Meet the Press NOW – February 20

If it's Friday, the firings and the fallout, thousands more federal workers are bracing for layoffs as the president and Elon Musk double down on additional government cuts, but Republicans in Congress are beginning to see some pushback from constituents. Plus the president publicly threatens Maine's governor for resisting an executive order as an historic series of legal challenges may soon be headed for the Supreme Court, which could fundamentally change the nature of our government and the powers of the presidency. And President Trump says he's, quote, sick of how Ukraine's president has handled the war with Russia and that Zelensky has no cards to play as the administration ratchets up the pressure on Ukraine to make a deal and end the war. Welcome to Meet the Press.

Now I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where it is full speed ahead for the Trump administration's unprecedented push to slash the federal government amid new warning signs of potential blowback from the public, putting pressure on some of the president's allies in Congress. The cuts still coming at a furious pace, as Defense Secretary Pete Haggseth confirmed that personnel from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency are at the Pentagon, where officials tell us layoffs could begin soon for the department's 55,000 probationary employees, employees who have been recently hired. And we're learning today of more widespread cuts. Up to half of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 9,000 employees are on the chopping block.

That's according to staff who met with Doge employees and thousands of IRS workers from all over the country are also being let go at the height of tax season. At a gathering of conservatives yesterday, Elon Musk brandished a chainsaw, a chainsaw gifted to him on stage and said that more cuts are on the way. The chainsaw. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

Third tour. Waste is pretty much over. People ask like, how can you find waste in DC? I'm like, look, it's like being in a room and this target, the wall, the roofs and the floor are all targets.

So it's like, you're going to close your eyes and go shoot in any direction. You got this, you know? So it's pretty wild. Like, you just push on things a little bit and you save billions as well.

It's like just a little bit, you know? It's wild. It's scary, isn't it? Now we should note many of the claims by Musk in the White House about Doge's cuts have not been substantiated and in some cases have been debunked, but President Trump's message to Musk and his team remains clear.

Keep going. Here's the president touting the cuts. He says Doge is making while speaking with governors at the White House today. We created this department, Doge, and the kind of numbers are incredible.

It could be $500 billion, but it could be a trillion dollars, it could be even a trillion five. We're going to find out. With the cuts come the first signs of brewing backlash. A new Washington post poll shows that 57% of Americans believe President Trump has gone beyond his authority as president.

A CNN poll has majorities calling the president's decision to give Elon Musk a prominent role in his administration and his attempt to shut down USAID in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bad ideas. In several town hall meetings across the country, House Republicans have had to face some constituents who are not happy about some of the cuts. Case in point, Georgia Republican Congressman Rich McCormick is one of those members.

He won his district by nearly 30 points in November. This is one notable exchange McCormick had with the crowd about cuts to the CDC. Take a look. They have about 13,000 points.

13,000 points. It's easy. A lot of work to do is to do this with the app. Once again, one of the calls we have.

If we continue to grow the size of government and we can't afford it, it's going to have to work both in Medicare and Medicaid so we can't afford that. We have to make some decisions. And one thing is trying to do more or less, that's reasonable, that's not reasonable. It's not reasonable.

It's taking this change of approach. Which they obviously admit when they fire these people and they decide to go, we've fired the wrong people. We've got to bring them back in. Why is this being jammed down the pipe so brush and slop with it?

I understand that when you say you have this many employees that you have to cut, that organization decide to go cut. They make me cut. They make me cut. They do not.

They're being forced to cut. No, they think he's not choosing. No, we need to be all day with the nation cutter. But the fact of that is going to be downsize and going.

Just like we've had the past, downsize and military. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt told NBC's Peter Alexander today that those kinds of criticisms are overblown and that the president is fulfilling his campaign promises after Peter Pressner repeatedly on some of that pushback. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Yimish Elson door and NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Sonona. Thanks to both of you for being here.

Yimish, let me start with you over at the White House. We know the White House is not comfortable with the public pushback, the defiance. How are they reacting to what we've seen this week? Well, the White House as well as the president and top Trump aides are really all doubling down on this messaging.

And that is that doge and these cuts are really fulfilling a campaign promise. They've also been talking extensively about what they see as waste fraud and abuse. Even today, the president speaking before a crowd of governors, a bipartisan group of governors said that he was excited about the work that Elon Musk was doing. We heard in this week called Elon Musk a patriot.

So the president is not slowing down here, despite the criticism that we're seeing, of course, not just in those town halls, but we also saw protests, of course, across the country this week, Kristen. And Yimish, the president also had an event with governors today. Historically, these are casual events, they're friendly events, but he actually called out Maine's governor. He threatened to potentially cut federal spending.

What can you tell us? That's right. This exchange was anything but friendly. What we saw was President Trump speaking directly to the governor of Maine, a Democrat, Janet Mills.

He was talking about transgender rights and specifically saying that he wants to make sure that Maine isn't allowing transgender athletes to compete against anyone that wasn't their biological sex, which is the terminology that the Trump administration has now started to use. But Maine's governor did not back down. Look at this exchange. Is the Maine here the governor of Maine?

I'm here. Are you not going to comply with it? I'm glad the state federal law. Well, we are the federal law.

Well, you better do it. You better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding at all of you don't. And by the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal, although I did very well there, your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports. So you better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding.

Every state, good. I'll see you and good. I look forward to that. That should be a really easy one.

