Meet the Press NOW — June 20

Welcome to MEET THE press. Now I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington where we are following some breaking news. The president just moments ago spoke to reporters as he weighs potential military strikes on Iran's nuclear program. Coming as my colleague Andrea Mitchell just sat down with Iran's foreign minister for an exclusive interview.

We have a lot to get to, so let's dive right in. With the president answering questions from reporters, including NBC's Vaughn Hilliard, about potential U.S. military involvement in the Israel, Iran conflict. Take a listen to some of that exchange.

The Iranian Foreign Mr. President, the Iranian foreign minister this afternoon said if the US Is serious about negotiations that you would call up Israel and request that they stop their airstrikes. Will you make that request? Well, I think it's very hard to make that request right now.

If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing. But we're ready, willing and able and we've been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens. Broadcast behind two weeks, just a time to see whether or not people come to their senses. No, they didn't help.

Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this. 20 years ago, you were skeptical of a Republican administration that attacked the Middle east country on the idea of questionable intelligence of weapons of mass destruction.

How is this moment different with Iran? Well, there were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre nuclear.

You know, it was, it was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today. And it looked like I'm right about the material that they gathered already. It's a tremendous amount of material. And I think within a matter of weeks or certainly within a matter of months, they're going to be able to have a nuclear weapon.

We can't let that happen. I was very much opposed to Iraq. I was. I said it loud and clear.

But I wasn't civilian. But I guess I got a lot of. But I was very much opposed to the Iraq war. And I actually did say, don't go in, don't go in, don't go in.

But I said, if you're going to go in, keep the oil. But they didn't do that. What intelligence you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they have no evidence that they are at this point.

Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that? Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. She's wrong.

Hearing Reports of serious planes landing in Iraq and China, I don't know. They say that they're there to take people out, but I can't tell you about that. I get along very well with China, get along very well with President Xi. I like him, he likes me.

We have a very good relationship. We'll see what happens. I can't imagine them getting a decision that you need to make on Iran, whether to strike militarily. Is this the biggest decision you'll have to make as president?

Well, I can't tell you that. I have to see what happens. I can't say that it depends what the decision is, but I wouldn't really be able to tell you that now. I'll tell you about a year from now, maybe five years or ten years from now.

I might, depending on the. Would you. Very hard to stop. I will say this.

It's very hard to stop. When you look at it, Israel's doing well in terms of war and I think you say that Iran is doing less. Well, it's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop. Would you support Iran being able to have nuclear or would you support Iran being able to have civilian nuclear energy capabilities up to 3.76%?

You know, they're sitting on top of one of the largest piles of oil in the world. I just don't know why they need that for civilian work. You know, it's one thing for certain countries to say, hey, I want to have a certain amount where I can go nuclear a little bit because we need it for electricity, we need it for air conditioners, et. But when you're sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world, it's a little bit hard to see why you need that military action.

We're always concerned about that and we have to take them out of me very strong. You're even in danger talking to me right now. Do you know that? You are in danger talking to me right now.

So I should probably get out of here. But you guys are actually in danger. Can you believe it? More weeks or could you strike before that?

Are you giving them a two week timeline, giving them a period of time? We'll see what that period of time is, but I'm giving them a period of time and I would say two weeks would be the maximum pack there. But before we do, Tehran is publicly rejecting talks with the United States. But Iran's foreign minister did, however, meet today with his British, French, German and EU counterparts in Geneva.

According to a joint statement from the European leaders, Iran expressed its willingness to continue discussions about its nuclear program and broader issues. And as I mentioned, my colleague Andrew Mitchell sat down with the Iranian foreign minister following those talks today for an exclusive interview and asked about the two week timeline that President Trump laid out yesterday. Take a listen. You know the United States, I mean to show their determination for going for negotiate a solution or they have something else in their mind and they want to attack Iran anyway if they want diplomacy.

We were in the middle of diplomacy when Israel attacked us. We engaged with them and we had five rounds of negotiations by the US Was in fact a cover for what Israelis did. So they had perhaps this can in their mind and just they just need a negotiation perhaps to cover it up. We don't know how we can trust them anymore.

What they did was in fact a betrayal to diplomacy. Are you prepared to negotiate directly with the United States and they're not prepared to negotiate them anymore? You can catch more of Andrea Mitchell's exclusive interview with the Orion Foreign Minister tonight on NBC Nightly News. Joining me now to talk more about this are team of reporters, NBC News senior White House correspondent Gary Hake and of course NBC News chief Washington and foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

She is in Geneva right now fresh off her interview with Iran. Iranian foreign Minister we're going to go in a second, Andrea, but Garrett, let's start with you from the White House. We just heard from the President. He said a lot there in a relatively short amount of time.

