Meet the Press NOW – February 5

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker as Washington, U.S. allies, the Middle East, much of the world and even some inside President Trump's own administration try to make sense of his stunning declaration that the U.S. intends to take over the Gaza Strip and transform it into the quote Riviera of the Middle East, which would mean locating two million Palestinians living there likely by force.

There has been swift global pushback, including for much of the Arab world, as well as from a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, warning that the idea would be politically unpopular here at home, unworkable abroad, and disruptive to the delicate ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, while also potentially serving as a recruiting tool for terrorists. The president right now is speaking from the White House at a signing ceremony for an executive order which would ban transgender women from competing in women's sports. As of right now, he has not mentioned his plan for Gaza in these remarks. We are monitoring it, though, and we will bring you any news as it happens.

But the Trump administration is publicly standing firm on the Gaza offer, seemingly daring other countries to come up with a better idea. While Republican leadership has been cautious to either embrace the president's commitments or avoid criticizing them. The fact that nobody has a realistic solution and he puts some very bold, fresh new ideas out on the table, I don't think should be criticized in any way. I think it's going to bring the entire region to come with their own solutions if they don't like Mr.

Trump's solutions. I think this is a good development. We have to back Israel 100%. And so whatever form that takes, we're interested in having that discussion.

But it's it was a surprising development, but I think it's one that will applause. There are a lot of ideas to try to address what is clearly a crisis in the region. We'll see where it leads. Now, we're also seeing attempts by Trump allies to reframe the president's comments, suggesting they should not be taken too literally.

Case in point, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt told reporters this afternoon that the president is going to make a deal so U.S. taxpayers and U.S. troops aren't on the hook. But I want to play what the president said in his own words last night during a joint press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who applauded the idea.

The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East.

And everybody I've spoken to, this was not a decision made lightly. Everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land. I don't want to be cute. I don't want to be a wise guy, but the Riviera of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so magnificent.

He has a different idea. And I think it's worth paying attention to this. We're talking about it. He's exploring it with his people, with his staff.

I think it's something that could change history and it's worthwhile really pursuing this avenue. Now, as we noted, the condemnation has been swift, particularly in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister put out a statement rejecting any attempts to displace Palestinian people. And the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, called it a serious violation of international law, vowing the Palestinian people would not give up their land.

And on Capitol Hill, Democrats and a few Republicans had some harsh words about the proposal. That's insane. I can't think of a place on Earth that would welcome American troops less and where any positive outcome is less likely. You can book it down as this is between offensive and insane.

I'm not supportive of having the American people pay to rebuild Gaza. I don't think that's our responsibility. Absolutely dumb, stupid and illegal. And the United States will not be invading Gaza.

We will not be occupying Gaza. And the Republican Party and Trump have run as the anti-war candidates. So we ask for war, you know, to show you the level of hypocrisy and or lack of leadership that is occurring at the White House. I would need some clarification on what exactly that means.

He's a developer of resorts. I think he sees a good opportunity. But we need to. Obviously, Gaza is not ours.

It's sovereign. That's part of another country. Right. It would seem to me to be an inappropriate use of U.S.

troops. The palpable sense of shock over the president's proposal comes after he campaigned on a more isolationist America first agenda while railing against American attempts at nation building because of the immense cost in, quote, blood and treasure. Take a look back. It is not the duty of U.S.

troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never even heard of. We will keep America out of these ridiculous, horrible and very, very stupid foreign wars against countries that you've never even heard of. Look what's happening. You're getting involved.

Here we go again with the Middle East. We spent nine trillion dollars, killed millions of people, including our side, their side, millions of people. Nine trillion dollars. You know what we got?

Nothing. Nothing. After years of building up foreign nations, defending foreign borders and protecting foreign lands, we are finally going to build up our country, defend our borders and protect our citizens. Joining me now is our team of reporters.

NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, who was in that news conference last night when the president made that announcement. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles and NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby is at the Pentagon for us. Kelly, let me start with you.

You pressed the president repeatedly yesterday during that joint news conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu on specifically what his vision was for taking over Gaza. What were your key takeaways? Well, it was frightening that the president did not address the matter of the U.S. having any lawful ability to do this.

