Meet the Press NOW — July 23

You have a reason to care. You know someone. You've lost someone. You've lived it.

The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge. From May 25th to 29th, Canadians are waking up with a sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun.

Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca. That's sunrisechallenge.ca That's when we release documents she says backs up those claims. Plus, America's rural radio stations are reeling after congress slashed billions of dollars in crucial federal funding.

I'll talk to one station manager who says the shortfall is threatening his operation and the flow of essential information in hard-to-reach communities. And President Trump and his top economic advisers taught me trade agreements with Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. I give very little information about the deals as the President signals an agreement with the EU could come next. Welcome to me, the press now.

I'm Kristin Welker in Washington where we've had a flurry of developments in the ongoing saga over the Jeffrey Epstein case, even as the White House is desperately trying to force that story off the front page. Just moments ago, the Wall Street Journal reporting that the Justice Department told the President in May that his name is among many in the Epstein files. That's according to senior administration officials from the Wall Street Journal's report. A White House spokesman called it a quote, fake story.

Now, we should note that being mentioned in those records is not a sign of wrongdoing. It comes as President Trump is publicly telling Republicans to use his latest strategy to navigate the Madeleine uproar over the deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein just deflect. Mr. Trump now making baseless accusations that former President Obama tried to influence the 2016 election as a way to change the subject.

You should mention that every time they give you a question that's not appropriate. Just say, oh, by the way, Obama cheated on the election. You'll watch the camera turn off instantly. Now, today, the White House doubling down on that strategy, releasing a newly declassified Republican majority report from the House Intelligence Committee from back in 2020 and bringing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to today's briefing.

Look, the implications of this are far reaching and have to do with the integrity of our Democratic Republic. It has to do with an outgoing President taking action to manufacture intelligence to undermine and usurp the will of the American people in that election and launch what would be a years long coup against the incoming President of the United States, Donald Trump. Now, the Trump administration's allegations that the Obama administration attempted to undermine his 2016 victory are demonstrably false and have been investigated and re-investigated, including in a Trump-ordered investigation led by a Trump-appointed special counsel which found no conspiracy to sabotage Mr. Trump.

The Republican House report that Gabbard is citing came to a much different conclusion than the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, which affirmed Russia did attempt to help Trump in 2016 and which was chaired by now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. These allegations did succeed in temporarily shifting the conversation. Epstein didn't come up and turn nearly 40 minutes into a 50-minute long White House briefing, but it appears unlikely it will be enough to move past the Epstein documents for long as both the Department of Justice and House Republicans say they will seek to talk to Epstein's longtime partner and accomplice Elaine Maxwell. And as some congressional Republicans continue to push for the so-called Epstein files to be released, this was North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis earlier today.

Release the damn files. Look, it makes no sense to me. One of two things is true. I believe either it's a nothing burger in terms of the evidence we have.

Let's separate it from this guy being disgusting and what he did and the systematic trafficking of young people, minor-aged people for sex purposes. But the promise to release the files during the campaign was either overplayed and we got a nothing burger if the files get released or it's something really disturbing and that's actually been a more compelling reason to release it. Meanwhile, Democrats are delighting in Mr. Trump's self-inflicted backlash, slamming Republicans for how they've handled the controversy here at the Senate and House Minority Leaders earlier today.

The ghost of the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein is haunting our Republican colleagues so much so that Speaker Johnson decided to cut bait and send the house home to escape discussions about Epstein. Republicans are on the run. They can't even get their act together as it relates to releasing the Epstein files that every single one of the top leaders of the Trump Justice Department and the Trump FBI and the Vice President and the President himself promised to release. While Democrats see an opportunity to score political points, it remains unclear to what degree the Epstein controversy will animate constituents back home and take up oxygen at town halls as both parties head back to their districts for the summer and begin honing their midterm messages.

Joining me now is White House correspondent Von Hilliard, Chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell and law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter. Thanks to all of you for starting us off today. Von, let me head out to you first. We've of course talked about at the top of the hour this new reporting from the Wall Street Journal.

It says, according to senior administration officials, Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the President that his name was in fact the Epstein files. It actually been asked about that several days ago. He said he was told his name wasn't in there. So what is the White House saying?

Right. He pivoted when directly asked. And instead of the President here trying to move on from the Epstein files, this is a moment where this is going to be incumbent on him to directly answer further questions about the relationship that he had with Jeffrey Epstein. We already knew that Jeffrey Epstein files included references to Donald Trump, for example, flight vlogs that apparently show that Donald Trump flew on.

