If it's Monday, President Trump's big, beautiful bill faced another make or break moment as the Senate is deep into its voter-rama on the sprawling legislation. And Republican Senator Tom Tillis stuns his party, opposing the bill and announcing his retirement. Plus, the chief of the United Nations Nuclear Watchdog Group warns that Iran could resume uranium enrichment within months, saying the damage to Iran's nuclear sites was severe but not total, as President Trump has claimed. And President Trump signals relief for some undocumented immigrants, saying that farm and hotel workers could be spared from his mass deportation agenda, despite his administration canceling a similar plan just two weeks ago.
welcome to meet the press now i'm yamishah sandor in washington where the president and republican congressional leaders are hoping to jam through his legislative agenda by july 4th despite divisions in their party and the threat of political backlash all day the senate has been engaged in what's called a voter rama as it considers changes to the legislation as part of a marathon session that could go late into the night before a final vote on the bill and here's a reminder of what's in this massive package right now it increases funding for immigration enforcement and the Pentagon while extending the 2017 tax cuts and temporarily ends taxes on tips and overtime pay. The bill is paid for in part by cutting funds for clean energy, food assistance, and the big one, Medicaid. The differences from the House-passed bill and many of the amendments that we've seen today are tied to how deep those Medicaid cuts could be. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored the Senate version over the weekend, and it says that the version, that version of that bill, would add more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, despite the president's promise not to slash benefits.
The CDO also says the bill would cut Medicaid spending by more than a trillion dollars and lead to nearly 12 million Americans losing their health insurance. Today, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt did not address those estimates, but she claimed the bill would preserve Medicaid for, quote, those who truly deserve it. This bill protects Medicaid, as I laid out for you, for those who truly deserve this program, the needy pregnant women, children, sick Americans who physically cannot work. This bill strengthens Medicaid.
It will protect those benefits that hardworking Americans need. And that's why the president wants this bill to pass. President Trump was scheduled to huddle with top congressional Republicans at the White House today as the voterama plays out on the Senate floor. The vote on the final bill is going to be close after North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis dramatically broke with his party opposing the bill due to its cuts to Medicaid.
He called the cuts a betrayal. Senator Tillis then also announced he won't be seeking reelection after President Trump lashed out at him for his opposition to the bill. Here's what Tillis said on the Senate floor in a fiery speech last night. Health care and betraying a promise.
It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet Room when I was there with finance where he said we can go after waste fraud and abuse on any program I telling the president that you have been misinformed You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid Tillis' retirement shows the potentially enormous political cost of this legislation to vulnerable Republicans who have to choose between an unpopular bill or backlash from the president. Still, most Republican senators are signaling that they're willing to get on board. Here's what Missouri Senator Josh Hawley told us about the bill's Medicaid provisions over the weekend before voting to Greenlight debate on it anyway.
The Medicaid stuff here, I think, is bad. I think we've delayed the worst of it. And in the short term, for my state, you know, it's going to be fine. But on a going-forward basis, we cannot do it like this.
I think the party has a lot of thinking to do. And listen, Donald Trump ran on no changes to Medicare and Medicaid subsperity. And a lot of these folks have not listened to that. And I think that's the problem.
A reminder that, again, was before he voted to Greenlight the bill, in case you got confused there. Joining me now with the latest from Capitol Hill is my colleague, Sahil Kapoor, also with us from the White House, is NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell. So Sahil, thanks so much for being here. Kelly, of course.
Thank you for being here. So, Sal, you're on Capitol Hill. What's been happening with today's amendment votes? And have there really been any big surprises at all?
Nothing terribly surprising so far, Yamiche. We're about seven hours into this voterama. There have been a bunch of amendments that are getting voted on. What I'm watching for is two things.
Firstly, how does the bill get changed? We haven't really gotten to that yet because we're still in a bunch of these motions and parliamentary inquiries. Democrats trying to send this bill back to committee. I'm also watching for how certain Republicans vote to try to pick up any clues in terms of where they are ultimately headed.
We know that Rand Paul is a no. He doesn't like the fact that the bill adds massively to the national debt. We know Tom Tillis is a no for reasons that you just played over there. He hates the Medicaid cuts in this bill.
I just spoke on the way over to this camera to Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the centrist Republican. She said she's still leaning against this bill on final passage, even though she voted to proceed on beginning debate. She doesn't like the Medicaid cuts. She doesn't like the fact that it extends lower tax rates on the highest earners, which she thinks need to go back up to Obama-era levels.
That's not going to happen in this bill, so she's going to have to make a determination as to whether she can support it anyway. I found it interesting that Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a fellow centrist Republican, voted in favor of one Democratic amendment to send this bill back to committee to fix provisions regarding rural hospitals. So is that a clue? We'll find out.
