Meet the Press NOW — March 19

Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood? It's not luck. It's local know-how. Relax agents know their street, schools, and communities inside and out.

And with Relax, those local pros are everywhere. Which means when you're ready to buy your cell, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. Reach out today. Relax.

The experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated. Finding mental health support shouldn't leave you feeling more lost. This mental health week, your donation to Cammage, will be doubled.

From May 4th to May 10th, every dollar you contribute will go twice as far to provide double the hope and double the impact for Canadians facing mental illness. And addiction. Let's build a future where everyone can get the care they need when they need it. You can help us build better mental health care for everyone.

Don't eat today at Cammage.ca.com. That's Cammage.ca.com. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington, where the Trump administration is racing to calm growing anxiety over soaring energy prices as the war with Iran intensifies.

After Israel and Iran exchanged strikes on critical energy infrastructure in the region. These were the stunning images out of Iran after Israel launched an attack on South Pars, one of the world's largest natural gas fields, which is shared by both Iran and Qatar. You can see the large fires burning as plumes of black smoke billowed into the air. Iran responding launching retaliatory strikes on energy infrastructure across the Gulf region, hitting a refinery in Saudi Arabia, an energy facility in Qatar and two oil refineries in Kuwait.

President Trump is also reacting to dueling strikes, posting on social media that the US did not know about the Israeli attack on South Pars, while also threatening to, quote, massively blow up the South Pars gas field if Iran carried out any more strikes on Qatar. However, US official familiar with the information telling NBC News, Israel did inform the US they were planning to strike that facility, speaking in the Oval Office today while hosting the Japanese Prime Minister, the President said he told Israel to stop strikes on Iran's energy fields. And he talked to the Prime Minister Netanyahu about attacking oil and gas fields. Yeah, I did.

I told him don't do that. And he just won't do that. We didn't discuss. You know, we do.

We're independent. We get along great. It's coordinated. But on occasion, he'll do something.

And if I don't like it, and so we're not doing that anymore. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also speaking to reporters late today, saying Israel acted alone when striking the oil field, but not answering the question about whether President Trump knew or had approved a strike. As for whether the US and Israel are aligned on their goals for the war, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, offered two different perspectives. Together in close coordination with President Trump, close coordination between America and Israel, our militaries, our intelligence services, we're achieving goals in lightning speed.

The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government. Meanwhile, energy prices are surging in the wake of those strikes, crude oil settling at around $96 up 43% since the start of the war. Gas and diesel prices also continue to tick up as the war moves on. Despite that, President Trump trying to downplay the economic consequences of the war.

Here's a little bit more of what he said today in the Oval Office. Iran is a serious threat to the world. The Middle East and to the world. And everybody agrees with me.

I think virtually every country agrees with me. So I wanted to put out that fire. And I said, you know, if I do that oil prices will go up, the economy will go down a little bit. I thought it would be worse, much worse actually.

I thought there was a chance it could be much worse. It's not bad. And it's going to be over with pretty soon. As the administration looks for more ways to bring prices down, Treasury Secretary Bessent said the US could remove some of its sanctions on Iran.

In the coming days, we may un-sanction the Iranian oil that's on the water. It's about 140 million barrels. So depending on how you count it, that's 10 days to two weeks of supply that the Iranians had been pushing out. That would have all gone to China.

In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days as we continue this campaign. And joining me now is NBC News Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake. NBC News Senior National Security Corresponding QB and NBC News Chief International Corresponding QR Simmons. Welcome all.

Garrett, let me start with you. There's been a lot of concern that we've heard about within the White House about these rising prices. Give us sort of a snapshot of where you think that stands today. Well, look, I think the White House is clearly aware of this problem and they're willing to do things that might otherwise be politically unpalatable to try to address it.

They've made several attempts to loosen sanctions on Russian oil in particular to get it back on the market to try to keep prices down. And that comment from Scott Bessent kind of cuts both ways. Loosing restrictions on Iranian oil and where it were with them seems counterintuitive. But it also speaks to the fact that the president's had to punt that big summit he planned to do with China.

Getting that Iranian oil back to China might keep things a little more copacetic with the Chinese. The administration has found themselves now, if they didn't know at the start, in the middle of a mess, as it relates to the global energy market. It is global. It doesn't necessarily relate just to American production.

And you're seeing them test different ways to, if not actually lower the price of oil, at least be caught trying to do so for the benefit of American consumers and voters. We saw the president sitting alongside the Japanese Prime Minister today. In the early days of this conflict, there was talk that Japan was one of the countries that he was urging to come help deal with the Strait of Hormuz. And he says where that stands now.

It's hard to say for sure. The president seemed to be pushing the prime minister to say something in that meeting saying several times that Japan was stepping up or would step up, sort of suggesting that they should step up. He kept using that language in different terms. The Japanese Constitution is essentially pacifist after World War II.

