Meet the Press NOW — January 15

Foreign. Welker in Washington, we are following breaking news and been intensifying clashes in Minnesota as the president now weighs a major escalation threatening to deploy the U. S. Military against the protesters.

The president today said he will invoke an 18th century law called the insurrection act if Minnesota's leaders don't put a stop to the protests. That law authorizes presidents to deploy military combat troops domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence. Trump administration officials today defending the president's threat after a top justice department officially used state level leaders of, quote, terrorism. The insurrection act is a tool at the president's disposal.

As you know, it has been used sparingly, but it has been used by previous presidents in American history. You know, I spoke to the president this morning about several different things, but we did discuss that and that certainly was within the president's constitutional authority to use that if he thinks he needs to to keep people safe. The White House threats come after another night of intensifying clashes in Minneapolis, including a federal agent shooting a man in the leg during an operation to arrest him. Homeland security secretary Christine Noem saying that agent feared for his safety after he was attacked by two other men armed with weapons and shovels and brooms while the officer was trying to make an arrest.

Officers on the scene fired flashbangs and sprayed chemical agents of protesters. Minnesota's leaders speaking out last night calling the situation on the ground chaotic. Two to three thousand armed agents of the federal government have been deployed in Minnesota. Armed, masked, under trained ICE agents are going door to door ordering people to point out where their neighbors of color live.

They're pulling over people indiscriminately, including US Citizens and demanding to see their papers. And at grocery stores, at bus stops, even at our schools, they're breaking windows, dragging pregnant women down the street, just plain grabbing Minnesotans and shoving them into unmarked bands, Kidnapping innocent people with no warning and no due process. And we're in a position right now where we have residents that are asking the very limited number of police officers that we have to fight ICE agents on the street to stand by their neighbors. We cannot be at a place right now in America where we have two governmental entities that are literally fighting one another.

Today, Minnesota's governor responding to the president's threat to send in military troops, telling him, quote, let's turn the temperature down. Stop this campaign of retribution. This is not who we are. Governor Walls also making an appeal to Minnesotans to not, quote, fan the flames of chaos.

Joining Me now is NBC News correspondent Shaq Lucer. And St. Paul NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley and NBC News senior National Security correspondent Courtney qb. Thanks to all of you for starting us off.

Shaq, you have been there on the ground right in the middle of these protests for days now. Walk us through what you're seeing and hearing today. Look, there's still a lot of frustration. There's still a lot of anger.

There's a sentiment that the shooting that we even saw last night just reinforcing the will for people to come out. And what is the frigid cold temperatures. You just take a look at the scene that we have here outside of the federal buildings. This has become somewhat of an ICE headquarters here in St.

Paul, though pretty close to Minneapolis. You see every once in a while, federal agents will go inside and you'll hear the crowd jeer at them, make it known that they don't. And you know, I was at the site where we saw a lot of that chaos last night where the shooting happened. And I talked to some people.

I saw one. I saw investigators going through looking for more evidence from the state. But I saw community members coming out and cleaning up, picking up some of those canisters that were lots of tear gas, the pepper spray. I want you to listen to a conversation I had with one of them about the mood and feeling here on the ground in Minneapolis.

I think a lot of people have described it or asked if it's feeling chaotic here, and I disagree. I think that what they're doing is chaotic, but I feel like people are organized and brave and courageous, and I feel like we're winning against them, especially when you see people coming out. All right, Shaq, thank you so much for your reporting from the ground there. Let me turn, Courtney and Julia Court, let me start with you and this threat by the president to use and invoke the Insurrection Act.

Walk us inside your conversations today, what administration officials tell you about that threat. So why this is important is because this would give the president the authority to send troops to Minnesota to be involved or, I mean, frankly, anywhere that you wanted to use them, but in this case, Minnesota. And they would be involved potentially in law enforcement function. So we've been talking about the national guardians in various cities around the country.

If they are on federal duty, so activated federally, they cannot engage in any kind of law enforcement acts. If they're state national guard, they can. D.C. is the outlier.

I won't even get into that because that's just confusing. But when it comes to Minnesota, if you were to send federal State to be involved in law enforcement. There are people. The concern is that that would be perceived as he is sending troops against the American people in the streets.

So. But we do know that this is something the president has discussed in prior instances as well. So to follow up on that point, Courtney, he has talked about this before. How seriously are people taking this specific threat?

Anytime the president talks about the possibility of something, you have to take it seriously. It doesn't mean it's going to happen. But I mean, how many conversations have we had about the President talking about Maduro and then look, they went in and carried it out. I mean, how many times has he threatened to send the National Guard and then he has sent them.

