Meet the Press NOW – January 23

If it's Thursday, President Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown faces its first major hurdle as a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration's move to end birthright citizenship, calling it, quote, blatantly unconstitutional. Plus, bipartisanship in the Trump era. I'll talk to one of the House Republicans who met with President Trump yesterday and his Democratic colleague about working together in a narrowly divided Congress and a bitterly divided country. And tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles County are ordered to evacuate as firefighters try to contain a new blaze that has exploded in size over the last 24 hours, burning more than 10,000 acres in one day.

Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where just moments ago, President Trump spoke to reporters from the Oval Office after signing a series of new executive orders on everything from artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency to presidential pardons for anti-abortion protesters. He also took some questions from the press, and we are going to bring that Q&A portion in just a moment. But we do begin with President Trump's sweeping overhaul of the U.S.

immigration system taking shape, testing the limits of his authority, his government's resources and his support in Congress. This afternoon, a federal judge ruling part of that agenda goes too far, temporarily blocking the president's executive order to end birthright citizenship. In his ruling, the judge sided with a group of four Democratic led states, and he had some harsh words for the government during the hearing, saying, quote, I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one.

This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Here's Washington state attorney general who was part of the coalition of states that sued, speaking outside of court after the ruling. Take a look. This is about people who the president of the United States was trying to deny their lawful right to be citizens.

And babies are being born today, tomorrow, every day all across this country. And so we had to act now to provide back to the status quo, back what has been the law of the land for generations. That you are an American citizen if you were born on American soil, period. Nothing that the president can do will change that.

In his remarks from the Oval Office moments ago, the president said he wasn't surprised by the judge's decision and that he intends to appeal it. It comes as the president signed a new round of executive orders yesterday on immigration to further crack down on illegal border crossings and undocumented immigrants. Among the actions he's taken on immigration in his first days in office, deploying some 1500 active duty troops to the southern border with plans for additional deployments, declaring a national emergency, firing immigration court officials, ending catch and release, resuming border wall construction, expanding removal authorities for ICE agents. His administration has also rescinded restrictions that kept ICE agents from conducting arrests and what are called sensitive locations.

We're talking about schools and churches, hospitals. He's directed U.S. attorneys to investigate state or local officials who resist federal immigration laws and expanded authorities for DEA and ATF agents to help carry out deportations. Today, the president doubling down on his immigration agenda, telling global business leaders in Davos in a virtual address that he is taking swift actions to repel a quote invasion.

A national emergency on our border immediately halted all entry of illegal border crossers, of which there were many, and began promptly returning the illegal trespassers back to the place from which they came. That action, as you've probably seen, has already started very strongly, have deployed active duty U.S. military and National Guard troops to the border to assist in repelling the invasion. It was really an invasion.

Meanwhile, new government figures today show border crossings are actually down, with a U.S. official telling NBC News that the number of encounters at the southwest border yesterday was about half of what they typically see in a day. The president's executive actions are also being bolstered by Congress, with the House and Senate passing its first piece of legislation, the Lincoln Reilly Act. That's aimed at detaining illegal migrants who are charged with nonviolent crimes.

Pass with bipartisan support. That legislation is now heading to the president's desk. And joining me now is our team of reporters, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez and NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur is on Capitol Hill. Julia, I have to start with you.

President Trump's DOJ was in court today. He was defending its executive order on birthright citizenship, one of the most controversial. The judge now temporarily blocking the order. Talk about what the government was arguing and where things stand.

That's right, Kristen. The judge did not have to make that decision so quickly because the executive order was not meant to put that ban on birthright citizenship into effect until February 19th. But the judge ruled very quickly, almost as soon as the two sides stopped arguing. We heard from the states.

You mentioned one of them is Washington. There were 22 states who said that this is unconstitutional. They said, look, this is protected by the 14th Amendment. You can't change it without Congress ratifying by two thirds majority and amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Now, on the other side, the Trump lawyers or the DOJ lawyers for the Trump administration rather basically were just trying to convince the judge not to go too far with the temporary restraining order, not to make it nationwide and arguing that they could not enjoin the president from taking this action. There was actually very little conversation about zeroing in on this one clause of the 14th Amendment that says anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and is subject to that jurisdiction is considered a U.S. citizen.

