Hey, Ontario, come on down to Bet MGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive, The Price Is Right Fortune Pick, has to offer. Don't miss out! Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show, only at Bet MGM. Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games, like Plinko, Cliffhanger, and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features.
Don't forget to download the Bet MGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on The Price Is Right Fortune Pick. Pull up a seat and experience The Price Is Right Fortune Pick, only available at Bet MGM Casino. Bet MGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. Nineteen plus noager, Ontario only.
Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Bet MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming, Ontario. If it's Tuesday, the White House and Republican leadership respond to Elon Musk's new and brutal criticism of President Trump's sweeping big beautiful bill calling it, quote, a disgusting abomination as some Republican senators threaten to hold up his passage, plus disturbing new footage of the fiery terror attack in Boulder, Colorado that injured 12 people, as DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announces that ICE agents are taking the suspect's family into custody, and back to back deadly incidents at a controversial US-backed aid distribution site in Gaza, which does its reportedly kill, as violence and chaos threaten emergency relief efforts amid a worsening humanitarian crisis.
Welcome to Meet the Press Now, I'm Gabe Gutierrez in Washington, where President Trump is facing some stunning new criticism of his megabill from one of his closest confidants and largest campaign donors. This afternoon, Elon Musk just days after his big old office farewell blasted the president's one big beautiful bill, which recently passed the House but is facing some Republican opposition in the Senate. Musk not holding back, posting, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. But this massive outrageous port-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination, shame on those who voted for it.
You know you did wrong. You know it. It went out to say it will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to two and a half trillion dollars, and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt reacting in real time to Musk's criticism from the breathing room, downplaying the influence of the world's richest man.
Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on his bail, doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it. Top congressional Republicans, though, were more forceful in their pushback. Here's a reaction we just got from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who worked for weeks to get the bill passed in the House and send a majority leader, John Thune, who's trying to do the same.
With all due respect, I've read Elon is terribly wrong about the under-beautiful bill. You were just talking about this time, somebody already asked me. No, no, no, no, I'm not worried about that. We have to get this job done.
Well, my hope is that, as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, he'll come to a different conclusion. But nevertheless, I mean, we have a job to do, the American people elected to do. We have an agenda that everybody campaigned on, most notably the president of the United States. And we're going to deliver on that agenda.
Musk tweets came after the president took the social media to lash out at one of the Republican senators opposed to his legislation, Rand Paul, saying in part, Rand votes no on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. This is a big growth bill. Well, here's a senator's response. I think it's one of the most important debates of our time, and this is a debate over whether or not a country can have $36 trillion in debt, whether we have interest payments over a trillion dollars.
I think it's an important debate to have. I don't make it personal at all. I like the president, supported the president. In fact, I'm for the tax cuts.
I could get my vote, and I could vote for the package if they take out the debt ceiling and vote on that separately. And then the news White House correspondent, Von Hilliard, is with me now, along with NBC new senior national political reporter, Sahil Kapoor. Von, I want to start with you. Any more reaction from the White House than Musk tweets today?
Right. Caroline Levitt, the press secretary making it clear that the president already knew Elon Musk's position on this bill. When we go, he had made an initial comment and interview suggesting you can't have big and beautiful in the form of bill that the GOP should approve of. And these comments, though, the social media flurry of posts really doubles, triples down five days after Elon Musk formally left Washington.
And the question here at this point in time is what kind of influence does he continue to hold? Will he try to put pressure on lawmakers who have midterm elections coming up in 2026? And for the White House, will he try to be even more difficult of an outside ally, if he will, but somebody who could easily, if his influence is still what it was over the last five months, be able to bring down what the president in this White House has called a once in a generation opportunity to pass a major Republican backed tax bill and spending package. And Sahil, I want to turn to you.
But I want to pick up on something that Vonges said, you know, we saw what power Musk had over congressional Republicans in December. So what's the view on the ground from where you are? Does he still have that much sway over the conference now? Yeah, it's not exactly clear how much influence Elon Musk still has over Senate Republicans gave.
It is substantial. There's no doubt about that. But his influence largely flowed from Donald Trump and the fact that he was in close proximity to Trump. It probably peaked around the time of Trump being inaugurated and maybe in the early part of his presidency.
Because as Musk has become a bit of a political liability, you know, in the wrong to the point where he was ultimately dismissed from Doge. But nevertheless, this does very clearly influence the debate among Senate Republicans as they now take ownership of this bill, they try to revise it and pass it because Musk is calling out the hypocrisy here on the deficit. The fact that Republicans have sold this bill as an attempt to reduce the deficit when it actually does increase the deficit. Elon Musk has actually corrected about that, increased the deficit by over $2 trillion.
