Meet the Press NOW — March 9

Welcome to MEET THE press. Now I'm Ellie Zena in Washington. And that was the closing bell on Wall street on day 10 of the US war with Iran as the president makes new comments suggesting the war with Iran is nearly over even as Iran names a new hardliner he deemed unacceptable. Stocks made a late day surge following the president's comments in an interview with CBS where he said, quote, I think the war is very complete, pretty much.

The Dow finishing higher after initially trading lower on concerns about the economic toll of war. The price of oil also making a dramatic shift. It is spiked nearly $120 a barrel over the weekend in response to growing panic about supply disruptions. But after the president's comments, the price is now down to roughly $85 a barrel.

It's it comes as for everyday Americans, the price of the pump has been soaring with the average price per gallon up nearly 50 cents since just last week. That after these stunning images over the weekend of a massive explosion and an eruption of flames after Israel's military hitting oil depot in Tehran after oil producers in the Middle east announced they were reducing reduction because of the conflict. Amid the upheaval, the Trump administration is trying to ease concerns about rising gas prices which could become liability for the president and its party in the upcoming terms. This is a short excursion into something that should have been done for 47 years.

This is a short term disruption. We're seeing a slight increase in oil and gas prices. But ultimately taking out the rogue Iranian regime is going to be a good thing for the oil industry and those prices are going to come back down. The president's going to continue to stay focused on ending a 47 year conflict, stay focused on growing the global energy supply.

This is actually part of that effort. It does involve a temporary impediment to energy production. But on the other side, it'll allow much more energy production and much lower energy prices. In a major development over the weekend, Iran into their new supreme Leader Moshe Khamenei, the son of the former supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a decision that could prolong the war as Israel's military vastly after every successor appointed by Iran and as President Trump told NBC News, I think they made a big mistake.

I don't know if it's going to last. I think they made a mistake. Meanwhile, the fighting the region continues to escalate. Yesterday, Meet the Press moderator Kristen Muller asking Iran's foreign minister under what conditions Iran would agree to end the war.

You know, anyway, people have been killed, places have been destroyed and now they want to ask for ceasefire again. Well, this doesn't work like this. So there should be a permanent end of the war. And unless we get to that, I think we need to, you know, continue fighting for the sake of our people and our security.

And the question remains whether the US Will deploy US Troops into Iran. Sources tell NBC News that the president has privately expressed serious interest in such a deployment. Here's what he and his defense secretary said over the weekend about the possibility. I don't even want to talk about it.

I don't think it's an appropriate question. You know, I'm not going to answer it. Could there be for very good reason. I mean, have to be a very good reason.

And I would say if we ever did that, they would be so decimated that they would be able to fight at the ground. President Trump knows. I know. You don't tell the Emmy, you don't tell the press, you don't tell anybody what, what your limits would be on an operation.

We're going to go as far as we need to in order to be successful. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Elba, NBC News business and economy reporter Ali Canal, and NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby. Monica, I do want to start with you because we just got this news in from the CBS interview. What is your take on the president's comment here about the war nearly being finished?

Well, look, I think we've really seen some mixed messaging just about the timeline question alone in the last 24 hours. It seems the indications were from the Department of Defense and others that in some ways the most intense attacks against Iran were just getting started or were still yet to come. So the president is now indicating in that new phone interview that this may be winding down, that this may be close to completion. That is the first time that we are really hearing that.

Now, is this perhaps the president making that assessment based on of some of these goals that he has set out initially in terms of annihilating the Iranian navy or some of these other military specific goals? Perhaps that is what that is. But the president initially was the one who also set out this timeline of four to five weeks. The White House just on Friday said it was looking more like four to six weeks.

So at what point are we really within that range? Or is the president trying to signal to nervous markets or to Americans that this is something that is slowly going to stop or begin to scale back and scale down? That is the main question and one that I know Plenty of reporters are gonna have for the President when we do expect he takes questions a short time from now. And just last week the President was asked about what the worst case scenario in Iran would be.

What he said was if the next supreme Leader is as bad as the previous person. So is that how the White House views the current situation, Iran with the appointment of yet another hardliner as the supreme Leader? Well, the president is saying that he's not very happy about that. Remember that in the last couple of days he indicated, even interviews with our colleagues at NBC News, that he hoped to have a larger role in perhaps determining who the future leadership or what future leadership of Iran could look like.

The President has still sort of taken that stance. So when you're talking about the new Ayatollah, the son of Ayatollah who died more than a week ago, the president has made his feelings about him known. But again, the mechanism for which that could change or what the US Role would be in that is still an open question. This is an administration that's argued this is not a regime change war, but they would like to see the regime change completely.

