Meet the Press NOW — June 19

If it's Thursday, President Trump says he will make a decision about the U.S. getting directly involved in the Israel-Iran conflict within two weeks, giving Tehran time to come to the negotiating table and give up its nuclear program. Plus, the political fallout of the president's immigration agenda, as the White House says workplace raids will continue, and Latino voters who backed President Trump voiced their concerns in the latest edition of our Deciders Focus Group. And former President Obama grabs the spotlight, saying he believes that in this current political climate, the country is dangerously close to accepting autocracy.

Welcome to the press now, I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where the White House has just issued a new timeline for President Trump's decision on possible U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear program, as Israel and Iran plunge deeper into armed conflict. After teasing the possibility of imminent action yesterday, Iran delivered a statement to reporters today through his White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt. Take a listen.

Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks. That's a quote directly from the president for all of you today. Levitt also said, correspondence between the U.S. and Iran has continued even as she insists that the government believes Iran has never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, but sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News that the U.S.

intelligence assessment on Iran's nuclear program has not changed since director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified back in March that Tehran had not made a decision to rush towards building a bomb. The president has publicly clashed with Gabbard over that assessment, and senior administration officials now tell NBC News Gabbard appears to have fallen out of favor with the president. Meanwhile, the fighting on the ground continues to escalate with Israel targeting an Iranian nuclear reactor overnight, and Iran striking near a hospital complex in southern Israel early this morning. NBC News has confirmed that hospital is within a mile of an Israeli military intelligence compound that was operational as recently as last month.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to reporters while surveying the hospital damage, calling the government in Iran a criminal regime while praising the action the U.S. has already taken to defend Israel. President Trump will do what's best for America. I trust his judgment.

He's a tremendous friend. A tremendous world leader, a tremendous friend of Israel and the Jewish people, and we will do what we have to do. And we are doing it. We are committed to destroying the nuclear threat, the threat of a nuclear annihilation against Israel.

NBC News International correspondent Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv and filed this report. You know, it looked as though we had a days-long reprieve from the Iranians here in Tel Aviv, but this morning shattered all of that. There was another direct impact on the hospital this time in the southern part of the country in the city of Bathsheba. This injured about 2,000 people, perhaps more, but none of them were particularly serious.

There were no additional deaths. There haven't been any deaths from Iranian bombardment in the past nearly 72 hours. So in many ways, this country has turned the corner, but the fact is that we're seeing impacts still from Iranian ballistic missiles. We heard from the IDF this morning, an official there said that they had put out about two-thirds of Iran's ballistic missile launchers, but he said there are still a lot of missiles that Iran has yet to fire.

So that is a very troubling situation as we reach one week into this tiff or tat offensive. The Iranian attacks were prisels for the unprecedented attacks that Israel fired at Iran starting last Friday morning. The Israelis have said that their objective is to totally disable Iran's nuclear program. And to that effect, they hit another, this time a reactor today that had been decommissioned before.

The Israelis said that this reactor they understand is going to be used to try to refine plutonium, which so far hasn't been a major ingredient in Iran's nuclear program, still clearly. The Israelis trying to destroy this nuclear program, but the shift, the focus, seems to be shifting a little bit towards that other goal that has remained somewhat mysterious, very prominent in the background. The idea of regime change after that hospital was struck, we heard from Israel cast the defense minister saying that the Ayatollah, who leads Iran, should no longer be allowed to exist. Thanks to that report.

Joining me now, is NBC News White House correspondent Von Hilliard and NBC News senior national security correspondent, Courtney QB, is with me on set. Von, let me start with you at the White House. Talk about the key takeaways after we learned from White House press secretary Caroline Levitt that the president is now giving himself this two-week timeline in order to make a potential decision about Iran. Right.

There's two fronts to this. Number one, Kristin. It was on Wednesday night, or on Monday night that the president returned to the United States, leaving the G7 summit early, and in a social media post directing individuals into Iran, to quote, evacuate the stakes of what would amount to staggering consequences of potential American airstrikes on Iran are vast. The president here in just the last 24 hours suggested that he could hit Iran at any minute, and that he will make the decision at due time, and that nobody knows what he's going to do, except for him when he ultimately decides to do it, if in fact he decides to use U.S.

forces to strike. Now, this timeline, within two weeks, that the press secretary at the White House just this afternoon provided, I think, one, deserves some context. We have seen from the president over the last decade of his time in politics and office and as a candidate, the products of two-week timelines on domestic agenda items, but also it was just three weeks ago that he promised that there would be consequences in the scenario that Russia did not agree to a certain extent, seize fire or peace deal negotiations. Last Wednesday, that deadline, that two-week deadline, it came and it went with no apparent consequences for Russia here.