Jeffrey Epstein's playing seven different times. Tom has done extensive reporting covering the Epstein trial as well as the Gleymaxwell trial that shows the ways in which Donald Trump has been a long time associate of Epstein. At the same time, to be specifically told by the Attorney General Pam Bondi here at the White House that his name is in the documents, and effectively, that occurrence happens in parallel with the decision from this Department of Justice to not try to further release unredacted broads, the scopes of evidence, other information. Those two realities really run perpendicular to one another year.

And Stephen Chung, the communications director for the White House, he just issued a statement in response to this Wall Street Journal reporting, in which he says, quote, the fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by Democrats in the liberal media, just like the Obama-Russia gate scandal, which President Trump was right about. There's a lot more questions for the President of the United States to answer, Kristen. Well, absolutely.

And on that note, let me go over to Tom Winter. Tom, so the Wall Street Journal has this reporting that Attorney General Bondi told President Trump his name appeared in the files. But we should be very clear about what that doesn't does not mean. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was any wrongdoing.

It doesn't imply any guilt in and of itself, correct, Tom? I mean, a hundred percent, Kristen. I can tell you that there are other federal cases where my name appears just because we did stories or articles that were later referenced in case files or in public filings and dockets and stories that we've done that have been quoted specifically. So it does not mean any criminality at all.

I'm not a federal criminal. So just to underscore that, and it is no surprise as one alluded to that the President of the United States is included in these files. As an example, in the Palm Beach police report files, a copy of which I have through public records, we have all of them. And in that is a Vanity Fair article that quotes now President Trump talking about Jeffrey Epstein and the fact that he seems to hang around with young girls.

So that was included in the Palm Beach file, presumably copied over to the FBI's holdings. That's what they referred to on the matter. That's the files that everybody's talking about. And so, yeah, between that, the fight logs and several other things, for sure.

Trump's name appears in their often, I shouldn't say often, excuse me, it appears in their several times. And that does not mean that there's any sort of criminality or wrongdoing whatsoever, even if somebody just said, hey, Tom, who did you talk to on Wednesday afternoon? Well, I was on here with Kristen Welper. I was on here with Zinkley.

I was on here with this person with Vaughn with Andrea. It doesn't mean that any of those individuals did anything wrong. And so that's just an example of the type of thing that can come up. You know, it's such an important clarification, Tom.

Bring us up to speed though, because we got some more breaking news today about that motion from DOJ to unseal the grand jury testimony. What did the judge rule in that case? Yeah, it feels like it's every half hour we're getting filings now brings us back to when this case was was live and in fact being tried. The latest ruling out of Florida is not one that is overly surprising.

So the Justice Department asks under seal, can we get the grand jury materials that were heard before the federal grand jury in Florida before that infamous non-prosecution agreement was signed the investigation there? Can we get that sent up to New York where we are here and can that be released as part of the transcripts we're hoping to get out through the Epstein case that was ultimately brought in New York? And a judge there said, look, I'm bound by an 11th Circuit opinion which says, unless it's specifically spelled out in the federal criminal rules of procedure 6E which governs grand jury secrecy in this country across the country with federal courts. Unless there's an exception in there that you can cite, I can't release those files.

And as she says, it is the Justice Department alluded to in its sealed filing with the court, you know, your honor, this doesn't necessarily fall under that. So case precedent rules the day there, that's not going to be transferred to New York. That doesn't necessarily stop though, Chris, in the release of grand jury transcripts here in New York. It just means it has to have been material that was heard by the grand jury here and not the grand jury in Florida.

Quick update on the timing on that both in the Maxwell and the Epstein case, the grand jury transcripts at least until after August 5th when the victims and the attorneys for either side in the Justice Department have had an opportunity to weigh in. It's only after that point that the judges will begin to consider whether they have a hearing or whether they issue a ruling. So nothing imminent on that front, at least not for the several weeks. All right, Tom Winter, thank you so much for your great reporting on all of those angles.

We really appreciate it. Von, let me go back to you, because in this extraordinary moment, President Trump really said the quiet part out loud last night when he said that his focus on these, he tried to shift his focus to these debunk 2016 claims and basically said that that's what Republicans should be talking about if the Jeffrey Epstein matter comes up. Right, I know that Andrea has deep reporting on the intelligence community and going back to that rather short period of time between the election of President Trump in November 2016 and his inauguration in January of 2017. And I've been covering what was the campaign in candidacy of Donald Trump over the last several years, but also down in Mar-a-Lago back in 2021 after he left the White House.

