If it's Thursday, the White House making an announcement about the President's health today as the administration looks for an Epstein off-ramp, dismissing calls for a special prosecutor and trying to redirect their base's attention to immigration, the economy, public broadcasting, even Coca-Cola. Plus, the House races to approve a rescissions bill that will formally cut more than $9 billion from public broadcasting and foreign aid programs as networks like NPR and PBS and the communities they rely on brace for impact. And an NBC News exclusive on a new government assessment about last month's U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear program.
The mission only destroyed one of its targets and that Iran could have two other facilities back up and running within months. Hi there, welcome to Meet the Press now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where the Trump administration is struggling to move on from the MAGA world backlash over its decision not to release more files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The President's frustration with his own supporters over their embrace of conspiracy theories that he and other top White House officials helped promote was on again today on full display.
This is White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt told reporters that he's not in favor of a special prosecutor on the matter as she sought to explain his most recent assertion that the Epstein files were a hoax. The President is referring to the fact that Democrats have now seized on this as if they ever wanted transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, which is an asinine suggestion for any Democrat to make. The Democrats had control of this building, the White House, for four years, and they didn't do a dang thing when it came to transparency in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and his heinous crimes. It was this president who directed the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to do an exhaustive review of all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, which they did.
The President has been transparent. He has followed through on his promises to the American people, but he doesn't like to see Democrats and the mainstream media covering this like it's the biggest story that the American people care about. But Trump's efforts to blame Democrats for a so-called hoax have also largely gone ignored by his own base. In an interview yesterday, the president seemed to acknowledge that problem.
All my supporters want to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein hoax. It's unbelievable. It's a disgrace. And I remember every one of these guys that are my supporters, and they love it.
They love it. And it's all reduced by the Democrats. It comes as the White House has pushed a number of issues and taken a number of actions that typically animate the president's face, including the Department of Justice firing Maureen Comey, apparently with no explanation. She was a top DOJ prosecutor on the Epstein case.
She's also the daughter of one of Trump's favorite political punching bags, former FBI director James Comey. The president is also trying to steer focus toward economic issues, amplifying his war of words against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in a push to force him to lower interest rates to juice the economy. The president's allies on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, are all in the final stages of legislation to slash $9 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Another one of the president's perceived foes.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are zeroing in on immigration issues with a visit to Alcatraz, that original Alcatraz, amid the president's push to reopen the long dormant prison as a symbol of law and order. And to wash it all down, the president also posting that Coca-Cola will once again be made with real cane sugar as artificial dyes and sweeteners remain a target of the Make America Healthy Again crowd. Now, whether any of these will move the MAGA base away from its fascination with the Epstein case remains to be seen. Joining me now to break all of this down is NBC News, our NBC News team, senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake, senior national political reporter Sahil Kapoor, and justice reporter Ryan Riley.
Okay, Garrett, let's start with you. The White House made an announcement about the president's health today. We are going to get into that in a little bit, but first, what's the level of frustration in the White House right now over this Epstein story? It's a good be Ryan.
And it really comes from the top down. You've heard it from the president, this idea that they believe there are so many other things that his base should be talking about, so many other accomplishments they think people should be focused on. And despite their best efforts, they've not been able to move folks off of the Epstein conspiracies and their Epstein theories, whether it's by providing other storylines, other conspiracies, like the president, former president's use of the auto pen, whether it's been with the president cajoling some of these right-wing influencers or lambasting them on true social or in Oval Office sprays. Nothing has quite worked.
And I think they're just trying to basically keep their head down and power through this. I do detect, I think there's a growing frustration with the attorney general and the Department of Justice here at a press briefing that just concluded a little while ago here. You saw Caroline Levitt really pushing off all of these questions under the DOJ segments incumbent upon them to release more information. It's incumbent upon them to explain the firing of Maureen Comey.
And we've heard next to nothing from the DOJ on any of those fronts so far. Well, on the other side of this, it seems like the president is not getting the support that you'd expect from his congressional allies. Usually they are the first ones to back him up. Are they surprised that this is still dominating their base's attention?
I don't know about surprise, Ryan, but it is a very jarring split screen up here where the Republican Congress is racking up multi-billion dollar and multi-trillion dollar legislative victories for president Trump while out there in the world, out there in the country and on the ground, his base is fixated on the issue of Jeffrey Epstein. And we're seeing the unusual specter of some of the president's staunchest allies on Capitol Hill break with him on Jeffrey Epstein because they know that very MAGA base that supports them and supports him is not with the president on this one. That includes some nominal Trump allies like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, even Ted Cruz. Take a listen to what a couple of other senators, Tom Tillis and Josh Hawley, said about this today.