And he did opine about the potential and the need to rethink what has been an intractable problem for decades. Sort of the vision of Donald Trump. The specifics and the particulars are where there are big questions. And today we saw how in the briefing Caroline Levitt speaking on behalf of the president talked about no commitment of U.S.

troops. And yet it is hard to contemplate any way that the U.S. could have a development and rebuilding role without U.S. troops to as force protection and support for that kind of a mission.

So that's a big question talking about not using taxpayer dollars. And yet the president very clearly said we would own it. We would take responsibility. We would do a series of things to improve the Gaza Strip.

And so that's in conflict. So this was the president certainly as disruptor. The seriousness of the idea will be tested in time. Was he trying to extract something from other leaders in the region who have not been willing to take in Palestinians while their home is so under the destruction of this war?

They're big questions. And the president was more about a bold suggestion than those specifics. Kelly, just zooming out. And I go back to that montage that we just played.

This is a president who has campaigned, quite frankly, since 2016 on an America first agenda, staying out of foreign wars. And yet we're seeing this shift where he's talking about taking over Greenland, the Panama Canal and now Gaza. Can you take us inside some of your conversations with Trump allies, with White House officials? Are they surprised by this shift?

Well, certainly on matters like Greenland and Panama, they are talking in terms of what they see as the benefits of the United States in strategic terms with this Gaza proposal. There was clearly surprise. And it is not completely unheard of because there have been some discussions publicly on the part of the president's son in law, Jared Kushner, for example, who talked about the potential of redevelopment of Gaza as a sort of a businessman, not as a statesman. But the president putting forward this idea in the way that he did standing alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, who was supportive of further discussions, was really striking.

It is not the America first that we have heard from Donald Trump for many years. It was America expanding in ways that we have not heard him talk about with the same kind of ferocity on the campaign trail. Now he is looking at ways to expand his influence and power and to give the U.S. advantages in certain places, certainly in Gaza.

If there would be potential for rebuilding, there's also enormous risk, deep, deep risk of what that could provoke. Absolutely, Kelly. You had all the critical questions last night to the president. Richard, let me turn to you.

I've been watching your reporting throughout the day. I know you've been in contact with world leaders. What has the reaction been from the region? Well, there's been shock in the region.

This is just two weeks into the Trump administration and they're already seeing what people are describing as wild policies that are not based in U.S. foreign policy, American traditions. And as it's seen from the Middle East, it's important to sort of put on the clothes and get into the mentality of the region to understand that question. What the Middle East has just been watching since October 7th when Hamas militants, thousands of them, stormed over the border and went on a killing and kidnapping spree.

Since that moment, what people in the Middle East have been watching is a ferocious military campaign by Israel against against Gaza, against Hamas, that has devastated the Gaza Strip, ripped up its infrastructure with largely American weapons. And people have been in the region been watching sort of billion billions of dollars in arms and that come in large chunks with Israel that this is ultimately all of their fault and that they should therefore lose their homeland and be separated into, you know, sent off to other countries. So that doesn't establish a great deal of trust. It doesn't establish a great deal of a basis on which to build this ceasefire.

So it certainly has the potential of impacting the ceasefire, which already, Christian, is very shaky. They're already officials speaking to the Arab world and in Israel are worried that the ceasefire is going to face moments of a breakdown when the fighting resumes and the gunfight and the attacks begin again. People expect that's going to happen. And now we just have President Trump saying that his solution is to depopulate Gaza Strip and turn it into some sort of Riviera for who?

He never quite laid out the Palestinians certainly believe it won't be them. Well, it's just incredible reporting, Richard. And I know everyone is watching with immense trepidation as that ceasefire continues to hold in a very fragile way, as you've just laid out. Ryan, let me turn to you now on Capitol Hill.

I thought it was so fascinating to hear Republicans respond to, to try to very carefully talk about this extraordinary statement by President Trump. What are you hearing on Capitol Hill? Christine, you're wise to make that point. And somewhat of the whiplash that we're experiencing here on Capitol Hill.

Our colleague Frank Thorpe was here as the news initially came out and the kind of gut reaction he got from Republicans was one of trepidation, one of skepticism, one of downright opposition to this idea. And then as the news settled in and Republicans saw that this was something that Donald Trump was at least on some level committed to seeing to the next stage, they all of a sudden had a change of tune. Listen, just to one example. This is Tom Tillis last night, right after the news came out versus him today.