There's also a trio of conservative senators, Rick Scott, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, who want further changes to the bill to decrease Medicaid payments to states, which could also turn into a significant issue for other senators. So there's a long way to go here before they call the final vote. Well, as you talk about a long way to go, there's also this interesting thing, which is that even some of the Republicans who are going to vote yes and have said that they're going to vote yes are not enthusiastic about this bill. So I just wonder, do you think overall this is just a testament to just exactly how much power President Trump has over his party that lawmakers who don't really like the bill are going to vote for it anyway?
Yeah, the short answer is yes. I think Josh Hawley is a perfect example of that. Showed how unenthusiastic he was about the Medicaid cuts. Said it would take health care away from working people.
He has been shouting from the rooftops to anyone who will listen about how bad an idea it would be to cut Medicaid. But he nevertheless is supporting the bill. A number of Republicans fall into that same space. They would say it's not perfect, but it has too much of the president's agenda.
It's too big to fail. They're not going to allow it to fail Take a listen to what some Republican senators have to say President Trump very important in the process because this is his campaign promise It the fulfillment of all the things that he told the American public that he would do It good It good for those people that he made that promise for We're going to get it done. He's leading this charge. Obviously, people know that.
But he's been very effective and he'll continue to work very hard on it all the way up until he signs it. American people spoke loud and clear. They saw the Democrat policies over the last four years. They rejected them.
Republicans now have an opportunity, I think, to fight for working families. And that's what this is about. And remember, anything that passes the Senate has to get through the House, through that narrow majority one more time. The question this all boils down to is, are there four Republicans in either chamber?
Because that's the margin. Four Republicans who are willing to say no to President Trump here and tank his agenda. I can't count to four yet. No one is upset.
Yeah, well, we're going to be counting very closely. Kelly, I want to come to you because another thing that's another institution that's counting is the Congressional Budget Office. Of course, it is this nonpartisan entity. And it says that President Trump's agenda in this bill would cut a trillion dollars in Medicaid spending and lead to nearly 12 million people losing their health insurance by 2030.
But the White House is insisting that President Trump is not breaking his promise to not cut Medicaid. So how are they squaring the president's promise with these facts? Well, one of the challenges today, the specific figures that you cited were raised in the White House press briefing. And Caroline Levitt talked in the big broad strokes, but she didn't address those particular elements of it.
She says that it is simply wrong that rural hospitals will be affected. She again cited the fact that she believes this will strengthen Medicaid. But the president himself has been clear that he did not want people who are using Medicaid as their means of getting health insurance to lose that. Certainly, you could have requirements for able bodied for work and things like that.
But what this analysis is saying is that close to 12 million over a 10 year period would lose their health insurance. And then, of course, the skyrocketing cost of the bill, which is something that often is a part of giant legislation, that there is a huge cost to it. That, of course, concerns many conservatives. But on the human element of denying health care opportunities, especially to working poor, to people who broadly not only are they the president's constituents, but many of them could have been his voters in some of these key states.
When you're talking about Senator Tillis of North Carolina or Senator Hawley of Missouri, who represent some of those same voters and constituents who are concerned about the loss of this. The White House is not addressing this. They're saying that when it comes to Senator Tillis that he is simply wrong. and it's hard to get to that math.
And so they also acknowledge that there is still time, that there are still amendments, although they didn't suggest that there would be amendments that would undo those particular pieces. But the president was clear on a number of occasions that he did not want to see anyone lose those key entitlements, including Social Security, including Medicare. Here we're talking about Medicaid, a program where it's a joint state-federal program for health care. And so there isn't a good answer yet.
And certainly when we see the president next in whatever increment when he is on camera again, that certainly would be a tough question to ask him about. And he's certainly engaged in trying to get this passed. The White House was very stark, very black and white about this has to pass and the president is working hard to see that it does. And Kelly, you're talking about the president being engaged.
What do we know about the president's meeting with congressional leaders? There were supposed to be a meeting today And what do we know about specifically what he doing to make sure that this bill gets over the finish line and maybe even makes that July 4th deadline and he imposed on lawmakers Well again I hate to be squishy in my responses to you but we were just asking about that a short time ago where I popped into officials to see what the timing of the leadership from Congress coming to visit I was not given any answer on that. Certainly, the president can reach them by phone or videoconference a number of ways. But we didn't get any clarity that there is actually a meeting that would be happening here.
And obviously, the senior leadership is actively at work on Capitol Hill. So that doesn't mean the president's not engaged. But in terms of an actual meeting, we don't have any update on that, even though we were told to expect that there would be one. Again, the president can work the phones.
He can talk to and try and twist some arms, if you will. That's you know, that's been going on for generations in Washington. But the president is certainly being clear. And so is his press spokesperson, Caroline Levin, saying they expect this to pass.
And they've ramped up certainly the pressure when you see how the scenario with Tom Tillis of North Carolina played out. Yeah. Well, thank you so much to both Sahil and Kelly for your reporting on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue there. And joining me now is the panel.
