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, where the administration's top intelligence chiefs faced questions about the war with Iran and their assessment about Iran's nuclear capabilities, which the President has used as a justification for launching military strikes. All while the war shows no signs of de escalating.
And as the status of the Strait of Hormuz, that critical water way for global shipping, remains in limbo. Today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Radcliffe and other top intelligence officials were on Capitol Hill for a worldwide threats hearing. And the Iran war was the top issue. In her prepared opening statement, Director Gabbard wrote, quote, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer last summer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated.
There has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. But notably, Director Gabbard did not read that portion of her statement. During her remarks, some Democratic senators noted that omission and press. Director Gabbard, on whether Iran posed an imminent threat, as the President claimed, you omitted that paragraph from your oral opening.
Was that because the President said there was an imminent threat to weeks? No, sir. I recognize that the time was running long and I skipped through some of the portions you chose to take my delivered remarks that can contradict the President. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
Yes or no, Senator? The only person who can determine what is and is not imminent threat is the President. False. This is a worldwide threat hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective and independent of political considerations.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White house claimed on March 1, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no? Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment, the nature of the imminent threat that the President has to make that determination based on a collection and volume. You're here to make intelligence that he is. It comes after Yesterday, the director of National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Ken, resigned over the war saying Iran did not pose an imminent threat.
Today, CIA Director John Ratcliffe was asked about that resignation. Listen, I want to ask you, Director Ratcliffe, yesterday the head of the National Counterterrorism center resigned saying that Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the United States. Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East? Senator?
No. In fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary. So you disagree with Mr. Kettle?
I do. It all comes as the war continues to intensify. Yesterday the Pentagon said US Forces used multiple so called bunker busters to hit Iranian missile sites near the coast of the Strait of Hormuz. Israel also touting its own military operations, saying today it killed Iran's intelligence minister.
Iran's president confirmed his killing and called his death and those of other top Iranian officials quote, cowardly assassinations. This morning in retaliation, Iran fired cluster munitions which you can see right here detonating in midair over Tel Aviv. Joining me now is NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby, NBC News White House correspondent, senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake and NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley. Thanks to all of you for starting us off.
I really appreciate it. Courtney, let me start with you. I want to play a little bit more of what we heard during today's hearing from Director Cavart. Take a at look.
The ICSS's regime in Iran appears to be intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities. Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran's strategic position has been significantly degraded. Courtney, are your sources at the Pentagon basically saying that that assessment by Tulsi Galvard is correct?
Yeah. A lot of Iran's conventional capabilities have been destroyed. I mean it's hard to say if it's more than 50%, more than 75%, but when you just look at the sheer number of targets that they've gone after, it would make sense that it's fair to say a large number of them have any of a significant number have gone have been destroyed. And that's specifically what we're talking about.
The ballistic missiles. They're drones, which they still have more drones than I think the US Would like. We now know that they've gone for some other anti ship cruise missiles. They're trying to take out care of the mine problem and then they've gone after of course, the Conventional navy and all the Iranian air force.
So Pentagon is also saying struck an Iranian missile site along the Strait of Hormuz. Talk about the significance of that and broadly speaking where this stands. So this addresses what has become the biggest issue right now and that is the Strait Hormuz, the fact that it remains closed. The US Used these pretty large bombs that are nosed bunker buster.
This means they can basically penetrate down through hardened structures like where these anti ship cruise missiles are being stored along the coast of the Strait Hormuz. They presented a direct threat. We've seen Iran fire these missiles at ships even in recent days. They're difficult to defend against unless you have air cover or you have some sort of anti missile system on the ship, which a lot of these commercial ships do not, frankly.
So when you look at it from operationally, this was a win, this was a big win, but it's not going to make an immediate difference in reopening the strait. Iran still has drones, they still have mines and they still have their fast boats, including some of these unmanned fast boats, which we don't talk a whole lot about, but also really present a direct threat because they can send them out in swarms. All it takes is one to smash northern tankers. Again, we talked about this on the show.
They don't even have to hit, they just have a threat. Well, Courtney, let's talk the picture about the Strait of Moose because the president over the weekend had started this campaign to get NATO allies on board with helping to secure the Strait of Hormuz. As of this Wednesday, we are not aware of any allies raising their hands to come forward. We heard President Trump yesterday say he can go alone, he doesn't need NATO.
Clearly irate with the fact that no one is stepping forward to help. Why didn't the administration build a coalition of the willing on the front end of this? So it's hard to say. If I had to guess, I would say it's probably because there is such a mistrust of allies right now on the part of the Trump administration.
