If it's Monday, President Trump rejects Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's claim that there is no starvation in Gaza, as the White House prepares a new plan to address the worsening humanitarian crisis. Plus, trade wars and trade deals. European leaders react with some grumbling over a new deal with the U.S. that imposes high tariffs on European goods, as the President moves up his deadline to sanction Russia's economy unless it ends the war in Ukraine.
And the Epstein files fall out. The President again tries to dismiss questions about his administration's handling of the controversy just days after his deputy general met with Epstein's accomplice and exchange for limited immunity. Welcome to Meet the Press Now, I'm Gabe Gutiérrez in Washington, where we are juggling a slew of headlines made by the President today. I'm Mr.
Scottlin on everything from the U.S.'s role in the mid-east of the war in Ukraine to new trade deals and the Jeffrey Epstein saga. We're going to get to all of it this hour. But we begin with the President confronting the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, acknowledging the devastating images showing the impact of the food crisis in the war-torn enclave. President Trump also publicly breaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who yesterday claimed there was, quote, no starvation in Gaza.
Miami's news White House colleague, Sarah Dean, asking the President today ahead of his meeting with the U.K. Prime Minister, if he agreed with Netanyahu's assessment. Here's what the President said. I don't know.
I mean, based on television, I would say, not particularly because those children look very hungry, but we're giving a lot of money and a lot of food, and other nations are now stepping up. Moments later, as the two leaders sat down for their meeting, President Trump doubled down on his concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, announcing the U.S. will set up food centers in the Gaza Strip. We have to help on the humanitarian basis before we do anything.
We have to get the kids fed. So we've been sending it a lot of food, a lot of the food that's been going there has been sent by the United States. We're going to send out food centers where the people can walk in and know boundaries. We're not going to have fences, and they see the food from 30 yards away, and they see the food.
It's all there, but nobody's had it because they have fences set up that nobody can even get it. It's crazy what's going on over there. We can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids are, that's real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can't fake that.
So we're going to be even more involved. The White House saying this afternoon that details on that plan to set up food centers are, quote, forthcoming. All of this comes as more aid is beginning to trickle into Gaza with Israel saying it will pause fighting in certain areas for 10 hours a day to allow for food distribution and enable safe passage to aid trucks. Jordan and the UAE are also taking steps to try and ease the food crisis by carrying out airdrops of food and other critical assistance into the Gaza Strip, but aid agencies say those airdrops cannot meet the needs in Gaza where, according to the UN, a third of civilians are going without food for days at a time.
Sally Lockwood from our NBC partner Sky News is in Jordan and filed this report on the humanitarian aid operations. Yeah, so the situation is now so desperate in Gaza and there's been such international pressure on Israel to ease the humanitarian restrictions there that these foreign aid drops began yesterday. Israel is well carrying out its own aid drops the night before and these aircraft are preparing to fly missions over Gaza. This is one from the United Arab Emirates that's being loaded at the moment.
Another flight from the UAE has just left the C-17 and even bigger aircraft and one from the Jordanian military is also leaving today. Now, they're being loaded at the moment, they're flying one mission each and each aircraft will be carrying, as I understand it, eight pallets of aid, weighing around eight tons. Now, of course, this is very little compared with what could get in by road. In five lorries, NGOs say you can carry around a hundred tons of aid, so eight tons in just one aircraft really is very little by comparison.
That said, they are carrying absolutely essential and critical gear, no medical supplies. They've all got food on board. I've been told it's flour, rice, dried food and critically baby formula. I checked that fact a couple of times and the Jordanian ground crew confirmed that it is baby formula in these loads as well.
Now, interestingly, at the far end of the tarmac here, there's an American C-130 aircraft as well. That engine has been running since we've been here, but the Jordanians have said to me that there is no plan for a mission from the US Air Force over Gaza today. A lot more aid needs to get to a lot more people in very desperate situations and certainly we've been hearing from Palestinian sources on the ground that the air drops so far have been falling into some of the wrong hands. They've been looted by gangs and have ended up on the black market.
Certainly, a drops like this are a dramatic measure, but it's seen as a desperate last resort. Thank you to our colleagues at Sky News for that reporting and joining me now is NBC News International correspondent Matt Bradley and Tel Aviv, NBC News White House correspondent Vaughn Hilliard and while we're at it, NBC News G4 and affairs correspondent Andrew Mitchell. Matt, we'll start with you. We want to warn our viewers that the images coming out of Gaza are graphic and difficult to watch, but what do we know about the situation there today?
Yeah, Gabe, the nightmare that is the Gaza Strip is getting worse. We just heard earlier today from Palestinian health officials in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas that 14 people had died from malnutrition, two of them were children. Now, this adds to an already significant death toll for that particular category, nearly 150 people have died from malnutrition, more than half of them children in just the past couple of days or weeks. So this is a problem that is getting worse despite the fact that we're now seeing a trickle of aid allowed into the Gaza Strip, the Israeli government over the weekend said that they were going to allow air drops of aid, which we've already seen being done by the Jordanians and United Arab Emirates.