Secretary Hecht said when he was pressed on that in recent interviews, said that that is still what they would like to see happen, that they believe through their objectives ultimately that is something that can be accomplished. But the president has tried to reduce the smell to what he did in Venezuela with the capture of Nicolas Maduro and then Delcy Rodriguez, the interim president, taking over there. This is clearly not the same, not as simple, not as clear cut, even though the President has been trying to make some of those compari well, and the rising prices also come as our NBC new poll shows that voters feel that the President's policies are actually hurting their economic conditions. So what are you hearing from White House officials about how they plan to tackle these rising gas prices and how much of a priority is it really for the President?

Yeah, this has been a focus of a lot of high level discussions in recent days. I'm told by US Official familiar with the conversations that the President was also going to be brief and presented with some potential additional options to mitigate some of these oil prices. Today unclear whether he is prepared to announce what some of those plans might be. But according to the White House, in a statement on the record from a spokesperson here, they essentially said there is no higher priority than this for the President in terms of what this might mean for Americans and what it might mean for the pain they are currently feeling at the pump that he is continuing to review all quote, credible options right now and that there are plans they believe they can roll out even though for now they say that they have a strong game plan in place, according to statement, to keep the energy market stable well before they claim that that was in the works even before this military war and conflict started.

And they're going to continue to see if there's anything else that can help. But as you saw in what you played in the intro, they're arguing that there will be short term pain that eventually will be eased. The question is how long that takes and how much do the American people really feel that something definitely look out for. Monica, thank you so much.

Ali, I want to turn to you because the president's comments suggesting that the war is nearly complete. A pure be moving energy market. So what more can you tell us here? Yeah, significant shift here in the price of crude oil.

Remember when markets reopen Sunday evening, crude oil treated as high as 115 bucks a barrel, you're now closer to just around 85 bucks a barrel. That's more than 30% swing here. Now gas prices, they tend to move pretty quickly when it comes to the price of oil. So there is a real possibility that we could see gas prices maybe come down a little bit.

You're seeing the national average we have at around $3.40, 48 cents a gallon. You compare that to last month we were at $2.90 a gallon. Of course, is a very volatile story. A lot of this has to do with disruptions in the Strait of Vermuse, that very critical energy show point, along with any other countries announcing cuts to their oil production.

We've already heard that from Kuwait and the uae. That impacts supply as well and therefore drives those prices higher. Right. Imagine gas prices.

I mean, gas is almost up 50 cents nationwide compared to a week ago. So is it possible that we might still see some price increases on the way and is it possible that we could end up paying as much as $4 a gallon? Yeah, $4 a gallon. That's a very psychological level for consumers.

Right. They hear $4 and they start to pull back on other things. There are some states that are already seeing this. In California, for example, the national average is above $5 a gallon.

Some stations in that state are actually charging as much as $8 a gallon. So this is being felt across the nation in different ways. Now analysts have 90 a barrel range. And crude, we could see gas prices hover closer to that $3.50 to $365 range.

And then Maybe come down a little bit depending on how the situation escalates. But again, very volatile story. And it all depends on the day to day you saw the massive swings that we just got over the past 15 minutes all have to do with President Trump's comments. Still a lot of question marks though, and a lot of remains to be seen.

Yeah, no doubt. And when we hear about higher oil prices, we tend to think of higher gas prices. But the cost of other items are also tied to oil hikes. So what else can Americans expect to pay more for in the coming weeks?

Yeah, I mean oil is really the lifeline when it comes to the overall U.S. economy. Right. It flows through into food, manufacturing, shipping, jet fuel, your airline ticket prices could be going up in the street of Hormuz isn't just a critical energy choke point.

It also is a critical area for other types of commodities like aluminum, sugar, fertilizer. So it really impacts the whole supply chain, whole global supply. Ch. And we tend to see that show up in higher prices that ultimately the consumer has to bear.

Allie, thank you so much for the. I want to turn to you now. You've been doing such incredible reporting with our colleagues, including on the question this big question of whether there will be US Troops on the ground. What more can you call us about that?

Yeah. So we know that the President has seriously discussed this option and we're not talking about necessarily a huge ground invasion with 130,000 troops like we saw in Iraq in 2003, but instead of more tailored force. And these conversations have occurred when the President's talking more about a post war run. And I don't mean decades down the road.

I mean post military objectives being complete before them over and over now is decimate the Navy, destroy the missile launchers, destroy the missile production facility, destroy their drone capabilities. But once that's complete, the President has talked about this using the US Military again in smaller numbers to do things like to ensure that the uranium stockpile is either safe or destroyed or whatever it is. But as far as nuclear program, there could be other alternatives the person could use. Things like ensuring some sort of post war or post conflict agreement between the US And Iran for oil similar to what we've seen in Venezuela.

So again, it's a more tailored force. But I mean look at the day. It's still boots on the ground. Right.