I mean, why don't we just release it and deal with it if it's embarrassing because it's not substantive, that's fine. If it's embarrassing because somebody is implicated, that's fine. We just need to solve it. And I think that's right.
And I would release everything possible. Now, part of what you just heard there, Ryan, is a deep desire for Republicans, for the administration to find some way to move on here because this is sucking up a ton of attention that they prefer to focus in other areas. There's also, by the way, a discharge petition in the House of Representatives led by Trump foe Tom Massey with a real Republican interest there that could potentially end run House leadership and force a vote on whether to release the Epstein files. So clearly, something has got to happen here because there's real tension that the White House is not able to diffuse on their own.
Well, OK, so talk to me about what that could possibly look like, Sahil, because it seems as though everyone's calling for transparency, but nobody really seems poised to actually do something about it. Is there anything they could do on Capitol Hill to try and get some of this information out there? Do they call Bondi to testify? Do they call Ghislaine Maxwell to testify?
What could possibly happen? And is there any real momentum on Capitol Hill for it to happen? I would say there's chatter about all of those things, Ryan, but no real momentum toward any of those specific possibilities. With Bondi, it's an interesting situation because what happened here is what often happens with the MAGA base.
When Trump does something they don't like, they look for a scapegoat in his administration. It can't possibly be the president. It has to be someone who is doing wrong to him. And then they identified AG Bondi.
But then Trump came out with his Guys and Gals social media post and defended her, told his supporters to move on, making very clear that she's acting on his behalf. There's also talk about getting potentially Ghislaine Maxwell to testify. I asked Dick Durbin, the Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and he's very open to that. But I haven't heard much interest from Republicans.
They really want the president to sort this out. So their hand is enforced. And Garrett, in the press briefing today, the president or I'm sorry, Caroline Levitt was specifically asked whether or not the president has any interest in appointing a special counsel to do this. This was something Lauren Boebert floated the other day.
She seemed to reject that notion. Yeah. And this had also come up in an interview that the president did yesterday morning in which the president answered in what I would call the quasi affirmative, sort of trying to agree with the premise of the question without the substance. If you think back, the president's experience with special counsels is not especially positive.
His selection of John Durham to lead an investigation of the Russia investigation with basically nowhere. And it was the recusal of his first attorney general that led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. The bottom line with special counsels, as anybody's been around Washington for a long time, knows is once they're appointed, it can become difficult to control. And they usually find something, whether it's the thing you want them to find or not.
So the president saying through Levitt today that he has no interest in going that route. All right. If everyone remembers the Monica Lewinsky affair, which started out as a special counsel investigation. All right, Ryan, let's turn to you.
We haven't heard That's the same thing that the White House is telling us now, that this is from shaking so many hands and being the victim of vigorous grips along the way. The president has joked about this from time to time, that sometimes he has to shake hundreds of hands at events. The White House says, according to White House physicians, that the combination of a lot of shaking hands and taking aspirin as a blood thinner has led to that condition there. The more serious, and the White House insists that it is not serious, and our medical experts say the same, is this diagnosis of his swollen lower legs.
It's something called chronic venous insufficiency, a bit of a mouthful there. It's essentially a common condition that happens particularly to older people where their blood pools in their legs and their lower legs swell up. Although the condition is commonly associated with leg pain. The White House says the president was in no pain.
He just started to notice the swelling, brought it to the attention of his physicians and they say out of an abundance of caution, he was thoroughly examined and then they released this information today about a condition they say is just generally not all that serious. There's clearly evidence in photos, which I think is the other part of it, obviously. Yeah, Gary, it's like 900 degrees on the North Lawn. You look great, but you're all done with us now, so go get more air conditioning.
I've got one more for you, Sahil, since you're still in the air conditioning. And let's turn to a dramatic moment on Capitol Hill today when Democrats walked out of the middle of a vote on the judicial nominee in Millbovey. Take a listen. Sir, this is wrong and you know it.
You are a person of integrity. How could you be doing this? At least have a vote on my point of order. Sir, with all appeals to your decency, with all appeals to your integrity, with all appeals to past jurisdiction and past precedent, why are you doing this?
This is outrageous. This is a kangaroo court. That's what we have here, Mr. Chairman, to violate your own rules without going by the mandates of the parliamentarian.