So while at the same time, we are waiting for the president to potentially make very imminent decisions on this front, at the same time, the White House press secretary clearly seemingly opening up the door to potentially Iran coming back to the negotiating table to avoid the U.S. becoming more involved in this conflict than they already are. She certainly did. It was so notable today, Vaughn, that we saw Steve Bannon, of course, who served in the first Trump administration, he has remained one of President Trump's closest outside advisers entering the White House.

It's our understanding. He was there having lunch with President Trump. It was a previously scheduled visit that had to be rescheduled, and it just so happened to fall on today. But significant because he's been one of the most outspoken people urging the president not to join in the Israeli offensive against Iran arguing that it will ensnare the United States in a foreign conflict, and then it goes against the America first foreign policy vision, right?

Right. So I'm looking at the President of the President's president from the president's front in organizing this anti-interventionist position. Obviously, referencing the President of a President of the President's own opposition to the Iraq War 20 years ago. And noting that if you go back to the Republican National Convention, last year, Tucker Carlson was given a prime time speaking slot.

Steve Bannon helped drive and mobilize the turnout that helped the President win this election here. And largely, the argument is that there was a great need to be able to turn to the president because of a commitment to not engage the U.S. and further Middle East conflicts. the outspoken ones over the past month.

Steve Whitcock was one of those. He was seen at the White House today as well, but he has largely gone silent as several of his negotiations from Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, but also now on the run nuclear negotiations have seemingly stalled. And you see here the voices of people like Steve Banner and Tucker Carlson trying to, before the president interferes or further accelerates potential conflict with Iran and who is already committed to trying to attempt to strike us military installations in the center of the US becomes more involved. You're seeing some of these folks from allies begin to try to interfere or push them in a different direction than others within the White House maybe urging him to do.

All right, fun. Thank you so much for that great reporting. Courtney, let me turn to you. You heard Ron mentioned the Iraq war when you think about the Iraq war.

You have to think about the intelligence because that was so much in focus and then was ultimately disputed that the intelligence was just wrong. So the question I think becomes now when we think about whether President Trump is going to green light a US military action in Iran. What is the latest intelligence around how close Iran may or may not be developing a nuclear weapon? Yeah.

And as far as we know, there has been no change in the intelligence, the US intelligence about that. That's why this has been so confusing this week is exactly whether there has been some new intelligence that's classified that the American people and frankly senior members of Congress and senior members of the intelligence community have not shared and including with someone like Senator Mark Warner, we heard from him and when he was asked specifically about whether Iran has advanced their nuclear program and that may be some justification for the session. Here's what he had to say. Again, he's the ranking member on the intelligence committee.

So far at least the intelligence community has stood by its conclusion that Iran is not moving towards a nuclear weapon. They were enriching additional uranium, but they were not weaponizing that yet and that decision was left with the Supreme Leader. If there's been any change in the intelligence, I need to know and I want to make sure that if it is changed, it's based on fact and not political influence. So that gets back to sort of the echoes of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the notion that was the intelligence actually cooked.

And as far as how much of an impact this has even had on the impact that the program in Iran, these really have taken out quite a bit, but they have definitely not decimated the program. Even when they're taking out scientists and leaders, what's fascinating though, and it's not getting a ton of attention is they have really taken out a lot of their conventional capability and that may be one reason that the US and particular president Trump is considering this action now. And let me follow up with you on that because it's the thinking that the United States with its B-52 bomber is uniquely suited to finish the job. Yes, or at least have some sort of a very pivotal point in it, right?

To take some sort of a strike that maybe is a turning point in this conflict. So the bombers, as you said, they are the only ones that we're aware of in the world that can carry these very heavy bombs. And you know, we've been talking about these 30,000 pound bombs. It's not just the weight, but they actually only carry about five or six thousand pounds of explosives.

They're surrounded though by this very heavy, very strong alloy that allows them to penetrate deep into the Earth between 200 and 300 feet. It's the only bomb like it on Earth. The US is the only one who has it and the only one as far as we know who can actually employ it. Well, your extensive and incredible knowledge of how these things work really shines a light.

I think on what this debate is about, Courtney could be. Thank you so much for being here in person. We really appreciate it. I now want to bring in retired Lieutenant General Staff, 20 former Deputy Commander of US European Command and an NBC News military analyst.

Thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it. Good to be with you again. So let's just pick up on where I left off with Courtney, the debate over why the US might get involved.

Secretary Hagg Seth was on Capitol Hill yesterday. He said that the Pentagon has presented the president with multiple military options. What do you anticipate those options might look like? Yeah.

So first of all, let me just say that we should exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we introduce military instrument of power into this conflict. If we do so, what I anticipate is we'll focus only on Fordot going after the deeply buried nuclear products that are about 300 feet underground. I cannot see us getting involved in any regime change or anything other than that. So I think it would be a quick strike using our B2 bombers.

Everyone's been talking about this 30,000 pound bomb. That's the bomb that will be used to be able to penetrate. And if not hit and destroy the nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons capability, it would at least close entry and exit points to prevent ever using the product. So that's the way I see things here.

Let me follow up with you there in reading and watching military analysts. One of the question that looms over all of this is if the United States wanted to destroy Iran's entire nuclear program, would special forces be needed? Would US booths need to be on the ground at some point or Israeli forces? Can you speak to that?

What might the debate be surrounding actually finishing the job and taking out Iran's entire nuclear program? I don't think military boots on the ground is required in this case. We have pretty good intelligence about Fordot nuclear facility. As you know, it's deeply buried in the mountains pretty fortified.

It's a former IGRC base. Back in the day, we collected a lot of intelligence on it and that intelligence has continued. We work with the Israelis to focus on intelligence over the years as well as our own intelligence. So we have pretty good intelligence on it.

And so I think that it will be an air strikes. There may be cruise missiles in support of that air strike, but that air strike would be the B-2. That B-2 would have to also have protection. So you would see some fighter jets and that probably some refueling capabilities and some AWACS capabilities to support communications.

But for the most part, quick strike, do a battlefield assessment to ensure that we have everything in terms of the destruction or, as I said earlier, close the entryway, close the exit ways. But I'm looking at quick strike, maybe restrike, maybe another restrike, but it would be an air effort, maybe some navy efforts from the Mediterranean and get out. Lieutenant-General told you very quickly with the last 30 seconds we have left here. What do you make of the announcement that President Trump is giving us a two-week deadline?

I like the announcement. And the reason I like the announcement, we don't want the military instrument of power to lead here. Let's get the diplomatic effort going. Let's see whether Iran will come to the senses and come to the table.

And then, if not, then obviously the president has options. But let's get the diplomatic effort in front of the military effort. All right, Lieutenant-General Steph, we always appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much for being here today.

Really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Coming up, the politics of war will dive into the domestic fallout of potential US military intervention in the Middle East. As lawmakers and some Trump supporters warn of what comes next, plus new insights from the very latest edition of our deciders' focus group is Latino voters who backed the president speak out about his deportation agenda, his handling of the economy, and much, much more.

Stay with us. You're watching me at the press now. Welcome back. Latino voters played a big role in helping Donald Trump win back the White House.

According to our NBC News exit poll in 2020, Biden won Latinos by a two-to-one margin with President Trump winning just 32 percent of the Latino vote. But in 2024, President Trump improved his share of the Latino vote by 14 points, and that surge in support was critical to his win. This week, we got to hear from some of those Latino-Trump voters in the latest installment of our deciders' focus group held by Engacious Sego and Syracuse University. And while this key group of voters is still largely backing the president, we did hear some division on the president's mass deportation agenda.

Look. So why do you approve overall of the president's handling of illegal immigration? Those of you who approve of it? Dr.

Why do you approve of it? I approve of it because we had a, for the last four years, we've had millions and millions of people that across the border legally. We've had people that appear on the FBI wanted lists that across the border. God ways have gone crazy.

So you have to do something in order to do something, and he's only got four years to do it. You've got to remember that. He's got to take big steps, and that's what he's doing. Other reasons why you approve?

Justin, you've been critical with him on a lot of things. Why do you approve overall of the handling of the legal immigration? It all goes back to the point of that you're here illegally. It goes back to the conversation I haven't heard of other people.

If you do something illegal, expect it to catch up with you. You can only run for so long, right? So on a grand enough scale, other countries do this type of stuff. They're not so nice about it and throw you in a little sink.

So Roslyn, you're supportive of the president's immigration policies. Yes, I'm trying to get a very hard question to answer. Because like they said, they came here illegally, and I don't want people to come here illegally. But if they've been here for 30 years, my heart goes out to them that they've established a life here.

