You have a reason to care. You know someone. You’ve lost someone. You’ve lived it.
The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge. From May 25th to 29th, Canadians are waking up with the sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need the moment they need it. Get up with the sun.
Show up for CAMH and rise up for mental health. Register today at SunriseChallenge.ca. That’s SunriseChallenge.ca Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I’m Kristen Welker in Washington.
President Trump hit the road today, visiting Ohio and Kentucky to tout his economic agenda. He’s set to deliver remarks this hour, but it of course comes as the administration is trying to contain the economic fallout from the war with Iran, with fuel prices rising and growing concerns about safety in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane that borders Iran. Oil prices moved higher once again today. They’re now up roughly 30% since the start of the war 12 days ago.
In hopes of easing prices, a group of more than 30 countries who are members of the International Energy Agency, which includes the U.S., announced they will release 400 million barrels of oil from their reserves. It is the largest release in history. Here’s Interior Secretary Doug Burgum ahead of that announcement. Well, certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world.
We’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary. And we have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically, which we can resolve and will resolve. This is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those to take some pressure off of the global price. But again, as you’ve seen, President Trump's leadership itself is helping to keep prices down all over the world right now.
It comes as transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway which 20% of the world's oil pass through, becomes increasingly precarious. According to a British monitoring agency, three ships have been in separate incidents near the Strait. Today, President Trump spoke to reporters and downplayed concerns facing tankers in the region. Take a look.
You're talking to CEOs of area oil companies, encouraging them to use a Strait of Hormuz. I think they should. I think they should. I think they should use it.
They wouldn't mind. Just about all of their mine ships in one night. Do you have any mines in the Strait of Hormuz? We don't think so.
Now, the president spoke a second time with reporters this afternoon, saying he believes the price of oil will start to come down. It comes as the Pentagon released these new videos saying it has eliminated 16 Iranian mine layers. President Trump this afternoon said the U.S. has knocked out 28 of those vessels.
President Trump continuing to tout the overall success of the U.S. military actions in Iran, telling Axios in a phone interview there is, quote, practically nothing left to target and, quote, anytime I want it to end it, it will end. NBC's Peter Alexander pressed the president today on what it would take to end the war. More of the same, and we'll see how that all comes out.
Right now, they are, they've lost their navy. They've lost their air force. They have no anti-aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar.
Their leaders are gone. And we could do a lot worse. We're leaving certain things that if we take them out, we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact, within an hour. They literally would never be able to build that country back.
Can you declare victory in this war if the supreme leader remains the guy who holds his son? I don't want to comment on that. Those comments coming after Iran's president said today Iran's new supreme leader, Mostafa Khamenei, has been wounded in the war but is safe. And as Iran says, it is launching its most intense operations since the start of the war.
Joining me now to start us off today, NBC News White House correspondent Julie Serkin, NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung, NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons, and NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby. Thanks to all of you for being here. Julie, I want to start with you. You are traveling with the president as he hits the road to talk about the economy.
What are your sources telling you about how he plans to balance his talk about affordability with the tough fact that oil prices, gas prices are going up? Yeah, especially in this area. I talked to several of his supporters, Kristen. I didn't even have to press them or prompt them on oil and gas.
They brought it up themselves. I want you to take a listen to one supporter that I heard from. Her name is Billie Jean Wright. She's a truck driver.
And this is her take on everything that's going on. Watch this. Do you support what the administration is doing in Iran? Yes and no.
Tell me more. I support what's going on, but I don't like how it's turning out. In what way? The gas prices are going up.
Our food industry is going up. Everything is going up and we can't survive over here. Now listen, Kristen. This is the president's seventh event focused on the economy on affordability since early December.
His fifth event focused on this subject area this year alone. And that is because the president knows that the midterm elections are around the corner. The economy is something he had the most success on when he ran. And certainly something like oil and gas prices going up is not going to make his base happy.
