Meet the Press NOW — July 1

Did you know that everyday activities like ASMR can actually be healthy for you? Right now, you're improving your heart health, boosting your brain activity, and lowering your stress. Manulife wants you to see healthy living differently, so you can live a longer, healthier life. Visit manulife.ca slash health to learn more ways Manulife can help.

If it's Tuesday, the Senate passes President Trump's agenda bill by the narrowest of margins. After an all-night marathon session, sending it back to the House, which is barreling ahead with a plan to vote tomorrow and nearly no margin for error. Plus, Elon Musk reignites his feud with President Trump over the mega bill, vowing to support House Republicans who vote against it, prompting blowback from the president, including an ambiguous threat to deport the tech billionaire. And the president makes a visit to the so-called alligator Alcatraz, touring the new migrant detention center in Florida in the Everglades and touting his administration's crackdown at the border.

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington, where after a marathon 27-hour series of amendment votes, Senate Republicans were able to pass President Trump's legislative agenda, calling in Vice President J.D. Vance to break a 50-50 tie after an all-nighter of arm-twisting moved Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to yes. The massive bill includes some big changes that now have to go back to the House, including an increase in a fund to help rural hospitals handle the bill's sweeping cuts to Medicaid.

President Trump and his top Senate allies celebrated their long-fought victory. Again, we got the job done. We're going to be partners with President Trump. And his agenda is the right to bring our people to one of the first four last week.

In November, we heard loud and clear, and this is delivering on those promises. As President Trump would say, promises made, promises kept. The tax cuts were going to expire in December. There had been a $4 trillion tax increase.

That's a big deal. It's a great bill. There is something for everyone. And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House.

Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate. Notably, three Republicans voted against this bill. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is facing a potentially tough reelection next year. That may become tougher now.

And North Carolina's Tom Tillis would have been in the same position, except that he opted to retire after coming out against the bill. This afternoon, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer pledged to use this vote as a political cudgel in next year's midterms. Today's vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come. As the American people see the damage that is done, as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, as the debt increases, they will see what our colleagues have done and they will remember it.

And we Democrats will make sure they remember it. The sweeping legislation now has one more major hurdle a House vote on final passage which is expected sometime tomorrow If Republicans believe they have the votes to pass it Some House conservatives are already signaling their frustrations with the Senate version Speaker Mike Johnson has zero room for error after barely muscling through the House's original version by one vote. And last night, the Speaker was practically begging the Senate to take it easy on changes to the bill. some careful choreography down the stairs there clearly the political perils of this legislation are top of mind for members of congress and polling shows it deeply unpopular the non-partisan congressional budget office says the senate version of the bill would add more than three trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade the cbo says the bill would cut medicaid spending by more than a trillion dollars and lead to nearly 12 million americans losing their health insurance.

President Trump, however, has been relentless in his highly dubious claim that benefits will be protected and that the cuts would only come from waste, fraud and abuse. We're not going to be playing with that. Only waste, fraud and abuse. The Democrats have it wrong.

Yeah. Waste, fraud and abuse. Only waste, fraud and abuse, which is what everybody wants. Joining me now with the latest is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zanona and NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba.

Welcome, ladies. Good to have you with us. Now, let me start with you. Walk us through the marathon voterama and how did Republicans get their mega math to work.

Yeah, it all came down to Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She really was the decisive Republican vote that was able to put this over the finish line. She had been telegraphing her concerns for weeks about concerns related to Medicaid cuts, to rural hospitals, to some of the rollbacks of clean energy tax credits. So the GOP leadership were really focused specifically on trying to win her over.

And they did ultimately make a number of changes in this final bill specifically designed to win her over, including a softening of the phase out of those clean energy tax breaks that I mentioned. There's also going to be a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals as a way to sort of ease some of those concerns about how some of these Medicaid cuts will impact rural hospitals in states like Alaska. So it was enough to win her over. However, it has led to some accusations, including from her own Republican colleagues, like Rand Paul, who did vote against the bill, that she was just getting goodies and carve-outs for her home state of Alaska, bailing out her home state at the expense of the rest of the country.

Our Ryan Nobles pressed her on that Republican criticism, and it led to a pretty remarkable exchange. Just watch. Senator Paul said that your vote was a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country. Only.

That's what Senator Paul said. Mr. Waziz. Senator, we've got the ...

I didn't say it, ma'am. I'm just asking for your response. My response is I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska. When people suggest that federal dollars go to one of our 50 states in a quote bailout I find that offensive Do I like this bill No Because I tried to take care of Alaska interests But I know I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill I don't like that.

And you could tell by her reaction to Ryan Nobles there that she had really wrestled with this decision. It was not an easy vote for her. She, in fact, followed it up in a statement saying it was the most difficult decision, voting decision she's had to make in her long career here on Capitol Hill. But she followed it up by saying that she hopes ultimately that the House does not pass the bill as is and that they work to make some changes to improve the bill overall.

However, there is no indication at this point that the GOP leadership is planning on doing that. We've been catching up with some of the leadership here in the House over the past few hours. They said they want to pass the bill as is and get it to Trump's desk by July 4th, Kelly. Well, Mel, that was a wow moment between Ryan and the senator and one that, I mean, it goes layers deep in her thinking and how difficult this process is.