And there has been deep calls within MAGA circles to have former President Obama and other intelligence community officials from James Clapper to Jim Comey to Brennan. This is a for years now, an effort here to try to pin some sort of criminality on these individuals to justify what they say was an effort to undercut President Trump's first term in office and keep him from returning to power in 2024, making the case that this was a quote, years long conspiracy, as Tulsi Gabbard did from the White House breathing room podium today. But Kristen, we should be very, very clear here. That is a large step that they are taking from internal deliberations in the intelligence community about the extent and the intent of Russia by its influence campaign in 2016 to undercut Hillary Clinton and taking that next to the to make the claim that there was criminal conduct and a conspiracy being done by President Obama and the intelligence community.

The Department of Justice is not actively investigating this as far as where we are where, and they have not outlined specific allegations of crimes. All right, von Hilliard, thank you so much for your good reporting. I do now want to turn to the great Andrea Mitchell joining us on set. Thank you for being here, Andrea, because there is a lot to pick through with this.

As Von just said, let's just pick up on what he said, which is basically that you have Tulsi Gabbard the Trump administration coming out and basically saying that they have uncovered evidence of a conspiracy to undercut then candidate Trump, President Trump's presidency, and that it was being led by President Obama and a range of other people. And they're citing this report that was put out by the Republican committee, which contradicts what was discovered by bipartisan committee signed off on by Secretary of State, but then Senator Rubio. So break down this for us. What do people need to know about the facts here?

Well, first of all, President Trump, yesterday accused one of his predecessors, President Obama, of treason. Treason is an act to betray the country by trying to overthrow it by waging more or giving material evidence and support to enemies of the United States. There is no way, number two, John Durham, a Trump prosecutor, spent three years investigating this under President Trump, never found any wrongdoing, never reached the conclusion of that House Intelligence Committee report that was one party, they excluded all Democrats in a committee that had always been 50-50 Republican and Democratic and always doing things in a bipartisan way. The Senate Intelligence report earlier in 2017 did not come to any such conclusion, and no congressional report ever said or accused Donald Trump or the Trump campaign of trying to sort with Russia.

It said that Russia had tried to influence the election through social media, attempting to hack occasionally, actually hacking into some machines, not changing any votes, not affecting the election outcome. That was never the conclusion, it was unanimous. Republicans and Democrats led by Marco Rubio, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the time. John Durham then investigated for three years under Donald Trump, never prosecuted, never referred anywhere to the Justice Department.

So for Tulsi Gabbard to say today, she was referring to President Obama, John Brennan and these others, to the Justice Department, and then when I asked on what grounds saying, well, that's up to the Justice Department, that's sort of a dark hole, that's throwing something up, throwing some mud up and never coming up with the accusation. And may I just say that there is a Supreme Court decision in the case of Donald J. Trump saying that a president of the United States cannot be prosecuted for offenses allegedly occurring while he was in office, which would mean that President Obama cannot be prosecuted? It's such a stressful word.

So it's really a pile of nothing, and we've gone through it, I covered it at the time, we covered it, we did not cover or carry the report that is the dossier that was widely criticized. The other thing is that John Warner, or the current ranking person on intelligence, who worked very closely with Marco Rubio when they were too, when Rubio was chair or vice chair. So the two were partners and praised him at the time. He has issued a statement to say, saying that that release, the declassification of some of the materials that Tulsi Gabbard declassified has compromised sources and methods regarding Russian intelligence.

Yeah, he clearly outraged by this. Andrea, really an extraordinary fact check of one of the more complicated, I think, twists. Great to have you here. Thank you so much for being here.

Coming up, New York State of Mind, my interview with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, who just announced he won't run for governor after President Trump strongly encouraged him to run for reelection of the House. Plus, the director of FEMA defends his agency's handling of the deadly floods in Texas as state lawmakers tasked with investigating the disaster response meet for the first time. We're live in the state's capital. You're watching with the press now.

Stay with us. Beat beat beat boxing actually has hidden health benefits. It can help strengthen and protect your voice from injury, see healthy living differently with manual life, visit manual life.ca slash health. Welcome back.

It's only 2025, but one of the big puzzle pieces for the 2026 midterms just clicked into place. New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler announced today he will run for reelection ending speculation that he would run for governor of New York. Lawler is one of the few Republicans to carry a district one by former vice president Harris and his 2026 race will be one of the key battlegrounds for control of the house. His decision seemingly clears the field for his house Republican colleague, at least Stefanik, to make a gubernatorial bid of her own.

