Meet the Press NOW – July 12

If it's Wednesday, weapons in politics, President Biden and U.S. allies assure Ukraine that NATO's support will not waver, the flow of weapons will continue, all of it until Russia is defeated, and the alliance prevailed. And then, maybe Ukraine comes in. Plus, markets cheer aid better than expected inflation reports, showing that the red hot rise in prices is continuing to cool, as workers finally start to see the first signs of actual relief in years.

And the plot thickens in the Republican presidential primaries, a prominent conservative group, zeros in on a new strategy to try to take on Trump, keeping in mind how much of the party is still defending him. Welcome to Meet the Press Now, I'm Chuck Todd. We begin today with what arguably is going to be what the history books spend more time on when it comes to Biden presidency. And that is the expansion of NATO.

We're going to begin with a rallying cry for NATO's purpose as the wartime summit in Europe closes out some many NATO's renewed relevancy on the world stage. Today, in a flurry of meetings with President Zelensky, NATO leaders offered multiple assurances that it will arm Ukraine's military until Ukraine wins the war against Russia, paving the way for Ukraine to eventually join the alliance, but not putting them in the alliance yet. In front of a crowd at Villanuea University, President Biden reaffirmed America's commitment to NATO and its involvement in the war against Russian aggression. We will not waver.

We will not waver. I mean that. Our committee of Ukraine will not weaken. We will stand for liberty and freedom today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes Putin still wrongly believes that he can outlast Ukraine.

He can't believe it's their land, their country, and their future. And even after all this time, Putin still doubts our staying power. He's still making a bad bet that the conviction and the unity among the United States and our allies and partners will break down. He still doesn't understand that our commitment, our freedom, is something he can never, never, ever, ever walk away from.

Biden's address came just hours after he delivered a series of personal assurances directly to President Zelensky acknowledging Zelensky's own frustrations that the alliance isn't moving quickly enough to pave the way for Ukraine's full membership. I hope we finally have put the bed in the notion about whether or not Ukraine is welcome to NATO. It's going to happen. We're moving all over the right direction.

And the frustration, I can only imagine. I know you're many times frustrated about when things get to you quickly enough and what's getting to you and how we're getting there, but I promise you, the United States is doing everything we can to get you what you need as rapidly as we can get it to you. First, Zelensky seemed to back off his criticisms of NATO from 24 hours earlier, acknowledging the alliance's demands that Ukraine cannot join until after the war is over due to the risks of igniting a bigger World War. To be sure questions certainly remain about the future of the war and the sustainability of NATO's long-term involvement.

But as President Biden noted, as he closed out the summit, right now it is hard to question the alliance's importance. Each member of NATO knows that the strength of our people and the power of our unity cannot be denied. My sound optimistic is because I am. Today our alliance remains a bulwark of global security stability as it's been for more than seven decades.

NATO is stronger, more energized, and yes, more united than ever in its history. Indeed, more vital to our shared future. So Biden is making his commitment to NATO clear, former President Trump, the Republican front run of the 2024 race, actually considering withdrawing from NATO and today a bipartisan pair of senators reintroduced a bill that would forbid any American president from withdrawing from NATO without the consent of the United States Senate. So I mean, now it's Josh Letterman.

He's been covering the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Bill Taylor, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. And he's now Vice President for Russia and Europe at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

But Josh, you know, I do think sometimes in our sort of incrementalness of the news cycle, we don't always fully appreciate where we are and where we were. Nobody four years ago would have thought Sweden and Finland would be members of NATO and that the NATO alliance would have this kind of focus, this kind of strength. And now they're even looking towards Asia. It's a far cry from where we were say five years ago with NATO.

It absolutely is, Chuck. One of the things that was really stunning about what came out of the final day of the summit. You had the G7 nations, which includes not only many of these NATO nations in Western Europe, but also Japan come out and offer long-term security commitments to the Ukrainians, including military assistance, the Japanese historically so reluctant to get involved in those kind of efforts. We've seen Germany turn away from its longstanding fears and reluctance to be involved in arming other countries after its legacy from World War II, really step up and be forward-leaning and supporting the Ukrainians, not only diplomatically and politically, but also militarily.

President Biden making the point in his speech here today in Lithuania that this is exactly the opposite of what President Putin wanted, right? His supposed reason for launching this war was fears of NATO expansion, and in fact, he's getting NATO members 31, 32, and likely after this war ends, number 33 with Ukraine. You know, Josh, what are NATO officials saying to you about a year and a half ago, the idea of expanding NATO would have been considered a red line, the U.S., France, and Germany. People would have been, well, I don't know.

