Meet the Press NOW — March 22

To meet the press now, I'm Kristen Welker. We are following multiple breaking news stories around the world right now. We do begin in Russia, where Russia state media is reporting that 40 people have been killed and more than 100 others injured in an attack on a large concert venue near Moscow. You can see parts of the venue on fire and a massive police response there.

You can see all of those lights lit up in the Moscow sky. We are still working to confirm the details of exactly what is unfolding here. Here's what we can tell you so far. Russian news agencies are reporting that at least three people wearing camouflage open fire at the concert hall.

Again, this is according to Russian news agencies. We've also received some video reportedly recorded inside the venue when the shots rang out. We do want to warn you that the video is disturbing. Media also reports that the roof of the concert hall is now partially collapsing.

Moscow's regional governor is calling it a terror attack. Just moments ago, National Security Communications advisor John Kirby told reporters that the White House is monitoring the situation. So we're trying to get more information, but really would refer to Russian authorities to speak to it. The images are just horrible.

There is no indication at this time that Ukraine or Ukrainians were involved in the shooting. But again, this is just both. We're taking a look at it, but I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine. Now, just moments ago, Ukrainian official released a statement in which he said Ukraine was not involved in this attack.

Joining me now is MBC's Matt Badner. He covers Russia for MBC News, Matt. Thank you so much for joining me. What is the very latest right now that you are hearing again?

We want to stress that our news, our information so far is coming from Russian news agencies. Thank you, Chris. Well, obviously this is a very dynamic and of course developing situation and we're trying to keep across everything coming out of Russia right now. Of course, a very difficult media environment.

We are, as you mentioned, relying on Russian state media and other things such as casualty counts, the latest we're hearing from the Russian federal security service. That's accessor agency to the KGB, the current death count at about 40 people so far. Looking at the videos, this appears to be still kind of an active situation. And so we're watching for state response so far though.

We haven't heard very much, we haven't heard anything from Vladimir Putin yet, so I'm still waiting on a Kremlin reaction. We have seen other Russian officials of course come in very quickly and call this a terrorist attack, but of course, a developing situation for some. Matt, put this location into perspective for us, if you would. And again, we are looking now at video of the aftermath.

We see the lights lit up around Moscow, smoke billowing into the air as we are having this conversation, Matt, and obviously emergency responders there surrounding the scene we can hear the sound of those emergency vehicles. But talk about this concert hall. Where is it? What is its relationship to the surrounding community?

Why might it be a target for such an attack? Sure, I would say it's of course a very large kind of shopping and concert venue. We can see some images from a very large movie theater, but it's kind of one of these shopping entertainment complexes. Moscow actually has quite a few of them.

This is among one of the bigger ones, probably one of the older ones as well. But generally speaking, it's quite one of the mill. As for why it theoretically might be a target, I would say it's size, but also just kind of the normality of it. It's kind of on the outskirts of Moscow and maybe starts with the suburbs.

So it's really quite generally residential. A lot of Moscow, after you leave the center, is that way. So to me, having spent a lot of time in Moscow, it feels like an average shopping center. I don't really think twice about it.

So when we hear things like from the authorities like a terror attack, I suppose it is that kind of target. But there's really nothing out of the ordinary about this particular center that comes to my mind, Kristen. All right, Matt, stay with me, please. Thank you for your great reporting at the top.

I want to now bring in former FBI agent and NBC News National Security Analyst Clint Watts, who is also with us, former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who's also an NBC News international affairs analyst. Thanks so much to both of you for being here. Clint, let me start with you based on what we know so far, based on what we are hearing from Russian state media. What is your assessment of what has unfolded in Moscow?

Kristen, a few things. There are many scenarios that could come up. There's some footage of some people being detained. There's scattered reports of this attack, but there is nothing really known firmly.

There's all sorts of information coming out from state-sponsored media outlets in Moscow, but there's a little to really be known. There's at least four or more scenarios as well of who the perpetrators might be. Many of the claims so far have been that it's Ukraine, or Ukraine is targeting inside Russia. But why would they go after this target here exactly what would be the purpose of it?

Most of their targets have been military. We don't know, so that's one scenario. But you might also know that Navalny, was killed just a month ago, died in prison, and there was an election of Vladimir Putin for his sixth term. So there are many that are probably inside Russia that were not happy about that situation as well.

Separately, you have getting pre-gosian. Just a little over a year ago, was pushing into Bakhmoo with his Wagner group. Then really staged what was considered to be a coup, trying to march towards Moscow. Just a couple months later, last summer, he was killed in an airplane.

There are lots of veterans from the battlefield. There are Russian forces fighting against Russians, actually on the border of Ukraine. And then, add to that, Islamic terrorism. There were some Islamic state arrests just in the last week inside Russia.

