Meet the Press NOW — March 21

If it's Friday, President Trump ramps up attacks on the judicial branch and claims sweeping and unchecked powers to round up and deport people. As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tells me the press the US Is facing a constitutional crisis. Plus, Elon Musk visits the Pentagon for a briefing that President Trump and defense Chief Pete Hegseth insists was focused on Doge, denying reports that the tech billionaire was set to receive information on tox secret war plans. And counterterrorism.

Police are investigating the massive fire that forced one of the world's busiest airports to completely shut down, causing major travel disruptions for hundreds of thousands of passengers all around the world. Welcome to Read THE Press now. I'm Kristen Welker on a very busy Friday as President Trump escalates his attacks on the judiciary, with lawyers back in court this afternoon defending his sweeping use of wartime powers just hours after the president in the Oval Office claimed he has virtually unchecked power to round up people in this country and deport them without due process. Mr.

Trump's comments are the latest salvo in an escalating battle with a federal judge over the president's authority to invoke a rarely used wartime act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to a notorious super prison in El Salvador without having to provide any hard evidence to a court about their activities. Now, late yesterday, the judge who's trying to determine if the administration violated his order about those deportation flights, called the government's answers to his questions, quote, woefully insufficient. In the oval office today, Mr. Trump told reporters that he, not a judge, has the ultimate authority over deportation matters.

We can't let a judge say that he wants to get. He didn't run for president. He didn't get much more than 80 million votes. And we just can't let that happen.

Mr. President, do you think you have the authority, the power to round up people, to court them, and then you're under no obligation to a court to show me evidence against them? Well, that's what the law says and that's what our country needs, because we were unfortunately, they allowed millions of people to come into our country totally unveiled, totally unchecked. Until now, the law the president is referring to has only been invoked during times of war.

When Congress had made an official declaration of war. The president was also asked how he could be sure that everyone deported to that super prison in El Salvador was, in fact, members of a transnational gang. I was told that they went through a very strong vetting process and that that will also be continuing in El Salvador. And if there's anything like that, we would certainly want to find out.

But these were, these were a bad group. This was a bad group and they were in bad areas. And they were with a lot of other people that were absolutely killers, murderers and people that were really bad with the worst records you've ever seen. And but we will continue that process.

Absolutely. We don't want to make that kind of a mistake. The people deported under the Alien Enemies act did not have final orders of removal, and some of them had not been convicted of crimes. A DHS spokesperson, meanwhile, tells NBC News that immigration officials will continue to deport immigrants to El Salvador if they have a final order for deportation, arguing that Judge Bossberg's order only applies to use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Judge Bossberg has not indicated if he'll rule that the Trump administration violated his order and if so, what he'll do in response. But he has given the administration until Tuesday to explain in detail how his actions were not a violation of his orders. Joining me now to start us off, NBC News White House correspondent Mish Alison Dorr has the very latest. Also with the NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Angley and NBC News legal analyst and former U.S.

attorney Carol Lamb. Thanks to all of you for being here. Yamiche, let me start with you. Thanks for being here in studio.

What are you hearing from within the administration about the status of this fight? Is the Justice Department going to continue to dig in? Are they going to give the judge the information the judge is asking for? It's a good question.

It seems like the Justice Department is going to try to come up with some information that will give this judge partly what he wants. But the president today was very clear that he believes that he has the authority to sort of almost ignore part of what this judge is saying. He called him a radical lunatic judge, left wing judge. Of course, we know that there have been Republicans have been pushing back on President Trump's attacks on the judiciary.

But that means that the president feels like he has the windows back when it comes to this issue. He feels like he has this mandate. And the Department of Justice has been sort of really echoing that stance and echoing that in the court, which I think is really remarkable. And I remember last weekend when I realized that the Trump administration was literally ignoring the court order and that it has not stopped those planes mid flight, that they did allow them to land in El Salvador.

And by the way, they were denying that they did that. So this is really, I think A Trump administration that's feeling bold. Yeah. And, Julie, it's so fascinating because you heard President Trump there talk about the, quote, unquote, thorough vetting process.

What can you tell us about this process? Just how thorough is it? We don't know, because it never was presented in court, unlike the normal judicial review process, where you're going to have a prosecutor present in court. Everything that they have that either tie someone to a certain group or evidence of a crime, or you may even have a jury who can weigh on whether or not there's enough evidence.

We didn't have any of that. Here. Right now they're saying that they are tying these people to this ganga from Venezuela. They did not necessarily say any of them had or all of them committed crimes.

It was a ratchet of some of the crimes they've told us about, that we're supposed to just take their word. And then they've also said in court declarations that many of them don't have a criminal history, but they just think it was only a matter of time until they would commit a crime in the United States. I'll tell you what's different about the way they're using alien enemies now, besides the fact that we're not at war. But it's that they are focusing on this gang rather than nationality, which actually makes it a lot harder to prove a connection to a gang than it would be, say, a nation that we are war with.

