Meet the Press NOW — June 24

If it's Tuesday, President Trump arrives in the Netherlands for a high-stakes NATO summit hours after lashing out at Israel and Iran for nearly derailing a ceasefire agreement that he announced, which appears to be back on track for now. Plus, the President turns up the heat on Republicans in Congress, telling lawmakers to quote, "...lock yourself in a room." That's what it takes to get his legislative agenda through Congress before the end of next week. And, New Yorkers head to the polls in triple-digit temperatures to cast their votes in a Democratic primary race that pits a disgraced former governor against a 33-year-old Democratic socialist to be the next mayor of America's largest city. Welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Gabe Newtiers in Washington, where President Trump's fragile truce between Israel and Iran appears to be holding, at least for now, for getting off to a rocky start with both sides accusing the other of violating the agreement. It all comes as the White House is now pushing back on new reports of a preliminary classified U.S. intel assessment. According to CNN and New York Times, the U.S.

strikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear program. Both outlets, citing officials familiar with the report, say that the bombings likely only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. White House is acknowledging the existence of the intel assessment, but is calling a quote flat-out wrong while reiterating the president's claim that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. As NBC News has reported, the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear sites is unclear.

Right now, President Trump is in the Netherlands for a meeting of the NATO military alliance, as his foreign focus expands from tensions in the Middle East to also include Russia's war in Ukraine and the future of the alliance. The president has been touting the ceasefire agreement as a major win for the U.S. and the region. In a phone interview with my colleague, Yamiche Alcindor last night, he said, quote, I think the ceasefire is unlimited.

It's going to go forever, adding that he believes the war between Israel and Iran is over. But this morning, while departing the White House for the NATO summit, the president sharply criticized both the Israel and Iran for allegedly violating the agreement and threatening to derail it, going so far as to drop the F-bomb in front of the cameras. I'm not happy that Israel is going out now. There was one rocket that I guess was fired overboard after the time limit at a Christmas target.

And now Israel is going out. These guys got to calm down. We get to it. So I'm not happy with them.

I'm not happy with Iran either. I'm really unhappy with Israel's going out this morning because of one rocket that didn't land, that we shot. Perhaps by mistake that didn't land. I'm not happy about that.

You know what? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f*** they're doing. Do you understand that? And later, non-air Force One, after speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump appeared to walk back some of that frustration, praising Israel for holding his fire and expressing confidence that the ceasefire will hold.

The ceasefire is very much in effect. And I think we're going to keep it there for a long time. We're not having it again. And a couple weeks back.

I'm tired of it. I think they don't want it to happen again. And Iran's not going to have a nuclear weapon, by the way. I think it's the last thing in their mind right now.

If the agreement holds, it would be a significant diplomatic win for the President heading into the NATO summit. Well, just days ago, the Trump administration was facing criticism for potentially drawing the U.S. into a direct and prolonged conflict with Iran. So joining me now is our team of reporters, NBC News Intelligence reporter Dandelusis here with me on set.

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell is in the Netherlands, where President Trump is participating in the NATO summit. And NBC International correspondent Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv. And let's start with you. Let's start with that breaking news.

The White House pushing back on a preliminary intelligence report. What do we know? I think what we know at this point is that there's no accounting for this whole stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which is the key material to make an atomic weapon. And there's no accounting for where that is or whether that was destroyed.

And we've had that told to us by our sources. And then also, there's a question about centrifuges, because Iran cut off UN inspections and access to some of its centrifuges that are used to enrich that uranium to make a potential weapon. So those are two elements that would be needed to make a weapon. And there's really no clear indication that that's been destroyed.

How difficult would it have been for Iran to move its enriched uranium before the U.S. rise? Not that difficult. We're not talking about a big missile here.

We're talking about material that can be put in canisters and moved relatively easily. So that begs the question, why wouldn't Iran have moved this material given the threat it was facing and the tensions? And so how critical is this enriched uranium to Iran's long-term nuclear program? Absolutely critical, right?

So this is the material that you make an atomic weapon with. And once you have enough enriched uranium, which is difficult to do with all those centrifuges spinning, then you have to make a device, you have to make a weapon, a warhead. And they had enough enriched uranium to make 9 to 10 bombs according to U.S. officials.

And so how possible is it for Iran now, after all of this, to try and make a covert nuclear program? Is that doable? And does Iran have more motivation now to do such a thing? I think the answer to both of those questions is yes and yes, if you speak to experts who have watched this.

And we've been hearing about this for more than a decade. And previous administrations said they worried that a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites wouldn't destroy the program. And it would actually encourage them to then have a clandestine secret program, right? So that's what we're dealing with.

