help the White House crack down on migrants and criminals. And gutting the federal government and fighting the courts.

It's another dramatic day for Doge, as the White House tells government agents and leaders to fire recent hires in a move that could oust hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Hi there. Welcome to Meet the Press now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington.

As U.S. allies, try to make sense of a dizzying 24 hours of mixed messages from the White House about its support for Europe and Ukraine. The lack of clarity from the White House comes as top officials from the Trump administration are meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in Munich about potential peace talks with Russia. And as both the President and Vice President have made new comments sympathetic to Russia and against the state of Western democracy, sending a chill through Europe.

Earlier today, a team led by Vice President Vance met with President Zelensky, striking a cautiously optimistic tone that a deal could be reached. Fundamentally, the goal is as President Trump outlined it, we want the war to come to a close. We want the killing to stop, but we want to achieve a durable lasting peace, not the kind of peace that's going to have Eastern Europe in conflict just a couple of years down the road. What they need to speak more, to work more, and to prepare the plan, how to stop Putin and finish the work.

We want, really, we want peace very much, but we need a real security guarantees. But the U.S. position going into potential talks between Ukraine and Russia has been all over the map. And the Oval Office yesterday, President Trump said that he trusts Vladimir Putin on issues tied to the war.

The former President Biden, not Putin, for Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and said that he wants Russia back in the G7, which it was booted from after its invasion of Crimea. And today, on the biggest global stage of his tenure as Vice President, JD Vance lectured European leaders telling them Russia is not their biggest problem, migrants and censorship. The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.

And of all the pressings' challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants. But you know what they did vote for. In England, they voted for Brexit, and a Greer disagree, they voted for it.

And more and more all over Europe, they're voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration. But in separate comments, the Vice President threatened additional sanctions on Moscow if they don't make peace while saying that sending U.S. troops in Ukraine was on the table. However, he clarified those remarks in a post this afternoon, saying that U.S.

troops shouldn't be put in harm's way if it doesn't advance American interests and security, and that this war is between Russia and Ukraine. Moments ago, the White House President Trump said that he heard the Vice President's speech and doubled down on his remarks. You talked about freedom of speech? Is it possible that they had to keep it down a little bit?

They're losing their wonderful right of freedom of speech. I see it. I mean, I thought he made a very good speech, actually, a very brilliant speech. Europe has to be careful.

And he talked about immigration. And Europe has a big immigration problem. Just take a look at what's happened with crime, take a look at what's happening in various spots of Europe. I thought his speech was very well received.

NBC News Senior National Security Corresponding QB is on the ground in Munich, and NBC News Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake is with me here on set. So Courtney, you're on the ground there. And what do we know about what was said in this meeting between the U.S. team that was led by J.D.

Vance and President Zelensky? Yeah, first one thing I just want to say, I was there for J.D. Vance's speech, and President Trump saying it was well received is simply not how it was received in the room. On the contrary, there were people looking around, they were making faces.

There were times where you could audibly hear people retorting back to him from the audience. And I've never heard anything like that at this conference before. And also I was really struck by how he received almost no applause. Not only that, though, Ryan, afterwards, I moderated a panel right after with the German Defense Minister and the President of Lithuania and an official from France.

I was astonished at how critical they were condemning J.D. Vance's remarks, including the German Defense Minister. So, it's been a remarkable speech today at a time when people in the audience were expecting to hear about security here in Europe, and specifically what the U.S. is going to do with security for Ukraine and with potentially negotiating or brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

And instead he came and sort of lecturing about democracy and freedom of speech here in Europe. On the meeting with President Zelensky, he'd literally just left here a few moments ago. And he met with J.D. Vance, one of the big issues that we're told they discussed was critical minerals.

It is the Treasury Secretary Scott was sent, traveled to Ukraine this week to meet with President Zelensky and talk about some sort of a deal for the U.S. to have some rights to the critical minerals in Ukraine or help them develop them. Beyond that, we don't have any sense still of any other details of what this potential peace deal might look like. I'm asking officials here and I have to say, Ryan, the main, look, the Munich Security Conference, there's always a lot of talk about Russia.

In the past several years, especially from 2022 on, but today, this year, it is all about Russia and Ukraine and what a potential deal will look like and whether one can actually be achieved. Well, Courtney, that's why we send you to these conferences to get that on the ground perspective so that we can get the true story based, that might be separate from what the President told us. Let's go to Garrett now. So, Garrett, what is the actual position of the White House right now?

On ending the war, look, I mean, let me say none of this should be a surprise how this played out in Munich today. Including J. J.D. Vance perhaps getting booed.

In fact, that Vance was not well-received by European allies, so they could add a touch on this issue. They want to see a negotiated settlement to this war, they understand that Ukraine's going to have to give up territory, they understand that NATO memberships are probably not going to be on the table. And to the degree that there's frustration within the Trump team, and maybe just between the individual players here, but all of this was, there were policy points that they essentially campaigned on. They didn't keep a secret.