And then, obviously, these threats from Putin have never materialized, so if the threats have never materialized, say, on Finland, why are we so concerned about the threats when it comes to Ukraine? Well, I think from NATO officials I've been speaking with, it's because for so many years, they didn't have Russia in an active war with any of its neighbors, and so it was much more theoretical. Remember, it was only four years ago that President Macron and France was referring to NATO as brain dead, and all of these countries were so reluctant to increase their defense spending, so reluctant to get involved in these kinds of situations. But now we have a real-life example of not just the more minor incursion we saw from Russia in 2014 into Ukraine, but a full-fledged war, a land war on the continent of Europe.

And so these countries like Finland, Sweden, certainly the Baltic nations, they have a real tangible fear here, that if this is part of some territorial ambition by President Putin to recreate an empire that they could be next. A couple more housekeeping items on the end of this NATO meeting, number one, the deal with Turkey in order to get Sweden officially approved. Erdogan made it seem as if, hey, I still got to get it through Parliament, look, we still have Bob Hernandez to deal with the US Senate on the Biden side of things. Any nervousness by the White House that this fragile deal with Turkey could fall apart?

Not from the White House. They feel like, especially fresh off his reelection, President Erdogan is the decision maker here, and that essentially this is now just a perfunctory step to send it to the Turkish Parliament. Likewise, if you remember, just a few days ago, the Hungarians were also still objecting to Sweden, joining NATO. They have now made clear if Turkey's in, we're into.

And then the decision to talk about China and the communique, and to look towards Asia, you know, Macron wasn't thrilled about that. How would you describe the support of including China there? I think that there's a real effort by these NATO nations to make sure that even as they are keeping a laser focus on dealing with the threat from Russia, that they're not taking their eye off the ball in terms of other threats, because there was a long period of time after 9-11, where NATO was really focused on Afghanistan, they were really focused on counterterrorism, and some of the concern is that they sort of missed the growing threat from Russia. We're not as prepared, did not have as many troops forward deployed into Eastern Europe and had to play catch up.

And so now you see NATO trying to make sure that even as they're dealing with Ukraine, they are not going to have to play catch up when it has to deal with other potential threats from countries like China. All right, Josh Letterman, who's been reporting from the NATO meeting for us doing an excellent job, Josh. Thank you. Let me bring in Bill Taylor.

Personally turned to a lot when it comes to understanding the politics and the war inside Ukraine and what this means. So Bill, look, I don't think anybody expected this NATO meeting to be the meeting where Ukraine got its official invitation. If you're President Zelensky, as frustrated as you are that you're not, you're not getting the, look, once you win the war, you're in, which is what I think he wants to hear, but he's getting almost everything except that. Is this a successful meeting for Ukraine as far as you're concerned?

I think it is, Chuck. I think it's a successful meeting. You're right. President Zelensky wanted to have something a little more firm, a little more definite about what happens, how he gets in, how Ukraine gets into NATO.

He's had this promise since 2008 that you've talked about a lot where the NATO alliance said that Ukraine and Georgia would become member, but they never said how or when. And so President Zelensky wanted something firmer than that, much more concrete. And I think he got some of that. I mean, there was the mention of membership, there was a mention of invitation.

There was the hedge about conditions and when everybody agrees. But nonetheless, he comes out, President Zelensky comes out with a clear direction plus Ukraine dominated this summit. Ukraine was the story of this summit in billions. And so that was, I think President Zelensky can be pleased with the outcome of this summit.

Let me ask you this, just talking strategically about NATO and the rest of Eastern Europe. If Ukraine becomes a full member in the next five years, who's left? There's going to be some countries who maybe don't have, who wouldn't necessarily look as if they're prepared to be NATO nations, but they're going to be sitting there, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm thinking of Moldova, you threw in Georgia.

What's your sense of what happens to these smaller Eastern European countries? Smaller Eastern European countries, as long as they're in this gray zone, that you're talking about, are vulnerable. Ukraine is still vulnerable. Let's be clear, until Russia gives up on empire, until Russia gives up its imperialist instinct that it's had for 300 years, until that's gone, they're still a threat, which is why the other thing that came out of this summit from the G7, which again, what makes Zelensky very pleased, are these guarantees of weapons and security, are sturdy guaranteed.

That means that they, that will help them defend themselves against a long-term threat from Russia until Russia is no longer an imperialist empire. One of the, I think more remarkable developments has been the growing US political support for NATO, for getting Ukraine into NATO. I saw Nikki Haley talk about it, so you have some Republican presidential candidates talking about it. We know there are plenty of Democrats now in support of this.

Just, if you're Zelensky, is it knowing that the US basically is there, and you'd really just need to allow me the rest of Western Europe, which is probably going to be the tougher sell? Is it that progress for him? That is progress. That is progress.

