Meet the Press NOW – February 19

If it's Wednesday. President Trump lashes out at President Zelensky falsely calling the Ukrainian leader a dictator and falsely slaying Ukraine started the war. The comments echoing Russian talking points and prompting pushback from both sides of the aisle. Plus, New York City Mayor Eric Adams appears in federal court in a hearing that just wrapped up as his lawyers tell a federal judge there was no quid pro quo agreement with President Trump's Justice Department as it moves to dismiss the case.

And President Trump and Elon Musk sit down for a joint interview, defending mass firings and sweeping cuts to the federal agencies while touting their close and personal partnership as they take new steps to consolidate power. Welcome to me the press now. Kristen Welker in Washington, where we've seen a stunning series of developments and a rapid and very public tutor deterioration of the White House's support for Ukraine. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky are publicly trading barbs with President Trump today, lashing out Ukraine's president maligning Mr.

Zelensky as a dictator without elections in a social media post filled with other falsehoods about the war, all echoing Russian talking points. It comes as the Trump administration is improving its relations with the Kremlin, including holding a meeting with Russian officials about Ukraine's future without Ukraine in the room. The dizzying episode leading several of America's traditional allies stunned and grappling with how to respond. In addition to the falsely calling Zelensky dictator, President Trump also claimed without evidence today that the Ukrainian people have soured on their leader and warning Zelensky that he, quote, better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.

It comes after the president brazenly and falsely suggested that Ukraine started the war while also tacitly backing Putin's calls for regime change in Ukraine through new elections. Russia wants to do something. They want to stop there. Savage barbarianism.

I mean, what's going on over there? It's soldiers are being killed by the thousands on a weekly basis. It's ridiculous. And they're not American soldiers.

They're Russian soldiers and they're Ukrainian soldiers, largely today. Oh, we weren't invited. Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it.

Three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. We have a situation where we haven't had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law, essentially martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine, I mean, I hate to say it, but he's down at 4% approval rating and where our country has been blown to Smithereens.

Now, to be clear, it was Russia that launched the unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago that has devastated cities throughout the country, killing thousands of people and forcing millions to flee their homes. President Trump also claimed Russia wants to end the war, but the US And Western intelligence suggests Putin is not interested in a peace deal and instead still wants control of all of Ukraine. President Zelensky today firing back at the president, accusing him of falling prey to Russian lies about the war and lies about his level of support among the Ukrainian people, telling reporters in Kyiv, quote, with all of my respect to President Trump as a leader of the most respected people of America, who supports us all the time, unfortunately lives in this disinformation space. Mr.

Zelensky's sharpness of his rhetoric towards President Trump is a notable shift in tone compared to when I sat down with the Ukrainian president just a few days ago in Munich. Do you think President Trump is negotiating in good faith? I hope so. I hope so, yes.

I count on it. I count on it very much. Joining me now is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who is on the ground in Ukraine. And Peter Alexander, chief White House correspondent, is at the White House.

Richard, let me start with you. Let's talk about how President Zelensky is responding to this intensifying rhetoric by President Trump. We're just getting some new reactions from him. What can you tell us?

So President Zelenskyy gives a daily address to the Ukrainian people. It's something that he started three years ago as the Russians were invading. And of course, as you said, it was Russia that launched this war. I was here.

Russian troops came over the border. They started capturing Ukrainian territory. They did helicopter drops outside of Kyiv. They tried to take the capital.

And one of the things that President Zelenskyy did was to try to communicate with the people frequently and directly. And he started posting on telegram, started posting on social media, on Facebook, any means possible so that he could show the Ukrainian people that he in the country and that the country still had a government. Well, he still does that even to, even until this day. He just gave his nightly address.

And I will say, Kristen, he didn't bring up this dispute. He talked about how he hopes that there is pragmatism from the United States and called for the Ukrainian people to have unity and courage. So at least, at least for now, he doesn't want to take this dispute even further. But it does not mean that this is over by any means.

There is deep distrust now. There is deep fear among Ukrainians that President Trump and President Putin are allies and are meetings trying to divide up this country and with little concern for what that means for the Ukrainians and their strategic interests. Incredibly notable that he is choosing his words so carefully today. RICHARD and of course, all of this does come as the US Special envoy Keith Kellogg is in Ukraine today.

He's to some extent been cut out of the negotiations. He was not there in Russ, what are you watching for with this meeting? RICHARD well, you said it yourself, there is a perception here, and I've been speaking to senior Ukrainian officials, that Kellogg is a second tier envoy, that he is not of the same caliber, the same proximity to President Trump as is Angovoy Wyckoff or Marco Rubio or the sort of full delegation that went to Russia, who went to, excuse me, went to Saudi Arabia to negotiate with Russia, that he is here. The Ukrainians are hoping that they can, they can bring him out to places like where I am in Kharkiv.