And enjoy your life after governor because I don't think you'll be an elected politics. So there you see it there. Real feisty exchange between the governor of Maine who was not backing down. And if you couldn't hear it for the viewer, she said, I'll see you in court and she said that she was that Maine is following state and federal law.

And their stance is that the state of Maine is not going to be discriminating against transgender people. They see this executive order as banning transgender athletes from the sports that they believe aligns with their gender as being really hurting their civil rights and not being the way that federal and state law allows that people to be treated. All of course, President Trump has been very, very adamant that he does not want to see transgender athletes competing. Kristin.

And Yamiche, just finally, before I go over to Melanie, we have spent so much time focused on the fact that President Trump, Elon Musk, have really tried to take a sledgehammer to the government, to various government agencies. What's the latest that you are going to be looking for as we head into the weekend? It's a critical question. I think I'm going to be really looking at the IRS because it is tax season and we saw Kevin Hassett, who's the director of national economic council, just say on Wednesday, talking about this idea that 3,500 workers are going to be eliminated from that agency.

He is saying that that's not going to impact tax returns and tax season, but I think there are a lot of people, including IRS workers, who said they're very worried about that. I should also say that the defense department is another place to look. Pete Hanksaf is saying that they want to cut $50 billion from their budget that of course is going to impact the military. So those are two places.

But let's remember, Doge is an 18 agencies by our account right now at NBC News. So there's a lot to continue to watch here and a lot of people that are being pushed out. All right, Yamiche. I guess I should have said chainsaw since that is what Elon Musk brandished the other day at CPAC.

Thank you so much. Yamiche. Mel, let me head over to you. Obviously, there are 435 members of Congress important to note that we've only seen the protests play out in a few town halls across the country, but boy, they have been heated.

Mel, what's the reaction? And is the pressure starting to mount? What are you hearing? Yeah, no doubt Republicans are starting to grow uneasy with the Doge effort.

I think the multiple Republicans, at least privately, who say they are extremely frustrated right now with the lack of clarity and guidance from the White House about the Doge effort and what they are doing. And in fact, some of them have been trying to back-channel with the White House to get them to reverse course on a number of different firings and different moves. Up to this point, publicly, Republicans have been very supportive of the Doge mission. But as those cuts have started to hit close to home, as they're starting to feel the impact, some of their own constituents, feeling the heat or getting laid off, Republicans themselves are now feeling the heat.

And in some cases, they are starting to speak out publicly, or at least behind closed doors. I want to read for you what Troy Balderson and Ohio Republican told a local business luncheon according to the Columbia Dispatch that Congress has to decide whether or not the Department of Education goes away, not the President, not Elon Musk, Congress decides. Now, Balderson since reached out and put on Twitter that he fully supports Donald Trump's agenda to reign in bloated government spending. But I think the fact that he even felt the need to clarify his stance shows the conundrum that some of these Republicans are in because, of course, they want to protect their constituents who elected them to Congress in the first place, but at the same time, they don't want to get on Trump or Elon Musk on that side.

Yeah. And you have more reporting on how some of the President's proposed cuts could hit close to home. For some members, what are you learning? Yeah.

So given that the House GOP's budget plan, something that they are trying to put on the floor next week, could lead to steep cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which is responsible for food stamps, my colleagues and I decided to look in view, okay, how many House Republicans would actually have constituents who are impacted by this? And the answer is we're actually somewhat surprising. I want to point out two examples for you. One of them is David Valadeo.

He represents a district in Central California. Well, his district actually has the second highest share of Medicaid recipients in the entire country, regardless of party. No surprising there that he has been actually one of the most vocal critics of this potential plan to peel back Medicaid recipients' benefits. And then the second example I want to point out is Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana among Republicans.

He's actually number five on the list when it comes to Republicans. We have the highest shares of Medicaid recipients in their district. And so no doubt, as these Republicans are on the hunt for spending cuts, it's going to be a real test for them. Are they going to choose between delivering on Trump's agenda or standing up for their own constituents who rely on these key anti-poverty programs?

And Mel, great to be reporting that before I let you go, obviously, the government runs out of money just three weeks from now. The clock is certainly ticking. Does it look like they're any closer to getting a deal to keep the government open? Chris, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no, I was talking to Susan Collins.

She's a senator. She's the head of the appropriations committee yesterday. And she said things are not going well. So at this point, it does look like they're going to need a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open past March 14th.

But Republicans have not been able to pass those bills on their own. So it is going to come down to Democrats supplying the votes. And at this point, it is not clear whether Democrats are going to have the appetite to play ball, given all the things that are happening in the Trump administration right now. All right.

Mel, we'll see you on Sunday for Meet the Press. Really appreciate it. Thanks for all your great reporting. Joining me now on set is Kevin Fry.

She's a former senior advisor to President Biden and vice president Harris. She is also co host of the weekend, which airs weekends on MSNBC and Republican strategist Lance Trovert. Thanks to all of you for being here. Kevin, I want to start with these town halls.

Some people have said, do they harken back to what we saw with the Tea Party in 2019? We're not quite at that level yet. We're just kind of seeing a sprinkling of these town halls, but you can't ignore them because they are quite heated. What do you make of this moment that we're in?