If they came in the last year, that's not a very long time to say, oh, I haven't committed a crime in a year since the crime I committed coming to the country. The president Trump is deporting people who have been here a while, who haven't committed a crime and new crimes since they arrived. How do you feel when he does that? I think they should all be deported.

Okay, just tell me you're torn. Yeah, I'm kind of in the middle of that. But it's just like, some people say 10 years, some people say 20 years or whatever. But I don't know.

So I'm just kind of, I think they shouldn't just all be deported in the ones that were working here paying taxes and whatever. They might be able to get at the top of the list to come back if they haven't broken the law. So fascinating to hear that joining me now on set is Margaret Tyler, director of the Syracuse University Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship, and NBC News, of course, on a truly circuit. Thanks to both of you for being here.

Margaret, I always love these discussions that we have. They're just so fascinating and revealing what were your takeaways from hearing from those voters who were critical to President Trump's win? You know, Chris, I think there's two ways you could read the results and the conversation that we just all watched together. And one way is to say, well, President Trump has gone so far in the way they've proceeded with these deportations that it's starting to shake support among his faithful.

But the other way to watch the same conversations that we just saw is to say, there are voters who hate this, who hate to see people who have been here for 30 years, become prioritized just to hit a numbers quota. And yet, when pressed, they are still behind President Trump. This is not a group of totally on the fence swing voters. These are not Democrats who voted for Donald Trump.

These are independents and Republicans who are, you know, they lean conservative and they are animated, almost all of them, by their strong belief that illegal immigrants should not be able to come into this country and should not be able to stay. Yes, those details make them very uncomfortable when pressed, almost all of them say they still stand with the president. It's fascinating to hear that. You can hear how animated they are, Julie.

And of course, this comes as we have the midterms looming. These are the voters who were critical to President Trump's victory in 2024. They're going to be critical if Republicans are going to hold on to the House in 2026. How do you think Republican members of Congress are hearing that same conversation?

I think they are panicking. You started to see some of the private panic play out publicly, Senator Tom Tillism on the floor, for example, yesterday and was speaking out about the Afghan interpreter who was detained by ICE in California, and that was notable. But when you're talking about House Republicans, six Hispanic Latino members of the Republican conference in the House wrote a letter to the ICE director asking him, asking the acting director to prioritize criminals to not go after the people that you were talking about in these focus groups with. And just anecdotally, Kristen, I just got off the campaign trail where I covered the New Jersey governor's race last week.

And what I heard from Latino voters, two women in particular who support President Trump, who support the Republican nominee for governor New Jersey, who were recent immigrants. I think that's key. And you saw that distinction in your focus group as well, who said to me, we support what he's doing, but we don't support separating families, tearing people off the streets who have been paying their taxes. It's just fascinating to see a person.

Absolutely. And of course, New Jersey in focus, not just for its gubernatorial election, but because President Trump made so many gains in that traditionally blue state, I want to talk a little bit about the reaction to what we've been seeing in Los Angeles. It really kind of became ground zero for the debate over President Trump's deportation policies when he dispatched the National Guard and the Marines to deal with those anti ice protesters. The focus group was asked about that.

Let's look. So, President Trump has activated 4,000 National Guardsmen and sent 700 Marines to Los Angeles by a show of fingers. Who approves of these specific steps? Four of you did.

Okay. I think that normally it might be kind of out of the ordinary, being that it was so early into the demonstrations, but I think given the BLM riots and everything our country went through a few years ago, and it being in California, where New Zealand will pretty much not put its foot down at all, I think that he had to get ahead of it. Otherwise, we would be seeing even more of it. So, that's why I approve it, because it really does get out of hand.

The National Guard will be there hopefully to keep it under control. A couple of you said you don't approve. Tell me why. Mine is more like a personal experience.

I think for the Venezuelan protests, the government did that and sent tanks and we got real violent real soon against the people. So, I get scared. It's like more of a PTSD thing, but I understand what Russell is saying based on the history with the help back the BLM protest guy. It's probably reasonable, but still tell it for me.

Margaret, what do you think of that set of responses? There's something more there, and it is that for most of the people who are generally okay with it, even if they don't love it necessarily, it doesn't have the same proximity to them. They don't feel like it's about them, and they also don't feel like it is about civil rights or the amount rights of Americans to protest. They feel that it is about illegal immigration, which is an issue that they deeply care about.

And we've actually seen this now in a number of slightly different focus groups. It's interesting that these are Hispanic voters, so you're like, how would Hispanic voters feel about it? But as we all know, third generation Hispanic voters are just American voters. There's happened to be Hispanic for the woman who said, I'm triggered by this.

