Meet the Press NOW — February 20

Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Nelly Zone in Washington where the president is lashing out at the Supreme Court, threatening to use his power to destroy economic rivals and vowing a global tariff in response to the Supreme Court today dealing a serious blow to his signature economic policy, striking down most of the terrorists that his administration has imposed. The ruling raising many questions about what comes next for the White House's economic agenda and also what happens to the billions of dollars it is already collected from those tariffs, which are now determined to be unconstitutional. Two of the president's Supreme Court picks, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, joined the courts of liberal justices in the historic 6, 3 decision ruling that the president exceeded his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers act to impose those sweeping tariffs on numerous countries.

Chief Justice Roberts writing, quote, the framers gave Congress alone the powers to impose tariffs during peacetime. The president must point to clear congressional authorization to justify his extraordinary assertion of that power. He cannot. President Trump calling the decision a disgrace while accusing the justices of caving to foreign pressure in issuing this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. The president also vowing to invoke other presidential authorities to impose tariffs and other penalties on trading partners and then announcing a 10 tariff worldwide.

But other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected. We have alternatives. Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. All things considered, it was a fairly calm day on Wall street with stocks closing slightly higher on the day. The ruling puts more than just the White House economic agenda in limbo. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh notes in his dissenting opinion, the court says nothing today about whether, and if so, how the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that is already collected from these tariffs.

President Trump telling reporters today that he believes that this particular issue will be tied up in court for years to come. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point. We take it in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in?

It wasn't discussed. What do you think they would put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money? Right. I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.

Are you saying that you don't plan to honor refunds for the companies that file for them? I just told you the answer. Right? I told you the answer.

It's not discussed. We'll end up being in court for the next five years. NBC News White House correspondent Monica Elba joins me now, along with NBC News senior business correspondent Christine Romans, NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach, and NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin. An absolutely stacked lineup of reporters.

Thank you all so much for joining us. Monica, I want to start with you at the White House because these terrorists have been really the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda. So how big of a defeat does the administration see today's decision as being? It is hard to overstate, Mel, just how significant this is for the president's agenda and really what a rebuke this is to something that he has considered a total cornerstone of this second term.

This is something he talks about at every event, at every campaign rally. This is something he continually points to in terms of saying that he believes the economy is as strong as he thinks it is. So this is a White House that is absolutely on the back foot right now. The president himself was absolutely fuming and very frustrated the way that he learned about this in real time.

Ironically, he found out way later than the world did because he was in an event with these bipartisan group of governors this morning when an aide passed him a note informing him of the ruling, which he then called a disgrace. He essentially said he did have a backup plan, which I'm going to talk about more later. But then he said that he had to leave this event early to try to figure out then how the White House was going to respond to it. I have to tell you, Mel, this is the White House that has known this possibility could be coming for months.

But it still took them a couple of hours to figure out exactly how they wanted to respond today. And they have provided little specifics on exactly now how they're going to position and messages. And remember, it's the president who said recently that he feels they have a PR problem when it comes to the economy, when they just got way more complicated with this decision. Yeah, somewhat surprising that There was a slow response to this.

You mentioned the backup plan. So President Trump says, hey, we'll impose a 10% global tariff. What provision or law is the White House using to justify this? And do we know when these tariffs will take effect?

So we know that the president essentially now trying to make this argument under a larger national security umbrella. And when we talk about that 10% tariff, if you look some of the other countries and remember back to so called Liberation Day last April, they were way higher tariffs placed some of these countries. So the fact that you're going to have this baseline of 10% is again way lower, huge difference than what initially they wanted to do. But this is an argument that the President is making and that his Treasury Secretary is saying they're going to be able to do under these provisions because again, they can make this justification.

There could still be though, more court rulings, there could still be more challenges to. This isn't the end of it. It's just something where the President is trying to make an argument. Administration is saying they still believe they can have a pretty high tariff revenue stream even in 2026.

There's, despite this major setback, I know the market's definitely welcome. Today's decision. Is there any chance the White House tries to spin this as a victory? Well, I think that certainly you could see the president somehow doing that.

He does like to sort of, when he's embattled in these moments, find a way to say, well, this is why it's even better. This could potentially now be a way for me to try to try this different approach. But then in his view or in his way that he will try to spin it, he'll argue was even better. There are other positive economic indicators that come out there separate from these terrorists.

And coming weeks and months, you can't expect the President to celebrate that. But remember, he's the one who's saying you're gonna feel more benefits of my programs down the line later this year. He's trying to tell people to be patient. We shall see.

Montecala. Thank you, Christina. I want to bring you into this conversation. What would a 10% global tariff really mean for American consumers?

I mean, it would be a relief, quite frankly, from the tariff rates that you're seeing right now. And it's way better than what we had seen way back in April on that Liberation Day when the President threatened huge tariffs bearing tariffs on countries around the world. I mean, so I think it's been taken as a, as a positive for the cost of living story. And the affordability story for American consumers.

