Meet the Press NOW — February 6

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker. We begin with the White House pushing for new election legislation, capping off a week in which the president repeatedly called for federal control over elections, even though that power is granted by the Constitution to the states. Late yesterday, the president posting on social media his demands for the, quote, Save America Act.

Those demands include voter ID, proof of citizenship to register to vote, and notably no mail-in ballots with only a few exceptions. The president's requirements appear to be an attempt to retrofit an existing Republican-backed bill, similarly named the Save Act. But the changes the president is calling for do not appear to address his repeated calls this week for the federal government and by extension his party to play a direct role in administering elections. The Republicans should say, we want to take over, we should take over the voting in at least many, 15 places.

The Republicans sort of nationalize the voting. If a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government and elections. I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway.

We can't allow cheating in elections. Now, if we need to put in federal controls as opposed to state controls, remember this, they're really an agent. They're really accumulating the votes for who wins an election. If they can't do it honestly, and it can't be done properly and timely, then something else has to happen.

It comes as state election officials tell NBC News they receive what they're calling an unusual and unexpected invitation from the FBI to discuss quote, preparations for the midterms and the Department of Justice remains in a standoff with dozens of states over access to voter rolls. All while the president continues to air his grievances and so doubts about the 2020 election he lost. Last week the FBI took the unprecedented step of seizing election materials from Fulton County, Georgia. That raid drawn scrutiny in part because of the involvement of the president's spy chief, director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, while unusual presence in Georgia has prompted shifting explanations from the administration.

What was Tulsi Gabbard doing at an election center in Georgia today? She's working very hard on trying to keep the election safe and she's done a very good job. Tulsi Gabbard has been tapped by the president of the United States to oversee the sanctity and the security of our American elections. Why is Tulsi Gabbard there?

I don't know, but you know a lot of the cheating comes from its international cheating. She went in at Pam's insistence. She went in and she looked at votes that want to be checked out from Georgia. I'm not going to talk about any other details of that matter right now because Georgia is a very important issue to us.

She was there. We're inseparable. That's all I'll say. Joining me now is our team of NBC News reporter, senior White House correspondent, Garrett Hake, Capitol Hill correspondent, Mel Denona, and intelligence reporter, Dan Delouche, thanks to all of you for starting us off on this Friday.

Garrett, let me start with you. So the president offering new details for the Save America Act, but it still doesn't seem like those details square with what the president has been saying for this past week about nationalizing the midterm election. So is this an attempt at an off ramp and will it last? Yeah, nor do they square with what's actually in the Save America Act, Kristen.

I think what we have here is an effort to try to get Republicans all on the same page here and to get the president to at least point his grievances related to election integrity as he sees it in a direction that other Republicans can support. The idea of the federal government having any role on the back end, if you will, counting elections or even administering elections is something that's not popular beyond sort of the 2020 truth or circle here. And it's not something that the White House has been able to defend in any functional way. That's why you have them going back to the Save America Act, something that the base is into, and something where they can at least try to rally Republicans so that they're all sitting from the same kind of going forward on this issue.

Now, let me turn to you now. What's the understanding from Republicans about the Save America Act? Is this a new bill or does it update the existing Save Act? How are you hearing it?

It's a revised bill. It's essentially a Save Act 2.0 because it includes the original bill in its entirety. So it still includes requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. But it also includes a new provision that requires voters to present a photo ID when they actually go to vote.

That's also has been a big Republican priority for many, many years. But what's not in the bill, as Garrett alluded to, is an end on mail-in ballots. But it does include a provision that changes the way mail-in ballots are counted by the states. So those have to actually be in by the time the polls close as opposed to going by the post-market.

Garrett, let me go back to you on this. So there are three pegs of this Save America Act, proof of citizenship. And I wonder what exactly has Republican support? You have proof of citizenship.

You also have the voter ID requirements. What are you hearing about that? Yeah, voter ID and proof of citizenship both pull very well with Republican voters. And they're the kind of things where the president can be seen to be keeping campaign promises.

Where they get into a little bit of trouble is the no mail-in ballots part of this. Obviously, as Mel just alluded to, what the president asks for here isn't what's actually in the bill. There's a lot of Republicans who like mail-in ballots. And a number of states, particularly out west, where all or almost all of the voting is done by mail-in ballots.

That genie's probably not going back into the bottle. But overall, Republicans like this as an issue, both as something they'd like to actually solve, and an issue that they'd like to run on. I mean, just the idea of election integrity as Republican voters see it is popular, requiring an idea, something that's very popular among Republicans. I expect you're going to hear a lot about that in primary season, and then perhaps less about it once we get into the general election season.

