Hi, everyone. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington as the White House warns of additional military deployments in American cities with pockets of unrest persisting in Los Angeles, ICE preparing to deploy tactical units to major U.S. cities and protests against the administration's immigration crackdown spreading across the country.
At the White House today, Press Secretary Caroline Levin doubled down on the president's harsh rhetoric. The mob violence is being stomped out. The criminals responsible will be swiftly brought to justice. In the Trump administration's operations to arrest illegal aliens are continuing unabated.
The position of the Democrat Party is that the federal government is not allowed to enforce our laws into arrest and deport illegal alien criminals. They're attempting to use a violent mob as a weapon against their own constituents to prevent the enforcement of immigration law. This is deeply un-American and morally reprehensible. Now, we should note there is no evidence that Democrats were a specific organization or behind the protests in Los Angeles or elsewhere.
And as we've been noting, the pockets of unrest have so far been contained to a small area in downtown Los Angeles. But the comments came a day after President Trump in front of thousands of soldiers at Fort Bragg vowed to liberate Los Angeles from what he described as an invasion. Under the Trump administration, this anarchy will not stand. We will not allow federal agents to be attacked.
And we will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy. I'll say it loudly and clearly. They better do something before it's too late. Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again.
A defense official tells NBC News that 700 Marines are mobilized and in the Los Angeles area, but are not on the streets yet. But they could be sent out as early as today. A curfew ordered by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass will remain in effect for a second night tonight for portions of downtown. The LAPD says it made nearly 200 arrests yesterday, more than the total arrests made on the previous three days in what the police chief is calling a concerning escalation in unlawful and dangerous behavior.
In a nighttime address, California Governor Gavin Newsom blamed the President for the continued unrest while issuing this warning to other cities. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.
Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived. He's taking a wrecking ball. A wrecking ball to our founding father's historic project.
Three co-equal branches of independent government. For no longer any checks and balances, the founding fathers didn't live and die to see this kind of moment. It's time for all of us to stand up. In New York, meanwhile, the NYPD says it made dozens of arrests and anti-ice protests in Lower Manhattan.
In Denver, police say they've made 17 arrests outside the state Capitol as our NBC affiliate reports that police deployed smoke and pepper balls to disperse the crowd. And Texas Governor Greg Abbott says that he's deploying the Texas National Guard to locations across the state ahead of protests planned in San Antonio. Meanwhile, NBC News has exclusive reporting that ICE is preparing to deploy its special response teams to five cities and regions run by Democrats, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and the Washington, D.C. area.
NBC News correspondent David Nellorega joins us again from Los Angeles. Also with me is NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, NBC News Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander, and NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Cubie. David, let's start with you. We've been checking in with you all week.
Describe what the mood is like there today compared to what it was like this time yesterday. Well, Ryan, things are actually substantially calmer here today right now was compared to exactly this time yesterday. When I spoke to Gabe at one o'clock local yesterday, there was a crowd of about 100 to 200 protesters right behind me. They were spilling into the street tensions were ratcheting up with not only the National Guard troops and federal agents that are stationed in front of the federal building there behind me, but also with LAPD, which subsequently moved in and cleared this road of protesters.
This has been the trend line, the number of protesters coming out, the amount, the sort of degree of confrontation that they've had with police has been steadily going down. And I attribute that very clearly based on my observations on the ground to the major crackdown by local and state and county law enforcement, which has been throwing a ton of resources into this, putting lots of police on the ground and making them very ready, very quick to use non-lethal force to control and disperse these crowds, the latest escalation in that long force. The crackdown, of course, being Mayor Bass's curfew last night and these hundreds of arrests that happened overnight, Ryan. And you mentioned those arrests to LAPD saying that they arrested nearly 200 people yesterday.
That's more than the total arrests that they made Saturday and Sunday and Monday. What do you attribute the sudden uptick to? Look, I think the dynamic here is one where Mayor Bass and the governor and the relevant law enforcement agencies are continuing to try to show to the federal government everybody else that they have this situation under control. And again, from what I've seen, they very much do have the situation under control.
Local, state and county law enforcement are outnumbering protesters on the street at this point. I've also noticed a bit of a shift in the tactics of the protesters themselves. They're becoming somewhat less confrontational, more eager to avoid law enforcement rather than come into direct contact with them yesterday. For example, there was a pretty large, maybe 200 to 300 people march around the various streets of downtown, moving pretty far away from this collection of federal buildings where most of the protests have been happening over the last few days.
But they were moving very fast, very clearly trying to avoid law enforcement. And again, just a reminder, 200 to 300 people, that's my estimate, is still several, the number of police that I've heard from some law enforcement commanders on the ground is over 1,000. So we're still talking about a number of protesters that is dwarfed by the amount of police. One thing to note though, Ryan, is that, you know, as we move through this week, the protest seems to be reduced to a pretty hard core of committed protesters.
This weekend, we may see some much bigger mobilizations, not just here, but around the country, Ryan. That's the expectation. Okay, David Norega on the ground. As always, David, if something pops up there, please let us know and we'll bring you on immediately.
