Meet the Press NOW — July 30

If it's Wednesday, it's the economy. The President counts a better than expected GDP report to have another major tariff deadline, as the Federal Reserve bucks the President's demands to lower interest rates. Plus, NBC News exclusive reporting on Defense Secretary Pete Access potential plans to run for office in Tennessee, in what would be a major leadership shakeup for the Pentagon and President Trump's cabinet. And former Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not run for governor of California, raising speculation of a potential 2028 presidential bid from one of the Democratic Party's most closely watched figures.

Welcome to the press. To be the president now, I'm Kristin Welker in Washington on a day of major headlines about the health of the U.S. economy and the President's frustrations with Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell. This afternoon, the Fed again rebuffed the President's demands that at lower interest rates, announcing it will keep rates steady as was expected.

What was not expected, two Fed governors dissenting in that decision out of the 11 members who cast a vote. Now that hasn't happened in more than 30 years. Both dissenters were Trump appointees calling for rates to be cut. Here's what Powell told reporters when asked about the dissent.

On the dissent, what you want from everybody and also from a dissenter is a clear explanation for what you're thinking is and what are the arguments you're making. And that's we had that today. So I think basically this was quite a good meeting all around the table where people were thought carefully about this and put their positions out there. The Fed's decision coming as the White House House has stronger than expected GDP report showing that the U.S.

economy grew at a 3% rate in the second quarter of the year reversing a first quarter economic contraction. Now the volatility of the numbers has been exacerbated by the president's tariff agenda and trade war threats, which have roiled U.S. imports and exports causing huge fluctuations in parts of the data. At the White House today, the president boasted about the resilience of the U.S.

economy, criticized the Fed Geod Room Powell, and defended his calls to lower rates when pressed by NBC Scape Gutierrez. Take a look. Hi, Mr. Straits.

I think it's harder for veterans to be financed. I'm going to strongly expect that GDP report comes this morning. What do you say to analysts who worry that lower interest rates would actually be inflation? Well, if that happens, then we just raise them.

What you do is you lower them and let's see if there's inflation right now. There's no inflation. Everybody thought that would be all we have is billions of dollars of cash pouring into our country from other countries that took advantage of us for many, many years. This all comes less than 48 hours before the Trump administration self-imposed August first deadline for countries to reach trade deals with the U.S.

to avoid new tariffs. The president insisting today that the deadline will not be extended, acclaimed his administration has made before, while also threatening India with huge trade penalties for buying oil from Russia. Meanwhile, new polling shows that Americans' views of the economy and the president's handling of it remain underwater. In fact, just 38% say the economy is getting better, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll.

46% say it's getting worse. In that same poll, just 44% of Americans approve of President Trump's handling of the economy. And a recent Fox News poll finds that 36% of Americans, a little more than a third, approve of his handling of tariffs. We are going to get to the economy in just a moment, but first we do have some breaking news to tell you about.

We are getting a verdict in the murder trial of a Colorado dentist accused of killing his wife by poisoning her protein shakes. He has been found guilty on six of seven counts, including murder in the first degree. NBC News correspondent, Millie Bernal joins me now with more also with us is defense attorney and NBC News legal analyst Misty Maris, but Millie, let me start with you. What are we here in court just now?

We just heard a lot of guilty verdicts. So the most serious of them being that murder charge, he was accused of killing his wife with numerous poisons, including putting eye drops in her protein shakes and the jury found that he did so. He planned it deliberately and caused his wife of 23 years to die at the hospital. So along with that murder charge, which is the one that carries life in prison without the possibility of parole, there are other charges related to some of his behavior in prison, including asking people to essentially testify for him in a way that obviously was not right and asking people, including his daughter, to alter some of the evidence in this case.

He had asked his daughter to make a deep fake video of his now late wife, essentially asking for these poisons. So the jury found him guilty of all of these charges, which included tampering with evidence and perjury and solicitation of first degree murder, because he also, as he talked to other inmates, tried to get some of the people involved in this case killed, that included the lead detective in this case. So the jury found him guilty of all of those charges and then found him not guilty of aiding in suicide. And this was a big part of the defense.

They had argued that Angela essentially was broken, that she had been broken because of the fact that he cheated on her so many times and because of that, they had argued that she actually decided or wanted to die by suicide. The jury finding that that was not the case and finding him not guilty of aiding in that suicide. So a lot of different charges here, most of them guilty. And again, the jury took this case yesterday, they deliberated throughout the day today, and then came back with this mostly guilty verdict for this former Colorado dentist who has been accused and found guilty of poisoning his wife with just a number of poisons.

It was just incredible to watch this trial and to watch the closing arguments as the prosecution laid out this case and really pointed to all of these different poisons and even said, you know, who goes out in the middle of the night to buy 12 different bottles of eyedrops? These were poisons that did not taste or did not smell so that he was able to put them in. He used the pills that he changed the pills essentially for poison, pills that she was taken and also put the poison into her IV, which is what prosecutors believe essentially led to her death. So a lot of details in this case and the jury now, Chris, in finding him guilty of killing his wife.