And with that, let me go to Carolyn. Carol, let me read you part of Judge Boseberg's ruling from yesterday. He writes, quote, defendants shall file a brief showing cause why they did not violate the court's temporary restraining orders by failing to return class members removed from the United states on the two earliest planes that departed on March 15, 2025. This speaks to the point that Yamiche was making.

I mean, it sounds like the judge is effectively saying, I gave you a pretty clear court order and you violated it. Is that effectively what he's saying? Yeah, that's what he's saying. Or he's saying you haven't showing that it didn't violate it.

So what you would expect to see in response by the government is saying, look, we put the order out, but the pilot said he didn't have enough fuel and he had to go to his destination. But the government is silent on what happened, which leads one to believe that they never even contacted the plains to tell whether the judge had made this order. And that is. That's a real problem.

This judge is trying to get to the bottom of a very simple matter and keep being stonewalled by the government. And you can tell that the government had already lost so much before they even walked into court today because the judge started off by saying, I have now read several pleadings that have intemperate and disrespectful language that I am not used to hearing from the government. You know, when you get into this kind of fight as a government attorney with the court, you've already lost. And I'm not just saying that it's bad form, which it is, but what it means is that you've lost all credibility with the court.

And the judge isn't going to leave anything you say. I think that's where the government is now. I don't care what happens if the judge determines ultimately that this is a violation of his order. What, if any, recourse or remedy does this judge have?

Well, the judge can, you know, it really depends what the evidence is. The judge has to determine whether these individuals are still within United States control. So can the United States simply say to the El Salvadorian government, bring these people back? Because the judge has.

A judge here has so ordered. I mean, it looks like they're still technically in US custody. They just have been contracted out for $6 million to another country. But we don't know any of those facts.

We don't know purposely on the part of the Department of Justice. They are simply stonewalling not just the court, but the American people. Julia, let me turn back to you because the hearing just wrapped up. What do we know about what happened at this hearing that just wrapped up?

You know what? I'm going to have to get back to you. That's a pop quiz for me. Just wrapped up.

So that's okay that you're still doing, but I'm reading out. Let me turn to you, because political speaking, this carries a fair amount of risks. I interviewed leader Chuck Schumer and he said to me he thinks that this amounts to a constitutional crisis because you have President Trump saying that this judge should be impeached because his allies are saying this judge should be impeached. The chief Supreme Court justice weighing in and saying that impeachment is not a remedy to a disagreement with the court.

Talk about the politics of this. The politics of this is really remarkable because what you have here is Chief Justice Roberts appointed by a Republican, though of course, they say, of course Supreme Court justices wear black robes, not blue or red. But there's this idea that you have a Republican appointed judge, Judge Judge really trying to hold the line there and say, look, the party doesn't want. What we don't do is attack judges, and we don't sort of not go around and go around the appeals process.

Here's a way that we do this in our country so we don't attack judges. But the president, again, feels like he has the wind at his back. The president has been making this argument that there's this deep state conspiracy theory and that he has this mandate that Democrats have really pushed back on this idea. But he believes he has this mandate because he wants popular vote and all the battleground things, that he should essentially be allowed to do what he wants to do.

And his allies and Republicans are echoing that message. So you really have sort of this present day argument that's feeding into this argument that President Trump has been making over years, almost a decade now. Right. So I think in some ways, the President's not gonna stop, he's not gonna slow down.

But even more, you're gonna also see, I think other Republicans, unless they decide to hold the line, like the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, they're gonna continue to echo this. So I imagine this is gonna be an argument that's just gonna continue to ratchet up and ratchet up. Okay, so, Carol, if that happens, is that the very definition of a constitutional crisis, as you says, there's gonna be this ratcheting up. Well, it's hard to say what the definition of a constitutional crisis is.

There's definitely a rub here where you have two supposedly co. Equal branches of the government, and one is saying, this falls within, saying, well, no, you know, the court is saying, it has always been the province of the federal court to decide on the constitutionality of laws and whether the other branches of government are acting within the confines of those laws. That is long standing precedent in this country. And here the Trump administration is saying, we get to define what a war is, we get to define what an invasion is, and we get to define what a foreign government is.

And in that, in this instance, we decided that, you know, a criminal gang from Venezuela is a foreign government and has committed an invasion by having some members come to come to the United States. And even that fact has not been proven. So what the judiciary is saying is that, no, you have to actually individually prove each of these things. And the government is saying, no, we don't.

You know, this is a political branch decision. So in that sense, yes, it is. It is certainly a constitutional dispute, and I suppose you could call it a crisis as well. In the sense that somebody is going to have to decide what is right here.