Is it reaching the White House in any way? I mean, the question is, do they become duplicated in other sections of the country, quite frankly. And one of the things that I found quite interesting watching some of the clips from last night was this kind of Q&A that they had with him about, well, why aren't you doing more to reign in the king, essentially, to paraphrase it? And his response was, well, there's a judiciary.

And they said, but no, that's your job. You're in Congress. Why aren't you doing that? We'll see if that sentiment starts to break through.

I think the other thing is if Democrats are able to latch onto this in an effective way and basically try to message on the, they're doing these cuts, they're going to be reducing your programs. You're going to be seeing some of the stuff you rely on go out the door. Does that start to rev up the base as well? Does that break through the noise?

Lance, what can break through the noise if anything were just President Trump at this point? I'm just entering my second month in office. I'm not listening to any of this. Thirty Sundays into this.

I think they're in it for the long game. I certainly believe Elon Musk is in it for the long game. This is a guy who does not care about his approval rating. And he kind of serves as a buffer for President Trump, right?

I mean, he's taking on a lot of us. And if you look at the President's numbers, well, they have received it a little bit. I mean, you saw a CDS poll a week ago, it was 53% CNN yesterday, so he's still hovering around that 50% mark. He may have been coming down a little bit.

So we can parse out some of these issues, but the President's own approval rate is still kind of hovering at a pretty good pace. So I'm not so concerned right now. I want to delve into a few more of those numbers in just a bit, but before we do Simone, Democrats still searching every time I turn to you. I'm like, they're still searching Simone, they're still searching.

Is this a moment, though, where you think they could potentially find a clarifying message? I am. You know, I've spent a lot of long time in my former life and Democratic politics as a strategist. And the Democratic elected officials in Washington, D.C., I think have yet to find their strongest footing.

Democrats outside of Washington, D.C., like the governors, like the Democratic Attorney Generals, they have very clearly had a plan and found their footing. I'm thinking of Governor J.B. Governor J.B. Pritzker, who had the very viral state of the state of the state.

If you want to think about Governor Moore, I just spoke to him recently. So I do think that this opportunity for Democrats on Capitol Hill, that J.T. Sherman said it best the other day, Democrats have one opportunity. That is this budget situation, okay?

Funding the government. The Republicans need them. They do. You cannot pass a budget in the Senate without 60 votes.

They're not 60 Republicans in the Senate. And you cannot pass that in the House without, hello, Democrats, because they're going to lose some of these freedom caucus party members. Therefore, Democrats, I think, should be holding the line here. And it remains to be seen if they are really up for that level, collectively, from the leadership level, at least, of resistance, lack of a better test.

So it is a big test moment for Democrats. Kevin, Lance started to lay out some of the polling that we have seen. His approval rating has been quite consistent throughout the course of this first month. At the same time, you have 57% of Americans who say they believe President Trump is actually going too far that he's overreaching in terms of the power that a president actually has.

Does that type of a figure start to erode some of the support that he's getting when you look at his overall approval rating? I mean, I think some of that speaks to what we're seeing with some of these Doge initiatives in terms of some of the cuts of programs, because as soon as you're able to bring some of those to light and it becomes much more tangible, what's going on, that's a little easier to resonate with voters and perhaps contributes to that, that shrinking approval of how he's operating on an executive function. I mean, just look at I cover New York. So voters, they are very concerned about this 9-11 health program that they saw a 20% reduction in staffing earlier this week.

Seems to the reporting now, as I was reaching out to the CDC, they're going to be reinstating that because there was so much pushback and flack about the idea that this would reduce services to folks that fought fires and helped alleviate people from toxins in the aftermath of 9-11. So does that start to resonate? Does the threat of Medicaid cuts start to resonate? Those, I think, all going to the next step to the drips of that number.

Those are the open questions, Lance, as we start to look at these figures, the 57%, I mean, how are you watching this? Because to the point that Kevin's making, one misstep in any of these agencies where there have been big cuts, and that could be a big backlash for the president. Yeah, and you heard Elon Musk say it last week, and I think it was wise. He said, yeah, we're moving fast.

We're breaking things. We're going to break things. And if we find out that things that we broke should not be broken, we're going to fix it. I think that's a smart move.

I mean, they have to move fast. You cannot draw this out. If you're going to change the government anyway in the sound, going slow is not going to work. They need to be cognizant of what they're doing, and finding these issues where it's like, oh, wait, maybe we need to tell this one back.

I guess it's just, it's actually not Elon Musk's purview, though, like, here's the thing, which is why I do believe you're saying this pushback from some of the people in the states, and they're like, hey, why am I elected officials not exerting their constitution authority as a political branch of government? I actually don't think that I agree with. I agree with you. I actually don't think there's anything that can happen.

That's going to make the White House say, oh, no, we're not going to do this anymore. It will be what the constituents of these members of Congress have to say, that exert pressure on them for them to stand up, because Elon Musk is just doing what Russell told us. He was going to do it. You know, James Carvel said something really interesting last night on Fox News.

He basically said, paraphrasing, Democrats should sit back and just let Republicans collapse, basically how he framed it. It got the attention of President Trump, who was on his due social posting about this, taking him at those comments. But, Simone, do you think there's some wisdom to that? Yeah, I do.

What else? Democrats don't need to have any unforced errors right now. Yes, I know they would like to demonstrate that they are fighting for people, that they're doing what they're supposed to do, and the best way to do that is to do the legislative. So what they've been doing in these little ramas in the Senate, but also when they're doing what they do get on television, when they are on social, and that's saying things like, we want to work with, we know y'all want to be bipartisan, people you work with are not looking to be bipartisan with you.

