Meet the Press NOW — March 31

Welcome to Meet the Press Now, I'm Melanie Sonata, and that was the closing bell as Wall Street rallies on new but questionable hopes that the war with Iran could end soon. The Dow closing up over 1,000 points after Iran's president told the EU Council President that Tehran has the will to end the war if specific guarantees are met. This is not the first time we've heard these kinds of comments from Tehran during the conflict. And today's market rally coming despite the continued chokehold on ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz leading to a surge in oil prices with crude oil settling at over $100 a barrel for the second straight day.

And the national average for a gallon of gas now is repressing $4 for the first time since 2022. The White House trying to downplay the rise in gas prices, saying in a statement, quote, when Operation Epic Fury is complete, gas prices will plummet back down to the multi-year lows American drivers enjoyed before the short-term disruptions. Meanwhile, this morning, President Trump lashed out at allies facing fuel shortages, saying in a social media post, they should, quote, build up some delayed courage, go to the strait and just take it and, quote, go get your own oil. At a Pentagon press conference this morning, Defense Secretary Huggseth similarly urging U.S.

allies to get more involved in the Strait of Hormuz. There are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It's not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well.

So he's pointing out, this is an international waterway that we use less than most, in fact, dramatically less than most. So the world ought pay attention to be prepared to stand up. It comes after a Kuwait flag oil tanker was damaged in a drone strike today while anchored at a port in Dubai. Kuwait's state-owned energy company is blaming Iran for the attack.

According to Wall Street Journal, President Trump is now telling aides he's willing to end the U.S. military campaign against Iran, even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed. President Trump also telling my colleague Peter Nicholas in a phone call this morning that when it comes to war, quote, we're doing great, and it's coming to an end. Joining me now is NBC's Kelly O'Donnell outside the White House, NBC News Business, and Data correspondent Brian Chung, NBC News Senior National Security Correspondent Courtney QE, and NBC's Stephanie Goss in Tel Aviv.

Thank you all so much for joining me. I do want to start over at the White House with Kelly. Kelly President Trump today is saying U.S. allies should go get their own oil, but just yesterday he posted, quote, if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately open for business, we will conclude our lovely stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants.

Kelly, can you explain this shift in tone from the president? Well, we've been in a pinball effect with the president's comments about the military action that he launched against Iran, about his relationship with the allied countries that are typically great partners to the United States. We have seen him give different directions, and this is another example of that, where he talks about a time frame for the war, talking about then ending it. We know that there is evidence of forward movement of U.S.

military personnel and lots of equipment to the region. At the same time, he's talking about winding it down. The president often uses a bit of a chaos theory to try to keep adversaries out of balance, and that may be part of it as well, as well as the evolving situation where the president is trying to keep markets from having the kind of downturn we've seen today's an example of the rise in the market. So the president is doing a lot of different things.

It can be challenging to try to find the one through line in his plan. He has talked about objectives that are laid out, that he wants to achieve, and that they are making progress at the same time, a specific timetable is often dependent on activities on the ground. Today, we also told our colleague Peter Nicholas in that call that you mentioned, Mel, that the president said that he believes they're dealing now with someone in Iranian leadership that is less radicalized than those that existed before. We don't know what basis he is making such an assertion because those that are in the leadership and have been a part of the apparatus of Iran's government are all typically of a like mind.

There may be varying degrees, but why he would say not radicalized and more reasonable is unclear to us at this point. The president's trying to manage the markets, manage the campaign, manage the allies, and trying to get them to say, hey, if you need oil, it's on you. So that's a different tone from the president who is the one who shows to engage in this war with Iran. Mel, like a very, very different tone.

One thing that the White House has been consistent on though is downplaying concern about gas prices, but Kelly, what are your sources telling you and just how concerned is the White House about the national average now getting $4 a gallon? So I'm having a little malfunction with my earpiece, but I think you were referencing gas prices. So gas prices significant there. Obviously, many Americans are dealing with how they determine their costs and those who have long commutes or make their living behind the wheel, whether it's trucking or cars running all the different ways in which that affects just about every part of American working life.

And then as consumers, we're at the mercy of all of those different businesses that rely on gasoline. We're seeing it spike at a point we've not seen in a handful of years. And that's something that we are watching very carefully, because that is a key indicator. And the president has argued that you could get gas prices to come down quickly.

That is unclear, actually, because even if this conflict ends, even if the straight or four moves were to be in a more stable place, there's lots of supply chain issues that have to do with energy and it could be longer. So the president is very concerned about how the American voters in the midterm year are concerned about that and the broader economy and what those markets are doing. Melanie. And, Kelly, before I let you go and if your earpiece is still working, okay, great, because we've got some breaking news about legal developments on the construction of the White House ballroom.

What can you tell us about this? And isn't it too late since the East Wing is already torn down? Well, for our viewers, they probably know there may be no more project that appears to occupy as much of the president's passion and focus as the ballroom. A court today, a federal court ruled that it must stop.