We have Shelby Calcott. She's a White House correspondent at Semaphore. We have Naveen Nayak. He's a Democratic strategist.
And Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Thank you all for being here. Shelby, I want to start with you. What have we learned about the fate of this bill and specifically the Senate Republican conference today?
Yeah, I mean, I think the big question is, does it pass by that July 4th deadline that the president is demanding? And I've you know, we've talked to lawmakers over the past few weeks who have quietly said, expressed frustration with that July 4th timeline and sort of argued quietly that while they are going to do their best to get it done by July 4th, they don't quite understand why it needs to be done by that timeline. So there's certainly frustrations. And the other aspect of this that I think we're awaiting answers on is whether some of these amendments, that are being discussed, particularly as it pertains to Medicaid, whether the president supports those and would sign a bill if the bill ends up including some of those provisions.
And we don't have those answers yet. So it's going to be really interesting over the next day or two to see how this bill changes. And then, of course, whether the House accepts all those changes that the Senate might make. Well, the other thing that we're going to be looking for maybe in the next few months is the political impact of this bill.
We've seen and heard of some sharp things from Republicans who are supporting the bill, but it's also not been polling well in the month of June. It's safe to say that the only thing really keeping this bill on track is the president's support and really threats against it. Yeah, I would say that's 100 percent true. And so the big question is, over the next few months and particularly heading into the midterms, is the Republican Party going to see backlash as a result of this bill?
That's certainly a concern among some Republicans. They've said that publicly. They've said that privately. Even as they're supporting this bill, the White House maintains that this is exactly what the president campaigned on over the last years.
And in many ways it is right. It has those border provisions. It focuses on immigration. But there is so much other stuff in this bill.
And that's what's concerning some of these Republican lawmakers. Yeah. And Sarah, the president has been clear that this is really what he campaigned on. That's That's the pitch that he's making.
I want to play something for you, though, from Texas Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez. What he told me last week. Take a listen. The Senate, in spite of 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 that's where. And you know what?
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. So there you heard it. He said that he's been very vocal talking about the president on making sure that Medicaid is protected.
That being said, do you think that Congressman Gonzalez is going to be in a tough position when it comes to this bill? I think he will be. I think he'll ultimately end up voting for it. But he's not going to be alone.
There's a lot of elected Republicans that are very concerned about what the Senate bill ultimately is going to look like. they're in hopes that maybe before this voterama is over, God knows when that's going to be, that it will kind of swing back around and look a little bit more like the House bill. So they're nervous. They're talking about it.
There's phone calls going on between the members and leadership. So we'll have to just wait and see what comes out of the Senate. And Sarah, it's interesting, of course, that the president is saying he's keeping his promise not to cut Medicaid, not to cut benefits. But the White House is really in this position that they're dropping spending and coverage of Medicaid.
The CBO, which is a nonpartisan group, we have to remind people of the Congressional Budget Office, is saying that nearly 12 million people are going to lose health care and health care coverage by 2034, I think is the number. I wonder, Sarah, how do Republicans, how does the president make that case to the American people that they're not losing coverage when you're going to see people actually lose their health care? Well, first of all, we're looking to cut waste. CBO, you know, I mean, CBO is important, but, you know, they're never that accurate.
They certainly weren't on Obamacare. Republicans and Democratic presidents across the board the last few years have complained about CBO and really their inaccuracy. So what we're doing is we're cutting the waste, cutting the fraud. And most of the people will keep their medical coverage.
There may be a few that have jobs that really can drop it and go on their employees' benefits package. But we're looking at that. we really don't totally agree with the CBO coverage, which is what you're seeing. So, Sarah, let's say that the CBO is wrong.
Maybe it's even half that number, 6 million Americans. Maybe it's even 2 million Americans. How do you argue that it's not a cut to Medicaid if even all those Americans lose their health care coverage? Because the thought is, and the research that has been done for the Republican Party, is those people do have alternatives.
A lot of them are working already. They could certainly be going on to their employees' health care. So there's a lot of options here that they could do, but we're really not seeing that too many people are totally going to lose their health care. That is not what the Republicans, what our research has been showing.
Certainly, you know, I know the Democrats have been pushing that line, But that's not what we're seeing on the Republican side. And what do you make of that? I mean, Democrats, they were successful at running on health care in 2018. Are we going to see that playbook again in 2026?
I mean, listen, I think we'll see it because it's what's going to matter to the American people. In 2018, it was the core of the campaign because the priority for Donald Trump and Republicans was getting rid of Obamacare. And the American people are not going to be fooled. If they lose their health care, they're going to understand.