Soldiers are soldiers. We heard secretary have said that the Pentagon is willing to go as far as necessary to be successful. But how clear is it what successful is in Pentagon? They have been very, they've laid out these again, these immediate or more near term military objectives of going after the Iranian military, the rallies and this, these are not, this is not the entire effort here that the US Is looking for.

No one is talking about the military being used directly for regime change, but the reality is they're moving everything in that direction. So I specify once we get to these near term objectives again of going after the missile program, the military, the nuclear program, and we hear about Iran cannot have the ability to have a nuclear weapon. The president has said that, many of his officials have said that, but they haven't yet hit any of the nuclear programs. So is that part of the next level objectives?

It's not very clear and efficient. We ask about it. They say they want to get out ahead of what they're planning to do. The other big story that we've been following is this 160 people that were killed at an elementary school in southern Iran from a strike.

Here's what the president said about that over the weekend. No, in my opinion, based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran. Is that true? Mr.

Exempted that we're certainly investigated. The only side that targets civilians is Iran. We think was done by Iran. Very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions.

They have no accuracy whatsoever. Was done by Iran. Courtney, what are you hearing on this month later on Pentagon investigation, very important to point out the presence that that was his opinion because it is still under investigation. Now, a couple of the facts that we know so far is the US Military was operating in and targeting that area where that school was located.

The Israeli military was not. There have been videos now that appear to show a US Munition that was that landed in or near. So again, it's under investigation. You know, I'm hesitant to provide any kind of a conclusion, but the officials are speaking to or saying it's looking more and more likely that this was a US Munition that hit that school.

The other storyline I want to get to is that Trump said in that interview with CBS News that he's thinking about taking over the Strait of Hormuz. What would that look like and is that even feasible? Okay, so right now, no. For that to be feasible right now with the US Military would be an enormous undertaking and it would also be very dangerous for two reasons.

Number one, Iran still has drones. The big threat to shipping right now are drones. The second thing that Iran has are mines. And it's not even clear Iran has full control over their mining capability in the Strait of Hormuz so it would take a huge number of US Ships and aircraft and it would most likely have to be some sort of a consortium, not just us, to be able to do that.

That would take the military assets away from the ongoing fight which they are very much engaged in. So right now, until the threat from Iran is mitigated significantly, it's a very dangerous undertaking to take a huge amount of personnel and ships and aircraft. I don't see them doing that anytime soon until they're able to do more against the Drumber room. Really important insight.

Corey Kiki, thank you so much. Joining me now is Yasu Kanakaki is a former senior intelligence officer and now the director of Scalcroft Male Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. I want to start with this question of what do you know about Iran's Supreme Leader and how do you say he will rule over Iran? Thanks for having me.

Look, I think what's clear is that he's the most hard line of any of the possible candidates that were likely to succeed former Ayatollah Khamenei. The reality is that he's the closest to the guards of any of the possible candidates. His positions are quite hard line, as I mentioned. And I think really what you're gonna be looking for more than anything is consistency.

This was an act of resistance by Iran following the President's comments. He's probably not the person who would have been chosen had the his father died by saying natural causes, but here we are. Do you think that he will still have the same iron grip over Iran that his salad did? I think it's unlikely that he'll be able to have the same level of influence.

The reality is the guards have consolidated more and more power in part because the previous Supreme Leader relied on them more and more. The guards are in every part of not just obviously Iran's military, but its economy from construction, the oil networks. And so I think yes, he will probably work well with them initially, but it's unlikely that he's going to have the same level of control that his father did. Jonathan, based on what you're saying, is this war with Iran about regime change?

Is it about oil, is about Iran's nuclear blisser program, or is it just not clear to you what the end goal really is here? I think it's a split right? I think for the Israelis, the actual end goal is quite clear. They've been clear that it's really about regime change and that they think that they need to fundamentally shake the regime so hard that it largely breaks in as an opportunity for the opposition.

We've heard some of that from the US And President Trump. We've heard a variety of goals, frankly, throughout the last nine days from President Trump, from Secretary Hegseth, from Secretary Rubio. I think they're quite happy obviously to achieve a military objective of diminishing Iran's nuclear capabilities, diminishing missile capabilities, diminishing its navy. But at the end of the day, we'd be very, very far from reg change.

And if that's the goal, it's not clear to me what the strategy is to get there. We were also discussing accordingly that the president has not ruled out US Boots on the ground. What would the goal of a US Military presence in Iran be? I think it would look very different than, say, what a lot of Americans are used to in terms of Iraq or Afghanistan, the wars we've been through the last number of decades.