What was your biggest takeaway? Well, a couple things. He clarified something that for long time Trump watchers know well, which is two weeks doesn't really mean two weeks and 14 days is the upper limit of how long it will take for him to make a decision. And it seems increasing likely for that decision to be action.

I didn't hear anything there, Ryan. And I'd be curious what you, Andrew, think as well that suggests that the president is particularly optimistic about the prospect of a negotiated solution to this. He doesn't think that Europeans can be particularly helpful in this. He doesn't think that the Israelis see any reason to stop a bombing campaign that they see as being quite successful.

And he doesn't feel particularly compelled to describe the intelligence that he's getting that seems to push him in favor of action under questioning from Vaughn, dismissing out of hand the intelligence community's assessment of the situation and his own director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who's made those statements publicly. So everything I hear there from the president suggests we still remain on a track towards some kind of strike at a time and place of the United States choosing. That's as long as everything that's being said publicly actually reflects private decision making. And Gary, we know that before he got on the helicopter and headed to Bedminster that he huddled once again with his national security team.

Right now, do we know who has his ear right now? Who is the loudest voice helping him make this decision? Yeah, I mean, there are two things that seem contradictory going on here. Ryan, that kind of makes sense.

We understand how long Trump makes decisions. First, he's casting a wide net. He's casting the French and allies that he speaks to on the phone. He's asking staffers in the White House, basically anyone who's opinion, who comes in front of them for their opinion on what they think he should do.

Who he's actually listening to appears to be a very smart group, includes his vice president, the chief of staff, Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, who's become his everything national security aide of all stripes here, Steven Miller, who's the sort of everything aide across the board, and Steve Wyckoff, his longtime friend. But absent from the list of people who he's counsel, he's taken quite closely. According to defense officials and a senior administration official are the aforementioned Tulsi Gabbard, we know is not in favor of military strikes on the least of almost any kind. And Pete Hegset, his defense secretary, who doesn't appear to be a major player in advising the president in this moment, given the wig.

He answered Von's question about Tulsi Gabbita. Seems like our reporting is probably pretty strong there. Gary, what else are you hearing from administration officials about how they're viewing the talks on Genevieve? Are they hoping those talks could de escalate the tensions?

Administration officials not named Donald Trump are saying nice ish things about the talks in Geneva that they are broadly supportive of this effort and anything that might bring Iran back to the table. But once again, you heard the president say it quite hard out loud here. It isn't the Iranians want to talk to the Europeans and doesn't think there's anything that Europeans can do to bring us to a close, except perhaps to push Iran towards some kind of direct negotiation with the United States. The president believes the US Is the major player here and that may very well be true.

Okay, Ger Haig, thank you for that. Let's turn now to Andrea Mitchell in Geneva. Andrea, just fresh off this very important interview with the Iranian foreign minister, what stood out from your conversation with him? Andrea?

Well, for One thing accusing the United States of using diplomacy, comp. Diplomacy. He made it very specific as a cover to let Israel get ready to attack and a betrayal, as he put it. I asked if he trusted Steve Witkoff, and he said that Steve Wikoff, he thought, was a gentleman and that they were still communicating with each other by Internet, by mail.

But he said he no longer feels that he, you know, he said he keeps changing his position, so perhaps he can't sell his position. So that is no longer a path. I was struck by how negative he was in terms of he will not negotiate as long as Israel is attacking. He did say that he now sees the US As a party to the conflict because of the President's language, saying, we now control the skies, we, not just Israel does.

And that despite. When I asked him, pressed him about Secretary Rubio saying last Thursday night, this is not a US Strike we do not take part in. He said, excuse the traffic outside. He said, well, that may have just been covered because we see them as the US could have stopped them and they didn't.

So they gave them a green light. So he sees it as both the United States and Israel, as if Donald Trump in two weeks or less, attacks Bordeaux, the underground mountain, hidden in the mountain main centerfish nuclear plant here across the facility. And would he retaliate against American targets around the world? And he said war is war, indicating that he would.

Now, I asked him repeatedly about how much Iran has lost. You heard the president say, oh, this guy was winning and Iran is losing, so winners don't stop, which actually in more sometimes winter society, it is time to stop. In any case, that was his perspective. And he said, I said, despite all of the losses that you've suffered with the missiles, with your top officials, your leaders being assassinated, then their backups being assassinated, your nuclear scientists, the nuclear facility at Natanz, the other threats to the infrastructure around Iran, would it be better to negotiate?