So we have to take it serious, seriously. If the president is assessing it and also he's talking about it publicly, that means that he is having conversations with the senior staff behind the scenes. We know that there are people in his inner circle who are very much in favor of using the Interaction act in certain cases and court. Just quickly before go to Julia Walk what the Insurrection act actually looks like.

So it gives him the authority to send troops anywhere in the country that he wants to. You can see it there on the screen. It's 1807. Whenever the President considers that unlawful destruction or excuse obstructions, combinations or assemblage or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws in the United States in any state by ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call in the federal service, such as the militia of any state, and use the armed forces.

This is me reading the law, but what it basically means is the president can send troops anywhere that he wants if he sees that there is a need and that the local authorities can't, can't handle the situation. It's interesting because part of the way it's written was either to suppress a rebellion, which would be the argument presumably he'd make a Minnesota, or it was going to repel an invasion. So early on, before Trump took office, if you think about a year ago, we were talking about the Insurrection Act. It's something that had been floating during the campaign and the transition, but that's because we thought they were to use military at the border to repel an.

This is not what anyone really had on their bingo card for the second Trump administration. That would be within US Cities as they're talking about now and talk about the way in which these ICE agents are being deployed. Is it within right now? Is it within their purview or their Big debate about that.

Well, ICE agents are acting within their purview in terms of it's okay to search them. We understand about 3,000 total federal agents, including ICE and Border Patrol in Minneapolis. But what the local authorities, they are arguing is that the tactics are unusual. Their presence is lawful.

They have field offices that include this area in this region, and they've made arrests in the area before. But their tactics, when it comes to traffic stops, when it comes to profiling, when it comes to citizenships, we've seen videos of them going up to people seemingly at random asking for documents. And then of course, the crowd control tactics that Shaq is watching. And you have me reporting on some concerns about their training.

Yeah, that's right. This is kind of wild. So there was an AI tool that they used when there was that huge surge to hire 10,000 new ICE officers between the time the one day beautiful bill pass this summer and the end of 2025. So they use an AI tool to scrub applications.

And anyone who had the word officer in their resume was labeled law enforcement experience. Even if it said I aspire to be an ICE officer. That meant they did a four week virtual course rather than an eight week in person training the kids into things like firearms training, physical fitness test, legal classes. And so they were fast tracked even without having law enforcement experience.

Now ISIS having to go through manually, find out how many of these people were incorrectly sit at the field offices without the training and pull them back. And man, they gave the training they were supposed to have. We don't know, Kristen, though, how many of those people actually let their field offices to go out on the streets. We're hoping it was caught there, but at this point we just don't know.

It was just fascinating. And one of the big pieces to this puzzle check, let me go back out to you. And there was this other ICE involved shooting overnight there in Minneapolis. What can you tell us about that and the extent to which it's added to the tensions there?

I think it's definitely added to the tensions. And what we know, according to dhs, is that they were essentially immigration officers, essentially stopping someone during a traffic stop. They're trying to stop a Venezuelan immigrant and they say in that traffic stop the person fled. There was a scuffle at one point with one of the officers.

And then they said two people came out of a nearby home and attacked this officer with a shovel, with a broom. And that is when the officer then opened fire. We saw some Facebook video, Facebook live, appearing to be from inside one of the homes where a woman talked about someone who was inside their home was shot in the leg by ice. That is something that we continue to follow and see what's going on.

But one thing I noted is that when I was at the scene, you saw the state investigators going through homing the scene. I mentioned that a little bit earlier. I think that is so notable because one of the flashpoints here in Minnesota has been idea that they've been left out of investigation into the shooting of Renee Good. Despite that, you saw that similar process happen at the scene where Renee Good was killed.

So you have a sense where the local authorities are doing what they can, even if there's not that partnership between local law enforcement and the federal troops here. All right. Section and head scene there on the ground. Shaq, thank you for bringing that to us.

We really appreciate it. Julia, Courtney, thank you so much for being here in studio. Appreciate you guys being here. Coming up, Venezuela's opposition leader Maria Karina Machado meets with President Trump at the White House about the future of her country in her first visit to Washington since the US Captured Maduro.

Plus, what President Trump told me this morning about next steps in Iran after he claimed that the killing in Iran has suddenly stopped but the US Military in the region was still on the table. You're watching the PRESS now. Welcome back. President Trump met today with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Karina Machado at the White House even as his administration moves forward with working with Venezuela's interim leader and Maduro's vice president, Nelson Rodriguez.

