Meet the Press NOW — July 10

If it's Thursday. Great expectations and new escalations. President Trump struggles to fulfill some key campaign and presidential promises as Russia keeps pummeling Ukraine and US Trading partners decline to bend to the administration's will on tariffs. Plus, the latest fallout in Texas as officials search for more than 170 people still missing and residents begin to return to what's left of their flood ravaged homes.

I'll talk to a Texas congressman who says it's long past time to strengthen rural America's weather warning systems. And a federal judge moves to temporarily block President Trump's birthright citizenship ban nationwide, a major test of the judicial righteous authority following last month's landmark Supreme Court ruling. Hi there and welcome to MEET the press now on Ryan Nobles in Washington, where after successfully signing his domestic policy legislation into law last week, President Trump is now struggling to make good on several other key promises, starting in Ukraine, a problem Mr. Trump promised repeatedly to solve on day one of his presidency.

Now, as President Trump is clearly growing increasingly frustrated with President Putin. We got a lot of bull thrown at us by Putin for you want to know the truth? It's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless. The president now saying that he's reviewing a bipartisan sanctions package against Russia and is resuming weapons delivered to Ukraine.

It is a remarkable shift from the president's Oval Office rebuke of President Zelensky just a few months ago when he told Zelensky he had no cards to play. Overnight, Russia, seemingly unfazed by President Trump's threats, launched another major assault on Ukraine, firing close to 400 drones and over a dozen missiles at Kyiv and other cities across the country. Officials in Kyiv say two people were killed, 14 others injured. In the capital city today, Secretary Marco Rubio met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of some of the Southeast Asian nations.

Speaking to reporter, Secretary Rubio said that Russia presented a new and different approach to ending the war in Ukraine. But he echoed President Trump's frustration with the lack of progress toward a ceasefire. I echoed what the president said of both the disappointment and frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks are a path forward. So we'll continue engaged with some ideas exchanged today, some viewpoints that they expressed to us that I'll take back to the president for his consideration and hopefully it will lead to something I don't want to over promise.

And the president is also struggling to fulfill his promises on his trade agenda. The White House promised 90 deals in 90 days. And on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Besant said this. When we send out the hundred letters to these countries, that will set their territory.

So we're going to have a hundred done in the next few days. But just 22 letters have been sent out and no new deals have been reached beyond the three frameworks of deals with China, the UK And Vietnam, which were reached prior to this week's deadline. But it is his letter to Brazil, which is one of the few countries that runs a trade surplus with the US that is raising particular eyebrows. President Trump saying he will impose a massive 50% tariffs on the country in part because of its treatment of a former president and Trump ally, Bolsonaro, who's facing charges applying to overturn Brazil's 2020 election, 2022, election day that resulted in his defeat.

In his letter to Brazil, President Trump called the investigation an international disgrace and a witch hunt similar to the language that he's used to describe his own legal challenges. Joining me now are team of reporters, NBC News White House correspondent Michelle Sindor, NBC News business dad correspondent Brian Chung. And with me on set is NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell Mimich. I'll start with you.

As far as we know, there's still no sign of these promised 100 tariff letters. That secretary doesn't promise. Where does the White House stand on those letters? And are there any new trade negotiations?

Also, if you can unpack President Trump's frustration with Brazil. Yeah, well, that's a big question. There are really two distinct parts of that. There's the part about whether or not we're gonna see more trade letters, more trade deals.

President Trump, as well as Treasury Secretary and other White House officials have continued to insist that the deals are coming, that they were close with a number of countries to announcing deals or frameworks of deals. We haven't seen any new deals. We've only seen a couple, but I think only three or four from Vietnam, the UK With China. But it's a big question of whether or not there are gonna be other deal mentioned and sort of what President Trump is going to do.

I think that's also why you're seeing him sort of have this ultimatum where he's telling countries, okay, we can't get to a deal. Here's what you're going to pay on August 1st. That being said, the president, of course, has marketed himself as the world's best dealmaker. So part of this is actually pressure to continue to kind of keep up that image of him being able to negotiate for America's best interest.

Now when you talk about Brazil, this is really interesting because the president talks about trade and economics in a very sort of black and white way and that he's like, America is being taken advantage of. Here's the trade deficit. That's why we're focusing on these countries. When it comes to Brazil, he's mixing in politics in a very unique way.

When it comes to President Bolsonaro, he is, of course, the former president of Brazil. He is charged on trial right now with planning a coup d' etat and saying that in 2022 that he was essentially trying to hold on to power illegally because he lost the 2022 election to a leftist political figure that is now the current president of Brazil. He's sort of a far right figure in the politics. He also, as he is, we're showing people he at the White House several times during President Trump's first administration.

President Trump has fiercely defended him and said that he is someone who he admires. He didn't have the nickname the Trump of the tropics at one point. So the President here is actually saying to Brazil, well, we don't like ways to treating President Bolson, our former President Bolsonaro, I'm going to increase your tariffs. The interesting thing here is the president of Brazil has already fired back.