But when you talk about wanting changes, that she would want some additional changes, our indications are that things are going to move quickly in the House. What are you picking up on that? Yeah, that's exactly right. The feeling, at least right now, is that there's a huge boost of momentum after the Senate was able to sort of pull this rabbit out of the hat.

They worked all night to get it done, ultimately passing it this morning. The Trump president Trump factor also cannot be ignored. Obviously, he's going to lean in heavily to try to pressure Republican lawmakers in the House to pass this bill. However, there are over a dozen by our count Republicans who have expressed concerns with the Senate product.

So they might try to extract some other changes here, whether that's in the bill itself or maybe some sidecar deals, some sort of assurances. At this point, they do want to have some sort of conversation with leadership. That hasn't happened right now. What's happening is a House Rules Committee meeting.

That's sort of the first step in the process in the House to get this bill moving. We'll see if there's any changes that are ultimately made. But it's not. They got their work cut out for them here in the House as well.

Thank you, Mel. And let me turn now to Monica. And we heard President Trump say that he thinks the House will be easier than the Senate after what the Senate has just gone through, but that some arm twisting comes with the territory. What is that going to look like from the White House perspective?

And we know, Kelly, that over the last couple of days, the president has been working the phone. He's been talking to lawmakers pretty consistently trying to apply some of that political pressure. He even canceled a trip he was going to take over the weekend to his New Jersey property to stay here in Washington and monitor the developments as the bill did move ahead in the Senate. And he was watching that all unfold as he was traveling back today from Florida, where he did specifically speak about what he calls these, quote, grandstanders in the House, saying that he did think the Senate was going to be the more difficult path, as you just mentioned.

And that now in the House, I'm told he's back here in the White House and effectively trying to continue to do some arm twisting. And he was specifically asked about Congressman Thomas Massey, who has been opposed to this, a Republican. He said, look, he always votes against me and it won't be an issue because, in the words of the president, we're going to basically run someone against him to primary him. So then you have this whole future political implication to consider when we talk about these Republicans who are weighing how to vote, what it could mean for their own futures as well.

But the president really saying that he thinks Speaker Johnson will get people in line. He had opened some willingness to the deadline. He wanted it done by the 4th of July. But earlier today he signaled OK if it slips a little bit that fine But that still his priority and ideally would get done by the end of this week One of the side effects of this battle over this bill has been a return of the drama with Elon Musk And President Trump has certainly taken some new hits at him kind of suggesting that the power of the government could be used against a man who was one time a top ally and now appears to be back on on the list of those who are not considered friends.

What is the reboot of the Musk Trump drama? Yeah, the feud was dormant for a little bit. But remember, at the center of all of this was this signature piece of legislation, because Elon Musk was criticizing the size of it and wanted it to be scaled back because he had been put in charge of government efficiency and he didn't want as much spending, of course. So now that he was criticizing again this version before it crossed the finish line in the Senate, President Trump was firing back at him.

And here's a little bit of what he had to say, specifically implying there could be more repercussions coming for the world's richest man. He's losing his EV mandate. And he's very upset about things, but, you know, he could lose a lot more than that. We might have to put Doge on Elon.

You know, Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies. The president referring there to the EV mandate, of course, electrical vehicle mandate.

That was a big issue in the weeks leading up to this. And Kelly, Elon Musk said for his part that he could continue to add to this to really make it much worse. But he said on X that he would refrain from doing so for now. We'll see.

In the president's sort of lighthearted tone, there seemed to be a little bit of a threat there about contracts that Musk has. Thank you, Monica. Appreciate your time today. And joining me now on set to continue this conversation is Tia Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Kimberly Atkins Storr, Senior Opinion Writer for the Boston Globe and an NBC News political analyst. And Stephen Hayes, Editor and CEO of The Dispatch. He's also an NBC News political analyst. So we've got all your titles out here.

Your credentials are perfect for today. Let me just start right off the bat with Speaker Johnson's warnings. And we have a sense that he is trying to say this needs to go quickly and that it has to be something that there's not too much tinkering. What is your sense of how this is going to go?

Yeah, I mean, contrary to what Senator Murkowski said, I don't think there's much appetite in the House to kind of volley it back to the Senate. I think what Speaker Johnson wants is to get at least a majority of the House. You know, they could lose three or four House members if everyone's present and still pass that bill. And I think that's what he wants to do.

And he wants to do it before July 4th. When we're including if everyone is present, we know it's tight. If you're doing the bed checks, if everyone's in town. Stephen, do you think this would have ever passed in a conservative environment, Republican led chambers in a pre Trump era?

No, absolutely not. This is just not the way government is supposed to be done. I caught a clip of a former colleague of mine on Fox News. I think it was yesterday saying this bill has to pass because it's Donald Trump's entire agenda.

Stop for a second and think about the way that our government is functioning. You can't have his entire president for four years. These are complicated issues. It should be debated one after another after another with some expert input, with discussions back and forth, with compromise.

This is not that. This is just thrown together. You know this as well as I do. Go up on Capitol Hill and ask people what's in this bill.

