If it's Monday. President Trump and French President Benue Macron hold a joint press conference at the White House after meeting about the future of Ukraine and the shifting US Approach to the war and its alliances. As the world marks three years since Russia's invasion. Plus, what did you do last week?
That's the question the Trump administration wants more than 2 million federal workers to answer by midnight as legal blowback, mass confusion and more cuts spread across the government. And Germany's center Right party wins the most votes in their national election, ousting the current chancellor as support for the far right surges to its highest level in Germany since World War II. And welcome to MEET the Press Now. Aaron Gilchrist in Washington, where President Trump and French President Macron just wrapped up a joint news conference.
The two leaders met today at the White House as Ukraine reached the another grim milestone three years since Russia launched its invasion across growing concern in Europe and Ukraine about America's continued commitment to that region. US Allies remain concerned that the US And Russia could agree to a peace deal without Ukraine at the table. Now, in recent days, President Trump has called President Zelensky a dictator and falsely said Ukraine started the war. In a meeting in the Oval Office before that press conference, President Trump once again would not answer whether he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is a dictator.
I don't use those words lightly. I think that we'll see how it all works out. Let's see what happens. The President Trump also once again said that he believes that Putin wants a peace deal and that Putin was one of his first calls as president.
President Trump said he believes a deal to end the war as well as a deal for US Access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals could be coming soon. I will be meeting with President Zelensky. In fact, he may come in this week or next week to sign the agreement and which would be nice, I'd love to meet him, would meet at the Oval Office. So the agreement's being worked on now.
They're very close to a final deal. It'll be a deal with rare earths and various other things. And he would like to come and I understand it here to sign it and that would be great with me. I think they're working in soon, within weeks now.
During both the Oval Office meeting and that joint news conference, President Macron, who wants to be sure that any end of the war comes with security guarantees for Ukraine, touted the importance of US Engagement with Russia. And he vowed that Europe will do more to ensure peace and security in the regions I think President Trump has been calling for. I think the US And France always stands on the same side, the right side with the opposition. And this is exactly what that state today, Europe is willing to step up to be a stronger partner, to do more in defense and security for this continent, and as well to be a reliable partner.
Now there's a chance, there is a big chance because there is a new U.S. administration. So this is a new context. So there is a good reason for President Trump to re engage with President Putin.
A lot of my European colleagues are ready to be engaged, but we do need this American backup because this is part of the credibility of the security guarantees and this is our collective deterrence capacity. Meanwhile, today in Ukraine, several Western leaders gathered in Kyiv to stand alongside President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to mark the summer anniversary of Russia's invasion, pledging their continued support for Ukraine and honoring the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers killed in the war. Nobody absent was a representative from Washington. The US Also found itself on opposite sides from its traditional allies at the United nations today, urging countries to vote against a resolution brought forward by Ukraine and many European countries demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, instead, the US Offering its own resolution simply calling for the end of the conflict before the international action Today.
Over the weekend, President Zelensky offered a major personal concession, saying he would be willing to give up his presidency in exchange for peace in Ukraine or NATO membership. NBC, Yamichel Senor at the White House for today, NBC's Richard Engle is in Ukraine. Richard, let's start with you here. So, yes, you have to look at the sort of the dynamics of what just happened here.
We had this long scheduled press conference between President Macron and President Trump, as we talked about it, was outlining their visions for peace in Ukraine. President Trump saying that he'll be the guy who brings it over the line. He will bring all the sides together. He will get them to sign a deal first.
He wants President Zelensky to come to the White House to sign this rare earth minerals deal so that the US Interests are secured, US Money is secured, and then Europe will take it from there. And President Macron outlined how he wants there to be a peace agreement after it's signed. Then there could be a European role. Not a lot of detail there, but certainly expressing Europe's desire to take the torch, carry it forward with a more than symbolic force on the ground, not a combat force by a peacekeeping force, which often describes a tripwire force.
You leave foreign forces in a country that way in case someone, in this case Russia, invades, they automatically provoke a response from the country that has its troops in that nation. So he said that France is willing to take that kind of agreement. And then in the middle of these remarks, these lines from Vladimir Putin start to drop and start to drop on the agency saying that he too is interested in minerals deals. Just as President Trump is saying that he wants to see more business with Russia, Vladimir Putin says he's open for business as well, in particular with rare minerals.
He said that he has not discussed all of the details of the particular agreement with President Trump and that their next conversations will be focused on bilateral issues. So I think he was not going so far to say that he accepts European peacekeepers, but he did say he accepts a European role in the peace process for Ukraine. All right, in Ukraine today. Let's hear Michel Sunder now at the White House.
