Meet the Press NOW — January 22

Welcome to the press. Now I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. On a day where questions about the future of the rule of law in this country are front and center, we begin on Capitol Hill, where former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against President Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election, testified publicly for the first time today. In a confrontational and highly partisan hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Smith stood by his determination that his investigation had uncovered evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump committed multiple crimes.

And he issued this stark warning about the rule of law. After nearly 30 years of public service, including in international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can erode. My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted. The rule of law is not self executing.

It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Now, this comment is coming. Just hours before the president urged his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to investigate Smith posting on social media, quote, doran, Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress.

Hopefully the attorney General is looking at what he's done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our country through. Smith then, reacting to that social media post and testifying he believes the Trump Justice Department will target him. With respect to me, I think the reports, I'm sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me.

I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up. And I am, as I said, I'm not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to department policy.

We followed the facts, we followed the law. And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me. And Mr.

Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you? I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president. Now, Republicans on the committee today remaining fiercely loyal to the president and accusing the former special counsel of partisanship. It was always about politics.

And to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything. You like the president's men for Richard Nixon went after your political Enemies. Maybe they're not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political enemies, weren't they? They were Harris's political enemies.

They were the enemies of the president. And you were their arm, weren't you? No. If this defendant were anyone other than Donald J.

Trump, Mr. Smith, I find it hard to believe that we would be sitting here today having a hearing about an indictment that was returned knowing that the elements of the offenses could not be demonstrated. Now, we should note a judge dismissed Jack Smith's classified documents case against the president, ruling Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and the election interference case effectively ending when President Trump won reelection. I'm joined now by ABC News senior justice reporter Ryan Reilly and former U.S.

attorney Carolyn. Both of them have been tracking this hearing throughout the day. Thanks so much for starting us off. Ryan, let me start with you.

You watched every second of this historic moment on Capitol Hill. What were your key takeaways today? I don't think there was a moment necessarily that Republicans were thinking that they sort of had a Gacha general moment. I think that's what they were interested in beforehand.

You sort of had based on you had basically a trial run of this because they had that behind the scenes deposition that then the clips were NARRATOR the entire video of it in fact was released on New Year's Eve. A lot of people might not have seen it. And the question was why did they decide to release that on New Year's Eve. But in this case, I think there's a few moments where they're trying to focus in on these constitutional questions over the First Amendment and where exactly those bound those lines led not something that was litigated heavily in these cases.

And there were cases where Jackson, if they tried to restrain what Donald Trump could say about the case and appeals court did in fact pull that back a little bit about those restrictions on what Donald Trump could say. But overall, the thesis of this is this is a fraud case at its core. I think that that's what Jack Smith continued to hit. You can't just use the First Amendment as a shield against any case, even when you're constantly fraud.

You know, a lot of the fraud cases that Donald Trump would like brought against his enemies, they can't just say, hey, First Amendment here. That gives us this whole shield. Did Jack Smith provide any new insight, Ryan, into why he brought these charges against President Trump? I think we emphasizes that there are so many people who would have been brought as witnesses in this case who were Republicans.

Like that's what he's really hit over and over again is these Republican witnesses who in his view put their country before their party and were willing to tell the truth about what happened. David, I spoke with people who've known Jack Smith for a long time and lead up to, I mean he, they say at his core, this guy is a guy who, you know, tells the truth, who doesn't lie. He tells the truth no matter where that leads. And I think other instances there where he said, you know, what was going on here is the details of these cases.

You know, even if it didn't necessarily fully benefit his argument, he disclosed that to the and notably President Trump posted on social calling for his attorney general effectively to go after Jack Smith. You heard Jack Smith say that he expects that they will pursue him in some fashion because they were ordered to do so by the president. What are your sources telling you about the status of any potential investigation into Jack Smith? Yeah, I mean the question is on what charges?

Right. That's the core thing. What colonel statute are we citing here? And there hasn't been quite that suggestion yet.

Donald Trump has made this grand proclamation to prosecute him, but he hasn't specified a US Code. Rainy Ann says this is what they should, they should prosecute him on. There's been other instances where sort of, you know, a lot of the that Lindsay and the forgotten training for Eastern District, for example, that was sort of how he hears how to go after them. But that's not really what the Justice Department is supposed to do.

That's like a core function of the Justice Department. You're not supposed to find a man and find crime. You're supposed to pursue crimes. So that's what you should be leading with under long standing Justice Department.

Ryan, finally, before I let you go, there was this moment that he underscored the ongoing tensions around this issue on Capitol Hill. This altercation between a D.C. police officer, Michael Fanon, who was at the Capitol on January 6, and one of the 2020 election conspiracy theorists. The two of them got into a role.