He says that Brazil is a sovereign country and are going to be lectured to by President Trump. So where this goes next is a big question, but it's very interesting to see politics mixing into economics. That could happen in other countries as well. Ryan okay, understand why we've got more to talk to you about, but let's turn to Brian now on this tariff question.

Obviously been a lot back and forth for months now on tariffs and trade deals. Sometimes these trade deals take years to fully come together. It seems unlikely that they can come together by August 1st. How is the economy managing all of this uncertainty?

Brian? Yeah, well, the economy doesn't appear to be that bug out, at least for right now. And that's because many of these tariffs we've been talking about haven't been implemented. There are a few that have been put in place, like the steel and aluminum tariffs, like some of the tariffs on China and a 10% baseline around the world.

But when you look at the inflation data, we haven't seen a substantial uptake in a yearly pace of price increases, nor have we seen any sort of market deterioration in the labor market. The unemployment rate still sits near a historic low. So the question though is, even though the economy looks pretty good right now, could the overall impact of this tariff uncertainty. And then at some point down the line, the perhaps actual implementation of these tariffs, if there is a resolution and further delay by August 1, when that starts to take a bite into the economy.

Economists that I'm hearing from have said even if it were the case that these tariffs, let's say 50% on Brazil, 25% to 30% of the number of countries that receive letters this week, you know, that would happen on August 1st. It would still take months, perhaps even not until early part of next year for us to see the impact of that. So even though the economy looks good right now, there are kind of signs of little cracks bubbling, kind of bubbling up underneath the surface here. Like, for example, lower income spending.

A Bank of America Research Institute data that I just saw showed that lower incomes being actually contracted on credit cards in bank of America. These are not in of themselves concerns about recession. Again, banks are going to have to watch as this continues, Brian, to get the sense, we talk to these economists that they just don't believe President Trump are going to follow through. They're almost making a bet that these tariffs will never actually become a reality.

Yeah, well, I mean, it's been coined cacao. Trump always chickens out. And at some point, once you get closer to that deadline, well, the Canada gets kicked down the road, or there's some sort of quote unquote framework deal with some country where we never actually see the text of the details of what is in that deal. Now, you mentioned you asked a question about economists.

I think an even more important question is what do consumers think? I think that the same kind of thinking is there. You're not gonna make the decision of buying a kering machine based off of what you think the President is going to do on trade policy. But it's certainly something think about.

Wall Street's not taking this very seriously either. Things have basically gone sideways. We've recovered all losses since the Post Liberation Day, you know, spill on Wall Street. UBS said it, they said, you're really not going to try to take a look at every single Trump's social post and take it seriously at this point, because the President always ends up, you turn on that.

Okay, Brian, thank you for that. Let's turn back now to you Mission. Talk about the situation in Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that he's working with Congress on issuing sanctions against Russia.

Is it clear that President Trump would sign that legislation if it came to his desk? And where does his relationship with Putin stand at this moment? If I'm clear right now if President Trump would sign that legislation, though the fact that Marco Rubio pushing for it, I think is a sign and a signal that President Trump would likely sign it because he has been really aligned with Secretary Marco Rubio. His name, checked it.

He's clearly been someone who's become a really close part of President Trump's inner circle. President Trump, though, has sort of had this up and down relationship with President Putin of Russia. At times he's saying, I know Putin very well. We've, we've gone through a lot of things together.

But then he also has been calling him crazy and said he's lost his mind and he doesn't understand why he's continuing to kill people indiscriminately and why he doesn't want to end the war in Ukraine. And he's pushing for it. Ends the war, wants the war in Ukraine to end President Trump. So it's really interesting to see sort of where this goes.

And he, of course, has also posted online that he at one point was considering sanctions, new sanctions against Russia. So it's definitely sort of a volatile situation. But we have seen President Trump criticize President Putin in a way that he had in the past. Okay, Yamich, thanks for that.

Let's bring Andrew in the conversation now. And of course, the secretary of state playing a pretty key role in all of this. You were tracking him today. He talked to his counterpart in Russia.

He said that there is a possibility of a new approach as it relates to Russia. That came out of that conversation. What do we take from what Ruby had to say today? It's very hard to say because they won't specify, of course, what this new approach is, what could be new that he is bringing back to the president.

He's also the national security advisor, of course, so he's spending a lot of time, most of his time arguably at the White House right now as well. But so he's in Malaysia on a quick 48 hour turnaround there, a long trip to go. But in seeing the Asian allies and Vladimir Putin's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, his hardline, very difficult foreign minister, veteran diplomat. And my take is that it's too soon to say that President Trump is really going to crack down on Vladimir Putin.

I know that Lindsey Graham and you cover the Senate, you watch these people 24 7. But he's always hopeful about sanctions. We've been hearing this for years, but Vladimir Zelensky has been waiting. These Patriot missiles, by the way, were in Poland, some of them, These were Defensive weapons.

They had been approved last fall, last year under the Biden administration. They were long delayed. They were supposed to be delivered. They were authorized by Congress.