That is interesting. And the lead up to this summit, it was not the US that was leading the charge for being forward-leaning. We were not the most forward-leaning member of the alliance. It turns out that a lot of the European allies, NATO allies, were eager to go a little bit farther than they actually ended up going, and the United States and Germany actually were not so forward-leaning on this thing.

So it turns out that, yes, this summit has demonstrated strong support for Ukraine, from the Europeans in the first instance, and then you got to believe that everything that President Biden said, the G7, the summit discussion, the bilateral, demonstrates that Biden is there, that the Biden administration is all in on Ukraine victory. Look, I'm not going to sit here and make you try to predict what's going to happen inside the Kremlin. But if Putin's hold on powers as weak as it is, NATO expansion, if you were truly vulnerable to, say, voter sentiment in Russia, we obviously don't believe that he is, this is a week or Russia today that it was yesterday. So in theory, Putin should be in some serious political trouble.

I assume this creates more internal conflict for him. It must create more internal conflict, and just this last couple of days is exactly what you say. But remember, last two weeks, when he was challenged by a mutiny, possibly attempted coup, so yeah, he's worried about his own safety, his own security, his own stability, of his own regime. And so he's not able to focus on the war in Ukraine.

So yes, I think he's weaker. I think Ukraine has the advantage, has the morale advantage that it's always had, and now it's even more with a weaker Russia and a stronger NATO supporting them. So yes, I think Mr. Putin is in trouble.

Well, Bill Taylor, it's always good to get your perspective on the former ambassador to Ukraine, and of course, a big part of the US Institute of Peace focusing on Russia and Ukraine. Thank you, sir. And as I mentioned in addition to its focus on the war in Ukraine, leaders at the NATO summit also focused on the growing threat posed by China, cautioning in their official communique that among other things, China's, quote, malicious hybrid and cyber operations, and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target our allies and harm alliance security. NATO is thinking about being a check on China.

So on the latest side of that threat, Microsoft says hackers in China recently broke into the email accounts of around 25 organizations, including multiple US government agencies, a State Department spokesperson confirmed today that they are one of the agencies that was hacked. A SISA official tells NBC News that the hacking campaign was surgically targeted to spy on a small number of official emails and send an intel committee chair, Mark Warner also says the breach appears to be perpetrated by Chinese intelligence. All of this comes as a US military in the Pacific, trains for a potential conflict with China. My colleague NBC News panic on corresponding QB is in Guam, where she witnessed those military exercises and has filed this report on the growing threat from China.

Chuck Beijing is pushing back on a NATO communique that said China could become a threat to the NATO block countries. China today denouncing that and any efforts by NATO to potentially expand into the Asia Pacific region. But we're here in the Asia Pacific region right now in Guam, traveling with the US military. We got a rare look inside a military exercise that's tackling one of the biggest challenges to the Pentagon today, preparing for a possible conflict with China.

We're with air mobility commands. That's the command that's responsible for sending aircraft all over the world. Now here they are exercising the potential to move people, weapons, and equipment from the continental US all the way forward into the Asia Pacific region and how they can do it fast and potentially under fire. We had an opportunity to sit down with General Mike Minihan, he's the head of air mobility command.

You may remember a few months ago he made headlines when a memo he sent to his commanders came out in the public in the media. It said that the US may be fighting China in the next two years in 2025 and he told his men and women in his command that they need to be ready. He told us that he still believes what he wrote in that memo, that they need to be ready for the potential for conflict with China. And that if in fact that comes, the men and women of AMC will be at the tip of the sphere, the first ones moving forward with people and logistics.

Here's what he had to say. Do you still agree with everything you wrote in that January memo? I agree, absolutely with the urgency in the action. And why?

Why do you agree with the urgency? Because it matters because my nation is counting on this team, air mobility team, to put the joint force into position, and I don't intend to let America down. Is a lot of the urgency that is driving you right now? Is that driven by the idea that the US may find itself at war with China in the coming years?

I think the urgency that's driving me is I understand very clearly air mobility's command. The urgency that's driving me is that I understand very clearly what air mobility command would be asked to do in this theater. Everybody's success is going to rely on us doing our job. The exercise we're here covering mobility, guardian 2023 occurs every couple of years, but this one is unique.

It's the largest so far, and for the first time ever, it's being held here in the Asia Pacific region. General Minnehan says that's because this is the theater that counts. Chuck. Courtney Kubie, our NBC News Pentagon correspondent, is our last week in Somalia for us.

Now you're seeing her in Guam. She is everywhere. Coming up, priorities and politics. I'll talk to a Republican lawmaker about the growing divisions inside the Republican conference in the house.