And that should be the court. Well, it's something we'll watch very closely. And Julia, let me back to you. I didn't mean to give you a power quiz, but we should note that things are moving so quickly and that as journalists, we are trying to keep up with these incredibly fast moving developments.

So we're literally just getting these coordinatings are close. So luckily, you know, we have producers were able to tell us what's going on while we're observing everything out here. So this is coming from our producer in the courtroom. Actually, Judge Poster did not rule one way or another about whether or not the Trump administration was in violation of this order that may come.

Actually, the newsiest thing coming out of this came from the plaintiff attorney legal and we've seen him a lot on our air. He said there were mistakes made. And he's about to file an affidavit saying that there were no mistakes made on Saturday night. And there were actually some people on these planes who came back to the United States, including women because the president of El Salvador said I'm not taking women.

And then some of the people came weren't even from El Salvador. So this is throwing this entire idea that they have to invoke this wartime power in order to target this very dangerous gang that they labeled a terrorist organization into a whirlwind because it's hard for them to point to the fact that they have enough evidence if mistakes were made. And in fact, the judge drilled insign Drew inside, who's a lawyer representing the Trump administration here. Did you advance notice this was coming?

In other words, why were these mistakes made if you knew he was going to be signing this act? And he said it certainly could have been that they had advanced notice. And he's going and he thinks it's likely that some of these mistakes were made. That's a hugely significant twist and one that we will continue to track very closely.

Thank you so much, Julia Yamiche and Caroliam really appreciate the group conversation. We want to turn now to another aspect of President Trump's efforts to expand the power of the executive branch, which Elon Musk is playing a major role in. And that has led to questions about the scope of Musk's power as well. Speaking in the Oval Office this morning, President Trump denied a report in the New York Times that Elon Musk was being briefed on military plans surrounding potential war between the US And China.

But notably, the president did acknowledge the potential conflict that would pose given Musk's business interests in the region. Look, I don't want to show that anybody, but certainly wouldn't show it to a businessman who is helping us so much. He's a great patriot. He's taking.

It's taking a big price for helping us cut costs. He's doing a great job. He's finding tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. But I certainly wouldn't want, you know, Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible perhaps to that.

I think Elon, if they ever wanted to do that, I think Elon wouldn't do it. I think he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't want to put himself in that position. Now, Mosh was in fact, brief at the Pentagon today, the meeting with Defense Secretary Hicks that apparently lasted just over an hour.

Asked by reporters how it went, Musk said, quote, it's always a great meeting. With me now is a BCB senior national Security correspondent, Courtney qb, outside the Pentagon court. Great to see you. So what more do we know about this meeting at the Pentagon this morning?

We don't know a whole lot. We haven't gotten a readout on or anything. But the reality is we were told by defense officials in advance that this was focused on a couple of things. Number one, Doge, the personnel cuts that we're expecting that Doge will continue to make here at the Pentagon throughout the Department of Defense, but that there also would be a component on China.

Now, the defense officials told us that the China briefing would be sort of basic, almost like a China 101. It would be unclassified. But the reality is the conversation could have included things that would have been of a more sensitive or secret nature. The meeting we expected to be held in the tank, actually, as far as we know, they never left the Secretary of Defense's overall suites, that sort of office, the conference room, there's a dining room in there.

They never really left that area. But they could have more sensitive conversations in there because most of that area is a skiff or a compartmentalized area where you can talk about classified or sensitive information. But, Kristen, as I said, we did not get a readout of this. We do not expect one at this point.

But the expectation, according to defense officials, is they would discuss things about China and specifically even things about the potential of censorship, conflicts with China and what that would look like. Well, you know, it was so notable to hear President Trump try to draw a line. He acknowledged Elon Musk's business interests when it comes to China. What are you hearing in inside the Pentagon?

There's clearly been a sense of unease about his visit. Yeah, I mean, and part of that is when you talk about the potential for some sort of conflict of interest with Elon Musk. So he's serving as the head of Doge. He is not Senate confirmed.

He has billions of dollars, his Companies, Tesla and SpaceX, in Department of Defense contracts that stretch over years of time. When you talk about the potential for conflict of interest with the US Government and his role in Doge, this is really ground zero for that, Kristen. And that's why there has been a lot of concern. Now, the consistent line that we have heard from President Trump and from others in the Department of Defense is that Elon Musk has and will continue to recuse himself of anything that could be a conflict of interest or could cross any kind of ethical line.

But the reality is there is not much transparency about exactly what he is doing. Secretary Heifeth did release a memo yesterday that had a little bit of detail about the $580 million in additional cuts that were identified by Doge. But we don't know, have still, and frankly don't expect to get any kind of a list of all of the contracts and programs that are being cut as part of Doge. So, again, without more insight into exactly what Elon Musk is doing and what he's looking at, what he has access to, we just don't know if those conflicts are being violated.