It is very difficult for them, keeping with their own laws and constitutions to deploy military assets anywhere outside their own territorial waters. It's unclear if there are any commitments made today in that meeting or afterwards. We're now several hours hence, and there's been nothing announced by the White House. There were a number of moments today where knowing history would have been very helpful in the interactions there in the body language we could see.

We also have seen some reporting. And it appeared that Secretary Hegset seemed to confirm it today that the Pentagon will ask Congress for as much as $200 billion to fund the ongoing operations of the United States. And the President gave a preview of what that might look like today, talking again about how elite American weaponry is and suggesting that our stockpiles need to be topped up not just for this conflict, but for the future. That matches his rhetoric at least about the state of the war and the state of munitions that we're using.

But it may not sell on Capitol Hill. I mean, Kelly, you know this well. It feels to me like that $200 million number is perhaps an opening offer for discussions that could take quite a while with Congress. It pretty evenly divided on this issue.

Eric, we thank you for that. Let me turn to Courtney now. And one of the questions today is was the US aware of? Did it give any tacit approval for the big strike that Israel carried out?

What is your reporting telling? Yeah, and we heard from President Trump first on Truth Social where he said that the US didn't know that that was going to happen, but that Israel wasn't going to do it again unless Iran were to retaliate here. What we're told, according to a US official familiar with this, is that in fact the US was aware that Iran or excuse me, that Israel was planning to carry out this strike. And the reason that this is such a big deal is not just the fact that Israel struck this facility, this very critical facility.

Well, gas facility is that Iran retaliated, striking a number of different facilities in the region, including one in Qatar. It's really caused a lot of concern and people being upset in the region about this. Now, the big question is, what will happen next? Will Israel actually follow through and not strike more oil and gas facilities?

Will Iran escalate even further? That's what everyone's watching to see. And it comes as we've been talking about forever. Gas prices are very high.

This only will make them rise higher. And do you get the sense that based on your reporting and then when the president says there's coordination, does that rise all the way to his level or is it the Pentagon is informed in advance of an operation line? It's hard to know and it could also be that it's CENTCOM that's informed of it or the combined air operations that are known as the KOC. It could be all of those things.

But it's hard to know when the military will say we should probably let the president know about this or not. We don't have a really good sense of his briefing schedule of how often they're keeping him updated on the ins and outs of this war. And I only point to one thing is evidence of that is he was very upset when the Wall Street Journal, excuse me, Reuters, I believe first reported that there were a number of US aircraft that had been damaged and Iranian strike early on. He read that in the press rather than being told about it.

So we don't have really get that so exactly what he thinks is interesting. Now this pledge from Israel as we understand it today, I'm holding off from additional strikes. Is that going to create tension between the US and Israel? Does that put them out of alignment?

I mean, what's very clear is no matter how this war started with the US and Israel together, their strategic goals have just have separated and that's notable right on its face. Absolutely. And I will say the US goals keep shifting. So now we keep hearing about the military goals and those that actually remain somewhat the same and that is going out for the ballistic missiles and the drones and sometimes they talk about the nuclear program, sometimes they don't.

But Iran is really focused on regime change in Iran. And we don't hear that as much from the United States. So we don't really know what the US political goals in Iran are right now. We are focused more on the military goals.

So there's a potential for a huge crossroads here at some point when the US really finishes carrying out some of these military objectives and is able to really take care of a lot of these Iranian threats. If Israel wants to keep going to get rid of the regime, is the US going to have to keep in this war as well? I mean, there's going to be a crossroads at some point where that happens. And are you seeing any evolution in the plans for US boots on the ground?

You've reported about some units that are moving to the area where the president say today he's not going to do that. How do you put those two things together? The more we get into this straight-of-war moves continuing to be closed or at least very inaccessible to most commercial traffic, I find it difficult to see a scenario where the US doesn't put boots on the ground. I don't know how they will reopen it in any short order without some sort of a military intervention here.

We don't exactly know what that's going to look like. The president keeps giving the same response, including again today saying, well, I don't think I'm going to do that, but I wouldn't tell you if I was going to anyway. So the reality is we just don't know. That has become his reflexive answer.

Let me turn now to Keir, who is in the region. He's in Saudi Arabia. I know you've been tracking a lot of the developments there, and obviously the region is hot. What can you tell us about what officials are saying about these strikes and how yet again it is expanded to partners in the region?

Yeah, I can't be worried. They're angry. They're frustrated. All of those things.

And when you talk to the Saudi Arabian government here, as we do, what you get from them is a sense that they are putting aside questions over how they started, who's responsible. But what they are saying is that Iran's behavior is frustrating, actually has them furious, and not least because in the past 24 hours, this meeting, emergency meeting of foreign ministers from around the region was held here in the capital we had, and there were missiles from Iran. We heard the boom. We saw the get to a safe place of alerts on our phones.