So I think they just need to also talk with a little more fight and some clarity about what they will not be doing, like voting with Republicans for the President's budget. Kevin, based on your conversations, though, do you think that that's a strategy that Democrats are going to adapt that they're going to actually just sit back? Well, the thing that I find, no offense, Simone, it's kind of like there's two different arguments that kind of butt into each other, which is they need to be more aggressive, but at the same time waiting till it comes at you, they seem to be adopting more of the latter playbook because they've focused on one key message. I mean, Congressman, the King Jeffries, Senator Chuck Schumer, consistently, consistently, consistently.

It's pocketbook issues. They're not concerned about your bottom line, and thus you can't trust Republicans. Some of what the cuts are kind of can feed into that messaging, and so in theory, if it keeps rolling in that direction, then yes, the ball, as Carville put it, will land in their lap with that issue. If the economy turns around, if things are going great, then what do you do then?

Those are big ifs. I want to play something that President Trump had to say at an event marking Black History Month yesterday. Take a look. We have votes from Black Americans and any Republican president ever, almost 40% of the vote now.

I won't be happy the next time. Should I run again? You tell me. There's your controversy right now.

This joke keeps coming up, Lance Buss. He's the ultimate troller, and everybody falls forward every time. I love this. He says he's looking at real ways.

He obviously has to change the Constitution. I mean, we should just say, constitutionally, he's not able to do it. He loves doing this stuff because then we're here talking about it right now on every other tent table show around. So he's anyone that's right.

He's just trolling and then when he came to the office, he wrote an executive order that tried to give it a right citizenship, which is also in the Constitution. I think that we are far past people thinking that Donald Trump is just joking. I believe it's serious. Are you just going to say it?

I do believe that he is throwing it out there so that someone like Tom Massey, who has already authored legislation, authors' legislation so that there's legislation out there so that there's a groundswell, so that he's like, well, the people want me. It's not me, it's the people. That's the same thing he's doing with the king language. He's like, they think I'm the king.

It's not Donald Trump crowning himself in his eyes that people have crowned him, which again is not how we do things in America. Before we go against this extraordinary backdrop of the federal government asking for the charges to be dropped against New York mayor, Eric Adams, and a number of prosecutors quit over it in protest. Eric Adams looks like he's going to stay. The governor's saying she is not going to remove him, even though these charges are going to be dropped.

What do you make of this moment? It's implications not just for New York, but for the broader justice department. A couple of strings to pull on there. One, seems hopeful kind of found a third option in what seemed to be a two option lane, which is that she kind of went with.

Some guardrails, how functional will be remains to be seen, of course. When it comes to what Eric Adams is doing, one, right now, the charges are still standing because the judge basically said, we're going to bring in this outside individual. He's a conservative lawyer. He's worked on cases like Chevron deference and so forth, but before the Supreme Court, and let him weigh in.

So that's going to hold these charges out there over Adams's head for a couple of weeks. When it comes to the question of what this means for the DOJ, the thing I thought was kind of so interesting was that Emil Bovet in court this week kind of floated this idea that as they've argued in some of their legal filings, that yes, this has nothing to do necessarily with the law. It has everything to do with whether or not he's willing to abide by our immigration standards. And then on top of that, it floated that it could be expansive beyond just the mayor in this case, that it could apply to other individuals as well, which then creates all of these questions as to whether or not the DOJ is operating, operating essentially as an enforcer of Trump's policies.

Yeah. Well, really important questions that you raised there. The conversation will continue. Unfortunately, this and we'll have to get you off camera because we're out of time.

Guys, thank you so much. We covered a lot of ground at Kevin Simone and Lance great stuff coming up. We are breaking down the president's legal strategy as several of his executive orders face challenges in court. And another judge raises concerns that the White House is defying his orders, plus the Trump administration ramps up pressure on Ukraine, doubling down on criticism of President Zelensky after falsely claiming he started the war.

Stay with us. You get the press now. Welcome back. President Trump's efforts to remake the federal government have come with legal challenges and legal setbacks.

But setbacks may not necessarily mean defeats for the president, who says he will abide by all court rulings. But just yesterday, a federal judge said that the administration hasn't fully complied with his order to halt a freeze on foreign aid. That comes after a separate federal judge recently accused the White House of violating his order to halt a funding freeze. Existing cases in the lower courts may be part of the Trump administration's strategy of enacting lasting change with the White House counting on the Supreme Court, which can set or overturn precedent to weigh in on some of its most impactful actions and its push to consolidate power in Washington.

Chuck Rosenberg joins me now live on set. He is a former U.S. attorney, former senior FBI official, and now in NBC News, legal analyst Chuck. Thanks so much for being here.

It is always a pleasure. It is always wonderful to have you to have your expertise. So let's just take a step back for a minute because based on what we have seen so far, the Supreme Court did rule that the president has immunity from official acts while any president is in office. What does that tell us about what we might expect to see from this court?

Should any of these cases that are really a test of the president's power come before the High Court? Well, as you know, the immunity case was in the criminal context. We're not in the criminal context, right? Now, in fact, the Supreme Court has largely taken that off the table for a president and for official acts.