It probably would be limited in scope, but that doesn't mean that it's easy. The complications of inserting a force to deal with the highly enriched uranium that's still in Iran or even to take over Sicard island, which is a critical transport point for Iranian oil, where about over 90% of its oil exports usually go through, I think it would be incredibly difficult. But I do think it would be much more limited than say, a full scale invasion for regime change. Allah Iraq in 2003.

And Jonathan, we also learned that Russia is providing Iran with intelligence on the location of US Forces in the region. But could you see a scenario where Russia provides even more assistance to Iran, such as providing weapons, even as they're in the midst of their own war with Ukraine? Yeah, I think you hit it right there at the end is the key point. The problem is I don't think the Russians have right now extra troops, extra munitions to frankly spear to help the Iranian regime.

I think they will try to continue to provide diplomatic cover. If they can provide intelligence, they certainly will. But I haven't seen many indications to say that they're going to provide new air defense systems, for example, to replace those that Israel blew up many, many months ago. Really important point, Scott and Kenneth, thank you so much.

Coming up, a crude awakening. An energy expert breaks down the sky high costs of oil and gas and what to expect in the days and weeks ahead as President Trump says he has a plan for lower prices. Plus, terror investigation. New details on the two men accused of trying to use a weapon of mass destruction in New York City this weekend.

And what's being investigated as an ISIS inspired act of terrorism. You're watching Beat THE Press now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, 10 days into the war on Iran, oil and gas prices have been rising, sending shockwaves through global markets.

Oil still up more than 20% since the war began, despite today's move lower after the president's latest comments about the war's progress. The Wall Street Journal calling it the most severe shock to energy market since the 1970s. President Trump, however, is promising that oil prices will quickly drop once Iran's nuclear threat is fully eliminated. His argument is that it's small price to pay for safety and peace and, quote, only fools would think differently.

Joining me now is energy industry analyst John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital. Thank you so much for joining us. I want to start with what we're seeing in markets right now because oil sits at around $85 per barrel after it is served over the weekend to nearly $120 a barrel. So how do you explain that level of volatility?

It's a violent reaction really to the unprecedented headlines that we're getting coming into. Last night when electronic trading began, there was just we were hearing more and more stories about countries shutting in their production, less oil getting on the market, and the straight horrible boost effectively being unavailable to shippers of crude oil and other products, for that matter. But as today wore on and we heard about the potential global coordinated release of strategic petroleum reserves again from around the world. And then late today, President Trump's comments about the war being near that relieved a lot of the tensions and a lot of the fear in the market about supply.

And that's what this is all about, available supplies as we go forward here. We started the weekend, things looking horrible to today. President Trump is going to be right about this, that these supplies won't be off the market for very long. So that's the real difference.

That's worth $30 a barrel, basically, when you're talking about whether or not this war will be over and whether or not oil can flow again from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait, from Iraq into the global market, because the global market desperately needs those barrels. And the Wall Street Journal conclusion is correct. This is as if there was an embargo on the United States by OPEC countries, leading OPEC countries. If that were the case, you'd expect this price reaction.

We're seeing these hostilities against the ban on effect of shut down, the straight hormuz. It's the same thing. Something else that President Trump told TBS is that the ships are now moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Is that what you're observing?

And how much do you think that could help with oil prices? If the market can get the all clear that all ships can move, then this will be relieved in a big way. If, however, it's limited, and so far, what we've been seeing has been limited, very limited, really, to some Chinese sailing ships and a few other countries where they're allowing their vessels to get through. Some are trying to.

Some vessels are trying to gain the system and sneak through by turning off their transponders and the like. But that's not enough to make up the difference. We need the announcement to be made that the strait is open to all commercial traffic. If we get that, prices could fall even more if President Trump is unable to follow through.

And he said here late today, these prices are going right back up. We know where they're going. They're going to at least $120 a barrel. Do you think the market are putting too much trust into what President Trump says, or do they really not have a choice?

I think there's been just a lot of nervousness and, you know, any sense of relief. We know this is not something the Iranians necessarily wanted to do. We know this is hurting their biggest sponsor, China, in a big way. These high oil prices, as much as they're a problem for US Consumers at the bomb, for the Chinese economy, this is just a killer.

And the Iranians know that. So that is why the market's giving it some credence. I will tell you, though, they're going to be called to count here really quickly. And again, these prices will rate back up if these reports and President Trump is unable to back up these statements.

Well, I was going to ask you because you've been predicting that gas prices could hit as much as $4 a gallon by the end of this week. Do you still feel that way, given Trump Thomas's day and just how bad could it get at the pump for every American? I do. I don't see the Iranians allowing navigation of the Strait of Hormuz by other countries and other ships anytime soon after what's been done to them.

Whatever their last breath of ability to strike out against Western interests, I believe they're going to do it. I don't believe these oil prices will stay down. We're not done with this yet. And look, we can get, we'll get to $4 by the end of the week here, no doubt, but we could go to 5 and 6 if that strait remains closed.