I think it's just a matter of, you know, bringing the Europeans along with them, which is going to be an ugly process. But J.D. Vance is perfectly comfortable with being bad-popped in this situation. Right.

He didn't run to be the Vice President of the European Union. That's right. That's what might be the response he had. I'm not a Trump in the Oval Office against today, saying a lot.

Give us a readout of what he talked about in your analysis. Well, I thought this was interesting. He signed two executive orders that basically solve problems that arguably don't exist. He signed an executive order that would ban federal money going to any school district that requires a COVID vaccine for K-12 students to attend.

There's no state in the country that we can find that has any such requirement, but it's something that he ran on. He also signed an executive order basically on his plan to revitalize American energy, get American energy production up to levels it's never seen before, but America already produces more oil and gas sitting in a country in the history of the world. These were campaign promises. You had the sort of executive order signed with a rhetorical flourish that may have very little practical impact, but I think it's part of the kind of shock and awe campaign that we've seen from the president to just try to look active at Fair Isle and he's out here doing all these things every single day.

Beyond that, he continued to take questions on this topic about the end of the war and also about the war with Gaza, where he and the White House believe his intervention in the form of threats against Hamas was critical to getting Hamas to agree to continue the release of hostages this weekend, as is apparently now the plan. Trump says he wants to see more. He'd like to see them all out. He's sort of mused on this topic at great length, but I think this is probably as far as he and his rallies have been in lockstep as getting to this resumption or some release on Saturday.

That's a lot about how Senate Republicans seemingly are just going to let Trump do whatever he wants. At least they have a bit to this point, but now that we're starting to see some of the practical implications of some of these decisions that Trump's making, we are starting to see some at least gentle pushback. Senator Roger Wicker, who really carried Pete Hexes water in the Senate confirmation process, talked to Politico today about Hexeth getting ahead of the negotiations. He said, everybody knows and people in the administration know you don't say before your first meeting what you will agree to and what you won't agree to, and this is talking about the situation there.

Hexeth, he said, made a rookie mistake. How's the White House responding to what Wicker had to say here? Well, the president responded to this in the office as though he were not familiar with the comments. He did say Roger Wicker is a friend, and I think it's clear that Pete Hexeth is a rookie.

There's nothing quite like what he's doing now that he's ever done in his background. That said, I think he'd understand about this White House and about Donald Trump in general, as Donald Trump ultimately at the end of the day views himself as the person who's going to make deals and the person who's going to decide what's on the table and what's not. And that will probably change a dozen times between now and whenever these negotiations get started. So everything that's happening in Munich right now, everything that the Vice President and the Pete Hexeth may be saying.

I think if you were to give them truth serum in the White House, they'll say, that's all well and good. I think it's going to be something that's going to happen in a room that are going to make this deal. That's the way he has been. And every stage of his career in business and in politics, he doesn't do it from sort of the bottom up bubble up interagency process that we're used to seeing.

So, Corey, let's go back to you now. Are the US and Ukraine even seeing eye to eye right now? How do things stand with that relationship? So, I mean, President Zelensky is not condemning anything that the United States is saying, but Ukrainian officials are saying, what is the actual message here?

Where does the US stand? It's not just the Ukrainians. US allies here are absolutely befuddled by the fact that it seems there is a message coming out of Vice President Vance, a message coming out of Secretary Rubio, and a message coming out of Secretary Hegset. And they are not overlapping.

And just to add to it, they are all, in Europe, speaking to various media outlets and they're not coordinating with one another seemingly. So, there's a lot of confusion. I mean, the biggest thing that is really causing a lot of consternation, according to a number of allies who I've spoken with, is this idea that the US believes that NATO membership Ukraine is not a reality. There's a lot of concern among allies that that is just tying Ukraine's hand or putting them at a disadvantage at a time where there seems to be some hope there's momentum for some sort of a peace talk or a peace agreement.

But the question is exactly how and when could both sides come to the table. President Zelensky today has very openly said that he has no intention of turning back any Russian occupied areas or giving up any Russian occupied areas. He does not intend, and he is still calling for Ukraine to have some security guarantees, including potential NATO membership. So, they're not on the same page here, but publicly, they're not dismissing one another.

Okay. I'd like to talk about and glad to have both of you on to talk about it, Courtney and Garrett, thank you both. We're going to continue this conversation now. With Washington Democratic Congressman Adam Smith, he is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the perfect person that's to continue this conversation with Congressman.

I want to first start with the US position going into these talks with Zelensky today and the push to end the war. You are the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. You're someone that should be plugged in on this. From your perspective, what is the US posture right now when it comes to these negotiations?