Experts say they believe they have the foundations to have a new program that could be secret. And so then how long until we get a more significant intel assessment? The White House, of course, is pushing back on all this, saying that it believes that Iran's nuclear program was totally obliterated. But how long before we get another intel assessment or more significant, a certain one?

A certain one, that's a difficult one. There will be another estimate and analysis that will be given to the members of Congress. It was supposed to happen today. That's been delayed.

But we may never know definitively about some of these questions because, as I said, that uranium material can be moved. It can be hidden. And they may not allow you and inspectors in again. The uranium regime may decide we're not going to cooperate the way we use to.

So this is a really difficult one. Stand the loose. Thank you for reporting on this. I want to turn out to Kelly O'Donnell, who's in the Netherlands right now, traveling with the president.

Kelly, the understatement of the day, President Trump sounded frustrated this morning. Where do things stand with him now? Well, we've all been accustomed over the decade of President Trump's political life that he has a blunt, in-your-face style. Today, he ramped that up in the way that he talked about these two parties, Iran and Israel, and his utter frustration with the fact that they appeared to be trying to get in last weeks before what appears to be an agreement to move forward with the ceasefire that he demanded, that he help to negotiate, and that he announced very publicly using the force of his social media, the force of his personality, and obviously the power of his office to do that.

Things seem to have calmed down a bit. That includes a phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu that happened while the president was traveling here to the Netherlands, where he'll be meeting with NATO leaders. And it also is a product of what we have seen in terms of results today, that things have been calmer in the region, and the president has projected a lot of confidence about the outcome of the secret military strikes, a bold secret in the way they were carried out, and then very public in the way he previewed them. But he's expressing a great deal of confidence, of course, reflecting your conversation with Dan there.

There are serious questions to be answered about what Iran still possesses, including what ambitions they may have. So, now that he's here at NATO, there's really a sense, yes, go ahead, Gabe. Oh, sure, no, I was going to say, I wanted to get to the NATO summit in just a few moments, but I wanted to ask you first, how exactly did the president broker this deal between Israel and Iran? Well, we have seen the president insert himself in many of these high-stakes moments, and this one, of course, perhaps one of the most cutting-edge and tenuous that we've seen in quite a long time.

So, by working the phones using the Qatari government, which has been an ally in this process to try to kind of bring the parties together to get a sense of the understanding, the president setting a timeline that allowed for a staggered move into a ceasefire after the attacks on Iran's equipment and locations, and then their retaliation and the ongoing of last gasp of fighting. So, the president was able to work that, and then by announcing it so publicly, again, reinforcing. That's not the typical pattern of diplomacy. There's nothing agreed to until everything is agreed to.

Well, in the Trump era, when he is convinced that he's got something done, he uses the public nature of his platforms, both his office and his media abilities to try to seal it in, especially with adversaries and allies who are so charged with each other. So, the president is definitely using a lot of his own political capital in this situation. Indeed, speaking of not the traditional path of diplomacy, Kelly, the president doesn't have a historically warm relationship with NATO. I want to place some sound from the president earlier today.

So, side-stepping that question about Article 5, but, Kelly, what sort of reception would you expect President Trump to receive at some? Well, we know that there's a lot of hesitation, concern, assessments going on from the member NATO alliance countries, but at the same time, they also recognize the sort of irreplaceable role of the United States in these gatherings, and the president is such an outsized figure. There will be both an acknowledgement of the strength that he is showing in terms of when he says he's going to do something and taking action, but there's also been a lot of concern over time about some of the demands that the president makes. We expect that there'll be an announcement here about increasing the participation for the common defense from the member nations, from 2 percent to 5 percent.

That has been something that has been something the president has long felt other nations needed to contribute more. And so, we'll be watching very carefully to see how these other nations respond. Of course, they have great concerns about what's happening in Ukraine, not just the Middle East. Let me see, Kelly, Donald, traveling with the president in the Netherlands.

Kelly, thank you. I want to turn out to you, Bradley, who's in Tel Aviv for us, Matt, does it seem like the ceasefire will hold at this point? Yeah, I mean, we were about four hours into the point where Israel was also supposed to join Iran in ceasing its firing. And so far, we haven't heard any sirens.

We haven't heard any sirens here in Tel Aviv since this morning when there were about three or four in very quick succession. And it really looked as though that was going to sink this ceasefire long before it ever really got off the ground. Now it looks as though everybody here is convinced that this is going to hold. We're about to reach that 24-hour point in a few hours, and that will really be a little more convincing that this is actually held.

But so far, it looks like the guns are silent on both sides. And it looks as though Israeli official is absolutely convinced that this is going to hold as well again. And then what more do we know about that call between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu and also Israel's decision to stand down on more strikes? Yeah, I mean, when I was talking to people who are close to the Prime Minister's office, they said they were stunned by the language that was used by President Trump outside of the White House.