Another thing I think I have to point out what we do believe, that Elon Musk has a security clearance as part of a civilian role. Remember, a clearance doesn't mean that you just get access to every kind of classified piece of information out there. There still is this bar of need to know. So he would have to demonstrate or have a need to know about information before technically he should be exposed to it or brief on it.

Well, it's a fascinating series of events there. The Pentagon today, Court, you've been on top of all of it. I do want to change topics just a bit here. The judge overseeing the case about the administration's transgender military ban actually rebuked DOJ lawyers today, signaling she plans to reinstate the cause on that order.

Howard, responding to that. So far, we haven't heard anything specific beyond just referring back to DOJ partner justice because it's an ongoing case. But I mean, Kristen, look, I cover the Pentagon, but when I read through the transcript and what happened in this, this was a fiery hearing, and it's not the first One from Judge Reyes. It went specifically with this issue of transgender.

In this case. Today, she was really taking to task a tweet or post on X from the Department of defense. It's the DOD's Rapid Response X account that was that specifically said that transgender service members are not allowed, they can no longer serve. It's not just the fact that it was this rapid response, though, that tweeted it.

Secretary Heggseth retweeted it. The argument here today by DOJ lawyers, it has been since they started arguing about this issue of transgender service members to continue to serve has been that there can be exemptions and that this specifically is about people who have gender dysphoria. That tweet argues that, in fact, anyone who's transgender cannot. The doj, DOJ lawyers have specifically said that is not the case.

The judges was openly frustrated about it today, saying, look, you guys are saying one thing to the public on social media. You're saying another thing here in my courtroom. And as she said, she said she is not an idiot. And they basically need to get their, their line straight here.

Kristen. Wow. Okay. Well, you'll continue to track that as well.

Courtney can be covering all of the angles out of the Pentagon today. Thank you so much, Courtly. Appreciate your reporting. Coming up, as voters vent their fears and frustrations with actions by both parties, we're live in Republican district where Democratic Senator Andy Kim is about to hear from his constituents.

Plus, we'll dive into the absurd future facing Democrats with the first House Democrat publicly calling for Senate leader Chuck Schumer to step aside. Stay with us. You're watching Be the Press now. Welcome back.

Congress is back in session for next week, but for now, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are back in their home districts and facing increasingly frustrated constituents. While Republicans are being grilled on Elon Musk's Doge cuts, Democrats are facing growing questions about how they plan to stand up to the Trump administration. Join me now, Capitol Hill is Julie Circuit, Capitol Hill correspondent. She's in New Jersey where next hour Senator Andy Kim will hold a town hall in a GOP held district.

Julie, thank you so much for joining. So you just spoke with Senator Kim. What did he tell you? I did.

And already behind me arriving here from him about half an hour from now. Look, this is northwest New Jersey. It is a district held by Republican Thomas King Jr. He's not here though, Senator Andy Kim is.

And he's here because he wants to hear from team's constituents, many of them Republicans, many of them Democrats, all of them, take issue with the current state of affairs in our politics, in our government. And I asked Senator Andy Kim about this moment. Remember, Christian, he's a freshman senator, but he is no stranger to Congress, having served in the House before. Here's how he told me his message has been to constituents and what he's been hearing from them.

Yeah. You have people that are just right now feeling unwarned, so much anxiety about this moment in America and uncertain about what direction we're going in. And they want to make sure that we are feeling that same sense of urgency. And I think it was important for them to hear from me that this, I feel like this is unprecedented times in America, that we are not only on the cusp of a constitutional crisis, we're actually in a constitutional crisis right now.

And they wanted to hear that. I understand that these are not normal times that I am. I'm calibrated at the level to understand just how dangerous this is. And I'm taking actions to that level.

Level. So, Kim saying you're in a constitutional crisis, Chris, I know that's exactly what the Democratic Schumer told you. Of course, many Democrats disillusioned by the fact that he did vote that ultimately keep the government open. He didn't have a strategy going into that.

That is something I also talked to Senator Kim about, who told me that he believes every single Democrat should play a part. He didn't call on Schumer to step aside, but he said when he gets back to Washington next week, what he heard from lawyers is that Democrats need to be better about being proactive with the plan. Julie Serkin, thank you so much for that great interview and great reporting. We really appreciate it.

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from Maryland, Glenn Ivey. Earlier this week, he called for new Democratic leadership in the Senate after Leader Schumer voted to advance the Republican stock gap funding bill to avoid a government shutdown. Thank you so much for joining, Congressman. I really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me. Well, it's great to have you. You heard Julie Circuit in her report there. I do want to play for you some of what Leader Schumer said to me.

Take a look. Some constitutional scholars and fellow Democrats leaders say this is a constitutional crisis. Do you agree? Is the United States in a constitutional crisis?

Yes, I do, Kristen. And democracy is at risk. Look, Donald Trump is a lawless, angry man. He thinks he should be king.

