Meet the Press NOW — June 26

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 the sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun.

Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca. That's sunrisechallenge.ca. It's here.

The Ford is a big deal. Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh guys, just wait.

The Ford is a big deal event is on. Really? Now! Hurry up to at least a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197 by weekly at 5.29% APR for 60 months with $29.95 down.

That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. If it's Thursday, top national security officials head to the Hill to give senators their first briefing on the U.S.

strikes on Iran's nuclear program as the Pentagon reveals new details on the operation with its most forceful defense of the mission success. Plus, President Trump is set to speak any moment now at the White House as the administration ramps up its pressure campaign to get the President's legislative agenda across the finish line despite major hurdles in the Senate and holdouts in the House and the Supreme Court sides of South Carolina in the state's effort to block Planned Parenthood from receiving any Medicaid funding ahead of a major rule in tomorrow on birthright citizenship and the power of the digital branch. Welcome to Meet the Press now. I'm Yamiche Alcindor in Washington.

We're top officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA just briefed senators behind closed doors on the U.S.'s recent strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The classified briefing is the latest move in the President's full court press promoting the strikes effectiveness and pushing that against concerns are the future of Iran's nuclear ambitions. To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months. Allegations that we have obliterated their program just don't seem to stand up to reason.

I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program. The President was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. Operation Midnight Hammer was brilliant. It was bold.

It was necessary and it was affected. They blew these places up in a major league way. Major league sent back years not months. The classified briefing comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hentzeth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Keynes spoke publicly this morning giving new details about the planning and execution of the strikes and the leaders also showcased video demonstrations of the destructive power of the bunker busting bombs that were used in the mission.

Here's what we know following the attacks and the strikes on Fordot. First, that the weapons were built, tested and loaded properly. Two, the weapons were released on speed and on parameters. Three, the weapons all guided to their intended targets and to their intended aim points.

Four, the weapons functioned as design meaning they exploded. We know this through other means, intelligence means that we have that we're visibly, we're visibly able to see them. And we know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function and the pilots stated, quote, this was the brightest explosion that I've ever seen. It literally looked like daylight.

There were no new details about the intelligence assessment in that briefing but Defense Secretary Pete Hentzeth took time to publicly scold and target the press after a preliminary intelligence assessment was leaked. That report raised the possibility that Iran's nuclear program had been set back three to six months by the strike. The CIA director and the director of national intelligence now say newer intelligence indicates the program has been severely damaged and would take years to rebuild. But in reaction to the leak, the White House says it now plans to limit how much intelligence it shares with Congress according to a senior Trump administration official.

House Speaker Mike Johnson telling reporters he believes that leak came from lawmakers. Mr. Speaker, you can start about reports that the administration might be holding back intelligence information from Congress. No, we're working through all that.

There was a leak and we're trying to get down to the bottom of that. It's dangerous and ridiculous that happened but we're going to solve that problem and we'll keep the coordination. Do you think the leak came from? The public though appears to be skeptical of last weekend's operation according to a new NBC News poll powered by SurveyMonkey.

45% say they opposed the strikes on Iran. 38% support them. Although there are very sharp partisan divisions in these numbers. Joining me now, NBC News Senior National Political Report is on Capitol Hill.

Also with us, NBC News White House correspondent von Hillier who's outside the White House and NBC News intelligence reporter Daniel Lewis. So thank you all for being here. So I want to start with you. What's been the reaction of senators to today's briefing on this strike against Iran?

Yeah, I mean, I've just been outside that briefing for the last hour or so speaking to senators as they came out. And there's been a mix of reactions. Let's start with where they agree. There's been widespread praise of the U.S.

intelligence officials who carried out the strike, their ability, their dedication, carrying out the task that they were assigned to do. Then on President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear program had been obliterated. He played a little bit of this but there were real divisions here in terms of how the two parties talked about it. Senator Lindsey Graham backed up Trump's claim that they had been obliterated.

But even he said that Iran could build it right back and he told me when I asked him that the U.S. military strikes do need to be on the table if Iran tries to build this back in the coming months. The Democrats that they were not nearly convinced in the president's claim that Iran's nuclear program had been obliterated, that if anything had only been temporarily set back. Senator Chris Murphy had a line saying you can't bomb away knowledge, said there has to be a strategy, there has to be diplomacy, which he has not seen yet.

Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said he asked this question as well. He didn't receive an adequate answer when asked when he asked for evidence as to the president's claim about it being obliterated. He said he sees no coherent strategy, no end game, no plan, no specifics in terms of how to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So there's a lot, a lot of questions that senators still had coming out of that.

Well, there are also a lot of questions not just about sort of the briefing itself but also who was included. The and I, Tulsi Gabbard, of course the director of national intelligence, she wasn't among the briefer states. So I want to know what more to be know about why she wasn't there, especially as we had reported that she was kind of getting the cold shoulder here from the Trump administration. Yeah, a limited amount that we know, you know, each given that even senators were coming out of their wondering why Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who certainly seems pertinent to an operation to information like this was not there.