This is unbelievable. There's a way to do this. If you want to force this through, if you want to ram this through, there's a way to do it in accordance to the rules as spelled out by the parliamentarian. It is simple.
It is clear. There's a pathway to achieve what you're trying to achieve. But sir, this lacks decency. It lacks decorum.
It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues. This is absolutely wrong. The sum total of this, Sahil, the sum total of this was the Republicans attempted to report out this nomination 12-0. But talk to us about the moment and why there was this level of fallout.
It was extremely striking to watch, Ryan. Both those men talking over each other. Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, plowing ahead with that roll call vote while Senator Booker was trashing his move, refusing to let Democrats speak. I actually talked to both men after that incident.
Grassley told me that he has no doubt that the nomination was ultimately reported favorably to the floor of the chamber, which Democrats argue that since he violated the rules, that it wasn't. And Senator Booker told me that they just wanted a little extra time to speak. And this sort of thing happens all the time. All they had to do was vote on the point of order and let the Democrats speak.
Booker called it an erosion and undermining of advice and consent. He said Republicans are only doing this because they're enthralled to Trump, willing to do whatever he says, even if it means not giving appropriate vetting to a controversial judicial nominee. I'm characterizing again what Senator Booker said. Controversial because Mr.
Bovee was Trump's former personal lawyer. And there's a group of about 900 former DOJ officials who question whether his intense loyalty to the president means it's possible for him to be an impartial jurist for a lifetime appointment job at the powerful circuit court. Right. OK.
A lot of drama still to unfold there. Sahil, thank you for that report. Coming up, as we noted, the House is teeing up a final vote on a nine billion dollar cut to foreign aid and public broadcasting. We've got more on the politics and the policy, including the head of NPR, who will join us live in studio next to discuss what's at stake for the network and those who rely on its coverage.
You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. As soon as tonight, the House is expected to vote on a bill that would claw back about nine billion dollars in previously approved funding. It comes over the Senate as the Senate passed the spending cuts overnight, I should say, which needs to be signed by the president by tomorrow night for the proposed cuts to go into effect.
The cuts, known as rescissions, passed the Senate mostly on party lines, with Republican senators Murkowski of Alaska and Collins of Maine signing with the Democrats. The bill claws back eight billion dollars in previously approved funds for foreign assistance programs and one point one billion dollars for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. All of this is part of the president's effort to slash government spending, though it falls well short of the Doha Commission's initial goal of cutting two trillion dollars from the federal budget. In retaliation for these cuts, Democrats are now threatening to complicate the normal government funding process, which could lead to a government shutdown later this summer.
Joining me now is Catherine Marr. She is the CEO of NPR. Catherine, thank you for being here. We appreciate it.
Thank you very much. I want to start by playing an exchange for you from the White House press secretary today during her press briefing. Take a listen. I wanted to give you a chance to respond to the CEO of NPR.
She's claiming that the cuts to their network will, quote, be a real risk to public safety of the country. Murkowski has argued that public broadcasting stations save lives. Could you respond to these concerns? The NPR CEO said cutting NPR will be a risk to public safety.
I am not sure how NPR helps the public safety of our country, but I do know that NPR unfortunately has become really just a propaganda voice for the left. So here's your opportunity. How does NPR, how would cutting it be a risk to public safety? So the most important thing for everyone watching to know is that these cuts are not about NPR.
They are about the National Public Radio Network. 70% of all of the funds that are at risk right now go directly to local stations. Last night, while the Senate was on the floor debating this exact package, we saw a 7.3 register earthquake hit out to the coast of Alaska. Three stations immediately went into broadcast around tsunami warnings.
The local sirens in their hometown told residents to tune in to their local radio station. Our staff in those, excuse me, not our staff, local staff in those stations stayed on the ground at sea level, putting themselves at risk to make sure that their local residents had the information they need. This is just one of the many ways in which public safety broadcasting plays out in the public media system around the nation on a regular basis. And if you lose that funding, could those stations in Alaska, for instance, could they be at risk of shutting down completely or how directly could it impact?
In Alaska, many of the stations receive up to 70% of their funding through federal dollars across the country, often tribal areas, rural areas, 50%. These are areas that are exposed to extreme weather patterns like tornadoes, for example, in Florida, along the hurricane coast, often at risk. We have ever seen estimates that as many as 80 stations could go dark. And it was all of these are stations that exist in these areas that otherwise have limited resources and limited access.