We are expecting Machado to speak on Capitol Hill after her meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who serve there. We're waiting to hear what she has to say about her meeting with President Trump. And we will bring that to you as soon as we get it. Now, those meetings come a day after President Trump spoke with Del Rodriguez, raising her and praising her and calling her a, quote, terrific person.

But the future of Venezuela remains uncertain. As part of the administration's ongoing pressure campaign, the Department of Defense announced today it seized yet another sanctioned oil tanker that was operating near Venezuela, making it the sixth known tanker seized by the United States. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress appear to be backing down from their efforts to try to rein in the president's authorities. Yesterday, Vice President J.

Vance casting a tie breaking vote, blocking a resolution that would have prevented the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. Senator Josh Hawley and Todd Young both voted to advance the measure, flipping voting against it after coming under immense pressure from the White House. Journey now is White House correspondent Monica Alba. Monica, thanks so much for being here.

Really appreciate it. So what exactly are you hearing and learning about President Trump's meeting with opposition leader Maria Machado today? Well, we know, Kristen, that it did last over an hour. The two were set to have lunch together at the White House, but it was behind closed doors.

This was not a meeting where the president decided to open it up to the press or to the camera. So it's unclear exactly what they discussed. And hopefully we will get more of a sense from Maria Karina Machado herself. But this is a remarkable moment, Kristin, because just a few weeks ago, before Nicolas Maduro was captured, she was essentially very careful right about where she could be and where she was publicly seen.

She undertook a perilous journey just to be able to accept her Nobel Peace Prize in person. And so the fact that she's here in Washington now having all of these meetings, there is this open conversation about what her future is going to look like and whether it's going to be as a potential leader of Venezuela. But according to the White House, they didn't want to get into that or whether the president even discussed her Nobel Peace Prize. It's hard to imagine given how much he has talked about wanting that.

But that didn't come up in the conversation today, Kristen. Well, it's notable, Monica, because allies of Maria Cringo Machado are hoping that that meeting helps the president to view the interim leadership differently in Venezuela. Of course, the interim leader is an ally of Nicolas Maduro. Is there any sense that today's meeting moves the mark in that regard?

It's hard to say. And look, the president spoke very recently with Delsy Rodriguez, with the interim leader, and according to the White House had a very good conversation with her. And according to them and according to the president, she is cooperating, which was an important criteria for him in terms of making decisions about what could happen next in Venezuela. So for now, it's unclear how that moves the needle.

And remember that according to the White House, there was basically an intel assessment leading up to the days and decision about ousting Nicolas Maduro in terms of who the US should back, who basically should get that endorsement from the president. And according to US intel assessments, again, that person was delicious. Rodriguez, who is, as you point out, a very close ally of Maduro. And throughout the people that she's working with, those top officials, really, it is still the Maduro regime, just without Nicolas Maduro.

And Monica, finally, what can you tell us about this sixth oil tanker that Was seized. Yeah, that's right. This is something that senior White House officials tell me you're going to likely continue to see happen. This is something where the US Says that this vessel known as the Veronica, was carrying sanctioned oil.

And so you didn't have another operation with the U.S. coast Guard. You're seeing video there of how exactly those forces landed onto the vessel, were able to seize it again, that is the sixth one, as you point out, and we are told that this will continue to happen. But it does come on the heels of the news that the first sale, the first transaction we understand of oil from Venezuela has been completed and that amount was for $500 million.

Remember, this is what the president announced about somewhere between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil that the US is going to sell and then control. And that's just the first, according to the White House, of many deals that they, they expect to announce. Monica Alba, thank you so much as always for the White House. Really appreciate it.

And joining me now is Democratic Congressman Wasserman Schultz of Florida. Congressman Schultz, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

It's great to have you. So let's talk about this meeting President Trump had with Venezuela's opposition leader Maria Machado today. What do you make of the meeting? What are your key takeaways?

At this point, it appears that this meeting was nothing more than a box checking exercise for President Trump and courtesy meeting. From the reports I'm hearing out of the meeting, there was nothing of substance. He appears to be throwing in his lot with Delsie Rodriguez, who he, as you noted, called him, called her a terrific person, might as well. And constituents in my district strongly disagree.

She is essential. Maduro's puppet was his right hand. This is basically, you know, swapping the head of one snake for another. And you know, notably there's been really very little in the way of release of political prisoners, even though they said they were going to be producing a big number.

What we need is a transition to democracy as the release of political prisoners. We need to make sure that Venezuelans here in the United States who Trump revoked TPS from, have certainty and are able to remain in this country while there is so much danger and instability in Venezuela. I had the opportunity to talk to one of your colleagues, Congressman Salazar, yesterday. I want to tell you a little bit of what she had to say.