Senator Murphy said it's a real question. That's why she's not in these briefings. But Senator Lindsey Graham did say when that issue came up that it's very clear that the president trusts CIA director John Radcliffe and that he and Lindsey Graham's view is one of the big winners in all this. Yeah, some other news, of course, that's really important today is that the White House is saying it's going to limit the information, the intelligence that it shares with lawmakers.

I wonder how do Republicans feel about that on Hill? Yeah, we know that Democrats have become have been critical in the early onset of this of this news, but I haven't seen a lot of Republican reaction about this. You know what it would do is it would set up pretty bold precedent going forward that intelligence is limited to members of one party that's never having to operate in the Senate's never having to operate in the house. And you know, this is one of the situations where everyone realizes what goes around comes around.

So I suspect we'll be hearing more about this. Yeah, we'll definitely be looking for more on that. And House Speaker Mike Johnson told our colleague Ryan Nobles that he suspects the preliminary assessment of this was leaked by Congress. Do we know where he's getting that suspicion?

We don't, but he did use the word suspicion. I wrote it down here. He said that's my suspicion when asked why he's saying that now knowing Speaker Johnson, he likes to align with President Trump. He's pretty studious about doing that doesn't like to have any daylight between himself and the White House.

So if I were to wage an educated guess because we don't know, that's where it's coming from. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. I have for all that reporting on the Hill, Vaughn, I want to come to you next.

The White House is trying to convince members of Congress that the strikes were as effective as the president claims. Why is it limiting intelligence that it's going to now share with lawmakers? Right. It only increases the skepticism that many of the senators have spoken publicly about.

You're looking at the airstrikes that took place on Saturday night. The initial briefing was supposed to take place on Tuesday because of the return of Secretary Sexton Rubio from overseas. They got pushed back here to Thursday, five days later, which was met by a lot of pushback and frustration from Democrats. And now this news that the White House intends to cut off the intelligence that it shares directly with members of Congress.

And we should note that the gang of eight, which is the top leadership Republicans and Democrats, not only of the House and Senate conferences and caucuses, but also of the intelligence committees, not everybody was informed ahead of these airstrikes that they were going to be taking place in the exact objectives of them. And so this latest news that the White House could seek to potentially cut off further intelligence out of fear that it is being disseminated to the public only under Kurds. The questions here in Washington, DC about the these two branches of government working in conjunction in order to carry out military attacks overseas. Of course, there's been a lot of pushback to about not getting prior authorization by Congress, something that presidential administrations have now for the better part of 20 years, not sucked to go forward with.

Yeah, there's also this issue of the Trump administration saying that it's actually too early to assess the US strikes and how much they've set back Iran's nuclear program, which is by a few months or maybe a few years. But the other thing is the president Trump is maintaining that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated. And in my conversation with the president, he told me that he felt like he had essentially almost solved the problems of this. He said that he didn't believe that these two powers were going to be shooting back at each other, that being of course Israel and Iran.

And he also sounded very confident that going forward, he had really achieved what he said out to achieve what I was talking to him. So I wonder, though, do you think the White House is trying to have it both ways here? You're absolutely right from your conversation with him five days ago to now. He has one very clear message in one message that he wants his White House to send out to the masses across the world, and that that was that their nuclear program was obliterated, just in the last hour, the White House pushing out this email to reporters that said experts agree with the White House that it was in fact, quote, obliterated.

But this is where you have seen the president really try to hit the American media against the US military in this for the conveying the League of Defense Intelligence Agency's additional assessment that potentially the nuclear center not is damaged to the extent that the president had suggested that instead that it was pushed back potentially by just a couple months. That is where the president has suggested that the US media is effectively discounting the work of US servicemen and women that went and carried out these operations, which by all accounts were successful and ultimately were carried out and executed in the way that they were intended. But that is different than the question of whether the nuclear sites were fully destroyed or not, or where those stockpiles of highly enriched your AMR, which this White House has still been unclear besides Caroline Levitt saying that they believe that they were a part of what was destroyed inside of the particularly the Fordo nuclear site, despite European officials suggesting their intelligence otherwise. Yeah.

Well, thank you so much for reporting outside the White House. And Dan, I want to come to you. Of course, it was quite the briefing today at the Pentagon. One of the things, a lot of things that happened that were interesting, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff also show this video demonstration of these bombs and what they can do.

What did that tell us about sort of this strike? And how does that connect to President Trump's claims that this was totally destroyed? You know, I don't know how edifying that video really is. It is interesting to see.

This is never before seeing footage of this huge bomb, this 30,000-pound weapon being used. And it's impressive. But it doesn't tell us, again, what is the state of Iran's nuclear program? But what it was interesting that a general candidate, the briefing, did say they hit the targets that they wanted to hit.

And that included these ventilation shafts in that deeply buried site at Fordo. And those, the Iranians had tried to cover those up with concrete caps. They believed they hit those, and then that allowed other weapons that then penetrate very deep underground. So there are many indications from the military and from the intelligence agencies that they think they did significant damage to these sites.

But then there's a separate question, which you raised, which is, what is the state of Iran's nuclear program? Because there is a distinct possibility that they have uranium and rich uranium and centrifuges and other important hardware that was not at those sites. And so they still may have the ability to provide this program. And that is not really answerable at this point.