You know, the White House has said for so long now that these tariffs do not, they're not a price problem. They don't cause inflation. They don't, they're not passed along to American consumers. The White House has said they're paid for by foreign governments, which is not true.

They're paid for, of course, by the importers, the American companies that are importing these goods. So a 10% rate is definitely, definitely an improvement. But there are other tariffs that are still in place and the president is actually threatening more tariffs using different authorities in the, in the months ahead. So I think we'll see the near term.

You're going to see, you're going to see importers rushing to get stuff in at a low tariff rate right now to stack for the rest of the year. You said some tariffs are still in place. Can you tell me what tariffs are indeed someplace? Well, for steel and aluminum, there are tariffs.

For the auto industry, there are some tariffs on pharmaceuticals. There are tariffs also on semiconductors, there are tariffs, though there's blanket tariffs on China and Canada and Mexico, Those come off and that's pretty important here because those are some of the most significant tariffs on our, America's biggest trading partners. So that will be a very near term favorable thing for the cost of living story and a reminder. You know, the White House has said that these tariffs don't add to class for people.

But the White House has also been lowering and removing tariffs, as you know, on some food goods from some countries. I think a tacit acknowledgment that when you put taxes on something that's imported that we don't necessarily make here, will the prices rise for that? That's such an important point. We did not see drastic inflation results resulting from Trump's tariffs.

With no tariffs in place, will we see any price change? I mean, the hope is that maybe, I mean, assuming that you don't have big, onerous new tariffs that come on here very quickly, I mean, the Federal Reserve and others have been watching, watching how tariffs have been passed through, and they think that there's a very short term kind of one time effect on prices and that will start to get better over time. That was, of course, before this ruling which essentially said the President of the United states illegally collected $133 billion worth of tariffs from American companies. Now, I'm talking to American companies today, but they'd really like to see a quick, a quick and an easy refund which can be done.

These are all Electronic payments. But as you played here, it sounds like the President, the president wants to fight and he's going to, I guess, make these small businesses, medium size business, these supporters go to court to try to get their money back, no doubt. Christine, thank you so much. Gary, I want to turn to you to dig into this decision.

You're our court expert here. The justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's argument. Were there any surprises that stood out to you today? So this is the way court watchers generally thought this was going to go, because the text about you on the statute we're talking about here is really clear.

It says the president has the power in emergency to regulate, to prescribe, to investigate, to prohibit. Nowhere does it say the president has the power to tax. Nowhere does this president have the power to tariff. And that is what Chief Justice John Roberts really focused on.

He didn't even get into the issue of whether or not we're actually in an emergency right now that he didn't need to because of the tariffs of the tax. So in your view, was this more about tariffs or was this really more about presidential authority? So this is about presidential authority, but it's also about congressional power. Right?

This is putting the power that something Congress made back into the hands of Congress. And that is what certainly when they were writing this bill years and years ago, that is certainly what they intended. And this was what Chief Justice John Roberts is putting forward here today. You know, over the past few years, the court has really granted a lot of power to the executive branch, rescinded authority away from Congress.

Do you see that sort of reversing with this? Think about what we've already done and seen over the past year and a half. Right. We've seen federal workers being fired and we've seen the Supreme Court be okay with that.

It's a number of immigration moves. The Supreme Court be okay with that. The Supreme Court said, no, you can't do this here. That is a very significant step.

I wouldn't necessarily call it changing of the way you're looking at things, because the president never had this authority in the first place. That's what I think it says. One thing that stood out to me in the briefing today is that Trump said he might fight in court any effort to provide refunds for these tariffs. What might that litigation look like?

Well, he doesn't have to fight in court. Right. This is not a required thing that the Trump administration has to go to court for. There are ways that there's a real complicated process, but there are ways for tariff receipts to be sent to the federal government and for them to just pay back what is owed.

It is hundreds of billions of dollars. There are hundreds and thousands of companies that now deserv this money back. This does not have to go to court, but it likely will because Trump administration has done that hundreds of times. Something else Trump said in the briefing today was that this decision provided him with, quote, very powerful alternatives to impose tariffs.

Is he right? So sort of the court did not say, oh, here's a bunch of alternatives. That's certainly not what Chief Justice John Arse laid out in his dissent when Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said was there are five or six. Here's a list of them.

Five or six different ways the president can legally impose tariffs. They do. Some of them have to go to the United States trade representative who's up there right behind president at the Bridge Room tonight. Certainly supportive of anything presidential.

Oh, I'm sure, Julie, Democrats are calling. Today is really a victory for Democrats. But what are Republicans saying at Capitol Hill? Republicans are for the most part kind of warm about this ruling.

I can't think of a Republican besides saying Bernie Moreno will talk about the second of Ohio, who's really going to bat like the president is with that fire, with the anger at this ruling. Most of them are saying, you know what, we'll take a look at this decision. Congress and the White House will talk. That's what Peter Johnson is saying they were as well.