That has always been a threat going back to attacks like the Bezlin terrorist attack and war with Chechnya. So there are many different scenarios to play out, and there's just really a positive information right now that which of those scenarios might be the one that we're looking at tonight. Ambassador McFaul, let me bring you in now. As Clint says, we do have very limited information as we are following this and a number of potential scenarios.

But based on what we are hearing from Russian state media, based on some of the images that are coming out of this concert hall, what is your assessment at this point? What's your reaction? Well, my first reaction is terrorism is horrible. Always, there's no excuse for it.

There's no reason to ever do it. And my condolences to the Russian families and loved ones who lost people today. Second, we can speculate, and we can go through other terrorist attacks. I've studied and written and lived in Russia during others of them, but I just want to underscore, we have no information about all the different ones, times of scenarios that Clint just went through.

And this could be Chechens, it could be all kinds of people, and we just don't know. Third, I want to underscore what the Ukrainians are saying. The Ukrainians are categorically saying that they had nothing to do with it. And I think we should be very skeptical of Russian speculation, Russian government speculation, that they were, because of course, that will be the easy explanation that Mr.

Putin will want us to all adopt. And then finally, because I was just on a meeting in Kiev this morning, speaking online, I want to remind everybody that terrorist attacks launched by Putin's government occur in Ukraine every single day, including Kiev these guests. And we are, as you are speaking, ambassador, looking at live images of the concert hall, which is burning as we speak, and as we have this conversation. Clint, I want to play a little bit more of some of the video that was captured from inside the concert hall at the moment of this shooting.

And again, I want to warn our viewers that this video is disturbing. So, Clint, I don't know how well you could see that video. We could see people running for cover. You could hear the gunshots ring out.

It does not appear as though the concert hall was a completely full, filled to capacity at the time. That video, that incredibly disturbing video, the sights and the sounds of it, does it tell us anything about who might be behind this or what might be at flight here? I don't think it tells us much, but there are a few things to consider. One, it's a mass casualty target.

They were trying to inflict it, just based on the video a little easy. The maximum number of casualties possible. Just adding to that, the idea of Molotov cocktails trying to set fire, it would what we would believe to be a terrorist attack. I think the next thing we have to ask is, why specifically did they target this concert hall?

As you noted at the top of the hour in your discussion, it's not particularly one that has significance for what it means, it's not a memorial or something that they might attack due to date and time. So, that is something in particular. Then it's, in terms of the audience, is that this concert or the targets that were there? Is there anything specific about them and why it might have been chosen?

I've not seen any evidence of that. So, it just points to what might have just been, broad-based terrorism, just to inflict as much damage to kill as many people as possible by the perpetrators. And that tends to lead you towards the more terrorist-oriented groups. Just looking at the Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, they were going after military targets.

So, transportation depots, oil refineries. This wouldn't seem to suggest that. So, I think the possibilities are just numerous in terms of what this might work out to be. And I also just wonder how much information of high-quality will we be able to gather?

Those videos may be the best we get. Everything else likely filtered the Russian state medium, or we won't be able to trust it entirely, because we won't really know what the source of that information came from. All right, Clint Watts, thank you so very much for your insights. We need to let you go.

Ambassador McFaul, let me go back to you. We have not yet heard. As Matt reported at the top from Vladimir Putin, he undoubtedly has been informed about this attack at this point in time. What do you imagine are his considerations?

When might we hear from him? When might we get a reaction from him? Well, once they have a, I've identified who they think it is, and with all the ambiguity about whether that would be actually who it was or not, we need to continue to underscore that, because information in Russia does not flow freely or independently these days. But once he tells his people who it was, I expect a massive retaliatory action of some sort.

That's what happened in 1999. That's what happened in 2002. It's a growth cut, 2004, but it's on these other major terrorist attacks where he went in in a massive retaliatory way, and that's what I expect him to do. What that looks like will depend on who it is, right?

But that is his modus of a vending before, and I expect that's what will happen this time around as well. Ambassador very quickly, I'm gonna go back to Matt for final thought, but ambassador before I do, obviously Putin is immersed in the war, in Ukraine, there are a number of other tensions happening on the world stage as this unfolds. How might it impact the decisions that Putin makes, the way in which, quite frankly, they are able to continue to conduct their war in Ukraine? Could this in some ways be a setback for him?

My guess is not, and my guess is his impulse will be to double down on everything, including arresting alleged terrorists, you know, NGO activists inside Russia itself, and to take, do more inside Ukraine. But there is an underbelly to that, and I already see it on social media channels coming out of Russia, which is, why is he not protecting us here? He's calling these LGBT activists terrorists, Navalny people terrorists, when they're a real terrorist attacking us here, and just as you had a debate and an ongoing debate in Israel right now, about the October 7 terrorist attacks, why were we not doing more to prepare for that? That is going to be a sentiment that I don't think it's a majority sentiment, and most certainly not Putin, but it will be a sentiment inside Russia as well.