And we're just going to have to see. Yeah. Well, as we talk about questions, it might not be answerable. Ask another one, which is the CIA director, as well as the director of national intelligence.

They both claimed that they can back up the president's thing, that everything was obliterated, everything was totally destroyed. Have we seen actual evidence to back up those assertions? No. There is no press freedom in Iran, as you know.

And the US intelligence agencies don't declassify material very easily and very quickly when they do. It's only been days since this strike. So this is their account. We do know that the UN Atomic Energy Agency is saying, for its part, that they also believe there was significant damage done to these sites, that centrifuges may not have survived at these sites.

So there is that. But we don't have Western camera crews going around there showing us what it looks like. I was wondering, did we get any more clarity on whether this inter-rich uranium, that's critical in some ways to the Iran's nuclear program, that was moved before the strikes? We got any more detail on whether or not that actually happened.

That came up at the briefing. And there was not really a straight answer. The Defense Secretary suggested or implied that everything was there and that they destroyed it. But he was ambiguous and kind of deferred to the intelligence community.

So that is still very much an open question. Definitely a lot of other questions. But thank you so much, Dan, for joining us. And now I'm joined by Democratic Congressman Adam Smith.

He's the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Thank you so much, Congressman, for being here. So what do you need to hear in tomorrow's briefing to convince you that the President's claims on that last weekend strikes were as impactful as he's saying they are? Well, I think the most important thing here is in all likelihood, Iran still has a nuclear program.

Now, we can argue competing intelligence assessments, basically educated guesses on what would have happened. But the odds that all 19,000 centrifuges that Iran had before Israel started attacking them and all, I forget the exact number, some 400-plus kilograms of near-weapons grade in which plutonium is all gone now, that's pretty close to zero. I mean, they probably still have some and some centrifuges, so they still have an active nuclear program. So what are we going to do about it?

And then in terms of what happened at Fordeaux, we don't know is the honest answer. And I have seen estimates before this that doubted whether or not these bunker-buster bombs could get all the way down and hit those centrifuges and destroy them. So we don't know, none of which is to say, by the way, that the military that carried out this mission carried it out brilliantly and flawlessly. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, but there is reason to doubt that it completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program.

And if, in fact, Iran does still have a nuclear program, which they almost certainly do, then we still have a problem that we need to deal with. And if you're thinking about the fact that there might still be this problem, I wonder, did Secretary Hexeth or Chairman Kane make a compelling case to you that these strikes did create major damage, especially when we think of Fordeaux? I think it probably created some significant damage, but again, major obliterated. You know, there's a whole bunch of words that don't actually mean anything.

It's really simple. They had 19,000 centrifuges before. How many do they have now? They had 400 kilograms plus of 60 plus percent weaponized uranium or enriched uranium.

Sorry, how much do they have now? If they can answer those questions and they can't, then we really don't know. And then it's just a matter of sort of performance to say whatever word you're going to say that makes people think it's destroyed. So we don't know that evidence.

And also Secretary Hexeth being so partisan and so political and attacking the media so aggressively. It calls into question his objectivity. I mean, even if he knew for a fact that this mission had not been as successful as advertised, do we really think he'd tell us the truth? I don't.

Well, I want to ask you a hypothetical here, while I make a right hand, which is these strikes, if they did set back Iran's new program, even for a few months, given that they might still have the technology to do this, but even if it's just for a few months, do you still consider that a success? Well, success is a weird word. I would say this. I would personally believe that it was the wrong decision to drop those bombs, that the risk that was taken in dropping those bombs far outweighed the benefit of buying a little bit of time in the weapons program.

And it's even worse if, in fact, the Secretary of Defense and the President are spinning that the program is gone when it's not. So now we're not even in a position to deal with reality. So I think the risk still outweighed the reward. I've been briefed on this issue for better than a decade now.

And there was always considerable doubt that no matter how flawlessly the mission was carried out, no matter how well our service members carried out permission, which they did, that we just might not be technically capable of completely destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. And then we kind of started a war with Iran by bombing them. And Iran, unlike Libya and some of the other places that we've attacked without congressional approval, Iran's got the power to shoot back. And that's not necessarily over yet either.

Yeah, well, in talking about Iran's power, I want to get your reaction to a few tweets from your colleague, Congressman Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. First, on Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb, he wrote, the only question that matters is whether the Iranian regime has the stuff necessary to build a bomb and how fast. Do you agree with that assessment? The way that he's put that?

Yeah, it's a slightly different way of saying what I said about how many centrifuges they have and how much highly rich uranium they have. But yes, that is the question. And that is the question that they don't want to answer. They want to engage in, you know, we have obliterated, we destroyed it, my gosh, did you see how big those bombs were and how large the explosion was?

All which is impressive. But it doesn't answer that fundamental question that we've been talking about. Your colleague also wrote this. The goal was to end the Iranian nuclear program.

And it's far from clear that that was accomplished. You've just said here that you think that it's highly likely that they would, that it's gone, that's Iranian nuclear program. Do you really believe that Iran would actually abandon its nuclear program? And do you agree with your colleague?

Yeah, I do agree with my colleague. That's what I said at the start. I mean, Iran has the knowledge to have the ability of the capability. I mean, even if we substantially destroyed it, how long would it take them to reconstitute it if they so chose?