It's because it is a civil liberties issue for her, but for the other people, they generally align with Trump, not Gavin Newsom. They're not Californians, and they see this as a matter of doing what you have to do to block illegal immigration, not as a matter of are their own civil liberties going to be impinged on increasingly by administration, just testing the limits of executive power. Yeah, actually, most of that group sided with Trump in that debate, but it was fascinating to hear the one focused reporter who said, I have PTSD because I went through, I lived through this in Venezuela. This is personal for her.

And it goes back to what we were talking about, the division between people who recently immigrated here who may have gone through those things and those in the focus group who were first generation Americans were born here. And I think on the Hill, what's so fascinating here is, you're seeing a lot of that reflected on Republicans, right? The people who feel this way in the focus groups, it's hard to find a Republican who doesn't agree with administration strategy in sending the guard there. That's why they're expanding these raids in blue cities across the country.

But I do think it's a fascinating discussion and certainly one that people on the Hill will continue having. It's just revealing. Thank you so much for bringing us this really fascinating conversation as we continue to have this debate nationally. Yes, really interesting economic threats too.

If you have time to watch it, just endless source of insight into how even his closest supporters are having some mixed feelings about the administration. Well, and of course, the economy is still the top issue for voters, ladies. Thank you. Thanks, Margaret, and Julie.

Great conversation coming up next. President Trump extends a potential ban on TikTok again, circumventing the law passed by Congress without a clear legal basis for doing so. We'll have the very latest and delved into it. You're watching the Press Now Stay With Us.

Welcome back today. President Trump signed an executive order giving TikTok more time on the clock, once again declining to enforce a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Now, the law says that the popular Chinese-owned video sharing must be sold to an American owner or be banned in the U.S. due to national security concerns.

White House Press Secretary Caroline Lovett addressed the president's executive order earlier today. The president made a promise to keep TikTok on. There are 100 million Americans who use this app. It's widely popular.

He also wants to protect Americans' data and privacy concerns on this app. And he believes we can do both things at the same time. So he's making an extension so we can get this deal done. And today, marks the third time the president has unilaterally given TikTok an extension on the deadline.

According to the executive order, TikTok's parent company ByteDance now has three more months to comply with the law. Joining me now is NBC News now, anchor Savannah Sellers, who's all over this story. Savannah, thanks so much for joining me. So walk us through this latest move by the president.

Is there any legal basis for this extension? I, Kristen, thanks so much for having a great to see you. So you just laid out exactly what is the big issue here, right? This was a law.

It was signed into law by President Biden after it passed through Congress. And an act of Congress cannot be undone technically by an executive order. So that technically is still the law. However, crucially, in this new executive order from President Trump, he said, the Justice Department will not enforce this law right now.

That is the crux of this whole thing is essentially that he is telling his Justice Department, his attorney general, do not go after any of these companies that support TikTok. If you remember, if we were one six months ago, we were talking a lot about this in January, this sort of punishment laid out in the law here, it actually goes after the service providers, the companies that get TikTok online, make it available when you click on the app on your phone. Those are the companies that would be fined, potentially billions of dollars for continuing to provide those services to TikTok. But President Trump is telling his attorney general, don't do that.

Now, could we see state attorneys general try to take up some type of challenge here, potentially? But it has yet to happen in the six months since it's been law, Kristen. So how is ByteDance responding to all of this, of course, the company, the parent company of TikTok? Kristen, much like they did back in January when they came back online after that brief shutdown, thanking President Trump, explicitly saying, thank you, President Trump, for this extension.

Also notably, saying that they will continue to work with Vice President Vance's office. So President Trump had tasked his Vice President, the court of figuring this out, figuring out what a sale is going to look like, who might be the best suitor? And then crucially, having the discussions with China, figuring out exactly what China will allow. Now, it gets even more complicated, Kristen, because then this got wrapped up in the tariffs of it all while we have this ongoing negotiation going on between the White House and China over Paris.

This was lumped in explicitly. So by Chinese President Xi Jinping saying, hey, we're not doing anything about TikTok until we figure out tariffs. Obviously, that is still an open question. Therefore, we still have this open question around TikTok.

Just a couple of days ago on Wednesday on Air Force One, now President Trump did say that he believed that President Xi Jinping would be amenable to this TikTok sale, but this is headquartered out of Beijing. And therefore, it most likely will have to have them approve it and sort of export, allow us to be exported on that algorithm to continue working, Kristen. Well, I know you will continue to watch all of the twists and turns of anti-sellers. Thank you so much for your great reporting.