And I'm actually sitting here sort of as political strategist, stunned that the Republican Party is going to walk this plank for Donald Trump, both through the willful deceit, trying to pretend to tell people they're not going to lose their health care when it is a Democrat saying that. It is every independent analyst in the healthcare industry. You have rural hospitals screaming that they are going to shut down You have healthcare professionals and independent analysts all saying that millions of people will their health care And that is going to be completely on the backs of the Republican Party And this is the reality is Donald Trump has never cared about policy. That has never been his approach to politics.
He cares about a win. And he is driving the Republican Party that ostensibly won this last election because they were positioned as the party of working people. And this is going to be the biggest transfer of wealth ever passed from working people to the wealthy. They're going to lose their health care.
They're going to lose food security. Their energy rates are going to go up all in order to fund a $270,000 tax cut for every wealthy individual, the wealthiest individuals in America. It is absolutely turning what Donald Trump promised to the American people on its head, and that's why you see most people referring to it as a betrayal. And, Neneen, sticking with you, you said that President Trump really is caring about a win.
You've tried to help Democrats and have at times successfully helped Democrats sell legislation at the ballot box in the past. Do you think President Trump's going to be able to sell this as a win to the American people, maybe even because some of this might not happen for a couple years? No, I think the biggest issue, the biggest problem Donald Trump and the Republicans have right now is twofold. One is the only reason it's not polling worse is most Americans don't know about this.
The number of Americans who still haven't heard about this bill is actually quite high. And the fact that it's two to one negative already is, I think, a damning fact, given Donald Trump and Republicans are trying to sell it. The second, and we sort of learned this on our side when we were trying to sell the Inflation Reduction Act or the Chips and Science Act, is at the end of the day, people can't be fooled about what's happening in their lives. And the costs kept rising, even as Democrats or progressives promised that the costs were going to go down.
And I think it is going to be a very rude awakening for Americans when kids lose their school lunch, when people can't get health care coverage. There's no spinning that, no matter how talented Donald Trump is at telling lies. Yeah, well, that's definitely going to be an uphill battle for Republicans and Democrats. But thank you so much to all of you for joining me.
And coming up, Iran could resume enriching uranium within a matter of months. That's according to the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. I'll speak to a top congressman on national security issues next. Plus, President Trump teases that he's found a buyer for social media giant TikTok.
But he won't say who it is. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. As we've said, senators are in the midst of a marathon voting session as Republicans forge ahead with President Trump's so-called one big beautiful bill in the hopes of getting it to the president's desk by July 4th.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has notified rank and file members that votes on the Senate bill could begin in the House as early as this Wednesday. But like in the Senate, Speaker Johnson can only afford to lose three GOP lawmakers, with Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky already a likely no. And joining me now is Republican Congressman from Ohio, Mike Turner. Thank you so much, Congressman, for being here.
I want to get to you on Iran and the latest assessment of the U.S. strikes there. But first, I want to go to you, of course, on the news that's playing out on Capitol Hill. The Senate is voting on amendments to their version of the one big beautiful bill.
Where do you stand on that bill? And do you feel comfortable supporting the Senate version of this bill? I appreciate that. Thank you for having me.
You know, this has been a very important process. At its core the most important aspects of this bill is this is about you know continuing the tax breaks and the tax code from Trump first term And this is incredibly important And then adding to it the most important provisions of the Trump continuation of his tax promises for his second term And then additional policy issues that have been debated, debated both in the House and the Senate. And those core provisions, I think, are incredibly important, both for getting our economy moving, making certain that we affect the budget in a positive way. So far, as the debate has unfolded, I think the decisions that have been made have been important.
There have been some policy decisions that, as they've unfolded, have had some negative consequences that have gone along the wayside. But I think it's best that those did not make it ultimately in the bill. Some provisions in which I pose, I think those debates were resolved positively. I think we're seeing it all.
I would say, would you vote for this bill the way it is now? It sounds like you're saying you're very positive. Would you actually vote for it if it came to the bill? Yes, we'll have to see what the final thing is.
But yes, at this point, I think this is going to be a very positive bill. And I think it's going to be something that's going to be very important, both for the economy, for the president's policies. We'll have to see ultimately what the final, final bill is. But at this point, I think this is going to be positive of the American public for the economy and for President Trump's policies.
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate version of this bill will increase the national debt by three point three trillion dollars over the next 10 years, even more than the House version that you initially voted on. It also, the CBO says, will lead to eleven point eight million people, nearly twelve million people losing health insurance by 2030. Does that break, you think, with the president's promise not to cut Medicaid? It depends on how you look at these provisions.
I mean, first off, this does include some spending provisions are important aspects of this bill that include increased spending and defense. Those are going to be incredibly important, including provisions for the president suspending for a missile defense shield. It's going to be important as we look to the threats that are evolving both from China and Russia. On the issue of health care, there are provisions in this bill that are going to cause people, if they make the wrong decisions, if those individuals who are not working, for example, who are getting health care benefits, who have the ability to go and work or to enter the workforce, choose not to do so, will lose health care benefits.