You saw where he used that profanity. And then this call basically telling them to turn their jets around, this source I have in the Prime Minister's office verified that that happened. And that Israelis were again shocked. They were embarrassed by the comments of this person said because the president also equated them with Iran.

If you remember those comments, you said Iran and Israel both violated the ceasefire, but he was particularly upset with Israel, a nation that he just went way out on a limb for. And so folks here in leadership positions are saying that they were surprised by this. They thought that sounds like the president Trump was on their side after he did such a big stretch attacking Iran himself. And Bradley reporting live for us in Tel Aviv.

Thank you. And joining me now is the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danan. And the ambassador, I want to get your reaction to reports that the US strikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear sites and likely only set back the country's nuclear program by months. Does Israel share that assessment or is the US Intel community's assessment incorrect?

Yeah, but I think it's still very early to jump into conclusions. We have to wait for the assessments. I can tell you one thing for sure. If you look where Iran was 12 days ago and without today, you understand that, you know, both Israel and the US were able to degrade their capabilities, push them back decades.

And if we had an imminent threat, it's not that it doesn't exist anymore. Today, we can continue to look very carefully at what's happening in Iran. We have to be very careful about their intentions, but they're not in a position of ascending a bomb in a matter of days. We said it's too early to jump to final assessments or conclusions, but President Trump is already saying that the program is totally obliterated.

Well, you know, I'm sure that the US have the only intelligence. I think it will take some more time to look at the results. But, you know, one thing is for sure that Iran is not a threat today to Israel, to the Middle East, the stability of the world order. But like I said earlier, we have to still pay attention because, you know, they have the knowledge and if they will have the desire, I'm not sure they still have the desire, but if they will continue to invest billions on nuclear programs, they can rebuild those capabilities.

So we have to pay attention to what they say, to what they do. And Ambassador, do you have evidence that Iran didn't move their enriched uranium stockpiles before the strikes? Well, we cannot share all the information by Mr Netanyahu said a few days ago that we have some knowledge about the whereabouts of the enriched uranium. And I can tell that's not only us, you know, many countries watch very carefully what's happening in Iran today.

Well, I know you can't get into some operational details of force, but can you say with certainty where Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is currently located? No, I cannot go into those details. But, you know, today we have an security counselor debate about Iran about the nuclear program, the JCPOA, and you saw the way they were able to lie. So even now, even if they would say something, I will recommend my colleagues here at the UN not to believe them.

Well, as we mentioned, Ambassador, President Trump told my colleague yesterday that the ceasefire is, quote, going to go forever. So I ask you, is Israel committed to abiding by the ceasefire? And will it permanently halt all of its military operations against Iran if Iran does the same thing? Yeah, it'd be very thoughtful nation.

We have no conflict or dispute with Iran. We have no border with them. And one should ask yourself why we are a war with them. It's all about their intentions.

If they will give their intention to destroy Israel, to develop a weapon of mass destruction that can threaten us, you know, we have nothing against them. And so it's basically it's up to them to decide where they're heading. I hope they will choose a peaceful manner and I'm optimistic, maybe not about Iran, but about other countries that will join the Abraham Accords very soon. And Ambassador, if an Iranian proxy group struck Israel, would you consider that a violation of the ceasefire and would Israel strike back?

We will defend ourselves here. You know, we've moved it already in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Yemen, and we'll continue to do that. You know, we've ever seen that we are weak. He's mistaken.

You know, we were called by the October 7th. We paid that heavy price. But they think we were able to rebuild our capabilities. And today, the Middle East, I think it's very clear that we don't want to mess with Israel.

Ambassador, I want to play something that Iran's foreign minister told my colleague Andrew Mitchell last week before the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites. Let's just suppose they destroy one facility or two. We can rebuild them because the technology is there, the technologies that we have achieved that ourselves and the technology cannot be reversed, cannot be destroyed by your bombs.

Even a 30,000 pound bunker, a bastard pound that U.S. has several of them. No, they can destroy a facility altogether. Okay.

But the knowledge is there. The technology is there. Ambassador, what's your response to that? We fully dismantle Iran's nuclear program with just military strikes.

We'll be able to wipe out that knowledge as a foreign minister said. Okay. But I happen to agree with the Iranian minister all fall in the first. It's true if you have the desire and the knowledge and invest the money, you can acquire a nuclear capability.

But they should add one more point that, you know, either the U.S. will not allow it. So I don't think that the passage will be good for the Iranian people to go back to where they will. But if they will do that, they will find us, they will find the U.S.

and other countries standing in the way of achieving a nuclear capability. So if the current ceasefire holds, Ambassador, will Israel welcome the resumption of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran? You know, I believe in diplomacy.