As always, great to see you. Across the country today, Americans are celebrating Juneteenth with parties, parades, and concerts as the nation commemorates the end of slavery. While the day has been recognized by many in the Black community for generations, it's just the fourth year since it became a federal holiday. And it's the first Juneteenth since the Trump administration began its aggressive push to end diversity initiatives.

I mean, since Aaron Gilchrist has more. It's a celebration of freedom and family. Let's love one another. Black communities across the nation, observing Juneteenth today, some already marking the celebration this past week with parades and lots of food and music.

It's still come out here to be in the essence of the culture and stuff. It's just phenomenal. To be communal, to celebrate the day, it's like we celebrate 4th of July, Juneteenth is the same thing as day. On June 19th, 1865, in the waning days of the Civil War, the last enslaved people learned about their freedom when union soldiers reached Galveston, Texas, announcing the Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln had signed two and a half years before.

In 2021, then President Biden made Juneteenth a federal holiday with Opal Lee by his side. The now 98-year-old activist spent decades working to make Juneteenth a national observance. It is a community and a family type of holiday. Harvard professor Annette Gordon-Reed wrote the book on Juneteenth.

I encourage people to celebrate the holiday. To use it as a day for young people, to think about their family history and maybe interview older members of their family and sort of keep that the chain together. With major American companies following the Trump administration's lead and rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, some Juneteenth events this year had to press on without big backers. But this is a holiday that we can celebrate on our own.

And we should continue whether we're sponsored or not. The organizer of Atlanta's Juneteenth Parade and music festival says that hurdle is not a roadblock. This event stands on freedom. Freedom for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Thanks to Aaron Grilkris for that fantastic package. After the break, President Trump's executive order barring transgender individuals from military service has gone into effect. We'll have a look at the new reality. Trans service members are facing.

That's next. We'll watch you meet the press now. Welcome back to Supreme Court issue one of its most highly anticipated decisions this week. Rolling along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee state law that bans transgender transition care for minors.

It comes as the Trump administration moves to curb transgender rights. During his first week in office, President Trump signed an executive order effectively banning transgender service members from serving the military. Last month, the Supreme Court allowed that policy to go into effect. NBC's Jay Valier spoke with some transgender service members as they figure out what comes next.

These military service members are preparing to start over. Check it out a bit. The new headshots, just the first step for the career military members now uncertain about where they'll work next. When they'll see a paycheck, how long they'll have health care, even where they'll live.

Now turn your left to bring your left and right there. Yeah, there we go. It's a snapshot of the new reality for transgender service members. After a Trump administration policy kicked in this month, effectively prohibiting transgender people from military service, forcing many to leave the life they love.

I still want to serve. I still want to serve people. I still want to serve this country. The deadline just passed for active trans service members to identify themselves under orders from the Department of Defense, a move that leads to their separation or early retirement of the 2.1 million members.

The Defense Department says transgender people make up just over 4,000 about 1000 steps forward before the deadline. Those who did not now face a waiting game of being discovered via departmental medical records and put on leave. I am currently a captain in the US Army. Ryan Dunderman served in the Army for nearly eight years before she voluntarily identified now waiting for official separation.

I was on the cusp of being able to serve as she began her transition a year ago. Her gender affirming care paid for by the army. Now she's out of uniform with just two weeks of medication left and scheduled doctor's appointments all canceled by the military. Things that we were hoping to have that just a year ago the government was guaranteeing to us are now gone.

I'm not prepared to walk away from this. I don't have very much time to play in. Master Sergeant Nick Wright with the Army National Guard is just a few months shy of 18 years of service and says he won't get the benefits he's earned. I've given up 18 years of my life list.

You know, am I entitled to it? I mean, yeah, I should be, but it's more than that. It's bigger than that. For those who don't qualify for early retirement, the difference in their payout for voluntary versus involuntary separation, half expressing a false gender identity divergent from an individual sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.

We have hit the criteria. We have surpassed a lot of the standards. We are just as deployable, just as dedicated, just as willing to sacrifice our lives as every other person who puts on that uniform. The Department of Defense did not respond to direct questions about soldiers benefits after service.

It did say that this is not a ban, rather a policy against those with gender dysphoria. The medical term for when someone feels their gender identity doesn't match their sex at birth and the Department fully intends to treat everyone impacted by the policy with dignity and respect. We will get transgender ideology. The hell out of our military is going to be gone.

