Meet the Press NOW — March 17

Foreign. Welcome to Meet the Press. Now, I'm Kelly o' Donnell in Washington. And we begin with an abrupt change in course from President Trump tied to the war against Iran and a top administration official resigning his post of the president's decision to go to war after lashing out at NATO allies for rejecting his demands to help the US Reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump is now saying the US does not need any help and that it never needed any help, despite just yesterday saying that numerous countries were on the way to assist in the strait during a meeting with the Irish Taoiseach. The prime minister today, President Trump doubling down on not meeting other countries while striking NATO. We don't need help. You know, that war has been long prosecuted as far as I'm concerned, almost from day one.

We knocked out many of these things. We knocked out the Navy essentially in a couple of days. I think NATO's making a very foolish mistake and I've long said that, you know, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So this is a, this was a great test because we don't need them, but they should have been there.

The President's comments come after his economic adviser Kevin Hassett said this morning that some oil tankers are starting to move through the strait. The bottom line is that the timeline that President Trump has stated over and over is that it's a four to six week war and that we're ahead of schedule. And so already you're seeing tankers are starting to dribble through the straits. But I think it's a sign of how little Iran has left.

Iran's strategy appeared to be that they could hurt the US economy and then that would make President Trump slow down. In fact, they're not hur the US economy very much at all. While gas prices are higher, the economy as a whole is sound. And there's no way the President Trump's gonna back down until he sees the street again.

We're watching new data from the group Marine Traffic that monitors movement of vessels around the world and that shows a few ships have been able to pass through the strait, but they're mostly cargo vessels, not oil tankers. As for what comes next in the war, President Trump was pressed today on the possibility of US Boots on the ground and his day after plan. Here's some of what he had to say. The Iranian regime is still on use.

If you put boots on ground in Iraq, it will be under Vietnam. Are you afraid of that? No, I'm not afraid of. I'm really not afraid of anything.

Iran is just the military operations. You do not have a day after plan. So what is your day after plan for Iran? Well, we have a lot, look, if we, if we left right now, it would take 10 years for them to rebuild.

But we're not ready to leave yet. But we, we'll be leaving in the near future. We'll be leaving in pretty much the very near future. The very near future, he says.

Meanwhile, a sign of potential fracturing inside the White House administration today. The director of National Counterterrorism center and longtime supporter of the president Joe Kent, announcing his resignation, writing on social media, quote, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. President Trump and White House press secretary Caroline Levitt both pushing back, arguing that Iran's potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon was an imminent threat.

On the ground, military strikes continued to escalate. This was the scene in Iraq as an Iran aligned militia group fired at the US Embassy in Baghdad. A fireball, an explosion seen after one projectile got through the US Defenses, striking the compound. And today Israel says it killed Iran's top security official and vowed to continue to pursue Iran's leadership.

Joining me now for a conversation on NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Cubing, NBC News international correspondent Rav Sanchez, who's in Beirut today, and Ken Pollock, vice president of policy at the Middle East Institute and a former CIA military analyst. Monica, let me start with you. The president is now claiming the US does not need help securing the straightforward form is very different than what we were hearing from him yesterday. What changed?

Yeah, just 24 hours ago, Kelly, we were talking about the president making this overture, saying that he had reached out to various countries. He even claimed that several of them were enthusiastic about helping the United States potentially with this issue. And now Today, a total 180 with the President is saying actually no, he didn't feel like he ever needed the help of other countries, including, including the NATO allies of the United States. And he doesn't want their help, but he doesn't even want to consider it and he now rejects it after they in fact rejected this question of perhaps determining whether they were going to aid in all of this.

So the president now continuing to essentially demean the NATO alliance to make false statements about what he says is NATO's inability to help the United States in a moment of need when of Course, NATO did come to the aid of the United states after the 911 attacks when Article 5 was invoked. And Kelly, the president after that, making another headline on something that we were discussing yesterday on the show, which is the president saying he will delay his trip to China, which is related to all of this. As the ongoing conflict stretches on in Iran and those strikes continue, the president says he feels he needs to be here. And so he isn't going to be traveling to Beijing like he was planning to in a couple of weeks.

So saying instead that is now going to get pushed back five or six weeks, though no new date has been set yet. Kelly. And as we mentioned, Monica, there's a change in the director of the National Counterterrorism center announcing he's resigning and he cited the war with Iran. And so what more do we know about this decision?

And Joe Kent is controversial in some ways as well. So how is the White House reacting to this? Yeah, and he, in this letter obviously made his main point about the ongoing war against Iran, saying that that's why you can serve anymore. And it opens up the question about whether there could be other senior Trump administration officials who feel similarly, who might make a similar exit.