We heard all that while we were seeing ministers walking around the hotel lobby, and then we managed to ask the Saudi foreign minister about it. To me, it was clear that the attack today was timed to coincide with this meeting. In order to attempt, I don't know, to intimidate those present, to send home the message that Iran will not stop. All I can say is we were not intimidated.

So the reality is, any re-engagement with Iran, this conflict will end at some point. But I have to tell you what little trust there was before has completed and shattered. The piece of that, that people should really pay attention to, is that effectively what he's saying there is that this region is very close to the point of no return, where it becomes impossible to re-engage with Iran that might still have missiles or drones or the ability to effectively close the straighter for moves. In other words, this has to be finished.

And again, the overriding question with all the conversations you're having there is how do you get to the point where there is an outcome that these allies and partners of the US and the Trump administration satisfy them? These are some of the dominoes that happen when you cannot predict all of the consequences of war. Do you get a sense from the conversations you're having that that urgency to see it be concluded? How is that defined in time?

Is that weak, says we've heard President Trump sometimes talk about it? Do they see this spilling into a longer term? Well, I think they would like to see a conclusion quickly, but they also now are increasingly saying the governments here in the GCC, the Arab government, Islamic governments are increasingly saying we need to see the right conclusion. And just to think about this, in terms of a timeline, there are reports from Doha from Qatar that the strikes by Iran on the gas facilities there that are crucial to the world economy, that the repairs to that may take years.

Now, that is a serious impact on the world economy and inflationary impact. So already it's too late to conclude this without any repercussions, but the repercussions continue to escalate. And again, though, sensing, and it does depend on which government here you speak to, a man, for example, is much more interested in trying, as it says, to help the US get out of this effectively. It does depend on which government you speak to, but increasingly my sense is that they need to see the right conclusion to this, not just a quick conclusion to it, from their perspective.

Well, here, you are in the right place to help us understand this. Thank you so much for your reporting. And now I'm going to turn to more on how the war is affecting the energy markets, and we're joined by energy industry analysts, John Childau, founding partner of Again Capital. So you've heard our discussion.

If the US goes ahead and hits one of these gas fields and oil infrastructure, as the president has threatened, what would the impact be on global energy markets? It would be another escalation in today to you. Another escalation that is almost unimaginable. I mean, this was recent attack, you know, again, up the anti.

And just when you think the anti can't be raised anymore, it happens again. I will say the Iranian gas production out of the forest field is mostly for domestic consumption. So as far as upending the global supply, it doesn't necessarily have the impact it does if you're hitting the Qatari portion of the South Park fields. But at this point, we're watching all this very very closely in terms of what the balance is going to be.

I will say that the damage estimates and the repair estimates might be a little overblown. They generally exaggerate the amount of time that we take to get those sort of operations back online. I don't think it would take much more than really a year to a year and a half rather than the two and four that I'm hearing Daniel about in the marketplace. And we've been in our last report, her three to five.

And so that time piece is an important part of this. And you're suggesting that it wouldn't be as long even if there's ongoing conflict. Oh, no, the conflict has to stop. The straight has to get secured.

What we're focusing on here is these next two week period. The military seems to be indicating that this whole operation was a four to six week plan that the straight was not the top priority, which we're all learning the hard way. But it is now and it will be. I mean, you hear the administration officials will hands on deck, including Secretary Bessin talk about this and we're all using this two week sort of time period.

So let's see what kind of force they can muster to secure the transit of the Strait of Hormuz because that's where it's all going to be. It's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be some kind of required US military footprint on the ground in Iran along the shoreline at least to be able to secure the Strait. But this is what we're going to be learning in the coming days. I'll tell you the market reaction has been somewhat moderate.

We did see oil prices decline a bit here today on the idea floated that we could unsanction the Iranian floating source that the oil that's on tankers right now as the Secretary Bessin said as well. That would represent a chunk of supply that would help ease really what's developing into a crisis and shortages in Asia in particular. So even though those sanctions were meant to be punitive to the regime, it sounds like you're describing that that would sort of release the valve a bit and help to adjust some of the strain on the global market. Is that what you think?

Yes, I mean, it's a band-aid for an acute problem that we're facing. It's not fixed. There is nothing anyone can do to fix this situation in the short term. No matter how you slice and dice it, alternative pipelines, you name it in terms of trying to get oil out of the Gulf region in any way, shape or form, you're still talking about 10 million barrels a day at least of production and supply to the global market that's offline.

And we can't make that up anywhere, nohow. But for now, I will tell you that the oil market is pricing in and into this, a liberation, if you will, up to straight. Sooner rather than later, a lot of us have circled April 1st on our calendar is to see where we're at. But after that, period, once we get into April and now we're several more weeks into this and there's no resolution seemingly close, that's when you're really going to see oil prices ramp up and that's when you're going to start to see the shortages of supply hit the market.

And dare I remind you that if you circled April 1st, that's April Fool's Day. We hope that's not the case. The President talks about the fact that the US does not rely on the product coming through the straight or form moves. Does that make any difference given all of the supply issues that you described?