Okay, but let's now address this issue of the perceived bias of NPR. I want to play for you a little bit of a conversation I had with Senator Susan Collins. I'm very concerned about what the impact will be on the emergency alert system in states like Maine, where the system is dependent on public radio. The problem has been NPR, which its own whistleblower, Yuri Berlin, said was extremely biased and that there was no one in the newsroom who was fair to Republicans, is essentially what he said.
I agree with that. But we can't defund NPR without disrupting the network of state and local public radio and television. So to be clear, she voted no against the rescission package. She opposes these cuts, but she is concerned about the perceived bias of your newsroom.
What would you tell Senator Collins? Well, I've had the fortune of thanking Senator Collins for her support and will continue to do so because she recognizes how important these local stations are and how important this funding is. One thing I would note is that NPR's programming makes up on average about 25%. That's a quarter of all programming aired by local stations.
So really, we're talking about 75% that is reflective of local programming, local needs and other national programmers. I would say to Senator Collins that we have heard these concerns. We've heard these concerns from her. We've heard these concerns from other members.
And we've certainly been talking to our audiences in more than 246 stations across the country to understand what they need out of public broadcasting. We want to make sure that we're available and relevant to the entire American public, regardless of where you sit and regardless of what your political beliefs are. And we've been taking the steps from an editorial standpoint to better understand what audience needs are and have more voices on air that reflect that. Do you concede that those changes need to be made?
Well, you know, I came in about a year ago and it was my view that NPR needed a strategy that was really focused on serving the nation. That is not an issue of partisan bias. That is or destroy even, then it's difficult, if not impossible, for some period of time, as much as two years we've learned, for Iran to be able to enrich uranium to the point of having a potential weapon here. So if those two facilities could be back up and running in two months, does the U.S.
have any plans to strike those two facilities anytime soon? That's one of the keys, Ryan, and that is the fact that if, in fact, the officials we spoke with said, look, if it appears that Iran is trying to reconstitute their program at either of these locations, really, but particularly at Isfahan or Natanz, the nuclear locations, that it's possible that the United States or Israel could come in and take follow-on strikes. Also, the official told us that at this point, they've not seen any indication that that's happening. So things like re-engine construction vehicles to start digging out the tunnels, at this point, the U.S.
is not seeing indications of that. Well, you also are reporting that U.S. Central Command actually developed a more comprehensive plan to strike Iran's nuclear program. Why did President Trump not choose that plan?
And remember, these are plans that have been developed over years. The plans that we learned about, one included strikes that would last two weeks, up to a month, extensive aerial bombardment, also striking them from the sea, as we saw in the Operation Midnight Hammer several weeks ago. But the idea here was the U.S. would have gone after six locations, not just the three that they targeted.
President Trump was presented with both options, again, both options came, were really developed under the Biden administration and perhaps changed a bit in recent weeks and months by U.S. Central Command. President Trump, though, selected, exactly what was carried out on Operation Midnight Hammer. That was one wave of strikes, three locations.
The concern, according to the officials we spoke with, was the possibility of a large number of casualties. That could be even Iranians or Americans, in a larger strike. And also the assessment that, in fact, they would be able to carry out and they would be able to hopefully achieve their aims with the three locations, Ryan. Great.
Courtney, thank you. Appreciate that. Great reporting. After the break, new developments in the fight for Senate control as both parties set their sights on several key states.
One of the best forecasters in the business will be here next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Turning to the 2026 midterm elections and the potentially expanding Senate battleground map.
Our friends at the Cook Political Report today moved Texas, yes, Texas, from the safe Republican to likely Republican column. I mean, the state's scandal plagued Lieutenant Governor Ken Paxton running a MAGA-focused primary against the state's incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn. For Democrats to take control of the Senate, they will need to win some of the states in unfavorable territory like Texas. Now this is the latest lay of the land from our friends at Cook.
Democrats need a net four seats to flip the chamber. And the easiest road would require holding all their contested seats, which includes Georgia, which is tough, while flipping North Carolina, Maine, and then two more states from the likely Republican column. Joining me now is the brains behind these ratings, Cook Political Report Senate and Governors Editor, Jessica Taylor. Jessica, this is fascinating because we kind of thought this might be a ho-hum year on the Senate side because of the way the map shaped up for Republicans.
But let's talk first about Texas, which I always like to call the Democrats' white whale. They think every couple of years they got a shot. Talk to us about why this, you've moved the needle on this a little bit and what Ken Paxton has to do with it. Well, you know, listen, polls show that if this were John Cornyn, we know that Colin Allred, the former congressman who ran against Ted Cruz last cycle, he's in other Democrats could too.