But there are some Republicans who are who are applying this ruling, including the four who voted in October talking about Senator Richard McConnell, for example, police, Murkowski, Susan Collins, who voted to rebuke for the president's tariffs back in October. They McConnell, for example, saying that this ruling is essentially reaffirming that Trump circumventing congressional authority is illegal. I mean, to that point, this is such a victory for members of Congress who have seen their power eroded over the years. It's always because they gave that power to the Trump administration.

But how are lawmakers viewing that in this context? Well, here's the thing here. The president say today we don't need Congress, we don't need any of them to try and affirm these tariffs that they want to impose. And they have been opposing.

They kind of do need Congress. Right. That's what the Supreme Court reforms shouts, what Gary was just talking about. And the thing is, though, the president knows he doesn't currently have the votes to reaffirm his powers.

So he's essentially employing or deploying the strategy of continuing to push Congress to the side to say they already did all they needed him to do on one big football, for example, everything else on the tariff policy, he's got it. He'll let them fight in the he certainly get repulsing votes to keep imposing those tariffs. I mean, speaking of not having the votes, what about this idea that you mentioned, Bernie Marano, psychiatrist, which is doing another reconciliation package to try to impose terrorists. Is there any job at that?

Short answer, no. And I can think of a million issues. We were talking about this health care for one. Other issues that Republicans don't see the votes form a bipartisan way.

They're saying, you know what, let's do it through reconciliation because it did work for them this summer. They were even skeptics that that would happen and that would come across the finish line. A lot of Republicans want the president to be talking about the victories they saw from that, the tax cuts that they were able to extend over the summer. They don't want to be talking about a protruded battle that Democrats quite frankly would be willing to have a messaging more months ahead of the material elections on essentially trying to codify the president's power to raise taxes.

That's not something Republicans want to talk about. But Bernie Rayno is and you're notably Trump himself said he doesn't seem to need for another reconciliation. So I divide there as usual. Gary and Julie, thank you both so much for joining us.

While sliding the Supreme Court's decision, President Trump also said this ruling has now given him more power. Take a listen. But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country to destroy foreign countries, but a much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had. But not the right to charge a fee.

How crazy is that? Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now. It was a dead country one and a half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I'm going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.

But I read the language. I'm very good at reading language and it read our way 100%. But now I go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice. Joining me now is Tim Brightbill, an attorney specializing in international trade, law and policy.

Grateful for your expertise. I'm sure you read language very well. As Trump also said, I want to start by asking you about this 10% global tariff as well as the other tariffs that are under the sections of the law. First of all, does he actually have the authority to do that, in your view, especially based on this ruling?

And could these new tariffs also be challenged in court? So the president does have authority under section 1.2 to impose these tariffs. It's never been used before in the 50 years that it's been on the book. So it is unprecedented that the authority is there now and that allows up to 15% tariffs.

The president announced 10% today, and that can stay in place for up to 150 days. After that point, Congress would have to reauthorize those tariffs going forward. So he says these new tariffs are the stronger choice and seem to suggest he'd have broader authority. Is that right?

I'm not sure it's broader authority. I think it's narrow to fill a balance of payments issue for a temporary period of time, but it might give the administration some time to use some of the other tools in the toolbox. You heard the US Trade Representative, Jason Greer, refer to other tools, Section 301 of the Trade laws, the national security laws under section 232. So this temporary tariff could allow those other tools to come into play soon after.

I want to talk about the impacts here because that is so important. Talk to me about what you think these new tariffs can have an impact in terms of the global economy as well as the American consumer. Well, I think it's early to say what the impact will be. We already have hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs in place.

There are agreements with our major trading partners. I don't expect that those agreements will be thrown out immediately. I think they will remain in place. Most countries would probably choose to have the certainty of an agreement that they've negotiated over the chaos of what we've seen over the last year.

So I think we'll have to see how this plays out with our trading partners. Now, for businesses and companies and industries, they want certainty, right? They want to know what's coming so that they can plan accordingly. So they're looking to get their refunds if possible, and they're looking to know what the future will hold so that they can conduct business going forward.

What about the terms, the impact in terms of revenue? Because the president says he's now taking in even more revenue than before. Do you buy that? I think it's unlikely.

I mean, there has been a huge amount, unprecedented amount of tariffs collected, but I don't think the new authorities necessarily will lead to even greater collections. And of course, there are possible core challenges to these new tariffs that might be introduced as well. The other question I had, if he looked at this in the briefing, is that some of these trade deals will remain in place. Some of them will be renegotiated.

I mean, what is your view when it comes to having to renegotiate some of these trade agreements? So my personal view is that most countries will choose to keep in place anything that they've already negotiated. They'd rather have the certainty. They'd rather know, even if they're going to have to pay tariffs, what that tariff level will be.

But we haven't concluded those agreements with many of our major trading partners, the European Union, for example, so that does cause a bit of chaos. We'll have to see how that plays out. As far as will there be negotiations? And has the president lost some leverage in those discussions with the EU and many of our other major trading partners?