Social Judiciary Committee members attacks on FBI Director Christopher Ray, a Trump appointee. That happened today. Plus, I was a new six-week abortion ban as boys to become law, and Republican lawmakers pushed through new legislation to fight protests inside and outside the chamber, and the state Supreme Court that had some questions. We'll dig into what it means for 2024.

As the countdown to the caucuses are on. You're watching me press now. It's here. The Ford is a big deal.

Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh, guys. Just wait.

The Ford is a big deal event is on. Really? Hurry up to at least a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at 5.29 percent APR for 60 months with $29.95 down. That's like $99 a week.

The Ford is a big deal of fans. Visit your Imperial Ford store or Ford.ca. Welcome back. There is a growing rift brewing between Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate.

Overformed policy and defense spending. Senator Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was an outspoken backer of increased A to Ukraine. While Speaker McCarthy is ambivalent to committing to another package. The same time the Senate is waiting to advance the yearly defense authorization bill as House Republicans demand dozens and dozens of amendments on the right wing priorities that have no chance of passing.

They want to be able to use it politically from abortion to diversity programs at the Pentagon. And speaking of some far right wing priorities, FBI Director Christopher Ray, a Donald Trump appointee spent the day before the House Judiciary Committee facing a ton of criticism from the right and attacks from Republicans on the committee echoing former President Trump's complaints about the FBI that it's somehow because it's targeting Donald Trump that the FBI has been politicized. You perzied over the FBI that has the lowest level of trust in the FBI's history. People trusted the FBI when Jad or Hoover was running the place than when you are.

There's a serious decline in the people's faith. It's on your watch, sir. We're seeing the polling numbers. The FBI is tanking.

It's under your watch, sir. And it concerns me from the American people. When I'm in the district, the number one concern, and I come from a fairly rural district, is weaponization of the FBI and the DOJ coming up after conservative American citizens who just simply want to have a voice in the process. And joining me now, it is worth noting that the Republican sworn was not a universal with the right.

Here was Colorado's Ken Block interviewing. Thank you for your work with the FBI and thank you for your history of work in law enforcement. According to Wikipedia, you're still a registered Republican and I hope you don't change your party affiliation after this hearing is over. But I want to thank you.

I want to thank you for leading an agency, as you mentioned in your opening statement, that protects Americans from foreign terrorists. And joining me now is Ken Buck, the Colorado Republican Congressman, who you just saw questioning Director Ray there. Congressman Buck, it's good to see you. Let me just start right there.

Can you explain the disconnect between you and the rest of the Republicans on the committee today that were questioning Director Ray? You seemed a lot less partisan, shall we say, than some of your fellow members. You know, Chuck, I spent 25 years in law enforcement, 15 with the U.S. Attorney's Office Department of Justice in Colorado.

I am a big fan of prosecutors. I'm a big fan of those who wake up every morning and seek justice. And I believe that's exactly what Christopher Ray did. Are there folks in the FBI who have gone rogue and who have made mistakes?

Absolutely. Is he doing his best to rein them in admitting that there were mistakes made in FISA warrant applications and other situations? Yes, he admitted that. I think we have to do everything we can to support law enforcement at this very difficult time in American history.

Do you think this growing distress of the FBI is due to FBI actions or the irresponsible rhetoric from some on the right? You know, I think that there is irresponsible rhetoric on both sides of having to do with law enforcement and in particular the FBI. I think that it is unfortunate that social media oftentimes magnifies the differences that we have in this country rather than how we are united. And I think that there are a number of problems with the FBI, but certainly the rhetoric is over the top oftentimes.

You know, Director Ray pointed this out. He said he goes, the idea that I'm biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me given my own personal background, registered Republican. He was Chris Christie's attorney during the whole bridge gate mess. This is somebody who, when he's not in public service, is clearly right of center.

So how does that not, how does that fact, that set of facts, not at least change the tone of some of people like some of these members of Congress, I won't single out names. Well, Chuck, I think that, you know, good facts never get in the way of folks that want to create conspiracy theories and increase their social media presence. And that's absolutely what happened with the FBI. I think that when you look at Christopher Ray's service in America to his country, it is admirable.

It is a person who cares deeply about this country. And whether he's a Republican or Democrat is irrelevant. The fact that he has dedicated his like when he, and he mentioned this in sort of a humorous way during the hearing, he said, you know, we, we, I'm getting some feedback. I'm sorry.

We have, we were offered other jobs where you could have made much more money. And he says, you know, my wife is reminded me of that often. So I think we have to compliment the man and respect what he's done. When you have the chair of the Judiciary Committee pushing for cuts to the FBI, cuts to the Justice Department because they don't like certain investigations, it does feel as if some people think an investigation is political if it's investigating a member of the party they belong to.