What can you tell us about this moment? Yeah, so Ivan, Rick Lennon is someone who follows individuals around outside a lot of these court hearings myself. He is someone who, you know, who films a lot of these instances and is sort of a provocateur. I think this is obviously an instance where they got into an argument here.

He's wearing a Drop Kit Murphy T shirt which has this we're talking about Michael Fin known here, which I talked about fighting fascism. I'm on the back of it and you know, he's the rock of mercury, someone who Canada stood up and made a lot of bold proclamations about Donald Trump. Yeah. Michael Finnan certainly has been quite outspoken in the wake of January 6th.

Ryan, thank you so much for your reporting now and throughout the day. Really appreciate it. Carol, let me turn to you. I want to pick up with you on something I was just discussing with Ryan.

This idea that President Trump effectively urged his Attorney General to go after Jack Smith. Do you believe, and Ryan notes first, the DOJ would have to actually establish if there were any credible charges. How do you anticipate this will unfold? You know, because if you had asked me that question a year ago, I would have said there is no chance in the world that they're going to find even, you know, any, any plausible charges to bring against Jack Smith.

But what we've seen in the last year is that whether the charges are plausible or not, they, they will go after him. And I agree with him that be a relentless attempt to bring charges against Jack Smith. I think the question is whether a federal grand jury will agree and actually find something to charge Jack Smith with. I mean, you know, I watch him testify and I see somebody who is, you know, who falls back on the great comfort he takes in having had a 30 year career in making these very difficult judgment calls.

And they are difficult. And, you know, relying on the Department of Justice and specialists in their fields to advise him. He did everything, as far as I could tell, and I did follow the investigation quite closely. He did everything within the parameters of the Justice Department rules and regulations.

So now to be attacked in this fashion. We've seen what's happened with Jim Comey and Tish James and the sandwich guy in Virginia. So do I think that they will try? Yes, I do think that they will try.

You know, it's notable that as Ryan noted, you did have Jack Smith giving a closed door deposition last year. Of course, the video, the transcripts were made public in late December. Are there differences that you've identified between the two testimonies? Not really.

Jack Smith has adhered very, very closely to a couple of points. And one point, as Ryan noted, is that most of his witnesses would have been loyal Republicans. As it relates to January 6th, they're loyal Republicans who voted for Donald Trump and hope he would, you know, hope he would win. But, but they were so repelled and repulsed by what happened on January 6th that, that they wanted to cooperate and testify.

And, you know, he, he brought that up several times because that is frankly, a very Good case for, for the government when your witnesses have essentially no baggage, no nothing to cross examine them on because they are actually loyal to. So I didn't see a lot of airspace between his testimony behind closed doors and his testimony today because he's very comfortable where he is. Carol, I do want to get your reaction to an allegation by Chairman Jordan. This was made about Jack Smith's efforts to obtain phone records.

Take a look at your reaction on the other side. It was always about politics. And to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything. January 7, 2023, Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House.

Sixteen days later, Jack Smith issues a subpoena for his phone records. Phone records from two years prior for a two month time frame, Election Day 2020 to January 7, 2021. Jack Smith, the Biden Justice Party get the phone records of the top Republican government. The guy second in line to the President.

They know who he called, who called him, when the call took place and how long it lasted. So your former federal prosecutor, Carol, explain how common it is to subpoena phone records like this. And what do you make of what we heard from Chairman Jordan? Yeah, and so many Republicans have been bringing this up that the Special Counsel's office was essentially spying on Republicans in Congress.

And I think that this is one area that experienced prosecutors who conducted lots of investigations, you know, it really pains them to hear that kind of rhetoric because when you say spying, it implies that they're actually listening to the phone call. And that is not what happens when you subpoenaed off phone calls. When you speak in a phone calls, what you get is basically what you would get if you're looking at a phone bill, you get to know who makes the calls to whom because you see the phone numbers, you know the date, you know the time and you know the length of the phone call. That is it.

But the implication, the suggestion, is always that the government was listening to the phone call, which is a wiretap and requires a lot more process. And that was not done in this case. But shame on anyone who suggests otherwise. All right, Carol Lamb, thank you for that context.

We really appreciate it. We want to turn out to another flashpoint in the Trump administration, the rule of law. Vice President J.D. vance visiting Minneapolis today, meeting with ICE officers and speaking to reporters urging people to stop disrupting ICE operations.

This clashes continue between immigration enforcement officials and protesters there. Take a look. We have so much federal law enforcement resources here right now. We have so many people here that we do not want to have here.