I also want to give you a preview perhaps of other things we expect from the president because the president gave us a preview by posting on Truth Social all morning long about Thomas Massey. He represents this district. And there were several in the crowd wearing pins and buttons of his supporter, Ed Galri, that the president handpicked, who spoke just a couple of minutes ago, who spoke about the war in Iran, spoke about Thomas Massey's record. And it's notable here that so far we've heard from several supporters who still support Massey and the president at the same time.
So the president expected to hit on that, Kristen, as well as the SAVE Act, the voter ID law that the president has tried to push Senate to pass. That's something he's been posting a lot about and something certainly that's going to come up here today as many of his supporters want to see that passed Congress, even though it has a very unrealistic path. Yeah, it's becoming a critical issue in the midterms, Julie. That's for sure.
Let me ask you about something else that we heard President Trump say today. This was to Axios. He told Axios, quote, there is practically nothing left to target in Iran. He also added that he can end the war anytime he wants.
Do you have any idea what the actual timeline is here based on your conversations, Julie? Kristen, I don't think anybody around the president knows what the timeline is because if you look at different administration officials, they are saying different things. The president himself, as you pointed out moments ago, calls the operation in Iran an excursion. And then when asked about the rise in gas and oil, he then said, well, this is what happens in a war.
So the president trying to have it both ways on one hand, knowing it is extremely unpopular, particularly among the people that elected him on no new wars, no foreign intervention. Even here, the prayer in this room began for the members of the military. Applause around me as the president arrives in this building, Kristen, for members of the military fighting overseas. So this is a raw issue for the president, but a timeline that remains uncertain.
He said at the beginning of this operation it would be four to six weeks. I know on Capitol Hill, members that I talked to, Kristen, heard of potentially open-ended window. But this is something the president knows he needs to wrap up. And his supporters here that I talked to know that as well.
But so far, at least most of them supportive of him and these efforts. Kristen. And Julie, as you've been talking, we saw the presidential seal go up on the podium. So we're likely just moments away from hearing from President Trump.
Julie Serkin, thank you so much for starting us off. Let me turn now to Brian Chung. So, Brian, let's talk about these gas prices. They're up 20%, diesel up 25% since the start of the war.
Talk about this level of volatility. Can these prices go down as quickly as they went up? Yeah, I mean, we heard from the voter that Julie was just talking to that anxiety is already being felt by people that are going to the pump and seeing those prices rise in real time. You can see crude oil prices hovering just south of $90 a barrel right now.
But the question is that as long as this conflict in Iran is still going on, there's still the risk that those prices could go even higher from here. So as you point out, $3.58. That is the national average right now. But the estimate is that for every $10 a barrel oil continues to go up, that's another $0.25 per gallon that you and I would face at the pump when we go out to fill up our cars, our trucks, what have you.
And for that reason, we already saw barrels of oil spike to over $100 earlier this week. That is a glimpse into what could be possible and where gas prices could go from here. It's not out of the realm of possibility that gas prices on a national average could hit $4. It depends on the length and the intensity of what's going on in the Middle East.
Let me ask you about this other really significant news today. The Strait of Hormuz, it's Iran that is the ally that is going to be trying to help them, even while continuing to bear down on the Gulf and on the U.S. and Israel. And those are some of the key questions.
How are the United States' adversaries potentially being impacted or even bolstered during this war? Keir, thank you so much for your great reporting. As always, please stay safe. We really appreciate it.
Courtney, let me turn to you now. The president's promised escorts for tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz. How has that panned out? Is that working so far?
It hasn't panned out at all, as far as we know. I just checked in to make sure we haven't. There's no indication that any U.S. Navy ships have been involved in any escorts.
There are other countries in the region that they could decide to do something, but at this point, we're not aware of it. And part of that, there are two main reasons. The first one is, the ships that are there are actually actively still involved in this war, both in the offensive and the defensive component of the war. There is still a very real threat to any ship in the region, not just the civilians, but the Navy ships.