He thinks he should do whatever he wants regardless of the law. And he thinks judges should just listen to him. Now, we have to fight that back in every single way. Congressman, where are you standing?

You think that the United States is in a constitutional crisis? Well, I agree with what Senator Schumer just said there, but it's surprising to me that he would say those things to you but vote the way he did, which was with President Trump and the Republicans last Friday. In fact, he led the vote that enabled the continuing resolution to pass. So, you know, I agree with him about the comments about impeaching judges and, you know, the attacks on the rule of law.

I mean, the list goes on and on. But we only have a couple of chances in Congress to take Trump on fair and square. He's been doing the executive orders to circumvent us. Friday was our chance to do it, and Senator Schumer missed a moment.

Akeem Jeffries, on the other hand, in the House, he had 213 out, 214 Democrats vote against the continuing resolution. We need the Senate to team up with us under Senator Schumer's leadership or whoever they pick. We've all got to get on the same pace so we can get this done. We've got the fight of our lives, the fight for democracy going on right now.

We all need to get together on the Democratic side so we can fight together. Congressman, what about the argument that Leader Schumer makes that, okay, let's say the government shut down? He believes Democrats would have faced a backlash for that. But additionally, he argues that that would have given President Trump and Elon Musk a roadmap for who essential and non essential workers are.

It would have given them a roadmap for what agencies can actually stay closed. And he believes that that would have basically emboldened their efforts to gut the government. It's hard for me to see how Elon Musk could be any bolder than he already is. I mean, already firing.

My district has about 50,000 plus government employees. They're getting laid off, they're getting rift. The Wolf is at the door for us right now. So we got to make sure we're doing everything we can to block it.

The hypothetical about what might happen if the government shut down, you know, we can debate that, but these guys are already doing the stuff that he's claiming he's worried about. The only way we can stop it is to take advantage of when we have them. We're doing great in the courts, great results, a lot of injunctions being put in place. But in Congress, we had a big opportunity last week to push back, and we missed that moment.

Now we got A couple more coming up. The debt ceiling's coming up. The continuing resolution will expire in six months. Maybe that's another chance.

But we've got to get on the same page and make sure we take advantage of it at the time. And we've also got to recognize, as Senator Kim said a minute ago, there's a sense of urgency out there. People are losing their jobs now. People are losing their houses now.

The government's being put in chaos now. Clinical trials are being stopped and the like. We got to take that one right now. And then the next vote's coming up, like cuts to Medicaid, $900 billion roughly.

That's going to mean people losing medical care and like in just a few weeks. So we've got to get on this, you know, the sense of urgency piece. We got to make sure that we're feeling it in the Democratic caucus in the House and the Senate and that we convey that on the floor with our votes. We didn't do that last week.

You bring up the debt limit, and I'm curious, would you be willing to let the US Default on its debt if you believed that was the only way to stand up to President Trump? I think we're going to have to see how that plays out. I mean, one of the things that we need to watch very closely is the Republican goal of addressing the debt ceiling piece to allow President Trump to make his $4 trillion tax cut. We got to make sure we don't allow that to happen because we don't get the money.

It's not going to working class people. It's going to go to Elon Musk and the billionaire buddies that attended the inauguration for President Trump. And the other part of this, we got to make sure it happens is, you know, when people voted for Donald Trump back in November, most of them did it based on his claim that he was going to do better for them economically. He's going to help them out with the economy.

He's done exactly the opposite. The tariff wars are taking money out of people's pockets. The Medicaid cuts are going to be damaging, too, shutting down the government, which I think was another pushback as to why they wouldn't wanted to do that. It's also going to be damaging to regular people who rely on the government one way or the other, sometimes for their services, sometimes as employees, because they provide the engine for the local economies.

We got to make sure we explain to the people what the damages are going to be if Trump is allowed to continue. And that Might be a bad boat, but I hope we can do more of it as we approach that vote so the public is ready for what we're going to try and do at that time. Congressman, I hear you're not taking a potential default off the table. Let me ask you, though, because you're talking about the taxes.

Republicans like to do that through reconciliation. I hate to get too into the weeds, but what leverage do Democrats have? They don't need your votes. I mean, the key part that they're relying on is to maintain Republican unanimity in the votes that they've done.

That's what happened last week. And the key thing I think we need to try to do is convey to the, I think about 18 Republicans who were in seats that were carried by Harris. We're currently targeting those districts to make sure we explain to those folks, here's what's happening based on what Trump has done so far. Here's how it's hurting you.

We need you to let your elected officials know that they have to change course. In fact, you know, Senator Kemp being there in Congressman Keene's district is a great way to deliver that message. I think you're gonna see more of that as the weeks go forward. I want to read something that Senator Bernie Sanders said in the New York Times and get your reaction on the other side.