But I think the interesting dynamic and you just alluded to it is what does a court, the courts, do about a president who disobeys orders? And by the way, this is only a debate that goes back to the founding of our republic for those keeping score at home. You know, in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote about this very problem as the authors of the Federalist papers were explaining this new constitution to the American people. Hamilton realized that the courts can pronounce what the law is, but they have no ability to enforce the law.

That all falls to the executive. And so what you're beginning to see is something that Hamilton worried about, that tension between courts that pronounce the law and the executive who is really the only entity who can enforce the law. So can anyone enforce the law or say to President Trump or to the White House, these court rulings must be abided? They can say that.

And that's it. And that's it. And that's the tension. You know, we have been governed by law, of course, but we've also been governed largely by norms.

And the norm is, of course, that presidents abide the law. Nobody's above the law. The law applies to us all. I mean, even Nixon who broke the law in many ways abided a Supreme Court decision to turn over documents and tapes that led to his removal from office, he abided a Supreme Court decision.

But what if a president does not? What if Nixon, back in 1973, had said, no, thank you. What does the court do? And the answer is, at least structurally, nothing.

I mean, there are things a court can say. There are penalties it can impose. But what if the executive refuses to abide? And this was the problem that Hamilton outlined in the Federalist Papers.

Fascinating. And it's fascinating that it's so grounded in that history, Chuck. So I guess a two-part question, and I try not to ask them, but are you anticipating that these legal challenges will go to the Supreme Court? And how quickly might we see a resolution if they do?

So two-part answer. Yes, some will. And how quickly, you know, I would imagine within 18 months, the two years. But if I may, Kristin, if we have a moment, you know, for instance, the president issued an executive order on birthright citizenship.

There is controlling Supreme Court precedent on that right now, in 1898 case, Wong Kim Ark, a gentleman from China, parents of Chinese ancestry, born in this country who won citizenship in 1898 in a Supreme Court decision that we still follow today, to your point, until we don't. Right. So I think President Trump and his team know almost with a certainty that they're going to lose any legislation about that executive order in the lower federal courts. That's not the goal.

The goal is to get that case to the Supreme Court. And if, by the way, the Supreme Court sets a new precedent, as they did in throwing out Roe v. Wade, well, then we have a new set of rules. And that would certainly be a significant shift.

Absolutely. Going back to this idea of enforcing the rulings, Chuck, given our systems of checks and balances, Congress is certainly one of those checks. Is that a place where any ruling could potentially be enforced? Not actually.

I mean, Congress is a check, Congress is a balance, only when Congress acts as a check and or balance, which hasn't happened very much recently. And I don't just mean in this administration. I mean, really over the last 20, 30 years, the power of Congress has ebbed, the power of the presidency has increased, and this has been a long-term trend. So can the Congress enforce the law?

No, they can make noise. They could hold hearings. There's lots of things they can do. I mean, ultimately, they have an impeachment power if a president flaps the law.

But again, Kristin, only if they use that power. Right. Let me ask you about something because you bring up birthright citizenship, and that is something that is currently being challenged in the courts. You hear, and we were just discussing the fact that President Trump jokes repeatedly about having a third term.

The Constitution says a president only has two terms. To your point, it's the law until it's potentially challenged, and it's not the law anymore. Can you walk us through, for people who hear that type of language, just how complicated it would be to challenge what is in the Constitution? Right.

So with respect to birthright citizenship, and I'll set that off against your other question, there is language in the 14th Amendment that is arguably open to interpretation. What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? For instance, if your parents were diplomats, say from Canada, and you're born in this country while they are stationed here, you are not a US citizen, you not have birthright citizenship under that circumstance because your parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But what does that actually mean?

And how far does it go? And does it apply if your parents are in the United States, but unlawfully, and you're born here? Right now, under existing precedent, you're a citizen, but that could change. But what about the 22nd Amendment, which bar is a president for running for a third term?

I think the language there is not subject to interpretation. I think it's clear. What does two terms mean, Kristin? Eight years.

Two terms. And so some provisions of the Constitution are opaque, some are open to interpretation, and purposefully so. So as a Republican, we could work these things out in the courts and among ourselves. And some seem pretty clear.

A president has to be 35 years old to serve, not 33, not 17, but 35. 35 is not really open to interpretation. It's a great distinction, and it really makes that point very clearly. Chuck Rosenberg, thank you so much for always helping us understand the most complicated legal matters.

I'm always happy to try. All right, it's wonderful to see you in person. Just moments ago, President Trump answered questions from reporters in the Oval Office. We do want to listen in, and we'll talk about it on the other side.

Mr. President, as we talk to you over the board side, you were considering merging the United States whole service with the Commerce Department. Can you operate on it? Is this something you're saying?

Well, we want to have a post office that works well and doesn't lose massive amounts of money. And we're thinking about doing that, and it'll be a form of a merger, but it'll remain the postal service. And I think it'll operate a lot better than it has been over the years. It's been just a tremendous loser for this country, tremendous amounts of money being lost.

And we think we can do something that will be very good and keep it a very similar way. But whether it's a merger or just using some of the very talented people that we have elsewhere, so it doesn't lose so much, it's losing a tremendous amount of money. Senator, Senator, Congress and Red Districts are facing push-back promoters in town halls. You know what?

The Americans voted for you on the immigration and the economy. Do these voters say they're ingrained frustrated by the spires, they don't like the work that Elon Musk and these other actions? What do you say to them? Who do you work for?

