Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. We begin with breaking news amid new fallout tied to the Epstein files. Right now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind closed doors near her home in Chappaqua, New York, for a deposition for the House Oversight Committee as part of its Epstein investigation, with committee members set to question former President Bill Clinton tomorrow.
According to her opening statement, Secretary Clinton told lawmakers she could not recall ever meeting Mr. Epstein and that she had no new information for their investigation. She also accused Republicans of partisan political theater. Committee Chair James Comer speaking to reporters from Chappaqua, pushing back.
Democrats voted to subpoena the Clintons. The Democrats voted with the Republicans to hold the Clintons in contempt. So the Democrats have just as many questions for the Clintons as the Republicans. So this isn't a partisan witch hunt.
This was a motion, a bipartisan motion supported by the Democrats to bring the Clintons in. So I don't think it's any type of being unfair in any way to the Clintons. Now, as you just noted, former President Bill Clinton is slated to be deposed tomorrow for the first time a former president has ever been compelled to testify as part of a congressional investigation. And Democrats on the oversight committee say they're now setting their sights on the current president.
I want to be very clear that now that we're going to hear from former President Clinton, I hope that Chairman Comer and the Republicans will join us in demanding that the person who actually appears more times in the files than the former president, who we want to speak with is President Donald Trump. Now we should know that neither of the Clintons have been accused of any wrongdoing or charged in connection with the Epstein investigation. But this does all come amid new scrutiny over the Justice Department's compliance with the Epstein disclosure law. NBC News confirms the DOJ has not released some files related to a woman who had made an allegation against President Trump.
The FBI conducted multiple interviews with that woman who accused Epstein of abusing her. A source familiar with the Justice Department's investigation tells NBC News she also made an additional allegation tied to Mr. Trump about an incident when she was 13 years old. The White House has pushed back against allegations raised against the president, saying the files contain, quote, untrue and sensationalist claims against him.
NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles joins me from Chatakwa along with NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba. Thanks to both of you for starting us off. Ryan, I have to start with you. You are there outside this hearing.
What has the reaction been so far from both Republicans and Democrats to today's deposition? Well, we haven't heard from Republicans since the deposition began. At one point, they promised us that they were going to come out each hour to update us on the progress of these talks. And they have not done that quite yet.
But Democrats did come out about halfway through and said that Hillary Clinton has answered every single question that she has not taken the fifth, that she's explained different aspects of what the Republicans were asking, including and most specifically that she had no ties to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, that she did not know them and that she certainly knew nothing about their criminal activity. And one of the things that the Democrats really honed in on was this idea that it was all taking place behind closed doors. And they wanted to make it clear that this information, the entire video and transcript of this deposition should be brought out into the public as soon as possible. Take a listen.
The full transcript, unedited, of the Secretary's questions and the answers need to be released by the majority in the next 24 hours. We need the public and the American people have a right to know exactly what she said, what questions were asked of her and how she responded. That's transparency. We're hopeful that tomorrow for the former president, that the press will be allowed in and the public as well.
That's been the request. Now, there's no reason to think that wasn't going to happen already. The committee's had a pretty good track record of producing the entire video and transcripts of the depositions that they've conducted up until this point. But there was a little bit of a dust up today when Congresswoman Lauren Boebert covertly took a photo of the secretary before she began answering her questions and then sent it to a conservative influencer who then shared it all across the Internet.
They paused the deposition for a minute to remind everyone as to what the rules were stated around this deposition. But Democrats are pointing out, why are you sending pictures of the secretary when we wanted the whole thing to be public? It just doesn't make any sense, Kristen. And Ryan, of course, we're anticipating former President Clinton will be deposed tomorrow.
What are you expecting? Have you got any preview there? So I do think that tomorrow's deposition will probably go much further in terms of the overall goal of this investigation to learn as much as they possibly can about Jeffrey Epstein and the conspiracy associated with his criminal sex trafficking network. Hillary Clinton, there's just no evidence that she had any sort of relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
The same cannot be said for President Clinton. There is a long track record of information in the files that shows him with Jeffrey Epstein. He has written in his own memoir about his connections with Jeffrey Epstein and saying that he wished that he'd never met him and that he wished that he had not developed that relationship. What he's never answered, though, are substantive questions about that relationship.
What kind of interactions did they have? Where did they meet? Where did they go? What did they do?
Was it just a surface level relationship or was there more to it? I can bet that that's some of the things that both Republicans and Democrats will be pressing the president on tomorrow. No doubt about that. All right, Ryan Nobles from Chappaqua.