I think the other question on a lot of people's minds, certainly on my mind, is how these refunds are going to work. $266 billion in total tariff revenue has already been collected, and of that, $133 billion was collected under that IEBA. So American consumers were the ones who paid most of these tariffs. Trump seems to suggest that he would not be paying them out.

I mean, how do you see that refund process potentially playing out? I think it'll move fairly quickly. This will go back to the Court of International Trade in New York, which first ruled that the IEBA tariffs illegal. There hopefully will be some sort of administrative process set up.

Importantly, the Justice Department. President Trump's Justice Department has already said that there will be refunds of these tariffs. So if the president were to try to change course, the courts are going to hold the Justice Department to what it's already said. So we're looking to see if there will be an early process for getting refunds back to consumers and businesses.

Now, of course, consumers didn't pay the tariff and they won't directly get refunds. It will go back to the importer of record who paid the tariffs originally. So don't expect to check in your pocket, not any time to. That's right.

Unfortunately, yes. Tim, thank you so much for your expertise. We really appreciate it. Thank you to be here.

And now I want to turn to Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley of California. He recently voted to oppose President Trump's tariffs on Canada, and he's also a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. I want to start with this huge Announcement, of course, of this 10% global tariff.

Here's what the President said when my colleague Ryan Nobles asked if he needed congressional approval. Take a listen up with the plan. I have the right to do tariffs, and I've always had the right to do tariffs. And it's all been approved by Congress.

So there's no reason to do it. All we're doing is we're going through a little bit more complicated process. Not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had. Congressman, what's your response to that?

Well, there is some truth to that in the sense that there are various statutes that impose some limited authority to deterrence in certain circumstances, like the Habitat for Issue investigation, something like that. Today's decision by the Supreme Court affects one particular tool that the President has used. So it may well be true. And of course, these things might have to be tested in court as well.

There might be more limited authority to impose tariffs in some circumstances. But, you know, going forward, I do think it's important that Congress is involved in trade policy. I think that's the way that, you know, our system was designed. I want to ask about your vote.

Were you voting on the substance of the tariffs? Were you voted to overturn them or were you voting against how they were implemented by the President? Well, it was actually two separate votes. So on the first one, it was about to just allow Congress to weigh in on these things.

Actually, the specific statute was the National Emergencies act, which says that when the President declares an emergency, then Congress has to vote every six months on whether the emergency still exists. The speaker had used sort of an accounting trick to make it so Congress didn't actually do that for the emergencies the President has declared with respect to tariffs. And so I go that way because that's the way the statute was designed. And I don't believe that it's a good thing that endless emergencies about Congress ever weighing in.

And then the second vote was specifically with respect to the state of emergency the President has declared with respect to Canada, which he's then used as the basis for these tariffs. And on that note, I looked at the facts. He had said we had an emergency dealing with fentanyl coming over the northern border, and Canada has actually cracked down on fentanyl. There's been by some estimates, a 97% reduction.

So that, you know, said to me that while the basis for that emergency is no longer there, and then it is finally true that the terrorists coming from Canada are sort of unique in the sense that this is our neighbor, we have a free trade agreement that was fairly recently signed with Canada. And there have been particular impacts when it comes to construction, agriculture, energy and other areas. So if the President came to you and your fellow Republicans and asked you guys to authorize any of these other tariffs, would you back that? I'd look at it case by case.

I think that, you know, the facts are very different with different countries and different industries. So, for example, you know, I think it is true that there have been unfair trade practices or ways in which American companies have been targeted by certain laws in Europe. I was actually in Europe a few months ago looking at this very question. How many American companies have been subjected to these massive fines without very good reason?

And so, you know, if that can be part of negotiation to make sure that our companies are treated fairly, then, you know, I might look at that differently than with respect to some other countries or some other industries. But I think the important thing is that as was explained very well in Justice Orsic's opinion, his concurrence, I know when Congress is involved, then all of us can bring our own experiences to bear and knowledge and, you know, assessment of what is best for the country through the legislative process as our founders designed. I think that, that there's, you know, I think that would be the best thing for the country if we're able to have Congress involved in each individual case. President Trump did call you and some of your fellow Republicans who voted against those tariffs, quote, not good Republicans.

He also threatened the primary U. Meanwhile, he also bashed on the Supreme Court justices ruling against the terrorists, calling them lap dogs and rhinos and radical left Democrats. How do you respond to that, especially as you try to say that Congress needs to assert more of a role. And is there a room to criticize Trump and today's Republican Party?

Well, I mean, I try not to let criticism of any particular dictate my behavior. You know, you're always gonna make people unhappy with anybody whichever way you go. You know, you might have people who disagree with you. It might be, you know, particular elements of your constituencies who agree, some who disagree.

So it's hard to make everyone happy. In some cases, you might not make the leadership of your own party or even the president happy. But at the end of the day, you know, I just try to do. I think it'd be best for my district, for my state and for the country.