Before I get to Misty and she's just devastating to hear you take through all of those details, they did have a mountain of evidence, including internet searches, right? Apparently he had gone online and looked up how to do this, how much poison would be necessary to kill a human being. Yeah, and even how much poison would be detected in autopsy. He had a number of Google searches of YouTube searches searching the different poisons and also searching how to make essentially a murder look like a heart attack.

So prosecutors are at argued. He did not search how to stop my wife from committing suicide. Instead, he had searched the complete opposite and had been trying to figure out how to kill his wife all the while while he was having an affair with someone else. So prosecutors pointed to the motive being wanting to be out of the marriage, he said he wanted money from a life insurance policy, but also saying he didn't want to split the money 50-50.

This is a person that wanted to save his image as a dentist, as someone who practiced the Mormon religion. So prosecutors even laying out a motive in this case, which sometimes is very rare in these types of cases. Just extraordinary details, Misty, let me go over to you the length of time that the jury deliberated and as Camilla is saying, mostly guilty verdicts. What do you make of what happened today in court?

You know, I'm actually surprised that the jury didn't come back sooner. The prosecution had just a tremendous amount of electronic evidence. Of course, we had those internet searches, but coupled that with text messages, coupled that with text messages to a woman that he was in a relationship with 4,000 messages exchanged, started the relationship in February through the day of his wife's death on March 18th. All of those text messages, orders for these poisons online, all of this memorialized in the electronic footprint that was so damaging to the defense, the defense making the argument that nobody could really say how these poisons got into Angela's system.

And so maybe it was suicide, raising that as an alternative explanation of the jury not buying it. And keep in mind, he was convicted of first degree murder. That is premeditated murder. That means that they bought what prosecution had laid out, that this was planned, this was planned in advance, and there was a systematic plan to kill his wife up to and including the days that she was actually in the hospital, he was still administering these poison cyanide to her.

So this was a verdict I expected, a little more time than I thought it would take, but truly justice in this case, given what we learned during the trial. And I wonder, Misty, given what Camilla was saying that he actually enlisted his daughter to help him try to cover up part of his crime, could there be more charges at some point in this case? So these charges that were brought actually post-incarceration, he was already arrested he was behind bars, he was communicating with his daughter, he was communicating with another inmate, Kristin, both in writing, trying to manufacture and fabricate evidence that would support his defense that Angela had suicidal ideations, both coming forward and providing that information to law enforcement. That led to these solicitation charges.

They were charges on their own, but Kristin, I'll go a step further and say, it wasn't just the crime, it's also the cover up. Not only did that relate to the new charges that were brought against him, it also spoke specifically to the guilty mind, which is obviously what the jury found, why fabricate this evidence, why speak to your daughter about actually creating a deep fake of Angela. So think about how personal that is, asking her to do that, if you didn't commit the crime. So it was really twofold, the way that prosecutors presented this evidence, not only for those other convictions, but also relating to that guilty mind and intent element.

Well, it is just devastating all around, and the breaking news, again, incredibly significant that James Craig has been found guilty of the various charges he was facing, including first degree murder from the liberal now Misty Maris. Thank you both so much for helping to break that case down for us. We do want to turn back now to the day's big news on the economy. I'm joined now by NBC News Senior White House correspondent, Kerry Hay, and CNBC Senior Economics Reporters, Steve Leisman, and Thomas Honeck, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

He's now a distinguished senior fellow at the Americanist Center at George Mason University. Thank you all for joining us. Really appreciate it. Garrett, let me start with you.

The president has not been shy at all about trying to pressure the Fed to cut interest rates. What has his reaction been to today's decision? Well, it's clearly frustrated, but not surprised. Even before the decision was announced, he was at an event in the Roosevelt Room talking about his frustration over this and the sort of acknowledgement that rates would stay where they were.

I will say that today, his critique seemed more policy-focused than it's been in recent weeks, perhaps an admission of some kind that he's not ultimately going to fire the Fed chair for his obstinate, not cutting rates, or his handling of the renovations of the Fed headquarters. The president really keeping his remarks focused on the idea that he believes cutting rates would stimulate the housing market and make it possible for home buyers, particularly first-time home buyers, to get in. He also kind of played chicken a little bit on the interest rate question, and what it would do for inflation, saying, I'll bring it down, if inflation pops back up, we'll just raise the rates back up as though it were just that simple. So, I think you're seeing a president who's frustrated but also has come to terms with the fact that he's not going to get what he wants from Jerome Powell.

And, of course, we are getting these new poll numbers on the economy, the president under water and his handling of the economy. I wonder what your sources are telling you at the White House about the level of frustration, 44 percent approved, 55 percent disapproved. This was really his top issue. This was one of the big reasons why he was elected.