Thank you so much for starting us off. Monica Alba, let me head over to you at the White House. What has the reaction been from the White House? We know that there's been an attempt, obviously, in the wake of the State of the Union to stay focused on issues like the economy.
What's the strategy there? Absolutely, Kristen. But I think in the words of a senior administration official some time ago, since we've been talking about this issue overall for so long, this is the one that kind of hangs over the White House. It just doesn't go away.
And the president has been clear in the last couple of months that he did push for that transparency. He signed that legislation into law to get the initial files out. And he has continued in the White House has continued to point to that as evidence that the president supports more of this information to come out and to be released. But as we delve into these files and as you mentioned, NBC's own reporting and confirmation of these questions about what might still be withheld and has not been released publicly that could be related to President Trump based on allegations from an Epstein victim.
That just again raises these questions for the White House once more. And they like to continue to point to and refer to a DOJ statement in which they say that this president, in terms of information in the file, has been accused of things that have not been true, that have not come true and that have been just simply included in these files as sensationalist information. So they do continue to reiterate that the president hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing when it comes to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. But again, this just does raise more questions, even though you're absolutely right to say this White House is focused on a complete different set of priorities and topics right now.
Monica, let me ask you about this aspect of it. NBC News has confirmed the Justice Department has not released some of the files, particularly related to a woman who made allegations against President Trump. The president has denied any wrongdoing. But what's the White House saying about these specific files?
Yeah, and they are really overall pointing to what Attorney General Pam Bondi said some time ago, which is that all of the files that they plan to release have been released. That is the Trump administration view of this and that if there's additional information out there, there was reason to withhold it that needed to be part of that justification, either to protect the identity of somebody or because it included information that, again, for whatever reason and determination, DOJ decided it shouldn't be made public. So this is a White House that is essentially trying to argue that this is case closed. But again, I think the public pressure continues and the president is likely to face more questions about this in the days ahead.
I think you're right about that. Let's shift gears for just a second. The Washington Post is reporting today that activists are coordinating with the White House on what they're describing as a draft executive order that would effectively give the president authority over voting ahead of November's midterm elections. They're alleging that China intervened in the 2020 election.
What are you hearing? What are your sources telling you about this effort? Well, the White House tells me that essentially they are always in contact with outside groups, that they are always being presented with pitches or possibilities of things that could end up eventually becoming a draft of an executive order. But that that is something that is not necessarily the case for this specifically.
They did put out a statement saying overall that the president is incredibly concerned about the status of elections. And that is why he has continued to ask Congress and lawmakers to support the Save America Act. And he is still looking at other possible reforms to election security. Though, again, they wouldn't confirm necessarily that that specific 17 page executive order that The Washington Post reported on is actually being considered at this time.
All right, Monica Alba, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Joining me now, Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanian of Virginia. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee.
Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it, Congressman. Thank you allegations made about President Trump. Some of those were taken down quickly after they were discovered.
But we know from what we have that there are missing parts of these documents that have not been released. And so we have a lot of questions about where those pages are, where those documents are. They're clearly part of the two and a half million that weren't released, as well as many other victim statements, too, that, you know, we believe name of President Trump. And certainly, we're not saying that, you know, he's guilty of any allegations, but we want all the evidence.
And we want the evidence about all the people who are involved in these crimes. But to do that, you really have to get all the files and get all the evidence to us so we can do our investigation. So the American people want that transparency, too. Well, we'll be tracking tomorrow's developments closely as well.
Congressmen, Subramanian, thank you so much for your perspective. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up, the very latest on U.S.
tensions with Cuba as Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the administration is investigating an incident that Havana is calling a, quote, foiled armed infiltration into its country involving an American boat. But first, a special programming announcement. Tune in this Tuesday for NBC News Now special coverage of the first major primaries of the 2026 midterm elections. We'll be live all night long as the results come in starting at 8 p.m.
Eastern. We'll be right back with more Meet the Press Now. Stay with us. Welcome back.
We are learning new details about that deadly firefight off the coast of Cuba in which four people aboard a Florida-registered speedboat were killed by the Cuban military. Now, Cuba says the speedboat was carrying Cuban residents of the United States who were armed and trying to infiltrate Cuba for a, quote, terrorist purposes. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. is carrying out its own investigation into the incident that will determine the administration's response.