Yeah, that's a really important point. Matt, pick up on that point, if you will. Ambassador McVaugh talks about the reaction he's already seeing online, the underbelly, as he referred to it. What are you anticipating the reaction will be among people in Russia?

Thank you, Mr. White. I think Ambassador McVaugh is definitely getting to a good point there. A number of people will recall that they just voted for Vladimir Putin, I think, themselves feeling that he was the only candidate that could provide safety.

That's kind of, I think, been the deal the entire time. So certainly people will be thinking that, but one thing that's also really quite interesting about Russian public reaction, especially the terror attacks, as Ambassador McVaugh mentions, this happened before in Russia, particularly very early on in President Putin's reign in Russia. This is something that happened a number of times, and these were very, very big attacks. Each time, I think, the Russian public reacted very predictably, very understandably.

I think in most countries, people tend to rally around the flag in the wake of a terror event. Russia that happens in a very straightforward way. So I think my anticipation is that, whatever they say the cause of this was, you'll see public support, I think rally very quickly around, responding harshly to whatever threat they say caused this. All right, well, Matt Bodner, Ambassador McVaugh, thank you both so much for helping us as we begin to cover this breaking and developing story with Russian state media reporting that as many as 40 people have been killed inside a concert hall.

We will continue to bring you developments as they happen. Thank you both so much. And coming up, we have more breaking news. This time from Kensington Palace.

Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, announcing that she is undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Plus chaos and discord on Capitol Hill, where Republican Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, announced she is looking for the votes to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson. We'll unpack all of it. Stay with us, you're watching me, the press now.

Welcome back, turning now from that global news to the big political story here at home right now. House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing escalating blowback from inside the Republican caucus after passing legislation to avoid a partial government shutdown with help from Democrats. The House passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill today with Democrats overwhelmingly backing the measure, where then half of House Republicans opposed it, including Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who then took aim at the Speaker filing a motion for a vote to oust him. Greene told reporters outside of the Capitol that a vote on her motion is not imminent, but it is a warning to the Speaker that an effort is now underway to see if there is enough support to replace simpler.

I filed the motion to vacate today, but it's more of a warning and a pink slip. I respect our conference. I paid all my dues to my conference. I'm a member in good standing, and I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and to throw the House in chaos.

But this is basically a warning, and it's time for us to go through the process, take our time, and find a new Speaker of the House that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority. Now, it's not clear how or when the House will act on this motion. Congresswoman Greene could have forced a vote with a privileged motion if she wanted to, but she didn't. Our motion could now be referred to a committee and could essentially be killed.

Republican Matt Gates, the architect, as you'll recall, behind the Republican effort to oust Kevin McCarthy, a Speaker told reporters yesterday that he would not support Ousting Johnson. And other Republicans quickly questioned Greene's actions. Republicans are very much in a position to keep the majority, but this kind of nonsense helps somebody. This is lunacy.

She supported Kevin McCarthy. She knows firsthand the level of destruction that Matt Gates and others caused by vacating the chair. And I don't see how she could possibly think this will benefit anyone or the American people. Now, some House Democrats have signaled their support for Johnson as well, so while his job appears safe, it isn't clear for how long.

What is clear from today's drama is that frustrations inside the House Republican caucus are rising with Speaker Johnson at the center of the turmoil. And these are Ryan Noble, some Capitol Hill with the very latest, another busy one, Ryan. So break down the key takeaways from Marjorie Taylor Greene's motion today. She says, this is a warning.

It's not a pink slip. What do you make of that? Yeah, I don't want to quote Shakespeare here, Kristen, but I'm going to. I think it's a lot of sound and fury, dis signifying nothing.

The fact that she decided to put this up as a privileged resolution, or I'm sorry, as a resolution without the privileged part of it essentially just means that it's a press release. She put it at the clerk's desk. There is no compulsion by the speaker to move on this action. It's really no different than things were yesterday.

Now, I guess it means that it's going to make it a little bit easier for her to add the privileged part of it at some point down the road. But there's no indication here that she has any level of support from a broad swath of Republicans to remove Mike Johnson from office. In fact, it's just the opposite. When you talk to most House Republicans, they don't want to go through that drama all over again.

And there's even the possibility that she's riled up Democrats to a certain extent to help Johnson. I talked to at least three Democrats today who were open to the idea of protecting Johnson if it meant that they didn't have to go through this all over again. So this is Marjorie Taylor Greene being Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is going to try and do everything she can to get us to talk about her.