You know, we had to act because diplomacy failed. You know, Iran was able to lie for so many years. And that's why we had to use the military force. We always prefer diplomacy.

And I hope that the international community will be smart in us and strong in us to approach Iran in a different way with most suspicions and to make sure that if you put actually some kind of a mechanism, you can enforce it, you know, I listen very carefully to the reports from the IEA, you know, today they are blind, they have no knowledge about what's happening in Iran. So you mentioned you support diplomacy, Ambassador, that's a yes, you would welcome a resumption of talks between the U.S. and Iran. So I said, if it would be a mechanism that will prevent Iran from moving forward with their ambitions, that we'll be able to supervise what's happening there, you know, that's something that we will already welcome.

Ambassador, Danny Danan, we really appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Gabe. And coming up, War and Peace, Iran's nuclear program, and the State of the President's agenda, Republican Congressman Greg Stuvia, a top member of the House Intelligence Committee, joins us next, plus lives in New York, it's primary day.

New Yorkers brave, steaming, hot conditions to cast their ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor in race that has narrowed to a scandal plagued former governor and a fiercely progressive local assemblyman. They're watching Meet the Press now, stay with me. Welcome back. Congressional briefings on Iran have been postponed until later this week.

The House and Senate were supposed to receive those classified briefings today, but they've been rescheduled to allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hankseth to return from the NATO summit to attend. That's all comes as questions still remain about the intelligence used to justify this week in strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and intelligence to back up President Trump's claims that the strikes totally obliterated those nuclear facilities. It also comes as lawmakers remain focused on President Trump's domestic agenda with Republicans trying to pass the President's big, beautiful bill before the July 4th recess, less than two weeks from now. The President posting on social media today, no one goes on vacation until it's done.

So I'm joined now by Congressman Greg Stuvia, Republican from Florida, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Yeah, I can see it.

So the President has insisted that Iran's nuclear facilities have been totally obliterated, as we mentioned, but CNN and the New York Times are reporting that an initial classified U.S. report assesses that this week can strike set back Iran's nuclear program by just a few months. So the White House, as we said, is pushing back against those reports. But what do you know about that assessment and what's your reaction if it's true?

Well, I can't speak directly to the intelligence reports, but what the President has said is that they're obliterated, what you heard the IAEA, one of the UN individuals saying that there was significant damage. I think it's going to take time. It's going to take time for DOD and the Pentagon to come up with their battle assessments and their battle damages. Then once that's done, they'll probably make that public to the American people.

And Congressman, there are satellite images of trucks outside of Ford O2 days before the U.S. Right. So do we have proof that the Enrich uranium was actually in the facility when we struck it? You know, there's been open source reporting about that.

We in the intelligence committee have not been specifically briefed on that issue, but that's something that obviously once we get those battle damage assessments from the Pentagon, that'll be something that I would imagine the Pentagon and Secretary of Health is going to want to make available to the public after they're declassified and ensure that all the information is accurate. And Congressman, I want to ask you about how close Iran was to getting a nuclear weapon. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, or at least the Supreme Leader had not authorized it, a Senator Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee said last week that he was briefed and that the intelligence had not changed. So was the U.S.

intelligence community wrong? Look, the president was very clear that they were close, I think it's what the president said publicly. Obviously, the Israelis have taken action before the United States took action for a variety of reasons that you'd have to ask the Israelis, but I think I would tend to lean on what the president has said publicly on that issue. And we'll have to wait and see if there's other intelligence reports that are made public after that time.

And did the intelligence that President Trump relied on to decide to strike Iran? Did that intelligence come from Israel? I can't comment on that because I don't know. You'd have to ask the president that question.

We get different briefings than what the president does typically very after the fact. We get the briefings that the president does. So he's got real-time information that's going on at that point in time. And obviously, in the situation room, he has the ability to get real-time intelligence from wherever he needs to get that intelligence from, so I'd have to direct those questions to the White House.

Fair enough. Are you concerned about Iran covertly reconstituting its nuclear program in the future now? The president seems pretty sure on this truce that we're currently working ourselves through. Obviously, the best thing for the Iranian people is peace in the Middle East and not being furthering some type of nuclear program.

Every president, like the last four presidents, have all said that Iran should not have an nuclear weapon. And we finally got a president that was bold enough to act on that and ensure that Iran didn't have nuclear capabilities. So I commend the president for doing that. And we'll just have to wait and see what the Iranians decide to do.

But based on reporting, it appears that they want to go into this truce for this period of time, which would be great. Congressman, what is the biggest question you'd like answered when the administration briefs house members later this week? Well, I mean, I think one of the things that obviously you're asking us about is battle damage assessment. I think that's one of the mind of members of Congress.