I'm not going to speculate on what the U.S. will do. What I'm telling you is that we're going to find out exactly what happened and who was involved. And then we'll make a determination on the basis of what we find out.
And we are going to find out, but we're not going to just take what somebody else tells us. Joining me now is NBC News correspondent Ed Augustin in Cuba and Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you both so much for being here. Ed, let me start with you and get you to respond to what Cuba is saying.
Cuba's deputy foreign minister just held a press conference. What exactly are they saying? Well, I'm here in the same press conference that took place about 20 minutes ago. And the deputy foreign minister laid out the facts as people say they are.
He says that they have recovered from that speedboat a panoply of weapons, assault rifles, night vision goggles, camouflage equipment, which furthers his case that this was not drug trafficking. It wasn't drug trafficking, both of which have happened in these waters in recent years. He would say that this furthers his case that this was armed people. Secondly, he pointed out a fact, and this is a fact that we've had in the history of the United States.
He said that Cuba has been a victim of terrorism emanating from the United States, organized by and financed by the United States. And that really, that's his opinion. He goes on to say it's academic consensus now. You look at things like Bay of Pigs, a long time ago in 1961, that was organized and financed by the CIA, by the U.S.
state. And it was a paramilitary invasion. You could argue it was a liberation, but it was factually a paramilitary invasion. In the 1970s, coming from Miami, you had Orlando Bosch, who was the intellectual architect, and the CIA knew about this beforehand, of blowing up a civilian airliner that killed over 70 people.
He was given a presidential pardon by the first Bush president and died peacefully in Miami in his 80s. And more recently, most people wouldn't say this is terrorism, but in 2020, a man fired a weapon, a gun, a rifle, at the Cuban embassy in Washington. And two years ago, no charges were pressed. So it is undoubtedly true that there is a line running through this, that a lot of violence has come out of Florida historically.
And there hasn't been much accountability. And he pointed to that. The most important thing he said, though, was that the Cuban authorities are talking to the American authorities, both to the Coast Guard, which perhaps isn't too surprising because the Coast Guard, anyone who knows Cuba knows that the two Coast Guards have a highly functional relationship and talk a lot. But also he said that they're talking to the State Department.
And in this wider conversation that the media are having, speculation, is it true that Cuba is negotiating or not? That's got to be an important thing. Will, let me turn to you and get your take. I mean, this is such an extraordinary incident.
And the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, called it, quote, highly unusual. Cuba's foreign minister saying Cuba hasn't had to face, has had to face, I'm sorry, numerous infiltrations since 1959. Part of what Ed's just laying out. Put this into broader context for us.
Well, it comes at a moment of extreme uncertainty, I'd say, for the future of the authoritarian regime on the island. Of course, it's persisted a long time, you know, through a lot of other crises. When people thought that it might finally collapse. But the current moment is really unprecedented.
I mean, I just want to underscore a few figures. One, tourism down over 70 percent since 2018. The military and other authorities that rule the island have transformed the economy to revolve around tourism. Okay, so that leg is knocked out from under the table.
You also have 10 to 20 percent of Cubans who've left the island since 2021. Mostly young people fleeing, searching, both fleeing political repression and looking for opportunities elsewhere. So this is a regime that's completely gutted of legitimacy. It's no longer even able to claim credit for functional hospitals or low crime rates.
Those are going up as well. It's a regime of absolute crisis. And that has only deepened since the Trump administration cut off the flow of oil from Venezuela, which had been essentially keeping the lights on. So the Trump administration has Cuba in this position of, you know, I think immense precarity and vulnerability, the regime that is.
And allegedly there are these talks going on. Now, of course, the Cubans disavowed those. The Trump administration hasn't provided much details. But what we believe is that the Trump administration is speaking, especially to a grandson of Raul Castro, about some kind of negotiated opening, at least on the economic front, to reactivate the economy and probably bring in U.S.
investment. So when I saw this episode happen, the first question for me was, if those talks are indeed going on, what does this mean for them? Does it derail them? Does it empower hardliners on the Cuban side who some of whom may not want to see this kind of negotiation go forward?
Does it empower certain hardliners on the U.S. side who may also feel threatened by it? I think that's what we'll see soon. But my read on the Secretary of State's comments is that he's trying to keep a calm tone for now.
First, figure out what happened before jumping to conclusions. Well, will you take me to my next question, which is I do want to play some of what President Trump has had to say about Cuba, about those talks. Both of your reactions on the other side. Take a listen.