I think that, you know, my constituents will judge my record in its entirety. I do want to talk about the midterms because the president said yesterday in Georgia that he, quote, won and solved the affordability issue. Is that your view? Well, I do think that you've seen progress in some important areas, like energy is one.

Right. Like across the country we have had a big reduction in gas prices. But it absolutely is true that it's way too hard to get by in way too many parts of this country right now. And I'm coming from California, so my state is most unaffordable state in the country.

We have the highest gas prices, the highest electricity rates, among the highest water bills and housing costs and taxes. And so I think that issue is front and center, is perhaps the most salient issue for the folks I represent. And I do think it needs to be a big, big focus of what we do in Congress for the remainder of this year. Do you think especially Republicans in the House are doing enough to address affordability?

I know you've complained about during historic shutdown, you guys were away from the House for so long. Do you think you guys are doing enough? And if not, could it cost Republicans midterms? I think we need to do more.

And I do think that force come election time, you know, people are going to be judged according to their record. And I think that, you know, the material conditions that people are experiencing in their day to day lives when it comes to economic well being and their ability to, you know, provide for their family, that's going to be front center. And so I think, you know, we have passed some really important measures when it comes to energy production. We passed an important housing bill this last week.

But you know, there's certainly plenty more to do. And you're right, having Congress gone for whatever two months for no reason at all, and then also failing to address this issue with the increase in healthcare premiums, with the expiration of these subsidies, I think that both of those things were very unfortunate. But we've got, you know, plenty of time left in this year and so we're back in session on Monday and I think we really need to hit the ground running to address those concerns. I know you have not said exactly which district you plan to run in.

Again, your district was impacted heavily by redistricting, but now that the dust has sort of started to settle and we're seeing that it might be a wash in terms of Republican and Democratic gains in redistricting, do you think it's going to backfire ultimately for Republicans? I think it's a total disaster, this redistricting war. You're right, it looks like it's going to be about a wash. It never made any sense.

I was against it in Texas. I was against it in California. In my state, many of us across the country have now had our districts chopped into many district, different pieces. It's created enormous instability.

It's fostered an enormous amount of distrust and too wide for some, that's not even going to necessarily result in an advantage for one side or the other. So I think that we need to end gerrymandering in this country. We certainly shouldn't be doing it in the middle of a decade. So I'm working on legislation to actually do both of those things to stop mid decade redistricting and to establish some sort of independent system for every state so that we can have fair representation going forward.

Real quick, do you think Republican will keep the majority? You know, it's very hard to say this far out. I think that, you know, we're what, nine months or something from the midterms and so a lot can happen then. But, you know, I think that it's incumbent on each of us to really do what we can to fight for affordability and for, you know, for certainly border security and all the things that matter to the American people.

And then we'll be judged accordingly. I think that, you know, all of us have to run our own records, not necessarily as one party versus the other. I think it's up to each of us to show that we're serving our constituents and serving the country. Congressman, thank you.

You're back in front of me. Up next, after warning up, quote, bad things that Tehran doesn't make a deal on his nuclear program. President Trump today telling NBC News that he's considering a limited military strike on Iran. You're watching Beat the Press.

Now let's kickstart your wellness journey with the doctor workouts meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more.

Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65.99 plus tax until cancel all the range. May 20, 2026. Prices subject to change today.comxfinity for full offer terms and details. Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast.

On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter, and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news 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 instructions, 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. More. Welcome back.

President Trump continues to draw clues about what potential US Military action on Iran could look like if the two sides don't reach an agreement on a nuclear deal. This morning, NBC's monkey Alba asked the president about the possibility of military action while reporters are being escorted by the president's event with US Governors. Take a listen. Are you considering limited military strike?

Thank you for asking. Thank you. It of course, comes amid the rapid US Military buildup in the Middle east and after President Trump suggested yesterday that the timeline for action against Iran could be in the next 10 to 15 days. Joining me now on set is NBC News national security reporter Gordon Lugold.

Gordon, thank you so much for joining us. President Trump said today he's considering limited military action. So talk to me about what that could look like. And given that there is this big military buildup, how can you have limited military action?

Sure. So it's really interesting. There is this massive buildup of military hardware in the region, a region that's had a lot of military buildups over the years in the past. This is bigger than what it was in June when they did what they called Midnight Hammer, bigger than what they did in the Caribbean when they went to Venezuela.

What's most striking about these are that there's the capability of 22 Raptor jet fighters, F35s. So what's interesting is this gives a range of options, as I think everybody's been reporting that the president could go small, medium, large, kind of little bit Goldilocks, not to make light of it. But so what I think he's hinting at there is a possibility of, you know, limited strikes against certain sites to kind of nudge along the nuclear deal that you actually would like that. So what kind of targets could the United States actually strike?

So as a NBC reported some months ago that Israelians really would like to go after some of the ballistic missile sites in Iran. So that's a possibility. You could also go back and look at some of the sites they hit in June that were sort of decimated and go off and kind of check those could go after some security sites and labs, some other things. But there's a whole range of opportunities for them to strike just to kind of send a message.