It all comes down to whether or not the oil can get out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the others that I mentioned, because that is the supply that's needed, it can't be made up. We don't have enough oil in storage to offset it. And the release by the sbrs, not enough either. This is just too big a volume of crude oil off the market right now.

The other problem we have is that if these countries start to shut in their production, they can't turn it back on all that easily. That's going to take some time. So this becomes more of a lasting problem than just an acute one that we're going through right now. John Kilduff, thank you so much for your expertise.

Thank you. Good to be with you. Turning now to new developments in a terrorism investigation. After improvised explosive devices were thrown outside of New York City Mayor Moundani's official residence during protest this weekend, two Pennsylvania men were arrested in connection with the attack and are now facing federal terror related charges.

The New York Police commissioner says the incident is being investigated as an ISIS inspired act of terror. The allegations lay out in a five pound indictment unsealed today and those men appear inside a federal courthouse hours ago. These were ISIS inspired actions and it is chilling that they wanted to do something more than the Boston Marathon. More than three deaths in New York violence, particularly violence that has a terrorist bit, violence that is meant to chill sprit free speech, violence that is meant to keep us from assembling peaceably will be met with swift justice.

Investigators say the two men were seen throwing improvised explosive devices during Julie protests outside of Bracing Mansion on Saturday. One of those devices was lit and two people familiar with the investigation tell NBC News that initiative test revealed the device tested positive for tatp, a dangerous type of homemade explosive. NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter joins me now. Tom, just how well organized do investigators say this plot really what?

Pretty well organized. And one of the concerns here is it really didn't take a lot for this kind of to all come together. This is something that the TATP that you referenced, they are reporting from the weekend now included in federal charging documents. It's something that's actually not terribly difficult to put together.

It is terribly dangerous to try to put together because it's just something that's not very stable at all. It's a type of explosive. It's very, very dangerous. But apparently this group crossed the George Washington Bridge about an hour before this incident is alleged to have occurred.

And so yeah, it came together. The specific timing of it is a bit of a question. But the police commissioner, Jessica Tisched a little bit about the totality of the plot here. Let's take a listen.

He said in recorded post arrest statements that he watched ISIS propaganda on his phone and that his actions that day were partly inspired by isis. En route to the nypd, precise bilat made spontaneous statements without being questioned by NYPD officers that were captured on body worn camera footage. He said this isn't a religion that just stands. When people talk about the blessed name of the prophet.

We take action. We take action as well as if I didn't do it, someone else, someone else will come and do it. So there you go. As far as what the police commissioner, the NYPD and the FBI working in the Joint Terrorism Task Force believe were the motives of these individuals and why they believe that there was such support for ISIS putting together that plot there, I think it's become quite clear.

And Tom, are the authorities concerned that these two men were part of a larger terrorist cell? Well, that's a big question right now because both of them have some overseas travel, including a trip to Turkey for at least one of them that has traditionally been in the past actually an entry point into Syria. Were they communicating with anybody? Did they spend any time there?

That's a question. We have some reason to believe that there's addition searches that may be occurring as we speak right now at 4:30 Eastern Time that could be court authorized searches in connection with that. So yeah, particularly when the lawyers seem to indicate that these individuals didn't know each other too well. So we're trying to figure out how this all came together.

A very much open question. And do authorities believe that this was in response or connected at all with the war in Iran? Yeah, so far no tiebacks at all to the, to the war in Iran. This is believed to be a response or at least and you heard of the police commissioner which she suggested their response to the anti Islamic protests that were occurring by a far right individual in New York City.

These two felt some, it appears, at least based on what authorities are saying, felt compelled to come here and respond to that. Obviously that's something that the U.S. attorney Jay Clayton spoke about that idea and we listened to it just a few seconds ago. The idea that people come here to try to interrupt these protests, that's something that in a very violent way, in the name of isis, an alleged terrorist attack is obviously what's got them so concerned.

Tom Winter, thank you. Up next, President Trump set to speak at House Republicans annual policy conference at any moment as he prepares to take questions from reporters and provide an update on Iran later this evening. Stay with us on Meet the Press now as the day wraps up, get a scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the podcast for NBC News. With your host Gazan Dasuya, we'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories of NBC News's trusted journalist.

It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative bring you closer to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From front page to zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News listen daily on SiriusXM them stay informed with the NBC News app Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read and listen throughout your day and now unlock even more with a subscription.

It's the best NBC News with fewer ad instructions, including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows. Plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Let's kickstart your wellness journey with the Gar Workouts meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier you. And now join the Expiration members to get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription.

Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more. Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65.9/tax fees until cancel on branch May 20, 2026. Prices subject to change. Visit today.

Com xfinity for full on returns and details. Welcome back. As the war with Iran rages on and continues to create volatility in the market, the President is set to address House Republicans any minute now at their annual legislative retreat in Dural, Florida. At this retreat, Republican House members are supposed to be laying out their legislative agenda before the midterms.

But President Trump seems to have only one thing on his mind and that's passing the Save America Act. It's a bill that would overhaul voting laws and the President is giving lawmakers an ultimatum posting on true social quote it must be done immediately and adding, I as President will not sign any other bills until this is passed. And not the watered down version. According to President Trump.

That would include showing voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote no male invalid except for certain exceptions, no men and women's sports and quote, no transgender mutilation surgery for children. We should be clear that is not what is actually in the bill right now. Joining me now to break it all down on Set Is NBC News scene national political reporter Sahil Kapoor. So I want to start with this question about what is in the bill, what is not in the bill, because he's asking for things that they tried to include in the bill but couldn't in the House version.

So just how realistic is it that they're going to be able to add on these provisions? The bill is already struggling to get the support pass. Yeah, Mel, the answer is maybe some of the new demands that President Trump has made could be added. But as you noted, there's a lot in this bill that has been negotiated and has been sliced and diced by House leadership to figure out what can pass.

So let's take a look at some of the persons that are already in their mandatory ID to cast a ballot already and proof of citizenship to register to vote already. And what's not in the bill, Proof of citizenship to cast a vote. Again, this is something that Trump demanded earlier. It is not in the bill.

No mail in voting, as you have recorded. This is something that House Republican leaders considered. There's not the support to ban it entirely yet. The president has continued to cast the bill, the version that already passed, as if this is in it now.

The new stuff banning trans athletes from women's sports, no gender assignment searchers for minors, these are things that are public do support. I can easily see it getting the books. The problem is that they do include that, then they kind of lose the argument that this is fundamentally elections bill. This can't be a Christmas tree where the president adds me ornaments that he wants less to undercut the message.

Now, lastly, I spoke moments ago to send Senate Majority Leader John Thune and asked him, given all the troubles that the Senate's having in terms of trying to pass the bill, should the House pass a third version of it? If President Trump wants to do the bank, he said probably yes. If the bill has to change, then the House should pass A given how conversant it will be for the Senate to pass it a second time, let alone first. Maybe he's passing the buck a little bit to his House counterparts.

I wanna talk about this. Ultimately, that president issued not pending any other bills that would also apply to Republican priorities and Republican bills depending on housing bill bring down affordability. So how do you see all of that playing out? I take that with a heavy grain of salt.

I think this is one of those cases where we take the president seriously, not literally. Literally meaning, you know, the White House has already backed off the suggestion by saying DHS funding doesn't apply here. If you know Congress were passed by DHS funding bill, of course the President would sign it. That's according to our colleague Don Allen.

And look, this is Republicans Congress none of the business pass bill that Trump doesn't want. Is he really going to refuse to sign a bill that he does support that they pass? The other technical loophole here is that he doesn't sign bill for 10 days becomes law anyway. So there are a lot of ways to interpret this.

The part that's serious that he's trying to convey to the Republican Congress that he's mad and they want action on the say back because he's not seeing enough of it. We'll definitely be listening to what he says. House Republicans as they're gathered in a room today. I do want to put this in the context of the DHS funding spike because some airports have seen hour long delays as spring breaks gets underway.

The administration is limiting the shutdown as TSA workers are set to miss their first paycheck this week. Their first full paycheck. So doesn't that undercut his threats? And where do these negotiations on a DHS funding block actually stand?

It's not looking good right now. We're coming up on a month at the end of this week from the time DHS funding lapse and now the consequences are getting real. They kind of had easy in the first few weeks because you know the paychecks have already been kind of out there. There was a partial paycheck and now they're gonna miss the first full paycheck.

Now we're seeing the consequences of these TSA lines. Look at that on the screen. That's extraord if that continues, that's going to put a lot of pressure on lawmakers that hasn't existed. But again with Thune, as I just mentioned, take a look what he said about this.

Quote, we made overtures to them, them being Democrats. And as of today the Democrats are unwilling to even participate in a conversation about how to try to fund dhs. So it's just complete block on having any path forward and quote, that is John Thune. Of course Democrats have their own version of this.

They say they're asking for very reasonable things such as having federal ICE and CBP agents abide by the same standards of conduct as local police departments who have not gotten reciprocated from Republicans. So we will see. And it was the TSA wait times in case that airports that did break the cameras back with the last shotgun. So laughably Sahel, thank you so much for joining us after the break, it's the economy and the war with Iran.