I work for you. Who do you work for? Who? Who do you work for?

Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for?

Who do you work for? Who do you work for? We haven't even checked the Democrats, but that's what I was just told. They like the job that we're doing.

They like the job that Elon's doing. He's doing something that a lot of people wouldn't have the courage to do. We want to streamline our country. We want to streamline.

Because you know why? Because we want our country to survive and thrive. We're finding billions and billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse, billions. I mean numbers like you wouldn't believe and we haven't even started yet.

It's actually just the opposite. We've pulled it and people are thrilled. They can't even believe it's happening. It won't affect many people.

It only affect the people that get caught stealing. The waste, fraud and abuse is at a level like nobody's ever seen. It's been going on for years. All you have to do is look at the social security roles.

Look at some of the things. Look at the way the money is going. The Attorney General is looking into something in environmental protection, $20 billion. It's out and out fraud.

I think the people are very happy. Yes. I want to ask you about this week. The Secretary has been four hours with the European Union trade representative.

The European Union is a single that they would lower tariffs and do a trade deal with the United States. The European Union wants to come back. They've treated us very badly. The European Union wants to lower their tariffs because of the fact that we were paying fortune if we couldn't sell a car there, we couldn't sell our farm products there.

They wouldn't take anything. Now, all of a sudden, they're being very nice. That's going to happen with a lot of other students. The European Union is wanting to lower its barriers at very low levels.

They want to now bring their car number, which was extremely high down to 2.5%, which is the same thing that we charge. That's reciprocal. See, that's what is happening. Reciprocal.

I think it's a big start in the right direction with the European Union. You called President Zelensky or Ukraine a dictator. Do you think that President Putin or Russia is also a dictator? I think that President Putin and President Zelensky are going to have to get together because you know what?

We want to stop killing millions of people. You have young soldiers being killed. If you saw the pictures that I saw at the battlefield from satellite, you've never seen any pictures like that. Soldiers are being killed by the thousands of soldiers a week.

As we speak, they're being killed. That's why I want to see a ceasefire and I want to get the deal done. I think we have a chance to get the deal done. I want to make sure that Russia wanted to do it.

It's a war that would have never happened if I was President, but it did happen. So I got stuck with it and I want to stop people from being killed. It doesn't affect the United States very much. It's on the other side of the ocean.

It does affect Europe. We put in three times more money. We're in for 300 billion. They're in for 100 billion.

And Europe is also doing it in the form of a loan. But I just gave them money. There was no loan. There was no security.

There was no anything. So we're going to either sign a deal or there's going to be a lot of problems with them. So we're going to sign a deal to get security because we have to do that. We're spending our treasure.

They're spending their blood. They are. And they're very brave in every way you can imagine. But we are spending our treasure on some country that's very, very far away.

And it's okay. But we have to be treated the same as Europe is being treated. Europe gets their money back. It's basically giving nothing because they get it back in the form of a loan.

And it's a guaranteed loan. We don't get our money back. And we're losing. I mean, we don't want to do that anymore.

So we're signing an agreement hopefully in the next fairly short period of time that will assure us that we'll get four or five hundred billion dollars back. We're there for 300 billion. Now, one other thing. Europe is at 100.

We're at 300. We think it has to equalize. In other words, they have to come up with more money because it has a big effect on Europe. It doesn't have much of an effect on us because we have a big beautiful ocean in between.

But it does affect. And Biden should have never gotten us into this mess. We had an incompetent president who got us into a mess, but we're going to get you out of it. The same thing in the Middle East.

We're going to have some good news in the Middle East. What happened yesterday, the site of those babies was not acceptable to anybody. Nobody's seen anything like it. Mr.

President, do you want to say how do you report out a France that you're going to Moscow on May 9th? No. No. I'm going to join President Putin.

And if I could just ask you about Castro, who's going to be sworn in as soon as you're FBI director, talk to us about your reaction to him getting sworn in and the fact that many agents across the country are concerned that they will be fired and massed for simply just doing your job. No. I think the agents are very happy about cash. One of the reasons I loved cash and wanted to put him in is because of the respect the agents had for him.

I think he's going to be, I think he'll go down as the best ever at that position. And it turned out he was very easy to get approved. I was not sure. He's a tough guy, strong guy.

He has his opinions. And I wasn't sure. He turned out to be very, he went very smoothly. I don't know if he's in the room now.

He's going to be in the room very shortly. Where is it? I'm saying the right thing. I'm going to tell you about it.

I better be careful. I will say this about cash and Howard understands is that one of the reasons that I wanted him is because the agents love this guy and they respect this guy. And this is what they wanted. And even somebody like Trig out, he was a very good guy.

But known as somewhat of a moderate person, he came out and he came out with a statement that was so incredible. He's a cash is an incredible person. People don't realize that when he said that, there was no doubt left. It was really a big statement made by somebody that's respected and on the moderate side.

And I will tell you, I think cash is going to go down to this maybe the best ever when it's all said and done. So I'm glad he's willing to do it. Thank you. I'm glad he's willing to do it.

Thank you. You talk a little bit more about your meeting to go. You said that he was going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in specific projects that he spoke to you about. He's going to start building.

He doesn't want to pay tariffs. And he's going to start building. But very big numbers. You have to speak to him.