Not very long. So, you know, it definitely presents a challenge going forward. So I do agree with my colleague to seven. I apologize.

I forgot the second part of your question there. What's really just, do you believe that Iran will actually at any point abandon its nuclear emissions? Well, see, that's the great answer question about the decision to bomb them. Did it force them, did it make it more likely that they would abandon or less likely?

You can argue that, you know, in large part, what Israel has done is what has put Iran on their heels by weakening Hezbollah and Hamas to the greed that they have done by, you know, getting after Iran's missiles and their missile launchers. Iran is weak. And maybe because they were so weak, now they feel like they have to cut a deal. Or maybe they feel like, gosh, we can't afford to cut a deal because they're just going to bomb us anyway.

It's 50-50 in my mind. You know, we do have intelligence capabilities to figure out how Iran is thinking about this, which we need to do. That would give us some more accurate answers. But I don't think there's a clear answer to that.

Again, the odds are Iran still has a nuclear program, and we still have to figure out how to deal with it. President Trump running around like he's achieved peace in the Middle East all of a sudden, when he hasn't. By the way, the war in Gaza still goes on. Israel is still bombing in Lebanon in Syria from time to time.

And let me also remind you that Iran and Israel attacked each other twice during the Biden administration. Both times the Biden administration successfully helped Israel defend itself and then successfully stopped the conflict from spreading. So what President Trump has done now is he's done what Obama, sorry, what Biden did twice. So the future is not, I think, as clear as the president would have us believe.

Well, thank you so much, Congressman Addison for joining us. I appreciate it. Thank you. And coming up, you're looking at live pictures of the White House right now where President Trump is holding what the White House is calling a big beautiful event as the president pushes to get Republican holdouts in line behind his sweeping agenda bill.

We will also have an update from Capitol Hill on where the legislation stands. You're watching the press hand. Welcome back. Right now, President Trump is holding an event at the White House highlighting what he calls his one big beautiful bill, which the White House insists will be on the president's desk by July 4th.

But today, Republicans trying to meet that deadline hit another hurdle when the Senate parliamentarian determined a key Medicaid provision cannot be included in the bill. Senate Republicans were hoping to use the proposed cuts to Medicaid to offset the cost of the bill's tax cuts. Several Senate Republicans expressed frustration that this could delay a vote on the bill. They'll send it majority later.

Thune said he has contingency plans. I want to explanation by her on where this doesn't fit in the bird rule because it's not okay just to make it your opinion. You're going to have to tell me line by line where this doesn't fit in the bird rule. So I think it's pretty frustrating.

But what we've got to do is work through this process and come up with something that fulfills the Trump agenda and also has fiscal sanity. Everything is challenging. They're all speedboats. And we have contingency plans.

We're continuing to litigate it. And trying to me now is NBC's Mel's a no-not on Capitol Hill. So thanks for being here. So Medicaid has always been a major sticking point when you conversations about this bill.

What did the parliamentarian take issue with specifically with that? And what's the plan B or C or D as the Senate majority leader was saying? Yeah, so there were actually a number of Medicaid cuts that the parliamentarian determined do not comply with Senate rules for this very arcane treaty process called reconciliation that they're trying to use in the Senate in order to bypass the need to use Democratic votes. That's why this all matters.

That's why they even have to go to the parliamentarian. And the chief one I want to flag for you that she ruled was out of order is something called the provider tax or their provider fee. That is something that states rely on to fund their Medicaid program. Something that senators have warned would have a really big impact on rural hospitals, but that it also would raise a ton of money.

So it helped them pay for the big price tag of this bill. So on the one hand, we're hearing some Republicans are actually relieved that this is being struck out of the bill. But on the other hand, this is only going to enrage conservatives even further, and they're going to have to potentially come up with other ways to pay for the bill. So what comes next?

Well, they have a few options here. One, which is what's happening right now. They're going to try to rework the language in a way that makes it does comply with Senate rules. Again, this is all sort of tricky and wonky, but there's a potentially way where they could still get some of these provisions in.

The second option is they just ignore the Senate parliamentarian and overrule them. That is something that is seen as a very extreme option, one that the Senate leader, John Thune, is not willing to go down yet. And then finally, of course, they could just opt to not include these provisions, roll the dice and hope that members vote for the anyway. So they have all these different options, including, as you said, extreme option of overruling the parliamentarian.

That being said, the president has been very clear. He circled July 4th as the deadline for when he wants to see this bill on his desk. So what's the chances of Republicans actually making that deadline? And what are you hearing on when the Senate could actually begin voting on this bill?

So it's so possible they could pass it by July 4th. I think that is becoming increasingly more difficult. If they do pass it by then, that means they've worked through the weekend, canceled a lot of vacation and same for us reporters over here in order to get that done. And because of what I mentioned earlier about the fact that they need to rework some of that language, that is now delayed the entire process.

Initially, the whole bit least was that the Senate was going to be able to start voting tomorrow. That would be Friday. They have to go through this really long process called a voter drama in which they can offer an unlimited number of amendments. So it's going to take time to get through the Senate.