The construction must stop. Now, we've been watching. There's a big crane above our heads here that's on the other side of the White House where the East Wing used to be. Don't see evidence yet of a work stoppage, but we'll be watching closely for that.

The court says that the president is a steward, not the owner of the White House and that changes of this import needed to go through Congress. That did not happen. And so the National Trust, which is a group that protects the historical preservation of all kinds of things in Washington that are of great national importance, sued and a federal judge has said that this project must stop immediately for a temporary injunction and Congress must act. So you're right.

The East Wing is gone. That demolition happened. There is a hole in the ground and big plans according to the president. What could happen is going forward having new channels of oversight, which is what many people who have been concerned about this project have argued from the beginning that there has not been oversight.

A federal court is now saying Congress has to play a role. Melanie, an important storyline. Kelly, thank you so much. I want to turn out to our business correspondent, Brian.

We saw the market surge on the news of Iran's president laying out Iran's terms for ending the war. Can you explain this level of volatility that we're seeing right now? Yeah. Well, I mean, first let's acknowledge that it was a great day on Wall Street.

We saw massive moves in the Dow Jones, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ composite. Basically everywhere you were looking from the most part, you're seeing green on your screen up about 3% on those major indexes. That should also point out that our team is confirming that this is in the best day since May of last year for the S&P and the NASDAQ. And all this is because of optimism that undid some of the concerns that we've seen over the last few days over where this war in Iran was going to go.

Now, whether or not that's a rational bet is another question, but I should point out that when you see massive swings on the stock market like this, you do have to remember that there's a lot of options betting that's going on in the market. Without getting into the nitty gritty, there's a lot of puts and calls where people are essentially accelerating their bets where market downturns can accelerate and market upturns can accelerate. So the volatility in the market is still in place despite the fact that we now have a green day and I should point out if you zoom out over the one month period, the S&P 500 despite those gains today, still down 5% percent. Interesting.

I do want to dig into the straight potentially remaining close to the president has said the US doesn't need that oil, but what would be the long-term impacts of the Strait of Hormuz remain disrupted? Yeah, and this is where there's a real challenge between the rhetoric that we're hearing from the White House and a potential exit strategy and then what happens with the Strait of Hormuz because it sounds like based off of some of the commentary we've been hearing from the president as of late, there could be a scenario where the United States exits the war, but the Strait of Hormuz remains close. That would be a big deal for all of those ships that travel through that very narrow 21-mile wide passageway through which 20% of the world's oil goes through. So even if there were to be a resolution on the US side of this involvement in this war, if ships are stuck there, you don't really see necessarily a light at the end of the tunnel for barrels of oil prices going down where we see Brent and WTI crude oilers in the major benchmarks still well above $100 per barrel.

That is still up about $30-40 from where we were prior to this war, which means we can still face elevated oil prices. But again, we'll have to see. Well, speaking of oil prices, the average gas price does hit $4 a gallon. The White House says gas prices will plummet back to the lows after this war is over, but is that what's actually going to happen, Brian?

Well, that could happen if there are ships that make their passageway again through the Strait of Hormuz. We were just showing that chart before that shows you how many ships have actually gone through that channel. Prior to this war, there are about 100-100 ships going through the Strait of Hormuz a day. Currently, we're seeing sub-10.

So until we start to see 10 times, essentially, the traffic that we're seeing right now, well, it's just not going to get back to those levels. And I should also point out that major energy facilities like LNG producing facilities in Qatar have been so badly damaged that in some cases, the Qataris are saying it could take us as long as five years to get that back. So yes, even though the White House Caroline let it say that a price should drop, it's going to be difficult according to oil analysts that I've spoken to to to see those prices get back to where they were prior to this war. No, Brian, thank you so much for breaking that all down.

I want to bring it here on set. Courtney QB is with me. There was a press briefing this morning from Secretary Hexeth. Did you learn anything new about the plans or the war?

Not really. I mean, Secretary Hexeth likes to hide behind the idea of operational security. And there's some truth to that, right? Talking about what the US military is going to do in the coming days and weeks where they're going to go, the numbers and all that.

Yeah, that does pose a potential direct threat to the members of the military who are forward. But we still don't have a good sense of what's happened behind us in this war. And that's one of the big questions is, you know, exactly, what has Iran been able to strike and damage? What has the US been able to hit?

We know very broad terms. We really don't have the specifics. We don't have the level of detail that we have had about past conflicts, even recent ones. And one of the other big questions is what the objectives are in this war.

Trump said one of the main ones is to rid Iran of its nuclear capabilities. He told CBS that he couldn't leave the region without removing the country's enriched uranium, saying that's so deeply buried. It's going to be very hard for anybody. It's pretty safe.