Get your reaction on the other side. Take a look. If there is more military action in Venezuela, significant military action, do you think the president would need to get authorization I know you were opposed to it when it came through that. Yes, but, you know, we know that there will have.

That there will be no need for any more military action. Of course, because Delsey and Padrino and all these people who stole the country for 25 years. I have info that they know that there is a new sheriff and they're not going to be playing with the White House because look what happened to Maduro. Do you agree with her assessment?

She says they're not going to be playing with the White House. They know there's a new sheriff in town. The new sheriff is the same as the old sheriff. It's just got, you know, it's just a woman instead of a man.

What is she talking about? I mean, I know she really has confidence in President Trump, but all I've seen Trump do so far, and my constituents have expressed concern that there's been no commitment to transition to democracy to ensure. I mean, he hasn't mentioned Edmond Gonzalez, the rightful president of Venezuela, meeting with Maria Rina today. You know, I'm glad that that happened, but I mean, there needs to be a process established.

It should have been a process that was established with all the excruciating plan that they did to remove Maduro, which was an action I supported. But we need to make sure that as Marie Pernic came out of the White House and said that Trump, they are counting on Trump, the Venezuelan people are counting on Trump because he says he's in charge to help deliver Venezuela to freedom. And keeping the same regime leadership in place who are engaged in repression as we speak is not the outcome that that should result from this action. I wonder what you make of the timeline the president has laid out.

I had the opportunity to talk to myself. Can elections be held within 30 days? It's absolutely not, he said. That's just not realistic.

And then in a later interview with the New York Times, said that the United States could be there for years to come. What do you make of that timeline? That's an outrageous timeline. This is what evidence is that the president cared the most about being able to control Venezuela's oil.

Lining the pockets of his billionaire phonies is what the president seems to always default to. You know, I know I'm concerned and might as well. Constituents are concerned about making sure that their family members are able to live in freedom and peace and prosperity. That doesn't seem to be where Donald Trump is headed.

If he were, he would have established a process and announced a process to transition to democracy. Instead, you have the same cronies, the same regime there who Kristen, have actually cracked down on expression. They're searching cars, they're searching cell phones to see whether people have supported or promoted the capture of Maduro. They ca decree to to allow that one.

Constitutions are telling me that most Venezuelans are staying, especially in the cracks area, are staying in their homes because they're still deathly afraid. We need to make sure that this process releases political prisoners, all of them, that it establishes a democratic transition, whether it's free elections or one that is presided over by a reprimand opposition party. And we need to ensure that Venezuelans here in the United States remain safe and are not deported back to a regime that the State Department currently is advising Americans not to travel to. Congress.

That makes sen. Well, Congressman, what do you mean they did release some political prisoners? Do you give the president credit for that having happened? And I understand you're saying all the political prisoners need to be released.

I mean, I'm glad that five Americans were released, but I mean the national assembly president who is Delcy Barbaricus brother, he promoted that they were going to be releasing a big number. I'm hearing that it was less than 25 that he released. I mean there's 800 plus political prisoners there at least. What are they waiting for?

Why is the president not using his leverage? He has so much leverage and control over delicacy Barbizas. Then why are all the political prisoners not released yet? What reason is there for them to continue to be captive?

Why haven't we had a process established or even a discussion about a process that we have to transition to a sovereign nation of Venezuela being able to manage their own affairs. That should not take years. I agree probably 30 days is too quick. But we need a reasonable timeline so that we are not there in terms of this.

Let me ask you about another foreign conflict that the world is watching. Iran. We've seen the protesters, the violent crackdown there. President Trump that posted help is on the way.

It seems as though at least for now, who knows what will happen in hours from now. There has been no action by the United States. Would you support regime change in that country or some type of US Military action? Well, I certainly want to make sure.

I would like to see the Iranian people be able to live in freedom and free from the horrific oppression that exists there. But there are ways of doing that short of military action. We have. President Trump is really concerned.

They're Arab neighbors. There are Arab neighbors to Iran that are deeply concerned about the potential for military action, we need to make sure we use sanctions pressure, that we rally economic pressure around Iran can tighten the noose. Certainly we have many other steps we can take before some kind of military action would be necessary. But there's no unless there's a direct threat to the United States that I am not yet aware of.

I want to see a peer briefing from from the White House to know why military action was necessary and Congress could certainly be consulted before anything like that happens. Okay. Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, thank you so very much for joining us. Thanks for your perspective.