And I guess from that perspective, her efforts today were successful, Kristin. That's for sure. But listen, anytime you can quote Shakespeare, that is a good day. So well done, Ryan.

Let me just follow up with you quickly, though. What's the reaction been from Republican leadership? Are they just frustrated Marjorie Taylor Greene? You know, I think it's gotten to the point now where Republican leadership is just kind of brushing her off, kind of shrugging their shoulders about it.

Mike Johnson's office put out a statement that was certainly carefully worded, but basically said that they're going to do everything they can to listen to the concerns of each individual member and with the assumption that they're including Marjorie Taylor Greene in that. But I do think there was a broader conversation here about members of his conference getting a little bit restless that he's been forced to cut all these deals in order to prevent catastrophic things like government shutdowns. And there is a section of Republican, conservative Republicans in particular that don't feel as though he's delivered enough and wins for them during this negotiating process. That is certainly subjective.

And it's in the eyes of the beholder as to whether or not that assessment is true. But there definitely is a vocal group of House Republicans that are unhappy with the direction of his speakership and are calling for a degree of a course correction. The form and fashion of that I think still is up for debate. All right.

I know you will continue to watch it closely. Ryan Nobles, thank you so much. Joining me now on set is Eugene Scott, senior politics reporter at Axios, Maria Theresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino and an NBC News contributor and Hogan Giddley, former press secretary for the Donald Trump campaign. Thanks to all of you for being here.

Eugene, let me just start with you. And this has been looming large over speaker Johnson this entire time, this threat of a potential motion to vacate. Here you have Marjorie Taylor Greene actually moving forward with it, but she says it's just a warning. What's the impact though?

Does it do more to divide the Republican party at this critical moment? Or is it just a, you know, sound inferior as Ryan said? Well, it certainly makes it even more popular just how divided the Republicans are or the challenges they're having getting on the same page. But it is important to note that Green doesn't have a lot of support even from many of the far right lawmakers because they just don't want to go through this again.

They understand that the last year was not the best for them in terms of optics and reality. And heading into an election, moving forward with this, could hurt them even more. Yeah, I'll pick up on that point because whenever I speak to people in speaker Johnson's orbit, they make the exact point that Eugene is making, which is that he's safe simply because Republicans can't go through the chaos that they went through over ousting McCarthy again. Yeah, and the margins keep getting so much slimmer every single day and you get on a great word there, the political reality exists that regardless of whoever the speaker is, Johnson, McCarthy, Jim Jordan, whatever, they still don't control the Senate and they don't control the White House.

So you can only get as much as you can get. There's symbolism, of course, they can do to play K to the right and that's important and necessary, but what you can actually get done and get through depends on the other side of the aisle. And that's difficult for a lot of Republicans to understand. Yeah, reality is a really good point to keep in mind.

Marietriz, I want to play for you something that Congressman Tom Swazie, who of course, just won election had to say, Democrat gets a reaction on the other side. If this motion to vote, vacate comes to the floor, would you vote to help protect Speaker Johnson and his speakership? Yes, I would. And why do you think that's important?

Because the idea, this is a comedy routine with their doing the idea of trying to kick the speaker out for trying to keep the government open, it's absurd. So I'm fed up with it and I'll vote to keep him a speaker. Rietriz, he's only been in his post for about five months now. And here you have Democrats saying, look, we're getting stuff done with him.

He's reaching across the aisle. We're keeping the government open. Well, what makes him so unique is a speaker, is that he is left of left of left of McCarthy. So who else are they going to pick?

He is the person that Donald Trump wanted in that position. And so I think what Marietriz Taylor Greene is one is dapsly doing her dramatic, but it's not in the best interest of the Republicans, not to pass a bill and further the government. Because what they don't want is come the fall, a broken system where everybody says, I did not get my Social Security check. I didn't get my basics.

And who are we to blame? It's actually the Republican Party. And so while Sosie says that he's going to go ahead and support in the event, I would say actually, cool your heels because you might have an opportunity to actually have Speaker Jeffries, given the fact that they are so dysfunctional. Oh, again, I'll let you weigh in.

I'll tell it to you. I'm not. I'm just talking about one note. And we can argue on the right to her blue in the face on whose fault it actually is for a shutdown.

But the fact remains, we've done this many times I was in the Trump administration. We saw this and regardless of who's standing off to the side pounding their chest and saying we're stopping this, it's going to be the media and the left are going to work together and say it's all Republicans fault. And so regardless of who that is, it's going to be blamed on us anyway. Speaking of reality, that's the reality.

So we have to know that. But the Republicans hold the wheel. Yeah. For the record, the media is not working with anyone except the media, but to your point, I mean, you make the point about the very narrow majority again that you're dealing with.