How do you just pass that? Well, that's wrong. If there are cuts because the FBI is inefficient, because the FBI is wasteful, I am absolutely in favor of those cuts. If there's cuts to punish the FBI or punish any agency because of a prosecution that ultimately will be decided by a jury in a courtroom, that's wrong.

And I certainly won't support any cuts to an agency as a result of any kind of partisan politics. Let me ask you this, when it comes to, I mean, you're focused more on civil liberty issues involving the FBI, the FISA courts, things like that. And I think about the judges ruling that sort of banned any government conversations right now with social media companies. What is there a congressional answer here to how the government should deal with social media companies when it comes to making sure factual information that the government needs to inform the country gets out there unfiltered?

Yeah, I absolutely think that the law enforcement agencies and other agencies have the ability and should have the ability to get information out about hurricanes, about other natural disasters, about threats to this country from within or from without. There is a legitimate role for government agencies to inform the public about threats. But we have to be very careful of it in protecting civil liberties to make sure that the government agencies aren't trying to censor information. And that's so often what we've gotten into trouble with in the last few years.

And that is, is it disinformation or is it a different opinion? And we have to be sensitive to that. That is a, talk about it, it can be I have to be older. Right, what you just described.

It absolutely is. And it shouldn't be in the eye of big tech. We are a country that's strong because we have diverse opinions in cable news. We have diverse opinions in newspapers and radio.

And we should promote those diverse opinions and make sure that we come out with the best answer. So much better than any other country in the world because we can be wrong and then get it right in the long run. Let me ask you about the defense authorization debate. We know there's a lot of members of Congress that want to have some more thorough amendment process.

Frankly, it's going to be for a bunch of amendments that won't make it into the larger bill. What is your philosophy and what's worth fighting to get an amendment for? And what isn't, given that Republicans control one sixth of the government, right? You know, one half of the legislative branches.

The Democratic Senate and Republicans over there that don't agree with Republicans in some of these things in the House and the Democratic president. How much do you push and how much do you not? Well, I think it's what we push on and frankly, this is a defense bill and the Defense Department should be focused on defending the country. The Defense Department should be focused on the military needs that it has.

I have a problem with the social programs that the military has gone into. I'm sure the Senate disagrees with me and ultimately that's going to be a compromise. But I hope that we cut wasteful spending in the Department of Defense and there's our hundreds of millions of dollars of that. And I hope that we give our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen the training that they need and the equipment that they need so they can fulfill their mission.

Where are you and more Ukraine funding? I'm not at this point when I see the bill and I see what's in the bill. I absolutely think that Ukraine's surviving and Ukraine thriving in this war is important. But again, I don't want to waste money.

I want to see what's asked for and I want to make sure that the mission is clear. Where are you on Senator Tommy Tupperville, holding up military promotions right now due to a Pentagon rule over abortion? Do you think that's an appropriate way to protest at this point or do you think the point's been made and it's time to move on? You know, I guess I don't follow what happens on the other side.

For the most part, the senators are taking naps when we're getting a lot of work done in the House, so I am not that focused on it. I think that at some point, we've got to move on and we've got to make sure that this president has his nominations confirmed, just like the last president needed to have his confirmations confirmed. So I really haven't followed it that close. One of my favorite rivalries in Washington, it's not always the Dems versus the R's.

It could be the Senate versus the House. Very quickly, Ken Buck, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Do you want her to be a member of the Freedom Caucus or not? She's not a member of the Freedom Caucus and she shouldn't be in the future.

What did she do to what makes somebody a good standing member at this point, as far as you're concerned? Well, it really is in political views. We have had differences on votes for a long time. It is the ability to come together and have meaningful discussions every week about bills that we're going to be considering.

She has consistently attacked other members of the Freedom Caucus in an irresponsible way. And as a result of that, she was kicked out of the Freedom Caucus and she should not be a member. We have diverse opinions in the Freedom Caucus. It's not monolithic, but insofar as attacking other members, it just shouldn't be tolerated over and over again.

It's not one simple attack. It's not what happened on the floor a few weeks ago with Lauren Bobert. It is a series of really poorly thought out attacks on other members. Ken Buck, Republican Congressman from Colorado.

Appreciate you coming on and sharing your views with us. Nice to talk. Thank you. Next, the Ravenflation just hit its lowest point in more than two years.

It will break down the numbers, what they mean for you and prices. Next, and another potential interest rate high. Are we going to get one? You're watching the Press Now.

Welcome back. Markets closed up today following some hopeful economic data. We know sometimes the stock market doesn't ever go up when there's good economic news, but in this case, the two matched. There was a new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which showed that the inflation is growing at its lowest pace in more than two years.

Does it mean that prices are going up? They are. It goes just 3% in June compared to a year ago, which is significantly lower than the 9% rise we were seeing at the same time, a year ago. So let me bring in and be seen as a business and data reporter, Brian Schon, who joins me to break down these June inflation numbers, what they mean for consumers.