It's not the mines. The mines, of course, are always a concern, but the real threat is the drones. And U.S. Navy ships, they have a tough time defending against a swarm of drones as well, so it's dangerous for the U.S.
to be involved right now. Well, at U.S. Central Command, speaking of the mine-laying ships, says it's eliminated 16 Iranian mine-laying ships. What are the implications of that?
What are you hearing about that? Yeah, so the mines were not an immediate threat, is the way it was explained to us. It's the immediate threats were the air defense systems, then the missiles, the missile launchers, the ballistic missile program, all of that, the drones. The drones are sort of one of the major focuses right now, the tens of thousands of drones, the production facilities, all of that.
The mines, it was sort of they got to a point where they could start taking out the mines right now. They were not an immediate threat, because they take time to put together, and they were watching the boats anywhere that they would used to lay them. And Courtney, you have new reporting about the strike that hit the Iranian school. 160 people killed, mostly children, in an elementary school.
What are you learning today? Yeah, so we have been hearing already that the preliminary investigation results were showing that the U.S. was likely behind this. We saw seen the video of the Tomahawk.
No one is disputing that. The real question was, how could this have happened if, in fact, there is real evidence that it was the United States military that did this? And it does appear now that according to the preliminary findings, that there was old intelligence that was being used here. And keep in mind, when the military puts together a target package like this, they'll get information from multiple different places.
The Defense Intelligence Agency is one, U.S. allies is another. And then they'll sort of aggregate that together. They'll verify the target and then they will strike.
So the real question now is, how was that target validated? We know that the school is at an area where there used to be an Iranian military base, and that may have played into this. What an upsetting, such a tragic event. I know the president was asked about this today, said he wasn't aware of the latest reporting.
So we'll wait to see what type of reaction we hear from him. Courtney Cubey, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Thanks for being here.
Coming up, as we mentioned, President Trump is expected to speak in Kentucky moments from now as he takes his message on the road for the first time since the start of the war against Iran. We'll bring you any news from that event when it happens. But first, President Trump's former national security adviser, who himself was targeted by Tehran in a murder for hire plot, weighs in on the future of the Middle East conflict and the administration's objectives in Iran. John Bolton joins me in studio.
That's next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Joining me now is former Trump national security adviser and the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Ambassador Bolton, thank you so much for being here. Glad to be with you. It's wonderful to have you here. I want to start off by getting your reaction to what we're hearing from President Trump today, who told Axios the war with Iran will end, quote, soon and say anytime I want it to end, it will end.
Can the president just walk away from the war in Iran at this point? Well, I think he believes he can walk away from it. And I think to do so now without achieving regime change, without really setting the preconditions for it or finishing the job on the nuclear program, the ballistic missile program, their terrorist capabilities, the Quds force, which threatens Israel and the Gulf Arab states. I think this is Trump trying to move in the direction of ending this to avoid political downside at home.
He should have thought about that before he started the war. Now, we should say you've historically supported military action in Iran. How do you think he can bring about regime change? Would it require boots on the ground?
That's one of the big questions and frankly concerns a lot of Americans. Yeah, it would not require boots on the ground. What they should be doing is destroying the state institutions like the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds force, the besieged militia that have the capability of threatening us, threatening Israel and the Gulf Arabs, threatening the people of Iran. And by diminishing those state institutions, you destabilize the government.
You permit fractures to occur among the leadership. We've already fractured a lot of it by killing nearly five hundred of the top leaders. This should allow the opposition, if we are working and cooperating with them, to begin to find others in the regime who say this ship is going down. I don't think I want to go down with the people in the regular military, not the Revolutionary Guard.
That continues the fracturing of the regime, which then collapses. That's not what we're doing. That's what people inside Iran would do. Let me ask you, though, because there is a new leader in place, the son of the Supreme Leader.
President Trump was asked about that today, didn't directly comment. Is that regime change? Is that enough? Or could it be setting up a situation that's even worse than the former leader?
By everything we know about the son, he's worse than his father, more hardline. And indeed, most observers would say the younger generation of Ayatollahs are even more hardline than the people who brought us the revolution in 79. This is not regime change. Regime change in the context of Iran means the end of the rule of the Ayatollahs and the elimination of the Revolutionary Guard.