No more dudes in dresses. We're done with that. What is your response today? The true response is we are going to keep serving this country, whether it's in uniform or out of it.

Incredibly revealing and informative report by NBC News out reporter Jay Valle, who joins us now. Jay, thank you so much for that report and for joining us. So let's talk about the fact that the Department of Defense is urging transgender service members to sign a waiver if they want to stay in the military under this new policy. Can you walk us through that process?

Is it realistic? You know, when we talk about this waiver in itself, it's on a case-by-case basis, and there would need to be a compelling government interest in retaining that person, and Chris and I would have walked through some of those requirements themselves. There needs to be 36 consecutive months of stability in the service members' sex assigned at birth, and they would need to demonstrate that they have no prior transition attempts, and finally, they would need to adhere to sex-based standards in the military. In reality, anyone who is transgender will never meet these requirements.

And we're also, of course, told that there was a June 6 deadline for service members to come forward and identify themselves as transgender. So, is the Pentagon seeing an increase in retirements? What is the state of play right now? Yeah, we're going to see a lot of change.

I mean, really, when we asked the Department of Defense for an updated number since June 6, there have not been any new data to present there. But with the July 7 deadline coming up for members in the reserve, we can expect the number of trans service members in the military who are separated to grow. All right, Jay-Vaya, thank you so much for that report. We really appreciate it.

And still, the comments, tensions continue in the Middle East, tensions rise on Capitol Hill and inside the President's base over how the U.S. should respond. The panel joins us next to break it all down. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are grappling with what would happen next if President Trump chooses to strike Iran's nuclear program or intervene militarily. Here's Illinois Democratic Senator in combat veteran Tammy Duckworth, one with us yesterday on that very question. 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? I don't want this to end up with American troops on the ground in the Middle East and Iran for 10, 20 years that we ended up in Iraq. That is not what this country needs. That's certainly not what anybody voted for.

Joining me now on set is Tia Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief of the Atlanta Journal of Constitution, former Maryland Democratic Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She is also an NBC News political analyst and Republican strategist Rick Tyler. Thanks to all of you for being here. Tia, I have to start with you.

The big news of the day Caroline Levitt came out. She said President Trump is delaying his decision for two weeks. What do you make of that? We've heard him give this two week deadline before.

It's not coming in a vacuum, but here he is buying himself some more time for the diplomacy to play out. Yeah, I think Trump is hearing from a lot of different pockets of his base. And yes, there are some people who are saying it's time. Go ahead.

Give Israel what Israel says it needs, but there are a lot of Madam Republicans who are telling Trump we do not want us to increase its involvement whatsoever. You know, we saw Steve Bannon was at the White House today. We don't know exactly what happened, but we know Steve Bannon is among those Trump Republicans who are saying at all costs, let's avoid escalating. And it sounds like if nothing else Trump is saying, let's try to let it play out and avoid me having to make the decision to get involved or feeling like I have to make the decision to get involved.

Well, it goes against his America first forum policy, Rick. There's no doubt about that. This is what Republican Senator Tim Sheehy from Montana told Semaphore, quote, Wars are messy. They're long, they're unclear, rarely will one single action spell the end of a conflict.

Us taking out the nuclear capability, I don't think it's the end game. What do you make of where we are? And to Tia's point, it kind of goes against President Trump's gut. Well, it's interesting, politically, I would just splitting the megabase because there is a President Trump was partially elected, I think, on the fact that he said he doesn't want to get into these endless wars.

And these wars are not popular, they weren't popular with Democrats either. But the fact remains that Iran has been enriching Iranian at 60%. So people understand that, civilian use is two to 5%. That's for nuclear reactors and other applications.

60% is 90% of the way to weapons grade, which is 90%, which is 90%. And no country has ever enriched uranium to 60% who didn't go on to build a nuclear weapon. So this idea that the Democrats are running around saying they're not building weapons, they have no intention to build, it's nonsense. They are building weapons.

So we have to decide, and Israel is right, Israel was attacked by an Iranian proxy, Hamas, Hezbollah, and we have been attacked by the Houthis. And so we have to decide, are we going to tolerate this? Are we going to put it into it? And it seems to me, the grown-ups in the room, nobody wants to go to war with Iran, nobody.

But the grown-ups in the room are saying, now is the time to put an end to Iran's nuclear intentions. Donna, what about that argument? And you're hearing the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham argue now is the time they're closer than ever. Prime Minister Netanyahu making that argument, although we should note, and I'll play this before I get your response, that Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, said that they weren't any closer.