So Brian, this is one of those things. The good news is prices are going up slower. This doesn't mean prices have somehow dipped below where they were, say, two years ago at this time. So walk me through the good, the bad, and the uncertainty of this inflation report.

Yeah, well, complicated. As you mentioned, yes, prices are going up. They're just going up by a slower rate, which implies that some things are getting cheaper while other things are still getting more expensive. Let's try to store all this out, right?

As you mentioned, that's a yearly rate of inflation, 3% between June of this year and June of last year. That's significantly down from the 9.1%. We saw in June of last year and down from the 4%. We saw in May, if you break it out by category, you can see that some of the price increases that are still happening.

Well, it's happening in food. It's happening in energy. It's happening in shelter, which is the largest cost for most Americans, just the cost of putting a roof over your head. Let's expand a little bit on food and energy.

I'll show you this chart right here, which if we just ignore this first column, let's take a look at the yearly changes, right? Okay. Eggs went down by about $0.50. Let's go down by about $0.16.

Bread's going up, though, from $0.70 to $1.94. Gasoline prices did go down, but if we now take a look at January 2021, the inauguration of Joe Biden here, we take out June 2022, you can see prices for all of these categories are still higher than they were at that time. Now, you can also say that it's higher than pre-pandemic or in the Trump administration as well, but just worth remembering. The last point I want to bring here is to bring things around full circle.

At least we have this. Wages are higher than the rate of inflation. That happened for the first time. Just this summer.

The blue line represents how expensive everything and the stores are getting. The yellow line explains how much you're actually making in terms of your employer paying you more money to see this above this is something the Federal Reserve and economists are probably saying, that's a good thing. We have not seen that in many years, John. All right.

Now, the question is, how many more quarters will the Fed decide they still have to raise rates? We shall see Brian Chung over at CDC Force Brian. Thank you. Meanwhile, severe weather today.

It doesn't matter where you sit. It seems like you're getting something that's severe. Maybe it's heat. Maybe it's rain.

Maybe it's something else. More than 80 million Americans are still under these heat alerts this week as that relentless heatwave moves across the Southwest, which brings us to today's meet the present minute. It was 30 years ago. In the summer of 1993, the northeast was in the middle of a days long record breaking heatwave.

Former Vice President Al Gore was long pushed for action on climate change. Join me at the press during the 93 heatwave sitting by president in his first term with a warning on global warming. Take a listen. Last question.

The heatwave. Is this Al Gore's global warming? Are we being punished for not listening? Well, you know any given year of the scientists say that it's impossible to do a tribute, the heat of any given year to the long term trend.

But may I give you a serious answer? The majority of scientists have been telling us for years that the long term warming trend greatly increases the odds that any given year will produce a much larger number of 100 degree days. And that trend has been born up over the last several years. We've seen records broken with regularity.

Welcome back. The reproductive rights landscape is about to undergo another major change in the state that will be pivotal in the 2024 presidential primary last night lawmakers in Iowa passed legislation allowing most abortions at six weeks. It's a drastic reduction from what has been the current legal limit of 22 weeks. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds announced this morning she intends to sign it into law on Friday.

Now, demonstrators on both sides of this issue showed up in force at the state Capitol and Des Moines to make themselves heard during the debate that led to some heated confrontations inside the return. Some abortion acts as advocates protested in the gallery as the final state Senate vote was taking place. Now, it's worth noting this is the second such ban passed in Iowa for a previous and nearly identical six week ban was struck down in court on procedural grounds. So in this case, this was a special session and they tried to pass a bill that would pass muster and abortion rights group has already filed a suit to try to block this new ban.

So it will no doubt make its way back before the state Supreme Court. So I understand all of this landscape in Iowa. I'm joined by Brian Fanon-Seal, she's the chief politics reporter for the Des Moines Register. So, Brian, let's start with this decision, explain why they had to go back a second time and what is it that they changed this time that we think the Iowa State Supreme Court will allow this law to go through?

Well, this is a really interesting case because the Iowa legislature first passed this law in 2018 when Roe versus Wade was still the law of the land. And so it had been blocked by the courts from taking effect because Roe was in place kind of preventing that from happening. And so after the overturn of Roe, after some changes in the state legislature state law, the governor, Kim Reynolds, took this back to the courts and said we would like to have this enacted. And the court was deadlocked through the three, they sent it back and said, basically passed a new legislation and we'll start fresh.

So now that Roe is no longer the law of the land, the Iowa legislature is going back to the drawing table and they passed what is essentially the same law again. There are just maybe a few minor changes here and there, but it is basically the same law. So as you mentioned, the ACLU has already sued to try to block it from taking effect. The governor is set to sign it tomorrow.