I do not want so many ICE officers in Minneapolis right now in the Lord, it's really, really freaking cold outside. But they're here not even to enforce immigration laws, but to protect the people from the rioters. That's an absurd state of affairs and we wouldn't need it if we had a little more cop cooperation. 500 Minneapol Police Department the Vice President's words come after tense confrontations yesterday in Minneapolis, including this one.

The video shows Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino throwing a chemical gas canister into a crowd. Weino defending his actions, saying agents had to use measures to disperse the crowd after local law enforcement did not respond to their calls. We're not going to be deterred from that. So CS gas, pepper bowls, a whole litan of less lethal devices were used to ensure that our agents, those agitators and writers and the public were safe and that we continue to conduct that mission.

While the vice president was forceful in his defensive ICE operations, he also said that any officer accused of wrongdoing would face repercussions for their actions if warranted. Listen, but of course we're investigating these things. Of course we're investigating the renegade shooting, but we're investigating them in a way that respects people's rights and it ensures that if somebody did something wrong yesterday, face disciplinary action. But we're not going to judge in the court of public opinion.

Meanwhile, school officials in Minnesota are speaking out after this 5 year old boy was taken into custody by ICE officers as he arrived home from school on Tuesday afternoon. DHS said in a statement that ICE did not target the child and that his father fled on foot during arrest operation. And ICE is also coming under scrutiny over a whistleblower memo released by Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal saying that DHS authorized immigration officers to forcibly enter people's homes without a judicial warrant, saying instead administrative warrants which are issued by ICE would suffice. Join me now to talk about all this is NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia.

Julia, thanks so much for being here. Let's start off with this ICE memo. Some are saying there's actually a violation of the Constitution. What's the latest you're hearing about?

Certainly an argument because ICE officers in their training are taught about the Fourth Amendment, they have to take a test on it. I've seen the book. It's this thick immigration law and when and where they can enter residence. And they're supposed to get a warrant from a judge, a judicial warrant.

What ICE is arguing is that if an immigrant has a Final order of removal. They've already been through the immigration process, and so therefore an administrative warrant is okay. But administrative warrant isn't signed off on by a judge. It's signed off on by a person in the ICE office of that region to say it's okay to go into the home.

I do think it's important to hear what they're saying, that it's not completely random, at least when they are entering a home. It's targeted. But it's certainly a step further than what we see in the past. And this movement came out in May, so we're trying to figure out how often that policy has been used.

And I want to hear what Marcus Charles said. He's the head of the vice branch that's doing all of these arrests. Listen to what he said about them, though. We don't break in anybody's homes.

We make entry in either a hot pursuit with a criminal restaurant or administrative arrest warrant. The thing to remember is these administrative rest warrants have been being justified by courts, and that's the big question there, that administrative arrest warrants, is that enough to go into someone's home? They've used it in the past when someone is highly criminal and they think they need to act very quickly. But is it enough when someone doesn't have a criminal history and merely an order of removal?

Let me ask you, Julia, about another part of Vice President Vance's argument. He basically was saying, look, state and local officials need to do more to work in concert with ICE officials and to try to tamp down these tensions. What's the reality check? What is the role that state officials are expected to play in these instances?

Well, he's talking about two different things. One is when it comes to immigration, and he's that if Minneapolis was not a sanctuary city, would be much easier for ICE to find out where people live, possibly not do as many sweeps, go directly saying to jails after someone has served their sentence and a certain undocumented immigrant take them and deport them. That would probably be less chaotic. But I thought what he said about protesters was really interesting and a little off, frankly, that if the local law enforcement would do more to crack down on protesters, ICE wouldn't have to be there to protect the community.

I haven't heard anybody that we've spoken to in Minneapolis or anyone who Vance spoke to today, as far as the community leaders go, say that they want ICE to protect them from protesters. That doesn't seem to really align with reality. I have to, Julia, before I let you go ask you about this extraordinary image, this five year old boy who was detained by ice. The vice president defended that as well.

So look, his father was someone who ICE wanted to arrest. But what are we learning about this situation? What we understand is one of several children in the school district that have been apprehended. ICE is saying that they were targeting his father when he abandoned him.

And then little boy they brought to his home. The little boy knocked and the father came out. So the school district was saying the little boy was used as bait to arrest the father. ICE is saying they couldn't have abandoned the boy there on the side of the road.

So a complicated story will continue. Watch. Incredibly complicated. Thanks for so much as always for being here.

We really appreciate it. Coming up, a lot new details about the president's so called deal with Greenland as EU Leaders hold an emergency summit and as President Trump launches his board of peace without the support of major European allies. Plus, President Zelensky huddles with President Trump and Davos as officials from Ukraine, Russia and the US Prepare to meet together tomorrow. You're watching MEET THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. President Trump is on his way back to Washington after tumultuous two days at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, appearing to de escalate a crisis over Greenland that he largely created. Yesterday, President Trump announcing a framework for a future deal on Greenland and withdrawing his tariffs on European countries that were set to go into effect next month. Now remember, just this past weekend, President Trump said he would settle for nothing less than quote, complete and total control of Greenland.