I would say the first thing I would count, but obviously that's not going to happen. I don't know under what circumstance it would make sense. Even for Israel. Now, if Israel is asking for the United States to come in and provide some assistance to ensure that Hamas can never do again what they did, I'm in, but us taking over seems like a bit of a stretch.

I think he's right in suggesting that we need to have a clean slate. The reason I said a kink in the slinky, it may not work out the way he envisioned it or the way he discussed it in a press conference, but I think directionally he's on the right track. So he went from saying this is something that's never going to happen to directionally he's on the right track and kind of the way you saw Republicans find a place where they didn't have to be directly in opposition to Donald Trump today was to say things like, well, this is him just coming up with ideas, throwing things out there to see what could be a potential path forward. I think many of the Republicans up here today maybe are not seeing this very specifically, but I think they are of the same mind that Richard Engel is that this isn't a thing that's actually going to happen.

So there's no really utility in standing up against Donald Trump and telling him it's a bad idea. Instead, they're trying to find some sort of softer landing place here where they don't have to fully endorse it. But at the same time, try and present Trump as some sort of innovator who's looking for a new solution and a path forward in the region. But at the end of the day, this just isn't a real thing.

It's really remarkable to hear that sound from Senator Tillis. Ryan, thank you for bringing that to us. Courtney, let me turn to you now and take us inside the reaction inside the Pentagon. The idea, the very notion that the president would say he's not ruling out U.S.

troops to try to take control of Gaza. What's the reaction been? What would that even look like? So, Kristen, you have to keep in mind that for since October 7th and even before that, there has been a very steady line out of the Pentagon and the military that there will be no U.S.

troops, no U.S. boots in Gaza. We have heard that time and time and time again. So when President Trump said this at the press conference last night, there were a lot of surprised people here in the Pentagon.

Just to give you a sense of how something like this could work. If the president comes out and makes an announcement, for instance, you know, of a deployment of troops to the border, for instance, generally, by the time the president is announcing it, the Pentagon has already been planning for who would go and where and what they would do. There would be even potentially orders to those individuals about to be prepared to deploy. In this case for Gaza, we have been asking for 24 hours now.

There have been no planning meetings. There have been no warning orders. There has been no actual official discussion about sending U.S. troops to Gaza in any capacity.

And I say that because we often hear the line here. The Pentagon is a planning organization. If, in fact, this were something a reality that was going to come to pass anytime soon, I am very confident the Pentagon would be planning for it. Now, all that said, they could turn and they could start planning.

But as of now, no indication any U.S. troops are preparing to go to Gaza at this point, Kristen. Well, that's really important reporting. Courtney, you also have some reporting about some planning to potentially withdraw some troops from Syria.

What can you tell us about that? Yeah, and so this story actually really makes that point, frankly, which is that the military and the Pentagon have been listening to President Trump and advisors around him say for months that he thinks U.S. troops should leave Syria. He's even using at times some colorful language about why he thinks the U.S.

should not be involved in Syria anymore. Well, as part of that, the Pentagon is trying to be proactive here about things. And they have begun putting together options. So if, in fact, the president or the national security advisor, whomever it is, comes to the Pentagon and says, show us some options for getting all troops out of Syria, they will have them ready.

Officials telling us that they are looking at options for a 30 day, a 60 day and a 90 day withdrawal, giving them options for how long it would take. And that the idea here is that the administration would be able to have more planning for this. We have heard from President Trump and many people around him, many scathing comments about the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. And the idea is the Pentagon wants to be very prepared if, in fact, the president gives them that order, Kristen.

Well, that's fantastic exclusive reporting. Courtney Kuby, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Thanks to Kelly O'Donnell, of course, Richard Engel and Ryan Nobles for joining us and starting us off on a very busy Wednesday.

We've got much more on this story ahead and the mounting concerns in the Middle East over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as the White House puts urgently needed foreign aid in limbo. Plus, the latest on President Trump and Elon Musk's dramatic overhaul of the federal government and his new executive order banning transgender women and girls from participating in women's sports. We'll delve into all of it. Stay with us.

You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. As we've said, President Trump's remarks last night about the U.S. taking over Gaza would be a massive shift of U.S.

foreign policy when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians and a level of intervention in the Middle East not seen in decades. Joining me now is NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell. Andrea, thank you so much for being here. It's great to be here.

It's great to have you here. I know it was a late night for you because you were tracking all of these fast moving developments. You were working your sources. What are your takeaways from the reaction that you've been tracking since the president made this extraordinary announcement?