So Mel, any path for either of these bills to pass, what would that timeline look like? Well, certainly there's a pathway in the House because they already passed the Save Act and we're told that the Save America Act, that revised version, is going to come to the House floor as soon as next week. So I don't anticipate it having any issues there, despite the razor thin House majority for Republicans, where this bill is really going to run into major, major issues is in the Senate, because there's a filibuster that means they need 60 votes, aka Democratic support. There's no world in which Democrats are going to support this bill.

And that's why you're seeing conservatives in the House and outside agitators really start to put pressure on Senate GOP leader John Thune to nuke the filibuster, which is that 60 vote threshold. So far, though, John Thune and many other Republicans, I should add, have rejected those calls. So it's really hard to imagine how this bill is going to make it through the Senate and onto Trump's desk. But no doubt, there's a lot of pressure to get this done for Republicans.

Yeah, undoubtedly. I'm going to talk more about Tulsi Gabbard with Dan in just a moment. But when it comes to the shifting explanations about her presence in Georgia, is there a sense in the White House that they have an optics problem here? Is Pam Bondi the fall here?

I think they recognize that they need to figure out exactly what it is they want to say about this. That spending a good portion of the briefing, as they did, I guess it was just yesterday, trying to square exactly who ordered Tulsi Gabbard to do what and when is not a great use of the White House's time and energy, ultimately they're going to have to find some nexus to some kind of international involvement for there to be a payoff here. The president alluded to that in his interview with Tom suggesting that if there was some evidence of foreign interference, that would make all of this seem appropriate for Tulsi Gabbard and her role as DNI to be kind of operating in this space. But that isn't the case.

I think you're going to end up in another situation where all of this looks sort of fan-servicey for the members of Trump's coalition who believe, despite all the evidence of the contrary, that there was something rigged or stolen about the 2020 election. While the rest of the country continues to look at this and wonder what exactly it is they can't seem to get over. All right, Garrett and Mel, thank you so much, Dandelise. Let me turn to you now.

You have some new reporting that in addition to being present during the Georgia FBI raid Tulsi Gabbard's office examined voting machines in Puerto Rico. What do you know about that? What are you learning? Kristin, this is pretty extraordinary.

So last year, the ODNI, her office, went to Puerto Rico and obtained voting systems there used in that territory. They were handed over voluntarily, according to her office. And then they examined and they said they tested these voting systems to see if they were secure and that they said they found some concerning cyber security practices. But there were not many details.

And there were many questions that this raises, obviously, and it reinforces a lot of concerns on Capitol Hill and among former intelligence officials, which is what exactly is the administration trying to do here? Because first of all, Puerto Rico was never part of any kind of conspiracy theory about the 2020 election, really, right? Because Americans who live in Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state. They don't choose the president.

They don't choose members of Congress. And then to date, still, Gabbard and her office have not said if there was any evidence of a foreign actor or foreign adversary trying to manipulate or somehow pack into those voting systems in Puerto Rico. So there's a concern among critics that this might then be a dry run for doing this in a state. Dan, how unusual is it for a director of national security to be involved in domestic elections in this way broadly, put this into context?

It's extremely unusual. It's really unprecedented. So none of her predecessors from both parties got anywhere near domestic elections or domestic law enforcement, I should say, right? They have a supporting role when there are these elections because there's concerns about foreign countries like Russia who try to influence or manipulate or spread this information or even hack into voting systems.

And then they provide that information to the FBI, to the Department of Homeland Security, who then pass that on to state. So for example, in the past, to sort of help states run their elections, there are cyber security experts in the government. Not an ODNI. That's not really that, their job.

Cyber security experts, Department of Homeland Security and elsewhere will provide advice like here, here's what you could do to try to ensure your voting systems are protected. But it's not a situation where they roll in there. And for example, fees are obtained or to confiscate the voting systems. So Dan, the president and White House press secretary in recent days have both tried to connect the core role to concerns over international interference.

Is there anything there? So far, we know of nothing that would justify that. In other words, yes, there was plenty of evidence in the past. Other countries have tried to somehow influence or skewer and manipulate the election Russia, the most prominent.

We should say that there's only one case where there is evidence from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia actually successfully hacked into a voting system that happened in one voter registration portal. But there was no tampering with valid counting of voting systems. And in this case, they have not said why or what foreign actors involved here.

And of course, you have Democrats in Congress saying they're very concerned that they're going to somehow use that as a pretext to try to get at these voting systems. And the president to our colleague, Tom Yamas, did mention how China may have some designs on affecting our elections, but in the past several years, U.S. intelligence agencies have made it clear that yes, China tried to affect certain races, but did not try to affect the presidential race. All right, Dandelouse.