I thought there might be some squabbling about what that meant because right now there's an exception for children of diplomats, for example. They really didn't get into that. They didn't talk about the fact that the executive order makes children who are born here to unlawful, not only to unlawful mothers, but to people who are here lawfully, but temporarily not allowed to be U.S. citizens.

They didn't get into all of that. The judge was pretty quick in his decision. Again, this is an 85 year old judge who was appointed by President Reagan. He's thought to be a conservative.

He was very quick to throw this out and issue that temporary restraining order. But it's not the end, Kristen. We can expect this to be appealed and probably go before the Supreme Court. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.

The action in the courts right now, Julia. Let's talk about something that you pay a lot of attention to on a day to day basis. These border encounters, they are down today, as we talked about. Can you explain what exactly is driving that?

What are you watching? Well, look, I've spoken to people on the border who are looking at how low these numbers are. They're comparing them to 2017 when Trump took office the first time. There's a lot of rhetoric that has scared people from leaving their countries probably two to three weeks ago.

People didn't want to come to the border knowing Trump was about to take office at this time. We also have to look at what Trump has done across the border, really shutting down the asylum system as we know it. Not only did he shut off CBP one, but it's now unclear. And in fact, we're hearing they're turning back migrants who show up at legal ports of entry to claim asylum.

This is something they have an international obligation to. So when you shut down every way for a migrant to claim asylum at the southern border, that is going to deter more people from trying to cross. They may be waiting to try to cross later. We also know Mexico is trying to welcome back more of these people who were being turned back.

But Kristen, it's all about numbers. Just like in 2017, there was an initial dip and then the numbers rise. And when border patrol gets overwhelmed or they can't hold everyone indefinitely, they start being released and more people come. So right now a lot of very stringent policies on the southern border that could be legally challenged and it could be that logistically they can't hold up as well.

All right, Julie Ainsley starting us off. Thank you so much for your great reporting, Julia, as always. Gabe Gutierrez, let me turn to you here in studio. Thanks so much for being here.

So part of what President Trump is trying to do is to give authorities enhanced powers to basically be able to detain and deport people. What do we know about this and what are these expanded powers going to look like? Are they making a difference so far? Yeah, Kristen, you know, we've been reporting for a while now that the plan was for this new Trump administration to ramp up this ICE 287G program, which involved local law enforcement, giving them more powers to help enforce federal immigration law.

But now we are learning more details from a top Trump advisor, Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff, very involved in immigration policy, of course. In an interview last night, he talked about the other federal agencies that now will be brought in to help with this effort. Let's listen. Not only is it going to be ICE engaging these raids, but also they're going to have support from the law enforcement partners in FBI, ATF, DEA and U.S.

Marshals. We're going to leverage the full power of federal law enforcement at President Trump's command and direction to save this country from this occupation. And that's something, Kristen, that I heard from the borders are Tom Homan when I spoke with him a few weeks ago. He uses the word force multiplier.

And when you talk about the Department of Defense sending in troops to the southern border, they see that as force multipliers because they need these agents from other agencies because ICE is facing this huge budget shortfall, more than $200 million. They just don't have the manpower All right, Sahil, great stuff. I know you're gearing up for an incredibly busy time there on the Hill. Thank you so much.

Now, as we said earlier, we do have the tape now of President Trump answering questions after signing multiple executive orders in the Oval Office just moments ago. Look. Mr. President, are U.S.

judges temporarily blocked the birthright citizenship order? Do you have any reaction? No, obviously what it is. They put it before a certain judge in Seattle, I guess, right?

And there's no surprises with that judge. Mr. President, senators Collins and Murkowski have now said they will vote against Pete Hanks. Are you worried about his confirmation?

No, and no surprises there. It's too bad. That's the way it is. Too bad.