Well, right now that posture is one of weakness. I mean, we're telling Putin what we're going to give up, and we're not telling him what we're going to stand for. Look, a negotiated settlement is where we need to get to. No question about it.

But where are the words from the president or the vice president or anyone that says a cornerstone of any agreement has to be security guarantees for Ukraine? Because what Putin wants, Putin wants Ukraine to basically disarm and then he'll promise not to go any further. But we can't take his word on that. We need to make a commitment for the long-term security of Ukraine.

The only thing that's going to force Putin to the table, nobody in the Trump administration has been willing to say that. They've been willing to talk about everything that Ukraine should give up. And by the way, a second point we should make, whatever the facts on the ground are, we cannot legitimize Russia taking sovereign territory of Ukraine by force. If you want to say we're not going to be able to push you out, fine, but it will not be recognized as Russian territory, whatever the negotiation is.

So all I see from Trump advance is weakness in the face of Putin, who is sure to take advantage of that and continue to prosecute the war while he thinks it's going his way. Yeah, so it seems as though you think Russia has the upper hand, by extension, do you feel as though Ukraine and President Zelensky have found themselves back into a corner right now? They're getting close to it. I mean, fortunately, Trump is not as far as we know put this deal on the table or main negotiations with Putin, but the way the language is headed right now, it does put Zelensky in a corner.

And the other thing to be real concerned about, military leaders have been telling you for a long time, as part of this negotiation, Putin is going to want concessions from NATO in the U.S. as well. President Trump is amused about reducing the defense budget, you know, he has more than once and used about whether or not to stay in NATO. We also have to make it clear that whatever the negotiation in Ukraine, NATO is staying in NATO.

We do not trust Putin. We're Poland. If you're any one of the Baltics, you want security guarantees to be ironclad as well. If we show that strength, you know, Ukraine has done a remarkable job of defending itself.

Frankly, we, in the 54 nation alliance that President Biden, Secretary Austin and others put together, have done a remarkable job of holding Putin at bay. Let's force him to the table. Let's not say we're going to back down as our opening gambit. It's interesting you make that point that there is this 54 nation coalition that is basically served as the backstop for Ukraine.

Does it feel right now as these negotiations at least get to the starting point, they're not quite there yet, that the U.S. is acting like a neutral party, not necessarily a direct ally of Ukraine? Well, certainly the things that Trump and Vance and others are saying is undermining our coalition, okay, whether you want to say we're acting like a neutral party all of a sudden, I don't know, but they're clearly undermining the coalition by not standing up for the basic principles of what we're there for. I mean, we're there to protect a sovereign democratic Ukraine and to make sure they're strong enough to do that.

We're going to abandon those principles in many of the comments that have been made, yes, that undermines the coalition. And again, it disincentivizes Putin from coming to the table. Let's talk about the Secretary of Defense's role in all of this Pete Hegsef. I'm sure you saw in the comments by Senator Roger Wicker, who's the chair of the Armed Services Committee on the Senate side.

You're the ranking member in the House. He said that he made a rookie mistake by taking Ukraine's goals off the table. Do you think that Hegsef heard America on a global stage this week? Well, yes, but I also, I disagree with Roger on this one, because I don't know that what Hegsef said was that much more inconsistent than what Trump or Vance said.

So I mean, I wish it was just a rookie mistake. I wish it wasn't the direction that Trump wanted to go in, but have you seen anything from Trump or Vance that really contradicts what Hegsef has been saying? So I'm worried that Secretary Hegsef didn't make a rookie mistake. He was just, you know, playing it the way the boss back in the White House wanted it to be played.

And that's what we need to correct. I want to try to ask you this as quickly as I possibly can. Is the possibility that Ukraine's security can't possibly be guaranteed without an American or NATO commitment? Is that only on the table right now because Trump won?

The idea that there is no guarantee that Ukraine will be protected in this process only because Trump won the election. A hundred percent. I mean, he campaigned on it. Trump said it repeatedly in a variety of different ways that undermine support for Ukraine.

And look, you know, the security guarantee doesn't necessarily have to be NATO, but you certainly don't need to take that off the table before the negotiations start. And again, what I really want to hear from somebody high up in the Trump administration is any peace negotiation has to guarantee Ukraine security going forward. Give them security guarantees from the U.S. from NATO partners, for training equipment, basically give them the strength to be able to stand up against Putin going forward.

And it has to be a bedrock principle to go into negotiation with Putin. And then finally, President Trump floating the idea of inviting Russia back into the G7. Their exit from the G7 even predates this latest conflict that came after their initial invasion into Crimea. Would there be any support for that in Congress?

Well, any is hard to say, but no, calling that premature is the understatement of this interview. Maybe at some point in the future would it be great to have Russia back as part of the community of nation shore, but to offer that now would be ridiculous considering where they are at and what they've been doing. So I think that's getting way ahead of where we're at right now. All right.