He said one of the aspects of this tour he's doing an anti oligarchy tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party. Our latest ABC News polls and Democratic Party reaching an all time low in popularity. Given all of that, Congressman, Senator Sanders, Right. No, I appreciate Senator Sanders.

He's an independent. So I'm sure he doesn't want to be alone in the Senate and would love to have company. But my perspective is we need to take the House back. We got a chance to do that in 2026.

We need to add Democrats to make sure that that happens in the districts I just mentioned are the ones we should target. But I think we convey the message and make sure we explain to them what Trump is doing, but also explain to them the benefits, the affirmative message and strategy that the Democrats have, how we can help improve their lives. I think that will help us carry those districts, maintain the seats that we've got, take the House back and make Team Jeffries the Speaker of the House. Congressman, very quickly, some Democrats are saying to me a day that we are focused on this intraparty fighting and not focused on the economy is a day that we are losing the message war is your opposition to Leader Schumer.

Are you concerned that it runs the risk of overshadowing one of the key issues for Democrats? Democrats, sure. I'd love to. I'd rather be talking about the economy.

We talked about it a moment ago. But at the end of the day, if we're not going to be voting together, if we're not going to be maximizing our power in the House and in the Senate, I don't know that it's going to matter that much. It's certainly not for people in my district who are losing their jobs now and counting on us to do something now. They need this to happen now.

And that's why I'm pushing for it. All right. Congressman Glenn Ivey, thank you so much for joining me on this Friday. Really appreciate it.

Coming up next, the Bidens want back in. You have been reporting on the former president and his family's pitch to the Democratic Party. The panel is here. Straight ahead.

Stay with us. You're watching the press now as the day wraps up. Get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop podcast from NBC News with me, your host gazing the sound. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful and informative, bringing closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.

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

Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the dark gay app.

Workouts, meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now during the expanding member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off annual subscription subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more.

Xfinity. Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65, 99 plus tax fees until canceled today.comxfinity for full on preservative details. Welcome back. President Biden has only been out of the White House for about Two months now.

But according to some new reporting from NBC News colleagues, he and his wife Jill want back in on the Democratic political machine as the party works to figure out its identity in the second Trump era and how it can take back power in future elections. Former President Biden has made an offer to the new DNC chairman Ken Martin to help the party get back on track. The offer comes as public opinion of the Democratic Party has declined, with over half of voters having a negative outlook on the Democratic Democrats. President Biden left office with deeply unpopular numbers as well.

Joining now is noticed congressional reporter Daniela Diaz, Simone Sanders Townsend, co host of the Weekend on MSNBC and former chief spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris and T.W. arihi, Vice President of Push Digital Group. Thanks to all of you for being here. Appreciate it.

Simone, I have to start with you buying John back in. What do you think of this? I mean, can former President Biden actually help the Democratic Party right now find its footing? Okay, well, Jane Club, who is the chair of the Nebraska State Democratic Party, go Big Red.

Okay. My party, state chair, who is also the chair of this organization of Democratic Party chair, said that if you ask any party chair, would you want your bide to come and do their breakfast or their lunch and their fundraiser, they would say yes. I do think that's true. I also think, though, that there are some Democrats that are like, we all want the back of 2024.

We want to move forward. I think the president and the former first lady, their position is we didn't get our opportunity to go out there and campaign like we thought we could have. We think we could be helpful. We see what's happening.

We have a sense of duty. I think that's what was written here from the first lady's perspective. And I understand that for them. So I think can go some places where he can be helpful, I think, but not everywhere.

It is very Biden to feel like he has a duty to step in. First of all, welcome to the panel. Thank you for being here. Let's talk about this.

How would Republicans respond or react? Would they at all if former President Biden were to step back into the arena? Would it matter? Yeah.

Well, a little bit. First of all, I kind of got a kick out of the fact that his first public speech was at a model UN Conference. I was a big model in high school. Not too shabby at it, by the way.

Not too shabby at it. But I want to make a bigger point, which is that Joe Biden, this is image rehab in he had a 50 plus year career. He thinks he gave a lot to this country. And after this election there's a huge part of the Democratic party, maybe not the party leaders but the party ranking file who believe it was his ego that got in the way of them winning this past time around.

So this imagery had there he can raise a couple box for a state party, get more money to races, win back the House then he maybe have better standing on the party. But they still have a message. Yeah, it's a really great point. And Daniela, you know this idea that his first speech was at this model UN conference.

No, I don't think. Did you even know he spoke? So Biden loves the United nations, understands. But you know it wasn't the headline that you would expect when a former president comes out and delivers his first speech after leaving office.

That's exactly right. I did not see that this happened. I mean this is all coming as Democrats are facing questions about leadership right now in Congress. They're asking for them to speak out against Chuck Schumer as the Senate minority leader after his vote on Friday to advance Republican government lending bill.