And he said that there is something more important, which is national pride. And he will not bend on the US demand that he give up all ability to enrich on Iranian soil for what they claim is a peaceful program. And take enriched uranium at lower, much lower levels, 3.75%, which is what is used for civilian purposes. Take that from a consortium of other countries.

So we will not bend on that and we will not explain why Iran isn't enriching up to 60%, which is right below weapons rate, if it is for civilian purposes. And just finally he said that he's going to Moscow on Monday Leonard Putin, his pl, in many ways, has been on the sidelines of this whole conflict, and he's going to Moscow to talk to Putin. Clearly, they want some help from Russia. So far, Putin is not cooperating.

Okay. Andrew Mitchell live in Geneva with a very important interview, as we mentioned before, of Andrew's interview we see tonight on NBC Night News. Andrew, thank you for that. We're going to turn now to the Democratic senator from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed.

He's also the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Obviously important time to talk to you. Senator, I first want to start by getting a reaction to Andrew's reporting there and the talks happening in Geneva today. What is your take on what appears to be Iran digging in and not really being open to serious negotiations while the bombs continue to fly from Israel?

Well, I think the Iranian reaction is at the moment just trying to reorganize itself and develop the capacity and replacements of those individuals in the chain of command they lost. And I first think their instincts are to say, we're going to fight, we're going to fight, we're going to fight. That, I think, is designed as much for internal consumption in Iran, it is for external consumption. But history seems to suggest that they would be very reluctant to give up their nuclear capacities and also very reluctant to basically change their approach towards the Middle east, towards Israel, towards other countries.

So, again, I'm not surprised that this defiant tone, it reflects, I think, the philosophy of that government going back many decades. Now, I want to get to the heart of this issue over intelligence as it relates to Iran and who we should trust and who we shouldn't trust. Back in March, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified that the intel community's assessment was that Iran had not made a decision to rush toward making a nuclear weapon. Just the other day, President Trump said Iran was weeks away.

Heard just a few minutes ago on the tarmac in New Jersey say that Tulsi Gabbard was wrong. Who was your understanding of the intelligence assessment right now and who should we believe as it relates to just how close Iran may be to developing and being able to use a nuclear weapon? Well, Tulsa, Gabbard's assessment was based upon the analysis of the intelligence agencies who are experts in this area and also have been following the developments within Iran. The other thing that seems to be odd is if Tulsi was Gabbard was incorrect at the time, why didn't the president or someone else correct the issue?

So moving from the position of the administration that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons. Suddenly, they're moments away from one. Seems to me to be sort of an odd position. Again, what I have heard from the intelligence community is that indications are that they are not weeks, days, months away from a nuclear weapon.

So I think there is time to negotiate with them. At the point that the intelligence community concludes that they have a weapon where they're literally weeks and months away, then that's the point at which kinetic action is probably called for. So then, from what you've heard from the intelligence community, what the DNI has testified to publicly seems to be much different than the assessment that the President is using. Should we take from that that he has put more faith in Israeli's intelligence and their assessment of the situation than he would be our own intelligence community, the United States intelligence community?

Well, he seems to have probably rejected what is the conclusion of the United States intelligence community. As I said, there was no attempt to correct Director Gabbit if in fact she was in ever. And that was months ago. And I don't think the process could be so accelerated within several weeks or a month or so so that they went from no intention.

They're on the precipice of having a nuclear device. The President, I think, seems to be just simply dismissing the intelligence and trying to find a way through a very difficult problem. Do we become involved operationally and militarily in this conflict or do we try to move to a position where we can hopefully force negotiations? But again, it's.

I think from what I've heard, and I must point out, the administration has not been that forthcoming about the latest intelligence, their plans, particularly their plans after an attack on Ford Row, for example. So I think a lot of this is just the President's perception of his current situation, not intelligence of the United States intelligence. And to that end, we've reporting that the BNI Gabbard has been sidelined from some of these internal discussions on what's happening with Israel and Iran. Are you confident that President Trump is getting the correct advice from the correct people and from the intel community specifically as he makes this decision?

Well, he has some very competent people around him, particularly the military professionals. But again, at a decision of this magnitude, you want to hear all the voices. And you would think he would certainly want to have the Director of National Intelligence, or if not the Director of National Intelligence, then does the CIA director and others, although he does have the CIA director in his group. But I think they're just simply trying to distance her from her testimony months ago because They've adopted a new reality.

They had a weapon, it's ready to go. And I don't know that's confirmed by intelligence recent until. All right, let's pivot now and talk about the US Military's capacity to handle whatever could potentially be as a result of the President's decision here and US Secretary, hence it, before your committee earlier this week. He, of course, is in the chain of command to be involved in any decision or any execution of an order that's handed down by the President.