And the president has talked about 10 to 15 days being a timeline. He loves to talk about a two week time frame. How realistic do you think it is that there will be a decision made in the next 10 to 15 days? This is, I would say it's very hard to discern from this.

Let's remember that in June he said I'm going to think about it for a couple more weeks. And within a few days he did the strikes of Midnight Hammer. So that's why we're all kind of Letitia to see what he may or may not do. But I think that he is trying to get a deal.

I think he'd prefer not to go do almost even any strikes. And if some of these kind of verbal rhetoric that he puts out there can bring it to a close without strikes, that's what he'll do. But I think that we're in a zone of him doing whatever he may or may not do. What are some of the US Allies in the region thinking of all this?

Yeah, so initially, as you may recall, about a month or so ago the president was going to maybe conduct some strikes. Then the Israelis, others in the region were not prepared for what could come in retaliation from Iran. So since then, some of those air defenses and others and more capability have been kind of put into place. Remember real quick the 40s in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Lincolns in the North Arabian.

One is they're kind of will share responsibilities if there is anything. But there is a need for defensive capability as well as offensive capability. So a lot of that stuff is now kind of coming in. And you know, I think that some of the Gulf allies who are very concerned may be kind of resigned to him doing whatever he may do.

There's been generally concern about what happens the day after, but that's a whole, a whole new conversation, a lot to look out for. Gordon, thank you so much for joining us. Turning now to Arizona, where It's now day 20 of the search for Nancy Beckett, mother of our beloved colleague and Today show co anchor Savannah Guthrie. Some 400 FBI agents and sheriff's deputies continue to work that case as the investigation nears the three week mark.

Law enforcement officials say they have received roughly 50,000 tips between the Pima County Sheriff's Department and the FBI. The Pima County Sheriff's Department also saying they've been in touch with officials on the other side of the US Mexico border, saying that such outreach is standard in a missing person's case like this one. Two officials briefed down the case, telling NBC News, there's no evidence Guthrie was taken over the border. If you or anyone you know has information that can help this investigation, we encourage you to call the FBI tip line at the number on your screen.

1-800- call FBI after the break, the files and the fallout House investigators release video from their deposition of one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest associates as across the pond, written reels from the arrest of the former Prince Andrew. You're watching Meet THE Press. Now get the best of NBC News with a subscription viewer ads, deeper access and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

Head to xin.com membership to learn more. Xin Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at 65. 99 plus taxes and fees until canceled offer ends May 20, 2026. Price is subject to change.

Visit NBC news.com xin for full of returns and details. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Gia. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

The front page to the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back.

The Department of Justice's release of the Epstein files continues to have ripple effects around the world, with the consequences for prominent officials overseas seemingly much more severe at this moment. While there are growing calls here at home for similar accountability. Today, British authorities search former pris Andrew's royal residence in Windsor. That, of course, comes after he was arrested and held in detention for nearly 11 hours on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Former Prince Andrew is the most high profile figure to face potential legal ramifications for his association with Epstein. That list also includes the former prime minister of Norway who has been criminally charged with corruption over his ties Epstein, the former French culture minister who's under investigation for his alleged financial ties. Epstein and the former British ambassador to the US who's under investigation for misconduct in public office. Now we should note the appearance of their names in Epstein file does not necessarily mean they committed a crime and they have denied all wrongdoing.

Joining me now on set is NBC News senior justice reporter Ryan Reilly, who's been following all of this. I want to start with this contrast between the fallout we've seen domestically and abroad. What is your view on that? What is your take on that?

And also, are there increased calls for accountability here in the US There are those increased calls, but I think one of the. There's just completely different legal systems when you're talking about overseas versus here. And one of the main things is the statute of limitations. And that's sort of what you start from the outside.

You really can't charge crimes federally outside of specific offenses, including like really horrific offenses like, you know, abuse of a minor or something. You can only charge within the past five years federally. Right. So that limit right now would be 20, 21.

And that's. That's like two years after Epstein died. So that's the limit you have to sort of look at. And typically, you don't see this massive release of raw investigative materials.

That's what is causing a lot of these investigations elsewhere. I mean, the Prince Andrew or former Prince Andrew case, rather, is really remarkable. If you're talking about a period of 16 years back, I mean, that's like iPhone 3G territory. It's forever ago, but that's allowed under British law.

And, you know, they can get him on this charge that apparently has to do with sharing some of document with Epstein that he wasn't allowed to share. And the only reason we really know about that is because of the release of the Epstein files. But something similar had happened here. If it turned out that some government official here had shared some document with Epstein back in the early Obama era, that's not really going to be a charge.

So it's just a much different legal situation. The House Oversight Committee also releases their deposition with Les Wexner lawyer talking away from that position. I mean, the moment that was viral was his lawyer whispering in his ear about not talking anymore. Exactly.