Thank you so much for your recording as always. Joining me now is Robert Kagan, contributing writer for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Thank you so much for joining me on this Friday. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. So you told NPR, you believe, and I'm going to quote you here, we are already well into a dictatorship and you called the president's comments on the 2026 midterms a five alarm fire. Tell me what you mean and why you think this is a fire full on fire. Well, people used to be speculating about whether Trump might do something to subvert the 2026 elections.

But now Trump himself is saying that it's his intention to, well, he's saying nationalized, which is a euphemism for subverting. And it's very clear now that there is an actual plan. He mentioned 15 places, which means people have discussed exactly where they would like to take control of the elections. He has the tools to do it.

The federal government is completely under his control, the Justice Department, the FBI, they have this group squad, ICE, which is clearly going to be used to affect polling and potentially surround polls. We saw Steve Bennett talk about that. And I saw that the White House spokesman did not deny that that was a real possibility. So this isn't even a matter of speculation anymore.

It's clear that the administration is intending to do that. And by the way, with the full support of Republicans in Congress, Mike Johnson seems to be totally down with this. It will save his job. And so the Republican Party is now the party of dictatorship.

Let me ask you about what we're hearing from some Republican Senator Schmidt responding to this broad argument argued this week that when Democrats were empowered, he says they also tried to nationalize elections. He points to their push for voting rights legislation. Now, that's of course a very different push. But how would you respond to that argument to push back against what you're writing about?

For Democrats who want to expand the voting rolls, you can argue about how exactly that should be done. And Republicans did argue about it. And we have a political democratic process to decide those kinds of questions. What the Trump administration and the president himself are talking about are activities that are entirely outside the political realm, they're entirely outside the Constitution.

They're about using force, the force of the federal government to control election results and guarantee that the opposition party, in this case, the Democrats cannot win. That's what's happening here. Everything else, honestly, is just a lot of nonsense. But let's talk about your message to everyday citizens.

What would you say to the folks who are watching this conversation right now who read your article? What kind of agency do they have in this moment? Well, I mean, obviously we see extremely brave American citizens in Minneapolis who have been out on the streets and trying to protect people from the brutality of ICE. But all our citizens can be involved if only by getting in touch with their elected officials.

Both parties, in my view, are in some respects complicit in this. They're a Republican party. If you have a Republican representative, you need to tell them that you're not in favor of a Republican running a dictatorship. And if you're a Democratic voter, I think you should get in touch with your Democratic representative and say, stop being the party of weakness and cowardice.

You have to stand up to this and begin by defunding DHS. I mean, there's only so much that a citizen can do, but he certainly, he and she can certainly make their voices heard with their elected representatives. What about Congress? Do you have confidence that Congress would intervene if there was a sense of this attempt to nationalize the elections went too far?

Well, not so far. I mean, as I say, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Republican party in the House, seems to be completely down with the idea of subverting the election. And the Democrats' response to this in the House has been very weak in my view. The notion of trying to get ICE to take off its masks or to wear body cameras, et cetera.

None of that, they don't follow the rules as it is, let alone whatever Congress passes. So I really think at the moment at least Congress, including both parties, are either down with the idea of dictatorship or unwilling to do what's necessary to try to prevent it. So let me just ask you, I want to go back to your comments about Steve Bannon. He said this week, quote, we're going to have ICE surround the polls, the White House saying there's no actual plans to do that.

But when you hear that type of a threat, what do you make of it and how seriously do you take it, given the White House pushing back? Well, they're not pushing back that much. At least as far as I know, this spokesperson didn't say that they could guarantee it, that wasn't going to happen. The truth is, it's very clear that what's been going on in Minnesota and specifically in Minneapolis is not just about immigration and deportation.

It's about using ICE to create havoc, which then can give the president the excuse to invoke the insurrection act. It would be completely inappropriate for him to do so, but he's already threatened to do so. You've had Stephen Miller calling on the police of Minneapolis to quote unquote surrender. So it's clear to me that ICE is going to be a tool of subverting the election, which is why it's all the more crazy to me that the Democrats are willing to fund it.

All right, Robert Kagan, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate your perspective. Well, thank you. And coming up, Congress heads home without a funding deal anywhere in sight for the Department of Homeland Security with just one week until key agencies run out of cash.

But first, the latest developments in the desperate search for Nancy Guthrie, the beloved mother of our friend and colleagues, Savannah Guthrie, as NBC News reviews a possible ransom note sent to news organizations. You're watching at the press now. Welcome back. Nancy Guthrie's children are making another desperate plea for information about their mother.

We want to hear from you. We haven't heard anything directly. We need you to reach out and we need a way to communicate with you so we can move forward. But first, we have to know that you have our mom.