Well, if we still import about six to seven million barrels per day into the United States, mostly from Canada and the additional liberation of the Venezuelan oil that was also desanctioned recently, for lack of a better word, if that's a word, helped here as well. But no, it is not. Thank you. So in the April 1st, they fed.

What I was going to say is that we are energy dominant. People talk about it being energy independent. We're not that, but we're certainly not energy insulated. Okay, this is a global market.

And I will tell you that our barrels of crude oil that are being exported on the long the Gulf Coast will reflect just the premium and the security premium of the global marketplace very shortly because those ships in the Gulf here can obviously sell the Asia as well. It will take some time, but everybody will be on the hunt for every available battle through well as we get here into April. So that's why I say that we're definitely not energy insulated. That's a great observation and it will help people to understand this John Kindle killed up.

Thank you for being with us and having some fun with us on very serious matters. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Coming up, the president's own intelligence community is unable to back up his primary justification for this war that Iran posed an imminent threat against the United States as top national security officials are again grilled on Capitol Hill. You're watching. Meet the press now. Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood?

It's not luck. It's local know how. Relax agents know their street schools and communities inside and out. And with three max those local pros are everywhere, which means when you're ready to buy yourself, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead.

Reach out today. Relax the experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated. Hey guys, Willie guys to here reminding you to check out the Sunday sit down podcast on this week's episode.

I get together with Red Hot Stand Up comedian Nikki Glazer to talk about the long career grind that has brought her to this starring moment hosting the Golden Globes killing at the Tom Brady Rose to now with another hit special on Hulu. You can get our conversation now for free wherever you download your podcasts. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. You are as deeper access and exclusive content.

And now during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash membership to learn more. XFINITY. Imagine that.

Subscription automatically renews each year at 6599 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Order ends May 20th, 2026, price is subject to change. Visit NBC News dot com slash ethnicity for full offer terms and details. Welcome back.

President Trump has repeatedly justified the war with Iran by saying there was an imminent threat to the United States, but during testimony on Capitol Hill today, top intelligence officials presented no specific evidence of such a threat and their explanation sometimes seemed at odds with the administration. Let's watch. So is there any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the US prior to beginning this war? Yes or no.

or no. Congressman, the answer to this question needs to be reserved for a closed hearing. I will say, however, the intelligence community does provide the assessments of the threats that exist to the president so that he can make that determination. As the DNI said, there's a body of intelligence that will be able to cover in the classified portion of this hearing that reflects the does reflect that in the likely event of a conflict between Iran and Israel that the U.S.

would be immediately attacked, regardless of whether the United States stayed out of that conflict. Now, this all comes after yesterday when, under questioning from senators, DNI Gabbard said the intelligence community assessed that Iran, quote, maintained the intention to rebuild their nuclear capabilities but had not resumed uranium enrichment since the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear sites. And joining me now is NDC, his intelligence reporter Dan DeLuse.

Dan, welcome. What does this tell us about the kinds of intelligence that the president was reviewing before he made these decisions? It was interesting, right? We had two days of this testimony and they were asked, you know, what did the president know about the possible retaliation that Iran would take?

Would they shut down this trade of removes? Would they attack energy sites across the region? And their answers indicated that he was informed about those possibilities. And here's what Gabbard said when she was asked.

Did the intelligence community brief the president on the potential impacts a conflict could have on global supply chains and an oil and gas prices prior to the outbreak of hostilities? Yes. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. Reading. Reading. Reading.

Reading. the sort of shape of frame issues often, right? And this is a situation where the facts and the reporting and the intelligence that's coming across in these hearings doesn't always sink with the way he would like to frame something. And so I think what he's having a problem with is articulating the rationale for the war still because it has shifted.

And then also trying to explain how the US was prepared for these foreseeable reactions from Iran. And do you think that because this is now public that it may in any way alter how the president has to then answer these questions in the future because we've had this testimony? I think it makes us life more complicated. That is a complicated job.

Dan, thank you so much. We appreciate your expertise on this. And up next, an NBC News exclusive. This is new reporting on allegations of a kickback scheme tied directly to Cori Lewandowski, a top advisor to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, a long-time ally of the president.

He's denying those allegations, but we'll explain more of it coming up on Meet the President. Renox, the experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated. Stay informed with the NBC News app.

Breaking news is just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day. And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows.

Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.

An exclusive new reporting from NBC News that multiple companies complain to the White House, that Cori Lewandowski as a special government employee at the Department of Homeland Security, directly or indirectly stood to personally profit from the DHS contracting process. And that is according to four senior White House officials and a former White House official and a person familiar with the conversations. And one White House official telling NBC News they had received a quote, doesn't complain from at least four companies about Lewandowski's involvement in the contracting process. Now Lewandowski denies these allegations.