When do you plan to direct Congress to make recess appointments, Mr. President? Well, I'll take a look at that. I've listened to John, who's doing a fantastic job.

We're moving along. The Democrats are trying to delay government, as they always do. They can't help themselves. Even John Ratcliffe, who's very, very strong, very popular and liked by the Democrats.

I guess he gets a lot of Democrat votes. That's taken a long time and it shouldn't be taken a long time. They're matching everything out so they can delay everything as much as possible. So are you going to support an effort to use recess appointments if you choose to do that?

I'd be willing to use recess appointments. It's up to John. We'll see. John Thune's a great guy, a great senator, and knows his stuff inside out and backwards.

But I would use recess appointments if he wants to do that. Absolutely. The Democrats are just delaying. They always delay.

Mr. President, you spoke with Saudi Crown Prince yesterday. Who? Saudi Crown Prince.

How was the court? Right. $600 million, $1 billion to get invested? $600.

I'll ask him for a trillion. You said you'd ask for a trillion. What's your reaction to the best point company you visited? You said they invest in that much money.

Well, if they do that, I would be glad to do that. I did it, as you know, four years ago. We did $450 billion, meaning the money all goes to American companies and they purchase jets and they purchase computers and everything else. And we did $450 billion, and I guess we're at $600, $650.

I'll see if I can talk him into it. Mr. President, you said again, you showed great confidence in Steve Whitrock. Why do you said that you doubt that the ceasefire in Gaza will hold since you appraised the start?

No, I think it's great, but it's a very tricky place. It's a very tricky. We'll see. And if something does happen, they will not be happy.

Sir, on the issue of Steve Whitrock, are you going to put him in charge of Iran strategy, at least one talking directly with the Iranians? No, but he's certainly somebody I would use. He's done a fantastic job. He's a great negotiator.

He's a very good person, a very popular person. Gets along with people. I have great negotiators. They have no personality whatsoever.

And then I have some that Steve has a wonderful way about him, and people like him. And even in this case, both sides like him. And he was able to make a deal. That deal would have never been made without Steve.

The Biden people couldn't make the deal. They were working on it for a year and a half. They couldn't make a deal. We got it done prior to the inauguration.

We said it has to be before the inauguration. I think the deal should hold, but if it doesn't hold, there'll be a lot of problems. Mr. President, just hours after you made that big Starbase announcement, Elon Musk tweeted that they don't actually have the money.

Is that true? I don't know if they do, but, you know, they're putting up the money. The government's not putting up anything. They're putting up money.

They're very rich people, so I hope they do. I mean, Elon doesn't like one of those people. So... Do you think the AI is going to replace many American jobs?

No, no, no. It's going to create a tremendous number of jobs. It's going to also create a lot of benefits medically for cancer research and other things. It's going to have a huge positive impact.

And, you know, we want to be ahead of China. We're way ahead of China. David Sachs is one of the all-time experts, you know, that people are amazed that he... You just met him.

I don't know if he's still here. There he is. But one of the most respected people in that world. It's a world.

It's a whole different world. And we're ahead of China now because of what I'm doing. And I think it's going to be very successful. Mr.

President, you just asked the Davos forum again that NATO countries should spend 5% of GDP on defense. The United States don't spend 5%. We're protecting them. They're not protecting us.

We're protecting them. So I don't think we should be spending... I'm not sure we should be spending anything, but we should certainly be helping them. But they should up their 2% to 5%.

Yeah. Mr. President, you said earlier during your speech at Davos that you would like to see interest rates come down. How much would you like to see them come down before you talk about it?

I'd like to see them come down a lot. And oil prices will come down. And when oil prices come down, everything's going to be cheaper for the American people and actually for the world, but for the American people. So I'd like to see oil prices come down.

And when the energy comes down, that's going to knock out a lot of the inflation that's going to automatically bring the interest rates down. Are you worried that there's too much going on at once if you're trying to bring the interest rates down and keep the economy down? No, no, no. It just works that way.

I mean, it's just economically works that way. When the oil comes down, it'll bring down prices. Then you won't have inflation. And then the interest rates will come down.