Many in Congress are furious that these authorized weapons were paused by the secretary of defense, reportedly, according to NBC News and other outlets, without notification to the White House and to other members of the national security team. Defense Secretary Hegseth acting on his own and pausing weapons for Ukraine at a critical moment in the war, and now Rubio said today that the pause was mischaracterized. It was just a pause to review whether or not those stockpiles were needed. NBC's My Colleague Courtney Kubi and Gordon Lubo, they're reporting that those tiles were not needed.

According to the Joint Staff of the Pentagon, they weren't needed for the US Own defense. So that pause sounds like a fictitious excuse. And to blame the press for mischaracterizing it, as I repeated today, is kind of silly because it was very clear from the president's comments that he was frustrated by the unilateral decision. Let's go back to this comment conversation with Lavrov.

I mean, is the threat of sanctions enough when it comes to Russia? I mean, there have been so many sanctions already applied to them which have not forced them to roll back at all. The sanctions need to be applied for them to have any sort of real impact. This is legislation that hasn't even been started, hasn't been written or even introduced as a point out.

And the president got tougher in his language at NATO initially last week against Vladimir Putin for the first time, and then really got tougher and a little bit vernacular and a little profane in the comments that he made just this week on camera at the Cabinet meeting. But Putin has been hitting Ukraine with the toughest, biggest missile and drone attacks of the war in the last week since the president ramped up his rhetoric. So and since they had that conversation, that was so, you know, unsatisfactory according to the president's own account. So it seems to me that any impatience that the president is suggesting could be temporary because he certainly, despite recent comments, has been very tough on Zelensky.

Right, Right. Okay, Andrew, thanks for being on top of it. We appreciate it. Coming up after an update, we'll have an update on the calls for answers and the search for the missing in Texas.

I'll talk to a House lawmaker from Texas about his reading push to strengthen the state's weather warning systems. Plus, measles cases in the United States have now reached their highest level since the disease was considered eliminated 25 years ago. The outbreak, the response and the role of vaccine skepticism, we have it all covered. You're watching THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. Rescue team continue their search for victims from last week's flash floods in Texas as crews begin clearing the debris from the catastrophic and historic flooding. Officials say the death toll is now 120, with at least 173 people missing. 96 of those killed were in Kerr County, 36 of those victims were children at Camp Missed, where five campers and one counselor are among the missing.

Families have been collecting their children's belongings. And residents who did escape are now returning to find what's left of their homes. And we're learning officials began voicing concerns about Kirk County's flood warning system more than nine years ago. According to transcripts from a May 2016 meeting, then commissioner, the then county commissioner described the system as, well, pretty antiquated and marginal at best.

Priscilla Thompson joins me now from Kerrville with more on the recovery efforts there. Priscilla, it's been nearly weak since those flash floods. Tell us about the situation on the ground right now. Yeah, Ryan, nearly a week since those floods and nearly a week since they have found someone alive from this wedding, there are still more than 160 people missing in this county and that number has not changed.

And since late Tuesday. And so the search is growing more dire. But I will tell you, these teams continue to be out here, helicopters above, people on foot, divers in the water, trying to find anything that they can to bring those families who still have missing loved ones out there, some sort of closure or further information. At the same time, the calls for accountability are growing louder.

We are just learning that in 2024, there was a hazard mitigation plan here in the county where it was said that there would likely be a major flood here sometime in the next year. There was again that discussion about possible flood warning systems and that that question was deferred. And obviously, we sit here today having had that major flooding event happen over the Fourth of July. We know that the Texas Legislature is going into a special session later this month where they are going to be looking at this response and holding hearings.

And we are now learning that there is a select committee that is going to be formed. The first hearing is expected to happen later this month. And the second hearing will be held here in Kerrville with officials saying that they want to hear directly from residents. They want to hear their frustrations about what happened here, what they believe went wrong.

And, of course, the president and the first lady will be on the grounds here tomorrow. They're going to be meeting with first responders. They're also going to meet with families who have lost loved ones, who have lost everything in this tragedy. And they'll also receive a briefing from officials here.

So no doubt those questions around accountability will likely continue to come up as you have people on the ground still searching for their loved ones, still dealing with the grief of loss, and also those who are trying to figure out what's next and how they will rebuild after some people have lost everything, lost their entire homes and everything in them. Ryan. All right. Continuing your excellent reporting down there.

Thank you so much. I'm joined now by Congressman Nathaniel Moran. He's a Republican from Texas. He's a co sponsor of the Rural Weather Monitoring Systems Act.

Congressman, again, just our thoughts and prayers are with everyone in your district and beyond who are dealing with this awful tragedy. Well, let's talk about the situation. Texas officials, particularly in Kerr county, have not really addressed questions about why the community was not more prepared for this flying event. Do you feel that the community has owed more of an explanation?

All right. I think right now the focus really should be on continuing recovery efforts. We're still in the midst of deep grief of what these families are going through, what this community has gone through. There's certainly going to be time, time next to come to evaluate what could have been done or what should be done in the future.