We have now one of the people who's been working four months on this story. Julia Ainsley is here with us. And Julia, you have been doing a lot of the very difficult work to trace all of this, to follow the money kind of story. And for our viewers to understand that contracting is supposed to be separate from anything that would allow for personal enrichment.

So give us a sense of what have you found and how surprised were the companies involved in having this alleged ask for some kind of benefit. Well, as you know, we've been reporting this over the past seven months and it has not been a quiet seven months on the DHS be the surges across cities, fatal shootings by ICE and CBP. But this is something that came to my attention that in the last summer we started working with our colleagues across NBC News because it seemed that these allegations just kept adding up and we were hearing they were starting to make their way to the White House. The allegation being that Cori Lewandowski directly and indirectly was soliciting payment from people who wanted to do business with DHS.

And as you point that out, so well, this is supposed to be a political process. It's supposed to be left in the hands of procurement officers who look at all the bids in a competitive process and decide who can do this in the best manner for the cheapest amount of money for the American taxpayer. So taxpayer money is at hand here. And what we understand is that Cori Lewandowski in a meeting with Geo Group CEO George Dolly, that's the largest holding of ICE to regular contractor.

Regular contractor, they hold a billion dollars in ICE contracting. They hold the most ICE attention anywhere in the country that he told Zoli he wanted an exchange for a proportional amount of money in exchange for contracts that he could renew or get new contracts for Geo Group. He refused. And as a result, we've seen Geo Group, a company who stuck sword after Trump's election, actually lose contracts and have their contracts shortened.

And another example, there was an indirect payment solicited through a third party through a company named Salas that had previously been awarded a $1 billion contract through DHS. They reached out to a marketing firm about contracts. They said they could have for multi-million dollars, it was secured as long as they properly thanked the person who secured it for them. And they told this marketing firm that would be a consulting firm that would ultimately pay Cori Lewandowski.

Kind of like a finder's fee that if you help bring about the deal, you'd get some kind of a benefit through a company he was associated with or something like that. Again, he has denied these allegations. And neither of those companies paid was tricky here as you know, as those who will pay are probably less likely to speak to us. But those who refused to pay feel that they didn't get the contract that they wanted as a result.

And your reporting also shows the White House has been made aware of this and has expressed some concerns. That's right. Even President Trump were told it did get to him in a meeting in a meeting last fall. Someone raised the concern that Cori Lewandowski may be getting paid as he had this very large influence over the contracts of DHS to approve of anything over $100,000 as did Cristino.

And so this was brought to him. One White House official said that they are aware of the allegations of pay to play. And then as you also point out, the beginning one White House official, this was a third said they were aware of dozens of complaints about his role in the contracting process. And we know that Cristino has been fired.

She's out by March 31st. What's the future for Lewandowski? You know, it's interesting. I spoke to Cori Lewandowski on the phone last week.

And he said, first of all, that he's never taken one penny from any contractor that he's overseen their contract bits for. And he also said that he has not made any decision about whether he will leave the government or not that he is there as a volunteer unpaid employee. And he does not see Cristino's departure as a sign that he needs to leave. And he believes he still has a good relationship with the president.

As you know, Kelly, he goes back to even. Way back 2015. Yes, exactly. He was early campaign managers.

Yes. We also heard during the confirmation hearing for Mark Wayne Mullen that there is ongoing scrutiny of this. And he said he would go along with any investigation when he takes over. He did.

It was an interesting exchange. And I know you watched it where it's actually a matter of DHS or the Congress saying, would you look at help us with our investigation? And then he says, basically, it's an IT investigation that we've confirmed into a $220 million ad campaign. And now he says he will be supportive.

And we'll be watching that for sure. Congratulations on really impactful reporting. And after the break, the growing costs of war, President Trump tells reporters that an additional $200 billion to fund the Iran war is quote, a small price to pay. We'll get the panels take.

This is me, the press now. In its panel time, despite the president repeatedly insisting that the war with Iran is nearly over, today he appeared to confirm the Pentagon is seeking as much as $200 billion from Congress to finance the war. Well, we're asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we're talking about in Iran. When this is a very volatile world.

So we're in very good shape, but we want to be in the best shape, the best shape we've ever been in. We want to be sure that it's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top tippy top on Capitol Hill Republicans today sounded open to funding a massive request. Joining me now is our panel Audrey Fallberg, reporter for the National Review, Chuck Roca host of a sub-stack show, the Roca Revolution and co-host of the Latino Vote podcast and Mark Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. And of course, he's also contributor on Meet the Press.

So Audrey, let me start with you. We heard a little bit from Republicans. What is your assessment of how they are looking at this number? Is it sticker shock or is it what they expect?

Well, thank you for having me on today. You know, when we think about Congress, we think about it theoretically as an institution that likes to jealously guard its power. I think under the Trump administration, Republicans have been really amenable to all of Trump's requests, whether that's, you know, tariffs, you know, foreign entanglements overseas. I think broadly speaking, when we think about House and Senate leadership, they're going to be amenable to probably to whatever number that Trump wants, definitely watching moderate Republicans because they're not just going to want to invoice.