And then, of course, it's also to go to the house and it's just unclear whether they're going to be willing to swallow some of these changes. So a little TBD on when this is going to get passed, but a reminder that July 4th deadline is a self-imposed deadline. The real deadline isn't until sometime in August, because that's when the debt limit cliff approaches and this bill among the many things it would do would also raise the debt. So they actually do have a little bit of time, but Trump wants that big symbolic victory of being able to sign this by July 4th.

Yeah, the president definitely wants to have a party on July 4th and this bill signing to be the center of it. So let's say hypothetically, you can't see your vacation. Senator Thune can't send vacation. This actual big megabelle passes the Senate with all of that happening.

It still, as you said, needs to go back to the house. So what's the mood in the house? And he said it's sort of TBD there. But also, if there are potentials hold outs, who are they?

And what really are they looking for? So there's a mix of members that we're watching right now. We're watching those conservative talks that caught up with Chip Roy from Texas earlier today. He said at this point, he's no way going to vote for the Senate product if it advances as is because he has an issue with that price tag with the fact that I should know that he has folded before.

And he said he was going to be knowing something that ultimately voted yes. But he voted yes in those cases when he got something in return. And in this case, there's no indication that the house actually wants to go back and forth. They're trying to sort of pre-work out some of these issues before it gets to the house.

The other group are watching these high state blue tax Republicans who are pushing to raise the deduction on the state and local tax. That is a huge issue for them. That is something that they fought really hard for in the house. But in the Senate, there are no Republicans who care about this issue because there are no Republicans in blue states in the Senate.

So they tried to water that provision down. We've heard that they've been kind of going back and forth, trading some new offers going back and forth. At that point though, it's just unclear where it's going to land. Yeah, well, there are definitely a lot of questions on that.

You're going to be on top of all of this. Thank you so much. Malford joining us. And of course, as we've been monitoring the president and continuing to hold that event at the White House.

But up next, the impact of today's Supreme Court ruling decided with South Carolina and its efforts to be fun, Planned Parenthood, and a look ahead to the major ruling that is set to come down tomorrow on the administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. You're watching the press now. Welcome back, turning now to some big developments from the Supreme Court. Is it winding down its historic term and gets ready to rule on the president's push to end birthright citizenship tomorrow?

But first, the big ruling today, the High Court sided with South Carolina in its effort to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the court ruled that individual Medicaid patients cannot sue for their right to pick a provider. The decision fell along the court's ideological lines, six to three with the conservative judges in the majority. And joining me now on set is legal affairs reporter Gary Cronbach. So Gary, thanks for being here.

So walk us through this court's decision as it relates to Planned Parenthood and the possible ramifications overall, maybe even across the country. Yeah, these are significant because this was a case that had 23 other cases just like it around the country. So basically what it does effectively prevents Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through Medicaid. So if you're an individual elicits South Carolina and you want to sue to be able to choose what Medicaid provider you want to be able to go to, what health care provider you want to be able to go to, you can now not do that.

And then the Supreme Court has said that's going to really impact Planned Parenthood because there's many people in South Carolina that may want to choose Planned Parenthood as their health care provider. This now does not allow them to do that. This is of course a big win for conservatives because they've been trying to defund Planned Parenthood any way they possibly can. This is going to stop funding in the Medicaid perspective.

And so that's going to talk to the larger issue of the abortion rights and less funding for abortion rights. Yeah, and we're mostly just underscore. We're not just talking about people who are looking for abortions because Planned Parenthood also does mammograms. They do retune care, but essentially patients can't say, oh, I want to go to Planned Parenthood even if it's just for a mammogram now.

So that's I think really interesting. I want to also ask you about birthright citizenship, a big case. There are a lot of important factors. Walk us through that.

So this was, this all came together because of three lawsuits that came from across the country, one from the state of New Jersey, one from the state of Washington, and one from the organization called CASA. And basically, they all blocked the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship. But that's not exactly what the Supreme Court is going to be ruling on tomorrow, we expect. What we expect to happen tomorrow is the Supreme Court to talk about nationwide injunctions and whether or not nationwide injunctions should go forward, meaning can one district judge in the state of New Jersey, for example, say that this item is illegal all across the country, or does it have to be specific to the parties in the state, in the case, whether it's specific states or organizations like CASA.

Yeah, so we're going to be looking at both of those things. Tamar, Gary, thank you so much for bringing all that down. And after the break, my one-on-one interview with a key house Republican about the future of the president's legislative agenda, and this call for the administration to limit its immigration crackdown. Don't go anywhere.

You're watching Need the Press Now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, President Trump is holding an event right now telling his one big, beautiful bill as Republicans are raising against their self-imposed clock to get that bill to his desk by July 4th. Today, House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked if the ruling by the Senate parliamentarian could make it harder to meet that deadline.

Here's what he said. Oh, it doesn't make it easier, but you know, me, hopes to bring the journal in. We're going to work around the clock and go to meet that deadline. Are you frustrated that they hadn't heated that warning to keep it the same?

It seems like they've really tried to do a lot. No, maybe I'll be frustrated that I just play whatever cards I'm dealt with. And joining me now is Republican from Texas, Congressman Tony Gonzalez. Thank you so much, Congressman, for being here.

