Meet the Press NOW – June 25

You have a reason to care. You know someone. You've lost someone. You've lived it.

The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge. From May 25th to 29th, Canadians are waking up with a sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun.

Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca. If it's Wednesday, President Trump tells new Israeli intelligence that the Stripes on Iran's nuclear program set it back by years as the White House lashes out over a leaked preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that raised questions about the effectiveness of the Stripes.

Plus, Sorhan Mandami, a 33-year-old Democratic socialist, defeats former Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York City's mayoral primary in what could be a wake-up call for Democrats and the establishment wing of the party. And somehow, Republicans fear they could soon be facing a perilous dilemma except the Senate's version of President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which they worry could cost them their House majority or risk defying the President. Welcome to me, the press now. I'm Kristen Welker.

We begin with President Trump doubling down on his claims about the destructive impact of U.S. airstrikes on Iran and downplaying a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment that appears to contradict those claims. At a news conference today at the Hague, the President again insisted that the Stripes on three Iranian nuclear facilities quote, totally obliterated the country's nuclear program.

Listen. As you know, the devastating U.S. strike on Fordeaux destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility totally inoperable. It was devastated.

We assessed that the American Stripes on Iran's nuclear facilities have set back a ransibility to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come. The President's comments come despite a preliminary intelligence assessment, which was leaked to the press that suggests the strikes may have only set back Iran's nuclear capabilities by a few months. My colleague, Kelly O'Donnell, pressed the President on that assessment. What your message then, sir, to the intelligence community when they present reports?

You're not just muting the DIE report, you're just- They presented a report that wasn't finished. We're talking about something that took place three days ago. The report was done one minute. They didn't see it.

All they can do is take a guess. Now, if you take a look at the pictures, if you take a look at how it's all blacked, you know the fire and brimstone is all on the ground because it's granite and it's all on the ground. You don't show it. Do you have a message for the intelligence community, though, in terms of unvarnished information getting to you, that it's not- I already have a message.

I would say issue the report when you know what happened. I wouldn't say that it could be severe or maybe not. They use the word severe. It could be severe or maybe it's not.

So people like you picked up and said, oh, it's not severe. Now, the report was not a complete report. Yeah, the message was probably wait till you know the answer before you. This afternoon, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard posted on social media, quote, new intelligence confirms what the President has stated numerous times.

Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities entirely, which would likely take years to do. Now, it's unclear what new intelligence she's referencing, also bolstering the President's claims today, an Israeli military spokesperson saying that the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes set Iran's nuclear program back, quote, many years, and Israel's Atomic Energy Commission assessing that the U.S.

strikes on Iran's fordow plant, quote, destroyed its critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility in operable. Additionally, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs today acknowledged that the country's nuclear facilities had been badly damaged and in the sign the Trump administration is looking to move forward. The President says U.S. and Iranian officials will meet next week.

NBC News Chief Justice and National Affairs correspondent, Kelly O'Donnell joins me now from the Netherlands. Also with me is NBC News Senior National Security correspondent, Courtney QB, thanks to both of you for being here. Kelly, incredible job at the press conference today. Really an extraordinary exchange.

The President saying the U.S. intelligence assessment is too preliminary. Talk about the argument he is trying to make and where this goes from here. Well, certainly we have heard from the President from the earliest minutes after this strike was made public that he has certainly lifted up the military who carried out the operation, the various pilots and all of the coordinating elements as being successful.

But there is also a question about what is the ultimate consequence of a successful military operation. And from the earliest moments, he's been making a political argument that this was a devastating attack on the Iranian nuclear program. And then this Defense Intelligence Agency report, which they acknowledge was an initial early report, preliminary, you could say, had raised the question about the scope of the impact of the strikes, saying three to six months of time, setting back the program. The President is certainly arguing that it is a much more devastating impact and that it effectively will take out the Iranian nuclear program for a period of years, permanently, as even as far as he has gone.

And so we've seen the President making a very strong political argument, bringing in his Secretary of Defense and his Secretary of State to bolster that, citing foreign intelligence from Israel and Iran to sort of support his claims while at the same time expressing frustration at the media, certainly, but also at the authors of the Defense Intelligence report that made that assessment that does not live up to what the President wants the messaging to be. Absolutely. We'll have to see how this continues to play out. Kelly, he made another really striking statement, which is that he said there would be meetings between U.S.

and Iranian officials. As soon as next week, what can you tell us about those meetings? What are your sources telling you? Well, that was an announcement that he made.

And he said perhaps there would be something to sign. He said that he talked to the Secretary of State Rubio about having some sort of document that would codify in writing the results of this, that they would not be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The President is insisting that Iran no longer wants to do that, even though for many years they have been pursuing that. So that's part of what he talked about.

He also talked about on the ground assessments that he is expecting to learn more about that. That's notable because that would mean intelligence assets or military assets on the ground to inspect damage in addition to any of the other kinds of tools that can be used through satellite imaging and so forth. So the next steps with Iran, that is a big question. And the President describes that country as being weary from the war with Israel and with the strikes levied by the United States.