Yamiche, what's your main takeaways? You were listening to that news conference with the two presidents a while ago. Did it sound like President Macron was able to sway President Trump's views on the war at this point? Well, it didn't sound like that.
And the main takeaways are both domestic and foreign. On the mythic front, it was interesting to hear President Trump throw his support even more behind the Department of Government efficiency in these emails asking demanding, really federal workers sending their accomplishments. There have been some questions of whether or not people might get fired for not responding to that, the president hinting at that. So that was very interesting.
But of course, on the global front, the idea that President Trump was saying essentially the same things that he said before he met with Mako, saying that he believes Russia wants to see peace, that they want to end this war in Ukraine. Macron was saying things that technically deferential to President Trump is somebody saying he want to give him advice, but also saying he doesn't really trust Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that he spoke him for seven hours before he invaded Ukraine three years ago, when he still decided to invade Ukraine. But the more interesting thing happened actually in the Oval office where Emmanuel McCall interrupted President Trump to correct him. He was talking about loans to Ukraine.
Watch that moment. Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine to get their money back. No, in fact, to be frank, we pay 64. So really interesting.
That's a rare moment where you see a foreign leader correcting and interrupting President Trump. Aaron, what do we know about the progress at this point on this rare earth mineral deal? The president did reference that he's hoping that he's gonna sign something with President Zelensky here. So we know.
Well, President Trump is saying that they are close to having a deal on this rare minerals agreement. The president saying that that is really gonna look at as reimbursement because the US has given Ukraine a lot of money in order to save off and fight Russia. The Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zelinsky, has been saying that he wants to see an agreement and thinks the details are really important. So it's not clear whether or not that deal will close anytime soon, but the president saying it could be some.
Aaron, at the same time, President Trump also met virtually with the G7 leaders today, in addition to President Macron. What do we know about how that meeting played out? Sort of end results. And that was President Trump's relationship, like with the G7 now in the second term.
It's really interesting because President French President Emmanuel Macron called the meeting perfect. When asked about it here at the White House, President Trump also sort of echoed that, saying that it was a very good meeting. But here's the details that are being talked about. President Trump is talking about readmitting Russia into the G7 that used to be the G8.
Russia was kicked out because they invaded Crimea back in 2014 by the Obama administration. So it's really interesting to see President Trump say, yes, this is the group that I'm getting along with, when in fact he's trying to expand the group and include Russia, which of course is still in that war with Ukraine for invading a second time. Aaron? Yeah, definitely something to watch to see how that all plays out.
I do want to ask you to Yamiche, we know president's going to meet with the UK Prime Minister later this week. Mr. Starmer does not have a type of relationship with the President Trump that Macron does. He's new to that job, obviously.
What should we expect? Very interesting to see what happens when he comes to the White House. The UK Prime Minister has a frosty relationship with President Trump. Frosty at least.
Then the French president. At one point, the UK Prime Minister Sharmer was saying that he disagrees with the fact that President Trump was calling the President of Ukraine a dictator. The other thing is that President Trump back in October 2024, accused the UK Prime Minister of interfering with the US election, saying that he wanted to boost his former, of course, rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris. I should also point out that Elon Musk has also been very, very critical of British leaders, saying that they're a police state.
So even though that's not President Trump saying that of course, he's now a very close allied to the president so very much interesting to see what's gonna happen when he comes to the White House later this weekend. I do want to back up a little bit too. You should ask you about what happened at the United nations today. We saw a resolution, one resolution to begin with and another resolution.
Odd that the Trump administration didn't go along with the initial resolution to support Ukraine. Right. On this third anniversary. That's right.
On this third anniversary of Russia invading Ukraine, there was this, there was a resolution put up that was saying that the territories and the lines, integral territories of Ukraine should be respected, that their borders should be respected. But the White House and Trump administration didn't want to fight onto that. Instead, they put up a competing resolution. Their resolution did not have the fact that Ukraine's border should be basically respected.
So it's very interesting because of course President Trump has said, and at least some of the White House officials here said that maybe Ukraine will have to give up some territory in this fight and give back, or actually not give back, but really concede some territory to Russia. So very interesting that the US Is taking an official point at the United Nations. Aaron. To be continued for sure.
Yamiche Senator for a senator. Posted White House thank you. And coming up, firing back federal workers sue over the Trump administration's threats to fire them, accusing Elon Musk of attempting one of the, quote, most massive employment frauds in U.S. history as the Pentagon grapples with the purge of its top leadership.
Plus, President Trump taps a conservative media personality to fill a key national security role, breaking a long standing tradition in FBI leadership. You're watching Meet the Press now. And welcome back. Confusion and chaos today for more than 2 million federal workers.