They want to show him the battlefronts. They want to show him what they say is a different picture and they're hoping that he'll take that message back to Washington and back to President Trump. We will see if that happens. So tomorrow is a very big day for the Ukrainians.

They have an envoy. They don't think he's the most powerful envoy. They don't think he's as close to Trump as the team negotiating with Russ. But they do have someone from the administration who they are anxious to show around this country and try and change President Trump's mind on this.

And Richard, you were on the front lines. Tell us what you saw. What is the status of this conflict on the ground in terms of what you are seeing, your own reporting? So for a lot of people in the United States, this may seem like a war of words, that you've got two big personalities.

You've got President Zelensky who has toured the world for the last three years and often been touted as a hero for staying here, holding this country together, standing up to Russia, fighting publicly with President Trump, who also has a very large personality and a big ego. But this is not just a clash of personalities for the people of Ukraine. And we were out on the front lines. You see some of the soldiers we were with today as a tank unit, and those soldiers have been at that position for the last three years almost without any brakes.

You can see how freezing cold it is. It's dangerous. There were drone drones in the area while we were there. They say that drone And Russian missile attacks are almost a constant reality, particularly on clear days like today, when the drones have a full field of vision that can see the Ukrainian troops.

For them, this is a matter of life and death. They depend on the United States for support. They depend on the United States for political support, military support, weapons, ammunition. And now they're watching the president of the United States blaming them for the war and calling their president not just a dictator but also a con man who's been conning the world, conning the United States, stealing billions of dollars and saying that he has no approval rating in the country.

He does not have a 4% approval rating. All the opinion polls here put him somewhere around 50%, 50 plus percent. So not perfect, but certainly not 4%. Richard Engel, as always, thank you so much for your reporting on the ground in Ukraine.

Please continue to stay safe. We really appreciate it. Peter, let me turn to you at the White House. I know you've been talking to your sources throughout the day.

What are you hearing about this intensifying rhetoric that we are seeing from President Trump towards Ukraine? Well, we're hearing it and we're reading it in the form of multiple posts that President Trump has had about Volodymyr Zelensky, criticizing him, mocking him, aligning him to use some of your language here. We did hear from the president's national security advisor, Mike Waltz today who is doing an interview with Fox News. He said one other things describing the relationship now strained between the US And Ukraine.

He said it's one that's frustrated right now. The US Is view of it one that's frustrated right now and clearly is going in the wrong direction. He said that frustration stems from, as he described it, bizarre pushback this week to the Trump administration's proposed deal to access Ukraine's rare earth minerals. If you're not aware of that, there have been conversations led by the Treasury Secretary, Scott Basantine, where he was meeting with Ukrainians effectively proposing in exchange for all the money that the US Sent to Ukraine support them, tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars in the form of military aid and other assistance, that the US should have unique access to the rare earth minerals there that can be used for a variety of technological products.

But the Ukrainians view that is a one sided deal, that they had nothing to gain by the offer that the president, the White House was proposing to them. And Waltz also echoed the president's comments yesterday by questioning why President Zelensky himself has not tried to end this war. Kristen, so we're Hearing similar sort of tough language, though with perhaps a little bit of context about why the president may be so fierce in the words he's using to describe a person who had for the last several years been a very close American ally. Yeah, very different tone than what we saw coming from the former Biden administration.

And also raises a lot of questions about how they will be able to bring these two sides together to negotiate a peace deal. And of course, all of this comes as their questions, Peter, about whether President Trump will be meeting with President Putin. Both have signaled that they are willing to do so. But still no data on the table, right?

Yeah, that's exactly right. This will show the 180 that's been made in terms of President Biden's departure and Donald Trump's arrival. Right. Joe Biden who would try to ice out Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump who is effectively coasting up to him.

It's good that we have a good relationship. We don't know exactly what a meeting between between the two would take places. We're not in the. Steve Woodcock, who was one of the president's envoys initially to deal with the Middle east now and appears to deal with affairs around the globe.

He was in Moscow only a matter of days ago. He was there where he picked up Mark Fogel, the American school teacher who had been detained there for several years, brought him back home as our understanding that they had met Putin did with Wikoff for a matter of hours. The president indicating as much. So when does Putin come to the president?