We want to know what was hit, because obviously there's being reporting on differing varying issues on that, whether how much of it was taken out. So I think that's probably going to be the first question. I would imagine Secretary Hex, that's probably going to address that at the forefront as to what we specifically hit and what that battle damage assessment is. So that's probably another reason why other than the fact that they were the NATO summit to give those Pentagon officials time to come up with a very accurate battle damage assessment that they can then give to members of Congress.

Congressman, turning out to the president's domestic agenda and his so-called big, beautiful bill. The president posted on social media today that no one goes on vacation until it's done. Are you willing to cancel next week's recess to work with the Senate on getting that deal across the finish line? Look, I'm committed to getting the president's priorities and the one big, beautiful bill done as soon as possible.

Right now, it's in the hands of the Senate and I don't have any idea of how long it's going to take them. I don't know if the Senate knows when they're going to be able to pass that bill and send it back over to the House. And then the question is going to be, once we get that bill, are we just going to put it on the floor and vote it out with the Senate changes? Are we going to have the votes to do that?

Are we going to go into conference? And obviously all of that's going to take some time. So we can't make any moves on the House side until the Senate sends it over for us. And what potential changes in the Senate version of the bill would be a red line for you?

For me, I love the salt changes. I was a big opponent of increasing the salt limit because that's only helping big tax dates like New York, New Jersey, and California. It's very bad tax policy to reward bad behavior in high-tax areas and then give those people a credit so you've got people in New York who are paying less than federal income tax because they have a high-state and local income tax. So I like what they did on salt, but they went backwards on the different Green New Deal type of provisions that got much more moderate than what I would like.

But at the end of the day, the corporate principles of TCJA and reauthorizing and making permanent Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is something that we have to get done for the American people. And, Congressman, I want to switch the conversation a little bit to your home state of Florida. State officials, they're planning to build a detention center for migrants on the grounds of an old airport in the Everglades. They're calling the detention center and naming it alligator alcatraz because it's surrounded by alligators and other dangerous wildlife.

First of all, what's your reaction to the plan? Is it necessary? Well, they just left session. So they're done for the year.

They got done with their budget. I've seen reporting on this, but I don't know specifics on it. I can't really comment specifically on what the state legislature is doing. It's been several years since I've been in the state legislature.

Right. Well, in more of a larger sense, the Department of Homeland Security is confirming us. They're saying that it could cost some $450 million a year that the state could apply for reimbursement from FEMA and that it's all part of the president's mass deportation plan. On that, with those details, do you think that this is a good idea for your home state?

Well, I 100% support the president's deportation efforts. Joe Biden let 12 million illegals come into our country. Criminals, gang members, terrorists, murderers, and it's the president's priority to get those individuals out of our country. And I 100% support that.

Congressman Steuben of Florida, thank you so much for your time today. Yeah, we can see you. And up next, if it's election day, it's Steve Cornaki, not the big board. He's standing by to break down what to watch for when the results start coming in and how ranked the choice voting actually works.

The New York City's highly contested race for mayor. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the criteria. Workout's meal plans.

It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members begin an exclusive 50% off in annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more. XFINITY.

Imagine that. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, putting podcasts from NBC News with meter host Yasmin D'Sougean. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page, the Zeitgeist.

Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back. What we like to say around here, it's Tuesday, someone's voting somewhere, and today that's somewhere in New York City.

Nearly a million Democrats are expected to cast ballots in today's mayoral primary, choosing from a crowded slate of candidates. But polls show the contest has narrowed to a two-man fight between former Governor Andrew Cuomo and 33-year-old Democratic socialist Doron Mondani. In the final days, before the election, Cuomo has been backed by big-name Democrats from the party establishment, picking up endorsements from former President Bill Clinton and South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn. Meanwhile, Mondani has rallied and laughed with endorsements from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, and turning up the heat on this race, the weather.

What temperatures expect at the top 100 degrees in New York City today? It's unclear how the extreme heat could impact turnout and the race to lead. America's most populous city. And joining us now is my colleague, Vong Hillier, from inside a polling site in New York City and NBC's National Political Correspondent, Steve Kornacke.

As always, is that the big board? Thank you both for joining me, Vong. I want to start with you. You managed to catch up with both of the top contenders today.

So what did they have to say about their vision for the city? Right. You know, you could make the case that, of course, this is about who's going to run New York City for the years ahead. But also in a lot of ways, these two men represent really the reflective of the conversation happening within the Democratic Party nationally.

You have 67-year-old Andrew Cuomo, three-term governor backed by Bloomberg, blacks backed by Bill Clinton. And then you have Zoron Mamdoni, who has the enforcement of Alexandria Pazucaportez and Bernie Sanders. He would be the first Muslim mayor of New York. He's an immigrant himself and he has been in the New York State Assembly for a few years.