As you know, the Senate parliamentarian rejected the Medicaid cuts in the Senate bill. You've been outspoken about the need to protect Medicaid beyond wage fraud and abuse. So do you agree with this decision by the parliamentarian? You know, I don't know that I respect the parliamentarian's decision.

I don't always agree with the outcome is, but I think she does a very good job of looking at it through a lens of how to get that solved. The important thing is I think the president has been very clear. President Trump has been very clear that he was going to protect Medicaid. I think that I've been very clear it's important we protect Medicaid.

So I'm eager to see the final result of this bill, but it we absolutely should be making sure that our most vulnerable and our seniors are protected. We do not pull the rug out from underneath them midstream. Yeah, I want to also ask you about something your colleague in the House said, Congressman Greg Stoupe, he posted this on Twitter on X. He said, it is time for our elected leaders to take back control.

Vice President JD Ban should overrule the parliamentarian and let the will of the people, not some staff are hiding behind Senate procedure, determine the future of this country. I wonder, do you agree with that? Do you actually think that vice president Vant or maybe even Senator Thune if he can do that, that they have the authority to overrule the Senate parliamentarian? I don't know the legalities in it, but I do know that it's a dangerous precedent because, you know, there's different times when the parliamentarian has ruled against Democrat priorities, right?

And they were furious and they were asking for the parliamentarian to kind of be kicked out. We all do that. But at the end of the day, I think we need to have as best as possible, not have a political voice in there. This place is already partisan enough.

Everybody wants, of course, their priorities to be over to get over the finish line. I think it's very important that we have as best as possible, you know, a nonpartisan, non-biased individual that is looking at it through the lens of, you know, what is the legalities in it? Would you want to see her overruled? I mean, in this, I mean, it depends.

I mean, like I said, if it's in my favor, then no, I don't want to see it. If it's not in my favor, of course, I want to see it over. So in this case, would you want to see the Senate parliamentarian overruled on this case when it comes to Medicaid cuts? Well, there were some things in there that I like that she rolled on.

There was other things that I didn't necessarily agree with her. Okay. And that's how it goes, right? So at the end of the day, I respect what the parliamentarians decisions were.

Are you having any conversations with your Senate colleagues to come up with a plan regarding cuts to Medicaid that can pass both the House and the Senate? If so, how are those talks going? I'd say I had a lot of conversations ahead of us sending the bill over to the Senate. They're pretty, they're pretty busy at the moment with a lot of different things.

But ahead of us sending our bill over, I had lots of conversations with my Senate colleagues on areas that I thought were important to them. I'm important to us, because at the end of the day, they get Biden at the Apple. They get to make some changes to it. And I want to make sure that once again, that final product that comes and gets delivered and it gets delivered to the president's desk, which I think it should be soon.

The sooner we can get it delivered to the president's desk, the safer the country is. I think that is what I'm looking for is to make sure we don't pull the rug out from underneath people from Medicaid. We do double down on security for securing our border and tackling some of these other very important measures. And if the Senate, and if the Senate and its Biden at the Apple, as you said, makes deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House version, can you support that?

I'd have to look at it, but probably not. I mean, that's where I don't think the president, more importantly, what Tony Gonzalez thinks, I don't think the president of the United States would support that. Because he's been very advocate, you know, he's been very vocal on making sure that Medicaid was protected. And we didn't, you know, cut once again, people that are lawfully, legally receiving these benefits.

And I think that's where we need to focus on. Do you think that you want to see the president or he should be working the phones more, pushing lawmakers to get this across the finish line? I tell you what, we have a very president Trump is about as active as can be, right, from dropping F bombs yesterday to, you know, leaning on members. He has, he's going to continue to be active.

That's what you look for in a president. You want that? You want that leadership? You want that constant dialogue?

I appreciate the way the White House has been available. You know, if you disagree with something or if you have an issue with something, you can get a hold of them and kind of work your way through it. You know, you know, does it always fall in your favor? Does it always fall in their favor?

But at least you can have that dialogue. So I appreciate what president Trump, how active he's been. No, he was in, you know, he was in Europe just yesterday. So it's been a breath for sure.

I want to ask you about the issue of immigration earlier this month. You brought a letter to the head of ICE urging the Trump administration to prioritize deportations of violent offenders and convicted criminals. Now, according to new data obtained by NBC News from October through May, the Trump administration detained only 6% of undocumented immigrants known to ICE that have been convicted of homicide and only 11% of those known to ICE to have been convicted of sexual assault. What do you make of those numbers?

Yeah, look, I trust NBC as much as the next person, but I'm waiting for official numbers from DHS. I got, you know what I mean? I got official numbers last year from the Biden administration. Part of our job here in Congress is to have oversight and get those official numbers out to the public.

It's very important that our government is transparent. You don't always agree with it. You know, good bad ugly, but the numbers are telling. So if indeed those numbers are, in fact, turn out to be true, it is troubling because to me, this is a matter of national security.

We need to absolutely focus on prioritizing the convicted criminals, which, by the way, there's over 600,000. If we're truly going to keep Americans safe, that's where our focus needs to be. If you get pulled in other directions, you're not going to accomplish that. You're not going to make America any more safe than it is now.