They're going to want to, some of them are going to want to probably try to start some congressional authority over the war in Iran. Mark, we've heard from Republicans at times when Ukraine was in the subject line for funding for that. A lot of pushback. Do you think this will be viewed quite differently?

Oh, I do. I think there's much more unity to support American troops. And conflict, and frankly, Kelly, I think you'll end up seeing Democrat support too. I don't think Democrats want to be perceived as voting against troops.

And I think that because the margin of the House is so small, they're going to need it to be bipartisan. So I think you're going to see this bill like it always does become larger, include other priorities that Democrats have, and therefore get the funding across the line. Well, let's turn to you then. Do you think Democrats will be in that kind of tough spot of wanting to look like they're supportive of men and women in uniform?

Want to replenish the supplies that are needed, et cetera? Or is this a time to show some opposition? You know, if everybody's taxes were low and everybody's belly was full and gas was $3 a gallon, I think they'd be amenable. I don't think right now that's the case.

I think that this Congress always finds a way to fund wars, but we can't find a way to fund Medicaid, fund childcare, fund things that will bring down utility costs. That's what I hear every day. I'm not just don't TV pontificating. I run campaigns across the country and every voter, Democrat, Republican and independent are sick in time of this anxiety around the cost of living.

They don't want to see their tax dollars to spit wars overseas. And are you hearing that notion that the president talks about that? It's a short term thing that's worth it to try to eradicate a problem with Iran that costs maybe of as a result? If it was a short term thing in America's money would already be over.

It's already went too long for folks to call gas prices. Everything that everybody has to do with every day, that war is a vision a long way away. But what they deal with every day is on their mind. Audrey, there was a really notable moment today when the president was with the Japanese Prime Minister and they were talking about why Japan wasn't notified ahead of time for the US action in Iran.

The president used a bit of history in an awkward moment. Let's play that and then talk about it. One thing you don't want to signal too much, you know, when we go in, we went in very hard and we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan?

Okay, why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor? You could see the Prime Minister breathing in there, obviously, for more than 80 years, the US and Japan have been trying to heal that relationship and have had a strong bond. Was that an issue for President Trump? Were you surprised by it?

How do you think people will hear that? I wasn't particularly surprised by that. I think the president likes to keep foreign leaders on their toes. I'm a political reporter.

I was in the White House when Trump made a similar crack to the German Chancellor's face. You know, this kind of thing is coming with him. I think he likes to keep foreign leaders on their toes. I think broadly speaking, those two do have a solid relationship.

She's kind of new to that new to her post and maybe he's trying to test her a little bit, but definitely kind of a wild thing to watch in real time. It was something to watch and check what do you think in terms of the president has said he wants help from Japan with the straight and the four moves that has not been forthcoming. That is a moment where she appeared uncomfortable, hard to know what was in her thoughts. I think every time he has one of these things in the White House where he has a foreign leader there and he spent so much of his presidency deal with international and I understand as the president you have to do with international matters.

But what I just said while I go is there so much wrong on domestic soil? I think every time I voter sees whether it's this person or this other folks, they see him dealing with international stuff when they're like we should be focusing on what things are at home. Well, let's go home in terms of you had worked in the White House. You were part of the Trump administration in the 45 era.

Want to point your attention to the reporting we've talked about today from some of my colleagues about Corey Lewandowski who you obviously know who's been working as a top aide to Secretary Noam at DHS. So the reporting suggests that there may have been requests for some kind of compensation in exchange for contracts related to especially the mass deportations. He denies those claims. Does that have legs in a Trump White House?

Is that something that would get the president's attention? Of course it would. Kelly and I think also the fact that you're seeing Republicans initiate investigations. I don't think they'd be doing that unless the White House was comfortable with it.

I think there's no doubt that President Trump can tell them to stop those investigations. The fact that he's not gives me every reason to believe that the White House is comfortable investigating this further. And is there an atmosphere in sort of the Trump era where people are engaged in some level of business relationships? We see that with Jared Kushner who is also one of these, he's not even a special government employee at this time, but he is not being paid by taxpayers, but he's in roles officially.

Is there an environment that's been fostered by the Trump administration? I think in the second Trump administration, there's an extraordinary amount of grift that I think a lot of Americans aren't comfortable with. And so I think this is just a piece of it. I think also when you think about the way this presidency started with Doge and about us all talking about waste fraud and abuse, we're going to save all of this money.

I think that this allows in the face of that. I think the American voters just wanting somebody to be responsible and spend their tax dollars on things that matter to them. We're at a turning point, Audrey, with the Department of Homeland Security awaiting a new secretary. First step of the vote today from our coin, Mullen, the committee passed him out through the Senate.