The White House is responding pretty intensely and emphatically that they reject his claim that there wasn't an imminent threat. Remember, this is what Carolina, the White House secretary and President Trump have been trying to argue since the beginning of this military conflict that they believe that there was this imminent threat, though at times they have defined that in different terms. But you do bring up that Johan certainly is controversial figure. He has aligned himself with some far right figures.

He has been accused of anti Semitism and of election denialism. And so right now you are seeing a White House that is trying to paint him in a light. The president himself saying that he believed he was the jocat, was weak on security, which prompts a whole nother round of questions of why, if they believed he wasn't the right person to lead on this, he was still leading the National Counterterrorism center at really critical moment. Kelly, that is a curious statement from the president to give him that criticism.

We also heard something that has puzzled many of us. Yesterday, when the president raised eyebrows more than once. He told reporters that he had spoken to a former president about the decisions he's made in Iran. Here's part of what the president said yesterday.

I've spoken to a certain president who I like, actually a past president, former president. He said, I wish I did it, I wish I did. But they didn't do it. I spoke to one of the former presidents.

I actually like actually speak to something like some people be shocking. And he said, I wish I did what you did. I just want to ask you about something very interesting that you said twice today you talked to another former president about the Iran's rights. Was it George W.

Bush? No. Was it Bill Clinton? I want to say it was so curious because he was so specific in what he was describing.

You and I worked together on this, checking with the offices of all the former presidents. And what we heard again and again and again and again was that there is no such conversation that they would acknowledge between the current president and any of our living former presidents. So do we have any more clarity today on who he might have spoken to or where this came from? We do not know, Kelly.

And you're right. We checked with everybody, including the office of George W. Bush and it was the president who said no, it wasn't him. We checked with the former president Bill Clinton's office.

There was a speculation that it may have been him because the president was making comments that this was somebody that he likes and to me like him. His office said nope. And the same thing for the office of former President Barack Obama and former President Joe Biden. We asked the White House for more details on who this might have been.

They did not provide any additional information. Kelly, it had me going down the rabbit hole. Thank you, Monica. We appreciate that.

I want to bring Courtney into our conversation now. And he says that the US could leave within a matter of weeks. Is that realistic in your judgment based on all the sources you're talking to and what does that look like? Can you go in and bomb a lot of things and then just pull out?

Sure you can. And the person can do anything that he wants. Now it's going to leave a path of destruction and that would. They have actually made a lot of progress when it comes to taking out a lot of the Iranian military, particularly their navy.

They have taken out a lot of it, their air force, their missile program and the critical program, the production, not just the storage facilities and the drones. But they have not decimated or taken out all of their capability in any of those areas. Now if the president were to say I'm done, I want out. It's not just that Iran could potentially reconstitute.

There's still the question of the regime. It may not be any different than the regime that has been in place now for years. So there may not be any changes. People, the same ideas precisely.

And Then the big question is the nuclear program. It still exists. They still have highly enriched uranium. They still have the know how, they still have facilities.

They may be damaged and some underground, but they still have them. So you would be leaving a hurt and damaged Iran, but they would not be down and out. They still potentially present a threat, maybe delayed, but a threat. Do you get any sense from the sources you're talking to that they would keep forces or resources positioned in the region in greater numbers than in peacetime?

For example, it could. I mean, just looking at the op tempo of President Trump, he is moving around and around and around. There was Iran in June and there was Venezuela and moving people all over. So I can't envision a scenario where there's going to be any large presence in one area for a long period of time.

That being said, if they've taken out a lot of Iran's capabilities, that in and of itself makes it harder for Iran to. The military calls it projecting power. What you and I know it as makes it hard for them to attack outside because there's potentially could always be hit back, no matter what. The normal presence of the US and Central Command is like 35,000 troops, tons of air assets, ships.

They would have the ability to go back and strike if they want to. And briefly, do we have the capacity, the United States have the capacity to protect this radio formulas without these other nations coming to the usa? The US has the ability, but it is extremely dangerous right now. So until they have taken out more of the drone threats specifically, but also some surface to surface missiles.

And then the mines, they still have mines. There's no indication that they're laying any of them yet, but they could. So all of that just having it, they don't even have to use them routinely. They just have to have them.

And that threat alone threatens commercial shipping. And that is why the strait of missiles becomes a problem these days. Appreciate your expertise. You are on every incremental piece of this.

Thank you so much. And Raf, let me bring you into the conversation. I know you've moved into Lebanon now, where that of course is the country that's experiencing a lot of this, the regional fallout. So today Israel talks about killing the top security official as well as the head of their paramilitary force Iran has used to quell protest.