Now, I think those provisions, I think most people in America believe that people who are eligible and have an ability to work should do so. So I think, you know, if there's a calculus in this bill that the people are going to choose not to work, that they lose health care benefits. And I think that's that's their own choice that you're going to be seeing. But overall, I think people look at this as reflecting the values that are important for encouraging economic growth, encouraging people to get out into the workforce and also giving us the tools to be able to grow our national security.
We also got some news over the weekend. Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina came out against the Senate bill and then he proceeded to announce that he will not be seeking reelection. Your House colleague, Don Bacon, also announced he will not seek reelection. What does that say you think these two lawmakers are seeking not to run about the Republican Party, given that these are seen as two key centrists in the party?
Well, there are also a number of Democrats that are making the decisions not to run again. I think people make their own individualized decisions that don't necessarily have to do overall, specifically with either this bill or with the administration or the environment. I mean Don Bacon has been in this decision making mode every cycle I have a great respect for Don He a great friend of mine He a great legislator He certainly works diligently across the aisle And I think you know it been great that his district sees him as that champion for working across the aisle and has continued to return him I wish that he would reconsider and run in his district. I think he is that champion for a strong voice across the aisle and has worked, I think, for the people in his district.
Yeah. Congressman, I want to turn now to another important issue that I said I was going to turn to, which is Iran. I want to play with the United Nations nuclear watchdog said yesterday about his assessment of Iran's nuclear program. Take a listen.
The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium. So you heard it. He's saying it's a matter of months before Iran could presume enriching uranium.
How confident are you then in the president's assessment and the Trump administration's overall assessment that Iran's nuclear sites have been, quote, obliterated, as the president has stated? We have to understand the difference between what he's saying and really what the president's discussion is about. I mean, the president is talking about specific enrichment facilities for which, you know, 30,000 pound bombs were dropped upon. You know, these sites were obliterated and as those bombs impacted them.
Now, there's been a discussion, I think wrongly, of leaked materials in which people have commented on that really we haven't had the, you know, because they're classified, rightly so, because they go to very most, I think, sensitive of materials the United States has. You know, they shouldn't be out in the public for discourse. But they go to, you know, other people who have seen materials who don't really even have access to looking at these sites. but you don't really have an assessment of really what has happened at these sites.
What the guy who does, the head of the IEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is discussing, is they also have other sites, they have other capabilities, they have other ways in which they could restart their program. Now, you talk about whole facilities, you talk about their program, you talk about enrichment, but you're not talking about these specific sites where these specific bombs fell. Now, we'll have to do a long-term assessment as to what occurred at the sites where these bombs fell, but you have to also understand where these bombs fell, it's not just an issue of what are the structural damages that occurred. These had nuclear materials at them, so you can't just walk into the door and determine what damage has occurred because they are very contaminated, very dangerous sites within which to go to structurally, but also because of the contamination that's there.
But that doesn't mean that forever they don't have the ability to go someplace else or in some other way to continue their aspirations. And that's what the problem is with Iran. It is a terrorist state. It's a state that has nuclear aspirations.
And they're going to continue that unless we bring them to the table, which is what the president said. They need to begin to leave their terrorist state aspirations. They need to leave their nuclear aspirations and become a peaceful state. that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
I want to ask you about another issue while I have you, which is a senior White House official confirmed to NBC News that the White House plans to limit, limit intelligence sharing with lawmakers, including yourself. You're the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee. So I wonder how comfortable. that move by the administration, given the fact that, of course, Congress is seen as a co-equal branch of government.
Well, I really don't take these discussions as a serious inhibition in the work that Congress is doing. We'll have to see exactly how that plays out. I think Congress will continue to have access to intelligence and have access to intelligence in ways that are important for us to do our job. I think what's important is that certainly that they find ways to ensure that leaks, specifically leaks that can impact our national security and the ways in which we do business, are addressed.
because the aspect of people misusing intelligence in ways in which they try to impact the outcome and hurt the United States is the part where we have to be most concerned. Yeah, well, it is a very newsy Monday, so thank you so much, Congressman Mike Turner, for joining us. Thanks for having me. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with your host, Gassie Vasugia.
We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and is informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist, Here's the Scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Sirius XM.
Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now, unlock even more with a subscription.
It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad-free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.
Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. Fewer ads, deeper access, and exclusive content. And now, during the Xfinity member celebration, Members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to Xfinity.com slash membership to learn more.
Xfinity, imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Offer ends May 20th, 2026. Prices subject to change.