I know you've been critical of his early tenure in the secretary who certainly voted against this confirmation. What's your level of confidence that he can handle such a decision of such incredible magnitude? Well, as you've just pointed out, he seems to have been excluded from the serious considerations about what should be done, which is very disturbing because you would assume the Secretary of Defense would the President constantly. But as your slide demonstrates, he seems to be being completely ignored by the presidential team, which doesn't suggest that he'll play a critical role in this.

That I think is. I think it's an indication again of the President's willingness to listen to some people and his unwillingness to listen to others. So he's silent. And we have the capability, working through our central command, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Command to conduct military operations.

But we're missing a voice, the civilian leader of our defense bomb. Just quickly before we go, sir, at this point, would you support a US Military strike to take out Iran's nuclear program? I think, frankly, we have to learn a great deal more about what's the facts on the ground. Obviously, we do not want to see the Iranian government get a nuclear device.

And also we want to ensure that Israel is protected from strikes by the Iranians. That's why we've moved destroyers and we're combining with them to defend the country. Those are two imperatives. But until we're brief, and I hope we're very quickly about the details since they seem to be contradictory.

As you know, the challenge community is saying one thing, the President saying something else. We need to know what the facts are. Okay. Senator Jack Reed, you're expected to get that briefly next week.

We'll have to talk to you more about that afterwards. Thank you. So I appreciate you being here. Coming up, the politics of wars.

Democrats and Republicans face their own divisions over how to respond to the Israel Iran conflict. My panel will join me to break it down. Plus, Vice President Vance is in rouse of Los Angeles Angeles as tensions are still high over immigration rates in California and the president's deployment of military troops. Who have the latest from LA next.

You're watching with the press now. Welcome back. Right Now, Vice President J.D. vance is on his way to Los Angeles, where he's expected to meet with Marines and tour a facility that is keyed in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

If his visit comes less than 24 hours after federal appeals court handed the administration a key victory in that effort, ruling that it can keep control of California National Guard troops despite fierce opposition from state leaders. NBC News political and national correspondent Jacob Soberoff joins me now from Los Angeles. So, Jacob, what has the reaction been to the vice president's visit to Los Angeles? You can imagine, Ryan, that in this very blue city, people are not particularly pleased amongst the populace here, not only because this county has more undocumented people than any county in the United States of America, not only because there are members of federal law enforcement.

You can't see it right behind me right now, but as far as it gets through the federal security and into the property, you can see a very large tank or tactical people, I should say that is here with members of the Marine Corps defending the perimeter of this facility. And not just because it's been two weeks since the ICE raids got underway, but because I think a lot of people have a sense of fear here, a sense that this is not the city that they know that has been portrayed by J.D. vance and President Trump and people in Los Angeles. After two weeks of sustained raids, migration, Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, Homeland security investigations, even the FBI, DEA as well.

I think people want to see a return to normalcy that was happening here. All of this started and and for the day and the blame of Trump administration for the situation that's happening right now. Of course, we had a ruling from appeals court last night, Jacob, that said that the Trump administration can maintain control of the National Guard. What's the reaction there been to that news?

Gavin Newsom is very clear he's gonna continue to pursue havin news to have that National Guard deployment returned to his control. He says when I talked to him on that Sunday night after this all started two weeks ago, that his authority was reserved for him and unconstitutionally in his opinion by President Trump and that that Title 10 authority, while it might be legal, the way in which it was executed was not. Obviously, the nicer court of appeals didn't agree with that. But governors looking at all possible options, including whether or not this is at level deployment under the laws of the United States the guard and the marine city on the streets and look at very closely whether or not they're exercising the activities of civilian law enforcement.

That would be the dividing line, the red line, so to speak, for gabinism. Okay, Jacob. So Roth, thank you for that. We appreciate it.

Turning now to another immigration story that we've been following closely this afternoon, a federal judge ordered that Maku Khalil be released on bail, ruling that he was neither a flight risk nor a risk to the community. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and permanent US Resident, was the leader of last year's pro Palestinian protests at the Ivy League school. He's been in immigration custody for nearly three months as the Trump administration seeks to deport him. NBC's senior homeland security correspondent Julia Ainsley.

20th actually, the following case very closely just remind us of the facts of this case. Just how big of a witness is this for Khalil? Well, Khalil at always became the poster child of the Trump administration's efforts to try to arrest foreign students, really for matters of free speech. And their argument has been that they're allowed to revoke a visa in this case a green card because it was not in the US national security interest.