That's been a substantial issue there. What more do we know about these strikes and what's the reaction? So Kelly, Israel says these were targeted strikes and that they took out a man called Ali Larajani. Now his official title is was secretary of the National Security Council.

But that doesn't really capture the scope of his power. Lara Johnny was effectively the de facto wartime leader of Iran. Israel, of course killed the former supreme leader in the opening hours of the war, the current supreme leader wounded. And so it was Lara Johnny who was taking a lot of the day to day decisions inside of the regime.

Israel says he is now dead. We haven't had confirmation of that from the Iranian government. Interestingly, Larajani Twitter account has been active in the last couple of hours. They posted what they said was a handwritten letter from him expressing condolences to the families of Iranian sailors who were killed.

That of course is not proof that he is alive. And Kelly, what's interesting is Larajani's name had been floated as a potential Delsey Rodriguez figure, if you will, in Iran. Somebody inside of the regime, but who potentially the Trump administration could do business with. He is now dead, according to Israel.

He's not going to be able to play that role. The other figure taken out was the head of the besieged. This is the regime's militia force that he uses for a lot of internal repression in Iran. So when those protesters were on the streets back in January, it was the besieged militia, often with weapons, who were sent onto the street to confront them.

And the fact that Israel targeted this individual suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still holding on to some hope that Iranian protesters might go back to the streets and might try to overthrow the regime. The Delsey Rodriguez reference course is Venezuela and there are those potential parallels here. Let me ask you to put sort of your European coverage hat back on and say that NATO countries winners can convene in Brussels today to discuss what's been going on with war in Iran. And it comes after President Trump has really been critical of that alliance and says he no longer needs their help.

Not getting out of NATO, but doesn't want their help. What is the reaction been among the NATO alliance? So it's really interesting, Kelly, these European diplomats speaking in about as blunt terms as diplomats ever speak, basically saying that this is America's war, the US Started it and it's up to the US to figure out how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We are hearing from one of the top European Union officials just saying there's no appetite from Europe to get involved here.

They don't. They're not involved in striking Iran directly. They weren't consulted by President Trump before the US And Israel began striking Iran. And they see the best way of Getting the straits reopens is for there to be an end to the war.

So they're making pretty clear at this point that they are not planning on sending ships. The President has been expressing his frustration both in that pool spray in the Oval Office and on Truth Social. But for now, the Europeans seem pretty clear that they're not getting mixed up in this, and that tension is palpable. Thank you so much, Raf.

I'm going to turn now to Ken and bring you in this conversation. The President says the US has been in negotiations with Iran, but he has also said he's not clear on who the leader is now after the death of the Ayatollah and questionable status of his son. So if most of the leadership has been, in one way or another killed, who is in charge? And is there a deal to be made?

So I think that the easiest way to answer that question, Kelly, is to say that the people in charge in Tehran are the Revolutionary Guard leadership. It is very clear that they're the ones running the show. I thought that Raf made a very good point, that Ali Lalajani was always considered not necessarily a moderate, but certainly a pragmatist. And it reflected Ayatollah Khamenei's position, which was ultimately one of restraint when fighting the United States.

He's now gone. Right. And he was the biggest voice in Iran arguing for a more moderate approach to this entire war. And I think that's important, Kelly, because to go back to the points that Courtney was making beforehand, one of the real risks that the United States faces now that we've killed Ayatollahine and now Ali Al Rajani as well.

So Raleigh killed him. It's not clear that the Iranians are going to stop fighting. The President may decide he's had enough. He's going to end the war.

The Iranians may keep shooting. They may keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, they may keep firing at our allies, they may keep firing at Israel. And I think that the President already recognizes that that's going to be a dilemma for him. I think that's why he struck Carg Island a few days ago and threatened the Iranians that if they didn't reopen the strait, that he'd strike the oil facilities on Carg Islands.

That's very helpful to give us some sense of how you see this. And the President says the US could be leaving the region in the near future. And if he is to do that, if he decides he's met his objectives and pulls out, what do you think the fallout would be in the region after the US Ceases military operations? Right.

Well, again, the first question is if the US Stops, do the Iranians stop? Because if the Iranians don't stop, it's going to be very hard for the US to leave the region. We're not going to be able to walk away from our allies and we're certainly not going to be able to walk away from the Strait of Hormuz if oil isn't flowing through it. So I said the first problem is that, second, even if somehow we can get to this negotiated settlement, the region is going to be a unstable one as long as this Iranian regime is in place.

Let's recognize this was always an enemy to our allies throughout the region. They hated and feared this regime. We've now eliminated the supreme leader, who, as I said before, was actually something of a voice of restraint within their system. It is now very much under the control of much more aggressive, much more belligerent anti American leaders within the Revolutionary Guard.