Do you know what I mean? Now, fresh off his announcement is New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler. Congressman Lawler, thanks so much for joining us on a big day for you. We really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me, Kristin. So let's start off with your announcement this morning in your statement. You said you are, quote, fundamentally believe that you're the best position to take on Kathy Hockel. So why are you not running for governor congressman?

How did you reach your decision? Well, this is something that I really wrestled with over the past six months. One of the biggest factors for why I decided to run for reelection is I actually like the job that I'm doing. In the last two and a half years, I've been able to have a tremendous impact in our house majority, including just recently being able to deliver on one of the biggest promises that I made when running for office, which was lifting the cap on salt.

We were able to secure a $40,000 salt cap. It was the biggest tax cut in the whole bill. And I currently served as chair of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, focused extensively on what is happening with Iran and Israel and our other Arab partners in the region. So there's a lot of work that I've been engaged in here.

This was not an easy decision. But one of the things that I fundamentally believe and recognize is how important my district is to the majority. My victory in 2022 over Sean Patrick Maloney helped secure this House Republican majority and winning last November by six and a half points helped ensure our majority again being one of only three members to represent a district that Kamala Harris won as a Republican. So there was a lot to weigh and ultimately, this was the right decision for me and my family.

That final point though, the New York Times was reported that you talked to President Trump last week. Did he urge you not to run for governor? What did he tell you? We had a very wholesome discussion about a lot of topics, including the New York City mayor's race, the governor's race, and obviously Congress.

He offered his perspective that he believes the right thing to do is to run for reelection. But ultimately, it was my decision and I made that over the weekend after six months of really deliberating, looking at the data, frankly making an unemotional decision and more of a data-driven decision and weighing all the other factors. There is a lot of work to do and being in a district like mine, you not only have a front row seat, you have the ability to really impact policy. And so that's something that I want to continue to do and ultimately that really weighed on my decision.

Well, Governor Hochl reacted to your decision. I'm sure you've seen it. She posted this image implying you were taking President Trump's orders by not running for governor. There, you have it a treat for Donald Trump's good boy.

How do you respond to that, Congressman? I think it's unbecoming of a governor. But at the end of the day, Kathy Hochl is the single worst governor in America. She is feckless.

She's inept and incompetent and New York leads the nation in out migration for a reason. It has nothing to do with the weather and everything to do with the high cost of living and the declining quality of life. Under Kathy Hochl, we have the highest taxes in the country, the worst business climate, a crime and migrant crisis, a housing and energy crisis. And under one party, Democratic rule, it has only gotten worse.

So Kathy Hochl can say whatever she'd like. But at the end of the day, New Yorkers deserve a choice. And when you have, in about socialists and Zoron Mondami, on the verge of becoming mayor of the financial capital of the world and the largest city in New York, and she refuses to endorse them because even she recognizes what a disaster that is for New York, the fact is she needs to start recognizing the policy shortcomings that have created the mess that New York finds itself. Congress was just very quickly.

I mean, when the president calls you, you clearly listened to him. You did say that he raised the idea that he thought it was better for you to run for election. Did you feel any pressure from the president not to run for governor? No, I didn't feel any pressure at all.

He's the president of the United States. And obviously, the leader of the Republican Party, this is a consequential decision. And certainly, you're going to take the opportunity to have a discussion with the president. But ultimately, this was my decision.

And it's one that I'm fully comfortable with and, you know, really made it weighing all of the factors and recognizing the importance of the work that I'm doing and the seat that I hold. And ultimately, that's what weighed more in my decision was my own choice. All right, a couple more here. I do want to turn to the house.

It's grounded to a halt over this Jeffrey Epstein matter recess beginning early because the rules committee apparently didn't want to consider motions on Epstein information whether to release it. Are you concerned that rejecting these motions feeds into the conspiracy theories over Jeffrey Epstein that you've actually come out against? Well, this has been my point from the beginning. I mean, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't engage in a lot of this absurdity.

The fact is Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile. He was a human trafficker. His sidekick, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted and is serving jail time. He committed suicide.

They were held to account. Anyway, as I've said repeatedly, anyone who was engaged in criminal activity as part of Jeffrey Epstein's pedophilia and human trafficking should be prosecuted and should be held to account. The Biden DOJ had all of this information for four years. All of my Democratic colleagues who are now demanding every ounce of information be released said nothing for exactly four years and in fact dismissed many of the conspiracy theories.

But the Trump administration hasn't now, should they release all the files? The president has asked for the grand jury transcripts to be released. But all the files. I believe that here's the issue.