And so I could see that they didn't want to let them know that something was going to happen in advance that could potentially leak out that they were going to plan this when they were potentially conduct this mission. But it's also not surprising to me they would try to do this sort of backwards diplomacy right where they begin this operation and then they start asking for help. And it comes on the heels of the president and the Secretary of Defense demeaning allies contribution in other conflicts. Secretary of defense openly demeaning allies who fought and died alongside US Troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
So I'm not surprised that these allies wouldn't want to step forward. The reality is it is too dangerous for any navy, no matter what nation they're coming from, unless they're from Iran. It's too dangerous for any of those ships to be trying to sail through straight horror movies right now. So I'm not surprised, Alice, are not stepping forward.
All right, Courtney qb, thank you so much for starting us off today. We really appreciate it. Aaron, let me turn to you at the White House. Let's talk about the messaging that we are hearing from the president.
It continues to evolve, particularly in talking about the straight of Hormuz. What are your sources telling you about the strategy and his stance today on this? Chris and you may get the helicopters behind me. The president is going to land here back to White House in a short time and perhaps we'll hear something new from him then that he has been on a journey the last couple of days when it comes to what the position is on the Strait of Hormuz and who should be defending.
I suppose we should say the active position is the one he posted on True Social this morning, which is essentially we broke it, but somebody else will have to buy it and clean it up. The president suggesting that others should be responsible for the strait. Perhaps people who are more dependent on energy that is exported through it will come in and police it. That comes after a period of several days.
We suggested the US Navy would do that work. Then we suggested even reaching out to allies and some of them were even on the way into the region to send ships before saying, in fact, we don't need their help at all, and then suggesting again today that other countries be responsible for it. I think it speaks to the reality that, as Cory was just saying, that this is a very difficult actual problem to solve here and that nobody really wants to be at the tip of the spear of this particular military situation right now. But again, the president's current position doesn't show a lot of understanding of the nuances of these energy markets.
It's not just the consumers of these products that would be affected. It would be the whole global market for everything that comes out of Middle East. Basically that would be disrupted. And we are starting to see signs of that already.
Garrett. Look, we know that there have been divisions within the administration over starting this war in the first place. Vice President J.D. vance initially not on board with moving forward with this war.
Now the position has been that he's all in. We know that he spoke today. What did we learn? What did he say about his position on the war today?
Yeah, Vance is the most prominent thought to be internal skeptic of this war. His answer to a question about this today was noteworthy because I think he could probably also be concede this the way he might be talking about this internally too. Essentially saying that you're going to ultimately have to trust the decisions that the President makes and that's what he's doing. Listen, I guarantee the President, United States is not interested in getting us, you know, in the kind of long term quagmires that we've seen in years past.
I know the President, I know the way he thinks about his mayor's national security. That's not a risk with this president at all. You know, Lyndon Johnson or George W. Bush wanted to get into the military quagmires.
They found themselves in either. But I think what you're seeing here is a line that Vance is using that other skeptics of involvement in Iran could probably point to, which is consistent across the administration that ultimately it's the President who makes the decisions and in Donald Trump they trust. Yeah, really fascinating to hear him answer that question, Garrett. You know, the President attended a dignified transfer for six US service members today.
What do we know about that, Solomon? It was closed to the press. Yeah, very little, Kristen. I mean the families ultimately make the decision about whether they want these transfers to be open to any kind of media.
Today they chose not to. This was for all six crew members of the KC135. The crashed in the Iraqi desert. I guess it was back over the weekend.
Those pictures there, the President arriving in Dover are really all we have. The press bowl went back on Air Force One to await the events conclusion. As I mentioned, the helicopters still can hear them behind me, which means the President is on his way back, but hasn't landed back here at the White House yet. A pretty significant contingent of lawmakers.
The Secretary of Defense with him perhaps. We'll get more in just a few minutes. All right. Garrett Hake at the White House for us.
Garrett, thank you so much, Matt Bradley, let me turn to you. Israel killed yet another top Ryan official last night. This time the Minister of Intelligence. What do you know about the role he played in the significance of this?
Well, he was head of the intelligence operation in Iran, which means he played a singular role in suppressing dissent, in controlling internal messaging by the regime, in sort of counter espionage. The whole gamut of issues that would have Made him basically a very powerful man, one who's very close to the senior leadership. He was assassinated along with two others. Three major figures within the Iranian regime have been killed in just the past 24 hours, including other people who did similar work.
Asmail Hattib, as we were talking about. And of course, there's Ali Arjani before the head of the National Security Council, who was kind of more than just an intelligence guy, more of an actual leader and really the mover and shaker behind the scenes, even before the senior Khamenei was killed the first day of this fighting. So what we're seeing now is the death of yet another senior intelligence official, and one that doesn't necessarily put Trump or Netanyahu any close to finding a leader who they could pluck out and anoint as the new leader of Iran, one who's more quietest, more cooperative with the West. This was a man who, amongst others, is, by dying, probably going to make that goal even more elusive for those countries who decided to attack Iran.
