If it's Thursday, a federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration's plan offering federal workers buyouts ahead of tonight's deadline as the White House puts all federal workers on notice that their jobs and their agencies could be targeted. Plus, President Trump makes another guarantee on Gaza, vowing no US Troops will be needed as part of his plan to take over Gaza. Only adding to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the future of the region and the future of Ukraine. In focus was foreign aid in limbo and the war against Russia now approaching the three year mark, even after Mr.
Trump vowed to end the conflict on day one. Welcome to the press. I'm Chris Welker in Washington, where the Trump White House and Elon Musk's efforts to ramp up their overhaul of virtually every major government agency. Agency has hit its first major snag.
A federal judge this afternoon temporarily blocking the administration's buyout offers for federal employees. Just hours before a midnight deadline on the offer was set to take effect. A White House official saying more than 60,000 federal workers have accepted the offer so far. Now, that's about 3% of the federal workforce, but short of the 5 to 10% goal set by the administration.
3% is also below the typical attrition rate inside the US government. Now, how did the judge's decision to block the offer? The Department of Education warned staff that the buyouts could be canceled at any time and that employees who agreed to them would have no basis to challenge such a move. It comes as the Trump administration expanded those offers to include key national security agencies like the CIA, nsa, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Amid the uncertainty facing federal workers, President Trump today touted Elon Musk's efforts to dismantle the U.S. agency for International Development while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. We're catching up to a point where they don't know what the heck is going on. They can't believe they're getting caught.
And I have great respect for the people that are doing it. Elon Musk is helping us on it. He's pretty good. He's pretty good.
He's pretty good at it. But the numbers are astounding. Now Musk appears to be reveling in his new role as a special government employee, calling himself, quote, White House tech support on his ex profile and boasting about his influence. House Democrats, meanwhile, are grappling with the limits of their power in the minority as they protest Musk's leverage inside the White House.
Today, we're here to say with one voice Fire. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire, now has seemingly unlimited powers over Americans private data and over Americans taxpayer dollars. It seems every hour brings more news about a new threat Elon Musk poses to working people, a new way that Elon Musk wants to take your herd up hard earned money and keep it for himself. Now the scope of Musk and his team's reach now touches multiple major agencies.
The latest, the faa. President Trump today saying his administration will create a new great computerized system for air traffic control one day after Elon Musk said his team is ready to make, quote, rapid safety upgrades to aviation systems, a move that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly backed. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have also confirmed that Musk and his team have gained access to some of their data systems. Now, as for the limits of their access, attorneys for the Justice Department say they've agreed to restrict Doge's access to a vital payment system at the Treasury Department after a group of union members and retirees argued that it violated privacy laws.
I'm joined now by NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Kendall. Also with me is NBC News chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander and NBC News tech reporter David Ingram. Thanks to all of you for starting us off today. Ken, let me start with you.
In this decision by a federal judge in Boston to pause the buyout plan this afternoon until Monday, what can you tell us what happens next? Well, Kristen, it's sort of a technical decision. He's doing it in order to allow both sides to marshal their arguments for, for later hearings. We didn't cite it on the merits, but it nonetheless does put a pause on a program that a lot of people have questions about.
And this is this came after a lawsuit by federal employee union which is essentially saying, look, this thing is illegal. It's not supported in law. And there are also questions about whether the money can be paid, for example, if there's a government shutdown. So you've had by some reports of many 60,000 federal employees who have signed up for this, but that's actually a tiny percentage of the entire federal workforce.
The people I'm talking to, for example, inside the FBI and Justice Department are very, very reluctant to raise their hand for this. And they worry that once you do raise your hand, even if it doesn't go through, you sort of announced to the Trump administration that you no longer want to work here. And that's not a great thing. So a lot of trepidation about this.
Well, and just to follow up on that point. What exactly does it mean for the deadline? Could the government accept resignations that come in after today? Well, it's on pause until Monday, so it's unclear whether their acceptance means anything.
What the judge has ruled is that this program must halt until Monday until further notices. And, of course, employees, contractors for USAID are considering potential lawsuits over President Trump's dismantling of the agency. What are you hearing about that? Yeah, that's right.
A lot of people don't realize that USAID's programs are mainly implemented by contractors, including some really big companies here inside the Beltway that employ thousands of people. And those companies have huge payrolls and they're owed millions, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars by the federal government right now. And one official, one of those companies told me he's keeping all these people in place overseas because he doesn't want to breach his contracts, but he's about to run out of money. He's got to be payroll.