They can't tell you. Tell you two or three of their pet provisions, they have no idea what's in the bill. And then Donald Trump threatening people, threatening Elon Musk with government power because he opposes a bill. I mean, this is so far from the way that our country is supposed to operate.

And just to give people a sense of what that would look like, they could have pulled out all of the border provisions and run that as a standalone, which would have had different requirements in terms of vote levels. But they could have done that for something that they felt the public had a lot of support for. Let's talk about something that the vice president said. Let me ask you this.

He posted last night, so posting and saying not quite the same thing, but everything else, the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of Medicaid policy. He said all of that is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions. So picking up on what I referenced there with the popularity of border enforcement coming out of the election. What does this say to you when he is kind of diminishing all these complex issues to say it's all about that?

Well, it says that he is gambling that the president's immigration policy is going to be so popular with Trump voters that it will provide cover for all of this. But he somehow thinks that it will also eclipse the fact that many people, including folks in lots of red states, depend on Medicaid, depend on this, would not be able to get the health care they need, would not be able to stay afloat without these kinds of benefits. And that it's not only hurting those, it's hurting other long-term programs that people have paid into, like Medicare and Social Security down the line, and that this is absolutely unsustainable, all because a handful of really rich folks want a tax break. I think the vice president is trying to do a job of putting lipstick on a pig, but people still see the pig.

And the rural hospital systems, they are so dependent on Medicaid. And we're not talking waste-rought and abuser. These are people who are old, and that's how they get their health care. Do you think, Stephen, that there are ways that typical citizens will see this bill and say, how does it affect me?

A lot of the tax cuts remain exactly the same. So it's a continuation of the 2017 signature Trump tax cuts. So they're not going to necessarily have a benefit there. It's a little bit of a bump in the child credit, which people will experience.

And in some places, there's an increase in the deductibility of their state and local taxes. That was a big bone of contention in the House. Do you think this is the kind of bill where people will say, how will this affect my life? Yeah, I think eventually people will have some better understanding of exactly what it contains.

That's one of the reasons it's been so hard for people to cobble together and for them to put together this board is because they're having a difficult time saying in advance, hey, these are the benefits. These are the benefits. And if you're talking about extending the tax cuts, look, I think there are a lot of Republicans who want to vote for tax cuts. I like tax cuts myself.

But extending the tax cuts is a harder argument to make than we're going to give you new tax cuts. They're going to all be these obvious benefits. And when you think of some of the things that have been a battle here, too, it is also the electric vehicle tax credits and some of the things that are really about innovation in some ways, where the United States has used the tax code to try to spur business, to try to increase opportunities. Do you think that is the kind of thing that he attaches it to Elon Musk, but it is broader than that?

But it also has to do with conservatives in their attacks on Green New Deal green energy not wanting to acknowledge the impact of climate change So it in a broader culture war issue I think the concern is again in red states like Georgia where I write a lot about those EB tax credits have been used by our Republican governor and Republican legislature to attract businesses and manufacturing to the state. And what happens when those businesses say we were expecting these tax credits and other incentives, which are no longer available? Some businesses have already made plans, but now they believe that those federal incentives are going away. And there could be real impact on jobs.

Job uncertainty, for sure. And even just the competitiveness with other nations. I want to fill that space. When you think about how Elon Musk is talking about how this affects the relationship, will he actually do something to try to bankroll the Republicans who would vote against it or try to create another party, as he's talked about?

Is this just Elon Musk injecting himself for the short term or do you see real potential for him to write checks and change how things go? I mean, I think there's potential whether he sticks with it or whether he and Donald Trump find a way to make up in the next days or weeks remains to be said. I will say there's a lot of personal reasons why Elon Musk opposes this bill and opposes certain things that Donald Trump wants to do. Again, the EV tax credits.

He owns an electric vehicle company. He is relying on tax credits. The reshaping how the federal government works and where the federal funding goes. His space is very much reliant on federal contracts.

Again, even this isn't necessarily a reconciliation bill, but the crackdown on immigration, the crackdown on naturalized citizens. That's he is a naturalized citizen. So I think just in general, some of the conversations have a personal ramification for him. And it's personal for Democrats, too.

Do you see this having the kind of potency that Chuck Schumer has talked about? It should. I mean, the plan is being laid out. The messaging for the Democrats is being laid out right before them.

This is the president's bill. That is his priority. He's pushing it through. And he thinks that the rich is to get a tax break on the backs of poor people who won't be able to afford their health care or their groceries.

I mean, I don't know how you get a clearer picture than that. But also for Republicans, to your point about Elon and Trump, Trump is showing that his closest ally now is now such a villain in his eyes, such an enemy that he's threatening to deport him, essentially. What do all these Republicans who are just bowing to their leader with his bill think going to happen? Do they think that they're going to have long term loyalty from the president?

What are they doing this for? I hope they're all asking themselves that question. Because their arms are still sore. Are they doing that calculation?

Thank you to the panel. Stick with us. We will come back to you again for more. And Kimberly, Stephen, Tia, don't go away.

More to talk about today. Coming up, President Trump tours the new migrant detention facility in the Florida Everglades, and it's dubbed Alligator Alcatraz. What a name. What we know about the high-security swampland compound and the controversy surrounding it.