Julia, let's go to you now. What can you tell us about what we're learning now? This is just coming in the deployment of any federal surveillance programs in Los Angeles. That's right.
We heard reports from our affiliate on the ground and others, David, our colleagues Jacob Soboroff about, predator drones that were reported in the area. Now DHS is actually posting to ex footage from those drones, confirming that they are from Customs and Border Protection's air and marine operations. And I just got off the phone with Jacob Soboroff who said that he saw a CBP labeled Blackhawk and the area where he is right now outside of Los Angeles. So this is part of CBP Customs and Border Protection.
They have what's called the air and marine operations. And those helicopters, I've been in them, are typically used for rescue recovery efforts along the border. They fly through really rough terrain where migrants may be trying to evade Customs and Border Protection. They can find them.
They are, and oftentimes they're rescuing people who are in distress. That's how they've used them previously. In this case, they're using them for surveillance, that Blackhawk that Jacob saw, and their surveillance footage from those drones is quite striking not only of where ICE may go to make arrests, but also being able to surveil the protests there. So it's raising new questions about the surveillance being done by federal law enforcement in that area.
And you have some new reporting on ICE's next targets. What do we know about those cities and how soon could those operations begin? Yeah, that's right. Well, we understand from the president yesterday, he answered Garrett Hake in the Oval Office that he does plan to replicate what you're seeing in Los Angeles across the country.
And one way, we're seeing that play out already is that ICE is getting ready to deploy these special response teams. Think of that as like a SWAT team for ICE. Those are people who could go out with long guns, bear cats, track and armor vehicles. They're trained for situations where they might be making a mass number of arrests like workplace enforcement or in cases where they think they might encounter a threat.
They were used in the raid on Diddy's home last year. If you remember the footage of that quite striking when you saw really the SWAT team go in, they're not typically used in cases where you might be making a rest of non-criminal, non-threatening migrants in communities like Los Angeles. In fact, usually federal law enforcement tries not to use that escalated tactic unless they are prepared for their response. And of course, it was those military tactics that prompted some of the protesters staying in Los Angeles starting last week.
And so now they're prepared to use those in five cities across the United States. As we understand it from our reporting so far, those include Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and the D.C. area. That's not to say Ryan that we couldn't see arrests in other areas.
We've already seen arrests in Omaha, Nebraska starting yesterday. But we know that at least in those cities, which we have to point out our sanctuary cities, run by democratic leaders, those are the areas where they are preparing to deploy those types of resources. Okay, Julia, Ainslie, thank you for that. Let's move now to Peter Alexander at the White House.
And Peter, what have we learned about the Trump administration's apparent willingness to escalate these military deployments? Well, Ryan, I think Julia detailed it well. We have heard from the president himself talking about his willingness to crack down on what he describes as protests, the White House that are clarifying. He's referring specifically to violent protests.
If they are to arise in other cities around the country right now, like they point to what's taken place in LA at this time, specifically what we're going to be keeping close eye on is whether the president is willing to go further and invoke the insurrection act here, which would allow these federalized members of the military, the National Guard, the Marines, as well as other service members to use force and to make arrests themselves. That would be a significant step. Already the steps we've seen have been dramatic. This is the first time as we've been covering in 50 years, five decades, at least that the US government, the president has federalized American troops in a state against the wishes or without a request from that state's governor in this case, Gavin Newsom.
We should know we heard from Caroline Levitt, the press secretary a bit earlier today. There was one particularly fiery exchange where she made the argument that a majority of the arrests, the majority of the protesters there have been engaged in violent activity. Notably, she said nearly 400 people have been arrested who were undocumented immigrants in this country. We heard though from a reporter in the room reminding her that there are thousands of people participating here.
So it's not entirely clear. So it is clear, I think we should say that the president has been amplifying the size and scope of this when we know in fact it's isolated to a small area, but certainly this is a place that he feels like he has the political advantage in one where White House aides and other allies in the president have communicated that he is more than willing to lean in, Ryan. Yeah, and maybe expand on that a little bit. I mean, how far is the president willing to go considering, as you point out, they seem eager to lean in to these political issues?
Is this just the beginning? Yeah, and it does certainly appear to be that way right now we heard from Tom Holman, the so-called borders are who has said in recent interviews that the White House right now, the administration is in his words, opening up the aperture. You remember early on throughout the campaign, the president said the focus would be on violent criminals, the worst of the worst of the worst while already we're seeing some pictures around the country where they are clearly opening up that aperture in Holman's words echoing the words of Stephen Miller, one of the president's top aides here where they're trying to bring up their numbers to as many as 3,000 arrests and deportations each day. That's well ahead of the numbers they've been ceiling early on.