Of course, as you pointed out, he was a leader in those pro Palestinian movements, but not been charged with any crimes for anything they did on Columbia's campus or elsewhere. Now, what they've argued, according what they argued today before this judge, before this ruling, which clearly he disagreed with, was that because Khalil had somehow there, they argued, had not been forthcoming with his work history, that he included on a visa application, therefore that somehow a discredit to his character and he should not be released. But the judge said there is absolutely no reason to think he's a flight risk or was to national security. They also argued that this judge should be deciding whether or not he's at all that it should be left to an immigration judge.

Judge disagree with that. Thought he did have that authority. But what that could mean is that next look at Immigration Judge Duane and try to keep him from being released. So talk about that.

What are the next steps? Well, they could either appeal it and keep it within the federal system, federal, or they could go to immigration judges which, you know, work for the Justice Department. They're not part of the judicial branch. And as we've reported here, they've all been given a lot of very strict instructions from the Justice Department recently.

This case is for asylum from the bench, not to allow people to appeal. And they have had an immigration judge in Louisiana previously ruled he should be detained. So if they can find an immigration judge who won't weigh in on whether or not he is a national security threat or anything like that. But basically, does he have to be detained to guarantee his deportation and is he eligible for deportation?

That will be up to immigration judge if they decide to go. There's still a real possibility that he can be deported? Yeah, that still remains a possibility that it's not been cleared up yet. But his lawyers and his family for some time have argued he should not be in Louisiana.

If anything, if he was going to be detained, they wanted it closer to home. As you know, he recently became a father. This comes after we also saw a court ruling saying that Harvard could go forward to bring in international students under the Trump administration tried to block. So really two wins today on the front of international students against the Trump administration.

But as you know, these things are never over. Okay, Julie Ainsley, thank you for that. We appreciate it. Up next, authorities grapple with a stunning rise in political violence as these two politicians are the ladies to be targeted.

One has been arrested for attempting to kidnap the Democratic mayor of Memphis. And another man has been arrested for threatening the life of an Ohio Republican congressman. We'll have the latest when we come back. You're watching Be THE PRESS now.

It's here. The Ford is a big the Ford it's a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford It's a big deal Event is on really?

Now hurry up at the lease of 2026 Maverick XLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.29%. NPR for 60 months with $29. 95 down. That's like $99 a week.

The Ford is a big deal. Events visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford ca As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with here's the scoop with a podcast for NBC News with your host Gas in the Studian. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative, bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world.

World. But page design. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify.

Let's kick start your wellness journey, workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to help you. And now join the Xfinity Member Celebration. Members get an exclusive 50 off an annual subscription.

Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more xfinity. Imagine that subscription automatically renews each year at 65.99plus tax fees until canceled 2026 prices subject to change. Visit today.comxfinity for full longer terms and details. Welcome back to Minnesota state senator who shot in a targeted attack last weekend and his wife released a statement revealing new details of their conditions and the moment of the attack.

In a statement obtained by ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, the couple says that Democrat John Hoffman is in critical but stable condition. His wife is in stable condition. The Hoffman's described the shooting, saying that John lunged at the gunman before being shot nine times. The vet then reaching out to shove the shooter and shut the door before she was hit eight times.

Another lawmaker, Melissa Portman, and her husband were also shot in their home. Both were killed. This comes as we learn of new incidents targeting lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. U.S.

capitol Police say they arrested an Ohio man they say threatened to kill Republican Congressman Max Miller, calling him an anti semic slur and attempting to run his vehicle off the road. Police releasing this portion of a 911 call made by the congressman. My name is Congressman Max Miller. I was just driving to work and I was cut off by a man in a Tesla who held up a Palestinian flag to me and then rolled down his window and said that I'm going to cut your foot gross and your daughters.

And he said, you're a dirty Jew. I'm gonna kill it for you all and I know who you are and where you live. And I followed him and he rolled down his window and I rolled down my window so I could see what he was saying. And this actor from Rocky river was able to hear some of it.

And I am a little shaken, to be quite honest. I have a weapon on me. I'm glad I didn't use it. And in Memphis, police say they charged him and they accused of stalking and trying to kidnap the city's mayor, Paul Young.

Police say they found him with a taser, rope and duct tape. For more, I'm joined by Kevin Fry, the Washington Correspondent for New York 1 NEWS Juanita Tolliver, Democratic strategist and NBC News political analyst and Rob Lewitt, the president and executive editor of the Daily Signal. So Juanita, I'll start with you. I mean, how do we turn down the temperature on this heated political rhetoric?

For a long time the Internet has been just filled with almost a cesspool of this, but now it seems like everyday learning where that's actually manifesting itself in actual violence. Right. Because this has been festering for years, decades even. And I think the reality is, I don't know if there is a dial that you can just turn down on this because these aren't brand new sentiments.