And if Mushaba Khamenei is alive, what we know most about him is that he's very much in the, in the pocket of the Revolutionary Guard. So he's likely to pursue a policy that's going to be inimical to their interests, threaten them to an even greater extent. It's going to be a angry regime. And quite frankly, it's going to be a regime that probably is going to believe that it has to have nuclear weapons because the only way to deter future American and Israeli attacks will be if they have nuclear weapons.

And the whole point initially was to deal with the president's view that they need to not have nuclear weapons. So the circle that you just drew is certainly a lot to consider. Ken Pollock, thank you very much. Appreciate your time and expertise today.

My pleasure. Thanks, everybody. And thank you. And coming up, the cost of war.

We're on the ground talking to voters in battleground Pennsylvania about rising prices at the pump. And with the midterms, of course, fast approaching. And speaking of those midterms, you know what we like to say around here. If it's Tuesday, it's primary day somewhere Today, Illinois with races highlighting some deep divides among Democrats.

Plus Steve Kornacki is where else the big board breaking down. What to watch for as the results start coming in. You're watching MEET THE Press now. We're glad you're back.

If it's Tuesday, voters are voting somewh today. That somewhere is Illinois where all eyes are on the Democrats and a crowded and combative race to replace retiring Senator Dick Durbin. The top contenders in that race are Congressman Roger Christian Murphy, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, and Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton. Our own Shaquille Brewster, who is often a road warrior on the campaign trail, caught up with all of them in recent days and they make the case for why they believe they are the best candidate for the job.

I don't need to prove my anti maga credentials, but what I do need to do is address those issues that people care about right now, which is how are you going to help me economically? How are you going to stand up to Trump and hold this administration accountable? Congressman Christian Murphy has been in Washington for 10 years. He's been spending the last 10 years raising money so they get the run for Senate.

And I can tell you that people aren't looking for that. They're looking for someone who is going to deliver to not just fight against this president, but also know what they're fighting for. People have talked about, you know, one of us to drop out, but whenever I say it's not going to be me, people agree. I have the most qualified person running her record.

Can't touch my record. And I'm not trying to be me. I'm just state facts. Joining me now from Chicago is NBC Shaquille Brewster and NBC chief data analyst Steve Kornacki at the big board.

Shaq, you were up close and personal with the candidates as you have been so many times. This is a Senate race. It's high profile. We heard a bit of your conversations.

Tell us more about what they have to say and how voters may be seeing these candidates differently. They're all pretty well known. No, that's exactly right, Kelly, to pick up on the sound that you just heard. The interesting thing here is despite what you just heard them say, there are very subtle policy differences when you listen to these candidates.

For example, they all want to raise the minimum wage. The question is it to 17 an hour or $25 an hour? But what these candid agree about is that this is a test of how Democratic based voters are feeling. I want you to listen to what they said when asked how should people read this election?

What does this election say about the core of the Democratic Party? Listen here. I think that people should pay attention to two things. One, the fact that people feel economically distressed across the economic spectrum.

The second set of issues that I think people should pay attention to is people feel that this government is not accountable to the citizenry anymore. They're acting recklessly, they're acting with impunity just this is the blue state, but this is a critical seat because Donald Trump will still be president. And we need someone, again, that can hit the ground running and knows what she's doing and has done it. This race is an example of how people are tired of the status quo in Washington.

I'm the only candidate in this race has made it clear I'm not going to support Chuck Schumer to lead the Democratic caucus, Senate caucus, because that's not what people are looking for right now. They want someone who's gonna fight, and we need fighters and not folders. That last point is very interesting to follow up on, because when you look at some of these open congressional races, in the sake of these safely blue districts, you have some of the candidates there also saying that they may not vote for Hakeem Jeffries for speaker, trying to translate the anger that you hear and frustration that you hear among everyday Democratic voters into what they believe they will do if they do make it to Washington. Are you getting a sense from voters that they see this as a nationalized race, or is it really, at this point in a primary about issues within the party and the direction they want Democrats to go?

It's a little bit both. This is definitely a national race. When you talk to some of the people I was talking to here walking out, this is one of the tightest congressional districts. This is, by the way, Kelly, these are all the mailers that one of the members who lives in this district said they received just in the past couple of weeks.

So when you look at the messaging on here, you see a lot of Donald Trump, you see a lot of messaging about immigration and anti ice, but you also have people saying, look, I want these kitchen table issues to be addressed. I don't like the rising cost of health care, the rising costs of housing. I want groceries to come down. So you have that split.