And it does speak to one of the unique challenges they're facing right now and what is really fundamental to the debate over what we're witnessing right now, whether the focus is on those individuals who have committed crimes who are violent criminals or individuals who have served who have worked in the United States for years perhaps in restaurants or in fields and the only crime they have committed is entering into the United States illegally, right? Peter Alexander, the White House, thank you for that. Let's now go to our national security correspondent Courtney Cubie who is joining me now with more on the role the military could play in all of this. Do we have any new details, Courtney, about how the Marines could be a part of what's happening in Los Angeles?
Yeah, we do, Ryan. So we know that these 700 Marines were based at 29 Palms in California were moved in or mobilized to closer into the LA area earlier this week. But since then, they haven't actually been on the ground as part of this Task Force 51. In fact, they're still back again in the LA area but not forward and actually deployed and they're undergoing some very basic training to get ready for this mission.
That includes things like learning about the standard rules of force. Ryan, you may have heard the term rules of engagement. That's what the military talks about when they're overseas. When they're here domestically, they refer to them as rules of force.
It's the left and right limits about what these Marines will be allowed to do while they're under Task Force 51. In fact, they do end up on the streets of LA. So far, what we know, they will be tasked with protecting federal buildings and personnel. They always have the inherent right of self-defense.
But Ryan, according to a couple of sources familiar, we are also told that the Marines could be used to protect ICE personnel while they're on raids that could include even driving some of those ICE agents to these immigration raids, Ryan. And I assume this is not exactly what Marines are normally trained to do. What are Marines trained to do and not to do? Yeah, it's a very different mission for US Marines.
Look, Marines consider themselves war fighters. We hear the word out of even Secretary of Defense. Every single time we hear from him, the concern here is not that they can't handle the situation. The concern is that they are trained in a very different way than someone like the Los Angeles Police Department or DHS would be to handle situations like this.
It's everything from just the language that they use while they're on a mission. Those are the kinds of things that they are trying to iron out before they put these Marines on the street. The real concern here is some very simple misunderstanding that's based on nothing more than a difference in the training could lead to a situation that puts Marines in a dangerous situation or even in a place that could put them in an unlawful situation. And perhaps innocent people caught up in it as a result of it as well.
And you mentioned the Secretary of Defense said he was back on Capitol Hill for the second day. What were your biggest takeaways from his testimony today? Yeah, there was a lot of talk about the deployment in LA. He didn't provide a whole lot in detail, but I was really struck by his acknowledgement that this could expand out from just LA to other places in the country.
He didn't talk a whole lot more about the overall price tag. We learned yesterday it was $134 million for these first 60 days. We don't know how much longer, frankly, it could go. But he was defiant when discussing this issue, saying that in fact the President has the authority to do this.
He was pressed by Senator Baldwin, though, and I was really struck by the exchange because she asked him, look, we know what authority the President is bringing in the California National Guard under his Title X authority. Why are the Marines there under what authority? He couldn't answer that. He said he would get back to it an answer later.
And this, of course, all three days before the Saturday military parade here in Washington. What more do we know about that parade? Yeah, so we're still the big headline out of this continues to be the potential price tag here, Ryan. Officials still believe it could fall somewhere in the $45 million range.
Right now, Army officials and specifically Army engineers are pretty confident that the damage to DC streets. You see some heavy vehicles here, including tanks that are expected to be out on the streets of DC for this parade on Saturday. They're confident that the measures they are taking to mitigate any damage are going to be effective. It's simple things like putting down steel plates.
They're redoing some of the treads you can see on the tanks. They're putting a new rubber tread on them. The hope is that those kinds of things will stop some damage to DC streets or at least mitigate that. Right now, there is an estimate for up to $16 million that this could cost DC and damage.
Okay, Courtney, on Capitol Hill today for changes. Nice having you there today, Courtney. Thank you so much. Coming up, the politics and optics and the legal limits of U.S.
troops in U.S. cities, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee joins us next as the White House threatens additional deployments. Plus, President Trump says a trade deal with China is at the finish line and it would lock in a 55% tariff on Chinese goods. We have the details and the economic impact ahead.
You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. The President's embrace of using the U.S. military on U.S.
soil to defend and advance his immigration agenda has opened up a Pandora's box of concerns about just how far the administration is willing to go. As we mentioned earlier, President Trump told soldiers at Fort Bragg yesterday that his mission was to, quote, liberate Los Angeles as he leaned into fiery rhetoric attacking Democratic leaders. Generations of Army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third world lawlessness here at home, like is happening in California. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not let that happen.
It's never going to happen. Joining me now is Washington Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. He is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee and Congressman. We have reporting that the Marines could be used to accompany and transport ICE personnel on the ground in Los Angeles.
It could happen as soon as today. From your experience, what is that going to look like in practice? And do you believe that Marines are trained for this theater? No, they're absolutely not trained for this theater and in practice, it's never been done before.
Look, the President is once again expanding his power unlawfully, going beyond what the statute clearly limits him to in an effort to exercise more power. There was no situation in Los Angeles that was not being handled by the local police. President Trump wanted this fight. He wanted to try to expand his power to use the military domestically, and that's what he's doing.
And the legal justification for this does not stand up to scrutiny and crucial to your point. The Marines are trained to fight wars. They're not trained for civilian crowd control or for dealing with situations like this. It was completely unnecessary, and it's really dangerous and could risk escalation as we have seen.
In many ways, if you were to compare it to try to fix a problem in your house and you need a wrench and you're using a hammer instead, I mean, it's the wrong type of soldier or even law enforcement person to put in a situation like this. Couldn't that make the situation worse? That's funny. You should say that.
Just like a week ago, the toilet my office was kind of running. I went back there to try to fix it. It's for a week, which created a much larger problem, which fortunately the service here was able to fix. But yeah, look, I mean, we had a couple hundred protesters when this started.
And crucially, ICE was carrying out their job. Yes, there were people protesting and yelling at them. Some of them were violating the law by throwing things, and they were arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department. And meanwhile, ICE did their job.
You know, they picked up people and they've deported them. There was no evidence whatsoever that they were being stopped. And in response to that, the President has sent 4,700 troops, 4,000 National Guard Reserve and 700 Marines to say that's overkill. It's just a massive understatement.
It risks escalation. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that I think the President wanted to do this. He wants to set a precedent. And you heard Secretary Hagg set the lude to that in his testimony today that they want to do this elsewhere.
This is a dangerous escalation of authoritarian power that every American who loves freedom and individual rights, because we've never seen a president do this before. It is a clear violation of the rights of the American people. And I heard you say earlier that you believe that the President wants to turn the U.S. military into his own personal police force.
I mean, what would that look like and for what end? Well, it would look like what we're seeing in Los Angeles. If he sees a policy being implemented somewhere in the country that he doesn't like, he can use the military to enforce it. And that can have a whole series of different applications.
Obviously, the focus right now is on immigration. And let me be clear, we need a secure border. We need to enforce our immigration laws. And we need local enforcement to do their job.
And over the course of the last five or six years, there's been some instances where we have struggled with that. But this is not one of them. The President is using that as a pretext to use the military in a way that it should not be used. There's a reason our laws and our Constitution have been very clear about civilian control of the military.
And the law has been very clear. The military is not supposed to be able to enforce laws within the U.S. And that is the line that President Trump is stepping over. I want to go back to what you said earlier.
And I think perhaps there's a perception out there that this situation was out of control, that ICE wasn't able to get the job done. But from your viewpoint, they actually were able to carry out the President's mass deportation plan, and the LAPD was doing its job. Yes, it's not my viewpoint. It's not debated.
I mean, they're in the days before the troops. They were arresting and deporting people out of Los Angeles. Yeah, there was no instance where ICE went to, I don't know, as they've been going after workplaces where they were repelled and not allowed to come into the place where they weren't able to transfer the detainees wherever they wanted to transfer. Yeah, they had a group of people yelling at them.
But that's sort of part of the rights that we have as Americans to protest. And again, crucially, some of those people did violate the law by throwing things at ICE officers. Obviously, we've seen some things set on fire. Those people should be arrested, and then they have to arrest them.
So I want to talk. It's a pretext here. I want to talk about the parade plan here for Washington this weekend, the military parade. I want to play for you a little bit about what President Trump said about it in the Oval Office yesterday.
There's any protest that wants to come at, they will be met with very big force. By the way, for those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force. And I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force. So there's a wide range of predictions as to what type of counter protest or protest at all.
There may be around this parade. But what's your reaction to what the president said? Did that sound like a president hoping for escalation to you? Yes, and it also sounds like a president who doesn't want to be a president who wants to be a dictator, who wants to be an authoritarian.
Notice he didn't say if they violate the law, if they try to stop. No, if they protest, if they speak against his policies, they will be met with force. And I cannot imagine a more un-American thing to set. And this is a president saying that the people are going to show up with the ones who hate our country.
Sounds to me like Donald Trump is the one who hates our country. He hates our freedoms and he hates our democracy. He wants what he wants, and he doesn't want anyone to stand in the way of that. That's not what our country is based on.
I mean, go back to what he said. If protesters show up, basically, if anyone shows up to speak their mind as they have a right to do under the First Amendment, they are going to be met with extreme force. Yeah, I mean, we are crossing over the line into an authoritarian government here, and I would hope this wouldn't be a partisan issue. Look, we've got problems with President Trump on a wide range of issues, and those problems have been expressed passionately, just like we publicly said, problems with President Biden.
You know, but this goes way beyond that. This is an authoritarian trying to take away the rights of all Americans. And then finally, we don't have that much time left, but there's the possibility that these ICE raids may show up in your state, in the city of Seattle. What would you recommend to folks that would like to protest this type of action?
Is there value in that? How should they handle themselves? If you have constituents that are concerned about this? Well, they already have some say we've had these types of raids in different places in Washington State.
I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to protest that and speak out, but don't try to impede the enforcement of the law. And if you do be prepared to be arrested, look, there's a long history of people doing, you know, peaceful protests, sit-ins, you know, standing in places and being arrested. That's the enforcement of the law, and that should be expected. Express your views, do so peacefully.
All right, Congressman Adam Smith, thank you as always for being on, sir. We appreciate it. Thanks for your chance. Up next, President Trump's Justice Department invites the Democratic New Jersey Congresswoman, Lamonta McIver, after her confrontation with federal immigration officers outside the detention center, the charges, the response, and the fallout straight ahead.
You're watching the press now. Welcome back. After two days of high-level talks in London, the U.S. and China appear to have reached a new trade agreement.
In a post on social media, this morning, President Trump said the deal is done, but subject to final approval from himself and Chinese President Xi. While the specific details of the agreement have not been released, President Trump said China would supply the U.S. with rare earth minerals and magnets, while the Trump administration would roll back its recently announced restrictions on Chinese students attending U.S. universities.
President Trump also said the U.S. would tariff imports from China at 55 percent, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods will be set at 10 percent. Joining me now is NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung.
So Brian, even though the U.S. and China appear to have a new trade deal here, there's still a 55 percent tariff on goods from China. What will that mean for the price of goods? Yeah, and I think the semantics are important here because yes, there was a deal, but it's not necessarily a trade deal on the tariffs front, because the tariff rate, which has kind of been the focal point of all these discussions, has remained the same even after these discussions in London as they did going into this week.
We are continuing to impose an effective rate of about 55 percent on goods from China coming into the United States. But what was agreed to were on the United States side of things, allowing Chinese students to come into the United States to study at U.S. universities with a visa, and then on the Chinese side of things, the export of rare earth metals to the United States, which they had restricted during the escalating trade tensions over the past few months. So again, those are things on the periphery that are certainly important to both sides of the negotiation here, but the tariff rates themselves do remain at 55 percent, which means that that threat of things that we buy at the store, things like electronics and clothing, those risks are still substantial.
And where are consumers going to see the potential for higher prices? How soon could that happen? Yeah, well again, for categories like, let's say, for example, electronics, appliances, as well as clothing, those are the types of things that we export en masse from China, footwear is another category. So these are the types of things that could get more expensive.
A lot of businesses and entrepreneurs that I've been talking to over the escalating tariff tension over the past few months have been telling you the longer this is kind of, in effect, these trade negotiations between these two without lowering of these tariff rates, the higher likelihood there is that those prices will get passed onto consumers in the form of higher price tags. So again, this is something that we're continuing to watch. Can there be a resolution? This could be a stepping stone to a lowering of the tariff rates if there is another phone call between, let's say, for example, President Trump and President Xi of China.
But again, this is just one small stepping stone together as opposed to an actual lowering of those barriers. And Brian, we've got new inflation numbers today. Was this a good report? What does it mean for consumers?
Yeah, this report was basically in line with what economists were expecting. The headline number 2.4%, that's how much prices rose in May of this year compared to May of last year on a monthly basis between April and May, prices rose by 0.1%. You can see that the yearly rate on that chart ahead of you is low by all standards. When you consider we were something around the 3% in the summer of last year, so that is an improvement on inflation.
When you unpack this report, though, there are a lot of questions over whether or not we saw the impact of these tariffs. For categories like, for example, appliances and toys, we did see an increase of 8.4% and 1.3% on a monthly basis for those categories respectively. That suggests there could be some impact of the tariffs given that so many of those categories are imported from China. But other types of categories that you would have expected to have been impacted by the tariffs, like automotive products, new cars, those who were facing a 25% tariff, we saw a decline in prices down 3.0% same thing with apparel that fell by 4.0%.
So again, in some categories, we might be seeing the impact of the tariffs, others not so much, but we'll have to keep watching it in the months to come. Okay, Brian Chung, thanks as always. We appreciate it. Let's turn out of the latest legal fight between the Department of Justice and Democratic Congresswoman from New Jersey, Lomonika McIver.
Yesterday, acting US Attorney for New Jersey and a former Trump attorney, Alina Haba, announced a federal grand jury indictment on McIver on three counts of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers, following her confrontation with immigration officers outside of New Jersey detention center. And a statement McIver called the legal proceedings a brazen attempt at political intimidation, and accused the Trump administration of trying to scare her out of the work she was elected to do. Joining me now is NBC's Justice and Intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney. So what more is DOJ alleging in this indictment, Ken?
And how strong is their case? Brian, this indictment doesn't really add a lot of new facts or new evidence to the allegations. These are felony assault charges. What it does show is that prosecutors were able to go to a grand jury of citizens and get them to vote, agree that there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, but that's a low bar.
Look, how strong a case this is really depends on the video evidence. And we've only seen some of that. And the video clearly shows the Congresswoman's forearm making contact with a police officer. It doesn't obviously tell us whether that was intentional, accidental, part of a scuffle.
The indictment says that she slammed her elbow into the officer and grabbed the officer. Remember, this was at a visit to a detention center where the officers were trying to arrest the mayor of Newark, who happens to be he was the Congresswoman's fifth grade teacher and her political mentor. She and another members Congress tried to sort of gather around him to prevent the arrest. And that's what precipitated this confrontation.
It's hard to imagine assault charges being filed in another context here, but here we are, Ryan. And what more are we hearing for the Congresswoman? And do you expect that this could go all the way to trial? That's a great question.
Look, she is defiant. She is calling this a brazen attempt at political intimidation. She points out that there's a 2019 law that allows members of Congress to go into detention facilities, immigration facilities, unannounced. And she says she was just doing her job.
Her lawyer is saying they're ready to go to trial. They're going to contest this in court. But before they go to trial, they have to, the prosecution is going to have to meet some hurdles in front of a federal judge because it'll be an opportunity to dismiss this case even before it gets to a jury. So we'll have to see how that goes, Ryan.
Okay, Kendall, thank you for that. And after the break, wouldn't it be nice if we had election results? He thought I might sing there, but I didn't take the bait. Steve Krenakke's at the big board with the takeaways from last night's primaries as Democrat Mikey Cheryl prepares to go head-to-head with Republican Jack Sichorelli and then graced to be New Jersey's next governor.
You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back as we also say around here. If it's Wednesday, we've got election results. And today, the results from New Jersey's gubernatorial primary, the first major primary contest for both parties since the November election.
On the Democratic side, Congresswoman Mikey Cheryl claimed the nomination emerging from a crowded field of candidates that ran to her left and to her right. In her victory speech last night, she came out swinging against MAGA Republicans as she gears up for the general election. As a model for teenagers, you guys know I'm not going to put up with an incompetent, whiny nonsense coming from aggrieved MAGA Republicans. Meanwhile, Trump endorsed Republican candidate Jackson Reli dominated his primary.
He echoed the president's calls for law in order in his victory speech. Four more years of handcuffing our police increasing crime flash mobs and curfews along our Jersey Shore. Guys, like all of you, I've had it. It's time for a change.
It's time for a change. Here to break down the results is NBC News National Political Correspondent Steve Kornacke, where he always is at the big board. This was a pretty interesting night last night in New Jersey. Steve, what were your big takeaways?
Yeah, I look at unity on the Republican side here. Not a surprise, I think, given Shader Reli was the Republican nominee in the last New Jersey gubernatorial race. He performed better than expected. If you remember, he came within three points of unceding Democratic governor Phil Murphy back in 21.
In this race, he had cultivated support from Donald Trump. He got that support from Donald Trump. And that's what brought, I think, so much of this party ultimately behind him. Shader Reli was always going to be the front runner in this race.
That Trump endorsement sealed it. North to South New Jersey, he sweeps every county, wins in the landslide. Now, take a look on the Democratic side. As you say, a crowded field here, Mikey Sheryl's going to win it with about a third of the vote.
But look at all of these candidates who were in the race. They came for Sheryl. It was just the breadth of her support. If you look at it this way, you can divide New Jersey, sort of North Jersey, South Jersey.
Five of the six candidates from North Jersey, including Mikey Sheryl. Only one candidate, Steve Sweeney, from down here in South Jersey, Sweeney finishing in single digits. You don't even see him on the main screen here. But the came for Sheryl, when I say the breadth of her support, take a look down here in South Jersey.
She's not from here. Another candidate is, she's still got a third of the vote in Burlington County, Big Suburban County. Look at Camden County, where the city of Camden is. Sheryl actually wins that one beating the South Jersey candidate, Steve Sweeney.
Meanwhile, if you go up to the northern part of the state, look, Essex County, huge one. And city of Newark is there. Rosbaraka's the mayor of Newark. He wins Essex, but there's Sheryl reliably second place getting a third of the vote.
Here's a giant county right across the Hudson River from New York City, very urban county, Hudson County. This is where the Jersey city mayor, Steve Phobes from, and yet it's Mikey Sheryl who wins here. So she's winning big counties, and even where she's losing, she's coming in second, just consistently top to bottom in this race. She had a lot of support from the Democratic party establishment.
There was a lot of discussion about whether that's a support from the party establishment and the party machinery would be worth what it used to be. I'd say it was worth something yesterday for Sheryl. Again, she just has the most consistent performance in all regions of the state. It's not uncommon for a Republican to win a general election in New Jersey, even though we think about it as a blue state.
I mean, how competitive do we expect this general election to be? Yes, an interesting question. As you say, Sugar-Relly, as the Republican nominee last time around, did only lose this state by three points to Phil Murphy. Now take a look here at the 2024 presidential election in the state.
Let me see if I can get that called up for it. I have a bit of a problem, Ken, the 24 results up. These are the primary results. Oh, here we go.
Okay. So 2024, Harris over Trump. This was the New Jersey results. So it's a blue state.
Okay. And New Jersey has a history in its gubernatorial elections of voting for the candidate from the party that doesn't control the White House. So Trump, as president, Democrats don't control the White House, that's an advantage going into this from Mikey Sheryl, as is the fact that it still was a blue state last year. What Republicans will say though is this was still a blue state, but that's six-point gap was a huge improvement for Donald Trump.
If you went back to 2020, remember, Trump lost this state by 16 points. That improved it from a 16-point loss to only a six-point loss. That was one of his biggest jumps in any state in the country. So Democrats are counting on Trump being toxic New Jersey, not wanting to elect a governor from the Republican party from the White House party, but Trump may not be the automatic albatross that he was for Republicans in past elections here in 2017, for instance, in that gubernatorial race here.
So let's see how the Trump factor plays out. We'll get some polling, see all these events playing out in Los Angeles right now, anything that happens between now and the election. Where is his approval rating going to be? Because I'll tell you, the last time he was president in 2017, Democrats easily won the governor's race that year.
Trump's approval rating in New Jersey that year was 33%. Let's see, is it that level? Is it higher? Is it mid-40s?
Is it ever high-40s? Obviously, the higher that number gets for Trump, the less of an obstacle he might be for it to rally. And you can make the argument two pretty good candidates in New Jersey as well, that the Republicans and Democrats pick. So it could be an interesting race.
All right, Steve Carnegie, thank you so much. We appreciate it. Still to come, friends and foes, the good vibrations appear to be back on between you on Muslim President Trump after a public spat and a public apology. We have new reporting on that episode and much more politics to get to.
The panel is next. You're watching the press now. I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear, but I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and that anxiety. What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence to be complicit in this moment.
Do not give in to him. Breaking my cardinal rule of always reading this in the proper. And also, T.W. Origi, who is the Vice President of Bush Digital Group and a Republican strategist.
I apologize for that. So he's going to clip that. All right, Francesco, let's start with you. We heard President Trump say that U.S.
troops will liberate Los Angeles. That's the word he's using. He's called the protesters insurrectionists. What are you hearing from White House officials about this strategy that President Trump is taking?
Does it seem like there's a line they're not willing to cross at this point? Well, one thing that we're hearing from Democrats on this is that they are lying in this up is just another opportunity for Donald Trump to express his executive authority. He's tried to test it in the courts. He's tried to test it now on the streets they're saying.
And you heard President Trump say yesterday that this is something that they could do in other cities, which backs up. I think some of the arguments that you're hearing from Democrats, and then of course him also saying that he doesn't want to see protesters out in the street for his parade on Saturday. But when it comes to Gavin Newsom, I mean, this is someone who he has been fighting with for many, many years, even if they had a little bit of a detente over the Olympics and could in the future. And now you see Vice President J.D.
Vance getting involved in it as well. And you mentioned 2028 as a possibility here. Can't forget that J.D. Vance is seen as a leading contender for 2028 as well.
Yeah, Amisha, what do you think about that? I mean, Governor Newsom here, just trying to quell the current situation, or does he have his political future in mind with the way that he's responding to President Trump? Well, I think he's doing two things they want. He is riling the troops, so to speak, those who felt as though Democrats weren't being as active as they needed to be around a range of issues.
But he is also putting his 2028 campaign on the front tree. I think that he is establishing himself as not only someone who is one to watch, but honestly someone who could be a front runner in what will be a very, very, very large primary. Right. And he is in advance of those no-kings rallies that are also going to be occurring while Donald Trump's army parade is going to be happening here in D.C.
Those no-kings rallies that are advocates across the country. People who want to fight against what this administration is doing are going to be in the streets. And he's doing a clearing call to them as well. So, but T.W., is this a fight Republicans are willing to have?
Oh my goodness, yes. Look, the numbers are in our favor. Half the country, over half the country, is supportive of the president's immigration policy, as it pertains to deploying illegal immigrants. 51% of Americans are supportive of ICE in their communities going after those who are here illegally.
The numbers are totally on Trump's side. And let's be honest, people do not care about Trump calling the National Guard where they see their streets being burned. They don't care the mechanism that gets it to stop. They just want it to stop.
And if this is the hill that Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass want to die on, they are more than willing to do it. But the numbers are the president's favor. They are not with the leadership of California. So I'm going to check down that just a little bit, T.W., because we did have a congressman, Republican David Valleido.
He tweeted about this. He said that he remains concerned about the ongoing ICE operations throughout California. He wants to continue his conversations with the administration, urging them to prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years. Of course, he represents a border district.
I mean, is there an opportunity here or a risk for president Trump by pushing this a little bit too far? Yes, perhaps the polling says that people want to see people that are criminals deported. But could they go too far? I guess it's the question.
First of all, David Valleido is a great member of Congress. He's in a very, very tough district. It's one point one way or the other. It's in the Central Valley.
He's got a lot of immigrants there. Of course, we want to prioritize the worst first. And Tom Holman's been very clear that that is this administration. But do you think you're doing that?
I do, in large part, because look, every time, like whether it was a Braggle Garcia and others, every time we hear a story, a lot of times we get more information down the road that makes it a little bit more murky. Look, the people of ICE are also removing tons and tons of people with rap sheets as long as my arm. I was hearing so much outcry from politicians in my home state of Massachusetts about the deportations. Then I go read what each of these people have been convicted of, and the question I had was, why did more healing not deport them sooner?
Why did she play ball with ICE? It's because sanctuary policies of Democrats have led to this moment. So to that point, I mean, should the Democrats risk going too far in defending some of the folks that are being caught up in this? So the thing is, Democrats are not actively defending criminals.
What they are saying is that individuals who are going to the grocery store to buy goods for their families, individuals who are the teachers, who are the instructors, and some of our early child care programs, individuals who are going to watch their kids graduate from high school, those are the people who are being rounded up in California right now. Not individuals with long rap sheets. We're not talking about drug traffickers. We're not talking about rapists.
We're not talking about violent actors. These are everyday members of the community, many of whom have raised their families there. We're generations. I'm a native of Chicago.
It's a sanctuary city and a sanctuary state. Donald Trump, when he ran for president, he put a marker on sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. So none of what he is doing should be surprising because this is what he ran on. But I would argue that this is not about eradicating criminals because that number is extremely small.
We know that. We know that the number of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants is extremely small in comparison to those that are done by everyday American citizens. With that being said, demonizing everyone as undocumented criminals who are undocumented citizens who are creating criminal activity, I think it's a problem because it puts everybody in the same bucket because he wants to draw a certain level of ire and fear. That's what's happening.
Tom Holman and Donald Trump want numbers. This is a numbers game. They know that they were only to go after criminal actors. That's a very small amount of people who have it to be here undocumented.
We wouldn't have this problem if the law wasn't forced the last four years in 20 million a week. We wouldn't have this problem if we had the bipartisan package that was initially brought before Congress months ago, before Donald Trump actually got elected. All right. I have to cut this off because we're 56 minutes into the show and I haven't mentioned Elon Musk yet, which I congratulate or contract to obligate to.
During all this, Elon Musk just ran through the conversation in a post that was I think at 2.45 in the morning. He said that I regret some of my posts about president Donald Trump last week. They went too far. What did we make of this?
Are these guys going to be bros again? Is everything going to be okay? So interestingly at the White House, the other day, House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about this and he said he'd been pushing for a reconciliation between the two men. No, specifically a reconciliation between the two men because this is not a fight that Republicans want to see taking place right now as they're trying to get the president's bill across the finish line.
They're already losing some Republicans in the United States Senate over the price tag of the bill, which is the point that Elon Musk was making when he originally sent those tweets, right? It was about killing the bill over the price tag in the first place. So this is not something that would happen. And then also, I think it was very clear as the president was talking about this and Elon Musk was talking about this too, that the conversation was only taking place about that and not, I think about the things that the White House wants to be having a conversation.
He did bring up Jeffrey Epstein randomly, so it wasn't just all about the bill. But let's talk about the bill. Let's talk about the bill, T.W. There's a new Quinnipiac poll that shows a majority of registered voters really don't like it.
Only 27% support it right now. 53% oppose and there's 20% that don't have any opinion. Don't Republicans have a little bit of work to do to convince the American people that this is a good idea? Not so much because if this bill doesn't pass, the American people will see one of the greatest tax increases in America.
But they could pass that by itself, right? Can they just do the tax? We have a lot of priorities that the president has set forth that we need to also get accomplished. So no, it all needs to be done in this one beautiful package.
We dissuaded away from the two-bill path that many people wanted. Look, the Democrats have been putting a marker down on this about Medicaid cuts. Obviously, there's a lot of debate about what that cut actually is and I don't want to get into the nuances of it all. But look, I think there's a ton in this.
There's $1.5 trillion in cuts. There is the maintaining of the Trump tax cuts, no tax on tips, et cetera, et cetera. This is really important to the American people. It needs to get passed.
Let me show. I would say the Democrats are the only ones who have been who in and hall about Medicaid cuts. Senator Holly and several senators, specifically those who have rural communities, have also been doing the same thing. This is a this is a package that does not need to pass, especially not its current form.
What it does is create tax breaks by the ultra-rich meanwhile, continue to shrink the middle class and the poor do not have a chance and we just have to be real about what that is. We will never tackle the debt and deficit in this country unless we do sensible reforms to our entitlement programs. The cuts that propose to Medicare, I think, are very practical, especially removing people who should not be out in the first place. We need to start looking at waste so we can cut or else we'll never get out of this mess.
But isn't there some concern that you put those cuts in place but you get the bill itself doesn't really do anything to address the deficit problem? $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. I mean, that isn't nothing and I think it moves the ball forward in the priorities that we need to address. This isn't the only thing we're going to do to get a cut.
What we need to codify the doge cuts. We need to do more with those. So there's a ton we can do it at least we're trying. Okay.
All right, guys. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.
Francesca, Misha, T.W. We're going to be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. But the news continues, as it always does here on NBC News Now with Hallie Jackson right now. Thanks so much for watching.
Have a great day. 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 in 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 kind of screwing your office. Search The Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.