Several Republicans said that as I spoke to today said, you know, they do need to take a look at the spending aspect of the writing aspect and cut spending more including Senator Ted Cruz, including Senator Kevin Kramer who conceded that Elon Musk does have a point here. So the debate might be moving in the direction of the fiscal hawks, which could complicate what happens on the other hand with the centrist. You know, so it was striking that Speaker Johnson wasn't particularly shy about pushing back on Musk yet some pretty pointed words. What else did he have to say?
Yeah, very unhappy with Elon Musk was Speaker Mike Johnson. He has worked really hard to get this bill over the line through his narrow house majority. He's highlighting the fact that there are more than a trillion dollars in cost savings in this bill. What Speaker Johnson isn't mentioning, however, is the fact that the tax cuts and the new spending increases on immigration enforcement in the military outstripped those savings.
Nevertheless, take a listen to what else Speaker Johnson had to say in terms of questioning whether Elon had a business interest in his bill. It's a very important first start. Elon is missing it. Okay.
And it's not personal. I know that the ED mandate is very important to him. That is going away because the government should not be subsidized in this thing. It's part of the Green New Deal.
And I know that doesn't affect his business and I don't know that. We talked about the ramp down period on that and how that should be really considered by Congress. But for him to come out and pay on the whole bill is to me just very disappointing. Very surprising.
A lot of the conversation has been. That's the Republican Speaker of the House wondering whether the Tesla CEO is worried about the clean energy cuts and how it would affect his business notably gay by spoke to Senator Chris Murphy, the Democrat from Connecticut who also said his response to the tweet was a broken clock is right twice a day. But he said he doesn't think there's any sincerity in Musk's complaints about the red ink that he was only worried about his own business interest as well. So a little bit of interesting convergence there between the Republican Speaker and at least some Democrats.
Well, Vaughn, we just heard from saw Hill there about the deficit, a fact check there. The White House though is dismissing the reports that this big beautiful bill will actually add to the deficit. What's the justification there? Right.
They're playing defense on two fronts. Number one, the extent to which it does or does not or just how big of the deficit is allowed onto and the Congressional Budget Office came out and suggested that it would at least $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, which the White House has aggressively pushed back on. I want to let you listen to the White House press secretary make her case. There hasn't been a single staffer in the entire Congressional Budget Office that has contributed to a Republican since the year 2000.
But guess what? There have been many staffers within the Congressional Budget Office who have contributed to Democrat candidates and politicians every single cycle since. So unfortunately, this is an institution in our country that has become partisan and political and we are very confident in our own economic analyses of this bill. The Congressional Budget Office is currently run by a former Bush administration official.
It has been outstanding that this is a nonpartisan entity that helps lawmakers situate and address whether they are going to vote for certain bills or not. And in the scenario of this White House, though, they're also playing defense when it comes to the cuts and the extent to which there are Medicaid cuts, particularly, and making the case that if you're an able-bodied, hard-working American working 80 hours a month, we're volunteering 80 hours a month that you are still going to be eligible for Medicaid and that effectively those who will be taking off the rolls are those individuals who are not working, who are individuals that may be undocumented, which we know is not the case, but in some states that there are 12 states in which the states do provide some Medicaid benefits to undocumented individuals. And so this is where you see the administration saying they were cut off some Medicaid funding to those particular states. So there's a lot of defensive approaches here that this White House is making to try to get this over the finish line.
And Sahel, before I let you go over quickly, the White House is also asking Congress to codify cuts to doge or doge cuts, rather, and also USAID and public broadcasting cuts. What more do you know about that? Yeah, that says a rescission package gave it first goes to the House where they need a simple majority to pass it. Then it goes to the Senate where it's filibustered proof and other words, Democrats can't stop it.
So the only question becomes do Republicans have the votes to pass it? It is largely cuts to foreign aid, which Republicans for the most part do support cutting. So I think if it passes the House, it would be difficult for Senate Republicans to look at this $9.7 billion package and say they don't support it, given that it is ultimately a drop in the bucket. So TV.
Sahel Kapoor, live for us on Capitol Hill. You're outside the White House. Thank you so much. And turning out to the latest on Sunday's terror attack in Colorado, and what was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration in support of Israel, hostages, Israeli hostages, rather held in Gaza, the Department of Homeland Security announcing this afternoon that they've taken the family of the suspect into ICE custody.
Secretary Kristi Noem posting on social media, quote, we are investigating to what extent his family knew about the heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it. And we see news has obtained video of the moment of the attack and we want to warn you, and it's disturbing. You can see the suspect throwing one of those Molotov cocktails and witnesses scrambling to help victims of the attack. Twelve people were injured in the incident.
Investigators say the suspect had been planning the attack for over a year and that he had 18 Molotov cocktails in a weed sprayer filled with gasoline to use in the attack. And when turned out, I used law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter, who joins me now. Tom, break down the charges of suspect is facing now. Sure, Gabe.