So there is a plan to go to court to try to force the government to live up to its obligations under its contracts. That's a different argument than whether Donald Trump has the power and the authority to shut down a federal agency created by Congress. This is really an issue of contract law. You've got some big companies and some powerful lawyers poised to take on the federal government.
And as you say, a lot of trepidation as this all unfolds. Clear. Let me head over to you at the White House. I'm not even talking to your sources there.
What are they telling you? What is the reaction to this judge's decision to halt the buyout offer? Well, as far as the White House uses right now, this does give them a longer window to help sort of tee up these buyouts for as many of the federal employees as they can get to take them at this point. Recognize the 2.6% or so of the 2.3 million members of the civilian war for accepted, they said the goal was roughly 5 to 10%.
The deadline was tonight. So if they want to meet that goal now, they may have a bit more time. That's the way they're framing it. This is from the press secretary, Caroline Lev, with who I spoke a short time ago.
She provided me the following statement that says, in part, we are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refused to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous once in a lifetime offer. Has a sort of marketing language that Donald Trump has rised, has used over the course of his years in real estate. Nonetheless, that's the way they're doing it at this time with Monday is the date. Man, you're certainly on the calendar to see, in fact, how the judge does decide to rule as it relates to implementation of this buyout offer.
Kristen and Peter, you know we're talking about the fact that the judge altered the buyout offer. There has been this backlash, but President Trump's been defiant. His argument is, this is what I campaigned on. Caroline Lovett said he campaigned with Elon Musk.
No one should be surprised by this. Talk a little bit about the messaging that we're hearing from the president himself. Well, the bottom line is we've heard the president now repeatedly say this was a campaign flash. He says that he is here on a mandate in spite of the fact the country is basically evenly divided, despite the Electoral College being a large win for Donald Trump this go round.
And in his view that this is part of the campaign pledge to slash what he describes as the bloated federal bureaucracy. We heard that language from him repeatedly. Heard the same from Caroline Levins. She was speaking to us over the course of this day.
She made clear the president's desires to try to run the country like a profitable business. But as I could speak to federal workers, those at USAID contractors associated with it and elsewhere, they say while most agree that reform is needed across federal government, there's one way to do it with the scalpel. But in their view the president is doing with a sledgehammer, with a bludgeon right now. They think at the end of the day, that's not the way it should be done.
And frankly, they worry that this could impact America's national security Prison. Really critical question there, Peter. And there's been so much focus on President Trump's relationship with Elon Musk. Will it continue to go strong?
Right now the president seems to be standing by him. What are you hearing about the state of their relationship? Well, he played a clip from earlier this morning. So that's the most up to date word that we have from the president himself, saying, praising Elon Musk, saying that he's good, that he's done a good job to this point, effectively saying that he and his team, which the Democrats have described as unelected minions, himself included, basically, or the Democrats say it's an out of control power grab at this point right now.
But Trump seems to think that Elon Musk is doing exactly what he wants him to be doing. He's at praise Musk asked for Speaker Johnson as well as others. At this point, it appears that he has no plans to change that. Remember, he is a special government employee, so don't expect him to go anywhere anytime soon.
That gives him 130 days to work. And it's not just total days, it's total hours. So that extended for quite some time. Really fascinating point there, Peter.
To end on David, let me turn over you and delve into the legality of some of this a little bit more. You've been reporting that employees at the Department of Education who take the buyout offer could actually stop being paid at any time without any legal recourse. What more do you know about this? I've been speaking with federal employees around the government, including the and they are scratching their heads, reading through the fine print and trying their best to figure out what exactly this deal means.
There's been nothing like it that they've seen in their years at the federal government. Of course, some of the people that we're speaking with have been at the federal government for years. They're used to how things work and used to in some cases, reading legal contracts that they have with the government. And they are trying to determine what they could possibly, what leverage they could possibly have, what assurance they could possibly get to know that the government will live up to isn't a bargain here.
So they are quizzing their managers in seems like daily conversations. There was a large call yesterday at the public administration where people we spoke to said that there was a lot of anger in frustration on the call, that management could not reassure them that the government would hold up its end of the deal if they raised their hand and in fact said the opposite, that these could be revoked later on. So you know, David, it's so interesting because the number of people who've agreed to take the buyout is still far fewer than the White House is targeting. How is this wrinkle that you just lay out affecting how many people actually say yes to this buyout?