Can you just make a demand that the interest rates come down? Well, I would put in a strong statement. Do you expect the Fed to listen to you? Yeah.

Are you going to talk to Powell about this and bring him in? At the right time, I will. Sir, do you think you will pardon those that participated in the January 6th, 2021 attack? And meet with any of them or meet with them at the White House?

I don't know. I'm sure that they probably would like to. I did them something important. But what they did is they were protesting a crooked election.

I mean, people understand that also. And they were treated very badly. Nobody's been treated like that. So I'd be open to it, certainly.

I don't know of anything like that. But I think they're going to meet some of the Congresspeople, Congressmen, women that want to meet. But I'd certainly be open to it. Have you spoken to the institutions?

I haven't spoken to any of them yet, but I know they're very happy. I gave them their life back. Their life was taken away from them unnecessarily and unfairly. I gave them their life back.

So I can imagine they probably would like to. You said Biden took bad advice and not pardoning himself yesterday. Well, he did. I think he did because he pardoned all these people that are crooked as hell.

Look at the congressmen. They're crooked. What they did is they destroyed evidence. When you destroy evidence, especially criminally like that, they did it criminally.

And the reason they destroyed the evidence is because it proved that I was right. They didn't destroy evidence for no reason. They destroyed it because they found many documents saying that I offered 10,000 soldiers. If they had 500 soldiers or National Guard, there would have been no problem.

If they had 200, there would have been no problem. I offered 10,000 if they needed them. It would have been no problem. That's been now totally disproven.

And it's also been disproven by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, who has her on tape saying it was her fault, that she has full responsibility for this. And they have all this stuff. They destroyed everything. And they go through a year and a half, two years of nonsense.

They come up with tremendous evidence, and they destroyed evidence. And Schiff knew about it. That's why he's on there. He knew all about the destruction of evidence.

A lot of people said he's the one that got them to do it. And he's a crooked guy, a totally crooked politician. And so he's pardoned and some other people are pardoned. And these are crooked politicians, every one of them.

Benny Johnson, what he did is incredible. I mean, he was the leader of the committee, and he did it. Cheney, crying Adam Kinzinger, all of them. They destroyed evidence and deleted everything.

There's nothing. There's no evidence now. They're crooked politicians, and they should be punished. You know, that's even in a civil trial you go to jail for a thing like that.

They destroyed every document, from what I understand, every document, because it proved that I was totally innocent. Mr. President, you said that you were demanding that there's too much going on at once if you're trying to bring interest rates down and keep the economy down. No, no, no.

It just works that way. I mean, it's just economically works that way. When the oil comes down, it'll bring down prices, then you won't have inflation, and then the interest rates will come down And I would have stopped it, but we'll have to stop it with tariffs. Thank you very much, everybody.

Gabe Gutierrez is still with me. Gabe, let's go through a lot of headlines there to unpack. Before we unpack the headlines, we should say his claim that the January 6th committee deleted all of its evidence, just false. They deny that they deleted or got rid of any evidence.

In fact, they say they cataloged it and saved it per the rules of the House. Let's, though, tick through some of these headlines. He talked about his openness, his willingness to use recess appointments on his cabinet picks. He said it's going to be up to John.

He also, I thought it was notable, said he wants interest rates to come down. He said he's going to strongly suggest that. He thinks the Fed is going to listen to him. The Fed is an independent body.

He was asked if he would directly convey that to Fed Chair Jerome Powell. He did express a willingness to do that. He also talked about supporting the possibility of the January 6th convicts who he pardoned testifying on Capitol Hill. And notably, he talked about tariffs at the end.

He said that February 1st deadline for tariffs applies to Canada and Mexico, but he said we're talking about China as well. What stood out to you of all of those headlines? That's the longest. Look, I'm talking about recess appointments.

That's something that's really come back up in the last couple of days, even after, you know, Pete Tech stuff seemed to his progress on the nomination seemed to be getting better over the last day or two with some new allegations that come forward. Look, I think he's using this as a negotiation tactic, as he often does, almost using it as a threat to keep the Republican Party together. John Thune yesterday doesn't embrace the idea of recess appointments. And, of course, he's an institutionalist.