But, you know, we'll make a determination, one of his favorite phrases. But what do we know about Iran's enriched uranium and what it would take to actually extract it? It would be a huge undertaking. So if in fact, it is all at one site, which it may not be a maybe split between two of these sites, they are sites that have both been bombed by the US last June Operation Midnight Hammer.

It's not clear whether the canisters themselves may have been damaged in those bombings. They may just very well be entombed underground. But if they were damaged, if in fact, someone were to go in and dig out those facilities, which would be a big undertaking in and of itself, then you may be met with hazardous gases, because that's the form of the highly rich uranium. It's a gas.

When they go into these locations, then you have to figure out a way to get them out and to potentially transform. It's a huge undertaking. It's days or weeks, not to do not much hours. And again, at this point, it's still not 100% clear where the entire stockpile is.

If it's 100, it might be split in another location as well. Such important context. Today, Secretary Hex said that Iran's military capabilities are actually decreasing. Let's play some of that time and talk about it on the other side.

American firepower is only increasing. Iran's decreasing. We have more and more options, and they have less. Of note, the last 24 hours saw the lowest number of enemy missiles and drones fired by Iran.

Now, as I've said this, as a Kuwaiti oil tanker was just hit, so is it actually accurate to say that Iran's firepower is decreasing? It is in that the U.S. continues, and the Israelis a little bit, but it's right now that we're talking about actual missiles and drones. The U.S.

is taking the lion's share of the strikes against those, and they are hitting them, and they are continuing to strike their storage facilities. The majority of the missile launchers have been damaged or destroyed. Not all of them, but the majority. But what's really key here, Melanie, is that despite that fact, and despite the fact that the U.S.

has been unleashing hundreds of strikes every single day, Iran is still carrying out a relatively steady stream of attacks every single day. So it's a combination of drones and missiles, but the drones are everywhere from 70, maybe per day. The missiles are anywhere between about 30 and 50 per day, and what's really striking here is these missiles and these drones are more accurate. They're targeting them more specifically.

That's how we end up with things like the attack on Prince Sultan airbase last Friday that led to a couple of aircraft killed, damaged, and several American service members seriously injured. Courtney, thank you so much for all of that reporting. I want to turn out to what's happening in the Middle East where Stephanie Goss is there for us. The Iranian president did discuss the possibility of the war ending, and he repeated Iran's need for certain guarantees.

What more do we know? Yes, this report comes from Iranian State TV that Masoud possession the president of Iran got on the phone today with the president of the EU Council, and he said that they do want these guarantees for peace. Chief among them guarantee that the country won't be attacked again, but we've also heard officials from Iran talk about how they want reparations for the damage that has been done to their country, and that they also want official acknowledgement that they control the Strait of Hormuz. So that can kind of show you they're likely not going to get all of those things.

But he is speaking to these ongoing negotiations, Melanie, and we really don't know what's going on behind closed doors and what the discussions are about. But comments like this can certainly give some people definitely the markets it seems today, some confidence that maybe this is going in the right direction. And you mentioned the Strait of Hormuz, which remains largely closed. President Trump did say that allies should learn how to fight for themselves and go take their own oil.

This also comes as European leaders have pushed back on getting involved in the war. So take us through what got us to this point that we're in now, Stephanie. Yeah, I mean, this is a conversation that we've been having really for a while now. And European leaders in no uncertain terms, the first time President Trump said they should get involved said they want no part of it.

The president in his post and true social today did not acknowledge the fact that the US and Israel were the ones who offensively went after Iran and it led to this situation, but still called on the European countries to get involved. In fact, called out name checks of the UK and said if there are concerns about the soaring prices of jet fuel, perhaps they should get their fuel from the US. But beyond that, they should take an active role. There was a response today from the French president Emmanuel Macron.

He said that the tweet was a surprise, but that the Francis position has remained the same since day one. In other words, they are not going to get involved, Millie. And as we mentioned, Iran has continued its attack on Gulf neighbors. We're hearing new warnings from them about targeting civilian infrastructure.

What are we hearing about that? Yeah, well, there has been infrastructure, civilian infrastructure being targeted for a while now in the Gulf. A lot of the energy infrastructure in the Gulf. You heard Brian mentioned it a moment ago in Qatar, but also in Bahrain.

There are oil refineries, export facilities. All of these places have been targeted of recent concern are desalination plants. And there was a desalination plant in Kuwait that was struck. And this is something that might be new to people in the US hearing about it.

But in that part of the world, desalination plants are what give people water. I mean, it is that vital and to hit a plant like that really could starve the region. Ralph Sanchez is actually in the Gulf and he had a chance to go to a press conference today and ask about this specific question. Listen to this.

Both the United States and Iran have threatened to hit desalination plants. What would the consequences be here in the Gulf of desalination plants become a target? Since this is the nation beyond, we have one against targeting vital civilian infrastructure. We have said it very clearly that this is a threat to all of us in the region.