And when you listen to the candidates, even some of those congressional candidates in these open districts, they're trying to capture that energy as well. And they're saying, point each other, Warren Iran, for example, saying that that is not something that's lowering your prices. And that's why I'm the best one to fight against Trump. So they're trying to combine all those issues and again, capture that energy frustration from some of these voters.

That was a very tactile way to show us a lot of campaign cash in your hand there with all those direct mailers. Thank you, Shaq. You brought a lot of insights there. Let me use that to turn to Steve and say, we heard how Jack walked us through, who the candidates are, what the voters are saying.

What are you looking for as our data guide tonight? Yeah, I mean, look, there's that Senate race and they talk about this is a blue state, likely the winner of this Democratic primary, very likely to become the next United States. It was a Germaner state when it comes to congressional districts as well. So there's some Democratic primaries tonight, some very competitive, very expensive Democratic primaries for the House.

I think we're also going to determine who the next member of Congress is from these districts. Let's take it through some of those House races we're looking at tonight here. This is the second District of Illinois. Now, Robin Kelly currently represents the seat.

She's giving it up to run for the U.S. senate. So who's running in the Democratic primary here? Well, here's a familiar name.

Jesse Jackson Jr. He held a seat from this district from 1996 to 2012. He left as a federal investigation of his campaign spending and ethics was going on. He's seeking a political comeback here.

His main opponent appears to be a Cook County Commissioner, Donna Miller. Now, this is the second Congressional District. You're looking at this. You're saying that's a pretty good sized district there.

Well, this is part of what gerrymandering is in Illinois. Almost all of the vote in the Democratic primary is going to come from right where this green circle is in the city of Chicago and in those inner suburbs in cook County. Like 90% of the Democratic vote in this primary is going to come from right in there. So there's been a ton of money that's poured in this race.

Some interesting fault lines between these candidates. There's another state senator here, Robert Peters, he looms, is a potential factor here as well. But again, the winner is an overwhelmingly Democratic district. So you're seeing essentially the next member of Congress going to be picked there tonight with another competitive one.

This is the district, the 8th. It's being given up by Raja Krishnamoorthy to run for the Senate. Another vacant district here. Now, this one takes in, again, you're talking about half of the vote here is going to be in Cook County.

Then there's a little bit in DuPage county and the rest of it is out. You're basically city of Elgin, basically out here. And the two main competitors again, political comeback. Melissa Bean, a Democrat from a moderate Democrat who held this seat until 2010.

She was defeated at the Tea Party wave, Republican wave of 2010. She's seeking a political comeback. Her main Opponent here is expected tonight to be Junaid Ahmed. Now, he ran against Christian Murthy in a primary from the left a couple years ago.

He's endorsed by Bernie Sanders, by the Justice Democrats. He has smoked by Christian Morty. But there is some familiarity. We've seen a lot of energy on the left.

There are other candidates in this race. So see what happens in that district tonight, too. And one more to keep an eye on here. There's a bunch of others, but the other main one to keep an eye on here.

This is the 9th district you're talking about sort of the North Shore suburbs of Chicago extending a little. There's not much vote out in this part of the district. Here again, this is a Democrat district. Jan Schakowski has represented for almost 30 years.

She's retiring as open seat. Daniel Bis, the mayor of Evanston, Cat Abu Gazella, an influencer, got sort of a national reputation there, seen as for the two leading candidates. And Laura finds a ton of money who's come in for her. She's a state legislator.

She looms as a big prospect here as well. So. But again, in this district, overwhelmingly Democratic, you're likely looking at the next member of Congress being picked tonight. Thank you, Steve.

Appreciate all that analysis and giving us a sense of what comes next. And here on our program, what comes next, we're heading to Capitol Hill as Senate Republicans try to push through the president's bill to overhaul elections in America. And House Republican subpoena the attorney general for testimony about Jeffrey Epstein. Stay with us On Meet the President.

Welcome back on this St. Patrick's Day. And right now the Senate is beginning debate and what the president has made very clear is his top legislative priority. It's known as the Save America Act.

While Republicans are largely supportive of the bill, Democrats unanimously oppose the measure which would overhaul American elections. And with the Senate's 60 vote threshold, it is at this point doomed to fail. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zenona joins me now. And Mel, give us a sense of how long we think this debate is expected to last and what's really on the line for Republicans when, as I just mentioned, we do not see a pathway for this to be passed.

We are expecting a marathon debate that could stretch into the weekend and even potentially next week. But it is no closer to becoming law. And that is because there's not enough Democratic support to get over the 60 vote threshold known as the filibuster. There's also not enough Republican support despite this intense pressure campaign from President Donald Trump in order to change the Senate rule.

So we're not expecting the outcome to change. You know, this is going to be the spotlight. And Kelly, in terms of what's on the line here, the Republic majorities, they are up for election in November. They're worried about losing their majority.