So it's a question of how all this will play out. But I really think President Trump is really trying to flex some political muscle here and really, you know, he is the leader of the Republican Party, and if he wants his cabinet picks to go through, he thinks they should go through regardless of what the Senate thinks or regardless of what Democrats play ball, regardless. He just wants to get this done. And so he's putting that thought out there.

With regards to interest rates and his conversations with Jerome Powell, that is actually really interesting because, of course, President Trump has a history of flexing his political muscle, saying he, you know, knows better, knows more about interest rates than the Federal Reserve, which is pretty remarkable. I find it interesting. There has been a long history of presidents actually getting involved in trying to influence the Fed Reserve. However, that kind of went away from the Clinton administration through the Obama administration.

And then Trump brought it back. So it's unclear whether Jerome Powell will, you know, he has said before that he would not be influenced by the president of the United States. But Trump, you know, says that he wants to get involved and thinks he can influence it. And this is something that we saw during his first administration.

This was a picture of his first administration that was very outspoken about wanting interest rates to come down. Let me ask you about tariffs, Gabe, because, of course, the big question looming over his administration is he actually going to impose tariffs against the United States' three biggest trading partners, Canada, Mexico and China? Or is this a negotiating tactic? Does he want to renegotiate the USMCA, for example, that trade deal with Canada and Mexico that he himself negotiated during his first term?

Is this about reopening that deal and trying to get a better deal? At this point, I do think it's a negotiation tactic. And I've spoken with people both inside and outside the administration. This is what Donald Trump does.

He's coming in all guns blazing, basically threatening these tariffs. So far, notable. And all these executive orders he signed a couple of days ago. There weren't any tariffs against those three trading partners.

Of course, now he says he's going to study them and ask and asking his administration to look into it. But at this point, you know, it just doesn't seem like something he will do right away. He keeps kicking the can down the road, but he can use that threat to get a lot of, you know, from Mexico to get a lot of reaction from them to get them to partner more so with immigration, with, you know, going after these cartels, which, of course, now he's raised the possibility of even sending the military into Mexico. So, yeah, I do think it's a negotiating tactic at this point.

And, yeah, he either brings it up or he's asked about it each time. And he continues with that threat. All right, Gabe Gutierrez, thank you so much for being here, helping us break down all of this. Headlines will see you tonight on Nightly News.

Really appreciate it. Well, coming up, coming together, I will talk to two House lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle about the challenges of bipartisanship in this bitter era of polarization and political revenge. My interview with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler and Democratic Congressman Brittany Pedersen is next. Stay with us.

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 fans in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prizefighter, and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription.

You will have deeper access and exclusive content. And now during the Xfinity member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50 percent off an annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more. Xfinity.

Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026. Prices subject to change. Visit NBC News.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details.

As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News with your host, Yasmin Basugian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalists. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world from the front page to the zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Amazon Music. Welcome back. In the first few days of the Trump presidency, several Republican lawmakers, including my next guest, have met with President Trump at the White House to strategize about how to pass the new president's agenda. But with a razor thin majority and a host of must pass items like raising the debt limit, funding the government and disaster aid to California, the path to passing anything this Congress is arduous and will likely need to be bipartisan.

Joining me now are New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler and Colorado Democratic Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen. Thanks to both of you for being here today. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having us.

We are absolutely thrilled to have this bipartisan conversation. So thanks so much to both of you for making it happen. We do want to get to your bipartisan push for proxy voting for new parents. We're going to get to that in just a moment.

I'm really excited to talk about it. I do want to start, though, on a little bit of news of day, if I can. Politico is reporting that congressional Republicans are discussing a deal that would include government funding, California wildfire aid, a debt limit hike and border security money that would require bipartisan buy in. I want to ask both of you if it's something that you support.

Congressman Lawler, let's start with you. Would you support that? Certainly. I mean, obviously, we have to keep the government funded.