Well, the people I've spoken with are probably skeptical to begin with at taking an offer like this, given that there's really no precedent for and the questionable legality that Congress has not explicitly approved this, but this extra wrinkle of well, maybe if I put my hand up and accept this, the government will still fire me, still not pay me for the next several months that I think is going to be people, even extra pause and causing them to rule out the idea of taking it. David, you just heard my conversation with Peter about the relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk. I know you've covering Elon Musk for quite a while while now so far. What are your key takeaways about how he is going about this overhaul of government?
One thing that Elon Musk has succeeded in doing for years now, well before the election, is finding ways to escape accountability, whether it's in the courts or with shareholders or political accountability. So these court willings this past week to slow down changes of the government certainly pose a real problem for him. Could be the first way that he is held accountable. But he is very skilled.
He has at avoiding this level of accountability over the years. He has teams of lawyers behind him and he has enormous public megaphone to argue his case to the public. So beyond the courts and Congress, it's going to require, I think, public sentiment to be able to rein him in if he's going to be. Well, it's just going to be a fascinating relationship to watch.
Ken, Peter and David, thank you for starting us off on this story that impacts so many people. Really appreciate it. Coming up, politics, protests and the power of the purse. I'll talk to a top Senate Democrat who's been railing against Elon Musk and what he's calling the constitutional crisis.
Plus newfall, the aftermath of President Trump's stunning commitment to take over Gaza as Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Stay with us. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back.
While the party lacks political power in Washington, Democrats are trying to push back on multiple fronts against the Trump administration's push to dismantle parts of the federal government. Democratic lawmaker spoke out at protest this week against Elon Musk's team's access to government agencies and the gunning of USAID programs. And last night, Democratic senators spent the night making speeches from the Senate floor against Russell Vote, President Trump's nominee to LE Office of Budget, Management and Budget, who set for a confirmation vote later today. Vote played a central role in designing what Democrats call the Radical Conservative Project 2025 blueprint, which laid the groundwork for many of President Trump's early executive orders.
Joining me now is Oregon Senator Jeffer. He is the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee and participated in both this week's protest and Senate Democrats speeches last night. Senator, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it.
Yeah, it's a pleasure to be with you. Well, it is really fantastic to have you. Let's start with what we saw overnight. You and your fellow Senate Democrats holding the floor open, making speeches Against Russell votes nomination to head omb.
He is still expected to be confirmed later today. What were you hoping to accomplish with those speeches, and did you do it? Well, we want America to understand how dangerous he is. He believes in an imperial presidency where the president is king, laws are just suggestions, and the Constitution is irrelevant.
And he said he doesn't care what the Supreme Court said, that Trump will do what he wants, and hopefully they'll have a case before the court. The court will make a different decision than it did in the past. He also wants to traumatize government workers and to engage in a massive strategy of impoundment, which we have seen us put the nation into chaos right now because Russell Vogt's plan is already at work. Let me read you a little bit of what you have said specifically about Mr.
Vogt. You've called him a threat to democracy, a white nationalist, probably the most dangerous man in America. Senator, do you stand by those comments? And if so, what, if any, actions are you prepared to.
To take to stop his agenda? Well, he certainly has proudly described his role, as he puts it, a controversial Christian nationalist. And I do stand by him being dangerous, more dangerous than Tulsi Gabbard, more dangerous than hex death and defense. And the reason why is in those positions, there will be deputies who will moderate their incompetence.
But Russell Vogt is very competent and his ideas are very radical. And for him to say that the Supreme Court decided that they were back in the vision of the Constitution, where Congress decides what funds go to what programs, but that he doesn't care, and he's going back to the president deciding what funds to go what programs. Once you say the laws are just suggestions and the Constitution doesn't matter and the Supreme Court's previous decisions are irrelevant, then what you have is you breach the boundary between a democracy as a republic, where you have one body making the laws and a different body implementing them, and you've consolidated power into the president in an autocracy. And that is, of course, what Trump wants.
But it's not what our nation is, and it's extremely dangerous to our. To our vision. And now, of course, to have Elon and his team of muskies proceeding to try to get in all the data and all the agencies, that's extraordinarily scary at a whole different level. Well, and I guess the big question is, Senator, what exactly can Democrats do to stop what you are characterizing as undemocratic behavior?
I know that some of your Democratic colleagues are suggesting they would actually be willing to shut down the government over the next funding deadline over what they see happening inside federal agencies. Is that something that you would support doing? Well, it wouldn't be Democrats shutting down the government, it would be Republicans shutting down the government. In other words, if they're going to continue on a non constitutional course, we're not going to help them address the debt limit, we're not going to help them pass a continuing resolution.