Many of them received an email over the weekend from the Office of Personnel Management titled what did you do last week? Telling them they have until midnight tonight to respond to with Elon Musk tweeting. Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation. Although the official email did not include that particular threat, today the White House President Trump called the email a genius way of rooting out employees who were not doing their jobs.
I think it was actually there was a lot of genius in sending it. We're trying to find out if people are working. And so we're sending a letter to people. Please tell us what you did last week.
If people don't respond, it's very possible that there is no such person or they're not working. Now the ultimatum from Musk does appear to be facing some pushback from inside the administration. More than half a dozen departments and agencies, including the FBI, the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Agency, they're telling their employees not to, they're telling them to pause or not respond to that email. But the president today downplaying any disagreement, saying those agencies were just protecting employees whose jobs include classified or sensitive information.
Meanwhile, the White House is orchestrating major shakeups in leadership at both the Pentagon and the FBI. President Trump announced late Friday that he was firing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General C.Q. brown, along with several top officers from the Navy and the Air Force and top military lawyers. The president is also naming conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, a job typically held by a career FBI agent.
Bongino has never worked for the FBI. With me now are NBC News White House correspondent Von Hilliard and NBC News Justice Intelligence correspondent Candelanian Vaughn. I'll start with you here. The president seems to support this Saturday email we saw.
What do we know about what the consequences will be or won't be for not responding to this email? We know very little. And I guess the president of the United States, you could say, had an opportunity there in the Oval Office to make clear what the consequences would be, but did not. Instead, he instead he complimented the work of elon Musk in Doge.
And we should know that this has been 48 hours of ongoing questions around this when on Saturday it was President Trump in the social media post who suggested that Elon Musk should be more aggressive in his Doge efforts. Hours later, that's when Elon Musk put out a social media post on X saying that government workers are getting an email that they had to respond with five bullet points about what they accomplished in the last week. And if they fail to do so, it'd be considered an automatic resignation. But when it actually came out on Saturday night to the thousands of government workers around the country, it didn't say anything about resignation and it didn't say they must respond by midnight tonight.
It said that they simply asked them to respond by midnight tonight. Fast forward. On Sunday, multiple agencies and departments told their employees they did not have to respond. And that leads us here to today without standing questions as to exactly what the consequences are come tomorrow for those workers who did not respond and what the departments and agencies in the first sign of some division with Elon Musk and Doge, where that goes in the future as well.
And what I understand you learn a little bit more about how Doge will assess the responses that they get from workers in this particular email. What do we know about that process? Right. There is an AI capacity that they are seeking to use, essentially emails that are sent in.
It'll go through the data of the context of emails that are returned and as part of all of this, is working towards having an understanding for Doge's sake what type of work is being done and significance of the roles of workers that are at play. Of course, Elon Musk has not been shy about his determination to put either on administrative leave or terminate thousands more federal workers that have already not been done so at this point in time. And we heard even from President Trump at CPAC, that annual conservative conference just outside of Washington, D.C. him celebrate determinations of thousands of bureaucrats, as he said, and has indicated that he intends to do even more in order to cut the government spending in terms of at least the amount that is paid on the workforce around the country, and not just more.
Vaughn, the president has encouraged Elon Musk to be more aggressive with the work that he's doing. Was this email a part of that effort? Is there any indication of what might come next year? This absolutely is.
And this is where I think again, Oval Office head nod from Donald Trump about Elon Musk's efforts is very much another implicit approval of his efforts. And I think this is where you get at for the departments and agency heads, from Cash Patel to P. Hexa at the Pentagon, that on one hand, the Office of Personnel Management in a statement this weekend said that it would ultimately be the determination of the agencies and departments on how they respond to these emails that are sent back from workers. At the same time, you have Elon Musk clearly indicating after President Trump's remarks here this afternoon that he believes that in fact what he says should go and that that would mean termination.
So whether that ultimately comes to fruition, or whether in the case of Health and Human Services Department, for instance, which told its employees must respond to the email whether those individuals are terminated through, quote, automatic resignation. I think those are a lot of those outstanding questions here. But so far, one and a half months in, Elon Musk has effectively been given an axe to go and do what he so pleases. And President Trump has given him that Runway.
Taxi. All right, Vaughn, Hillary Forrest here watching today. Vaughn, thank you. Listen to Kin Delaney now.
Can I. You've listened to the conversation we were having about this OPM email over the weekend. You have some new Reporting. Yeah.
We've obtained an email from Justice Department to his workforce that essentially says that OPM told a meeting of human resource officers across the government that this survey is in fact, voluntary and that anyone who fails to fill it out is not at risk of losing their job. So that's being seen as a significant break, obviously, with what Elon Musk tried to dictate in terms of the survey. Another twist and turn. This is constantly happening.