Well, Matt, all this comes as we saw wave of Iranian attacks overnight, including cluster bombs over Tel Aviv, which is where you are. What was that like to experience that from the ground, Matt? Yeah, we've been seeing cluster bombs being used over Tel Aviv and over Israel for about the past two weeks. In fact, a huge portion of the weapons that the Iranians have been fired have been cluster bombs.
Important to know that while the Israelis are saying cluster bombs by their use by Iran shows the Iranians are using indiscriminate weapons that don't necessarily distinguish or aren't necessarily things that can be aimed properly to avoid civilian casualties. There is a treaty that forbids the use of cluster bombs, signed in 2008. Israel is not a party to that. Neither is the United States or Iran or Russia or Ukraine for that matter.
So that's why we've seen cluster bombs being used by the Russians in Ukraine, and now we're seeing them being used by the Iranians. I've been speaking to people here. People were in the military. They say that the cluster bombs aren't necessarily an unusual challenge or a strange risk to the Israeli public, even though they do, by definition, burst in the atmosphere and send little bomblets all around, putting a lot of civilians in danger.
It's the huge ballistic missiles, the ones that aren't clusters, the ones that don't break up, that are still the primary preoccupation for Israel's military. All right, Matt Bradley, thank you so much. Please continue to stay safe. We really Appreciate it.
Coming up, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, the president's pick to take over the Department of Homeland Security is grilled on Capitol Hill as a key Senate Republican. Announcements he will vote no on his confirmation. Plus, breaking news. Fed Chair Jerome Powell says the central bank does not know how much the war against Iran could affect the economy as it keeps interest rates steady despite pressure from the president.
What it means for the economy and inflation and your bottom line ahead. You're watching the press now. 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 can make Sunrise Challenge. From May 25 to 29. 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 back.
We are following developments on Capitol Hill and a potential setback for the President's pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Rand Paul, the Republican chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, announcing he will oppose fellow Senator Mark Wayne Mullen's nomination to be DHS secretary when his committee votes tomorrow. Paul making that announcement after Lee Mullen's confirmation hearing today, a hearing that began with this heated exchange between the two. You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I'd been assaulted.
I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the property use of force. I think there's. Everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point. And if I have something to say, I'll say directly to your face.
As far as my terms is sinking the grass, sir. I work around this room to try to fix problems. I've worked with many people in this room. Seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us.
And as far as me saying that I invoke violence, I don't, I don't think anybody should be hit by surprise. I don't like that. But if I do have something to say, everybody in this room knows I'll come straight to you. I'll say publicly, I'll say it privately, but I'll never say it behind your back.
Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate but have just a one seat majority on The Homeland Security Committee, which is scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to advance Mullen's nomination to the full Senate. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zanona joins me now. So you just spoke to Senator Randall. What did he say about his decision, though?
Well, he was quite fired up. He questioned Marl Mullen's temperaments. He said he was not fit to serve in this extremely critical role. And he made very clear that he plans to get vote no, at least in the committee vote tomorrow.
Just watch. We're in the midst, I think, of a crisis where there needs to be more direction from the top. And a guy who brawls, a guy who can't even say he's sorry about, you know, wishing violence on me and really applauding the attack that happened on me, can't come to say that I don't know how he could from my point of view, be a leader of ICE or Board of I don't think that kind of person sends the right message to ICE agents who the country at large has said, well, gosh, is there a proper use of force going on or do we have more rules with our agents so we don't have tragic killings of citizens? Now, Grandpa has clashed with the president on a number of issues.
He's also been quite outspoken on Minnesota in the wake of those shootings. So in some ways not entirely surprising that he came out against Mullis nomination. But again, just quite remarkable to see him coming out swinging so strongly against one of Trump's nominees. Oh, she's extraordinary.
Let's talk about the math here, Mel. Democrat John Fetterman has indicated he may vote yes to confirm Mullen, which would effectively allow him to be voted out of committee. Is his fate going to come down to a Democrat, Senator Fetterman? Well, in the committee process, yes, because if Rand Paul votes against him, which we are expecting, that means willing to pick up a Democrat.
So all eyes are on Ferman, who has spoken Aliyah Mullen and said he's talking to this process with an open mind. He's not explicitly said how he will vote. But Chris and I also know even if he's not able to make out of committee, technically there are other mechanisms to force his nomination to the floor. So even if fails committee, there are other ways to get this over the finish line.
But again, quite extraordinary to see the Republican chairman of this committee coming out saying he would know on the committee vote. Absolutely. And just the fact that there's a question mark over whether he could make it out of committee is just a Remarkable place. This was someone who has tried to foster bipartisan relationships.