But somebody that really rose to prominence in just the last few months, largely off of his social media presence. I was talking to an 18-year-old Matteo who just registered to vote for the first time and voted for the first time. And he said that he and his friends were galvanized to Zoron Mamdoni's message. And that is what led him to actually go and vote today.

I want to let you listen to both Andrew Cuomo's take on this race and on his opponent and Mamdoni, who is, again, half of his age and is trying to present voters a very different version of New York City's future. If you win, what does it say about the city but also the country? That we're ready for a new generation of leadership, that we're ready for a city we can afford, and that we're ready to actually vote for something. Because that's why I've heard a hunger, to actually have a vision for what these five boroughs could be, not just a fear of what it is in it.

Why do you want to run the city? I want to run the city because I love the city. It is what my family is all about. It's what my family worked to produce.

I'm afraid for what's happening for New York City. I served as head secretary. I've seen cities decline. This city is declining.

Now of course, Andrew Cuomo resigned four years ago after 11 women came forward with allegations of sexual harassment. One gentleman who I just talked to, Daniel, that walked in, put Brad Lander, who is the city comptroller, who is sort of in polling somewhere around number three. So this is not just the two men race. There are 11 folks in it here, but there's a lot of questions, especially with that ranked choice voting.

We may not know the result tonight. And von Smartman moved inside from that triple digit. He really quickly though, do you get the sense that those temperatures have stifled turn out at all? I think it's a good question on turn out.

And so we've seen a steady flow of folks that have been coming here through this Midtown East, Manhattan location throughout the day. I've watched several people and I'm talking to some poll workers who have shared stories of folks that despite the heat have worked to make their way in and were determined to vote. I did unfortunately watch one man go down to his knees because of the heat outdoors. He is still intending to vote.

So I think that it's a difficult weather day at the same time. As you mentioned, a million Democrats that are potentially going to be coming to the polls here in a very important race, not just for New York, but really to get the temperature of the Democratic Party nationally, potentially. Von Hill, your life for us in New York City. Von, thank you.

I want to turn now too. Steve Cornack, let's bring you in here. What are you keeping your eyes on tonight? Yeah.

A couple of things you're giving me. First of all, look, these are the major contenders here at the Democratic side. You mentioned that ranked choice component of this where voters are asked when they get the ballot, pick up to five candidates, rank them in order of preference. When they start tabulating the lowest performers, get knocked out, their votes get reallocated second, third choice.

That sort of thing. And one of those dynamics I think you heard before, I'm talking about it was that Mom Donnie has sort of has an alliance here with another candidate, Brad Lander, who's been running third in the polls. They've been telling each other supporters, hey, you know, Lander's been saying vote for Lander first, rank him and Donnie's been saying, rank me first, but include Lander on your ballot. Nobody they've been telling their supporters rank Cuomo, so that becomes sort of the new layer of this where even if in the initial count Cuomo wins, what Mom Donnie is counting on is that there's a lot of anti Cuomo votes out there that would eventually sort of filter his way as this very complicated ranked choice tabulation plays out.

But in terms of timing, we're not going to know tonight because all they're going to give us tonight are the first choice votes. You can see that here. That is, again, you get pick up to five in order. The first preference of voters that we're going to learn tonight, and we're not even going to get all the votes tonight.

We're going to get our votes that we're casting in person at the polls today like you just saw where Vaughn was there. You're going to see votes that were cast early and you're going to see votes that were cast by mail. The ballots, though, that were received before the weekend, so that's a lot of mail and vote that have come in since the weekend. They're not going to be there tonight.

That's what we're going to get tonight over the next week. More mail and votes are going to be tabulated are going to trickle in if they're postmarked by today. They can still count. So it'll be next Tuesday.

It'll actually be the first of July. That is when New York City is actually going to do this ranked choice tabulating and we're going to see round by round. They'll do it instantly. You'll suddenly go from having just those first preference votes reported out to having everything reported out.

But July 1st, next Tuesday, that's when we should know, although I could note, if this thing is exceptionally close, if it's razor thin, that total next week still won't include the provisional ballots. That'll probably be a week later. So if this thing is as razor thin as possible, we may still be two weeks away from finding out in this. And of course, it's New York City.

We can get into this later, but it's possible these candidates, both Cuomo and Mondami, don't call it quits tonight, no matter what, and go on to fight the general election. They both have the option to do that if they want. That could come into play after as well. If we're not going to, we know you will be watching at all.

I was a pleasure, sir. Thank you. You got it. And after the break, true social diplomacy and 30,000 pound bombs by the president and his party are looking to capitalize at home on several, on some unconventional tactics abroad.

The panel's next. We're watching, we need to press now. And welcome back. Let's get right to the panel.