They're allowing truckloads more than 100 so far into the Gaza Strip by land, which is, according to aid agencies and advocacy groups, the preferred method of getting aid to the people of the Gaza Strip. They've also instituted 10-hour pauses of fighting during the day to allow for the safe distribution of this aid. And this is pauses that are kind of rotating throughout the Gaza Strip in the major populated areas. And so we are seeing a lightning of, sort of, a loosening of the restrictions on the distribution of aid.
It is a significant loosening because those restrictions were very, very tough. But according to aid agencies, it isn't nearly enough, despite all this, despite the images that you're seeing on your television screen, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said once again yesterday that there is no famine in the Gaza Strip, he called that a boldface lie. Well, today we heard from President Trump, he was speaking in Scotland to reporters and he said that there is, he said you can't fake these images. Now that is an interesting political wrinkle because it was only a couple of weeks ago, right after President Trump decided to weigh in on Israel's attacks against Iran, that it looked as though these two men were really close friends.
They were enjoying some kind of honeymoon now, it looks as though they are disagreeing on this particular issue. And we don't know what that means behind closed doors quite yet. But we do know, and this is what I've been hearing from the Israeli government, that they seem to be very, very upset with the repeated accusations that Israel is using food as a weapon of war. They had denied this over and over again, despite that MDC news has backed up the claims by USAID that they did a report just a couple of, just in the past month, that determined that there was no evidence of systematic theft by Hamas of food aid in the Gaza Strip, which was one of the pretext, one of the claims that the Israelis had been using over and over again to say that they were the ones who needed to take control of the aid distribution from the United Nations.
We also heard and seen reporting in the New York Times that said that even Israeli military sources had said that there was no evidence of systematic theft of food aid by Hamas, that there was no evidence that Hamas was using this food aid in order to profit. So given those circumstances, it is a very, very difficult situation and one that is seeing more and more criticism piling on against the Israeli government. Now, despite the fact that we've seen this loosening, it's unclear whether the world will be satisfied if they continue to see these horrific pictures. Okay.
Matt Bradley reporting for us in Tel Aviv. I want to turn out to von Hill, your name, Andrew Mitchell, von, those images really aren't just so hard to look at. And the president responding to today, a president that really pays attention when it comes to television images, what else did he say that regarding the food crisis in Gaza? The images that our fellow journalists captured are undeniable and the president of the United States noted that saying you can't fake that imagery, that there was quote, real starvation, pushing back against Benjamin Netanyahu in a way that they know it's not that wild of a statement to make, to acknowledge images, and to acknowledge tens of thousands that are facing starvation right now.
But for this president, he has been largely differential to the Israeli prime minister every step of the way through this. And I think if you go back to the beginning of this month, just ahead of the third visit from the Israeli prime minister to the White House, the president and true social post was very specific saying, I hope for the good of the Middle East that Hamas takes this deal because it will not get better in all caps, it will only get worse. That is the statement one month in. It is reality right now.
Andrew, I want you to pull back the curtain a little bit on what's going on domestically inside Israel. Will these comments by the president, will that do anything to push Netanyahu to perhaps take this humanitarian crisis more seriously, or does he have his own things to worry about that? This really won't make much of a difference. Domestically, he cares mostly about keeping those two very far right members of his coalition together, and they are his two national security top advisors, Ben Gavair and Smotridge.
And that is driving his policy because without them, he doesn't have a government without a government. He loses power. And he will obviously and is obviously reacting to the outrage around the world, but most particularly from the United States. The president's statements today are 180 flip from everything that the Secretary of State and the State Department have been saying.
They have been furiously criticizing and pushing back against all of our questions about the starvation and the humanitarian crisis, and saying look at all the meals, 90 million meals in the last four months by this God's a humanitarian foundation, which is a U.S.-Israeli foundation. It was supposedly a non-profit, but 30 million dollars were put in by the U.S. government in recent months. And 90 million meals for two million people who have multiple children, and there are only in four locations in the South of Israel, rather than the 400 locations with truckloads of food that the world food program.
So I would really point you to what Lindsey Graham said, notably on the press, just yesterday to Kristin Walker, who said that he had spoken to Cindy McCain, the head of the World Food Program. The U.N. agencies were all prevented from getting in for all of those months, and they were relying only on those meals from that foundation. And people were, a thousand people, were reportedly dying because they violated the law by having it only in one location and having the IDF armed soldiers patrolling.
And Vaughn, how does the administration square this new rhetoric from President Trump when it comes to, you know, that these images are disturbing and he probably doesn't agree with Netanyahu too. Just a short time ago saying that Israel needed to finish the job when it came to Hamas. How was the administration squaring that at the moment? I think we have six months of evidence that the State Department and the Pentagon follow the lead of the president, and the messaging that they deliver as Andrew is suggesting here can be countered by the president mere hours later, and that's another situation you're looking at.
Steve Woodcock, though, leaving Doha and leaving the negotiating table is notable here. At the same time, this president has not articulated specifics of what he wants to see as part of not just a ceasefire, but a long-term peace agreement here. This is a president that has deferred repeatedly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And the question is, what are the terms that Hamas would actually agree to, because when the president just two weeks ago in the White House, next to Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about his thoughts about potential two-state solution, the president kicked it over to Benjamin Netanyahu, who said that there would be no Palestinian state unless Israeli security forces were overseeing it, which, of course, Hamas would not agree to under any circumstances.
And what Netanyahu has said is that there won't be a two-state solution, that his country does not support it, and he's correct about that. There is opposition to that. And just today, the United Nations held a meeting, a General Assembly meeting, and the Secretary General put out a statement and said, you know, to the General Assembly that the two-state solution is the only acceptable, internationally agreeable, peaceful solution. So that is the non-starter.
But what is really changed is that President Trump has reacted to these pictures that look like they offer. They were hideous pictures, heartbreaking pictures. And only in the last 24 hours Netanyahu said there is no starvation, which is denying the visual reality. And as you pointed out, he's facing his own domestic rallies there.
I do talk about moving forward. I want to play something that the president said today about his message to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Let's just... We get a lot out.
And now, possibly, the fight will have to be a little bit different, but they have totally changed now. They don't want to give hostages. Very unfairly. You have 20 living people.
In this case, living. You have many dead people, too, that they want to get it. A long time as well. Yeah.
They have 20 living people. And I told... Israel, I told BB that you're going to have to now maybe do it a different way. A different way.
How do you interpret that? That means military action. And the hostage families, especially the American families, there are two, at least two, with remains, with children, with sons, they are desperate to get them out. There are 20 as...
When a living hostage is Israeli hostages that the president referred to, they don't want military action, because they think it jeopardizes the possibility of getting their loved ones out. But that's the conundrum, because Hamas is impossible to negotiate with, according to all reports. Hamas no longer has leaders, because they've been fascinated. There's no longer anyone communicating.
And they are holding out now, I was told, by people close to negotiation for a non-starter, for substituting the Palestinian prisoners that are supposed to be released for the sea fire deal, with people who are active murderers from the October 7th massacre. So Hamas is not negotiating. They're correct about that. And Israel is refusing to make concessions.
And it's a standoff, and the only option seems to be military, which is potentially in another disaster. And a disturbing stand-off, while we continue to see those problems. The president has consistently sort of had a hands-off approach on this. Go back to February.
He said there wouldn't be no U.S. soldiers in Gaza, effectively, during... It would be IDF action. Right.
Von Hill, you're... Andrew Mitchell. Thank you. So much for your time, both.
Thank you. Joining me now is Karan Donalay, Senior Vice President for Crisis Response Recovery and Development at the International Rescue Committee. Sir, thank you so much for joining us here on the press. Now, what are you hearing from your teams on the ground in Gaza?
It's an absolutely unspeakable and desperate situation on the ground. We have staff on the ground who've been working there for many, many months, providing critical nutrition and medical and water supplies to displaced and affected populations. They've been telling us that they themselves have run out of food. Some of them are skipping meals all eating every few days.
They're subsisting on what little they're able to get off, and it's some watery lentil soup or a few bites of bread. And many of them are parents, and they're prioritizing feeding their kids with whatever they can find, making it even harder for them to sustain themselves. They're describing communities that are absolutely desperate who come knocking on their doors because they know they work for an aid organization, asking for any support. It's an unspeakable catastrophe that's unfolding on the ground.
How effective are these airdrops that have been underway? Airdrops, you're reported to describe them as a last resort, and that's really the case. Airdrops should be a last resort only when there's no way to physically access a place where people are in need of assistance. That's not the case in Gaza today.
Airdrops are expensive. They can only deliver a limited quantity of supplies, and very often not the supplies that are needed. We heard descriptions of flour and baby formula, things that require fuel and firewood and safe water to be able to effectively prepare for people. That's not enough.
It's not the right kind of assistance. The solution is right in front of us. United Nations agencies and international humanitarian organizations, like the IRC, have the capacity on the ground to scale up and to reach people rapidly, and not just with food assistance, but with specialized malnutrition treatment, with medical care. That capacity exists on the ground and can provide the assurance around aid getting directly to civilians who need it most, and what we really need is focus on enabling that kind of scale up.
Aaron, Israel is saying that somebody is getting into Gaza, but the UN and other aid groups are failing to distribute it. How do you respond to that? So limited amounts of aid are being allowed in, very limited, and they're subject to blockages and interference on multiple levels. First, it's getting the aid across the border itself with subject to approvals that are often hard to navigate and change the last minutes.
The things that are approved to go in are limited and restricted as well. Once aid gets into Gaza, agencies then require another layer of approvals to be able to pick it up to distribute it, and that's subject as well to the situation on the ground being safe enough, both for aid workers to be able to access it, and for civilians to be able to travel to distribution points to be able to pick it up. So we've got administrative bureaucratic impediments imposed by the Israeli authorities, but we also have the reality of operating in a war zone, which makes it very, very difficult to get around. It's not for a lack of capacity, and it's not for a lack of will or intentionality from the UN and NGOs on the ground.
It really is the conditions imposed upon us that make it next to impossible to reach the scale it's needed. Looking forward, the president said today that the US would be setting up some sort of food centers in Gaza to help with the distribution of aid. What does that need to look like for it to be effective? So I think the solution is obvious, so renewed US commitment around finding humanitarian solutions in Gaza is, of course, very, very welcome.
That needs to lean into enabling the work of established organizations on the ground. We don't have the time, and people in Gaza don't have the luxury of time to set up a new system of distribution points. The World Food Program, UN agencies, humanitarian NGOs like the IRC have the capacity to do that, so the US government leaning into enabling our work with direct support, but also with influence over Israeli authorities to remove the impediments and create safe conditions on the ground for aid agencies to operate, is really what we'd like to see going forward. John Donovan, we thank you so much for your time.
Thank you. And coming up more from the president's visit to the UK and the announcement of a new trade deal with the US's biggest trading partner, the European Union. Plus, the president again tries to dismiss the FC in files controversy as a hoax, and the vice president vows for insferencing. They're watching me the press now, say what's it was.
Welcome back. The US and Chinese trade representatives are meeting in Stockholm just days before the Trump administration's self-imposed deadline of August 1st to secure deals with key trade partners. Those talks come a day after the White House announced a trade deal with the European Union, the terms of which include a 15% tariff on goods imported from the EU with some exemptions. A 50% tariff on steel imports would remain in effect as part of the deal.
You would also purchase billions of dollars in energy and invest billions in the US economy. The president's outing the deal after meeting with the president of the European Commission. I think we both wanted to make a deal. You said something that is very important.
It's going to bring us closer together. But this started months ago, this negotiation. So we knew pretty much what we were getting into, and we were able to make a deal that's very satisfactory to both sides. So it's very, it's a tremendously, it's a very powerful deal.
It's a very big deal. Now, let's see if you see Washington correspondent, Meghan Cassella, and von Hilder is back with me. I decided to stick around. Thanks, von.
Thank you, Meghan. What is in this deal for the EU? Why take it? That's a key question.
And it's not a lot that's in there for the EU. We've actually heard member states complaining about that today, complaining about the commission president for making this deal. One thing they do get 15% tariffs, very substantial, but better than it could have been. We've heard President Trump threatening 20% tariffs, he's talked about 30% tariffs.
It's 15% almost entirely across the board. So that's good for most products and especially good for things like cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. That also could have seen much steeper tariffs. But it is a lot higher than it once was.
They are getting a little bit of certainty, and that's the main reason to make the deal. So European officials today, they did acknowledge they don't really have the authority to make good on the $600 billion investment. Does that take a little bit of teeth out of this agreement? What do you make of that?
Absolutely. They did acknowledge that. They sort of said it's all going to be private investment. There's no public incentives.
They're not doing anything to make sure. They follow through on those commitments. And I'm not sure exactly when we're going to actually get that on detailed paper form here. But I think to a point here, we're dealing with an administration that has shown a willingness to effectively cut through previous trade deals, the USMCA trade agreement, and say we don't really care when this was supposed to be up, we're going to go forward with higher tariffs regardless.
And I think that's where the head of the EU in her comments. This weekend, we're notable. Number one, she said that it brings stability and it is practical. And three and a half years more that the EU and the 27 member nations are going to have to work with this administration.
It may very well be in their interest to have some sort of a standard to know that they can work off of at least every time. And the administration has shown a willingness to extend its deadlines for certain trade deals. And I want to ask you a 50% tariff on goods from Europe. What will that mean for consumers here in the US?
Higher prices. On a number of things, you mentioned before that you was our largest trading partner by far. I would say, so we're just looking at the biggest things we take in from Europe. It's pharmaceutical, it's medicine, cars, alcohol, think about your French wine or your Italian wine.
It's also sparkling water, luxury goods, some precious metals, some high-end art. And then the single biggest company that imports the most from Europe is IKEA. So think about your IKEA furniture, everything from low into high-end to get a little bit more expensive. Moving into a college dorm.
We get a lot more pricey. Vaughn, switching gears to the talks underway in Stockholm today, what do we know? I understand they wrapped up for the day. What do we expect to happen next?
We expect there to be a day to have talks. The August 12th deadline that the US had stated that they had with China to not escalate those steep high tariffs again could very well be delayed if these conversations in Stockholm are fruitful. We are so far away from a trade deal that of a magnitude I think that this administration is looking for here. But at least Jameson Greer, the Australian representative, and they have left that day one of meetings here.
And I think though it is a question here of just how long, what do they want to actually see? Because in terms of concrete deals, I think that with China specifically, it is going to take a lot, and yet they continue to push these tariffs down the road. And Vaughn, in addition to the trade deadlines that we were talking about the White House and President Trump, he was on another deadline today when he was asked about the war in Ukraine, Russian players and president of Vladimir Putin, he said his deadline that he had extended to Putin might be changing or could change based on his disappointment as he referred to it. What else did he say?
This actually happened after I think two notable events. One, there were 300 drones launched from Russia into Ukraine overnight. And the second part of this going back to the trade conversation with the EU, the EU has been putting pressure on the Trump administration to continue to provide aid and commitment to Ukraine long term. And look where we find ourselves.
The president said the United States suggesting that Russia doesn't have the 59 deadline to make moves toward a ceasefire and end of this war, like they did, that would have been the beginning of September. But instead, it's a much shorter timeline, at least that's what the White House is saying. Big listen. Yeah, I'm going to make a new deadline of about 10 or 12 days from today.
There's no reason of waiting. There's no reason of waiting. It's 50 days. I want to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made.
Now we know there's bipartisan support in the Senate to push forward a bill for the president to sign the president says he could do this unilaterally if he wanted, but essentially it would be secondary tariffs. A hundred percent tariffs is what the president had suggested two weeks ago over in the Senate. He wanted to do a 500% secondary tariff on Russian oil and gas that is going to particularly China and India here. And so what does the president actually move?
He's threatened Russia a couple months now. But today here seemingly at least drawing his own timeline a little shorter. That's right. A lot of threats.
You know, I get a big picture of this for us when it comes to tariffs. There have been so many shifting deadlines here. The markets though, they're still shrugging it off. They're playing it for.
Surprisingly. They are. And that's in spite of the different threats that we've seen him follow through on now. Not only the Russian secondary tariffs, but the latest one being the global baseline tariff of 15 or 20% doubling that from the 10% that he already put in place, which comes on top of anything that was already in place, even before he took office.
So everything gets a little bit more expensive and yet markets seem to think this is better than what they thought it could be. And I think at this point, they're just looking for anything, any degree of certainty that we can all sort of move on. I'm skeptical. I think that even once he strikes deals with all of these countries, he might go back on them.
There might be new things to negotiate, but they just like the idea that maybe work towards the end of the road on tariffs. And so for now, they think it's okay. I guess I'll tell you thank you both and next the follow continues as bipartisan lawmakers push for the release of the Epstein files and the president answers questions again about whether he might pardon Epstein's accomplice. You're wondering if you need to press now.
Stay with us. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. If you were ads deep for access and exclusive content, and now during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more.
XFINITY. Imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until cancelled. Off her ends May 20th, 2026.
Price is subject to change. Visit NBC News.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's a Scoop. But a podcast from NBC News with Meet Your Host, Jasmine DeSuege.
We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page to the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.
Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back.
Even while on an overseas trip, a White House finds itself facing questions about its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein saga and the president's past ties with the convicted sex offender. In Scotland today, the president again tried to dismiss the issue when asked by reporters about it, basinsly claiming that case files were, quote, run by his political enemies. Even though Epstein was arrested and prosecuted during the first Trump administration. It's a hoax that's been built up way beyond proportion.
I can say those files were run by the worst scum on Earth. They were run by Comey, they were run by Garland, they were run by Biden. Those files were run by these people. They were run by my enemy.
If there was anything in there, they would have used them for the election. And then just an hour later in Ohio, Vice President J.D. Vance trying to slightly different approach in response to the reporters' question on the issue. The president has directed the Attorney General to release all credible information.
And frankly, to go and find additional credible information related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, he's been incredibly transparent about that stuff. If you want to criticize the people who aren't showing full transparency, you ought to go after the administrations that went easy on Jeffrey Epstein, the administrations that concealed this case for 20 years, and the administrations that failed to show full transparency. Oh, that comes after the president's deputy attorney general met privately last week with Epstein accomplishing Maxwell, who was serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking. A senior administration official telling him that Maxwell was offered limited immunity by the Justice Department to answer questions.
What might come of those meetings remains an open question. President Trump refuses to rule out a potential pardon. Well, I'm allowed to give a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it.
It's in the news about that aspect of it, but right now it would be inappropriate to talk about it. Lean in C4, Maxwell, in exchange for new information, if she has any, is also dividing members of Congress, including those who are pushing for the administration to release more information. Here's what Republican Congressman Thomas Massey and Democratic Congressman Rokana told my colleague, Kristen Welker, here on Meet the Press. Would you support a pardon or a commutation of Gilead Maxwell?
You know, that would be up to the president, but if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of. No, I don't.
And I'm concerned that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is meeting with her supposedly one-on-one. Look, I agree with Congressman Massey that she should testify, but she's been indicted twice on poetry. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence.
And we will have much more on the latest political and legal fallout from the Epstein saga. Coming up, we'll be right back. Look back, even with the House and their August recess, divisions among Republicans over the Epstein files continue to loom large. But the promise of subpoenas and a bipartisan bill to force the release of the files, all waiting for Republicans' Republican leadership upon their return.
Joining me now is Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Circuit, also with me as legal affairs reporter, Eric Rumbach. Julie, I want to start with you on Hill. Congressman Conna and Massey, who are behind the bill to force the release of the Epstein files. They were both on Meet the Press for Persons Week and as we just played.
Congressman Massey in particular has been on odds with fellow Republicans, including Speaker Johnson over this bill. Can we expect that fight to heat up even though the House isn't expected to be panicked for quite a while? I think it depends, Gabe, on what they hear if anything from their constituents back home. You already saw an effort to try and corner Congressman Keith Sell, for example, in Texas over the weekend, and he kind of muscles his way out of that.
But I think when it comes to this issue, it is definitely not going away. When it comes to somebody like Thomas Massey, he's been at odds with Speaker Johnson and the president outside of this issue for months. But it's not just him, right? There are other Republicans.
One that leadership cannot ignore that keep wanting to bring this to the forefront, not only in the House, but also in the Senate. And our own Kristen Welker questioned Massey and Conna on what their end game here is. Take a listen. Why is it painful for Mike Johnson to call a vote on this?
And, you know, the American people deserve this, regardless of what the political ramifications are for the speaker. This is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms. The voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable. House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way.
But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims. And our concern is that the Massey and Conna discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented. Now, there are protections in that resolution. But Gabe, as you know well, the speaker has the power to do anything.
He could by himself draft a piece of legislation that would force the administration's hand on releasing these files with whatever contours and reductions he'd like, but he isn't. And he is not putting an effort like this on the floor by himself. It is why you have Massey now going around gathering signature. He needs two 18 signatures to be able to force Johnson's hand and put this on the floor.
And I suspect over the break with pressure back home, especially this issue is not going away anytime soon. You know, Julie, the big sell for this August break was supposed to be the so-called big, beautiful bill, right? You know, we've just played Vice President J.D. Vance in Ohio talking about it a little earlier in the broadcast.
But is anyone listening? Well, that's also the big question. And, you know, as I'm having conversations with Democrats behind the scenes, especially something that kind of bubble to the surface, is all this talk about Epstein taking away from your messaging on the devastating portions of that bill. I'm Medicaid cuts on food stamp benefits going away.
And all these cuts the Democrats were talking about before the bill decided to lie. And the bottom answer to that is we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can keep this issue at the forefront, which they believe is nothing but a win-win for them, trying to drive this message home of transparency. And issue, by the way, that yes, on one hand, Speaker Johnson and others are right, Democrats had four years to release them, and they did it, these files.
But the difference here is, is that the President spent his campaign talking about this and campaigning on this issue, so for Democrats, they're going to keep talking about Epstein. They're, in fact, actually planning a few stops in Republican districts to talk about that issue. Joey Sorkin, live for us on Capitol Hill. Joey, thank you.
I'm going to turn now to Gary. Look, Gary, before this most recent fallout over the Epstein files, Ghillain Maxwell, she was appealing her conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court. What's the basis of that appeal?
And what are her lawyers arguing? So Maxwell's attorneys are arguing that she should have never been prosecuted in New York, because she says she has a non-prosecution agreement in Florida, and she says that she'll apply across the country to every U.S. attorney's office. Now, it's an open question as to whether or not she actually has a non-prosecution agreement in Florida, because she never signed anything down there.
Her name's not listed in the non-prosecution agreement of Jeff Epstein from 2008, and she is not involved in the agreement in any way. So that's certainly up for the Supreme Court justices to decide, but this is not something that's going to be decided for many months before it even gets to oral arguments, that stage. So when it comes to the interview, two-day interview she had last week, but Todd Blanche, we know that she was given limited immunity for the information she gave him. What does that mean for that information that he may have gotten from Maxwell?
So she's, I think she's able to say things without any fear of reprisal or fear of anything else happening to her criminally. Now, of course, she is in jail for 20 years for some serious, serious sex trafficking charges. And because of that, if you're in jail for 20 years, perhaps you want to say something that prosecutors may be more willing or the president, maybe we're willing to get you out of there a little bit sooner or completely in the coming weeks and months. So what she says is, certainly, should we take it by granted?
So she was saying it to Todd Blanche, who's the number two at the Department of Justice. Yeah, and speaking of that, how unusual is it for Todd Blanche? Not only number two at the Department of Justice, also President Trump's former personal lawyer. How unusual is it for that type of official to be so directly involved in this situation at this time?
It's a web of conflict of interest there, right? But he's not a prosecutor in this case, right? He's a political figure at the Department of Justice. If there were no FBI agents in the room, if there were no actual prosecutors to the case itself in the room, when these conversations were going on, it's sort of up for debate in the legal community.
So what can be done with that information? Yeah, I'm not gonna go fair as a reporter. Thank you so much. Instead of coming, new candidates and new clarity.
In two of the most important battleground states heading into the 2026 midterms. You're watching to meet the president. Welcome back. Turning to the midterms.
We've got a couple of major 2026 Senate announcements today. First, North Carolina, where Democrats finally got their top recruit. As former two-term Governor Roy Cooper announced a bid for the state's open Senate seat. You will likely face current RNC chair Michael Watley, who already has President Trump's endorsement despite not yet announcing a run.
And one of 2026's top battleground races. And in Georgia, Republican Congressman Mike Collins announced a mega-centric campaign to take on incumbent Democratic Senator John Ossoff. And still anybody's primary in Georgia with Governor Brian Kemp and President Trump's political teams reportedly at odds over who should be the Republican nominee. And with that, we have the panel.
Join me now on set Shelby Talcott, White House correspondent for Semaphore. Ashanti Goldlock, President and CEO of Emerge. And Stephen Hayes, Editor and CEO of Dispatch. She is also an NBC News political analyst.
Now, Shelby, I want to start with you. Let's start in North Carolina. I want to start with some of Roy Cooper's announcement video. These are not ordinary times.
Politicians in DC are running up our debt, ripping away our healthcare, disrespecting our veterans, cutting health for the poor, and even putting Medicare and Social Security at risk. Just to give tax breaks to billionaires. That's wrong. And I've had enough.
Shelby, what's your takeaway? What type of campaign campaign is he trying to run? I mean, I think it's clearly trying to focus on some of these issues and actually some issues that Republicans were focused on during the presidential elections. It's really interesting.
It's not being as sort of aggressively openly anti-Trump in this introduction video, which is a little bit different than what a lot of Democrats have done, which is try to tie a lot of this directly to the President and therefore try to push some of these Republicans who are going to be running in the midterms out by tying them directly to what Trump has been doing over the past six months. I think the question is, is it going to resonate with voters when you consider that the Democratic Party has struggled to sort of adhere to these voters and have these voters understand what they're running on. Yeah. And that's not to that point.
What if Democrats can't win North Carolina with a popular former governor and open C, you know, the win that they're backs because of the midterms? Can North Carolina still be called a battleground state? Absolutely. And I absolutely love the announcement video.
And he has a great chance because people know him. They trust him. He was a wonderful governor. And it also shows that we can be competitive in the south by having people in all of these races who are able to compete competitively.
And I do think it is going to be a good year. And we are focusing on the issues that are impacting people today. And I know there's lots of talk about people not mentioning Trump and their videos on the campaign trail. They don't need to.
People see what he is doing, how he is turning the country. I just want to make that point. Yeah. He didn't mention Trump in that announcement video.
But is that what this race will be about? Yeah. I mean, I think you come out and you try to define yourself. And the voters in North Carolina know him, right?
I mean, I think it's been interesting to watch Republicans anticipating this announcement, try to frame him as very radical out of step with the average North Carolina voter. It's not probably going to work. Ultimately, they're probably going to end up on a message that says, if you vote for the governor, you're going to be supporting Democrats, liberal Democrats in the Senate, he will be aligning rather than really attacking him. I think it's hard to know.
You know, let's take a trip on the way back to Shane. You know, Cooper was elected back in 2016, following the business backlash, remember the so-called battle bill? Yeah. Yes.
Yes. So-called battle bill. My goodness. It feels like a century ago.
How much? But doesn't perspective how much of things changed since then? Well, I mean, just in terms of the potency of that issue, I think Republicans now are in a very popular position on that issue. One of the first things you heard in the aftermath of his announcement immediately was Republicans saying, this is a guy who wants to have boys in girls sports and mix, you know, genders in a way that's not popular with North Carolina voters, including Democrats.
And you're seeing other Democrats in interviews that they're giving also try to create some distance from some of the more radical policies that Democrats have advanced on those issues specifically. And it is cliche to talk about the midterms, that it's a referendum on the president. But in this case, is it really, does it really boil down to either stopping Trump or empowering Trump? Will that be the message for both Republicans and Democrats?
Right now, that's how it feels like. But I think my question is, is that enough for people to vote for Democrats, particularly in some of these swing states? But right now, that's all we're seeing from both sides of the party. You're seeing Republicans really tie themselves to Donald Trump aggressively.
They're not shying away from saying, I helped Donald Trump do X, Y, and Z. That's their path forward. And then on the flip side, you're seeing Democrats do the same thing for very different reasons. They're saying, oh, this person is really tied to Donald Trump.
You don't want to vote for him because look at what Donald Trump has done over the last six months. Yeah. And this is different, obviously, because unlike previous midterms, you know, in the middle of a first presidency, Donald Trump's going to be a lame duck, you know, after these midterms. What does his agenda look like for the second half of this term?
We just saw, you know, JD Vance in Ohio today trying to sell the big, beautiful bill. But what do you make of this? What will happen in the next two years after the midterms? Is he, in fact, a lame duck?
And does it count? 2020 campaign, is it already starting? Yeah. Well, I think that the president still wants to do a lot legislatively.
And I think that they, we've already seen him start leaning on Congress more and more to get things done. He started off by doing a lot of executive orders. He sort of exhausted a lot of those executive orders, and now he has to rely on Congress. And so when I talk to people inside of the White House, they recognize that these midterms, even though Donald Trump isn't running again, are hugely important because they believe that if they can't maintain control, Donald Trump isn't going to be able to get anything done for the last two years.
Right. Well, Stephen, I want to try and go to Georgia, because we're bouncing around all the years talking about all these midterms. I want to play some of what Congressman Collins had to say in his launch video. Let's listen.
In trucking, you got to deliver. I'm Mike Collins. And that's why we drove home Trump's big, beautiful bill. It's time to send a trucker to the U.S.
Senate to steamroll the radical left, to deliver on President Trump's America first agenda, and put the people of Georgia back in the driver's seat. So what happens? Yeah. Governor Brian Kemp and President Trump endorse two different candidates.
Who has the edge in Georgia? I mean, Brian Kemp's a very popular governor. And in terms of the politicos in Georgia, I think they would side with Kemp. Nobody in the Republican Party today wants to defy Donald Trump.
And I think if you look at that video and he released another one that was sort of accompanying it, it's just a clear play for Donald Trump's endorsement. And that's what the video is about. He says things that are sort of, you know, test driven to get Donald Trump to support Mike Collins. And yeah, I think it'll matter if Donald Trump ends up in Georgia.
And Johnson, the Democratic side in Georgia, if John Ossoff wins, is he then on the Democratic ticket in 2028 on any Democratic ticket? I think anything is possible. And I just love the fact that we have so many wonderful people who can be our presidential candidate, vice presidential candidate for 2028 and beyond, because we do have an amazing bench. And again, it's going to be one of the races we're really going to watch during the midterms.
I mean, new polling from the Wall Street Journal shows something that we've seen a lot. Both parties are very unpopular here, Democratic Party polling at an all-time low. Have Democrats done anything to improve their brand since November? Well, I think they're trying.
You're seeing all of these Democrats go on these podcasts. They're taking kind of the Donald Trump approach that he did during the presidential campaign. They're going to new forms of media. You're also seeing a lot of them, as you mentioned, shift on some of these social issues more towards the center.
I think that matters. I think the big concern for Democrats is A, they still don't have sort of a core leader. And I think B, sometimes that results in differing messages. They don't have sort of a core message on how to push back on Donald Trump yet.
That affects things. And you've seen, they're still based on this poll anyway. They're still not, voters don't feel represented by Democrats still, and that's a big hurdle that they still have to figure out. How do Democrats improve the number?
We actually have an out there doing work. I think something that really points to it is these special elections, Democrats have been doing very well. And I still fundamentally believe that during this time, we need different tactics, different messengers to meet people where they are. And that is working from our DNC chair, Kim Martin, being out traveling the country, the town halls, that Democrats have done only in their districts, but in Republicans' districts.
And we are ready to have this conversation. We are ready to talk about who is really going to put the country back on track, because right now, people are suffering. And Stephen, really quickly, because we're running out of time here, but I do want to put up another number from the Wall Street Journal poll. It says that more than a majority say that Congress is doing too little to check on President Trump.
Is that a warning to incumbent Republicans in 2026? Yeah. I mean, look, I think there are mixed messages throughout this poll. There was the generic ballot, also favored Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact that Democrats are as unpopular as they ever have been.
I think Shelby identified it earlier. This is going to be about Donald Trump in 2026, and do Democrats able to say, we're the opposite of him. All right. Thanks, Shelby.
Thank you so much for joining me here on The Panel. Thank you. And thank you for watching. We're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.
I'm Gabe Gutierrez. The news continues with Halle Jackson, right now. Hey, everyone. I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of The Third Hour of Today, and Mom to Three Wild Boys.
I've 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 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 much screw yours up. Search The Parent Chat on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts.