If it's Wednesday, President Trump suggests he has not made a final decision on a U.S. strike on Iran, saying Iran was just a few weeks away from having a nuclear weapon amid an intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran and warnings of an all-out war. Plus a major setback for transgender rights advocates as Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee ban on transgender health care for minors in a ruling that is likely to have broad impact all across the country. And the Fed holds interest rates steady for now, just hours after President Trump unloaded on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, calling him a quote, stupid person who refuses to lower rates.
Welcome to me, the press now. I am Kristen Welker in Washington with the Middle East and much of the world again on edge. As President Trump publicly weighs a U.S. strike on Iran to take out its nuclear program after calling for Tehran's quote, unconditional surrender.
Just moments ago, the President spoke to reporters in the Oval Office about the possibility of the U.S. getting directly involved. After senior administration officials told NBC News quote, all options remain on the table. I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't read a final, I like to make a final decision one second before it's doing it.
Because things change, especially with war, things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other. What's your message to Americans both here and abroad who are not only concerned about the U.S. potentially getting involved in another conflict in the Middle East, but worry about the potential for retaliation here at home? Yeah.
Well, I don't want to get involved either, but I've been saying for 20 years maybe longer that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I've been saying it for a long time, and I think they were a few weeks away from having one. The President also saying that he was about to huddle with advisers in the situation room, and here's more from the President. This is earlier today responding to a reporter's question about the possibility of a U.S.
strike on Iran. May do it. I may not do it. I mean nobody knows what I'm going to do.
I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they wanted to negotiate. And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before? All this death and destruction. This is a very simple word, it's a very simple, unconditional surrender.
That means I've had it. Okay, I've had it. I give up. I know more.
Then we go blow up all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place. What do you say to the Supreme Leader of Iran who says that they will not select it? Say good luck. The President's Secretary of Defense was also pressed on the Pentagon's current plans as he testified before Congress on Capitol Hill.
Take a look. My question for you is whether you have been asked actively to provide options for the President regarding a strike in the Middle East. If I had or I had not, I wouldn't disclose that in this forum, Senator. My job, our job, Chairman and I, at all times, is to make sure the President has options and is informed of what those options might be and what the ramifications of those options have been.
I appreciate that. Meanwhile, on the ground in Israel, the IDF says Iran launched a new wave of missile strikes today with air raid sirens layering across the country for the sixth consecutive day. It follows the barrage of Iranian missile and drone attacks on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv overnight, which Israel says most were intercepted. And in Iran, the country's army says it downed one of Israel's drones for the first time, releasing this video, Israel's Air Force acknowledged the incident, and it comes after President Trump claimed yesterday, quote, we have total control of the skies over Iran.
Joining me now is NBC News Chief National Affairs and Justice Coruscant Kelly O'Donnell's at the White House. And NBC News International correspondent Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv. Kelly, I want to start with you. The President saying he believed Iran was a few weeks away from having a nuclear weapon, really powerful to hear him say that.
He also said he hasn't made a final decision yet. He likes to wait until the final moment to do so, which is consistent with what we know about President Trump. What are your sources telling you, Kelly, is the very latest thinking inside the White House? Well, it is certainly interesting to watch how the President is presenting some of his thought process publicly, which is not only his sort of stream of consciousness way of engaging, but also is a signal to Iran and to the world about where he is at at this time, talking about their desire to negotiate and certainly talking about the fact that he has run out of patience.
Those are certainly signals toward coming to a decision point. But the President didn't give a specific timeline, except to say it could be over the next week. But he also didn't. He was not firm in that.
He said it could also be sooner before a decision would be made. It's unclear exactly how close the United States is to engaging in any way or if they will, he and his team will decide that this is not the time to use American firepower and resources, namely the type of aircraft that Israel does not possess to be a part of any definitive action to bring about a more formidable end to Iran's nuclear ambition. So the short answer is the President appears to be wanting to maintain flexibility publicly. We don't have a sense of where the decision clock is behind the scenes.
We've heard a variety of different things, but only the President would ultimately be the arbiter of this. We'll indicate there's another situation we're meeting today. And so perhaps that will move the ball another incremental step. But his words to Iran are very clear.
They are harsh. And he also seemed to acknowledge that this is not something he relishes doing if he were to take such action. Kristen. Well, Kelly, let me pick up on that final point that you make because it's an important one.
This is a President who campaigned on an America-first foreign policy in both of his campaigns. And part of the MAGA movement is based on this idea of getting out of foreign entanglements. And so you really have the MAGA universe divided on this. What can you tell us about that?
How much pressure, quite frankly, Kelly, is the President getting from some quarters of his base not to go into Iran? There's considerable pressure because he's been clear about this. And he said it again today. He does not want war, war in an extended way, seemed to be what he was suggesting.
That might be different in his calculation than some limited strikes that might have some definitive ability to reset things, especially on Israel's behalf and, frankly, for U.S. national interest to not have Iran have a nuclear weapon. His frustration, certainly Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, his frustration of wanting to bring this to some kind of closure is evident. But certainly many of the President's followers in the United States do not want foreign intervention.
So would they judge it differently if there is a short-term action, certainly the Vice President, posted about the President having earned some trust in the MAGA world? That seemed to be a message to MAGA followers that the President may have to make some hard decisions and that he is taking it all into account. Again, hard to discern. We're trying to read all of the tea leaves, but those pressure points are real.
Push from Israel, certainly, to get some help from the United States and certainly some domestic concerns about potential for retaliation and enlarging the U.S. footprint abroad. Kelly, there are so many dynamic forces at play there. You lay it all out so well.
Matt Bradley, let me go to you in the region. What is the very latest that you are hearing on the ground there? What's the feeling in Israel right now? Are people eager to have the United States join with the campaign that is underway there?
Yeah, I can answer your second question. First, people are very eager to see the United States throwing in behind Israel. As far as the Israelis that I spoke into were concerned, Israel is fighting a fight for the entire world. They think the United States should want to participate in this.
And while so many here were so hopeful to see President Donald Trump take over after the previous president who many people here felt weren't really, wasn't really necessarily supporting Israel to the extent that they would like. They were hoping that President Trump would be so much better than Joe Biden in terms of his support for Israel. I think that they are disappointed to see the president acquiticating like he is right now. But I have to tell you, at the same time, there's all this high hopes for the president pitching in with American weapons to finish the job against Iran.
And that's what I keep hearing the Americans should finish the job. There is this feeling here that actually things have kind of turned a corner over just the past two days. It's been well more than 48 hours since we've seen any fatalities here in Israel from Iranian bombardments. We just saw a couple of hours ago another siren, another round of strikes.
But they were so diminished from what we've seen even just a couple of days ago and certainly from what we saw Friday night during Iran's first multiple waves of retaliation that lit up the sky across the skyline behind me. And now it looks as though Iran's retaliation has become feeble, not lethal. And it looks as though folks here are waiting to see Iran just end its retaliations. They're looking already ahead to what's next.
And I think that the big shoe that's about to drop is how Donald Trump decides whether or not to weigh into this ongoing conflict. I can tell you that we've heard from the top people here, that even if Donald Trump decides not to help destroy the remainder of the Iranian nuclear program at Fordow with one of these GBU-57s, these bunker buster bombs, the Israelis are prepared to do it on their own. And we've heard this from the top echelons of power here publicly stating, yes, we would love to see the United States weigh in, but Israel will take out those bunkers with the remaining centrifuges, the remaining capability to enrich uranium, whether the United States helps or not. Matt Bradley, thank you so much for your fantastic reporting.
As always, please continue to stay safe. We really appreciate it. Let me now bring in Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Lider and Ambassador Lider. Thank you so much for joining us.
We really appreciate it. Good to be with you, Christian. It's wonderful to have you and your perspective at this really critical moment. You just heard me discussing with my colleague, Matt Bradley, the possibility of the United States joining Israel in its attacks against Iran's nuclear program.
What is the perspective of Israel right now? Can you achieve your end goal without the United States support war? Is the United States support necessary? I think the support of the United States is important.
We've asked the United States to support us in a defensive posture. The administration of President Trump, Congress, the American people have been so kind in providing us with defensive missile systems that the ages they've saved many, many lives over the past few days when these ballistic missiles come careening in from Iran to our population centers. But I think it's important to remember that while our primary objective is protecting our state and our people, I would quote the German Chancellor merits who said today that Israel is doing the dirty work on behalf of the world. This is a regime that has spread death and destruction, mayhem and murder around the world, from the Sahel in Africa to Southern South America to terrorist groups all around the Middle East.
They threatened their neighbors and of course they threatened us with extinction. They created a ring of fire by their proxies around our country. They sent commos to attack us on October 7th. They slaughtered 1200 of our civilians in one day.
They sent the Hezbollah to fire missiles into our northern region. We're now taking out the head of the snake. It's good for Israel. It's good for the region.
It's good for the world. Ambassador, President Trump says he has not made a final decision. He says he makes the final decision in the final moments. But do you have a sense of which way the United States is leaning right now?
Is it your expectation that you think it is likely that the United States will provide military support and join in in a more forceful way in these attacks against Iran's nuclear programs? For dough, for example. I can tell you this, Christian, since I came to Washington as his ambassador just a few months ago, it's been a pleasure working with the Trump administration. The president says what he means.
He means what he says. He shows tremendous leadership. He has a wonderful relationship with our prime minister. They've both been mourning now for 15 years that Iran cannot achieve a pathway to a nuclear bomb.
He has repeated this some 13 times since he was elected. I think it's very, very clear. I am quite confident that the president will support our efforts to prevent the President's rent Iran from having this weapon of mass destruction and these ballistic missiles that they're producing at a rate of 300 a month with the intent of renting them down on civilian population centers. This is a malevolent actor and the president has said about the international policy of peace through strength.
Peace through strength means that a level of actors have to be taken out. Speaking of which, I do want to play something that we just heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu this week and we'll do some analysis on the other side. Take a listen. If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.
It could be a year. It could be within a few months. Less than a year. We have to have 190,000 centrifuges.
With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks. Once it makes that decision. By next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will be finished, the medium enrichment, and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
So Ambassador Leiter, that was actually a compilation of sound bites of the Prime Minister throughout the years going as far back as 2012. Even the urgent warnings he has been delivering for quite some time, why is this moment different from your perspective? Well, you know, there is a point of combustion. It's not very logical to say that if it hasn't happened until now, then it's not going to happen.
The fact of the matter is that the President gave the Ayatollah 60 days, the 60 days were up. He was playing games with his negotiations. He wasn't doing a good faith. And the day that the 60 days were over, the IAEA, the International Agency overseeing atomic weapons or atomic development, the nuclear development issued a damning report against their Iranians saying that whatever the Prime Minister has been saying for the past 15 years is actually true, that they're racing towards a nuclear bomb.
So our intel also showed the same thing. And I got to add one more point. It took 15 years for Adolf Hitler to rise to power and achieve the necessary militarization in order to launch the Second World War. And during that period of time, people were saying, well, the warnings are not necessarily serious.
He hasn't done it until now. And they sat on their hands. And they appeased him. And at the end of the day, because they didn't want war, they got a war, a big war, a second world war in which 65 million people were killed, and a third of our people, the Jewish people were annihilated in gas chambers, we cannot take that chance again.
This is a war that we're prosecuting right now to end all wars. If we prosecute this properly, and Iran is defanged, there's going to be a new Middle East, and if there's a new Middle East, there's a new globe, and it's a fulfillment of the president's vision for a world without war. Look, we've accomplished impairing our pilots with American products, with the F-35, which by the way, is produced in Fort Worth, Texas, which is exactly the distance from Washington as Tehran is from Israel. We've paired together the American product and the Israeli pilot, and we've done in three days what Russia hasn't accomplished in three years.
We can accomplish this. We can do this together. And we can ensure that the Middle East goes into a Abraham Accord mode, 2.0, and fulfill the president's vision of peace in the Middle East and the world. Mr.
Ambassador, you're taking part of my next question very quickly. Is diplomacy still possible? Is it still possible for President Trump to strike this deal that he was trying to reach with Iran? Could that be an offer?
Or is it too late in your perspective? You know, we've been skeptical about negotiations with the Melissa Tehran for a long time. You know, it doesn't surprise us that people who murder also lie and don't negotiate in good faith. But, you know, the president knows nobody's going to fool President Trump.
And if there's a possibility to negotiate this thing, whereby we see complete dismantlement of their nuclear program, of their ballistic missile program, and their end of support for proxy spreading terror around the world, that can be achieved through negotiations. It's only President Trump that can achieve that. Okay, Ambassador Michael later, thank you so much for joining us at this really critical moment in the Middle East. We appreciate it very much.
Thank you. Good evening. And good evening to you to appreciate it. Joining me now is retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmett, former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East.
Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. There is a lot to talk about. Let's start with Iran's Fordo Enrichment Center.
This is one of the potential targets the facility itself, of course, built deep inside a mountain. What would it take to actually do significant damage to the Fordo site? Well, to the extent that the Israelis had not already done a significant amount of damage, the fact remains to the coup de gras to finish this off will have to require some of the GBUs that we have, the bunker busters, the 30,000 pound bombs that the Israelis don't have. It may not be done with one, may take two or three attacks on it, but I'm confident that we've got the capability to knock it out if the president makes that decision.
Well, administration officials, as you know, are saying that, look, the president is considering a range of options. The president himself, really in an extraordinary exchange with reporters this afternoon, said he has not made a final decision. General, what do you think the other options look like that the president might be considering? Well, it's really up to the Iranians.
I think the option that he is considering is that the Iranians see the foolishness of their lack of diplomacy, their lack of willingness to talk about this. And I think the only other option is for the Iranians to come and say we are going to dismantle our program in its entirety, allow you to inspect and verify, and at that point, we can call this a day. Well, you know, of course, the justification for this according to Prime Minister Netanyahu is that Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon, you just heard me discussing that with the ambassador. Do you think that the Trump administration would agree to join Israel's military operations?
If it didn't agree with that assessment, in other words, would President Trump have to see intelligence that led him to believe that that was the case? Well, as I said, it would require, if the Iranians promised to dismantle their program to avoid further attacks, it would not only be on their promise, but it would have to be a harsh inspection and verification regime put into place and significant penalties that they violated. And, you know, I want to ask you a similar question to the one that I just ended my last conversation on, which is, is there an off-ramp here? And from your perspective, militarily, how can this be de-escalated?
Or is it too late for that, General? But I think that the Israelis are going to be going after four to that one way or the other. If they have the Americans, help them do it. In fact, that method of bombing it is possible.
But look, there's always an off-ramp. We understand there was a message delivered today from Iran through Oman. Look, there's always a chance to stop wars, but they usually stop at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. So let's hope the Iranians recognize the error of their ways to use a very trite term and realize it's over for their nuclear program.
The only question is, how much more are they going to pay as a country and as a society for that nuclear program to end? General, very quickly, before I let you go, is it your assessment that given the strikes that Israel has launched at Iran, that it is in a uniquely weakened state right now and that if the United States were to get involved, that could be the final blow to its nuclear program? Yes. Okay.
Well, nothing more definitive than that. For their general market. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it.
Thank you, Kristin. And we will have much more on this incredibly tense situation involving the US, Israel and Iran throughout the hour. I'll talk to a Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who's also a combat veteran about what comes next and what she learned from Defense Secretary Pete Haggseth's testimony on the Hill today. But first, the major ruling from the Supreme Court upholding a law in Tennessee that effectively bans transgender care for minors.
What it means for kids and families nationwide ahead. Stay with us. You're watching The Press Now. Welcome back.
We are following breaking news and major defeat for transgender rights advocates. The Supreme Court today upholding a Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors. The Court ruled six to three with all six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberals in the minority. Chief Justice John Roberts writing in the majority opinion that the law which bars gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors is not a form of sex discrimination.
The decision will likely have implications far beyond Tennessee. Twenty-four other states have also enacted laws similar to Tennessee's. Those laws are now more likely to survive potential legal challenges. NBC News Senior Legal Correspondent Laura Jarrett joins me now.
Laura, thank you so much for joining me. It's so great to see you as always. So let's delve into this. What exactly did the Supreme Court say in its decision today?
Chris, it's a landmark decision when it comes to trans rights in this country as it relates to minors in particular. As you mentioned, a number of states more than 20 have similar bans like this. So it's really not just about Tennessee. It's about the rights of states more generally to pass these types of bans.
The issue here, not surgery for transitioning, but really hormones, puberty blockers, those are the types of treatments that were issued, the types of health care that was in issue. Tennessee tried to ban those types of treatments. And the challenge here was the idea that it violates equal protection, that you're treating trans kids differently than you're treating non-trans kids. The majority here, the conservative majority did not go for that, said it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
And instead, the Justice is essentially saying, look, this is for the states to decide. This is how the Chief Justice put it, Chris, and he says this case carries with it the weight and fear of fear scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns, the implications for all are profound. He goes on to say, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people.
They're elected representatives and to the democratic process, Chris, and so we should point out they're not saying that states have to ban transgender affirming care, but they are saying if states decide they want to do it, they're allowed to do that and doesn't violate the Constitution. It's essentially akin to what they did in the Dobs decision, Chris, and I think that's the best way to think about it, right? There's no right to abortion in the Constitution, just like there's no right to transgender affirming care in the Constitution, therefore the states get to do what they want. And, Laura, what did the liberal justices find because they obviously said this does violate equal protection?
Yeah, I swear to my yore, has a very pointed and lengthy decision. She read it from the bench saying, in sadness, I descend, the liberals essentially accusing their colleagues of skirting the issue and trying to get around this, pointing out just five years ago they had found in a different context, I'll be evident, that transgender workers should be protected in the workplace, and so they were certainly saying, we understood it was sex discrimination then, what gives now? But, again, Chris, it's a landmark decision because it really does pave the way for other states to do this, and even though this is about minors, it can sort of be extended into other contexts if you think about it, because the reasoning is that if there is no right in trying in the Constitution, then the states get to have pretty broad discretion when it comes to passing these sorts of wide bands. So, what were the issues that this decision did not necessarily resolve, what are the unresolved issues in other words?
Well, this really was about the hormone therapies and the puberty blockers, and there was sort of a wide debate and argument about the scientific evidence issue, again, one of the things Sotomayor points out in her dissent here, Kristen, is that the data, at least the ones that she points to shows that the rates of suicide are so high among transgender youth and that the gender affirming care is one of the things that some in the medical community has pointed to to try to blunt some of that suicide rates. Again, the majority has a response to that and points to a whole bunch of other studies that show the opposite, and so they're trying to not, the majority is trying not to resolve which way those come out, but again, to say the states get to decide your democratic legislatures that you've appointed get to make those tough calls on policy debates. All right, Laura, Jared, as always, thanks so much for being here to help us understand it. Really appreciate it.
Great to see you. Coming up next, conflict, Congress, and the push from some Democrats to curb President Trump's war powers. Senator Tammy Duckworth, the combat veteran member of the Senate Armed Services Committee is standing by next. Stay with us.
You're watching Meet the Press Now. Get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with Meet Your Host, Gazim D'Souya. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on which webpage the Zeitgeist.
Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. If you are ads, deeper access and exclusive content, and now during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.
Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more. XFINITY. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Hover ends May 20th, 2026.
Price is subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking News is just coming in moments ago.
Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, 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 as President Trump weighs whether the United States will get directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. Defense Secretary Pete Hijsev was on Capitol Hill this morning, and while he was pressed by several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he declined to give any public details about what the Pentagon is or is not preparing for in the Middle East.
Joining me now is Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. She is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and questioned the Defense Secretary earlier today. Senator, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for having me on. So, Secretary Hijsev said he could not say very much about Iran in a public setting. Can you share anything that you may have learned behind closed doors about how close this administration is in terms of directly engaging in the offensive against Iran? No, I can't.
There was not much information that I've received. And frankly, I don't know that he himself knows what he's going to be doing. In fact, our commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, has put out on social media that nobody knows what he's going to do. I may do it.
I may do it. I may do it. I may not do it, according to his truth-social post. So, we're at a point where you have an incompetent Secretary of Defense and a president who's mercurial at best, and nobody is coming to consult Congress, a co-equal branch of government, and should the president launch an attack, it will be in violation of the War Powers Act.
And so he needs to come to Congress right away. So let's just break this down a little bit first, just to lay down this marker. Do you support an American strike to take out Iran's nuclear program? I would need to know more information before I could support such a strike.
I do think that we need to start Iran from developing their nuclear program. I'm concerned about how we're going to go about doing it, and that we don't actually encourage, at the end of the day, the PRC, the North Koreans, the Russians to become even more determined to help Iran rebuild its nuclear program. That would be even worse. Remember that Donald Trump is the guy who actually pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, where we were actually monitoring their development of nuclear capabilities.
That's Donald Trump's fault. That's because Donald Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal. And now we're going to have to do the cleanup for the message he created from his first term. Would you, I know you're saying you need more information, would you be more inclined to support the United States, giving the Israeli military equipment to carry out strikes themselves, more strikes?
Yeah. Again, this is about what happens even beyond the initial strike. This is the thing about military planning, right? You got to look at what happens the day after.
So whether we conduct a strike or whether we give the Israelis the capability to do the strike, what happens the day after that? Do we then end up having to put boots on the ground? Secretary Hexette was asked this very question and committee today, like, what is your planning for the next day and the day after? And he couldn't answer because he didn't have an answer.
I don't want this to end up with American troops on the ground in the Middle East in Iran for 10, 20 years that we ended up in Iraq. That is not what this country needs. And that's certainly not what anybody voted for. So Senator, just to be very clear, and to go back to the point that you just made, do you think that President Trump has to come to Congress before he can sign off on any type of strike against Iran at this point?
I do. The war power is actually very clear. You got to retaliate. He's allowed to move forward if it's in defense in response to an attack or whether American troops are about to be attacked.
And neither one of those conditions have happened. Let me ask you this. Notably in March, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabber, said the U.S. intelligence community assessed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.
At this very moment, Senator, what is your understanding of the current intelligence of Iran's nuclear capabilities? Do you think that they are closer to developing a nuclear weapon? Well, she's the head of the, you know, national intelligence. So I would think that she would know more than anybody else.
It's sad that Donald Trump doesn't even trust his own staff. And if he's just going on his own gut instincts, then God forbid where America ends up with a president who isn't listening to his closest advisers at the top of government who have the most direct access to the intelligence that we all here in Congress would love to see ourselves. So do you have, and do you have confidence in the assessment that Tulsi Gabber delivered back in March? I don't have confidence in anybody in the Trump administration at this point.
He's appointed a bunch of people who are incompetent and are not capable of doing their jobs. And here we are watching chaos erupt around the world and lack of competent people to deal with it. Do you think based on the briefings that you have had, Senator, that Iran is closer than ever to developing a nuclear weapon? As you noted, the Iran nuclear deal was ripped up.
I do. I do think that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon closer now than they would have been had we stayed in the Iran nuclear deal. And this is thanks to Donald Trump, because he's the guy who put us out of it. However, I'm going to go back to what I said earlier, if you're going to plan an attack, you need to come to Congress, lay out all the information, show us why this is what we need to do.
And then tell me, what is your plan for the day after? What happens next? What are the next steps? You can't just go out and then come back and say, oh, by the way, now we're going to send thousands of Americans, finest men and women in uniform, and they're going to go to Iran.
We're going to now invade Iran next. Then we're going to hold the ground. And then we're going to be there for five years or 10 years. I'm going to do this under what?
A military authorization for use of force from, what, 20 years ago? There's a process and they're supposed to go through it and this administration is not doing it. And in fact, we have a president who's not even listening to his top advisers. I want to play you something that your colleague Senator Lindsey Graham said today about potential repercussions from American strikes.
Take a look. So all these people are talking about what happened to me, where the guy in charge wants to kill all the Jews, reshaping Islam in his own image can come after us. November the 4th is the death of America day in Iran. So the idea of what happens next, it can only get better, it can't be worse.
What is your reaction to Senator Graham and those who would call for regime change? What would be worse would be American troops on the ground in Iran for an indefinite amount of time being targeted by by by rebels being targeted by terrorists. That would be even worse. I don't want to get put American boots on the ground troops on the ground because of a failed policy by this administration.
If he wants to do something come and talk to us, show us, make the argument and then I'll vote on it. You know, there are some including Lindsey Graham quite frankly who are arguing that Iran has never been weaker than it is right now, in part because it has had these bombardments by Israel. Do you see it that way? And is that an argument?
Does that bolster, for example, your authorization if this were to come to Congress for there to be us strikes? I mean, I do think that Iran underestimated Israel and that they are weaker than they were before these strikes happened. They've certainly had some of their top key leadership been killed by the Israeli airstrikes. But that is still not a reason to engage directly with Iran.
That is still not a reason for us to open the door and start on the on ramp towards American troops being present in Iran for God knows how long with no exit strategy. We've done that before. We've seen this movie before. Let's not make it.
And do a sequel to what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. All right. Senator Duckworth. We really appreciate your perspective today.
Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. And we have much more news and politics to begin to straight ahead. The panel is next.
You're watching the president. Welcome back. President Trump is caught in the middle of two sides of his own maggot movement as he considers whether to commit US personnel to Israel's conflict with Iran speaking to reporters this afternoon the president weighed in on the divide among his segment of the Republican Party. Take a listen to what he has to say.
My supporters are for me. My supporters are America first. They make America great again. My supporters don't want to see Iran having a real weapon.
Very simple. They think that it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Then they should oppose me, but nobody thinks it's okay. People that don't want to fight either.
I'm not going to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do. And maybe we won't have to fight. Joining me now, I'm Senator Sahal Kapoor, senior national political reporter here at NBC News.
Simone Sanders Townsend, former senior advisor to Vice President Harris and co-host of The Weeknite Weeknite on MSNBC. And Jay Chabria, a partner at MAD Global Strategy and a former advisor to Vice President Vance. Thanks to all of you for being here. Sahal, I have to start with you.
What are you hearing on The Hill in terms of really what's this extraordinary divide inside the MAGA movement? Those who are saying, wait a minute, getting involved in Iran goes against everything that President Trump ran against. And those who, like Senator Lindsey Graham, who say, this is a deciding moment. This is a critical moment in Iran is closer than ever to developing a nuclear weapon.
Extraordinary because the most critical voice within the Republican Party, at least one of them, is Marjorie Taylor Greene. I've never really seen her go up against Trump, but she believes in the anti-war rhetoric that he put out there. There's some prominent outside voices like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, who are trying to nudge the party in that direction. But for the most part, it's wait and see on the Hill.
They're all waiting to see what President Trump is going to do, whether he's playing chess, whether he's playing checkers, and whether he's decided what to do next. Some of them, including Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who I spoke to a few hours ago, said even he doesn't fully know why Israel felt the need to take the step. And he just got out of classified briefing. So there's a lack of information on the Hill, which is why there's mostly silence over there.
That's interesting. Jay, let me put up something President Trump told the Atlantic last week about the term America first, because there's been a lot of focus on that. He said, considering that I'm the one that developed America first, and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that. It's sort of this interesting idea that does he get to redefine what it means in this moment?
You heard him say, I think that my supporters, what they don't want, is a nuclear weapon. Well, look, I think he has a redefined Republican Party, he's redefined the Democratic Party in a lot of ways, too. So I think he does get a lot of grace on terms of what he gets to say is America first. I think this is an interesting thing, too.
We are having a battle inside the Republican Party, and it is very public. It is something that we are allowed to do. It's a feature, not a bug, of the way in which Donald Trump set up this party. He is the leader of the party who's no doubt about that.
But the fact that we're actually allowed to have these disagreements, I think that's a pretty healthy thing. Simone, talk about disagreements. I don't know if you heard my interview with Senator Duckworth, she's very clear. She said that she does not think that President Trump has the authority to make the decision to attack Iran without the sign-off of Congress.
How do you anticipate Democrats will position themselves in this moment so that, yes, they are standing strong against Iran developing a nuclear weapon, but also maintaining that Congress plays a role here. Well, look, this is harkening back to you all today and yesterday. I've heard people take this back to the vote to go into the war the last time. Okay.
The vote of weapons of mass destruction. I remember that. Yeah. I do think that Democratic senators, and they've been on the record, are going to be seen and says this, that Congress, and they're being very clear.
They say Congress, and the only Congress has the authority to authorize war. So any broader military action, they say the president is going to need to go before Congress. I also think, though, you've got folks like Senator Kelly, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who says he gets briefed every single day, and he believes that Iran is close to a nuclear weapon. So I really think here this is going to boil down to how the president decides to communicate this out.
And I was, I was aghast when he posted on his social media site, Leave Tehran Now. I was like, what is going on in Iran? And I'm also shocked that he decided to leave the G7 because this year's G7, what's happening in the Middle East? What's of key concern on the agenda?
And I think one of the best places that the president could have been at this moment was talking with the other world leaders about if he takes these steps, what steps would they take in support of or against? Yeah. That's a bipartisan effort, by the way. It's not just Democrats saying that the president would need authorization from Congress to strike Iran.
There are Republicans like Rand Paul, Tom Massey, but it is a minority of the party. Sure. But we all know that Congress has been seeing this responsibility of the executive branch over years and years and years and years. So it's not a question whether they take it back.
Right. But given that, I mean, how do you see this unfolding? Might this be the moment where they take it back? Because here's the point.
It's about that day after plan. What happens next? We learn that from Iraq. Do you think this moment could be different?
Sahel and Capitol Hill. Would they try to seize that power back? Right. Now I don't see enough support among Republicans to try to take that back.
We asked Senator John Thune, the majority leader at his press conference yesterday, whether President Trump has the authority he needs to continue doing, or to strike Iran at least in a near future. Thune suggested he does. Roger Wicker, who again I mentioned, spoke to Chairman of the Armed Services Committee just a few hours ago, said Trump does not need any new authorities from Congress right now. The question comes down the road.
If he drags the U.S. into something, if the poll numbers start to turn, the public says no, we don't want to get involved in another war because America first really did mean to the big trumps of Trump's base, no more foreign wars. He talked about it like it was easy. He could end the Russia-Ukraine war in a day.
He could end Israel gossip and it would have happened on his watch. I think that is a very key point here. Look, usually these foreign policy issues, they do not trickle down to the voters, right? But there are elections this year in New Jersey and Virginia, and there's midterm elections next year.
And I can tell you, when you were talking about American troops getting involved, people in Virginia, their ears are perking up. Voters across the country. Their ears are perking up on that. Jay, how much does the Republican Party always have in the back of its mind?
What happened in Iraq, and the fact that there was no day after plan, but that it wasn't clear. And that really became one of the big anchors. He has shaped the Republican for the modern day Republican Party. There's no doubt about it.
And I think what Donald Trump is going to do is he will take the size of action if he needs to. But I do not believe this will be an endless war. The American people are not going to cash or write another blank check for war, and there's no tolerance for that. And that's the kind of the fight you're seeing inside of MAGA right now.
What does that actually mean? And I think it's a healthy debate. Let's not forget Trump's big coming out party back in 2015 was when he stood on stage with Jeb Bush and through Jeb Bush and his brother George on the bus to the airport. I was there.
Really critical moment. Simone, look, President Trump came in and he promised he was going to be a different type of deal maker. He did that obviously in his first term. But in this term, because there were so many foreign policy entanglements, to what extent does that loom over these elections?
I mean, can Democrats, does that resonate with voters? Look, I don't think that I still think at the end of the day what is driving, what is going to primarily drive voters to the polls and what they'll be concerned about is affordability. I mean, they're housing, the cost and living, like that will be top of mind for them. But chaos is also a part of the point.
You know, folks don't, people don't like to turn on the television or check their social media feeds and feel like bad things are happening and no one's explaining it to them. So they do want leadership in place, Congress, right of Governor, if you will, who is going to ensure that, hey, we're being measured, we're going to talk to him, tell you what's going on. This thing about Donald Trump is I'll say this. I think that he is overplaying his hand.
I think that he has wildly overplayed his hand. I think that he overplayed his hand on Russia, Ukraine. I think he's overplayed his hand on Israel and Gaza, Bibi Netanyahu who played him and he Netanyahu is getting what he wants. And now, America's on crazy.
Jay, I'll give you the last word. Look, we've seen a part of this movie before. In Trump won. He went out, murdered Soleimani.
And a lot of the same voices said, we're going to go into an endless war against Iran. That did not happen. All right. Well, I know the world is watching.
Thank you all for being here on a really important day. I really appreciate it. Great conversation after the break. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell takes questions from reporters just hours after President Trump who raided him over the Fed's family of the economy.
One of the reporters in the room today joins me next. Same with us watching with the press now. Welcome back. And despite pressure from President Trump to cut interest rates, the Federal Reserve announced this afternoon that it was keeping rates unchanged for a fourth straight minute with the expectation that inflation could worsen in the coming months.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell says he does foresee two rate cuts by the end of the year. Today's announcement came hours after the president lashed out at the Fed Chair once again. Take a look. So we have a stupid person, frankly, at the Fed.
He's a political guy who's not a smart person, but he's costing the country a fortune. I come too late, Powell, because he's always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did this, I was right. 100 percent.
He was wrong. And he's not a smart person. I don't even think he's that political. I think he hates me, but that's okay.
You know, he should. He should. I call him every name of the book trying to get him to do something. I've been nice to him.
I do it always. I don't know how to sell. I've been so nice to him. I do it every way in the book.
I'm nasty. I'm nice. I see. I'm a senior economics reporter.
Steve Leesman is with me on the phone now. Steve, thanks so much for being here on yet another critical day. Any surprises in the Fed's decision today not to raise rates? Well, I think that the Fed is very steadfast that it's concerned about the tariffs that are coming and they're not really giving up an inch on that.
The Fed chair said that they see meaningful increases in prices coming in the next several months, and that they were not impressed by the recent rather benign inflation force we have. They think if you basically triple the tariff rate, you're going to have an increase in prices. And also they downgraded their output of the economy. So he's not budgeting in terms of whatever pressure the president is applying on the Fed chair.
He seems to be having no effect in their outlook. Well, you know, the Fed is warning that inflation could worsen in the coming months. Do you think and our economists know predicting that there will likely be two more rate cuts this year? That seems to be the case.
I mean, it's all very uncertain and the Fed chair said as much. He said, we've never been doing this before. It's never been anything that we have had to forecast before. All parts of the forecast are really up in the air.
What is the impact of the bill in Congress will the bill in Congress pass when will it pass? In addition to the tariff effect, it won't even be the final tariffs. The Fed chair doesn't know that. Nobody really knows that right now.
So trying to gain that out is very difficult. The two rate cuts that are built in are, hey, the Fed right now is restricted. It's restricted by about two rate cuts. And so there's a belief that this inflation from the tariff passes through the system if it does that that can't.
But it's really like putting in a place market because you've got to fill out the test, but you don't really know the answer. You know, it was notable because President Trump said today it was too late to cut interest rates. What exactly do you think he may have meant by that? Well, what he's saying is that the economy was already in a position of meeting rate cuts.
It's kind of an interesting admission on the president's part in the sense that he's saying, hey, the economy is already weakening. But the Fed chair and other economists look at the economy and say, you know what, it doesn't look that weak right now. There is some softening in the labor market. There is some sense that you're going to have a negative impact from Paris, but it's hardly weak in the sense that it needs immediate rate cuts.
And plus you have inflation somewhat elevated. So not only does the Fed chair and apparently the full Fed committee disagree with the president, but the bond market disagrees with the president as do most Wall Street forecasters. They don't see a need for what the president said with the two full percentage points of rate cuts, which is something you might do if it was an imminent recession right now. Steve, it's always so fantastic to have your perspective and your insights and analysis.
We really appreciate it. Thanks so much. My pleasure as always. All right.
And we are back tomorrow with more of the press now, but the news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson right now. Everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the Third Hour of State 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 like how much screw yours up. Search the Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.