But here's what he said today about his so called deal. We're getting everything we wanted, total security, total access to everything, have as many bases, have all the equipment that we want. So what are we talking about, an acquisition of England? Are you going to pay for it?

We're talking about it. It's really being negotiated now, the details of it. But essentially it's total access. Now we should know the US Already has expansive broad military access to Greenland and it has for decades, going all the way back to 1951, an agreement between the United States and Denmark that gave the US Enormous leeway to establish military bases in the territory.

Meanwhile, Greenland's prime minister saying today he still does not know the details of this new proposed framework and reiterating that Greenland's sovereignty remains a red line in terms of the deal that I've been talking about. I don't know what's concrete in that deal either. But I know that we have now a high level working group working on a solution for both parties. We have said from the from the beginning in Greenland, we have some red lines.

We cannot cross the red lines. We have to respect our territorial integrity. Before leaving Davos, President Trump also hosting a signing ceremony with leaders joining his board of Peace, which the president suggested could rival the United nations. According to the board's charter.

President Trump will serve as the inaugural chairman and have veto power over all the board's decisions. Joining now as NBC News chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander in Switzerland and NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons. Peter, I have to start with you've been traveling with the president throughout the course of this week. I know you've been talking to your sources.

What more are you learning about this framework of a deal on Greenland? You know, Chris, what's striking to me is as the president's departs, things are not too dissimilar from where they were before he left here. The president, as a Danish official told us late today, basically could have had all the elements of this framework that he's discussing for the past many months that, as you know, dating back to the Cold War, there has been an agreement between the US And Denmark to basically said if the US Wanted to build more basis but more troops on its land, that they were effectively free to do that. Nonetheless, the president ratcheted up the tension and then ultimately backed away on military force, on tariffs, left a lot of people here rattled, angry, frankly, and disappointed in the words of that official from Denmark telling us late tonight that among other things, they believe that the relationship, the transatlantic relationship has certainly in some ways been damaged by what we've witnessed over the course of the last several days.

So what is in this deal right now? NBC News has been reporting, based on two former senior officials, that the president has recently been discussing his desire to put more troops on the ground in Greenland even before he arrived here to have more bases there, with the desire that he could use that in part to build this proposed golden dome that is still in its planning stages, a missile defense system to protect against Russian attacks, perhaps in the future. The New York Times, July Christian, according to eight senior Western officials, is reporting that one of the discussions in the proposals being talked about privately right now includes the potential that the US Might be able to have sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where some of those US Military bases would be in the future. Well, really remarkable insight from the sources you're talking to there, Pierre.

I do want to turn to the Board of Peace. Just extraordinary that he's creating this body that some European leaders feel does run counter to the un. Tell us a little bit about the leadership there of the Board of Peace and what the reaction has been broadly. Well, let's talk about this as it relates to United Nations.

The president today saying that they can work very closely with the United nations, but you don't have, you don't need to tell you how seriously critical he has been of the UN in the past. And while that 50 invitations sent out to countries, roughly 20 or more countries have said yesterday, among those who have said no, decline this offer from the president, some of America's traditional allies, France and the United Kingdom saying among their concerns are the idea that this could undermine, could compromise the strength of the United Nations. Among those who have been invited, who have yet to accept the offer, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president and among those in the room that accepted the deal as well, many with authoritarian leaders. Just sort of look around the room.

It was pretty striking today. We saw Aerbaijan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, many other countries there side by side with the president. But the point you said at the top person particularly critical the press and basically runs the show on this. I was talking to our friend here earlier today and in many ways this is the I run the world board in effect as Kieran and I discuss him.

Look at this if you want to see how it is a bit similar to the United nations side by side. Here's the UN's emblem. Here is the emblem of the new Board of Peace. One, the UN shows a map of the world.

The other, the Board of Peace presented to you by President Trump has the US front and center. It looks like the logo has been dipped in gold. Just remarkable optics there. Peter, thank you for showing us that side by side for all of your great reporting and your long trip there.

We really appreciate it here. I want you to start off where Peter left off, which is the Board of Peace. The reaction that you are hearing from the United States allies, international partners, what are people saying? Well, the UK and France says that it's not going to say they're not going to join the Board of Peace.

European countries are mostly or many saying that they won't join the Board of Peace. You might say that's not surprising given the rift, the ruck that President Trump just had with the Europeans over Greenland. They're probably not in a mood to start supporting his great plan. There's another part of this too, and Peter touched on it, which is just think about this.