That's coming up next. Plus, one week later, the results are in. An official in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. And it's officially a big win for Momdani as Democrats grapple with what it means for their future.

You're watching Meet the Press Now. Stay with us. Welcome back. President Trump has returned to the White House after touring a new and controversial migrant detention facility in Florida which conservatives are embracing as a symbol of the administration immigration crackdown The president alongside Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the detention center that become known as Alligator Alcatraz, and for good reason.

The facility is situated on the site of an old airstrip in the Florida Everglades, and that sparked protests over both environmental and humanitarian concerns. In addition to the oppressive heat, it is surrounded by swampland, inhabited by all kinds of swamp animals. We're not kidding here. The president, though, says he is touting these conditions as a feature of the facility.

You don't always have land so beautiful and so secure. You have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are in the form of alligators. You don't have to pay them so much. But I wouldn't want to run through the Everglades for long.

We'll keep people where they're supposed to be. NBC News senior national politics reporter and Florida resident Matt Dixon joins me now, along with NBC News senior homeland security correspondent Julia Ainsley. So Matt, Florida man here, walk us through how this facility came to be and how significant is the governor in all of this? Yeah, well, Governor Ronda Sancis has been pushing an immigration crackdown for essentially the entirety of his political career.

A few weeks ago, we don't have an exact time frame as far as specific days, him and DHS, Department of Homeland Security, sort of the administration sort of connected on the idea of putting this facility in the middle of the Florida Everglades. And the messaging and the sort of political prospects of why this was important sort of centered on the alligators and the snakes and it being 50 miles from, you know, essentially functional land. And they thought it was a really good idea to house nearly 3,000 people at almost $450 million a year in the middle of the Florida Everglades. And it's a partnership between DHS and the state and certainly Governor Ron DeSantis and his attorney general, James Uthmeyer, were big drivers of that.

And I think it's easy for all of us to be a little afraid of alligators. And so making that a feature, not a bug, is certainly interesting. Julia, when you look at this facility, I've heard administration officials talk about it as a form of deterrence. Is that what it's intended to be?

Well, they're talking about it really publicly, but legally, Kelly, that could be a problem for them. In fact, under the Immigration Nationality Act, not only are border restrictions not meant to be a deterrent, but immigration detention is not meant to be punitive. It's not like serving a sentence. It is specifically for the purposes of detaining an immigrant while they have a pending asylum case or a pending deportation order if they're about to be deported from the United States.

And so in this case, they are very flagrantly saying that this is detention. You see these PR campaigns where you have alligators wearing ice hats that have been put on them through some kind of CGI, AI. And they're saying, of course, that this is this tough stance. Now, the one difference between this and an ICE facility is that this is a state thing.

Ron DeSantis is correctly getting the credit for this because the state of Florida is running it and they're going to be reimbursed with FEMA funds. So there are a lot of immigration advocates that are worried that this facility will not fall under the same oversight that other ICE facilities do. Because ICE has already dismantled. That's right.

And because ICE has recently dismantled a lot of the oversight that they had the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman for example has been dismantled according to an ongoing lawsuit And frankly because this falls outside of ice it really like nothing we seen before And Matt a number of environmental groups have filed a lawsuit over this facility because it is in the Everglades There's some protected land there. What is that doing in terms of the debate? Yeah, I mean, it's a national park. It's among the most environmentally sensitive swaths of land in the country.

There's really nothing like it. There are other national parks that are mountains that are there. There is nothing like sort of the sea of grass that is the Everglades. So what environmental groups are saying, and they have challenged this, as you rightly pointed out in court, and they are saying, hey, what is it going to be like if we bring 3,000 people into this very environmentally sensitive area?

How is that going to have impacts? And I think their perspective is certainly that it's going to obviously have negative impacts in an area that is already over the very recent history of Florida. Over the past two or three decades, the Everglades has been sort of encroached down and developed, and environmental groups are very sensitive to that. And their perspective is that, hey, 3,000 people in the middle of the Everglades, that could be a problem.

and that's what is sitting before a judge right now. And, Julia, when the president was at the facility today, he suggested that he could be open to deporting people born in the United States. Let's play that. But we also have a lot of bad people that have been here for a long time, people that whack people over the head with a baseball bat from behind when they're not looking to kill them, people that knife you when you're walking down the street.

They're not new to our country. They're old to our country. Many of them were born in our country. I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too, if you want to know the truth.

So maybe that will be the next job that we'll work on together. Okay, so that's a notable comment from the president about removing American-born citizens from the country. Is there any basis for this in the law based on what you have been tracking on this? No, absolutely not.

I mean, there's really no basis for deporting Americans. This isn't the first time that Trump has talked about this, though. You can remember he talked about it with El Salvador's president Bukele in the Oval Office. And again, he brings up time and time again people whacking someone over the head.

Previously, he said it was grandmothers getting on the subway who were the victims of this. It's not clear what specific incident he's citing. But at that point, he was talking about deporting Americans who he thought were hardened criminals to CECOD. It wasn't clear whether he was going to try to use Immigration Nationality Act, which clearly doesn't have a provision for American citizens, or whether he was going to try to use the Alien Enemies Act to try to deport people to CECOT.