And this is why this just makes this such a tenuous situation. Oh, of course it does, of course. And as these margins get slimmer and slimmer, people are jumping ship on both sides, actually. We've got to figure out how we're going to move forward with the government.

We have to have a leader to do that and to try and switch that up midstream is going to be extremely problematic, especially with a divided government and slim margin. Yeah, Eugene, let's talk about former President Donald Trump. He is back in the headlines today because, of course, there's this Monday potential deadline. He owes about $400 plus million over one of these civil suits.

He posted on Truth Social today that he has about $500 million in the bank. The challenge with that is it undercuts his legal strategy. His lawyers are saying he doesn't have the cash flow to pay these legal bills. What do you make of what we heard from the former president today?

Well, I think one of the things that made the former president popular with his base is his proclamations of his wealth and his success. And I don't think he's going to say, you know what? I'm actually far more broke than I let you all to believe while running for president, in addition to a successful reality show about how much money I have. So I'm not surprised by that.

But it is worth noting that if Truth Social goes public, which it can, which it might, there's been some talk that he could actually end up having much more money than he previously or we previously believed he had. Hogan responded to that, but also within the context that there seems to be an agreement or a discussion about the RNC in part paying for some of Trump's legal bills. Do you think that's appropriate? Do you think that's something that's going to go forward?

What do you think's going to happen then? I don't know how unique that is. I mean, look, Donald Trump is obviously facing a lot of political prosecution here, persecution as well. And so these are political battles.

You're talking about two people in Fannie Willis and also there in New York, people who ran on the fact they wanted to get Trump, not talking about a crime or anything else, even the Associated Press. I mean, this is far exceeds anything that's happened in the past, it's never been done before, it's violation of the Eighth Amendment, and obviously the excessive fines clause in there. And so these battles are going to be waged on the political front. So it makes sense to use and talk about political entities taking in that money and trying to fund those efforts.

Maria, what's your reaction to that? And I asked this of you in the context of president Biden as a tax, he does not weigh in on Trump's legal battles. But in private fundraisers, he started to mock the fact that he owes a lot of money. And he sort of does this riff where he says, someone asks me for money, I have to pay their debts, I have to say, sorry, I can't help you, Donald.

It probably gets a big laugh line at these closed door fundraisers, what do you anticipate? You think he's going to take that out onto the campaign trail? I think probably using it as a test ground. But I think that we have to recognize that, Donald Trump, the only indication that I have that he could possibly be over leveraged is when he had a bail bond that he was trying to get underwritten by the investment firm.

And they weren't able to because they wouldn't use his real estate property as collateral. That just tells me that you might be over leveraged, over promising. And so even if he does sell truth social, he won't get the money in time in order for him to pay the bills that are due tomorrow. And so what I think that the president is trying to do when he is having these conversations is remind folks that you want someone that is an executive, that actually understands how to manage the people's money when Congress approves it and what he's going to make the best.

I would though caution him is that there are a lot of Americans right now that are struggling day to day. And so you don't want to make them feel bad if they can't make their ends meet because someone else has been proven to have broken the law and actually has indictments and actually has had court orders to pay significant half a billion dollars. Monday could be the day when his assets are seized as early as Monday. Final thought to you on this point.

Well, I think we should not be surprised if that's what ends up happening based on what we've seen so far. The reality is this court case has been very clear in terms of what New York believes they want from the former president and how he should respond on based on what he has done. And so stopping in and pivoting right now wouldn't be consistent with what we've seen so far. All right, we'll have to see what happens on Monday.

Thanks you guys. Great conversation. Eugene, Scott, Maria, Theresa, and Hogan Goodley, really appreciate it. Still had the very latest on what we know and don't know about the deadly attack at Concert Hall and Moscow.

Plus one of the top Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who's also a co-chair for the Biden reelection campaign, Senator Chris Coons joins us next. That's ahead. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

We continue to track that breaking news out of Moscow where Russian state media says 40 people are dead and more than 100 injured in an attack on a Moscow area concert hall. Russian news agencies say at least three people wearing camouflage open fire inside the hall. Video purportedly from the inside of the venue show a harrowing scene with concert-goers fleeing gunfire. At this hour, Russian firefighters, firefighters are working to put out a massive fire at the venue, which has caused the roof to partially collapse.

Russian officials are calling this incident a terror attack. The White House says they are monitoring the situation and that there is currently no indication of any Ukrainian involvement in the attack. We will bring you any updates as we get them. Joining me now is Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons.

He is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of President Biden's top allies on Capitol Hill. Senator Coons, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it. Great to be on with you again.

I want to start off, if I can, without breaking news out of Moscow, what state media is referring to as a terror attack. Is there anything that you can tell us about this situation? Any details that you can provide for briefings that you're getting there on Capitol Hill? I have no additional information that I can share with you about possible actors who may have carried out this attack.