Congressman Adam Smith, certainly a very important day to have you on to talk about these important topics. We appreciate it, sir. Thank you so much. And a big programming announcement this Sunday on Meet the Press, Kristen Welker will have an exclusive sit down with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.

You won't want to miss that. And coming up, another scathing resignation letter tied to the Trump administration's move to dismiss its criminal case against New York mayor Eric Adams, you're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. We are following the escalating fallout at the Department of Justice and a series of dramatic resignations over orders to drop the corruption case against New York City mayor Eric Adams.

At least seven Justice Department prosecutors have resigned rather than carry out the orders to dismiss the case. And the top federal prosecutor in New York alleged in a resignation letter that there were discussions of a quid pro quo that Adams would help the Trump administration with its immigration enforcement in exchange for dropping the charges. Mayor Adams, who just yesterday announced he's allowing federal immigration authorities into the Rikers Island jail complex, address the allegations this morning while sitting next to the president's borders are. Think about that.

Think about that. For think about my attorney, Alex, I wanted to want to do one of the top trial attorneys in the country. Imagine him going inside saying that the only way me Adams is going to assist in immigration, which I was calling for, for this 2022, is if you drop the charges. That's quid pro quo.

That's a crime. It took up three weeks to report in front of her a criminal action. Come on. This is silly.

The Trump administration's push to drop Adams case doesn't prevent the Justice Department from prosecuting Adams again at some point in the future. And the president's borders are had this warning for Adams on live television. I came in New York City. I wasn't going to leave up nothing.

I did the last time. I told him I'm not leaving until I got something. I'll be back in New York City. And we're going to be sitting on a coffee in his office up his butt saying, where the hell is it?

We came to. And according to new NBC News reporting experts fear that the Adams case along with other actions taken by the Trump administration could open the corruption floodgates, NBC News law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter joins me now. Also with me, NBC News global security reporter, Ganta Luz, Tom, let's start with you. Just give us an update.

What is the status right now of these charges against Eric Adams? Well, as of the time, it took for you to come out of commercial break until now. There appears to have been no development. And that's how often we're checking the docket here involving the mayor's case in federal prosecutors here in Manhattan.

So the case still goes on. This is a live trial, but not a live trial, but a live case, live docket. So we'll have to see if is promised by Pam Bondi and some statements she made earlier today. If in fact, the case is dismissed with prejudice, they're just going to be asking to dismiss the case with prejudice.

The judge still needs to sign off on that. So presumably that won't happen today. It's possible you could even hold a hearing over. And so those are all the questions as far as the mechanics over the case stands now, Ryan.

The big question going forward, I think, is the fallout of all this. I want to do a little bit of fact check on the mayor there. He says, you know, it took Danielle Sassoon three weeks to report this. She had come out immediately disclosed the contents of ongoing discussions between his attorneys and the department of justice, his attorneys rightfully would have immediately moved to dismiss the case.

So I'm not sure how she could have come forward any sooner on this. And it's just one of the ways, I think, that the mayor Adams is trying to suggest that there's impropriety in this other district when so far as you have to be proven that that's the case at all. Let's go back to the process, though, in terms of the steps that need to be taken before the charges are dropping. It's not as if some US attorney somewhere just waves their hand, right?

Like what actually physically has to happen before the charges go away? Sure. So somebody's going to have to file this motion to dismiss without prejudice. The mayor is going to have to sign a document that says that he agrees to this.

He agrees to acknowledge the fact that these charges can be brought back at a later date. And then the judge is going to have to accept it. It's, like I mentioned, more likely than not, the judge will actually have a hearing on this. And then it's up to the judge.

She typically does accept these recommendations, or any judge does, rather, but given the extraordinary circumstances of the case and the resignations, it's possible the judge will take a hard look at it. All right. Let's talk about those resignations now. Has there been any more fallout at the Justice Department?

Yeah. So today we're up to six resignations total. One of the last ones that received is one of the lead prosecutors on the actual case itself. So we have the supervisor, Danielle Sassoon, who resigned yesterday, approximately 1.50pm.

You get a number of members who are colleague Ryan Riley has pointed out who resigned from the public integrity session. They oversee these public corruption cases. It made justice where you are, Ryan, in Washington, D.C. And then today, as I mentioned, that the U.S.

assistant U.S. attorney who actually was brought this case was just much more blunt until the point didn't need any sort of lengthy memo to just flat out and say, look, somebody's either going to be a fool or a coward to file this. The big concern that he had, the same thing that his supervisor, Danielle Sassoon, had here in New York. By the way, Sassoon was appointed by the Trump administration.

So she's somebody who has a conservative background, Hagen, same thing, clerk for two conservative Supreme Court justices, a decorative member of the U.S. military. And somebody who flat out said, look, this isn't about an issue that I have with the Trump administration. It's not.