But really, this is something that doesn't have legal basis. But, you know, there have been pipe dreams of Trump's on immigration that have come true. In fact, Alligator Alcatraz is one of them. In a book by Michael Scheer, Border Wars, they talk about the first Trump administration.

He wanted to build a moat with alligators to keep immigrants out. At the time, that seemed like something that could never be done. And we're talking about it in real terms here today. It's amazing how the first term to the second term, some of those ideas, people have gotten used to hearing him talking this way.

Matt and Julia, thank you so much. We will now turn to another one of the issues that has been prominent in the Trump administration, and that is the United States Agency for International Development, which, after more than six decades, started by President Kennedy, is officially shuttering its doors, and it is merging into the remaining limited operations it will have within the Department of State. This is a Trump administration switch. The agency established by Kennedy boosted the U.S.

engagement around the world through global health programs, disaster relief, education and economic development. But as of today, the State Department says the agency will cease to implement foreign assistance. In a post on Substack, Secretary Rubio was critical of U.S.A.D.'s effectiveness, writing, quote, development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown. That is only one slice of the view of that.

But a new analysis published in The Lancet Medical Journal finds that from 2001 to 2021, programs funded by U.S.A.D. prevented nearly 92 million deaths across 133 countries. and warned that the dismantlement of U.S. aid could lead to more than 14 million deaths over the next five years.

And up next, new results from New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, giving us a clearer look at Zoran Mondami's dominant performance. NBC's C. Kornacki joins me with the big board and breaking it all down in what it means. 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 Talk 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. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with your host, Gazin Vasugian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's 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 Spotify. Welcome back. It's official.

Zoran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City Mayor. Mamdani surpassed 50 percent after the New York City Board of Elections released its tabulation of ranked choice ballots. The 33-year-old defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, but they could each face each other again in the general election if the former New York governor decides to run as a third-party candidate. Mamdani telling Kristen Welker Sunday on Meet the Press that he's confident that his success in the primary will carry on to the general election.

We can beat anyone that's in this race because what we've shown is that this is a campaign that has the support of more than 400,000 New Yorkers. For too long, politicians have pretended to simply be bystanders to a cost-of-living crisis. they've actually exacerbated it. And our vision is one that will respond to it and make this a city affordable for every New Yorker A moment like this is made for Steve Kornacki and he joining me now our national political correspondent And Steve what are the big takeaways now that you crunched all the numbers and we get a sense of that ranked order that voters were able to express their opinions Yeah, I mean, an interesting and unusual primary in a couple ways.

First of all, the methodology, like you said, using the ranked choice system. Not many places do that. Let's just show you first how that played out. These were the preliminary results.

We had these last week. Remember, this is just the first choice votes for everybody that came in last week. More than 10 candidates in this race under ranked choice. They start eliminating the candidates, the low-performing candidates, and they look at the ballots and who were the second choices of those voters.

and they reallocate everything. So that's what happened. It went from 43 for Momdani, 36 for Cuomo. You saw a distant third was Brad Lander with 11 percent.

When everything got reallocated, it ends up looking like this, that 12.56, 44 percent margin for Momdani over Cuomo. Now, what's interesting is besides the system itself, what went into that 56 percent? Because when we talk about elections, it's almost like a cliche. What's one of the things we always say?

Well, older people tend to vote more than younger people. There's going to be higher turnout with senior citizens, and it's going to be a struggle for these campaigns to get young people out. Not really what happened here. Let me show you this.

One way of breaking down the results, We looked at all of the neighborhoods in New York City, and we looked at the median age in New York City, and we basically classified the neighborhoods. Is the neighborhood, is its median age older than New York City's average, or is it younger? And look at the difference you see here. In the older neighborhoods, we knew that Cuomo was doing better with older voters, and a lot of folks thought that's why he had an advantage over Mom Donnie, because traditionally that's how you win elections.

Well, Cuomo won those older neighborhoods by seven points. Now, the turnout level in those older neighborhoods compared to the last mayor's race in 2021, it was basically flat. It was up 1%. Now look at the other side of it.

The younger neighborhoods, we knew that's where Mom Donnie was drawing more of his support. He wins there by almost 20 points, 18 point margin over Cuomo and the younger neighborhoods. But look at the turnout in those places compared to the last mayor's race, up 14 percent. So you see two things here.

Mom Donnie squeezed more out of the younger neighborhoods than Cuomo got out of the older neighborhoods. But then there was sort of a bonus there for Mom Donnie because the turnout in those neighborhoods was higher than it was in the older neighborhoods. That's a different story than we usually tell when we look at elections. And it's a big ingredient what Mom Donnie pulled off.

You're not just beating Cuomo, but beating him by double digits. And you raise that question of would Cuomo go on to the general election and take a shot third party in the fall. Does the magnitude of his loss in his primary, not just losing it by losing it by 12, you have to wonder, does that affect the decision making for him as well? See, that's so interesting.

It tells us so much about where the energy is and certainly really gives us something to track as we head toward the general election. You are always a master of the numbers. Thank you so much. And back with me now is our panel, of course, DeMitchell, Kimberly Atkins, Storr and Stephen Hayes.

And I want to play some of Kristen's interview Sunday with the mayoral candidate, who's the talk of the moment, to just get a sense of of how he has sprung onto the scene. So let's let's take a listen to part of what he had to say. Do you condemn that phrase, globalize the Intifada? That's not language that I use.