And so that is our power and our power is our voice. Our power is our action on the floor, as we did going through the night for 30 hours. Our power is our refusal to allow the Budget Committee to be able to confirm or send send Russell votes nomination to the floor and doing it in a secret private setting off the floor of the Senate, rather than having it in a public setting where senators could share their ideas. So we boycotted that gathering and held a press conference instead.
If senators aren't even going to talk to each other to share their interpretations of how bad he is, that's just ramroding him through and really a violation of the Senate, Senate process. So we're just looking at every tool we have to carry this fight because this is really the, this breaching of the norms of law and the Constitution are a constitutional crisis. And it's not a military coup, but it is an authoritarian administrative coup. And we have to treat it as the attack on nation and its vision that it is.
And I hear you saying it would be Republicans who would bear responsibility if the government were shut down. But just to be very clear, would you vote against a bill to keep the government open out of protest for what you're seeing unfolding? If the bill is going forward in order to let Trump continue this unconstitutional process, then absolutely I would vote against it. Okay.
I want to play you some of my conversation with New Mexico Democrat Congressman Melanie Sandsbury. This was yesterday. Take a listen. We'll get your reaction on the other side.
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 actually stop these activities. 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. So, Senator xi. Correct.
Is the legal system incapable of keeping up with what President Trump, Elon Musk, the pace of what they're doing. And is it therefore not necessarily the best course to try to have oversight over them? Well, they certainly are a very important piece of the protection of our Constitution because they call the balls and strikes. Now, sometimes they wander into going further than that.
For example, the Supreme Court was given the question of whether the president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while he's in office. And they said, yes, that's nowhere in our Constitution. They made that up completely, which is actually what Trump is counting on, is a court that will make something else up, which is that the president has the power to control what funds go to what programs, even though the Constitution says a separation of powers prevents that. So this is.
The courts will help in blocking some things, but as they move up through the process, will Trump and his team actually even pay attention when someone like Russell Boat is the chief engineer of the Trump train and is saying ignore the outcomes of the court? Well, we have a big problem about the courts being affected. And look, right now, the court said, you have to stop this illegal, well, shutdown of payments. And what's happening is all across the country, people are still shut out of payments.
So they haven't responded to what the court has said. So the courts are important, but they're not the only story here. We have to use the legislative branch in every way we can. So very quickly, I just want to put up some remarks on TS CBS News.
This is Marco Rubio, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, talking to embassy staff in Guatemala. He's talking to them about the foreign aid cuts. He says we're going to continue to provide foreign aid and to be involved in programs, but it has to be programs that we can defend, be programs that we can explain. It has to be programs that we can justify.
Otherwise, do we endanger foreign aid? This is not about politics. But foreign aid is the least popular thing government spends money on. What's your reaction to that, Senator?
Well, the way that the executive exercises its influence is to put forward a budget and tell us what they'd like to see funded. But they don't get to decide what's funded. And once we pass into law funding for different programs, it's their responsibility, their constitutional responsibility, to carry that out. So they have a lot of influence.
And the president could even view a bill if he doesn't like the way the funds are allocated. Certainly presidents have done that. What they can't do, though, is take a bill which says this amount of money goes to this program and this amount goes to another program. You know, what we're going to ignore that.
Just one of the things we want. So that is the line. It's the Congress that decides and it's the president who executes. All right, Senator Merkley, thank you so much for your time.
Really appreciate it. You're welcome. Great to be with you. Great to have you.
Senator, we do have to take a turn before we get a break. We want to continue to report out the aftermath of the DC Plane crash and show you some really stunning images from just moments ago as crews lifted from the Potomac what remains of the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the deadly collision last week with a passenger jet that killed all 67 people aboard both aircraft. The NTSB said in a statement last night that its investigation into the incident is ongoing as it reviews the wreckage. And we'll be right back.
Welcome back. Turning back to the White House now, where President Trump has been meeting privately with a group of congressional Republicans for more than three hours now as they try to figure out a path forward on his legislative agenda. It follows his stunning announcement that the US Would take over the Gaza Strip despite receiving swift pushback here at home and across the Middle East. This morning, the president defended his proposal in a post on his True Social account, the president writing, quote, the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting.