This region depends heavily on desalination. We have the other resources of drinking water, with natural water, all the other. And therefore, we see this as a very big threat to people's lives here in the region. And we condemn all the attacks on civilian infrastructure as completely unnecessary and very dangerous for the region.

So they're dealing with threats to their people, they're dealing with threats to their economy. These are significant challenges and they aren't going to go away soon, Melanie. Stephanie, thank you and also to our colleague, Roth for all your incredible reporting overseas. We really appreciate it.

Joining me now is the former commander of U.S. Central Command and a distinguished military fellow at the Middle East Institute, retired force on General Joseph Votel. Joseph, thank you so much for joining us. President Trump told my colleague that the war with Iran is, quote, coming to an end.

So is it that simple? And doesn't Iran also get a say when this warrants? Well, first of all, it's good to be with you, Melanie. Yeah, certainly they do.

I mean, this is open conflict, it's a war. So everyone has a voice in this and so many is taking actions here to respond to the operations that have been conducted. So, yeah, they definitely end the role. And of course, it's the United States President's responsibility to make a determination about how well we've done accomplishing the objectives that have been that he's laid out for us.

There's also been a lot of discussion about what action the U.S. could take when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz and Park Island. What do you think, though, is the most realistic option and would that require boots on the ground? Well, the most realistic option for trying to open this is that we have to dedicate the maritime resources, the air resources, to actually opening this straight back up and restoring freedom of navigation and free flow of commerce through this very important waterway.

And that was an expected action that Iran would take in the event that they were attacked, and now we have to deal with that. And that's a significant responsibility, I think, for us at this particular point is to get this going, not just for Iran, but certainly for our partners in the region. In an interview with the New York Post this morning, President Trump said the Strait of Hormuz will, quote, automatically open once the U.S. leaves the region.

Is it that simple? I don't know. Of course, that will be up to Iran. Iran has kind of the operational advantage of means by geography over the straights of Hormuz.

So they can certainly make things very, very difficult there. Whether we depart and they open it up or not, it remains to be seen. I would just point out that just in the last couple of days that they tried to turn this into a toll system here where ships will have to pay through that doesn't support the free flow of commerce. And so whether that's acceptable or not, we'll have to be the termination made by our policymakers.

Perhaps that's why now the Wall Street Journal reporting that President Trump said he's willing to end the war without opening the Strait of Hormuz. But he also has threatened to strike Iran's civilian energy infrastructure, including desalination plans. If Iran doesn't agree to end the war, do you believe that would be a lawful target? Well, I think it would be a mistake to do this striking those types of targets, desalination plans, in particular, would likely invite the reciprocal attacks from Iran that would do incalcable damage across the region.

And it would open us up to allegations of violating international humanitarian law and Geneva conventions. And that's just not how we operate. It's not what we want to be. I recognize the president has a very unique way of communicating what we am selecting military targets.

We have an obligation to operate in accordance with the law. Well, clearly, President Trump is getting frustrated in his social media posts this morning. He told countries that rely on the Strait of Hormuz, which include many of our allies, obviously, that you'll have to start learning how to fight for yourselves. The USA won't be there, help you anymore.

Just like you weren't there for us, go get your own oil. So is that an option in our European countries, even in a position to go in and get their own oil? I don't think they are. I mean, they would likely try to use some kind of diplomatic other process to try to get their ships in and out of the Gulf if that was the case.

The best way of creating coalitions to go in and do these types of operations with our international partners is to start over. And unfortunately, that was not the case in this situation. So we find ourselves after the fact trying to create international support for this and as a machine, it's been very, very difficult to harness. Before you go, I also want to ask you about Spain closing office airspace to U.S.

planes involved in the war. Just how significant of a rift is this war creating between the U.S. and our allies? Well, it's very clear that a number of the European countries and the number of them who are NATO allies have very strong views on the necessity for this war and are expressing it by things like we've seen in Spain or recently today in Italy.

Certainly, these make things more difficult. There are work around, certainly in the military can find ways to work around this. It's inconvenient, it's not insurmountable. But certainly, we'd like to operate an environment where we had the full support of our coalition or of our international partners and really operating within a coalition.

I think it just reminds us why it's important to do the work up front that we need to do before we conduct military operations. No doubt, General. Thank you so much, as always, for your expertise. Good to be with you.

Coming up, shut down stalemate with line that airports finally gaining shorter. The ongoing shutdown could actually be getting longer. Republican Congress and Mike Kennedy are standing by to talk about that and more. Plus, NBC News exclusive reporting on the administration's plans to send ICE agents to Marine Corps graduation events.

We have that story straight ahead. You're watching. Beat the press now. NBC News dot com slash vicinity for full offer terms and details.