You called it troubling if these numbers, as you said, are accurate. Are you then pleased with the idea that ICE may be detaining or even deporting these people? What would you say is your feelings of who ICE is targeting in this way? It's pretty simple.

I want our law enforcement officers to be going after the worst of the worst, to be going after these convicted criminal illegal aliens. And, oh, by the way, I think it's good politics for the country, meaning both sides can agree with a convicted murder off the street. That's probably a good thing for everybody. If we stay in that lane, I think one, it heals our country.

Two, I think it also gets to the problem of keeping Americans safe. That is why that's exactly why President Trump was elected. And that's what I want to focus on. Let's focus on the convicted criminal illegal aliens.

Yeah. And this week, I want to ask you another question, which is this week, the Department of Homeland Security put out a bulletin warning about potential cyber attacks by Iran after the US strikes against Iran. You have legislation you're planning to introduce that would create a national digital reserve core to recruit experts to help bolster the country's cyber defenses. As you know, the Trump administration did slash some of its cyber security programs, making cuts to cyber security and to citizen in particular.

I wonder, and there are lots of course, a number of employees that were placed on leave that were part of that cyber security infrastructure. Is your proposal, you think, going to be enough to fill that gap? I think the digital reserve core, you know, I spent 20 years in the military as a navy cryptologist, top secret clearance and a skiff. These cyber attacks are happening at a daily basis.

And these threats are very real. And once again, as the government shrinks or is less available, what happens to your town if you're in New York or if you're in L.A. or if you're in San Antonio, wherever it is, what happens when your power gets turned on, we can't be waiting on the federal government to help turn us on. The turn the lights back on.

My idea is we already have our resources in our local community. Our local community has these cyber experts. We need to be able to federalize them for a short period of time. This is a very real threat.

We can't wait until it already gets here. We have to get ahead of the problem. Well, thank you so much, Congressman Gonzalez. We really appreciate you coming on and still to come progressive politics and the Democratic Party's mid to response to the rise of New York City mayoral candidates are on.

I'm Donnie the panel's next. You're watching me the press now. Welcome back Democrats and Republicans continue to react to Iran, Mom Donnie's stunning performance in New York's Democratic mayoral primary. The rise of the progressive 33-year-old Democratic socialist has ignited a fierce debate about the future of the Democratic Party.

It's also generated intense attacks from Republicans. Here's Senator Bernie Sanders, a fellow progressive with my NBC News colleague Ryan Nobles with his thoughts on Mom Donnie's place in the party. Take a listen. We saw the Democratic leaders have put out statements that were nice and kind, but not necessarily outright endorsements.

Is it time for Democratic leaders to get fully behind him? Democratic leadership sadly too often is tied to the billionaire class and their campaign contributions. What the Democratic leadership has got to do is make a choice. Which side are you on?

Can you take money from the billionaires? Are you going to fight for the needs of working-class people? And joining me now is our panel on Dan Marica, co-anchor of the Washington Post's early brief newsletter, Maria Theresa Kumar, president and CEO of Walter Latino, and an NBC News contributor and Tiffany Smiley, founder of Endeavour PAC and former Washington Republican Senate nominee. So thank you all for being here.

Maria, I want to start with you. What do you make a senator saying that it's time for Democrats to pick a side and the reaction really that you've seen here? I think we need to take a step back and recognize the reason that he won was because he had headlines that he wanted to do something, that he wants policy change. I can tell you, if you were to ask any American who voted for Biden, but I'm sorry, who voted for Kamala Harris, where are the signature programs of the Democratic Party?

What is the policies that are going to take us to the 21st century? They can't respond. And so the takeaway from the mayoral race and the primary race should be the Democrats need to come up with a policy agenda that actually needs voters where they are. The fact that the Democrats lost the working class, but their policies in usually are of the working class sees where they are.

I mean, I think that the Democrats have to stop saying that the status quo is okay, that they actually have to figure out what are those policies for the 21st century and have that debate. It's not that he's always going to represent the Democratic Party. With voters that last night, it's like, we want a leader that will actually implement change. Well, Cindy, I want to get your perspective here, but there's an effort literally bubbling right now that's some far right Republicans, including Congressman Andy Ogles from Tennessee, they're calling on the Trump administration to literally revoke um, Donnie's citizenship and have him deported.

Should Republicans be worried about an overreaction? No, honestly, I don't think that they really have to. I mean, when you look at mom Donnie, it's actually like Fourth of July fireworks, Christmas Day from Republicans, because voters have repeatedly rejected this far left ideology. They don't want it.

I mean, his policies are to abolish the police, abolish prison, abolish medical bills, and abolish Israel. That is extreme. So should he be, should he be deported and has it to be revoked? No, I'd say let him be the leader of the Democrat Party.

If this is who they want and this is the line that they're going down, then let's let him lead the way because it's going to look very good for Republicans in 2028. I mean, he is what Mayor Adam said. He is a snake oil salesman and what he is offering to abolish the police and and free, you know, free housing. He could have done as an assembly member.