Some moderates that I talk to, they're worried that they're spending so much time focused on this bill that's doomed to fail instead of focusing on cost of living. So a whole lot at stake. And also we can see some real Republican divisions on display throughout this marathon session this week. And we've been seeing division on how to handle the lack of funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

It remains shut down in this partial government shutdown. Democrats say they've reached out to the White House trying to get some parts of that department funded. The White House late yesterday said for the first time they had heard about that in a couple of weeks now. So how big of a step forward is it for any attempt to open negotiations?

Well, it does not appear that this latest counter offer has moved the deal whatsoever. Senate GP Leader John Thune said earlier today that he is dismissing this offer. That's essentially more of the same of what Democrats have previously offered. And he was talking about the last White House proposal which did include more money for body worn cameras for ICE agents.

But there are two things we are watching. Number one, that is the long lines. That airport says that a problem continues to be a problem. And number two, the confirmation hearing from Mark Wayne Mullen that is President Trump's pick to lead the dhs.

Potentially those two events, Kelly, could break the impasse over DHS funding. So far though, just no signs of moving. Those are definitely pressure points to watch that. One more topic I want to get to as they're taking down the St.

Patrick's Day lunch stuff in the background behind you there. The Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Attorney General Campondi. This is part of their probe of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. What do we expect?

And do we expect her to sit for a deposition? Will it be public? Do you have any details on that? Well, the deposition is supposed to be April 14th according to the subpoena.

However, it does not look like Cambani is willing to comply. The doj, in response to our questions for comment, really dismissed the subpoena, said it was completely unnecessary. And the DOJ spokesman pointed out that Pambani has not only offered to let lawmakers come to the DOJ to review unredacted files, but she is also giving a private briefing for Members of the committee tomorrow for lawmakers say that's not enough. So we'll see how they respond to this latest response from the doj.

It could really be a showdown, though, on Capitol Hill, Kelly. And that's been another one of those issues that has been able to move some of the energy in Washington. So thank you for keeping us on top of all of that now. And after the break, we will check in with voters in central Pennsylvania.

What are they saying about rising gas prices and the war with Iran and what could it all mean for these midterm elections? Keep it here. I meet the president. We're down lower than we've been in seven years.

Gasoline prices and oil prices, not just the three states that I talk about with 199A gallon. How do you like that? 199? You know, that's, that's the equivalent of a very major tax cut.

Welcome back. Now that was President Trump in Pennsylvania back in December touting low energy and gas prices. Today, the average price for a gallon of gas in Pennsylvania is 376 according to AAA. That's higher than last week and it's up more than 60 cents from a month ago.

NBC News senior national politics reporter John Allen has been speaking with Pennsylvania voters. He's been out kind of on a road trip here In Millersburg, about 25 miles north of Harri. I understand you're sort of in a Trump supportive part of Pennsylvania and there's a lot of those in Pennsylvania. What are you hearing about how people there are feeling about gas prices and are they factoring that in and how they view the Warner up?

Well, first, Kelly, I would be remiss if I did not wish Kelly O', Donnell, Happy St. Patrick's Day. Right back at Patrick's Day. Okay, so I'm, I'm, so I'm in Northbrook, Pennsylvania.

The reason I'm here is it's a swing district, Pennsylvania's 10th district in a swing state. President Trump won this district by about five points. But the local congressman, Scott Perry, is in danger of losing the midterms. And we wanted to talk to people about their feelings about gas prices, about the war.

You mentioned Pennsylvania's average gas price, about 376 a gallon right now. We went to like the cheapest place around $3.54, 0.9 cents a gallon here. And talk to folks. Better you hear from them than from me about how they're feeling.

Let's roll the date. The decision goes straight along. I think it was a great decision I think somebody else should have done a couple years ago, last three other presidents. Are you willing to pay higher prices to the bomb?

If it's defensive costs, yeah, I'm willing to pay them. What do you think about the war? I think he's doing the right thing. The long run is going to help us out.

You know, if they get nuclear weapons, you know, we might not be here in a couple years. I think he's doing a good job. Is that. Is it worth a rise in the price of gas?

I think so. What do you think about. About the US Decision to go into Iran? I think we gotta do what we gotta do to keep this country safe, so.

And if it means paying a little bit more in gas right now to keep everybody safe, then that's what we gotta do, and eventually they'll come back down. Most of the people we talked to were supportive of the war and willing to pay the higher gas prices for the war. Some of them because they believe in the goals of works, others because they trust President Trump. But not everybody felt that way.

Not everybody's excited about Trump here. Not everybody's blamed the vote for Republicans and the support of Trump. Let's take a listen to one more woman who we spoke with. If you could say something, President Trump, he was gonna hear you right now.