Let's talk a little about this new FBI Deputy director, Dan Bongino. First, let's talk about the deputy director position, the responsibilities that fall to that person. It's not a job most Americans have spent any time considering, but it's a really important job. Some FBI officials tell me it's more important than the director because the deputy actually runs the bureau, is actually in charge of operations, supervises the special agents who are in charge of the field offices, has hands on some of the most sensitive intelligence in the government.
And traditionally, for 117 years of the FBI's existence, that job has been held by a career special agent and is not a politically appointed job. So this really changes things. Dan Bongino was a former Secret Service agent, has never worked at the FBI, and also has a history of making informed, explanatory statements about the FBI, called it irredeemally corrupt, it's accused it of lying about different things. And so there's a lot of consternation online sorts.
I'm curious to know if you got any insight about how he came to be the person selected for that position and then, of course, what the reaction has been from people at the FBI to this point. So there's a lot of mystery on that. I don't have good fidelity on how it can be selected. But what we do know is the FBI Agents association says that FBI Director Cash Patel assured them that he was in favor of that job going to a career agent.
Obviously, that's not what happened. So it's unclear whether that was voiced apatel or what went on there. In terms of reaction, look really dismay and consternation and concern among people across the political spectrum within the FBI. They've got a conservative organization.
It's not about politics. It's about their concern that this appointment erodes the traditional independence of the fi, threatens to make it essentially a political tool of the Trump administration. All right, we'll be watching who develops on that. Kim, thank you.
Let's turn to the Pentagon now. The Defense Department says about the about 5,400 of its probationary workers will be let go starting this week. Those are workers who have been with the department for less than two years. Hiring freeze is also going to be implemented.
As we mentioned, that comes as President Trump fired General C. Q. Brown as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday and says he plans to nominate Air Force attendant General Dan Kane to replace him. NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Cuby joins me now to walk us through this.
So, Courtney, have you been able to learn anything about why General Brown was fired before the end of his term? No, we haven't actually. So, I mean, look, the reality is aired. We've not got any actual reason for why he or the other general officers and flag officers were fired late on a Friday night.
But the Secretary of defense, Pete hikes it in his book and in interviews before he became Secretary of Defense, was very honest about it and was very comfy about the fact that he thought that General Brown should be fired. And he pointed to his support for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives during his time as Air Force chief of Staff and then even into his time as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Aaron, what's really important to point out here is, is General Brown both in both of those jobs and frankly, in his previous jobs in command, the military is run by civilian leaders. That is the law.
So when there's a policy that is implemented, the military leaders, yes, they give their best advice, but they carry out those policies. That was what he was doing in these jobs. So if in fact he was carrying out diversity initiatives or he was implementing the policies, those are the ones that were that were provided by the civilian leadership at the time. Now he's being replaced, as we saw there in those pictures in that video, by Lieutenant General Dan Kane.
Why that is so important is General Kane is actually retired. He's a three star who retired December 31, 2024. He was serving at the CIA in his last job. But he's had a number of deployments in combat, including one in 2018 and 2019 where he served in a senior commanding role in the Joint Special Operations Community in Iraq.
That was when he got to meet then President Donald Trump during Trump's first term. And we have heard from President Trump since then, including on the campaign trail last year, speaking about General Kane. He likes to call him Raising Kane, which is his call sign from the Air Force, and speaking very highly of him, in fact giving him some credit for the ultimate defeat of ISIS in Iraq and in Syria. What's important to point out though, Aaron, General Kaine retired so that means there's some bureaucratic administrative hurdles that the Pentagon is going to have to hurdle in order to get him confirmed.
But in addition to that, he has never held some of the legally mandated jobs required to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That is either being the vice chairman, a combatant commander or one of the service chiefs. But it is possible for the president to waive those requirements if he sees it is in the national interest. Aaron so accordingly, I believe there what's been the reaction inside the Pentagon or inside the military community large to these changes?
Yeah, so I mean look, there's not a lot of surprise. We were like I said, he Secretary Hexa and President Trump and those around him have spoken very openly about their belief that General CQ Brown should be fired as chairman. In addition to that, the chief of naval operations at Admiral Lisa Frank Kenny. We've also been hearing for some time that she could be let go from her job as well.
But some of the others were a little bit surprising. And the one that the firings from Friday night that really have caused the most waves I would say around here are the jags. So these are the top attorneys for each of the services, Army, Navy and Air Force jags. They were fired.
Why that is causing so much concern around here is because of something that Secretary Hexa said on Fox News on Sunday when he said that he that generals and admirals needed to be removed if they could potentially especially be road bumps or roadblocks to something a policy that president wanted to carry out that has people around here really talking. Now I need to say all of these people they have this is all within the law. President Trump, Secretary Hegseth they have the right to have the military leaders in these jobs that they choose. But the manner in which this is done and the fact that there has not been any real reason, merit based reason for these individuals to be fired, that's one of the things that people hear depending on talking about that seems to be the through line a lot of what we've been seeing happen over the last month.