Right. Like this has been something percolating. And I think In a post gender 6 reality, in a reality where you have assassinations, my hope is that we don't become desensitized to this. I remember after it was reported about the Hortman killings and the shootings in Minnesota, jokes were being made online by elected officials.

I think part of it is the reality that I think we're at a point where this local violence is sadly only going to increase. And the reality that more and more people are supporting it. Yeah. And, you know, I think back right after President Trump in his attempted assassination attempt from last summer, he talked about cooling things down to try and dial down the runner.

Do you feel like he's done that? And does it need to start at the top? It certainly does have to start with our elected leaders. I mean, they're the role models in our society.

And I think people look to them and their actions as to how they will behave themselves. But I think you can take a sentiment from Jesus and treating our neighbors and the Golden Rule and all those things that we learned as kids and just remember that we're in a situation where you don't necessarily. Your words do mean something, Ryan. And when you carry out those actions as we solve over the course of the last week, these are serious consequences that are affecting the lives of not only politicians, but their families.

We're not gonna solve this problem tomorrow or next week. And right now there's a real problem with keeping 535 members of Congress safe. And it doesn't seem as though Capitol Police and a lot of people with good intentions to try to do this have a kind of a path or prescription to solve this. What could possibly happen?

I mean, look, you're seeing lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, but especially some of the Democratic members really come out and try to forcibly call on, for example, Speaker Johnson saying, Jeffrey's going so far as basically say this is in New York balding or court earlier this week. Then you just step up and try to figure out a way to enhance security for these members. We have seen, of course, in light in Minnesota, for example, the Capitol Police come out and say they're doing more to protect these individual members. But until there's some sort of, I'm quite frankly, not sure what the steps are to go ahead and protect them, because you also have to maintain, especially when I know, on Capitol Hill, the accessibility of lawmakers just in the public space at all times now police can kind of close off sections of Capitol Hill and that's just obviously the square footage there alone.

When they're back home in their districts and even farther away from Capitol. I do want to point out the other thing about locales, because the other two stories you mentioned were the mayor of Memphis and I saw reports about threats against one of the mayoral candidates in New York. Right. Like it's not just at the federal level.

And so I have concerns about what protection could look like for state legislators and local leaders, because this is not something you can put a lid on. I also don't think policing is likely going to prevent violence either. Yeah. And I wonder, and Kevin, you can touch on this a little bit.

Maybe Robbie can expand on, especially when it comes to members of Congress. Right. They are supposed to be the most accessible lawmaker to an average voter. Right.

You should be able to meet and shake the hand of your member of Congress relatively easily. Is this just gonna create a barrier that's much more difficult for a constituent to meet the person that represents them? I think it could. I think members of Congress will be increasingly scared maybe to take some of those meetings.

I remember as a young kid coming to Washington, D.C. and going to the office of Shore Bowler, who was the representative for my area, upstate New York. It was a great experience. But, you know, as members of Congress now face these threats, I ran into a member of Congress at Washington Reagan Airport last week, just walking around.

Right. I mean, they didn't have protection on them and you could have anybody come up to them and make a threats. Right. It's a serious challenge.

You're correct on the fact that it's not just the federal lawmakers. There's even less protection from people like the local and even school board members. Right. Getting threats like this, it's really a very scary time.

So talk about some of the ongoing issues around the world. The ongoing conflict with Iran, obviously perhaps the most pressing. Does a two week deadline that President Trump set for himself undermine his own argument that Iran's an existential threat? If this is something that happened now, doesn't the US need to respond?

I think this is really kind of speaking to the push and pull of two of his stated goals from being on the campaign trail that are now completely in friction with each other, which is we can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. But also, I don't want to get involved in any foreign entanglements. And so now these two ideas are kind of colliding in real time. Now, it remains to be seen exactly what these next two weeks, or if it's even two weeks, look like when it comes to what the President could do.

Could this be an attempt to deceive Iran into some sort of comfort, to allow conversations play out and then perhaps they do an attack on this weekend? Is it a chance to get more resources into the region, military wise, to back up any sort of attack, or is there a legitimate desire to actually try to have some sort of talk? The conversations he just had at the top of the show as he got off the plane in, I believe Florida today did not, New Jersey did not lend themselves to suggesting he's looking to go down the diplomatic crowd. So Rob explained, you know, kind of Kevin's point about where Donald Trump was during the campaign versus where he is now, said he didn't want to suffer forever wars, did not want to intervene in foreign entanglements.

He seems closer and closer to doing both of those things. And what could be the explanation, particularly to that MAGA base that right now seems very concerned that he's heading in this direction? Sure. And I think if it's a targeted strike, if it's just on the nuclear facility, that's one thing.