It was assumed he would sort of sail through the confirmation process, although also anticipated. Tough line of questioning from Democrats. What do we hear there? Yeah, Democrats really wanted answers about how he plans to run immigration enforcement operations and notably distance himself from Chrissy Noem, who's the one who just let go from that role.
And he even said that he regretted how he talked about Alex Petty, one of those US Citizens who was shot by federal agents in Minnesota. Let's watch that exchange. You called Alex Preddy, quote, a deranged individual that came in to cause max damage. Could we expect those kinds of quick responses if you are confirmed as secretary?
No. Senator, I have a deep amount of respect for you. We've had our differences, but I do respect you. I think I said this privately when we had a conversation.
Those words probably should have been retracted. I should have said that in sector. I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing.
And there is, like I said, there's sometimes I make mistake and I own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault.
That won't happen. Secretary also said we need to restore trust in the Department of Homeland Security. So very clear he's trying to distance himself and win over some potentially Democrats in that room. All right, Melzanona, thank you so much.
Covering all the angles there for us on Capital Hill. Really appreciate it. Coming up next, rising gas prices, rising inflation. Now a key decision from the Fed.
We're covering multiple developments impacting consumers in the US Economy amid the fallout from the war with Iran. Stay with us. I need to press now. Welcome back.
We are following breaking news on the economy. The Federal Reserve voting to keep interest rates steady, once again bucking the president's demands to juice the economy by lowering them. The central bank announcing that it would not cut rates in part because of inflation, saying it's still too high. With the war in Iran sending oil and gas prices soaring and threatening to disrupt the global economy.
The decision coming hours after the Labor Department announced wholesale inflation in February was higher than expected, rising 7.10of a percent from the prior month and 3.4% from a year ago. Most of that data collected before the Iran conflict began. Fed Chair Jerome Powell answering questions from reporters this afternoon, saying it's still too early for the Fed to know what the war's long term effects on the economy will be. The implications of events in the Middle east for the US Economy are uncertain.
In the near term, higher energy Prices will push up overall inflation. But it is too soon to know the scope and duration of the potential effects on the economy. The US Economy is doing, you know, pretty well. It's just we don't know what the effects of this will be and really no one does.
Stocks ending the day lower across the board with the Dow falling more than 700 points. NBC News business and Dow correspondent Brian Chung joins me now. Brian, you were there with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Thanks for being here.
So what else do you have to say about overall state of the economy? Yeah, well, he said the economy's looking okay. But of course, the big thing hanging over this economy is the conflict in Iran. People are already feeling the pain at the pump in the form of prep gas prices that on average are up over 90 cents since the conflict began.
And the Fed chairman was interestingly saying, look, we don't know what happens from here. In fact, he was unbelievably frank in this conversation. He said, nobody knows yet. Economic expectations could be bigger, it could be smaller.
It all depends on how long the conflict goes on in the Federal Reserve and a room on the top of economists. They just simply don't know. For that reason, the Fed chairman is saying, let's just figure out what's going on in this economy. They held interest rates right now the question is how long do they contain interest rates while they see how this is going to impact the economy?
Yeah, the big question on everyone's mind, what will the long term impact be if he made news about his own future too? What did he say? Yeah, well, we have to remember that there's a political undercurrence under this, under this trend as well. His term ends in May.
The president has named Kenneth Vors his successor. We have Thom Tillis in the Senate Banking Committee saying, I'm not going to advance anyone until there is a resolution with the Department of justice investigation into potential cost overruns in a building renovation project at the Federal Reserve, the Fed chairman saying very clearly the verbatim board, he said, quote, I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finalities of translation, even if his term expires in May, if there's not a resolution to this Department of Justice investigation, he's going to stay because guess what? Kevin Warsh is not going to get into that role because Tom Tillis is going to stop. So how long does that game of chicken last?
That's really anyone's guess. Extraordinary defiance today. And you also asked him about economic Concerns on Main Street. What do you say there?
Yeah. Well, again, the Federal Reserve has these press conferences. They talk very pie in the sky big economically. So I asked him, what about affordability?
How are you thinking about that? Take a look. How does the Fed's independence play into the ability to address affordability? Independence is what allows us to do our jobs and, you know, stable prices is half of our mandate.
Look at every advanced economy that looks anything like the United States anywhere in the world, you know, market economy in a democracy, and you'll see, you know, pretty much central bank independence. It looks a lot like in some cases, stronger than what we have. But it's critical that we have that so that we can do the things when we need to do them to preserve price stability. Kristen, as we know, the Fed chairman is so careful not to comment directly on the president who has been saying lead up to this meeting that he wants the Fed to more aggressively cut interest rates.