But Cornyn would win pretty comfortably, whereas Paxton puts the seat in play. He's either behind Allred or another Democrat or virtually tied with him. Listen, I think Texas is still hard, even if Paxton is the nominee. But Democrats need everything to go right.
And set number one would be Paxton there because they feel like he more moderate Republicans, independents, he would sort of turn them away. This is one of the problems Republicans are having is that the candidate that the base loves isn't necessarily the best general election candidate. So how do they fix this? How do Democrats reconnect with their base, at least the elected Democrats?
Well, I think they just have to be out there. I mean, one thing is for sure. I'm hypercritical of the Democratic Party, too. But when I show up to vote, I'm voting for Democrats.
So I'm not worried about that. I mean, I do worry that we make sure we make the investments on the ground that Democrats are making the kind of investments on the ground that are going to turn out voters, that they're talking more young people. I think that's really important. It's where Democrats miss the mark, I think, in 2024.
And so, you know, it really is important to show up. And up until very recently, I think voters have perceived that Democrats haven't shown up. And do they have to be more than just the party that's not Donald Trump? Well, of course they do.
I mean, obviously, you know, pointing to a couple of things in that big, bad, ugly bill that, you know, is going to hurt the American people, hurt health care and, you know, child nutrition. And those are the things really important. Democrats also, I think, have to speak to what they would do because it's not enough just to say no. That's going to get us so far, get Democrats so far.
But to get over the hurdle, they've got to say what they're for. So is that a 22-point enthusiasm gap? It's got to be making your friends at the NRSC and the NRCC a little nervous. We should point out that, you know, it's always difficult for a president in his first midterm to try and keep the enthusiasm up.
How do Republicans counter this right now? Well, important to know what the generic ballot is still pretty close, though. It's not where it was in the midterms in 2018 when President Trump was last in office. And even 2006 when President Bush was in office, it was a seven-point gap then.
So the enthusiasm, do you want to see that in the midterm? Of course. But the generic ballot is really important because to the congresswoman's point, they are going to come home, just like Republicans are going to come home. Right.
So the enthusiasm is going to be about even, I would suspect, when we turn into the new year and the midterm cycle. One of the ways Republicans can do it is, well, they got entrusted with, of course, Congress and the White House. And then they delivered with one big, beautiful bill. When you get power, you have to deliver.
And so that was why it was such a huge moment, not just for, like, the many wins in it, securing the border, funding the military, lowering taxes, strengthening our energy dominance across the globe. That's huge, but it also is the promises made, promises kept. That's big to the electorate. If you're going to get trusted with power, you better make the most of it.
Right. So, Kevin, I'll probably take this because we have one view of the bill and another view of the bill. Is that part of what is going to determine the 26 midterms is who wins the messaging battle over whether or not it's a big, ugly bill or a big, beautiful bill? Well, some of this comes down to the timeline for all of this, right?
I mean, you have some of the immediate effects being on the tax front that are going to come in in the next couple of months and weeks. And so that's something that the Republicans can say this is great. But the Medicaid cuts and all of the potential changes that are going to happen there are going to be closer to the midterms, if not after the midterms elections. So the Democrats can say this is terrible.
This is horrible. All these things are happening. But there's a question of can they connect the dots between what is happening and this big, beautiful bill if there's so much of a waiting period. So we have a new wrinkle that could impact the 26 midterms and beyond.
And Kevin, you've covered a lot of redistricting fights in New York. It seems like there's perpetually one. But there's a new one growing in Texas where Greg Abbott, the governor there, is talking about doing mid-decade redistricting reform. That could gain maybe as many as five seats.
That led to California Governor Gavin Newsom saying, well, if you're going to do that in your red state, we'll do it in our blue state. Could this be a new era of we're just constantly perpetually dealing with redistricting and therefore creating hardcore, more hardcore partisan seats and fewer battlegrounds? So Congressman Jeffries would ask about this today, and he knows the experiences of this personally. And he sees New York as being the big, bad, ugly bill that, you know, is going to hurt the American people, hurt health care and child nutrition.
And those are the things really important. Democrats also, I think, have to speak to what they would do because it's not enough just to say no. That's going to get us so far, get Democrats so far, but to get over the hurdle, they've got to say what they're for. So that a 22 point enthusiasm gap, it's got to be making your friends at the NRSC and the NRCC a little nervous.