He went on to say no soldiers by the US Would be needed. While meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed that sentiment. The impact of President Trump's Gaza plan also raising security concerns here at home. NBC News has reviewed a memo from the Department of Homeland Security to law enforcement agencies warning of potential protests in the coming days in response to the change in policy.
Joining now is NBC News senior White House respondent Kelly o'. Donnell. Kelly, thanks so much for joining me. So what do you make of these latest comments by the Trump admin?
There has been some attempt, it seems, to clarify what he initially said during that news conference in which he pressed him repeatedly to give a clear vision of what he was planning. Well, when the president unveiled his thoughts about this big idea for Gaza and potential US Development there, he did so very loudly in the sense of using a world platform. And he did leave open the possibility of American troops being involved. And that raised lots of questions.
And now this administration is pulling some of that back and putting some contours on what the plan may be. And the president, who likes to speak on camera, has not said anything further about his plan. Now in a couple of days, that strikes me as notable. He used his social media where he could outline a few key steps where he talked about the Israeli government handing over what is the occupied territory of the Gaza Strip after fighting concludes.
So you'd have to define that, then talking about the US and other developers from around the world working to clean up and rebuild. And then he points out the Palestinians would by that point need to be living in other communities in the region where they would be safe. So now today again, the White House is saying no American troops and even saying no American tax dollars to be used. So unclear how you would have American investment without potential for some government expense.
You could certainly have private contractors and developers investing, but would there be any taxpayer sort of requirement here even to just support the mission? Prime Minister Netanyahu was asked if you couldn't quite hear that, would American troops be necessary to complete the plan? And he gave that very emphatic no. So clearly trying to back away from some of the big questions that came out of the president.
Big idea. All right, Kelly o' Donnell leaving the reporting on this. Thank you so much for joining us. We'll see on NIGHTLY News tonight.
Really appreciate it. Come up after the break. Money matters. Top House Republicans still at the White House in what's become a three plus hour meeting to discuss the president's priorities and how Congress plans to pay for them.
With a deadline to reach a government funding deal fast approaching. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Congressional Republicans agree they want to pass President Trump's agenda.
They just don't know exactly what it is or how they plan to do it. As we noted, top House Republicans have been huggling with the president at the White House for several hours now as they look for some guidance on passing his tax and spending plans. Here was House Majority Leader Steve Scalise earlier today on his way down Pennsylvania. I think it's important the president make it clear his priorities are and I think we'll see that.
I'm very confident we'll we'll have a more concrete plan. It keeps narrowing, gets more each step of the way. And this can be a pretty sad. It is worth noting that House Republicans aren't the only conference getting their legislative ducks in a row.
Political reporting. The Senate Budget Committee led by Senator Lindsay Graham is working on a spending package of their own. So how will this all come together? Join me with very latest on the president's agenda in Congress is NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles.
So, Ryan, thanks so much for joining me. Boy, this is a marathon meeting at the White House. I know you are not a fly on the wall there and you haven't spoken to any sources, but just set the stakes of the meeting and why it might be going on for so long. Yeah, a couple points.
First person, we are starting to see some leaders trickle back in here to Capitol Hill. So that would indicate that the meeting is either wrapped up or is wrapping up. And Michael Lawler, the congressman from New York, part of these conversations because of New York's interest with assault deduction. He said that they made a lot of progress and that things are heading in the right direction.
Keep in mind, though, just how long this meeting was. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was here on Capitol Hill, scheduled to meet with the Speaker. But because this meeting on the budget was going on so long at the White House, Netanyahu left and they are now going to schedule his meeting at another time. So that shows that there were some pretty substantive conversations taking place here.
And while you're right, Kristen, the Republicans in the Congress kind of broadly agree with the same things that Donald Trump agrees with in terms of, of slashing the budget, cutting maybe as many as a trillion or $2 trillion from the budget. I think the path to get there still remains an open question. Exactly what are you going to cut and where do those cuts come from? Where do you make up some of the revenue loss that may come from these big tax cuts that you want to enact?
There's a wide range of conversations that these two sides have to have in order to come to some sort of an agreement. What Speaker Johnson would like to see happen, which has rarely happen since he's been a speaker, is that they get to these great agreements in these closed war meetings. They emerge with a piece of legislation that everybody already agrees upon, and then it goes through the process without any hiccups. We haven't seen it play out that way in this Congress.
So that would be a relatively new development, especially given that they're on a pretty tight line, tight timeline. When you take into account that March 14 deadline of when the current spending plan will boy that not much time at all. And it comes as there's this big disagreement, one big bill or two bills. And we know that senators like Lindsey Graham are saying let's do one bill first, let's address the border, then we can tackle other issues.
Senator Graham, make an argument if we don't act on the border, that's a national security vulnerability. Talk about how these, how this debate is unfolding. Listen, Kristen, if they pass that first bill, they can get that done right away, broad agreements on how to address the border, the things that they want to do in the first bill. The second bill, though, would be monumentally harder if they waited and did that on its own because there are much steeper disagreements about tax cuts and other areas of the budget.
So that's why the one budget bill folks are like, let's do this all together so that we can leverage those two things against each other. Maybe a tough for sale in the beginning, but we eventually get it done. This is still a conversation that's ongoing. All right.
And so it will be throughout the course of the weekend in the coming days. Ryan Noble, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Joining me now on set as camera, Keith, White House correspondent for npr, actually Etien, former communications director for Vice President Harris, and Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of the Dispatch.
He's also an NBC News political analyst. Thanks to all of you for joining me. Tan, let me start with you, and let's talk about really this drama that is unfolding on Capitol Hill. I mean, House Republicans have the narrowest margin, one vote they can lose basically to get anything fast.
Have they decided what their plan is? It sure doesn't seem like they've figured it out. And the Senate was or Lindsey Graham at least was trying to force their hand saying, hey, I got a plan. Why don't you just go my way?
I think that they face a lot of challenges. The fact that this meeting lasted as long as it did in part is because there are competing interests within the Republicans conference. There are Republicans who say if you want to do these tax cuts, you want to increase the spending, we have to offset it somewhere. There are other Republicans who say, and I want to expand the tax cuts to cover state and local taxes, which were not part of the original Trump tax bill.
So there's a lot to hammer out and there's not that much time in terms of figuring out how to keep it government funded. And there's a dramatic loss of trust that has not there was a lot of trust, but there's a dramatic loss of trust that has happened with what the White House is doing, essentially saying, yeah, Congress, you decide how we spend money, but then we actually decide whether we want to spend it or not. We're going to eliminate programs, we're going to cut, cut, cut. That's going to create problems, at least for Democrats to agree to any sort of spending bill.
It's a great point. Steven, let me go to you first. And then we'll get to Ashley. But how do you see this battle playing out?
And to Tim's point, I mean, they don't have a path forward. And the clock is ticking rapidly. The proverbial clock is ticking. And we're basically where we are, what, a month ago, six weeks ago, plus.
And I think President Trump initially bought the argument that he for two bills, Senators went to him, they said, hey, we want to give you some wins early. These are things we know we need to do. Don't need to get tax cuts, they don't expire until the end of the year. We can address that.
At the time, I think President Trump was bought in on that strategy. He was at least aware of it, but I think gave indications that he was willing to go along with it. And then you have this sort of uprising. The House, everything has to be together, everything's urgent, everything is now.
And that's sort of typical of what you expect from the House, right? You've got the fractious House Supreme Caucus always going to be pushing for additional spending cuts. They want to use whatever perceived leverage they have at any time on any issue. And I think that's why we're here.
But I would not be surprised at all to see the Senate move very quickly, very soon. And actually, what about the point that TAM makes, which is the cutting that we are seeing with President Trump and Elon Musk, that that could disincentivize Democrats to try to find areas of common ground with Republicans? You know, you made the best point, which is that Republicans can only lose one vote. You know, I work for Speaker Pelosi.
If I had to guess, Democrats have electives and a lot of leverage in this next process. So if I am them, I'm thinking, how do I utilize these, exploit these new spending mechanisms, from reconciliation to potentially government shutdowns to get answers to some of these oversight questions that you actually have to force Johnson's hand. And also forcing votes that might put Republicans in tight spots. You know, overset questions like to what extent is Elon Musk accessing personal sensitive data?
Where is that data going? How is he storing it? Why is he. So Democrats have some leverage as a stand.
Right now they're saying they're not going to provide you votes. But I've been in those rooms before and that will likely change. But the question is, what will they get for those votes? Even, how do you see the leverage that Democrats have?
I don't think they have much. I mean, I think, you know, you're right. It's very slim margin right now. I think Republicans are operating with the expectation that they're not going to have any cooperation with Democrats and they're not coming up with much of a strategy to try to court Democrats.
Republicans are talking to Republicans. They want to want Republicans to get on one page. The White House definitely does. I think the big question is, will we see any presidential leadership in this?