With the Fed chairman saying independence is critical. And with regards to affordability, he said it's a very real thing when the things like insurance costing out. That's something certainly a lot American families feel in addition to now prices at the pump. All right, Brian.
Sean, great job pressing the Fed chair. Thank you for being here. It's great to have you in D.C. all right, after the break.
If it's Wednesday, we have election results. It was a night dominated by Democratic divisions. And we've got Steve Kornacki at the big Gorgia. Break it all down.
Plus the night's biggest winners. Juliana Stratton meets the press fresh offer Senate primary victory as Democrats ramp up their anti Trump messaging ahead of the midterms. Keep it right here for all of that fun. You can press now.
Welcome back. If it's Wednesday, we have election results, including in the Illinois Democratic senate primary where Lt. Governor Juliana Stratton beat Congressman Rajah Krishnamoorthy and Congresswoman Robin Kelly in the race for retiring Senator Victor Vincy. Stratton celebrating with supporters in Chicago last night and pledging to be a fighter in Washington.
Look, tonight's message is clear. We're ready to take our democracy back into our own hands. We never lost sight of what's most important, and that is courage. Courage inspired me to run.
Courage powered this campaign, and courage will bring this fight straight to Donald Trump's door. And we will speak with the lieutenant governor in just a moment. But first, NBC News Chief Data analyst Steve Kornacki is the big board to break down that big win. Walk us through how the lieutenant Governor Pulled this off to you.
Yeah, Chris, I'm upset and I think a broader coalition clearly that she put together than many were expecting. What went into that first dragon? Well, first of all, we expected she was gonna do well in the city of Chicago. And the city of Chicago produces like a third of all the votes statewide in a Democratic primary in Illinois.
She certainly did do well in Chicago. She won it over her nearest opponent, Roger Christian Murphy by about a 2 to 1 margin. Like a 20 point victory in the city of Chicago. It was, that was fairly expected here.
She would do well like that. But then in the suburbs, immediately outside of Chicago, in Cook County, Cook county has 5 million people in it. She also won the suburbs. That was not expected.
She won the Cook county suburbs over Christian Morphy as well. And then when you got outside of Chicago and the Chicagoland area, look, you can see the color coding here. Stratton, There's a lot of doubt that when you got outside of Chicagoland you actually would do there. And yet you see her winning in some population centers here.
I think there is sort of one dynamic you see here. There's a bit of a class aspect of it here where Roger Christian Morty did well in a blue collar place like Rockford. This is Moline over here to Quad Cities, he did well there. Peoria, more blue collar.
He did well in those sort of older blue collar cities. But places where you have more sort of white collar professionals, college educated around the state capital in Springfield, in those metro e suburbs outside St. Louis and St. Clair, Madison County.
Stratton was winning there. She was winning there big. And I think one thing you can do here, looking at this map where she had strength, places where there were high concentrations of college degrees, the Cal County, Northern Illinois University, McDonough County, Western Illinois University, Jackson County, Southern Illinois University, McLean County, Illinois State University and Champaign, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, all the big, big college towns, college counties. She won all of those on top of what she got out of Chicago and suburbs.
All right, Democrats clearly watching that playbook very closely. Steve Kornack, and it was a late night. Thanks for joining us. Really appreciate it.
And join me now, fresh off her primary victory is Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton. Thank you so much for joining us. Lieutenant Governor, really appreciate it. Thank you for having me.
Well, congratulations on your win last night. I do want to start with your reaction to the victory. You do live in a reliably blue state. What is your strategy heading into November?
Well, the strategy is to keep doing what I've been doing. And why we were so successful last night. You know, I think that there's a lot of frustration with what's happening in Washington. And what I heard from voters is that they were really looking for someone to fight for them.
They wanted somebody who was not going to sort of set their own agenda, get to Washington and forget who they represented, but someone who would listen to the voters and take a met message that really reflected what matters to everyday people. And that's exactly what I did. I'm going to spend the next several months of this general campaign doing the exact same thing, talking to voters, making sure that I'm addressing what matters to them and letting them know that at a time when they're looking for someone who has the energy, new energy to meet this moment, that I am the fighter that they're looking for. Let me ask you, you got support, not surprisingly, from Governor Pritzker who endorsed your campaign.
He also contributed to a Pack the Factor campaign. What do you say to voters who might see that kind of boost from a billionaire, even one who's a Democrat, at odds with your broader progressive message? Well, first of all, I'm grateful for the support and friendship of Governor J.D. pritzker.
Remember, the governor and I have served together as partners in governance for the last seven years here in the state of Illinois. We have worked side by side and we have delivered for the people of Illinois. We set out to do big things and we have raised the minimum wage. We made Illinois a real island for reproductive freedom in the Midwest.