I assume they're going to announce it at some point. But very big numbers. He was here yesterday. I met with him at length.

And Apple is coming here with tremendous dollars. They're going to be spending a lot of money in the United States. More than they've ever spent by a factor of probably 10. Did you ever say that you were saying that you were saying that you were saying you've been a later to count our digital service taxes?

Well, we speak. I mean, what are you doing? Reading it? Can't you just say it without having to read it?

My question? Yeah. We are going to be doing that digital. What they're doing to us in other countries is terrible with digital.

So we'll be announcing that are we signing it maybe today? Today? And we'll be. So we'll talk about that in a little while.

I'll be here. Are you going to put the Secretary in charge of the Postal Service? He's going to look at it. He's got a great business instinct, which is what we need.

And he'll be looking at it. And we think we can turn it around. But it is the Postal Service. I mean, we're leaving the Postal Service.

But we're losing so much money with the Postal Service. And we don't want to lose that kind of money. So the Secretary and some others that have talent, that kind of talent, we'll be looking at it. I think we're pretty close.

I think they want it. They feel good about it. And it's a significant. It's a big deal.

But they want it. And it keeps us in that country. And they're very happy about it. But we get our money back.

This should have been signed long before we went in. This should have been signed by Biden. Biden didn't know too much about what he was doing. The war should have never happened.

Number one. When it did happen, it could have been settled the first week or two weeks. After that, it got bad. It got really bad.

But it should have never happened. And it should have been settled. And it could have been settled very easily at the beginning. Now it's tougher, but we'll get it settled.

I wish them luck. We got our own money. Goodness. Alright everybody, thank you so much.

President Trump, taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office. We'll just take a couple of the top lines there. One of the big ones, he was asked if President Putin is, in fact, a dictator. He pivoted.

He didn't answer that question instead, saying he thinks that Putin and Zelensky should get in the room and make a deal together what is notable about that, of course, is that earlier this week he referred to President Zelensky as a dictator. Zelensky was democratically elected. He's not a dictator. He did postpone elections.

Zelensky says because of the ongoing war. A couple of other headlines to flag for you. He said that he wants to have a post office that does well and doesn't lose a tremendous amount of money. The context there, the post office, of course, was not designed to make a profit.

It is a service. He also said he has the highest poll numbers of any Republican president ever looking at a quick review of Gallup data. The president's current poll numbers are actually lower than the average poll numbers for nearly all Republican presidents at this point in time, going back to Eisenhower. The US, he says, has given Ukraine three times as much aid to Ukraine as Europe has, not entirely clear where he's getting those numbers.

It is worth noting according to the US news and world report and analysis by them, the US and Europe have committed roughly the same amount of aid to Ukraine. And you want to stress that word, committed the same amount of aid. All right. Joining me now is that we see this White House correspondent, Eash Alsendor, to take through some of the other key takeaways.

Eash, what stood out for you? What stood out to me was this really doubling down of the messaging that Doge and these cuts that we're seeing across the federal workforce are really fulfilling a campaign promise. And he was asked specifically about voters, especially in red districts questioning and saying that they didn't like some of the cuts that they're seeing in the federal government and the speed at which Elon Musk and Doge are going. And the president really pushed back on that, saying that they are finding waste fraud and abuse.

And that he really is liking what he's seeing when it comes to Elon Musk. I also thought it's, I perked up my ears when I heard the US Postal Service because we already know that Doge is an 18 agencies by our car here at NBC News. And if the Postal Service could be the next target here, I think it's definitely a place to watch as we see how I'd love that talking about maybe taking over or taking parts of the USPS in some way, looking into changing that service somehow. A lot of Americans are perking up, especially when I think of rural Americans who rely on USPS.

Maybe when UPS and FedEx won't go to their doors, there is a fun, foundational right here, essentially, to mail in this country. So those are the two big things that got to me across. Of course, the Ukraine stuff as well. Absolutely.

Yamiche, we have less than a minute left. I thought it was notable Mary Bruce pressed him on some of the poll numbers showing that a majority of Americans think that he's overreaching in terms of some of his actions. He was defiant that he and Elon Musk are essentially fulfilling what he was elected to do. That's right.

He was defending it, saying that this is something that the American people want earlier in the day. He was talking about what he saw as what he considers a landslide victory, winning the public opinion, and winning all the battleground states, talking to governors. So this really is I think a president who feels like he has a mandate. All right.

Yamiche Alcindor, thanks so much for joining us for that. Appreciate it. Just moments ago, you heard President Trump tell reporters that Russia wants to make a deal. NBC News 2 foreign correspondent Richard Engel is on the ground in Ukraine and filed this report.

I'm now on the outskirts of the eastern Ukrainian city of Harkiv. And these are Russian armored vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian forces as the Russians tried to capture the city. And they are kept here in this field on the edge of the city as a reminder to Ukrainians that the threat remains, that the Russians are still close by and could return at any time. And Ukrainians now find themselves at a very dangerous crossroads.

Do they accept President Trump's demand that Ukraine hand over large amounts of natural resources, specifically 50 percent of this country's rare earth mineral rights in exchange for security? Or do they reject the deal and potentially face the Russians on their own without American support? Not an easy position to be. And then Ukrainian troops that I've been speaking to feel that President Trump is using his leverage, pressuring them, squeezing them, forcing them to do some sort of deal.