He said we'll go there Moscow and Putin will be about here as well and we'll wait to find out when. We sure will. One of the threads that we're watching very closely, Peter, I know a lot of fast moving developments around this. Thank you so much for your great reporting as always.

I now want to bring in Ukrainian Member of Parliament Kira. Rudy, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. I want to start with your reaction to what you have heard from Washington over these last 24 hours.

The fact that President Trump has said that Ukraine started the war, calling President Zelensky a dictator. What's your response? Hello, Kristen, and thank you so much for having me. I just want to mention that right now while we are talking, Russia has launched just another attack on Kyiv and our air defense systems are working.

And this is one of the signs that contradicts to what President Trump has said, that Russia wants to end the war and of course that Ukraine has started the war. It is very painful to hear it here in Ukraine and especially it is painful to have to explain to people who are fighting at the front line, who have lost their loved ones in this war and who have paid an ultimate price that someone is saying that Ukraine has started a war. And it's just as a politician, you never want to be in a position to talk to people who are fighting bravely and explaining to them why a president of the strongest democracy of this nation that has supported us so much can say something like this. I'm trying to explain that as a negotiation technique.

But people here are hurt because, you know, we are surviving and fighting this war for more than 10 years right now. And the last three years, the full scale invasion. And for people, it is very hard to be in this information noise and it's not bringing to them any, any good feelings, I can tell you for sure. Well, the broader question in addition to all of this is what does this potentially mean about negotiating a deal?

We did see Trump officials in Saudi Arabia meeting with top Russian officials. Ukraine was not at the t. A Trump administration official we've been speaking to say, look, we did meet with president. So let's see, those meetings happened in Munich.

But are you confident or are you concerned? I should say that a deal will be struck without Ukraine? Well, Ukraine has proven that. Well, it will be impossible, I say, to have a deal about Ukraine without Ukraine because people will just simply not take it.

We didn't take it when Russia wanted to conquer us and we would absolutely not take it when somebody will try to pressure us into losing our sovereignty or territorial integrity without our will. And if there is something that we have shown the world over the last three years is that we don't have this will. We didn't capitulate in 2022 and we are not going to capitulate right now. And in 2022, our position was much weaker.

And I can tell you it was much more scary to be in Kiev those days when everybody that we will stand just for a couple of days right now, we are not alone. I strongly believe that we have many people from the United States who are holding our backs and who are supporting us. We have our European allies who promise not to leave us alone in this fight. So I'm very optimistic.

However, we are very concerned that the United States started negotiating with terrorists. We thought that it was not your policy. Second, we are concerned that when we are discussing something, there are only talks about what Ukraine can forfeit or what Ukraine's red lines are. And we are not talking about the Most important point, which is the security guarantees.

How do we make sure that Russia wouldn't attack us? Again, this is the key question. And as of right now, we have not heard any legitimate answer to this question. None.

And so President Trump right now was questioning President Zelensky legitimacy, but for some reason, he's not questioning Putin's legitimacy, which the last Russian elections were not considered as fair by many European leaders. So this is, of course, right now we understand is happening because there is no clear understanding how to end the war. And I truly believe that US President has this in his mind how to end it. However, it will not be a simple task.

First and foremost, because Russia does not want to end the war. It's solely in their hands. They have started it. They can pull back their troops and they can end it.

Let me ask you to respond to something that President Trump said yesterday. Actually, this is Vice President Vance responding to Donald Trump saying it should be elections. He says the idea that you cannot have elections in the midst of a war is, I think, kind of preposterous. And the president has made very clear that he thinks that should happen.

So, you know, that is, that is American policy. How do you interpret these calls for elections? And how do you explain to people who have that question, why can't you hold elections while there's a war raging? Kristen, first and foremost, with all due respect, I need to say that neither Russian president nor American president will not be defining how Ukrainian people will be and when they will be electing our president.

Second, regarding the elections during the martial law, it's according to our constitution that if the martial law is held, then there are no elections and parliament, which I'm a member of government, and the president are continuing executing on their duties. And even if for some reason we would want to conduct that, there are a couple of major reasons why we cannot. The first and foremost is the security reason. Russia constantly is attacking us every single day, and not only at the front line, but the peaceful cities throughout Ukraine are under attack, and we do not have a proper way way to protect people.

Second and very important topic is how do we make sure that our military are able to participate in this election not only to exercise their right to vote, but also their right to be voted for. And this is impossible to do right now in the current nation when they're actively fighting at the battlefield. Third, we have 6 or 8 million people who are right now residing abroad, and they also should participate in the elections so they will be considered democratic. Kira Ruddick, thank you so much.