Now for the next review. Do you see that as a turn the page moment based on your reporting there? I absolutely do. I think people are really optimistic that Mullen will work better with DHS officials.

You have to remember looking back. I mean, the strongly broke the camel's back was the president's frustration that during a Senate judiciary committee hearing, Noam had suggested that the president greenlight that $220 million ad campaign has become so controversial. Beyond that, there's also been a lot of infighting between Noam and other DHS leaders like borders our town, Tom Homan and others. There's hope that under Mullen, that kind of infighting will stop.

And do you get a sense that that could in any way lead to a resolution of the budget impasse with DHS or is that on its own track? I think it's shocking in the midst of us having a conflict with Iran. Democrats are stopping funding of the Department of Homeland Security. We've already seen a couple of domestic incidents and the fact that they're not providing security for the United States citizens, I think is absolutely shocking.

I was surprised though on the hearing that I thought Republicans should have been focused on that message. Like the fact that Republicans aren't hitting that message each and every day, I think it's an incredible liability for Democrats. We should be on the offense there. But instead, we're talking about, you know, personal attacks on Rand Paul as opposed to focusing on Democrats not funding Homeland Security.

There were a couple of senators, Moreno and Hawley, who took their time to make that case. It should be unified. It did not break through with some of the contentious aspects of this. I want to say thank you to our panel.

Appreciate all your insights and coming in today and giving us your real world expertise. Thank you so much. And we're going to turn now to the latest installment of what we call our common ground series, where Democratic Congressman Jimmy Panetta of California and Republican Congressman Tracy Mann of Kansas have teamed up to co-captain the Congressional football team. Now, while they didn't win their annual game against the US Capitol Police this week, the Congressman told Kristen Wilker, our of course regular host of this program that part of being on the team is about much more than the game itself.

And it has helped Republicans and Democrats come together, have some fun tackle, no pun intended. Yeah, it is intended. Some of the congressional issues that can be most troubling. Let's look at her conversation.

So you're both sore after this game. A little bit of your mirror still sore, still some bumps and bruises, but slow the recovery. Well, Congressman Panetta, this game is about so much more than football. This is about raising money.

And it's about bipartisanship. So y'all didn't win the game, but talk about the importance and why you wanted to participate in that. Yeah, that's an understatement about not winning. But the fact is that there are other goals when it comes to the congressional football game in which Democrats and Republicans with the aid of a few former football players play against the Capitol Police.

Obviously, it is about the game, but it's also about the charities that we support. I think we raised over $350,000 for charities, especially the Capitol Police Memorial Fund, Boys and Girls Club here in Washington DC, A Advantage for Kids and our military kids, all impactful charities that are taking place and affecting people's lives right here. So, yes, it's about the game. Yes, it's about the charities.

And it is about bipartisanship and opportunity for us to come together, which unfortunately now is few and far between. Well, and pick up on that point, Congressman Mann, to what extent does this foster bipartisanship? You are co-captains of this great team. And you and I are talking about the practices are almost as important as the game is now.

I want to get to the co-captains of my good friend, Jun Panetta. You know, I'm from Kansas, Eastern California. It cannot be more different in some ways. But the point is you get to know people.

And you know, when you're sweating, you know, in the mornings at practice and the sun's coming up, doesn't matter where part of your firm, there's commonalities that you reach. You know, you get to know people the way you would otherwise part of the problem in Washington DC is that people just don't know each other. And there are ways to do that. And things like this bipartisan football game, one is a lot of fun, but two is a way to get to know people in ways you would otherwise.

Well, it's just fantastic and kudos for raising all of that money for really important causes on the issue of bipartisanship. I want to talk about some of the pressing issues facing Congress right now. Let's start with the partial government shutdown. DHS shut down currently Democrats demanding some key changes to ICE tactics.

The White House has actually put forward some proposals. I want to read it so our viewers have a sense of the administration releasing a letter detailing the changes that's willing to make including body worn cameras for officers limiting immigration enforcement at sensitive locations like hospitals and schools and allowing oversight of detention facilities. Congressman Mann, would you vote for these reforms to DHS? Is this something you'd get behind?

I'd have to look at them, but certainly the White House is putting that forward. Those seem reasonable at first glance. It's always about the details. But at the end of the day, we got to come together as a country.

What you just outlined seem pretty reasonable to me, but we'll take a look at it. Well, Congressman Penetta, the list that I just read only addresses some of what Democrats are demanding. One of the big things is they're demanding that the masks be abandoned, that they no longer can wear masks, for example. Do the reforms go far enough for you?

Would you be able to get behind what I just read? Yes, and look at a former prosecutor. I dealt with law enforcement quite a bit for close to 20 years. And if you're going to call yourself law enforcement, then you dang well, they're act like law enforcement.