Well, on the federal side, it's as we reported yesterday on this program, which is that single count of a hate crime because he's been arrested on a complaint. Now, by the time we get to indictment, it's likely, if not all, guaranteed that there'll be additional federal charges. But on the state level, you're looking at them now, there's 42 felony charges, 16 counts of attempted murder in the first degree that's combined. There's only eight victims here that they've charged, but because of the way it works under Colorado law, they're able to do 16 counts of attempted murder in the first degree, some additional charges just on the attempted murder charges, Gabe.
You're looking at over 380 years in prison, if convicted, maximum sentence. So it's going to be stiff penalties, either way, and on the federal side, because there was an attempted murder tied to the hate crime, that's also eligible for life in prison. So he's looking at some pretty significant charges going forward here. We also heard a little bit more from him about why he did this.
The idea, again, continued discussion from him that he wanted to do this because of his belief in what's going on in Gaza and Palestine, that that's, quote, our land, he was clearly against the Jewish community. And he said that he would, he wanted to do this attack, no matter what, and that he actually wish they had died during the attack, he saw that he let himself on fireware in that orange vest. Apparently, he wore that to blend in as, you know, try to pierce some sort of a worker or a gardener that was there. But at some point he realized the damage that he caused, and that's why he stopped throwing more of those Molotov cocktails to your point.
He had 18. And Tom, we mentioned this, but I want to know what else we found out about it. The DHS secretary saying that ICE has taken some of his family members into custody one morning now. That's right.
So he's got a wife and five children. And what they said is they've taken them into custody. They haven't said that they've been charged, so there's no indication at this point that they're going to be hit with additional charges, depending upon the immigration status. And I think it's important to point out, we don't have access to immigration courts from a public records perspective, like we would with criminal courts or civil courts.
So it's difficult to know what's going on behind the scenes from an immigration perspective with this family. But they could have been taken into custody for that reason, or perhaps the investigation has uncovered some more information as far as what they may or may not have known, although the suspect has been clear that his family was totally unaware of his planning efforts over the course of the year. Tom, while I have you, I want to turn out to another story, a separate story that I know you have new reporting on. We're just learning that two Chinese nationals have been arrested in Michigan for allegedly smuggling a biological pathogen into the US.
What more do you know about that? Yeah, this has been a pretty intense case by the FBI's counterintelligence division. So those arrested are Young King Jian, the 33, and Zun Young Blue, 34, both of China, according to the criminal complaint filed in court this afternoon, they allege that it was Lou that brought in a pathogen. And you're going to forgive me for reading this, Fusarium Reminarium.
This is a pathogen that causes kind of like a light pink to reddish, and you're looking at some of the samples of what they say they uncovered on Lou's person when he was coming into the country. But it creates this blight on top of wheat in other crops, causes billions of dollars in crop damage a year. There is a fungicide that is able to be applied, but the problem is if it's not caught and it gets in the food supply, it can cause serious health issues for not only livestock, but for human beings as well. And the big question that the FBI has is why were they bringing this into the country and they allege that it was Lou, who's the boyfriend of the other person who's charged here, that's Young King Jian.
Apparently, Jian had told on their immigration form, she had said that she was here studying things that had nothing to do with this. So the question is, why were they here? Why were they studying it? And of course, these types of fungus out in the wild can be a huge problem.
So definitely a concern for the FBI, the fact that there's a counterintelligence component leads me to believe that they have some serious questions as to what these two Chinese nationals were up to here. Tom Winter, following several breaking stories for us, Tom, thank you. And coming up, firings, pardons, and policy changes. The Trump administration has gutted the federal government's anti-corruption efforts in just four months, according to experts, will dig into the political fallout.
Plus, it's officially June, and you know what that means, it's primary season, the busiest month of the poll since the election. Steve Cornakis tracking it all, and he's standing by the big boards right ahead. You're watching Meet the Press Now. And welcome back.
Experts tell NBC News that this could be the ripest environment for corruption by public officials and businesses, business executives, excuse me, in a generation, and that is in large part due to the actions by the administration in its first four months, including in May, the FBI dismantled. It's a lead public corruption squad back in weeks after the Trump administration gutted the Justice Department unit that prosecutes public corruption. Ethics Watch Dogs warned that Trump rolled back these anti-corruption efforts as his family seeks to dramatically expand its business empire. And whilst regional reports, the Trump Organization has announced 12 overseas deals since the November election.
It's a great venture that are in business with foreign governments. And with that backdrop, joining us now is the panel. Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief at USA Today, Democratic strategist Joel Payne, and Sarah Chamberlain, President and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thank you all so much for joining me here on the panel.
Susan, I want to start with you. When it comes to concerns that President Trump is profiting off of his presidency, how does this term compare it to the first one? Well, there have long been allegations that the president was profiting off his official office that was released first term, but nothing on the scale that we've seen this time around. And we also see the president moving with much greater confidence in dismantling the agents and the officials who might want to crack down on what he's doing.
Is that because of the people around him? There seems to be more loyalists around him this time around that are less willing to tell him no. Yes, he knows more. He has fewer gatekeepers around him that are going to tell him no.