We want to talk to you and we are waiting for contact. Now, our dear and beloved colleague, Savannah Guthrie, posted that video of her brother Cameron on her Instagram account late yesterday around a deadline mentioned in an alleged ransom note sent to media outlets. Despite a $50,000 reward and hundreds of leaves, authorities say they still have no suspects or persons of interest in connection with Nancy Guthrie's disappearance nearly six days after she was last seen. NBC News National Enforcement and Intelligence correspondent Tom Winter joins me now.

Tom, thank you for being here. I want to see you in person at the conclusion of just a devastating week for Savannah and her family. And quite frankly, everyone here at NBC News. We are six days into this.

Where are we in this investigation? You know, this investigation has been a huge challenge and there'll be time to Monday morning quarter back at, but I think the priorities are obviously first things first, which is where's Nancy. She's an 84 year old woman. She's somebody who wanted to spend the rest of her days.

I'm sure going to church, spending her time with her kids and grandkids and now we're in the situation that we're in. And you know, the family has been so clear from the beginning and then now very clear in the latest public statements, we just heard from Savannah's brother, the son of Nancy Guthrie. The family obviously wants, you know, look, we're not interested in the, from their perspective, we're not interested in the law enforcement component. This is, we just want not back.

And you know, whether that's dropping off at a fire station, hospital, school, whatever it is, just, just do the right thing. From a law enforcement perspective, I think there were a lot of things that they were hoping that they could get from an investigative standpoint, developing evidence, the evidence would give them some clues and some avenues and some paths to go down. And that's really been a challenge, losing the video, all options of any sort of video at the house was a huge hit. They were able to get back some blood and make a comparison to Nancy's DNA, but there was no other DNA that was mixed in the recording to the sheriff.

That's tough. So you don't have anything else there to go on. And now the problem with like people wonder, well, they should just know which cell phones were at Nancy Guthrie's house. It's not quite that simple.

And there are some challenges with that. I think that this is still a solvable case, but it is certainly going to take a lot of grinding hour to hour, potentially day to day type law enforcement work that is just really challenging. And they're working hard at it, but these systems as whiz bang as they seem and all the computerization, it really actually just takes a lot of time. Well, and of course that extraordinary development, the fact that two ransom notes were sent to two different media outlets, including one of the local stations there.

You had the Guthrie sisters, Savannah and her sister speaking out in a video earlier this week in the video by Cameron Overnight pleading with their mother's suspected captors and saying, please, give us proof of life. Let her go. What do you make of where that stands right now? They have to take that type of letter seriously.

Whoever took it to pains to to get it to news outlets obviously included some information, which some of it could certainly be public source, but perhaps some of it isn't. And so they have to take it seriously. There's been no confirmation yet from a law enforcement perspective that we can definitely say, okay, we think the sender of this of this note is in fact the person that that took fancy. They haven't been able to make that connection yet, but that can be difficult.

So the family's left with a choice. If it was my family of you either speak out or you don't, they've chosen the path to try to engage. There's a deadline yesterday or five. There's another deadline on Monday.

Hopefully we hear something soon. And we hope and pray very quickly that $50,000 reward. Do you see that making a difference? Could that be increased?

I've maintained on every show in every platform we have. Everybody knows something, some little detail somewhere or perhaps the actual, actually the people involved. Hopefully this will bring them to the table. This will surface them and make that call 1-800-CALL-FBI.

1-800-CALL-FBI, please, please, if you know anything, please let authorities know. And as you say, if you are holding Savannah's beloved mother, please drop her off at a fire station. Drop her off at the local police station. Tom, thank you so much.

You got it. We really appreciate it. Coming up next, a political earthquake in New Jersey where a progressive activist narrowly leads the establishment candidate in a primary special election that's just too close to call. What it all means for Democrats in this year's midterm races, keep it right here, I'll meet the press now.

Welcome back. Election Day is nine months from now, but we're keeping a close eye on a hotly contested special election primary in New Jersey where the Democratic Party's internal ideological struggle is on full display. In this primary race, 13 Democrats from various political backgrounds were on the ballot yesterday. For now, Governor Mikey Sheryl Cee, the race is too close to call about our own Steve Kornaki is already describing the results as a political earthquake in the Garden State.

As former congressman, Tom will announce, he is locked in a surprisingly tight race with progressive activist and Alilia Mejia for the Democratic nomination. The winner will face Republican Joe Hathaway, who's unopposed for the GOP nomination in April's general election. The race has attracted nearly $6 million in spending from outside groups, including one super PAC linked to the pro-Israel lobby, APAC, which spent more than $2 million against Moenowski, long-time supporter of Israel and former recipient of APAC donations after he supported putting conditions on USA to Israel. But all that money may end up helping Mejia, who has accused Israel of genocide within the race.