Obviously, the debt ceiling is a major issue that is going to come up in short order. And certainly we want to provide disaster relief to those impacted by the wildfires. I think anytime you are dealing with legislation and negotiation, oftentimes these things are coupled together. We've had numerous disaster relief bills coupled with other pieces of legislation.

So as we move forward, you know, ultimately, I understand Democrats may object because on the issue of the debt ceiling, for instance, they're going to want to use it as leverage. But the fact is, we have to get these things done and we have to get out of the cycle of trying to use every little piece of leverage to get more of what we want when we're dealing with so many pressing issues. Congresswoman Patterson, what about you? Would you support this agreement?

What do you make of what you just heard from Congressman Lawler? Well, everything, I mean, supporting California right now is critical. Making sure that we're funding our government, not holding that funding hostage is essential. He already recognized the issue that Democrats are going to have around the debt ceiling, because if you want to take that away and give handouts and tax breaks to the most wealthy, well, putting it on the backs of middle class families, that's not something that Democrats are going to be interested in.

So I think that that's going to be the sticking point. So right now you would not support that legislation, Congresswoman Patterson? That is, it's really difficult because you're taking in consideration the whole package. So that's something I can even knew was happening right now since I'm out of the loop being here in Colorado until you brought this up.

And sorry to break the news to you here. This just happened today. So you're not too out of the loop. Which is a good segue to, I think, the point.

Yeah, well, let me ask this follow in Washington to vote. And so, I certainly empathize with Brittany and Anna Paulina Luna, who has led on this issue as well, and any expectant mother, and certainly fathers as well. And so, to me, this is an issue where I understand there may be constitutional challenges pertaining to this, but it's 2025, and certainly technology has changed and the ability to participate remotely certainly is more readily available today than it was 248 years ago. So, I think we need to evaluate this from the standpoint of allowing members to effectively do their job.

Do I think this should be abused? Do I think this should be common practice? No, I think obviously it's important for people to be here in person, but there are extenuating circumstances at times, including having children that really require you as a parent to be there, to be present, to obviously ensure your child's you know, ability to live. And so, that's something where I think we need to be cognizant of that, and I think this is something that should be addressed as we move forward.

Well, Congressman Lawler, we should say a hearty congratulations to you and your family as well for your new arrival. But let me get both of you to weigh in on this next point, because you kind of spoke to this, Congressman, which is that Speaker Johnson has said that proxy voting is unconstitutional. Starting with you, Congressman Patterson, what do you say to that? How do you respond?

Is he right? Well, the courts, where this has been challenged as whether or not it's constitutional, it's been thrown out. We actually have language in it that makes sure that this doesn't count towards quorum, which has been one of the outstanding issues. So we know that this will be constitutional.

We have addressed the concerns. And I also want to point out that Speaker Johnson voted by proxy numerous times during COVID. So this is absolutely constitutional. This is something that makes sense.

It modernizes Congress, and we ask the Speaker to bring it for a vote. Congressman Lawler, let me get your take. And as you just pointed out, the majority is incredibly narrow. Is it really possible to make proxy voting a reality if you don't have the Speaker on board?

Well, look, that's obviously a challenge. And Speaker Johnson, a constitutional lawyer by trade, certainly has a very strong opinion on this. I know there is litigation on this issue. And we'll see how it unfolds.

But I do think it's an important issue. I do join my colleagues in supporting this. I think we have to look at ways to not only modernize the ability to do our jobs, but recognize the realities of life. And we should not be impeded from doing our job and representing our constituents to the best of our abilities just because we have a family.

And especially for my female colleagues, if they choose, obviously, to breastfeed, for instance, that requires you to be there. It requires you to be present. And so this is something where I think we need to be cognizant of this. I think we need to work through, legally, how to do this correctly.

I accept the Speaker at his word. I think he's sincere about it. It's just a function of how we actually find a positive path forward on it. All right.

Well, I can't tell you how much we appreciate this bipartisan conversation. Appreciate you both being here today. Congressman Mike Lawler and Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen. Hope you'll both come back again soon.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you so much for having us. Good luck, Brittany.