And I think this reflects his vision of the government's role, which is less supervision of white collar crime and more supervision of, say, immigration crime or other kinds of, I guess you don't have blue collar crime. What is it, violent crime? Yeah, that's right. But the white collar crime just seems to be a lower concern of this administration than the past ones.
And Sarah, what do you hear from Republican lawmakers? Are they in any position to try and stand up to them on any of this? Well, what they're really hearing is from their constituents who are actually supporting President Trump in this. I mean, obviously they knew what was going on in President Trump's first term.
They reelected him and they're okay with what he's doing. They really want the pressure to be on immigration and Chinese and they don't care as much about white collar. And the White House is making that point, right? They're saying the American people elected him in part because he has this perception of being a strong businessman.
So this idea of him profiting from the presidency, they say, look, it's been litigated during his first term and they don't want to pay attention to it. But Joel, Democrats are trying to latch onto this anti-corruption message. Is that going to be effective? Is there anything more they should be doing?
Well, look, I think it's madness that Trump and his allies think that this is going to age well right now. Yes, he probably does get the benefit of that from his base and from observers writ large, but this is going to age poorly because this presidency is going to age poorly because the things that he claims he wants to do, he claims he wants to make life better for working class Americans. The bill that they're looking at right now is not going to do that. It's going to transfer well from people who need it to people who don't.
And so as those things continue to happen, these types of daily violations of public trust are going to matter more to voters. So they're not going to matter right now, but they'll matter in the end. I would I think be skeptical about that. I mean, if he delivers on jobs and inflation and bringing some manufacturing back to the United States, I think most Americans beyond his base will say, this is why we elected him and they're willing to overlook that as a giant.
Yeah. That is a giant point though. Somebody who's trying to make an argument here is I'm going to put up about what he said. He said the fact that Donald Trump has become one of the most has become the most unpopular president in American history and they meet it aftermath of his first 100 days in office tells you that the American people are actually paying attention and dislike what they are seeing from this administration as we move forward.
Do you agree with that though? Are they? Are the American people saying they dislike the administration so far? I think what the American people are saying is the same thing that they say to most presidents within their first six to nine months is let's see what this guy or this woman as far as the presidency, of course, has been all guys.
But let's see what this new president and this new administration can do for us. And I think what they're seeing every passing day, as I mentioned before, it's not doing anything for him. It's not delivering on the promises that he claimed he was going to deliver on. He's overreaching on immigration.
He's overreaching on things like Doge and on the other types of things that's in this bill that he and Mike Johnson and John Thunner trying to pass. So I don't, again, I don't think this is going to age well. I take the point, but I really don't think the type of government that Donald Trump is trying to bring to Washington is going to age well for the American. In our polling, which are in the swing space, we're pulling the people who voted for Biden who voted for Trump this time.
They're holding with Trump. They're still very happy with what the president Trump is doing. So we're looking. We're looking strong.
We're looking strong as right now. All right. Well, Susan, I want to turn out a Capitol Hill. Elon Musk has just thrown a wrench into the big, beautiful bill.
We were just discussing it earlier on the show. What did you think of his post today? This big, beautiful bill with friends like these, right? Exactly.
Then we say goodbye to Elon and Friday. Right. So I think this is not helpful to the White House and it maybe gives a little cover to Republican senators who have already expressed concern about deficit implications. I guess I think Donald Trump has a lot more sway with Republicans in Congress than Elon Musk does.
Well, Sarah, end to your point. Does Elon Musk hold any sway over the Republican? Not at this point. I mean, he just doesn't.
You're right. We say goodbye to him on Friday. This is not a surprise. Everybody who knows Elon Musk knew that he was not going to be happy with this bill is still past that.
And so Joe, is this a gift for Democrats or not? I think that this is an inter-squat fight between Republicans because some Republicans are mad that Donald Trump and Mike Johnson aren't focusing on certain parts and Elon Musk does have personal self-interest in some of this legislation. But I think what's missed year, what they're not fighting about is the fact that they want to transfer all of this wealth from working-class Americans to Americans who don't need that. I think that's jarring to me.
That's interesting to me. That's not what Elon Musk is raising a flag about. It's about his own personal interests and how this is going to negatively impact him. Well, Sarah, Trump clearly seems worried about this or worried about the big, beautiful bill.
At least listen to what he posted on True Social last night. He said, quote, so many false assumptions are being made about the one big, beautiful bill. There will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, he says. In fact, they will be saved from the incompetence of the Democrats.
So Trump says there will be no cuts, but it does appear that Americans will lose at least some of their coverage because of this bill. Can he spin this as no cuts? Absolutely, because we're not. I mean, Medicaid, we're putting in a work provision, which is needed.
The American people can retest of that. They support that. We're going to cut the people who have jobs who should no longer be Medicaid. You're going to clean that up.