NBC News' national political reporter Ben Canvasar joins me now, Ben, thanks so much for being here. So let's dive right in. This seat is safely blue, so whoever wins the primary will likely win April's general election. With that being said, Mikey Sheryl, a moderate held this seat.

But does it say that a progressive is in position to potentially win the Democratic nomination? I'll start with the refrain a lot of us. Special elections are special, right? There's a lot that we can take from this race that's unique to the dynamics of this race, but there's also some pieces that will extrapolate out to other races across the country.

Like you were saying, you saw those numbers. This was a very crowded field. Mejia kind of had the progressive link all to herself, and she was as Democrats were talking to me about the race. She built this movement around her campaign.

She was offering something different than some of the other candidates that had establishment backing from, you know, the former governor, the party chair, other prominent members of the party. So there's that piece of it, too. You had the one progressive run runner and a sort of mess of establishment candidates all splitting up the vote. And then you sort of, when you look out more broadly at these races and you talk about the APAC money, the question is, you know, ultimately what ends up happening, APAC's spent against Malinowski and certainly doesn't agree with Mejia.

So you're probably going to see progressives emboldened by this, arguing that they're able to have a strategy and able to win against an onslaught of money against their candidates. So given that, what might it mean for other Democratic primaries over the next seven or eight months? Yeah, I think it's the million dollar question, right? I think you're going to see a more emboldened progressive groups across the country, candidates across the country that look to this race to say, you know, we can do this, too.

We're also going to see more emboldened, I think, in the other camp, right? Trying to say that, you know, let's, we got to nip this in the bud. This dynamic is unique to this race, unique to these contours here. And it doesn't extend.

Brother, I mean, APAC has got almost tens of millions of dollars to wait for a pretty, what we're expecting to be a pretty animated Democratic primary fight. And I think that the results today are only going to, and we don't know the winner yet, but certainly whatever happens, it's going to be super charge both sides into a pretty interesting primary cycle. We'll talk about the role APAC played in all of this then. Yeah.

So we talked about, you know, Malinowski, like you said, he has had backing from APAC before he's not an anti, you know, it's not seen as they sort of died in the wall anti-Israel Democrat. But he had gotten some criticism for comments about conditioning aid. Welcome to he has been because gone further and been more progressive and sort of echoed a lot of the criticism you've seen from the progressive left of Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza against Hamas. I think it's interesting as the backdrop of the polling that shows these Democratic Party over time, because I'm more open to being critical of Israel, specifically with this conduct.

Like I said, in the war in Gaza against Hamas, and so you're seeing the polling numbers showing folks on the Democratic Party becoming more sympathetic to Palestinian people over the Israeli people. That was a Gallup poll from last year. You're seeing people less interested in sort of the full-throated unconditional support for Israel and the Democratic Party and moving that way. So I think those dynamics are going to power this today to cross.

All right, Ben Camusar. Thank you so much for your reporting. Really appreciate it. I want to turn to Capitol Hill now where both chambers of Congress have left for a long weekend with seemingly no progress made on a deal to reform ICE and Border Patrol after the shooting of two American citizens in Minneapolis.

Lawmakers now have just one week to figure out a path forward before funding runs out for the entire Department of Homeland Security. This week Democrats released a list of demands on how the Department conducts its immigration operations. Some of the demands include requiring immigration agents, obtained judicial warrants to enter homes, operate unmasked and with identification, and steer clear of sensitive locations like schools and churches. But Republican leaders have already called some of the demands, quote, non-starters.

Joining me now is senior national political reporter, Sahil Kapoor, Sahil Kapoor, Sahil thanks so much for being here. So just one week and lawmakers are home for a long weekend. Where does this all go from here? It's not looking good at this time, Kristen.

The prospects of Congress reaching a deal in time to avert a government shutdown are very slim. Just two days ago, the top two Democrats jointly released that list of 10 policy demands you just ran through the specifics there, the Senate Majority Leader John Thune quickly dismissed that immediately after seeing it, calling it totally unrealistic. Now Democrats have that set of demands, which Republicans are not exactly embracing, but the other issue here is that Republicans have their own set of demands. That Democrats are not willing to engage on either, which is primarily an anti-sanctuary cities.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, called that unrealistic, an unserious demand from Republicans that it would be outside the scope of negotiations. So that's one problem. The policy question, the second problem is process. Look around me.

There's nobody here in this hall. It's very quiet. They've gone home for a long weekend. The House and the Senate both have.