Yeah, the president believes the economy and immigration were the two key issues that got him elected. And I think there is frustration within the White House, certainly from the president, that these numbers aren't better. You've heard it in the way that he's talked about the Jeffrey Epstein case in the last two weeks or so arguing that he's got his view, the best six months of any president, perhaps in history. And it's all being overshadowed.

I mean, for President Trump, most problems are seen through the lens of marketing and that they don't feel like that they're getting enough credit publicly for the way that the economy has been pretty sturdy. Unemployment has remained level. GDP has grown, albeit with some sort of interesting side stories behind the top line number. And they just simply don't feel like they're getting the credit that they deserve a knockdown of the interest rate, something that might stimulate the housing market, perhaps the president believes that could turn the storytelling around here.

But it's just not going that way. And Garrett, finally, President Trump announced seat penalties on India, including a 25 percent tariff for what he's been calling unfair trade practices and for its relationship with Russia. How did it get to this point? Because as you've been reporting, he talked about early on his optimism that he could get a trade deal with India.

There was widespread optimism within the White House going back months that India would be one of the first countries to strike a trade deal with the United States after Prime Minister Modi visited Washington. And I think it was the first month of this Trump administration. That has not come to pass. And it's not entirely clear why the president talks about India, although it has as if it had some of the highest tariff rates anywhere in the world, that's simply not true, the effective or average tariff rate that India placed on American imports in 2022, the most recent year we can see the full numbers.

But something like 5 percent, and this was not necessarily a totally closed-off market to the United States. So there's something going on here that's deeper than the headlines have suggested, and we just don't know what it is yet, but I will say, as with all things related to this president, this is clearly an active negotiation. So it's entirely possible that what we saw in true social today and the way that the president was talking about this earlier today is meant to help push a deal a little bit closer to completion. That may have nothing to do with what we actually heard from the president today.

Well, we know you'll stay on top of all of it. Garrett Hake, thank you so much. Let me turn to you here now on set. You obviously have covered Jerome Powell extensively.

What do you make of his decision not to raise rates? I'm not surprised to anyone, but the messaging as well, that there may be a softening. Well, the big surprise was that he kind of pushed us off the rate cut or thinking about a rate cut in September. So he was even more what we call hawkish in the Fed-watching business than we thought Dovish is a guy who wants to cut rates, hawkish is a guy who wants to keep playing, in fact, he got a hawk right here, Tom Onick, who I've covered for many years, but he would maybe deny that.

But anyway, the point is that we sort of, the market was kind of sleepwalking to the September rate cut. We'll get there eventually. But then you look at stuff like this, India tariff, we don't know, I asked the chair, listen, you have a better idea what these tariffs are going to be. Are you more certain now?

And now tell us when you might cut, you said, no, we have a lot of things that we have to know yet. I'll give you an example. We believe, according to a report by Goldman Sachs, that we've seen about a 7% point increase in the average tariff rate being paid. They think that what's going to happen is it's going to double and go to 14% points.

So we have not yet seen even half of what we think we're going to get in the economy from the tariffs. I think that's what's holding back the Fed. They do not want to see a repeat of 2022 and a broader increase in inflation. And the fact that you had two governors dissenting wasn't completely unexpected.

At the same time, it's quite extraordinary, right? It hasn't happened since 1993. Well, it's such a big deal. And what are the implications?

Well, it's a big deal because sometimes, and I've been doing this for a couple of decades now, the descents can tell you where the Fed's going. It can lead the way. And sometimes it leads you astray. In other words, it's an out there kind of thing.

I think they make a case for cutting rates. You can make a case right now, but not if you're the one who's responsible. If it's your watch that you're on and you're the Fed chair, I think you want to be extra careful. Very simply, the Fed is shooting for a 2% average inflation rate.

It's 2.7% now. It's higher than they want. They do not want to send a signal that they're going to be weak on inflation because then they think you'll get the inflation that you've heard. And we know, of course, that Jerome Powell doesn't have much longer left in his term.

President Trump saying, yeah, yes. Some ideas in mind about who he might want to replace them with when his term is up. Do you think these Fed governors were perhaps auditioning to be the next chair? I think there were some politics involved in that.

And it's important to realize you said there were two decents. Well, guess what? There were nine people voting for holding rates right now. Three other governors along with the chair, several other presidents.

I believe there's five other presidents from around the country. So what's interesting question is when you look at how the market is priced down the road, they do not see the replacement for power coming in with guns blazing. I'm going to cut rates. It's a very modest outlook in the futures market.

So they don't see, you've got to get the whole board with you. And by the way, you've got to bring the market with you because the Fed operates through the market. If the market is resistant, we have back in September, the Fed cut long-term yields went up. The Fed would want to be very careful if there's not been a game.