And so more to come on what that meeting would look like and which officials could be involved. And one more headline, Kelly, I have to ask you about which is President Trump met with President Zelensky. Of course, we've been tracking the war in Ukraine his attempts to wind that down as well. What were the key takeaways from that meeting?

Well, the fact that the meeting happened was notable because there was no opportunity for the press to see the two leaders together. That stands out. Obviously, they can have private meetings, but typically at a NATO summit, especially when President Zelensky of Ukraine is such a central figure in the discussions at NATO, that there is no visual, no photo, no opportunity for the press to show the two leaders together. I asked the President if that was a technical move given the fact he's trying to bring Vladimir Putin along on a ceasefire.

He didn't actually respond to that part of it. There were so many questions being asked. But what is striking about this is there was some discussion about how to try to bring about a ceasefire and also some discussion of weapons that Ukraine would like from the United States. A real question still about how much of the United States, separate from Europe's contributions, would continue to back Ukraine with munitions and support.

Certainly an important meeting for Ukraine. Undoubtedly, the President signaling he may be open to sending Patriot missiles, which would be a significant shift. Kelly O'Donnell covering a number of headlines after an incredibly long day and tremendous effort at that press conference. Thank you so much.

Courtney Kubie, let me head over to you. Let's start with what we heard from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. She referenced this new intelligence assessment. What are you learning about what she may have been referencing?

And remember, the President at that press conference with Kelly earlier also said that more intelligence has come in. From the beginning, when we first learned about this Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, it's been very clear that this was a preliminary assessment. It's an early on look at what they knew so far. The intelligence community knows so far about what happened and it's also very clear that they will continue to get more information in, not just in the form of the satellite imagery that we know they've been collecting since Sunday, but in other methods as well.

Remember, there's various kinds of intelligence including human intelligence, signals intelligence. The President today, you know, in surprising a lot of people, myself included, frankly, acknowledged that there are people on the ground who have had some sort of access to these sites that have provided more information about exactly what happened underneath there. But remember, Kristen, it's not just U.S. intelligence that the administration is now setting.

They're also talking about information that's coming from allied intelligence, like the Israelis. They put out information or a statement saying that they believe the facilities were destroyed. And then the President, even today, are referencing Iranians. The official Iranian statement about it saying that there had been some destruction at these facilities.

So at this point, it's not really clear, but information is definitely continuing and intelligence are definitely continuing to come into the community here. And just put into context, Courtney, if you would, for our viewers, the idea that the first assessment is preliminary. It was assessed with low confidence. What exactly does that mean?

And typically, wouldn't administration take into account the intelligence from other countries as well? Yes, depending on the country. So especially if it's one of the five eyes, one of the closest intel sharing countries that the United States has. But remember, I, you know, most intelligence that we hear about when we get any kind of information or assessments, generally people tell us that it is a low confidence.

That's pretty common. So that doesn't surprise me at all. A battle damage assessment, like the one that we would be seeing for Iran, can take days or weeks. And Iran is one of the most difficult places that they would have to figure out exactly what would be happening here, because the US doesn't have anyone on the ground that we're aware of.

There could be partners or allies who would have people, like the President was presumably referencing today. But it's not just that. So they're gonna rely because it's not a friendly place for the US to be flying aircraft over. They rely on satellite imagery.

They rely on things like signals in intercepts or listening to what's happening there. But because they can't, you know, get in themselves and look at it, that's only gonna make it more difficult. And then Kristin, that's compounded by the fact that the sites are very deep underground. So they're relying on imagery from overhead that doesn't show what happened underneath there.

It's an extremely difficult intelligence picture for them to put together. The notion that they would have a fulsome look at it within 24 hours or even 48 hours officials are telling us that's just not the case. They expect to get a fuller picture to it over days and potentially even weeks. Courtney, QB, thank you so much for putting it all into context for us, helping us understand this incredibly complicated storyline.

We really appreciate it. I am joined now by David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security. He's also a former nuclear weapons inspector. Thank you so much for being here.

We really appreciate it. Well, we really are glad to have you and your insights. I want to read a little bit of what your organization has assessed. So far, you write overall Israel's and U.S.

attacks have effectively destroyed Iran's centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack. Help us understand what does long time mean? What do years?

Yeah, essentially years. And what it is is what you can assess with overhead imagery now is the buildings on the surface. And we know what they do. And so the facilities to make guests centrifuges destroyed the facility, a big facility to make the kind of the input material to a gas centrifuge called uranium hexafluorine completely destroyed.

It took around years to build those facilities. And so the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, who you quoted earlier, talks about the destruction of the infrastructure to make centrifuges. And that's some of the things they're talking about. What is at the bait here is what's happened in one facility in particular, wait for now, which has about 2,700 centrifuges.

And another facility, the Tans, which isn't that deeply buried, works, we're pretty convinced that many of the centrifuges were destroyed through both Israeli Earth penetrators and the US mob that hit it hit it a couple days ago. And that had 15,000 centrifuges. And so you have a situation where there's very little left in the program. And that's really what we're fighting over in a sense.