You're going to get rid of the illegal. So the people who come out on top are the wealthy. So in terms of the debt, respond to rainfall here. It says the deficit is on control.
You can't, you know, you can't keep the tax cuts at their levels without getting more spending. What do you say? No, because by keeping the tax cuts where they are, hopefully it's going to build economy. More money will come in and offset the current taxes.
Susan, where do we hit? Where do we hit from here in the next couple of weeks? I think President Trump is entering kind of a rocky period after this kind of spectacular start where he did unprecedented things through executive actions. I think there are ways and some checks and balances are beginning to create some roadblocks.
And the courts would be number one. And reality would be number two because there are going to be cuts in Medicaid. I mean, there may not be cutting people for Medicaid, but the effect of the policies they are implementing on Medicaid will result in millions of Americans losing their Medicaid coverage. So I think that is a, I think we're ending kind of a new chapter for the White House.
It'll be interesting to see how it negotiates this one. All right, we're past the first hundred days. Buckle up for the next Sunday. I'm Susan Page, Sarah Chamberlain, and Joel Payne.
Thank you all so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. And up next, early voting begins today in New Jersey's gubernatorial race, which is one week to go until decision day. Susan, you're smiling.
Yes, voting already. Steve Cournacki is at the big border with the state of play in the first major primary of Trump's second administration. Plus, I'll talk to one of the Democratic candidates competing in a crowded field that could break in anyone's direction over the next seven days. You're watching Meet the Press now.
Stay with us. Welcome back. If it's Tuesday, voters are voting somewhere and today that somewhere is New Jersey where early voting is now underway in the state's high profile gubernatorial primary kicking off the busiest month of the polls since November. Primary Election Day in New Jersey is a week from today and more than 80 million dollars have been spent on the race to succeed, term limited Democratic governor Phil Murphy, with most of that money being spent in the Democratic primary.
Join me now for a look at the race in New Jersey and all of June's primary elections is our man of the big board, Steve Cournacki, Steve, it is so good to have you here. So New Jersey kicks off the busiest month in politics in November, so we just said, what are you watching this month? Yeah, here we go. Three primaries in three weeks in the three biggest elections of 2025.
As you say, it's going to start next Tuesday in New Jersey. Next week's going to be right here in the Democratic race for governor six candidates running here. You have Mikey Sherrill, Josh Gottheimer. You might recognize her name's both members of Congress.
You got Ros Baraka, the mayor of Newark, Steve Philip, mayor of Jersey City here. So a bit of a crowded field, although the most recent polling finds that Sherrill has been separating herself potentially from the past. Sherrill, remember, she won a Republican district to get her house seat originally back in 2018. A lot of Democratic leaders have decided they think she's the most electable candidate in the fall.
She has the most support from the party organizations in the state of New Jersey on the Democratic side still does have a large old school machine component to its politics. So I think Sherrill has taken the lead here, certainly. Keep an eye on these two on Philip, on Baraka, on the two mayors. Each one been running to the left here, full of running against the party establishment, Baraka, on the most progressive platform.
He had that high profile arrest at the ICE facility last month, could either of them catch fire with a progressive base of the party potentially make this interesting, or are they kind of going after the same votes in some ways, which might make it easier for Sherrill. But anyway, some of that dynamics to look for right there on the Republican side in this race, Jack Schirrelli is likely going to be the nominee. He was the Republican candidate last time around. He has Donald Trump's endorsement this time.
So if it's Sherrilli as the Republican nominee, see who comes out of this Democratic primary. This is interesting in the fall because something has to give. Look at these two trends. New Jersey has elected a governor from the White House party only one time in the last nine elections.
That would be bad news for Republicans. Trump, the Republicans. They got the White House. But how about this?
New Jersey has also not elected a governor from the same party in three street elections in 64 years. And the last two elections were won by Democrat Governor Phil Murphy. So that's bad news for the Democrats. One of these trends is going to have to take a bit of a change this year.
Then next, two weeks from now, two days from now, Virginia, this is not an event for primary, both parties have already settled Democrats on Abigail Spamberger, Republicans on the win some Earl Sears. There are races there for Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, to fill out tickets here that will be decided. But really, the general election here has begun. And you can say that Earl Sears, the Lieutenant Governor right now, she starts out as the clear underdog, not only in the polling, but also the trend in Virginia, maybe a little clearer than in New Jersey.
Eleven of the last 12 gubernatorial elections in Virginia have been won by the party that doesn't control the White House. That would be the Democrats in Spamberger. Earl Sears has been a half a try to make this a race. She's got an uphill climate.
It would appear starting out at least. And then the final one this month, this is the scramble here, New York City mayoral race here. Obviously, Andrew Cuomo, he is the big fish in this race. You see here, the most recent polling, Cuomo at 37, Zorron, he's a self-professed socialist, the most left-wing candidate in this race.