That's very colorfully stating that. And typically lawyers say that in a little bit of a different way in case it's picked up by the mic. But I mean, you know, I think especially we're in now this moment where a lot of this accountability, you see the clips that are playing virally, this is sort of the way that a lot of this accountability, I think, in America is going to come about in terms of just public exposure of that and like consequences, whether they be socially, whether they be financially, whether they be civil. For anyone who's caught up or is involved in wrongdoing that is exposed by those files because there's not a ton criminally that you can do outside of very specific charges.

And Wexner was such a significant player in Ohio politics. What are leaders there saying reacting to this? Yeah, Carly Carrie Gomez is Chris react on this, basically talking about the really powerful role that he played in the state, you know, financing a lot of lawmakers, making these big donations. And so it is having a lot of this fallout consequence.

I think that's what we can expect. Mostly, you know, people should expect that to be the primary consequence for a lot of people in the United States. I think that's kind of what law. They wanted this all out in the open.

Of course, there are a lot of calls for these criminal charges. But you just gotta remember what the American system looks like. There are restrictions, you know, in America for a reason that's different from a lot of foreign countries. There's a reason that we split ourselves off the British 150 years ago.

So maybe it's not a good idea to be able to reach back 16 years. I think a lot of people, a lot of lawyers in America would say the idea of being able to reach back 16 years and look at conduct that far back, there has to be some restriction on that. That's just how it works in the UK Ryan, thank you so much for your insight. I know you will continue to stay on top of this important story after the break.

We're diving into the political fallout for the White House and Republican Party as the president lashes out against the Supreme Court for delivering a major blow to his economic agenda. The panel is next. You're watching Beat THE Press. Now.

Just one year ago under crooked Joe Biden, and he was crooked as hell, our country was dead. Now we have the hottest country in one year. We have the hottest country anywhere in the world. You notice what word have you not heard over the last two weeks?

Affordability. Because I've won. I've won affordability. Welcome back.

That was President Trump yesterday in Georgia touting his economic record ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling against his terrorists. Today, it comes as the president tries to convince voters ahead of the midterms that his promise of an American golden age has been a promise kept going so far as to tell our colleague Tom Yamas this is his accomplishment economy. You said we inherited the mess from President Biden when it comes to the economy. But at what point is it on you?

At what point are we in the Trump economy? I'm very proud of it. But the numbers made a significantly more complicated picture because the economy under President Trump looks eerily similar, or in some cases worse, than the mess he claims to have inherited. For example, GDP grew at a faster pace in Biden's final year in office than it did in President Trump's first full year.

Job growth under President Trump has taken a significant hit, with just 181,000 jobs created in 2025, compared to nearly a million and a half in 2024. The US trade deficit, which President Trump has tried to reduce their tariffs, hasn't really budged at all compared to Biden's final year. Overall, inflation has cooled, but only slightly compared to Biden's last year in office. And the stock market has remained in the green, but it grew at a faster clip before Trump took office.

Now, to be clear, voters were frustrated with the direct economy under President Biden as well, but polls should have also soured on President Trump's handling of the issue. Joining me now is our excellent panel, Jeff Neeson, Washington correspondent for Bloomberg, Megan Hayes, former special assistant to President Biden, and former Republican governor of North Carolina, Pat McQuarrie. Thank you guys so much for joining us on incredibly busy news day, even though it's a Friday. Happy Friday to you all.

I do want to start with you and get some White House perspective, because how big of a blow is this decision, not just on the policy, but also on the economic messaging? Massive. I mean, it's a massive blow to the president politically, economically, and just in terms of international foreign policy as well. I mean, President Trump has said for years that his favorite word is tariffs, and it's his favorite word because he likes to use them as a cudgel.

He does it for economic reasons. He does it for foreign policy reasons. And now they have. The Supreme Court has essentially taken that tool out of his toolbox, at least temporarily until the White House figures up some or comes up with its backup plans on other ways to use tariffs.

They exist and he referenced that today, but they will take longer and they won't be quite as easy. So it's a massive bullet to him. That said, he came out today in that briefing room, he was clearly upset, but talked about plan B. He's got one and announced he's 10% across the board, tariffs.

And in some ways, I'd be curious to get Megan's take on this. The Supreme Court may have done him a favor politically by taking tariffs away. It may take away an argument the Democrats had about tariffs boosting inflation yeah, Megan, it is such a great point because I know for talking to Republicans on the Hill, there's a huge sigh of relief. So in some ways, is this a tree for Republicans especially vulnerable race prices and Democrats not to get too excited here because prices are not going to come down.

This is not going to have, you know, anybody's consumer good or still going to cost the same amount of money as they cost a day and they're going to cost probably more in a couple of weeks. This is all just sort of jocking. It is a win in the sense that someone is holding accountable and that the rule of law still exists and people still believe in the Constitution. So that is a win.