At the moment you have the United nations with a Security Council with permanent members that are Britain and France as well as Russia and China and the United States. They all have a veto. The Board of Peace, there's only a veto for the chairman, Donald Trump, who can stay as chairman for as long as he likes. And this is according to the chart that they published and will decide who the next chairman should be.

So why would France and the UK Agree to join a body where they no longer have a veto and are working under the U.S. president, unlike at the U.N. but that leads me to another interesting, fascinating question because that's the allies of the United States. But what about adversaries?

Why would President Putin sign up certainly why would a President Xi of China sign up to that? They will quickly recognize this as a potential as them potentially being layered, as you would say, in management speaker dilution of their authority and of their power. And I suspect in the Kremlin right now, President Putin is trying to weigh up that question because on the other hand, joining the Board of Peace gives him a platform on the world stage with the United States he hasn't had since his full scale invasion of Ukraine. Well, okay, you take me to my next question because President Zelensky announcing there should be a trilateral meeting between the U.S.

ukraine and Russia tomorrow seems significant here. What are you watching for? Could there be some real progress that comes out of this meeting? Well, there is progress.

That meeting, that trilateral meeting will happen in the United Arab Emirates and I think it's going to be at Abu Dhabi and I think it's going to be fascinating. I didn't pick up from what I've seen reported whether that will be a face to face meeting with Ukrainians and the Russians or whether they'll be separate. It's not the first time that they've all been in Abu Dhabi together. So it is progress.

It's not a breakthrough. We do have President Zelenskyy now saying that they have agreed a security there is now a security agreement with the United States in writing that he has put together President Trump, which won't be signed until there's a peace deal. But I do think that you are seeing real progress from those negotiations with Ukraine. But the question remains, what is President Putin going to agree to?

And Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, President Trump sang, of course, and his envoy are in Moscow as we spe Christine talking to President Putin and abusing to know what they're hearing from him. Up till now he has stuck to his maximus goals. I know you'll Be on the first kid. All the details here.

As always, thanks for your great reporting. We appreciate it. Great to see you. Coming up next, nine of the Times brand new polling on President Trump's lackluster political standing at home as voters expressed skepticism about his handling of key issues including the economy.

Steve Kornacki is standing by the big board to break it all down for us. Don't go anywhere. This is MEET the PRESS now. Stay informed with the NBC News app breaking news just coming in moments ago.

Watch, read and listen throughout your day and now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad instructions, including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the report.

Supporters you trust, download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.

Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the drunken app workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members to get an exclusive 50% off annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more.

Xfinity. Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65, 99 plus tax fees until canceled. All the rants May 20, 2026. Price is subject to change.

Visit today.comxfinity for full on preserves and details. Welcome back. One year into President Trump's second term, we've got some new poll numbers that show the president struggling on some key issues. Join me now, of course, who else?

The one and only NBC News chief data and analyst Steve Kornacki. Steve, great to see you as always. So take us through this new polling. What does it tell us about the president's first year?

Yeah, Chris, I think at the end of 2025, you're starting to see a polling slide for Donald Trump and for his party. Certainly that has continued and maybe even worsened a bit for him. Heading into 2026 is a new New York Times Sienna national poll. Here they show Trump with approval rating now of just 40%.

56% say they disapprove. Again, this is basically a year now into Trump's second term. When he came back to office to start that second term, his approval rating in some polls was actually in the mid to high 40s. You can see now it's more consistently at this level.

Again, 40 might even get tick lower than we're seeing in some other polls. What are the ingr into that? The major issues here. They checked in on this poll here.

Look, no news story here. When it comes to the economy, inflation and the cost of living, these are low marks for Trump's handling of those issues. A lot of disapproval there. That was the story all at 2025, certainly for him as well.

But more front stage, center stage here in the last couple weeks. The issue of Venezuela and the issue of immigration certainly in the headlines. More again low numbers there for Trump as well. Rematching his approval rating.

40% on immigration, 41% on Venezuela on immigration. Diving a little deeper here, some interesting questions. I think that's sort of underneath the surface in this poll. They asked about ice, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement obviously very much in the news in the last couple of weeks.

A wide margin here of disapproval for the job that is doing. 36 approved, 63 disapproved. There was a question in here as well about the tactics saying that dove folks believing widely that ICE was going too far in his tactics. Although we've said this for a long time, when it comes to issues of immigration and the bo, public opinion can be more nuanced and more complex.