Susan Page, watching the bureau chief for USA Today, Joe Payne, democratic strategist and former senior aide for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And also with me is Brendan Buck to work for speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan. He's also an NBC News political analyst. Thank you all so much for joining me, Susan.

Let's start with you. We're talking about all this going on in the Middle East. As of now, it's still too early to tell whether the ceasefire holds. But do you think this could potentially be quite a win for the Trump administration?

It could be a huge win. It looks like the ceasefire is holding because he came out so fiercely, at least in part because he came out so fiercely this morning and told the Israelis and the Iranians to make it work. I think it is quite remarkable for a president on the south lawn. I don't think I've heard that before, but you know, some rain on his parade this afternoon with report, credible reports of an intelligence estimate that all that's happened is the nuclear program in Iran has been set down back months, not obliterated.

And so that has the potential, if confirmed, to be quite problematic for what the president can brag about it. That seems to really struck a nerve with the president because earlier today, something else anything on the south lawn, he lashed out at the media for focusing on this idea of whether the program was totally obliterated or was it severely damaged. The president didn't seem to like, you know, media outlets trying to make that distinction. That's right.

Totally obliterated would be a huge historic legacy making achievement, considerably damage that would be good. But if it's only set back months, I'm not sure that's quite in the same category. Brendan, I want to get your thoughts on this truth of social diplomacy and how it played out yesterday. What did you make of it?

The president making these pronouncements to the world before it's really, how do you really sunk in and either Israel or Iran? You remember for a few hours there, we didn't really know if those countries had signed onto this. Yeah. I mean, one of the things that the Trump people always say is that you can never really tell where the president is.

And strategically, because you never really kind of nail him down. I actually think there is something to that. If you are in either one of these capitals, you are probably unsure what to make of what Donald Trump is. And that probably freezes you in place a little.

I don't think either of them feel like they're in a position to go on the offensive right now, especially after what Trump has just demonstrated he's willing to do. And in some ways, I think given his sort of America-first background, I think he is uniquely a president that can get away with being more aggressive here. I certainly don't think that Kamala Harris would be able to do this. I don't think a lot of Republican presidents, as we've seen in the past, wouldn't be able to do this because he has demonstrated, or at least has said for a long time, doesn't want to get involved in wars.

It's such an extraordinary opportunity that he has to take it. So he's got a little more leisure, I think, with a lot of Republicans. And you're all interested from the Democratic perspective. Democrats are arguing that he overstepped his authority.

He didn't run this by Congress. Do you think that that is a winning argument? I mean, is it a winning argument outside of DC? Probably not in the short run.

I do think, though, this is part of this, but I would say this portrait for the president where trust, being able to actually trust his word in the public space, things are becoming an issue. I think it's becoming an issue for allies across the globe, and obviously, an issue on Capitol Hill. I mean, it's one thing to campaign about domestic political issues. You're talking about foreign policy.

You're talking about politics should end at the water's edge. Donald Trump doesn't allow for that. Not giving those Democrats the deference, the mark orders of the world, the deference that they would need to understand what's about to happen in Iran. I think it's a real problem for him.

I agree with Britain. I don't think Kamala Harris would have started a conflict into it, and then called it a ceasefire all in a week. I agree with you. Brendan, I want to play some sound from Senator Blumenthal from this morning and talk about it on the other side.

Let's listen. I am deeply concerned that this ceasefire may be more in Donald Trump's imagination than in reality. I hope he knows what he's doing. I think that he is operating in some ways as a free agent, apparently, without the involvement of a seasoned national security team that will not only allow him to direct events in the world at large.

I am deeply concerned that chaos and confusion seem to be the United States' brand of foreign policy right now. Brendan, what do you mean specifically about that criticism? Donald Trump seems to thrive on chaos. We've known that for a long time, but is chaos the brand of his foreign policy right now?

No, I think decisiveness was the brand of his foreign policy here. Look, there's a lot we don't know, and so we are speculating now about how successful the attacks were, what the intelligence were leading up to it, and I think we're going to have a lot of questions for a long time about what was the intelligence? What did we know? What did we think we were going to be capable of?

What was the actual impact here? I think Democrats need to, I think, take a little bit of a breather here because they're very eager to attack him on something that if he was successful and we were, this was a successful operation, should be an achievement that we can all be proud of and to the nuclear program. Now, we don't know if that's what happened here, but there's going to be attack him first before they even find out what happened here. And look, I'm no defender of Donald Trump, but I think this is an opportunity where we should all figure out what actually the intelligence shows.

And Susan, moving out towards the NATO summit, which we also talked about earlier in the morning, made some comments about Article 5, which he has questioned before. What do you make of that aspect of foreign policy? How do you think NATO world leaders will receive him given everything that's gone down in the last 48 hours? You know, I think it's all connected.