And it's really interesting that here Joe Biden coming out saying I'm ready to step back in to be the face of Democratic Party while Democrats themselves are trying to figure out who is going to lead them. Also worth noting, this is coming as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Gasu Cortez are having tow calls as he's kind of passing the mantle to her as an ex progressive leader. And there's a lot going on right now in the Democratic Party. I would just say I don't think I didn't read it as the president firstly saying okay, I'm back to be the face because I think the president understands that not the face but they do want to be helpful where they can.

And I think there are places where the President could be helpful. Everywhere. No, but there are places where Joe Biden makes sense. But someone pick up on what Daniela was saying which is here you have Senator Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Cassio Cortez with this campaign.

They're basically trying to step into the void while there are calls out there for Leader Schumer who will be on the press by the way this Sunday to step up. Thank you. But what do you make of this moment? I mean is she the future of the Democratic Party?

She is one of the future faces again I someone that believes it's not just one leader right now at the moment. I think there are many different leaders and I think that the Congresswoman is actually one of them. I'm also someone that believes that it is construction has passed his time. And just like he knocked on Jon's door so it might need to knock on his and he might need to sit down for leadership.

But what we're seeing with the rallies is reminiscent of Bernie Sanders 2015. I work for him and people are engaged now. That doesn't necessarily mean votes, but it does mean that people they want and a belonging for community and someone has to be like tw. What's interesting is you have Senator Sanders saying to Democrats you should become independent.

If that happens in certain areas, that could actually be a challenge, a threat to Republicans in some of these swing districts. As we get closer to the midterms, maybe that's going to be a large driven by the president himself, the actions he takes right he's going to be over overriding force the Democrats. The problem I see is a complete lack of continuity. You have people like Chris Murphy and Ron Manual who are saying we need practical solutions.

Less bathroom talk, more classroom talk, talk about the ideas and have AOC and Bernie who are going we need more more fighters. We need to move to the left and embrace those tenets. And until they sort that out, there's no pathway forward. Even the government funding bill, they want to shut the government down.

They could not articulate exactly why they were doing the Trump agenda. That's a non startup, Danielle. There is this huge epic fight right now about how the battle should be waged against President Trump and the second administration. And it seems as though that battle and I'm speaking to Congressman Ivey about this very point is overshadowing the messaging that maybe their strongest point which is the economy, the President Trump's promise to bring down prices which hasn't yet happened well and I dozens of Democrats last week when they were here town they're coming back to town next week.

They're on their home districts. And we're really hoping that the questions they would get at these town halls, which many outlets including NBC has been covering would be on those specific issues on doge cuts, on inflation, on the economy. Now what other questions they're getting at these town halls should chuck the side Are Democratic leaders doing enough and it's distracting from what they hope is the message that they would like to win back their majority in Congress next year. I just wonder where the elected officials are going to listen to people.

All throughout the last election, voters were telling you what was on their minds, what was important to them. Now Democrat voters are telling their elected officials, what is on their minds that was important to them. I think the Democrats, instead of trying to be the thermostat, need to be the thermometer and take the tip of the way people are atw. The question I would have is, what is that?

Because right now the Democrats have been pushed into a corner to defend the status quo. Quote, government cuts are still popular. Elon Musk might not be popular, but cutting government is still popular. Raiders and AFC have been big tariff people.

They were against nafta, Donald Trump stepping in there. So what is the message? That is very, very unclear until let's sort it out. It's a problem.

Yeah, it absolutely is. And we're going to watch all that, including those different cuts. Guys, great conversation for Friday. Thank you so much for being here.

Really appreciate it. Daniela, Simone and tw, great talk. All right. After the break, what we know about the massive fire that knocked out power to London's he airport, temporarily plunging one of the world's busiest travel hubs into darkness.

We're live at Heathrow next. Stay with us. You're watching. Welcome back.

You are looking live at London's Heathrow Airport where planes are expected to begin taking off again soon after. A massive fire forced a complete shutdown of one of the world's busiest airports. The fire nearby electrical substation caused a power outage, canceling more than 1300 flights and affecting 200,000 passengers around the world. Police say there is no indication of foul play, but the counterterrorism unit is investigating the incident.

NBC News correspondent Danielle Hampanjan joins us now from London's Heathrow Airport. Danielle, thank you so much for being here. What is the scale of the disruption that we're seeing at Heathrow right now? Well, in the world of aviation, Kristen, just a few minutes delay can have a ripple effect around the world.

To connect, imagine what, 18 hours shut down in Europe's busiest airport. What kind of global impact this has had from Los Angeles to South Africa to Singapore. Yes, 1300 planes were meant to fly in and out of Heathrow today. That impacted 200,000 people directly but indirectly.

You have thousands others who have been stranded in Europe and across the world. Planes took off yesterday and within minutes of their journey had to pull a U turn. Others were about to land at London Heathrow Airport when they were diverted to other airports around the world. Now, in the past two hours or so, we started to see planes landing here.