There was one finding here along those lines I think worth looking at as well. They did ask this question about the Trump administration, its handling of deportations of immigrants living in the US illegally. That's how they worded it. And that got 50% actually say they support how the Trump administration is handling deportations of immigration, of immigrants living in the US illegally.

Only 47% of folks, again, low overall marks on immigration, very low marks for ICE for the work that ICE is doing. But maybe a step above that, just the overall question, your deportations. You see a very different number there. Well, fascinating when you break down go more deeply into the immigration question.

Let me ask you because of course in midterms of the backdrop to all of this, does the poll have any clues about how things might play out in November? Yeah, you get a read here on the generic ballot. Which party would you vote for for Congress? And you see here Democrats with the advantage, 48% Democrats, 43% Republic.

A five point advantage for Democrats. That's obviously I think in line with what you'd expect with these numbers, honestly, for the Republicans, maybe there's any good news from here. They may appear to be worse than five, but five is not a good place to be, certainly for party. All right.

Well, Steve, you and I are going to be together a whole lot this year and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And coming up, we'll dig deeper into what's next for the administration.

Sweeping agenda ahead of them in terms panels next. Keep it right here on the PRESS now. Welcome back. Joining me now is our panel, Audrey, followed by reporter for the National Review, Ashley Etienne, former communications director for Vice President Harris and former communications director and senior advisor to Nancy Pelosi and Republican strategist Doug.

Hi. Thanks to all of you for being here. Audrey, let me start with you. Let's put up some of that polling again.

Steve just walked us through it. It's notable he's underwater on a number of these key issues. His approval rating in the 40s. But you see it here.

Negative approval in Venezuela, immigration, Gaza, the economy, one of the biggest issues for voters. What do you make of these numbers and how does it play out in the next year? Well, when it comes to foreign policy issues like Venezuela, you know, voters are really propelled to the polls by foreign policy. So imagine that one will kind of shift out of the news before we get the midterms.

That said, if you look at issues that propelled Trump to White House this time around, the economy and immigration, on the economy, a lot of voters are frustrated, confused by the tariffs. He's leaning into a lot of housing policy proposals, which is really fascinating to watch. And we look at immigration. You know, he has delivered on his promise to close this south border.

But that said, it's also shifted a lot now. A lot of Americans are feeling really uncomfortable with the deportation tactics. I think that there's this passing distinction that people make in their minds between closing the southern border and what actually takes to deport people. And that's making some suburban builders, I think, pretty uncomfortable.

It's a great point, Doug. There's a difference between his overall approval and immigration. And then when you dig deeper how ICE is conducting itself. There is broad support, however, for deporting people who are here and who are undocumented.

But what do you make of these numbers? Are they sending jitters throughout the Republican Party? Oh, the jitters have been there for a while. And part of it is if we look at everything we've talked about regarding Donald Trump over the past six weeks or you can say even three months, the economy has been very small part of that.

And that's a Trump doing because of his making the move in Venezuela. It's his team at ICE that's making the moves in Minneapolis. It's his speech at Davos. He's not talking about the issues that voters are saying very loudly, this is what we care about the most.

And so whoever's approval ratings on those other issues are a problem. But his lack of focus and lack of coherence on an economic policy is very remindful of me of where we were in 2022 when you had an aging president with unpopular numbers who really struggled to say what they were going to do to alleviate voters pains on crisis. Yeah, it all comes down to the economy, the issue of affordability. The poll found 57% believe the president is exceeding the powers available to him as president.

So there's that piece, but there's the argument that Doug is making, which is that when it comes down to it, what voters seem to care about time and time again is the economy. How are you advising? How would you advise Democratic candidates who are looking at these numbers and how they should weave into their strategy? Well, I mean, the Democratic Party, I think the chairman of the party just said just recently to the New York Times that the focus continues to be on this affordability message.

But to get to Doug's point, it's very clear that the President could care less about these numbers, honestly. I mean, I've worked in the White House twice and we were moved when we saw polling numbers. In fact, we would recalibrate. We called to the call the Hill, ask the Hill.

What are you doing about this issue? We, as a collective, as a party, would be responsive to the poll numbers of the American people. But that's not what I'm seeing right now from President Trump. He's going his own way and he's, you know, in very erratic fashion, I should say, down these other paths.

Greenland. And none of them have anything to do with the bottom line that the American people are facing right now. Jump in here. Do you think the president sees these poll numbers and that they're setting off some alarm bells for some in his inner circle.

70% of voters rate the economy as fair or poor. I mean, that's striking. It should set off alarm bells because we could have a very real political reality coming 10 months from now, which is that Democrats should win the House. History tells us that these numbers tell us that as well.