What would it be? You're a worthless pile of. And you voted for him how many times? Three times.

That was my bad. Apparently, I'm an idiot. So now, right? Not everyone struggled with him.

That was a voter who voted for three times. She went on to talk about the gas prices. She went on to talk about the war, about not supporting the idea of us, you know, basically going around the world. So a lot to process there.

But this is going to be the real pressure test for President Trump and Republicans in the midterms of how many of the people who voted for him are, A, sticking with Republicans, B, going to show up in the midterms? And I think that's still an open question here just several months out from this midterms talent. Nothing is as valuable as actually going where the people are and asking them what they think. So thank you for making the road trip fill up before you come back.

And thank you, John, for taking us right into one of those key districts and so be safe coming home. I'm going to be joined now by our panel. Tamara Keith, the senior White House correspondent for npr, Antoine C. Wright, Democratic strategist, founder of and CEO of Blueprint Strategies, and Rick Tyler, Republican strategist and director of The Advanced School of Politics and Leadership Institute.

Rick, let me start with you because those certainly sounded like people have been listening to the president's rationale for how he views what was needed in Iran, his objective. And the cost, when we've heard so much in the last year about people being very sensitive to any increasing cost. Yeah, except you juxtapose that against what people have said, which is Trump supporters who said that they do not like adventurous wars and the affordability issue, which was how Trump got elected in the first place. And there's two other numbers.

One was behind Jonathan on the right hand side, which is the heating oil price, which is 449. Heating oil is what most northeasterners, not most, millions of northeasterns use, heathen homes and areas, diesel fuel, which most people don't buy, but that's 499A gallon. And that is the fuel that gets everything from its distribution center to Walmart and every other. We all end up paying.

Everybody is going to pay. And so it is expensive. And people, you can ask themselves, people can ask themselves, is it worth it? And the answer to be yes, but it is not going to be fast.

It's not going to be easy. And prices have been saying, you have a report out today, one of the major investor houses, that we're heading toward a recession if these prices remain high for just the reasons I articulated. And Tam, do you get a sense that Republicans are hoping that voters like that will give them some patience and are they reflecting more some of the things that Rich just talked about, about the concern about the long term? Right.

I think that the White House is, you know, hoping that this is, as President Trump has said, short term again today, he called it an excursion. He's sending every signal he can that he does not want these gas prices to still be high in the summer months or in the fall when people are setting their decisions about how to vote in November. And certainly Republicans have wanted to be able to campaign on an economic message, to be able to say they're the ones who are going to help people. And at this moment, when that is happening, you also have the president pushing a piece of legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the economy or prices people are paying, which is the Save America Act.

So they're not necessarily getting the messaging that they would like to have in swing district. Let's go to that messaging a little bit. The NSC director of National Economic Council, Kevin Hassan, he talked about the potential for extended conflict earlier today. Let's listen to him.

And then we'll talk a little more about it. If it were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the US Economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers. And we'd have to think about if that continued, what we have to do about that.

But that's really the last of our concerns right now because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule. Do you get the sense, Antoine, that that message that this is not gonna be too much of a problem for the overall economy, is that ringing true to you? Absolutely not. Look, there's a segment of the population who is always going to be with Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

However, the midterms will be decided by the base of both parties plus independent thinkers, independent voters. If you look at the affordability crisis we are facing in America, brought to you and paid for by your neighborhood Republican Party, the fuel aspect is just one layer of the affordability crisis from rising cost of health care, including 18.6 billion Americans in red states. When you look at utility costs, we look at groceries. And when you look at the fact that we're spending a billion dollars a day for a war that majority of Americans do not agree with and how that's going to impact other aspects of the American economy, I would just add there's microeconomics, there's macroeconomics, and then there' is what will determine elections in November.

Are there challenges for Democrats at a time when there is a military operation going on, of not wanting to appear critical of the war effort because that's our men and women in uniform service members? Is that a challenge for Democrats? No, because we can talk about the fact that there were measures in place before Donald Trump came in office that would have dealt directly with Iran. We can also talk about the fact that earlier in his presidency, he said that he essentially dealt with the Iran nuclear program and it was obliterated.

The other aspect, I would say, is that Democrats have to stay focused on the affordability aspect because that's what everyday Americans are focused on. The people in this country forget about trying to make ends meet. They're putting two ends together, hoping they meet. Republicans, Independents alike are feeling the brunt of this Republican majority.

Rick, today we saw the departure of one of the members of the administration, someone particularly close to the president, Joe Cant, who I believe the National Counterterrorism Center. And I mean, that sounds like big job. And then the president referred to him as weak on security. Kind of curious.