I do ask you about your exclusive reporting on this potential shift coming with the US Military presence in Africa in particular. Walk us through that. Yeah. So US Africa Command has been in command since about 2008 was fully operational.
Then there is some consideration right now by the Trump administration to essentially eliminate Africa Command and to fold it in under US European Command. That is where it started As I said 2007, 2008, that was when Africa Command became a combatant command. And before that it felt basically under EUCOM and a little bit under Central Command, the Middle east command. The idea here is they could move it back under European command as a three star commander sort of sub command of eucom.
The concern here is that if they do that, it would make it easier for the Trump administration to pull some troops out of Africa. They wouldn't have a four star pushing back, necessarily pushing back against it. And then if the US Military's presence on the continent is decreased, it could open a vacuum for some adversaries like China or Russia to move in and take additional land or increase their influence on the African continent. But the reality is there are other people are saying, look, this could break down in some of the bureaucracy and may not be the worst idea after all.
Aaron. All right, Courtney, thank you. Thanks. House Republican leaders are trying to move forward with President Trump's legislative agenda, but not everyone in the party is fully on board with the plan.
I'll talk to a key Republican about where she stands with a vote set to perhaps happen as early as tomorrow. You're watching MEET THE Press now. Welcome back to Capitol Hill now where the House is back in session and it's all hands on deck for Republicans as they look to pass a budget resolution containing President Trump's tax and spending priorities. Right now, the House Rules Committee is meeting to prepare to move that budget resolution to the floor where Speaker Johnson is pushing for a vote tomorrow.
But there are many members across the political spectrum who are not quite on board yet and very little room for error with a slim Republican majority. While some on the right are holding out for more spending cuts, many moderates are also holding out, holding out their support over potential cuts to Medicaid. With a narrow majority, Speaker Mike Johnson likely can't afford to lose more than two Republican votes. And today he asked a conservative crowd for their prayers.
Joining me now is New York Republican Representative Nicole Maliatakis. Congresswoman, thank you for making some time for us today. Thank you. I know that you met with the Energy Commerce Committee chairman today.
The budget package is tasked with finding $880 billion in cuts. Do you have any idea at this point where exactly that money comes from? Do you get there without cutting Medicaid spending, for example? Well, we're having another meeting with the chairman later today.
I did have an opportunity to speak to him over the weekend and it seems that they're looking for areas that within that space where it won't come from Medicaid beneficiaries. And that would make a big difference to me. Obviously there's the waste of fraud, abuse and mismanagement of the program. But they're looking now at some of the energy space areas where, whether it's going to be deregulation or tax credits that are being offered under the IRA or whether it be certain electric vehicle mandates, I think that they're looking to try to shave some of the savings there.
So we don't have the problem that many of us were concerned about regarding unintended consequences to Medicaid recipients. And so I'm still waiting for more clarification and more assurances before we move forward, but at least I feel that they're listening to those of us who have large Medicaid populations. We want to make sure that our constituents, like I said, are not going to suffer unintended consequences. That's the first piece of this.
Yes. When you talk about waste, fraud, abuse, particularly in the Medicare Medicaid system, do you think that is a big enough of a chunk to make a real difference here? Do you have any idea of how much money that might save tackling those particular issues? Look, I think it's a very large amount.
I mean, if you look at New York State alone, there's a regular occurrence where we're reading about some type of fraud in the system. I think it goes beyond just individuals who are not eligible or individuals who are fraudulently taking money from the program. I think it actually goes into some of the state policies where they're, they're taking advantage of loopholes to get more Medicaid funding from the federal government that they're not entitled to. So, for example, New York State has implemented a tax on medical facilities, and they implemented that tax to get double the amount from the federal system and then they go and reimburse those facilities.
That is a scheme that is not something, you know, I'd call that more of an abuse in the system. That's a loophole that I believe should be closed. I think what my main purpose here in pushing back on this resolution at the moment is making sure that our hospitals, the organizations that serve the developmentally disabled, the senior citizens I represent who rely on Medicaid for nursing home care, that they're not going to be affected, that we're truly going to go after the inefficiencies in the program and, you know, implementing work requirements for able bodies without dependents, that's okay. Making sure that only citizens are qualifying for this program, that's okay.
But I don't want to go into some of the other provisions that might lower reimbursement from our hospitals or affects the end users. I do want to ask you though, we'll put up some numbers here that are politically unit crunched for the benefit of our viewers. More than 23% of adults under 65 in your district rely on Medicaid or some other means tested public health care as their sole coverage. Could you see yourself voting for any package that does contain some sort of cost of Medicaid?
Well, like I said, the goal here is to not cut from the end user what we want to do. In some of these cases you would see perhaps work requirements. If they're 18 to 64 years old and they're able bodied, they do not have dependence ensuring that they are working to receive benefits. That's one thing that we've talked about often.
I think there's a consensus and agreed upon consensus on that. I think the other issue that we have with the states is that with the expansion population, the federal government is picking up 90% of the share and the state is only kicking in 10%. So maybe there's an opportunity to require the states to invest more in their Medicaid expansion. So the burden is not placed on the federal government where we're facing a $37 trillion debt.
And we know that this is one of the biggest areas where we are spending money. And I think at the end of the day, if we make this program more efficient and better managed by rooting out the waste, fraud and abuse and mismanagement of the program, there will actually be more money for its intended purpose. For the end user. The person who's a vulnerable senior citizen or person with disabilities in my district or someone who is can't afford the health care program is not eligible.
So those are the things that we're trying to grapple with. At the end of the day, it's about making sure we don't have unintended consequences. Just last week we saw how the firing across the board firing at CDC led to 16 World Trade center healthcare program workers. People were treating 9, 11 victims and first respond and grants that go to 9, 11 illnesses that was being cut.
They threw out the baby with the bathwater. We had to go and then work with the White House to get that reverse and those individuals reinstated and the grants reinstated. That's what I'm trying to avoid here. Right.
To make sure that we're doing this with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. Let me ask you a little more about that. As we've been looking at the Trump administration push to cut the size and scope of government over the last month. You did post last week.
When looking for savings, for savings to reduce our nation's $37 trillion debt, we need to use a scalpel, as you said, not a sledgehammer to avoid unintended consequences and unnecessary anxiety. Now, we've seen the government scramble to rehire those fired workers you mentioned. Elon Musk posted already posed with a little chainsaw last week. Is the level of cuts right now as targeted as you would like to see them?
Is this the way to affect the get to the end result? I think they need to be more targeted. They need to be more thoughtful. I think President Trump has appointed some really wonderful people to lead his agencies.
And these secretaries of the various departments should be looking at the agency, seeing where efficiencies can be made, seeing where there's too much overhead. Unfortunately, operating budgets are huge and we're spending money on overhead and operating and not necessarily the actual benefits that we want for the American people. And we have seen, like I said with this 911 health care fund, a reversal and a correction, but should never have gotten to that point. So things are happening a little bit too fast and furiously, I think.
And that's why we've had some of these unintended consequences. We also saw the National Park Service, some seasonal hires, that being reversed as well to reinstate those individuals. So instead of doing this in a very broad way and then having to retroactively, you know, reverse decision, why don't we take a little time, do it more thoughtfully and thoroughly, making sure we're actually addressing, you know, the waste of mismanagement and unnecessary overhead as opposed to making these rash decisions and having to backtrack. To that end, I came up to notice the news today.
Over the weekend, we saw this email that was sent to federal workers asking them to reply with the five things that their five accomplishments from last week. There's some agencies that want their employees to respond. Others are urging them not to respond or wait to respond, to wait for more guidance. In your view, is this, is this the right way to run a government?
Is this an effective way to get your workers to produce results? Well, again, I think it needs to be done from the immediate management level. We have secretaries have been appointed and those secretaries should be asking those who report to them to maybe, maybe it is smart to do a weekly report on what the achievements of the employees. I mean, I work in the private sector.
We did that. And many of my employees tell me at the end of the week what legislative successes that they were able to achieve for the constituents. And so I think that it's okay to ask for, you know, sort of like a weekly report on what you've been able to accomplish that week on behalf of the taxpayers. I just think it needs to be done in an appropriate manner, and it should be done by the management within that particular department.
All right. Congressman Coleang at Taxis from New York. We appreciate your time today. Thank you.
Thank you. And joining me now on Saturday, and Caldwell, chief Washington correspondent for pac, Kimberly Atkinstore, senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe and NBC News contributor. And Steven Hayes, editor and CEO of the Dispatch. He's also an NBC News political analyst.
Lane, I'll start with here in the conversation we just had with the congresswoman, I wonder what your take is on behalf of your referrals as relates to the budget resolution, as it relates to the sledgehammer that we referenced being taken to the federal workforce into federal spending. Is her sort of moderating tone one that has any resonance here in Washington, or does she be willing to start a fire to get someone to fall line with her thinking, argue that for her, coming out publicly and talking to the press is her version of starting a fire? She's not someone who usually does that. What she's trying to do is affect change in the Speaker Johnson's sphere of moving forward on this budget framework.