I wouldn't start using words like wave. I think Democrats are getting way ahead of their skis on that. But if I'm a Republican, I'm nervous about keeping my congressional seat. And if I'm in the White House, what that means, the day that Hakeem Jeffries becomes Speaker, the Trump legislative agenda is over.

And then here comes the investigations. I will say what I'm struck by is the fact, and Steve pointed this out, that Democrats are only up by five against Republicans at this time in 2018, going into midter elections, when we won 40 seats, we were double digits on the Republican Party. And in fact, the president's polling warrant wasn't underwater on all of issues. So to me, there still is, I think, a lack of Democrats seizing this moment in a much bigger way.

And I think that's what's concerning for me. Less of the president's polling, but the fact that we're not doing better than we are. It is notable, that matchup and expectations in terms of who's gonna take over Congress. Audrey.

Susie Wiles has been focused on the issue of affordability. The chief of staff at the White House, and she says, well, President Trump's gonna be out on the road. He's gonna be in Iowa next week. He's going to be talking about the economy.

We have seen him hold economic events. His speeches don't necessarily remain solely focused on the economy. What are you hearing about that piece of the strategy moving forward? I mean, I think that's why he's leaning in so much of these housing policies.

We're saying he's signaling interest. Elizabeth Warn the cap credit, interest rate, fascinating populist kind of proposal. One thing that is really fascinating, we're not really seeing Republicans talk that much about the tax relief that they provide Americans reconciliation bill. You want to talk to time.

Trump also saying, we were kind of whiffing here because Democrats opposing that bill, voting for tax increases. But I think moving forward, you mentioned Susie Wiles is saying he'll be on the campaign trail. You know, that definitely helped him a lot less time around. But I think there is some Trump exhaustion right now.

So that may not kind of boost. Giving the boost. Doug, is there Trump exhaustion? Talk a little bit about Minneapolis.

There's the debate over what's happening there. But then there are the optics. Are the optics potentially concerning and problematic? Challenging for Republican candidates?

They are. And we come to a point where Donald Trump has been very good at creating sort of an outrage du jour to distract us from what we should be focused on. He has done it very skillfully, but he's running out of Runway here. And this is, this is one of the challenges that Republican sees.

When voters see these things, they get upset. And it's something that we all focus on. Donald Trump can then give a speech in Detroit or he can go to Des Moines and give a speech. The reality is we may not be talking about that speech even if he focused on the economy six hours later because he put something on true social or something else happened somewhere else in the world that was created by our administration that drives voters into distraction from what they really want to be focused on.

Ashley, how do you see what's happening in Minneapolis play out? Do you think this is? Because I've spoken to Republicans who say, yeah, this is going to be a staying issue throughout the course of the midterm elections. Do you think this is something that will continue to be front center?

I think it is because the president's not backing off this issue of sending troops into cities and especially blue cities. So I think that issue and the issue for a lot of Republicans which is not showing up in the polls is it's a sovereignty issue. It is a state's right issue that is offending a lot of Republicans right now. And then also on the Democratic siders, I should say the side of the people, there's going to be continuous protests right now.

There's teachers protesting, kids staying out of school, people not going to work. So I think they're going to, you know, what we'll see is more aggressive protests from the ground up that'll continue to be a thorn inside of Republicans. And meanwhile, the dominant topic today was Jack Smith. Nobody voting in the North Carolina Senate rating on Jack Smith.

All right, guys, great conversation. Ashley, Doug and Audrey really appreciate it. We'll be right back. More ME Press now.

Welcome back to Illinois. Senator Dick Durbin's retirement has set off a crowded Democratic primary for his seat. One of those candidates is Congressman Robin Kelly, who is also heading a push to impeach on Security Secretary Christine Noem. I'm in a renewed wave of anti ice sentiment from some Democrats on Capitol Hill.

I spoke to Congressman Kelly last hour ahead of the House vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security. And joining me now is congresswoman and Illinois Senate candidate Robin Kelly. Congressman Kelly, thanks so much for being here. Than me.

Well, we really appreciate it. I do want to get to your race. But before we get to your race, let me start with some of the big headlines, including coming out of Minnesota, the vice president there on the ground today really calling for attentions to lower in the wake of course of the shooting there for 37 year old woman. I want to play a little bit of what he had to say and get your reaction on the other side.

Whenever you have a law enforcement operation, even if 99.9% of the guys do everything perfectly, you're gonna have people that make mistakes. That is the nature of law enforcement. What I do think we can do is working with state and local officials. We can make the worst moments of chaos much less common.

And all they've got to do is meet us halfway. Congressman, what do you make of that argument? The vice President saying all you have to do is meet ICE officials halfway? Well, I know from representing the Chicagoland area, ICE wasn't welcomed from the beginning.