And it's important to fight over it because they could use that residual capability to set up a secret site to make weapon-grade uranium for nuclear weapons. So why do you think there's this discrepancy where you have these initial intelligence reports saying, oh, no, it's only been set back by a few months? And by the way, is key to getting to the root of this, people on the ground, human sources on the ground, to actually be able to see what the damage looks like with their own eyes? Yeah, it's certainly intelligence is going to have to answer this.

And I was a little bit surprised that President Trump would talk about people on site because I doubt if they were military forces of Israel, I mean, I would imagine they're more likely to be part of Mossad, opposing his workers or something. But yes, you do need people. But the bottom line is that it's in public, we don't really know what this DIA assessments about. It doesn't, from a technical point of view, saying the program is only set back by a few months doesn't make any sense when they've destroyed the ability to make any centrifuges.

Produce any feed gas for the centrifuge, which means they can't operate past once they use up their supply. So what I'm trying to figure out is maybe they mean something like the amount of time it would take for some X number of residual centrifuges to operate or the amount of time it would take to make use of a small group of centrifuges to make weapon-grade uranium in secret. But on the face of it, the statement makes no sense. You know, one of the big discussions right now, in addition to how much damage to these nuclear facilities suffer, has the uranium been moved?

I want to play a little bit of what we heard from President Trump and get your reaction on the other side. We think we hit them so hard and so fast they didn't get to move. And if you knew about that material, it's very hard and very dangerous to move. What do you make of that assessment by the President?

Could they have moved their enriched uranium before the attack? Well, they actually announced to the International Atomic Energy that they were planning to do it. We don't know if they did it or not. Some of the tanks are very heavy.

If you're talking about, let's say, 5 percent of rich, they're very heavy. If you're talking about 60 percent, they're not very heavy and they can easily be moved and move safely. And they're actually in containers designed to withstand accidents during transportation. So it can be moved and it's a real issue.

Part of what we're hearing from Israel and others is that there's more in the rubble than people understand. But again, it's unconfirmed. And from a planning point of view, you have to assume they still have stocks. So finally, President Trump made this striking statement, I thought, in which he basically said he doesn't think Iran has any interest in continuing its nuclear program.

And yet, our Andrea Mitchell was able to speak with Iran's Foreign Minister last week. I'm going to read you a little bit of what he said. He said, suppose they destroyed one facility or two. We can rebuild them because the knowledge is there.

The technology is there. We have achieved that ourselves and the technology cannot be reversed, cannot be destroyed by bombs. That, to me, doesn't sound like a country that is on the cusp of abandoning its nuclear program. How do you read it?

No, I don't think it is yet. I mean, I think they're almost defeated, but we're not quite there. And Trump will have to, President Trump needs to negotiate cleverly to get his goal of no enrichment in Iran. And in that would be to get these stocks of 60 percent and these centrifuges that have gone, in a sense, missing.

So it's going to be difficult. But I will say, if these countries walk away and don't Israel United States without a deal, then they are setting up a situation where six months a year from now, we may be having to deal with a country that's making a little bit of a dash to new weapons. I don't think you can do it now. You can get rid of technology by killing the people.

And they've killed up to 14 people associated with the nuclear weapons program. But those people can be replaced eventually. All right. Well, extraordinary amount of information you just provided.

We really appreciate it, David Albright. Thank you very much for being here. Coming up, how Zorhan Mamdani pulled off a major upset in New York City's mayoral primary. And what it means for America's largest city and the Democratic Party.

We have the results and the political fallout with Steve Bernanke. Plus, hearing his underway right now on the conditions of Kilmar Brago Garcia's release, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador who was returned to the U.S. days ago. And why he could be taken back into federal custody on the very same day of his release.

Stay with us. You're watching me the press now. With the vision of a city that every New Yorker could afford, we have won. Tonight was not our night.

Tonight was Assemblyman Mamdani's night. And he put together a great campaign and he touched young people and inspired them and moved them. Welcome back. That was our on Mamdani declaring victory and Andrew Cuomo conceding defeat after Tuesday's stunning result in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary.

Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic socialist, centered his campaign on progressive policies like universal child care and free city buses. His largely grassroots campaign was powered by small dollar donations and a Saudi social media presence that included viral videos featuring progressive politicians and pop culture celebrities. Cuomo, meanwhile, ran a more traditional campaign backed by big name endorsements like former President Bill Clinton and a heavy rotation of TV ads. But controversy and scandal from his time is governor hung large over his candidacy.

The result has Democrats around the country wondering what Mamdani's victory really says about the state and the future of the Democratic Party. Here to dive into the numbers behind Mamdani's historic night is NBC News National Political Correspondent Steve Cornacki, who is where else at the big board. So Steve, how did he pull off this earthquake? Yeah, Chris, I mean, some really interesting numbers here.

When you take a look inside New York City, first of all, CD overall results here so far, still some votes to be tabulated here. This won't be official for another week. But as you say, Cuomo's already conceded because look, you know, Cuomo felt he needed to be ahead after this initial account. They've got that ranked choice system in New York.