We have created thousands of good paying jobs, put us on a path to a clean energy future. So I know that the governor saw that not only my work ethic but the leadership that I provided in the state and that's why he supported me. And certainly I'm grateful to have the support. Well, I want to ask you a question.
I asked the mayor of New York, Zoran Magdani. I asked if he believes billionaires should exist when he was a candidate. He said no. And I'm curious where you stand.
Do you believe billionaires should exist? Well, first of all, you know, let's talk about what we really need to be focused on and that is ending the wealth gap. And that's why the message that I'm bringing to people day to day is how we need to raise wages, how we need to make health care more affordable, how we need to give families, working class families and middle class families a tax break and pay for for it with a tax increase on those making a million dollars or more here in Illinois, as you know that Governor Pritzker and I both fought for a fair tax in our state because of some of the fact that the tax rate should not be reflective, where somebody who's making a billion dollars is paying a tax rate that's lower than somebody who's, you know, working and barely making ends meet. So that's something that we need to shift.
This is going to require systemic work. And it's the kind of fight that I want to bring to Washington. When I talk about bringing a fight for everyday working families, that's exactly what I mean. How do we make life more affordable?
How do we close the wealth gap? How do we make sure that we expand access to opportunity so everyone can thrive? Let me ask you about some of your policies. As you know, there is a national debate right now over ice.
And polling from our NBC News decision desk last month found that reforming ICE is more popular than abolishing it. Even among Democrats, 50% say it should be reformed. You say ICE should be abolished. Are you concerned your position is actually farther than the party wants to go on ice?
Well, I always look at what we have witnessed right here in the state of Chicago with Operation Midway Blitz. Remember, we had a president who said that he was going to go after the worst of the worst. And what we saw was tamale vendors being snatched off the streets, daycare providers being stuffed into unmarked vehicles by masked agents with no due process, no warrants. And the terror of Operation Midway Blitz continues in the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois.
And what people really want is they want to know that there's going to be some accountability. And I've made it clear that I don't think that this agency can be reformed. We need to do something different. We need to take a holistic approach and how to get people a true path to legal citizenship, how we can invest in immigration judges and social services and community based resources.
But what does not work, and I don't think anyone would say it does, is criminalizing our immigrant neighbors. That's unacceptable. And I've made it clear that ICE and CBP needs to get out of American cities and in Illinois. We're making sure that we hold these bad actors accountable.
Well, if not ice, if not dhs, which agency should be in charge of immigration and deportation? Well, like I said, we need to think about what could be different. Remember, DHS was created as a counterterrorism agency. And so right off the very bat, you start with a punitive approach.
We put ICE under dhs. You already start Thinking about our immigrant communities through that punitive lens. And that in and of itself is not something that's going to really focus on how we provide support and really get people on a path to citizenship. So let's start thinking through a holistic standpoint of what can look differently.
How do we make sure that people are getting access to the resources they need? How do we provide a pathway for DACA recipients and dreamers work? That, of course, Senator Durbin has led on during his time in the United States Senate. There are many other things that we can do to get to the actual issue of making sure that people can have legal immigration status.
But what's not going to get us on that path is snatching people off the streets, and certainly not with the terror that we've seen right here, not only in Illinois, but in cities and states all over the country, especially blue cities and states. Lieutenant Governor Stratton, let's say you win. Let's say Democrats retake the Senate. For the sake of argument, would you in fact advocate for getting rid of the filibuster in order to push your priorities through, like abolishing ICE?
Would you support getting rid of the filibuster 100% with the Senate potentially taking the majority? I would absolutely support that. I mean, look at what we haven't been able to get done, whether it's protecting reproductive freedom, passing common sense gun legislation, protecting voting rights. These are all things that we've been able to do in Illinois, which is why I often talk about how my goal is to bring the Illinois blueprint to Washington, D.C.
people want to see us get things done that will better their lives and protect our rights, especially in the wake of a president who's trying to take us backwards. And I believe that we can protect healthcare. There's so much more that we can do. And when we overtake and take back the Senate, that's something that I absolutely would support abolishing or at least significantly reforming the filibuster.
Well, right now, as you know, there's a big debate over the SAVE act, and Republicans are looking at the possibility of getting rid of the filibuster. Would you support it if they got rid of the filibuster right now? Would that be be a good move for the future of the Senate, do you think? Well, let me start by just talking a little bit about what we're seeing this administration do.
We're seeing them try to strip away voting rights to suppress the vote and do so much that, you know, it's harming our communities. And we're going to see rural communities. We're going to see women who have been married and so many others that are going to be kept off the voter rolls if they get to have their way. So we know that people have to be on the record with their views.