He's been getting a lot of momentum in the polling. I remember New York City, the way they do this, it's a ranked choice voting. When you go in there, you're asked to take one, two, three, four, five, rank the candidates. They have multiple rounds of tabulation candidates, get eliminated, votes get reallocated.
So Cuomo and Mamadami, that could end up being the match up that emerges from the ranked choice. And that's where the wild card does come in here, because whoever wins this primer in the Democratic side, there's the potential that could carry over into November. Why? So what happened?
Andrew Cuomo has gone and started his own party in New York City. And so the possibilities there if Mamadami were to catch him, Andrew Cuomo could run as that party's candidate in the general election, take another shot at Mamadami, and also in that general election, if this isn't confusing enough, Eric Adams skipping the Democratic primary, says he's running third party in the fall. Steve Cornacki, a true expert in New Jersey politics and just about everything else, Steve, it's so good to have you here. We appreciate it.
And joining me now is one of the candidates in that New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial primary, Jersey City mayor, Steve Folop. Mayor Folop, thank you so much for joining us here on Meet the Press. Now, you know, this is a crowded and competitive primary, as we just heard from Steve Cornacki. The first one for New Jersey governor in a long time, so why should voters pick you over your competitors?
Well, let me just start by saying that I don't think anybody in New Jersey thinks it's a 17-point race. I think it's going to come down to a three or four-point race on election day. I think anybody who's living here with the test to that. The reality is that I think Arlene is most credible for November because it's not really going to be a referendum on Trump.
It's going to be more of a referendum, as I think Steve touched on after eight years of film Murphy. And there, I want to put up some of your piece out today in New Jersey.com. He said, the biggest hidden tax in New Jersey is corruption. Backroom deals, needed contracts, political favors, that culture doesn't just erode trust, it costs real money, and it blocks real progress, no more excuses, no more insiders writing own rules.
People deserve a government they can actually trust. So you're the mayor of the state's second largest city. You've back established a candidate in the past. Why are you the best person to take on corruption in New Jersey?
Well, let me say I've never ran with the party establishment support. I actually beat them in 2013, and then they couldn't beat me in 2017, so they were supportive. And then again, in 2021, when I ran for counsel in 2005, it was the same exact lane that I'm in. So I think it's the only credible lane to be successful in November.
It's a lane that I've been part of for 20 years. But as a mayor, you work with other people, and I think I've tracked record of that, but never been part of it here in New Jersey. And to that point, you recently called Governor Murphy a sub-average governor. So where has he fallen short?
How would you be different? I think, look, I think if you think about Governor Murphy, I think that he's risk-averse and conflict-averse. He's a nice guy, but I think those are two attributes that aren't probably the best for an executive. I think he's done a lot of simple, progressive tasks post-Christy.
And I don't think we've been bold. I think if you think about things like the minimum wage, we're still poverty wage, even though we raised it. If you think about paid sick leave, you relate to the party. So if you were to look back at eight years, I think it'd be hard for us to say what his biggest accomplishment is that's been transformational.
So I say he's done some basic things, but I think just the basic isn't enough. So if I hear you correctly, you want to be the bold candidate, you want to be the risk-taker, and you painted yourself in ads as the best Democratic candidate to take on Trump. So what state resources specifically would you mobilize to fight Trump's agenda? And do you worry you put a target on New Jersey's back?
Look, I think we all talk about Trump as being the strongest candidate to take him on. The reality is that I have the largest volunteer base of any candidate. I'm very clear that we keep the current Attorney General for continuity purposes and we use the current surplus to offset some of the Medicaid cuts. The reality, though, is like I said earlier, it's going to be more of a referendum on whether New Jersey wants another four years of Democratic control after he hears a film Murphy.
And the reason I say that, I just want to say it's because a lot of independents in New Jersey voted for Donald Trump last November. So it's clear that it's not going to be just a referendum on him. Right. And to that point, Trump did perform relatively well in New Jersey in November.
His poll numbers are still over 40% in the state. So do New Jersey voters want a governor who's going to defy Trump at every turn or someone who might want to work with him? I think they want somebody who's going to stand up for vulnerable communities. And even though the political system on the Democratic side has walked away from maybe some immigrant issues or the transgender community, I don't think New Jersey's going to be a New Jersey wants a nominee that's just going to abandon those.
I think you've got to be able to advocate for them in a way that's thoughtful, but not make them the core part of the campaign. And you do got to be able to stand up to Donald Trump when he looks at vulnerable communities and he tries to punch and poke them constantly. So I do think they want somebody that's going to stand up. And so the intern, your attorney, Alina Haba, she's suing Governor Murphy over the state's policy on cooperating with immigration enforcement.
How would you handle this as governor? She's suing me too. So I'm part of that. And I mean, we're pushing back on it.
I think that there's a lot of things in the legislative front that are on deck that the governor should be pushing immigrant trust act, for example, which defines how New Jersey's going to work with ICE or not work with ICE in certain situations. The reality is that we just think that due process is important. You've got to follow the Constitution. And I think a lot of the way that ICE has approached the particularly in cities like Newark and Jersey City kind of undermine that.