It was pretty clear that a lot of these other candidates who weren't really in contention when their votes got reallocated in ranked choice. A lot of them had been saying to their voters, if you don't vote for me, vote for Mamdani. So the question was, could Cuomo get far enough ahead last night to withstand that? He didn't even get ahead last night.

So that's why this kind of became a foregone conclusion here. We'll break this down now into some of the neighborhoods though, because I think that's where you really start to see this age. You heard Cuomo cite that young voters he said, Mamdani had brought out done well with. There's a tale of two neighborhoods in New York City.

This right here, Bay, Terris and Queens, this is the highest median age of any neighborhood in New York City. Look what happened here. The oldest voters, that was Cuomo's base here in this primary. He won by a better than two to one margin over Mamdani.

Take a look now. Morning side heights. This is up by Columbia University. This is the youngest median age of any neighborhood in New York City.

And look what happened here. Mamdani wanted, he won it overwhelmingly, better than two to one against Cuomo. In fact, Cuomo came in third place in this neighborhood. So that's a pattern you saw.

The younger areas were big areas for Mamdani. Also, this is a big divide we talk about in American politics and it's big in the Democratic Party. The education divide. Mamdani doing so much better with voters who had college degrees or look at this one, advanced degrees.

That is a graduate degree or more. Almost half of the people, the adults in Park Slope, Brooklyn, have at least a graduate degree. And look at this. Mamdani got almost half the vote there.

Cuomo barely registered, only 13%. A third candidate here, Brad Lander got 34%. Other end of the education spectrum, more blue collar, working class, no college degree. Almost 90% of the folks in Fordham Heights have no college degree.

Look at this. Cuomo, again, a landslide for Cuomo there. Nearly 60% of the vote, the education divide. And then, of course, look among non-white voters here.

I thought this is interesting because key, core, traditional part of the Democratic Party base has been black voters. This neighborhood in Queens, 84% of the adult population is black. And Mario Cuomo, listen to me, Andrew Cuomo, wins overwhelmingly against Mamdani. But Cuomo did not run up similar numbers among Latino voters and Asian American voters taking a look here in Corona Queens, highest Latino population, a share of the population.

Look at this. It was almost a tie here. Cuomo narrowly winning. Cuomo's folks had been hoping his campaign had been banking on something much bigger than that here.

Asian American, highest concentration, flushing Queens, basically a tie right there as well. So that is that those two groups of Latinos, Asian Americans, early in the campaign, the Cuomo people thought that was something of a firewall, that didn't hold up for them last night. And that was a very big key in Mamdani's victory. And looking at a potential political realignment, yet again, this time in the Democratic Party, in the Democratic Coalition, Steve Carnegie, thank you so much for those fascinating numbers and breakdown of the race.

Joining me now is Jasmine Wright, White House correspondent at Notice and co-author of the Notice Morning Newsletter, Chuck Rocha, Democratic strategist, and host of the sub-stack show, The Rocha Revolution, and Zach Rodang, Republican strategist and partner at Ascent Media. Thanks to all of you for being here, Jasmine. Let me start with you. So based on what you're hearing from your Democratic sources, do they see this win as more of a victory for Mamdani or the fact that Cuomo was a flawed candidate?

I think that's actually what they're trying to figure out because Mamdani basically had both. Yes, you had the anger of New York constituents against Cuomo. They didn't like him, they didn't like what he did as governor. But she also had a candidate that people thought was very authentic, that he had policies that they liked.

But more importantly, he had social media that reached them, unlike I think you can argue about Kamala Harris and some of the other national Democrats that were up for election in November. And so I think it's a bit of both. The Democratic Party is really going to sift through these numbers and figure out basically how they can extrapolate this, right? Does it go beyond York?

Can it go to a national market? And what is it going to take? Is it that authenticity? Is it the policies?

What is it? I think that that's kind of the weird Democratic party is right now. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Chuck, I know you've been sifting through the numbers as we speak.

What are they telling you and what does it mean in terms of what Democrats have to do to start winning against? It's even more staggering than what my good friend Steve just said. If you look back at a few other big indicators that nobody's talking about, one is the amount of money we've been working in campaigns a long time. Most of the time it's the old saying that I like to say no pay so, no say so.

Whoever spends the most money normally wins. Well, with the Cuomo crew, if you include the super back, they spent $36 million with matching funds. My bounty only spent $9 million. That's an out span of almost five to one.

And you saw the election results there. The second big difference here is that New York Democrats have tried to control the Democratic process by only having one day to vote, no early vote, no vote by mail until COVID. So they didn't want anybody voting in a primary except just Democrats, still just Democrats. But they opened up early voting over many days.

And you saw the Mondani run up his numbers in his core places like Brooklyn. Yeah, and Steve Kornaki highlighted that just absolutely fascinating. So let me turn to you, Zach. I mean, how are Republicans viewing this?