This last time you were on this program, you told my colleague Kristen Walker that shut downs are a disaster. Do you think the House missed an opportunity on Friday to be the ones to end the shutdown by voting on that unanimous bill, by not voting on that unanimous bill that passed the Senate? Shut downs are total nonsense. They were nonsense from Democrats years ago when Republicans years ago did them and their nonsense now with Democrats are doing them.

We had a bipartisan bi-camera bill more than 40 days ago that was ready to be passed and then these murders had happened in Minnesota happened and all of a sudden the Democrats ran away and started using the shutdown as a political weapon. And frankly, I think the Democrats should be embarrassed that they're using government workers as leverage for their own political employees. And I find it totally unacceptable. That's why I sponsored the No Work, No Pay Act.

If you're in Congress and there's a shutdown, you don't get paid at congressmen as well as these federal workers. And also no shutdowns act. It's the sort of thing that we should sponsor and promote the bill that if there is a shutdown that we have a continuing resolution automatically in play for two weeks and if after the two weeks we don't have a resolution to the conflict and we have another continuing resolution at infinitum until we get a move ahead on these negotiations. I'll just say that what the Senate sent to us was also unacceptable.

They zeroed out the budget, a border patrol and ICE. That's zeroing out of the budget. Not only would it not pay the people that need to be paid, it would also threaten child sex trafficking investigations that border patrol is already doing. So we cannot accept that.

And when the speaker came to us as a conference said this what we've got, the zeroing out of the budget for ICE and border patrol, we all agreed as a conference. We're not going to accept that. We sent them back a 60 day continuing resolution, which is all it is is keeping the funding as it currently stands. We send it back to the Senate.

The Senate is all home and we see some on vacation doing various things is yeah, the Senate should come back. The balls in their court and they should come back and fund that continuing resolution while we continue these negotiations. But Congressmen, even though that bill did exclude ICE and border patrol, they do have funding at this moment because it was included in the Big Beautiful Bill that Republicans passed last summer. So and the Senate plan would have funded the rest of the department.

I've heard that. But you don't think that would be enough? It would not have actually the zeroing out of that budget. There's there's an estimated 50 or 60 percent of the budget for border patrol and ICE that would not be funded.

That's the ancillary workers. Of course, there's a lot of people that are answering phones that are that are the schedulers, whatever supportive services that are there, those people are not funded in the Big Beautiful Bill. And as a result, they would not be funded. The other idea that's really important to consider is that we can't have the Senate picking and choosing parts of an appropriations package that they're going to line item veto out.

That's that's a terrible precedence. And if we're going to do that out of the 12 appropriations packages, we will never get any bill, we'll never get any appropriations package passed. If they're going to cut out ports and we're just going to go back forever, just negotiating, fighting about these various parts. So it's a, the appropriations packages always have to start in the house.

House is sent 11 out of 12 and 12 out of 12 over there. And the senators on the, the Democrats side, they need to support the appropriations package that they agreed to over a month ago. And then we can get these people paid and continue the vital work that they do. Now, there has been some talk of using a reconciliation bill, which would require only 51 votes in the Senate to pass things in order to fund perhaps all of DHS, which would be outside the normal appropriations process, as you mentioned.

But is that something you could support? I decided being outside the appropriations process. And also, do you think there is enough support for Republicans to unify around a reconciliation package? Time is of the essence as to a reconciliation package.

I am supportive of a reconciliation package 2.0. I think that that could be something that's helpful. But that takes time. It takes a lot of time.

You have to pass a budget resolution, then you have to have a negotiation. So we don't have time. Right now, there are people that were emergency order from the president. We're funding their salaries.

And it makes me very concerned when we're talking about delaying that more. The balls in the Senate's court, right now, they can fund a continuing resolution, which just keeps things as usual moving forward for 60 days. And these people could be paid. These families deserve their paycheck.

We've had hundreds that have quit as a result of this nonsensical shutdown. And we need to support these people for the vital work that they do, not just in TSA, but our board of patrol and our ace agents are doing great work. And we need to support them by making sure they get their salaries. I do think it's worth noting that Senate Republicans could have also rejected that deal.

They allowed it to pass by a voice vote on Thursday. But I do want to turn to the around war. We've seen 5,000 additional troops head to the region. One point out is 3 o'clock in the morning.

But it was hotline, which means they checked at night. What was that? They checked with every officer or hotline before they went to that final vote at 3 in the morning. So they had an opportunity.

They knew this was coming. And Republicans really wanted to talk to my Senate. You might want to take it off with Senate. I haven't talked to my Republican senators.

But I do want to talk about the foreign law. I think it's a unanimous consent at 3 in the morning. It's not appropriate. On the topic of boots, fair enough.

On the topic of war and around, would you support the president putting boots on the ground? I don't want our young men and young women fighting on foreign soil, putting their lives in jeopardy. And I believe that this can be resolved without us having soldiers on the ground. I think around for more than 40 years has been a terrorist nation, a chance to death to America.