And that's just not going to come by one change of personnel. I want to play you something that Speaker Mike Johnson had to say and get your reaction on the other side talking about nation building. Take a look. You're the defenders of freedom and liberty and freedom loving people all around the world benefit from a strong America.
These are undisputed objective facts. Does that mean that we should be intervening everywhere around the world and nation building and doing all these other endeavors? No, because we don't have the resources or the appetite to do that. That's not our responsibility.
What do you make of what the speaker is saying? Does he have a point that there's just no appetite in the U.S. for nation building? Well, there are two points here.
One is intervention to affect the government of a country that we consider hostile to us. That's what we're doing now. The second is the nation building part. I have never been in favor of that.
That's why I'm not a neoconservative. I want to destroy this regime because it threatens America through its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its pursuit of international terrorism. That is a legitimate objective for us. Then I think we look to the Iranian people to decide what comes next.
Now, in terms of not having an appetite, this is Donald Trump's self-inflicted wound. He announced this war to the people in a speech at 2.30 in Saturday morning when not many people were watching. Properly done, a president leads the people, makes the case in advance, what I think is the compelling case for regime change in Iran. It doesn't mean revealing what we're going to do or when we're going to do it.
It means making the broad policy case. Where's the speech from the president sitting at the resolute desk at the Oval Office at 9 o'clock at night, saying, I want to speak to the American people about a serious issue. And many other things he could have done to prepare. He didn't.
He didn't prepare the people, didn't prepare Congress, didn't prepare the allies. Do you think that he needs to do that at this point? You know that he's been talking to reporters on the telephone. He has taken questions fairly consistently.
Is that enough in the wake of this military action, Ambassador? I don't think it's nearly enough. I think this is very serious business when you commit American forces into combat like this. We have very good reasons.
He has not made that case. He can still do it. The time is running out. Let me ask you about the Strait of Hormuz, which has obviously become a critical part of this war.
You've said the administration didn't do enough planning in advance, economically, politically, militarily. What exactly does that mean, Ambassador? What should the Trump administration have done in advance? Well, it should have realized the beginning of war in a region of the You may not get 30 Republican senators to tell you on the record that they're opposed to passing the filibuster or getting rid of the filibuster, but I can tell you from my own reporting, there is just not the appetite to take that dramatic of a step, especially for a piece of legislation like this.
Yeah, it always comes down to the votes, and it's always uphill once you start counting them when it comes to changing the filibuster. President Trump reacted to Leader Thune saying he doesn't have the votes to pass the Save America Act. I'm going to play it. Ryan, get your reaction on the other side.
Take a look. He's got to be a leader. He's a leader. He's got to get him.
It's the most popular bill I've ever seen put before Congress. So how exactly do you see this all playing out, Ryan? Well, it's interesting that the president said that today, because two days ago at Doral in Florida, he told me that he knew that it was going to require Democrat votes in order to pass it, essentially admitting that there was no path to passing the Save Act by blowing up the filibuster. And there's just no way that Democrats are going to support this legislation as it currently stands.
Right now, I think this is going to continue to be a stalemate. There is the real possibility, the likelihood that the Republican leadership will put it on the floor next week, if anything, to force Democrats into a position where they vote no on something like requiring a photo ID when you come to vote. But at the end of the day, I think there is a lot of misinformation that's being spread on the internet about the feasibility of this legislation passing, many of it being peddled by some of the president's strongest supporters. And I think giving a false hope to rank and file Republicans who think that this bill could actually become law in the near future.
At this point, it's just not feasible, Kristen. All right, Ryan Nobles, thank you so much for your reporting. Appreciate it. Joining me now is Republican Senator from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer.
Senator Kramer, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you, Kristen.
So I want to start off by getting your reaction to Senator Cornyn, his op-ed saying he will now support whatever changes to Senate rules are necessary to pass the Save America Act. What do you make of his change in position? He was initially opposed to getting rid of the filibuster. Well, one of the great things about our system of governance, self-governance, is that we listen carefully to our constituents and come every six years.