Really appreciate it. Thank you. President. Great to see you.

Thank you. Coming up next, meet THE midterms. Why Republicans are starting to sweat as experts now give Democrats increasingly favorable odds of winning back control of Congress. Keep it right here on the PRESS now.

Welcome back. Heading into the 2026 interim elections, Republicans hold the narrowest House majority in modern political history. A new analysis from our friends of the Cook Political Report suggests Republicans will be hard pressed to hold on to that race with the majority come November. Today Cook announced they're moving 18 House races in Democrats direction, eight races from likely Democrat to solid Democrat.

Three races move from toss up to lean Democrat, four lean Republican races are now toss ups and three races shifted from solid Republican to likely Republican. Those moves mean Republicans will be defending 14 seats. Cook rates toss ups compared to just four for Democrats. The moves come as speaker of the House Mike Johnson expressed confidence that Republicans will still emerge victorious in November.

We are very bullish about the midterm. I'm absolutely we have an incredible record to run on. We're being the Democrats and fundraising moment because our racist motivation. Joining me now is Aaron Covey who covers the House for the Cook Political Report.

Thank you so much, Aaron, for being here. Really appreciate it. So you heard that confidence from House Speaker Mike Johnson, but based on these new moves by the Cook Political Report, this is gonna be a challenge for Republicans. Yeah, it's gonna be a challenge.

I mean, there is still a path. But if the election were held today, you have a lot more Republicans who are defending truly competitive districts than Democrats. And you know, the battleground is smaller than it was in 2018. So we're not necessarily saying it's gonna be like 2018 all over again.

But they are in quite a tough spot. As you said, they only have a three seat majority effectively. And what we've seen even as a result of all this mid decade redistricting is that that's unlikely to net them a considerable number of seats. We saw President Trump make some gains in traditionally blue states.

Could we see that reverse? Yeah, I mean, I think based on what we saw from the 2020 five year elections, particularly governors races in New Jersey and Virginia, is that that certainly could be the case, particularly in districts that have a large Latino population, which was the reason behind some of the moves that we made places in South Texas and the Central Valley, where it's clear at this point that there are Latino voters who voted for Trump in 2024. But at this point, it's not clear one if they'll be motivated to vote without him on the ballot, but also if they soured on Trump since then. And what we've seen from the national polling so far is that there has been a bit of reversion.

Yeah. And certainly the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey were an indication of that. Okay, let's talk about one of the big issues looming over all of this, Aaron, which is redistricting. Virginia Democrats moving forward with their redistricting efforts.

There's been this big back and forth, but to some extent, where are we in this fight? Is it basically a wash at this point? Yeah, it's really remarkable at this point, six states have redrawn, but effectively all of these new maps cancel each other out. In terms of net pars and gain, there are quite a few members who are probably going to lose their seats because of redistricting.

But it's not like Republicans have an advantage in this war, as we expected they might when this first started. And in terms of this year, it looks like Virginia and Florida are trying to move forward with redistricting. Those states also would effectively cancel each other out. And the one looming decision over all of this is the VRA case that the Supreme Court is set to decide on at some point between now and June.

So they decide. On the earlier side, we could see a couple of more red states decide to redraw their maps, but that entirely depends on when they actually make a decision. And of course, there's a lot of time between now and November. So what are some of the biggest things that could change that could change the dynamics of this?

Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, right now, what we're seeing. One thing Republicans do have on their side they didn't necessarily have in 2018 is they have a lot more cash. And that's both between the super PAC that's Allied and the White House Map Maga Incorporated, they have about $300 million in cash on hand, and they've signaled that they're going to spend some of that on the midterm.

So that could help even out the spending advantage in these races that Democrats have typically had in the most competitive races. So that could help. But in terms of other indicators that we're watching, you know, of course, the president's approval rating is one of the most important indicators going into a midterm because ultimately these raises are going to be about backlash to the party in power and a referendum on the president. And Republican, every Republican who I speak with says let's focus on the economy.

Finally, if you had a crystal ball, do you think there could actually be a blue wave or do you think it's more about Democrats eking out a narrow victory in the House? It's a good question. I mean, there could be, but we certainly are too far out at this point. So I think say for sure.

And I think overall the battleground is, again, a lot smaller than it was in 2018. I don't think we're gonna see Democrats fleeting 40 seats. Whether or not they a couple or 20 remains to be seen, I think. All right.

Aaron Kofi, thanks so much. Great to have you here in person. Really appreciate it. After the break, concepts of a plan.