Steve Kornacki is at the Big Board to break down the latest NBC News bowl and what it means for the administration. Keep it here on Eco Press now. Welcome back. As we mentioned, our latest NBC News poll shows some shaky numbers for the president and his party as we head deeper into the midterm election cycle.

Here to break it all down at the Big Board is NBC chief data analyst Steve Carnacki. Steve, walk us through this new poll and is there any good news for the president as the midterms wrap up? Yeah, it's an interesting poll. Obviously, the headline number here is very discouraging for Trump and for his party.

The approval rating for the president, 44% right here. First of all, that's pretty consistent with where it's been for a while now in the second term for Trump, 43% the last time we checked in. But also this level right here is exactly where he was at this point in his first term. Of course, at this point, his first term, it was the start of the 2018 midterm season, the 2018 midterms, it was that blue wave midterm.

Democrats took back control of the house. They flipped 40 seats. So his approval rating is certainly right where it was back then. That's a troubling sign, a warning sign for Republicans.

What goes into that is as well the economy, inflation in particular, only 36%. Approving of how Trump's handling inflation in the cost of this has been a problem. His entire second term is a problem that's been getting worse politically for Trump. It was 42% approval on inflation a year ago, started the second term.

That's come down at a six point drop with that disapproval now over 60%. Interesting. The numbers, though, do get a little complicated on some other fronts. Here's one, Immigration, obviously a lot of controversy lately, high profile incidents, certainly what happened in Minnesota at the start of this year.

And on the topic of immigration, Trump's approval ratings pretty low, 44%. But we also asked about the issue from a different standpoint, not immigration. We asked about border security specifically. And their reviews of Trump's performance are different.

They are positive. A positive 53% approval rating on border security. So that's almost 1 in 10 voters who sort of carry around two different opinions. A negative one of Trump when he asks about immigration, but a positive one when he asks about border security.

There's some complexity there. Then you take a look at the two parties heading into this midterm year. And again, we do see a low approval rating for Trump, an advantage for Democrats in the generic ballot, a six point advantage here. Although again we mentioned 2018, that first midterm, the blue wave midterm, at this point in 2018, the Democratic advantage was bigger.

It was double digits. It was 10 points back then and again only six right now. What is different on this front between now and 2018? Well, two things come to mind.

One is that the intensity of Democratic interest, interest by Democratic voters and midterms is higher now than it was back in 2018. There's a bigger gap between Democratic motivation and Republican motivation now than there was back. So I think the Democrats are getting more out of their base right now, more activated, activated, energized base here. But when you get outside of that base, there are some reservations, voters for sharing here about the Democratic Party.

This is the image of each party. It's not positive for either. Republicans are underwater, 37, 51. Democrats are in worse shape, though only 30% positive, 52 negative.

That's different than what we saw in 2018. Back then the Democrats had a better image than the Republicans. Republicans consistently, that is flipped. And we take a look here at some of the major issues voters say are on their minds here, how they rate the two parties on that.

Again, Democrat voters by far say this is their top issue, threats to democracy as the Democratic party has an 11 point advantage over which party would handle it better. Voters by an 11 point margin take Democrats on border on immigration. There you do see Republican advantage. Republican voters much more likely to pick.

These are the top issues and really the economy. This has been Republican advantage for the last eight years. It's now tied. Big question the next few months, do Democrats open up an advantage here or can Republicans reclaim what has been their central strength for the last years?

Absolutely fascinating stuff. Steve Konaki at the Big Board, thank you. And we'll be digging deeper into our new polling data and the rising cost of war. The panel's next on MEET THE PRESS now.

Welcome back. Joining me now to break down all of today's news is our panel. Leanne Caldwell, chief Washington correspondent for puck Ashanti Golar, president and CEO of Emerge and Michael Delke, former Trump White House communications director. Panel, thank you so much for joining us on a busy Monday already.

Leah, I want to start with you because the president also says he doesn't care about the poll, but our polls are really showing he's deeply underwater on the cost of living as a top issue for voters. It's something he ran on. It's something Republicans ran on. Can he afford to not address that issue seriously?

No. And this is what every single Republican wants him to address, his cost of living and affordability. But the president is obsessed right now with his foreign policy and it is distracting him from cost of living. And actually now with this war in Iran, it's actually impacting cost of living if gas prices continue to go up.

We saw a mini freak out by the president today on that. By this morning telling people who are worried about gas prices to not worry. And then by the afternoon, he's saying that this war is almost over to try to settle the market. So it's actually a concern of Republicans who are on the ballot in November.

Yeah, no doubt. Michael. Our poll also says the Democrats have an edge on the generic ballot. I know in 2024 they ran hugging Trump pretty closely.