You have victims of crying. You have photos and videos. You don't want to release all of that. That is outrageous.

And no one who cares about and supports victims should ever be demanding any of that be released. If somebody committed a crime, if somebody committed an offense, they should be prosecuted for that offense. If there is evidence of that, sure. But this objective by some of my colleagues, both on the right and the left, to just throw everything out into the general public without any recognition of the challenges here with respect to victims and privacy is really just remarkable.

And frankly, again, what you see is the political tit for tat on both sides. And frankly, it is why our country is in the mess that it's in. The idea that you have people. Let me just ask you one more very quickly.

Wall Street Journal is reporting that the DOJ told President Trump in May that his name does in fact appear in the Epstein files. What is your reaction to that? And I understand you're concerned about releasing victims names. Should all of the files be released with that information redacted, for example?

Look, I don't obviously this report just came out. I don't know about the validity of the report. What I can tell you is, obviously, when you're talking about a case like this, they're going to be names in that come up. I have no idea about the validity of what is being reported by the DOJ or by the Wall Street Journal with respect to the DOJ.

If someone committed a offense, of course, they should be prosecuted. But in the absence of that, what is it that we're seeking to establish that somebody's name was mentioned? The Biden DOJ had all of this information. They indicted Donald Trump.

They tried to prosecute Donald Trump. Does somebody honestly believe that they would not have tried to prosecute him under this? If in fact, he was somehow involved with Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, let's, let's be honest.

Does anybody really believe that the Biden DOJ, while they were prosecuting Dislane Maxwell, would not have sought to prosecute Donald Trump if somehow he was affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein's crimes? All right. Congressman Mike Waller, we will cover your race very closely. Thank you so much for joining us to talk about your big decision.

We really appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up next, Congress conspiracies and the continuing political fallout from the Epstein files. The panel's next.

You're watching with the president. Welcome back. As we mentioned, the House is starting its August recess later today. A few weeks ago, we expected this to be a time for Republican lawmakers to sell President Trump's domestic law.

But they could end up being dogged by questions originally raised by Republicans on Jeffrey Epstein. Joining me now to discuss all of this, my NBC News colleague, Alan Smith. Simone Sanders Townsend, former senior advisor to Vice President Harrison, co-host of the weeknight. That's weeknight on MSNBC.

And Annalise Keller, former communications director for Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner. Thanks so much to all of you for being here. Really appreciate it. Alan, let me start with you because you've actually spent a lot of time on the road talking to voters.

Talk to us about what they are telling you. Are any of them actually talking about the Epstein files? Is this a DC story or is this something that's resonating outside of the Beltway? You know, when I talk to people back home in Western PA, this is absolutely breaking through.

People who aren't involved in politics at all, totally non-political in a sense of being in the day-to-day grind of this, they're curious about the Epstein story because on its face, I mean, it's extremely interesting. And it always has been, right? The conspiracies about Jeffrey Epstein have broken through at a societal level previously, like when he had died in prison, right? This was a huge societal thing.

It has broken through. I think I'm really interested during the recess, how much this is discussed at events with members of Congress when they go home and how it compares to the big, beautiful bill, right? Because I think even Democrats want to be turning the heat up on Republicans for provisions that are in there. So which kind of topic dominates some of these town halls potentially?

I think that remains to be seen. Well, you lead me perfectly to my question to Annalise. Annalise, let me put this up for you, this graphic. This was a quote from a Republican strategist in Politico.

The best hope of getting one big beautiful bill to break through is having Trump hammer at home. So anything that knocks him off of that message and steers the conversation to things that divide ours and force members onto the defensive is a hindrance. How do you see this playing out at town halls and once Republican lawmakers go back home and have to talk to their constituents? Yeah, absolutely.

It's difficult. I completely agree. I think Republicans are going to be faced with these questions when they're going to want to change the conversation, just like Donald Trump has been trying to do, you know, change this conversation to the one big beautiful bill to be talking about these tax cuts. But I think it's going to be difficult.

The loudest voices are, you know, going to be often heard, even if it's not the majority of Americans who are, you know, are really voting on this issue, on the Epstein issue, it certainly has captured the attention and divided Republicans in a way that really nothing has has so far. I mean, certainly, Iran, there was a little bit of a division there, but I think this is the first major issue that has provided a really deep division in the Republican party. You're absolutely right. It's the first time we're starting to see Democrats from the perspective of some Democrats, Simone, really take the gloves off.