It is a tragic loss of life at a civilian concert, but there are obvious different organizations and individuals who might be motivated to carry out an attack within Russia. The recent election, there was widespread demonstrations of opposition to Putin, particularly following the murder of Navalny in a Siberian prison camp. And of course, the ongoing Russian aggression to brutality of their aggression in Ukraine and the previous Warren Chechnya. So I can't share with you any specifics about who might be responsible, but there are both internal and external foes of Putin and his brutal regime who could easily have been motivated to carry out this attack.

Well, again, we will continue to track it and bring you and our viewers any updates as we get it, even throughout this conversation. But Senator, let me shift to the events unfolding in the Middle East, as you know, the United States, as proposed to the UN Security Council of Resolution, calling for a sustained ceasefire in Gaza. This was obviously rejected by China, by Russia. It comes as Secretary of State Antony.

Blinken is in the region, pressing Prime Minister Netanyahu not to go in to Rafa. What is your assessment of how the Biden administration is handling this right now? Prime Minister Netanyahu seems defiant. He's still going in to Rafa.

Well, I think we should be specific about what we're talking about. It is clear from both what President Biden has said, Secretary Blinken has said, my conversations with the Israeli Ambassador and with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States still respects and supports the obligation of Israel to protect its citizens from Hamas. So small-scale targeted special operations forces against Hamas leadership or efforts to try and secure the release of those hostages still being held by Hamas in and underneath Gaza in tunnels, I believe it's their 167th day. And I recently met with John and Rachel, who are the parents of Hirsch Goldberg-Poland.

The pain of those families is just palpable. I believe President Biden continues to recognize that there's an obligation on the part of these really government to defend their people. What he is calling on Prime Minister Netanyahu to do is to first develop and implement a plan to relocate innocent Palestinian civilians, nearly a million of them who have fled to Rafa from other parts of Gaza at the direction of the IDF in the early stages of this war before any large-scale operations, before bombing or sending in large infantry units that could cause thousands of civilian casualties. And that is the point of friction with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

And it's my earnest hope that they will not move ahead with a large-scale assault on Rafa. There is a team that has come over to the United States to consult with our military experts on how best to conduct an operation. And my hope is there won't be a break in our relationship over this. Let me ask you about Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Last year, you called him exceptionally difficult, an exceptionally difficult partner. I wonder then, do you agree with what we heard from Chuck Schumer, that there should be elections in Israel in the near future, so that there can be a new Prime Minister who would support a two-state solution, for example? Well, to be clear, the governing coalition that Prime Minister Netanyahu relies on includes extremists, like Minister Smotchich and Minister Ben-Gavir, who represent political parties within Israel, who are opposed to a two-state solution who have called for the removal of Palestinians from the West Bank and from Gaza, and who advocate for positions on settlements and on the treatment of Palestinians that are, I think, well outside the mainstream of decades of US-Israeli dialogue. I think Senator Schumer gave a forceful and clear speech, both about his deep affection for and commitment to Israel and its future as a Jewish democracy and his concerns, that this ally, this close and trusted partner of ours, has in the conduct of the war in Gaza, under Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership, gotten into a place that has really harmed Israel's reputation globally and here in the United States.

And so Senator Schumer's remarks, I hope, anyone who's criticizing or questioning them will listen to them in their entirety. He was clear and balanced in his denunciation, his criticism of Hamas and their terrorism, their brutality, in his call for Hamas to release hostages, and his recognition that we could have a complete and immediate ceasefire if Hamas would simply stop their aggression against Israel. Given what you are saying, you would like to see in terms of any type of invasion into Rafa, would you condition aid? Would you support aid being conditioned to Israel?

If Israel does not meet what the United States is asking for? If Israel were to use the weapons and the financial support that we provide, to just go into Rafa at a very large scale, use 1,000-pound bombs and use infantry and military tactics that kill thousands and thousands of Palestinian civilians without taking into account an alternative path that might secure safety for a majority of those civilians. I would take that step, yes. That's something I've never said before.

And it's meant to convey the intensity and the sincerity of my concern about the consequences here. This is an unprecedented challenge for Israel. Egypt is not allowing any Palestinians to leave Gaza and go into the Sinai. There is no other place for them to safely go, and there has to be provision made.

As I mentioned earlier, a million Palestinians from throughout Gaza have moved to Rafa because that's a place the IDF earlier in this conflict identified as a safe zone. So I think the IDF, which has complete control over the perimeter of Gaza, and there is no risk that Hamas will rearm and re-equip in the coming weeks. They have the time, and I think they have the obligation to come up with a plan that will provide for safety for civilians and allow them to carry out precise, targeted, small-scale operations to continue to go after Hamas leadership. Well, certainly it's significant that you are saying that you would support aid being conditioned.