Visit NBCnews.com slash Xfinity for full offer terms and details. And as the White House pushes for the ceasefire between Iran and Israel to hold, and for Israel and Hamas to agree to a ceasefire just moments ago, an administration official confirmed to NBC News that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit President Trump at the White House on Monday. And coming up next, President Trump says he's considering exceptions to his immigration crackdown as industries that are reliant on migrant workers and keys to the economy seek relief from the White House. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Welcome back. Today, the Justice Department announced what it's describing as the largest health care fraud takedown in the department's history. According to the DOJ, it involved 280 federal and state cases across 50 federal districts and a dozen states. In all, 324 defendants have been criminally charged, including 96 medical professionals.
The Justice Department says the schemes would have racked up more than $14 billion in fraud. The actual losses totaled nearly $3 billion. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney joins me now So Ken those are some big numbers Explain what was part of this takedown by the Justice Department Yeah they are big numbers Unfortunately they probably only a fraction of the actual fraud that occurred over the last year This is something the Justice Department does every year They group together a bunch of unrelated cases and they announce a health care takedown. It's sort of marketing.
But actually, there was one case this year that was bigger than we've ever seen before that was really interesting that accounted for $10 billion of the $14 billion you just mentioned. And it involved a group of Russians and Eastern Europeans who purchased a medical supply company secretly through straw buyers and then stole the identities of American physicians and then used that to fraudulently bill Medicare for things like catheters and other kinds of medical equipment to the tune of billions of dollars. And the feds were able to unravel this scheme, and they arrested some of these people. They're now facing significant charges.
And there were a lot of other unrelated health care fraud schemes that were announced today, including charges against people who were accused of performing unnecessary skin grafts on patients who were close to death. So if there's a way to exploit the health care system, people have found a way to do it, and the federal government is trying to combat this. And can you just walk us through some of the highlights of this takedown? What else stood out to you?
Well, just the fact that there are these transnational criminal groups now, and we've known about this because it's not just health care fraud that they're doing. But when you have people in Russia who are putting up the investment to buy medical companies, that tells you that they think there's going to be a return on the investment. And what we're hearing from experts is that the federal government is wide open to this kind of fraud because they don't do a good job of verifying where they're sending money. It's pretty easy now to get people's identities on the dark web, and you submit a fake social security number and you impersonate a real human being, and you get a check from the federal government.
Now, they talked today a little bit about ways that they are trying to combat that, but it's still a major problem. And you said that this is something that just started. So I wonder where some of these or maybe all of these investigations started during the Biden administration. Oh, yeah, these are long running investigations.
And to be fair, I mean, no one was trying to claim political credit for this. These were career officials for the most part or senior political appointees who stood up today and announced this is sort of the work of the department. But one thing that was interesting was Mehmet Oz, the director of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, did say that they are trying to get ahead of this. They're trying to use artificial intelligence to try to stop these fraudulent dollars from going out.
And if true, if he delivers on that promise, that would be a big revolution. And it's something that outside experts have been calling for for a long time because, you know, Citibank and Amazon and Walmart, they figured out how to stop this kind of fraud from happening. But the federal government has yet to do so, Yamiche. Well, that's really interesting.
Another use for AI. So thank you so much, Ken, for joining us. You bet. And President Trump now says he's considering softening.
That's right, softening his immigration crackdown, but only for certain industries. The president told Fox News that he's planning to provide a temporary pass for some workers. I'm the strongest immigration guy that there's ever been, but I'm also the strongest farmer guy that there's ever been. And that includes also hotels and places where people work, a certain group of people work.
So we're going to, we're working on it right now. We're going to work it so that some kind of a temporary pass where people pay taxes, where the farmer can have a little control. Now, what actual policy changes are coming is definitely still unclear. Earlier this month the White House reversed a plan to limit immigration enforcement at farms and hotels So that sort of confusing right now But NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julie Ainslie joins me to make sense of all of this So how would a deportation exception work And just what's your reporting tell you about what the president's trying to do here?
Yeah, I mean, I'll do my best to try to make sense of this. But it does feel like we're in the same place we were just a few weeks ago when Trump said that he heard from business leaders in agriculture and in hospitality who said that the deportations were going too far. And he said something has to change. And that very day, I sent out a memo telling people not to go do workplace raids in those industries.
They didn't, however, eliminate the possibility of deporting those employees in their communities. But then there was a reversal again. They thought maybe that was going too far, that they were backing off of their key campaign promise of mass deportations. They wouldn't be able to get the numbers up.
So by the following Monday, they reversed it. Now Trump is putting that idea back on the table. There have been exemptions for deportation before. People with pending asylum cases, people who may have a fear of persecution or torture being sent back to their country, people who are seasonal guest workers, something we really saw ramp up during the George W.
Bush administration. And so what we're hoping and what we're hoping for is more details to see what this might look like in the near term, because right now DHS and USCIS are the ones responsible for visas are just referring us back to the White House. So that means they're not at a place to preview any plans, talk about how this might work. For now, it exists either on the president's desk or possibly in his mind.