But how does this play out for Democrats when they go home? Because in 2024, one of the big takeaways was we need to spend more time talking about pocketbook issues, talking about the economy, talking about how we're going to help people have more money in their pockets. Do Democrats run the risk of getting off course here and talking about things that yes, maybe resonating with some voters, but not a wide swath of them. I would also argue one of the things from 2024 is not trying to convince people that their lived reality is not happening.

So while GDP was up, all these things were happening, people did not feel that in their everyday lives. And they're still not feeling it now. So now Democrats can capitalize on that. I told some Democrats, the other I was talking to some members, some House members.

And I was like, Democrats do not care about the Epstein House. I cannot find a Democratic voter in America that actually gives a, you know what, about the Epstein House. And they're like, we agree, this isn't our issue. We didn't make it an issue, but we're happy to take it up.

And they want to paint this as a senior House Democrat described to me. This is just an extension of how the president doesn't keep his promises. And he's really not here to fight for the working class, working class men and women. And I just, I think that there's, there's a large swath of voters out there that do believe that the president is there to fight for working class men and women, even though I would say, I don't think he has ever been there for that.

I think for Democratic voters, you have to hammer home the Medicaid cuts, the snap cuts, like what this means for their everyday lives. And I'm not saying don't talk about Epstein, but it depends on where you are. If you're Don Ossoff, there are some Republicans that you're going to need to vote for you in Georgia if you want to keep your seat. He's the most vulnerable Democratic cycle.

And he went, he actively started talking about Ossoff, pardon me, about the Epstein files prior to anyone else. And that to me was a tell. But if you were running for, I mean, District 2 in Nebraska, honey, leave it alone, okay? If it comes up, answer, but please don't leave it.

Well, Alan, it's so fascinating because the president's strategy on all of this, and he's been throwing a lot of things at the wall to see what sticks is to say, hey, it's 2016 all over again. Let's revisit the fact that he launched this investigation into the investigations into him. He launched a special counsel investigation, John Durham investigated for many, many months, ultimately did not find anything, but they're trying to kind of provide this storyline. What do you make of this as a political strategy?

So I think even some allies of the president, including the individual that I spoke with today, would say this is part of an effort to try and turn the page in really any way possible. This person said basically the only thing that would turn attention away from Epstein right now would be the start of another war or some life altering event that would happen. Because short of that, everything that they're throwing at the wall right now is probably not going to stick, especially for rehashing stuff from 2016 that again has been fully litigated. These issues had already been worked through, so what new is there is not entirely clear.

And Elise, what do you make of this strategy? And here you have in the White House briefing room today, DNI Tulsi Gabbard at the podium talking about this for some 40 minutes. It wasn't until after that the reporter started asking questions about Epstein because there was this real attempt to shift the focus. Do you think it could work?

I don't, I completely agree. I think it's going to we're going to continue to talk about Epstein. I mean, members, I was struck by the fact that members are leaving this was their last vote. They're rushing to BCA.

We know that reporters are going to be trying to catch them on their way out and ask them about this. There's going to be this discharge petition that's hanging out over members over the August recess as well. They are going to be getting these town hall questions. I think all of that is going to continue.

And those, you know, I honestly don't even think that Democrats have to ask those questions because I think Republicans will do it for them. I think that's where the energy is going to be. Well, and against the backdrop of all of this, Simone, we have Hunter Biden. Oh my goodness.

I think there's two people out on his bingo card this week coming out saying his dad took ambient the night before the debate, taking aim at a lot of top Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to others. What do you make of Hunter Biden coming out this week? What's the impact of that? And could it step on Democrats attempts to try to keep the focus on Epstein?

I don't think it could step on Democrats attempts. Look, I think some of the things that Hunter Biden said, one was not new for Democratic voters, right? If you've ever, if you've ever said anyone that said down at the table, post Joe Biden dropping out of the race, there were, you could run the gamut of the views at the table. There were some people that said, no, there's too late.

You can't let him drop out there. Other people that said he shouldn't have run in the first place. This was like a kitchen table conversation that I have been a part of many a time. But I, you know, Hunter Biden has been a punching bag for conservative, like, I'm not even conservative.

I would call it right wing Republicans for a very long time. And today, Hunter Biden or this week, he punched back. He also punched back at people on the left who had to put him in the crosshairs. So I think Hunter had said his piece.

And I think we should leave it there. And so we will. All right. Simone Annalise and Alan, great conversation.

Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it. Coming up after the break, Radio Nowhere, how the Clawback of federal funding for public broadcasting is already appending operations for stations and communities where radio can be the only source of local news information. Move over to all of it.

You're watching the press now. Welcome back, turning now to the search for answers and accountability after the deadly flooding this month in Texas. There were some heated moments today on Capitol Hill as lawmakers grilled the acting FEMA director over the disaster response look. The acting FEMA administrator David Richardson before today was missing action.

For the first 48 hours, the most critical window for search and rescue, he never visited the National Response Coordination Center. This tragedy forces some incredibly hard questions. Did the FEMA administrator fulfill his legal duty? Did he fulfill his moral duty?

Did the administrator sitting before us do everything that he could to save lives? Acting FEMA director David Richardson defended his agency's response to the floods that killed at least 136 people, as well as his work at an agency President Trump says he once phased out. I've conducted a thorough mission analysis of FEMA and directed the agency to focus on three initial operational priorities. Safeguarding the American people, return primacy to the states and strengthen state, local, tribal, and territorial capability to respond and recover from disasters.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the Committee of State Lawmakers investigating the flood response is holding its first public meeting today. NBC News correspondent Ryan Chandler joins me now from Austin, Texas. So Ryan, what did the flood response committee focus on during this first meeting that it's holding? Well, one of the headlines that I think is going to come out of the day came from the state's Emergency Management Director, Kristen.

He acknowledged that the warnings were inadequate to warn people of the danger coming down river. That is the urgent question surrounding this investigation is why was this so bad in a way that caught people so tragically off guard and we're learning that the extent and the timing of the warnings was not adequate in order to adequately prepare people and get them to evacuate. We're also hearing real frustration and anger from citizens who were impacted by these floods who came to the Capitol today hoping to have their voice heard from lawmakers. This is a close hearing for agency heads and state officials doing real kind of fact finding work, not taking public testimony, but the perspectives that we heard from citizens who are still cleaning up the debris from their neighborhoods was powerful.

I want you to take a listen to some of that. This was a complete failure, an aptitude from every part from our governor who says we're not going to point the finger and play the blame game. That's for losers. That's what he said.

That's what losers do. Some of these officials should never hold public office again. They have failed their constituents. The people that went out supported them voted for them, put them in the offices that they hold.

They failed them. Yeah, quite the contrast, Kristen from President Trump and Governor Abbott, who up until this point have been praising the response about the federal and the state levels. Yeah, you can just hear the anger in that man's voice. Ryan Chandler, you've been on the ground the entire time.

We really appreciate your great reporting. Thank you so much. As local officials deal with the fallout of their disaster response, one of the key resources for residents in these types of disasters is now facing devastating funding cuts. Last week, Congress passed the president's nine billion dollar rescissions package, which includes crawling back some $1.1 billion for the corporations for public broadcasting.

Now, news organizations like PBS, NPR, and other local television radio stations are grappling with what the funding shortfalls will mean for their ability to operate and keep their local listeners and viewers informed. Joining me now is Allegheny Mountain Radio General Manager, Scott Smith. Thank you so much for joining me, Mr. Smith.

I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you for having me here. I know it is such a difficult time for all of you.

Can you speak to what these cuts will mean for you? What is the immediate impact? The immediate impact is not as important as the impact down the road. Very fortunately, we have reserves that we can operate on that it doesn't mean any change in the basic services in our personnel in our locations for now.

But as as anyone who works with a budget knows, when you are when you are operating in the red and you are drawing from reserves, that is a finite resource. So what we will be doing now is trying to find some ways that we can mitigate the loss, trying to find additional ways to cut costs, and looking for additional funding sources all with the idea of making sure we keep fulfilling our core mission, which is to inform, entertain, give emergency alerts as you were just talking about. We do school closures. We do lost notices.

We do funeral announcements. Everything we do has a very local flavor to it, and I absolutely do not want our communities to lose that. Yes, so critical to your community there. How much give us a sense does your budget actually rely on funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

It relies very heavily on it. Our income comes from three sources, private donations, underwriting, and the monies we received via community service grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. On any given year, our budget is 60 to 65% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and that is money that in our area cannot be made up via more donations, more underwriting. We're a very rural area, and I feel like people already give what they can now, and businesses and organizations that we could contact for underwriting.

We already have. It's not as if there are businesses popping out of the woodwork every week. So again, you don't lose 60% of your budget without having some huge impacts on how you operate. I want to give you the chance to respond to some of what lawmakers are saying here in Washington, D.C.

This was after the package that led to these cuts was passed. Senator Shelley Moore Capito and Jim Justice of West Virginia put out separate statements, Capito saying Senate Republicans have listened to the American people who want us to rein in spending. Senate Republicans responded by passing a rescission package that eliminates wasteful spending. Jim Justice said the days of wasting money with zero regard for the taxpayer are over.

What say you? How do you respond to them? I would respond to that by saying that waste and bias, which is already also a buzzword that has been used about this, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's waste is another person's critical service.

One person's bias is another person's truth. I can tell you that I reached out to everyone of our congressional representatives, both House and Senate, to make them aware of the impacts that this would have and had multiple conversations with some of their stats. In the end, let's call what it is. In the end, the Democratic senators from Virginia, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner were solidly against this.

The Republican representatives that we have, which I should explain, we're a two-state organization. We have stations in Virginia and West Virginia, so we have multiple representatives. Jim Justice, Shelley Moore, Capito, Ben Klein and Carol Miller all voted against this. And I can tell you, this did not come as a surprise for those of us that were invested in this.

We've been sounding this alarm for almost two years now, and we've been asking people to advocate. If you feel strongly about the continued existence of Allegheny Mountain Radio, reach out to your representatives. You're the numbers. Here's the Protect My Public Media org address to do that.

So I can tell you, they heard from a lot of people in our area. Well, Scott Smith, we know how important what you do is, and we are grateful to you for your work and for sharing this moment with us. Please keep us posted. Let's stay in touch and come back and update us.

Thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you for giving us the platform to get our story out. Absolutely.

Silicon in just a few minutes, President Trump is expected to sign new executive orders and unveil new details on his administration's plans for artificial intelligence. You're watching the press now. Welcome back. In just a few minutes, President Trump is set to deliver remarks on failing his AI action plan, as well as signing second of orders aimed at accelerating AI innovation here in the US.

It's the administration's latest push to expand AI infrastructure and investments. With the White House, AI is our telling reporters quote, it's a global competition now to lead in artificial intelligence. As the president races to cement the US as the leader in AI technology, his trade team is also rushing to negotiate new trade deals before the president's August 1st tariff deadline. Yesterday, President Trump announced two new trade agreements with Philippines and Japan.

While speaking to congressional Republicans last night, the president touted the latest trade agreement and his own tariff strategy. I just signed the largest trade deal in history. I think maybe the largest deal history with Japan. And that was done with Japan.

They had their top people here and we worked on it long and hard and it's a great deal for everybody. We have a lot of money flowing in. The tariffs are kicked in better than anybody other than me and a few other people in the room. I thought it could happen.

Trinity, now is our VC business and data correspondent Brian Sean Bryan. Thanks so much for being here as always. So what more can you tell us about this trade deal with Japan? Notably, President Trump came out and talked a lot about it.

We haven't heard a whole lot of details yet from Japan. Yeah, well, as is the case with all of these so-called framework deals, we don't have any real text, any documents to look over that really detailed specificity of what was offered by the Japanese or the United States to one another. But the big top lines here are 15% as the effective tariff rate that Japan would face in terms of importing their goods into the United States. This will be a big deal for specifically the automotive industry when you consider that prior to this 15% of around the world, all Americans, all autos that were being imported into the United States were facing a 25% tariff.

So with a new 15% tariff superseding what was previously a 25% tariff, that would be presumably good for companies like Honda and Toyota, which in some cases make vehicles in Japan and then export them to the United States, although it's worth noting those automakers do also in many cases produce domestically in the United States as well and would not face that tariff. But again, we don't have any real details on this. And this is a trade deal that does kind of add to the list of countries that the President has claimed to have signed a deal with. Like, for example, the Philippines, as you mentioned, Indonesia before that Vietnam also on that list.

But of course, there's some big countries like China and also the European Union that we still need to wait for word for. So Brian, you've been watching this so closely. Are you anticipating there will be more trade deals before that August 1st? Tariff deadline.

Of course, we did hear the White House signals some confidence that they might get something done with the EU. Yeah, I think the next big one to watch would be the European Union. Japan is a major trading partner. It can't be discounted that this is probably the biggest country so far, but the United States is in to deal with.

European Union would be massive, especially given the barbs that have been traded from one another. You recall the threats of that 200 percent tariff on European wine. Now, of course, there is this chatter that there could be this 15 percent number that's thrown around. Again, we don't have confirmation of that.

But again, it can't be understated or it can't rather be said enough that that would be substantially higher than the current rates before this president. All right, Brian Tron, as always, we appreciate you. Thanks for joining us. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now, but the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.

Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This Month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple.

Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink Wherever You Get Your Podcast.