It's such an important point. And a reminder, it's not a unilateral decision that Jerome Powell. No, it's not just all Powell. Chair's powerful, but not all Powell.

Thank you. Thank you so much. It's always great to see you, always great to have your perspective. I do not want to go to Thomas Connick.

Thomas, thank you so much for being here. And I want to start with the Fed's decision to leave rates unchanged. What do you make of their move? And as Steve was just saying, the fact that Jerome Powell signaled he might hold steady through September?

Well, I would not have all surprised by the fact that he kept rates as they are. And I would not have had all the prices if you had two descents. One of those two descents, Christopher Waller gave a speech that was very, very dumbish calling for a rate cut. So that was on the table even going into the meeting.

But I think that's pretty important. And the thing is, there's two things I think you ought to be aware of. One is, tariffs are going to temporarily at least temporarily raise prices. They know that Fed knows that.

And they need to be aware and not play to that by easing in anticipation that this may slow the economy down, but risk even more inflation. So they are playing it careful as they should relative to the effects of the tariffs. But the other thing that Powell and the other members are very reluctant to talk about in that fiscal policy, which is a big factor forward since we've just passed a budget bill that will have expenditures of about $7 trillion, which is an increase, and revenues of only five trillion. So we have a huge deficit coming.

That will be stimulated in and of itself. And there will be enormous pressure on the Fed to buy some of that, to keep interest rate from rising because of the demand, I should say, because of the supply of additional new debt about two trillion a year. And that's got to be a big factor in their thinking longer term. And I think one of the reasons I picked September off the table was an automatic.

And just to follow up with you on the two governors who voted against holding rates steady, you just heard my conversation with Steve Lisa. What did you make of their decision? I know that you weren't surprised by it. Do you think that it goes beyond politics, additionally, auditioning for it to be the next Fed chair?

What did you think was at the root of that? Well, I think, like Steve, I think there was some issues about being, if you've got to air for them, air on the side of easy now, because there's at least a case to be made. And they did make, they did make your face, at least did in a stream. And I think that's a part of the factor.

And I think the other is just being convinced that that's what they ought to do on the margin and going ahead and descending at this time to make their point. And like Steve, I don't know that it means September is on the table. I think there's these other factors that I mentioned that will have to be very carefully weighed as they come closer to September because if they do, if they use too soon with the amount of stimulus that is coming from the fiscal side, they could have an inflationary problem on their hands that they really don't want to have. Let's talk about the GDP report that we got today, 3% stronger than expected, but embedded within that still some signs of softening.

What did you make of that number? Yeah, I thought the number was, in a sense, I think the chairman did arrive to average out because of the number was really based on a major reduction in imports, which actually adds to GDP in a sort of way from the first order where they increased imports to stock for the future with tariffs coming, which is lower GDP. So on average, you got about 1.6% growth, which is which really is not outrageous at all. Number one, number two, consumer spending, which also recovered somewhat is still 1.2% for the second order, which is fairly modern.

So things are in one sense slowing, and that caused the chairman to emphasize the fact that unemployment is still 4.1%, the open job openings are still over 7 million, so he's emphasizing the labor side of it more than as not having to cut more than the inflation side, which is really well above target at 2.7%. So he's on solid ground for not raising rates right now. All right. Well, we got a lot of new data today.

So we really appreciate your helping us to break down all of the facts and figures and to understand it a little bit better. Thomas Hahnik, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Good to be with you.

Great to have you here. Coming up, the deepening divide on Capitol Hill over Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. As some Democratic and Republican lawmakers who are staunchly pro-Israel publicly rebuke the Israeli government. Plus, from the War Room to the campaign trail, NBC News exclusive reporting on the private conversations Defense Secretary Pete Haggseth has had on launching a potential run for office.

You're watching the press now. Welcome back. As Israel is facing increased international pressure to do more to address the already dire food crisis unfolding in the Gaza Strip, President Trump is now dispatching his special envoy, Steve Whitcoff to Israel tomorrow, where he is expecting to meet with officials to discuss the next steps and addressing the situation in the Gaza Strip. Earlier this week, President Trump publicly broke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledging there is, quote, real starvation in Gaza and announcing the U.S.

would set up food centers through the White House, though the White House has yet to provide many details about that plan. NBC News international correspondent, Matt Bradley, isn't Tel Aviv even filed this report. And we do want to warn our audience that the images are disturbing and difficult to watch. Well, Gaza's nightmare is continuing now on the fourth day since the Israelis loosened the restrictions on aid, getting into the Gaza Strip, allowing for air drops and for aid to go in via land through border crossings, through trucks and you're seeing on your screens this desperate images of Palestinians flooding the air drop areas, flooding those trucks, and in many cases, sparking violence.