I think my reaction in watching it live and I was watching our colleague Kelly O'Donnell jumped on it right away with the perfect question. You know, is this legal? What is the legal authority for you to take a sovereign state? I was watching it live.

We were reporting for Nightly News and updating it for different time zones as it was starting very late. And when he said we will own Gaza, I looked at my producer and I said, did I hear him correctly? I mean, I was and as it turned out, there were people all over Washington at various gatherings, including some very prominent U.S. ambassadors, diplomats from Arab countries as well as other countries.

And everyone was like mystified. What did he mean? And then it was very clear that he was reading from notes. This was not a riff.

This was not a rally. This was very deliberate. He said then in answer to the questions from Kelly that he'd been thinking about it for months. This is something he really wanted to do.

And the more I've reported this, the Saudis immediately issued a statement in the name of Mohammed bin Salman, who has been so close to Jared Kushner, the key component in the conclusion of the Abraham Accords with President Trump started in his first term. And that was the eye on the prize that got interrupted by the Gaza war, probably deliberately by Hamas. But in any case, that's what Netanyahu and President Trump have both been hoping to achieve, depending on whether Netanyahu will deliver enough of a pathway to Palestinian rights. So this would be a complete deal breaker for the Saudis and then the Jordanians and the Egyptians saying we will not take them.

And that was in calls with El Sisi, the Egyptian president yesterday. He's coming this week. King Abdullah is coming from Jordan next week. House officials say that the purpose of this is to prevent men from playing in women's sports.

And the White House says that even if an athlete has gender-affirming surgery, they must play based on their sex at birth. And the White House officials today brought up the idea of schools creating an open category for sports. And one of the questions here, Kristen, is who would enforce this? It's actually the Department of Education under Title IX.

However, if the Department of Education goes away or is abolished, as is the Trump administration is considering, Press Secretary Karen Levitt was asked about this. And it remains an open question. It would be enforced at the beginning by the Department of Education if and when that department goes away. It still remains an open question which government agency this would fall under.

But the White House sees this as a promise kept, something that he promised during the campaign, Kristen. Well, I'm glad you point that out because, of course, as you say, the Trump administration is considering potentially getting rid of the Department of Education. We know that they are really trying to gut a number of government agencies. The Office of Personnel Management says more than 20,000 federal workers, in fact, have accepted that buyout offer from the Trump administration.

Is that the range that the administration was looking for? Or did they want more? Oh, they wanted much more. But administration officials do say that they expect the number to go way up in 24 hours or so right before the deadline, which, by the way, is tomorrow night.

Right now, it's only about 1% of the federal workforce. Administration officials with Doge have previously said that they wanted between 5% and 10% of the federal workforce to take this buyout. But I should point out, Kristen, federal attrition rate for federal workers each year is about 6% anyway. So it's unclear how many people taking this buyout may have eventually may have planned to leave the federal government anyway.

And we should note the CIA, other agencies going through a similar buyout process right now. Gabe Gutierrez, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Coming up after the break, I will talk to the top Democrat on the House Doge subcommittee as Democrats protest Elon Musk's growing influence in Washington.

You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Democratic lawmakers and federal workers staged a protest outside the Treasury Department yesterday to express their anger over Elon Musk's access to sensitive government systems and his efforts to shutter USAID. Joining me now is New Mexico Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury.

She was part of that protest outside the Treasury Department yesterday and is the ranking member on the oversight committee's Doge subcommittee, which is a separate entity from Elon Musk's government task force. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate it. Absolutely.

It's great to be here. Well, it's great to have you back. I do want to start with that protest. You were joined by other Democrats.

I'll play a little bit of what you had to say. Get your reaction on the other side. Now is our time to organize, to mobilize, to take back our country and to let these people know that this is our country and we will not let them steal it. We will hold them accountable and we will take it back.

Emotions really running high at that protest. Talk to me specifically, Congresswoman. What do you mean by take it back? How do you view Democrats role right now?

Well, I mean, obviously, half of America did not vote for the current president, even though they're trying to claim a mandate. But I think the vast majority of Americans didn't vote for what they're seeing right now. I mean, you know, Donald Trump ran on lowering the price of groceries. And if you go grocery shopping right now, it's sky high prices.

But the issue that we have to be fighting back on is our democracy. And right now we are seeing an unprecedented dismantling of the federal government with an unelected, unvetted, unqualified billionaire who's been given carte blanche to enter the federal government, to dismantle our agencies, to fire federal employees, to access our private data and to stop payment on federal programs and services. And they're trying to pretend like this is all about government efficiency. But we have literally never seen such a disregard for the law and a dismantling of our federal government.

And you're, of course, talking about Elon Musk. Republicans rejected the idea of subpoenaing him. What, if any, recourse do Democrats have to have oversight over what he is doing? Well, first and foremost, I mean, we have to stop him.

And that's why the court strategy is most important at the present moment. As members of the House of Representatives, we don't have standing in Congress to bring many of the suits that would actually stop these activities. The outside groups, our state attorney generals and others are bringing those suits and they're working through the courts right now. But our job is to perform oversight both in person by showing up to these agencies to stop them.

We're headed to the Department of Labor after this and to make sure that the American people are informed. I had a town hall just two nights ago. Twelve thousand New Mexicans signed on because people are terrified about what's going on. And we need the American people to know that we're fighting back, that we're going to stop them in the courts and to know their own rights.

You reference the courts and the challenge there is President Trump and Elon Musk are moving so quickly with these moves to gut some of these government agencies. Can the courts keep up with what is happening at the White House right now, given the rapid pace? I mean, they're not at the present moment. You know, it depends on the suits.

I think one of the most important suits that's being filed this week is a suit that would protect our federal employees. You know, on day one, Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders that basically put federal employees on notice that he was going to fire them. Elon Musk sent a email on his own letterhead to almost two million federal employees basically telling them to resign. And they've been going through these agencies basically putting people on administrative leave and firing them.

And that's illegal. It violates labor contracts. It violates appropriations law. And the federal unions are filing a lawsuit.

And we want federal workers to know that you have rights and do not take this deal. Bottom line, you think that Elon Musk is breaking the law? Absolutely. There's no question.

He's breaking multiple laws daily. Multiple laws. Name one or two of the laws that he's breaking. Appropriations law, for example.

I mean, they are impounding federal funds. The federal freeze. They're offering these buyouts. We're only on a continuing resolution until March.

And they're basically saying they're going to pay federal employees till September. They don't have the congressional authority to do that. It's a fake buyout. So, you know, folks need to really understand that this is a scam and it's not unlike probably many of the scams that Donald Trump has run in his private enterprises over the years.

But now he's conducting a scam against the American people. Let me ask you about the Department of Government Efficiency. That's what Elon Musk is in charge of. You also, of course, as we mapped out, you're on the committee, but that's a separate thing.

This is what Florida's Jared Moskowitz, a member of the Doge caucus, said to Punchbowl News. He said, quote, I need to see one of my Republican colleagues in the caucus explain the point of the caucus because it seems that Elon Musk doesn't need them because it seems what Elon Musk is destroying the separation of powers. I don't think the Doge caucus at this moment really has a purpose. I don't need to stay in a caucus that's irrelevant.

What do you make of what your Republican colleagues said there? Do you agree with him? Oh, absolutely. I mean, this morning, the oversight committee where we tried to subpoena Elon Musk was, you know, like a three hour committee hearing where they brought in outside witnesses and they have zero interest in actually doing oversight over what's actually happening in the federal government.

And so it's not clear that they have any role right now. They've just abdicated completely to the executive. So will you leave the caucus? Are you planning to stay and try to remake it, essentially?

I'm not a member of the caucus. So, you know, I was chosen by the Democrats to essentially lead the resistance against the Republicans in the subcommittee in Congress. And my job is oversight. Originally, you know, I was hoping we could find some bipartisan work that we could work on because we all want a good government that functions.

And, you know, I'm a former OMB employee. I understand the federal government and efficiency. But there is no indication that that's what this is about. I mean, if you really wanted to downsize the government and make it more efficient, why are you going after some of the most highly decorated military personnel, women, LGBTQ plus people?

I mean, they are really dismantling the federal government. They're trying to take out people that they believe are not ideologically loyal to them. And frankly, they're taking out people of color, women and the LGBTQ plus community. I want to ask you about USAID.

Of course, President Trump and Elon Musk effectively stopping USAID, halting its work. Rahm Emanuel, who's, of course, a former top advisor to the Democratic presidents and ambassador to Japan, told Politico, quote, You don't fight every fight. You don't swing at every pitch. And my view is, while I care about the USAID as a former ambassador, that's not the hill I'm going to die on.