The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights But very quickly for the people who care about the language and who feel really concerned by that phrase Why not just condemn it My concern is to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible Takes me into a place similar to that of the president. So that was Kristen doing what Kristen does well following up there. And a lot of Democrats are even challenging him on these words and that words matter. Do you see that kind of a moment and the views attached to it as playing out in the general election?

I mean, I think it could hurt him with certain voters, particularly Jewish voters, particularly voters who believe that he should be more careful in his words, who are concerned about some of the things he said in the past, believes they're problematic. But I think there are plenty of more progressive voters in New York City who think that maybe focusing on a particular phrase or or or how he's spoken in the past isn't the right way to approach his candidacy and his popularity. And we've seen some prominent Democrats, leaders of the party, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries. They know New York.

They have wished him well, but they have not endorsed. Where does that stand? I think that's showing what the election is showing, which is this broadening divide about how people campaign now and a new generation of campaigners. Mondani, one of the reasons for his victory is he reached out broadly, whereas the former governor sort of sat back and expected his constituents to come back to him.

I feel like there's still a lot of that old guard who doesn't know how to react to a young dynamic campaign, whatever you agree or disagree with on particular issues. And I think that's what needs to change for the Democratic Party to move forward. Stephen, are you getting some echoes of when AOC popped on the scene as well, when she ended things and and how sometimes the hierarchy of the Democratic Party struggled with that? Yeah, a little timidity that you're seeing from, I think, senior Democrats.

But I would argue for a reason. I think Mondani is a bad bad news for New Yorkers substantively. if he becomes the mayor because he's pretty radical. And bad news for Democrats politically across the country, because if he wins, you can bet on Republicans to point out the things that he said, the policies that he wants today, as an example of what the new generation of Democrats are.

And I think that'll be scary for a lot of Republican voters and independent voters. And do you see that potentially because New York is outsized in its prominence and visibility, that that could translate to an argument against the Democratic Party in the midterms in 2028? Look at how much coverage he's getting right now. I mean, absolutely.

They will use him as a stand-in for the new generation of Democrats. President Trump will say, I've been warning you about socialism. Here it is. Do you get a sense that it will be a battle over those kinds of lines that he talks about himself as a socialist.

We've seen that in national politics before. But in a city like New York, there could be a lot of tensions over that. How do you see that playing out? I mean, I think it's a new generation.

I think when you talk about a man from New York who has a populist movement behind him and the problematic things he said in the past ultimately don't hurt him at the polling locations, there's precedent for that. And his name is Donald Trump. And so Mom Donnie being able to have a populist movement behind him and people get behind his policies, we've seen that voters are willing to overlook things that maybe in the past would have been disqualifying to a candidate. A populist who really takes the city by storm.

We have, in fact, seen that before. Thank you to the panel. We have some breaking news. We're going to shift to that.

Thank you for your time and your insights today. The jury in the Sean Combs trial has delivered a partial verdict to the judge Jurors say they have reached a verdict on several of the counts that Combs is facing but have not reached a consensus on the first count So let get right to NBC Chloe Malas and our legal analyst Angela Sandella Joining me now to hear how this played out. Chloe, tell us, what are you learning from what the judge has told the court? Hey there.

So I just came out of the overflow room where I was watching a camera of Combs's attorneys huddled around him. Combs looked incredibly disappointed. He had his head down at the floor, his attorneys, actually some of them embracing, but not looking positive, looking very stressed. They also handed him.

Margaret Nichol, his lead attorney, handed him the juror's note. And you can see Combs at one point rubbing his eyes. Right now, we know that the jurors are unable to reach a verdict on count one. And that is the racketeering charge, the RICO conspiracy.

That is the most complicated charge that Combs faces. And only does it carry up to a life sentence. There are eight predicate acts. Prosecutors had to prove that Combs committed at least two illegal activities on that list.

And I'll tell you what those were. Those include kidnapping, arson, bribery, witness tampering, forced labor, sex trafficking, transportation for purposes of prostitution and drug distribution. You know, yesterday we did receive a note from the jury asking about drug distribution, wanting that law re-read to them. You know, this is very interesting.

They've been deliberating for almost two days. We know that they have reached a verdict on those other counts that you spoke of. And what are those counts? Well, those are two counts of sex trafficking.

One, when it pertains to Cassie Ventura, his girlfriend of about 11 years, who claims that Combs forced her to participate in drug-fueled sex parties known as freak-offs. Prosecutors have to prove force, fraud, or coercion when it comes to those charges. The other one pertains to Jane. Now, that is not her real name.

She testified under a pseudonym. She actually dated Combs up until his arrest in September. And there are those two counts of the MANAX, Transportation to Engage in Prostitution. We heard from several escorts taking the stand.

We know that Combs paid for those escorts on some of his own credit cards. And the question is, did he use company money to pay for some of those apps? You know, also, this is very interesting. The judge is now asking the jury to go back and deliberate.