He's responding to something he's seeing out there. He's just not quite sure what to do about it yet. And again, he's caught in this place, which many Republican presidents have found themselves in before, of knowing that it's important to their base to be hardliners on immigration, but also to try to appease people in the business community who really depend on immigrants for work. Yeah, I want to ask you about another issue, which is the Justice Department is also now suing Los Angeles over sanctuary city law.
So what is the DOJ really trying to do here? What's it seeking to accomplish? and what will likely come of this? Well, we've seen two other high-profile sanctuary city lawsuits from this administration so far.
In fact, there's a task force they set up within the Justice Department. They pulled people from areas like environmental and natural defenses to go after sanctuary cities. That became a top priority. We've seen it in Chicago.
I mean, we've seen it in Illinois and in New York. And so now it's in L.A. And, of course, that's not a surprise because so much of the fight has been taken to L.A. where they're really ramping up their enforcement mechanisms.
There are some very high-profile, very militarized arrests by people in masks wearing full riot gear. And now they are blaming L.A.'s policy for not allowing the LAPD to work more directly with ICE to hand over people who they've encountered in their day-to-day law enforcement. But look, this is not a city that's going to go down without a fight, and it's not a governor either. We've seen Newsom even challenge Tom Homan to come arrest him.
Tom Homan has said he will arrest leaders of sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, which California is, who stand in his way. So this is the next ratcheting up of a very tense fight between these two parties. Definitely a fight that we will be watching. Thank you so much, Julia.
And after the break, Canada canceled attacks on American tech companies after President Trump terminated all trade talks with a country that moved handed. the White House a win as it races to meet its self-imposed deadline of reaching trade deals with major partners by next week. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.
After days of escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, there are signs that those hostilities are subsiding. Late yesterday, Canada announced it is rescinding a digital services tax to help advance trade negotiations with the U.S. The tax would have been imposed on tech giants, including Amazon, Google and Meta.
The announcement came hours before the tax was set to be collected and just days after President Trump threatened to cut off all trade talks if the tax went into effect. Top Trump administration officials now say the two sides can get back to the negotiating table. We spoke with the prime minister and the president at the G7 meeting. One of the things that the president asked for was that they would take the DST tax off.
It's something that they've studied. Now they've agreed to. And for sure, that means that we can get back to the. OK, what about the NBC News senior business correspondent Christine Roman joins me now.
So the White House press secretary said Canada caved. Is Canada's decision, though, and its decision to rescind this tax a victory for the Trump administration? Yeah, most observers say it really is, because even on the eve of this tax going into effect, the Canadian government was set to do it. And it was that threat from the president that was the thing that seemed to change it.
And this is good news for these big tech companies who were unhappy about, you know, their lobbying group was unhappy about that tax, but also unhappy that this was retroactive. So it would have been reaching back a couple of years and having them pay tax for things in the past. So what happens now? So what happens now is these two parties go back to the negotiating table.
I mean, they were at the G7, you know, in Canada. They had decided that they would put a deal together in 30 days, a Canadian-U.S. deal in 30 days. And so that's a July 21st deadline.
And so the president threatened to walk away from that deal-making ability. And that could raise tariffs significantly on Canadian goods. So now we go back to a new deadline, the 21st of these two parties with a lot of big differences, Yanish, have a lot to settle. And the president is also hinting of a potential buyer for TikTok.
Take a listen. We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I'll need probably China approval. I think President Xi will probably do it.
Who's fine? I'll tell you in about two weeks. A big technology company there. Very, very wealthy people.
It's a group of very wealthy people. So, Christine, any insight into who that buyer could be? And that's all we know, really. The president has been talking about TikTok for some time.
A group of very wealthy people. He'll have an announcement in a couple of weeks. will probably have to go to the Chinese president for approval. Look, you know, the United States Congress has said that this company needs to be sold.
It needs to be an American owner. And there have been three or four, I think, three delays in that threat. But now it sounds like the president thinks he's got a solution at hand. Well, thank you so much, Christine.
And still to come, my conversation with a pair of bipartisan state lawmakers on working across the political aisle and the importance of young people getting involved in government. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. As Republicans on Capitol Hill aim to pass the president's legislative agenda on completely party-line vote, Meet the Press now sat down with representatives from a group of young state legislators called the Future Caucus.
They came to Washington for the future summit, a chance to set solutions to big issues and how to work across the aisle back home. I sat down with state representatives Mary Catherine Stone of Vermont and Bo Baird of Indiana. I began by asking them about the summit and its work. Take a listen.
Yes, thank you so much for having us. It's such an honor to be here. So the Future Summit is an annual event put on by Future Caucus, which they have chapters all over the country and various state legislators, as well as congressional membership with a goal of breaking down the partisan divide to honestly get work done. So it's something I've been a part of for the past couple of years.
I'm the co-chair of the Vermont Future Caucus chapter. And you have the same role in your state's Future Caucus. So tell me a little bit about it and why you're attending. Yeah, absolutely.