It's actually the opposite. But called it, somebody would be a fool or a coward to file this motion. There's so concerned, Ryan, this idea of hanging charges over a political person's head, an elected officials head in exchange, potentially for an official act. Okay, Tom Winter in New York.

Tom, thank you for that. Let's turn out again to Lucy's with me on set. So Dan, what actions have we seen from the Trump administration already that are raising red flags? If this could open the door to corruption?

That's right. Before this Adams case happened, right, the president signed an order getting rid of a major anti-bribery law that dates back to the 1970s, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. And he said that they were going to pause the enforcement of that act. And that bans U.S.

companies from growing abroad and bribing their way through foreign countries. And then the Justice Department announced that they were going to get rid of the team that went after large-scale corruption by foreign actors that laundered money through the U.S. system. And then they also are scaling back how they're enforcing this law that's supposed to prevent foreign, secret foreign laundering, the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

And then also the Trump, of course, went after the inspectors general. So the combination of all that is really undermining all these laws and tools that are supposed to be able to allow the government to prevent and to prosecute corruption outside the government and inside the government. How does this compare it all to the first Trump administration? It was not on the scale.

What's true is the president at that point, President Trump did consider getting rid of this anti-bribery law. By the way, that dates back to the Watergate era. It was very much part of that time to try to reform the system. And he was convinced he was talked out of it.

But he also, of course, went after some inspectors general in his first term after the Ukraine impeachment trial. So there's no love there for inspectors general. But this is a whole nother scale in terms of getting rid of some of these anti-corruption tools and programs. Obviously on his face, this seems just outlandish.

What is the White House? How do they explain this? Are there some rationale behind this decision, right? There are different rationales for these steps.

So the president himself said we don't need this anti-bribery law because it puts American companies at a disadvantage when they go overseas. And everyone does it. It was basically his explanation. Of course, there are people who disagree with that.

And they say, actually, it gives US companies actually kind of protection. They can throw up their hands. And they say, hey, we don't do that. We'll get in trouble if we bribe.

But the explanation that Justice Department gave for scaling back some of this anti-corruption effort was to say, hey, we have other priorities now. Drug cartels securing the border, transnational crime. We have to marshal limited resources. But there are former officials, including Republican attorneys general, who say, well, it should be possible that both prosecute corruption and also go after drug cartels.

You don't have to completely shut it off, right? To say you're putting a complete positive, doesn't that in some way put up the for sales side or say, welcome in that corruption? Is that what anti-corruption is? I'm super worried about that.

If you speak to these experts who follow this, who are nonpartisan and have criticisms of how Biden handles some things, they say, yes, this is like turning on a green light because it's a combination. It's all these conflicts of interest that the president has that Elon Musk has, right? He has federal contracts with the Pentagon. And then you're telling foreign actors, we're not going to go after you aggressively, if you secretly lobby or try to push that up again.

And just one last thing, Ryan. The origin of this lobbying law, 1938. And there was concern in Congress about Nazis, funneling money into propaganda and all sorts of lobbying efforts. So that's how that started.

Okay. Dan, thanks for staying on top of it. We appreciate it. Up next, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, sent in sites on another wave of cuts.

What it would mean for the government if hundreds of thousands of workers are taking off the job, you're watching me to press now. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's The Scoop, a podcast from NBC News, with me your host, Jasmine D'Sougeen. 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 informative.

Bringing you closer to the headline and conversations that are shaping our world, the front page, the Zeitguts. Here's The Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the guard today at Workout's meal plans.

It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members begin an exclusive 50% off at annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity, imagine that.

Subscription automatically reduced each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. All variants may 20th, 26th price is subject to change. Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. Stay informed with the NBC News app.

Breaking news is just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content.

Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back to Trump Administration.

It's calling for mass firings of recent federal hires, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of workers. The cuts would target so-called probationary employees who are government workers that have typically been in their roles for less than one or two years. According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, more than 200,000 federal workers have served in their positions for less than a year, and nearly 300,000 have served for one to two years. The exact number of employees this will actually affect or remains unclear, because no matter how you slice it, it's not going to be a lot of people.

NBC News, White House correspondent Vaughn Hillier joins me now to talk more about this. So, Vaughn, what more do we know about the employees who could be affected by the mass firing order? Are agencies firing folks outside just the probationary employees? Right.

This was the direct. This is where you could say it's sort of almost the second tier effort that we have seen so far. One was that deferred resignation by out option that the federal government was offering to federal employees to say, essentially saying, we'll pay you through September if you willingly resign and step aside, and the government says that about 75,000 federal workers took that. This is the next step of intended government workforce reduction.