We should point being part of the reason that he did not become Speaker of the House within the last four years. And so as you look at this today, he basically said all options are on the table as to what the future holds. It seems Democrats at this point are basically saying, we're not going to just fold and fall over if Republicans, in their view, are basically abusing the system. We're going to do it too.
And when the margins come down to just a handful of seats, California, Texas kind of exchanging some could be a wash depending on how they actually go about doing all of this. There are a lot of legal issues in California too. Now, have Democrats missed the mark here while Republicans have done kind of dramatic redistricting in other places? Should they have been more aggressive in past redistricting cycles?
Well, I think one of the challenges that Democrats have in California is that it's left to the commission that was established to handle redistricting. It's a really different situation. And I think to go back to the drawing board in California is going to require a little bit more maneuvering than what's happening in Texas. Look, I don't like monkeying with the system.
I think it's a bad idea. I think at the end of the day, it's going to come back to haunt you, whether you're a Democrat or Republican. And so we'll see how voters feel about these kind of wholesale changes in the middle of a cycle. It could play very badly.
Is there any concern that the more of these hardcore right and left districts that we create, the more difficult it's going to be to get anything done in Washington? Well, gerrymandering has been around for a long time. This isn't an escalation. The point I would simply make is, you know, we're talking about Texas, but broader, this is always done and the escalation is always done.
And I'd like to remove the mask of that. There's some moral high ground on it. With all due respect, Maryland, I have a gerrymander. New York.
I mean, excuse me to the minority leader, but it's gerrymandered. He didn't get enough. So I would just step back a little bit. If you look at California, where Trump ended up close to 40 percent and where the former vice president ended up close to 60 percent, Republicans should have 10 more seats if you're going to go from a fair perspective.
Right. And so I just think it's the natural escalation where we are and the result would probably be more red seats. But are we going to lose seats every five years, every two years, every 10 years? Like how often is this cycle just going to repeat itself?
Well, I think what we've seen on it is simply that you have to play the game as it is in front of you. This is not a game. This is actually really bad news for democracy. And I think people who believe in little d democracy think this is a really bad idea.
And I don't think voters at the end of the day are going to be really happy with either Democrats or Republicans continuing to monkey with these maps. Well, here's the thing, though, is that it's been happening, perhaps quietly, with certain people claiming moral high ground. The reality is that both parties do it. And so let's let's step back.
If we actually want to reform, then it would have to be fair and balanced across the board. OK, we can't go without talking about Zora Madami because Kevin's at the table and he covers New York politics pretty closely. He was in Washington this week. He met with some prominent Democrats.
How did that go? So the long and short is he met with a lot of Democrats that happened to largely be of the more left leaning persuasion, shall I say. And he came out of that meeting, at least lawmakers came out of that meeting, saying they're impressed that they like him. But at the same time, there are still these reservations, particularly when it comes to some of these more moderate district Democrats, particularly on Long Island and the Hudson Valley, who have basically said this is not the guy that should be defining who we are.
I asked Jeffries today if he's concerned, because Republicans certainly believe this, this could be an albatross that they can kind of weigh around the Democrats neck, having Zora Madania, a Democratic socialist as kind of the standard bearer for New York City. And he kind of sidestepped the question. Yeah. OK, a little bit of time for both of you here, Zach.
Is this a problem for Democrats outside of New York City? Yeah, for sure. Exactly what what Tim said there. I mean, it's it's this moment is Democrats are in the wilderness.
All right. And this they're learning all the wrong lessons from 24. And Madania as president or as mayor, that's a bad news there. And Don, you get the last word.
Is it time for a Democratic leaders to endorse him, though, or how do they have it? I think it is. I mean, you want a Democratic democratic primary. Democrats need to endorse him.
And Democrats need to take a lesson from him about how to run a campaign that really touches people. Meeting's happening tomorrow. Allegedly. Wait till we're out here.
You guys are so great at time cues. You should be here. You should come to every single one of my panels. Thank you so much.
Kevin, Don and Jack. Appreciate it. Before we go, though, a big congratulations, admittedly, to Team Congress for their win in last night's congressional women's softball game. And congratulations to my bad news babes for putting up a tough fight despite a midgame rain cancellation dampening our momentum.
There's always next year. I'm a coach on the team. It's such a joy to be a part of this game every year. We're back tomorrow with more.
Meet the press now. But the news continues with Haley Jackson. Hey, everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the third hour of today and mom to three wild boys. I learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet.
And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for an honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it.
Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how not to screw yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.