And and we're gonna have to be ready to stand up and fight back. And I want to see where they're gonna be, because if they want to be a party that's taking away voting rights, we need to be prepared to be courageous and bold as Democrats to stand up and fight back. Before I let you go, you are poised, if you win, to be the sixth black woman ever in the US Senate ever, and one of three in the current Senate. How significant is that milestone to you?
Well, I certainly look forward to representing all of the state of Illinois, but it's not lost on me that we've only had five black women serving the United States Senate in history. In history. And so this is an opportunity, as I always say, to make sure that we don't just have policy made for us, but made with us and by us. And the idea that we made, you know, made sure that there have been two so far that are serving together.
This is the first time we've had two black women serving together. And now there's a potential of three. I've always said that there's not a lot of voices like mine in the United States Senate, but there should be. And a voice like mine is desperately needed.
And I look forward to making sure that I bring that voice to Washington and that unique perspective and contribute to my own perspective and lived experience making the best policy to for the people that I represent. All right. Well, we will watch your race very closely. Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton, thank you so much for being here.
We really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Coming up next, the panel weighs in on last night's results and what it all means for the midterm elections in November. Keep it right here on MEET THE PRESS now.
Welcome back. As we've noted, divisions inside the Democratic Party were on full display up and down the ballot in Tuesday's Illinois primaries, giving a glimpse of what could lie ahead as the party tries to retake control of Congress in November. The results were a split decision for progressives and moderates handing wins to the progressive side, with Evanston Mayor Daniel Bis and state Representative LaShawn Ford. Meanwhile, moderates saw victories, with former Congresswoman Melissa Bean and County Commissioner Donna Miller among the issues animating these races.
US Support for Israel, which has become a major battle line among Democrats. According to a recent NBC News Decision Desk poll, the majority of Democrats hold a negative view of Israel, a significant increase compared to just three years ago. And most Democrats now say they sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, which marks a major shift over the last decade. Joining me now is our super sized panel, NBC national political reporter Ben Kamasar, NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin, Josh Orton, former senior advisor Vice President Harris and current president of Demand justice and Republican strategist Matt Gorman.
He's also an NBC News contributor. Thanks to all of you for being here. Ben, let me kick it off with you. Walk us through these results last night.
What are the implications, the fascinating implications both for you? If you said the divides in the party between Israel over Israel policy and sort of the questions about dark money, we saw tens of millions of dollars pop up from these secret groups. No entirely know who they are. The opponents of them have accused a pact of o Israel lob group of being part of it.
There's some indirect ties there, but we're not sure yet. Broadly, it's just as like a banner moment for the people who know the proliferation of super money in these races. These groups are you seeing on right now. The voters don't know who are behind them and yet they played, you know, to tune of tens of millions of dollars.
It's a fascinating dynamic move forward in the frankly the largest of this kind of secret money I've seen in a while. And Julie, we saw this dynamic playing out in New Jersey as well with Emily Omekia's victory. We did. And in that case APAC actually funded her challenger, John Malinowski.
Right. And that kind of backfired against the group. And this just brings into focus as Ben was saying, something that I think we're going to continue to hear more of, not less after Democrats 2024 losses. They were trying to find an issue where the party felt energized.
And I know Ben knows this more than most people try to track all those issues now they're polling. But it seems like in the time where Madani, the mayor of New York City ran on affordability and many Democrats want to keep talking about that, the divide where Israel is what's really front and center. Josh, weigh in on how do you see this playing out in these remaining primaries and as we head into general, I think the interesting thing we're saying is that APAC itself is facing an existential crisis because I think they're actually now a marginal group. If you look at how they played in the primaries this week, most of the time when they spent money on races, they did not stand with the courage of the convictions and talk about, well, you know, with Daniel Bis, here's someone who supports Israel, has a Jewish state, but doesn't agree with the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is a race where in the past, like in Michigan, APAC was weighed in against such a candidate and won like they did supporting Haley Stevens. Here they supported a candidate with a pact that didn't have anything to do with Israel. Right. As it had nothing to do with Israel.
And their candidate came in third. And the winner, Daniel Bis, supports Medicare for all. So, you know, I think it's one of these things where if they want to actually stand behind their issues and say, you know what, we support Democrats who only support Benjamin Netanyahu at all cost, then they should say that. But surely that I think they're going to keep losing in a way unless they make change.
Matt, how do you expect Republicans to try to capitalize on these divisions within them? Certainly, I think Republicans have come a lot more in line with Israel kind of as a country and as a cause in these last, I would say 10 years or so. It's far more generational than I would say, right. You have younger Republicans, younger Democrats, far more skeptical of Israel and the foreign policy, so to speak.
And also too, these are not. I talked to Advance Advisor people in the Vance orbit when he went down to Ole Miss and a kid asked about the influence of Israel in American politics. Not just on the right, not just on the left. The way it was described was almost a taboo was broken and people were kind of hitting each other and there was some unsaid thing in the room.