And there are a couple of days ago, one of your rivals, John Scott Hanger, said that I think this is going to be a very tough November for whichever Democrat wins. Do you agree? I do. I think that not all six of us can win in November.
And I think if you have the most moderate candidate that is part of the political establishment here, I think you have a very, very limited chance of success in November. And here, Stephen, follow up. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.
Thank you. Welcome back. Welcome back. Another chaotic scene unfolded at an aid distribution site in the Gaza Strip.
And once again, conflicting reports from both Israel and Hamas about what took place. Israel's military said it fired warning shots near an aid distribution center. But the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says two dozen people were killed and hundreds others were injured when Israel opened fire on civilians seeking aid. It is the latest in a string of similar incidents surrounding the U.S.
and Israeli-backed aid groups effort to distribute much needed humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. And you see, Andrew Mitchell, press the State Department spokesperson this afternoon about the aid distribution operation. Where is white-screen criticism and actual criticism? Yes.
Yes. The consulting group that was supporting the foundation, which backed out of it, that the distribution system was not as professional as out of the U.N., excuse me, the law of food program and other people who are used to working in this area. And there should have been more distribution points for people, but not have been told to line up. Andrew, I know, but these questions are critiques of an environment that we've talked about regularly every day.
But like hundreds of thousands of people in Israel, as well as the Hamas, the Israelis, and the people being held by Hamas, our protesting is food decision. Well, I'm sorry, Andrea, Andrea, I understand, I understand, I'm not, I don't think any of us are going to be protesting 7 million meals being distributed. And joining me now is to be seen in the National Correspondent Matt Bradley in Tel Aviv and, as mentioned, let me see, Chief Washington correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrew Mitchell. I'm going to start with you, Matt.
What more do we know about that incident at the Gaza Aid distribution site? The Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas, said that 27 people were shot dead this morning and that more than 160 were injured. Now, the IDF did say that it had opened fire at a group of Palestinians who were waiting in line for food aid at one of these new aid distribution points. The IDF said a mistake earlier this morning that they had fired at people who had deviated from the line approaching one of these aid distribution centers, and that when they didn't obey, they actually fired at the suspects who were continuing to approach the soldiers' positions.
But this is the latest violent confrontation for Palestinians who have simply been waiting in line trying to get much needed food after months of being deprived under an Israeli full blockade that only started to loosen just in the past couple of weeks. Now, this is actually backed by a US-backed group called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Now, this organization has been widely criticized for its murky origins, it's been suspected of essentially being the brainchild of the Israeli government, and it's being used as a front for Israel to distribute aid into the Gaza Strip without having to put its own soldiers in the way, and in order to try to satisfy the far right elements in the Israeli government who don't want to see aid distributed into the Gaza Strip until Hamas abreaves to release the nearly 60 remaining hostages. But this aid group says that it's distributed well more than 7 million meals to the more than 2 million people in the Gaza Strip.
But given how things have been going and the only week that we've seen when more than 100 people have been killed at these aid distribution centers, it looks like it's off to a very violent and shaky start. Matt Bradley for us in Tel Aviv and Andrew, does the administration still feel that this US and Israel-backed group is the best way to distribute aid in Gaza? They are just very, very defensive about it. They don't acknowledge that the reason for starvation near famine conditions is that Israel for two months was blocking all aid deliveries there, saying that they would not until Hamas had agreed to the ceasefire and to release the hostages.
Hamas has issued an offer, but it was quickly rejected by stupid cops saying that it was not going to be inadequate. So that broke down on Sunday. And the UN spoke to them, Stephen Desjardt, today called it a death trap, what they're being forced into because contrary to whether the UN and the World Food Program have always operated, they're forcing people to go into a militarized zone, run by the IDF, in order to get the food that has not been available to them for two months, at their only four distribution centers. They say they're now increasing them, and they're in the South, where Israel wants them to move, not with where many people live.
So they say that this is part of a relocation effort, and it is not a humanitarian way to deliver food. And certainly Andrew, we'll know you keep pressing the State Department about that. But I want to switch to another part of your beat. President Trump posted on social media yesterday that under any potential nuclear agreement, the U.S.
will not allow Iran to enrich uranium. And what is the status of this negotiations at this point? That sounds like a declarative statement that the State Department said it is absolutely firm today, but under any agreement is where there's some wiggle room because in the transition until there is an agreement, according to the New York Times and other reports, there is the possibility that they would be able to enrich at low-controlled, inspected levels of uranium, not what they're now doing, which is way beyond the bounds at 60%. It's veneer weapons' weight.
So low levels of uranium for it, civilian use only, supposedly carefully controlled until there is an agreed-upon deal, and once there's a deal, they could no longer enrich. So that's where the disagreement lies. Still not a deal, but better than what many people had hoped, and the president seems very committed to it. Well, Andrew, now that we have here, we might as well cover a lot of ground switching out to Ukraine.