He has told them something called an Allen charge, right, where he wants them to go back again and try to continue to deliberate. But we know from this note that there is more than one juror who is, as of right now, unwilling to change their position. Now, you know, something that's really interesting here is that I was in that courtroom almost every single day and I had my eyes on those jurors. And I have said all along that I did not think that they would reach unanimous verdict on RICO.

That is because during some of the testimony from the prosecutor's witnesses, remember, they call 34. Several of them appear to look not in agreement with the prosecution, some smirking, some appearing to roll their eyes during different testimony. So this we knew that this was always going to be difficult for them to reach a unanimous verdict. Now, when I was in there for closing arguments, Mark Agnifilo, one of Holmes's defense attorneys, as lead defense attorney delivering closings on Friday and at one point eliciting laughter from the jurors in the courtroom.

He said that Cassie is actually the winner here, that she was the one that walked away with a $20 million settlement. Remember, this all started when Cassie Ventura filed that explosive civil suit against Combs in November 2023. That was the first time that anyone had heard that she had been in a violent relationship with Combs and during Her testimony, four days on the stand, heavily pregnant with her third child. She testified about years of physical and emotional abuse.

We saw photographs of her badly beaten over the course of her relationship. But really what this comes down to is consent. Do these 12 jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Cassie and Jane were forced to participate in these freak-offs? There were damning text messages from both Cassie and Jane saying that they wanted to participate in these freak-offs.

We even heard in closings from Mark Agnifolo called Cassie and Holmes' relationship a great modern love story. So again, we do not know what the verdict is on counts two, three, four, and five. But on one, the one that carries up to a life sentence, they are still having to deliberate on that. And, Chloe, do you get a sense that the judge will hold the verdicts and not reveal those while he is intending to have the jurors go back and press on and do more work on that count that you described as being perhaps hard?

Well, we know it's hard because they have told the court they can't reach a unanimous verdict. And it's hard in part because it is the sweeping enterprise of a criminal conspiracy, not just the interpersonal conduct that some of the other counts are dealing with. Do you get a sense that they'll go right back to work today or will they come back tomorrow? Do you have any of those sort of tick tock moments for us?

You know, it's hard to say because, you know, they deliberated until five o'clock yesterday. They have the right to keep going. We know that they don't have court on Thursday and Friday, but that potentially, you know, they could continue to deliberate if they want to. You know, I will tell you, this is what the judge just said.

He said, can you both send me your proposed instructions, meaning from the prosecution and the defense, send to chambers inbox in their email. We will take it from there. We have three options. Defense suggesting to keep going.

Second proposal, some version of a modified Allen charge. Right. That's to tell the jury that it is their duty to continue to deliberate. And a third option, at some point, the court advises the jury to return a partial verdict.

But I don't think we're at that stage. Let me tell you something really interesting about that. This is very reminiscent of just a few weeks ago when I was at a courthouse right around the corner, but it wasn't federal. It was state.

And it was Harvey Weinstein's criminal retrial. Remember, he was first tried Harvey Weinstein in 2017. His conviction overturned and he was retried. And the jury could not reach a verdict on one of the women.

OK, so you had a hung on one with Jessica Mann. You had a guilty on another and a not guilty on a third. So, again, you could see the jurors sticking to their guns, saying that they are very far off here. And it sounds like it is more than one juror, but it looks like potentially today they may stop deliberating and come back tomorrow.

But again this is breaking very significant news that they quite quickly came to a verdict on counts two through five But on that racketeering conspiracy charge it is the most complicated I do want to also tell you that some of Holmes family have arrived His daughters have just arrived He had about six of his children He has seven total, the seventh being the youngest, an infant, at the courthouse a lot. And we saw them all there, all six of them, during closing arguments. They've been a united force. And someone that's been in that courtroom nearly every single day is Mama Holmes, his mother.

And just a short time ago, I actually shared an elevator with Mark Agnipolo, the lead attorney for Holmes. I shook his hand. I spoke to him for a few minutes. He seemed calm, cool, and collected, like he always does.

And that was what he knew. What I didn't know was that there was another note from the jury. And he was making his way to the courtroom on the 26th floor of the federal courthouse right there behind me. I also just want to describe the scene for you right here in front of the courthouse.

It's raining, as you can see. I'm getting drips of rain on my face. But there are a lot of people now gathered outside. I like to call them citizen journalists.

They are people that are streaming all of this coverage day in, day out for the last two months on TikTok, on social media. A lot of influencers here. Some people are wearing free puff T-shirts. We know that one of his children actually wore a shirt saying free puff the other day when he went to the courtroom.

And he's not supposed to do that. And he had to change. But again, the feeling down here palpable. People are fascinated by this trial.

And obviously, this has been over a year and a half since Cassie first filed that civil suit. And we have been waiting for this moment ever since. Chloe, your in-person experience there is taking me back to when I covered the O.J. Simpson trial.

So I completely relate to what you're describing about things you pick up by watching the jurors, things that are happening as a part of sort of the environment that you're in. And certainly this is something where there's no substitute for the kind of day in, day out assessment as an observer of this case that you bring to it. So I thank you for that. Hang in here with us.

I also want to tap into the knowledge of our legal analyst, Angela Senendela, who can give us a sense of when you hear this breakdown of the jury unable to reach a decision on count one, the racketeering, but having reached decisions on the other counts. What does that say to you? So honestly, it does say to me in a mere fashion what Chloe said. And frankly, what Chloe has said all along, having been in that courtroom, that perhaps this RICO charge is just too confusing, too sprawling.