But a soldier I spoke to not long ago said, considering the position that Ukraine is actually in, it's probably worth signing the deal, because if they don't do the deal, then the Russians could return, could take over this country, and then Ukraine loses its minerals and its freedom. And it does seem like President Zelensky might be heading in that direction. He said in one of his nightly addresses that initially he'd rejected the deal outright, provoking President Trump's IR, provoking President Trump to insult him, also claim that he's a dictator. But in his nightly address now, President Zelensky says that security guarantees and economic deals always go hand in hand.

So he's leaning more in the direction it seems to accepting the offer. Richard Engle, NBC News, outside of Harkheve, Ukraine. Joining me now on set is the former Prime Minister of Poland, Matai Yushmuroviecki. Mr.

Prime Minister, thank you so much for being here. It's an honor to have you here. I want to start off by getting your reaction to something that President Trump said will play a little bit of sound, get your reaction on the other side. So I've been watching for years, and I've been watching him negotiate with no cards.

He has no cards. And you get sick of it. You just get sick of it. And I've had it.

So I don't think he's very important to be at meetings to be honest with you. He's been there for three years. He makes it very hard to make deals. But look what's happened to his country.

It's been demolished. He's of course talking about President Zelensky of Ukraine. What is your reaction to hearing that, Mr. Prime Minister?

I think that this is a kind of negotiation tactics with President Trump as a dealmaker who can propose and this is his proactive, of course. In my opinion, it was, of course, President Putin and the Kremlin and Moscow, which attacked Ukraine in a barbarian attack in February 2022. And I think it's going to change it. But I just believe that this first step in negotiations will lead to a good piece, not a bad piece, but a good piece.

And a good piece for me is that there is sovereign Ukraine after those negotiations. So he has also, of course, lashed out at President Zelensky calling him a dictator. Of course, he was democratically elected. President Zelensky has not held elections saying that there is a war going on.

What do you make of that type of rhetoric? Does it undercut the chances that they will be able to reach a peace agreement in the near future? I don't think so. But I also believe that it is quite usual in this very difficult predicament, this very difficult situation that the countries which are partially occupied do not held elections.

And this happened not only in Ukraine but also in many other countries. So again, I believe that this is the way how President Trump negotiations and hopefully after all those trials and tribulations, difficult times ahead of us, there will be peace after all. Well, hopefully there will be peace. I've been talking to sources familiar with the President's thinking.

They say he's frustrated because President Zelensky did not sign that agreement, which would have given the United States access to 50% of Ukraine's rare earth in a range for security guarantees. Do you think would you counsel President Zelensky to move forward to try to sign that agreement? Yeah, that here I would be exactly on the same with President Trump because I do believe that President Zelensky needs to understand that the United States has to be somehow involved in the Ukrainian matters. And no better way to connect to Ukraine with the United States than through business and the rare earth metals is this type of business, which is very much very important for the United States.

So yeah. And the fact that those images that came out of Saudi Arabia this week where you had US officials meeting with Russian officials. Now they say, look, we're going to meet with Russian officials. Then we're going to meet with Ukrainian officials.

Then the hope is to get everyone to sit down at the table together. But are you concerned? President Zelensky in his interview with me said, look, we need to have a seat at the table. And the president shouldn't be negotiating with Zelensky's enemies before Zelensky.

What do you make of the choreography and how these talks are going so far? I think that the team around President Trump and President Trump himself knows best what kind of choreography should there be. I know that the trust of President Trump to President Zelensky is not exactly on the same level as it used to be prior to war and when the war started. I can tell you, for me and for Poland, the most important outcome of all those negotiations is that the sovereign Ukraine survives as a sovereign state.

But I also have my own reservations about how President Zelensky treated us in 2023 after all what we have done to Ukraine and to President Zelensky with all the weapon delivery and our logistics hub, which was instrumental in delivering weapons. He was actually part of the agreement. Let's put it like this mildly euphemistically with the European Commission and with my predecessor and successor, Prime Minister, but I leave at the site. I'm not dealing with this because the most important outcome is a good piece after all.

Finally, let me just ask you about something that President Zelensky told me when I interviewed him last week. He said he has intelligence. It shows that Russian troops more than 100,000 of them are amassing and Belarus. His concern, could he be potentially considering going into neighboring NATO nations?

Do you have concerns about that? Do you have the same intelligence, Mr. Prime Minister? We have to always be concerned about what's going to be the next step of President Putin.

President Zelensky in 2018, Tbilisi once said that Putin is attacking Georgia and then Ukraine and then maybe the Baltic states and the next step could be my country Poland. Unfortunately, he was dead right and this is why we have to be vigilant. We have to spend at least four percentage points, four and a half percentage points on defense on military equipment. It was my government.

When I was Prime Minister, we have restructured our budget and we have dedicated more than four and a half percent on defense. So we dedicate the highest figure on defense amongst all the NATO countries, percentage wise, of course. You do, and President Trump, of course, has called for that. Thank you, Mr.

Prime Minister, really appreciating and joining us and honored to have you here. And that does it for us this hour. We will be back Monday with more of me at the press now. And if it's Sunday, it's me, the press on your local NBC News stations.

NBC Steve Krenak will join us. Plus, Democratic Senator Cory Booker and Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. NBC News now coverage continues with Brian Chon in for Halley Jackson right 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 Megawats, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all-new podcast from Dateline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.