And that is her talking about the Medicaid. And she is being told that cuts are going to come from elsewhere, that people who receive Medicaid will not be impacted directly. Finding $880 billion worth of savings from waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program. She might think that that's progress, but that's, that is not going to happen.
So, so, you know, Speaker Johnson is telling people that this is just a first step. Don't worry, we will protect you moving forward and all the things that could hurt you in your reelection. Let's just get past this first step in this vote this week. But there are some very strong political consequences for some, maybe not on like the Doge stuff, but when it comes to people, things that are impacting their constituents directly, absolutely.
So does she stay out on a limb by herself here? Do you anticipate you'll see more people taking, being in front of the cameras like she did today, people who wouldn't normally do that? Yeah, I think that. I think that.
Well, we'll see. Yeah, we'll see. You know, crossing Speaker Johnson is something different than crossing Donald Trump, too. So that ends even we saw with President Biden where some of the things he tried to do weren't necessarily getting the sort of residents and support he wanted.
He would be willing to make a deal in Congress to pare down some of his efforts there. That is not Donald Trump's style. What do you anticipate happening on the Hill? All these conversations that Donald Trump has had with congressional leaders both in Senate and House, he has given them basically one charge get.
He doesn't care about the process. He doesn't care. There's one bill or two bulls. He doesn't care about the actual numbers.
He doesn't care about any of this stuff. He just wants something done that he can go to the White House and have a ceremony about. Remember when the House of Republicans back in Donald Trump's or the House of Representatives Republicans in the House repealed Obamacare and it hadn't yet gone to the Senate. Donald Trump's White House held a ceremony complete with Marine Corps ban celebrating the end of Obamacare.
Senate hadn't even acted yet. Donald Trump wants the ceremony. He doesn't care about the policy stuff. To Leanne's point, I think it's a really important point.
What we're talking about here, pennies on the dollar. If you're talking about balancing the budget, if you're talking about eliminating the deficit as Donald Trump has, Donald Trump and Elon Musk both in recent days have evoked the possibility of bouncing the budget. That's not happening with waste, fraud abuse. If we could have done that with violiniating waste, fraud abuse, that would have had a long time.
If there's waste, fraud abuse, go after it. But it's not gonna solve the problem. Then some of these cuts are gonna have political impact. Currently March 14th, we're looking at government running out money.
Right now Republicans are spending a lot of time working through conversations around this resolution. Are we gonna have a government shutdown? I don't know. I don't predict that in the best of times, let alone in the worst of times.
But what I do know is that politically as we're talking about all these nuances and the difference between what Congress are gonna do and others don't, who doesn't care about that? Our Americans, our constituents, people who rely on Medicaid. And there are many, many districts where it is Republican controlled districts where a disproportionate percent of people are on Medicaid or their family members are on Medicaid and they are showing up at district offices and they are saying, no, do not cut this. I mean, for the congresswoman to say, well, maybe we can expand, do medications.
That's what Republicans in states have been running against for. I've been Washington almost 20 years. I've been in Washington anyway. Are they going to do some big, abrupt turnaround?
No. This is going to hurt Republicans up and down. Regardless of whether Elon Musk is doing it, Doge is doing it, Congress is doing it in a budget. And that is the biggest problem that Republicans have right now.
The reaction that's having. They won't just be able to say, oh, Congress didn't do this because it's Congress's duty to be protecting them in these districts. I think that if Donald Trump doesn't care about that, he should be. But it does need to be a deal to fund the government.
Eventually there's a deal to do that. Democrats are probably going to want some language about Doge and trying to put some controls around that. Republicans are probably not going to go for that. I think the damage that a government shutdown can do appeals in comparison to the damage that we are seeing Doge carry out right now.
Even in its form that has not been blessed either legally or constitutionally. Americans are already feeling that they are seeing the unfairness in it. They are seeing the impact of what happens. They are not going to separate that between this and the shutdown.
They will see that it's just another parade of horribles out of the fallen since January 20th. And that is what they're going to react to and they're going to hold everybody who is in a position of power to stop the responsible. We saw some pretty loud reaction from some town halls in redistricts and blue district over the weekend over the last several days. I want to play some sound from Republican Glenn Rothman's district about questions about Elon Musk.
So I would like to know what you feel in this issue of an unelected person having so much power. And again, getting back to our Constitution, he does not have the authority to do any actions on his own of the president state. So this is in Wisconsin. Is that, is that consistent with what you expect?
Is this a reaction you expect to see? Is it bigger? Could this be something that we're only hearing from sort of small pockets as these things pop up and get people's attention? Well, the list of members of Congress who have heard from their constituents over the last week when they were home is quite long.