Ukraine has been going on offense with those drone attacks several days ago, and also the attack on the Crimea Bridge today. Does this give Ukraine more leverage? I thought President Trump said they didn't have the cards. That's what he said famously in that overall, this confrontation where he dressed down the president of Ukraine, when it turns out, is that in complete secrecy, as far as we know, there was no consultation.
Ukraine for 18 months was planning that drone operation, where they had drones on trucks and got them as far as 3,000 miles into Siberia, and then unleashed them and wiped out perhaps as many as half of the long-range planes, nuclear-capable planes of the fleet, of the Russian fleet, now going after that critical bridge they've attacked it before, it's been rebuilt before it's the critical link to Crimea. So it does give them leverage, but the tragedy, as you look at this, the criticism is that Russia in its position, which at least is negotiating position, is that they have to disarm, that they can't have any foreign help, military help, that Russia will control more territory than it now controls, and that they have to hold elections, so I'll give you a place so that's good. All right, Andrew Mitchell, thank you so much for joining us here, and congratulations on your career achievement award from the Peabody's. Welcome back.
Long flight from out west. Thank you. Thank you. All right, and instead of come, the fallout from the Trump administration's drastic foreign aid withdrawal is some of the world's most vulnerable communities facing the effects.
That's always next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Stay with us. Welcome back.
A new report reveals that diplomats within the Trump administration already warning about the devastating impacts the US withdrawal of foreign aid is having on vulnerable communities around the world. According to an investigative report by Pearl Publica, US diplomats in at least two countries sent cables to Washington with detailed accounts about how US funding cuts to the UN World Food Program have resulted in a sharp increase in violence and instability, while cuts to other key USAID programs are undermining anti-terrorism initiatives. In response to the report, the State Department told ProPublica, quote, it is grossly misleading to blame on wrestling violence around the world on America. No one can reasonably expect the United States to be quipped to feed every person on Earth or be responsible for providing medication for every living human.
Joining me now is one of the reporters on that story. ProPublica is Brett Murphy. Brett, we really appreciate your time here. Tell us more about your investigation and what those internal reports and cables from American diplomats reveal.
Sure. Yeah, these are different than the previous cables and reports that US embassies around the world had been sending over the past few months. Previously, there had been warnings from embassies in the Middle East and Africa saying that cutting down on USAID programs, especially food programs, will lead to instability, violence, and give extremists the opportunity to gain new space. These are different because they said this has already happened.
They were offering detailed accounts of incidents in Malawi and Kenya where there had been rise in what they called criminality, sexual violence, and deaths around food distribution centers. So the impacts they were saying have already happened, they're already here. Brett, have you seen any evidence that the Trump administration is doing anything to address the concerns American diplomats are raising? We saw that statement in your article from the State Department, but what else is the administration saying?
What is it telling those diplomats directly? Yeah, so it's a little unclear what they're saying back. We know that Secretary of State Rubio told Congress a couple of weeks ago that there have not been deaths as a result of the foreign policy vis-a-vis USAID, but what his own people have been saying inside of these embassies around the world is that there is violence that is now taking place. And they're warning about it.
They're warning about it in Mogadishu, in Nigeria, in Afghanistan. They were saying that there's going to be unrest when you take away people's food. They've turned some programs back on to some degree, but really important ones like the World Food Program. Their funding has been drastically cut.
And these huge refugee camps in Africa that we wrote about rely on the World Food Program for the food. And now the rations are going down as low as 50% of what people need for a given day. And people are responding. And Brett, for years, both Democrats and Republicans, the administrations from both parties really have used humanitarian diplomacy as a method of soft power.
So what alarm bells are U.S. officials' ringing specifically when it comes to U.S. national security interests? Yeah, so the argument has always been that USAID works hand-in-hand with the military when the U.S.
military pushes extremist groups or adversaries of the U.S. out of a given area, out of a village, whatever it might be. Those people who live in that village need basic services, semblance of governance to rely on for daily necessities like food, education, health care. The extremist groups may have been providing that.
So when we push those groups out, it's incumbent on us, they have said, to have something like USAID fill that void and increase the ability in the area. And Brett, in a few seconds, I have you. What are aid workers around the ground in the region saying about what we can expect to see in the future? They're going to say there's going to be more of this.
There's going to be more people who die. There's going to be more violence. Because there's no stability backdrop that USAID have been providing for so long. Brett Murphy, I'm important reporting on the predictions turning into reality, at least in some parts of the world.
Brett, we thank you so much for your time. Thanks. And we thank you for watching. I'm Gabe Gutierrez.
And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. But the news continues with Howie Jackson right now. Hey everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the Third Hour of Today, and Mom to Three Wild Boys. I've learned a lot of my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet.
And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week, I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real-world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it.
Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice. I'm not screwing yours up. Search the Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.