Right. I mean, usually if you have a Senate, you have a House, you have a White House, you expect the President of the United States to say, this is what we're going to do. This is how we're going to do it. These are my priorities and this is my timeline.
And we've heard none of that because he doesn't care about the process at all. To the extent that he cares about outcomes, I think he cares about wins. Like, I don't expect that this meeting went as long as it did because he was out there going through the details of the various tax proposals. I think he wants the wins and he's trying to determine who can give the wins.
Yeah. Republicans on the Hill say the message from the White House is, let's just get this done. We don't care how it gets done. Tim, I want to follow up on the conversation about Elon Musk.
This is from swing district Congressman Jared Gold. This is what he writes. I've been getting a lot of calls over the past few days, and the interesting thing is none of them are about Donald Trump. They're all about Elon Musk.
My constituents and the majority of this country put Trump in the White House, not this, and I'm quoting unelected weirdo billionaire. There seems to be a backlash for that's really mounting against what we're seeing. Elon Musk taking these quick, swift, really robust actions to find cuts in government spending, but President Trump still standing firmly behind him right now. Right now, for now, he absolutely is.
I think that what you saw there is a House Democrat who is sort of a frontline Democrat. Trump won his district going with the broader Democratic Party strategy, which is to say President Elon Musk, because guess what? President Elon Musk is not popular. He's certainly not as popular as President Trumper.
Exactly. Yeah. You know, there were a lot of questions even about conflicts of interest, just the practicality of Elon Musk, this billionaire businessman. Here's how White House Press Secretary Carolyn would have answered some of those questions yesterday.
If Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that Doge is overseeing, that Elon will excuse himself from those contracts and he has again abided by all applicable laws. Is that going to be enough, Stephen? Sure, yeah. You announced everything.
Look, it's not how government works. It's not how this process should work. These are cuts. And some of the things that we're talking about, we're seeing get attention are things that are sort of off the shelf.
Government waste run abuse from conservatives for 30 years. I've been here for a long time. Go back and look at the pig books that Citizens Against Government Waste used to produce 25 years ago. And these are a lot of the same things.
But one area where I will say Elon Musk has shaken things off is he can draw new attention to this stuff. Now sometimes I think that's valuable if it's an actual program and you know, something that shouldn't happen other times when they pretend that we're balance the budget by canceling our political pro subscriptions. Not as useful. I mean making policy on the basis of conspiracy theories and overstatements actually does this create an opening for Democrats?
They're already seizing on it. But do you think that Democrats will find a unified message around these cuts that we are seeing? I think Donald Trump's setting a trap for himself that he doesn't even actually quite realize it. I mean you've got a will be a confluence of a lot of issues.
You're gonna have in short order 2 million people, potentially federal employees are gonna be out of war. You're gonna have continuity matters in government. I've worked in federal agencies before. You're likely have an effect on people's the execution of services.
You know, in the red states, he's ruby red states or some of the poorest states, the least educated states in the country. That's his base. So Democrats are gonna be able to go into, get out of Washington, go into these local markets, you know, generate local headlines and put a face on the pain that Donald Trump's gonna be extracting on the country. So I think he's setting a trap in Democrats.
The question though is will Democrats be create the apparatus, actually execute on and exploit it? That is the critical question. We will see how it all unfolds. Thank you for a great conversation camera.
Ashley and Steven really appreciate it. Still to come, this month marks three years since Russia invaded Ukraine. And there's still no end in sight to deadly conflict as President Trump vows to end the war. Ukraine's former president joins me in studio next.
Watching the press now. Welcome back. Ukraine is nearing another grim milestone Three years since Russia's brutal invasion, President Trump on the campaign trail, vowed to end the war on his first day in office. But so far the administration has offered little details about how they envision ending the conflict.
There are also questions about the status of US Military assistance given fraying levels of support for Ukraine among Republicans in Congress. President Trump says he would be open to making a deal with Kiev to continue US Support in exchange for access to Ukraine's supply of critical minerals. Joining me now on set is the fifth president of Ukraine. Petrochorchenko is the president.
Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for invitation, Kristin. It is an honor to have you. I wish it were under different circumstances.
It is hard to believe that we are approaching year three of this devastating conflict that has claimed so many Ukrainians lives. How would you describe the state of this war right now? What are you seeing on the ground? Kristen, you are right.
This is the three years and two weeks of 11 years war. I was elected as a president when Putin attacked Crimea, when Putin attacked Donbass. And we don't have army, we don't have a partnership, we don't have money, we don't have nothing. But we fight, we create the armed forces, we demonstrate the unique unity and now the it is a turning point of this war.