But first of all, thank you for having us here today. The Future Summit to me is about building bridges and bipartisanship. And I think it's really important for us to understand that you don't have to compromise your principles to build bridges and to find compromise. So how important do you think it is as you think of Congress for it to be embracing young voices?
And when you think about the fact that they're, of course, having to govern and possibly be bipartisan in some ways, what do you make it about? Representative Stone? As far as having a seat at the table, it's super important. Here in America, we are privileged to have a representative democracy.
And so I really feel, especially the district I represent, I represent two college campuses. So I really am uplifting and representing the voices of the people I represent, which are largely young people. Yeah, I think that's important to represent. I represent DePaul University and Wabash College, and I'm constantly out speaking to young people.
I think it's important regardless of their political leaning. It important for them to be engaged because it important for them to know what makes America exceptional Yeah And we have some of course news in the Democratic Party that I want to ask you about representatives And we have 33 Ron olds Ron and Donnie who of course has a striking win in New York mayoral race And I should say it Democratic primary race right now But it seen as a big part of whether or not he going to be the ultimate mayor of the city But I wonder for you, it's an encouraging sign that the Democratic Party is choosing someone like him to lead at the top of the ticket. And especially when you think about sort of the road to get there. Right.
I think it's honestly exciting, no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself on, just because of the impact that we saw on getting young people engaged in the process of knocking doors, of attending town halls. So not only the candidate himself, but I mean, the volunteer support that he brought out and the turnout at the polls and the age group at the polls is super inspiring and shows that I think we're at a turning point here in America. And what do you think, especially as a Republican, when there are some Republicans are saying this is bad for the Democratic Party, but there are also some that say, hey, this is what we need to be looking at because this could be a threat if Democrats do sort of hone in and this is what their base ends up getting excited about. What do you make of his success?
I think we need to back up. And I think like Representative Stone said, I think that it's important just to see the young people involved. I think that's the critical part. If you want to look at that race and you want to take something away from it, it's encouraging to see young people getting involved in politics, regardless of the party, regardless of the candidate.
It's just great to see young people getting involved. Yeah. And of course, as you talk about bipartisanship and your goals here in Washington, we see a lot of political division. We see a lot of disagreement.
I wonder does that reflect what you seeing in your actual state houses And I wonder when you think about sort of what you doing on a state level is there anything that maybe you can learn or people in Washington can learn from how the states are able to do things across political lines I think Washington can learn a lot from states I don know about Vermont but definitely Indiana I got to give Indiana a plug. When I was first elected, I thought that every bill was going to be contentious. I was very pleased to learn, though, that this just this last session that we finished, we had about 300 bills. Ninety five percent of those bills had bipartisan support.
Seventy five percent of those had fewer than 15 dissenting votes and over 50 percent of the bills had unanimous support. And that's something that doesn't get covered in the media. So at least in Indiana, we're a state that gets work done, unlike Washington. Yeah.
And Representative Stone, there's some interesting things happening in Vermont. We saw in the legislature it went from a Democratic supermajority to something more of an even split. I wonder, as that change has happened, has it impacted the way that you're working in your state, especially when it comes to working across the political lines? Definitely.
We had the largest turnover out of any state legislature in the nation. We also have a Republican governor and Republican lieutenant governor. So it's really made me center compromise and collaboration. But that does not mean capitulation.
It doesn't mean that I check my values at the door. It just means that I really have to reach across the aisle to get stuff done for the people I serve. Yeah. Representative Baird, I also want to ask you, there's, of course, this massive legislation that is moving through the Congress right now, President Trump's legislative agenda.
There's been a lot of talk about the cuts to Medicaid and the impact that could have on states. What are you hearing about when you think of your constituents in your state Are you hearing some concern there What are your own concerns I not hearing a lot of concerns I think that my district very supportive of President Trump and trying to make America great again and really fighting for what makes America exceptional But you not hearing anyone say, I'm worried about rural hospitals or I'm worried about Medicaid. You're just not hearing any of that. I'm not hearing a lot of that.
I mean, I think that we're doing great work in Indiana, and I think the state legislature is really filling those gaps in the voids. And I think that we're doing great things in Indiana, so it's less of a concern. Let's face it, Washington doesn't get much done, so I think people aren't too focused on it. What about you, Representative Starr?
I am hearing a lot of that. And something that the legislature has been working on, even prior to Trump's election, because we could kind of see what was happening before it happened, is being proactive versus reactive to protect Vermonters to make sure that they have access to health care, that they have access to public education, so on and so forth. Well, thank you both of you for coming on. I really appreciate it.
That sort of window into what my partgingship could look like. Thank you. Thank you for having us. And we're back tomorrow with more Meets the Press Now, but the news continues with Callie Jackson right now.
Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple.
Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.