This is just a tragedy that is continuing day after day. Again, despite the fact that aid is coming in, we're hearing from Palestinian health officials in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas that another seven people have died of malnutrition and famine-related conditions. That brings the total death toll from that cause from hunger-related conditions up to 158. Our 88 of those are children who are, by far, much more vulnerable.

Now, the folks that we've been talking to in the Gaza Strip say that it is hard to get these parcels. You can see why on your screen the difficulty it is, try to reach them to try to get past others. And once the food is in the hands of those who need it most, some are finding it to be unsatisfying, particularly for children who need protein in order to survive, especially to reduce or reverse the ravages of malnutrition that have already affected their small bodies. They need things like meat or eggs.

A lot of these parcels are containing things like rice, dried pasta, lentils, beans. These are things that, while nourishing, aren't necessarily going to help with children who are really, really suffering from malnutrition already, as well as the effects of poor hygiene in some of these camps that people are displaced into and injuries sustained during the relentless Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. Now, as we're seeing this humanitarian crisis continue, we're also seeing countries like the United Kingdom coming out and saying, as they did yesterday, that they will finally recognize a Palestinian state. Now, this would make the U.K.

The second G7 country to do so, the U.K. has said they will do that if they hear, if the Israelis don't come to some sort of agreement in the Gaza Strip or if they don't relieve the desperation of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. We've already heard from a statement yesterday that some other G7 countries are considering doing the same. Matt Bradley, thank you for that report.

Joining me now is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin. So, Julie, let's talk about this. We know that when President Trump was in Scotland, he announced that the U.S. would be setting up these food centers in the Gaza Strip.

Wank and file members of his party are on board with the U.S. Some of them providing more aid to Gaza. But what's the debate? What are you watching for there?

Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene called this a genocide. I have not found a single other Republican lawmaker in the House or Senate to back up what she's saying. But if you talk to rank and file senators, of course, because the House is out this week, Senator Bernie Moreno, for example, said there cannot be any military personnel on the ground. There cannot be boots on the ground.

They also reject this notion that Israel is the country blocking aid to going into Gaza. And on the other side, you have Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Don Thune, who I pressed on this issue, given the downspire link support for Benjamin Netanyahu in this country, given Trump's very own comments, and I also asked him if Congress will have a role to play in this, something he didn't answer. Watch this. I've shared the President's view.

I think that the humanitarian thing, obviously, when you see people hurting in a need like that, is to want to meet that need and alleviate that pain. I think all of us want to see, obviously, a peaceful solution there that gets the hostages freed and ends the reign and rule of Hamas in the region. But in the meantime, do everything we can to ease the pain and the hunger that's afflicting so many of the people in that region. Do you think what's happening in Gaza is a genocide?

I know Marjorie Greene. No. Do you think Congress has some sort of role to play? And Graham kind of matches more of the tone that we're hearing from most Republicans up here, Kristen.

But Democrats are also divided on this issue. Again, tonight is going to go to the Senate floor. I'm told to try to introduce resolution to block webinsails to Israel because he says that country is involved in starving the people of Gaza. Senator John Federman, for example, told us he is a hard no on that and he actually called Marjorie Taylor Greene crazy pants and he doesn't care what she has to say.

Well, fireworks flying over this issue that has ripped everyone across the country and world. I do want to shift gears a little bit, Julian, ask you about another issue that lawmakers have been talking about that Jeffrey Epstein, controversy, Elaine Maxwell, who is of course serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding and abetting that sex trafficking ring by Epstein said she would be willing to testify before Congress in exchange for immunity, where do those discussions stand right now, Julie? Well, Kristin, last night, her lawyer sent a lengthy list of demands to the House Oversight Committee. Their Republican chairman of the panel, James Comer, a spokesperson for him, rejecting her number one ask of immunity or even a pardon from the president in order to have that conversation with this committee.

But she held a laundry list of other demands and includes taking her off-premises outside of the prison where her lawyer says she'll be more comfortable to answer these kinds of political questions. It also includes waiting until after the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear Maxwell's a conviction appeal request. We already know that's not happening until the end of September, them even deciding whether to move forward on that. And you have a date of August 11th where members of this committee want to hear from her.

So at this point, it makes sense that she would plead the fifth, although I will tell you I just heard, and my colleague Melanie is known as well, from Republicans and Democrats on the Oversight Committee, they have not yet sent a formal response back to Maxwell's lawyer. And we know that Robert Garcia, who is the top Democrat, said they are having negotiations on the side with Maxwell's team. So we'll see where it goes from here. Meanwhile, though, you have Senator Dick Durbin in the Senate wanting to see the transcripts, the videos of Maxwell's conversation with Todd Blanche, number two at the DOJ.

You also have an effort by Senate Democrats today to try and force the administration's hand in releasing the Epstein file, Schumer saying that they'll take it all the way to the court if it doesn't happen. So a lot of parallel efforts all over this Epstein case happening. One thing is clear, though, Kristen, is not going away anytime soon. That is for sure.