If you want to run for reelection, you are all the more attentive. But one of the other great things about the United States Senate is that we have six-year terms and only a third of us are up every two years. And that's by design so that we can look out for the country, look out for the institutions that govern this country and that preserve this country. And coming from a small state like I do, where we have two senators, just like Texas has two senators, but we don't have 60 House members, protecting the power of the Senate is really, really important.
So we all come from different places, different perspectives. At the end of the day, I think Ryan's reporting is right on point. There are not the votes to blow up the filibuster. Yeah, and you have long expressed your opposition to blowing up the filibuster for the argument that you just made, because you think it's important to represent a state like North Dakota.
Let me read you something that you said back when Democrats were talking about this in 2022, when they wanted to change it potentially over the Voting Rights Act. You said the Democrats have created a fake crisis. These attempts to undermine the integrity of the U.S. Senate are purely designed to tilt the scales in Democrats' favor for future election.
Do you see Republicans now doing the same thing, Senator? I think presidents, when they have the opportunity with a majority of their party in the Senate, they'd like to talk about getting rid of the filibuster to advance their agenda. Completely understandable. Presidents are presidents.
But what's special about the United States Senate, as I just said, is the fact that we represent states, and small states have equal representation. And to give up that power doesn't make any sense. And by the way, remember, Democrats tried to do this just a couple of years ago, to that quote, to do, of all things, federalize elections. And now we're trying to do the same thing.
And I support the Save America Act. I'm a co-sponsor of the Save America Act. I think the principles embedded in it make all of the sense in the world. And they're all the principles that the state of North Dakota has in our elections in the state of North Dakota.
And more states ought to do that. But the filibuster is more important than any one issue that we would vote on or any policy we'd try to change. Well, let me read you what President Trump said earlier this week. He told at a Florida retreat House Republicans on Monday that if the Save America Act passes, quote, Democrats probably won't win an election for 50 years and maybe longer.
Do you think the president's message actually undermines getting the bill passed and the goal of the overall bill? Well, it certainly wouldn't have inspired any Democrats to vote for the bill if that was his goal. But I'm pretty sure that probably wasn't his goal. Having said that, I'm not even sure that that statement would actually be the outcome.
Perhaps it would help. But I think the thing that I keep going back to is, in North Dakota, for example, we've just become more and more Republican with every election. In California, they've become more and more Democratic with every election. It's a big, diverse country that goes through various cycles.
And I just think it's the greatest experiment in the world. And I don't really see any reason why we would manipulate it this way. I do think, I think it's insane that people shouldn't have to show an ID to vote when they have to show an ID to do a whole bunch of other things. But if California wants to run itself that way, I suppose it's up to them.
I would vote for the Save America Act. I wouldn't blow up the filibuster to do it. So you support the Save America Act. The president has added on new provisions to the bill, including what he has said, no men in women's sports, no gender affirming care for minors.
Do you support those amendments? What do they have to do with voting? Well, one of the things that that does do is it does add other issues that probably attract. Maybe they attract some more voters, but it probably distracts as many as it would attract.
I support all of those principles. Again, I would vote for the bill with those amendments in them. I vote for the bill without those amendments in them. There's nothing in there that's supporting the bill to me personally.
However, the goal of legislating is to pass bills. And and so if it adds value to the bill, great. If it doesn't, that's fine as well. I just think that at this point, there's not a chance that this bill is going to pass.
I'm happy to vote on it. I'm happy to get everybody on the record on it. Like I said, I, by the way, Kristen, I welcome a talking filibuster. And I told them with that last night, if if you want to keep us here for two, three, four months holding up the Senate floor on this one issue because it's that important, you know, I'll participate.
I don't think it'll have a great outcome or be productive for the United States Senate, but I'd be I'd be willing to do it. I just don't think there are enough people that are willing to do it either. I want to turn to Iran now. President Trump saying he can leave whenever he deems that it's an appropriate time.