He didn't need to run for mayor to get these things accomplished that he that he's telling New Yorkers. And today, I want to make a while, especially when we've seen some, frankly, disturbing imagery from some of the Republicans, not to say that there's not obviously criticism and well-founded criticism in some way, but there's also sort of this xenophobic reaction to him as well. I think we're kind of in this political vacuum moment, where there's not many races, so people are trying to take sweeping predictions and lessons to be learned from anything and everything that has happened, including Democratic primary. I mean, voters in Park Slope are very different than voters in rural Wisconsin.

And I think that's worth reminding people, you know, Republicans have tried to use the New York mayor against candidates across the country, including candidates who ran for Congress in New York. It's so in 2024, and it didn't really work. So I really think you've got to kind of balance the lessons you take from any candidate. I mean, Avial Spamburger, Mikey Sherrill just won their Democratic primaries for governor.

They're vastly different than Zoramandani. I mean, there may be lessons about his optimism, the way he went everywhere in the media, the fact that he was talking about his bagel order in rats and just kind of very New York things and had an optimistic tone, maybe more so than like the politics that he may speak about. And he turned out in his face, they were enthusiastic. It was 100-degree day, one of the hottest days on record in New York.

So I think the general will be very interesting to see what happens in that race. I mean, there's also, I mean, there's also, he got questions all the time about anti-Semitism. He though is making appearances with Jewish New Yorkers, fellow Jewish lawmakers. But I wonder, do you think that there's any sort of wrestling that needs to happen with his rhetoric as he enters into the general election?

I think they're does. But I do think going back to your point is that one is too early. New York outside of this, of course, Republicans are going to look for a boogeyman if this is what it represents, the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, the Democratic Party.

But again, what differentiating is, is he did this ground game. He did knock on doors. He did mobilize. People actually knew who he stood for.

In contrast, the Democrats are still trying to find their voice. At a time when people are distrusting every aspect of government, media, everything, they see someone who's optimistic who they seem to like, despite maybe his policies. Maybe everyone doesn't agree with him. I mean, it's kind of self-explanatory that someone would be drawn to that level of optimism.

Right, like you were saying, the Democrat Party does not have a clear, concise agenda for the American people. So they're sort of like, clean to anything they can. And again, I say, hey, if this is the Democrat Party, which they sort of showed us, this is why Donald Trump won any mandate election in November, is the voters across this country rejected that. Well, I would say, and I would actually say, and I always remind folks that the largest growing group of American voters are the non-voters.

They're the ones that are sitting off the couch because they're saying, you know what? The Democrats, you're not delivering for what I need. And I don't believe in this cultural extremism that Republican Party represents. I also want to ask you, because there's also the big, beautiful bill.

I call it a congressional legislative bill. There's a lot of ways to describe it. The point is that President Trump wrote many names and lots of dollars. July 4th is circled on President Trump's calendar.

As the day he wants to have his party and sign this bill, is that going to happen? Could that happen? Wow, if I knew that, I'm not sure I would. I don't know what I'd be doing to make money off of it.

But, you know, I think that there's a lot of headaches between now and then. I mean, he clearly wants to sign the bill with a big party, a July 4th party kind of his big moment. I mean, you saw today the Senate parliamentarian struck a number of key programs, the ideas from the bill, and the Republicans are in an inflection point of what are they going to do with that? Are they going to go nuclear and trying to oust the parliamentarian?

Are they going to take stuff away out of the bill, something in between? And then you have the whole question about, so if this passes the Senate this weekend whenever, now it goes back to the House, and you're already seen in the House, there are Republicans who are mad about what the Senate's doing. So this is literally the sausage being made. And so I don't think I have an answer on that.

Tiffany, do you want to see the Senate parliamentarian overruled? And what do you think needs to happen for this to get to the President's death? I mean, I think the Senate parliamentarian at time, like, now needs to be fired. And that wouldn't be unprecedented.

It happened in 2001. And do you think that she's partisan? Or what do you think she's applying political bias and ideologies? But she's clear what she's applying.

I mean, this bill needs to get across the line for the American people. Again, back to the mandate voted in November. This is what the American people want. It will deliver the largest tax cut for small businesses, American families.

It will secure our border, massive investments into energy, energy independence. So it needs to get done. And I have a real quick, just real quick, I talked to Congressmen and senators over the last week. Everyone is optimistic.

I honestly was skeptical of Speaker Johnson's first self-imposed deadline. And they got it done. I believe they'll get done. I believe they'll get done.

And the reason that she did it, she's a rat, right? The Democrats didn't like her and they were trying to think, they thought about firing her last time around, too. It doesn't happen. We want her on that seat.

But to think that they're going to remove 70 million Americans from Medicaid cuts and at the same time give billions of dollars to basically create private attention, that says why we have to have a conversation. We can talk about that a lot more, but I have to go now. So thank you so much to all of you for speaking up around from Donnie. We should say that Kristen will have an exclusive interview with him on Sunday for Meet the Press.

It's going to be only on Sunday and only on Meet the Press. So definitely we're going to look forward to that. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. The news continues right now with Hallie Jackson.

As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, with a podcast from NBC News with Meet your host, Jasmine D'Sougie. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, hands informative bringing you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world on the front page of the Zeitgeist. Here's the Scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Amazon Music.