None so far has taken off that we are keeping an eye. The boss, the CEO of Heathrow Airport said that that they had no choice. He profusely apologized, but said that they would never think of closing down the airport unless they didn't have a choice. And that was the case today.

The loss of power, he said, was equivalent to that. A midsize city. It was last night around 11 o' clock that people were going off to bed or about to go to bed when they heard this massive blast. And it became clear what that was.

According to the fire brigade, 25,000 liters of cooling oil on fire at an electrical substation. And as you say, they are not suspecting foul play. But for now, it is the counterterrorism department that's taken over the investigation simply because they are better equipped for these kinds of investigations. But officials here at PEOPLE have said they hope to return back to normal, at least fully operational by tomorrow morning Saturday.

We are all certainly hoping for that. Danielle, thank you so much for that really thorough report. Appreciate it. Silicon standing by their man of Texas county turns red for the first time in more than 100 years.

And Trump converts there are showing few sides of pirates remorse. The report behind that story, what it says about this moment in presidential politics is next. You're WATCHING ME THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

We want to take a deep dive now into one of the small places in this country that helps tell the bitter story of our politics in this moment. Starr county in Texas's Rio Grande Valley is home to about 65,000 people. It's 97% Latino, and more than a quarter of its residents live below the poverty line. And for 132 years, all the way through 2020, Starr county voted for the Democratic presidential candidate.

But in 2024, that streak came to an end. Voters turned the county red backing Donald Trump. Politico's David Siers recently traveled to Rio Grande City where he talked to voters about what drove their decision and how they feel about the start of the second Trump administration. And he reports those voters who FL to Trump are feeling pretty happy with their choice.

And joining Me now is POLITICO's David Siders, politics editor. David, thanks so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. We are excited to have this conversation.

So tell us exactly what you heard when you visited Star County. Well, thanks for having me. I think what I was most interested in when I traveled there, we were just seeing the days before these town halls where Republicans were taking a lot of incoming about Elon Musk and Doge around the country. And so I was curious if new converts to Trump Republicans there were having some sense of buyers remorse.

And I think not. And not that this, as you say, it's a county that tells us something about the country, not that it's a reflection of the country, but rather it's, I think, representative of something else going on in politics besides this backlash to mosque. And that is in some MAGA circles, I think a calcification around that is almost a new point of MAGA orthodoxy, this idea of cutting government and reducing the workforce. Yeah.

Let me read you an excerpt of what you wrote, David. You say, quote, the calculation I found among Trump's voters here was different. There was no buyer's remorse, no defensiveness. If anything, it was a project they approached with a sense of obligation or reverence or even glee.

It's fascinating that this many months in you are saying that their support of President Trump is only hardening effectively. Yeah, I think it's very early. Right. So the Democrats can be right.

Musk and Doge turn out to be a liability for Republicans. It's possible. On the other hand, look back at, you know, after the riot at the Capitol. Polling was tough against Trump on that too.

And that certainly lessened over time or what Democrats thought would be a full burst for them on abortion didn't play out last year. I just, I think it's important to see that while there's this backlash among some people here, this is becoming part of their rallying cry. It doesn't mean it's a majority of Americans, but it's, it's a central part, I think, of what is now Trumpism. And it wasn't so much like that on the campaign.

And David, I wonder, because obviously one of the big issues, one of the big reasons why President Trump was elected presumably was this promise that he was going to lower prices. And so far we have not seen that happen. In fact, consumer confidence has gone down. What did folks there say to you about the economy?

Almost entirely giving him a pass, recognizing that the price of banks is still very high. People talking about people, a lot of people working in the oil industry there talking about the price of steel, worried about tariffs, but in the main saying it's early. Talk to me and you. Fascinating.

And you spoke to some left leaning voters there as well. What did you hear from them? Well, I think there is a hope among Democrats that some of these cuts when they come to bear might change their neighbors minds. But there's also a realism here.

I think people know that folks don't in the main vote on economic interest. Right. And so even people there see their county and their, you know, their area changing. And I don't think they're convinced that it's turning back anytime soon.

Very quickly, David, before I let you go, you said it's still early. Did you get a sense of how much time these voters are going to give President Trump before they start to feel frustrated over the economy? Sure. Someone said give him a year.

Someone said give him six months. But I would put a fine point on that. I think Trump supporters have been willing to give away a lot of things that they might otherwise be frustrated with. So I think that's an open question.

All right. Fantastic piece by you, David Siers. Thanks for bringing it to us. We really appreciate it.

And we'll be back Monday with more MEET THE PRESS now. And if it's Sunday, it is MEET THE press. On your local NBC news station, I will have exclusive interviews with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator John Curtis of Utah. Do not miss it.

The news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson right now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.

Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Rawas, and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.