But right now, recovering these little girls and these young lives that were lost is of the utmost importance. Standing next to these families and grieving with them, I think is appropriate this month. As a congressman, have they given you any additional information about why the flood warnings from the National Weather Service were communicated more widely? Again, there will be time for a lot of that debrief management before we filed a bill, even before this happened, in fact, a couple years ago to address weather monitoring systems to try to see these storms coming and predict and predict them before they came out.

There's a lot of discussion currently about once you get the monitoring systems in place and what about the warning systems. I know that's really been the focus of discussion that I've seen in the last week. But these local officials, particularly in central Texas, I know, are deeply involved in those discussions with their representatives locally, Chippewa particularly being the one that's most affected by this. And then up to the FEMA chain command.

I was a county judge here in Smith county, which is northeast Texas, about six and a half hours northeast of where this flooding occurred. And I Was a county judge here for six years and head of emergency management here. And I understand once you're in this process, right in the middle of this, there's a time later to do more analysis, evaluation. But right now it's the time for recovery and to restore what's been lost.

As you talked about and as we talked about, the records show that officials in Kirk county knew that they had a flood warning system that was pre antiquated. You mentioned this bill that you reintroduced right before this all took place that's designed to strengthen the weather monitoring systems in rural areas. Do you think had your bill passed a year ago, that lives may have been saved? No, I don't think my bill, again, my bill is about monitoring systems.

And I know you guys interviewed Eric Sorensen earlier, who's the co sponsor of this bill. And the question was posed to him and the answer was correct in that the question was posed, could there have been more done by the National Weather Service to warn of the coming storms? And he answered correctly that the staffing levels were appropriate and the warnings went out. Just was horrible circumstances in the middle of night on a.

On a fourth of July week here in the middle of the middle of the night. And that was a tough situation to actually get the warnings out to folks. But my bill focuses on monitoring systems, in particular low level systems. Here in northeast Texas we deal with a lot of tornadoes and F1, F2 systems are hard to see in these areas.

In rural America where you don't have radar systems next door or sporadically throughout, you've got the inability to see those low level systems up to 6,000ft or so. My goal is really to address those gaps and those monitoring systems around the United States. What happened in central Texas certainly is a reminder of how difficult it is in rural America to both monitor and to warn about the coming storms and the horrific nature of some of these storms. Congressman, you might be touching your keyboard or getting kind of a sound of some feedback from your line.

Are you. You're not getting a call or anything. Sorry to do this. I'm not.

We're not. Okay. We're gonna take a little break to figure out what the audio issue is because we're not talking. Just hang with us for a second and we'll be right back.

We are still working out the technical issues we had in our interview with Congressman Rand. A lot more important things that we need to talk to him about. Once we reestablish that connection, we'll go back to him. But we're in the meantime, gonna follow some significant developments today in the ongoing legal fight over the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship.

A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction today temporarily blocking President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The judge also granted class action status to a lawsuit seeking to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship by the administration. Joining me now is NCU senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. So this ruling comes to force just two weeks after the Supreme Court had a landmark decision that basically opposed new limits on the judiciary's ability to issue these nationwide injunctions.

How is this going to play given that ruling that just came down? Yeah, the thing that's so complicated about this case is I always imagine our audience is like, why do you keep talking about courts when I just want to find out Ms. Trump's undoing the 14th Amendment? It's still complicated, but basically what this judge issued is a nationwide injunction, even though the Supreme Court ruled against previous nationwide injunctions on birthright citizenship.

The reason it's different this time, and this judge thinks that he's not defying the court's order, is because it was a class action lawsuit. It was brought on behalf of future parents or parents, potential parents, who are on student visas inside the United States. The way the executive order was written was not just to apply to unaccraminted immigrants, but anyone who wasn't here on a permanent legal status, meaning if you were here as a student and had a child, that child would not be a US Citizen. So because those people exist across the country, it means that this judge's order could not just apply to New Hampshire, where he's based, but it has to apply across the country.

So now the question is, when this goes back up to the Supreme Court, will they say, okay, in this case, because it was a class action suit, this judge, a district judge, can issue an issue on injunction. So it has implications not just on how far district courts can go, but also potentially on birthright citizenship. And you're right, our viewers are probably just wondering, when is this question, the central question here, going to be answered? Still not to the court.

It seems like there's so much of this technical back and forth that's playing out between the lower courts and the high court. When is the high court just going to come out and say, this is what the 14th amendment says and this is how it's app. It may take something like this coming all the way back up to them for them to really have to have a hearing on the merits because so far it's just been about the reach of these orders. There's not a judge in America who has ruled the Trump's executive order on January 20 that said children born to people who are not permanently in this country are not citizens.

No one has ruled that that is legal or can stand. But they have said that absent a nationwide injunction in some places it could start to go into effect. So complicated, we still don't have an answer. It could go into effect in some places temporarily if the Supreme Court decides that this decision today doesn't hold.