Do you think that the divisions that he talked about, he's a Bit of a controversial figure for some of his associations and views. But by voicing his what he called an objection to the Iran war, is that going to cause any more splintering inside those who serve in the administration? It depends on the president, how the president explains it. And look, Iran needed to be dealt with.

Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism throughout the world. But I don't, I'm not convinced that the President has explained to the American people why this was imminent, why it had to happen now, and what the immediate threat was. It is true that many presidents before them did not deal with this and that the Iranian, the Iranians have suffered no consequence for being one of the largest supporters of terrorism, killing many Americans schools and American troops throughout the world. Not just, not, not just in the Middle east, but mostly in the Middle East.

And so they need to be dealt with. The president has to explain. And when the president said Iranian people rise up, that was a key, that was a clue, unfortunately to me, that there really is no plan. Because if, let's say the regular, not the Revolutionary Guard, the regular arm were to rise up and there were a possibility of some turning point, when there's weakness, okay, we can, but this is giving away the, we've not seen it.

It's not there. And Tam, when you're doing your reporting, are you seeing a difference among Democrats in how they view Israel today versus how they viewed it years ago and certainly how the war in Gaza affected some of those alliances. What do you see? Yeah, and there is polling that backs this up, but you are certainly seeing that support for Israel used to be very bipartisan and, and now especially among Democrats, though also some Republicans there, there are much more negative views of Israel and more positive views of palest, the need for Palestinian state.

And this is affecting politics in congressional races. We saw it in that New Jersey special election. We're seeing it in the Illinois primaries that are happening today. There are people, candidates are fighting about who's taking money from apac, which is the pro Israel lobby in, you know, a decade ago, people would have been very happy to have money from apac.

And now it's, it has become political. We have to leave it there, I'm afraid. So much more to discuss. Thank you for coming in and being a part of our conversation today.

Tamara, Antoine and Rick, thank you so much. And still to come, crisis in Cuba. The island's power grid collapses yet again as President Trump threatens a U.S. takeover.

We're live from Havana. This is me, the president. Cuba is slowly restoring power after an island wide blackout on Monday following the third major collapse of the country's power grid in the past four months. While the government is still investigating the cause of that outage, Cuba is blaming the US for cutting off its fuel supply.

The country says it's been nearly three months since any oil shipment has reached the island. Today the president told reporters that he'll be doing something with cubicle very soon. After saying this about the country yesterday. I do believe I'll be the honor of having the honor of taking Cuba.

It's a big honor taking Cuba. Taking Cuban some form. Yeah, taking Cuba. Whether I freedom it take it, I can do anything I want with it.

You want to know the truth? We're very weakened nation right now. Joining us now is NBC News correspondent George Solis who is in Havana. That is a notable event to have American cameras there and tell us what is your sense of the picture at the moment with respect to the power and what you're seeing play out.

Yeah, Kelly, just a little bit ago the government announcing that the power grid has been restored money they were still trying to figure out why it collapsed in the first place. We're on the streets of Havana last night when this all occurred. Visiting with family, seeing how they live their day to day. Today, another NBC exclusive opportunity while we're here on the ground.

We went into a hospital here in Havana also hasn't been done in a very long time. We got to see firsthand how doctors are treating patients, patients how patients themselves are dealing with some of these fuel shortages with the blackouts themselves. One woman saying that her biggest fear in trying to get her life saving chemo leukemia treatment is figuring out how she's going to get from point A to point B. Because her biggest fear is going to bed at night, having an emergency of some sort and not being able to get to a hospital in time.

Those are the realities here we look at the hospital's medication where they keep all of their meds in that room. It's all in short supply as well. We noted we saw a small fridge that had a lot of life saving medication. I asked the doctor what they do when the power goes out.

She said well it happens about three times a day here. Sometimes this power outage when it's a rolling blackout will last an hour. Sometimes it'll last up to eight hours and that is no good. We have to figure out how to make sure they can keep this medication viable for someone that urgently needs it.

Transportation also such a big critical component of this. We to were able in a shed today where a garage, excuse me, where there were a number of parked ambulances, all of them unable to move because there's simply no fuel here. So frankly, it is just a very dire situation that really shows no sign of improving anytime soon. Kelly George, we really appreciate your work there because it is rare to get the kind of access you've had and you've been really hearing from people directly, both in their everyday lives and officials.

So we really appreciate that. Be safe there. And we'll look forward to your next report. We will be back tomorrow with more MEET the PRESS now.

And there's more right ahead on NBC News. Now happy. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention.

They made a life together. Then one night the marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected, an utterly bizarre term. I'm Josh Makowitz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline.

Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.