I think that there's strong opposition across the board of Republicans and Democrats to obviously send troops to Iran. But if you have a situation where the President feels that the Iranians are not coming to the table and willing to talk, and so far it seems that that's the case. Right. I think the president will rely on the intelligence.

Yes. He's going to be informed by some of those big voices in the MAGA movement. But at the end of the day, this president is somebody who knows that American lives are valuable. He is reluctant to send troops into harm's way.

He has demonstrated that over the course of his tenure as president. And I think ultimately that's what he's going to be weighing his decision. Sorry. The magma movement itself is more or less an offshoot of the anti Iraq war sentiment.

So that's kind of festering. And I want to make that point because Rob's right. A targeted approach sounds good. We've heard that before.

Right. I mean, we're just going to go check out weapons of mass destruction. We end up being there for two decades. Is that the concern that a lot of the base has?

And it's not just the Maga base, the MacGates. Margaret Hill grins world. But there's progressive Democrats that feel the same way. Progressive Democrats are concerned about never ending war starting up again.

They're also concerned about abuse of power with Trump potentially attempting to declare war unilaterally. I think there's this push poll right now within the Democratic Party specifically about what are the steps proactively that can be taken in order to set the narrative around who has authorization, and that's Congress. And doing that, I think early puts Trump on the defensive and potentially shifts his thinking about his next steps that we haven't seen in other ways, where he is undermining some constitutional standards and norms, whether that's related to the process, even though I know the answer to this question, is there any momentum for Congress to assert itself in when it comes to the president and these decisions? You could insert anything into that sentence.

And the answer is essentially no. I mean, the Congress, regardless of the party over the last two decades, has really stopped asserting itself on many matters, which has kind of led to the sort of situation we're in. But when it comes to this, it's hard to see Republicans, although there is of course, that faction that is very much frustrated. But the leadership is not jumping out to try to move the Cain resolution or the Massey resolution along and try to reinvent the president.

We'll give you the last one more. Thank you guys all for being really appreciated. After the break, the fate of the president's one big beautiful bill remains up in the air as it faces a crucial audit from the Senate's top rules official that could force some major changes to the legislation. You're watching Beat the Press now.

Welcome back on Capitol Hill. It's another make or break moment for the president's legislative agenda in Congress. Senate Republicans try to muscle through his big, beautiful bill before July 4th. They've chosen a wonky and risky procedural maneuver to get it done that allows them to bypass any Democratic filibuster.

It's called reconciliation. But part of that process includes a review by the Senate parliamentarian, basically the chamber's COP rules official, who will determine if any pieces of the sprawling legislation run afoul of Senate rules. That could mean some big changes to the big bill. Joining now senior national Politics.

So I'll break down from what's happening right now and what the Senate parliamentarian has ruled so far. There's still some pretty big issues that she has to weigh on. Yeah, absolutely, Ryan. I think the issues that are being dealt with right now is the process that we finally refer to with the bird bath making sure.

All the provisions in this massive bill comply with the so called bird rule, which limits the provisions to taxes and spending. It has to have a budgetary primary focus, otherwise it doesn't qualify for the process that bypasses the filibuster. We know from Senate Budget Committee Democrats that over the last few days the parliamentarians already struck certain provisions of the bill, including cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, repeal of statutory authorizations under the Inflation Reduction act, which is the clean energy funding piece of the bill, and changes to DoD appropriations that spending plans aren't submitted on time. These are the provisions that the parliamentarian has decided are primarily policy in nature.

In other words, they don't qualify. None of these provisions, however, are going to change the basic shape of the bill. These are just things that are successfully the bird bad. The parliamentarian is one thing, but they also votes.

Right. And what are the big hold ups for them reaching that goal right now? Yeah. So the crucial thing that Senate Republicans are trying to do now is craft a bill primarily, or let's say entirely the purpose of passing through the Senate.

The House battle is confrontation coming down the road. Right now. What they're looking at the biggest hurdles, ICR in the Senate, the Medicaid provider taxes. The problem because a number of Republicans across the spectrum worry that it's going to harm rural hospitals.

There's even talk about creating a fund for rural hospitals to protect them from the consequences of their own bill, which is certainly one way to legislate. And then there are clean energy cuts. There's a dispute over that because the Senate bill is less aggressive than the House bill. I spoke to Congressman Chip Roy just a few days ago.

He said that the capsule counts charter he will switch his vote for. Yes, we know that's not resolved. And then the other House confrontation is the state local tax deduction. As you know, the Senate bill brings it back down to 10,000.