And just like I think about professionally a doctor cutting out cancer, if there's cancer in the body politic of the world, we need to cut that out. When you're in the middle of an operation to cut out cancer, you can't cut and run and hope that things go well and not have at all all the cancer entirely taken out. So in this case, I believe we need to complete the operation to the best of our abilities so we can be assured that the nuclear weapons that Iran is trying to develop as well as ballistic missiles that can reach over 1,000 miles to nations far outside of the range that we've thought of before, that we make sure that those ballistic missiles would deliver those nuclear weapons are not available to a terrorist nation who wants to destroy not only America but Israel. And I stand with President Trump and moving forward in this operation.

But no, I do not want our soldiers, our young men and our young women, the greatest resource we have in this country is our young people. And for us to send them into harm's way, I believe and I know that President Trump loves those people and he will only do that as absolutely necessary. As the war unfolds, the average cost of the gallon of gas has surpassed $4 nationwide, closer to $4.20 actually in Utah, your home state. The White House had prices will come down when the war is over.

But do you think that's enough for Americans who are already facing high prices now and being asked to sacrifice? I want to make sure that those prices are down also as fast as possible. And this is sort of thing that as we invest in making sure that that terrorist nation is not holding the world's oil at hostage, 20% of the world's oil flows to the Strait of Hormuz. And we need to make sure that that terrorist nation is not jacking up the prices associated with gas.

So, yes, I am concerned my constituents are concerned about gas prices. I believe this is a temporary painful yet temporary state of circumstances. And just like I mentioned with the surgery, nobody wants to get surgery. It hurts when it happens.

But weeks and months later, people feel better because we've done the thing that was necessary. And I believe that's how President Trump's proceeding. And I think we should support him as we move forward with this operation. Congressman Mike Kennedy of Utah, thank you so much for joining us.

Up next, a big decision from the Supreme Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM. Welcome back and we got a ruling today in one of the most closely watched cases of this Supreme Court term. And the justices dealt a blow to LGBTQ rights really against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy aimed at young people struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In an eight one decision cutting across ideological lines, the justices ruled that the ban violated a conservative Christian therapist's right to free speech. Justice Neil Borsich writing the majority opinion, quote, the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind in the faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado's, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments. NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley joins me now on set.

Lawrence, thank you so much for joining us. Walk us through the majority opinion today. Just run through that for us. So a big part of this case is how you see types of medical regulations, right?

Are those regulations regulating speech? Are they relating conduct? And that was where the court was divided in this eight to one ruling. The majority is saying these conversion therapy bans are actually a form of a free speech restriction because it's imposing restrictions on what these talk therapists can say.

And it's purely about speech. It's not about conduct. It's not about the type of things that a doctor might do or prescription or some kind of procedure that they might take out, which is based on their professional responsibility. So the court saw this as a free speech violation.

That's something they do quite a lot of this conservative majority court. They frequently ruled in favor of conservatives bringing these types of challenges. And this was another example of that type of case. Yeah, we've seen the world in favor of a lot of Christian conservatives throughout this last year.

The lone dissenting opinion was Justice Kintaji Brown Jackson first walk us through what her argument was and didn't surprise you at all that she was the only one who dissented. Yeah, so Justice Jackson was fell on the other side of this, right? She's saying this is actually regulating conduct. This is the type of things that states do all the time when they regulate medical professionals.

It's not, if any imposition on free speech rises kind of incidental, it's really regulating that conduct. And she was the only dissenters you mentioned. The two other liberal justices joined the majority. But Justice Elena Kagan wrote this separate opinion, which kind of helps to explain why she did, saying that she's worried about Republican states potentially restricting therapy that would do kind of gender affirming care.

So this ruling she thinks should apply all across the board to both types of restrictions. And this is obviously below to LGBTQ rights, but are there any impacts beyond conversion therapy here? Well, potentially, because Justice Jackson and her dissent pointed out that this could affect other types of medical regulations across the board, right? We don't know if that's true, the majority can test that.

So we'll see as this ruling gets implemented what kind of broader ramifications it has. Lawrence early, thank you so much for breaking all that down for us. Let's turn now to Cape Canaveral, Florida, where the countdown to NASA's first crude Artemis two flight is on. We are just about T minus 26 hours from the launch time when four astronauts will blast off from Launchpad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center.

The crew will go on a 10 day mission and for the first time in more than 50 years journey around the Moon. True members who are in quarantine leading up to the takeoff say they are targeting Artemis to as a true test flight. The four of us we are ready to go. The team is ready to go and the vehicle is ready to go.

But not for one second. We have an expectation that we are going. We will go when this vehicle tells us ready when the team is ready to go. So we might go off the pad and we might have to try again a few more times and we are 100% ready for that.

And so far, fingers crossed. All systems are go earlier today. NASA said the weather forecast shows an 80% chance of favorable weather conditions with a minimal chance of lightning in the late afternoon. If all goes as planned, this mission could mark the farthest humans have ever traveled from Earth, passing the record set by Apollo 13 in 1970.