And that was yesterday, Office of Personnel Management, directly ordering every agency to terminate all probationary employees, essentially folks that have been there for under two years and have yet to receive the same civil service protections that workers typically get after their probationary period. Essentially, the easiest crop of employees to fire. When you look at the different agencies, you're seeing tens of thousands depending on which agency that have been actively eliminated in the last 24 hours. The CDC saying, for instance, that a tenth of their workforce is no longer here.

And for so many of these government agencies, the question is not only for these probationary employees, what comes next for them, but for these agencies themselves, how are they operationally going to move forward and are there further workforce reductions on their way? Meanwhile, let me see who has some exclusive reporting on revealing that some labor department employees are alarmed by the access that Doge has been given to internal software. What do we know about their concerns and the access that Musk and his team have been given? Ryan, we actually know very little, and that is part of the concern, the couple of officials at the labor department have raised to NBC News, that there were file transfer and remote access software that were placed on labor department systems, according to these officials.

And it is not clear the extent, if at all, any files have been transferred at this point in time through that software, but you're talking about Bureau of Labor Statistics, you're talking about OSHA, you're talking about vast amounts of government data and concerns of that personal information potentially being accessed outside of government systems, and that is where Doge has not been transparent about the extent to which any files have been transferred at this point in time, five individuals associated with those who have had access to the labor department, but again, NBC News is waiting for further information about what the efforts of these software that was placed on those agency systems exactly were. And you are on Capitol Hill as you have been for the past couple of weeks, we've been happy to have you there. We are inching closer to that March funding deadline. Are Republicans in the House and Senate coming closer to an agreement on how they want to push through a budget resolution?

It doesn't seem like we're much closer, Ryan, than when I got here to join you guys a couple of weeks ago. This is, you know, there's so many facets of this that are playing out right now. We're a month away from the government shutdown deadline, and when it comes to spending deal, it's not clear exactly what the top line is the extent to which there are negotiations with Democrats that are actively taking place. Of course, the margins are so thin.

On the House side, it's Republican majority is 218 to 215. They could afford every Democrat were to vote against the spending agreement. It would take just two Republicans to quash the effort. And on the Senate side, it's going to take those 60 Senate votes, including seven Democrats.

And so, while Republicans are so heavily focused on the reconciliation package, and that is currently being marked up by the House and Senate, the same time that one month deadline here is on the horizon. And it seems like little progress has been made. Okay, fine. Thanks so much.

I appreciate it. After the direct resignations at DOJ, mass fireings across the government, and a presidential agenda unleashed on the world stage. Our panel is next. You're watching to be the president.

Welcome back. As we noted earlier, many world leaders are in unit right now for a security conference, and much of that focus is on the future of Russia's war with Ukraine. But recent comments from the Trump administration have many allies concerned about the U.S.'s support for Ukraine and for NATO. And Vice President Vance's comments at the conference today warning that the greatest threat to Europe from within didn't help allay any fears.

For more now, I'm joined by Francesca Chambers, who's the White House correspondent for USA Today. Simone Sanders Townsend, a former chief spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris, and now the co-host of MSNBC's The Weeknd, and Danielle Placa, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She's also an NBC News contributor. So Francesca, what do you make of that timing, most specifically, of the Vice President's comments?

Could this have come at a worse time, given everything that's in stake right now? What's coming on the heels of Pete Hegg's comments, and I think that those were viewed by some given that he, you know, walks them back just a little bit, is maybe he got ahead of his skis. But the White House told me that he is in complete lockstep with the president on this issue, and you heard the president at the White House earlier this week saying that he agreed with Pete Hegg's about NATO membership for Ukraine, about Ukraine probably having to give up Crimea or other territory in order to strike a deal. So coming out, the Vice President today also having strong words for Europe.

This is all part of a coordinated effort from the Trump administration as the president calls Vladimir Putin and tries to strike a deal. So Danielle, what's your take on this? This is really the administration's first foray onto the international stage. It seems as though they want to make an impression right away.

I think they do want to make an impression right away. I'm paying a lot of very, very close attention to this. I don't think it's as coordinated as Francesca very graciously believes that the White House is marching in lockstep forward. I don't think they are.

I think Pete Hegg's got his twice gotten over his keys and said things that the president doesn't agree with. He cut off support for Ukraine last week and was promptly reversed by the president. He then talked about a variety of other issues and was promptly smacked down by the White House. I don't think he is coordinating.

I think he's coordinating with his own staff. And I think that's one of the reasons why you saw Vance take such a proactive position today and say, no, we want negotiations. Russia doesn't want to come to the table. More sanctions.

Potentially we're going to help out the Ukrainians. So I think that the overall picture, the overall game, if we can call it that, is that the president is looking for leverage. This is how he thinks about negotiations. He wants leverage.

He wants to walk in. He spoke to Zelensky and people in Zelensky's office told me that they were very reassured and very happy with the conversation. So when you say leverage, looking for leverage from whom? From Zelensky?