Everybody really seems to know who's doing the negotiating. Is it appropriate to talk to each other? Is it party leaders on the Republican side talking to their Democratic counterparts? Is it Chuck Schumer negotiating with the White House?

Take a listen to Schumer and the Republican side are Katie Britt on this. As the Republicans, the Republicans don't have their act together, number one is on there. And the second are appropriations committees aren't talking. They're not talking to anybody.

So that's a, that's, that's, that's unserious response. So we want them, ultimately this will be a conversation between the White House and Chuck Schumer. Chris and our Capitol Hill team was joking yesterday. It's a little bit like that Spider-Man meme, where they're all pointing at each other, looking to see who, who's next.

It's really a mess. Well, what a great analogy to explain exactly what's happening. It's lonely there for you on Capitol Hill side. Let me turn to another development.

This one around the Epstein Files, NBC News, is learning that members of Congress are actually going to be able to view the unredacted files next week. Of course, that comes amid a lot of pressure from lawmakers like Rokana, Thomas Massey. What can you tell us about that? Yeah, that's right, Chris.

And this new reporting comes from our colleague Ryan Nobles. Members of Congress will be allowed next Monday to view the unredacted Epstein Files. This is just the three million that have been released so far to the public. They can view the reductions within that and they have to do it at the Justice Department.

They have to do it in person. According to this letter that Ryan Nobles obtained, it would have to be, they won't be viewing the physical documents. They'll be looking at them on computers and they can't bring electronic devices in. So the DOJ is setting certain rules and constraints around this and it of course comes in the midst of a bipartisan outcry on Capitol Hill, certainly more Democrats in that group than Republicans, saying that the administration is simply violating the law, which required them to release the Epstein Files a long time ago, that they haven't done that, that they're doing it in drips and drabs.

But clearly, this is another indication that the administration realizes that it's behind on complying with the law and is taking some steps to try to placate the lawmakers who pass it overwhelmingly. All right. So I'll thank you so much. By partisan outrage after President Trump's social media account reposts a video containing racist images of the Obamas.

The post has been taken down and the administration is now blaming the incident on a White House staffer amid the uproar. The panel's next will get their reaction. Stay with us. I'll meet the press now.

Welcome back. President Trump is facing backlash, including for members of his own party over a video he reposted on social media, containing racist images, which was later taken down. That video includes a depiction of former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as monkeys, a deeply offensive racist trope. This video largely focuses on false claims about the 2020 election before flashing to a clip of the Obamas superimposed on cartoon apes as the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight plays in the background.

White House Secretary Caroline Lovett initially tried to defend the post saying it was from an internet meme depicting President Trump as the king of the jungle. But hours later in the face of intensifying bipartisan outrage, the White House issued a news statement saying, quote, a White House staffer erroneously made the post. It has been taken down. Now, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling the post racist, vile, and abhorrent.

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling the president a, quote, unhinged and malignant bottom feeder. Several Republican lawmakers also condemning the post. Look at this. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina calling it, quote, the most racist thing I've seen out of the White House.

Other Republican lawmakers similarly calling it unacceptable and defensive and saying the president should apologize. Joining me now is my panel, Jay Johnson, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary in the Obama administration and Mark Short, former White House Legislative Affairs Director during President Trump's first term. Thanks to both of you for being here. Secretary Johnson, let me start with you and just get your reaction.

The White House says this was posted by a staffer, President Trump even posted the staffer apologizes. Does he need to apologize? I guess they're including within their definition of White House staffer, the president himself. And his offensive vile impulses unfiltered are not new.

What is surprising to me is that in Trump too, I thought that there was a little more discipline around what is released out of that White House. This is way beneath the dignity of the office of the President of the United States. The American people should not forget that. And he targeted the president, former President, former First Lady who served in the White House for eight years with grace and distinction without a single blemish around their ethics for four or eight years.

And so I'm just surprised that with all the discipline they like to talk about with Susie Wiles and others in the White House staff, there seems to be no filter around him. It's just unvarnished and impulsive. Mark, let me allow you to respond to two points that Secretary Johnson makes, one, the reaction to the post itself. And two, the idea that was there not supposed to be more discipline in the Second Trump administration?

Let's say you. Well, I agree with the secretary that the post is beneath the office of the presidency. My experience in the first administration and likely things have changed, but in the first administration, it wasn't like a lot of staffers would have access to his account. There'd be plenty of trolls who would suggest things that Dan would look at and bring to the president for approval.

I don't really remember it being a situation that things would get posted without him seeing it. But I do think that there's another concern here, honestly, Chris, that this is at the least sophomoric and wrong. But I think when you have a filter that says that White House staff must profess that in 2020 Donald Trump won the election, you're merely filtering out a lot of people who would be qualified to work in the White House. And so, you know, I think that this is probably you have a lot of Red Hat theater kids there and it was not going to be a surprise that they're not going to be more interested in this nature.

So you think the president, given that you believe it's beneath the office of the presidency, should he apologize? Of course. Of course he should. But, you know, I don't think that's something he likes to do.

And I think that you've seen them try to say this was a junior staffer who posted it, which is contrary to what the first message is. But of course, this merits an apology. I wouldn't be anticipating one, though. Secretary Johnson, I want to play something that President Trump told my colleague, Tom Janis, earlier this week in the one-on-one interview when Tom pressed him on his social media activity, and retweeting some conspiracy theories.

Take a look. You just tweeted out some theories about Italians and satellites. I mean, do you believe that stuff? No.

No, I didn't. I sometimes will. Retreat. Retreat.

He says he retruths things that he may or may not believe in. What do you make of that exchange, Secretary? So I'm sorry, I barely hear it. What was the exchange about?

The exchange was about conspiracy theories that he had reposted this idea that well, I'm just reposting things. And I guess the broader question is, this goes to my question to Mark, does he need to take responsibility for everything? I'm not holding my breath, waiting for President Trump to take responsibility for that post. There may be a grain of truth in this, but look, it came from him, came from his name.

And none of us should be surprised. We've been living with this since before the 2016 election. Mark, let me turn to another big topic this week. This reporting that President Trump has asked Leader Chuck Schumer to add the Trump name to Washington's Dallas Airport and Penn Station here in New York in exchange for releasing federal funds.

He's currently withholding to build a tunnel between New York and New Jersey. What do you make of this ask, Mark? Is it realistic? Well, I think that the tunnel project was one of Senator Schumer's priorities, even in the first Trump administration.

This has been something that's been debated for many years. He's anxious to get the funding. And clearly the President is anxious on legacy building. And so he probably figured that this was a leverage point that he could get his name added in exchange for the resources, because he felt like the resources were that important to Senator Schumer.

I mean, it seems like it's again, kind of beneath the leader of the Senate, the President United States being negotiated on these sorts of remarks inside a bill. But I don't know that I have, I know Schumer said that he's that's a non-starter for him, but we'll see. I mean, it's something that's been a priority for Senator Schumer for some time. Secretary Johnson, to Mark's point, a source close to Leader Schumer told M.E.C.

News, and I'll give you the quote. There is nothing to trade. How do you think the press should play this one? This should be viewed as a homeland security issue.

The current railroad tunnel, it's two tracks, it's 116 years old. It is the chokehold of the Northeast Corridor. And it's falling apart. I went through that tunnel to get here this afternoon.

I would be willing to name the new tunnel, the Donald Trump tunnel, the Melania Trump, Trump, the Fred Trump tunnel, in order to get a new tunnel. So that's your priority. You think it's that important? It's as important as a matter of security, as a matter of commerce, as a matter of our economy.

That tunnel is 116 years old, it's falling apart, and it's the chokehold for the Northeast Corridor. And if something happens to it, it's Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. I think Mark, a lot of people would be surprised to hear Secretary Johnson say he's willing to allow for the name on it, because that's how important it is. He says it's a homeland security issue.

What do you make of that? No, I appreciate that perspective. I think that there has been, as it's been debated for some time between both parties about the important thing, there is a question about, you know, does the source all need to be federal funding to what extent is New Jersey, putting $4 to what extent is New York putting $4? I think that's been a concern for members of Congress in the past, but I don't think there's a question about the need for the tunnel.

And so, you know, if it gets named, and that's what gets it done, so be it. But I think it's been a bigger concern for many Republicans about the source of funding more so than question than need for it. All of this comes against the backdrop of this funding fight over DHS. Secretary Johnson, you are familiar with these types of funding fights.

You were a part of them during the Obama administration. How do you see this playing out? We had a funding fight over DHS 11 years ago this month. So yes, I am well acquainted with the secretary then.

I can't believe I'm giving advice to the current leaders of DHS. But 11 years ago, when Congress wanted to defund DHS, we stressed and emphasized DHS is way more than immigration. It's TSA, the agency of government that the American people interact with most when they go to the airports. It's maritime security.

It's cybersecurity. It's a secret service. It's FEMA. It's law enforcement training.

It's keeping the American people safe in a number of respects. It's not just immigration law enforcement. And it did get worked out 11 years ago. Mark, how do you see this playing out?

Democrats are demanding a number of changes to ICE. Should Republicans negotiate with them? How do you see it? Look, I think that this was one of the president's strongest issues in the 24th cycle was border they've taken an issue that was their strength and made it a huge out of trust in a short matter of time.