There are too many pieces that have to be put together in order for the jury to get there. Now, look, as a lawyer, when I look at the definitions of what is required to get a conviction in RICO, I believe the prosecution got there. But they don't have to sway me, right? They have to sway 12 people on that jury to think that he used the benefits, the fruits of his businesses in order to create crimes.

And if you look at the enterprise of just his assistants and the people who work for him who have repeatedly testified to having for example used Holmes money to pay off bribes or to keep information from coming out To me that does count as conspiracy That counts as racketeering But it very confusing They brought in all of these state crimes in an attempt to wrap it up and roll it up in this racketeering charge. And that is very confusing. Now, in terms of them coming to an agreement pretty quickly on two, three, four and five, the sex trafficking and the interstate prostitution, I am going to guess that they are coming down with a guilty verdict on those. And the reason for me is because of that video that the prosecution played over and over again so repeatedly while also clarifying to the jury that the only requirement in a case of sex trafficking to try to prove this charge is that force, fraud or coercion was used in order to further a commercial sex act.

And if you see that video and you believe Cassie's testimony that she was trying to leave a freak off when that violence happened and you see it and you see him physically pulling him back in, I mean, how can you not think that's force, fraud or coercion? I mean, that said, oh, that's your analysis. That's your analysis. We don't want to get ahead of the jury because it is ultimate.

They are the finders of fact in this. But certainly people understand that that is compelling evidence, according to the prosecution, because it does allow people to see some of these events. Very different than the RICO charge, which does require sort of connecting the dots, using his money, using his employees, those sorts of things in a conspiracy. RICO is often applied in very different contexts.

Here we have a music mogul with a lot of money and a lot of power and a lot of celebrity friends. Do you get a sense that the celebrity factor and the money factor, as it often does have an influence in criminal justice, that that played out here in your assessment? Yeah, I mean, I think it's absolutely impossible not to. But at the same time, jurors are always unpredictable, right?

So you're not entirely sure in which way that affects them. Does the juror see the celebrity and think that the celebrity meant that they were legitimately amazing in many ways and that he was really a musician and that they see him on their TV, they see him on their music, on their Spotify. And so as a result, they think, oh, that money was really meant for legitimate purposes. Well, as you know, the definition of a rico charge still allows for that money to be used for legitimate businesses, so long as some of it is also used to further illegitimate businesses.

But when you're dazzled by celebrity, I think it's impossible for anyone not to. It could go either way, right? And I also think the defense was extremely vigorous in saying that, look, a jury, you should not punish Diddy because of his kinky fetishes, right, or just the choices that he might have made. And you might think, oh, celebrities are different.

So you might perhaps then give celebrities somehow some benefit of the doubt that they live a different lifestyle. And so thus you are not going to place your own moral judgment on their activity And so it could really go both ways with regards to celebrity So many human dimensions to this And this trial and the testimony therein has certainly taken many Americans into a world they were not that familiar with Thank you Angela Let me go back to Chloe. You've had a moment to catch your breath. I know the rush of when you get word of a major development in a case.

There's a lot coming at you. And I know you've been able to be in touch with people who are in the courtroom and so forth. So before we hand off to the next hour, because this news will continue, I just want to check back in with you to see where are you at this moment in terms of what we should expect or any updates. Right.

So we're unclear if the jury is going to continue to deliberate today and what exactly is going to be happening next on that front when it comes to charge one. But I do want to talk to you about the mood in the courtroom right now. According to our court reporter who is inside right now and some of our journalists who are also in other parts of the courthouse watching on something like a feed, the cameras inside, Combs appears to be very somber. Two of his attorneys sitting down, including Tenny Garagos, the daughter of a very famous celebrity attorney, Mark Garagos, who at one point represented Combs, looking dejected.

And that is an exact quote. So, again, perhaps they were hoping for hung on a few other charges. Right. And so I think that it's very, very interesting that we are waiting in charge, because like I said, it's it's been it's been pretty fascinating to watch the jurors faces for all of these weeks.

And really, you know, they say don't read the tea leaves here and never really know what jurors are thinking. So don't try to get in their minds. But again, it's been very obvious that some of them just have not been on board with the prosecution. Well, and all of that leads to how you assess what you saw in the courtroom and certainly being dejected or looking down.

This is a very stressful event, regardless of the outcome. So we will wait for more word. Thank you, Chloe. Appreciate your expertise on this.

Angela, as we go into it, do you think the court will allow for an announcement of the last couple? of counts very quickly here, or do you expect the court to require them to again go back and deliberate further? I expect the court will require them to go back and deliberate tomorrow, and hopefully tomorrow they will come to a decision so that then the prosecution does not have to decide whether or not they want to rebring those charges or drop them. Well, we will be following all of this, and thank you for your knowledge and insight on this, and we will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but the news, and there's a lot of it, continues with Hallie Jackson coming right now.

He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died.

And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn i'm josh mankowitz and this is trace of suspicion an all-new podcast from dateline listen to all episodes of trace of suspicion now wherever you get your podcasts