But I would really caution Democratic issue because the terror of the tax and those taxes are still going to be in effect because consumers are still going to pay them because companies off of them, they're already big in. Do you think Democrats are soaking Republicans who did walk the plank and voted essentially supported these terrorists like capital Health? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, all these Republicans are extremely vulnerable for the affordability issue in general, not coming up with solutions.

All they did for the last year and a couple of months was back President Trump's plans for more tariffs, which again, it attacks to the American people. And when they talk about getting refunds, that is admitting that the American people and companies pay those taxes. What Trump said was it's a different country, we're gonna pay. That's a lie.

And he that is lie today. Governor, I need bringing you to this conversation. I want to get your take the president doubled down on these tariffs. Is that surprising or do you think he really had no choice if he made this a center piece of his economy?

Oh, he had no choice. It was a tool that he's really using more for foreign policy than domestic policy, which is interesting. And I look at North Carolina right now as I go back home later on this weekend, you know they're gonna be winners and losers in North Carolina. The domestic companies that make steel, especially North Carolina, their stock's going down today.

The retail companies are going up, the ones who depend upon more imports. So they're winners and losers and tariffs. What's ironic politically though, how things have changed in five years. It used to be Republicans who were against tariffs.

In fact, the Freedom Caucus was elected by the Club for Growth, gave millions of dollars to tell Freedom Caucus to be against all tariffs. I know because I interviewed with them when I ran for the U.S. senate. And then the Democrats used to actually be for Tarif to protect labor Jobs.

And now, as with many other issues here in Washington, looking from the outside, the Republicans and Democrats have completely flipped on the issue of tariffs, and they had to go with Trump. Trump was actually more Democratic on the issue tariffs when he flipped, the Republican Congress had to go his way, regardless of the Club for Growth money that helped get the Freedom Caucus elected. And we've seen that on so many issues. We have state rights.

I'm voting right now on the economic piece of this. Trump is complaining that his party isn't doing enough to sell his agenda, but could be that Republicans just aren't really in love with what the product is that they're trying to sell. I think the problem you have right now, you have two branches of government here that are running the government. You have the executive branch of the judicial branch.

And Congress has been sitting on the sideline now for over a decade. And we're being run by executive orders and executive orders being challenged. And tariffs is just the latest. And I predict Trump will do exactly what Biden did when he Supreme Court cases, and that is he'll find another executive order to challenge in a loophole in executive authority versus congressional authority and wait out the situation.

So that's what Trump's going to do right now, is revive it. I think the Treasury Secretary has already said that in the last hour. Well, to the point, Jeff, how do you think the White House is going to try to message this in terms of their affordability agenda? Is it possible to still keep preaching about affordability?

Do you think they're going to try to make tariffs still a part of that equation? I do, largely because the President said he would today. I mean, he said that again, although he's clearly really irritated and that's a mild word with the Supreme Court. He said that the Supreme Court actually created certainty by removing the question mark over those tariffs and basically telling him use another way to impose them.

He's going to impose them, but he's gonna, he's gonna have to go through a process that takes longer in order to make sure that it's legal, and that will at least take away temporarily his ability to just say, hey, if you don't give me Greenland, for example, or some other prize that he wants, I'm gonna, I'll leave tariffs. That will be a lot harder for him. And in the meantime, the business community is going, what's going to happen tomorrow? As, say, certain stocks went up today, other stocks went down.

How are they going to plan for next week or next month as the administration re pivots and then the court will repeat after that while Congress sits on the sideline all while the American people are still paying more price more for their goods and the cost of living still goes up. So affordability still be an issue and it's the only impact that every American people. But the positive news if you want to is the deficit is being impacted by this and a positive of the way because it really is a tax which the Democrats used to be in favor of deal with the deficit. I agree it's not a good selling point coming midterms.

It's going to be very, very, absolutely. The one thing I do also want to hit on is the way he lashed out at the Supreme Court justices social both in the briefing today. Governor, I want to get your take on that. I mean what does this say about just his view on loyalty especially as he was praising some of the justices ruled in favor otherwise we pointed him.

I'm here this weekend for a conference called Principles first where we have to start respecting the branches of government and the offices in which we hold. And that's been going down. You know, when Obama attacked president Obama attacked the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address that was kind of a way you just don't do that. And then it's gone to a whole other extreme with this statement being made today against the Supreme Court.

And that's to me where we're just seeing this lack of respect for our institution politics which is our Constitution. I'm still positive that the constitution and this piece of paper is stronger than any politician or any outlet that's challenging the strength of our country right now. And also this comes to head of the State of the Union address. Megan, just really quickly, what are your thoughts on Democrats of Abigail Spanberger to be their counter address?

I think it's great. She won an incredible she won she a new year and then her whole message is for a billion lowering cost for her constitution. I think the world a great choice. Thank you guys so much for joining.

Jeff, Governor and Megan, it was great to have your insights to the panel. Thank you. Thank you all. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.

And there's more ahead on NBC News. Now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention.

They made a life together. Then one night the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Makowitz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline.

Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now wherever you get your podcasts.