Julie Serkin. Thank you so much for your great and comprehensive reporting. We really appreciate it. As always, coming up after the break, entering the 2028 chat, we're following new developments in the so-called invisible primary race to be the next Democratic nominee for president.

The panel's next. You're watching me. The press now. Stay with us.

Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with the subscription.

It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles. And full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. 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, turning out to a dramatic scene that played out on the Senate floor yesterday as tempers flared inside the Democratic Party over its strategy to fight back against the president's agenda. It began when New Jersey Senator Cory Booker unexpectedly tried to sink a bipartisan package of police funding bills that had unanimously sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he sits on. Booker, who is often mentioned as a potential 28 presidential hopeful, railed against his party warning that the legislation would be politically weaponized by President Trump.

That prompted a heated response from fellow Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, another potential 28 presidential candidate who accused Senator Booker of grandstanding. Take a look at some of this heated back and forth. We are standing at a moment where our president is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America, and we're willing to go along with that today. No, no, not on my watch.

They are bipartisan, common sense legislation. They passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and I can't help it if someone can change their schedule to be there. I think that these hearings should mean something and that people should be saying the same thing they say on police week when those people are sitting out there in the uniform who have lost loved ones as they say on this Senate floor. And one of the very people here elected to defend the Constitution of the United States saying, oh, well, today let's look the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut, that won't go to Illinois, that won't go to New York, that will go to the states he likes.

That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution. It's time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines.

Nevada Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto then admonished Senator Booker after just two of the five bipartisan law enforcement bills were able to pass look. At the end of the day, the Democrats in general, and when I saw today, it should be less than a rhetoric and more about making points for social media and groups out there, it should be actually working together. We can't support our communities, keep them safe, and take on Donald Trump in his back policies. We can do better.

It's not. I don't even have to choose one. Joining me now on set is Michael LaRosa, former special assistant to President Biden and former spokesman for First Lady Jill Biden and Republican strategist Doug Hye, thanks to both of you for being here. We are going to get to the drama on the Senate floor in just a moment, but I have to get to you first on this breaking news, Michael LaRosa.

The fact that former Vice President Kamala Harris announced today that she is not going to run for governor of California. What was your reaction? What do you make of it? Is it a sign that she's in when it comes to 2028 that the president shall run?

I think it probably does mean she's going to run again, but I think it was a good call because if you look at what happened in 2024, she ran significantly behind President Biden in her own home state of California. She lost two million votes compared to Biden four years earlier. So I don't even know if she could have cleared the field and that would have been problematic for her in 2028. I think it was probably a good instinct.

Doug, how are Republicans seeing this announcement today about the former vice president? Oh, they're mostly using memes and telling jokes and sort of political rhetoric you could expect. But I also think it was a smart move for Harris because there are two options for her. She could lose shades of Richard Nixon in 1962 or even worse, she could win and have a real job to do which would not allow her to campaign as a brand new governor.

You can't start touring that the rest of the country to campaign for another office doing news I'm doing right now because he's been there for a while. Yeah, it's a great point, Michael. When people look at the possibility of a Kamala Harris run for office again, they of course go back to former president Joe Biden, the questions that are swirling and quite frankly growing around how those who are closest to him handled his mental acuity, of course, leading up to that devastating debate performance, there are a lot of questions that people like Kamala Harris, people who are going to have to answer if they do in fact decide to run. Yeah, absolutely.

It's going to be a litmus test for any Democrat who decides to run and my advice would be just answer the question, don't dodge, don't pivot, don't be evasive, which is exactly what people hate about what the Biden people did to the press and two voters. So my advice to all of them is answer the question, answer it now, move on. And if she does run, there's a different question that she has to answer. That's a question of whether or not she can be a good or a better candidate than she was this last time she ran.

So, you know, perfect example, right? There's this whole conversation of, well, should Kamala Harris go on Joe Rogan or not? And Mrs. The point, the question is and say what?

Yes. So if she doesn't have that real message to drive forward and isn't a better candidate, then I think we've already seen this movie before. That's a really great point. And of course, her past political history will be in focus.

And as Doug is saying, the questions about her viability and whether she can win a national campaign and the broader question, whenever you bring up Kamala Harris or Governor Gavin Newsom, by the way, the question is, can a Democrat from California win a national election, what say you? Do you think that that makes it more challenging? No, actually, I don't subscribe to the theory. I just, I think that voters really could care less about resume.

They care more about personality, they gravitate towards personality. Does California have a compelling personality to put? I don't know. I don't know if anybody who has a record as an elected official or has been elected to anything has a good chance of winning.

And I think Democrats have to be better served as somebody who has never served in public office yet that has other experiences to offer. Yeah. And of course, we have to get to the midterms. That's right.