I think Democrats feel this is a winning issue for them. I think Democrats really risk over reaching them, Kristen. I think that Democrats' challenge has been for the open borders of the Biden years and the sanctuary cities. And so I think what you've seen from the Trump administration is the pivot in putting Tom Holman in charge and withdrawing ICE agents from Minneapolis.

And so in many cases, there's already been a change in policy. And if Democrats dive in and shut down DHS, I think they really risk losing what is turned into an issue that, again, was a big positive for the Trump administration that's now it turned into a negative. I mean, we risk taking away that victory. Secretary Johnson, we're out of time.

But final quick thought from you. We have to get out of the business of government shutdowns every couple of months. It's disruptive. Doesn't serve American people well.

We have to disassociate the policy issues from the funding issues. All right. Great conversation. Secretary Johnson, Mark Short, thank you so much for being here.

Thanks, Kristen. Appreciate it. Silicon, going nuclear. The U.S.

and Iranian officials hold talks in Oman days after President Trump told NBC News Iran's Supreme Leader should be quote, quote, very worried and expert on the region ways in next. You're watching the press now. Welcome back. U.S.

President Sun and Lord Jared Kushner participated in indirect talks with Iran's foreign minister in Oman today after several weeks of escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran. Iran's foreign minister is saying the talks were, quote, lengthy and intensive and calling it a good start. Those meetings coming as President Trump is ratcheting up pressure on Iran with the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East participating in the talks today while the president's so-called massive armada heads towards Iran.

Hours after those talks concluded, the State Department announced a new slate of sanctions targeting illicit Iranian oil and the shadow fleet Iran uses to transport that oil. Joining me now is Karine Sajapore, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Thank you for being here. We really appreciate it.

What are you hearing about today's meetings? Was any progress made? I'm skeptical that progress was made, but for Iran, their goal was to avert a U.S. military attack.

And it seems for the moment the United States and President Trump are focused on this diplomatic process. But we know from history that President Trump, even when negotiations are happening and it appears diplomacy is taking its course, is also prepared to take military action. So I think the Iranian regime cannot sleep too carefully at night. Well, and I guess a lot of people are questioning what the ultimate goal is here.

Is it about the nuclear program? Is it about regime change? How do you see this playing out ultimately? The U.S.

has outlined four major priorities with Iran. One is Iran's nuclear program, another is its missile program, the third is its regional proxies and the fourth is its internal repression. And Iran is sought to only talk about the nuclear file. And given how weak Iran is both internally and externally, I think President Trump is expecting some pretty significant concessions from the Iranian regime.

And so far they haven't offered anything meaningful. You know, President Trump told my colleague, Tommy Thomas, in their one-on-one interview this week that he believes that Iran is thinking about rebuilding its nuclear program. What do you know about the status of that? Has any reconstruction actually begun?

Iran's regime is so thoroughly penetrated by both U.S. and Israeli intelligence that they have to be very careful about reconstituting the nuclear program or making a dash for nuclear weapons because they would more than likely get caught and potentially attacked. What Iran has also been trying to do concurrently is to rebuild its missile program because it doesn't control its own skies, its air defense system was destroyed last June. And that I think is the more likely avenue that Iran is going to prioritize to try to rebuild its missile program, which ultimately that did prove far deadlier in its battle against Israel than its nuclear program.

Let me ask you because just days before the talks, the Pentagon actually said that it shot down an Iranian drone that was aggressively approaching a U.S. aircraft carrier in the region. Do you still think some type of military action is on the table here? I think the likelihood of military action is much higher than the likelihood of a diplomatic deal between the United States and Iran.

President Trump issued at least on eight occasions a warning to Iran that if they kill protesters, the United States would act and would have their back in Iran to draw a giant truck through President Trump's red line. There's now significant U.S. military buildup in the Middle East and I'm skeptical that we're on the verge of a deal. I think we're more likely this could be a prelude to another attack on Iran.

What do you make of the fact that the U.S. military commander in the Middle East participated in the talks today with our final 20 seconds here? So testament to the fact that the military option is still very much on the table and in our relationship with Iran, economic coercion, political coercion and military threats are a very strong part of the policy. All right, Karim Sajapur, thank you so much for joining us.

We really appreciate it. Thank you. We are back Monday with more than me at the press now, but before we go, some special programming announcements to tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern to watch the opening ceremony for the Winter Olympics in prime time, plus stream all your Milan Cortina Olympics content on Peacock and it's Sunday.

It's the Super Bowl. NBC will have live special coverage all day long as the Seattle Seahawks take on the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 60, it all kicks off at 12 p.m. Eastern. There's more ahead on NBC News Now.