Definitely we count on our American partners, we count on the President Trump. I know what I'm talking about because three years of my presidency, I work with Donald Trump as a president and I received first lethal weapons from Trump. I received the first intensive sanction against no stream of Russia pipeline under the Trump and we receive a big package of the defense industry under the Trump as a result of my meeting with him in a novel cabinet. That's why Trump is not only the challenge, Trump is an opportunity and I really welcome his phrase the peace through stance because you cannot find out any other nation in the world who wants peace more than we Ukrainian because we pay the highest price for that.
And today I was on the prayer breakfast and I was very much happy that Trump made a direct address to Ukraine, direct address to the process of peace and his I really wish him all together with General Keller, together with the National Security Advisor Marco Rubio that it would be extremely important now to know his plan peace through strength because peace through weakness would be capitulation of Ukraine and there will be capitulation not only Ukraine, but capitulation of NATO population of the United States. This is definitely not the Trump style. Did you make a direct appeal for him for more military, more Financial support. This is the key component that Ukraine should come strong on the negotiation.
For that we need weapons. For that we need sanction. For that we need defense industry and switch economy on the military rail. For that we need unity.
And unity I'm talking about, about internal unity because Ukrainian nation should be united and transatlantic unity with the United States having bipartisan support. And because of this bipartisan support, I worked hard now in the Congress, both House and Senate, with the State Department, with the Trump team, because to deliver the messages about the how far we can go because we can understand only one language and this language is not Russian, not English or not German. This is language of STEM and Putin. We can go with Putin as far as stronger we will be.
I want to play you something that President Trump said earlier this week about what he thinks the terms of providing more military aid to Ukraine should look like. Take a listen. So we're looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they're going to secure what we're giving them with their rare earth and other things. I want to have security of rare earth.
We're putting in hundreds of billions of dollars. They have great rare earth and I want security of the rare earth and they're willing to do it. And just to emphasize what the president is saying, he says, I want to have security of rare earth. We're putting in hundreds, billions of dollars.
They have great rare earth and I want security of rare earth. And they're willing to do it. Basically saying that he is potentially willing to provide more military aid in exchange for some of the rare minerals in Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the proposal, quote, self government.
How do you see it? I consider that this is not an exchange security for minerals. I think that this is the message that Trump want to promote the American investment in Ukraine, including Ukraine for mineral industry. This is one of the key components of the security factor.
American investment together with maybe a probably European troops deployment, together with the delivery more weapons and make it more sophisticated. By from the very beginning I want to send a message, please stop understand the supply weapons to Ukraine from NATO, from us, from European Union as a charity. This is not a charity. This is investment in your own security.
And to stop Putin in Ukraine would be easier cheaper than to do it in some European nation or who knows, maybe tomorrow this crazy guy make a decision to attack by ballistic missiles any NATO member states. With this situation more effective, cheaper to stop it in Ukraine by investment in your own skill. When you think about stopping the war, President Zelensky says he's willing to sit down with President Putin and have direct talks. Do you support that strategy?
I think that we should be more clear with these messages again. So you don't necessarily support that strategy? No, no, no. I tell you what I'm supporting.
We are interested in the peace talks, undoubtedly, but it should be 5 non compromise. First, non compromise on the sovereignty and national identity. We'll never be again the Russian. No compromise on the territory integrity of Ukraine.
We never give up and never give any tiny piece of Ukrainian land occupied. No compromise on the Ukrainian armed forces which I created. And that would be key fact of security. Non compromise on sanction.
It should be sanctioned from the hell to cut Putin's ability to finance the war and non compromise on our transatlantic future. Let me ask you quickly because we're almost out of time. In our final minute, President Trump surprised everyone with the USAID funding freeze in fiscal year 2023. Ukraine was the largest recipient of assistance from USAID.
What has the impact of that freeze been on your country? I think that Trump has a right as a president who most of Americans vote for him in fact, at all. They have to make this in this budget, spending more efficiency. I am absolutely confident that that would not be stopped, but I am absolutely confident that it is just suspend and this is the key element of the global leadership of the United States of delivering the standard for freedom and democracy.
And we should not only win the war, we should win the peace. And for that, we should continue the reform, including the financing the reform process in Ukraine. President Poroshenko, thank you so much for being here. An honor to have you, the fifth president of Ukraine.
We appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more media press. Now the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.
This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.
She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top. And this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.