There's a lot of attention on 2028. And this floor fight on the Senate that we saw, let me start with you, is that it's your party, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, is really heated rhetoric toward each other. And in fact, I think we have a little bit more sound here. This is Senator Booker.

As he left the floor yesterday. Let's take a look. There's a lot of us in this caucus. They want to fight.

And what's bothering me right now is we don't see enough fighting this caucus. I hear everywhere. When our Democrats will fight. This was a day we could have stood together and fought.

But instead, we had folks coming forward that just wanted to be complicit in the status vote. I see a lot of Democrats fighting, but in different ways. Correct. What do you make of them?

I don't know what message he took away from 2024. But even in his own state of New Jersey, you know, it shifted six points. They lost three counties that President Biden won four years earlier, one that President Biden won by 16 points. So I don't know what map he's looking at.

I'm not sure he's drawing the right lessons. Voters really want to see people fight, but not obstruct for the sake of obstruction, not reflexively opposing the president. And especially when it comes to law enforcement, Senator Booker, unfortunately, the problem that he presented for Chuck Schumer yesterday is that the things he said and the things that he did in trying to prevent resources from getting to law enforcement doesn't help our recruits like Roy Cooper in North Carolina. It doesn't help share ground.

He's going to run in Ohio. These are states that want their, want to feel safe and they don't trust Democrats and he gave them a reason not to trust us. Doug, what do you make of what we witnessed on the floor and the fact that you are sort of seeing a number of different approaches to taking on Donald Trump right now. You're seeing what we hear from Cory Booker.

You're seeing some of the governors walk a fine line like Governor Whitmer, for example, for example, but then Governor Pritzker, for example, is more heated in his rhetoric. When you get a text message in the middle of the afternoon that says quick, turn on C-SPAN. You know you're in for something good. So it was fun to watch last yesterday afternoon, but governors and senators have very different jobs.

Legislators don't necessarily do anything in the sense that executives do. They have states to run. They have different priorities. But what I saw with what Senator Booker said reminded me a lot of the House Freedom Caucus.

And what I mean by that is the more I hear the word fight, the more I hear an attitude, but I don't hear an actual plan to land a punch, to knock down your opponent, to win the round, to win the fight. You can say fight over and over again and you usually use an F on with that and that shows how angry you are. But where is the plan to win? And that's what I didn't see.

I mean Senator Masto is largely responsible for helping Democrats take back and win the Senate in 2020. We picked up three Senate seats that we had made Democrat turn Democrat in over two decades. She's won twice in a purple state. She knows what it takes to run tough races.

And that was just, her hand is on the pulse of what Democrats need to be doing on policy and politics. Well, and of course the question is, where does it go from here? Ruben Gaiego, among those who are announcing he's going to New Hampshire, we're seeing a lot of these possible contenders dug going to these early voting states. Who do you have your eye on?

And to this argument, it's really the message, right? I mean, Democrats will say we failed to capture the pocketbook issues that energize. I don't say that. But the question I think is, have they gotten any closer to finding their footing on messaging?

No, they haven't. They don't have a message. And really at this point, we saw a memo come out from the leaked from the DNC that basically said to what Senator Booker said, customer, demonstrate your anger by dropping F bombs. And the lack of F bombs is not why Democrats don't have a message nationally.

And it's why ultimately, I start by looking at governors. So you mentioned governor of course, Gavin Newsom, Wes Moore, not far away in Maryland. Those are doers. Mayors are doers.

Those types of candidates can progress briefly. But we also haven't had a governor selected as our nominee in over 35 years since that was in first grade. If you look at the last open election, I mean, governors didn't even make it into the voting part of the Democratic primary contest. I think it's going to come down to personality less so about message.

All right. And of course, again, we have to get to the midterms first, but it's so fascinating to talk about 28 as well. Michael Doug, thank you so much. Great conversation.

Coming up next after tumultuous, six months of leading the Pentagon, we've got exclusive new NBC News reporting that defense secretary said may be looking for an offering up in the form of a run for Tennessee governor. Stay with us. You're watching The Press Now. Defense Secretary Haggseth has had it tumultuous six months at the helm of the Pentagon.

And according to a new NBC News exclusive report, he may already be looking for an offer him. According to two people who've spoken directly to Secretary Haggseth, the embattled Pentagon chief, has privately discussed the idea of running for office next year for governor of Tennessee. In a statement, the Pentagon said Secretary Haggseth's focus remains solely on serving under President Trump and advancing the America first mission of the Department of Defense. Joining me now is one of the reporters on that byline, NBC News National Security reporter Gordon Lubell.

Gordon, thank you so much for being here. So what more are you learning about this possible decision by Secretary Haggseth? Sure. So what we reported is that these are discussions, not that he's made a decision, not that it's even untracked necessarily, but that he's had these discussions with a number of people.