Local media has been covering this. Previously, before they were home, they were hearing about the Capitol switchboard where phones were off the Hook, you know, the sort of political and electoral impact this will have in the midterm elections in 2026. We'll see. Well, there's probably 5,000 other controversies between now and then.
But Democrats believe now that Elon Musk is kind of the new villain for them and that it is effective in their messaging, that it resonates with voters and they are starting to coalesce on a message of the billionaires ver kind of the working people, the working class. And so regardless of if this is going away or not, Democrats are going to continue to push this message because they think that it is absolutely effective with voters taking a heads even to the next the midterm elections. Is is there a red line for Republicans on on when they say all right, enough Elon, let's really push back question. I don't know.
But you know, part of the problem I think Republicans face rhetorically is Donald Trump's never been a small government guy and it's not a limited government president. He's not a limited government politician and he hasn't been making for his time, just his 10 years in the public spotlight the arguments in favor of these kinds of cuts. So what I think you're likely to see Republicans do is you know, either stop short of making some of the cuts that Elon Musk is talking about making the Republicans have wanted to make for a long time and have a difficult time defending them because they haven't sort of laid the predicate here. They haven't said over the course of years or even months.
Remember, Elon Musk was announced Sept. 5 in Donald Trump speech at the New York Economic this is all sort been thrust upon the republic and they're finding time that they're finding themselves having to explain sort of in retrospect rather than having laid the groundwork for a case. And Donald Trump may not care about small government, but he does care about the applause and he wants to be popular. And the idea that a large part of the electorate, including a large number of people who voted for him are unhappy and are really giving a bad grade to what is happening in Washington will catch the president's eye, catch his attention and he will do something about it.
Whether he comes at the folks in Congress, whether it becomes a bromance breakup with him and Elon, we don't know yet. But Donald Trump is not going to sit back and watch everyone decry everything that's happening in Washington and think that he think that that is a good look for him. We'll see the boos get louder than the applause in the faces. Alright, we'll leave that for now.
Leanne can relate. Stephen, thank you all. And after the break, immigration and the economy dominate the elections in Europe's most populous country. A far right nationalist group sees a major surge.
We are live in Berlin. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. We turn to Germany now and the results of this weekend's elections.
The center right conservative party won the most votes ousting the ruling center left party with the far right party coming in second place. The ultra nationalist Alternative for Germany party, also known as AfD, won 20% of the vote, double the support it had in the last election. It's the strongest showing for a far right party in Germany since World War II. The AfD is known for its anti immigration policies and is under surveillance by German intelligence over suspected far right extremism and was praised by Both Vice President J.D.
vance and Elon Musk in the days leading up to the election. Joining Me now is NBC's Raf Sanchez in Berlin where he's been watching these developments wrapped. We know that some far right and some leftist parties made major gains on Sunday. But walk me through your biggest takeaways from this election.
So, Aaron, two big takeaways. One, Germany is getting a new government and it will be led by the moderate conservatives. And two, as you said, the far right making historic gains. So in terms of that new government, the likely next chancellor of Germany is going to be a man called Friedrich Mertz.
He's from the center right. He's the head of the Christian Democrats. That's Angela Merkel's old party. And he is in many ways a pretty traditional European conservative.
But he is taking power at a deeply abnormal moment in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Merz, almost immediately after the exit polls announced that he'd won, said that he feels the Trump administration does not care about Europe and that it will be his top priority to strengthen Europe so that it can forge an independent path from the United States. And then there is the far right. As you said, one in five German voters cast their ballots for the alternative for Germany, the aid.
This is a party that has downplayed the Holocaust. It is a party whose most extreme members have talked about stripping German citizenship from people in this country who are of foreign heritage. A German court ruling that one of its more extreme leaders can be legally called a fascist. Now, the AfD will have no place in the German governments.
Merz has said that he will not go into coalition with them, but the deep concern here is given the gains they have made, they could be in a very strong position to potentially win the next election. You referenced that Germany's chancellor waiting there. Merce says that this weekend that Europe needs to prepare for a future without the US Military support. Where does the new government stand when it comes to Ukraine and US Involvement in Europe?
So they are strongly supportive of Ukraine, Aaron. They're talking about sending missile systems that the previous government was reluctant to send. They do not want to see Ukraine join NATO while this war is going on. That is a position that both the Biden administration and the Trump administration tells.
All right. Raf Sanchez for some Berlin thank you. We are back tomorrow with more MEET THE press. Now the news continues with Hallie Jackson straight ahead.
I'm Craig Melf. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers.
I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are fun and bucket. So I hope you'll join me each week.
And with those, you might just come away with your own Glass F4. Search Glass F4 with Craig Melton from today on YouTube, everywhere you get the podcast.