Cuba is right now a failed nation, and they don't even have jet fuel to get for airplanes to take off. They're clogging up their runway. We're talking to Cuba right now and Marco Rubio talking to Cuba right now. And they should absolutely make a deal because it's a humanity.
It's really a humanitarian threat. Well, let me start with you. What do you make of what you heard from the president? Fairly straightforward description of the facts.
It is a humanitarian crisis. There'd be no other reason that one to two million of 10 million people would have left in the last few years if that wasn't true. And I certainly do hope that there's a deal struck. I think that the protests of 2021, unprecedented, tens of hundreds of thousands of Cubans on the street.
I mean, it really showed you that there is mass discontent coupled with this mass access of people. There's a pressure for political change of some kind. Obviously, it needs to include a number of stakeholders on the island. But, you know, I think that it's a pretty fair description of where Cuba is now.
Obviously, a very uncertain path ahead, but I think it's pretty much on the way. Ed, let me give you the final word here. What more are you learning about the people on that boat? And what are you watching for next in this investigation?
It's been fascinating to report on the people on the boat. I woke up at 5.30 this morning and I was listening to Radio Martí, which is a U.S. government financed propaganda outlet. And one of the people on that boat that they interviewed last year, back in 2020, President Trump saying that the regime's about to fall, saying that Cubans need to do everything possible to make the regime fall.
Clearly a very political person. Two of the people that were on that boat are on a list published by the Ministry of Interior, which they think they've been involved in sabotage so far. So far, an AP came out with a story yesterday in which they interviewed the brother of one Nancy Guthrie, of course, the 84-year-old mother of our beloved colleague Savannah Guthrie. 26 days into the investigation, two federal law enforcement sources tell NBC News officials are now working to return Nancy Guthrie's home back to her family.
Several agents were seen at the property Wednesday as part of that plan, according to the sources. Officials also acknowledge law enforcement no longer sees a need to seal the home as a crime scene. The FBI tip line has received more than 23,000 calls since Guthrie was taken. 750 of those came in on Tuesday in the first 12 hours after Savannah and her family offered a private $1 million reward for the return of their mother.
If you or anyone you know, anyone has more information, we encourage you to call the tip line. Please, if you know anything, call this number on your screen, 1-800-CALL-FBI. Again, that's 1-800-CALL-FBI. Coming up after the break, the Pentagon battles with AI powerhouse Anthropic demanding it allow the U.S.
military to use the AI technology without guardrails. That story's next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Turning now to a story that has thrust an uncomfortable question into the spotlight.
What happens when you combine artificial intelligence with deadly weapons? For weeks, tensions have been brewing between the Pentagon and AI giant Anthropic. And now the Defense Department is giving the AI company an ultimatum. Let the military use its technology without restrictions or pay the price starting tomorrow.
The dispute centers around Anthropic's demands that any military use of its AI must come with significant guardrails to prevent the powerful technology from being used to make lethal autonomous weapons or for the surveillance of Americans. But during a tense meeting earlier this week, Pentagon leadership gave Anthropic a final warning to drop their demands for guardrails by 5 p.m. tomorrow. That's according to a senior Pentagon official.
If it doesn't, the Pentagon is threatening retaliation, either by invoking the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to comply or threatening to cancel its $200 million contract and label Anthropic a supply chain risk. The designation often reserved for companies with ties to foreign adversaries that pose a national security risk. Joining me now is Jacob Ward, veteran technology journalist and host of The Current podcast. Jacob, thanks so much for being here.
So let's dive right in. What do you make of this standoff between Anthropic and the Pentagon? How do you see it going? Well, it's a very new thing in my world.
Generally speaking, when I interview tech CEOs at companies that have business with the government, they tend to say, you know, how this stuff is used and the ethical questions that come up around it are not my job. I've often asked them things like, well, the technology you've created, you know, very often you're seeing a company that has like a border patrol drone with a facial recognition camera stuff. It is so far outside the bounds of even the Geneva Convention. You say, well, shouldn't you have to invent the ethics to go with the technology you've invented?
They say that's not my job. Anthropics is one of the very rare companies that actually has taken a stand on this internally in the way that so many people have suggested these companies should. And that's because they're living in the future. They know what is capable of what AI is capable of producing in terms of surveillance and in terms of military applications.
And that's why they have these policies that, quote, don't allow the company to track a person's physical location, emotional state or communication without their consent. You're not allowed to use AI to, quote, produce, modify, design or legally acquire weapons. These are some very fundamental standards they try to impose. And in the past, Kristen, it's been government use of this stuff that has imposed restraints.