The White House unveils a framework aimed at lowering health care costs in America as premiums skyrocket for millions and Congress fails to address the healthcare subsidies that expired at the start of the year. The panel is next. You're watching the PRESS now. Welcome back to White House unveiled a health care plan today over eight months after Treasury Secretary Scott Benson told me it was coming that week.

It comes as Congress remains deadlocked on the path forward on the issue. And two weeks after Affordable Care act subsidies expired, leaving millions of Americans facing a spike in premiums. President Trump, who's long said he does not support the Obamacare tax credit, laid out what the White House is calling the, quote, great health care plan and recorded video today. It includes lowering prescription drug prices, redirecting government subsidies from insurers to consumers and expanding price transparency requirements, among other proposals.

I'm joined now by my panel on D.C. news, National Football reporter Sahil Kapoor Megan Hayes, former special assistant to President Biden and Sarah Chamberlain, Republican strategist and president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thanks to all of you for being here. So, Sahil, let's talk about this proposal by the president.

Talk about the timing of this. He's long talked about concepts of a plan. But again, this is two months after Treasury Secretary Staff Essen said we're about to unveil our plan. Yeah, the timing is absolutely important.

It's a long while after the White House said, you know, they will put out a plan. It comes on the same day that ACA open enrollment ends, which means those premium hikes, more than 20 million Americans are really setting in. They're about, about to get those bills, if not already see the plans that they're locked into. Many of the hundreds of thousands of them are refusing to get coverage at all because they can't afford the cost.

And this is a massive political liability for the gop. And it also comes as a Senate is about to leave town for a week and as negotiations on any kind of bipartisan deal in the Senate look less and less likely. So this is a way for the President to say this is what I am for amount to anything. I highly doubt at this point because there's no legislative language.

They're very light on details. Well, you take me to my next point. Sarah. What are people saying inside Republican circles about this proposal?

I mean, it's more of a proposal than an actual hammered out plan, right? Well, they're pleased to spend what, 15 years in the making here? He did announce a couple months ago he was going to release it. They went back, made a few tweaks to it and then obviously it came out today.

Overall, the Republican partnership members are pleased with it. Cbo, obviously it says it saves money. We're pleased with that. And being able to buy a lot of the drugs over the counter.

We all go to Europe. You can buy them over the counter Europe. We have to bring them home. So that will be helpful as well.

Megan, is there any universe where Democrats get on board with this? It doesn't address extending ACA subsidies, which is quite frankly the crux of what Democrats have been fighting for since the government shutdown. It doesn't address that point. Also there's a lot of things really light on detail.

So it's to be determined if they will have Democrats that will support this thing. They both agree that there's something that needs to be done because over forming Americans are not going to afford health care. And I think that's a problem. That's a compliance in the midterm for both Democrats and Republicans.

So they come with a solution that gets more affordable health care. I think they don't have a choice but to be for it. By the way. Yeah, the stuff doesn't even have much Republican support idea have been talking about for a long time.

The House left this entirely out of there. You know, their moslem still fighting about whether to do HHAs or FAs. So he's having trouble even getting Republicans on board. Well, to that point of Sahel, I mean, do you think that they're going to be able to get any type of agreement on this, or is this just going to be fodder for the midterms?

And ultimately, is that what Democrats think might be, politically speaking, the stronger option for them? I would be shocked if there is any kind of major health care deal at this point, ACA subsidies or otherwise. When it comes to bipartisan negotiations in the Senate for some kind of an affordable carrot funding extension. There are some Republicans who genuinely want to do this, but not nearly enough.

I would say about 90 Republicans in both House and the Senate want this money to go away. It's very easy to make it go away. They just have to fold their arms and do nothing. That is what I expect to happen.

And President Trump has not helped the ACA negotiations because he's been trashing the law. He's been attacking these funds just in this plan today, he called it a flagrant scam. So that's not language that doesn't make Republicans interested. And of course, the broader issue here is the issue of affordability.

I want to play what Brooke Rawlins, the Agriculture secretary, had to say yesterday and get everyone's reaction on the other side at Take look a look. While we're asking Americans to reconsider what they're eating, are we actually asking Americans, especially those who are really on margins, are we asking them to spend more on their diet? And the answer to that is no. We've run over a thousand simulations.

It can cost around $3ameal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, you know, corn tortilla and one other thing. And so there is a way to do this that actually will save the average American consumer money. So what do you make of that message, particularly heading into the midterms? Do you think that's a prudent one, or do you have concerns it could happen?

We have a few concerns. We want to see how it plays out. It certainly is a good talking point moving forward, but I don't know if that's really legitimate. When you go to the grocery store, prices are very expensive and American people are suffering for that.