This is what your colleague Senator Josh Hawley had to say about the war yesterday. Take a look. We have totally destroyed forever their nuclear program. We have destroyed their ballistic missiles.
We have destroyed their Navy. It's been astounding. It's been historic. And now it's time to declare victory.
Do you think it is time to get out of Iran? Or do you agree with the argument Ambassador Bolton was making, which is that if the United States leaves before there's actual regime change, the outcome would be worse than if it hadn't gone in at all. So, Chris, I would find a position somewhere between those two, to be honest with you. I do think if you're going to pull 90% of the weeds out of your garden, but leave a small portion for weeds, you're going to have a weedy garden.
And I think that's, you know, that's what would happen if we were to leave now. I do think that to Ambassador Bolton's point, and by the way, great interview. You know, we have to destroy the institutions that support the regime. I don't think we can determine who should be elected in a free country because that's what we want to accomplish is a free Iran.
That's up to the people. But I do think destroying more of the institutions is paramount. And frankly, the last 10% is the hardest 10% to get on the one hand. On the other hand, it does provide us now with our superior weapons, the bigger bombs, the gravity bombs to destroy other institutions, other installations that we can identify along with, of course, our friends in Israel.
And we've already created an environment for change in Iran. But I'd hate to see us leave a week early only to leave the regime in charge and at the end of the day, not accomplish as much as we could by staying another week or whatever it takes to to to make sure that the Thanks to the Democrats, too. How should they message without looking like they're cheering for high gas prices and high oil prices? I think they need to keep talking about what Americans are seeing at the gas pump.
Americans are going there. They are seeing their gas dramatically higher than even it was yesterday. I think it's now at $3.58 a gallon. That is up from yesterday.
They're still going to the grocery store and seeing their prices that are still higher from then in some ways than when Trump took office. And so Democrats need to keep talking about affordability and how that is a big issue and how apparently, you know, that Trump voted in to have an effect on that. It's just not doing anything. You know, I was talking to our guests today about the idea that this is one of the factors that is contributing to President Trump's calculus on when and whether he wants to get out of Iran.
He told Axios that he can get out whenever he wants. John Bolton says that's a little bit of an oversimplification. What are folks inside the White House, close to the White House, saying about the pressure that the president's feeling? Well, we can just see the reactions that he's taken the way that, you know, the Secretary of Energy put out this tweet saying that the U.S.
Navy was escorting a tanker that caused the oil price to surge 10 minutes later. The White House is no, no, no, no, no. That was a staffer who put that out inadvertently. So clearly that's the thing that he cares about.
You know, American voters historically don't bother that much with foreign policy. Those decisions don't really affect us because we're insulated with oceans. The only exceptions are when American soldiers die in large numbers and when, you know, prices increase. And, you know, unfortunately, a few soldiers have died already.
If that remains limited, maybe that won't have as much of an effect as it did with the Iraq war. But these oil prices and grocery prices, which will also increase as well, those might be things that people respond to. You know, Sarah, it's interesting because President Trump said I was actually expecting gas prices to be even higher. And yet all of the reporting suggests the administration was caught off guard.
How much concern and consternation is there inside Republican circles about these prices? There's a lot of concern because the majority of the minority will come through the Republican Main Street Partnership. So they're down there. They were having a retreat this past week, earlier this week.
They're talking about that with him. But our polling shows he's got about six weeks at this gas prices before it becomes a real crisis. Because what people are saying is, you know what, we would like to see peace in the Middle East. It's been probably all of us hasn't been in our lifetime.
And they would like to very much see that. So short term pain for long term gain. They're willing to do it. As I said, it's for only a few more weeks.
Kendra, what about that argument that Sarah makes, that long term gain, that if this does in fact lead to more stability in the Middle East, and of course, we don't know what it's going to lead to. It's a big question mark at this point. Again, I turn back to the prices and what Americans are seeing when they're going to pay. You even had Rand Paul out there saying this could be detrimental or something along those lines to the election.