Let me ask you, Speaker Johnson is floating the idea of potentially inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress. Is that something that you would support? Is that inappropriate next step for him to take? Look, I've had a chance to meet with the Prime Minister several times in Israel in the last few months.

This would be unprecedented. He would be the only foreign leader in our history to address our Congress three times. And look, I would hope that any future engagement between the Prime Minister and the United States and our Congress and our President will move towards a consensus view about support for a two-state solution. I'm not sure that an address to Congress will reduce the temperature of our engagement.

I think the path forward here is clear and simple. And one in which sustained bipartisan support for Israel is not only desirable but possible. But first, there has to be a more concerted and successful effort to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza and to target the use of force, specifically at Hamas leadership and at securing the release of hostages. Well, I do want to ask you about the politics of this.

We have seen a drag on President Biden's poll numbers. I want to show two new CNN polls. Senator, these are out today. They show a tide race in battleground, Pennsylvania.

And they show President Biden trailing former President Trump in Michigan. Do you think that the situation in Gaza is the reason that those two battleground states show such divergent numbers and the toll that it's taking on President Biden? Look, I don't know the internals of the poll in Michigan. I will say this.

I recently was in Michigan for a weekend campaigning. For President Biden got a very positive reception because of the very significant positive impact that President Biden's actions on bringing manufacturing back to the United States, investing in semiconductor manufacturing, his support for unions and the wage increases that the UAW and others have had in Michigan. So you have to take that into account and balance it against widespread concerns about the war in Gaza. President Biden, from the very beginning, from October, just after the October 7th, Hamas attacks, has made it clear that he strongly supports Israel and their right of self-defense.

And from the beginning, he has conveyed, he expects Israel to balance that with respecting their international obligations under the rules of war to protect civilians and deliver humanitarian relief. As the war has gone on, those have gotten in sharper and sharper tension. And as a result, I think it's made the relationship between our president and Israel's prime minister more difficult. But there is a positive path forward here and one that I hope they will take.

And the last conversation I had with the Israeli ambassador, they thought they were really on the verge of a hostage deal where Hamas would release a significant number of hostages and there would be weeks of a cessation of violence and the ability to get humanitarian aid in its scale. I respect that President Biden is trying every possible way through air drops, through delivery by sea, through partnerships with different other countries and NGOs to deliver aid into Gaza to prevent starvation. Our Israeli partners who share so much with us in values should be doing the same. And it's my hope that we'll see that in the days ahead.

Senator, before I let you go, I do want to get your reaction to Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green bringing the motion to be changed against Speaker Johnson. She says this is not a pink slip, it's just a warning sign. But what do you make of this? And can you give us an update?

Is the government going to stay open? Will you all get this done by midnight tonight? Well, look, we were supposed to have this done six months ago. We are six months into the federal fiscal year.

And here in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, we passed all of our appropriations bills out of committee last summer. The House has really struggled. The chaos, the dysfunction over there, which was brought on by a small group of freedom caucus activists who brought down Speaker McCarthy for trying to move forward on a debt ceiling deal on appropriations bills. The House Republican majority is showing that they have an extreme faction that is just not committed to governing, to running our government and our country in a responsible way.

I can't tell you right now whether we'll have a shutdown. And I want you and our viewers to think for a moment about what message it sends to the world if the government of the United States, and this package includes our Department of Defense and our Department of Homeland Security. If the world watches on the news that once again, we have failed to come to an agreement and we have to shut down big portions of our government. Security operations like federal prisons and border patrol and our military will still function.

I don't want anyone to be alarmed, but the non-essential functions will shut down. This is in the hands of a few extreme Republicans here in the Senate whether or not they will demand that we stay in session through the weekend and force us to shut down and then be here through next week to try and bring it back. But right now, you're a yes. I'm getting a hard wrap for my producer.

Absolutely, I'm a yes. Senator, thank you for answering all my questions. I really appreciate it. I do want to turn now to another piece of breaking international news today.

Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, says she has been undergoing chemotherapy after doctors discovered cancer. The Princess herself made the announcement in a rare tape to statement recorded Wednesday and released today by Kensington Palace. In January, I underwent major abdominal surgery in London and at the time it was thought that my condition was non-cancerous. The surgery was successful.

However, tests on for the operation found cancer had been present. My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy and I'm now in the early stages of that treatment. We hope that you'll understand that as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. My work has always brought me a deep sense of joy and I look forward to being back when I'm able.

But for now, I must focus on making a full recovery. This afternoon, the White House wishing the Princess a full recovery saying they are saddened by the news. The palace would not confirm what type of cancer was found, what stage it was or how long treatment will last. The announcement also comes less than two months after Buckingham Palace announced King Charles was being treated for cancer.