And so we'll see how the legal landscape has changed, how everything has really changed around abortion and how the justices may consider this time. Well, let's talk about the political landscape because that's obviously what you and I do for a living. There was a Des Moines Register poll in March that showed that Iowans look like America when it comes to abortion. Some states are a little more conservative on the issue, some states are a little more liberal, but Iowa looks like it is right where sort of where America is collectively, 61% think abortion should be legal in all our most cases, 35% illegal in most or all cases.

Six weeks does not match where public opinion is where would we first watch to see if there's a backlash over this law? I don't think it's the caucuses, is it? No, I don't think so. Tomorrow, excuse me, on Friday, we're going to see a big cattle call event, the family leader as a Christian conservative organization is hosting a handful of these presidential candidates coming to the state.

And so they're going to be talking to a room of Republican evangelical likely caucus owners, right? And so we're going to see these presidential candidates. I think probably lean into some of these abortion conversations and they may or may not endorse the six week ban. We've seen a lot of them talk about a 15 week ban and talk about where they want to be on this.

But as you point out, Iowans have been very consistent overall in saying that a majority, 61% right now says that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. So I don't know that we'll be looking to the presidential campaign trail to see kind of moderation on that. But in the next general election, there are congressional districts like I was third, whereas that none is in office. He's the first term Republican and kind of the district that includes the more.

So he's got a lot of these suburban communities, white suburban women who will likely vote on this issue. So we'll see where they stand on that. I was just going to say, what have we heard? I was, you read my mind.

It wasn't just Zach Nunn, but how about Ashley Henson and Mary Ann Miller meets. I mean, all three of these districts were held by Democrats about less than 10 years ago at one time or another. These are swingish districts. So I assume this is where a majority of the 61%ers live.

What have they said about this law specifically? Any of those members of Congress come out, Luke, warm on it? Well, I think what we're seeing right now is a lot of Republicans in the state just kind of coming out and declaring their pro-life bona fives, right? That they believe life is life and that it needs to be protected and kind of having more big statements of support for the governor and for the legislature over this law.

And so certainly when they get into elections, I go, we'll see kind of policy-wise where they drill down on something like that. But it's going to be really interesting to see, as you mentioned, these are districts that have been held by Democrats quite recently. But I think as you see, this law very much reflects the state's swing to the right over the last several years. And the way that Republicans have really claimed a lot of electoral success in the state.

And so Democrats are kind of on their back foot here. And so I don't know to what extent they'll be able to push back into message. And so a lot of that depends on the topic of the ticket as well. It will matter a lot.

That's for sure. So much to talk to you about, even on the caucus side, but hey, we're going to have you back soon enough to talk that as well. Thanks very much. Still to come.

Political group that once supported the former president is now trying to take them out. There's a new ad targeting key early state voters. Panels next. You're watching me the president.

Welcome back. Our complete the biggest challenge right now for Republicans looking to take on Donald Trump in 2024 is how to take on Donald Trump in 2024. Former president and Republican voters have eagerly supported it in the past. You attack him and on.

You're ready? It was right. You ignore him completely. While his rivals are all trying different ways to chip away Donald Trump's lead without alienating his supporters.

That seems to be the key ingredient here. But it's a puzzle no one has figured out just yet. Now a political group once alive with the former president is trying a different tactic. Take a look.

I love Donald Trump. I love what he did. He was attacked in all the time and it seemed like, you know, it just seemed nonstop. The drama.

You know, with my own sister. I didn't get invited to her Thanksgiving after a while. He's got so many distractions and I'm not sure he can focus on moving the country forward. Joining me now is Democratic Polster and NBC News political analyst Cornel Belcher and from the other side of the app, Republican strategist Brad Todd, gentlemen.

Good to see you both. I really want to hear your reaction to this ad because you've said something to me very important. You said, look, the key ingredient here in defeating Donald Trump, if you're a Republican, is not to cancel Donald Trump. This isn't about making the case that he was an accidental president, that he was an asterisk.

You know, that that's the mistake the media makes sometimes that this is not that you use, you have to figure out how to embrace him and let him go. How did the club for growth do? Well, I think it's an interesting tack and they've done a little bit more than other tack. You know, I've always thought that there was possibilities that he could lose in a gold watch strategy, right?

By saying I agree with a lot of what he did. I think he was important. I think he was good. He was president, but he's not right for the next space.

I've always been intrigued that that might be a strategy that would work out and they seem to be touching on that. Cornell, you've seen your share of messaging campaigns against Donald Trump. Look, what Democrats say about Donald Trump to rally Democrats is going to be different than what a Republican needs to say to rally Republicans against Donald Trump. What do you make of it?