And could this be a potential roadmap for other plaintiffs, this clash action route to try and have a. And not just on this issue, but on other issues, Republican conservatives and liberals can take a look at this and say, is this now the workaround? If you want a nationwide injunction on an issue, you've got to find some class like students that exist all across the country. All right, Julie angel, thank you for your order.

I appreciate it. We're fortunate enough to fix our technical problems with our interview with Congressman Nathaniel Randy. He joins me now. Again, Congressman, thank you for your patience.

Sorry that we ran into that difficulty, but I appreciate you still being here. I want to ask you about this upcoming legislative session that's going to take place in Texas. I know you're a federal official, but obviously you're concerned with the state legislature. Is this the time right now to address these central issues related to what happened in Kerr county and beyond?

But then also they're going to talk about items like redistricting which could impact you as a member of Congress. Is this the time to be dealing with this? Especially if you told us that the focus should all be on recovery? Yeah, right now the focus should be on recovery.

As they move into the legislative session, they certainly should be talking about how to hopefully prevent something like this from happening again. It's critical that we're continually analyz horrific events like this in our lives to determine how can we best prevent them in the future. The sorrow and the grief that this community, these families are going through is just unimaginable and we don't want anybody else to go through that. So the state legislature has a heavy load when they go back in special session here at the end of July.

I want to get to the redistricting question, but on what the state legislature can do right now. They want to talk about an emergency flood warning system. Is that something you think the states can pay for themselves or should you and your partners in the federal government be trying to find a way to provide that funding stream to states because obviously Texas isn't the only state that can deal with these emergency flash floods. Well, emergency management, as you know, goes from local to state to federal.

The federal should only be there, really, if the local and state officials cannot handle what is necessary needed. I have no doubt that the local and state officials can handle this. But to the extent that federal coordination needs to be part of that, certainly the federal government wants to make sure that we're a good partner in all these decisions. But I have great confidence in our state legislature that they can handle this state issue.

You mean that financially, like, Texas has enough money to pay for it? Yeah, I absolutely think that they have the money to do what's necessary in this region, as in partnership with the local community to determine what's best on the city, county and the state level. Okay, let's get back to this other issue that's cropped up as part of this legislative session, and that's the idea of redistricting in Texas. Is this the time for the state legislature to be dealing with redistricting, given everything that is happening in Texas right now?

Or is this something that could be put off to a later date? Well, you know, this is not a decision that I'm a part of. The state legislature determines this. The governor determines the agenda.

And certainly whatever they decide, we will roll with. We love representing the first district of Texas in northeast part of the state, 17 counties as big as the state of New Jersey. And we will love to continue to those folks. But to the extent that lines are redrawn, certainly we will seek to serve in humility, whoever, whoever is given us.

Okay. Congressman Ran, I know you're dealing with a lot down in Texas, so we do really appreciate sticking through with those technical difficulties. We'll see when you're back here in Washington. Thanks so much.

All right. Up next, a dose of politics. I caught up with Republican Senator and Dr. Bill Cassidy, whose vote was essential to RFK junior's confirmation's health secretary, about where he stands now amid the biggest outbreak of measles since the disease was considered eliminated in the country 25 years ago.

You're watching me, the press now. Welcome back to measles. Cases in this country have officially reached their highest level since the disease was considered eliminated in the US in 2000, in large part due declining vaccination rates. It comes as one of the most prominent longtime vaccine skeptics and purveyor of vaccine misinformation in this country is now the leader of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Earlier today, I caught up with Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who voted for Kennedy's confirmation to be HHS secretary. Cassidy's background as a medical doctor also helped convince some of his colleagues to back Kennedy. Here's what he told me about his vote. You mentioned that you were concerned about the rise in measles cases.

You attributed that to vaccine skepticism. How do you reconcile that with your vote for RFK as the head of Health and Human Service? Well, first let's note that RFK has come out and told people that they should be vaccinated. So that's easily reconcilable.

He is now saying people should be vaccinated from measurements. But I also know some positive things that the secretary has done. People are very concerned about ultra processed food and about food dyes in particular. Some of those have already been removed and certainly given far more attention to ultra processed food than ever would have been given.

We obviously have our differences on immunizations. We need as a government to have a whole of government approach to be pushing people to understand that vaccines are safe and they prevent death, they prevent disease. But don't give, don't slight the fellow the credit he should get for having brought attention to ultra processed foods, an incredibly important issue. But he has changed the way that vaccines are reviewed, the way they come to market, and he still raised questions about them overall.

Does that concern at all? Well, of course it does concern. You're asking me that what you already know? While RFK Jr.

Has recently endorsed the efficacy of the measles vaccine, broader messaging from HHS still frames vaccinations as a personal choice. And RFK's tenure at the agency has also seen the overhaul of its vaccine and advisory panel. Nowfield with his own picks, which includes some vaccine skeptics. Meanwhile, the CDC removed the recommendations of the COVID vaccine for children and pregnant women.

That moved, prompting a lawsuit from leading medical organizations who argue it undermines vaccine confidence. Join me now is NBC medical reporter Erica Edwards. And Erica, let's first talk about this measles outbreak that's happened. It's only July.

Could that number continue to rise, especially as we head into the fall season where usually illnesses like this start to jump. Yeah. Hey, Ryan. So sadly, experts say there is no question the number of measles cases will continue to rise in this country, even though, thankfully, the outbreak in Texas has slowed considerably.

We are in the height of summer travel season and many cases pop up in this country because of international travel. Remember measles is the most contagious virus that we know of on this planet. Just one case in a largely unvaccinated and unprotected community can lead to an outbreak. Ryan.

And we were showing the graph of the data there and we see in 2019 there's also a giant spike. How does the 2025 outbreak compare both in where it's spreading and its efforts to contain it? Yeah, so the outbreaks are similar in that they both largely affect close knit unvaccinated communities. In 2019, the outbreak was pretty much limited to New York.

But Fast forward to 2025. We now have multiple states with outbreaks. Right. Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma.

And we're seeing a much broader global rise in measles. Cases aren't only skyrocketing here in the US they're also skyrocketing in Europe and Africa. How much do state level laws play into the impact of vaccine skepticism? Makes sense.

Either of personal or religious exemptions for both for or both for school immunizations. Is the potential impact of the skepticism going to be seen until not really going to see an interest rate until the current babies and toddlers reach school age? You know, it's really interesting because we're actually see in the number of states removing non medical vaccine exemptions in the past decade, California, Connecticut, Maine and New York have all removed religious exemptions for vaccines in an effort to drive up those vaccination rates. And it's working.

California and Maine, for example, have both seen a rise in vaccination rates. In fact, this summer, Massachusetts lawmakers are debating a similar bill. All right, Erica, thank you for that. We appreciate it.

And we're gonna turn now to electoral politics with some big name New York Democrats still holding out their endorsement for Democratic Socialist Orion after his victory in last month's New York City mayoral primary. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would not answer my question about it yesterday as why he's yet to endorse, saying as he said for about two and a half weeks that he'd meet with Madame soon. Fellow Brooklyn I. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is also held off on Mandami endorsement, saying that he'll be with him next week.

A lot of meetings are going to take place. At the same time, some national Democrats have taken it even a step further. Take a listen at what former Minnesota Congressman and presidential candidate Dean Phillips said last night when asked if there's any room for Mondami and himself in the Democratic Party. The answer ultimately, I think is no.

You know, we do share many of the same values. In fact, most Americans share a lot of the same values as a political party. Yes, you want diversity. You want some differences of opinion, perspective, life story, politics and experience.

But when you have socialists, when you have socialists in the Democratic Party, I don't know how anybody could argue that that would be beneficial for the party or for the country. Okay. Join me on set to talk about all this week's Corman Politics Reporter for notice Ashley Attien, former communications director for Vice President Harris and Speaker Pelosi and Rob Lowy, the president and executive editor of the Daily Signal. So, Reese, we've had a lot of talk from Democrats, establishment Democrats especially about expanding the tent.

But are they only talking about trying to draw in people from the right and into the middle? And I wonder if the Democratic tent doesn't include both Dean Phillips and Mondani, who's the one that's left out of that tent in the future? I think it is definitely telling that a lot of these members are not willing to endorse Mondani for sure. I mean there's been, I mean Gregory Meeks even today said that he when asked to endorse it, I'm not sure yet.

So I mean there's a lot of members that are skeptical of this and I think it's a lot because I mean Republicans for so long have tried to tie the socialist kind of anvil around Democrats and try to tie it to it and now they have the front runner to be the next mayor, country's biggest city. It is a self proclaimed democratic socialist. So I do feel that that is something Democrats are somewhat afraid of. But as far as the Big ten party, and only time will tell whether it be Dean Phillips probably feels already pushed out of the party having to leave Congress and try to Biden.

So I think that Dean Phillips might honestly feel like he maybe is the party of Madame at the point. Let's see what the Democratic strategist thinks about it. Is the future of the party of MOMI or the future of the party? Dean Phillips I don't think the party knows.

I think the party's facing a three alarm fire. I think there's a massive identity crisis that the party's facing that it's not yet acknowledged and not been honest about quite yet. It's also facing a dated, aged infrastructure problem, meaning how we tactically engage with voters. And I would say the third is a growing distrust and a trust gap between our base voters in the party.

I mean, we've been Bleeding our base voters since 2012. Massive, massive. You know, and Donald Trump is credited with a lot of that. But it's not until we actually face up to this three alarm fire that we're facing and become honest about it, sober about it and address it head on.

Will I think we get past the city. I think what's gonna be key in it is the party, the pressure on the DNC to produce an autopsy. Produce an autopsy, Tell us what, what's the direction so we can coalesce around a direction and then a message and then move forward. You're talking about from a macro level, which appreciate, but from the micro level is pushing Madame aside and not embracing him and the voters that come with him.

Is that a smart strategy for the future? Well, I don't know that that is the case. I don't think his message is that far removed from what Democrats have supported. We want an affordability message.

Democrats have been about for ability since a lot of these folks are remote. And that becomes the problem for the party, which is the message, the message and the message. But if you don't understand why you lost, why did you have this trust gap with our most important voters right now, you're gonna continue to find ourselves in this position where we're gonna have all these factions fighting each other for space. So Rob, let's go back to a period of time.

Let's go back all the way back to 2015. Can we remember that? And there was another party that had an autopsy. I had to figure out what their future was like.

And in came this outsider that sold a completely different message and took control of the party. Are the Democrats in a similar position to where the Republicans were before Donald Trump? Perhaps they are. And a lot of those things that were in the Republican autopsy obviously were things that conservative strongly disagree with.

They were running away from some of the very issues that Donald Trump decided to embrace. Immigration being the most prominent of them. Ryan. And so I would say that with Mandani, we have some lessons on a global scale.

Look at the socialist mayor of London and the problems that are happening in that city because of the policies that he's pursued. Crime is on the rise, homelessness is on the rise. There's a housing crisis in London. These are things that New Yorkers can.

If Mondani's policies are embraced in that city. And so I think here is why you're seeing J.D. vance come out and point to the contrast between him and the Republicans. And you're going to continue to see Republican candidates try to run against this image of him and Alexandria Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who they love that moment.

The problem with the party is that we're not arguing on the substance. We're not arguing what is socialist versus a traditional Democrat. We're not saying this is why you should vote for this guy more than anything else. We're just demonizing him.

I think that's what we're losing ground and missing, an opportunity to bring more voters to the table and really educate people on who we are as a party. But I think that you hit such an important point, actually, because you've seen these Instagram videos, social media. The guy right now can't even walk down a street in midtown Manhattan without somebody stopping him for a selfie every moment. I understand that policy aside, there's a bit of personality associated with that.

But go ahead to the point that he really did take this kind of new media approach. I mean, I live in new in New York City, twice my life, he was on my feet and all these creators just consistently. And so it was like, I mean, he did take this kind of approach, similar to what Trump did on this podcast of teaming up with these creators that younger generation especially taps into. I want to push you on something over the rub because I think it's easy just to dismiss him as a socialist and say that these policies are going to destroy everything.

But there's a lot of the same things that he's talking about that you see Republicans talking about. Right. Josh Hawley's really worried about the impact that these Medicaid cuts are going to have on rural America, rural hospitals shutting down, saying that Republicans are kind of turning their backs on the working class. Is there more that Republicans need to do to take a lesson as to how Maudnani's message about 4 billion.

It's necessarily the policy specifically, but the message that there are people here that are hurting and want help. I'll give you the idea think that that populist message does resonate and make Trump obviously made it work. And there are a number of Republic, including J.J. vance and Josh Holly, who they found some success pushing us some of the same buttons.

So, yes, I would expect that he's going to continue to do so. The thing that I don't know enough about the situation in New York City, it wasn't a vote against Andrew Cuomo or how much enthusiasm is there for Undotti. And so that's what we'll see obviously play out. I saw new poll out today, which is Eric Adams was running in fourth place behind the Republican in that city.

And so it's interesting to watch the New York City situation play out. I don't think it's representative of the whole country and the situation in Missouri, which is. Right. But let's talk about the bill and the mega cuts come along with it.

Let's listen to what some of the Republicans, what their reviews are of this bill, Almost all them voting for it. Ron Johnson saying, I'm not happy with all the things we threw in. Cynthia Lummis, I'm not comfortable that I voted for it. Rick Scott, I wanted to support the president.

So this was the only opportunity to do that. Even Don Bacon, who's not running for re election yesterday, that the Senate version of this bill is a mistake. Obviously, you see those quotes actually, and you're probably salivating. Do Republicans have a problem here?

I mean, how do they sell this bill that even they admit they don't like that much? I mean, I just call BS on all of it. It's ridiculous. But here's if you don't mind, I love to take a step back.

What I'm seeing play out here is a massive divestment in the country. That's what this bill is. It represents a massive divestment in the country. And what I'm sort of trying to grapple with is how does this make America great again?

You know, it only weakens the nation. What is great about taking money out of the pockets of working people and giving it to rich people? What is great about massive cuts to agencies from the Department of Education to the National Weather Service that supports the nation and supports its people? What's.

What's great about. What's great about legislating against the own, the people who actually elected you. And these are the things that Republicans and Trump are gonna have to explain to American people. And I think that Democrats have an unprecedented opportunity and a gift to actually draw the distinction and pressure them to explain to the American people.

Why is it that you think this is gonna be talked to a lot of these, particularly House Rep. On a daily basis. How are they messaging this? Are they worried about it?

They take it out on the road and sell it to their constituents. I think I got a report today on how the American Action Network, which is a nonprofit Art of Congressional Leadership Fund, is they have a $5 million ad campaign now and they're touting the tax cuts and all this stuff, but they are leaving out the part that the Medicaid cuts, the SNAP cuts, all this other stuff that pulls not very well and the thing is, it's hard because you're going to have different factions pitching different parts. You're going to have like hardcore conservatives Chip Roys of the world pitching the deep cuts that they were able to get on the bill and going on and touting that, while you're going to have people like Mike Lawler and Dave Aldale who are not going to want to touch that at all. But then they're also not as vocal as, say, Chip Roy or whoever might be out.