But given his poll numbers now, do you think Republicans should still be running closely to Trump? I think Republicans will stay close to Trump through the midterm elections. And for better or worse, I think they're going to that is what you're going to see for them, what is good for them. And what Steve Kornacki mentioned just before we came on was that Democrats are underwater even amongst their own supporters, as are Republicans.

So it's not like one party is leaps and bounds ahead of somebody else. So I do fully expect Republicans to hug Trump. Problem is they want to hug him on affordability. And he's interested in other things right now.

And these gas prices are going to be hard. Right. And now he's starting to veo bills are not signed. Any bills that come to his desk probably.

There's been so much talk about electability, particularly in our primaries this season. But something really interesting in our polls is that Democrats, when you ask the question of what is more important, whether it's someone who matches my views or the best chance to win, Democrats 56% said matches my views versus 42% best chance just to win. Where is Republican that you said 70% of them would rather have a candidate that matches their views as opposed to best chance to win. Does that surprise you?

And also how are you seeing the issue of electability playing out? It doesn't surprise me at all right now with everything going on in the country. People want to let people that they feel that understand them. That is the biggest thing.

Do you understand how hard it is for me to put food on the table? Do you understand how hard it is for me to be able to put gas in my car. Do you understand how hard it is, especially for young people to plan my future? Those are the everyday concerns that people have.

And when it comes to electability, when you tie that together, they will be elected. You have to be out there because just so many people feel like their current elected officials have failed them. So if you're getting reelected, good on you because you have done the job. But there are a lot of people that are vulnerable because people don't feel like they're really there working for them.

And speaking of how voters feel, something that President Trump said was that only a full would think differently when he said that prices are going to go up, they'll come down quickly. But do you think he needs to have a more empathetic message? Is it at risk to be asking people even to sacrifice for a short period of time some of their money? I mean, I think it's a risk, absolutely.

Should he be more empathetic? Oh, absolutely. But I don't think he's wrong. And this is the, this is the problem here.

We've seen the price of oil go up exponentially because of the last 10 days, days of war with Iran. But I do think unlike most prices like milk and eggs and things that take a long time to come down, the volatility in the energy market will lower those prices. So he's right. He just doesn't need to, you know, make everyone know that he's right.

And Leanne, Susie Wall is, according to Politico, she has been telling people to come to her within the administration's ideas for lowering prices. So I know we've mentioned this, but just how seriously do you think the White House is taking this and what are some potential ideas that you're hearing to actually lower some of these costs? So I've been talking to administration officials or people close the administration for months who kept saying that affordability, cost of living is something the president's going to get to. They are going to vote, he's going to focus on this.

And we haven't yet seen it central to the president's entire strategy to jumpstart the economy with low gas prices. And he literally blew that up in the last 10 days. And so, you know, I think that of course, Susie Wiles and his, her team are very open to and trying to get the, but trying to get the president to focus on it is a whole other situation. When you hear from Republicans on Capitol Hill, when you talk to them privately, how concerned are they in general about this issue of affordability?

And do they think that is doing enough to address it for the midterms. Yeah, they're extremely concerned. I mean, they're concerned about the entire political environment. They are waiting.

We're almost in April. They are hoping that the one big beautiful bill is something people get their tax returns and starts to help the economy and help them. But, you know, this is just the issue that they need the president to engage on and that they can't get the president to do. Yeah, yeah.

I was just gonna say, I think with the tax returns coming and take home wages are going to go up, the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, that will play a role. But these gas prices, which was the one thing that was really in the president's corner that needs. Those need to come down or we are, we are heading in the wrong direction. And Republicans are really counting on those really good refunds.

Yeah. I don't bring you into this because Democrats, Republicans are tied on who voters would think would do a better job at dealing with the economy. But what do you think Democrats need to do aside from just railing on this idea? Do they need to present their own vision for an agenda?

Yes, absolutely. And right now people are looking for answers. And I definitely want to see Democrats step up and provide that because one of the things that we have continued to hear from President Trump is, oh, this is going to be short term. This is going to be short term.

Don't worry. We have to worry because with short term, people are walking away from losing their car, they're one away from losing their home. We know that people can't put food on the table right now. They want answers.

And I want to see especially Democrats come through and say we have answers because I know that we do. And Michael, this threat that Trump issued about not signing out the state of America is passed. Do you think there's a risk that he's essentially cutting off his nose to spite his face? He obviously hasn't stood in line at the airport with the TSA folks.

This is threat apparently not applied to dhs. Okay, then fair enough. Then let him go. What about what he needs, a supplemental to pay for this war sign that though they're trying to work on a housing bill, they're trying to do a whole host of things they're in their retreat right now trying to do, which I need some help from the president.

So we'll have to leave that panel. Thank you so much for joining us. And that leaves it here for NBC. We're coming up with more on Meet the Press.

Now. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a license together.

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