And so whether it's on the left or on the right, different forms of absolutely. Madani is very different than someone on the right like say Tucker Carlson and different nuances and the like. However, this skepticism of Israel real is real. Then talk about some of the other big takeaways from Illinois.
I just had the opportunity to interview Lieutenant Governor Stratton again. She's running in a general election in a reliably blue state. What do you make of her? When she had the support of governor, obviously governor, she also had this sort of clothes that was really interjecting what did Democrats want?
And she was really a forceful ad that I'm sure, you know, we can't play on TV because it's the last word capturing feelings about Democrats frustration against Trump trying to galvalize that. When you think about the kinds of people what the Democrats are looking for, saying what fires, questions, what is that fire. Right. Juliana Tratton presented a definition of what she thought a fighter was and it seems to have met them on the family.
Let's talk about another state. Let's talk about Texas. This all eyes on Texas as we await Is President Trump going to endorse Senator John Cornyn or Ken Paxton who has a lot of political baggage? In my phone conversation with President Trump over the weekend, he's telling you about a week or so.
He said the SAVE act is going to be front and center will determine basically this decision. How do you see this playing out and the fact that it's actually too late for one of these candidates to drop out of time to get their name off of the ballot. Yeah. And I tried talking to John Corn and pressing him several times as a tried to chase him in the capital.
Evasive, understandably after his primary night. Look, he didn't want to speak out of turn in front of the president. Clearly, as you mentioned, it is too late. But when it comes to the SAVE Act, I'm struck at an event the president held in Kentucky where it seemed like every time he said something that's not popular with his base talking about war in Iran, he threw an alignment about the SAVE Act.
But wait till you see what Congress passes on securing elections and voter id. He also keeps stressing the mail in ballot provision that is not in the SAVE act. Other red meat based issues that aren't even in the SAVE ACT Act. But regardless, the president knows it's not going to pass in the Senate.
So now they're doing this thing where lyrics keep the floor open trying to essentially show the president how hard he's trying. But it's not going to matter for a Texas endorsement. Even though Senator Cornyn suddenly said he's in favor of potentially doing away with filibuster. There's nothing else to make that happen anyway.
Matt, what are the implications of this jinx Cal Rico starting his general election campaign, Republicans are eager to have a candidate face off against Calico. The polls show Cornyn does better when he's pitted against Talaria. The president pull me. No, he thinks they're both electable.
I'm not surprised in saying that. Now I will point out right have your name pulled off the ballot and deadline to drop out are two different things we often see with presidential primaries. You'll keep some people still being a primary state, yet they're not actually running a percent of the vote. So there's a difference there.
I think, you know, if the say that was in many ways packed married he connected on when it seems like there was momentum behind a corner endorsement in those days or even hours after that, Texas prim Paxton kind of pulled out the state act out of nowhere and at least for a while got the president to hold off an endorsement. We'll see if it lasts a little longer. Is there concern amongst Republicans though, this is getting dragged out? I think as we all know, Trump is not to do want to do it and wait on his own time.
He likes his own drama. I'm not surprised that he played it a little longer. Josh, what's the view in Democratic circles? Is there a sense that, well, actually in the state of Texas, yes, Paxton could be electable, John, according to electoral.
I think the fact that we're even talking about the Senate race in Texas as a winnable race actually is a kind of bellwether for how it might go with Republicans this November. The second thing I would say is, and I don't normally like to think this way, if I'm a Republican down ballot candidate or a Republican thinking about seeking higher office next year or the year after. And I'm looking at how Trump is weighing in here or not weighing in. I'm thinking about what exactly does the president believe in and what exactly does the party look like after he's president or after he endorses a race?
What does he believe if he can't make a call between these two candidates? Exactly what does the Trump Republican Party stand for? Ben, with our final 30 seconds here, Democrats haven't won a Texas Senate seat in more than three decades. Are the conditions right for them to do it this year?
They're more right than they've been in a while in the sense that I've covered Texas for more than a decade and I remember when these races were they couldn't even put all together real candidates to run say why. So yes, there's improvement. I think there's a lot of skepticism about what the kind of money would take and sort of where it falls in for people as far as trying to make those investments. All right, guys, great panel.
Thank you so much for being here. Ben, Julie, Josh and Matt really appreciate it. And we are back tomorrow with more MEET the Press now. There's more ahead on NBC News now.
I'm Craig. Mel. Cheers. Cheers.
Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy and now I'm talking to people who look at the world that way too. Really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, challenges, their stories are fun. And so I hope you'll join me each week.
Who knows, you might just come away with your own Glass apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig now From Today on YouTube.