Let me play a little bit of what she had to say back in March. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamani has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. Donna, what do you make of where we are right now is we wait to see what President Trump decides?

Well, clearly, there's a divide in the administration and outside the Republican Party. I mean, you have Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI, saying exactly the opposite of what the President and some of the administration are saying. So I think we need to get the facts straight first. But I think that there is not a stomach for war.

Everybody recognizes that, even if you strike the nuclear facilities in Iran, that there's a potential for a wider, both regional and potentially worldwide war, and nobody wants that. So, I mean, the President is given a two-week window, a two-week window for what is going to be the difference today from two weeks from now. And I think there's a great divide, especially in the Republican Party, about whether to proceed on this. Tia, there certainly is a great divide of one of the big questions at the center.

This is the intelligence. You heard what Tulsi Gabbard said, Senator Mark Warner of the Intelligence, but he said he hasn't seen a change in the intelligence. And you have Democrats and some Republicans saying that actually Congress needs to sign off on any military action. How do you see this playing out on Capitol Hill?

Yeah, I think there's nothing else. Yes, there are actually competing resolutions pending in the US House. One says, you know, let's do a war power resolution and say you have to go through Congress if you want to get involved in Iran. Another one says, let's give a resolution saying we fully support Israel and we're going to do what it takes to continue to support Israel.

But I think if nothing else, members of Congress are going to say, we need the Trump administration to come see us. Let's get down. Let's get some briefings. Let's get some intelligence.

Let's get on one page about what we actually think is going on. Rick, very quickly, how much does the Iraq War loom large over all of this? That statement by former President George W. Bush mission accomplished, and then some 10 years later, thousands of American lives later we got out.

I mean, it was tragic to our foreign policy and our piece through strength, which has worked since Reagan, that there were a lot of mistakes made. I mean, the regime changed with one thing. It started, I think, with Colin Powell, unfortunately, of saying that there were nuclear weapons in or they were in Iraq that turned out not to be true. I don't think Colin Powell believed that.

But I mean, I think he believed that they were there. But he got bad intelligence, and we should have done the job and left. We don't, this idea of nation building, it doesn't, it just doesn't work. Donna Edwards, we heard from former President Obama for the first time and quite some time, speaking at the Connecticut Forum, I'm going to play a little bit from him, get your reaction on the other side, take a look.

Democracy is not self-executing. It requires people, judges, and people in the Justice Department and people throughout the government who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When that isn't happening, we start drifting into something that is not consistent with American democracy. It is consistent with autocracies.

Now, Donna, he also added that the US is not yet there completely. But what do you make of what former President Obama had to say in the moment in which he's choosing to speak out? Look, I think that there have been plenty of voices acknowledging that we seem to be on this pathway that looks toward autocracy. There are a lot of things that we can do to intervene.

I think it's been important for President Obama to come out with a clear voice in that direction as well. I mean, one of the challenges, especially among Democrats, is there's nobody to really speak for democracy and for the party, and President Obama has to build that gap. And I think here, he's speaking toward what we could become, but he clearly was saying that there are things that we can do to intervene. Rick, before President Obama had this political coalition, so when he speaks, people do listen.

How do you think Republicans are hearing these remarks? How do you think they're being received as we get a little closer to the terms? You know, it's just that I think it's sort of fosters the fight. I remember the days when President former presidents didn't criticize current presidents that those days seem to be gone.

That's a shame. He has a right to speak out and say whatever he wants. I don't think we're there yet either. But it would be nice to have some decency into quorum occasionally.

Tia, what do you make of how Obama picks and chooses his moments to come out? Because you have a lot of Democrats who are saying we want to hear more from him, but as Rick is saying, the mere fact of speaking out, particularly since this foreign policy crisis could be seen as a tradition. I think Obama would probably prefer to be like most former presidents, but he's constantly being asked. I think it shows that the Democratic Party is searching for leaders, and he's being asked to fill in the void.

But also, there is a risk there because we know at the end of the day, when he does speak out, there are people who want to hear from him, but there are plenty of Americans on the other side who that just reinforces kind of some of their negative thoughts. All right, guys, great conversation. Tia Mitchell on Edwards, Rick, Tyler. Appreciate it.

Thanks for being here. We are back tomorrow with More Me The Press Now, but the news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson right now. You have a reason to care. You know someone.

You've lost someone. You've lived it. The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge.

From May 25th to 29th, Canadians are waking up with a sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need, the moment they need it. Get up with the sun. Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca.

That's sunrisechallenge.ca.