Yeah, there's so much right now that's that's in focus. Megan. And folks I talked to say again, it's the economy. It's always the economy.

Do you think Democrats have been focused enough on the economy because Obviously, you know, Iran, Minneapolis, the debate over Greenland. There's a lot, there are a lot of different issues that are being debated right now in Capitol Hill. Do you think Democrats are focused enough on that core issue? I do think that the health care debate was a string point for Democrats where they were able to coalesce together and really talk about affordability.

But Democrats are also going to have to come up to some of their own solutions. I think the American people are tired of Republicans and Democrats just talking about how the other one isn't doing enough for them. They want solutions. They're tired of the talk is cheap.

And so if Democrats are going to come up solutions in the midterms, they're going to have trouble. It's a three seat margin, it's very close. And so it's really anyone's game. And I think the Democrats are saying in a very good spot.

But if they don't come with solutions that the American people buy because that $3 thing is just not nonsense, don't believe that they need to come with something that people actually will buy into. And of course, we're coming off of the law in this government shut down in US History style. And now some Democrats are floating the idea of saying, hey, we're not going to vote to fund the government unless ICE changes its tactics. What do you make of that debate?

Do you actually think it could lead to another government shutdown? I'm skeptical that's going to lead to another government shutdown. I don't think it will at this point. But there certainly are some Democrats who are very passionate about putting guardrails on ice.

They proposed things like prohibiting mass arrests, requiring ICE officers to show id, things that don't sound particularly radical. But the idea that the White House is going to accept any guardrails here when they love to lean into fighting about immigration suggests to me that Democratic leaders in particular are not going to push this too hard. We have not heard Chuck Schumer, Nickeen Jeffrey, the top two Democrats give any indication that they're going to lean into an immigration fight over shutdown. They're not as comfortable with that issue as they are about safe health care.

Megan, do you think that that would be a smart issue to shut the government down over or would you advise them against? No, I would not advise them to shut the government down over that. We are hearing polling that 31% of the of the people think that ICE is keeping their community safe versus that the majority of the population do not think that ICE is keeping their community Safe. So I think the polling is starting to flip into Democrats favor here on the immigration enforcement issue.

So I don't think it is worshipping down the government. Sarah, I would love to shut down. You think that would be the worst. The 18 members you talked about are all members of Republican supermanship.

So I think it would only benefit our members. So I do want to talk big picture because Republicans I've been talking to are concerned that there's too much focus overseas and we haven't seen the MAGA base splinter over this yet. But we have heard from voters who say, look, we understand these foreign entanglements are significant and yet what we want to see are all prices come down here. Some prices have started to come down.

What do you make of that and what you're seeing so far at this moment? So we're seeing that in a polling as well. They don't understand. Venezuela, they're fine with he was a dictator, he was a bad person.

But Greenland, they're like, why are we talking about Greenland? We want to be talking about cost of living and pocketbook issues that are really affecting our families. I think you're gonna see the Republicans swing back towards that closer to other election time because it is gonna be the economy. It always is.

And Megan, do you think that Democrats, I mean, there's been concern, quite frankly a lot of debate over what should happen next with Iran, with Greenland, a lot of pushback and quite frankly pushback from Republicans too. Yeah, absolutely. I think these are important issues. I think we saw this in the 24 election.

People that were suffering and couldn't afford their daily goods in our groceries did not care what was going on in Ukraine. They don't understand we're sending money and sending money there and we're more not focused on our own issues. I think the same thing comes into play eventually. Iran, Greenland especially.

It seems like the president is trying to create more chaos and not actually addressing affordability. Let me give you the final point because there's something interesting which is ultimately they'll pivot back to domestic issues that may be true of Republican candidates. Do you think we'll see that from the president himself? Tbd?

I'm not sure. He has been on the road. He was in Detroit. But I think Republicans want to laser focus on that.

Right? He is. The president is certainly much more focused on foreign policy than Republicans want him to. But true.

The thing I believe a message is going to say the Republicans are going to have to deliver. This is the problem the Democrats had in 2024 with the message their way out of his economic pain. It never works unless president decides to pit it back in terms of policy and come up with an agenda that could be meaningfully impactful to voters. I think Republicans are for some trouble.

Okay, guys, great conversation. Thank you so much for the help. Megan and Sarah, really appreciate it. Still to come, what's next for Iran?

After more than two weeks of deadly unrest, President Trump tells his national security team that any US Military action would need to deliver a decisive blow against the regime. Stay with us. You're watching. Welcome back.