Both of them? And where is the leverage? I think there's no leverage needed with Zelensky. We have been instrumental, the Europeans have been instrumental in supporting the Ukrainian war effort and repelling Russian aggression.

But Putin doesn't quite understand. First of all, I think that he believes the PR about Trump. That's a mistake. When you live in a closed society and in a closed information society, you do have a tendency to drink your own Kool-Aid.

And I think he thinks President Trump is a sucker. Now, I hope that's not true. I think President Trump has tried to lay out, here's what's in it for you, Vlad. Here are my friends.

This will be lovely for you. Maybe you can even come back to the G7 and we'll make it the G8 again. Or my vice president will tell you what the other option is. So it's interesting that you're taking anything because, Adam Smith, who we had earlier, the Reagan member on our service has had a completely different approach.

He thinks that Trump is giving away everything to Vladimir Putin. They're basically taking away all that leverage. I mean, I think that's why this is not how you negotiate with the Russians, to be very clear. You know, when I worked at the White House, I worked on all of the vice presidents, Vice President Harris' international work.

You know, the vice president is head of the Space Council. And there's a heavy international component to what is happening with space, with France, getting all these accords happening, AI, which is why you saw a vice president advance, and France at the AI summit prior to going to the Munich Security Conference, every single Munich Security Conference, Vice President Harris attended for the administration. And in my last couple of months of the administration, there was a concern about Russia and that the Russians were going to invade Ukraine. The Europeans did not believe us that that was true, Zelensky did not believe us that that was true.

But at the very beginning of, what was that, 2022, it was Vice President Harris and President Biden, who were going to their European counterparts, showing them the evidence. You saw Jake Sullivan going to the White House podium, telling the American people, hey, Vladimir Putin, we have credible evidence that he is going to do this. When Vice President Harris met with Zelensky at that Security Conference, he didn't believe it. Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

So I say all that to say that the choreography here is very, very important. And it looks like this administration is shooting from the hip, staff talking to other staff, in terms of the vice president staff coordinating with the president, staff coordinating with Secretary of Defense and staff. It's very important. And it seems like that is not happening.

And I remember my former European counterparts today, the vice president, and they are like, what is going on? The vice president's comments did not go over well. And we are very soon, I think, going to see our European allies speaking out forcefully against the United States. They're not going to take our BS for lack of a better term silently for too much longer.

Because they're security is a stake here. Sure. Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump is a list kick and strike a deal. But who's to say that Putin is going to agree to that deal that this is what the Americans thought back in 2014 was part of it?

Is that what Donald Trump wants for the Europeans to come out and hammer? This policy, is that the America first agenda he's looking for? I don't think that Donald Trump thinks first and foremost about whether Europeans are going to do it. I think he thinks, and I have to say, I agree with him, and as a strong supporter of Ukraine, a strong supporter of NATO, I agree with him that they need to step up just a little bit more aggressively.

But what you're describing, though, is part of the Trump administration strategy. I have heard from people who serve in the Trump administration going back to the transition, and even actually back to the NATO summit last summer, that they were going to tell Russia something to the effect of, if you don't come to the table, we're going to put a ton of sanctions on you. If Ukraine doesn't come to the table, then we're going to take away your aid. We're going to say that you can't have NATO membership, and all of it is part of an effort to try and force both parties to the table in order to come up with a deal.

It doesn't necessarily mean that in the end that that is what... I was just saying, I don't think that President Zelensky would like the war to end, his country is being savage and ravaged, and it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. The question on the table is, what happens if Russia is not given any concessions? What happens if they are allowed to keep all this territory?

Are we just going to take Vladimir Putin's promise that he's not going to go any further? I think the Baltic states is like a word here. You raise a huge point, and I think this is one of the most important things to understand. When Donald Trump talks about the relationship with Ukraine, this for me has been one of the more reassuring things.

One who I think shares the worries that we think about is that if Ukraine is going to be able to sustain whatever peace agreement Donald Trump brings to the table, they are going to have to be able to defend themselves, and he has made very clear to them that he understands that. That's good news. Okay. All right.

Well, this was a perfect Valentine's Day because I just let the women in my legs all. Hopefully my wife is at home realizing that is the best Valentine's Day I could give all of you. So, but all your thoughts were perfect. We had about 7,000 things we were going to talk about.

You guys took the day, and I appreciate it. Thank you so much, Francesca. That's Simone and Danielle. We appreciate it.

We have the opportunity to save USI ID, the former head of the agency testifies before Congress and then speaks to meet the press now. We'll be right back. Welcome, President Trump and Elon Musk's effort to cut foreign aid and dismantle the US Agency for International Development, our hitting new speed bumps. Late yesterday, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must temporarily reinstate foreign aid funding that came after a separate judge yesterday, pause the Trump administration's plan to put thousands of staffers from USAID on leave.