Do you disagree with what he says? Do you have to pick your battles? Well, I would have to disagree respectfully because USAID is a critical agency in terms of We're not going to invade Greenland. We're not taking back the Panama Canal.

But Donald Trump is really good at this campaign of distraction. Melanie, are Democrats who've been struggling to find the message, quite frankly, are they starting to galvanize around this message that we heard from Chris Murphy? Yeah, a little bit. No doubt there was a struggle, especially when this Trump administration first started.

They didn't want to reflexively go up against everything Trump was doing and push back at him at every turn. They really wanted to pick and choose their spots. They felt like they really got it, especially with that federal funding freeze and what the impact would be on everyday Americans. But this is really testing the Democratic patience here and their messaging because they're seeing what's happening and they're wanting to light their hair on fire and not have the light their hair on fire moment every single time.

So, you know, it really is a question. They don't have a clear leader right now in the Democratic Party. So I think they're still trying to figure out what that message is. You know, Cornell, a lot of people were wondering what the reaction would be from the uncommitted movement.

Just to remind our viewers, these are folks throughout the country who were uncommitted during the election, didn't want to say that they would support President Biden. Ultimately, Vice President Kamala Harris didn't support their policies towards the Middle East. Here's the reaction from the leader of one of the uncommitted groups. For months, we warned about the dangers of Trump at home and abroad, but our calls largely went unheard.

Trump's illegal calls for ethnic cleansing are horrific. But as on so many other issues, Democrats had a chance to persuade voters. They were the better alternative and they blew it. Cornell, what's your take on that?

Listen, you know, I try to be nice and I keep it straight here at Meet the Press. But shut up, right? Stop. Right.

You knew all this and you lined up and now you're saying we tried to warn you about, no, if you were trying to warn us about Trump and understanding that this would happen, we think you're not uncommitted. Right. In real politics. I don't have to agree with you on everything.

But at some point I have to pick a side. I have to do the calculation to say this person is not perfect, but I'm going to pick a side. And they didn't pick a side. So now you don't get to reinvent history there.

A lot of this lays at their feet as well. I think it's a difficult time for Democrats for many reasons, but particularly because the nature of the opposition has to be different this time. It can't be the sky's falling every day. And I really think Democrats have been put in a position of kind of defending the status quo in government with the federal government, with the federal workforce.

And I just don't think that's the place to be. Look, Trump certainly has a mandate to meaningfully reform the government. He talked about that during the campaign. The pace and the ambition right now are too much.

At some point it will break either legally or politically. And what Democrats have to do is kind of stay out of the way instead of clouding things up. It's so interesting you say that, Carlos. Mel, I was talking to the congresswoman, Congresswoman Stansbury, about that very fact.

And basically the challenge is Democrats only have so much power right now. So they're essentially lobbying all of these legal challenges at President Trump and Elon Musk's attempts to dismantle these government agencies. But the courts move very slowly. Right.

And that's the debate in the Democratic Party right now is they said we can sit back and just let Trump overreach. Clearly, he's already doing that and rely on the court system. They really are looking to the courts to stop a lot of this stuff because they don't have much power at all in Congress. I mean, they do need 60 votes to pass things like funding legislation and other must pass items.

But other than that, they don't have a whole lot of power to stop Trump. Yeah, Cornell, what do you make of that? I mean, do you think that Democrats should be fighting more battles? Do you think they should go back to their posture that they had when Trump was in office the first time?

Well, I don't I don't think there's a silver bullet. Right. And I think what you see with Trump is uncharted waters. Right.

I'm not this as a political campaign hack. Right. This is not something we typically see in a campaign. I think a couple of things.

One is I do think there is incredible overreach. And there is a loss of, well, you're doing all this, but but what about the price of eggs? What about the price of bacon? Right.

What about my pocketbook issues that I mean, tacking DEI is not making things cheaper. And so at some point there is a reckoning. And I think to a certain extent, Democrats need to pick and choose their fight. You can't fight all of them.

And then we're going to have a midterm. And I got a feeling that like history's gonna repeat itself. We're going to have a very different midterm. And that midterm is right around the corner.

Carlos, thank you all so much. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. But the news continues with Hallie 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 Mankiewicz, 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.