And part of what Democrats are arguing is, this is the playbook for how to win as a progressive. And it was a coalition that came together very convincingly and gave him this victory. Are Republicans going to start to look at progressive candidates a little bit differently in the wake of this? Well, I mean, first of all, an impressive victory and impressive campaign.

I think even if they are sifting through what this means, it's a fairly large win. So this is credit to the Assemblyman and his campaign. But I'd say Democrats are in the wilderness. And so that this campaign and hit this candidacy, they're going to look towards it.

And they're going to that's going to motivate them to connect with voters, go where they are, run viral campaigns with that intensity. And I think Republicans are going to sit back and go, go ahead, that's awesome. Because there a lot of times in campaigns, Chuck knows this, you have to connect some dots for voters. It's easier when you don't.

You don't have to connect any dots with this guy. He is very proudly who he is as a socialist. And so it's going to be very telling when you see people like a King Jeff freeze the minority leader, not endorsing yet Chuck Schumer, not endorsing yet. There's a reason there's here.

Jasmine pick up on that point and let me to that point read what Elise Stefanik is posting on social media. She's a potential gubernatorial candidate and rival to Governor Kathy Hookle. She posted a radical defund the police communist raging anti-Semite who will most likely win the New York City Democrat mayoral primary voters will say enough is enough next year. I mean, we've already seen one Democrat in a battleground seat in New York basically come out and say that New York or New York City made the wrong choice.

This person, because he has in the past said that, you know, I want to defund the police or had maybe more what you would call on the left stances, that this is the wrong person to treat as the next face of the Democratic Party because it puts in more embattled or folks who are in places where Donald Trump won in 2024, more in the spotlight that maybe they would have to then adapt those policies or at least be painted as they would have to adapt those policies. But I think just generally, what Democrats can take from this is not necessarily that they have to go all in on the policies, but then how do they recreate that so that their voters who have been crying for the last five months that they are not connected to the Democrats? They don't understand what they're doing. They're not pushing back on Trump.

How do I then use that authenticity that Mondani showed in their own races? I think that that may be the point of the day. Chuck, and in your answer, give me your reaction to the fact that some top Democrats have not yet endorsed. What do you make of that?

I say that the top Democrats spent 60, 36 million dollars trying to beat him and they all got beat. It's kind of like how did they think about comable hairs? They thought they had that all figured out as well. And they spent more money in Donald Trump still won that.

You use this as an example of how to run a campaign. This campaign does not fit in Dallas, Texas. But there's a reason why I ran Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign in 2020, but also worked for Ruben Gayyego as a senior advisor last time. They both over performed with workers and Latinos because the message model fits.

It's the message of speaking to voters about their pocketbooks, speaking to them about the cost of living. If there's one key takeaway, and obviously there are a lot of issues that were discussed as a part of this campaign, but a lot of Democrats say that's the key that they will take from this, that that's the winning sequence here. Well, what I see too is you've had two Titan figures in my generation of politics with Barack Obama and Donald Trump. And in a way, they've clouded the dysfunction inside and the debate inside the Democrat Party.

Bernie Sanders almost punched through it. He said I believe the time when he lost Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump did punch through it. He said that Hillary Clinton may have won the battle, but she did not win the war in terms of the Democrat Party.

And so with this convincing victory from Zoron, this is pretty compelling. And so to Chuck's point, I think you'll see a lot of Democrats go this way. Chuck, the Democrats have really been in the wilderness. Here you have President Trump's big, beautiful bill.

You have his foreign policy. You have all of these issues that they are able to debate. Do you think they have found a message nationally? Because, Mom, Donnie, whether you agree with him, whether you disagree with him, he had a very clear message.

There's two things you have to win due to win any campaign. You have to discredit whoever's is there. And we're good at running against Donald Trump and saying that all these things are bad. What we've not done a good job is saying what we're for.

And that's what Mom and Donnie did for New York City. Again, that don't fit in Phoenix, Arizona, Dallas. But say what's your for there? Do you know what Donald Trump does really well?

He talks about things that are popular, whether he can deliver them or not. And he got enough working people to vote for him because he said things that they like, like no tax on tips or no tax on overtime. That's a Democratic message that we let them steal. We gotta get back to talking about things that people care about.

Jasmine, do your sources, your Democratic sources tell you they feel as though the party as a whole is any closer to finding their footing? No. I don't think so. When I talk to Democrats, they do not feel that.

And particularly because Democrats have historically been bad on messaging on the police. They've been bad on messaging on crime. They've been bad on messaging on immigration. And they haven't got any better in these five months, according to folks who I talk to in Congress, but also folks who are watching them and are advising them because they just haven't settled on the right way to fight Donald Trump.

And so I think that you're going to see maybe some more woes happen after this New York City race, but certainly they have not landed to where they want to be when it comes to the midterms next year. All right, guys, great conversation. Really appreciated Jasmine, Chuck, and Zach. Up next, new reporting on how President Trump's sweeping bill in Congress could put rural hospitals and their patients at risk of losing access to life saving health care.

And what some concerned lawmakers are trying to do about it. Stay with us. You're watching as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, but you podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Jasmine Vesugio. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative for 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. Let's just take a step back.

It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Welcome back. Republicans have just over a week before their self-imposed deadline to pass the president's one big, beautiful bill, as it's been dubbed.

And senators are scrambling to resolve their differences on several key issues. One major sticking point right now is the proposed cuts to Medicaid, including debate over the provider tax, which helps states fund the Medicaid program. Now, some Senate Republicans are warning the cuts could be devastating to rural hospitals and the communities they serve. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin traveled to Missouri for a firsthand look at the potential consequences.

In this small town in rural Missouri, past Miles of farmland is where Sierra Matthews lives with her two young sons. Before Missouri voted to expand Medicaid access in 2020, Sierra, who works in the public school system, had no health insurance, and she falls below the poverty line. Medicare kind of gave you almost like another chance at life. I 100 percent have been a completely different person just from the diagnosis alone.

Sierra finally received the mental health treatment she says she desperately needed. What do you think it would mean for her to lose access to that medication? She just wouldn't be doing this good. I love her.

Republican lawmakers proposed changes to Medicaid as they attempt to cut federal spending and fund President Trump's agenda. We're making some common sense reforms to Medicaid to eliminate, waste, fraud, and abuse. On the table, new work requirements for some adults and limiting a health care provider fee that states use to fund Medicaid, especially in rural areas. I'm concerned about what the house has done on rural hospitals, essentially the hospital tax.

Dr. Rother, make is the chief of staff at the hospital in the town of Herman where Sierra lives. He says the proposal means billions in funding would be gone to suddenly change it without identifying a way to pick up those loss funds is going to leave a lot of patients, providers, facilities without appropriate funding to take care of the patients that need our care. Is there any more fat to trim here?

I don't think there is. Rothamik says they are already underwater. Just three doctors work at the hospital that cares for patients in two counties where about one in four people rely on Medicaid. Those three doctors have to work overtime and in some cases multiple jobs to fill the void.

You wear many hats. I do. I work with the health departments. I work with EMS as their medical directors and I even have a role in hospice that I work outside of this.

The resources are even fewer in southern Missouri. We've lost three hospitals in the last 10 years in our region. Karen White is the administrator for the only health care provider in a three to four hour radius and Karen says nearly half the population her hospital services relies on Medicaid. I think we will see loss of life.

Maybe not immediate, but if chronic conditions go untreated for an extended period of time, it has results in lower quality of life, less people working. President Trump says he wants to preserve Medicaid. The Democrats are going to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and social security and we're going to keep them, but even make them stronger. Missouri, like many other states, which will be affected by this policy change, overwhelmingly elected Trump.

It does seem a little odd that the folks that elected them will be the ones that are impacted the most with these cuts. Do you regret your vote? In some of the decisions that have been made? Yes.

And Julie Sorkin joins me now. Julie, fantastic interviews. Thank you for bringing us that report. We really appreciate it.

So let's talk about the very latest on Capitol Hill around this debate to address these concerns about rural hospitals. Kristen, to be clear, there are several issues that are keeping Republicans from passing this bill from the House from passing this bill, but rural hospitals and the impacts that Medicaid changes could have on them is by far the thordiest issue that's according to multiple Senate Republicans that I spoke to. Now, what they're doing to help alleviate the problem that they essentially created with these cuts that they say would be used then to fund President Trump's ambitious campaign agenda is to create a separate fund that would go directly to rural hospitals. One number that was floated around today was $15 billion.

That falls far short of the hundreds of billions of dollars that experts predict these rural hospitals will lose over the next decade. I did ask that leader Thune is of course the top Republican in the Senate. As you know about this yesterday, here's what you have to tell me. We are working on a solution for rural hospitals.

That's something that's been in the works now for several days in response to a number of concerns that our colleagues have mentioned about ensuring that there will be an impact on rural hospitals be lessened, invidicated, and I think we'll make a good hit on this issue. Now, of course, this is such a huge issue for them. Senators who's in Collins, for example, who's also been working on this fund, said she wants to see something closer to $100 billion in order to get her vote on this bill. Thune just moments ago, Kristen said he can't see a number that high-happening because it will lead to the cost of the bill going up.

All right, Julie, certainly there on Capitol Hill, pressing. Everyone involved in this debate. We really appreciate it. Fantastic reporting, Julie.

Now is Congressman Jason Smith, Republican from Missouri and Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Thank you so much for joining me. Congressman, really appreciate it. Great to be with you, Kristen.

It is so great to have you during what is a really critical time for the big, beautiful bill as it has been dubbed. Let me start off by asking you about some of what we're hearing from your colleagues over in the Senate. Senator Josh Hawley from your home state of Missouri is warning that the Senate's proposed cuts to Medicaid could devastate rural hospitals in Missouri. Here's what he said.

Take a look. I'm surprised that the Senate has decided to completely depart from the house framework when it comes to Medicaid and the provider taxes. I've talked to our leadership constantly about this and I was told we got a fix on the provider tax issue. We're going to help rural hospitals.

There's nothing in here for rural hospitals. In fact, what they're doing is lowering the provider tax to make it worse. So it's like we're defunding rural hospitals in order to pay for extent to the Green New Deal. I just don't get it all.

Congressman, do you share that concern, as outlined by your colleague? So I actually have been talking to Senator Hawley, BM for my home state a lot, but all senators. And Kristen, what we're trying to focus on in balance, I believe the bill that passed out of the house was definitely a much more balanced than the one that currently is in the chains in the Senate. I've been working with my Senate counterparts, Chairman Crapo, Leader Thune, and other senators trying to find that equal balance, and we have to threaten needle.

We've got to get 218 votes in the house and 51 in the Senate. And right now, I think it's a little out of balance. Well, and just to push you a little bit on what that specifically looks like in terms of being out of balance, Senator Tilla circulated a document outlining how the Medicaid provisions could hurt states, particularly rent states, and it shows Missouri could forfeit some $6.1 billion over the next decade if you cap the provider tax rate, which is part of what's being discussed. What is your level of confidence that people in Missouri won't lose Medicaid coverage if this is in the final version of the bill?

The president has made it crystal clear, Kristen, that the reforms when it comes to Medicaid has to be waste fraud and abuse. That's it. The provider tax does not fall underneath waste fraud and abuse for my sense, and that's why it was not in the House bill. So we tried to move forward a piece of policy that mirrored the president's priorities, and that's what you're going to see the final product that will be delivered to the president.

It will be a balance of cutting waste fraud and abuse. This is the largest tax cut in U.S. history. It's also the largest spending cuts in U.S.

history, but we have to have equal balance, whether it's the IRA credits, whether it's debt and deficit hawks that are concerned with spending and spending cuts, or whether it's the folks that are very sensitive to various issues within Medicaid. Well, and staying on the provider tax and just for the folks who are watching it basically helps states fund the Medicaid program. The Senate is working on what they're calling a fund. This would help basically alleviate the strain on rural hospitals.

Do you support creating that fund? Could that be the fix to this issue, Congressman? Kristen, access to health care is so important. It is the top priority of the ways and means committee here in the House because access in rural areas is tough.

Rural hospitals are struggling, and the last thing they need is something else that trips them up. So we need to be very smart. We need to be very careful in the actions that we take that it will not harm rural hospitals that are barely making it right now. So do you support this fund though?

Do you think that's the path to fixing this issue? I like the House version of what we did in regards to Medicaid a whole lot better than what's on the other side of the building. But once again, we're going to have to continue to negotiate, find a balance. We're not there yet, Kristen, but we will be.

I hear you basically saying to the Senate that you don't support these proposed changes that we are learning about. Do you think if these changes, as we're talking about make their way through the Senate, can that legislation pass the House? We're trying to make sure that what ultimately passes the Senate probably by this weekend will be something that hopefully we can pick up and pass the House. But if it's not balanced, we're going to have to go to a conference committee.

But hopefully they will strike that appropriate balance. And that balance needs to be included, whether you're looking at the state and local tax as well, as with the green credits and with the Medicaid reforms. So it sounds like you are bracing for a process that could go beyond July 4th. I know that that had been the initial goal.

Is that your assessment? Do you think this process goes beyond July 4th? No, we're going to get this done. The president has asked us for a long time to get it delivered to his desk for July 4th.

I believe that we can do that. Of course, it's been over in the Senate for six weeks since we passed it out of the House. I look forward to the Senate passing their bill this week. I just hope that it's truly balanced.

If not, we'll do a conference committee and we'll move forward. But I think we can get done by July 4th in either process. Let me get your reaction to something that Senator Tillis warned about saying that Republicans could actually lose in 2026 if they go forward with the proposed Medicaid cuts. He basically compared it to the losses that Democrats faced in 2014 after what was a really uneven rollout of Obamacare.

Do you agree with that? Are the midterms on the line here? I would say the midterms are always in everyone's thoughts all the time. We're creating a tax package that delivers for working family small businesses and farmers.

And that is the whole focus of this. And delivering on the campaign promises that President Trump promised the American people. And so if we don't deliver on those priorities, that will definitely have a negative impact in the midterm elections. So that's a significant statement.

You're basically warning that if this doesn't get done, you think Republicans are going to suffer. What if it gets done and it is perceived that it does impact Medicaid cuts? When this bill passes, it will be the largest tax cut in the history of America. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime tax relief for seniors.

All things that 77 million Americans listen to President Trump. He campaigned on and he's delivering on that. It also has the most spinning cuts in US history. This is something that has been demanded by numerous Americans.

But it also secures our border, the largest investment in border security and the history of America. It also has a significant investment in the golden dome to protect all Americans, especially when we're looking at international conflict. And so this is a bill that when we deliver it, will be a huge win to every single American. There's a big back and forth over whether the House is going to actually accept what the Senate passes.

If they pass this legislation, according to a report in Punchbowl, Senator Cassidy raised concerns that the House will not be able to pass whatever the Senate is putting together. Right now, Majority Leader John Thune, though, responded by saying the House will ultimately accept what the Senate passes. Based on your answer, it seems like you view it a bit differently. How do you view it?

Is that the case that you're prepared to accept whatever the Senate passes? Absolutely not, Kristen. I hate to be a broken record. I've said all along, if the Senate has appropriate balance, we'll be able to take up the bill and pass it.

But right now, their proposal that's out there is not equally balanced in order to get the 218 votes in the House and the 51 in the Senate. But they're going to continue to work towards that balance. But as we stand today, the bill that I've seen, there is not balanced, but we're continuing to negotiate with the Senate. And hopefully it will be before that bill passes the Senate floor.

Congressman Smith, let me just read you what President Trump posted on social media yesterday. He said to my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room, if you must, don't go home and get the deal done this week. Work with the House so they can pick it up and pass it immediately. No one goes on vacation till it's done.

Your reaction to President Trump and what role does he need to play in order to get this over the finish line? I totally agree with President Trump. We need to get this done. The American people have waited too long.

We need to deliver this. This is why I've pushed for one big bill for a very long time. At one time, I felt like I was by myself pushing for that one bill because we need to deliver tax relief for working families as quickly as possible. All right.

Congressman Jason Smith, I know you've got a little ways to go in this process. So hopefully you'll come back and join us again soon. Really appreciate your being here. Absolutely.

Thanks, Chris. And still to calm NBC News exclusive reporting on the administration's immigration crackdown and its claims of prioritizing the most dangerous criminals. Don't go anywhere. You're watching Meet The Press Now.

Welcome back. As the Trump administration continues, its immigration crackdown NBC News has new exclusive reporting revealing that from last October through this May, ICE arrested 752 people, convicted of homicide and 1,693 people, convicted of sexual assault. Now that's clearly a lot of people that I said officials told Congress last September that more than 13,000 immigrant murders were at large. So despite the president's calls to deport violent criminals, those arrests, part of which were during the Biden administration, account for 6% of known immigrant murders.

And ICE data shows that more than half of those arrested have been neither charged nor convicted of a crime. Joining me now to talk about all of this are exclusive reporting is NBC News, Senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. Julia, thank you so much for being here. We are going to get to your great exclusive reporting.

But you have breaking news right now in the case of Kilmar Brago Garcia. He's the Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador and then brought back to basically have his due process in the courts. What's the latest? Yeah, that's right.

This is the kind of breaking news we asked for permission to read from our phones because we're just getting this from the Magistrate Judge in Tennessee. The question today was whether or not he could be released in the conditions of his release. The government appealed and said that he needed to stay in federal custody as you know he's been charged with humans smuggling after they brought him back from El Salvador. That mission has been denied.

The judge is saying he can't be released and says because the government has not made a strong showing or cover required to justify or grant of a stay under these circumstances. Basically, it's denied and he can't be released. But here's what we're waiting for, Kristen. Could ICE now be arresting him in that very federal courthouse or right outside within minutes?

So we're waiting. I'm talking to ICE sources now trying to figure out if that's the play because a judge could order him released from U.S. Marshals and Bureau of Prisons custody. But ICE, because of his immigration come up and move to have an immigration judge nullify his protections to stay in the United States.

So this is really significant just to be very clear. You're saying he could walk outside of this federal prison and be re-arrested just moments later. Exactly. Even at the courthouse.

Right now he's in court. He came from prison earlier today. He's in court. He could walk outside and be arrested again by ICE.

It's something we've seen happen time and time again when federal judges are dismissing these immigration cases and ICE is picking them up again. Fascinating. All right. Well, I know you're going to continue to track that and stay on top of that.

In the meantime, talk to me about your exclusive reporting. What's behind these numbers would you uncover? Yeah, Kristen. I don't know if you remember this time on the campaign trail.

There was a lot going on then. But in late September, ICE told Congress that there were over 13,000 immigrants that they were tracking who had convicted of homicide. It was this big shock and Trump seized on that moment, criticized Kamala Harris and said that the Biden administration wasn't doing enough. Well, now we have an update that says that since then they've arrested 752 people convicted of homicide.

Now some of those 13,000 may be serving time in prison. They could have left that country. But they remain on ICE's docket and they're aware about them. Many cases are unknown.

What this does is it raises questions about who ICE is targeting, particularly as you have protests across the country, more of them coming tomorrow against ICE going after people who have no criminal records. And in fact, of the 185,000 people that ICE has arrested since October, so that includes some from the previous administration, 120,000 had committed no serious crimes, according to how ICE deemed it. So it raises questions. And what I told is it's a lot easier to arrest people who are going about their day-to-day lives, going to their jobs, than it is to do the investigation to find a real hard and criminal who might be hiding.

All right, Julia Ainsley, fantastic reporting. As always, thank you for bringing us yet another exclusive and for the very latest on the Kilmart of Rigo Garcia case. Really appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

But before we go, scan the QR code on your screen now to listen to Here's the Scoop, a new Daily NBC News podcast that breaks down the day's top stories, all in 15 minutes or less. The news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.