And that this is, and so there's a political calendar that would kind of run this, and there may be a White House calendar that maybe pushes him to make a decision. But the idea is that he's always wanted to run for office. He has run for office in the lost in Minnesota in 2012. This would be an opportunity for him to get a political office, but also be, as you say, an off-ramp from this kind of tumultuous six months or so.

Just follow up with you. I mean, Gordon, it has only been six months. What does it say that there are these types of conversations and ruminations happening behind the scenes? I think it's potentially would be the perfect off-ramp for him, because it is something he would like to do.

The President Trump does not like to necessarily fire people, and this would be the perfect way to kind of move on as National Security Advisor Mike Walz did potentially if he gets confirmed if you went. And so there's been all these different things, as you know, viewers know, the signal gate. There's been some, a lot of miscommunications on aid for Ukraine, and so a number of different things. And also just his Texas front office has just been itself very tumultuous in the last year.

And to what extent, obviously, President Trump watching all of this very closely, there's the possibility of a Trump endorsement. How much is that looming over his decision? And who, if he were to decide to get it into the race, who might his potential rivals? Right.

So Senator Martha Blackburn, Senator from Tennessee, is definitely, you know, we understand very interested in the gubernatorial race. That would be a big decider, right? If Trump decides to endorse her, I think it's hard to make it hard for him to decide to run vice versa as well, if he decides to endorse Hexat as a way to get him out the door. And would it be a competitive race if people were to get in or?

Oh, I think so. I mean, and there's eligibility issues there for Hexat, Tennessee, even though he's a resident, but those could be waived for the state legislature vote or whatever, but certainly be competitive if they go ahead. All right. Gordon, thank you so much for your exclusive reporting.

Fantastic scoop. We really appreciate it. Gordon Lobo, thank you. Still the calm, alive report of the investigation into that shocking mid-air collision in D.C.

earlier this year, as hearings begin in Washington, you're watching the press now. Welcome back. Turning now to the very latest in the government's investigation into that deadly mid-air collision between an American Airlines passenger plane and a military helicopter near Reagan National Airport. The tragic incident back in January killed all 67 people on board, both aircraft, was viewed by some experts as a wake-up call amid concerns about aviation safety, air traffic control staffing and overcrowded airspace.

Today, the National Transportation Safety Board began a three-day investigatory hearing into the crash. NTSB chair Jennifer Hamdi offered heart condolences to some of the victims' families in attendance. I'd like to take a moment to address the families who lost loved ones in this tragedy. On behalf of the entire agency, we are so sorry for your loss.

We wish we would have met you in different circumstances, but please know that we are working diligently to make sure we know what occurred, how it occurred, and to prevent it from ever happening again. Turning now to MBC's Karen Grumbach, who's been following today's hearing. Gary, of course, you were at the scene when that horrific crash occurred. Talk us through what some of the other key takeaways were from today's hearing.

So today's big focus was on the Army helicopter, that Black Hawk, and there's several issues that have come up already with it. One, it didn't have a specific kind of location monitoring on the Black Hawk, and it's not specific to that specific incident here. None of these military Black Hawks have this location monitoring. So if you're a commercial airline, you can see each other.

You can see the other commercial airlines in the sky. You cannot see the military aircraft. There's bipartisan legislation over at Capitol Hill to try to fix that already. The second issue that really came up today was the idea of the helicopter altitude reader.

It was incorrect. It was a hundred to 150 feet off of what it was actually where they actually were. And so the tower at DCI was seeing one number. The pilots in the Black Hawk were seeing another number, and they were actually at a third number, completely different.

That really did upset the NTSB member here, here's what he had to say. You're telling me it's going to be two months before you tell them that there's a discrepancy in their altitude? Could you hurry it up? I hope every Army aviator's not having to watch the NTSB.gov livestream to figure out that there's a discrepancy in their altitudes of the planes that are flying around us.

Sorry for my frustration. So as you can imagine here, there's an incredibly emotionally charged hearing on all sides with recommendations to come. Yeah. What do we expect in the coming days as this hearing unfolds?

So this is a three-day hearing. Every day, every session is going to be about a different topic, and they are really going to dive deep into every single minute of this incident. How it unfolded? What happened?

Who was responsible? What could have happened to avoid this? By the anniversary of this event on January 30 of next year, they hope to have a full report out with dozens of recommendations that they hope can either happen or get into the law and that happened. And just very quickly, the victims' families were there an emotional day for them.

Yeah, there were several victims' families there that were tearing up in the hearing. These are folks that have had their entire lives changed because of an incident that occurred here in Washington, DC. You can see some of that video there. It's just heartbreaking to hear some of their stories.

Of course, many of the people on this plane were under the age of 18, these were ice skaters coming back from Wichita, just heartbreaking seeing here. One of the most heartbreaking details of this entire story, Gary. Thank you so much for covering it. We really appreciate it.

Tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now, but the news continues with Holly 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. I'm not screwing yours up. Search the Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.