Well, look, I agree a lot with Brad, which is unusual, but the fundamentals, I think it was actually Brad, but the fundamentals of campaigns are the fundamentals of campaigns. And look, you're not going to get ahead of the person in front of you, especially, I mean, Donald Trump for all intents and purposes here is the incumbent and you don't beat an incumbent unless you give the voters a reason to fire that incumbent and they vote it for him several times now. So you have to actually give them a hard reason to fire that incumbent and which means you actually have to hit the guy, you have to hit him with something that sticks in and resonates. I like the club for growth and I do because I think they have a lot of lemons and trying to make lemonade.

My fundamental problem though is, you know, if you look at NBC polling, you see most of the Republicans, especially those primary voters, they actually think Donald Trump won the election. So the idea that he can't win is problematic, I think, about their overall strategy here. Well, I'm glad I want to go ahead. I'll take issue a little bit about having to hit him and take him on to get him fired.

That is the physics of campaigns, right? You've been to come about getting the voter for fire. But Donald Trump is unique in that the negatives on Donald Trump are baked in the cake. Every voter knows them and plenty of Republicans don't remember after the November elections last year, he was under 40, he was in the mid 30s, maybe even under 30 in a few polls among Republicans.

So there are plenty of Republicans who already have misgivings about Donald Trump. The challenge is for another kid that to prove that they bring all the positives that Donald Trump brings so that the negatives then matter. So what does that look like, Brad? Give me an example of what is a positive, because at the end of the day, if you're extraordinarily successful at making your case club for growth, you only maybe have half the party on your side on this message because the other half is in the other place.

So it feels like even success here doesn't mean victory. No, I believe that there's about 25% of the Republican party that's most about for anybody but Donald Trump in this primary. They may some of them may vote for him in the general, but they want to vote against him in the primary. Those people will come around and they will coalesce quickly as soon as it looks like somebody's close to beating Donald Trump.

So your task is not to cater to that 25. You've got to cater to the 40 in the middle that are not never Trumpers and not forever Trumpers. And so if you can ever get 30 of that 40, then the other 25 becomes pretty easy and you're over 50 to win. But look, Donald Trump's going to have 40% of the electorate, 35 to 40, no matter what.

You don't have a strategy to get 45, it's not just get ahead of him, you don't have a strategy to get pretty close to half. Look, I follow Brad's reasoning on this. I think the problem with it though is Brad is that he's grown, he's growing his lead over the field and the guy who's actually trying to do that the most is Santas and this is really problematic for the Santas because he's shrinking, right? He's not actually growing.

He is shrinking and the problem for the Santas, look, it's fine that Donald Trump is gaining among undecided voters, but he's gained a couple of points on undecided voters, but he's also shrink the guy who's tried to in fact do the strategy that I disagree with, but the strategy that you actually laid out. Well, it's hard to think of another candidate who started off in a better position until he ran a campaign than Ron DeSantis in any presidential campaign. I mean, he started 11 points ahead and he managed to work himself into 30, something points down once he started running. So that's true.

Yeah, the lesson there is don't run, your numbers will never be high. Really close with this. In 2022, Pew did a terrific after action report and they found that Republican turnout, Brad, was really good. They had a good turnout.

Democratic turnout, not so good. It tells you that Republicans didn't vote for Republicans in some key play and some key races. Does it not? Or is it just simply the independent number that cost Republicans a better night in 2022?

It was mostly independents. Republicans have to win about 60% of independents to win almost any election. Independence is a group lean right ever so slightly and especially when Democrats have the White House Republicans have to clean up with independents and we didn't do it in 2022. In 2020, actually Republicans did pretty well with both bases and independents.

It's why they had a good night down ballot when the president's voice was closer than most expected. But the key for Republicans is winning independents and turning out marginal voters who don't like anybody in politics. We do have to do that. You know, Democrats, 20 years ago, they were the ones worried about market voters today about it.

Yeah. Cornell, you look at those 22 numbers. Is that glass half full? Because nobody showed up and you still did well or glass half empty because a lot of Democrats didn't show up.

Well, I think it's at full. I mean, look, I think that the problem for Republicans is what you just showed about Iowa and the polling is overwhelming the majority of Iowans do not are not where Republicans are on this fundamental issue about a woman's rights. And that I think is the problem that Republicans had with independents in the last election. And guess what?

We're not going to let them off the hook in the next one. I wasn't going that way. Cornell, Belcher, Brad Todd, always good to get you two debating. I didn't even need to be in part of the conversation, which is actually I did my job.

You guys were great. Thank you all for being with us this hour. I'll be back tomorrow with more meet the press now and VC News now continues with my friend Hallie Jackson right now.