Thank you, Mike. Appreciate you. And still to come, Democrats are about to pick a new party chair in their first major leadership shakeup since losing to Trump in November. I'll talk to one of the newest candidates for the top job about his vision for the party's future ahead of next week's elections.

You're watching 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 interruptions, 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 reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the Dr. Today app.

Workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the Xfinity Member Celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com slash membership to learn more.

Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026. Prices subject to change.

Visit today.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. Welcome back. Since they lost the presidential election, Democrats have been grappling with the question of who is the leader of their party. Well, in just over a week from now, party leaders will elect a new National Committee chair.

It is a crucially important decision that will lay down a marker about the future of the party and the future of its leadership. Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, Minnesota Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin, and Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wickler are leading the pack of candidates with a large share of DNC members publicly backing one of the three. But in a late race shakeup, former Bernie Sanders campaign manager Fahad Shakur announced his candidacy last week, saying he's looking to shift the conversation to be about regaining the public's trust. Joining me now on set is Fahad Shakur, DNC chair candidate.

Thank you for being here, Fahad. Great to have you. Usually you're on the panel. This is a very different capacity.

We're excited for this conversation. I do want to start off by playing something that you told my colleague Chuck Todd on his podcast earlier. Let's watch that. Let's talk about the, what would you like to see the DNC chair race be about?

And what do you fear it is going to be about? And are you, let me ask this, are you a candidate? Oh my goodness. I know a candidate.

I've done nothing. Unless you're making me a candidate. I do want to be a candidate. I do have strong feelings about all this.

I do have strong feelings. I do not think I could actually wage a campaign and win. I don't think anybody wants me to be the DNC chair. I firmly believe that.

I would love to inject my ideas. So here you go. Thanks, Chuck, for allowing me to inject some ideas. Well, Faz, maybe Chuck gave you an idea there.

You've changed your mind. So take us in your thinking. What changed for you? I'm going to test the proposition.

I jumped in late and I was frustrated. I mean, both I'm happy, Kristen, that we're talking about the Democratic Party being a working class party. I'm like, great. I've been waiting for this for the better part of a decade.

And then I'm saying, OK, well, what ambitious new ideas do you have? What are you going to do that's different? And I felt very let down. And I was like, OK, well, I have some.

Better, you know, late than never and live with no regrets. Jump in and let's have a shakeup. What, and we're going to get to your ideas because it is the seminal point here. What do you say to folks, though, who see you jumping in this late in the race and they say, you can't win this late.

Do you think you can really win? Well, I look at the scoreboard and no votes have been cast. Literally, it's zero. There's time still left on the clock.

There's the, you know, I get the people feel like a pledge or I talk to people. I'm like, no, there's no compulsion of a vote. You show up in D.C. next weekend and you follow your conscience.

Decide what does the Democratic Party stand for and who's best as a person to lead it. And I humbly would suggest that at this moment, if you elected me as your DNC chair, it would send a message that the DNC is very different right now. They are making a change. This is not status quo.

This is a different new thing. And why do you think you are ready, given the fact that in November you said, no, not for me? What makes you ready for this moment, Fad? Well, because I run two major organizations, Bernie Sanders with a $250 million, 100 percent grassroots funded organization, 1,200 employees, a unionized workforce, first unionized workforce in the presidential campaign industry.

The other was the ACLU. During that time, first years of Donald Trump, I led the ACLU's National Political Director, $200 million raised grassroots operation, 50 state affiliates. So I've had experience running major, large organizations. And, you know, I give a damn about having a working class party.

So those things combined, here I am. So let me ask you about your vision, because there is this big debate right now inside the Democratic Party. What should the Democrats' vision be? What should their argument be to voters about why there should be a Democratic Congress, why the next president should be Democratic?

What would your argument be? And do you run the risk of being too far to the left and outside of where the mainstream of America is? Well, I'm glad that people are talking about being a working class party, but what does it mean? In my view right now, there's a suffering of a lack of integrity around the brand of the Democratic Party.

It feels like to many working class people, I don't know that I