President Trump wants to shutter USAID as part of what he says is an effort to cut bureaucracy and save Americans money. USAID delivers billions of dollars in humanitarian aid and foreign assistance around the world, but that counts for less than 1% of the federal budget. Andrew Nastayos, who served as USAID Administrator during the George W Bush administration, testified before Congress yesterday about the importance of foreign aid and denouncing the cultural issues he says that are undermining bipartisan support for USAID. He sat out with NBC's Peter Alexander, who started by asking him if anything can be done to change that.

A lot of damage has been done abroad by the names that I had used and called by Musk and his companions there. And it's reverberating around the world. I am astonished that our adversaries, the speaker of the Duma, the Russian Parliament, the President of Belarus, President of Hungary, a whole bunch of autocrats are dancing on the grave of AID. They're very pleased that it's gone.

And that's a sign, in fact, of all of the great work AID has done to oppose tyrannical regimes and support democracy and human rights around the world. The problem that I have is if you look at where they've cut, they've cut almost all the democracy, human rights programs out of the agency. For every area, I mean, it's one thing to talk about the woke stuff, but this is basic human rights stuff in any traditional Republican Democrat with support. That's been taken out of what AID does.

So, sir, I was gonna say, as a function of that, then who will fill that void? I trust you're gonna say places like Russia and China and elsewhere, what is the consequence of that if the U.S. sort of leaves them back in that way? It's already happening.

The Chinese ambassador to Cambodia apparently announced all of the gaps caused by AID's departure will be filled by China. And I know that's happening in other parts of the world. There is some panic in some areas for the PEPFAR program, because if you have AIDs and you stop taking anti-retrovirals, which is what the PEPFAR program does, you die. And 99% of people die.

And children, without, there's a certain medication you take if you're pregnant and you have AIDs, keep your child from getting it. If they don't take that medication, the child will be born with AIDs. So, that program is frozen. They claim that there are waivers and waivers have been granted for some humanitarian programs.

The problem at this point is that the Phoenix system, which functions to generate checks, in other words, to fund the agencies, is not functioning. And so, many of the people who have waivers are not getting any funding and have it back to October. Their bills have moved back to October are not being paid. And I was gonna say fundamentally on top of that, we have reporting from a series of different groups around the globe right now about containerships off the port of Sudan right now, where they are seeing the medications they have, just sitting there, not getting the people to whom they need to go.

I trust that's the same in a lot of different circumstances, not just throughout Africa, but elsewhere. You in your world of international aid know about the 3D's diplomacy, development, and defense here. Diplomacy and development are particularly being sort of a form of soft power as an instrument for the United States and for others. According to a survey though conducted by the Pew Research Center, Americans have mixed views on the effectiveness of foreign aid, particularly development aid, I trust.

What do you think Americans do not understand about the crucial role that it plays? Well, most people think it's 20 or 25% of the budget. It's less than 1% of the budget. I think the first thing people say, if they want to balance the budget, the budget deficit is a huge problem.

But you can't balance it by cutting aid out completely. Even cutting it in half would make that much difference. The reality is 70% of the federal budget is our entitlement programs, and you need entitlement reform. You can't cut the bone and muscle of the federal government to balance the budget, doesn't make sense.

NBC News is reporting that with the dramatic downsizing that we're now seeing from the Trump administration, specifically as it relates to places like Africa, there would be a total of 12 AID employees to oversee all of that continent. What does that mean for the impact of foreign assistance there? It means as a disaster, it's not serious. We have to know how big the budget is, of course.

The budget could be cut by 90%, in which case 12 people could manage a budget that size. So we don't actually know what the number is because they're not telling us. But eliminating foreign aid means the most powerful tool that we have in our arsenal and soft power will be eliminated. And I, for one thing, the Americans will be less safe.

Let me give you an example of that. AID has worked for 30 years to build disease monitoring systems into 90 ministries of health. So we get advanced warning when a disease epidemic starts, so that it can be dealt with there immediately and not get out of the country and start a pandemic around the world. In which case, it will clearly get to the United States.

You can't defend from a disease on our own borders. You defend it at the source. And the way you do that is to build capacity in the ministries of health, which we have been doing, but there still needs to be AID health officers on the ground to help them along when there's an emergency. Mr.

Nazis, I appreciate Andrew Nazis. Thank you for making time to speak to us about an issue that I know does ultimately affect a lot of Americans, even if they may not yet realize it. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. That does it for us for this hour. Thank you for being with us. We'll be back Monday with more Meet the Press Now.

And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC News station at this pivotal moment in the Ukraine war. Kristin will have an exclusive interview with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Do not miss it. I'll be back with you on Monday as well at the same time.

NBC News now coverage continues up with Maggie Vespa, who is in today for Hallie Jackson. Have a terrific weekend. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest.

The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood Young, and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook.

The drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.