Right. Democracy has imposed restraints on these companies. But now we're seeing the opposite. We don't live in that world anymore.
Suddenly this company, which has its own set of standards, turns out to have higher standards, perhaps, than the Pentagon does. And now we're in this strange standoff, truly in the upside down here, Kristen. It's just fascinating. And look, Anthropic saying one of the guardrails it wants is barring the use of lethal autonomous weapons.
What exactly does that mean? What would that kind of weapon look like, Jacob? Well, we already have seen it. This is the thing to understand.
This is not imaginary stuff. This is currently happening. So a company called Oterion, which is an Arlington, Virginia based company, just recently did a demonstration of multiple drones, multiple fixed wing aircraft, all controlled by a single system, even though all of these pieces were made by different companies. Basically, you buy these things off the shelf, you put them under AI control and it can go kill someone for you without a human ever having to be consulted.
The human doesn't have to pull the trigger anymore. So we're already in a world in which the role of a human has been downgraded from being the one that decides, yes, you should kill someone to really someone who decides, am I going to get in the way or let this thing go ahead and do its job and kill people automatically? That's the sort of thing that we're talking about. And that's not even taking into account the long list of things.
I have a whole piece of the recurring podcast about this, where you have, you know, Wi-Fi systems now where three $30 routers can be used to identify who's in the room and where they are through a wall or in perfect pitch blackness. Right. You have all sorts of AI capabilities that were unimaginable five years ago that make the possibility of very scary, very real surveillance, identifying people by their heartbeat, how they walk, reading their lips through a mask. All of that is possible with AI.
This is the world that Anthropic realizes they are playing in. And this seems to be why they're trying to impose some restrictions here and why the Pentagon, of course, wants every possible capability that they can get out of this technology. So, Jacob, who do you think right now has more leverage in this standoff? That is a great question.
So, right. As as of now, Anthropic is the only one of these companies that is allowed into the classified military systems. So they're the only ones that got into this highest designation under the terms of their $200 million contract. And so the Pentagon basically has said you've had them.
They've told Axios and others, we're dealing with these guys because they're so good. Right. The technology is so effective. So that's the Pentagon feeling that they need these folks.
Now, then Anthropic, they also need this. I mean, a government contract is a very valuable, stable source of revenue for a company that's worth $380 billion, just raised about $30 billion this year, but as a result, owes a lot of money to its investors. And so there's a real standoff here. And it's not clear to me, you know, you really have the creator of this company, Dario Amadadi, in a real pickle.
I think has some leverage, but I think in theory, this is the real problem for him. XAI, Alphabet, Google system, Gemini and Meta are also in line behind Anthropic for those sorts of contracts. And so this comes back to that same thing that drives tech people all the time is if I don't do it, someone else is. So I might as well do it.
There's a lot of people lined up behind him to do this, Kristen. All right, we'll be watching closely to see what happens in the next 24 hours and beyond with Anthropic. Jacob Ward, thank you so much. We really appreciate all of your insights and information.
Well, as the Trump administration embraces the use of AI, at least one prominent Republican is actually backing away. Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has voiced concerns about the rapid expansion of AI, a position that puts it in sharp contrast with the Trump administration. And therefore, at odds with two potential 2028 presidential candidates, Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
As the term limited governor weighs another presidential run. Here's Governor DeSantis at an AI roundtable earlier this month. We have a responsibility to create a framework so that this technology and technological innovations are channeled in a way that benefits the people of the state, benefits our kids, our parents, enhances our experience as human beings, not supplant our experience as human beings. Joining me now is international politics reporter Matt Dixon.
Matt, thanks so much for being here. So let's start off with what Ron DeSantis is up to. Why is he taking this stance and what is his argument? So functionally, from an AI skeptic standpoint, Republicans or really politicians across the board talk about a couple of things.
Job loss. They talk about environmental concerns, broader societal impact, children that could be impacted by so-called chatbots. We have seen there has been reporting about kids who have harmed themselves interacting with AI. And for Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, he sort of checks all of those boxes.
He has come out of the gate swinging and it's a relatively new issue. He ran for president to folks who recall in 2024. It didn't go well. This really wasn't an issue for him or anyone.
But in recent months, he has really come out swinging on all of the major bullet points that you would expect a skeptical AI politician to hit. So is this about him carving out a lane potentially in 2028? Two things. I think one, he's always tried to tap in a little bit to the populist strain.