Unfortunately, what we've seen, especially in the Appalachian, through other parts of the country, you have a rogue agency that's acting with impunity that really is not anything like the law enforcement I dealt with at the local levels. And so I would hope that there are these certain basic, common sensical law enforcement procedures and protocols that could get put in place before we do anything. You mentioned three of them. Obviously, our leader, Jeffries, has come out with a list of them that include other things like judicial warrants before you go into a house, making sure there's not a paramilitary force that's out there acting with impunity, and making sure that there are actually body cameras that are worn, stored, and it has proper protocols when it comes to that.

So, like I said, it comes down that if you're going to call yourself law enforcement, you got to act like law enforcement and these types of procedures have to put in place before we even consider determining whether or not we're going to vote for the HHS funding. All right, let's talk about the Save Act now. Again, just for some context, it would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, as well as a photo ID when voting. Nationwide, Congressman Mann Records showed that just 4% of voters, 0.04% of voter verification cases are returned as non-citizens.

Why is this bill necessary? Yeah, well, 4% matters a lot when you look at the elections around. We have some elections that come down to 20, 30, 40 votes. I mean, every vote matters.

Certainly, Kansas, the San Francisco process. The Save Act, unfortunately, is about putting up barriers is what's happening here, and it's making it more difficult and tougher and actually going after something that really isn't an issue when it comes to undocumented people voting. There has yet to be any sort of solid evidence that's been presented to make this such a big deal. Once again, I'm 4% of voter identification, but it also comes down to when they show it, how they show it, what form of identification is necessary, and it was just so burdensome in the Save Act, that's why I voted against it.

Congressman Mann, the president is proposing adding some amendments to the Save Act, which you're likely aware of. It would include banning biological men from women's sports and transition surgeries for transgender minors. Do you think those amendments make it even more difficult to pass the Save Act, which is already in a field battle? Yeah, we'll see.

The Save America Act has passed the House twice now. I've hardly supported it or it's over in the Senate right now. There'll be various amendments that'll come up on the Senate side probably, and we'll just have to take a look at what those actually end up being. Do you think those amendments though do make it more complicated to get it through?

But actually, by the law, those amendments, there's quite a bit of bipartisan support, some common sense things as well. So it just all depends on what the amendment is and how it's approached. All right, I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about actual ways that you think Congress can do a better job of coming together. Public trust in Congress right now is near historic lows.

Only 16% of Americans saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. That's according to recent polling. Congressman Panetta, why do you think this number is so low and what do you think you and your fellow lawmakers can do about it? Look, unfortunately, when you turn on the TV today, it's excluding your show, you see, you see the partisans yelling and screaming at each other.

And like I said earlier, good governing is just not sexy these days. But to me, good governing is good politics. And that's why I'm here to get stuff done and to gravitate towards people like Tracy, as you heard, we're going to have our differences. But we're not here just to point out our differences.

We're here to at least find our similarities. And what I have to tell you and your viewers is that for the most part, there are people on both sides out that actually come here to work together to get stuff done. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are here just to yell and scream to blow things up and to not find solutions. However, people need to understand that for the most part, there are Democrats and Republicans willing to sit down willing to have those conversations, willing to get to know one another to develop that trust upon what you can actually come up with meaningful, impactful legislation.

Congressman Mann, final point to you. What would you tell your fellow lawmakers about finding common ground? Sure. Well, I was just getting to know each other, right?

And really outlining where the ways that we can agree and come together. We have to remember that Congress is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator for the country. So the country's very divided. So as there's a lot of course, the Congress is going to be divided as well.

We've got to keep talking about the areas we have a lot of common ground. And those would be things like, look at these housing bills that are coming up. You know, there's a lot of broad bipartisan support to lower the cost of housing on the House Act Committee, broad bipartisan sport out of the Farm Bill that we passed out of committee two weeks ago. There's going to be a big surface representation.

We are a liberalization of roads, bridges, art, we're a Democrat. They need to be done for the good assistance. And those are things we ought to be focusing on. Beyond just being co-chairs and co-captains of the football team, we're co-chairs of the future farmers of America Caucus.

And so, you know, he has different agriculture than with his row crops than my specialty crops. But there are certain areas and the people who work in agriculture are where we want to find our similarities and solutions for them knowing how hard they work. And we both strongly support young people looking at agriculture as a career field. And that's an easy thing to get by.

Well, undoubtedly all of his football practices helped you to find some of that as well in that critical issue. Thank you for raising that. Really appreciate it, Congressman Mann and Congressman Panetta. Great conversation.

Thanks for being here. Thank you. And I'll add our thanks to the Congressman and the Christian for that thoughtful conversation. We will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

And as always, you can catch up on full episodes of Meet the Press and Meet the Press Now with the Meet the Press podcast. Just scan the QR code and listen now whenever wherever you get your podcast. There's more news ahead on NBC News Now. I'm Craig Malef.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half-hole kind of guy.

And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, the challenges, their stories are funny and I can't. So I hope you'll join each week. Who knows?

You might just come away with your own glass half-hole. Search glass half-hole with Craig Milford from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.