So it's really got to be kind of a gray and needle when it comes to messaging because I mean yelled at the end. Again, lesson learned. Silicon the unofficial start of the 2028 presidential primary season may already be here with some high profile names seemingly testing the waters in key states. You're watching me the Press now.

Well, if you watch the show, you know that the calendar may say 2025, but it is a busy month of the 2028 presidential shadow primary. You're never not worrying about the presidential race. California Governor Gavin Newsom wrapped up a rural outreach tour along with from home in South Carolina earlier this week. Kentucky Governor Andy Brashear and Congressman Ro Khanna of California will be making trips to the Palmetto State, which I think hosts an early primary there for the presidential race.

Other early primary states Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar will be making her second trip to New Hampshire and as many months tomorrow. And Arizona Senator Ruben Diago tease an August trip to the Iowa State Fair. Will Iowa even be relevant? Joining me now with more is Amy Walter, the publisher and editor in chief of the Political Report, who's always thinking about the presidential election.

So this seems like the shadow primary already kicking into gears. Are they kind of standing out right now? I think that the governors are trying to get themselves into position right now where they look like the front runners, obviously Gavin Newsom going to South Carolina, but he has been out front for months now trying to position himself as the national voice for Democrats. J.B.

pritzker from the governor of Illinois announced he's running for a third term. But in his announcement, he talked a lot about Donald Trump, talked a lot about Illinois, too, but he also talked a lot about Donald Trump. So I think those folks are positioning themselves. Pete Buttigieg has also been availing himself of many national platforms, especially those podcasts.

But you know as well as anybody, what matters more than anything is how voters are feeling as we get into 2027 more than how they're feeling in 25. What I'm watching for is not where they are going, but where candidates who are up in 25 and 20, the Democratic candidates between 25 and 26, who are they asking to come and stack with them? Are they going to bring some of these high profile governors? Are they going to bring AOC and Bernie Sanders to campaign for them in the swing states where we know the race for control of Congress will be won in law?

There was a fundraising number that really caught my eye and I honestly kind of not thought about Cory Booker in the vein as a presidential candidate. That kind of changed when he gave that long speech on the Senate floor and now he posts a major fundraising number. Should he be part of this conversation? I'm sure everybody in the United States Senate Democrats should be part of this conversation.

But this is a deep pool. And a large reason that it's such a deep pool, right, is because 2024 should have actually been the time where a lot of these candidates got an opportunity to show their stuff to a broader electorate. There is pent up demand from Democratic candidates and voters to go out there and sell a vis of the Democratic Party is and what it wants to do going forward. And do you think it's going to be a question about the vision or is it going to be about the personality of these candidates?

Because right now it seems the Democrats are struggling with both trying to find a message that resonates along with the messenger that can best sell. No, that's true. I think at this point though, the vision, the vision thing, as I think it was George W. Bush or George H.W.

bush was credited with saying, it becomes super, super important. Because I remember going into the 2020 campaign, what Democratic voters were the most concerned about was beating Donald Trump. That was priority number one. So the vision and the issues and even the personality didn't matter as much as who was the most winnable.

By now I think it's pretty clear that what Democratic voters are upset about is they don't really know who the Democratic Party is and what it stands for. So I remember flying out of Iowa in 2020, covering the Barry Sanders campaign after they bungled that mess there, thinking Democrats will never come back here to start their presentation yet, but maybe they will. What's happening there? Here's what's going to matter.

Do Democrats do well in the middle elections in Iowa? They've got a Senate race, there's a good race that's competitive and a number of House races. If they do well, Democrats, that is, you're gonna have a lot of Democrats saying maybe we should put Iowa back on the Iowa. Okay.

We have something more important to talk about than the presidential race, Amy, and that involves you, Amy, one of our many amazing players are gonna take the field next week in the Congressional women's softball game. We're so excited about it. Wednesday is the annual charity game where the press team, led by Amy on the mound, takes on the bipartisan team of women members of Congress. All the proceeds from the game will benefit the Young Survival Coalition organization dedicated to helping young women fight breast cancer.

Now you can buy your tickets to attend the game in Washington or donate directly to cause on the website that you see on your screen. This year, I happen to be one of the coaches of the press team. Thank you. We're coming on you.

We're also very excited. This year the game is going to be at Audi Field where it gets United soccer team play. So that's unique. And it's going to be broadcast on the Monumental Sports Network.

So we got. Not that I should be talking about other networks, but I mean, come on, you guys. Next time, you guys can. We'll do it next time.

All right? All right. Thank you so much. We appreciate you being here.

That's it for us today this week. Jackson. I'm Craig. Mel.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too.

It's really fascinating. Folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are fun and mechanical. So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come along with your own Glass apple.

Search Glass Apple with Craig Melton From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your Prof.