There's a group of New Yorkers in the House, Republicans who are dead knowing any way they can get this done before the 4th of July two weeks from today? It's a really tall order. It's plausible to get to the Senate by then, but to Trump's back, that's really tough. Okay, so thank you.

Appreciate it. Silicon we're looking back to look ahead to the 2026 midterms mirror the blue wave of 2018. Dave Wasserman Political Report joins me to break it down next to watching the press now. Welcome back.

As the president Republicans push forward with President Trump's massive agenda on Capitol Hill. The White House revs up its immigration crackdowns across the country and considers direct intervention in the Middle East. The question on the minds of leaders and lawmakers of both parties is how will all of this impact the 2026 midterms? The 2018 midterms during Trump's first term and energized Democratic base, flipped 40 seats in the House and took back control of the church chamber.

But as the Cook Political Report notes, while the political environment right now has many similarities, eight years ago, both parties have different challenges facing them this time around. Senior editor and elections analyst for Cook Political Report, David Wasserman joins us now to break down his latest analysis. Dave, and always a pleasure to talk to you. You write that history really doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Heading into the 2026 midterms, what are the political dynamics that are similar and what is different this time? Well, Ryan, we're in a similar place than where we were eight years ago, but for different reasons. First of all, Trump's approval rating, it has a higher floor than it did eight years ago because his strength among his base is better and he has 87% approval among Republicans. Republicans identify as a greater share of the electorate than they did eight years ago ago.

And Democrats brand is weaker. There's no doubt that, you know, eight years ago it was negative 16, the party image. Today it's negative 20 because a lot of Democrats don't have a whole lot of faith in their own party's leadership. But counterweight to that is inflation.

And Trump is increasingly owning inflation. And consumer confidence is down 27% since Trump got elected in November. That's a big reason why his approval rating among independent voters is at 34% in our poll tracker. And Democrats don't need to win 40 seats to get the House majority.

They only need three. And even if they won 20 seats, they would be they would end up in the same place as they ended up in 2018. I think at the end of the day, the biggest problem for Trump and Republicans is that Republicans can't count on his more peripherally engaged voters to show up when he's not on the ballot. We're seeing that in special elections.

We saw that in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. I think we're gonna see it this fall in Virginia and New Jersey. Yeah, and the Sen. Democrats should be looking for lipstick into this midterms or I mean, point to the negative approval rating that the overall Democratic brand has.

Do they need a stronger party identity if they want to replicate that success for 2018. The great advantage of the India Party is that you don't really need a clear leader or message and you don't need a great party image because the midterm is a referendum on the president and the party in power. And Trump's handling on the economy, I think alone is sufficient to probably get Democrats where they need to win the House. But there's no doubt that the intensity gap is that close to where it was eight years ago.

Now. It took Democrats a little bit of time to wake up because whereas in 2017 the Women's March and allegations of Russian interference had the Democratic base ginned up, this time around they were pretty dejected into war lies for a few months after Trump's election. And it took Doge, it took what we're seeing in L A to get Democrats really riled up. But I do think much as in 2018, even if Democrats are able to take back the House by a slim margin, it may not be enough to take back the Senate, given the type of seats in the red states that are up for grabs.

And I wonder too, just how gerrymandering impacts all of this. Are we ever going to see these massive red or blue waves one way or another because the playing field has been so reduced due to gerrymandering? I mean, how difficult would it be just because of those logistics to pull a 40 or 50 seat swing in any given year? Or Ryan, if you were to extrapolate the results of those two special elections we had in April in Florida to the entire House, Democrats end up with 279seats.

No one's predicting that because at the end of the day, 2026 is going to be a fairly high train election. Not as high as 24, but you're right, there aren't as many competitive swing seats as there were a few decades ago. And Democrats already won a lot of the low hanging FRU in the last few elections, including 2018. And so the types of seats we'll be watching are, you know, suburban New Jersey, western Wisconsin, you know, suburban Tucson and Phoenix and Lansing.

These are the kinds of places that are going to determine how big Democrats gains are. But the bar is pretty low for them at this rate, given Trump's approval and Democrats intensity. All right, I've seen enough. David, that was a terrific interview.

Thanks so much for being on. We appreciate it. Thanks, Ryan. Heading into this 2026 midterm.

And that's it for us today on Meet the Press. I will be back on Monday for more Meet the Press. Now, but Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC news station. Kristen has exclusive interviews with Senators Lindsey Graham and Mark Kelly and legendary sports broadcaster Bob Costas.

You're not going to want to miss it. NBC News now coverage continues, though, with Tom Costello in for Haley Jackson right now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention.

They made a life together. Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Meikowitz, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline.

Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.