We do not know what type of cancer he is being treated for either but we do wish both of them. Hopefully a full recovery from that in remission. Joining me now is NBC's Megan Fitzgerald. Megan, this is such devastating news and it comes after months of speculation.

Why is the palace sharing this information now? Yeah, it's a really good question. The palace is, you could say, drawing a red line here. I mean, there's several different reasons but one of which is because we have been seeing for the last several weeks, certainly the last several months, these conspiracy theories really just fueling, really ignited after they released that manipulated photo on Mother's Day here in the United Kingdom.

This is a way of getting in front of all of that, releasing this video which we've not seen before, hearing directly from the Princess of Wales herself, explaining exactly what is going on. But also, she's protecting her children as well. We know that it's the Easter holidays here. Children are on vacation for Easter and Kensington Palace likely not wanting this information to be released while the children are still in school.

Also, all eyes were gonna be on Easter next Sunday where we likely would see the royal family walking to church services on Easter. That is not going to happen. The palace says that we will not see the family attending Easter services on Sunday and should they not have come out with this information, there would have been a whole new set of speculation and conspiracy theories as to why the family has not shown up. So this is the palace being transparent about what's happening but it is important to note that we do not expect to receive any more information updating us on the Princess of Wales' condition.

It's just so devastating to see that video and powerful to hear in her own words what has been happening. And obviously the palace has come under scrutiny. Megan, do you think that this will in any way shift the way they look at updating the public on what is happening within the royal family? Well, you know, it's a really good question Chris.

I mean, what we have seen over the last several weeks given the release of that photo that was manipulated at the source is this backlash. And what we've also seen which has been unprecedented is the way in which they have been sharing information quite candidly. I mean, we were shocked when we heard about the, you know, preventative treatment that the king was going to be undergoing for an enlarged prostate. And then of course how they came out with the news about the Princess of Wales undergoing that planned abdominal surgery.

We've not seen that level of transparency. So it certainly was quite shocking that we were getting bits and pieces of information or no information at all as it relates to the Princess of Wales after that photo was released. So now here we are again with a video, something that we've never seen before releasing a fair bit of information which will hopefully stem the conspiracy theories that have been fueling. Yeah, Megan Fitzgerald, thank you so much.

Really appreciate your joining us. Still to come former Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer meets the press. What he said about that state of our democracy and the unprecedented leak of the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, don't go anywhere.

You're watching me the press now. Welcome back. This week I sat down with retired Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer who stepped down in 2022 from the court after more than 27 years serving on the Supreme Court. We had a wide ranging conversation about everything from the cases that are before the Supreme Court to his reflections on the state of American democracy.

Take a listen to a bit of what he had to say about that. Do you worry that too many people have lost the ability to listen in this country? Yes. And where does that leave us?

Not bad. What does that potentially mean for the state of this country's democracy? Look, there are two slides to many things. One, he said, the United States of America, hey, this is in part the United States of America.

So the United States of America, we used to think, and I still think that maybe we're not listening as much as we should. Justice Breyer with his pocket constitution there. I also spoke to Justice Breyer about the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and that unprecedented leak of the draft of an opinion indicating the court was poised to roll back abortion rights that became public weeks before the final decision was announced.

How disruptive was the leak to the court and to the relationships that you described? It was unfortunate. You angry? You try to avoid getting angry with that effect.

You try in a job, you try to remain as calm, reasonable, and serious as possible. I think it was unfortunate, definitely. How much discussion was there about a potential compromise around 15 weeks? Well, you know as much about that as I do.

You saw what Chief Justice Roberts wrote. And when you see what is written, the normal situation is before something is written in the conference, people in some form or other will discuss what they're thinking of writing, not always and not identical, but there's usually some discussion. Did you think that a compromise was possible before the leak around 15 weeks? I usually hope for compromise.

So you were hopeful there could be a compromise? No, you want to put words in my mouth. I'm careful what I say on this. Because I say, our interests are different.

I don't want to make a difference. I've written what I thought. If you think there's news in here or in the dissent, don't write ahead. But I don't want to say something in addition.

Yeah, just to be clear though, did you think a compromise was possible? I always think it's possible. I always think it's possible. Usually up until the last minute.

Just a fascinating conversation. We'll have much more of my exclusive interview with former Justice Breyer this Sunday on Meet the Press. Plus I'll also have an exclusive interview with former RNC chairwoman Ron at McDaniel. And that does it for us this hour.

We will be back Monday with more Meet the Press. But the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. I'm Craig Malef, cheers. Cheers.

I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And if I can't, so I hope you'll join me each week.

And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half full. Search glass half full with Craig Malef, from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.