Live special coverage kicks off at 4 p.m. Eastern tomorrow right here on NBC News Now. And we'll be right back with more. Welcome back.

We've got a bunch of key primaries coming up this summer. In races where Democrats are hoping they'll be able to compete in the fall. And while Democrats are increasingly confident, they can overcome Republicans near a majority and retake the house. Their path to victory in the Senate is much more complicated.

Joining me now to break it down is our NBC chief data analyst Steve Kornaki. So Steve, give us the reality check here. How realistic is it that Democrats are actually going to be able to retake the Senate? And if so, what is their path in order to do so?

Yeah, Mel, I guess the answer to that question is how realistic do you think it is for Democrats to win you? Not one, but two pretty deeply pro Trump states. That's what they'd have to do to get the Senate. Look at it this way.

Here's the big picture, Matt. Democrats need a net gain of four seats if they're going to take back the Senate. The first order of business for them is they don't want to lose any ground. They got to protect a couple seats here.

The three are thinking of theirs. John Ossoff and George. It's also Democratic held seats in New Hampshire and Michigan. They don't want to lose any of those that would only add to the Republican majority and make the Democrats Hill probably too much.

But that's too steep. But if they do win those three, hold on to them, then they still need that net gain of four seats. And they'd be looking to do it probably from this list. These are the six Republican seats that I think to some degree folks think are going to be in play this year.

Now, again, Democrats need four. You could look at Maine, Susan Collins running in a state that already didn't vote for Trump. That's the most realistic for Democrats. Of course, Collins has survived in some tough conditions before, but that could be one for Democrats.

North Carolina Democrats excited about their candidate there. The former governor, Roy Cooper, Trump only won it by three points. That's not unrealistic at all for Democrats. That could be too.

But then draw a line there because the complexion politically of these states changes Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, Texas Democrats hoping to knock to a pick up Republican seats here. All of them double digit states for Donald Trump. These aren't just red states. These are in the Trump era.

These are very red states, certainly in 2024. And the political atmosphere is just different in red states. Take a look at this from sort of a compilation of all of our NBC news, CNBC poll, and our pollsters put this together here. Trump states, that's what we're talking about.

Democrat needing to win at least two of those Senate races here versus swing states versus Harris States. Views of Donald Trump in swing states, they're almost 10 points more negative than positive in Trump states. Trump is above water by three points. Views of the Democratic Party, they're not good anywhere, 23 points negative in swing states, but almost 10 points worse than that in red states.

Views of the Republican Party, they're not that good anywhere, but they're almost even in these Trump states. So again, if Democrats are going to win back the Senate this year, they got to protect all their seats, but they got to win two of this group of four. They probably have to win two of this group of four in a much less hostile environment in all the states to Trump. And you're going to get in the average swing state now.

Very insightful. Thank you so much, Steve Krennaki, at the Big Bird, my favorite site to see. We turn now to the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants and NBC News exclusive reporting that ICE agents will be stationed outside upcoming Marine Corps graduation events in South Carolina this week in an apparent effort to identify whether any of their family members are undocumented. As the US continues its war with Iran, the Marine Corps has boosted protection measures on bases requiring everyone to present real IDs, passports, or birth certificates.

And joining me now is senior homeland security correspondent, Julia Ainsley. Julia, you were part of this excellent reporting with our Courtney QB, our colleague. What more do we know about what actually went into this decision and why specifically our graduation events being targeted? Yeah, this is really unusual and unprecedented in a lot of ways.

What we're hearing from the Department of Homeland Security and from the Marines is that this is part of elevated security. In part, because of what's happening in Iran, they want to protect the armed forces. Also, if you look at the context of last November, where an Afghan asylum as someone who had been granted asylum from Afghanistan shot two national guard numbers in Washington, D.C., they enhanced the vetting and really stopped asylum screening after that for a period of time. So you could argue that's what we're seeing, but also ISIS just showing up in places where we didn't see them previously.

What we understand now is that they will be present present at this graduation ceremony from basic training for the Marines, graduating in Paris Island, South Carolina on Friday, and they'll be doing real ID checks to make sure that people who are attending are legally allowed to be in the United States. But what we haven't gotten an answer on from ICE or from the Marines is whether or not they will be doing a rest if someone doesn't present the right documentation. It's very rare that we ever see ICE find out that someone is not lawfully in the United States and not moved to make an arrest. But in response to our story, a DHS spokesperson said it is fake news that ICE will not be making a rest there, although I have to point out nowhere in our reporting, did we say they'd be making arrests, but simply they would be present and doing these real ID checks.

And Julia, this also comes as we're learning that 14 detainees have died since the beginning of this year while in ICE custody, potentially an increase from previous years. What more do we know about these deaths? Yeah, that's right. This is now, you know, we're now looking into the 30s near 40 total deaths since Trump took office in January 2025.