We are sorry for all that you and your country have been through. Our condolences to you for the lives lost there. Thank you so much for taking time to join us. We really appreciate it.

Thank you, Tristan. I'm going to Ukraine. Thank you. Coming up, we're live outside the courthouse where a federal judge just wrapped a hearing on the Justice Department's efforts to drop the corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams.

Don't go anywhere. You're WATCHING me. THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

We're following breaking news out of New York. We're hearing on the Justice Department's effort to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Just wrapped up. The judge pressed acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovey about why these charges should be dismissed.

Bovey said it was a matter of, quote, national security because the charges would hinder the mayor's ability to assist the federal government with its crackdown on immigration. Adam's attorney insisted there was no quid pro quo agreement with the White House on that issue. Even if the judge agrees to dismiss the charges, Adam's political future still remains very much in question. New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hogel met with New York City leaders yesterday as she decides whether to exercise her authority to remove the mayor from office.

NBC News law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Windsor joins now. Also with me is Emily Noe, co author of POLITICO's New York Playbook. Thanks to both of you for joining me. We really appreciate it.

So, Tom, take us inside the courtroom. What happened today? Yeah, so all the parties get into the courtroom about 10 minutes before we began, around 2 o'. Clock.

Hearing barely lasted 90 minutes since, Kristen. And basically what both parties were trying to say in what Abel Bovey and his role here previously is a unit chief in the Southern District of New York and somebody who presented a number of cases, a number of prosecutions, went just straight to the most simplest explanation and the simplest message to the judge, which is, look, this is a basic motion that we file. We being the Justice Department, file all the time. It's a Rule 48 motion for us to be able to dismiss the case without prejudice.

There's really no question here. We're not saying that we're tossing this case permanently. We're not telling you that we are tossing it under certain conditions. To your point, the judge specifically asked under oath the mayor of the city of New York, Eric Adams, whether anything had been promised to him, written or otherwise, whether there was any sort of agreement that was in place, whether he had been threatened.

And all across it the mayor said, no, that wasn't the case at all. And so Bovin was trying to do is simply say, look, this is something we do all the time. We can still revisit this issue. And so from a court's perspective, it's his belief that this case should be dismissed and it should be dismissed quickly because he's trying to make the argument whether or not people believe it or not.

But he's trying to make the argument, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean to prove that to the judge that this is a national security concern he missed. It's not something that's come up with public officials before, at least that he's aware of, but he's trying to say, look, we've got to do what we've got to do on immigration. We've got to do what we've got to do from a national security standpoint, and we got to just get this thing decided. Obviously, the mayor's attorney not going to dispute any of that.

He did obviously dispute the idea of a quid pro quo that you alluded to. So the judges says, look, I don't want to shoot from the hip here on the bench. Literally said that. He said, I wanted the opportunity to review all this and make a ruling on it.

Not ruled previously from the bench in this case up until this point person. So that's not totally surprising. Those seem to shut down the notion of any further inquiry or, or at least did not allude to any additional issues that he's likely to bring up. Well, Tom Winter, always appreciate your reporting.

I know it's very chilly outside, so thank you for bringing us all of that great insight. Really appreciate it. Bringing update as you get them. Emily, let me turn to you because Governor Hogel does technically have the ability to remove Mayor Adams.

What are you hearing? What are your sources telling you about her potential plans? Yeah, High press sources telling us that the governor's giving every indication to her allies and those who have been meeting with her that she may slow walk this decision. It had been largely dependent on what federal district judge that someone was talking about would decide.

And since no decision came from the bench today, I expect that there'll be more waiting and watching and seeing. Please excuse the notice of how we just haven't had a quiet day here and in quite some time, especially last couple months, as the mayor faced charges, as he faced the class fact that he could be pardoned by President Trump, that an order came down, the charges should be dropped. An enlightening statement came from Bobay after this hearing, a written statement by maybe a little bit that said that he asked America to join him and make America safe again and quote, for those who do not support a critical mission. I understand our template representation letters available on the websites of the New York Times and CNN effectively daring those who might stand up to do what he and the president believe in to resign like the money have done and causes avalanche of chaos beginning with Danielle Tatoon last Thursday, the acting U.S.

attorney for Manhattan who resigned rather than follow orders to drop the case against Mayor Adams. So many fast moving, really dramatic developments there. I'm like, let me just ask you because it's notable, you're saying your sources are telling you the governor will likely slow walk this decision. Can Eric Adams continue to be effective as mayor after all these developments this past week, the case that he made that his government is so by and large largely functioning and taking care of the city of 8 million people if he had his deputies in place.

But we know now that 4, 4 of his deputy mayors are planning to retire. That date hasn't yet been set. So we're leaving a void here in government. And certainly Governor Hochul is looking to black Democrats and black elected officials around the city to help her make this decision on how to approach removal of the mayor, if indeed that's where she wants to take it.

Let me ask you about another piece of this, which is five days ago, the mayor allowed ICE agents into Rikers Island. Do we know if there are any additional plans? What's the status? So this is what he presented at a pending executive order to return ICE to an office on Rikers island, which they previously held before the city, sanctuary city, Lawful beach up under his predecessor, Bill de Blasio.

That is a little bit of wait and see as well because he needs to draft that order. Certainly there's pushback on the part of the city Council who has resisted his efforts to loosen sanctuary laws that restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers. They don't want those laws changed. I should note also that there has been a movement that we at Political have been covering to draft the City council Speaker Adrian Adams to run for mayor against Eric Adams, potentially against former Governor Andrew Formal to indeed get in the ring as big facts he will.

Okay, Emily. No, thank you so much. As always, we really appreciate it. Coming up next, President Trump and Elon Musk defend their overhaul of the federal government by brushing aside concerns about conflicts of interest for the tech billionaire.

As Musk expands his power inside the White House. Stay with us. You're watching the PRESS now. While the back sitting alongside Elon Musk, the world's richest man, in the first joint interview since becoming his second term.

Beginning a second term, President Trump defended his aggressive remaking of government and lashed out at his critics. They're finding billions and will be hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fraud. I say waste and abuse, but fraud, waste and abuse. And he's doing an amazing job.

When these attacks occur, the thing that they're accusing the administration of is what they are guilty of. They're saying that things are unconstitutional, but what they are doing is unconstitutional. They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us. It's always the first thing they do.

It's in violation of the Constitution. They don't even know what they're talking. Well, it's just a con job. It's a big con job.

The White House has not presented any solid evidence to support the president's claim that Musk and his allies have uncovered billions of dollars of fraud in federal government. Meanwhile, Trump and Musk's efforts to expand the power of the executive branch and slash the federal workforce continue. Yesterday, in a move likely to be challenged in court, the president signed an executive order that would bring multiple independent government agencies under greater White House control. Meanwhile, the USDA is scrambling to rehire some employees working on the bird flu epidemic that were terminated as part of the Doge led mass fires over the weekend.

It's the second time in a week the government has sought to rehire critical employ caught up in these sweeping cuts with some nuclear safety workers fired on Thursday. We also learned today that Doge employees arrived at the Pentagon this week where President Trump has suggested major cuts to the military budgeting. Now NBC News White House Corsican Von Hillier, who was in Miami ahead of an event President Trump is attending there. And CNBC tech reporter and longtime Elon Musk observer, Laura Ladni.

Thank you so much for joining me, both of you. Vaughn, I want to start with you. And these what seem to be accidental firing of the USDA on top of some other accidental firings of nuclear safety workers. How did this happen and what's the reaction then?

Right. There's some who question this is a matter of negligence. More so, Kristen, because of the mass firings and terminations, they're sort of going through agency after agency. And in the case of probationary employees, the administration ordered all probationary employees.

Folks have worked one or two years without Republicans to be removed from the workforce. And that's what we saw play out very similar to over at Department of Energy when those who were tasked with the nuclear safety program were let go and they attempted to go and find those employees and rescind their terminations. NBC News is now learning that similar type effort is underway at the U.S. department of Agriculture.

Individuals who were working on the avian bird flu outbreak have fired and now they're trying to bring those individuals back saying that it was a mistake they were fired in the first place. Laura, let me head over to you now. You've covered Mr. Musk's private companies for years.

Does this fit a pattern and a playbook that you've observed with Elon Musk? It's the exact playbook. We saw this most clearly when he let his leverage buy out of Twitter, now known as X and he cut 80% of the workforce, did the same fork in the road offer to try to compel people to resign, take a sort of buyout deal. We've seen that exactly play out.

Also last year, or rather from 2023 to 2024, Tesla steeply cut its workforce, including getting rid of basically its entire charging team and headcount declined about 10 11. That's why other competitors in the EV market, electric vehicle market, were growing. Well, it's certainly fascinating to have that backdrop to all of this. Vaughn, let me head over to you because of course what we're seeing now and what we're learning about now is that Musk and his team are now going to set their sights on the Department of Defense.

This has long been one of the things that Republicans say they want to actually beef up defense spending. What are you hearing their strategy, is that right? Our great call. According to QB reporting, the Doge officials are inside the Pentagon today and this is heralded by Pete Exe, the new defense secretary, who we should note right.

He and other Republicans have long championed and called for greater U.S. defense spending, especially in comparison to European allies. The United States has been very vocal about beefing up the appropriations to the Pentagon. Yet what you are hearing from President Trump just last week was a suggestion that potentially the US at some point should cut its defense spending in half.

But as you know, that also runs counter to the budgets that are currently being made up on Capitol Hill and Republicans who are looking to spend more on defense spending. I think this, a lot of this comes down to sort of the quick, rapid, whirlwind pace that Elon Musk and his Doge team are moving at. That's why Don Bacon, Republican congressman out of Nebraska, he is one of those Republicans who spoke up. And he said in part here, quote, they need to be more cautious.

There's an old saying, measure twice, cut once. Well, they're measuring once and having to cut twice. Some of this stuff they're going to have to return back. I just wish they make a better decision up front.

And that is where we're now, just about one month into this administration. There's a lot of cutting moving at a very quick pace. There certainly is. Laura, I want to play a little something for you from last night.

Elon Musk was asked about potential conflicts of interest. He obviously has billions of dollars in government contracts with his various businesses. Take a look what he had to say. I mean, I didn't ask the president for anything ever.

And if it comes up, how will you handle it? Well, I'll recuse myself if it is. If there's a conference, he will be involved. I wouldn't want that and he won't want it.

And I know people that would try and take advantage of the situation. This guy's somebody that really cares for the country. I saw that very early on in media, social, really a long time ago when I got to know him. He's a very different kind of a character.

Laura, what do you make of that response and frankly of the interplay between the two of them? Well, Musk's claim is false on its face. I mean, his company's SpaceX alone has received $19 billion from the federal government, you know, earned it, but since 2008. And it is poised to take in several billion a year for years to come.

And that doesn't even include like block grant spending by states for items like Starlink, Wi Fi. So of course he has asked the president and, you know, Biden and Trump previously for a lie. I just as far as the camaraderie, Musk is very good at managing relationships with people who are mutually useful to him and are very powerful. So I'm not surprised to see this dynamic with President Trump and Mosque.

That's really fascinating. Vaughn, finally very quickly to you. Can you give us the very latest on these executive executive order the President Trump sign related to independent government agencies. Chris, I lost your question there, but I heard you mentioned executive orders and I know that the one that we're really looking at is one that was signed yesterday by President Trump about directing departments and agencies that the opinion when it comes to the law is at the discretion of the President of the United States and his attorney general.

This is where there has been some question marks and clearly some concern by the president about departments or agencies, individuals in those council's office arguing against the desires and the wishes of the top reps of the White House. And of course, the departments, agencies always been under the executive branch. But there's some dispute over the extent to which the departments and agencies have some separation in terms of policy implementation, especially at the direction of Congress when it comes to appropriate funds. But what you saw in this executive order was a very direct President Trump making it clear that no department or agency, council or officials should speak outside of the lines and the legal opinions of that of the White House counsel.

All right. Covered a lot of ground today, guys. Vaughn and Laura, thank you both so much. Really appreciate it.

Coming back for the break, the fate of President Trump's legislative agenda as he backs House Republicans massive budget bill throwing a wrench in the Senate plans. Reliable Capitol Hill that lawmakers are responding and what exactly happens next. Stay with us. You're watching THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. President Trump today throw a wrench into the Senate plans to begin tackling the president's sweeping legislative agenda, calling on both chambers to pass the House's budget on truth social under what he calls, quote, one big beautiful bill while also taking a swipe at Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's plans over in the Senate. The Senate bill, which Majority Leader John soon says is still on track for a vote this week, focuses primarily on immigration enforcement and expanding energy production. The House bill is more expansive and potentially more difficult to get to the president's desk.

Wrapping more President Trump's agenda items including immigration and an extension of the Trump tax cuts into one bill. Journey now from Capitol Hill is mcduc International political reporter Sahil Before. Sahil, thanks so much for joining us, for giving us the very latest from the Hill. So where do you think stand right now?

Are they going to move forward with the House of plan? Hey, Crystal. The Senate is going to stay the course with its own budget blueprint, the same one that Donald Trump urged the Senate to ditch to take the House version. Instead.

Senate Republican leaders make clear they're going to proceed with their own slimmed down bill. That includes funding for immigration, that includes expanded money for military spending and energy policy changes. It does not include the four and a half trillion in tax cuts that House Republicans are planning to advance. It does not include the 4 trillion debt limit increase.

In other words, major pieces of Trump agenda are left out of the Senate version. But they're going to move forward tomorrow, they say, and pass this budget blueprint out of the chamber. They would have the votes to do it. It's gonna be a long, cumbersome process called the voterama, which you and I are very familiar with.

And then after that, they're gonna start working on this bill. What they say is that they don't believe, they're not convinced that House Republicans with these tiny margins, are gonna be able to deliver on Trump's agenda in one massive bill. So essentially, there's gonna be a backup plan. That's kind of the arrangement they appear to have come to when Vice President J.D.

vance was here in Capital. Well, it's a great way to be able to look at it. And I guess, as you and I both know, the bigger the bill, the more complicated it becomes to pass. And House Republicans can really only afford to lose one vote.

Speaker Johnson is facing challenges, big challenges within his own party. But could President Trump's backing of the House bill be enough to get over the finish line? Well, that's the million dollar question at this point, Chris, and we don't know the answer to that right now. House Republicans have a one vote margin for defection.

They can lose one vote. But when Congressman Elise Stefani gets confirmed to be the UN Ambassador, that's gonna go down to a zero vote margin. So anybody in the entire House Republican conference could torpedo this bill. Remember, that happened in stages.

First you do the budget blueprint, then the committees have to craft this one massive piece of legislation, then it goes to the floor and any one Republican could discuss. That is where there's real disagreement. That's the tension between House Republicans and Senate Republicans. What the Senate ours are saying in part is that some of the White House, like President Trump's borders are.

Tom Holman is pleading with Congress to immediately deliver more funding for immigration enforcement because he says they don't have enough money for detention beds and courts are clogged up and they simply can't carry out. Trump's mass deportation plans coming down. The House is in, you know, recess this week. They're not even in session, but they're hoping to move forward with this plan next week in the return process.

Well, it's going to be extraordinary to watch it play out. Sahil, you and I are going to be talking quite a bit over the next few weeks. Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

Silicon Russia, if you're listening. The political fallout was born and domestic of the growing rift between the US And Ukraine as President Trump appears to take an increasingly pro Russia stance. The panel's next. You're watching the press now.

Welcome Back. As we mentioned, President Trump has intensified his criticism of Ukrainian President Zelensky and even echoed false Russian talking points regarding the war. But this is the first time he's surprised people by siding with Moscow on the global stage. Six and a half years ago, at a summit in Finland, President Trump said he believed Putin over US intelligence on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Listen, people came to me. Dan Coates came to me and some others. They said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin.

He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be. I have great confidence in my intelligence people.

But I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. Important to note, several days later, President Trump tried to clarify those remarks, saying he, quote, did accept the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, but added, quote, there could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there. Joining me now is Washington bureau chief for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Tia Mitchell, Democratic pollster, NBC News political analyst Cornell Belcher and partner at MAD Global Strategy, and former advisor to Vice President Vance Jay Shabria.

Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it. Tia, start us off with this really extraordinary moment that we are seeing with Trump administration officials traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet with Russian officials to basically try to get talks going to end the Russia Ukraine war. President Trump becoming very frustrated by some of what President Zelensky has been saying publicly, the fact that he's been adamant, he wants to see the table.

Where do you think things stand right now? Yeah, it's a tough thing to kind of suss out because on one hand, you have a lot of concern, and I think there's bipartisan concern, quite frankly, that the Trump administration is being too welcoming to Russia at Ukraine's detriment. And then we hear things coming from the Trump administration, from President Trump himself, that seems to be parroting Russian, Russian talking points about the war that further feeds into those concerns. But at the end of the day, Republicans are in charge, Trump is in charge, and he's the one who gets to lead these U.S.

talks. But I think there is concern that it's gonna make it harder for Ukraine to be involved in these negotiations, because it's the perception is the Trump administration is preferring Russia, is boosting Russia in ways that could hurt Ukraine. Jay, let me turn to you on this and read you one of the things that President Trump posted on Twitter Social. He wrote, quote, this is about President Zelensky.

He refuses to have elections. Very low in Ukrainian polls and love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job. It's worth noting Zelensky's approval is above 50% by one pole, 57%. But what do you make of the language, the tone that we're hearing from President Trump?

This is a larger split than we've seen in the past. Well, look, Donald Trump, first of all, his poll numbers are higher than most people would have thought by this point, with all the controversy that's been boiling around Washington, that people are largely happy with the way things are going. This is an America first agenda that Donald Trump is starting to profit through the world. And it's also, I think, a little bit of a joke that people are saying that Zelensky's not involved.

Vice President Vance Mark Rubio spoke about Zelensky last week. Keith Kellogg is in Keef today. There's a lot of Ukrainians are absolutely part of the process here, too. You can have sympathy for the Ukrainian people, but you can also say that the Ukraine war has cost Americans way too much money.

And I think that's what Donald Trump is trying to push forward here, too. There's no return on investment for American citizens. That's what he's trying check out. Colonel, what about that argument?

Because it's my understanding, based on my conversation with sources, that part of President Trump's frustration is the fact that President Zelensky rejected the deal that they had put forward to basically give the US access to 50% of their rare earth minerals. President Zelensky said, what am I getting in return on insecurity guarantees. But that's at the root of it. A lot of U.S.

officials saying, look, if he just accepted that deal, we could move forward and that would be a long term guarantee in and of itself. So now we're shaking down our allies and that's okay. No, it's not okay. And one of the things I just stand like Quintia poll out today has all Trump's approval underwater.

So everything's not rosy and fantastic. Look what Trump has character. Trump's characterization of Zelensky and Ukraine is one of the most shameful things ever uttered by US President. Just like Cornell Bell, that's John Bolton, right?

Not necessarily a progressive or a liberal. And you connect this up with, you know, the German chancellor just the other day having to come out and rebuke the vice president of the United States. These are uncharted territories, places we've never been before where our allies are rebuking us. Why are they rebuking us?

Because we're sided with authoritarianism. We're siding with people, quite frankly, who are, if not neo Nazis, are least apologetic to Hitler. And that's not me. That's not me.

They're pro Democrat Republicans, pro world Republicans, pro war Democrats. This is a completely different administration. This is an administration that is setting a new tone and it's signing the American people. Because, look, Zelensky's support has cratered in this country.

The support of the Ukrainian war has cratered because it's gone for too long. For too long. And there's been tens of billions of dollars in the usa. Problem is with the Chancellor.

This is the danger of. Right. All these, all these things they're trying to tear apart. These are things.

They're not perfect, but they've kept the world safe. They've kept us out of wars in Europe, and now they're tearing those things apart. And it's dangerous. And I do think from a national security standpoint, there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who do think it is worth spending the money to help Ukraine defend itself after Russia invaded.

And you can say they lost election after election. They're in Congress right now. Let's actually hear some of the sounds, some of the reaction that we got today from Capitol Hill. Here's where I disagree with the White House to the extent that the White House said that Ukraine started the war, I disagree.

I think Vladimir Putin started war. I cannot agree that President Zelensky is to blame in any way. I will look at the direct quote, but I certainly would not, I absolutely would not say that Zelensky started the war. It is quite clear who started the war.

It was absolutely Russia and Putin's directive. I don't think that there should be any confusion in that. So, yeah, these are Republicans from President Trump in the past, but Republicans nonetheless. What do you make of them speaking out and out against what he said?

Yeah, I think, again, there are concerns from Republicans about the language Trump has used, particularly Colin Zelensky, a dictator, in saying that the war was Zelensky's fault, as opposed to it being Russia led by Vladimir Putin who invaded Ukraine. But I think there's a wider conversation and yes, there's nuance about how much should the US Spend and what way should the US Spend. But I think it's part of a wider conversation about the extent, to what extent should the US Stand up for its allies and stand against an authoritarian country invading its neighbor? Jay, let me go to you on this because to his point, why not make that argument?

Why say something that's just not true? That because he started the war then you acknowledge. But this is completely reframing American foreign policy going forward. This is not, this is not just about this one instance.

This is about more of a focus on China. This is about what are we actually getting for our dollars when we're sending tens of billions of dollars over to Ukraine for their support and nothing has happened. At some point, people that are understand that it's not going to be the resolution that we're promised. It's gonna be a much more real haltic resolution.

45 seconds. Let me give you the last word here. Look, it's not about Democratic Republic because we've seen Democrats and Republicans across parties and say that we have to support our allies and we have to support NATO because it's kept us safe. And you know the other thing we can't do?

We can't go over in Europe and prop up far right wing neo Nazis because it's not. Okay, you have 10 seconds. It's a laughable concept here. I mean, the freedom of speech is a noble concept and I support it.

You're laughing at the German Chancellor, not me, because that was German chancellor's point, not mine. All right, well, he did. Great discussion here at the table. Thank you so much, Dio Grant Allen, Jay, really appreciate it.

Thank you all for tuning in. We are back tomorrow with more media press. Now the news does continue with Maggie Vespa in for Riley Jackson. Right now, I'm Craig Knelt.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy.

And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows, you might just come away with your own glass half class apple with Craig Delphin From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.