He is in the past. His administration has sued social media companies. He's always been a little bit of a tech skeptic. But yes, of course, Ron DeSantis is a savvy politician who is 2024 run, ran into the Trump buzzsaw Donny, in New York, you need to show two forms of identification to shovel snow.
So certainly we can figure that out in our voting system. Well, and it is important to note that instances of fraud are incredibly low, but it does come against the backdrop of the midterms getting underway. We're going to have our first results on Tuesday, as Susan Page. President Trump, as Tiffany says, is heading to Texas.
He has not endorsed in that primary race. Senator John Cornyn in the political fight of his life. He hasn't endorsed yet. Set the stage for us in the wake of the State of the Union where the president did talk about the economy, a range of other issues at this moment.
What are you watching for? So he did talk about the economy, and that was some relief to congressional Republicans who will actually be on the ballot in November. But he continued to mock the idea of affordability. And so that's not a legitimate concern for Americans to have, although they do have it.
And he didn't do the, you know, that I feel your pain kind of moment that politicians do that says, I realize there's some things are hard for you. I'm going to try to do something about it. He followed instead the idea that the economy is great. I have solved big problems since I took over a year ago.
Tiffany, was that a, I want to look forward, but I do think it's a critical point. We didn't hear that acknowledgement that if you look at the polls, he's underwater in his handling of the economy. Many Americans still feel as though the economy is not working for them. Does he need to start doing that when he goes to Texas, for example?
Well, when you pull the Democrats in the economy, it's not any better. So I think his job is to build the confidence in the American people and to sell his message, make his case across the country and make sure that those running in the midterms are selling it as well. The fact is, he has done really good things. Gas prices are down.
30-year mortgage interest rate just dropped. The Dow is at record highs. So there's good things that are happening and trending in the right direction. And once his policies take root, the American people in April are going to start to get their tax returns back and see more money in their pockets.
Amisha, what about this argument that when you look at the polls, by a narrow margin, actually fewer people have confidence in Democrats to address some of these pressing issues. How can Democrats address that in the midterms and as they start to make their case? So absolutely. Democrats have a hard hill to climb, in part because of the failures of the last presidential cycle, but also because they are still working on a messaging strategy that makes sense for them.
We saw the one with Mondani. We've seen Spanberger. We've seen cases across the country where it is, it has failed. But by and large, Americans writ large, they want a fighter.
The undecided voters are still trying to figure out where Democrats stand on certain issues. And they have to not only fight against, you know, the treacherousness of this current administration, but they also have to have a path forward. It's not just good enough to talk about affordability without having a plan of action to reduce those prices. That issue is not going to go away anytime too soon.
You know, it's certainly true that the Democrats do not have any more faith from American voters than Republicans do. But it doesn't matter because midterm elections are referendum on the party in power. And that's Republicans. I interviewed Nancy Pelosi yesterday, who's a well-known counter of elections and votes.
And she said that she predicted that Republicans would not only split the three seats they need to get control of the House, she said they might win 30 seats. Are you bracing for that, that Democrats could potentially have a wave, as Nancy Pelosi? Well, history certainly predicts that, you know. But that's not to say that the Republicans don't have this historic moment, this unique moment in time where they can make their pitch to the American people.
As I mentioned, Trump's policies are taking effect. So, you know, I think the numbers we are seeing, we will see a significant shift in the coming months. And the Democrats' message is just simply, if Donald Trump is for it, we are against it. It's been like that from the very beginning when she took office.
And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Amisha, there is this debate inside the Democratic Party. What exactly should the message be on the economy? We're going to see primary results in Texas on Tuesday, for example.
You have James Hallery, though. You have Jasmine Crockett. Now, actually, they're not that different in their messaging. They're more different when it comes to their style.
But what do you think Democrats should be leaning into? The kitchen table issues that matter the most to Americans. You are right. Mortgage prices are going down, but the average American can't afford a house.
Hundreds of thousands of people are losing jobs in the private sector. We already know that this president cut the federal workers by the thousands as well. We know that AI is coming fast and furious, and there are a ton of people who are currently unemployed. So when you're talking about that and you're talking about the economy where people cannot afford not only the cost of eggs, they can't afford to put a roof over their heads, Democrats have to stay within that lane because that's where Americans are.
All right, guys, we're out of time. Thank you so much, Susan, Amisha, and Tiffany. Really appreciate it. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.
There's more ahead on NBC News Now.