And if you look victorious, you victory begets victory, power begets power. So the idea that he has pulled this maneuver in the Middle East that is really quite remarkable, I think helps us, helps us standing as clout with NATO. I think NATO now, the other NATO leaders now understand in a way they didn't during his first term, how serious he is about some of the things he says, including questioning Article 5, including demanding higher levels of military spending by European countries, which by the way, is about to be another victory that he can bring about. And I want to put up a couple of social media posts from the president earlier today.

He first warned Israel not to drop bombs on Iran and later saying Israel would not attack Iran. Have we ever seen anything like this level of public pressure season so out in the open or calling it true social diplomacy, not just, you know, speaking with world leaders, but really, you know, speaking to other governments through social media. Governing by true social. That's what we're seeing.

And it's a sign of the earlier point that we heard Senator Blumenthal make that this is not a traditional kind of administration where there are some competing power centers that offset one another. This is an administration where the power is centered in one person who has the ability by sending a post on social media to declare policies of the world that everybody else reacts to. And Joel is switching out to the domestic politics side of it, but also somewhat related to this. Thomas Massey and now in the president in this view, the president threatening to primary him just a couple of hours ago, apparently, Congressman Massey getting to an online feud with vice president J.D.

Vance. Where do you see this going? And is it something that Democrats, you know, Democrats have seemed to latch on to Thomas Massey? I mean, I don't know if any Democrats will be going to campaign for Thomas Massey in Kentucky.

But they've got to join in with him already. Yeah, they have. And there's this resolution that Massey is working with Democrats on Capitol Hill right now. I think Democrats respect the fact that even in this mega era of the Republican party, you have a Republican who actually will stand on principle.

That's why Rand Paul got his back. That's why you've seen some Democrats willing to get his back. I think it will be interesting to see how this ages for him because what the power center in the Republican party is Donald Trump and Maga. There's a reason why he was able to stand up a pack back by Chris Lasavia within a few days of launching a threat to primary him.

All right, Joel, Brendan, Susan. Thank you so much. Thanks for joining me here on the panel. We really appreciate it.

Instead of coming, the power players impacted by the president's legislative agenda. We'll take a deep dive into how the solar industry is bracing very cruel, hot sum. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

As the sweeping bill to fund President Trump's agenda continues to make its way through Congress, one group bracing for impact is the solar energy industry. Solar power is currently the fastest growing source of energy in the U.S., but the bill in its current form contains a provision that would remove some tax incentives that are quite literally powering the industry's growth. And you see as David Noriega has more. Two hours outside of L.A., acres upon thousands of acres of solar panels quietly turn the harsh desert sunlight into cheap, clean power.

When it's finished, this facility will have close to 1.3 million solar panels, producing enough electricity to power 7% of Los Angeles. That's just this facility alone. And it's part of an ongoing, unprecedented boom in the solar industry with projects like this one underway, not just here, but across the country. That boom was triggered by Joe Biden's 2022 climate bill, which included tax incentives that unlock a flood of investment, putting solar on track to triple by 2028.

But the Republican spending bill, as approved by the House, would quickly and completely wipe out those tax incentives. And this solar company, CEO, says that just the threat of that has made it nearly impossible to do business. I mean, literally hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs created. We invest equity in it.

We bring in tax equity partners. We bring in lending partners. And then they look at the uncertainty in the market and they're like, well, maybe we're not ready to invest in this right yet. Republicans in Washington following President Donald Trump's lead slam tax credits for renewables as a multi-billion dollar handout.

And so the billionaires that got rich off their tax breaks got a big break. And we aim to phase them out or repeal them. According to industry groups, 80 percent of new growth in solar has been in Republican controlled districts and lobbyists have been hitting Capitol Hill to make that point. This is creating jobs, creating investment, creating factories in Republican states across the country.

It doesn't help anyone in our country to take them away. That's resonating with some Republican senators who states have seen a lot of the benefits and whose support is necessary for the bill to survive. We've got to make sure that we hold these businesses harmless the best way to do that is let them follow through and get the projects done. Companies and investors who banked on the growth of clean energy are hoping for a compromise.

They say a gradual phase out of the tax credits could be manageable. In the meantime, even from out here in the desert, their eyes are squarely on Washington, D.C. Do you think this should be a partisan issue in the way that it seems to be? You know, it wasn't.

You know, that moved into renewable energy in 2004. It wasn't a partisan issue back then. Somehow that hasn't reverberated into the politicians. And we thank David Norrieger for that reporting.

We should know, to Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, said today, that the Senate will be adjusting clean energy provisions in the bill to make them more generous. But whether those changes make it into the final bill remains to be seen. And that does it for us today. I'm Dave Gutierrez and we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

The news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.