The midterms are coming up. It's actually not that far away. And Americans are starting to pay attention to who's running. We're in primary season right now.
And they're going to start to think about who do I want to vote for come this fall when I'm still seeing these prices really high. So you just kind of takes me to my next topic, which is the midterms. One of the biggest races we're watching in Texas. Senator John Cornyn out with an op ed saying after opposing getting rid of the filibuster, he would now support it for the save act.
He places the blame on Democrats, but he's clearly looking for that endorsement from President Trump by all accounts. It looked like it was coming. And then it seems like the pause button has been hit. We know Ken Paxton came out with that tweet that he would consider dropping out of the race if the save act was passed, which, as Ryan Nobles laid out earlier in the broadcast, it's a very, very steep climb to get it passed.
Yeah. Cornyn has a sort of Damocles hanging over him. So he is having to reverse a longstanding position. You know, he's doing the best he can.
But I think it's obvious to everyone what's motivating his actions. And, you know, the president is, you know, a lot of senators were worried that he was going to endorse Paxton. I think they thought that they would just keep him at neutrality and they would be okay with that. And then suddenly there came the idea, oh, he might actually endorse Senator Cornyn, which would give them the best chance of keeping the Texas Senate race.
I think everyone would agree on that. But now the president, you know, is his own man. He makes up his own decisions. I'm told he's being shown data, which proves exactly what he's just talking about, which is that Senator John Cornyn is far and away the strongest general election candidate.
But there's other data being presented to him that Cornyn is just not where the base is. And that's quite frankly been the dilemma all along. Well, he came out first and in the primary. So clearly a lot of the base is with him.
And I think this is a calculated. He knows there's enough senators to do this. So he's throwing, I think, President Trump like a bone here to say, listen, I'm willing now to change. But we all know a lot of senators, you just interviewed one who said they're not willing to change the filibuster.
So I think that's a good place for Cornyn to be. But do you think the endorsement's coming? I hope so, because as we were talking out in the green room, very concerned about the Democratic candidate. The Democrats got the right candidate through.
She would have been easy to beat. He is a different matter. So let's talk about that. How do you think state representative Ali Rico is doing in his campaign?
He's got a wide open field because he's in the general election and the Republicans are in a runoff, which is what a lot of Republicans have feared all along. Yeah, I mean, for him, in some ways, he hopes that Trump doesn't do the endorsement. Right. And then either stay neutral or endorse's Paxton, because I think that's a win for him.
Look, he's raising money hand over foot and he's doing well. He's speaking to a broad audience. And I think he has the ability to pull over some independents and maybe some Republicans, especially if Paxton gets on the ballot. Kendra, one of the concerns with him was, would he be able to, yes, it's independents, it's moderates.
Will he be able to energize black voters in Texas in the way or maybe not in the same way. But can he energize black voters? Justin Crockett made that one of the arguments. I think you'll see Democrats coming together and uniting around him come election time, because I think they're going to want to win the election.
So I have no doubt that that will be the case. And that could be a controlled Senate. Well, OK, so just final point to you. I mean, Democrats have been eyeing Texas for a very long time.
Is this a year when they could actually win Senate seat? They haven't won in more than three decades of Senate seat in Texas. Yeah, I think if Tyler Rico is a nominee, if Paxton is a Republican nominee, they are definitely going to feel it again. And they will spend a lot of money trying to get there.
They will force the Republicans to spend a lot of money to do it. And I think that they they will think it's in sight. It's a good year for them. The president is unpopular.
It's a midterm election. Historically, presidents don't do that well in that time. So I think I think they're going to go for it again. All right.
One of the many races we're watching very closely, guys. Thank you so much. Great conversation. Idris Kendra and Sarah, really appreciate it.
We are back tomorrow with more meet the press. Now there's more ahead on NBC News. Now that he wraps up, get a scoop on what's been happening with. Here's the scoop with a podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Yasmin Vasugian.
We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalists. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful and 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 Spotify.