A lot of this has to do with overcrowding. The last death was a Mexican detainee in a Texas facility. We've seen other deaths where it's been ruled a homicide, a suicide, people not getting medical treatment that they need. A lot of those that advocates say are preventable, but because it's so crowded and because they're starting to keep people in places where we hadn't seen before, like some of the state run facilities that aren't as regularly monitored, they say that it's leading to more of these problems.

Another thing we cataloged last summer that we believe is still continuing is a lack of adequate nutrition that some people claim that they're not getting enough food per day and that the food they are getting oftentimes is spoiled. So we've heard a lot of these complaints. A lot of this could be remedied if there were more monitors in there, but oftentimes monitors and legal access and lawyers who would regularly be attending these places are not getting in as frequently as they used to. One other thing I just wanted to say about the Marines is that a lot of the people that I've interviewed over over my course recovering immigration are undocumented immigrants with citizen children who decided to become part of the military.

So it's not unusual. We would see undocumented parents showing up at that. Julianne, thank you so much for breaking all of that down, such important reporting. Silicon clash on the Capitol.

Writers who participated in the January 6th attack accused police of excessive force in a new lawsuit and sued the federal government for millions of dollars in damages. We have that story next. I'm Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

Turning now to the latest attempt by those who perpetrated the January 6th attack on the Capitol to change the narrative about what really happened that day. A class action lawsuit has now been filed by dozens of those who rioted that day. The lawsuit filed in Florida against the federal government accuses police of excessive force in response to the protest. According to that lawsuit, police indiscriminately launched explosive munitions, chemical agents, and impact projectiles into a peaceful crowd and physically assaulted members of the crowd.

It's important to note that roughly 1,500 people were charged with federal crimes in connection with January 6th and President Trump pardoned nearly all of them on his first day in office. About 1,400 Capitol NDC police officers were injured during the January 6th attack. We'll get Ryan in fact. One officer died from injuries sustained in the attack.

Two others died by suicide in the weeks that followed. NBC News, Senior Justice reporter Ryan Riley joins me now. It was 14 people. 140 around office.

Yes, we're injured in the attack. You know, Ryan, when I, this news first came through my email, I was kind of casually reading it. I thought it was going to be that the police officers are the ones suing the federal government. It's actually the other way around.

And what really is mind-boggling is that some of those people were actually charged with crimes in connection with January 6th. Is that right? Yeah. One of them actually was a far demand specifically was actually, he was part of a lot of them were charging connection with January 6th.

But this individual actually afterwards, he came in a whole separate host of crimes involving child molestation. He's actually now serving a life sentence for child molestation. And in that instance, he actually told one of his victims, according to law enforcement, that he was going to use the money he expected to receive from the Trump administration to sort of silence him, right? So that, and that was part of the case that moved forward.

Then, you know, more recently, there was another individual who was not a part of this also, I should say, who was convicted for child sex material that was found on their phone in the course of a January 6 investigation. So you're seeing all these new crimes that, you know, individuals have been charged with convicted of sentence for after their January 6 actions. But this lawsuit itself, I think, is obviously, I think, filed in Florida for a reason. They're sort of bringing it forward.

They're probably more of a generous jury pool, potentially, down there, even though there's not really a connection so much to the actual events that took place in DC. I'm glad you answered that because that was one of my questions. One of the other questions I had was there were Capitol Police. There was also DC Metropolitan Police that day.

But this lawsuit, this is just against Capitol Police, is that right? I think it's both. But yeah, I mean, so the Metropolitan Police both responded, but they used some of these crime munitions. And what they sort of do is cherry pick a lot of these audio that you hear over the body cam videos where people are saying, you know, it's not really working that, you know, at one point, one officer said, you know, we're hitting innocent people, I think, meaning people who were further back and weren't the ones that were really attacking them on the front lines.

But there are so many warning signs that you should not be there that day. And a lot of the defendants subsequently tried to make these arguments that judges often and juries often dismissed that they weren't signs that they were supposed to be there because there just were so many signs. And you could see the violence and see the chaos sort of unfolding. It was clear that police were trying to hold people back.

So even people were further back in that crowd. And even if the barriers had already been ripped down, I think, as these cases got adjudicated, those claims that they didn't know what was going on weren't that credible. Something else they've tried to claim is that it was a peaceful protest despite the evidence. I was there.

I know what I saw. It was not a peaceful protest. Real quickly, how much do you think they're going to try to lean into that Trump administration as part of their argument? I think they will.

I mean, and the question is ultimately what Donald Trump decides to do with this? Because he could theoretically say, I want to settle with these people and tax their money could go back to these defendants. Ryan Riley, thank you so much. As always, we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

And there's more ahead on NBC News Now. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it.

Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice. I'm kind of screw yourself. There's parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.