We want to turn out for the latest fallout amid the unrest in Iran today. The Treasury Department announcing new sanctions against what it called the architects of the crackdown, saying that the administration stands at the Iranian people's calls for freedom of Justice. A US based human rights activist news agency estimates more than 2600 people have been killed in the weeks long protests and more than 19, 000 others have been arrested. Yesterday, the president said he'd been informed that the killings had suddenly stopped, although he was vague about where he got this information.

Today, the White House is saying the regime halted the execution of several hundred protesters. The president received the messages, he revealed all of you in the whole world yesterday that the killing and the executions will stop. And the president understands today that 800 executions that were scheduled and supposed to take place yesterday, we're halted. And so the president and his team are closely monitoring this situation and all options remain on the table.

During a brief phone call this morning, I asked the president about whether he decided to take action. Iran. The president told me, quote, I'm not going to tell you that, but added, we saved a lot of lives yesterday. Join me now is my former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. I do want to dive in and start with Iran. Yesterday, the president appearing to back down from possible military action.

But one of the presidents, not his ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, posting this on social media, quote, every indication that I've seen says the Iranian regime's killing of protesters is still very much in full swing. The death toll is mounting by the hour. Hoping that help is only on the way. What do you think an effective response would look like at this point?

Well, first of all, we should note that we don't have a lot of good direct information about what's going on around there. There's been a total blackout. The news are very few journalists on the ground. The Internet is down.

And so we're all sort of looking for More accurate information. It's possible that the regime canceled some scheduled public hangings, but there could well be killings still going on on the street of protesters. As Senator Graham said, in terms of the response, the President has said we're locked and loaded and help is on its way. That's pretty far out there on a limb.

Now if his the quid pro quo is no public executions and therefore I won't do anything, then he can say he's achieved victory. If he wants something more to support the protesters though in their efforts, then there's gotta be something more. He's announced tariffs against countries that are trading with Iran, but there's a lot of uncertainty about how those tariffs are gonna be implemented. There's efforts potentially, but another capacity back up and running.

And the real question is on the military side, what can be done? And we know that there's been consideration of various options. Right now there's no carrier strike group in the region, but one is heading there from the Indo Pacific. And evidently the White House is considering various military options and other non kinetic options, cyber and other options.

But it could be about attacking the intelligence agencies, the Revolutionary Guard, the munitions. It could be attacking command and control. It's really about whether you want to deter Iranian action or whether you want to prevent them from being able to crack down on the protesters. And clearly the options are still being developed.

Well, to that point, a lot of people, a lot of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, foreign policy experts have made the argument what happened in Venezuela is so vastly different in the government of Venezuela and the country of Venezuela than Iran. In other words, regime change in Iran is infinitely more complicated than it was in Venezuela. Venezuela was obviously remarkably complicated, but each country is very different. What you have going though on Iran is a widespread protest which you did not have going on in Venezuela at the time.

So this protest which started with the bazaar in Tehran, which is significant because that's where the protest in 1979 began, supporting the Islamic Revolution. It's spread to other cities. It's now spread to ethnic minorities communities as well. It's driven in part by economics and how bad the economy is doing.

50% inflation, 70% inflation for food. The currency has declined by 80% against the dollar. They're running out of water in Tehran. The government's been incompetent at managing basic affairs of state there.

You have that on top of aspirations of the Iranian people and push back against the oppression at a time when Iran is in a particularly weak position and where his investment in proxies and nuclear and missile programs over the years seems to have taken a lot of resources away from the domestic economy and people really chafing under that. I do want to ask you about another foreign issue that's in focus right now. The president's threats to take Greenland by military force if necessary. He says we know the top officials from Denmark and Greenland were meeting with the secretary of state, other officials here yesterday.

What do you make of where things stand? Do you see a potential offering, particularly given the fact that Europe is saying this would be the end of NATO and alarm bells have gone off, quite frankly. You know, we took a Council on Foreign Relations fact finding mission to Greenland back in August. It came back with a distinct impression that we don't need to buy it, we don't need to invade it, that all we need to do is ask.

The Greenlanders and the Danes are very happy to work with us to expand our military presence in Greenland. We used to have 17 bases. Now we have one. And hopefully we can find ways of working with NATO to strengthen Arctic security, including on Greenland, rather than dividing NATO by threatening military action.

All right, Mike Foreman, thank you so much for being here to cover a range of topics. We'll have you back soon. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

We are back tomorrow with more MEET THE Press now. There is more ahead on NBC News now. I'm Craig. No Cheers.

Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that we week two. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs and challenges.

Their stories are fun and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come away with your own Glass Apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig Northern From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.