And they're coming into democratic cities and terrorizing communities and traumatizing communities and people. So that's part of the problem, that they're coming into places that they're not welcome. People are afraid of them. People are afraid to go.

They don't seem to have the same rules a regular police force would have in a municipality. So that's what's causing, they're causing some of the angst that they are experiencing. Let me follow up with you on that point because you've gone so far as to introduce articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. You've accused her of instigating a, quote, reign of terror.

The resolution currently has over 100 Democratics and co sponsors. But do you think that you would garner enough support to actually get this passed? Well, that's what we're working on now. We're at 110, I was just told now, and gaining and other members told me that they would help me, you know, with other members.

So that's what we're working on now. And we've been working on the article since October, actually, since they came to Chicago or the Chicagoland area and did the things that they did and they're still there now, just moving to other places. Let me ask you, because some of your colleagues, Congressman Bishop of Georgia said, quote, impeachment be a distraction. Congressman Gray of California questioned whether it would have, quote, any consequential change in people's lives.

How do you respond, respond to that skepticism and criticism? Well, I know affordability and health care is the issue. I know that for sure. But the thing about what they're doing, they're hurting people going to work.

So many people not going to work. And so that hurts their bottom line. So many people not shopping at A town hall meeting in a grocery store and people told me they were afraid to come outside, afraid to shop. Restaurants are hurting, so they are hurting.

Affordability. In the bottom line. You say you know, you're focused on affordability, but do you worry that trying to impeach DHS Secretary Noman in a Republican led House could distract from that overarching? I don't think so.

I don't think so. I think we know affordability is a bottom line. But. But also she needs to be held accountable and she needs to know that Congress is watching.

But more importantly, people are watching. The public is watching. The public is not happy with what is going on. I do want to ask you, the House is, of course voting on this bipartisan funding package that would include some changes to dhs, but certainly not everything that Democrats were demanding.

Committee ranking member Congressman DeLauro acknowledged the Democrats didn't get everything that they wanted, but also said, quote, is there something good for tsa? Is there something good for fema? If your house is blown up, is there something good for the Coast Guard? Effectively saying, look, there are parts of this that are effective.

What do you say to the. I don't deny that they are part of it that are good, but I can't vote for anything that gives dhs. And you're an. I'm.

No, you're not going to do it. And they have enough money for what they're doing. They have too much money. Are you worried, though?

Are you prepared to, I should say, actually shut down the government over your dispute over what you want to see in this funding package? Well, that's not the only package. You know, we're voting on this, the other packages beside that. And you know, of course I don't want to see the government shut down, people not getting paid, including my employees, you know, but.

But I'm not going to vote for that bill. So let's talk about your Senate race. You're running for the seat of Senator Dick Durbin, who's of course retiring. It is a crowded Democratic field.

It includes Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton, as well as Congressman Christian Worthy, who's leading in the polls. What is your strategy to come back and win in that race? Well, I'm running on a platform of people over profits. I think it's about time that millionaires, billionaires and corporations pay their fair share.

And when we do that, we can work on more housing, more affordable housing in the richest country in the history of the world. There's no reason why everyone doesn't have Health care, Medicare for all. We need to invest in economic development so there's economic opportunity. We need to make sure people make fair wages.

All very important, that child care people pay more child care than rent. We need to cap how much people are paying in child care. So I think that I'm talking about kitchen table items that keep the regular person up at night. And I'm listening.

I've been all over the state and I'm listening to what people have to say. And I have a history of accomplishments. And winning. It is a statewide race.

Chunk of your constituents voted for President Trump. You have been an outspoken critic of President Trump. How do you walk that fine line of staying true to your opposition but not alienating critical voters who you may, in fact need to win? You know, my district is urban, suburban and rural.

I have 4,500 farms in my district. Most of those farmers don't vote like I vote, but I have a very good relationship. I've been able to pass legislation, meaningful legislation under President Obama, President Trump and President Biden and bipartisan legislation around health care, around dental care, around issues with farmers. So I know how to build relations.

And no, we're not always going to agree, but I get things done. Finally, before I let you go, there has been debate within your party about whether Leader Schumer is the best person to lead Democrats. If you were to be elected, would you vote for him to be the Democratic leader in the Cabinet? I have to see who's running against him.

I don't know that yet. I haven't heard about anyone running against him. But I would, you know, give everybody a look and see what they offer the party. So at this point in time, you're not necessarily committed to if you were to win.

Yes. It has to happen beforehand. Right. Okay.

All right, Congressman, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press. Now there's more ahead on NBC News.

Now as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop of a podcast from NBC News with me, your host gathering Vesuvian. We'll take a deep dive into today's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. The front page, the Zeitgeist.

Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM.